Reader comments · Tory MP says gay marriage is ‘a step too far’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Tory MP says gay marriage is ‘a step too far’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Stuart Neyton 7 Oct 2011, 3:21pm

    “That is what Christian marriage is about”

    This suggests that the Christian religion has a monopoly on both use and practice of the word “marriage”. But I could find a good few christians who would challenge that opinion.

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 7 Oct 2011, 6:36pm

      Ms Betty Bowers, America’s best Christian, explains Christian marriage:

      A classic.

    2. Gay marriage predates Christianity. He doesn’t have a point.

  2. Thanks for telling us what Christian marriage is about but it’s not relevant here, will somebody remind this religious bigot that civil marriage or rather civil marriage equality is quite another matter.

    1. I believe in God but Im not Christian, Im a free thinking human being. God doesnt need this kind of religious following. Love your fellow man and treat others the way you would want to be treated.

  3. “That is what Christian marriage is about”

    This is civil marriage though. Civil marriage is whatever our elected parliament legislates that it is.

    We’ve had enough of being abused by these god bothering bigots. The church becomes more and more irrelevant as each month passes. Praise the lord for that!

    1. I could not agree more Matt, well said.

    2. And yet if you ask the equalities office what they are doing in the next 6 months prior to the consultation in March 2012 they will tell you that they are consulting with religious organisations on how they should shape that consultation….if this is indeed just civil marriage then in what way should the govt be involving religious orgs? Even if it did include religious marriage then we all know that there would be hundreds of opt outs to avoid forcing any religioun doing a gay marriage, haven’t they just spent the last 2 yrs doing this for “religious” CPs!! What the hell is a “christian”, religious CP if not a mimick of a “christian” marrage. that was the wole point of that piece of useless legislation!!!

    3. agree entirely…well said

  4. People have already pointed out that the peculiar definition of marriage supported by certain bigoted christians is completely irrelevant to this issue. But one day even christians will see nothing wrong with gay marriage. “christianity” is whatever christians want it to mean. It’s a man-made ideology, and will continue to change, adapt and transform like every other idea we’ve ever had. There is nothing special, magical, eternal or transcendent about it, it’s just another silly idea and behaves as all ideas do.

    1. Galadriel1010 10 Oct 2011, 1:52pm

      The first recorded gay marriage was carried out by the early Christian church, I believe. The revolutions will revolve

  5. Dr Robin Guthrie 7 Oct 2011, 3:56pm

    What is it with these bl@@dy christians and their singular belief that marriage has anything to do with them.

    Just butt out of it already and go worship something you bigots.

    1. Don Harrison 12 Oct 2011, 2:22pm

      Robin, you can not tar all Christians with the same brush.

      I am an “OUT” gay Christian in my community where all my straight Christians know. I have spoken with two Bishops about the Anglican Church about Homosexuality and the Church.

      I have on my desk a book “Love in an Orientation” by Andrew Marin with discuses relations between Church and Gay people in Chicago.

      Like you I am pissed off with bigots.

  6. “That is what Christian marriage is about.”

    So? Who cares? No-one’s suggesting calling this a ‘Christian marriage’. It would be a civil narriage and blathering on about Christianity is as relevant as berating the thousand of divorcees/non-virgins/non-Christians who get married every single day ‘because their marriage isn’t Christian. It’s not supposed to be, you fool.

  7. Gerald Howarth is clearly suffering from a mental illness.

    Who cares what christian marriage is.

    Does he expect Britain’s atheist, muslim, jewish, hindu populations to follow a christian view of marriage.

    If so then he is a lunatic who is not fit for purpose to serve as MP and should be sacked.

    How dare he try to impose his cult views on me?

    He is clearly opposed to democracy based on his statements.

    I would like him to be expelled from the Conservative Party.

    1. No, he shouldn’t be expelled from the party but he should be challenged.

      Fine, he can oppose same sex marriage but his reasoning is ridiculous.

      1. Is SS marriage going to be a tory party policy and is the whip or whoever he’s called going to ensure that they vote with the Tory policy? If he doesn’t agree with the policy then get rid of him…this isn’t and shouldn’t be a conscience vote depending on whether the flipping guy is a christian ! If the Tories now think LGBT rights are important and that gay marriage is what being a conservative is all about then he better change his mind soon or find another party?

        1. It IS Tory policy, not all MPs have to agree with it you know, there can be dissidents.

          there were many votes in the Labour government where a large chunk of Labour MPs voted against ut but it doesn’t stop it being Labour party policy.

          Same sex marriage equality is Tory policy whether these morons like it or not. It has nothing to do with their religion. They are extremely insecure people if they feel offended by two men or women wanting to marry because they love each other and the new generation of Tory MPs and activists are in full support of LGBT equality.

          1. If gay marriage didn’t win votes it would not be tory policy. It is not part of tory ideology.

          2. James!… from your logic nearly all Tory MPs are raging homophobes so why would Cameron stand in front of the conference hall and declare his support for same sex marriage and secondly justify this position by stating he supports gay marriage not in spite of Conservatives but because he is a Conservative.

            You’re really desperate and it is showing mate.

          3. Votes


    2. What a load of rot.
      He is simply voicing a traditional historic view.
      Muslim Jewish Hindu people do not have gay marriage.
      Nor do they want it either.

      You are the one who is illiberal and a bigot

      1. Some Jewish people definitely do want equal marriage and some gay Jewish couples in the UK have got married …

        Howarth is the illiberal one and bigoted

        I would like to see his views exposed for the ridiculous attitude of them by senior ministers such as Cameron, Hague, Clegg etc

  8. Why is it that these bigots are never challenged to reveal their fictional friends?

    1. He believes in ‘god’. I suspect his other friends are of the ‘imaginary’ type.

  9. By the way whenever there is a story about ‘gay marriage’ or marriage equality Pink Bews uses the same picture – of a male couple gettting married by a priest.

    What’s that all about.

    I don’t know of a single person interested in a cult wedding.

    Civil marriage does not involve cult leaders.

    Change the picture Pink News. please,

    1. I have a gay Christian friend who would love a religious marriage. Not all Christians should be tared with the same brush. To do so is as bigoted as people against gay marriage….

