Coffee House

Same-sex marriage is homophobic

4 February 2013

2:29 PM

4 February 2013

2:29 PM

The current ‘Same Sex Couples Bill’ is part of a trend that supposes equality is only to be advanced by erasing all differences between us so that we are all the same and all equal. But a free society is made of those who differ and who can express that difference and distinction both by themselves and in association with each other.

The task of a democracy is not to obliterate difference in the name of a collective unity that makes all interchangeable with each – after all we have seen the fruit of that legacy in China, Russia and Cambodia. We believe that if the argument for equality has merit, it does so because it protects difference. Equality used to allow those who differ not to subsume themselves under another’s identity but to claim equity for their distinction and the state’s protection in maintaining and even defending it. Now however equality is being used to erase difference, destroy institutional distinction and remove proper and plural provision for different groups, faiths and organisations. We have profound reservations about same sex marriage not just because of the harm it does to a vital heterosexual institution but also because we reject the implication that in order to be equal and respected homosexuals should conform to heterosexual norms and be in effect the same as heterosexuals. In this sense we believe same sex marriage to be homophobic – it demands recognition for gay relationships but at the price of submitting those relationships to heterosexual definition. This serves neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals.

The former are absorbed into a structure that does not give due credit or recognition to their distinction and difference; whereas, heterosexuals are stripped of any institution that belongs to them qua their heterosexuality. Men and women who marry are denied proper recognition or celebration of their own distinctive union across the sexes and even more importantly any recognition of their role and unique responsibility in creating and nurturing children whose origin still lies exclusively in heterosexual union.


As mentioned above same sex couples want marriage because they want the social endorsement that it signifies; but by admitting gay marriage we deprive marriage of its social meaning. It ceases to be what it has been hitherto, namely a union of the different sexes, and a blessing conferred by the living on the unborn.

The pressure for gay marriage is therefore in a certain measure self-defeating for in seeking equality with something unlike yourself the thing that you join to is no longer what you joined. What is needed here is equity that respects difference not equality that destroys it. Gay people have wholly legitimate demands and needs for not just acceptance but celebration and recognition and this needs to be recognised by all who oppose same sex marriage.

What is needed is a an equity in diversity – and let us take a difficult case just as Judaism needs to restrict itself to those who profess the Jewish faith and Islam needs to do the same one can have equity and respect between them both where neither suffer through being what they are and neither need fear the erasure of the difference of their own beliefs that they value so dearly and so highly. A free country should allow differences to be protected and articulated in groups and institutions that further the vision of each particular set of human beings. To pursue gay equality is noble and right. But to pursue it by undermining heterosexual institutions is deeply damaging to both hetero and homosexual persons alike. For heterosexuals need an institution that shapes them for the consequences of opposite sex union and without that it is disaster and despair for children, burden and poverty for women and dislocation and atomisation for society.

This is an extract from Marriage: Union for the future or contract for the present, a paper from ResPublica.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • Guest

    “Men and women who marry are denied proper recognition or celebration of their own distinctive union across the sexes and even more importantly any recognition of their role and unique responsibility in creating and nurturing children whose origin still lies exclusively in heterosexual union”

    — Therefore, marriage should not be granted to people not intending to have children or are infertile. The only work “distinctive” is doing in that line is “err, not of the same gender”.

  • Yal

    creepy, why the white dresses ? isn’t that a religious symbol ? they are so hypocrites, the next day they will spit on religion while they don’t work on sunday , celebrate easter and christmas, yark!

  • Jaime A. Castillo Verduzco

    Roger and Phillip,

    What you say about differences is exactly what is NOT happening by allowing gay people to marry one another. It is not a question of obliterating a difference, but in RECOGNIZING not only a distinct characteristic, but also a need to integrate it socially after a historically constant discrimination against it. You don’t seem to understand the legal aspect or process of acquiring a civil right. So much so that you cannot even see the irony in your statement about protecting groups.

    EXACTLY HOW is marriage of heterosexuals undermined by determining the right of homosexuals to participate in the institution? How is the current treatment of marriage by heterosexuals any less undermining (divorce and remarriage, Vegas marriages, Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian-like marriages, unfaithfulness in general)?

    You have tried to spin the rhetoric, but understand – it is too late.

  • Klas

    Every one can bee different, except homosexuals?
    Heterosexuals need an institution but homosexual don’t?
    And institutions is not a manifest of collective unity?
    This was one of the more stupid articles I read in a long time!

  • Namenomnomnom

    Any number of arguments might be against gay couples seeking identical legal treatment with heterosexual couples.

    But this: ” … a trend that supposes equality is only to be advanced by erasing all
    differences between us so that we are all the same and all equal.” is a non-sensical way to begin one.

    It is the *prohibition* of gay marriage which has sought to “erase differences”.
    Consider the inane but often repeated argument that the laws against gay marriage treat everyone equally because they allow both gays and heteros to marry out of their gender, and forbid both gays and heteros from marrying in their gender.

    Legal gay marriage is a recognition, not an erasure of difference.

    The silly argumentation in the piece above continues with this: “The pressure for gay marriage is therefore in a certain measure self-defeating for in seeking equality with something unlike yourself the thing that you join to is no longer what you joined.”

    … which contorts itself wildly to ignore this obvious, indeed central fact: marriage as we know it is messed up. The goal of effecting legal gender equality in marriage is not to slide gay people, two-by-two, into what’s wrong about that institution. Rather to, precisely by entering the institution of marriage, *resolve* one of its greatest flaws.

    By the reasoning of Scruton and Blond, women should never have sought suffrage, since suffrage was a thing flawed by its male exclusivity. For women to gain suffrage would be self-defeating, Scruton and Blond would presumably have said, then. After all if women achieve voting equality with “something unlike themselves,” the thing that they join to–a more just *in-virtue-of-their-joining* election process–is no longer the thing they joined (an election process less just bin virtue their prior absence.)

    There is plenty more specious reasoning in the piece. But then, in its last two sentences, the whole thing goes right off the rails and into a swamp of willful ignorance.

    Life is short. Unless you’re busy collecting negative examples to use in a course on critical thinking, don’t waste another minute in reading anything by the likes of: Sarah Palin, Fred Phelps, Roger Scruton or Phillip Blond.

  • Robert Baldr

    The arguments in this post use a very narrow definition of marriage that invalidates many legitimate heterosexual arrangements (let alone homosexual ones). There are too many uninformed definitions at play in this article, including marriage, what it means to be “gay” and other concepts. I try to look at them all in my response:

  • Abigail Maxwell

    How is marriage distinct from cohabitation, homosexual or heterosexual? Because it is intended at the outset to be permanent, and splitting is a failure, whereas with cohabitation it is simply “moving on”. The trust and love between a couple, the commitment to “working at” the relationship, in marriage, is a benefit to children, but also to the couple themselves. That benefit is clearly a benefit for gay people as well as straight people.

    Given that, marriage is strengthened, not weakened, by equality. Society reinvigorates its commitment to the possibility of this life-long pledge.

  • LTB

    I don’t know why this stuff gets published. This is just bad argumentation – bad argumentation that leads to a lot of false comparisons. (China? Russia? Really? Apparently the subtext is that gay marriage = communism?) And I’m sick of the lack of logically-competent responses to such pseudo-philosophical swill. The authors want to claim that, just because they are supposedly being “philosophical”, they aren’t just being bigots. But the argumentation is just BAD. And they should be called on it.

    Equal access to INSTITUTIONS regardless of personal IDENTITY is, in fact, the marker of a democracy. It’s not creating uniformity of identity; it’s creating uniformity of institutional access. Which is the same reason, incidentally, that white people should be and are allowed to join the NAACP. Joining does not require white people to become non-white. Equality of access to this particular institution actually helps PRESERVE difference.

    They might as well be arguing that allowing minorities entry into all-white country clubs strips rich white men of any institution that belongs to them qua their rich white man-ness. (Perhaps we should rename this argument “Separate but Equal”?)

