Reader comments · Tory MP: Not the time for gay marriage debate · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Tory MP: Not the time for gay marriage debate

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. If it’s an issue that not many of his constituents are bothered about- why is he so interested? Take a look at his Wikipedia entry and it all falls into place. He is married (OK for some!)- has SIX children and is “a keen supporter of his local church”. He has also criticised the “liberal elite” and spoken against equality issues in various parliamentary debates.

    1. Six children?! Good to see he’s concerned about global overpopulation and overcrowding in the UK.

    2. I suspect he’s interested because of what this article doesn’t reveal about Mr Burrows …. his Wikipedia page states that he is “Parliamentary Chairman of the Conservative Christian Fellowship” and a “Trustee and active participant in his local church”. It would appear Mr Burrows is approaching this matter with an unstated agenda in mind. He can dress up his religious homophobia all he likes in political-speak but it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

  2. Christine Beckett 17 Jan 2012, 12:39pm

    He’s a member of the Conservative Christian Fellowship, just in case anyone was wondering…

    1. A founder member and current chair no less ….

  3. Christine Beckett 17 Jan 2012, 12:40pm

    This was amusing. Gives you an idea of where this guy is coming from..

    1. Yes, he is one of the extreme members of the Tory party and is in cahoots with a number of fundamentalist groups.

      Is anyone here from his Enfield / Southgate constituency? If so, maybe, consider writing an opinion piece or letter to the editor of the Enfield Gazette & Advertiser, explaining how you feel about being represented by him.

      1. I’m from Burrowes constituency.

        Can’t believe we got rid of Twigg for this idiot.

        I sent him an e-mail, explaining the support for gay marriage in the constituency and reminding him we don’t live in a theocracy. Chances of having an effect = 0, but I want to do something.

  4. Jack Holroyde 17 Jan 2012, 12:41pm

    “Many colleagues are worried that it would fundamentally affect how marriage between a man and woman has historically been viewed in this country.

    “There are strong doubts that we need to go down this path. It would open up a can of worms and a legal minefield about freedom, religion and equalities legislation.”

    So outlaw Britney Spears then…
    This isn’t about the sanctity of marriage, it’s about bigotry.

    1. Jock S. Trap 17 Jan 2012, 1:59pm

      Indeed, I mean how does 2 men or 2 women getting married really affect him unless he’s planning on one himself?

      These people are too self important, as well as shallow and narrow minded.

  5. Christine Beckett 17 Jan 2012, 12:42pm

    Jeez, I hope this is supposed to be facetious….

  6. I personally wouldn’t want a religious marriage, but the opportunity for a civil marriage would be welcome. I’m tired of religious types telling other people how they should live their lives. I don’t think the ‘imagined’ will of his invisible friend in the sky should prevent me living my life in the way I see fit.

    1. Jock S. Trap 17 Jan 2012, 2:01pm

      Indeed. Can you imagine what would happen if we turned round and told them how to live their lives? We’d never hear the end of their whinging.

  7. Sean Martin 17 Jan 2012, 12:45pm

    >> “Surely they’d rather get cured?”

    No, *sir*, we would not, and I would thank you to keep your bigoted remarks to yourself. This is the same mindset that, in the US, said blacks were too stupid to vote because their “brains are too small to comprehend the issues”. If anyone is in need of curing his views of equality and justice, I would recommend the nearest full length mirror.

    And I shudder to think of anyone who would go into a marriage with you. The poor soul would be held to expectations defined by the 1950s.

    1. Jock S. Trap 17 Jan 2012, 2:01pm

      Indeed, how does one cured how one is born. It’s not like a chosen religious lifestyle after all.

    2. I’m sorry, I didn’t think RUDENESS was permitted in this country, even in the 1950s which you are so clearly obsessed with.

      I don’t anything about blacks or mirrors, but I do know that if I were in a marriage with myself (i.e. a man-man “marriage”) then I would immediately go to be cured WITHOUT DELAY.

      1. “I didn’t think RUDENESS was permitted in this country”

        Neither is ignorance, yet you bander it about like a badge of honour.

  8. People used to be condemned to a lifetime of misery; now they can get a divorce.


  9. Jack Holroyde 17 Jan 2012, 12:57pm

    “It is not an issue people are hammering us on the doorstep to do something about.”

    Nor is Foxhunting, yet that’s an issue the Tories are wasting the house’s time with. ..

    1. Spanner1960 17 Jan 2012, 1:03pm

      Oh give it a rest.
      The foxhunting vote was rammed through illegally simply as an act of class war.

      1. Where’s your proof about this illegal act?

        1. Spanner1960 17 Jan 2012, 5:50pm

          Blair asked for a commons vote, and when it didn’t swing the way he expected, he invoked the Parliament Act. If that is not undemocratic and potentially illegal, I don’t know what is. All the Tories are doing now is again offering a free vote for all MP’s to decide.

          This has damn all to do with animal cruelty and everything to do with trying to put down the middle and upper classes. Speak to farmers about controlling the fox population and they will tell you it is the most effective and least cruel method of controlling it.

          1. I pretty much grew up on a farm.

            The most effective and least cruel way of killing a fox is to wait around for it to show up and shoot it in the head, not to chase it around with a pack of dogs.

          2. Also most of the farmers I know couldn’t give two sh1ts whether fox hunting is banned or not, because it is so ineffective.

          3. Spanner1960 17 Jan 2012, 6:38pm

            Joss: I grew up in the country, worked on many farms and have since gone on many foxhunts. Shooting foxes is all well and good if a) you happen to have a shotgun licence, b) are willing to sit up all night waiting for them c) if the foxes actually get close enough, as they are very timid animals, and d) are a good enough shot to actually hit the damn thing in pitch darkness without wounding it or hitting somebody else.

            All this crap about pack pulling foxes apart is total rubbish. They are killed by a lead dog long before the rest of the pack gets close. I have been there and seen it happen, how many here have? A bunch of whining lefty townies whos closest thing to an animal is a pet cat they keep as a surrogate child and feed fcking canned titbits.

      2. NOT Class War.Opposition to animal cruelty. It’s called bloodsports for a reason.

        1. Jock S. Trap 17 Jan 2012, 2:03pm

          Exactly, Manuel.

        2. GingerlyColors 17 Jan 2012, 2:13pm

          So’s fishing! Put a fish-hook in you mouth and tell me it doesn’t hurt – advocates of fishing say that fish do not have nerves in their mouths! When it comes to animal welfare the only difference between fishing and fox-hunting is that the former is the biggest participant sport in the UK while the latter is seen as an elite sport for toffs. Did you know that the only black guy who is a master of foxhounds is also gay?!

          1. Did you know that the only black guy who is a master of foxhounds is also gay?!

            And your point is?

            and slaughter houses are much worse than fishing I suggest you put your energy there

          2. Did you know that the only black guy who is a master of foxhounds is also gay?!

            No does it matter? Did anyone say that fox hunting is a racist, homophobic past time?

      3. Jock S. Trap 17 Jan 2012, 2:03pm

        Really? It’s along time since Labour did anything to combat or support a class war. It was more like widening the gap for the rich.

  10. It reflects how fundamentalists want people who support gay equality to ” shut up and sit down”, for the media in various countries to ban supportive articles, programmes and even organisations. They want to silence us, but they will never succeed.

  11. Spanner1960 17 Jan 2012, 1:01pm

    “It is important that there is a reasoned debate around how we view marriage rather than about homosexual rights.”

    I quite agree. I took my Civil Partnership very seriously indeed, probably even more so than a lot of straight couples. The Book of Common Prayer states: “Marriage is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly.” and I totally concur with that. However, the fact that most of us want same-sex marriages does not denigrate, devalue or lessen the importance of the ceremony for anybody be it a religious or secular occasion.

    He is dead right, it is not a gay rights matter, it is something that should affect any and all of us equally.

    1. For once, Spanner, I agree with you 100%!

    2. Dr Robin Guthrie 17 Jan 2012, 2:52pm

      It can only be seen as a “denigration” of the institution if the person that believes that to be the case sees gays as “lesser”.

      I think that tells us all we need to know of those who harp on about “denigration”.

  12. What they fail to remember is by not passing marriage equality they are also breaking up healthy marriages as well.

    For example in my case I’m a trans-women who has been happily married for 15 years and would like to be legally recognised in my correct gender; so under the current law I have to get divorced. This is a heart breaking decision both for myself and my partner because this means breaking up a perfectly happy and healthy marriage just to get a Civil Partnership.

