Blogs Coffee House

Opposing gay marriage now is as brave as being openly gay was in 1970

16 June 2013

3:12 PM

16 June 2013

3:12 PM

Since one’s attitude to homosexual acts is now considered the main way of judging whether a person is civilised, one must salute those in public life who defy this. To oppose gay ‘equality’ today is roughly as brave as it was to be publicly homosexual in, say, 1970: your position is not absolutely illegal, but it is perilous. Given how wobbly many Anglicans are on the issue, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London should be commended for their courage in the House of Lords debate. The Chief Rabbi, Lords Sacks, should be reproved. Orthodox Judaism is absolutely clear on this issue, but Lord Sacks absented himself. Perhaps he feels that Jews should not intervene in secular society. But if such a key social institution as marriage is beyond his responsibility, why did he agree to become a legislator?

The most laughable argument for the same-sex cause was that advanced by Lord Browne of Madingley, the former chief executive of BP. ‘Gay marriage,’ he told his fellow peers, ‘is a matter of strategic importance for British business.’ Really? Would we sell more to Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Russia or China if our top male executives turned up with their husbands for business dinners?

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
  • Don’t Understand

    well the Lesbian population has sure increased over the years.

  • Felix

    Oh you poor persecuted over-privileged martyr, you.

  • Joe Baron

    Gay marriage is not just about equality. The very concept of marriage is under attack! Read my blog. joethebaron.blogspot.co.uk

  • Susan Macdonald

    Substitute a racial epithet for the sexual epithet and this Author would be going to jail, yet this author gets published: double standards I think.

  • Terry Field

    The issue of the changes attitude to human sexuality in Britain and some other western countries is something that people should relax about.

    I would not by preference be in favour of it, but we are possessed of a democratic system of representation, and for actions of the state – and that is what is being considered here, – the acceptance of gay marriage is always conditional. By definition, the democracy can reverse its decision if it observes undesired consequences.

    The issue of the tyranny of a minority by a majority is as alive now as ever, and it is the main issue that we should regard if we, as a society, wish as much harmony to reign as is possible.
    The matter of the Established church is ignored in most commentaries; that is a shame; I suspect the atheist environment assists this very deliberate destruction by stealth.

  • DrCoxon

    ‘We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.” – Kirk & Madsen, After the Ball, page. 153.

  • DrCoxon

    ‘ “At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights — long after other gay ads have become commonplace — it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified.’

    Kirk and Madsen, homosexual campaigners outlining the strategy.

  • Knives_and_Faux

    Fine, your born gay just as I was born thinking bummers are perverts.

    • Fred Scuttle

      You were born simple.

      • Knives_and_Faux

        I understand, it’s beyond your comprehension but you can’t have it both ways. If it’s natural to be born gay then it’s natural for others to be born thinking gays are abhorrent freaks. Just dismiss this scientifically backed truth as ‘bigotry’ as most bummers do.

  • Andy M

    I am not necessarily opposed to gay marriage, but I am opposed to the bigger picture that gay marriage happens to represent at this time in our society. At the moment, as a counter-movement to homophobia, you have the hyper-Liberals forcing it down our throat that homosexuality is not just something we should be accepting of as a society, it’s something we should be celebrating. That’s the problem. I feel that as human beings they should be allowed to live their lives free from persecution and have equality. However, the problem is the Liberals want to push it further and make it that it almost respected and, on some occasions, prioritised and promoted over heterosexuality. This is completely unacceptable. We must remember that as much as these are individuals who have human rights, they are still scientifically abnormal and have a defect. The more people who choose to live this lifestyle the less procreation there will be. We must not be conditioning people in our society to aspire to or admire this behaviour. After all, we are animals and subject to the laws of nature first and foremost, which means we should be focused on the maintenance of the species. For me, this movement that promotes behaviour which is directly contrary to what is needed for procreation. This is one of the many signs that humans are on a road to self-destruction.

    • tomdaylight

      Then you should embrace gay equality as once we have it, liberals no longer have an excuse.

      • Andy M

        To quote myself: “I feel that as human beings they should be allowed to live their lives free from persecution and have equality”

        I don’t understand your point, as I already said I was for equality. However, equality does not mean ‘promoting’, it only means ‘accepting’.

  • Fred Scuttle

    Not that long ago we were making left handed children write with their right hands, even though it was perfectly natural to be left handed. Being gay is also perfectly natural.

  • Norax

    This article is simply ridiculous. Being openly gay in the 1970s, a time when homosexuality was classified as a psychological abnormality, was far more courageous than opposing gay marriage… The attitudes were very different towards sexuality back then; I wouldn’t be surprised if being openly gay meant that you ran the risk of assault or worse. This whole article is a sheltered, toryboy farce.

  • StephanieJCW

    “Really? Would we sell more to Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Russia or China if our top male executives turned up with their husbands for business dinners?”

    Probably not – but we shouldn’t let them guide our policies on gay marriage anymore than we give any consideration to their attitudes on women.

  • StephanieJCW

    “But if such a key social institution as marriage is beyond his responsibility, why did he agree to become a legislator?”

    Maybe because he sees civil marriage as none of his business (rightly) concerning himself with only the religious union.

    I am not sure why religions should be telling the secular state who they can and cannot marry. The secular state does not tell religious bodies who they may and may not marry.

    • DrCoxon

      ‘The secular state does not tell religious bodies who they may and may not marry.’

      In fact the secular state has a set of rules about consanguinity, incest, bigamy….
      and an understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is why the legislation is being introduced – to change the definition.

      The new form of marriage is not equal in terms to existing marriage. It sidesteps the issue of consummation and adultery will not be deemed to have occurred if a homosexual man has sexual concourse with another homosexual man not his partner.

      The ECHR requires total equality. The proposed legislation does not create complete equality. The law will almost certainly be challenged. Probably marriage between male and female will have to be redefined.

  • Richard Welch

    If you were openly gay in 1970 (and sadly, even still today) you confronted risks ranging from ostracism to murder. If you oppose equal marriage today, you can at worst expect people to be very angry with you.

    This piece is stupid and lazy.

    • DrCoxon

      ‘…at worst expect people to be very angry with you.’

      In fact threats and violence in France.

      • Richard Welch

        Judging by Mr Moore’s terms of reference, I believe that he is discussing the British experience, and in that context what I said holds true. You’re right, though, that I should have been more careful in framing my comment.

        Were I to bring France into consideration, I’d also have to mention the recent dramatic increase in homophobic attacks in Paris, including, notably, the brutal assault on Wilfred de Bruijn. The debate is clearly far more heated across the Channel, but even taking that into account it remains manifestly more dangerous there simply to be openly gay than it is to hold a position in opposition to equal marriage.

  • Terence Hale

    Hi,
    Opposing gay marriage now is as brave as being openly gaywas in 1970. I’m sorry, you’re probably censor me but whatever. Being gay is an illness our genetic methods do nearly have the capabilities to confirm this. Give responsibility to a downs person as Dostoyevsky the idiot as demanded is wrong.

    • tomdaylight

      If only the rest of the anti gay marriage lobby had shared your sense of candour. Then politicians might have felt a lot safer ignoring you.

  • annon

    You have got to be joking.. whats it got to do with anyone else what 2 people do and how they live their lives!? I wouldn’t tell a straight couple that they cannot share a bed and how the fact that they aren’t married will damage thier children!? People in vicars costumes need to stop spouting hate and promote to greater good and care for all man kind which is what I was taught religion was truely all about

  • skarpa

    Number of hate crimes committed against people in 2011/12 because of their sexual orientation: 4,252.

    Number of hate crimes committed against people in 2011/12 because they oppose gay equality: 0

    Now please define bravery?

  • MikeF

    Opposing gay marriage now is as brave as being openly gay back in 1970? I am not certain that is the case. An openly homosexual person back then might certainly have attracted a degree of prejudice and name-calling – no point disguising that – but they would not have been routinely labelled with a violent, abusive, illiterate epithet (‘bigot’) nor like the man who worked for that housing association in, I think it was Manchester, would they have been demoted for merely being honest about themselves.
    No the fact is that back in 1970 this country still had a democratic culture – in other words people could express opinions without fearing that merely doing so could have deleterious effects on their livelihoods or that they would suffer public calumny. That does not mean the country was a paradise – it wasn’t – but in an atmosphere of free speech ideas could be debated and if the arguments in support of them prevailed then society changed accordingly.
    This is the great irony of the whole ‘gay rights’ issue. Things have got better for homosexual people precisely because of that political culture yet the modern ‘gay’ movement has hitched itself to the intolerant, authoritarian narcissist bandwagon that seeks to impose single ‘correct’ opinions in all spheres of life and to repress and stigmatise all dissent. They are fools to do so because if anti-homosexual prejudices ever enjoy a resurgence in this country – and the reason they might is, let us say, fairly obvious – what are they going to do if they have helped create a society in which people are afraid to speak out in their defence.

  • dalai guevara

    Oh how I long for the times when the tea I had been served had a negroid finishing touch and my wife had to ask for permission before making purchases of any kind, including with her own money.

    ‘Brave’ men indeed we were then.