    Back to the main point: let’s hope that the defining feature of a marriage is NOT that it HAPPENS to join a man and a woman. If so, why bother with all the ceremony and liturgy (religious or secular) that generally accompanies straight marriage ceremonies? If the differing genders were the defining point, the ceremony could be concluding by confirming genitalia and moving on. As for the unborn: thanks, RePublica, for once again shitting on the estimated ONE-QUARTER of gay households that are currently raising children.

    And, you know what, while I’m ranting… We are all supposed to be on this joint cultural mission of the American Dream. As I define it, the most basic element of the American Dream is the idea that circumstances under which you have no control — i.e. the way in which you were brought into this world — be it white or brown or black, male or female, gay or straight, rich or poor — those circumstances cannot, should not, do not ENTITLE you to anything. They give you no special rights, no special treatment, no special membership cards. That’s of course not how the real world works, but that’s the dream. And every time some bigots-in-philosophic-clothing make arguments like this, that dream gets further and further away.


  • C D Ward

    I would have thought that a distinguished philosophy professor like Roger Scruton would be able to recognize logical fallacies like “strawman” and “non sequitur”, but apparently not. Go figure…

  • EB

    Don’t conservatives ever tire of being on the wrong side of history?

    • retundario

      Yes that Communism was a fantastic success

  • kwestion.all

    Rubbish, it’s like saying straight marriages are heterophobic.

  • paulus

    Yes this is an age old struggle, manifesting itself in absolutes: christian orthodoxy, Islamic orthodoxy, Jewish orthodoxy, Jacobinism, marxism, Nazism, equality legislation, antithical to everything that conservatism stands for. How can a conservative prime minister promote an alien ideology one that guarantees a clash of culture and civilisations ? how can so many conservatives be so stupid. It is because it is easy, it is craven , and we will see the slackers, the lazy, the cowardly, crumble before our eyes today from a wicked and pernicious onslaught.

    Any conservative who votes for this legislation, will never be the leader of the conservative party.

  • The Elderking

    As of today marriage will cease to mean what it did.

    Far from strengthening an age old institution it has been perverted and its intent undermined.

    The effects will not be immediate but will be far reaching. This is not the end but the beginning of a very painful and destructive path for Society. This, and many other policies, are steadily unpicking society and, rather than improving peoples rights, is ushering in a time of forced conformity and loss of freedom of thought, speech and action.

    It is a lose/lose for all concerned.

  • Fergus Pickering

    Let a philosopher loose and you’ll get some high grade nonsense.Would you want your daughter to marry a philosopher?

  • Sky Jamieson

    Will this feast release us?

    Homosexuality should no more be legal than smoking marijuana or stealing bread from the supermarket to feed yourself. As smoking marijuana is a crime, I do not need to detain myself long with the rights of marijuana smokers. Such have none because it is a criminal activity they enjoy. Their perversion (enjoying a delight forbidden by English law) does not deny them the same rights as I have in all other matters. The law saves me, a non-marijuana smoker, from having to consider their perversion as normal.

    Homosexuals suffer the same delusion which inspires one of the iconic T-shirts of marijuana smokers “The Pope smokes Dope”. Marijuana smokers socialise behind closed doors. In their closed society experience tells them more people smoke dope than percentage wise they do. The idea the Pontiff also delights in sharing their pleasure is not that a bigger stretch from their perspective as we think!

    The insertions required in homosexual love-making are obviously perverse in its physical relationship to form and function. Hence homosexuals are always guilty of a silent rage against their natural form. Homosexual love-making cannot deliver the same pleasure available to heterosexuals because the flesh evolves out of love-making between apes.

    So homosexuals compensate for this short-fall by emphasizing the psychological context of their love-making. It is the equivalent of “The Pope smokes Dope” T-shirts popular among marijuana smokers. From their perspective, those in the church are all at it. We are the ignorant. The law cannot save me, a normal Christian, from having to consider their perversion as normal. I must continue to detain myself with the rights of homosexuals until the Archbishop of Canterbury is eventually an elected practicing homosexual or homosexuality is made a crime once again.

    There is a hateful aspect to the demand of homosexuals for public recognition of their love. If smoking marijuana were not a crime, the flower-power message of the 1960s would emerge again with hatred towards materialism. So too homosexuals hate puritanism as Christian’s should celebrate it. So what do homosexuals and their apologists think is held behind the closed doors? The Christian church is beyond destruction. They are not.

    Homosexuals will soon fill our churches with great flourish. It will be a celebratory carnage of flowers and photogenic poses. They will proceed with to strip every ounce of flesh from psychological purity. The flower-power generation wanted to wallow in materialism but they hated materialism. Likewise, homosexuals want to wallow in puritanism by raiding our churches but for obvious reasons they will hate puritanism itself.

    Let us consider what came after the flower-power generation. The excesses of a 1980s “get rich” culture! So will our concept of puritanism change after the current wave of homosexual rights force open the doors of our churches? After the flower-power generation had wallowed in materialism but showed their contempt of it, the subsequent anarchy gave way to a new “war on drugs” we have today.

    It is impossible to predict the exact chain of events. Lot’s wife, a little too curious about what would happen, paid for it. I am not curious. We will continue to be detained by the rights of homosexuals until it is a crime once again. Let them rush into our churches and grab what they may in this perverse banquest at the altar of Christ our saviour. Long after the feast is over and forgotten, the Bible will be re-opened. Then they can carry out their normal, but illegal activity, behind closed doors.

    • Fergus Pickering

      Homosexual love-making cannot deliver the same pleasure? Well perhaps you weren’t doing it right.

    • Diogenes

      Sorry, do you know any actual gay people?

  • FrankS

    Coming soon – equal conception, equal pregnancy, equal giving-birth…
    it’s only fair!

  • FrankS

    What is it about marriage that makes it so desirable to homosexual couples that they wish to undo the main thing that distinguishes it from civil partnerships? Could it just be that they can’t bear the thought of an institution which excludes them, and therefore wish to to destroy it?

    • AndyinBrum

      You do realise no one is going to force you to get married to a gay man? & that already being married wont make you gay if this passes?

      Your comments do mean you’re a close minded over hysterical homophobic drama queen though

      • FrankS

        Andy – such restraint! You left out bile-soaked, hate-filled, foam-flecked, spittle-spattered and other witticisms normally invoked by people who, if they have an argument, lack the mental power to articulate it.

        Your comments could well mean you’re a cretin who hasn’t actually read my question.

  • biggestaspidistra

    this nonsense wouldn’t even stand up to wikipedia editing standards

    • FrankS

      “I disagree but have no words to say why” – biggestaspidistra

  • DrCrackles

    There is a profound misunderstanding of Christian marriage here. Marriage is a temporal gift that points to an eternal union. Our earthly marriage points to the union of Christ with his bride the church. The bride is a virgin, the bride is faithful, the bride waits patiently. The consumation of the marriage and the joy of sexual union between the bride and groom is a taste of the joy as Christ is united with his bride.

    • AndyinBrum

      Ahh, so no one who’s not a virgin can get married, nor couples that can’t have children.

      Thanks for clearly stating your argument so clearly. It’s a really stupid argument btw.

    • Fergus Pickering

      I thought it was only Catholics who believe that twadde. I never heard a peep about it in the C of E.

      • DrCrackles

        I was giving you a picture of what marriage actually represents in Christian teaching. The ideas of chastity, virginity and faithfulness should be applied to all marriages. The fact marriage today is in such a bad way provides an opportunity for redefinition. How many homosexual virgins exist today? How many homosexuals have only known one partner?

        If marriage as we have always known it is destroyed then it will be because of our inability to cherish it and abide by its standard.

    • Peter Orlov

      You know, like Katie Price every time she gets married…

  • Terence Hale

    To be specific, the new theory suggests that homosexuality is caused by epigenetic marks, or “epi-marks,” caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence affecting around 10% of the population. Not, as yet classed as an illness its infiltration in society is disproportional and controls governmental thinking. A good example is in Holland where one of the coalition partners demanded everything in and around homosexuality be part of the coalition contract. Normal sociality must be

  • Matthew Blott

    If this post wasn’t written by two conservative homophobes I might take some notice.