  13. Antony Worrall-Thompson’s top marriage tips for National Marriage Week a few years back –

    Don’t stand still and take marriage for granted

    We all have faults and must be tolerant

    Never thrust preconceived ideas upon your partner without discussion. Always be prepared to listen and take advice

    Never let the romance disappear and try not to become predictable a few pleasant surprises will always go down a treat

    Marriage is never one-sided – always share responsibilities

    Always allow enough time in your schedule to sit down and talk – communication remains important

    1. GingerlyColors 17 Jan 2012, 2:15pm

      I don’t think Anthony Worrall-Thompson is Tesco’s favourite customer right now!

      1. John Antrobus 17 Jan 2012, 7:25pm

        What’s that got to do with it?

  14. Peter & Michael 17 Jan 2012, 1:15pm

    It is about having equal rights and Same-Sex marriage to one’s loving partner is included within this. Hopefully, the nation has changed it’s opinion about homosexuality and is not frowned upon in modern society anymore, marriage does not belong to one majority section of the community.

  15. Robert in S. Kensington 17 Jan 2012, 1:19pm

    Here we go, another bloody religious idiot imposing his views on the rest of society. What is it about these religious conservatives that makes them think civil marriage comes under the domain of religion? For all his fear-mongering, why doesn’t he provide the evidence to support his statement that implies same-sex marriage will harm his?

  16. Statement from David Burrowes (Part 1)

    The Government will hold a full consultation on the issue of gay marriage in March. I look forward to the consultation when a reasoned debate can take place regarding gay marriage.

    I respect and support the settlement that has been reached in recent years regarding Civil Partnerships and do not consider that the case has been made for a change in the law. I recognise that there are strong opinions for and against the proposal of marriage and I hope the debate can be conducted with respect without resort to abuse and prejudice. I do not see the need for gay marriage to be enshrined in legislation which I see more in terms of a redefinition of marriage than an issue of homosexual rights. In my view Civil Partnerships has already made great strides for homosexual rights which mean the case still needs to be made for Parliament to now legislate.

    1. A “reasoned debate” seems to rule out religion nut jobs being involved though doesn’t it?

  17. Statement from David Burrowes (Part 2)

    I hold this view, which is an issue of conscience and the subject of a free vote, that if you change the shape of marriage away from being a union of a man and woman you change its purpose. Colleagues on all sides of Parliament will agree and disagree and we need to ensure that there is an open debate which does not descend to prejudice and abuse.

    I do not see the need for legislation to recognise gay marriage but it does not at all follow that I am anti gay and homophobic. I welcome and await the debate in March but also recognise that there are more pressing issues of concern facing my constituents and the country. For example today I was pleased to lead an important debate about how we care for the dying and support good quality palliative care. This is where changes to legislation is needed not legislation tinkering with terminology.

    1. Christine Beckett 17 Jan 2012, 1:34pm

      “but it does not at all follow that I am anti gay and homophobic”

      His voting record against Gay Equal Rights shows him to be anti-gay and homophobic.

      Check it out.

      So Mr Burrows, would you like to reword that?

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 17 Jan 2012, 3:02pm

      How can the purpose of marriage be changed if gays are allowed to marry according to Burrowes? How does that effect straight couples marrying? Why is it these people can’t distinguish religious from civil? The word “purpose” is right wing code for procreation. In that case, he must also support a ban on infertile heterosexual couples marrying and those who choose not to procreate as well as a ban on women beyond child bearing years from ever marrying. His argument is rooted in biblical religious beliefs and homophobia, pure and simple. All liars deny it when they are confronted, just like they say they have gay friends so they can’t be homophobic. He can’t produce one shred of evidence to support his statement and in doing so is violating his own beliefs, bearing false witness against his neighbours. HYPOCRITE!

  18. ‘No Public outcry for Marriage equality’! Yes there is! From those who don’t have it! This Narrow minded conservative christian MP shows exactly just how divided the torys are on this issue and that he only listens to those who think like him. Theres a battle royal brewing with them, the Lib Dems, and a Tory Leader who has signalled firm support for marriage equality. Bring it on! Lets see everyones true colours over this.

  19. It shouldn’t be a surprise that there will be homophobes attempting to derail the changes and David Cameron must have realised this, so hopefully this is taken into account and won’t stop things. People moaned about the consultation for England & Wales being delayed but in retrospect perhaps this was good tactics on Cameron and Featherstone’s behalf. It should be easier to get marriage equality through in Scotland and once that happens it forces the issue in the rest of the UK. Roll on marriage equality!

  20. The true vicious bigotry of the Tory Party rears its ugly head.

    As for that pathetuc, loser bigot – David Burrowes’ claim that the debate should be about “how we view marriage rather than about homosexual rights” – well what does the hateful little BNP sympathiser mean?

    Is he going to argue for an end ot divorce.

    David Burrows needs ot be expelled immediately or fired from the Tory Party. His views are more in sync with the BNP – Burrowes no longer has a role to play in mainstream politics thanks to his extremism.

    Has Burrowes’ hateful position been condemned by Matthew Sephton and those quisling Uncle Toms of the LGBTory group yet?

    Of course not.

    Marriage equality by summer 2012. This consultation was a mistake to begin with as it merely gives the rancid bigots like David Burrowes opportunity to spread his venom.

    There is no need for a delay till 2015.

    Marriage equality needs to be legislated for this year.

  21. Of course it doesn’t seem that important to a married straight man, but to us who can’t its a bit of an issue I’m afraid.

  22. David Burrowes is an utter moron.

    Brainless, hateful, stupid and bigotted.

    If he is so concerned about the sanctity of marriage (he is not by the way – his oppostion to marriage equality is fuelled by his hatred of LGBT people) then he would be campaigning for an end to divorce (which he would probably support thanks to his christian extremism – though he won’t as he would be laughed at to his face).

    David Burrowes is not fit for purpose as an MP thanks to his extremism

    I expect to see Matthew Sephton and LGBTory demanding his expulsion from the Tory Party.

    A refusal by Sephton or LGBTory to demand his expulsion will prove that LGBTory are a worthless PR exercise and that the Tory Party continues to hate the gay community.

    1. If he is so concerned about the sanctity of marriage … then he would be campaigning for an end to divorce.

      Exactly. But people like that never do, do they?

  23. Christine Beckett 17 Jan 2012, 1:37pm

    Burrows and his little clique of right-wing Xtian fundies see themselves as the new face of the Tory Party.

    If the Tory party really wants to move into the modern civilised world, and be seen to be doing so, it has to get rid of people like Burrows from its ranks.

    1. there is a chalange

    2. David Burrowes and his poisonous ilk are the reason only 9% of LGBT voters, voted for the Law and Justtice Tory Party at the last election.

      About 6 months before the election about 38% of LGBT people supported the Tories, however as the election approached, the vicious bigotry of extremists like Chris Grayling and Philippa Stroud and Iain Duncan Smith and their poisonous ilk was revealed.

      When it was evident that the Law and Justtice Tories supposed commitment to LGBT equality was just a PR stunt their support collapsed.

      The Tories are having a ‘consultation’ on marriage equality in March (about 9 months late) and Callmedave Cameron pretends that he wants marriage equality by 2015.

      There is no justification for the delay. It is merely a stalling tactic.

      If the likes of Burrowes are allowed their way I think people need to realise that LGBT rights will be diminished rather than increased by 2015.

      The Tories – as hateful and bigotted as ever. Only this time with expensive PR.

      1. If you could just include the link to where it says only 9 per cent of gay people voted Tory, that’d be great.

        You won’t obviously because you’ve made it up.

        The truth is this is journalism at its worse from the independent. One nutter mp stirring up trouble and they splash on it. There will be opposition to this policy from all sides of the house, and all walks of life (ever tried being gay in a council estate?) – it is not just a tory issue. We have a great prime minister who is personally campaigning on this.

        So long as Cameron is leader, I’ll be proud to be a conservative.

        1. Stranded – you agree that this bigot MP deserves instant expulsion from the Tories for his religious extremism don’t you?

        2. Cameron himself had a terrible track record on anti-discrimination legislation for LGBT people he has turned it around now because he is in charge and wants our votes!

  24. misery imposed by people with views like yours

    1. Absolutely right! And I’d guess the only one who’s really miserable here is the (presumed) straight guy who deals with that little niggling voice inside himself by trolling gay sites. Sad.

