Well done to the Scottish government for recognising the homophobia in the petition …
If there is a debate on this matter then the evidence is pretty damning to demonstrate the inaccuracy and prejudice in the contents.
The reports included are seen as false and inaccurate by most respected researchers in this area.
Most of them are those perpetuated by the Family Research Group which is designated a hate organisation in the USA.
Many are by Dr Paul Cameron and his contemporaries of whom a peer review stated “They found six serious errors in his methodology and research and stated “even one of these six weaknesses would be considered seriously flawed. In combination, the multiple methodological problems evident in the Cameron group’s surveys mean that their results cannot even be considered a valid description of the specific group of individuals who returned the survey questionnaire. Because the data are essentially meaningless, it is not surprising that they have been …
… virtually ignored by the scientific community.”
The American Psychological Association dropped Cameron from its membership as far back as 1983 due to a violation of the ethical principles of psychologists and stated that the APA “formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality.”
“sexual chaos”? Is it just me who thinks sexual chaos sounds like a good thing rather than a bad thing? I would like a little sexual chaos in my life.
I also think the old-fashioned marriage police could do with a little sexual chaos themselves. Maybe that would let them loosen up a bit and they wouldn’t be such tight-minded individuals, to put it very nicely.
“The petition titled ‘Preserving Marriage’ was submitted to the Scottish Parliament by Amy King, and claims that same-sex couples should not be allowed to get married because of “poor social outcomes for homosexual adults” including “higher rates of domestic violence, suicide, STDs, and mental illness.”
Domestic Violence. Proof Please.
Suicide. Caused by bigots like her.
Mental Illness. Caused by bigots like her.
STD,s Statistics Please.
Well, HIV rates are higher in men who have sex with men, and there are probably stats on other STIs. HIV might be the scariest but it is by no means the most common. I think the most common STI is chlamydia (and it’s also the leading cause of infertility in women), and I haven’t heard that chlamydia rates are any higher in men who have sex with men. Anyway, the STI rates amongst women who have sex with women tend to be lower as it’s harder to transmit anything, so that would probably balance it out.
Domestic violence is insanely common, very much swept under the rug (I doubt anyone really knows the true prevalence overall, let alone in specific groups), and the leading cause of divorce. These “protect traditional marriage” people are always very anti divorce too, so I’d really like to hear their suggestions for what to do about the mammoth problem of domestic violence in mixed sex marriages. Maybe just outlaw all marriage so that no one is trapped in a violent marriage at all?
well done again to the Scottish Government – no wonder the Scottish Population has given the SNP the highest EVER rating for a political party
independence here we come
Please don’t confuse these two issue. All the Scottish political parties (unionist or not) bar some of the more reqctionary Tories support marriage equality.
If marriage should be for the benefit of the children, shouldn’t there be fertility and compatibility tests for those wishing to marry?
Exactly. She’s confusing religious marriage with the civil version which has no mandate or admonition to procreate. Marriage is primarily about two people who love one another, procreation is secondary and a choice for those fortunate enough to be fertile.
She mentions nothing about widows and widowers raising children alone or single one parent heterosexual families. Using her m.o. she’d have to support a law forcing them to marry for the sake of the children. What an idiot.
Also I’ve never heard of a religion refusing to allow a mixed-sex couple to marry if they were unable to procreate due to age or a medical condition. I have two cousins who went through assisted reproduction in order to have their children. One is in a civil partnership and required sperm donation. The other is unable to bear a child or supply her eggs due to her medical condition, so they had to use an egg donor, a surrogate and her husband’s sperm. I see no reason why these two families should be treated differently from each other, or differently from any other family.
How utterly odious these people are. It’s one thing to have mad prejudices, and quite another to promulgate slanderous lies to legitimise them.
Well then, Ms, King should then call for a ban on heteros marrying who cannot procreate. The primary purpose of civil marriage isn’t procreation unlike the religious version.
She needs to produce the documented evidence to back up her outrageous statements and reference in which of the scientific and medical literature they have been published and replicated?
Last time I checked, polygamy is an heterosexual phenomenon in existence since the dawn of civilisation in various forms of marriages. She ought to read the old testament where it is condoned. I note she doesn’t mention that a handful of islamic countries practice it, up to four wives at a time.
Thats how I interpret her claims … illogical of course …
Unfortunately for her she relies her theory as to why this should happen on a mix of discredited academic reports including those who have had their membership of professional bodies revoked due to their ineptitude, and on scripture – which isnt the best thing to base decisions for the whole of society on …
Looks like the Catholic Archbishop had a meeting with Teresa May a few days ago to also put a stop to gay marriage down here.