  • Organic Robots

    [quote] Concerning Roger Scruton:

    I haven’t read any of his books, but I did hear him give a talk back in the 1980s. This was a restricted-entry, invited audience, not open to the general public. During his talk, he quite clearly said that religion was clearly nonsense on a rational level, but we should pretend that it’s true because it helps to control the masses. Those weren’t his exact words, but convey what he said.

    I thought that sounded exactly what you might expect from an aristocratic conservative philosopher, who no doubt longed for something much like Plato’s Republic.

    Max More – 08 Jul 2010 –

  • Rockin Ron

    The worrying thing is that groups that want equality also want special measures. They demand the right to be treated the same and be treated as part of a special group. This makes no sense because such groups are holding society to their whims. For example, gay people want to be able to marry under the banner of equality, but they also want special measures for gay people in terms of inheritance rights that are not available to others.

  • Organic Robots

    Roger Scruton does not really believe in god. He does however believe that religious balderdash is a great way to control the weak minds of the lower classes. If you’re reading this without that knowledge, he means you, you pleb!

    • Fergus Pickering

      Roger Scruton does not really believe in God? Where is your evidence for this assertion?

      • Organic Robots

        “During his talk, he quite clearly said that religion was clearly nonsense on a rational level, but we should pretend that it’s true because it helps to control the masses.”
        Philosopher Max More on Scruton, email dated 08 Jul 2010 on

  • Ian Tam

    Holy shizzle pop walnuts. Ok, two can play at this game!

    We cannot allow interracial marriage because “[t]he task of a democracy is not to obliterate difference in the name of a
    collective unity that makes all interchangeable with each”. “Now…equality is being used to erase difference, destroy
    institutional distinction and remove proper and plural provision for
    different groups, faiths and organisations.” “In this sense we believe [interracial] marriage to be [racist] – it demands
    recognition for [mixed-race] relationships but at the price of submitting those
    relationships to [mono-racial] definition. This serves neither [mixed-race couples] nor [mono-racial] couples.”

  • disqus_xthHi76bF9

    I think one vital thing has been missed within this article. Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are exactly the same. The dynamic is the same. The love is the same. The ability to raise children is the same. Suggesting that celebrating difference should be a reason to stop gay marriage misses that entirely. We are the same!

    • Smithersjones2013

      The ability to raise children is the same

      Do gay couples children ever share both their parents DNA and nobody else’s?

      • disqus_xthHi76bF9

        What do you suggest we do about heterosexual couples who cannot conceive naturally? If, through the correct medical procedure, it is found that there is no way for the couple to have their own children biologically, should they then not be allowed to marry through the church or any other institution?

        • Colonel Mustard

          Trying and failing is different from knowing something is impossible to begin with.

          • DrCrackles

            Quite. This old dog of an argument is wheeled out every time. Normal couples have the potential to be father and mother to their own offspring or others.

    • Baron

      The same?

      A notice on a synagogue’s door ‘Entering this building with your head covered is the same as committing adultery’. Underneath it a scribble ‘I’ve tried, it wasn’t.

    • Colonel Mustard

      The physical act of procreation is the same? Two humans joined as one and creating life from both of them, intimately and without intervention?

      Don’t think so.

  • HooksLaw

    Anyone who thought Scruton and Blond were sane and living on the same planet as the rest of us are now clearly disabused.

    • Doppel1800

      Having difficulty keeping up?

    • Smithersjones2013

      Oh Hooky nobody lives on the same planet as you

  • Marcus

    I agree that gays wanting marriage is a bit like Scottish people who plant palm trees outside their house.
    It proves that palm trees are more hardy than any of us expected; it does not create the impression that it’s ‘palm tree weather’.

  • Augustus

    For the avoidance of doubt I respect same-sex couples as much as any modern-thinking
    person, but same-sex marriage encourages homosexual couples to think they can copy and fit in the way heterosexual couples do. As they are obviously ‘different’ it denies them the very respect their sexual specificity, i.e. their lack of procreativity which the normal marriage is designed to promote. This denial of their individuality is therefore a form of homophobia, in that it is being disloyal to their own reality by making them (and the world in general) believe in a form of copycat reality.

    • James

      Has it really not occurred to you that people were saying precisely the same things about interracial relationships a few decades ago? The only thing that makes same-sex couples “different” is that many people are not used to them.

      On procreativity: lots of opposite-gender couples can’t or won’t have children. Lots of same-gender couples do. It’s even possible for some same-gender couples to have children naturally without outside intervention (intersex and transgender people do exist).

      • Augustus

        ” The only thing that makes same-sex couples “different” is that many people are not used to them.”

        Or maybe that they are obliged – under pain of castigation, to tolerate the behaviour of others, even when disagreeing about the morality of it. Isn’t that pure moral relativism?

      • Augustus

        Further to your second point. Surely children need more than just two parents who love each other. They need two biological parents – a mother and a father, for a more complete development, and a more certain link to the unity
        of the bond of love that created them.

        • Fergus Pickering

          So you say. But it is no more than a blind assertion. Many people are appalling parents and it would have been better if the child had never known them.

      • Colonel Mustard

        Disagree. To compare racially different men and women in a relationship to those of the same-sex in a relationship is ridiculous.

  • Mark Daye

    Ah, I see homophobic idiots are alive and well in the UK in the form of Roger Scruton and Phillip Blond.

    • Augustus

      And there are plenty of muftis and imans, not only in Kashmir, who agree with them
      and are even prepared to announce a fatwa against them, because, of course, nothing is a greater threat to such an important world religion: “such acts never develope society, but are a first step to demolishing its moral fabric.” is a typical response.

  • mikewaller

    This really is tendentious twaddle, the objective – challenging gay marriage – being the father of the cod philosophy that “supports” the case put forward.

    If the real dichotomy is between unions that result in the procreation or adopting of children and those that don’t, the sensible thing would be to have phase 1 marriages that would be open to all, including gays and heterosexuals who remain childless, to be followed by a much more committing phase 2 contracts if and when children appeared or were imminent. The latter would be open to those adopting, be they gay or straight, as well as biological parents, and would impose legally enforceable responsibilities, highly favourable to children. As a sanction against those happy to make babies but shy of accepting the resultant responsibilities, such marriages should carry an entitlement to major tax benefits.

    • Smithersjones2013

      Why not do away with the term ‘marriage’ completely and rebrand it something like ‘Human Relationship Qualification Levels 1,2 & 3’ (you know a bit like NVQ’s)

      • mikewaller

        What is it they say about sarcasm? The lowest form of wit…… [:-)].

    • Colonel Mustard

      That would take us even further into a society where the state determined and directed our personal lives. A bit like China’s one child rule which of course created harmony and safety for children.

      • mikewaller

        Contra the seeming opinions of many Specie readers, the biggest problem this county faces is not Europe but the proliferation of people who, in the very challenging globalised world in which we live, simply cannot find an economic niche i.e. they cannot pay their own way. Some of these will have been dealt a very poor hand at birth, but far too many are seriously mucked up by bad parenting. All very well to say that is none of the State’s business, but as the State in the form of its taxpayers is going to pick up the eventual tab, we ignore the problem at our peril. What the devil can be done is, of course, the difficult bit; but treating marriages likely to result in child rearing as exceptionally serious matters seems to me a good place to start. Ditto backing this up with tax privileges.

        • Colonel Mustard

          Well, we might not have such a population density problem in this country if it were not for the state’s decision to allow uncontrolled immigration here. And whilst the state is very keen to legislate and regulate in the name of our tax funding they are never so keen to reduce that funding by reducing the size and remit of the state. And that is ever expanding, on multiple levels, locally, in Westminster and in Europe. The decline in child rearing skills is also largely a result of the state’s embrace of culturally destructive and divisive socialist ideologies.

          • mikewaller

            To suggest that it is all caused by immigration and socialism is about as realistic as saying it is all caused by capitalism and the “me, me, me” culture so enthusiastically endorse by consumer orientated economics (as in “Because you’re worth it”). Either can sound great in the Saloon bar and the Conservative club or the health food shop and the university common room, but it is little more than hot air.

            We need seriously to look at how we rear children and prepare them for such work as there is, or face disaster. If doing something about it requires both carrot and stick from government, so be it. Your laissez faire approach may have been effective when the world had a massive deficit in terms of manufacturing capabilities, but these days only the most highly skilled and motivated stand a chance.