      And I myself would like a religious marriage, not a Christian one, I follow a different faith that embraces homosexuality as perfectly normal, just an FYI there…

    2. I have several friends who are in long term gay relationships, some of whom have had CPs, who all would like some religious element and celebration of their commitment to each other.

      Now, that wouldnt work for me. Nor would it work for others in my friendship group. Nonetheless these people deserve the right to have their relationship celebrated in a manner appropriate to them.

    3. Cult – really? Emotional and unnecessary language

    4. That said, I dont like the particular picture ….

    5. Galadriel1010 10 Oct 2011, 1:55pm

      Hi. Lesbian christian who would love to be married by the vicar who preached at my church and primary school and was involved in nearly 10 years of my life.

      The world is wider and stranger than you could possibly imagine.

      Besides, this is an article about a ‘christian’ attitude to gay marriage, so the picture is entirely related. When it’s a civil matter they use the one of the hands or the two men in tuxedos.

  10. jamestoronto 7 Oct 2011, 4:10pm

    Marriage was around eons before Christianity came along, it existed and exists outside Christian societies. Are these people invalidating all other forms of marriage? Are Hindus therefore not married or Buddhists or Muslims? And which form of Christianity is he talking about? There are many Christian churches that will marry gay couples. Or is he now saying only “his Christianity” is valid? He’s opened up a can of worms that is going to turn around and bait him, the fool.

  11. Isn’t it funny that these bigots ALWAYS have gay friends who are happy just to stick with their civil partnerships.

    1. Indeed. gay people, whether they want to marriage or not, or whether they are content with c/p[ or not should not stop other gay people from having the option to marry, like heterosexual couples.

  12. This MP needs to stop bringing his religion into a state/civil issue.

    If heterosexuals can marry in the state’s eyes, then so should homosexual couples. It is called equality.

    Not a single institution owns the institution of marriage.

    Why doesn’t he understand this simple logic?

  13. Conservative MP Louise Mensch was on the same radio show as Peter Bone and she was in favour of same sex marriage.

    1. Galadriel1010 10 Oct 2011, 1:56pm

      I was surprised by how taken with her I was. I don’t agree with everything she said, but her comments in favour of gay marriage were excellent.
      Barrowman was good too

  14. Cambodia Guesthouse 7 Oct 2011, 4:31pm

    Yes, who gives a damn what this bigot thinks? and isnt it kinda arrogant for these ‘christians’ to claim marriage as somehow belonging to them? Something that was around for a long time before them!

  15. Clegg and Cameron should tell these idiots that civil marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion or their cults. They don’t control civil marriage, never have and never will, the state does.

    How about demanding a ban on our taxes paying for “christian” schools and other faith based institutions who get public funding? See how they like a dose of their own medicine for a change. I’m sick and tired of these bigots dictating as to who should be entitled to civil rights and who should not.

    If the consultation were including religious denominations who would support same-sex marriages, I could well understand inviting them, but if not, then what is the point? How on earth can the opponents help shape any consultation? I’d like to know the reason. Everyone involved has been so vague about it.

  16. government consultation on “how” to legalise gay marriage??? they aren’t going to do it, are they, they just want us to vote for them while they faff around until their time is up

    1. The consultation is being timed specifically so there will be enough time to legislate before 2015. I.e. Gay marriage will be a reality by the time of the next election. Peter Bone and Gerald Howarth are a dying breed.

      All these labour supporters need to wake up and accept the fact that the Tories have changed.

      1. Do you have the exact timetable , one year before the next election, 1 month before it, 1 day before it? Some of us are a bit cynical becuase we were originally told that the consultation would start in July, it was then put off until Autumn and then it was put off again until March 2012. No explanation was given why the GEO changed it’s website and removes straight CPs to just a consultation on civil marrage. What happenned and more importantly what is happenning from today until March 2012? We don’t know if Bone and Howarth, Tebiit , Helmer and Leigh are dying breeds becuase no artilce on PN has appeared with a Tory bouncing up and down with joy about gay marriage…Personally I’m hopeful about them, but stull suspicious and there are still a load of old Tory cronies in the House of Lords…

        1. The new 2010 intake are largely in favour of same sex marriage and Peter Bone was on the radio arguing against same sex marriage whilst another Tory MP, Louise Mensch was arguing in favour of same sex marriage but wasn’t included in the article.

          Dissents are not reflective on a party as whole you know. MPs mumble and grumble about government policy all the time, nothing new at all about that!

    2. Sister Mary Clarence 7 Oct 2011, 8:47pm

      Well the last government had time enough and more to bring in marriage and they didn’t.

      The Tories will be in for another two terms yet, so that would be a good few years faffing. I suspect though the reality is we’ll have it pretty soon.

  17. When isn’t Peter Bone against Conservative policy? His favourite thing to do it vote against the government!

  18. Peter & Michael 7 Oct 2011, 5:13pm

    Civil Marriage for Same-Sex couples can be accomplished within a year by adding one sentence to the Equality laws passing through Parliament at this time, whether the religious nuts like it or not, Same-Sex Marriage IS going to happen!

    1. It will not happen, it is all propaganda… Clegg and Uni fees… you’ll see…

      1. Oh,yes, Matt, you cried that same thing I’m sure when all the other laws granting equality came in – you’re on the losing side. Try move to Iran, there’s a good little bigot…..

  19. “That is what Christian marriage is about.”

    Oh Gerald – if only you would realise that God created Man [gay, straight and every other variety] in His own image …. and stop wasting your time chasing a false God created in your own image!!!
    Just because Christ attended a wedding at Cana does NOT give any Church ownership of marriage!!!!

  20. These buffoons always have gay friends – has anyone noticed that?
    Just who the hell are all these gay people with such bad taste?

    1. Jock

      They seem to love tories

      1. ME?! You’re mad!

        1. I’m sure I saw a post of yours that was pro tory. If I’m wrong I apologise

          1. Spanner1960 9 Oct 2011, 1:52pm

            Just because someone is pro-Tory does not make them one.
            It just means we sometimes agree.