  25. Somebody here needs to change, and it sure as hell ‘aint us!

  26. Jock S. Trap 17 Jan 2012, 1:55pm

    Why is it whenever it’s about something that doesn’t concern them ‘it’s not the right time’?

    You can be assured that if it was something that affected them it would be and what a stink they would make of it.

    Fact is it shouldn’t be up for debate because it should just be happening. Equal Marriage should be a right for all no debate is necessary but I guess so long as the straight minded religious people feel a purpose to create tension then rest assured they create it.

    Enough already. Now is the right time and if they want a stable society then act in the interests of fairness and equality.

  27. Jock S. Trap 17 Jan 2012, 1:56pm

    And yet Roy your the only one that looks as if he needs to be cured…. of bigotry and ignorance!

  28. And whilst you’re going about ‘curing’ us from being gay, perhaps you’d like to ‘cure’ some other minorities which don’t match up to your arian standards.
    Left handed people, ginger people, people with too much melanin in their skin pigment, they can all be “cured” with costly therapies and plastic surgical procedures.
    Won’t it be wonderful when everybody’s “cured” as you so delicately put it. One might even say “cleansed”…

    1. We all know there’s no cure for left handedness or gingerity or skin colour, these things are determined at birth, unlike your atrocious behaviour which you choose to engage in despite the consequences.

      I often see former colleagues and friends of mine who have ruined their lives by choosing a life of insolence and misery.

      Uniting two bads does not make one good; it makes two extremely naughty persons and it makes me sad too.

      1. @Roy Gurk

        If homosexuality is so distressing to you, how do you manage to live in the UK where a homosexual may be your local MP, your Doctor or your school teacher?

        1. I find it very hard to believe that the GMC could allow an official homosexual to practice medicine. I work in a hospital and the behaviour of my colleagues is ABOVE reproach, as are all the staff members of our NHS.

        2. @Roy

          Let me introduce you to a few organisations …

          Gay and Lesbian Association of Doctors and Dentists – a thriving strong organisation in the UK

          oh – and I am a gay paramedic – one of many … and I would serve you as a patient regardless of your bigotry

        3. @Roy Gurk

          I was wondering what evidence you have that the General Medical Council does not allow homosexuals to work as doctors?

        4. The GMC states “Our statutory purpose is to protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of the public by ensuring proper standards in the practice of medicine.”

          How can they protect the public healthily and safely if they let troublesome, troubled, uncured freedom homosex into the medical and dental profession?

        5. @Roy

          Fortunately the GMC is a little more enlightened about homosexuality than you are. They recognise homosexuals do not need to be cured and have disciplined doctors who suggest such things.

          You may find the following interesting and informative reading:

          Demonstrating the commitment the GMC has to LGBT staff (clinical or otherwise)

          Deomstrating their commitment to LGBT patients

          The GMC complies (and exceeds the statutory requirements) with the Equalites Act.

          I wonder how many doctors, nurses, physio’s, paramedics etc that have treated you were gay …. probably quite a few …

          Do you accept gay teachers, gay pharmacists, gay solicitors, gay judges, gay politicians …?

          Your blatant bigotry is a choice – you choose to be ignorant and be inhumane. I do not choose to be gay. I choose to be a good clincian.

      2. BTW Roy, hate to break it to you but there’s no cure for homosexuality, at least no cure which has been credited by any respected psychiatric organisation.
        Now if you widen that circle to include various snake oil merchants and right wing evangelists such as George Rekers you’ll find plenty of people who CLAIM to have such a cure.
        They often get caught months down the line going on holiday with rent boys they hired to “lift their luggage”.
        BTW I’m sure your NHS bosses would be fascinated by your take on your former colleagues. Share it with them, why don’t you?

        1. I always give constructive feedback about my colleagues, the vast majority of whom are excellent and KIND. They don’t need to be married in order to provide lovely standards of care.

        2. Nor do they need NOT to be married in order to provide lovely standards of care.

        3. @Roy

          What are your grounds for believing that the GMC does (or should) not permit gay people to practice as doctors?

          Please evidence why you feel this way.

      3. I think you’ll find Michael Jackson found a ‘cure’ for his skin pigmentation.
        Whether it should have been ‘cured’ or provided any psychological benefit to him long term is something of a moot point.

  29. Singapore Sam 17 Jan 2012, 2:02pm

    According to the BBC, he broke Parliamentary rules when he failed to declare that some foreign trips were funded by the Israeli Foreign Affairs Dept. These trips must be SO important to his duties as MP for Enfield…!

    As Isrwal is gay friendly, maybe we should ask them to stop paying for his foreign trips!

    1. Jock S. Trap 17 Jan 2012, 2:05pm

      No doubt we’re supposed to just forget that.

    2. It should perhaps be a criminal offence for a sitting MP to accept funding from a foreign government, as it may conflict with British interests.

      1. Maybe a petition?!

        1. A sitting British MP accepting bribes from a foreign government?

          Is that legal?

          Shouldn’t the police be investigating this?

          1. Or at the very least the parliamentary commissioner …

  30. It’s nice to be reminded by politicians that im still secondclass, I nearly forgot my place.

  31. The Tories will never change.

    We really expected progress?

    1. Jock S. Trap 17 Jan 2012, 3:33pm

      But we have had progress.

      1. de Villiers 18 Jan 2012, 8:43am

        Yes – there has been massive progress at the Prime Minister has reaffirmed his commitment.

  32. The debate is a sham anyway. Instead of giving us equal rights we are treated like trash who must have permission to have what should be ours.

    Can tell the blue bloods are in charge again.

    1. Jock S. Trap 17 Jan 2012, 3:32pm

      “Can tell the blue bloods are in charge again.”

      But the leader wants marriage Equality so how do you work that out?

      1. And if his bigot party decides to revolt, Callmedave will of course be too spineless to call them out on their dangerous christian extremism and he’ll back down.

        Davif Burrowes is a BNP sympathiser. Make no mistake about that.

        He is utterly unsuitable to be a politician in a mainstream political party thanks to his bigotry,

        Yet the quisling Uncle Toms of the LGBTory group have said NOTHING about his lunatic extremism?

        LGBTory – a PR exercise and nothing more.

    2. TBF We would have had to fight for our equality regardless of who was in.

    3. Yep, look at all that marriage equality we got under the last lot. They wouldn’t have given us a seperate-but-“equal” watered down version of a Lib Dem private members’ bill or anything…

  33. GingerlyColors 17 Jan 2012, 2:24pm

    It’s time that we allowed gay marriage. By saying that the time isn’t right now is suggesting that someday the time will be right. When will the time be right? How about right now. As a gay man who is prepared to respect the views of others I was concerned that there was going to be an anti-gay backlash when the previous Labour government used the Parliament Act to force through the lowering of the gay age of consent to 16. In the end it became a non-issue. Then there was the allowing of gays to serve openly in the military. I expected a huge barrack-room revolt over it – again, there was no issue about it! It’s time for the Conservatives to bite the bullet and go one better than he Labour Party and legalise gay marriage and bring this country into line with the likes of Holland, Scandanavia and Argentina. People have more important things to worry about such as the economy, law and order, the NHS, and so on . . .

  34. ““I do not see the need for legislation to recognise gay marriage but it does not at all follow that I am anti gay and homophobic. ”

    In other words he’s anti-gay and homophobic.

    1. in other words a tory! These guys were praising that uncle tom queen from reading. this is what the tories are all about

      1. Jock S. Trap 17 Jan 2012, 3:35pm

        Really, are we to forget this is a minor person compared with a supportive Tory Prime Minister who has impleted quite a bit considering they’ve only been in little under 2 years.

        1. Dave does PR and would sell his mother to be in power. I do not trust him.

          While we are fighting for marriage he is sending disabled and elderly people, some of whom are gay, to die at home alone. The man is quite nasty

        2. Why is the Tory PM waiting until the last gasp of the present government to introduce equality?

          2015? Will the government last that long.

          Callmedave is the leader of a bigotted party. This Burrowes individual with his nasty, small minded bigotry is representative of the people who Callmedave represents.

          Why is 2015 an acceptable date for equality?

          What’s wrong with 2012?

    2. You can tell he’s homophobic by the language he uses.

      He used the term ‘homosexual’ more than he used the more relaxed term ‘gay’.

      1. Jock S. Trap 17 Jan 2012, 3:36pm

        indeed it does show him up for the bigot he really is. Next he’ll be telling us ‘some of his best friends are Gay’.