            • Colonel Mustard

              Of course it is “little more than hot air”. That is precisely how socialists have been peddling their crap for almost fifty years, by presenting any dissenting views as stereotyped unworthy and/or illegitimate. That goes right to the core of the elitist, undemocratic arrogance of top down socialists – like you.

              • mikewaller

                You mean as opposed to the marvelously sensitive and considerate way in which you carefully assay views that don’t fully conform to your own. Were you a schoolboy – assuming you aren’t – I would make you write out the following a thousand times: “Single factor explanations do scant justice to the complexities of social reality”.

                • Colonel Mustard

                  Yes, I guessed you might be the lefty school teacher type. The sort of oppressive, bullying martinet who would indeed impose a penalty on a vulnerable and defenceless mind for non-conformity. Our Academia is full of them. Narrow minded bigots who are the guardians of PC fascism. That last sentence of yours reveals everything about the mindset of people like you. You think everyone is a child to be controlled.

                  In the case of the UK it is certainly more than a single factor explanation. It is just that all the factors and all the explanations lead back to the sort of socialist twaddle peddled here by bullies like you.

                • mikewaller

                  Wrong party affiliation – I usually vote Tory. Wrong career trajectory – spent most to my time in industry. So getting things wrong is not restricted to your world view.

  • Niki May Young

    Equal opportunities, yes, terribly homophobic. Like allowing black people to sit wherever they like on the bus is terribly racist. Or allowing women to vote is terribly sexist. No-one is forcing every gay/straight/bi couple to get married, but since when did the ability to choose amount to discrimination? Since when did religion have a sexuality? Does being gay automatically mean you don’t want to be married in the eyes of God? They’re very separate matters.

    • TheOtherTurnipTaliban

      I can barely make out what you’re trying to say here, what an incoherent mess.

      • Niki May Young

        I’m not entirely sure why you can’t understand what is being said, but I’ll explain if you can let me know what part you don’t understand

        • Archimedes

          Oh, Niki, what a pity you don’t understand.

          • Niki May Young

            So perhaps explain Archimedes as all I see is discrimination and fear under the banner of righteousness.

            • TheOtherTurnipTaliban

              Ah yes we’re all discriminating against you, that must be it.

  • Peter Orlov

    Delightfully cretinous. For the avoidance of any (inexplicable) doubt: the proposals would not enforce marriage for all gay people regardless of their feelings on the matter, merely allow those who would like to get married to do so. That Scruton et al would seek to blur such an obvious difference is frankly odd (though in his case, not without precedent). If he has concerns about gay people choosing lifestyles that are heteronormative and that blur our individualities, he should certainly campaign for greater acceptance of alternative lifestyles in society (both for gay and straight, married and unmarried people); this would be long overdue, consistent with his argument, permissive of individual choice and I would sign up (and donate) as soon as it’s up and running.

  • + Yvonne Aburrow

    This is exactly the same sort of argument that was made for so-called “separate but equal” education systems for black and white children in racially-segregated America in the 1950s. Separate is not equal, because the group without any political clout is given inferior provision and regarded as inferior by the dominant group.

    • TheOtherTurnipTaliban

      You cannot possibly equate racial segregation with gay marriage, they’re just not the same thing. This is not about ‘equality’ this is about respecting the religious people’s adherence to their religious texts. If politicians and the media classes can mob a religion or church with PC opinion until they simply give in, then what kind of tolerant country are we living in? Do we respect religious people and their eccentricities or not?

      The answer seems, with every greater frequency, to be a resounding ‘no’.

      • Gavin Deichen

        Actually, thanks to views such as yours, the established church is due to be more or less banned from performing same-sex marriage. No religious group will be forced to perform such ceremonies. There’s no mob, no bullying, just improved equality for the same of fairness, kindness and love.

        • Colonel Mustard

          There is quite a lot of bullying from what I can see. Even the use of the word “homophobe” is bullying. We are long past the point, thankfully, where homosexuals are referred to in public by demeaning or offensive names. Unfortunately in emancipation the homosexual lobby now seems intent on creating a new class of persecuted non-conformists. Not great progress I would say.

      • kiani francis

        So what is the point of even having religion in this country then?

      • Fergus Pickering

        I thought organised religion was about exercising power over people. The good thing about the Church of England is that it has no power at all. It did once but it doesn’t now. Thank God.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          Yes, and now it’s become a tool for you socialists to exercise control and enact your agenda.

          Another state institution marched through.

    • Peter Orlov

      Silly, silly Yvonne: being made to sit at the back of the bus, drink from separate water fountains and not be allowed to marry whites merely preserved the gorgeous individuality of black people, their long and complex culture and their unique contributions to society (such hard workers! so musical! and great athletes, to boot). How whistfully they must look back on it now, society having forced them into the conformity of (for example) having a black President…

      • TheOtherTurnipTaliban

        Ahem you seem to have unwittingly skewered the widely accepted model of ‘salad bowl multiculturalism’ there.

        ‘Preserving’ and ‘respecting’ the cultures of ethnic groups is drilled into all aspects of local government especially social workers: Whether it is in the form of refusing to allow white parents to adopt black children or simply translating local governments’ reading materials into a variety of languages, minorities right to not integrate (thus losing their personal ethnic identity) is upheld as extremely important in government institutions – even to the extent of allowing certain children to die in the care of dangerous parents, as the Climbie case proved.

        • Peter Orlov

          I’m not sure I have done anything there “unwittingly” (nor am I entirely certain that your comment is very much on point).

          • TheOtherTurnipTaliban

            I’m saying that you mock the logic of the authors’ article whilst being blind to the fact that government – big, statist, Leftist government – perpetuates precisely this sort of divisive ‘preservationist’ policy.

            • Peter Orlov

              I have at no point defended any government policy (of either this, or any other government) other than the debate of the Bill tomorrow and the proposal to vote for it. As such: point well spotted but wholly irrelevant.

  • TheOtherTurnipTaliban

    Ok I can put this much more simply:

    I disagree with same-sex marriage because, and I have no agenda nor am I religious in any way whatsoever, the bible states unequivocally exactly what marriage is. It does not state that it was between two men or two women. Simple.

    If the institution of marriage is to remain true to its religious roots rather than being a civil marriage in all but name, then I cannot see how same-sex marriage can take place in a Christian setting. I just don’t see how people reconcile this very simple fact.

    Sorry if I’ve offended anyone.

    • Peter Orlov

      I don’t think you have offended anyone; you are clearly wrong, however. Marriage IS a civil institution – not “in all but name” but in fact. There is nothing religious about a person going to Chelsea Town Hall and marrying someone they met last month and the Bible’s views on the matter (to the extent that they are internally consistent, not utterly abhorrent and/or in compliance with widely held social views (e.g. on divorce, abortion and single parent families)) are of marginal interest, at best. In fact, society – and the Parliamentary draughtsmen – have gone out of its way to avoid changing anything at all about Christians’ views of marriage, their religious practice or celebration. No-one asks for you to approve of equal marriage, to practice it, to celebrate it or even to be civil about it – merely to recognise that it has absolutely nothing to do with you or your life and to allow others the same right to live as they see fit and be granted the same opportunities as you have, should they wish to exercise them.

      • TheOtherTurnipTaliban

        Please explain to me how religion, Christianity in this instance, is supposed to retain any semblance of being a pillar of certainty, permanence, credibility, reliability for its adherents, if the fundamental beliefs of Christianity (marriage in this case) are wont to change with the wind, to drift with whatever fashionable opinion asserts? What is the point of it even as an institution if its tenets are not respected?

        I am an atheist but I am not one to attempt to kick peoples’ moral and spiritual support away from them just because I have an axe to grind with religion.

        Leave them alone.

        • Peter Orlov

          But they don’t, “Turnip”.

          A lot of society looks somewhat askance at the idea that wafers turn magically into the body of a two-thousand year old man-god in one’s mouth and would be hard-pushed to agree that this is the case (or that it would be a desirable state of affairs for it to be so). This has been the case for quite a while, without the Church crumbling away into dust (thankfully). Contraception and abortion have been legal for decades without the Catholic church recognising them as valid options (with hundreds of thousands of deaths as a result, form the AIDS epidemic alone). Jews and Muslims have not eaten pork for millennia without it being removed from the shelves at Tesco.