          2. I’m not pro Tory but I agree with their approach on LGBT issues CURRENTLY

          3. I can’t think what that might have been James!, though I do believe in giving credit where credit’s due regardless of political affiliation.

          4. Just remember cameron made an alliance with anti gay europeans. Or don’t you care about other LGBT people in europe. The man is a snake wh will do anything for votes if he didnt have an alliance with the lib dems he would not be in power so he will steal their ideas to get another term


          5. Sounds a bit churlish to me not to accept equal civil marriage coming in place because of who is seeking for it to be introduced …

      2. That wasn’t my point. My point was about all the gay people who supposedly are friends with these homophobes, whether they are Tories or not.

  21. I like what Iris wrote in her comment,
    Civil marriage isn’t supposed to be what Christian marriage is about, that’s the whole point of civil marriage.

    Civil marriage is for couples who either don’t choose to have a religious marriage or who are, for whatever reason, excluded from religious marriage.

    Do those who are conducting the consultation on civil marriage equality understand the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage? and do they understand it is their duty to explain the difference to religious representatives, and preparing and educating them for the “shock” of coming civil marriage equality.

  22. concernedresidentE3 7 Oct 2011, 5:45pm

    Just remember that Cameron can wax lyrical in support of gay marriage but his ability to deliver on it is critically hampered by the homophobia of the rest of his party. The Tories have not yet ceased being the “nasty party”.

    1. All parties could be argued to be the nasty party, just depends on which individuals and policies you refer to.

    2. I’m concerned about that too, but at least Cameron is showing leadership on the issue.

  23. I still don’t understand this consultation process. Maybe someone who is political could explain. Don’t they normally just try and create a new law then vote on it? I’ve never heard of so much ‘consultation’ on anything before, except for joining the euro.

    1. There are consultations on so many things, all governments like to do them before creating a bill for Parliament to vote on. Even the coalition government’s proposal to move the highest speed limit to 80 mph is under consultation first.

      Consultation is away to get all concerned parties to have their say, in regards to same sex marriage, people might want to contribute about their status of their civil partnership as a result of the government plans. Holding this consultation will hopefully make the legislation better.

      Outside of politics, consultations are very annoying and time consuming.

      1. I see. I guess you just never hear about the other ones. Thanks.

  24. Someone ought to tell these bigoted religious defenders of “traditional Christian marriage” that ‘civil marriage’ is separate from ‘religious marriage’. And then tell them to stay the hell out of what doesn’t concern them. Cameron was talking about civil marriage, so technically it’s none of their business. We have separation of church and state, after all.

    1. Matt R. where is it written that we have separation of church and state. The C of E is our state cult whether we like it or not and has 28 of its clerics sitting in the House of Lords. Therefore, no separation of church and state surely? I only wish.

      Traditional religious marriage is bible based, and even that is arguable. Civil marriage was set up by the state and independent of any religious cult. This is what needs to be emphasised over and over during the consultation and in party discussion. Nip the religious nutters in the bud before they take over the debate. If they’re so opposed to same-sex marriage, have them produce the factual evidence to prove that this will harm society and marriage itself. We have ten countries allowing it now, can’t they come up with one shred of evidence that those societies have been harmed or marriage for that matter. It hasn’t stopped heterosexuals from marrying, it hasn’t produce any cases of polygamy, incest or bestiality as some of them rant about. Show us the proof.

    2. They don’t care they will always want to attack gay people regardless of the issue they are bigots and closet cases. It’s not rational and they will not change

  25. What you lot dont get is that it will never happen, Cameron is just saying what the people want to hear… wake up and smell the coffee….

    1. Keep trying to convince yourself of that…. its desperate, but amusing,.

      1. If you call the truth amusing

        1. You’re version of the “truth” is amusing because its actually nothing of the sort – more like the delusional wishful thinking of someone who is lost in a world he doesn’t understand.

          You keep screaming at god like the bigoted fool you are, and the rest of us will get on with reality and the rights we’re winning every day, yeah? There’s a good little bigot….

          1. Winning everyday?
            Lets see the human rights act is going… the Equality act can be avoided by people giving excuses, yes of course your getting rights everyday.

            I dont need to scream, I’ll leave that to you lot your better a it.

            We are the majoriaty, and we believe propaganda when we see it.

          2. “the Equality act can be avoided by people giving excuses”

            Really? Where exactly outside your tiny mind. Enough of you demented religious freaks have been slapped back in court.

            “I dont need to scream”

            Sure you don’t.

            “We are the majoriaty”

            No, you’re not. Religion is falling at a dazzling tare in the UK and Europe. You’re kind are dying out, and so fast its hilarious.

            Civil Partnership growing to a majority of EU states, gay marriage in 7 of them, alone. Laws protecting gay people for your particular brand of religious discrimination. And all in 20 years. Marvellous.

            Oh, and only a devolved ape like you believes otherwise – As delusional as ever, Matthew, and it makes me laugh. The more you people are in denial, the more the world changes around you for the better of us, and everyone else. So, run along and die somewhere, maybe you’d be more useful to humanity as fertiliser, LOL!

  26. Thumbs Up 7 Oct 2011, 6:08pm

    Typical tories showing their ‘true colours’. Must have been listening to Cyndi Lauper since Cameron made his speech. Pay off your credit cards and everything gonna be okay.

  27. There are eight types of marriages mentioned in the Bible. Unfortunately, many were non-consensual and some would have involved continuing rapes:

    *The standard nuclear family

    *Polygynous marriage

    *Levirate marriage (widow submits to dead husbands brother)

    *A man, a woman and her property — a female slave (the female slave of a barren woman would be required to bear a child for her owners husband)

    *A man, one or more wives, and some concubines

    *A male soldier and a female prisoner of war

    *A male rapist and his victim (by law a victim of rape was required to marry her abuser)

    *A male and female slave (at the whim of their owners)

    There do not appear to be any passages in the Bible that condemn any of the above forms of marriages or family structures


    1. Thanks for this list.
      It highlights the hypocrisy of lots of Christians who claim to uphold ‘Biblical’ standards about sex. The truth is they wouldn’t dare.