I like the comment from May though!
“During their meeting Mrs May said that the Government intended to introduce same-sex marriage and that the consultation was merely to help with the “nuts and bolts” of the legislation.”
“He said that a steering committee of the bishops’ conference was to meet on Wednesday to plan how to campaign against the Government’s plans.”
Are they entitled to do that as a registered religious charity?
My guess is it will be more lies and disinformation about gays, that would risk prosecution for inciting hatred if they weren’t representatives of the current administration at the Vatican, so that the government feels the need to suck up to them.
Isn’t it a crime yet to deliberately put out misinformation about gays to drum up hatred?
QX Magazine has a flyer in this week about Marriage.
My concerns over this is that marriage today is made a MOCKERY of.
Just hope the gay community does respect marriage and the institution it stands on.
Future will hold us to account if it fails.
Well equal marriage in Scandinavia has improved the standing of marriage both amongst same sex and opposite sex couples …
So, I am hopeful …
who’s mocking marriage? Nobody in the gay community that I know of. I’m thinking just now, first name to pop into my head, of gay celeb Russell T. Davies who has put his career on go slow to look after a terninally ill partner, the sort of love and dedication I would associate with MARRIAGE. On the other hand, how many straight celebs have got married in a blaze of publicity in the past year and are already heading for the divorce courts? check the gossip magazines for a fistful of names every week. That’s the mockery of marriage.
Quite, given that the straight community has set the bar so low, we should have nothing to prove to anyone.
Wasn’t it Brittany Spears who had a 3 day quicky Vegas marriage which lasted marginally longer than her hangover?
I think these people are on the losing side. I read a nutty christian website yesterday where the nutty christian had questioned the UKIP party on gay marriage and UKIP said..
“We are at heart a small-state organisation and we don’t feel we should be interfering in people’s private lives. We believe wholeheartedly in the married persons’ tax allowance. We feel there are other ways of strengthening marriage that are not necessarily morally discriminatory.
He continued, suggesting that same-sex marriage is the logical progression from civil partnerships (a different legal entity from marriage):
We feel that civil partnerships are a fact and we believe that gay partnerships should be recognised in law, particularly when it comes to inheritance. Ten years ago sitting here I would have been very happy to support a position of no gay marriage but that is no longer the case. The party has become broader.”
If the UKIP party /May are for gay marriage then we’re going to get it!
“Referring to a “plethora” of studies “too lengthy” to list….”
Yeah, right. And too risky to mention because then they’ll be revealed as the pile of rubbish they are.
More likely too risky to mention because they didn’t actually produce conclusions that would support the anti-equal marriage arguments.
“Referring to a “plethora” of studies “too lengthy” to list”
What a joke!
“King writes: “Marriage should not be redefined for the whole of society given the tiny percentage of society actually affected by the issue.”
How does she leap from this supposedly miniscule number of same sex couples accessing marriage to the “sexual chaos” of totally unrelated polygamy that this tiny few couples would for no apparent reason bring upon Scotland according to King?
“She argues that if equal marriage is introduced, Scottish society could then be subject to the “sexual chaos” of polygamy.”
There’s plenty of misinformation and junk “research” in the world if you actively seek it out and go on to promote it like Ms King, which is why we need to cite legitimate scientific and medical research and studies.
Having seen this article and made comment (at the time on the basis of media reporting), I decided to have a look at Amy King’s petition itself. I expected to be annoyed by it. However, it just made me gasp in exasperation and laugh at the idea Ms King feels this document could or should be taken seriously.
Not only is there no evidence of critical thinking, a complete lack of evidence to reinforce any of her arguments and intolerance and prejudice building on further ignorance and discrimination … it also lacks any semblance of reasonableness or sensible argument.
So Kings claims:
1.Surveys suggesting that the public support same-sex marriage are flawed and inaccurate. Less than 50% of actually support same-sex marriage, but are more supportive of same-sex civil partnerships.
- perhaps Ms King would like to tell us the number or proportion of people in Scotland opposed to same sex marriage?
- if you don’t like the message Ms King, its churlish to shoot the messenger
2. Legal benefits of marriage are already available to same-sex couples, so why “redefine” marriage?
- Is Ms King trying to say that CPs are quasi marriages? (not that I agree with that statement) but if she believes this, then why is she concerned about equal status – if legally it is already there?
3. So few people are directly affected by it. So why redefine marriage “for the whole society”?
- Is Ms King really saying that minorities do not matter? If so, perhaps she could tell us the proportion of Scotland that are in Scotland for marriage, the Free Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) … an even smaller minority, one would contend? … of course, minorities do matter – and it is in ensuring rights for minorities that socieities demonstrate their strength …
4. “Marriage should not be redefined for the whole of society given the tiny percentage of society actually affected by the issue…The introduction of same-sex marriage is being presented ….