          More generally: it is safe to say that the majority of the beliefs and practices of any given religion’s adherents differ – by their very definition and intent – from those of non-believers. In no case in history – not one – has that simple fact resulted in the people who find comfort, joy, enlightenment and succour from their religious practice suddenly failing to find such comforts once such realisation has dawned on them.

          I would vehemently argue against making the adherents of any religion do anything within the confines of religious practice that they do not believe to be right. The Bill neither seeks, nor permits this in relation to religions that wish to define religious marriage as anything that they want (as they currently do: Catholics would not see a registry office wedding as a “marriage” before God). I am thus somewhat baffled as to what the crux of your argument might be, really…

          • TheOtherTurnipTaliban

            That’s a lot of unnecessary verbiage Peter, the point is not complex.

            When it comes to the question of the church not having ‘crumbled into dust’ you only need to take a quick look at the Archbishop’s watery New-Labour-esque pronouncements (no surprises there, given that he uses the same PR manager as Ed Milliband of all people) and the empty pews in churches up and down the land, and it’s overwhelmingly obvious that the CoE is a sad pathetic shadow of itself. In more senses than not the CoE has already faded away.

            The subject is bigger than just same-sex marriage though I’ll grant you that but the bigger picture is this: An aggressive, intolerant, pseudo-‘Liberal’ agenda marginalises and openly mocks and undermines a once proud institution and I think that is very sad – not to mention hypocritical.

            • Peter Orlov

              I am sorry if I at any point implied that your comments are complex; that was certainly not the intention.

              I will keep this one brief: People have stopped attending because they no longer want to. That is a good thing. I would no more prevent gays from marrying each other to tangentially boost church attendance (are you serious?) than I would – were I alive at the time – have expressed doubts about the abolition of slavery to have kept the Church’s long-held and long-argued views on the subject from looking like the malevolent nonsense that they were. I am unsure what your agenda is here – are you one of the authors? – but reasoned debate ain’t it.

            • Dr_Spence

              “An aggressive, intolerant, pseudo-‘Liberal’ agenda marginalises and openly mocks and undermines a once proud institution”

              Let’s redefine this: you just don’t like their position regarding the church so it’s aggressive and intolerant. The hypocrisy is the church’s not the pseudo-liberal’s.

          • 2trueblue

            You lose the argument when you start calling someone names.

            • Peter Orlov

              1) The full title?
              2) I didn’t say Christianity was dead.
              3) I did not mock the idea of adhering to any belief that people wish to adhere – save to point out that such beliefs (many of mine included) look odd to non-adherents. My point is that this fact alone is rarely destructive to religions or belief systems.
              4) I don’t have any feelings either way as to the dwindling of the institution – save to the extent that it is caused by people not wishing to attend any more. If they do not – and it’s certainly not because of a lack of funds – then that is their choice and they are welcome to go elsewhere. I do not see it as the role of government to tangentially encourage attendance through every policy they propose.

          • anonymous

            yes and a single cell somehow evolved into a full working body that cooperates to ensure life without the influence of an outside body? Mountains and all else in existence, humans, water, etc, were formed from some sort of clash of the perfect chemistry of molecules and elements (1/10^1230 probability)? how did those elements/molecules/atoms exist prior to the big bang? there is also much to argue against the big bang theory so do not try to debunk creationism so simply.

            Also, there are plenty of religious people who live lives that they deem fulfilling. Is it for you to judge that they were ignorant or that they did not have comfort, joy or enlightenment? If so, isn’t that judgement restricted in scope because of your lack of belief?

            Religion is an interpretation of spirituality. In the case of Christianity, it is the interpretation of the Bible. Just like our political system, there are those that are conservative, keeping to what the Bible says, word for word, and there are those that are liberal, leaving the Bible for interpretation. Because of this, you see so many denominations. I cannot tell you which is the correct view, but I can tell you that half of those denominations only exist to justify their own faults, trying to support themselves with an “interpretation”.

            The reason in which why religion, more accurately, Judaism, Catholicism, Islam, and Christianity, are tied in with the idea of marriage is because marriage came from God or Allah (depending on religion). How? According to these religions, the very first humans were Adam and Eve, a man and a woman, and they were married. Therefore, a union between man and woman is marriage, which is related to religion and its believers, and the term, marriage, is a religious one, confining it to those who participate in those religions.

            Remember that with these religions, the Bible/Qu’ran is a document of history as well and so to believers, it is fact that Adam and Eve were the first humans and therefore set the standard for marriage.

            • anonymous

              lastly, I have just realized that a majority of people believe that Christianity is only based on the New Testament and what Jesus said. That is false. There is a reason why the Bible for Christians also includes the Old Testament (prior to Jesus Christ). To some, it may seem that Jesus revolutionized religion, however this is not true. Instead, he simply revealed the true meanings of the teachings within the Old Testament, never deviating from them. He deviated from traditions of man but not from the traditions of God. An example of this is given in the book of Mark.

        • James

          Christianity’s fundamental beliefs change all the time. The Catholic Church suddenly decided that marriage was a “sacrament” in the 1500s. They went from strongly supporting slavery to strongly opposing it. Promoting the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun used to get you tried for heresy. And every so often, different groups of Christians decide that their fundamental beliefs are so irreconcilable with each other that they have to split into two separate churches, to the point that we now have thousands of different denominations, some of which support same-sex marriage.

          Regardless, marriage predates Christianity by at least several thousand years – it may even predate religion altogether.

          • Marcus

            But interestingly not gay marriage.

          • Baron

            The institution of marriage predates Christianity, the State, any other man made institution, it emerged to ensure the breeding and raising of future generations, it’s the best way to ensure kids grow to be what the society wants them to be, law abiding, tolerant, crime free and stuff.

            In the end, the argument is between what trumps what. Is it equality or freedom. Freedom entails making choices, to choose is to discriminate, hence the society could either discriminate against homosexuals, keep them away from the institution of marriage, or it can let them in hence denying itself the freedom to make a choice. Baron would rather be free than equal. Way back in the now defunct Red Menace Empire, he was equal with others. Equal in poverty, but not free, nice it wasn’t.

            George Orwell agrees with Baron: “It is a strange fact that freedom and equality, the two basic ideas of democracy, are to some extent contradictory. Logically considered, freedom and equality are mutually exclusive, just as society and the individual are mutually exclusive”.

            • Fergus Pickering

              I should have thought the Spartan warrior’s link with his boy was better than marriage. They would die for each other, would they not?

              • Baron

                Good point, Fergus, they would, but sexually, it was pedophilia, pure and simple, grown up man would have disgraced himself if he sodomised another mature male.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Sorry to be boring, but no it wasn’t. These were boys, not children. Christian marriage to girls of nine sounds like paedopjhilia though.

                • anonymous

                  Im sorry but life expectancy was lower ages ago so the sooner you got married, the more children you could have which was a sign of blessing

              • Bob339

                Yes, and sometimes it lasted a whole week!

            • Dr_Spence

              “it emerged to ensure the breeding and raising of future generations, it’s the best way to ensure kids grow to be what the society wants them to be, law abiding, tolerant, crime free and stuff”

              Or it emerged so men could “own” women.

              • anonymous

                could women survive on their own? were a majority of them able to support themselves? The answer now is much different than the answer ages ago. and that is not because of the political standing as women but because of the simple labor that was required to live. Marriage was a gift to women. It provided them with a lifestyle that did not require them to labor physically. It provided security in exchange for exclusivity. The toll on man was to work more to feed another mouth. In return, he received the love of his woman and therefore a child; a great gift that only woman can provide. In essence, a marriage is an agreement in which the exclusive advantages of both sexes are brought together. it wasnt about owning the other.

          • Tony M

            Saying ‘Christianity’s fundamental beliefs change all the time’ and then using the ‘catholic church’ as an example completely diminishes the worth or contribution of your comment…the Catholic Church can hardly be called Christian..a simple reading of the bible followed by a look at the Catholic Church and their beliefs will clear this up in no time

        • David_Gould

          How is Christianity going to be respected if it persecutes people on the basis of their sexual preference?

