Reader comments · Comment: Marriage would be an unnecessary victory roll for gay rights, David Coburn argues · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Comment: Marriage would be an unnecessary victory roll for gay rights, David Coburn argues

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Dr Robin Guthrie 12 Mar 2012, 3:55pm

    Sod off.

    1. Watt Tyler 12 Mar 2012, 5:12pm

      Fundamental error – religious don’t want equal marriage. C of E and RC and a few others don’t, but large numbers of RELIGIOUS people do want equal marriage, and therefore this whole argument is complete in error. Religious freedom for Cof E and RC, no religious freedom or libertarianism or whatever you want to call it for anybody else because they have to do what the RC and C of E want! We are governed by Westminster not religions.

    2. I’ve voted for these in the past. There I’ve said it. Never again.

      1. Spanner1960 12 Mar 2012, 9:21pm

        Ditto. I think UKIP have scored a serious own goal in this matter and I for one will never support them again until they start getting in line with equal rights.

        1. Dr Robin Guthrie 12 Mar 2012, 9:47pm

          Snap. However never again.

          1. I did in past elections as they never said ny of this rubbish. Back then they wanted less power sent to europe and a sense of national pride again.

            Now they have shown their colours.

            I will never vote for them again.

  2. How could any self respecting gay person or any self respecting libertarian support an ongoing regime which has an apartheid segregation of people on the basis of their orientation?

    Where is Coburn’s self respect?

    Its clear why UKIP (aka BNP-lite or BNP for people with mortgages!) are regarded as a laughing stock!

    1. Friend of Dorothy 12 Mar 2012, 5:07pm

      Ha! Stu, was it you that said UKIP is the CRB-checked version of the BNP?

      1. That was me!

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Mar 2012, 11:50am

      They’re fascists of course!

  3. Dave North 12 Mar 2012, 3:58pm

    ” it does the gay community no good whatever to cross the street and pick a fight with people of faith. ”

    I think you will find that the EXACT opposite is true.

    And FAITH has nothing to do with it.


    How many times do you liars need telling.

    1. I think he’s hinting at the slippery slope argument (fallacious argument)

      ‘Kafkaesque society’ is slightly more imaginative than the usual accusations of Marxism that the homophobes make against ‘the gay lobby’.

    2. One moment you call it marriage, the next you utter civil, your bending the truth. And it has everything to do with faith, as marriage WAS brought to this country by faith, before marriage, what did we have? Wedding ceremonies!

      Marriage is defined by the Torah not by the people!

      1. Marriage pre dates religion.

  4. ‘If the government does legislate in this way UKIP believes that any criticism of same sex marriage which may be expressed by someone on the basis of their faith could be classified as a “hate crime”.’

    This is exactly why Marriage equality is needed. It is ludicrous to think that criticizing anyone’s marriage could ever be labeled “hate speech.” Have any of the churches been charged for criticizing interfaith marriages or refusing to officiate them? No. What conservative Christians want, however, is a stigmatizing label for the committed relationships of LGBT people, so that they can treat them with contempt and have social approval at the same time. Some churches can and do refuse to marry interfaith couples, but I doubt any Christian would feel comfortable suing to the supreme court for the “right” to refuse to accommodate a married interfaith couple in their hotel. “Civil Partnerships” are an official deference to religious prejudice, and they have to go.

  5. David, how can civil marriage be the domain of the churches? That is a totally nonsensical statement!

    You say that you believe civil partnerships have achieved equal treatment. I can assure you that you are wrong to believe this. Legally they do not provide equality, no matter how hard they have tried to do so. Socially they are seen by the vast majority of people as second class and lower than marriage, and history has taught us that ‘separate but equal’ never gives real equality. But in real life same sex couples are still discriminated against and religious freedom in the UK is compromised. If a same sex couple gets married in a Quaker church they get none of the legal recognition or rights that a straight couple does. This is very wrong.

  6. Some one kindly tell the nasty little doosh that collaborators are not kindly remembered by history. The issue here is one of CHOICE. I have no personal interest in getting married, but I will fight my hardest to make sure that everyone has the equal choice to do so if they wish. Why is that so hard for the mendacious little snot to understand?