… in the media and by some lobbyists and politicians as something that does not affect most of us [but] in reality, this change would have huge implications for…wider society.”
- So is Ms King really saying in one breath that its an issue that is so irrelevant (because it affects such a small minority) that it should not be considered – yet, then in the next breath saying it is such a collosal issue that it affects ALL of society. Now, that sounds a little contradictory to me – or am I missing something?
5. Schools would be expected to promote same-sex marriage to children.”
- Ah, does that sound like the words of Brian Souter? … I thought schools were concerned with education, not marketing or promotions … Didn’t certain religious people use exactly the same argument to try and prevent CPs? Did this mass marketing effort in schools to brainwash children into same sex partnerships occur … well, if it did – I certainly missed it …
6. Pro-homosexual story-books could ..
… find their way into schools.
- So, no more Hans Christian Andersen (eg Ugly Duckling) or Harry Potter has Dumbledore editted out? Bert and Ernie is Sesame Street … TellyTubbies Tinywinkie … SpongeBob squarepants …???
There are already gay people in society – and its reflected in classical and modern childrens literature (often very subtley) and also in television …
If CPs did not lead to “promotion” of homosexuality in school, and it didnt … then why should equal marriage lead to anyc hange in the amount of gay characters on TV or in literature …?
7. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to conclude that same-sex marriage is an effort by gay rights campaigners to impose their views forcibly on the rest of society. Those who oppose same-sex marriage do not seek to impose their views on same-sex couples.
- That is entirely an unreasonable view. Just calling it reasonable, does nto make it so. There is no view being imposed on society – society is generally …
… supportive of equality. Is Ms King seeking to impose her view – no of course not, how could anyone even think of suggesting that …
8. Defending [a narrow definition of] marriage does not affect the freedom of others to think, believe and act as they choose
- Nor does a same sex couple getting married affect the freedom of others to think, believe or act as they choose …
9. If same-sex marriages are allowed, then polygamy should be too.
- Can Ms King demonstrate the appetite for polygamy in Scotland … Does she have strong connections to the Scottish Polygamous Front? I am not aware of a clarion call to seek polygamy.
10. The best way for children to grow up is with opposite-sex parents who are married.
- Whilst there are many children who will disagree with Ms King about this given their experience with their own parents, there is no suggestion that same sex marriage will in any way negatively impact on any oppositie sex parenting (whether good or bad)
11. Many Scots..
The best way for children to grow up is with two FAITHFUL people .
… find the consultation process too difficult and/or time consuming, but would want to be supportive of man/woman marriage.
- I am sure there are also many who are supportive of same sex marriage who choose not to engage in the consultation. Can Ms King provide evidence that there are more people apathetic about the consultation who reject equal marriage than those who support it? I guess not …
12. Foreigners should not have any influence in shaping the outcome of the consultation.
- Surely good governance requires a government to learn lessons of successes and failures elsewhere to try and ensure that repeat mistakes are not made in their area of responsibility. Thus, having contact with Scandinavian countries etc and learning their lessons might be a useful consideration for an open minded government to have?
13. Suggesting that people opposed to equality are cultivating a “discriminatory attitude” is a serious threat to freedom of speech.
- No, its simply speaking the ….
… truth. Ms King can say whatever she likes, but her opinions should be held to scrutiny, and if she uses prejudiced argument – she can expect to be critiqued.
The entire petition can be viewed here:
Amusing and sad though it is …
‘Sexual chaos?!’ The woman’s demented; she’s worse than big Jessie O’Brien.
Is anyone else tired of bigotry masquerading as “concern”, of hatred masquerading as “love” and of the incredible hypocrisy of those who perpetuate the myth that heterosexuality is somehow better than homosexuality, in order to continue their horrifyingly evil agenda against an entire segment of every society? I’m certainly sick and tired of these displays of inhumanity, but especially by those who claim God wishes this evil to be perpetrated in His name…like they can speak for God…any of us could say the same thing at anytime. Saying one speaks for God in no way makes it true.
“Don’t legalise gay marriage, Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu warns David Cameron
Marriage must remain a union between a man and a woman, says the Archbishop of York, and David Cameron will be acting like a “dictator” if he allows homosexual couples to wed.”
To whoever started this petition – such seething bitter hatred must be seriously eating you up ! You are a vile bully to be encouraging such prejudice . Jesus said ” Love one another ” and encourage faithfulness .