    3. Jock S. Trap 17 Jan 2012, 3:33pm


  35. It is not about a redefinition of marriage, with the introduction of marriage equality marriage will still be between one man and one woman for any opposite sex couples who want to get wed, so marriage remains the same for them but opposite sex couples will no longer be exclusively and unfairly privileged over same sex couples who will now also have access to legal marriage.
    Same sex relationships are not inferior to opposite sex relationships, they do not require separate classification if legally they are equivalent.

    1. Exactly. A similar argument was used to try to continue the ban on interracial marriages in some countries, and it’s just stupid and illogical. Not to mention an attempt to keep one group of human beings in their place as ‘inferior’. Nasty, vicious and hateful.

      1. Jock S. Trap 17 Jan 2012, 3:38pm

        Exactly. It’s ridiculous and pathetic and very limiting on there part. You’d think they had better things to do.

        1. David Burrowes needs to be sacked from the Tories.

          His extremism makes the BNP a more suitable party for his disgusting attitudes.

          A bigot like Burrowes has no place in mainstream politics.

    2. Jock S. Trap 17 Jan 2012, 3:37pm

      Very well put Pavlos.

      In any case unless these people are planning to marry within same sex I don’t see what the hell it has to do with them or how exactly it affects them unless they are so insecure in the first place. That says more about them then.

    3. de Villiers 18 Jan 2012, 8:46am

      It is a redefinition of marriage – we should not be afraid to recognise that but also to argue that the time is right for such a change given the success of gay civil partnerships, gay adoption and the general participation of openly gay individuals in society and the state.

  36. It will never be “the time” for the marriage debate – an unpopular gov’t will think it too risky, if there’s an election coming, it will be too risky etc etc. If they had meant to do it at all, they would have done it sharpish.

  37. ““if you change the shape of marriage away from being a union of a man and woman you change its purpose. ”

    It’s purpose, eh? I’m guessing you mean procreation there, Burrowes. Funny that, because I;’d bet you none of my married straight friends would mention that if I asked them why they got married. In fact, I wouldn’t even embarrass them by asking because the answer’s obvious – they got married because of LOVE.

    What a spiteful man, trying to deprive other loving couples of something he was able to have himself. Do you ever see LGBT people trying to ban straight people marrying?

    1. I think the purpose of marriage David Burrowes has in mind is similar to the one expressed by Stephen Colbert here:

    2. Jock S. Trap 17 Jan 2012, 3:40pm

      Indeed. It suggests yet again that old ploy that you cannot love properly unless it’s between a man and a woman. How shallow of them.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 17 Jan 2012, 4:58pm

      Exactly right, Iris. The arrogance of these religious nutters when they assume they’re speaking for the rest of society. Why is it they think religion should dictate who can and cannot enter into a civil marriage makes my blood boil. The two are entirely different. One mandates procreation, the other doesn’t. Using his m.o. he’ d have to support a ban on heterosexuals who choose not to or cannot procreate. I fail to see how our marrying affects hetero marriage or its “purpose”? I’d like him to provide the evidence to support his statement given the 10 year history of same-sex marriage. I want to see the proof just exactly how our marrying has affected his and anybody else’s marriage.

    4. Iris: the purpose of marriage got me thinking. I checked out the book of Common Prayer and found the following reasons given:

      “First, It was ordained for the procreation of children … Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication … Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other…”

      It seems to me that although gay folk fall down on 1, they could qualify on 2 and 3.

      My golden bible text still remains though: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” Genesis 2v24 and the way I see it, this was the pattern God had ordained at the beginning for the good of society.

      Having said that, I really appreciate you as a person and I would not want to be spiteful and deny you the same happiness that I wish for mixed sex to couples … therein lies my dilemma.

      1. So how do you pick and choose which texts from the old testment are still to be followed?

        There is a lot of spitefulness from some Christians (sometimes when they do not intend to as well) towards LGBT people …

        There is a perception that some Christians regard equality and fairness as a bad thing

        1. Spanner1960 18 Jan 2012, 8:58am

          I have still yet to hear any Christian answer as to why they cherry pick rules that are not only in the same book, but many in the same chapter.

          OK, so some rules such as keeping slaves may be obsolete, so why can’t condemning gay relationships also be considered out of date? Who decides what is ‘in’ and what is ‘out’?

        2. Stu:
          I know we have discussed this before and your point to de Villiers beow about hermeneutics and contextulisation are valid of course.

          Studying the Bible is my great passion and I confess there is much I do not understand.

          I regret the harm cause when Christians at my end of the ecclesiological spectrum take passages out of context and act in an unnecessarily spiteful way.

          I have no issue with equality and fairness as you know but my priority has to be truth and righteousness. I come to the views I do having tried to weigh the various texts.

          1. @John

            I was not trying to suggest that you personally do not value equality or fairness … I know in many ways that you do … I know there are some areas where you would contend you are being scriptural and I would argue your approach is unfair, but generally I would regard your approach as fair and principled – with the caveat that some areas such as equal marriage your views I perceive as unreasonable; although I do not believe you are ever spiteful …

            I read something interesting on Genesis earlier today in my exploring historic same sex marriage that led me to smile on the interpretation that has been place on it … I will post it later …

          2. The passage was:

            Biblical attitudes toward homosexuality are often reduced to strict condemnation based upon passages interpreted from the Old Testament Book of Genesis, though some scholars suggest that the description of same-sex relationships as “unnatural” only means “out of the ordinary” and not “immoral”. Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, however, seems to be clearer in its punishment of homosexual men (along with condemnation of adulterous women, incest, and the ritual sacrifice of children). Ultimately, the influence of a Christian focus on procreation as central to marriage became apparent in Roman law during the later empire.

            Sexuality, in other words, and not just homosexuality came under attack by a growing religious belief that intercourse was meant only for the production of children. Ultimately, excessive sexual indulgence of any kind both inside and outside the bonds of marriage was prohibited by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, with the most sever condemnation of …

          3. … adulterous women, incest, and the ritual sacrifice of children). Ultimately, the influence of a Christian focus on procreation as central to marriage became apparent in Roman law during the later empire.

            Sexuality, in other words, and not just homosexuality came under attack by a growing religious belief that intercourse was meant only for the production of children. Ultimately, excessive sexual indulgence of any kind both inside and outside the bonds of marriage was prohibited by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, with the most severe condemnation saved for homosexuality, particularly of men

          4. Stu: thanks for your comments. There is a certain amount of truth in what you quote. One of the reason I am writing a book on the Song of Solomon is that I believe the the biblical perspective on sex and marriage is that sex is wonderful and so is marriage and to focus exclusively on procreation is a distortion of the truth. The only reason I go on about the exclusivity of marriage to members of the opposite sex is because that is what on balance the Bible teaches.

          5. Hi JohnB :) – Then let’s keep religious marriage as it is now with churches, etc being able to decide whom they marry – eg no divorcees – but let’s have CIVIL marriage equality.

            As others have said, if we allow ‘what the Bible says’ to inform our law-making then we’ll be stoning non-virgin brides to death on their fathers’ doorsteps and allowing slavery.

            I put ‘what the Bible says’ in quotes there because it’s open to interpretation. I don’t believe the Bible condemns consensual, loving, adult gay relationships at all.

            With respect, I don’t put any weight on that bit of Genesis because: it could equally be used in support of incest; Genesis contains other inaccuracies that we now know to be wrong; the birth of children is clearly necessary for the human race so that section is promoting THAT not heterosexuality; similar language about ‘cleaving’ was used in the story of Ruth and Naomi, wasn’t it? So maybe that’s god’s message that being gay is perfectly OK – which it is.

      2. de Villiers 18 Jan 2012, 8:55am

        All the biblical stories have to be viewed through the time they were written. They cannot be taken literally but used as metaphors to understand truths of their time and then reinterpreted to today.

        It is the same with all literature. A play of Shakespeare can be reinterpreted numerous times to carry different meanings in different decades. Literary construction admits many updated interpretations.

        One could, therefore, equally take the words of the old testament that “loh tov hivat hadum lvdoh” – it is not good that man should be lonely and consider that in times of extreme individualism and personal greed, that we should be able to share our lives and personality with others in civil union.

