Is the EU behind Cameron's gay-marriage conviction?

What a tawdry, inadequate and occasionally unseemly debate. As Dr Timothy Stanley observed, it was less Gladstone v Disraeli; more Claire Raynor v Richard Littlejohn. There were allusions to history, appeals to biology, some mention of theology, but no understanding at all of ontology. The debate was politically driven without regard for mores or morality. Every sincere expression of ethical concern was swept aside with superficial appeals to the relentless march of progress. Every contentious proposition questioning the very notion of equality in this context was muzzled with 'I find that very offensive'. There were no great speeches from either side, and those that happened to be good were permeated with trivia, flippancy or emotive appeals to romance. When Parliament needed to give us meat, they poured out cups of milk; instead of Aquinas we got Mills & Boon.

Take just this single exchange, which touched upon the value of the assurances currently being given about the unintended consequences of redefining marriage:  [read the rest here]