          • the viceroy’s gin

            So disagreement is “persecution” now?

            • David_Gould

              Don’t be obtuse. This Bill doesn’t compel or even ask the Church to start ‘agreeing’ with homosexuality.

              It doesn’t even ask the Church to stop promoting intolerance, even though that clearly provides justification for the frequent attacks and even murders of homosexuals in Britain eg:

              • the viceroy’s gin

                Actually, you’re the one being “obtuse”, in not answering a direct question concerning your loose rhetoric.

                My questions stands, if you decide to clear up your loose language.

            • Dr_Spence

              Yes because they actively campaign against gay rights and would deny them if they had their way. That’s persecution.

              • the viceroy’s gin

                No, that is not “persecution”, assuming you’re using the same language the rest of us use.

          • OldSlaughter

            Persecution? Please explain

        • Fergus Pickering

          I can’t remember Christ saying anything at all about marriage. It is not a fundamental belief of Christianity. Itis quite irrelevant. One thing Christ did say is that you should forsake your wife and children and folow him He did not marry and Saint Paul’s apercu that it was better to marry than to burn does not sound like a ringing endorsement to me. Catholic priests do not marry.

          • Kron Hjon

            Are you wilfully distorting Christian theology or are you just completely ignorant?

      • Bickers

        Peter, marriage is not something the political elites and their useful idiots in the media have a right to redefine, in the cause of equality. There’s no mandate for it. Parliament are abusing their position by looking to redefine its meaning.

        • Peter Orlov

          Being the government is the mandate: that is, literally, how democracy works. The plan is to elect some people who – one hopes – will be good at making decisions on your behalf. Sometimes you’re wrong and they’re a bit crap; then you vote them out.

          I mean, don’t get me wrong: this is an enterprising way of masking a lack of coherent argument but until I see column inches being devoted to not having a mandate to pass the “Football (Financial Transparency) Bill” or the “Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (Amendment) Bill” (both currently before Parliament), that’s all it is.

          • Bickers

            OK Peter, so as to comply with the equality agenda we have to sacrifice hundreds of years of tradition regarding the definition of marriage. On that basis I expect Cameron & the other gay marriage supporters to follow the logic of their position i.e. that in future the following ‘equality’ rights should also be upheld:

            1. Son or daughter can marry their parents or grandparents
            2. Adult can marry a child
            3. You can have multiple marriages, heterosexual & gay
            4. You can marry an animal

            If gay marriage supporters disagree with any of the above please explain why these rights are any less deserving than gay marriage as a right?

            • Peter Orlov

              Well Bickers, a summary below; only one of your examples is remotely of interest (a better strike rate than usual for those opposing, granted), so that shouldn’t take too long. Before we get there, let’s deal with your implied assumptions (all of which are wrong):

              A) “so as to comply with the equality agenda” seems to imply that the only reason for doing it is political correctness and nothing else. Is that what you meant? It is manifestly untrue if so – shout if you really want to go there.

              B) “hundreds of years” seems to be a sweeping-under the carpet of the – pretty obvious, no? – fact that marriage has been around for longer than Christianity (longer than religion?). Marriage has been around for THOUSANDS of years, of which what is being touted as the age-old definition by the Church (leaving aside the fact that Christian churches between themselves have different definitions) has been in any sense settled for a tiny, TINY proportion of the time. And then there’s the whole “different religions disagreeing with each other ever so slightly” point.

              3) “sacrifice” is pretty imagery but also pretty baseless. Marriage will be where it ever stood, it’s not going away anywhere.

              4) “tradition regarding the definition of marriage” This is the big one, surely? We “sacrifice” this “tradition” all the time: by allowing civil marriages, by stopping treating marriages as essentially a monetary transaction in which a wife is transferred by her father to the husband, by allowing – in the past couple of decades – that women are not physically owned by their husbands and can thus legally be raped by them, by allowing divorces. All of these were much bigger changes, logically, than the one proposed here. But all of them were – are – fine, despite each flying in the face of biblical teaching and “hundreds of years of tradition”. Only when we’re talking about gay people is this definition sacred.

              Now, your examples:

              1 This one is the one with the most merit, I guess? I mean, it’s still facile (the reasons for avoiding incest are pretty well established and documented, the lack of power balances here being the most obvious). But if one tried – if you had tried harder – one could come up with better examples. Should brothers or sisters be able to marry each other as adults? I can’t get too excited about it either way, but that would be the closest change proposed.

              2. Lack of consent. Obviously. Though historically (and globally) of course, this inability is the anomaly, not the rule. If you were as huge a traditionalist as you claim, this would be fine.

              3. It rather would rather change the dynamic of the relationship to allow this (though, again, maybe some better bible study wouldn’t go amiss here if you think this would “redefine” marriage rather than just reverting to the old definition).

              4. Lack of consent again. Good work – you have the same one twice.

              So: any other idiotic examples that you care to troll with? Marrying inanimate objects? Marrying dreams? Marrying chemical reactions? Marrying abstract concepts?

              • Bickers

                Peter, your response is erudite. I was hoping you’d see the irony in my post.
                You must agree that there was & is no appetite (even from the gay community) from the electorate for this legislation. This is Cameron playing to the metropolitan elite, thinking he’s decontaminating the Conservative brand.

                If gay marriage is made law shouldn’t heterosexuals have the right to civil partnerships? And if that happens (which it should for the sake of equality) what’s the point of marriage?

                Finally, in order to give an undemanding minority rights the government is diluting & devaluing the rights of the majority.

                • Peter Orlov

                  Don’t agree there is no appetite, especially in the gay community. Figures would be appreciated.

                  Civil partnerships should be scrapped IMHO. Problem solved?

                  Demonstrate dilution/devaluation please. Only possibly true if gay relationships are viewed as inherently inferior – which is telling.

                • Bickers

                  Not long ago civil partnerships were seen as adequate by the gay community & accepted as a reasonable concession by the majority of voters. It now seems that gay marriage supporters want to have their cake & eat it. A democracy can’t survive if the majority have to keep pandering to minorities.

                • Peter Orlov

                  Figures would be appreciated. I generally enjoy substantiated arguments more than conjecture and hyperbole, for what it’s worth.

         has a number of opinion polls over the past ten years listed. I could be gallant and suggest that the picture is unclear, but even if I were to do so, it would certainly not be tending in your favour. Most people support this and have done for a while – and are mystified and baffled as to why the Tory Party is choosing to kill itself so publicly like this.

                • Klas

                  Is not the case that heterosexual marriage will disappear or bee abounded just be-course you get legal homosexual marriages. So no majority or minorities will be harmed. Of course the fight is to get the majority to vote for the minorities rights. We are all minorities in some way so try to give space for all off us.

                • vieuxceps2

                  “Civil Partnerships should be scrappedIMHO”-Ganz im Gegenteil my wordy friend.Is it because you and the other supporters of gay”marriage “are well aware that they fully provide all the needs.benefits and responsibilities accorded in normal marriage?Are you afraid we heteros will notice and demand equality with the homos?

                • Peter Orlov

                  Don’t follow, pointlessly-Teutonic “friend”: if you think they’re equal, then you already have equality with the homos (and presumably the change in terminology proposed by the Bill before Parliament today is but a mere irrelevant formality that could be passed without too much foaming at the mouth)? Or do you think they are in fact different?

                  I think they are different and CPs are – what you might call – an “ersatz” marriage. Once there is equality before the law, I don’t think the fake status is needed any more.

                • vieuxceps2

                  “Civil Partnerships give same-sex couples rights and responsibilitiesidentical to civil marriage”However this option is not available to heteros,hence my plea for equality with homos. So we should not abolish them but widen them.That would bring equality.Instead we will have “marriage”for everyone and CPs for homos only.Follow now? Or shall I write in more polysyllabic terms for you? In German perhaps? Lots of long words there for you.