        1. @de Villiers

          As a non-Christian I fully understahd the theories of exegesis and hermaneutics and that contextualisation is important …

          However, it does not make sense that (for example) levitical guidnance is accepted by some Christians as sacrosanct particularly when its those passages which refer to homosexuality but a much less rigorous when is comes to eating shellfish, wearing clothing of mixed fibres etc …. or elsewhere in the Bible will state that their interpretation of the passage is that homosexuality is wrong but seem much more liberal on women in leadership, slavery etc etc

          The incompatabilities are often issues that some Christians prefer to remain blinkered to …

        2. de Villiers 18 Jan 2012, 1:44pm

          That must be right. I fail to understand how religious Christians can think that the word of the Bible is to be taken literally and as the absolute word of God, which is a similar error into which fall the vulgar and unlearned form of atheists.

          1. You certainly have a point about the more extreme elements of many groups in society – Christians, Atheists and others ….

      3. JohnB – quite frankly. If you think your religious beliefs should have ANY bearing on my legal rights, then you are an extremist and a lunatic.

        If you think the book of common prayer should influence our secular laws, then I would respectfully request that you shover said book, up your jacksie!

        1. Spanner1960 18 Jan 2012, 6:19pm

          Oh give it a rest. A large proportion of British law is based on the Bible. That is simply because it is based on good, simple common sense, and nobody has managed to supersede it. If you were to pull out all the supernatural and superstitious mumbo-jumbo, there is still a lot to be said of the moral standing of the Bible, so even as a devout atheist, I still think a lot of it is worth following as a simple guide to life.

      4. “My golden bible text still remains though:”

        Yeah, which paragon of wisdom do you want to live your live by, John:

        “If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it’s inhabitants… even the animals” (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)

        “Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death” (Leviticus 20:27)

        Real pearls of wisdom and “christian” compassion.

        Only a complete idiot or a person with acute mental health issues thinks of these as “golden”. Grow up, John, the only thing you christians have in common is hat none of you actually follow the teachings of christ, just a few lines to back up your theocratic hate of others.

  38. MarilynMonroe 17 Jan 2012, 3:12pm

    Who the hell is this little idiot David Burrowes to determine when the time is right for marriage equality?

    I think it’s time and my opinion is shared by the majority of British people.

    This David Burrowes person has been accepting foreign travel bribes from foreign governments and not declaring these, hasn’t he?

    Shouldn’t he be fired and investigated by the police for these trips?

    How do we get these bribes investigated properly. There is a clear conflict of interest when a British MP accepts money from a foreign government. What is the little creep up to?

    1. Jock S. Trap 17 Jan 2012, 3:41pm

      Indeed. David Burrowes speaks, thankfully, for a minority. Yet tries hard to assume its the majority.

  39. David Burrowes
    Conservative MP for Enfield, Southgate

    Voted very strongly against equal gay rights.

    5. Gifts, benefits and hospitality (UK)

    Name of donor: CARE (Christian Action Research and Education)

    Address of donor : 53 Romney Street, London SW1P 3RF.

    Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: Four days a week voluntary service from September 2010 to July 2011 provided by a Volunteer Intern who is self-funding except for the receipt of a bursary of £5,500 as a member of the educational Leadership Programme at the Christian Charity CARE.
    Date of receipt of donation: September 2010
    Date of acceptance of donation: September 2010
    Donor status: charity
    (Registered 20 December 2010)

    Should the day ever come when they find this homophobic god botherer either jammed up or being jammed by someone other that his wife, I will be a very happy bunny.

    1. Is CARE funded by American donors? If so then this might indirectly be another foreign benefit, as well as the trips to Israel funded by the Israeli Government.

  40. Ms Williams is not the only hard-line Christian lobbyist working the corridors of power. Another group reaches even further. Christian Action Research and Education (Care) has borrowed the tactics of America’s religious Right in its attempts to affect policy. Care describes itself as a “mainstream Christian charity bringing Christian insight and experience to matters of public policy”. A closer look at its website appears to contradict the claim to be “mainstream”. The organisation’s published doctrinal basis is distinctly fundamentalist and among other things talks of “the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture and its consequent entire trustworthiness and supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct”. In other words, the Bible is the literal truth.

    Lyndon Bowring, the charity’s executive chairman, is on the board of Kensington Temple, one of London’s largest Pentecostal organisations. He is also on the board of Care for the Family, the European arm of Focus on the Family.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 17 Jan 2012, 6:07pm

      Ah…Focus on the Family….an American hate group in all matters relating to LGBT rights. This doesn’t come as any surprise. The thing is, it needs to be exposed.

    2. Spanner1960 18 Jan 2012, 9:05am

      Aren’t these also the people responsible for “missionaries” sent out to Africa that are now funding the churches and governments to actively ‘root-out’ homosexuality and impose criminal legislation including even death penalties?

      These people are dangerous in the extreme and need to be exposed for the hatemongers they are.

  41. Christian Action Research and Education (CARE) uses the tactics of the religious fundamentalist Right in all its efforts to affect national policy. CARE describes itself as a “mainstream Christian charity bringing Christian insight and experience to matters of public policy”. It is the furthest thing from that. CARE’s published doctrinal is fundamentalist and promulgates that the “divine inspiration of Holy Scripture and its consequent entire trustworthiness and supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct”. In case you may have missed that point Mr. Burrows believes that the Bible is the literal truth. He is part of a small but highly determined group of 12 MP’s who use CARE interns. You can bet none of those 12 are anything other than steadfastly opposed to all moves to make marriage a matter of equality before the law. Burrowes is a homophobe to the last fibre of his being.

  42. This mans an idiot of the worst kind!!! …He’s straight and so automatically has the right to marry…divorce…marry…divorce…AND marry….You get my drift!

    Everyone, regardless of sex, religion etc should have the right to marry…This is JUST about gay rights. It’s about HUMAN rights you idiot!

    1. Yes but David Burrowes hates gay people.

      He’s a religious extremist.

  43. There are currently 12 MPs, mostly Tories, who employ Care interns. The most powerful is Caroline Spelman, vice-chairman of the Conservative Party.
    According to the MPs’ register of interests (2008), at least eight Care interns have been employed in the Commons since September, including in the offices of senior party managers whose roles will be influential at voting time. Care’s annual report claims there are up to 12 interns at Westminster – potentially meaning another four MPs have not declared their staff. Care interns have worked for; Paul Burstow (Liberal Democrat) . David Burrowes (Conservative) . Alistair Burt (Conservative) . Stephen Crabb (Conservative a former CARE intern himself). Jim Dobbin .(Labour). Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat). Sharon Hodgson (Labour). Stephen O’Brien. (Conservative) .Andy Reed (Labour) has worked for CARE.. Caroline Spelman (Conservative) . Andrew Selous (Conservative). Gary Streeter. (Conservative). Steve Webb (Liberal Democrat)

    1. Sharon Hogson surprises me …. she is usually very pro gay (goes to check voting record in case her out of politics demeanour is somewhat different to her voting principles)

      1. Voting record on gay rights by Sharon Hodgson is exceptionally good …

  44. There are 7 Conservative, 3 Labour, 3 Liberal Democrats MP’s who are effectively CARE MP’s in the Parliament.
    The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime minister might like to reflect on the fact that the MP’s listed above are effectively the agents of the American funded Christian fundamentalist agenda that seeks to impose on this country its values on us all regardless of our views on that.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 17 Jan 2012, 6:05pm

      Many American “christian” fundamentalists belong to hate groups such as Focus on the Family, American Family Association. I think this deserves closer examination of their connection to the UK in trying to influence the British political system. I wonder if CARE could be compelled to publish its donor source? If it can be proved their primary funding is coming from America, then the government needs to raise the red flag. Foreign infiltration of our political system should not be tolerated or allowed.

  45. Looking at his charm(ing/less) visage, I thought it would be case of the lady doth protest too much…Then I saw how he tied his tie.


    16th of December list of Members Interests above. It is possible to see the CARE interns names along with the MP’s they are working with.

    I think it is completely at odds with an open democracy when fundamentalists such as these can be placed in positions of influence, and the MP’s hide the true purpose of these individuals in the parliament, that has to be a serious wrong.

  47. Isn’t this the party of small government and personal freedom? Or is it the party of freedom as long as they coincide with my religious beliefs?
    Anyone with any remaining doubts about the malign influence of religion on equality?

  48. Hope this isn’t the true colours of the Tories shining through after all that Cameron has said. Are they still a party of homophobic bigots or not?

    1. de Villiers 18 Jan 2012, 10:07am

      I suspect that some are and some aren’t.