  28. These people would be happier in a theocracy.
    The party of individual freedom and small government yet they pander to the mob. They have almost certainly been lobbied by their “religious” constituents who themselves will have been urged by their clerics of whatever stripe to “complain to your MP”. Very disappointing on more than one level.

  29. ‘A step too far…’ – a trustworthy Tory government is a step too far!!

    1. It’s a few MPs having a moan, it won’t affect government policy in the slightest. MPs rumbling about government policy isn’t anything new.

  30. Why do posts keep disappearing. Anyone else having the same problem?

    1. And then appearing again?;-)

      1. Clear your browser cache, that works, there seems to be a problem with the scripts this site uses.

  31. So when will a proposal to have all civil registrars fired be put forward. All marriage licenses for people of other religions to be removedas well since marriage is a Christian trademark???

  32. Will you stop barking on about Christian marriage!

    Times have changed! Traditional marriages are falling… its time for something refreshing.

    1. It will not happen, it is all propaganda…i told you so…

      1. Why not wait and see?

      2. you are always full of illegitimate rhetoric

        1. Spanner1960 9 Oct 2011, 1:55pm

          What he means Matthew is you’re a bastard. :)

          1. Well, I dont knwo his parentage lol …

            but I wouldnt disagree with the sentiment!

  33. I thought the UK was basically still a Christian country. So based on the teachings of the Bible “Marraige” is for the coming together of a man and a woman for the procreation of children.

    Hmmm, with same sex couples I just can’t see that happening somehow, can you? Now don’t tell me to move with the times, the Bible is the Bible and you can’t just change parts of it just to suit public opinion.

    A civil partnership maybe but it can never ever be a marraige

    1. So Mike, in your twisted view, infertile men and women should also be banned from marriage and those who choose not to procreate? You’re an idiot and intellectually limited. Religious and civil marriage are two totally different things, but because of your lack of intellectual curiosity, what can we expect?

      If you believe in the procreation nonsense, then you must also believe in the biblical quotes that allow men to kill their wives for adultery and children for insolence. The problem with you religious nutters and bigots is that you cherry pick this and that to suit your agenda. Moron!

    2. So based on the teachings of the Bible “Marraige” is for the coming together of a man and a woman for the procreation of children.

      Where in the Bible does it say that?

      1. It’s something about being fruitful and multiply. Although that doesn’t mean you can’t surrogate :)

        Anyways, he’s saying that anyone who has gotten married is Christian because its a ‘Christian thing’. Please…

        pots and kettles. Didn’t see churches stocking up torches and pitchforks to go around murdering gay men or people of other religions.

        1. I don’t think marriage was mentioned amid the fruitfulness and multiplication!

    3. Spanner1960 8 Oct 2011, 9:39am

      Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your comment, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… End of debate.

      I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

      1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

      2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

      3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

      4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

      5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

      6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

      7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

      8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

      9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

      10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

      I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

      1. Spanner1960, brilliant commentary. It amazes me that nobody uses those examples when the religious cults go on a rampage about marriage equality. I can only imagine what their response might be.

        1. Gay Daily Mail Reader 8 Oct 2011, 4:40pm

          If the Book of Leviticus is right then we are ALL sinners and dammed to Hell. Heaven must be a very desolate place. When I die I want to be with my fellow gay men, even if it means going to Hell, straight to Hell, not passing Go and collecting £200!

        2. Spanner1960 8 Oct 2011, 7:06pm

          Thanks Robert.
          Hand on heart, I never wrote this brilliant piece so I cannot take credit for it.
          It has apparently been doing the rounds for quite some time now, but essentially sums up what a bunch of hypocrites these people are, and how the laws are either misinterpreted or completely ignored when it suits them, and they just cherry-pick the lines that they wish to whinge on about.

          The church’s views on homosexuality is based on one single verse of text, in an Old testament book (Leviticus) that is riddled with outrageous demands and laws that even the most devoutly religious would ever follow today.

          The word of God may be eternal and unchanging, but the Bible was written by men, and so is open to interpretation and meaning, and religion has to adapt with both the people and the times, just like everybody else, otherwise we would all still be living in 300 BC Palestine.

    4. You thought wrong…

    5. Oh, BS! Just BS. Civil marriage has nothing to do with marriages. Procreation is not the end-all and be-all of marriage; if it was infertile couples or those who do not want children would not be able to marry. Make a law that bans them from marrying and then we can discuss marriage for same sex.

      Also I am not Christian–why should I have to live according to YOUR bigoted beliefs? Sod off and leave GLBT people alone.

      1. Meant to say “civil marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage”.

    6. @Mike, what you’re saying is: the UK is a christian country, so all its inhabitants should follow the rules in the bible regardless of what they actually think ?

      Sounds a bit fundamentalist to me !

      Why do you think church attendance is falling ?

  34. “some of my best friends are in civil unions…”

    “some of my best friends are black …”

    “some of my best friends are gay …”

    it’s always what the bigots say.

    1. Spanner1960 8 Oct 2011, 9:34am

      Some of my best friends are Christians.

      1. Mine aren’t anymore, not because they are necessarily unlikeable people, but because I find irrational belief hard to deal with now. Just recently the Greek Orthodox wife of a friend told me that if two people say they have had similar experiences through their belief in God, then that must be proof that the beliefs are true. Mad scary tosh. I used to be a God-botherer myself until I realised that collectively invented mumbo-jumbo with no evidence to support it doesn’t serve much purpose and causes a lot of mischief.

        1. Spanner1960 8 Oct 2011, 7:11pm

          On a serious note, I have Christian friends, some of them gay.
          I work on the principle of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

          I will not talk about boyfriends or my husband or the gay scene or ‘that cute bloke on the telly’ on the condition they do not mention imaginary deities, 2000 year old martyrs or committing sin and them wishing to save me from eternal damnation. I find friendly relationships on that basis can work really well.

  35. The text of the Canadian same-sex law.
    1. This Act may be cited as the Civil Marriage Act.
    2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
    3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.
    3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.
    4. For greater certainty, a marriage is not void or voidable by reason only that the spouses are of the same sex.

    1. The rest of the law amends other statutes to conform. Four years?

  36. I wouldn’t worry excessively. Bone and Howarth are both on the extreme right of the party. Howarth was vociferous in his opposition to civil partnerships in 2004 (so he is a liar when he says that he is comfortable with friends in civil partnerships – he did his best to prevent it).