  • JosephJohnODonnell

    Except that opponents of gay marriage are not affected personally by civil gay marriage. Unlike the first gay activists the new law will not alter their own personal position. Opponents of gay marriage do not have to worry about their families shunning them being beaten up etc etc. It’s an offensive comparison intended to try and make bigots look like victims. And yes they are bigots equal marriage will not affect them or their religion. The only reason to oppose it is to entrench legal inequality.

    • zakisbak

      No,a bigot is someone who thinks all should think like them.Gay marriage proponents fit the bill frequently.According to them,homosexuals who oppose gay marriage must also be bigots,or homophobes perhaps.

      • MikeF

        According to the dictionary a bigot is someone with an inflated regard for their own opinion. The word therefore properly denotes smugness and self-satisfaction rather than aggressive intolerance. But that is not the way that the word is used today. Instead it has been arbitrarily selected by the PC lobby to be their epithet of choice – a word leached of all worthwhile definition and instead used as a voodistic curseword intended to intimidate through its sound and appearance. It is the prime example of how the modern left has debased language from a means of communication into an instrument of coercion.

        • http://www.myspace.com/jasonwakefieldmusic JLWakefield

          It’s funny that you tried to lecture me on the definition of “bigotry” earlier when you have clearly made up your own definition.

          Here is the actual Oxford definition of “bigotry”:

          [mass noun]
          intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself

          Notice how “smugness” and “self-satisfaction” are not requisite to the definition, whereas “intolerance” definitely is.

          So, why on earth might you try and change the definition of “bigotry”, whilst pretending some imaginary Orwellian PC lobby had intentionally changed it to suit their own purposes? Was the actual definition too close for comfort?

          • MikeF

            Well I don’t know what edition you are using but mine – admittedly the Fifth Edition – defines a bigot as “One who holds irrespective of reason and attaches disproportionate weight to some creed or view.” That seems pretty well to indicate that the word properly denotes not an aggressive coercive intolerance but a self-absorbed imperviousness to argument, so I don’t think my earlier words were an inaccurate paraphrase. But as I said right at the beginning of this debate the word is no longer used in any real grammatical sense but has become a reflexive curseword intended to intimidate and not elucidate. As such it now represents a debasement of language for sectarian purposes and has no role in reasoned debate.

    • FrankS

      Gays have exactly the same marriage rights as straight people.

      • http://www.myspace.com/jasonwakefieldmusic JLWakefield

        No they don’t. Their unions are not legally recognised as “marriage” for one thing. Secondly, civil partnerships are not allowed to feature any kind of religious music, readings or symbols, lest the gays taint the whole religion. Never mind if the church in question actually wants to conduct a religious civil partnership!

        The whole notion of civil partnerships was a compromise on equality, and a pandering to homophobia: “Your lovers’ genitals are different from what we like so you cannot use the same word as us” reads the same as “Your skin colour is different from what we like so you cannot sit on the same bus seats as us”. People then tell us we do have equal treatment and that we should be grateful we’re allowed on the bus at all. Horrible.

        • FrankS

          If they get married they are.

  • ShockOfTheNew

    Charles Moore, you have literally made me want to cry. Your views are vastly misinformed, and the comparison is disgusting when so many LGBT campaigners have been bullied, imprisoned, tortured and killed over the years, and are to this day. History will not look kindly on you.

    I’ll probably get a lot of trolls replying to this, but I don’t care, it needs to be said.

  • justejudexultionis

    Perhaps Mr. Moore would feel more comfortable in a country where there are laws in line with his own views and so-called ‘homosexuals’ are hanged in public.

    • DrCoxon

      I think that you know the answer to that. Why smear him?
      But then that is the strategy outlined by Kirk and Madsen in their programme to sell homosexuality to America, Anyone who opposes homosexual demands is to be demonised.

  • thanksdellingpole

    Vote UKIP to repeal it.

    • Fred Scuttle

      No need to repeal it. If you don’t want a gay marriage then don’t have one.

      • thanksdellingpole

        That’s a good one.

        But we’re still going to repeal it. You can put your fingers in your ears if you don’t want to believe it.

        • Fred Scuttle

          Why do you want it repealed?

  • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.blott Matthew Blott

    What an utterly cretinous article. How many people have been battered to death for opposing gay marriage?

  • HookesLaw

    If you cannot find anything better to talk about Mr Moore l would just shut up

  • @PhilKean1
  • Bert3000

    This is really an offensively stupid article. It’s time for Charles Moore, whose fogeyish rantings have always been comically daft, to be pensioned off.

    • tomdaylight

      Disagree. This piece is offensively stupid, but it is always interesting to read what he has to say. And one hopes some of these comments might knock some sense into him…

  • Lorenzo

    Mr Moore, make sure not to spend your hols in a country where traditional marriage has recently been criminalised and punished by 14 years imprisonment, or the death penalty. Make sure not to promote it in Russia either, you’ll be fined.

    • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.blott Matthew Blott

      What a stupid thing to say.

  • CraigStrachan

    Hmmm. Do you think it would be advisable to bring a woman to business dinner in Saudi?

    • tomdaylight

      I misread that as “would it be advisable to bring a woman to a dinner with Saatchi?” Judging by tomorrow’s front pages, the answer would be no…

      • zakisbak

        Ah.Domestic violence in UK equals female oppression in Saudi Arabia.How silly of me to overlooked that.

        • tomdaylight

          More a “my eyesight needs testing” kinda thing…

  • Robert_Eve

    Good for Welby!

  • andagain

    To oppose gay ‘equality’ today is roughly as brave as it was to be publicly homosexual in, say, 1970

    I don’t recall much about 1970, but I do recall the man who bombed pubs frequented by people who were Black, Asian or gay in 1999.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/781755.stm

    Has that often happened to people who object to gay marriage?

    • David Lindsay

      The blacks probably were (even more so then), and the Asians almost certainly were, then as now.

      • andagain

        The blacks probably were

        “Probably were” what? I think it is a pretty safe bet that they were not bombed for objecting to gay marriage.

        • David Lindsay

          But that was not your point.

          • andagain

            You know, when I reread my post after publishing it, I became worried. I was commenting on an article comparing the dangers of being openly gay, with the dangers of opposing gay marriage.

            But, I thought, maybe someone will not realise that. They
            might think I was comparing the number of people murdered for being gay, with the number of people who might be expected to disapprove of gay marriage, who happened to have been murdered for any reason at all.

            But then I thought: No one could be that stupid.

            I seems I was wrong.

            • David Lindsay

              Really, really, really not used to being openly disagreed with, are you? That’s the homosexual lobby, all right.

              • andagain

                People disagree with me all the time. About this subject and others.

                But none of them made a mistake as stupid as the one you appear to be claiming to have made.

                • David Lindsay

                  Point proved. If it needed to be.

                • Lamia

                  Yes. You’re an idiot or a troll, or possibly both.

      • Lamia

        The blacks probably were (even more so then), and the Asians almost certainly were, then as now.

        Were what? Bombed?

    • DrCoxon

      Lille, France 12 June 2013
      A passer-by intervened to defend the Vigil Mothers. Far from calming down, the man pulled out a knife that he pointed at them and continued to insult the women ( « fascists », « we will shave you like we did after the War »).

      As she stepped back, he tried to stab the passer-by who was protecting her.

  • Radford_NG

    Whilst,for reasons I don’t understand,the latest `molly`[from the Latin] at Canterbury opposes gay marriage ,he also vigorously states(on TV):”We’ll have no truck with homophobia”.He is also infuriated that the lay members of the Church have rejected women bishops.

  • Paul Cornish

    Can we just spare a thought for all those who have disowned by their family for opposing gay marriage? All those who have been beaten and killed for opposing gay marriage? All those kids driven to despair and in some cases to take their own life by the cruel bullying they receive for opposing gay marriage?

    • Adrian Drummond

      I can see the point you are trying to make but you are not comparing exactly like with like. It’s a pity, therefore, that you do not appear (although I may be wrong) to understand the underlying case that Moore is making.

      • DrCoxon

        Kirk and Madsen, homosexual campaigners, were open in their strategy –
        ‘….by conversion we mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.”

      • Paul Cornish

        What I was trying to put across is that I don’t think Moore is comparing like for like. I don’t think you can compare the courage to object to gay marriage with the courage to risk what many gay men and women have had to endure over the years. I think it trivialises what people have been through to make that comparison.

        • Adrian Drummond

          You appear to be referring to all and sundry; fair enough. I agree. But Moore is referring to “those in public life who defy this”. There is difference.

        • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.blott Matthew Blott

          If he’s not comparing like for like then why have the stupid statement as the article’s title?

          • Adrian Drummond

            Why blame the person who had to write the headline for Moore’s article? The assumption is that you already have sufficient intelligence to understand the basics of what Moore is saying.

            • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.blott Matthew Blott

              Don’t be a prat. Moore may not have written the headline but it’s his article and I’m sure he hasn’t asked for it to be changed or taken down.