  49. Aren’t there any gays in Enfield-Southgate? Perhaps they can start writing to tis guy!!!!!

    I’ve been banging on about marriage equality to my MP for the last year, I’ve written to the GEO, PM etc etc….Who says it’s something we don’t want? I’ve now written to the old homophobes on the 1922 committee!!!

  50. For someone who looks like an angel he’s a really nasty fellow…

  51. What an auto-fellator !

  52. Same old sTories

  53. Its hard to imagine him fathering one child let alone six, his wife deserves a medal. My heart goes out to her.

  54. concerned resident of E3 17 Jan 2012, 10:49pm

    in a weird twist of fortune, I used to go out with Mr Burrowes’ older sister . . .

    1. So is she a lesbanatarian or not?

  55. Not everyone WANTS to get married, i think it is freedom of choice.

    1. True.

      But gay people are denied the choice. So it’s not a choice for us.

    2. jamestoronto 18 Jan 2012, 2:42am

      But gays in the UK don’t have that freedom of choice.

    3. Well that’s the whole point. Many won’t get married, yet they shouldn’t be denied having the choice.

  56. I hope the Tories bring in true marriage equality ie religious and civil. As we all know churches don’t have to perform marriages if they don’t want to anyway.

    I’m afraid with the current plan of just bringing in civil marriages for gays still places us in a second class status. Why would the Governmet stop gay people from having a religious marriage? why do they think gay people can’t be religious? It’s insulting, discriminatory and once again doesn’t give us true equality.

    I’m aftraid Mr Burrowes the can of worms has been overflowing for years and until you sort it out properly once and for all then it will always be there and gay people we will never give up fighting for their rights. You’re on a losing side mate!

  57. Interesting that Burrowes is national chair (and founder) of the Conservative Christian Fellowship …

    Interesting to note Burrowes choice of words … ““I do not see the need for legislation to recognise gay marriage but it does not at all follow that I am anti gay and homophobic” … He does not say that he is not anti-gay or homophobic, just that in his view it does not follow that he is … very interesting that he does not deny being homophobic …

    Particularly given his voting record –

    Against the Equality Act Sexual Orientation regulations

    Voted to change the Humand Fertilisation and Embryology Bill to include the phrase “a father and mother” to prevent gay parenting

    I wonder if he has thought about the right to a family life of his LGBT constituents …

  58. A victory for common sense. At last.

  59. Dear Mr Burrowes
    I’d like to make an appointment for 16th September 2043 at 3:07am to discuss marriage equality.
    I think you’ll find that it’ll be the ‘right time’ for you.
    In the meantime, is it ok with you if I continue to not be treated equal in society and the law, to be viewed as less than I am because someone else has a different point of view?
    Do you mind if I’m persecuted for being different, as reinforced by the lack of marriage equality.
    You’re talking religion, your religion.

  60. He is obviously using (misusing?) his postion to impose his religious beliefs.

    1. David Skinner 18 Jan 2012, 8:58am

      David Burrows is not imposing his Christian views on anyone; he is defending marriage, the family and children from the tyranny of gay Marxist ideology being forced on the people of Britain. Homsexuality has moved from being a mere emotional disorder to becoming a militant ideology. To imagine that the British people will just accept this without a fight only goes to show how blind, deluded and presumptuous the gay lobby are . Bring it on.

      1. Spanner1960 18 Jan 2012, 9:13am

        In a bizarre round-about way you are right.

        Homosexuality has gone from being a marginalised, oppressed and victimised minority to a group that actually stands up and demands equality along with every other tax paying citizen. Marxism doesn’t even come into it, as LGBT people from the entire political spectrum are single-mindedly trying to achieve a parity for everyone. One might even say that is what Jesus Christ might have done.

        Sure, we are bringing it on; you might have “God” on your side, but we have righteousness, justice and integrity on ours.

        1. @Spanner

          Increasingly I find that on some issues that I am in complete agreement with your views (unsurprisingly not on every issue – and some I profoundly disagree with!).

          I think its laughable rthat Skinner equates gay with marxist … sure, there are probably some gay marxists out there – but personally I find Marxism an outdated and wrong ideology … Equally there are gay people of every political persuausion from extreme left to extreme right, whether libertarian or not …

          Whilst LGBT issues remain marginalised and oppressed minority groups (more so in some nations than others); we clearly stand up for human rights and equal rights …

          As well as justice, integrity and rigtheousness … we also have fairness, honesty and humanity on other side …

          If God exists, then I doubt he is on the side of Skinner …. Skinner does not seem to encompass that phrase from the Bible “God is love” … in fact he appears to be as paradox (and completely absurd paradox at that) to this

          1. Spanner1960 18 Jan 2012, 6:03pm

            @ Stu:

            I think in a lot of ways we are very similar, however our main difference is that I shoot from the hip and will not allow middle ground, ‘innocent until proven guilty’, and make decisions based on all the possible permutations of the facts. I guess this is because of your police background.

            I cut to the chase, shoot first and ask questions later and get the job done, however dirty or unsociable it may appear to be. Our country is awash with namby-pamby, sit-on-the-fence, health and safety liberals either unwilling or unable to call a spade a spade. OK, so I get it wrong sometimes, but I feel it better to do that than allow the majority of people to treat me like a complete idiot and walk all over me simply because I didn’t have the courage of my convictions.

            It is this ‘middle of the road’ thinking that has landed us with being hogtied to the EU, and as an example, allowing known terrorists to reside in my country on taxpayers benefits. OK so the guy goes back and gets shot. Big deal, one less problem to deal with and pay for.

            The same goes for this Burrowes twat. Cameron and co. need to either whip him into line, or sack him for not following party policy and stop being beholden to a bunch of God-botherers in the pocket of seriously dangerous organisations.

          2. @Spanner

            Sometimes your shooting from the hip is entertaining, and sometimes I agree with it …

            Sometimes its infuriating – because all the facts have not been established …

            The most important thing to me is fairness … and thats not just fairness to me, its fairness to all …

            In terms of how that is achieved – I suspect on many issues we would end up in the same place (or nearby) but our navigation would be different.

            Cameron does need to whip this guy into shape or dump him

      2. Do you still beat your wife David Skinner?

        1. Spanner1960 18 Jan 2012, 5:50pm

          Only when he’s been on the Stella…

      3. “tyranny of gay Marxist ideology”

        LOL! Cookoo! Cookoo!

        Skinner, go back to your spineless travesty of a wife and your failed career as a so called “teacher”, before another “gay manager” gives you a good slap….

  61. In case you live in north London: Look out for David Burrowes on his Tube commute to Westminster (Piccadilly line > Finsbury Park, Victoria line > Victoria then District/Circle to Westminster). If you see him it will be the perfect time to raise this issue. he can’t get far on a packed Tube.

    I will raise the question of ‘traditional’ marriage. He likes that phrase but ignores that ‘traditional’ marriage has undergone many changes and is an evolving institution. No longer must it only be between people of the same race, no longer do fathers ‘sell’ their daughters, no longer are women forbidden from working or obtaining a divorce. No longer must women stay at home, no longer can men take more than one wife. All of those were ‘de rigeur’ traditions in the past. Which does he believe are worth upholding, which does he mourn the passing of? He’s free to live by his religious beliefs, I shouldn’t have to.

    If you don’t bump into him on the Tube….

  62. de Villiers 18 Jan 2012, 9:00am

    I posted this above but it will not register. It is a brief response to the religious arguments above against gay marriage.

    All the biblical stories have to be viewed through the time they were written. They cannot be taken literally but used as metaphors to understand truths of their time and then reinterpreted to today.

    It is the same with all literature. A play of Shakespeare can be reinterpreted numerous times to carry different meanings in different decades. Literary construction admits many updated interpretations.

    One could, therefore, equally take the words of the old testament at the time of Adam’s creation (not to be taken literally) that “loh tov hivat hadum lvdoh” – it is not good that man should be lonely – and consider that in times of extreme individualism and personal greed, that we should be able to share our lives and personality with others in civil union.

  63. David Skinner 18 Jan 2012, 9:02am

    If the gaystapo expect the British people to roll over on their backs and have the tyranny of gay Marxist ideology imposed on them, they are living in cloud cuckoo land. Bring it on I say.

    1. de Villiers 18 Jan 2012, 9:07am

      I’m surprised that David Cameron could be described as a gay Marxist. True Marxism would reject bourgeois gay marriage entirely.

      1. Spanner1960 18 Jan 2012, 9:16am

        True Marxism would probably throw out marriage altogether, along with the church.