    1. extoryvoter 12 May 2013, 6:37pm

      It’s quite simple, marriage is an institution which no political party or trendy gay rights group has a right to meddle with. Marriage is a partnership between a man and a woman for the procreation of children. I agree with civil partnerships but you should be satisfied with what you have achieved. You are having the adverse effect of making yourself unpopular with the Church and and large majority of the “grey”vote. Calling people names does not further your cause either. This man speaks for a very large (silent) majority of people in this country, you represent a very small, but loud, minority

  7. You, sir, are a douchebag.

    1. I wonder if I am alone in mentally hearing George Takei…

      1. Someone somewhere is channelling him lol

        1. Spanner1960 13 Mar 2012, 12:25am

          Beam up him, Scotty.

      2. Your not, I actually read that in his accent in my head lol

  8. Errol Semple 12 Mar 2012, 4:47pm

    What happened to separation of Church and State?
    Civil marriage is NOT the domain of the church.
    It is a human right and non-discrimination of the basis of sexual orientation applies.
    Stop the hypocracy.

    1. de Villiers 12 Mar 2012, 5:27pm

      As I understand the UK, there is a state religion. The monarch, in whose name the government acts, is also the Supreme Head of the Church.

      That there should be a secularity seems not to be an English desire. No-one here seems to support the ban on religious clothing in public buildings or the primacy of the English language over others.

      1. You’re right this is not a secular country but far too many ill-informed people think it is.

        There is not much support for banning religious clothing because there is a tradition of freedom of religion and multiculturalism in the UK and most dislike of the idea that the state be allowed to legislate your wardrobe.

        Also religious clothing mainly applies to muslims, but it would also apply to nuns, vicars, priests etc. Can you imagine the sh!t fest if the government told nuns they couldn’t wear a habit in a public building The the daily mail readers would spontaneously combust with rage.

        This is a united kingdom I doubt telling the welsh and Scottish that English is the best language ever would go down a treat

        1. de Villiers 12 Mar 2012, 11:15pm

          It is not about controlling people’s wardrobe as preventing them from demonstrating publicly that they answer to a higher law than the secular law of the state. No-one can accuse France of not promoting liberty – but it also promotes egalité and that requires the primacy of the secularity and of the French language above others. I thought that English was the primary language in Scotland and Wales but I have only lived in England (London) in the UK.

          1. @de Villiers

            Whilst I do think that the British have a great deal to learn from the French (AND vice versa) and I think there should be a complete separation of church and state – I do not think egalite is the solution to the issues in Britain.

          2. I don’t think you understand the UK, it seems you are only thinking about England, which is understandable as it’s what most English people do, so I can’t imagine that as a French man living in England you would be encouraged to consider the bigger picture.

            I don’t know about Scotland, however in Wales, Welsh is very important. Official documents are in Welsh and English and you can request forms and documents in in Welsh rather than English.

            I live on the border of Wales and England (the English side) when I use a cash point the first question I am asked is do I want the machine to communicate in English or Welsh.

            We are in many ways fundamentally different to France. France still has a sense of patriotism and nationalism, which has been disappearing in the UK since the First World War.

            National pride has been high-jacked of late by right wing extremists and football hooligans and that is what I envisage when I see people displaying the St. George’s Flag or the Union Jack.

      2. de Villiers, you are quite right. The UK does indeed have a state religion. It also has freedom of religion (which is why other faiths are accepted) and therefore from from it. This is why we have had CIVIL marriage in this county of over 150 years and why 68% of heterosexual couples who got married last year chose to have one.

      3. Spanner1960 12 Mar 2012, 9:26pm

        I find it blinkered, ignorant and quite offensive that people mark down de Villiers comments on this. Nobody that truly understands democracy and civilised society should berate people of faith. They have as much right to do as they choose as we do.

        It is only when the minority start imposing their will as “rights” that it all turns rather pear-shaped. I think most people on here would be more than willing to leave these people alone to do as they will as long as they do the same for us.

        1. Dsepite my increasing dislike of organised religion, I agree with you completely on this one.

  9. Since when has it been libertarian to remove my rights to live and work across 27 borders, to rip apart the bonds of community and history across our shared continent? And when did it become authoritarian to extend rights and freedoms? This guy has no self-respect, no sense, and no clue.