  37. Luke – I love your optimism , if they do bring in gay marriage then I sure it will be a great vote winner ..

    Wish Stonewall were a little bit less secrative and started getting people involved more. though…is there a letter writing campaing to MPs etc, there doesn’t seem to be nothing going on for anyone to get involved in! I’m sure the Catholics etc have all been told to write letters, don’t want a big laugh in the commons when someone asks the equalities minister how many letters she’s had asking for gay marriage and having the embarassing reply of just a handful!

  38. Spanner1960 8 Oct 2011, 9:33am

    Why is it whenever some religious bigot brings this subject up about “being married in the sight of God” they are always careful to omit the millions of registry office weddings between straight people that have absolutely nothing to do with their beliefs?

    Surely, by the same token, these are not “true” marriages either, as they are not presided over by a minister or whatever.

    Maybe they should try taking pot-shots at that little institution and see how far they get before they criticise what is in real terms, a tiny minority of same-sex couples in this country that simply ask for equality with what everybody else just takes for granted.

    1. This is feeling very unusual and unique – I am agreeing (so far) with just about everything you say, Spanner1960 …

  39. What have the gay tory lovers got to say about this? Gay people are useful idiots to tories. If they get in without the lib dems you’ll be sorry

    1. There was bound to be dissidents, there always are on almost all government policy, it happens all the time and same sex marriage is no different. Do these two bigoted Tory MPs represent the party at large? Of course not!

      1. Really. Hearing Teresa May bull story about the asylum seekers cat just goes to show the tories need a scapegoat for society ills. I do not want to support a party that goes after the vulnerable and any gay person who supports them is an uncle tom piece of crap.

        1. They be all that but at least they don’t spout the kind of hate filled, bigoted tripe that you do. I am quite sure they are relieved that they do not have your support.

          1. fak off

        2. The case did mention a pet cat but this wasn’t used as the sole reason for the immigrant to stay here, the car is besides the point and allows the real issues to be abandoned whilst people concentrate on the pet cat, the world has gone mad and May was stupid to bring that up. Not the worst thing in the world though so get a grip.

          Article 8 has often been abused to allow illegal immigrants to stay in this country despite them committing crimes, sometimes horrendous one’s like murder and rape. Vulnerable settled people left without a loved one for life, left with the heart forever and the least thing we could do is boost the illegal out of the country but article 8 stops us so if anyone is going after the vulnerable is is defenders to some of the interpretations of article 8.

          1. What about the people who lives have been saved or were there none?

          2. de Villiers 10 Oct 2011, 11:17am

            Theresa May’s stupid comment about a cat makes not one difference to gay marriage. Her comment was, however, stupid. Of course one can point to having pets as showing that one has built a life here with a partner. That was not the point on which the case turned but properly was one factor to be considered. As such a senior Minister, TM should not have opened herself up to such ridicule or been so infantile.

            However, given that many removals relate to persons from countries where gay rights are at best very poor and the noises James! has made about persons of certain ethnic origins being less sympathetic to gay individuals, I am wondering why there is a sudden level of concern about this.

          3. Theresa May’s comment on the cat (and to an extent on article 8) was misleading, unwise and inappropriate and blatant jingoism at a party conference

            That said, her views and her action on equal marriage have nothing to do with that cat

          4. Devillers some idiot has been posting as me over the past few week my arguments are obiviosly so strong the people who disagreee with me spend their time trying to undermine me.

        3. Spanner1960 8 Oct 2011, 7:15pm

          You would rather support a party that claims to look after everyone, yet rips them off rotten, spends all their money, hands over all our rights to a bunch of faceless bureaucrats in Europe and sells us down the river?

          1. I remember the tories when they stopped incestment in public services and sent mentally ill people onto the streets with the care in the community bill. Most of them are in jail and they have done the same with disabled people most of them will be dead before the olympics. Shame on you

          2. Spanner1960 9 Oct 2011, 2:03pm

            James! What are you babbling on about?
            You have no clear-set argument here, no actual criticism of the governments actions, and no alternative ideas.

            All you are doing is knocking Tories because you are a leftie twat and that’s what you do best. your lot have had 13 years to get all this done and done sweet fanny adams but wreck the country, blow all our money and relinquished all our controls to Europe. The only thing your type does is complain about the Tories and how Maggie fcked us all (over 30 years ago).

            Different people, different politics, different world. Wake up.

    2. Make up your mind Jock.

      1. Dickhead

        1. Spanner1960 9 Oct 2011, 2:05pm

          Such an erudite and articulate response, as always.

          1. it’s a gift

  40. “a step too far”…sounds like colonel blimp about to burst a blood vessel!

  41. When will these cult followers stop denigrating good old fashioned civil marriage by comparing it to their failed system.
    The cultists are happy to marry anyone in their temples as long as the money is good. None of them are any more likely to keep to their vows.

    Church weddings are just another materialist purchase now and they only have themselves to blame for that.

  42. Gay Daily Mail Reader 8 Oct 2011, 4:32pm

    Marriage is not exclusively a Christian institution – as well as being precticed by other faiths it is also practiced by non-religious people and therefore it ideally should be available to everyone and not just straight people. I personally am against political correctness. PC attitudes mean that police are quite happy to pursue Christians who display pages from the Bible in their cafés while allowing Muslim clerics to demand the stoning of gays – we can’t stop them as it will be racist! Anyway this government has other important things to deal with such as the national debt, the NHS, law and order, race relations and Europe and this is why we elected them.

    1. If a government, be it Tory or Labour can’t multitask, then it shouldn’t be in power. Our country is one of the least equal countries in the western world.

    2. “political correctness”, oh dear. Whenever I hear someone utter those two words I just know the next thing out of their mouth will be b*ll*cks. You may have more enlightened view of marriage than this MP but otherwise the two of you are in the same boat – I bet if you weren’t gay yourself you’d be in a Daily Mail comments thread railing against gay marriage along with the rest of them.