      2. Original Marxism was actually quite homophobic.

    2. ***DO NOT FEED THE TROLL****

    3. @David Skinner

      Marxism …

      Please explain why you equate being gay with being marxist …

      Not sure Nick Herbert, Alun Duncan, Crispin Blunt, Margot James, Nick Boles or Stuart Andrew would necessary agree that Marxism and being gay are mutually inclusive …

      If you can demonstrate some mutual inclusivity (and thus you are not just making bigoted and inflammatory sound bites …) then perhaps you could explain if the following converse scenarios are true:

      Does being Christian mean you are automatically right wing?

      Does being heterosexual make you automatically a subscriber of laissez-faire political ideology?

      How does one sort one’s polticial ideology if one is bisexual?

      Does gender or race impact on how one’s brain works politically?

      Perhaps you can educate us …

      Or is it (as I suspect) the sign of incompetant and unreasonable argument that you use as your rhetoric and bigotry … nothing more, nothing less …

    4. Spanner1960 19 Jan 2012, 9:38am

      The Gestapo were extreme right wing, Karl Marx was extreme left.
      Sounds to me like you have your idealogical knickers in a twist.

    5. …gaystapo… a case in point.

      When individuals are conditioned to believe that the evil of illicit sexual acts will lead to ferocious punishment from God, the knowledge that many people are engaging in all kinds of illicit sexual activity creates significant paranoia in the individual which in turn produces a powerful corrosive effect on mental health.

  64. David Skinner 18 Jan 2012, 9:06am

    It is not even a case of traditional marriage; it is a case of the universal recognition that marriage has always, even in the animal and dare I say plant world between binary – between male and female – between sperm and egg and never between sperm and excrement.

    1. Spanner1960 18 Jan 2012, 9:21am

      Oh really? So why is it homosexual activity has been observed in over 1,500 species worldwide? I wonder how many of them ponder the creation, the afterlife or some deity that watches over them and defines their lives and destinies. I wonder how many of them force their belief system on others and threaten them with eternal damnation if they don’t comply?

    2. ***DO NOT FEED THE TROLL***

      1. Spanner1960 18 Jan 2012, 3:15pm

        Ah! Whyever not? You should have worked out by now I am a fan of bloodsports.

    3. Well your marriage must’ve been a barrel of laughs then “do you take this sperm receptacle to be your lawful wedded wife, to have and to have again and to combine eukky bodily fluids in the expectation that she concieves less thou shalt discover she’s infertile, then the deal’s off”!
      Funny how gross it all sounds when you boil it down to biomechanics, huh?

      1. Spanner1960 18 Jan 2012, 6:07pm

        A recently married Irish couple check in at the honeymoon hotel.
        The concierge asks “Do you have reservations?”

        The Bride replies “Well I am a bit worried about taking it up the pooper…”

    4. So is Skinner actually the real identity of Keith …. he seems equally obsessed with faeces

      1. Nope, Keith is usually identified by sockpuppets that carry sexpuns as a moniker and obsessing over “fecal matter”, “scat” and “consentual incest”. He can’t help himself. I can normally spot Keith within 3 posts.

        1. Usually I can too … just noticed the similarity …

          Similar mindset though …

          1. True, but if you track back through the archives, Skinner was here much earlier.
            Keith is what I imagine Skinner sounds like when he’s drunk and lost all his inhibitions.

          2. Now you may have something there lol … a drunken Skinner lol

    5. @David Skinner

      So you are saying that marriage is purely for the process of procreation?

      What about love?

      As for the “always” been between male and female …

      The case of St Serge and St Bacchus is one of a number of pieces of verifiable historical evidence which demonstrates that not only were same sex marriages occurring in the 6th century, they were supported, endorsed and encouraged by the church of that time … Severus of Antioch stated that “We should not seperate in speech those who are joined in life” and described them as sweet companions and lovers.

      Numerous 10th and 11th century Greek church documents make reference to rites relating to the “office of same sex union” which is also described as marriage within those rites, which included a community gathered in a church, blessing of the couple before the altar, the participation of a priest, right hands joined as in marriage, taking of Communion and a wedding banquet afterwards …ergo a marriage …

      1. Why are you trying to engage David Skinner?

        He’s a troll.

        Replying to him is simply encouraging him.

        1. I find it morally responsible to put a reasonable argument against some troll comments …

          You can choose to agree or disagree with that …

          I suspect the latter, because you seem to have the view that (whatever the issue) if anyone disagrees with you – then they must be wrong .. there is never room for dissent in your world (it appears) …

          Reasoned debate includes correctly those who are wrong – whether they are people like you or Skinner …

        2. Also, I thought this debate was about same sex marriage …

          My comments here are about same sex marriage ….

          1. Spanner1960 18 Jan 2012, 3:17pm

            Mine are about foxhunting, and Skinner’s are about poo.
            Can somebody try and join the dots please? ;)

      2. …. Emperor Basil I and his companion John are shown in pictures from the period in their celebration of an office of the same sex union …

        There are recording in historical records in the Vatican, St Petersburg, Paris, Ireland, Sinai and many other locations of same sex marriages being officially recognised as far back as the 8th century …

        In terms of the antipathy and animosity towards homosexuality in western European culture – this did not begin until the 14th century, and thus has not “always” been the case …

        A female to female marriage is recorded in state records in Dalmatia in the3 18th century ….

        Ancient Egyptian artefacts demonstrate the acceptance of same sex union in the culture of the time … for example a pharanoic tomb of a same sex couple demonstrate that the kingdom recognised their union …

        None of the recorded laws of Mesopotsamia including the Code of Hammurabi contain restrictions on same sex unions – and marriages (whether opposite or same sex) …

      3. … were particularly regulated in Mesopotamia …

        Cicero, the Roman Statesman documented the legal rights of an individual in a same sex marriage

        Biblical attitudes toward homosexuality are often reduced to strict condemnation based upon passages interpreted from the Old Testament Book of Genesis, though some scholars suggest that the description of same-sex relationships as “unnatural” only means “out of the ordinary” and not “immoral” (Pickett). Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, however, seems to be clearer in its punishment of homosexual men (along with condemnation of adulterous women, incest, and the ritual sacrifice of children). Ultimately, the influence of a Christian focus on procreation as central to marriage became apparent in Roman law during the later empire.

        Sexuality, in other words, and not just homosexuality came under attack by a growing religious belief that intercourse was meant only for the production of children. Ultimately, excessive sexual indulgence of ….

        1. … of any kind both inside and outside the bonds of marriage was prohibited by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, with the most severe condemnation saved for homosexuality, particularly of men

          European conquest and colonization provides some of the best insight to marital and sexual practices of indigenous peoples across the globe. Examples of same-sex behavior, including transgenerational same-sex unions, have emerged everywhere from New Guinea to Polynesia (and were also prevalent in feudal Japan). The most numerous early accounts of same-sex, transgendered unions exist from European encounters with indigenous people in both North and South America.

          The originally derogatory term berdache described transgendered “two-spirit” people prevalent in most of the tribes. Individuals, both male and female, assumed characteristics and roles of the opposite gender and lived out those roles within their tribes. These relationships are easily perceived as “homosexual” by outside observers, …

        2. … but it is clear that the Western delineations of heterosexuality and homosexuality would not have been understood within these societies. Nevertheless, these same-sex marriages had equal cultural and legal recognition within their communities and offered special advantages for the couples

          Same-sex-style marriages were found among cultures in Africa, and also included an arrangement known as “female husbands.” Often barren, these women assumed the cultural roles of men, including having the same rights as men—which included seeking damages if her wife should have relations outside of their union without her consent.

          1. Spanner1960 18 Jan 2012, 3:20pm

            Hmm, you obviously know your historical onions far better than I, but I don’t think I would bring up too much about ancient Greece or Rome to support gay marriage considering some of the totally obscene practices some of them got up to. Caligula springs to mind, not to mention rape, incest, paedophilia and a whole lot worse.

          2. @Spanner1960

            Fair point …

            I thought about doing a bit of the African history and decided not to bother …

            Certainly some Roman history I perhaps wouldnt want to associate with too closely!

          3. It’s obvious that David Skinner is out of touch with contemporary scholarship on human sexuality.

            In the first place, there is no such thing as a ‘universal recognition that marriage has always been between a man and a woman’.

            Also, judging by their literary styles (which are like a fingerprints), it is equally obvious that Skinner and Keith are two entirely different individuals, but that they are both religiously intoxicated trolls and they both have a neurotic fixation on what they perceive as homosexual activity, i.e. sperm and excrement, indicating that they are suppressing their own sexual needs and desires.

            See –

            Seymour Fischer and Roger P. Greenberg, Freud Scientifically Reappraised: Testing the Theories and Therapy (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1996), p. 71.

  65. I think it would send a wonderful message to the christian extremists lurking in the Tory Party, if David Burrowes was sacked.

    These people need to realise that there will be negative consequences for their careers for trying to impose their vicious, christian extremism on the rest of society,

    An example needs to be made of David Burrowes.

    What would people suggest? How can Callmedave be persuaded that Burrowes is a liability thanks to his extremism

    1. Spanner1960 18 Jan 2012, 3:24pm

      I wholeheartedly agree with you, but as I have said many times before, it is an unwritten rule and major no-no that the government (of whatever flavour), will avoid any confrontation with the church, (again, of any flavour).

      They will both skirt around each other, but try to avoid stepping on one another’s toes to try and prolong the impression that they are the ones with the power.

  66. Has PinkNews been in touch with Matthew Sephton or LGBTory for a comment on David Burrowes’ homophobic extremism?

    If not then why not?

    If they refuse to condemn Burrowes then it it is a news story because it proves that LGBTory is nothing but a meaningless PR stunt whose sole purpose is to disguise the fact that the Tory Party remains a party of monstrous bigotry.

    If they do condemn Burrowes then it’s a news story that they actually have an opinion.

    If they offer some mealy-mouthed load of hot air about nothing then it’s news as it shows that LGBTory must wait till Tory headoffice tells them what LGBTory’s opinion on an issue should be.

    1. Who is voting this down.

      Surely Mattew Sephton and LGBTory need to be asked for a comment on David Burrowes’ homophobic extremism and should be asked whether they support his sacking?

      That’s only reasonable and fair.

    2. Spanner1960 18 Jan 2012, 3:28pm

      For fcks sakes dAVID, get off your high fcking lefty horse about tories. This isn’t a party issue.
      We (fortunately) happen to live in a democracy that allows people free speech, including members of the government and shadow ministers. That is why the whole process works so well, the truth will rise to the surface whilst the sh|t will sink. Just let politics take its natural course and scumbags such as this will simply disappear off the map.

      1. Homosexuality used to be a party political issue … its clear that is no longer the case …

        There are bigots in all political parties

        There are people enlightened by the need to protect, secure and preserve human rights in all parties …

        Spanner is totally right – this is not a party political issue

        Burrowes should be ashamed and his party should deal with him … but his comments are not reflective of the position of any of the three main parties

        1. Spanner1960 18 Jan 2012, 6:11pm

          Bllody hell Stu, you are agreeing with me again.
          Carry on like this and you will set a precedent. People will either think we are the same person, or else taking one another up the Old Compton.

        2. If it wasn’t for the Tories checkered past it wouldn’t be a party political story but the Tories have extra ground to cover and must show more strongly that they truly are no longer the bigoted party they used to be.

          1. @Hamish

            Hesitatingly I agree with you …

            If the Tory leadership want to demonstrate that they are no longer the nasty party and no longer the party of homophobia and jingoism then Cameron needs to stamp down hard on Burrowes … and explain the difference in approach to aid and trade relations with some countries compared to others …

  67. Spanner1960 18 Jan 2012, 10:10am

    I really think this video says it all:

  68. “Many colleagues are worried that it would fundamentally affect how marriage between a man and woman has historically been viewed in this country.”
    Property rights for women in the 19th century, the end of automatic child custody for husbands, votes for women in the 20th, admission of women to the professions, paying child benefit directly to the mother, among many other things, profoundly changed perceptions of marriage. Does he seriously want to undo these things (probably yes – but he knows it wouldn’t fly so he keeps it under wraps)?
    One gets very tired of historically ignorant arguments about the ‘unchanging nature of marriage’ advanced by homophobes. They just don’t get challenged enough.

  69. Burrowes and his other fundamentalist “Christian” MP’s using CARE’s interns are as usual being deceitful. They never stand up and say exactly what they are, they are religious extremists funded in part by the American religious right wing, Focus on the Family is a hate group (SPLC) CARE is a hate group and they are active in the UK Parliament, wake up MP’s, wake up PM, wake up NIck Clegg! It’s an absolute outrage that the UK media hasn’t dealt with that. Anyone from BBC Newsnight read these comments?

  70. Burrowes and his other fundamentalist “Christian” MP’s using CARE’s interns are as usual being deceitful. They never stand up and say exactly what they are, they are religious extremists funded in part by the American religious right wing, Focus on the Family is a hate group (SPLC) CARE is a hate group and they are active in the UK Parliament, wake up MP’s, wake up PM, wake up NIck Clegg! It’s an absolute outrage that the UK media hasn’t dealt with his issue of the extreme religious hate groups active in politics in the UK . Anyone from BBC Newsnight read these comments?


    Burrowes and his group in the Parliament are directly connected to the groups of rabid fundamentalist homophobes listed in the article above. Behind the smooth facade Burrowes likes to present is the truth about how much they hate us for just being.

    Sorry about the duplicate posts I have no idea what is going on with the internet connection to this site today.

  72. I am unfortunate enough to have David Burrowes as my local MP. Here’s the letter I’m sending him today:

    Dear David,

    As one of your constituents I am writing to tell you that I am concerned about gay marriage and full equality for gay people. I may have not been door knocked by you or your colleagues but I will say this; for a very long time I did not feel I could be open about my sexuality, and was not out at Broomfield School (1997-2001) where homophobia was rife. I would constantly pretend I was just as straight as the other guys and it really ate me up inside to the point where I lost confidence with myself and didn’t do as well in my exams as I hoped. Luckily things changed for me and I eventually ended up going to university. However, I fear that Broomfield School is still homophobic but in a passive way.

    I’ve written to you and Broomfield School before about tacking homophobia but I have not had any response. (part one of two)

    1. (part two of two)

      This concerns and angers me because we know that homophobia is an issue in schools up and down the country, especially at Broomfield.

      Legalising gay marriage is not about undermining marriage – there are plenty of things that undermine marriage including divorce and short-lived marriages (Britney Spears, etc). But they have the right to get married and we do not. Yes, I may enter into a civil partnership with my partner and enjoy all the legal benefits of being together but we need to stop the stigma in society.

      I fully expect you to take my views into account as one of your constituents. It’s an issue of equality and freedom for all, in particular individual freedom which the Conservative party seems to talk about a lot.

      Just over 50 years ago it was illegal for a white person and a black person to marry. Be on the right side of history and stand up for equality and gay marriage.

      Yours Sincerely,

      1. With respect you are attempting to reason with someone who is impervious to being reasoned with. He keeps company with individuals who have written and published the following. “The Bible is clear on moral issues that are culture-killers: homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and abortion,” says DeMar, who is closely allied with D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, where he frequently speaks.

        While DeMar insists that homosexuals wouldn’t be rounded up and systematically executed under a “reconstructed” government, he does believe that the occasional execution of “sodomites” would serve society well, because “the law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectively drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back into the closet.”

        Burrowes and his chums are fundamentalists who believe the bible is the literal word of their god. His agenda is to have his religious beliefs held above all law and you and the rest of us obedient to them.

      2. Hi GF – good that you wrote to David Burrowes.

        However his homophobia is fuelled by his religious extremism. Therefore he is beyond reason.

        I suggest you also write to David Cameron requesting that David Burrowes be sacked from the Tory Party for his religious extremism.

      3. Spanner1960 18 Jan 2012, 3:30pm

        “Just over 50 years ago it was illegal for a white person and a black person to marry. ”
        Was it? In the UK? News to me.

      4. Well done, GF

        Be interesting to see how he words his response to you

        I hope other consituents whosupport same sex marriage also write to him

  73. I think it stinks allowing a conscience vote on gay marriage. To allow a conscience which goes against party policy and without doing any rearch into what your constituents want you to do and the majority of the British public want you to do and what your LGBT constituents want you to do just isn’t what you were elected for!!

  74. “Surely they’d rather get cured?!”

    Why, you didn’t get cured of your obsessive need for attention. I’m assuming it attention, as no one balanced would say such stupid things on a gay site unless they wanted attention.

  75. “Many colleagues are worried that it would fundamentally affect how marriage between a man and woman….”

    For someone with six or seven children, presumably, no effect at all. He could put Roy Chubby Brown to shame.

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.