  10. OK sunshine, take your head out of your a**e for one minute and wake up to the reality FFS!

    It seems to me UKIP is picking up where Screaming Lord Such and all his nonsense have left off!

    1. Ben Foster 12 Mar 2012, 5:20pm

      Screaming Lord Such was at least amusing.

      1. Dave North 12 Mar 2012, 7:57pm

        And harmless..

        1. Good points, about Lord Such, I wonder what his thoughts would be?

          1. Dr Robin Guthrie 12 Mar 2012, 9:53pm

            Not much. He’s dead.

          2. I know that, which is why why I said what I thought they would be, were he alive

    2. That’s very unfair on Screaming Lord Sutch !

      Many of the things his Official Monster Raving Loony Party advocated have come to pass, such as the legalisation of commercial radio, votes at 18, passports for pets, and all-day pub opening.

      I’m sure he’d have been in favour of Equal Marriage as well…

  11. This will minor change to the law will pass without matey’s help or not.

  12. It’s bad enough when straight people try to deny us equality, but when gay people help them so willingly, it really makes me despair.

    If this man really doesn’t believe in gay people being allowed to marry, then as much as I disagree with him, that’s his view and he’s entitled to it. But to then try and force it on others shows a distinct lack of the tolerance he wants us to show the religious bigots.

    And it’s not about showing them tolerence, we can’t tolerate discrimination, and that’s what it is, not a simple difference of opinion.

    1. Ben Foster 12 Mar 2012, 5:24pm

      I know gay people who don’t want marriage because of reasons such as ‘it’s just copying hetero habits’ but they don’t object to those who do want it. This guy is an Uncle Tom

  13. Well the contortions some people can manage to perform. To be against gay marriage on a self aggrandising platform of libertarianism. No comment necessary really!!

  14. In the House of Commons UKIP seats are 0/650, House of Lords 2/274, European Parliament 12/73, & local government 28/21,259. I can certainly see why.

    1. They just want to cleanse the empire from barbarians and savages…

  15. David Coburn lacks all reason or logic with his ‘arguement’.

    Is he gay?

    If so then the fact that he thinks that he does not deserve equal civil rights, indicates that he hates himself very much.

    Truly pathetic.

  16. How are things at the back of the bus David?
    I was thinking there wasn’t a gay equivalent for the term “Uncle Tom” then David Cogburn conveniently supplies one.

  17. David in Houston 12 Mar 2012, 5:15pm

    How can anyone think that religious institutions have ‘ownership’ of marriage, when non-religious straight couples get married every single day?

  18. Watt Tyler 12 Mar 2012, 5:16pm

    Fundamental error – religious don’t want equal marriage. C of E and RC and a few others don’t, but large numbers of RELIGIOUS people do want equal marriage, and therefore this whole argument is complete in error. Religious freedom for Cof E and RC, no religious freedom or libertarianism or whatever you want to call it for anybody else because they have to do what the RC and C of E want! We are governed by Westminster not religions.
    I don’t recognise this representation of Britain either – I seemost of the so-called freedom loving Libertarians as only interested in their own freedom. Watch how their Libertarian beleifs fly out of the window as soon as anybody commits a crime against THEM – suddenly they want the full force of the law! Incidentaly I would never go near UKIP because of their support for hunting.

  19. I don’t know how many times I have to stress that marriage is not a religious thing. People of any nationality/ethnicity, faith, look, diet, etc can get married. Civil marriage ≠ holy matrimony. Nobody is forcing you to marry same sex couples, nobody is going to arrest you for believing/saying same sex marriage is wrong. Get over yourselves, your pathetic excuses are running out.

    Of course I’m going to “pick a fight”, I want my rights. I don’t want a civil union, I want marriage. I want the commitment, I want the wedding, I want to be able to call a woman my wife and have it be true, I want the legal benefits. A LACK OF TOLERATION? Like I said, they don’t have to perform or get one of the marriages. There are people against interracial marriages, but we don’t make interracial marriage illegal because of their backwards ideas.

    1. But in a straight marraige, women dont have wives, they can only have husbands. This seems to make a case for a different name…

      1. I don’t want a straight marriage, as I’m not straight. I want a gay marriage, as I’m gay. I want to be able to call a woman my wife, as I’m only sexually, physically, and romantically attracted to women and I want to spend the rest of my life with the woman of my dreams. That’s the whole point of my argument.