      The cafe incident was down to a single officer’s misinterpretation of the law, the cafe owner was not charged with a crime and the force apologised – it is in no way indicative of a wider trend. And if you don’t think the police target anti-gay Muslims, may I point you to these five men, the first people to be charged with incitement to homophobia, all of whom were Muslim?

      That’s the problem with reading a paper with such a tenuous relationship with reality, you know? It’s very careful (usually) not

      1. well how did the last bit of my comment get cut off? pff. anyway, to continue (from what I remember from last night anyway):

        It’s very careful (usually) not to out-and-out lie but it’s so good at distorting and misrepresenting the truth to fit its agenda that it usually doesn’t even *need* to lie. If you’re right-wing and you want to read a right-wing paper, I’m not going to try to convince you otherwise, but at least try one that doesn’t treat its readers like idiots. There’s always the Telegraph and the Times you know.

  43. Such a shame Cameron’s speech has been sullied by these MP’s. It would be amazing if the consevratives brought in marriage equality during this parliament. Fingers crossed. It would heal a lot of the wounds from the old homophobic tory days.

  44. George Broadhead 8 Oct 2011, 6:41pm

    I hope the photo accompanying this report doesn’t give the impression that the celebrant must wear a dog-collar.

    Given the almost total religious hostility to gay marriage, most gays would surely consider this a completely unsuitable garb.

  45. Dominic Kirkbride 9 Oct 2011, 2:33am

    well I’m terribly sorry Mr Howarth, but who told you we all want ‘christian marriage’ – I want a state marriage, i.e. equal to heterosexual state marriage, because I pay the same taxes towards the state and I want equal opportunities from the state, and if that happens to include being able to have a proper union with my boyfriend without relegating myself to a second class citizen by accepting that civil partnerships are the best I’m ever gonna get, then you, sir, will just have to move on and accept that, otheriwse, DO ONE!!!

  46. connor wallace 9 Oct 2011, 9:43am

    “I take the view that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. That is what Christian marriage is about.”


  47. Only as recently as the early 1970’s The legal definition of marriage was changed to explicitly exclude same sex couples from marriage (1971-1973) initiated by conservative forces as a reactionary and pre-emptive response to the rising Gay Liberation Movement which was finding it’s voice around the same time.
    In 1971 same sex couples were banned from marrying and in 1973 the definition of marriage was changed.
    Matrimonial Causes Act 1973

    1. whymewhyme 9 Oct 2011, 11:37am

      Conservative Government 1970–1974

      conservative forces with a big C

      1. Edward Heath was Prime Minister
        according to many, including Pink News, Edward heath was a gay man

    2. I believe it was more to do with the case of a famous transexual model who had married a member of the aristocracy, thus shocking the establishment.

    3. de Villiers 10 Oct 2011, 11:13am

      Pavlos, you have got this wrong before. And I have pointed it out.

      Before this amendment, gay marriage was prohibited at common law. Where a gay marriage took place, the state had to apply to a court to have it annulled. The annulment was automatic and could not be refused.

      The only difference that this amendment made was to annul such marriages without the requirement to apply to the court. It made no difference to the legal status of gay marriage.

      I am disappointed that you have repeated this when you know what you have said to be untrue,

      1. “The Nullity of Marriage Act 1971 was the first time in British law that marriage was defined as being between a male and a female. A marriage could therefore be annulled if the partners were not respectively male and female.”

        1. The first time in statute but not the first time in English law, common law as de Villiers rightly points out had ensured the annulment of marriages of gay couples prior to the 1971 Act.

          early 1970s is a long time ago with regards advancement of LGBT rights in the UK and to hark back to then as if it was something recent doesnt really wash. No doubt there were concerns then about LGBT issues and some bigots reacting to the relatively recent legalisation of homosexuality … have some context …

  48. Marriage laws.
    “In 1971 the Nullity of Marriage Act was passed, explicitly banning marriages between same-sex couples in England and Wales.[4] This act was later replaced by the currently in-force Matrimonial Causes Act 1973which also declared that a marriage is void if the parties are not respectively male and female.[5]Prohibition of same-sex marriages was also included in the marriage legislation of Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 and the Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 both state there is a legal impediment to marriage if the parties are of the same sex.[6][7]”

    1. de Villiers 10 Oct 2011, 11:14am

      Pavlos, you have got this wrong before. And I have pointed it out.

      Before this amendment, gay marriage was prohibited at common law. Where a gay marriage took place, the state had to apply to a court to have it annulled. The annulment was automatic and could not be refused.

      The only difference that this amendment made was to annul such marriages without the requirement to apply to the court. It made no difference to the legal status of gay marriage.

      I am disappointed that you have repeated this when you know what you have said to be untrue.

      1. You repeat the same accusation so I rmust post this again.
        “The Nullity of Marriage Act 1971 was the first time in British law that marriage was defined as being between a male and a female. A marriage could therefore be annulled if the partners were not respectively male and female.”

        1. de Villiers 10 Oct 2011, 2:29pm

          No it was not. It was stated in the common law prior to this.

          Holy matrimony in law is and was the estate into which a man and a woman enter when they consent and contract to cohabit with each other and each other only: Book of Common Prayer; Harrod v Harrod (1854) 1 K & J 4.

          According to the doctrine of the Church of England confirmed at common law, marriage is in its nature a union permanent and life-long, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side: Revised Canons Ecclesiastical, Canon B30 para 1. See also Canon B30 para 2.

          The only kind of marriage which English law recognises is one which is the voluntary union for life of one man with one woman to the exclusion of all others: Nachimson v Nachimson [1930] P 217, CA; Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee (1866) LR 1 P & D 130; Re Bethell, Bethell v Hildyard (1888) 38 ChD 220; Sowa v [1961] P 70, [1961] 1 All ER 687, CA.

        2. de Villiers 10 Oct 2011, 2:37pm

          If two persons of the same sex contrive to go through the formalities of a ceremony of marriage, the ceremony is not a marriage ceremony at all, but it has been held that the court in such circumstances is precluded from granting purely declaratory relief but -must- grant a nullity decree: Corbett v Corbett [1971] P 83, [1970] 2 All ER 33 (operated male transsexual).