        • zakisbak

          I think opposing gay marriage,(like opposing multi cultism,mass immigration) would definitely lead to ostracization where I live.Violence would be conceivable too I think.(“Well,he deserved it,homophobe” etc etc)

      • funkinwolf

        LGBT community in UK have been bombed and killed because they were simply born with a different sexuality. But if they’re are lucky, they’re imprisoned, if not murdered in Africa, Middle East and Asia. In so called tolerated areas like Europe and America. LGBT still are fighting for rights to marry, adopt and be who they were born to be. Thousands are bullied at school, kicked out of homes, beaten on the street for holding hands and some still killed.

        So NO. When this man tries to compare reaction to anti-gay’s of today to the reaction to pro-gay in 1970. MY BLOOD BOILS WITH ANGER. This guy should be ashamed of himself. For his lack of understanding and compassion for the realities of the LGBT community around the world, past and present. This coming from a man who dares to lecture people on God and Jesus love and compassion? MY BLOOD BOILS.

    • terregles2

      Who are we talking about. All those people beaten and killed. Who are they Where is the evidence of these deaths and statistics. Why have these beatings and deaths never been reported.

    • StephanieJCW

      🙂

  • http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/ Justathought

    The Archbishop is no Quentin Crisp nor does he wear his drag as well.

  • to_tell_the_truth

    Last summer, New York City estimated that it gained two hundred and fifty-nine million dollars from same-sex marriages in the first year that they were legal in the state. “Marriage equality has made our city more open, inclusive, and free—and it has also helped to create jobs and support our economy,” Mayor Bloomberg said.

    But there are less obvious ways that a failure to recognize same-sex marriage can reduce the transparency that helps the private sector thrive. For example, the Windsor brief notes that DOMA has the effect of exempting same-sex spouses of politicians and public officials from financial-disclosure requirements. It also denies them the protection of laws that, for example, make threatening the spouse of a federal agent a crime.

  • Magnolia

    It’s also the wrong reform politically for the Conservatives who should have stuck with support for the family (in all its forms) in order to win over the BME vote.

    I happen to find the modern trend for large and obvious tattoos on women repulsive and I suspect that once they are in their fifties, such women will bitterly regret them as their skin and tattoo go papery but I’m sure that I would be considered ‘strange’ for such ‘stupid’ thoughts and quite ‘unenlightened’.

    Being able to think differently from the herd doesn’t mean that you are wrong.

    • James Strong

      Ah, tattoos.
      I wish I had invested in a chain of tattoo parlours about 20-25 years ago.
      If I had then I’d be typing these words from my Caribbean island.
      I would like to interview a large number of tattooeds, male and female, with a truth drug, and ask, ‘Do you regret it?’
      A permanent reminder of an adherence to a temporary fashion.

    • tomdaylight

      Support for the family and gay marriage are not mutually exclusive things. In fact, as James Forsyth eagerly pointed out in last week’s View From 22 podcast, gay marriage is a profoundly conservative concept, as it is an explicit rejection of the 1960s “progressive” values of sexual liberation.

      • Magnolia

        James’s wrong on this.
        Gay marriage changes the centuries old definition of marriage and cannot be described as conserving anything.
        True Conservatives would have made sure that Civil Partnerships conferred equal legal rights to marriage and would have given more power and autonomy to all families regardless of how they are made up.

        • Dan Grover

          Out of interest, would you object to the total disentanglement of “marriage” from the state and legal affairs, to be replaced with civil partnership. Which is to say, you could go to a church and have a Christian (or otherwise) ceremony, invite people to your wedding, tell everyone you’re getting married – but that on the piece of paper you sign, it says “Civil Partnership” rather than marriage?

          This is a genuine question by the way, I’m not leading to anything.

          • Magnolia

            Our constitution has evolved through Christianity and other faiths are still very much an add on, but must be fully considered.
            To separate state and religion for the purposes of ‘marriage’ would be quite a large step and not particularly conservative in itself although the idea of having purely religious marriage and a separate state civil partnership, open to all, is very appealing.

            • Dan Grover

              That’s more or less my position, too. Once the two are conferred equal legal rights, the only difference is a social one; So why not let “society” provide whatever ceremonies it wants, and everyone signs the same bit of paper? That seems to me to be a fairly decent solution, whereby there’s equality before the law, but no one’s church or heritage has others thrust upon it (because, ultimately, it’s up to each individual group or religion to choose who they want to perform a ceremony for and under which conditions to do it).

              • Magnolia

                What I hate is the left’s idea of equality which turns us all in to little sausages!
                The left’s idea of equality is uniformity.
                They want to make us all the same and to strip us of our individuality and effectively churn out people in society as if they were manufactured by a sausage machine.
                This concept of equality is very controlling because it defines a set way of existing which has defined perimeters and it will ultimately be connected to the desire to exert power and control over others.
                That is not a good thing.

                • Dan Grover

                  In terms of outcome, maybe. But surely you don’t believe that equality before the law is some lefty plot to dehumanise us?

                • Magnolia

                  I’m not falling for that one.
                  The ‘law’ is continuously being made by man (and also now woman).
                  Perhaps this might help,
                  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10124698/Nelson-French-are-thieves-murderers-oppressors-and-infidels..html?placement=mid2

                • Dan Grover

                  Falling for? I’m not trying to trick anyone, Magnolia. What do you mean that “law” is continuously made by man? Of course. But what does that have to do with what I said? Equality before law simply means that all people are treated the same with regards to the law.

                • terregles2

                  You might be more inclined to want equality if you were part of a group that did not have equality.

              • SimonToo

                What about the atheist man and woman who wish to marry? I suppose that the Church of England as the established church is obliged to marry them regardless of their faith, but if they are in Wales I am not sure that the Church of Wales, being disestablished, would be obliged to marry them.

                • Dan Grover

                  Well, I don’t see why anyone should be obliged to marry them. As far as the law is concerned, all that matters is the piece of paper. If you wish to make it more than that – ie, a wedding ceremony in a Church of English establishment, in a mosque, in a temple, in a synagogue, in a town hall, in a forest or in a little chapel up a mountain, that’s between you and those that run those establishments.

                • SimonToo

                  I think this discussion has to die out, because it is getting impossible to work out which comment which reply refers to. (for the avoidance of confusion, the comment of mine that appears next was not in reply to your comment currently directly above this one : but by the time one or two other comments slip in, I will probably have worsened the confusion)
                  Another victory for Disqus!

                • StephanieJCW

                  Well they have the same issue as the gay women who wish to marry.

                • Andy

                  The position is Law is that a Church of England vicar is his own registrar – that is what makes the church (in essence) established. And this was the reason why the Church of England is expressly barred from holding Gay Marriages even should certain parochial church councils want to dos o.

            • terregles2

              One small flaw though is that hetrosexual couples who marry in church and stay married for life can sometimes give birth to gay children. It means that their children are second class people because they can never have the marriage that their loving parents had.

          • SimonToo

            The trouble with that idea is that marriage has long been the state’s and the law’s preferred relationship within which to procreate and raise children. For example, adoptive children do not have the same inheritance rights as natural children of the marriage.
            The trouble with any disentanglement of state and religion is that the state and the law would retain an interest in the procretive side of the relationship, leaving the churches (and other religions) to deal with their speciality of Love.

            • StephanieJCW

              ” For example, adoptive children do not have the same inheritance rights as natural children of the marriage. ”

              Factually inaccurate.

              • SimonToo

                Factually correct. For example, the adoptive son of a peer cannot inherit the title.

          • StephanieJCW

            I actually think this is a good idea. It would solve the whole issue.

            However I am pretty sure people such as Moore and other social conservatives would be outraged at granting heterosexuals access to civil partnerships. But I have yet to hear a good argument against it.

        • StephanieJCW

          What is the centuries old definition of marriage seeing as the definition has changed through the centuries?

        • funkinwolf

          Go pick up a history book. Marriage has been changed through out human history. It’s a human invention and we, the people, can decide what to do with it and we have it.

      • Felix

        Rubbish, it’s a confirmation of that liberation.

    • funkinwolf

      All hail the white masters. Guardians of the enlightenment. Keepers of equality and champions of – Give me a break.

      I’m Gay and black, so you forget putting me into some ‘BME vote’ block. Us BME’s have LGBT members and supporters you know. We don’t live in caves and dance around fires. Just like other groups of the human population, we too have conservatives, moderates and radicals.

      It’s 2013, wake up.

      • Magnolia

        I think it’s disgusting to infer that my comment supports white supremacy and I reject that completely.
        You have no idea what skin colour I have.
        We are all unique individuals but for the sake of debate I was using the standard term, BME, to refer to those of african, asian, arabic, or hispanic descent or origin and ‘others’ who are more likely to adhere to socially traditional ideas.

        • Dan

          I agree Magnolia, a cheap shot, always easy to deliver if you are black and gay, as there is absolutely no way that anyone in 2013 would even remotely dare to criticise either “group”. I think someone is a little touchy on this matter

          • funkinwolf

            I’m sensitive to someone thinking they can negatively stereotype a group of people, whose ethnic origins are as diverse as Africa and Asia, as anti same-sex marriage? yes.

        • funkinwolf

          Then you have failed to understand my point and the implications of your comment. Allow me to elaborate for you.

          Opposing same-sex marriage, is on par with opposing interaxial marriage. It’s bigotry and discrimination 101. You can pretend it isn’t, like those who opposed interracial marriage said it wasn’t racism.

          Now taking this into account, you’ve suggested Cameron and the Tories should have pandered to the BME vote, on the assumption this group of people opposes same-sex marriage. This implies you believe non-white British people are more less tolerant, accepting and less progressive than white British people. In short, more prone to bigotry and discrimination.

          But ultimately, you’ve called for our elected representatives not to debate and weigh up policy on the basis of the evidence given, it’s merit and the consequences to our society. But on the basis on ones ethnicity and pander to one group. Despite the evidence demonstrating in the UK issues, even social ones like this, are not strongly correlated to ones ethnic origin or background. Because surprise surprise, BME are not homogeneous. Age, gender, socio-economic background come into play.

          The world is not, black and white.

          p.s I think your comments are disgusting

          • StephanieJCW

            Yeah most BME people I know don’t have any issue with gay marriage. Some BME people I know are gay. I don’t know why it’s assumed they all think the same way.

            • Eddie

              Seriously? You must be moving in some VERY unusual black circles there. Try asking people in Brixton or down the local African Church of Hate what they think eh?

          • Magnolia

            You’ve proved Charles Moore’s point for him.
            You have smeared me as a racist which is very offensive.
            My original comment refers to a suggestion for a more politically successful policy. That’s all!
            So very mild to induce this kind of verbal attack.
            In this country we had waves of immigration from West Indians, East African asians and Pakistan muslims.
            Those BME groups are ‘well known’ to be more socially conservative but they are more likely to vote Labour.
            My original comment suggested they would not be tempted as a group to vote Conservative by the policy of gay marriage.
            If you read my original comment carefully, you will find that I haven’t actually said anything there about whether I believe in gay marriage or not!

            • funkinwolf

              I’ve read your comments and you have quite clearly demonstrated an anti-same-sex marriage opinion.

        • terregles2

          We are all unique individuals we are indeed. It’s just that some people want to deprive other unique individuals of a ceremony that we can all enjoy.
          We will celebrate our individuality until we come across some unique people that we don’t approve of.

    • terregles2

      I am not quite sure how gay marriage undermines the family. I have two gay women living beside me who have three sons. The women have been in a loving relationship for 14 years. The father of the boys is a gay friend. The boys are loved and are thriving at school. They are a credit to the community and to their parents. The boys have two loving mothers and a loving father and have known nothing but love and stability since the day they were born.

      They live as a normal loving family and I think they demonstrate the strength of family life much more than the “normal families” like the Shannon Mathews
      of this world.

      • Lady Magdalene

        They may live as a loving family ….. but the set up really can’t be described as normal.

        • terregles2

          Two loving people raising a child and teaching it to be a decent member of society is not only normal it is desirable.
          What is not normal is for a child to be abused and neglected in some dreadful deprived area brought up by two hetrosexual members of the underclass.

          • SimonToo

            “Two loving people raising a child and teaching it to be a decent member of society”. You seem to overcome by a religious idealism. Many a cleric may wish that it were so, and may avoid the embarassing procreation bit byaligning marriage in some way with divine love, but the reality is that a great many children are being brought up in deprived areas by heterosexual members of the underclass without being neglected or abused.

            • terregles2

              Lots of children are brought up in poor surroundings by loving worthwhile people and grow into decent loving people. I would never deny that. I don’t know why you think I am overcome by religious idealism Teaching a child right from wrong has got nothing to do with religion.
              Many people who do not believe in God have a strong moral code.

              • blindsticks

                I’m a bit late with this, but

                Gays have also abused and brutalised children (And this right at the beginning of the gay adoption experiment.) Of course you might not have heard about it for the same p/c reasons as Joe Public never got to hear of the ‘Asian’ grooming problem until it got too big to cover up. Most of the gay paedophiles caught in the Islington scandal were also very unlikely to have been members of the underclass. There have also been quite a few Gay Rights activists caught in paedophile rings. And,when In their infancy (no pun int) Stonewall very much endorsed pederasty and paedophilia. So there, as you can see, paedophilia, knows no class, colour or religious boundaries.

                • terregles2

                  I am sorry now I am confused. The discussion is about gay marriage. What have equal rights to be married got to do with paedophiles?
                  Obviously there are hetrosexual and homosexual paedophiles but that has gor nothing to do with a loving non paedophilic couple wishing to be like everyone else in society and get married.

          • Andy M

            It’s important not to confuse the two issues of good parenting and traditional family. A homosexual couple may well be far more capable of good parenting than some members of the underclass, however it still doesn’t overcome the hurdle of the actual family unit being an abnormal one. It’s easy to look at a family you know of and say ‘oh but the boys have known nothing but love and stability’, but the fact is you don’t know the future effect this is going to have on them psychologically – and it isn’t normal, however ‘rosily’ you paint the picture now. In all other areas of life, we meticulously test and research things before we accept them as being safe or acceptable, yet with this we are expected to just say ‘oh ok then, it’s fine’. Not me. I don’t believe that this kind of hyper-liberal acceptance of something which is unequivocally abnormal (in scientific terms as well as social terms) to be ‘fine’.

            What I find worrying, is the rhetoric that I have seen that almost puts homosexuals on a pedalstal over heterosexuals. I think you have partly done this yourself. The way I see it, there is a big difference between ‘accepting’ homosexuality so that individuals of this group are not discriminated against, and ‘promoting’ it as something desirable or positive, or superior in some ways to heterosexuality. It is still scientifically a genetic defect, after all.

            • extravagantnonsense

              scientifically abnormal is it? hmmmm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

              so, by scientific, you actually mean ‘what i like to think of as normal’.

              unless, of course, you mean for the procreation of the species, in which case homosexual relationships are, indeed, pretty useless.

              like the relationships of heterosexual people who are unable to have children, or couples who simply choose not to have children.

              i suppose we should really castigate them as being abnormal as well and deny them the same rights that normal child breeding heterosexuals have.

              it is no more a genetic ‘defect’ than red hair or being a idiotic close minded foolish moron who believes suggesting that things are scientific makes them so.

              • Andy M

                Yes, it is scientifically abnormal. The link you provided simply lists other species other than our own that suffer from this genetic defect. In all these species, as with our own, it’s a minority that are affected by this condition and therefore it’s not the norm, or ‘normal’. The species needs to be maintained and the great majority of humans are genetically programmed to do so.

                Couples who can’t have kids are also suffering a genetic defect, either with the man, the woman, or possibly both not being able to procreate. Couples who choose not to have a child may have fiscal reasons for doing so, but could also have other genetic reasons guiding their choices. However seeing as I never said anything about castigating homosexuals or denying them rights, I’ve no idea why you brought up the idea and attempted to suggest it should be applied to these people also.

                You clearly are on an emotional tirade, as evidenced by the emotive rambling in the last paragraph. Like it or not, it IS a genetic defect and therefore it is scientifically abnormal. You can still want equal human rights for all whilst acknowledging that. If you actually bothered to read what I was saying properly you’d note I was only concerned with how society is sometimes going from ‘accepting’ to ‘promoting’ homosexuality. This isn’t ok.

      • iviv44

        Isn’t this just confusing stable family units with marriage? I think there is a big risk in all this debate in approaching it from a moral point of view. Does it make sense to value all types of long term relationship? I think so. Does this mean that we should use the same term to describe them all? Not necessarily.

        After all, most people value men and women equally. This doesn’t mean that there is still not a value in keeping words that distinguish between the two.

        • terregles2

          But if gay people want marriage why should they not have it. Now that gay people can produce children they are entitled to be brought up within a marriage.

          • iviv44

            I would argue that there is a value in having terms which differentiates between homosexual and heterosexual couples because there are differences that it is convenient to represent in law. For instance, there are sound biological reasons why heterosexual sibling relationships are proscribed. I don’t see any sound reason for not allowing homosexual sibling partnerships — some might find it distasteful but then some people find all homosexual relationships distasteful and I ignore them too.

            In essence, I ignore the moral arguments and merely look at this issue in terms of information theory, and consider homosexual and heterosexual partnerships to be sufficiently different to warrant two separate terms (and representations in law).

            At the point where children are produced through stem cell techniques and where homosexual partners can just as easily be the biological parents, I agree that it it would make sense to review definitions. However, you are wrong to say that “gay people can produce children” now — well at least not as the genetic parents of the offspring.

            To my mind, the underlying issue here is the extent to which people value heterosexual relationships, and we seem to be using language as a proxy for this subtly different debate.

            • terregles2

              Gay people can produce children. The family who live beside me are two gay girls who have three sons. One of their gay friends donated his sperm so he is the biological father and one of the gay girls is the biological mother. The father is a heart specialist and has real involvment with his sons and in every aspect of their welfare. They all are high earners and while I am not suggesting that money makes them any better parents it has enabled them to send their sons to excellent private schools and give them a really comfortable lifestyle. Much more important than the money though is that they have three well brought up kind considerate sons who have brought love and happiness into so many lives.

              • iviv44

                Of course gay people can be involved in the production of children in the same way as anyone else. However, the profile of child production within homosexual partnerships is (currently) necessarily different to that within heterosexual partnerships. If you don’t think there are particular considerations required when the biological parents and the day-to-day parents are different then so be it (but look at the issues of identity in adopted children etc — it is not always plain sailing).

                I have to say it amazes me slightly that your neighbours’ life, apparently so ideal, would apparently be damaged beyond repair because they have to be in a civil partnership rather than married.

                • terregles2

                  I am not suggesting that my neighbours have a perfect life. Their children however will not have any identity problems They know who their parents are and both parents have close incolvement in their upbringing.
                  I don’t even know if they want to marry but the point I am making is they should have as much right as anyone else to choose or reject marriage.
                  They work and pay taxes like everyone else why should society have the right to deprive them of marriage if they wish to be married.
                  If you can see little difference between marriage and a civil partnership then all the more reason to let them have marriage.

                • Mary

                  If “the profile of child production within homosexual partnerships is (currently) necessarily different to that within heterosexual partnerships,” would you argue that heterosexual couples who are unable or unwilling to produce children in one particular way–i.e. NOT through available-to-homosexuals means such as sperm or egg donation, surrogacy, adoption, etc.–should “have to be in a civil partnership rather than married”?

                • terregles2

                  Excellent point.

              • SimonToo

                “But if gay people want marriage why should they not have it. ”
                Marriage is monogamous – in a phrase, “to the exclusion of all others”. Currently the father could marry either mother, to the exclusion of the other. Are you really suggesting that the relationship of these three with their children would be better served by the two mothers being able to marry to the exclusion of the father?

                • terregles2

                  Currently the father could marry either mother. Just like any hetrosexual man can do. A hetrosexual man or woman can divorce at any time and marry another person. Some men have been known to leave a marriage for their wife’s best friend.
                  Are you suggesting that marriage means couples stay together till death do they part. I can’t say I have seen much evidence of that.
                  If the two mothers married why would it exclude the father. He will always be a loving biological father involved in the care of his sons.

                • StephanieJCW

                  In this country.

                  When speaking of marriage and the impact on how countries may view us, people forget that what we consider to be marriage is not the same elsewhere. In some countries marriage is most certainly not monogamous.

      • zakisbak

        And,obviously,the “Shannon Mathews” family was not normal.The attempt to depict all non-usual family setups as idyllic is propaganda.

        • terregles2

          I don’t think anyone is depicting gay parents as idyllic. Nothing in this life is perfect but usually gay people embarking on parenthood give it much more thought than families like the Philpots, Mathews etc
          You say Shannon Mathew’s family are not normal. No they are not normal but unfortunately walk through any town anywhere in Britain and there are dozens of tattooed “mums” screaming and swearing at their children. Having chilren by several different men is now considered normal.
          If you have trouble in accepting gay people as normal look on the bright side. Up until recently it was only hetrosexual people who could give birth to children and many of the children were gay.
          Now that gay people can give birth their children may well grow up to be hetrosexual.

          • SimonToo

            “Now that gay people can give birth “. The capacity of a person to give birth has not changed. Women can, men cannot. Sexual orientation makes no difference.

            • terregles2

              I think you are being slightly pedantic on that one. I said gay people can give birth. I did not think I had to state the obvious and say gay women.
              The fact remains gay women and gay men can both be biological parents.
              .

      • SimonToo

        Marriage is not the only context in which to bring up a family. Sometimes a family is brought up very succesfully outside marriage and sometimes a married couple makes a complete hash of bringing up a family.

        People may make other choices – there is no prohobition – and have their chance to succeed. However it seems that, on average, marriage is the most succesful framework in which to bring up a family. That is why marriage is favoured as the context in which to raise children.

        • terregles2

          If marriage is the best option for raising children then that means it is important to let gay people marry.

          • SimonToo

            My remarks were historic. If the basis of marriage is changed one cannot say that its results will continue unchanged.

            • Brian Westley

              Marriage has changed a number of times throughout history.

            • terregles2

              There can only be three results in a marriage and that could never change. First result couple marry and stay together until death.
              Second result couple marry then divorce. Third result couple are really unhappy in a marriage but stay together for the sake of the children or for financial reasons.
              Can’t really see how anyone’s sexual preferences can change that.

      • Baron

        To round up this joyful, ‘conservative’ story, teregles2, do tell us, the boys are gay, too?

        Still, this proves BA, one has to look at the big numbers, and here, research after research reconfirms the best way to bring up new generations is in traditional families, a man a woman, married, both furnishing the offspring with what both genders are good at.

        • terregles2

          Love does not have a gender. Any loving person can bring up a child to be a valuable member of society. If two people of the same gender bring up a child properly and with love then whether they are same gender is irrelevant.
          Hopefully the children will also be tolerant and not homophobic. Some children brought up by married hetrosexuals have miserable deprived lives. The UK has many hetrosexuals who have abused children. The list is endless from baby P to Shannon Mathews and the alwful Philpot family.

    • StephanieJCW

      Just women? Do they look any better on men in their 50s?

      • Magnolia

        David Beckham has ruined his looks with excessive tattoos.

    • Roland Havelock

      YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN FOLLOWING
      THIS

      (Sir
      Desmond Drew was chairman of a committee formed to construct the

      Newlandian policies in respect of Gay Lesbian and
      Bisexual people.)

      Newlandia is a fictitious enclave of
      ‘pure’ white English descendants of

      white grandparents

      (It would be as well for British politicians
      of all parties to adopt Newlandian policies on common
      grounds. Probably the majority of them
      feel uneasy about “Gay Marriages.” There is ample provision for couples of
      every sort to make legal provisions for their partnerships without the need to
      turn themselves into public spectacles. Churches and religious leaders should
      be spared the anguish of being drawn into this legal nonsense.

      Provision of public money to support “Gay”
      functions could be halted. These matters are condoned by politicians to
      safeguard gay votes rather than on the grounds of
      moral convictions. Gay activities attract a lot of youngsters who are not
      really ‘gay’, but may be drawn into the belief that they could be. With
      government backing they are helped to ‘come to terms’ with their ‘sexuality!

      The joint agreement of all political
      parties, government would enable expensive legal support of gay rights and
      government funded quangoes to be be abolished. There is ample legal aid for
      victimised persons of any sort. Probably, the majority of gays who like to lead
      private lives, would be more at ease with a cross party agreement. They would
      not be among those whose raise their voices in anger. )

      BASIS OF NEWLANDIAN
      ETHICS (POLICIES) etc….

  • tomdaylight

    Brave? Gay rights leaders were assassinated in the 1970s. There was rather a lot more at stake back then than a few delusional troublemakers would like you to believe there is today. This is one of the most stupid pieces I’ve seen on this blog. Might society shun you for your view? Yes, but that is hardly in the same league as being physically attacked for holding hands with your loved one.

    • Curnonsky

      There are still areas of London where you may be physically attacked for being publicly gay yet the reason for this is rarely discussed.

    • ChuckGG

      I find this piece so similar to arguments heard here in the USA. How the author’s viewpoint is any different than a Klu Klux Klan Grand Wizard trying to justify his position on white supremacy eludes me. Certainly, in the USA, people are entitled to express their opinions as hateful as some are. But, to complain they are being unfairly treated and their “religious freedom” is being denied, just takes the cake.

    • zakisbak

      People who reist mass immigration,Islamism can,and do get attacked.My contention is that people should be free to oppose something,or support it,without being labelled,ostracized or worse.|
      Some groups of people dislike other groups and that is that,2013,1013,or 3013,people are people.

      • Brian Westley

        I think people should be free to oppose something, or support it, and other people should be free to label or ostracized them for it.

    • Eddie

      The point is that taking a minority view against the mob IS brave in whichever context. Being opposed to gay marriage does not mean anyone is anti-gay or anti-equality either, and it is disgusting to argue that.

      • tomdaylight

        It does, actually. Literally. Against equality and against the liberty of gay people. It is ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

        • Eddie

          Idiot. You are talking out of your back bottom matey.

          So all those opposed to gay marriage in the world (ie 80%+ of it) are against equality and liberty? And half French people are too? And all Muslims? And most blacks and Asians?

          That sort of makes you a racist really don’t it?

    • DrCoxon

      Lille, France, a few days ago – a group of women holding a vigil in defence of their concept of the family were attacked by a man with a knife. There is violence on both sides. All violence is wrong, on whichever side.

      • tomdaylight

        Not in English-speaking democracies.

  • Eddie

    But the biggest irony is that a lot of gay people I know oppose gay marriage!
    It is brave too to dare to question the relativistic diversity and race-obsessed identity politics that have infected all aspects of our education system, government and media.
    I know 2 people who have been suspended for daring to challenged things like ‘positive action’ (i.e. policies of legalised sexism and racism against the people it’s OK to be racist and sexist against – white men), or for stating that immigrants should integrate, or that girls should not be allowed to wear headscarves or burkhas to school or college.
    It’s called bullying actually, the attempt to ostracise and exclude by the ugly mob.

    • Andy

      Like me. I’m Gay and I oppose Gay Marriage.

      • tomdaylight

        Why?

        • Andy

          Why what ?

          • StephanieJCW

            I think he means why do you oppose gay marriage.

          • tomdaylight

            Why are you against gay marriage, and as a gay man what kind of life do you wish to lead?

            • Eddie

              Plenty of gay people are opposed to gay marriage – as they are not your inferior or less ‘properly gay’ than you are, matey!
              Gee the sanctimony on display here is almost religious… Such is the way of intolerant zealots.

              • tomdaylight

                What makes you assume that I’m gay? And since when is it wrong for a right-wing Conservative to get sanctimonious…

              • Harry

                Actually all the polls which have been done amongst LGBT people show a massive level of support for marriage equality.

                • tomdaylight

                  Yeah, but he isn’t wrong that there’s a sizeable minority who are more than content to continue existing in their hedonistic, sexually liberated lifestyles and the last thing they want is the prospect of marital bondage to spoil their fun, and indeed limit their pool of potential sexual partners.

                • Harry

                  It’s not a minority that in my experience is any different from the equivalent heterosexuals. I’ve just come back from a dinner at that well known den of iniquity, Claridges, to launch gay pride week with corporate sponsors. I have to tell you you couldn’t tell the corporate gays from the corporate straights apart!

            • Andy

              It was Swift who said ‘It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into’. Were you ‘reasoned’ into your views on Gay Marriage, and perhaps Gays in general ?

      • terregles2

        Lots of hetrosexuals also oppose hetrosexual marriage and would never get married. Nobody is making marriage compulsory but gay people should have the same right to choose or reject marriage as everyone else.

        • StephanieJCW

          Well quite.

        • Eddie

          Should they? Many would say marriage is between a man and a woman only. Many liberal-minded people would say a civil partnership and blessing is more appropriate for gay people.
          The propaganda that says ‘either you support gay marriage or you are a bigoted hatemongering gayhater’ is dishonest, wrong and dangerous – and untrue. Ironically, those noisily promoting gay marriage are the hatemongers – the intolerant fanatical zealots and bigots – here.

          • Andy

            Many do say that marriage is indeed between a Man and a Woman. If marriage can be between whom so ever you wish then I suppose you will want to marry your budgie. Marriage is a sacrament of the church (and to Jews, Moslems etc) so are they too to be forced to accept a new definition of marriage ?

        • Andy

          So if they should ‘have the same right to choose. . . marriage as everyone else’ one assumes you mean they should have the same rights as hetrosexual couples to get married in church ? That is what you are saying. So there goes freedom of religion and the doctrine of the church is as nought because you demand ‘the same rights’ as everyone else.

        • DrCoxon

          They currently have that right. They wish to redefine marriage. Moreover the redefined marriage will not be equal. Questions about consummation and adultery are germane to heterosexual marriage. These are being side-stepped in the proposed legislation. A homosexual man ‘married’ to a homosexual man will not be guilty of adultery if he has an affair with another man, apparently.
          The ECHR insists on total equality. It is probable that the terms of marriage between a man and a woman will have to be changed in the future. Thus the whole nature of marriage is being altered. Thus says a lawyer involved in marriage cases.

    • funkinwolf

      So what? Some women opposed being given the right to vote. Some black people opposed being given the right to marry white people. But you wouldn’t for one moment suggest women and black people should not be afford the same rights and institutions.

      • Eddie

        Silly pointless analogy. Gay people already have the vote, silly…
        Race is not the same as sexuality (and by the way, most blacks and Asians oppose gay marriage, because of bigoted cultural and religious backgrounds, which is why California voted against it).

        • StephanieJCW

          ” most blacks and Asians oppose gay marriage,”

          Most? Evidence?

          • Eddie

            Do some research. I am stating 1) my experienced of teaching a great many black and Asian teenagers, and 2) the well-known hatred of black Africans, Jamaicans and Asian Muslims towards gay people.
            Are you seriously going to argue I am wrong in this?
            And no, you straw man word-twisting argument is devious and wrong: opposing gay marriage is not bigoted. Wanting to kill gays, make homosexuality illegal and bully them – as is promoted in black churches and Asian mosques – is bigotry personified.
            The lower working class whites and chavs have a lot in common with most blacks and Asians in their gay-fear and gay-hatred. Middle class whites are way more liberal minded than the vast majority of all blacks and Asians though.
            Don’t be so chippy Stephanie. What I am saying is not racist at all, just a consideration of the facts. In California, the vote went against gay marriage just because of the black vote – 80% of blacks voted against, but a majority of whites voted for.
            If blacks and Asians were liberal and openminded I would say so – but that is not my experience and not what the polls say either. Read them eh? Do some research – use Mister Google if you want.

    • http://www.myspace.com/jasonwakefieldmusic JLWakefield

      On the contrary, I’m gay and I do not oppose gay marriage, and I (fortunately) do not know a single person in my life, gay or straight, who is opposed to gay marriage.

      I am in a long-term relationship, and I very much hope to get married when it finally becomes legal.

      There is nothing “brave” about opposing equality. The moment that oppression of a minority is referred to as “brave” is the moment the commenter has joined ranks with the oppressors. It isn’t “bullying” to oppose bullying.

      • zakisbak

        I (fortunately) do not know a single person in my life, gay or straight, who is opposed to gay marriage. –
        Maybe they don’t feel free to express their opinion.
        Before decriminalization,many people would say that,(fortunately),they did not know any homosexuals.

        • http://www.myspace.com/jasonwakefieldmusic JLWakefield

          The difference between the two standpoints being: “Fortunately I don’t know any homosexuals” is very bigoted.
          “Fortunately I don’t know any bigots” is anti-bigotry.

      • Eddie

        I suggest you widen the people you speak to – you seem to be living in a ghetto surrounded by people who agree with you. I know people who support gay marriage and campaigned for it; I know many – as many gay as straight – who oppose it.
        Opposing gay marriage is NOT opposing equality: those weasel words are cowardly though, using the same dubious techniques used by all extremists (either you support us or you’re a traitor to all that is right and good!).
        I was supporting gay rights and equality when most people who are now demanding gay marriage were flinging abuse at gays and calling them vile and abnormal, so I won’t be lectured by straight people posing as liberal.
        Marriage is between a man and a woman; gay people have civil partnerships. What is the problem? I have no particular strong feelings – I just do not see the point is piisssing off a huge section of the world and this country’s population just so gay people can ape straights and dress up for the day (oh but won’t the divorces by fun!)
        Your desire for gay marriage is utterly selfish, of course.

        • http://www.myspace.com/jasonwakefieldmusic JLWakefield

          You can’t protect yourself from being lectured by people who disagree with you, especially when your views are so despicable. I’m afraid that’s part of free speech.

          Opposing gay marriage is exactly the same as opposing equal treatment from the law to loving gay relationships. Your position is definitely an opposition to equality.

          The existence of civil partnerships is a testament to how the labour party pandered to homophobia – “You can have equal rights, but you cannot have the word ‘marriage’ lest you taint it for the people who don’t like gays”.

          Note that gay marriage exists in 15 countries. In these countries, marriage can be between two people of the same gender. Also note that marriage in 48 countries can be polygamous. Also note that marriage has changed throughout history, from being arranged by families to share wealth, to interracial marriage, etc. Marriage is exactly what the culture of the time makes it.

          “I just do not see the point is piisssing off a huge section of the world and this country’s population just so gay people can ape straights and dress up for the day (oh but won’t the divorces by fun!) Your desire for gay marriage is utterly selfish, of course.”

          So it is selfish to want equal treatment from the law? And gay people only want marriage in order to piss off straight people? And society should pander to people who get pissed off when gays are afforded equality?

          I think when deciding who should and shouldn’t get married, you should focus less on our genitals and more on our humanity.

          • Eddie

            You really are mental.

            So my views are despicable are they? Take you nose out of your rear end for one moment sweetie and look at the world around you. Many things are despicable – bullying minority groups is one (and the includes people with what have become minority views, such as being opposed to gay marriage).

            ‘Opposing gay marriage is exactly the same as opposing equal treatment from the law to loving gay relationships.’
            NO IT IS NOT! If you can’t see that, you really are thick.

            My view is that marriage is a religious thing. We have civil partnerships for gay people who want that. But no, for a man to call his partner a husband is just plain odd – though I am by no means a bigot against that; I just find it funny in a Monty Python way.
            Most gay people I know really do not care about gay marriage; a few hate the idea (it’s apeing gays, or just silly, or against religions) and a few love it (oh the glamour and the frocks!).
            Me, I think there are more important issues to deal with: prats like you have made this very small molehill into a massive mountain, quite wrongly and pointlessly. Important things include: the economy, homeless for people, joblessness for people, rising Islamofascism and ethnic attacks on gays and other minorities, the suffocation of freedom of speech in the UK, the pandering to those who hate gay people and others in the name of religion. These are important things. Your lesbian wedding fantasy isn’t, sweet pea.

            You are clearly some loudmouthed raving activist smug sanctimonious twerp – I hope you find another one: then you can settle down and have lovely two-headed baby arguments together…

            • http://www.myspace.com/jasonwakefieldmusic JLWakefield

              Insulting my intelligence doesn’t make you any more correct. Also, asserting something in caps lock doesn’t make it any more correct.

              The Office for National Statistics shows us the fact that 68% of marriages in the UK are non-religious civil marriages. Marriage is, evidently, not just religious. Your view that marriage is only ever religious is just completely wrong.

              There is a reason that those against gay marriage are in the minority, and that is because most of us can see them for the bullies they are, and we quite reasonably call them out on it. If we all thought it as “bullying” to challenge a bully for his words and actions, the world would be a very ugly place indeed.

              “But no, for a man to call his partner a husband is just plain odd – though I am by no means a bigot against that; I just find it funny in a Monty Python way.”

              This is called “The Argument From Personal Incredulity”, which basically reads as “I find it weird, so everyone else must find it weird and so it should be banned.” Most people can quite easily get their heads around the fact two men in a marriage will be called “husbands” and two women will be called “wives”. The words “husband” and “wife” are gender specific, whereas the word “marriage” is not.

              • Eddie

                ‘Insulting my intelligence doesn’t make you any more correct. ‘
                What intelligence? All I see in your posts is loudmouthed sanctimonious bigotry, zealotry and arrogance.
                I did not claim that all marriage is religious, dumbo – that is more lies from your lie-dripping big mouth. Marriage, originally religious, was formalised in the 18th century for reasons of property – that is the 1753 act people sign. That does not mean that it is not a religious ceremony – most, even those in registry offices, would say it is, or at least has that aspect.
                You claim that all those who oppose gay marriage are bullies. Ergo you prove yourself both an idiot and a bigot.
                Most people think a man having a husband is weird, and it is linguistically odd, and always will be. It’s called linguistic fact, love.

            • StephanieJCW

              “My view is that marriage is a religious thing.”

              Well except when it isn’t. This is about civil marriage. Many many straight people get married everyday with no involvement from religious bodies. Yet they are free to call their government unions – ‘marriage’.

              • Eddie

                ‘Relativism is a dangerous thing

                In the past people were allowed to marry animals and pigs, goats etc were also put on trial. Shall we allow animals to be jury members on the basis that non-human life-forms once participated on an equal footing as humans in courts of law then?
                I am not aware of any modern Western culture defining marriage as the union of two gay people though. Polygamy, yes – logical in cultures with high male and infant morality rates. Makes sense.

                But gays marrying? Nowhere and never. Though male partners were given blessings in church in the middle ages – that’s enough for now too. It’s called Civil Partnership.
                Noisy hissy queens may have a fixation on this issue for their own romantic Liberace-style drama queen selfish reasons. Most gay people just want equality in law and in the workplace, and not to be attacked (though sadly mass immigration has allowed a lot of gayhaters into the UK from Africa, Jamaica and Asia – causing more problems for gays than anything else in recent years). Most gay people – and straights – who agree with gay marriage are just ‘going with the flow’ – following the crowd in a typical ovine way – scared that if they do disagree they’ll be thought homophobic.
                Some of us have the guts to challenge the bullies, however, and point out that the emperor really does have no clothes on.

              • Eddie

                Yes it is, in my opinion – or, in other words, I can’t see any point in anyone getting marries unless they have a religious faith. You must learn to distinguish between opinion and fact.

                • Harry

                  “Yes it is, in my opinion – or, in other words, I can’t see any point in anyone getting marries unless they have a religious faith. You must learn to distinguish between opinion and fact.”

                  Well, your opinion clearly does not agree with that of the 70% who marry without religion. Are we going to wipe out secular marriage for the majority to adhere to your opinion as to what marriage OUGHT TO be , rather than ACTUALLY IS?

            • Harry

              If you think marriage is “a religious thing” you are simply wrong. 70% of marriages, in the last year for which figures were available, were in registry offices or country houses etc., i.e. secular. Source: ONS.

              Marriage is far too important to be left to anything other than our (secular) state.

              The marriage Bill has taken a minimal amount of parliamentary time, by the way: here is plenty of time to deal with all the other issues which need dealing with.

          • SimonToo

            The point is that marriage is not inherently a relationship of love. It is a relationship with the intention to reproduce. Love is desirable, of course, but it is not actual essential and it certainly is not the starting point for defining the relationship. I hat the religious do try to emphasise the role of love in marriage, but it is not the foundation of civil marriage.

            • http://www.myspace.com/jasonwakefieldmusic JLWakefield

              “It is a relationship with the intention to reproduce.”

              This is another lame argument concocted in order to exclude gay people from marriage, and here are five reasons why:

              1) Marriage already includes same-sex couples on 15 different countries. In these countries, marriage is about love.

              2) Marriage doesn’t have a permanently fixed definition. It changes all the time to suit the culture it currently exists in. Marriage used to be arranged by families not just for reproduction, but in order to share familial wealth. Interracial marriage used to be illegal. Sometimes people have been made to marry their cattle. And gay marriage, believe it or not, existed in ancient Greece, Rome and China too.

              3) Why are infertile heterosexual couples allowed to marry if it is solely about reproduction?

              4) Gay people can and do have children through donors and surrogates.

              5) How many people do you know that have got married not because they love their partner, but solely in order to reproduce?

              • SimonToo

                1) Abroad is abroad.
                2) The definition of marriage does not change all the time.
                3) How is one to know that a heterosexual couple is infertile when they marry? In any event, the point is the intention to reproduce, and the marriage is void if they fail to make a realistic attempt to reproduce.
                4) Single people have adopted in the past. Marriage is not the exclusive context for raising children.
                5) Most people that I know who have married have married principally either to try to reproduce or to regularise the position after they had reproduced. If they love each other but have no interest in reproducing, or concern that they might inadvertently reproduce, they seem to have been happy enough to live together.

                • Brian Westley

                  So SimonToo, you’d prohibit post-menopausal women from marrying?

                • SimonToo

                  How would one know, without unacceptably intrusive enquiry?

                • Brian Westley

                  You’re the one adding the requirement to reproduce, and you even state yourself that “the marriage is void if they fail to make a realistic attempt to reproduce” without bothering to apply your own question of how THAT is to be determined “without unacceptably intrusive enquiry”.

                  In other words, your objection is not genuine, because you failed to apply the same standard to your own objection to infertile couples. In short, you’re an intellectual fraud.

                  Even so, no woman has ever gotten pregnant naturally after age 60, and since age is already a minimum requirement, all that’s needed is to make 60 a maximum age for women to marry.

                  But none of this matters, because you aren’t really interested in an honest argument.

                • SimonToo

                  Breaking a marriage has long been much more intrusive than making it, whether you are Catherine or Aragon, Margaret Argyll, or Jerry Hall. In fact it is usually far more intrusive for the woman.
                  It could be that civil partnership rather than marriage may be the proper answer for women of a certain age. I just forsee it causing some heated discussions, particularly as age would not seem to be a limiting factor for a man.
                  I am certainly not “adding” reproduction to marriage. It has been there for a very long time.
                  Why do you say that I am not really interested in an honest argument ? What you say is neither courteous nor correct.

                • Brian Westley

                  “Why do you say that I am not really interested in an honest argument ?”

                  I explained that already.

                • SimonToo

                  No, you asserted it but you did not explain it.

                • Brian Westley

                  No, it was a real explanation. You don’t apply the criticism you inflict on others; your criticism isn’t sincere.

                • StephanieJCW

                  “and the marriage is void if they fail to make a realistic attempt to reproduce.”

                  No it’s not. We don’t declare the marriages of those who do not try for children void. We don’t declare marriages where the woman is post-menopausal, void. Not in Britain we don’t. And the definition of marriage does change through time and from country to country as well as the reasons for it.

                  And the last point is pure fallacy. Many people try for kids when married. But precious few people would actually state they married just to reproduce.

                • SimonToo

                  You are flaky on your facts ! Non-consumation is one of the grounds for annulling a marriage.
                  You have changed the argument. I talked of marrying principally to reproduce : you talk of marrying just to reproduce. Your point is probably correct, but it is a different point to mine.
                  You seem to have a window into your friends souls. Are you really sure that they are not rationalising the situation in which they find themselves?

                • Brian Westley

                  “Non-consumation is one of the grounds for annulling a marriage.”

                  A religion’s view of marriage is irrelevant to civil marriage.

            • StephanieJCW

              ‘”It is a relationship with the intention to reproduce.”

              Except when it’s not.

              Many many heterosexual couples marry with absolutely no intention of producing children. Old people marry when their child bearing years are long past them. Yet people have no issue with this. The fact is, in modern day Britain marriage is about love. Rightly or wrongly maybe, but that’s the way it is.

              Also gay people do raise families. So is the argument that it is important for children to be raised by married parents….unless their parents are gay at which point it is fine for them just to cohabit?

              • Eddie

                But it originally was – which is why men had several wives, and which is why in the Middle Ages a marriage could be annulled and forgotten after a year if the bride had not got preggers.

          • StephanieJCW

            “Marriage is exactly what the culture of the time makes it.”

            Exactly!

        • StephanieJCW

          “Marriage is between a man and a woman; gay people have civil partnerships.”

          Currently yes – but that is being changed. To echo your question: what is the problem? If a civil partnership is basically marriage, the only difference being that civil partnership is “marriage” for gay people, then why not use the same term for both unions?

          Incidentally marriage is whatever we say it is surely.

          • Eddie

            It is being changed, but it shouldn’t be changed.
            Many people – gay and straight – remember a time when gay people were treated abysmally, beaten up, sacked etc. That has changed and there are now civil partnerships. Most gay people I know think that’s enough – and some are angry that loud bullying gay rights bullies are wanting gay life to ape straight life.
            Marriage is for a man and a woman. The very idea that one could be called a bigot etc for stating that fact is absurd.
            And why pisss off religions and people in other countries who abhor homosexuality anyway? For them it is yet more evidence to plant terrorist bombs in our cities. Great…
            No, marriage is not what we say it is; it is what tradition and history say it is perhaps.

      • MikeF

        Your final paragraph is classic authoritarian narcissist double-speak. You either believe in freedom of speech or you don’t.

        • http://www.myspace.com/jasonwakefieldmusic JLWakefield

          Where did I question anyone’s right to be openly bigoted? By all means, spew illogical bile. But don’t expect me to not challenge it.

          • MikeF

            What is your definition of the word ‘bigot’? I don’t think you have one. Instead you use the word as a cudgel, a formulaic imprecation intended to shut off any possibility of dissent, debate, discussion. It is an illiterate use of language. As for gay marriage do you or do you not believe that it is possible for someone to oppose its introduction for decent, principled reasons or is any disagreement with what you believe ‘illogical bile’?

            • http://www.myspace.com/jasonwakefieldmusic JLWakefield

              What decent, principled reasons are there for the oppression of a minority based on the genitals of their lovers? Enlighten me. You haven’t presented any decent, principled arguments because your intention isn’t so much to do that as it is to belittle my intelligence and portray me as shrill. This is a common diversionary tactic from people who don’t really have a decent, principled argument to make.

              I call the oppression of a minority “bigotry” because that’s precisely what the oppression of a minority is. To deny a minority equal treatment from the law is to be intolerant of ideas other than your own.

              Now, tell me what decent, principled arguments there are for not allowing gay people to marry who they love.

              • MikeF

                I see that you cannot provide me with a definition of ‘bigotry’. Instead as far as you are concerned it is, as you admit, simply whatever you decide you want to say it is. Your use of the word is no more than an aggressively intimidatory imprecation intended to disguise a blithe, self-referential worldview.
                As for gay marriage not the least of the counter-arguments is that a separate status of civil partnership accords homosexual couples all the rights of conventional heterosxual marriage while recognising their distinctive validity. ‘Gay marriage’ effectively makes the validity of gay relationships dependent on the extent to which they become imitation heterosexual relationships.
                Would I also say that the use of the word ‘racist’ is an illiterate use of language intended to shut down dissent – well, all too often, yes. As for portraying you as shrill – believe me you really don’t need any help from me on that score.

                • http://www.myspace.com/jasonwakefieldmusic JLWakefield

                  I did provide you with a very clear definition of bigotry, actually: “to be intolerant of ideas other than your own”. I stated it very clearly and you were reluctant to see it, because in your head I am too stupid to understand the simple definition of a word. This presumption is then convenient for your world view that anyone who accords you with the word “bigot” must be an idiot, even though “bigot” is an entirely appropriate word to use, in exactly the same way the word “racist” is appropriate to use for a racist.

                  It’s ironic that you would accuse me of using authoritarian double-speak when you have just manipulated language to make segregation of gay people seem like a positive thing to do:

                  “a separate status of civil partnership accords homosexual couples all the rights of conventional heterosxual marriage while recognising their distinctive validity”.

                  The key words you used here are “separate” and “distinctive”. What you mean to say is, gay people are different, lesser, and do not deserve to use the same words as heterosexuals to describe their relationships. This is bigotry. What would it even matter if we did call our relationships “marriage”? How on earth would it affect you or anyone else in the slightest? Do you think we would somehow diminish the institution? Again, this would also be bigotry.

                • MikeF

                  You don’t seem very tolerant of “ideas other than your own”. So if you are “intolerant of intolerance”, as you put it, are you a ‘bigot against bigotry’.

                • http://www.myspace.com/jasonwakefieldmusic JLWakefield

                  You do realise that was intended as irony, don’t you? Or do you think I don’t know what “irony” means, either?

                  If we didn’t challenge bullies for fear of being called bullies ourselves, the world would be very ugly indeed. I think it’s quite reasonable to call out the bigots and bullies for precisely what they are. Obviously they may deny it, but they can’t change the dictionary. Not unless they’re Mr. Oxford.

                • MikeF

                  I will always challenge bullies and I will always defend the right of people to express their opinions irrespective of whether their opinions are the same as mine.

                • http://www.myspace.com/jasonwakefieldmusic JLWakefield

                  Ditto, but that doesn’t mean we must respect the opinions expressed. You wouldn’t say “you are allowed to be a racist, therefore I respect your position”. You would say “you are allowed to be a racist, but your opinions are horrible and people should tell you that.”

                  That’s all I’m doing, pointing out the homophobia. Some of it is insidious, but on closer inspection one would realise any argument to deny equal treatment by the law to a minority is oppression and bigotry. My calling this out isn’t an authoritarian attempt to silence or shut down debate. It’s simply telling the truth.

                • StephanieJCW

                  “As for gay marriage not the least of the counter-arguments is that a separate status of civil partnership accords homosexual couples all the rights of conventional heterosxual marriage while recognising their distinctive validity.”

                  Would you allow us heterosexuals access to marriage if it as good as marriage? If not why not?

              • SimonToo

                You have a Mills and Boon view of marriage – that it is for love.
                That would be a truly radical redefinition of marriage. If love is to become the foundation of marriage then what is to become of the marriage when love evaporates? As it stands, falling out of love is no part of the grounds for divorce or annulment.

                • http://www.myspace.com/jasonwakefieldmusic JLWakefield

                  Okay, what is marriage about then? Enlighten us!

                • SimonToo

                  Principally, marriage is about trying to reproduce. Love may be desirable, but it is not necessary.

                • StephanieJCW

                  “Principally, marriage is about trying to reproduce. ”

                  Tell that to most people who marry then. Precious few would agree with you. It’s about love and commitment.

                • DrCoxon

                  I love and am committed to several people. I see no need to campaign for polygamy.

                • DrCoxon

                  Agreed. Please excuse my intrusion into the debate. Marriage is about the building blocks of society. It is about the next generation. Kirk and Madsen in their campaign for selling homosexuality to America insisted that the terms of the debate should be controlled by the gay community. The debate should not depart from the rights of the gay community. Discussion about the rights of children were to be eliminated. The question of whether it is good for a girl to be brought up by two men was to be avoided. Beautiful pictures of happy homosexuals were to be set against unhappy heterosexuals. Love was to be made the criterion for marriage. Kirk and Madsen concluded by urging that their fellow citizens should be subjected to ‘…. a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.’ ‘Psychological attack….propaganda…’ their very own words.

                • StephanieJCW

                  “That would be a truly radical redefinition of marriage.”

                  That “truly radical redefinition happened over a century ago – when arranged marriages became the exception not the rule.

                  In the modern era that is exactly why people do marry. For love. As for your question about what happens when the love goes – well look at our divorce rates and the argue people do not marry for love.

                  Ha! Of course the may have to state “irreconcilable differences” or some such thing. But it is due to falling out of love.

                • SimonToo

                  Irreconcilable difference is neither a ground for divorce in England and Wales, nor is it a material fact.

          • Eddie

            You JLWakefield are a bigot, a zealot and a fanatic.
            You also promote the lie that anyone who is opposed to your heart’s desire (your gay marriage) is a the same; in fact, most of the people opposed to gay marriage – and I know many gay people who are – are not in the least bigoted or homophobic.
            That you use the fact that some are to brand all opponents as evil is a good old technique, used by torturers and despots over the centuries, from the Inquisition to the Nazis. Well done. You must be so proud to be as bigoted, zealous and fanatical as the worst gay bashers ever were.
            Have you ever thought of becoming a Muslim?

            • http://www.myspace.com/jasonwakefieldmusic JLWakefield

              Sorry, I just had to vote this up. You’ve done my work for me.

      • StephanieJCW

        I have no impression in joining an institution that bars gay people. Yet people such as Moore et al would declare that, if I wish to show commitment to my partner, then I MUST marry because I am homosexual. If civil partnerships are apparently good enough for gay people they should be good enough for heterosexuals too.

        • Eddie

          Yes, no doubt you are a member of many women’s organisations that bar men (WI, women’s this, women’s that, guides, BBC woman’s Hour, swimming pool women only days etc etc etc etc etc).

          Hey ho…

          Ain’t hypocrisy a wunnerful thing?

          • Brian Westley

            No doubt you make up straw opponents and beat the stuffing out of them.

            Clap.

            Clap.

            Clap.

            • DrCoxon

              Clap -STD- to be avoided.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here