        1. Jock S. Trap 13 Mar 2012, 12:52pm

          I just want the right to marry regardless of gender or sexuality. The words Gay or Straight before ‘marriage’ doesn’t make it any more relevent. Just to have the choice to marry Equally is sure what we want?

          1. Yeah that’s what I think, but since ‘Jacky’ decided to mention “straight marriage” I wanted to clarify what I was looking for. Of course I just want equal marriage.

  20. de Villiers 12 Mar 2012, 5:35pm

    David Coburn has perhaps misunderstood the point but the vitriol here is nasty and also misses his argument.

    As I understand his point, he wants the state not to be involved in defining marriage at all. That would involve the state no longer to define marriage for heterosexuals or homosexuals. It would be a purely private, contractual matter.

    For myself, that appears to be extreme. The state can properly define marriage as a public institution to which the state is a party. If the state does provide a service, it is reasonable to suggest that it should provide it to all, without discrimination.

    Further, it is unlikely that the state would withdraw from providing civil marriage. Or rather, it is more likely that it will open it to same-sex couples than withdraw it from heterosexual couples.

    The attractiveness of marriage is that it displays a public recognition, acceptance and blessing of the relationship. A private arrangement can never provide that.

    1. Are you basing your comment on things David Coburn has said outside this article? While he complained about government regulations in general, I don’t see where he is arguing here for the state to get out of marriage entirely.

      He seems to be saying that civil partnerships are “satisfactory”, and that asking for the right to marry is an “unnecessary victory roll over a defeated enemy”. His view is that this is only fight over a word.

      The argument you attribute to him would at least be intellectually consistent for a libertarian (though still incorrect as you demostrate).

      I wouldn’t question if he is a “real” gay person, maybe question if he is a “real” libertarian.

  21. Another self loathing queen that really needs to shut up.

    1. That’s exactly what I thought. In my opinion, even worse than closeted politicians because he’s openly gay, and giving fuel to conservatives that will say “Hey look! Even a gay man doesn’t want civil marriage!”.

      1. Exactly, I understand that there are many LGBT people that don’t like the idea of equal marriage for whatever reason, but that is not a reason to deny it to everyone else. He talks of freedom yet he evidently feels that he should deny freedom to those who merely want to be equal.

        “UKIP is a profoundly libertarian party dedicated to small government, low taxes, live and let live, free speech and thought and above all toleration of the rights and differences of others.”

        Sounds VERY similar to what right-wing US republicans believe so as I said previously. He really just need to keep quiet and stop trying to give ammo to those who would do us harm and injustice.

        Better still – leave politics and live his hypocritical life elsewhere.

      2. Who would marry him?

  22. Patrick Mc Crossan 12 Mar 2012, 5:39pm

    As a gay man and as a gay catholic I have problems with Stonewall’s Draft Marriage Bill

    I think they have deliberately chosen words and phrases to assist me as part of a minority that will offend the majority.

    I believe Stonewall who have done and who do great work have chosen to upset the majority by removing Husband & Wife by amendments completely from the marriage bill. ( see )

    Extension of Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Bill 2012 [HC] a husband and wife” substitute “parties to a marriage”.

    For those who have been married and see it as an institution, and as Husband & Wife are part of the worlds accepted married status I feel it will create far too much upset to achieve marriage rights for gay people by removing the majority’s right to continue to be called Husband & Wife.

    Stonewall should achieve equal marriage rights without upsetting the majority.

    It is issues like this that gets people to believe we are going too far when we denigrate others rights to achieve our own right

    1. What’s wrong with a four square box set out like so:

      Husband: ________________ Wife:_________________

      Husband: ________________ Wife:_________________

      Then the stipulation to fill in only two of the options.

      1. No inequality between columns and rows ;)

        1. Watt Tyler 12 Mar 2012, 5:55pm

          How about a box set out like this

          wife:______________ wife:__________
          husband______________ husband____

          1. It wouldn’t be as neat since wife is shorter than husband. Convention in this case is logical!

    2. I didn’t get the memo where husband and wife become banned terms in reference to straight couples.
      Are you sure you didn’t dream it?