                • Peter Orlov

                  I am trying really hard to bring myself to care about this “issue”, but it’s a tough one. I offered you full equality above, by getting rid of civil partnerships altogether once marriage is available to both groups. For reasons unexplained, that does not work for you; if you want both gay people and straight people to have access to CPs, that is also fine by me.

                  Start writing letters to your MP now…

                • Klas

                  In Sweden we have civil partnerships for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. No problem.

              • Klas

                Good and strong arguments, keep up the fight Peter!

            • Dr_Spence

              And a man can marry a woman – yuk. This is a tired old bigoted argument. Gay marriage has existed in several countries for years and we see no further arguments for the above 4 scenarios. Of course your number 3 is common in many countries (to heterosexual one at least).

            • Urban Lgbt Clubbing

              @ Bickers, “hundreds of years of tradition”is that the sum total of your argument against the provision of equality to committ to the (adult and consenting) partner you love in the eyes of the state and your family and friends. It has nothing to do with bestiality, paedophilia or incest not sure why you are obsessed with those for some reason…. If you can’t see the difference you are blind to the obvious.

              Its the job of Government and Parliament to pass laws why else do we have elections. And 400 MP and massive and overwhelming majority support this as do a majority of people in the country as evidenced in the numerous opinion polls. So I was impressed by so many people in the Nasty Party are actually socially liberal.

              Congratulations Mr Cameron!

              • Bickers

                Wrong. Gays already had equal legal rights under civil partnerships. We’re going to find out shortly that in order to give gays marriage rights the laws underpinning marriage will be either abolished or diluted.
                And as a heterosexual my rights will have not only have been abused I can’t have a civil partnership.
                What happens when a gay couples adopted child comes home from school & asks why they can’t have a mum & dad; what about their rights.
                This law was not in any manifesto, was not demanded by gays & majority. It’s Cameron implementing EU agenda & pandering to metropolitan elite – pathetic!!

            • Namenomnomnom

              “OK Peter, so as to comply with the equality agenda we have to sacrifice hundreds of years of tradition…”

              Yes. Much as we did with absolute monarchy, chattel slavery, etc.

              You asked: “If gay marriage supporters disagree with any of the above please explain
              why these rights are any less deserving than gay marriage as a right?”

              Here is the obvious, unmistakeable answer.

              Gay marriage is just. Pedophia is unjust.

              In my view and the view of all Gay marriage supporters I know we each have a right to be treated justly irrespective of gender (or skin color or shoe size.) Whereas have no right to behave unjustly, most especially toward the innocent and helpless.

              That is why what you hold as the right of pedophilia is bunk and categorically unrelated to the actual right of equal treatment under the laws for every gender.

              Correcting an injustice is NEVER one step down a slippery slope. It is always one step UP away from the morass of injustice generally.

              To argue that granting marital justice to gays is a step toward potential injustices such as allowing pedophilia is inane in the following way. It is equivalent to arguing: “If we free the blacks from their bonds then we’ll soon have to free the murderers from their prisons.”

              An utter *non sequitor* disguised as an argument.

              I have given you the explanation for which you asked. I would be pleased to review your thoughtful comments in response.

              Tradition of chattel slavery? Well dispensed with.

              Tradition of the monarch having the unilateral power of life and death over each subject?

              Some may rue the loss but, again, well dispensed with.

              Tradition of marriage limited to male-female couples? Equally as well dispensed with.

            • Klas

              Yes sacrifice hundreds of years of stupid traditions and build a more tolerant and understanding world. We kicked out a lot of em before, and that brings us a more peaceful world.

              Just be-course your for equal right between adults don’t meant that your for harassment of the younger. That is a stupid argument of quasi logic brain of yours.

        • Bob339

          Well said, sir. I wish I could vote more than once in your support.

      • Samantha Fugate Smith

        e went to the city hall in a particular state of the south and were handed a certificate that could not be filed until a minister signed it. luckily, there was a minister on premises that day who took us out to the lawn and said the traditional vows. so yes, it is still a religious thing here.

    • David_Gould

      “the bible states unequivocally exactly what marriage is.”

      The problem for you is that it does not. The Bible talks about men and women getting married but it doesn’t say anything precluding people marrying the same gender.

      I respect the right for churches to not marry people of the same gender. The Govt however has no moral or legal right to discriminate against people on the basis of their race, gender or sexual preference.

      • Alex

        1 Co 6:9: Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor
        adulterers nor male prostitutes nor *homosexual offenders*

        • HooksLaw

          So none of us then.

        • HooksLaw

          Elsewhere it says homosexuals should be put to death. I am amazed at the churches laxity in following the holy scripture in this.
          Never mind I am sure Willhelm is even now scouring the sacred texts to see what we should be doing to immigrants.

          • David_Gould

            Not all scripture is so holy.

        • David_Gould

          As I said, no mention of marriage.

          • Alex

            Do you really mean to say that while homosexual activity is strictly prohibited, the “homosexual marriage” oxymoron is quite OK??

            • the viceroy’s gin

              That’s exactly what he means, or must mean, and the clearest reason the homosexual marriageists should clear off from their “religion” arguments.

              You want homosexual marriage. We get it.

            • David_Gould

              I mean exactly what I said, that the Bible does NOT “state unequivocally exactly what marriage is.”

              Of course, if this is the same Paul who never met Jesus and taught that women were inferior, I’m not sure he’s worth listening to.

              • Alex

                Right. Where does the bible unequivocally that women are inferior?

        • Fergus Pickering

          Frankly, I wouldn’t trust Saint Paul further than I could throw him. It’s JC I go to for my Christianity.

          • Alex


            Jesus Christ told his apostles “whoever recieves you recieves me”. Granted, Paul was probably throwing darts at images of Christ at this point in time, but Peter was there, and Peter, in one of his letters refers to the writings of “our dear brother Paul” as scripture.

            If you listen to Christ, you listen to Peter, and therefore Paul also.

        • Dr_Spence

          You can keep your kingdom of god and all the bigots in it.

    • Park_Town_Boy

      Perhaps you can point me to the part of the Bible that defines marriage in the way you suggest. I’m not aware that it does.

      What is in the Bible, in several places, is Jesus’ advice that the most important commandment is to love God, and that the second is to love your neighbour.

    • Andrew Horn

      “… I have no agenda nor am I religious in any way whatsoever, the bible states unequivocally exactly what marriage is.”

      A)As others have stated, it REALLY doesn’t. The Old Testament clearly views marriage as being between one man and however many women as he can support, plus their servants, whom he may take as concubines. it also treats marriage, for the most part as a social arrangement, not a religious one.

      B)That aside, if you are truly not religious then what do you care what the bible has to say on the subject of marriage? If you are not religious, then the Bible is nothing but a book of stories, some supported by historical fact, but many made up from traditional myths told around campfires. Why should that be a basis for laws?

      C)The same-sex marriage bill currently being debated allows for religious ceremonies ONLY when the church has consented to the marriage. It wouldn’t force any church to perform any marriage it does not consent to. So how is it ” bullying religious people into behaving like themselves”?

    • Bob339

      Mostly, this was Cameron trying to grab a few votes. All politicians pander to the gays because it is so easy to get their support.

    • Cindy Fairhurst Thorpe

      So if you’re heterosexual and not a Christian then you shouldn’t be married?

    • EB

      Just a quick question: are you 12 years old? Your argumentation is very lacking.

      Edited to add: Are you a 12-year-old self-loathing homosexual? Don’t worry, you’ll grow out of it (the self-hatred that is).

      • TheOtherTurnipTaliban

        I think your answer is more homophobic than either the article or my statement.

    • Carlotty1222

      As others have pointed out – your logic only works if you consider marriage in purely in terms of Christianity. But marriage occurs in all religions and in non religious States such as the the old communist block and present day China.

    • Jaime A. Castillo Verduzco

      You are not religious in any way then you go and thump the Bible? Um, yeah, uhuh, sure, whatever you say.

  • SPW

    Why do homosexuals want to marry?

    Not for legal rights – those may be granted with civil partnerships.
    Not for the procreation of children – those may be adopted or produced in surrogates.
    Not for equality – the notion that the right to marry makes you equal is non-sequiter; as a man I do not have the right to use the ladies’ loo.

