They really are not capable of honest discourse, are they. Indeed, the “slippery slope” is a logical fallacy that tends to be relied on by the poorly educated and ignorant. Simple stated – incest is unlawful, homosexuality is not. The law recognised a bond of kinship , rights and obligations between two people, but not between three of more, to expand marriage to that would require a re-write of marriage law from the ground up. Dishonest, mendacious cr@p from bigots who really just want to say they hate gay people but don’t quite dare.
Yes, the legislation on civil partnerships includes a list of “prohibited relationships” which are exactly equivalent to the ones for marriage, which in turn are based closely on the Bible. And these prohibitions are surprisingly uniform across the world and haven’t changed much over recent centuries.
Another thing (apart from the subject of first-cousin relationships, which are legal in the UK but banned in some US states) the only people I see arguing for a relaxation of the legislation on incest are right-wing libertarians, the sort of people who would deem UKIP the closest election-contesting party to represent their own outlook.
When I was born, in the mid ’60s, homosexuality was illegal too. Who knows where we’ll be in another 40 years? The “slippery slope” argument, whilst crude, has pedigree.
There are no calls to legalise incest. In fact I would like to see sex between cousins outlawed partially to prevent forced marriages within families. There is also another reason why I would outlaw sex between cousins. Say you had identical twin brothers and they both married a pair of identical twin sisters (and it has happened a number of times), and one couple had a son and the other had a daughter, then while legally the boy and girl would be cousins, genetically they will be brother and sister but under the current law sex between them (when they grow up, that is), will not be illagal. Think about it.
UKIP are effectively the BNOP in blazers. Deranged at best
I’m guessing you mean BNP. I agree with the gist of it, though I tend to think of them as BNP lite.
You write that as if it is a bad thing but, actually, it may be a good thing. In France, the Front National really have won elections and they really are terrifying. Sarkozy is criticised for pandering to the extreme right but the effect of this is to take away the votes for the Front National, which consequently becomes much weaker and ineffective.
It seems that UKIP are not as far to the right as the BNP. UKIP actively disavows racism. It does, however, have extreme policies on Europe. If the effect of this, however, is to draw away votes from the BNP, to stop them from winning council elections and to make the party weak, then that is positive.
… ..So, by your reasoning, better the thug in the blazer than the thug in the swastika t shirt……?
Yes to Paddyswurds – because the UKIP are not really thugs in blazers and they take away the power from the real thugs in the swastika t-shirts. I have seen that directly in France where the UMP has taken away votes and has greatly weakened the FN.
“UKIP actively disavows racism.”
So does the public face of the BNP and the EDL, it doesn’t mean anyone actually believes them.
I’m embarrassed and ashamed that this country has UKIP MEPs I don’t know why you seem to think that is any better than people voting BNP.
Sarkozy is nothing like Nigel Farrage and your comparison with France is floored.
This man is an idiot.
He is a buffoon straight from central casting. Surely someone could have advised him not too appear too red neck and stupid, perhaps advised some nuance? But I suppose any political party can only work with the material available.
Oh, Lord. He’s made of wood!
Really scraping the barrel now. Pathetic.
Here we go, all of the crazies coming out of the woodwork. We need someone to take these people down a peg or two. It’s amazing how all of this has started at the same time. Whoever is behind it is doing a damn good job in organising. Meanwhile, hardly a word to counter them from any notable people on our side. One Tory MP and an editorial in The Times. Is that all there is?
clutching at straws comes to mind, when you read rubbish like this.
A feeling of weariness overcomes when I read these ludicrous stale arguments. Why don’t they look to countries like Spain where same-sex marriage is already lawful for their answers?
The fact that this specimen actually thinks Cardinal O’Brien is capable of brilliance speaks volumes for his intelligence.
Funny how they never seem to acknowledge that allowing divorce and remarriage has ‘tampered’ with [their idea of] mariage more than anything else in the last millennium.
This is clear incitement to hatred.
Has he been reported to the police?
Another Im-5-and-my-name-is-Keith post.
How in awe we all are of your stunning intellect…..LOL!
Obviously, these radical right wingers, many of them infected with religious extremism don’t know their own bible in which polygamy, an strictly heterosexual creation, is condoned in the old testament and practiced by the heterosexual Mormon sect up until 1893. There is still an offshoot of that sect practicing it to this day. Meanwhile, in the middle east, several islamic countries allow up to four wives at a time. Of course, the UKIP and C4M totally dismiss and ignore it. The more outrageous statements they make, the more of a laughing stock they become. Helmer et al should be prosecuted for inciting hatred and so too should that paedophile protecting cult member Cardinal O’Brien.
Can this idiot produce one shred of evidence that CPs heralded polygamy and incest? Remember when they were saying the same things before these unions were legalised? How pathetic and what short memories they have. It only proves how desperate they are. Reasoned, rational debate in Parliament will show these lunatics up for what they are.
Ah, the slippery slope argument. A sure sign they know they don’t have a real argument to use. I’m disappointed he didn’t invoke Godwin’s law in defence of his bigotry. Still, give it time.
Some pretty lurid sexual fantasies here. Really, he should keep these kind of intimate thoughts to himself. Whatever will he come up with next?
‘…Homophobia’ is merely a propaganda device designed to denigrate and stigmatise those holding conventional opinions, which have been held by most people through most of recorded history…’
im sure he would say exactly the same about racism or sexism. ukip right place for a bigot
Extremely unlikely as there has never been any evidence of this. However what we can say based on unequivocal evidence is Catholicism leads to Paedophilia on a breathtaking scale.
Best argument? How about there is no argument. Nobody is chasing any of this to be legalised. If there are then let them make their own argument. There is no reason for polygamy or incest to be lumped in with equal marriage rights for same sex individuals other than those idiots who wish to scaremonger people into thinking the allowing one will automatically lead to the others. I’m not aware of an outburst anywhere else where 2 people of the same sex have been given equal marriage.
Actually, I’d be happy for any size group of consenting people to marry, but not things like father and son because the position of responsibility makes it abuse by the father. However, this is not very likely to happen and is certainly not what is being proposed.
Don’t feed the troll – you’re giving it the attention it desires.
Actually, as anyone should know, there are now serious moves in the Canadian court to legalise polygammy. There are also serious campaign groups in the USA, using the exact same tactics as the gay rights movement, seeking to legalise polygammy. I suggest that, even though you have your own opinion, you don’t engage with intellectual dishonesty.
Moves which have been ongoing for years, in no way linked to the fact equal marriage was granted to same sex couples(at least as far as I can see), although as recently as 2011 the Canadian Court has rejected this claim. To try and link that in with equal marriage is clutching at straws. Like I say, they can, and have, been making their own arguments. But to try and like one to the other is scaremongering.
as anyone should know
I’ve never heard of any such group. If they’re so ‘serious’, why can’t you name these ‘serious’ campaign groups that we should know about?
The only thing that’s frightening is how this man has reached his position Being so out of touch who are voting these nuts in its laughable. Do you think it’s possible to turn a straight male gay?
Nope, but it doesn’t stop you queers from trying to!
Get over yourselves. screeching about incitement like a choir of old queens!
WOW. What a positive and constructive way to add to a discussion
I’ve slept with “straight guys” but trust me I don’t look for them, they’re always the one who approaches me.
Surely they’re not straight guys, but bi.
Or closest Presbyterians.
Get over yourself bush kangaroo, screeching about people trying to shag you (which in itself suggests it’s unlikely in the extreme).
Learn to spell. Idiot.
Your “striaght” isn’t straight.
Don’t flatter yourself honey.
I find it peculiar that a “straight” man, as you claim to be, is reading pink news. Is it just to hurl insults?
Shame on you.
Wake up – the world is changing. Don’t be left behind in your dim and twilit heterosexist cave.
“‘Homophobia’ is merely a propaganda device designed to denigrate and stigmatise those holding conventional opinions”…
Racism was also a conventional opinion that many people held, that didn’t make it right then as it doesn’t nowadays when it comes to homophobia.
Likewise sexism, even more widespread.
oh gosh he missed out men marrying their dogs, which is usually mentioned along with polygamy – ah well, next time
He will be holding that in reserve in case he gets on question time. Oh, and the Adam and Steve one which few people have heard before.
the fear that legalising gay marriage will open the flood gates is not a good reason to try to stop it. incestuous relationships are illegal and I’m not aware that there is anyone calling for this to be changed, if they are then that is their right to try and it’s an entirely different issue from gay marriage. I don’t know if some would want to marry more than one person they would have to put their case forward. gay marriage is going to happen in this country whether you like it or not. so I suggest you try to come to terms with your issues around this.
I wouldn’t deny anyone the right to seek equal rights. If there was evidence that these relationships are as positive and beneficial as gay relationships can be then I’d be all for it. I think most of the evidence says incestuous relationships are detrimental and abusive even between consenting (?) adults.
How many of the countries that already have same-sex marriage have since implemented incestuous, polyamorous or polyandous marriage?
These people are starting to look increasingly ridiculous.
Quite. Not one of them can produce the factual evidence for their absurd claims. They were saying the same thing when CPs were introduced remember? No polygamy, no incest, no bestiality reported, certainly none in the hetero population. Their rants are only going to enable successful passage of marriage equality.
Another ad nauseam response. Typically debase and default reaction of the resident basket case drunk.
And a suggestion that he spends far too long thinking about “a couple of blokes” together than any straight man would!
These people also forget to notice that in counties that allow polygamy, homosexuality is nearly always illegal. Yet by their logic they should all have had gay marriage centuries ago. They are not in the same mountain range let alone on the same slippery slope.
that should say countries, not counties.
It seems to me that the more outspoken an elected or church official against gay peoples rights the more likely they are a closet case. At least that is true here in the US.
Oh my goodness, he seems to be thinking a lot about polygamy and incestuous relationships. Is he trying to tell us something? Is he hoping to repeal those laws? Why bring it up otherwise?
There is a huge logical disconnect trying to link marriage equality with polygamy. People making this argument demonstrate a breathtaking absence of intelligence. Shall we spell this out?
Society likes people getting paired up, it makes for potentially stable relationships where two people mutually support one another. ONE couple, that’s ONE bilateral relationship. ONE. Group of three? That’s three bilateral relationships (A-B, B-C, A-C), some of these bilateral relationships will be unequal to others within the group of 3. This makes polygamous relationships of three people inherently less stable . Therefore society doesn’t want to get in the business of legislating either polygamy (or incestuous relationship for that matter). Ergo: stupid argument.
Get over yourself mate.
I agree, maybe this does need spelling out to these people who you so eloquently describe as demonstrating a breathtaking absence of intelligence.
A literal Biblical marriage is a polygamous one (Exodus 21:10) that allows a husband to stone his bride to death if she is not a virgin on their wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:22).
These people are so fond of saying that the bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. Whether this is true or not is a matter of how one reads and cherry picks the bible but, if marriage is supposed to be allowed by god through the church, how can it be a “human right”?
I work for St Martin in the Fields; a very prolific church apparently. The ex vicar who is now the Bishop of Sailsbury said he would be delight to give me and my partner a blessing in his church. They even fly the rainbow flag during London pride. Im not religious myself, but its still nice to know that not all religious heads fell the same as this bigot.
wonderful. but if only he wasn’t the exception to the rule.
There is no reason why they should not be included. Uncoerced adults should be allowed to enter into any form of dual or communal commitment, with legal force to recognise that commitment, and whether or not (consenting) sexual relations are involved.
I think that shoots your fox. And I think it’s time you washed your penis and/or rectum, before and/or after. Your body seems as hygienic as your mind.
As usual, you don’t read posts you respond to, and appear not to understand the meaning of basic English. ‘Consent’ has no meaning where coercion is involved; the crucial point re. legal marriage or other public contracts is that no coercion be involved, whether or not there are any coercive aspects in the related relationships; and my reference to hygiene had nothing to do with the sexual relationships you cite, which may or may not be hygenic depending on context; I was refering very obviously tot the morbid state of your mind.
“If two men have a right to marry, how can we deny the same right to two siblings? Are we to authorise incest?”
Idiot! How many straight men are clamouring to marry their sister? Because they all should be, right? After all, a man have been allowed to marry a woman for ages so it only makes sense that allowing them this right has led to them all wanting to commit incest.
Hell, I hear they’ve been beating away opposite sex siblings at the Registry Office for years now. Not.
I’m surprised ANY political party accepted this dunce.
“You evade the point as usual.”
Actually, you just can’t read. The point was made perfectly to anyone who is not suffering from a psychos.
Keith has his own special points, Will ;) He hallucinates what we say and then conducts some kind of mad ‘conversation’ and continues even when his mistakes are pointed out. I’m embarrassed on his behalf really.
Oh I could rebut every point in this article, but it would be so pointless… hahaha. Ask real questions instead of rhetorical ones and actually use your brain properly for once please, Mr Helmer.
They don’t actually use their brain, they just use the same old crib sheet written by some American evangelical cretin.
This man’s argument is one of the most ridiculous and pointless that I’ve ever heard.
As somebody else has already said, I’m surprised that ANY political party accepted him. I’m amazed that the UKIP leader suggests that Mr Helmer’s move to them is an indicator that people are taking UKIP “very seriously” – I would guess that it makes them even more of a laughing stock.
Another one who’s living on another planet. Not that one orbiting between Saturn and Neptune by any chance? How can gay marriage lead to incest? Are we suggesting that men can marry their own brothers? Well guys cannot marry their sisters under current arrangements and we are certainly not advocating the legalisation of incest nor are we promoting polygamous marriages. Mother lovers like him need to get his own house in order!
Unfortunately for UKIP it is seen as a one trick pony. With the EU being so unpopular they should have made some serious political inroads by now, but the party is being held back because it is full of buffoons like this.
It must be frustrating for Nigel Farage and some others, but you can’t make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
Ignore the increasingly desperate troll and it’s pathetic multiple names, Ray123. Your point was perfectly sensible – unlike poor keith’s. He’s incapable of any kind of discourse or logical thought, blinded by his hate and own self-worth issues.
You seem to be suggesting that Nigel isn’t also a buffoon. Surely some mistake?
As a fervent supporter of UKIP, I am really disapointed they end up taking on prats like this.
Farage needs to nip this in the bud immediately or he will lose considerable support and the party will just end up looking like an anti-EU version of the Conservatives.
Is that like saying “voting UKIP leads to murder”?
I do not think so
what an awful man!
Another Looney Toon. No wonder he’s in UKIP as they’re full of them. He probably only got to be an MEP as Tory vote fodder.
He is a failed conservative so what do you expect?
Bet Cameron is relieved this loon is no longer within his ranks!
Same tired old slippery slope plus straw man fallacy with no basis in reality.
And to think we pay this man’s wages.
Just take a look at this man. He looks absolutely stupid. So why think he is capable of intelligent speech or of being kind to others who are not thankfully like him.
If a man and a woman are allowed to marry, what’s next?? A man, a woman and their cat????
Precisely. Slippery slopes are essentially meaningless simply because they are no more than an attempt to infer similarities between two or more things whose only common characteristic is that one dislikes them. For instance, one of my tropical fish changed sex a few years ago. Look what happens when you let homosexuals keep aquaria!!
Oh my god, what ever next.
You are an idiot, a dangerous idiot. An idiot who is obviously mentally challenged. The worst thing is that he has been voted to represent people. So I am led to think that those people who voted him are idiots, dangerous idiots that live amongst us.
” will gay marriage lead to incest ? ”
… No ya moron. >.>
Really how stupid are these questions.