          A marriage celebrated after 31 July 1971 is void where the parties are not respectively male and female – that is void ab initio without a court order rather than on a declaration that it is a nullity (which had to be granted). The 1971 statute stated nothing that was already stated as a matter of common-law, which was then replaced by the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

          The -only- difference pre and post the 1971 Act was that marriage stated to be other than between a man and a woman was void automatically whereas pre the 1971 Act it was a nullity at common law.

          Whatever your source is, Pavlos, it is wrong.

        3. De Villiers is right common law (then and still part of English law) had precedence to deal with the issue of same sex couples getting married and ‘requiring’ annulment …

          The 1971 Act was the first English statutory law on this issue …

          1. Before 1973 homosexuality was a classified diagnosis, the situation changed from 1973 onward when homosexuality was declassified as a listed diagnosis. This needs to be taken into full account when referring to common law regarding homosexuality and homosexuals prior to the 1970’s when rulings were based in a very different understanding of homosexuality as a mental illness.

          2. Consider that the Causes of Marriage Act 1973 still in operation was enacted in May 1973 before homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness in December 1973 and you might agree that any laws enacted prior to that declassification will be biased against homosexuals and require changing.

          3. de Villiers 11 Oct 2011, 11:07am

            Pavlos – that is completely irrelevant. The common law has already defined marriage as one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. It is there in those very cases I cited to you.

            It does not matter that homosexuality is now no longer considered to be an illness. The common-law definition still applies and would have to be repealed. The MCA really has added nothing to English law.

          4. @Pavlos

            Whilst I agree with your sentiments about homosexuality being incorrectly viewed as an illness in society, the classification of a “condition” as an illness unless specified in law and then referred to specifically with regards marriage, has no basis on which to form legal opinion on marriage issues.

            Common law clearly has stated that marriage is between one man and one woman – if two men or two women were to marry then whether or not they have mental health issues recognised in society or capacity is irrelevant as they are not one man and one woman. Thats wrong and thats why equal marriage should come in to play. Clearly if those wishing to engage in marriage (of whatever type of relationship) lack mental capacity then they can not consent to the marriage but thats not related to the gender of the participants or the orientation.

    2. Yawn yawny yawn … Anorak alert, move on.

      1. Its important when considering changes of law to get the detail right and I am pleased some of us are interested in the detail

  49. whymewhyme 9 Oct 2011, 11:31am

    the religious churches should be allowed to do whatever they want

    the government however rules the country so civil marriage is a must for equality

    as far as i’m concerned churches can marry pigs and goats if they believe thats what dog wants

  50. ‘Marriage’ is prior to church, prior to what we now call ‘religion’. Tribally, there have always been unions and the unions were defined by the gods of the people: “whoever must be together as one.”

    1. Total rubbish. The biggest toughest hardest most successful guys just inseminated as many females as possible. And polygamy was the global norm till about 100 years ago, for the same reason, monogamy was very much in the minority.

  51. Here is hoping that it happens! why even have consultations…. just get on with it make equal marriage legal.

    If it is a carrot on a string by the conservatives who people believe to be untrustworthy… always remember that the Con in “Con”servative is exactly that!

  52. To be ignored

  53. If anything is a step too far, it’s these bloody religious nutters trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. They’re always playing the victim card. Nobody is preventing them from believing or worshipping so they should stay the hell out of civil matters that are none of their bloody business. How many more times do they have to be told that civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Let them provide the proof that this will bring about the collapse of society. They (the straights) have been doing a bloody good job of it themselves without any help from us with their adultery, high divorce rate and promiscuity.

  54. I’m Jewish and my particular branch of Judaism is in support of gay marriage. So why should i have to listen to what this MP has to say. I don’t want a christian marriage. I either want a civil one or one in my local synagogue, which wouldnt be a problem with my Rabbi.

  55. *sighs* the old ‘changing the definition of marriage’ argument… *yawn*

    1. Yes, definition of marriage does need to be updated, it was last updated in 1973 to specifically exclude same sex couples ironically (or was it done deliberately) shortly before homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness and declared a normal human sexual orientation.
      This means the satutory legal definition of marriage contains all the ignorant and superstitious / religious anti-gay bias of the preceding era that misinformed common law before homosexuality was understood by the medical world and by society, the exclusive legal definition of marriage is an anachronism and it needs now to be changed to be inclusive.

  56. I hope he realises England isn’t a Christian country.

    1. Galadriel1010 10 Oct 2011, 11:19pm

      It kind of is, though. Our head of state is also the head of the national church. It’s an extremely secular christian country, but we do fit the definition.

  57. “That is what Christian marriage is about”

    How ODD…Really?! Are you sure Mr Howarth because my parents are married and they don’t concider themselves to be Christian AND I have Pagan friends who are also married!!!

    Go and soak your head please Gerald Howarth you’re talking rubbish!

  58. It is a false argument to say that the prohibition of same-sex marriage is ‘discrimination’ or ‘unfair treatment’ towards homosexuals.

    If the law stated that only ‘straight’ people could get married, this would be an example of direct discrimination and would be wrong.

    However, the law doesn’t state this. What it states instead is that marriage is a legally binding union that is open to one man and one woman. The reason for this of course, is that monogamous heterosexuality is the sole environment in which procreation is able to take place.

    And since 2005, the law has granted the option of a civil partnership to two members of the same sex. Civil partnerships of course award the same financial and legal rights as marriage.

    So your ‘sexual orientation’ is not taken into account when marriages are concerned. A woman who considers herself lesbian cannot marry another woman any more than a woman who considers herself straight can. In a similar way, a ‘straight’ man cannot enter into a CP with a woman any more than a ‘gay’ man can.

    What the many ‘campaigners’ for ‘marriage equality’ are after is not equal treatment – it is special treatment.

    Also as has been mentioned before, there are people in loving polyamorous relationships who wish to have their relationships legally recognised. Surely those such in favour of ‘marital equality’ should also be campaigning to end the ‘discrimination’ against polyamorous people and allow them to enter into collective CPs.

    1. It makes me chortle reading through the comments that so many include lambasting a ‘same-sex marriage’ opponent a ‘bigot.’ Wow, ‘bigot’ of course meaning someone intolerant to the opinions of others. See the irony anyone?

      1. de Villiers 11 Oct 2011, 8:43am

        That is a bit sloppy Anon. If we were all intolerant of fascism or Nzaism, that would not make us bigots or fascists ourselves.

        Your fallacy has been to confuse internal and external preferences. We all have the right to consider what we should do ourselves (internal preference) – the car/house we buy, the person with whom we wish to live. We have limited rights to control other people (external preferences) – by refusing to allow a neighbour to buy a BMW, to buy property, to get married.

        There is nothing incompatible with seeking to maximise the ability of individuals to choose their internal preferences but seeking to minimise the ability of individuals to stop others wanting to maximise their internal preferences.

        We are not bigoted when we try to stop you from limiting our internal preferences. On the contrary, we are liberal in that we are not seeking to stop you from maximising your internal preferences – we are merely trying to stop you from minimising ours.

    2. de Villiers 11 Oct 2011, 8:31am

      That is not correct, Anon. Although the rule is not directly discriminatory against gay people, it amounts to a provision, criterion or practice that puts gay people at a disadvantage in comparison to straight people. Therefore, the law is indirectly discriminatory.

      1. Well said, de Villiers.

        Anon – separate isn’t equal. LGBT people do NOT want ‘special treatment’. We want equal treatment – no more, no less.

    3. de Villiers 11 Oct 2011, 8:35am

      > Also as has been mentioned before, there are people in loving polyamorous relationships who wish to have their relationships legally recognised. Surely those such in favour of ‘marital equality’ should also be campaigning to end the ‘discrimination’ against polyamorous people and allow them to enter into collective CPs.

      Further, Anon, I am against polygamous marriage on grounds of public policy. I am for gay marriage on grounds of public policy. To be in favour of the latter does not result in being in favour for the former.

      Nevertheless, if it were the democratic will of the country, as expressed through an elected parliament or assembly, to allow polygamous marriage then that would be the democratic will. As it happens, I can see no substantial support for such a policy.

    4. Then why cant people who have legally had their sex changed to female get married? That is one woman and one man?

  59. The currently in-force Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 which also declared that a marriage is void if the parties are not respectively male and female was enacted before homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness.
    The act provides our current statutory legal definition of marriage explicitly excluding same sex couples.
    Considering the backward attitudes toward homosexuality of the time it was formulated, does anybody have any comments to make about this biased law that is still in operation today?

    1. de Villiers 11 Oct 2011, 11:04am

      This is a biased law but even if it were to be repealed, the common law would still apply. Therefore both the MCA and the common-law would have to be repealed.

      The MCA is really a red herring which is distracting you from the current state of the common-law. All the common-law would have to be repealed.

    2. de Villiers 11 Oct 2011, 11:11am

      I have just read your previous message. I can see difficulty, which is surmountable, in the government legislating for gay marriage in England and Wales.

      The government would have to:

      1. Enact a positive statutory right to gay marriage; or

      2. (a) Repeal the MCA and state that the common law in relation to marriage being one man and woman is abolished to that extent only and;
      2. (b) State that for the purposes of England and Wales, the definition of marriage includes either one man and one woman or one man and one man or one woman and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

      1. I think you begin to see my point, I say screw the common law as irrelevant regarding same sex couples as well as the Marital Causes Act as all came before society had any understanding of homosexuality as a normal human sexual orientation.
        Since declassification in 1973 society has a better understanding of homosexuality which must be taken into account where now anachronistic laws still apply as the situation has substantially changed.

        1. de Villiers 11 Oct 2011, 4:59pm

          I agree – but the common law has to be repealed by Parliament otherwise it still has the full force of law. I would prefer the second option above rather than the first because if a subsequent government sought to repeal a positive right to marriage, then the existing common law would have effect whereas if the common law itself were abolished, it cannot be resurrected so easily.

  60. Being gay/Lesbian/Bisexual had been cursed by all religious. God may not prevent natural disasters, everything is subject to the fall of humanity into ‘sinful that effects on everythings’ for ex: disasters, disease, resources limited, crisis & suffering as universe by against the laws of nature (Genesis 1:1). Revenge of God, Kingdom of Heavens & Mother of the Earth is ‘JUST STARTING’ God killed millions in the bible…..allowed almost every loss possible on this earth for ex: Job, Status, Sick, Deep grief, AIDS/HIV, Horrible, Loneliness, A Catastrophe Ballet. Let’s Keep praying and let’s see how that goes…Hurting was to realize what’s coming. ‘Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God’ (by the name of Jesus Christ, Amen!!)

    1. Spanner1960 11 Oct 2011, 1:27pm

      By your beliefs, God made homosexuals just like he made everyone else.
      Who are you to say what is and isn’t acceptable?
      As the Bible states “Judge not others lest thou be judged thyself.”

    2. I’m always surprised that someone as superstitious and backward as you so clearly are Shiva is even capable of using computers to access the internet.

      You can thank gay Alan Turing and his early pioneering research that led to the development of computers, enabling you to be the inarticulate hit and run anti-gay internet troll that you are today.

      1. de Villiers 11 Oct 2011, 4:57pm

        Don’t be surprised – think of Al Qaeda and how they use modern technology to wage terrorism in the name of religious extremism.

    3. And this is why religion is dying and is becoming increasingly irrelevent. I hasten to add that God is not religion and those who take the lords name in vane to justify their small mindedness propeganda will one day pay for their sin.

  61. Why cant we just cut the ties between religion and marraige? Religion is an institution that resists change to protect itself and its existence. Keep it seperate from the debate should same sex couples be allowed to marry.

  62. Ernest Bartlett 13 Oct 2011, 2:44am

    Marriage pre dates Christianity,the first marriage was between one man and one woman(Adam and Eve) It was on this fact that Jesus Christ underlined the sanctify of marriage,homosexuality was first introduced in Sodom as a result God destroyed the Sodomites,the eveidence is below the Dead Sea the lowest place on earth .The apostle Paul writing to the Romans(Chapter 1) states the evils of homosexuality and the ensueing judgment which will take place.

    1. I agree totally , except to say that the location of Sodom is not known, it is merely thought to be under the Dead Sea.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.