    Surely it’s for love? Love is the reason surely?

    If love is the power behind this idea and the motive force behind the proposed legislation, then where is the legislation for a man who loves his unborn child, yet has to allow its mother to terminate it? Where is the legislation for the man or woman who love their children, but have them denied them through divorce proceedings? When did the government start legislating to preserve or enable expressions of love?

    • James

      There are numerous legal differences between civil partnership and marriage. They are governed by entirely separate laws; there are differences when it comes to pension rights and international recognition; civil partnership has no concept of vows, consummation or adultery; the arrangements for religious groups to host them are different, with different fees and health and safety requirements; and transgender people are forced to get divorced if they want to get a gender recognition certificate. I’m probably missing some.

      Heterosexual people hardly need to get married to have children either.

      The government doesn’t mandate that men’s and women’s toilets should be separate (believe it or not, quite a lot of places have unisex toilets!), or that men can’t use women’s toilets or vice versa.

      Anyway, the main reason for this change is to encourage societal equality. You might not have noticed, but a lot of people feel that same-sex relationships are vastly inferior to opposite-sex relationships and treat LGBT people accordingly, leading to bullying, discrimination and hate crimes. The rates of low self-esteem and suicide among young LGBT people in particular are extremely high. It doesn’t help that the government insists on recognising same-sex relationships under the name “civil partnership”, a cold, awkward euphemism for “marriage”.

      • FrankS

        Then why not just change the name ‘civil partnership’ to ‘civil marriage’?

    • Park_Town_Boy

      Jesus said: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.”

      • Smithersjones2013

        And Jesus was crucified after losing a democratic vote to Barabbas. Its amazing given the circumstances that people still talk of his policies……….

      • HooksLaw

        That little one is easy for the nut jobs to forget.

      • Alex

        Since when did loving someone involve legitimizing and aproving their bad behavior?

      • SPW

        Are you suggesting I marry my neighbour?

    • FrankS

      “Why do homosexuals want to marry?”
      In order to prevent heterosexuals from having an institution that specifically excludes gay couples.

  • Mark A J Riley

    Is this a spoof? ROFL.

  • Ian Walker

    The fact that two whole authors consipired to believe this twaddle is possible the most incredible thing about it. “What is needed is a an equity in diversity” was the comedy highlight.
    Equality isn’t abour “erasing differences” – it’s about equity of opportunity. Using your logic, we should cease to call the ends of our arms ‘hands’ because they have fingers in a different order!

  • NiceTeaParty

    As always the Law of Unintended Consequences

    Placing the lives of gay travellers, now able to present themselves as just friends, in jeopardy in visits to primitive parts of the world

    Giving gay people who do not want to ‘settle down and marry’ the same increasingly pilloried second-rate status of non-married heterosexual coupledom.

    Forcing all of us to aspire to one kind of model legal relationship that itself is a relatively recent construct (pre 19th Century there was only common law marriage and the state, generally and wisely, kept its nose out)

    Elevating the right to marry and found a family at the expense of freedom of choice as to how one lives one’s life.

    Devaluing all those who don’t want to upgrade their Civil Partnerships into Marriage

    Forcing gay people who want to be in the closet or maintain second lives out into the open.

    Incentivising the next demand. If Gay Marriage is now to be legal why should not Polygamy ?

    How can Adultery remain a ‘marital offence’ if one of the whole points of being gay is to be free of such chains ?

    How is being gay going to be gay anymore if marital bliss is to be made socially compulsory ?

    • Louise McCudden

      Adults are usually allowed to make these kinds of decisions for themselves.

      • Colonel Mustard

        Adults making their own decisions in our current society is almost a non sequitur. The whole thrust of the EU and EU puppet-governments is to close in on personal freedom and to legislate for conformity as directed by the state, even in this case.

    • Doppel1800

      “pre 19th Century there was only common law marriage”: I don’t think so. Perhaps you should check your facts.

  • William Summers

    I’m sure the gay community of Britain will be very grateful for all your help tackling homophobia.

    • Twisk

      I’ve just had the news that the levels of homophobia are four to five times higher in Sweden since the SSM law was approved. And Sweden is the most LBGT- friendly country on earth, so go figure.

      This whole SS marriage thing is a poisonous gift to the LGBT community. As it leads to more homophobia, it IS rabidly homophobic.

  • Duncan Hothersall

    Fantastically foolish argument. Giving people the choice to do something does NOT equate to forcing them to do it. People who dislike marriage can still choose not to get married.

    That facile arguments like this gain any currency at all is testament to the desperation of homophobes to find ways of promoting their agenda without being honest about their homophobia.

    • Vitaly Klitschko

      Homosexuals live in a fantasy world in which they believe their deviant behaviour -particularly sexual behaviour, which contorts any palatable definition of ‘consummation’ of a marriage for example – will ever be acceptable to the majority. Forcing churches to enact pantomime ‘marriages’ won’t alter that fact. However, it is to be hoped that the majority will soon realize that a central motivation behind pushing gay marriage is the normalization of pederasty. This agenda is already being vociferously promoted with the new homosexual drive to push the age of consent to 14 and below so they can indulge in ‘boy love’.

      • Alex Felltir Sunderland

        If the majority of people do not accept equal marriage, how is it happening? We live in a democracy. Very little happens against the will of the majority, and the things that do happen behind closed door. This is very much in the open, and most people are okay with that.

        • Will Clarke

          He’s just compared homosexuals to pedophiles, hidden behind a synonym in the hope people won’t realise he’s done it. He’s really not going to be open to persuasion.

          Also: funny to see you about here, Alex 🙂

          • LEngland

            Homophiliacs and paedophiliacs; both victims of developmental disorders.

      • Fergus Pickering

        It is acceptable to me, old son. You are not in any way acceptable to me. I don’t think the age of consent will be shifted to fourteen, however delectable boys and girls of this age may be to old men like us..

      • kiani francis

        Actually I think you will find that it is the god botherers who live in a fantasy world wherein they constantly reimagine what their imaginary friend may or may not think about what they do. Ironically it was Cromwell who introduced secular marriage and the Church has no right to dictate how people should live their lives nor instruct a sovereign parliament how to legislate.

        Nobody is forcing the Church to do anything it does not want and why any gay couple would even wish to marry in a church that evidently hates & despises them is beyond me.

        Whether or not a consummation is “palatable” is the business of consenting adults. No one is making you do it. I do not like mushy peas but I have no problem with anyone else eating them, any more than what they do in bed.

        Scruton seems to think it is smart to construct wordy arguments that black is indeed the white of my eye. It is not big and it is not clever. Only your persistent fawning upon the wealthy overprivileged and their “rights” keeps him from joining the ranks of the unemployed he no doubt despises.

        • Colonel Mustard

          Wait and see. If this goes through it won’t be long before the Church is prosecuted under Human Rights legislation for “discriminating”. Gays don’t just want marriage they want enforced approval of their sexuality. Every last suggestion of “homophobia” must be eradicated from society. It is no longer acceptable to tolerate but disapprove. One must be coerced into publicly declaiming approval and even into fearing to express personal disapproval in case someone denounces to Keir Starmer’s New Police, as the North Koreans were coerced into publicly expressing grief at the death of their leader.

          This is all about conformity. It is about everyone being bullied and coerced to adopt the values and beliefs of others, ultimately by criminal law and the sanction of the state’s New Police. Fifty years ago were a man to stand in Hyde Park and vociferously condemn the institution of marriage nothing would have happened to him beyond a bit of heckling. Now were he to stand there and vociferously condemn homosexual marriage he would be arrested. That is the difference. That is the “open” society that has been created here.

          Marriage is just the trigger mechanism by which this final stage is being implemented.

  • AugustLudwig

    Absolutely! Homophobic, indeed.

    Just read a great line ina Telegraph blog that compared the Gay Marriage movement to an unrealised George Orwell nightmare: 1984 / Animal Husbandry.

    In any event, this is a Lesbian-wannabe-mama thing.

  • Adrian Drummond

    At last; an intelligent perspective on the issue. My compliments to you both.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      Yes, the 2 of them do appear to have a common purpose.

  • gladiolys

    Breaking news… War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength