Why doesn’t Alyn Smith present these bigots with the recent statement from the APA supporting same sex marriage and calling for marriage equality.
And why do you extremists continue to verbally assault people? Is it because you cannot persuade anybody? Or do you like this SNP politician are childish and have public tantrums to turn people off?
You extremists hurt gays more than “bigots.”
“But all opinions are just NOT worthy of equal respect.” – Adrian T
Gays Against Homosexual Extremism
YOu are the one labelling people as extremists etc, andyou aren’t bothered about equality
Extremism serves the gay community no purpose, in fact it is counter productive, chester.
But I guess you are the kind that shouts “bigot” at people’s faces thinking you have won the argument.
That is completely childish.
Perhaps because some people are angered at attacks from idiots
You are an extremist evidenced by unprecedented actions of PN in suspending an entire thread due to your bigoted and offensive comments
And you talk about hurting gays – sheesh – you have no idea
Here’s the APA’s Government Information release calling for same sex marriage equality.
Pepa, there is nothing extreme in showing anti-gay bigots that legitimate scientific research does not support their anti equality stance.
The opposition may claim allegedly Biblical reasons for opposing same sex civil marriage but any extra-Biblical reasons are simply not supported by legitimate research, as the APA points out.
“Pepa, there is nothing extreme in showing anti-gay bigots that legitimate scientific research does not support their anti equality stance.”
Oh so calling people bigots in their face is not extreme, and if so why do you bitch and whine when I call some of bigots?
Their motion is as irrelevant as one calling for no one to be forced to attend church who doesn’t want to go.
I agree that no-one should be forced into being involved with gay marriage if they dont want to be, we need to live in a world where people feel free to live in accordance with their beliefs. Thats really important. But if you actually work in that particular sector or related to it, like the church, registrar office etc, then thats different. You have to accept the world is always changing. If you work in the business of marriage, but you dont want to be involved in gay marriage, then you’ll have to find a new way of making a living. Thats not unreasonable or an outrageous thing to say in my opinion. Seems logical
“I agree that no-one should be forced into being involved with gay marriage if they dont want to be,”
Honestly I have trouble believing that from some people since disagreeing on gay marriage you are immediately labeled a “bigot.”
I sometimes question the sanity of these extremists, who may one day demand that everyone be gay and have a gay marriage. This may sound off the pale for a lot of you, but for the average extremist (which I been exposed to) actually wants everybody to gay, so logically the progression would be from approving gay marriage to being in one for the sake of not being labeled a hater.
People deserve to be treated equally
Equally does not mean the same
Equally means with the same level of respect, opportunity and value
Holding alternative views should always be acceptable – preventing others from holding such views by either refusing to engage in equality through bigotry or offensive or violent actions (your normal MO Pepa) is not acceptable and should be prevented
sorry but i just had to reply the world is full of colour its not all greys and blacks or white,and anyone with an ounce of logic knows that it is impossible for EVERYONE to be either gay or straight,so i find it hard to believe that so called (extremists)wants everyone to be gay.
it is the way these people disagree on gay marriage and how they say it that deseves them the label of bigots, yes we apparrently live in a world of free speech but how many of us feel that we can say or do as we wish in for example the local straight pub.
im not one for labels or stereotyping but we should be allowed to love who we want and if that couple want to get married they should be able to, and i dont see the problem of some churches allowing gay marriage and some not as in straight marriages of different faiths they have to shop around ie: catholic and CofE,
anyone that has been on the recieving end of a bashing because they were gay i can understand that they get angry at the negativity
It’s good that Alyn Smith is speaking out about this, but when will he speak out about the SNP taking Souter’s money? Or about the catholic adoption agency in Glasgow that the SNP helped get around the equality laws? Or about the SNP giving ministerial jobs to homophobes like Roseanna Cunningham and Fergus Ewing? I’d have more respect for him if he condemned every single instance of homophobia in the SNP and not just the one making headlines.
What does “SNP” mean? At least somewhere in the article, the acronym should be spelled out.
Scottish National Party
Patrick Harvie’s pro-marriage-equality amendment to John Mason’s motion now has 25 signatories (16 SNP, 6 Labour, 2 LibDem, 1 Green). John Mason’s original motion still has 3 (all SNP).
Hurray for Patrick Harvie, Pete Wiswhart, and esp. Alyn Smith !
Phooey on John Mason.
Now the cards are on the table…at last.
Except when are Pete Wishart and Alyn Smith going to speak out about ALL homophobia within the SNP and not just because this particular story is making headlines! They’re obviously quite happy with Souter’s funding, for example.
I contacted John Mason about this, both because I support marriage equality, and because he is also my constituency MSP. It was clear from his reply that, although he says his priority is to allow churches not to take part in such marriages (which is fair enough), he also stated that he thinks civil registrars (employees of the state) should be allowed to opt-out, and compared this to doctors who opt-out of carrying out abortions.
I am ashamed that I voted for him at the election.
The comparison is of course nonsense. For a doctor who subscribes to official Catholic doctrine on abortion to be forced to carry one out, is forcing the doctor to, by their own beliefs, commit murder. Doctors are allowed to opt out, for the same reason that conscientious objectors are allowed opt out of killing people in a war.
There’s all the difference in the world between forcing someone to commit murder, and requiring them to sign a paper confirming that the formalities of a civil marriage have been complied with.
That’s exactly what I said in my reply – there’s a huge difference between carrying out an abortion and presiding over the signing of a contract (which is essentially what civil marriage is). I think it would be ridiculous if individuals employed by the state to officiate at civil marriages refused to take part on religious grounds – maybe they’re in the wrong job?
“there’s a huge difference between carrying out an abortion and presiding over the signing of a contract (which is essentially what civil marriage is).”
Not really. As both are subjectively frowned upon by certain people.
Although the one difference is that one leads destroys life while the other celebrates it.
“both because I support marriage equality, ”
So would you also support incest marriage? Child marriage? Marriage with animals? Because I don’t.
I only support straight and gay marriage. That’s it.
Let the name calling begin…
Strangely being gay is legally legitimate, incest and bestiality is not … so strange you wish top prevent equal treatment of people whose relationship is legitimate by comparing it to reasonably illegal relationships
Or do you think being gay should be illegal?
Pete Wishart is not an MSP. He is an MP and leads the SNP at Westminster.
When did Pete Wishart take over as SNP leader at Westminster? I still thought it was Angus Robertson.
It’s still Angus Robertson as far as I know. I do wish the folks at Pink News would learn the difference between MSPs and MPs though, I think every story on this issue has had a mistake in it…
It’s Scotland ffs, the only place in Europe more bigoted than the north of Ireland, so we shouldn’t expect too much in the way of equalities or even recognition of the twenty first Century. We are talking pretty basic civilisation to say the most and a pathelogical adherence to the Abrahamic cults. Europes answer to Uganda i’d say.
Nothing adds to an argument about bigotry like bigotry eh?
Paddyswurds, Scotland was one of the main furnaces of the enlightenment during the Age of Reason (have you heard of David Hume?) I can tell you from personal experience that the vast majority of Scots are tolerant and supportive of equality, as much as our Calvinist churches might like to think otherwise.
…thats certainly not the news I get from the streets of Glasgow wher homophobic attacks are so prevelant that people have given up reporting them to the police as there was simply nothing being done to combats the attacks. Indeed some of the police displayed attitudes not in keeping with the expected moraes of a British Police Force.
.. Calling the truth bigotry doesn’t make it so but displays your lack of sentient input to the debate.
Paddyswurds, that’s complete nonsense. I’ve lived in Glasgow my whole life, and it’s no worse than any other city in the UK. And it’s certainly not ‘Europe’s answer to Uganda’ as you put it – do you seriously think Glasgow has more homophobia than cities in Eastern Europe or conservative places like Italy and Greece?
There’s certainly violence on the streets of Glasgow, but it’s much more likely to be motivated by sectarianism – which is an overflow from Northern Ireland, not worse than it.
@Paddyswurds I often walk hand-in-hand down the street with my boyfriend and we’ve had no homophobic attacks on us. I can only recall two instances of having “Faggot” shouted as us (one of which was in Edinburgh by Australian tourists) and one instance of someone shouting that the gay clubs were in the other direction as I went home one evening.
That is not the prevalent set of attacks you make out.
Also, on the rare occasion I’ve needed them, I’ve never had issues with dealing with the police in Glasgow either. They’ve always been friendly and helpful.
Gee, I though Tower Hamlets was the most bigoted place in Europe.
Last I heard some Imam said that gays’ heads should be chopped off in the middle London…
But of course he’s a Muslim… so … yeah… its OK.
Would you know where Tower Hamlets or Croydon or Bury are?
Would you understand the difference between an MP, MSP, MLA, MEP, Councillor etc
Could you explain how the EHRC works
If not, why comment from Arizona? What is your purpose?
I wish I lived in Scotland…they do know how to get the marriage equality debate going with a bang and out in the open…..they might sort out all the supporters and arguments even before they get to a consultation…
Anyway here’s my usual and probably pointless reminder of the marriage equality petitions just out, pathetically low amout of signatures so far!
Careful what you wish for, John! You have to remember that the SNP Scottish Government have already discriminated against gay people when they helped that catholic adoption agency in Glasgow to avoid the SORs, so that they remain the only adoption agency in Britian which is legally allowed to refuse service to gay people – the one in Leeds is still just trying to get this exemption, the one in Glasgow already has it. This was after Alex Salmond wrote an article in the Scottish Catholic Observer promising that he’d do all he could to get exemption for the Catholic Church from equality laws. And there are quite a few more examples of homophobia within the SNP. It’s not quite the gay utopia in Scotland that you might think!
SORs refers to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation Regulations) 2007, by the way. This was the legislation brought in by the UK government to make it illegal to refuse to provide goods and services to people on the grounds of their sexuality. You have to ask why the SNP felt the Catholic Church deserved to be exempt from such legislation.
“they do know how to get the marriage equality debate going with a bang and out in the open”
LOL… With a bang? That’s a first… you people are so brainwashed with this whole marriage equality inc. that you do not catch what you are saying…
Meanwhile speaking of MARRIAGE EQUALITY (and not gay marriage) would you demand a debate with a “bang” for this woman as well?
Or is marriage EQUALITY not EQUALLY applicable to anyone?
“Or is marriage EQUALITY not EQUALLY applicable to anyone?”
You have almost got it pepa, marriage equality is not applicable to just anyone.
Marriage equality is applicable to any person of marriageable age who wishes to marry another person of their choice, providing that neither persons are already in an existing marriage, providing that the persons who intend to marry are not too closely related biologically and providing that each of the two persons are capable of giving meaningful consent.
“You have almost got it pepa, marriage equality is not applicable to just anyone.”
You have just denouncing equality without realizing it.
If everyone is not served “equally” and have their marriages recognized than you are not fighting for equality.
Just admit that you are fighting for GAY MARRIAGE. What’s wrong with saying that?
Is it a slur to say the word “gay” now?
What do other EU countries do? I mean Holland etc must have been doing civil “gay” marriages for ages , do they force their so called “religious” registrars to do civil marriages or to opt out?
There’s a lot of EU countries who must have gone thru all these arguments before and looked at not only their nationals laws but also European ones.
Does anybody know what the other countries are doing with their civil “gay” registrars? Are there any European cases like the Ladele one where someone is refusing to do a civil gay marriage against their religious freedom?
They’re not trying to reinvent the wheel here, are they?
I know Canada isn’t part of the EU but earlier this year the Saskatchewan appeals court found unconstitutional a provincial bill that would exempt some marriage commissioners from having to perform same-sex civil marriages.
I know that the dutch are now firing registrars who do not perform gay weddings
I think it was because “equal rights” have met their toll and can only go so far. The Dutch basically said that equality is minimal and not universal, meaning I don’t have an “equal right” to not perform my job duties.
But under the guise of runaway equality which is promoted by gay extremists in the UK, you HAVE to give equal concessions to homophobes. That’s what you get for being a pack of zombies.
“But all opinions are just NOT worthy of equal respect.” – Adrian T
Gays Against Homosexual Extremism
john, I would think that since those countries give exemption to religious denominations, I would assume it allows registrars with religious beliefs not to perform marriages for gay couples.
The two situations are very different. Religious marriage is a religious activity. Civil marriage is a secular civic activity requiring the registrar to countersign forms to confirm that the procedures have been followed.
If registrars with (anti-gay) religious beliefs are allowed not to register same-sex marriages, should doctors with such beliefs be allowed to turn away gay men with STIs? Should teachers with such beliefs be allowed to refuse to talk to same-sex parents of a pupil? Should hotel owners with such beliefs be allowed to turn away same-sex couples? Shopkeepers be allowed to refuse to serve LGBT people? etc etc
I guess I was referring to the reply from Mason to someone above where he said “civil” registrar with religioujs beliefs should also be allowed to opt out. I don’t agree with this but I was wondering what actually happens in the exisiting EU countries that have been doing civil (gay) marriages for some time. I don’t know what EU law allows and it’s surprising that this issue wouldn’t have had a precedent elsewhere in Europe. I think someone above siad Scotland allows Chrisitians adoption agencies to opt out for gay couples, would they not do the same for civil marriages as well. I don’t think Scot should allow this but it seems it already does for gay adoptions.. I guess I was wondering whether EU law actually allowed you do force someone to do a gay marriage in a registrar office. Marriages aren’t CPs, marriages have religious connotations unlike CPs even though they can be entirely civil…..we were given CPs on the understanding they weren’t marriages..
Scotland doesn’t allow its one Catholic adoption agency to opt out of anti-discrimination law. Scotland can’t, even if the Parliament wanted to, because anti-discrimination law is reserved to Westminster, and covers the whole of GB.
The adoption agency was however wrongly advised by the Scottish Govt some years ago that if they changed their charitable objects, anti-discrimination law would not apply.
It’s clear from recent court cases that that advice was wrong.
Thanks for that…I guess I think civil registrars with religious beliefs doing a gay marriage may be a question mark and I wondered what happened in other EU countries .. I also have difficulties getting my mind around the future religious CPs in Eng/Wales where potentially a muslim/jewish registrar will have to attend a christian building to do the registration. I don’t think a Christian would want a non Christian registrar to attend their ceremony and I don’t think a Jewsih/Muslim registrar would want to attend a Christian ceremony to do the registration…the registration is being put into a religious building and the registrar needs to have some affilitation with the religion.
Tim – As far as I’m aware, after contacting my MSPs and the Scottish Government, the adoption agency still thinks it is legally allowed to turn away gay people and could still do so tomorrow. I don’t know if it actually has done so or not – trying to find out is like pulling teeth. I’ve been told it will take someone launching a court action against the adoption agency to rectify the matter. The Scottish Government have no plans to make it comply with the equality laws, indeed it was the SG who advised it how to bypass the laws in the first place. You also have to ask why the SNP intervened in this case? I can only surmise that they put religion above gay equality and could easily do so again. They went to an awful lot of effort to help a single catholic adoption agency and discriminated against gay people while doing so. Surely it would have been easier, and the right thing to do, to comply with the equality legislation?
Also, at the same time the SNP governement helped the catholic adoption agency in Glasgow, a second one in Edinburgh decided to simply comply with the equality legislation and is still up and running, and the catholic shurch severed it’s links with it. So why didn’t the one in Glasgow just do the same?
I entirely agree with your last point, and you’re probably right that St Margaret’s in Glasgow still thinks it can legally discriminate. Although if they’ve been watching the Leeds Catholic Care case they should know by now that they’re on very dodgy ground.
The Scottish Govt could encourage them to comply with the law, but as you say, in 2007 they did the opposite. The Scittish Govt cannot force them to comply – for that, someone needs to take them to couurt, and that needs to be someone who has been discriminated against, that is a same-sex couple who were turned away.
In that case, I can’t wait for the court case! That will really brings he worms out of the woodwork. If, as BennieM says, Salmond is fully behind them then he will have no choice but to show his cards on the matter. That would be very interesting to see indeed!
“If registrars with (anti-gay) religious beliefs are allowed not to register same-sex marriages, should doctors with such beliefs be allowed to turn away gay men with STIs? Should teachers with such beliefs be allowed to refuse to talk to same-sex parents of a pupil? Should hotel owners with such beliefs be allowed to turn away same-sex couples? Shopkeepers be allowed to refuse to serve LGBT people? etc etc”
Under the guise of runaway equality the answer to all your hypotheticals is a clear yes. Under that guise everybody has the “equal right” to homosexuals to do what feels good to them and to have equal access to those accommodations.
Gay extremists always say: “If it feels good, do it.”
So then I guess now you either denounce that, or let your hypotheticals come true.
Its no guise – all people whether gay, straight, bisexual, black, white, Asian, disabled, able bodied, Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Jehovahs Witness, Buddhist, Atheist, whatever all have a right to equality – not just gay people – but that does not extend to preventing others having equality or ridicule. The failure of society to be equal is evident in the rioting in England currently.
Nationalists are bigots? Who’d have thought it…
Extremists generalize and demonize? Who’d have thought it…
Who would have thought it Pepa fails to undertstand simple facts and ridicules and demonizes …?
There was a good discussion of the equal marriage debate on Newsnight Scotland last night, including John Mason and Green MSP Alison Johnstone. It’s here (the 8/8/11 edition):
Thanks for the link Tim, John Mason is making much out of nothing at all, I get increasingly annoyed by people calling marriage a religious institution, it is civil marriage equality that we must demand and there is no question of forcing churches to marry same sex couples if they decide they do not want to.
The matter of christian registrars who might refuse to officiate at same sex couples civil marriages is completely different, as has been pointed out by others here.
Civil marriage is not a religious issue and there is no excuse for religious registrars to refuse to deal with same sex couples under the claiim of religious conscience, this needs to be spelt out very clearly during the consultation
0141 550 4327 • Mobile 0787 943 0877 • email@example.com I think the best bet is to phone and ask his exact position…
Just phoned his office, ‘organisations’ are most certainly not councils or housing associations. He ment ‘religious organisations’ and it was apparently just to spark debate.. lovelly
I’m glad that finally someone in the SNP is condemning this guy for being a bigot. It is long overdue and I think the SNP have been quiet for too long on the subject which has left them wide open to accusations of being homophobic. The SNP are in a unique position within the UK to truly take the lead on this and open up marriage to gay people. By doing so, they would, once and for all, knock the homophobia accusations on the head. They could hold their heads up high, as could the SNP supporters, that it was them who set the example for the rest of the UK to follow!
It’s just a pity he doesn’t feel the need to speak out about all the other homophobia that goes on in the SNP.
If people don’t agree with you then call them names. The preserve of the terminally mindless.