    3. Watt Tyler 12 Mar 2012, 5:54pm

      You have been listening too much to the lies of the RC church. A lie isn’t not a lie because it’s said by someone you think has authority. You can’t argue with someone who’s arguments are quite simply lies. Stop it, it’s a very major sin you know, whatever you think justifies it.

    4. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 12 Mar 2012, 6:06pm

      Why shouldn’t the wording of the law be less about the masculine and feminine terms, and just about the use of the legal terms that are applicable instead… do you have a problem accepting yourself?! Institution?! You’ve lost me! It has been described as an institution, but even so, all institutions need a fresh lick of paint every now and again. The notion that the change will ‘create too much upset’, well all I can say that the you good little christians would argue with a shadow these days! If you need a good psychiatrist, I’m happy to oblige you with a contact number!

    5. Patrick, have you actually read the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973? Because have just read both Stonewall’s Draft Bill and MCA ’73. The redraft is for practicality and not a political statement.

      The word husband occurs 6 times in the MCA and wife 5 times, however, the Bill requests that the words husband and wife on only 1 occurrence. This is at section 1(6) which refers to subsections (4)(e) & (d), (both of which use ‘the parties’ rather than ‘husband and wife’) and it is purely because otherwise this one sentence in the MCA would have to read “husband and wife or husband and husband or wife and wife”.

      I suggest if you are going to start suggesting that way in which anyone is using the finer points of redrafting statute is doing so for an alternative agenda, then you learn how to read it first.

    6. Sorry, I can’t debate this issue with you. Whatever..believe what you want.

    7. “As a gay man and as a gay catholic I have problems”

      You forgot the FULLSTOP here.

  23. Did he lift this from a Richard Littlejohn article?

    The authoritarian Lib-Lab-Con parties want to regulate everything you do and even what you think through their chosen instruments of ‘elf ‘n safety, Security mate!, political correctness and Equality Fascism.

    “Don’t smoke that… Don’t drink… Eat your five portions of greens… You can’t say that… You can’t think that… Do what we say but not what we do… Smile for the security cameras… ”

    1. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 12 Mar 2012, 6:08pm

      Christmas cracker from 2005, I think. Obviously living better and looking after yourself isn’t a priority for Mr Cogburn!!

  24. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 12 Mar 2012, 6:14pm

    Nah, I tried to read it but I tailed off after the 3rd paragraph… But then I always had a short… Knees up mother brown is a website I found accidently one day at work. It is a West Ham United fansite. Havin’ a laff!

  25. You should be ashamed of yourself David Coburn…Please don’t presume to represent my thoughts and feelings just because you are gay!

    Marriage is not and cannot be the domain of the church given the fact that straight people do not, and many don’t, marry in church! This is called a ‘civil marriage’ which is what we want!

  26. What do you expect from someone whose party’s logo look like a pound shop. Cheap politics.

  27. Jock S. Trap 12 Mar 2012, 6:33pm

    Ridiculous. If you don’t want marriage fair enough but surely we should have the right to choice available to which we can make up our own minds.

    Enough of the dictation give us the freedom.

  28. Robert in S. Kensington 12 Mar 2012, 6:52pm

    Who’s picking a fight with religious people? It is they who are picking a fight with us. Coburn is dead wrong when he says….”This shows a lack of toleration towards others who look on marriage as a holy sacrament between man and woman.” It is only the Roman Catholic church that considers marriage to be a sacrament, not so in the Anglican church and civil marriage of course most certainly isn’t, no religious component whatosever.

    What is even more galling is that there are hateful gay UKIP people out there who support religious bigotry. Has anyone ever asked Cobun if he had the choice would he opt for a Civil Partnership since he thinks they are equal to marriage? If not, why not? I bet his response would be a resounding NO. In fact, that question should be put to all of our opponents.

  29. To sum this article up in 2 sentences:


    Blah blah blah, government control, lack of freedom, 1984, kafkaesque, paranoia etc etc.


    I believe in freedom, and by that I mean the freedom of bigots to STOP people doing things that do not hurt anyone else on the basis of a book of fairy stories (and not only that but, by mis-quoting said book of fairy stories).

  30. Can I just take this opportunity to thank PN for giving Coburn the opportunity to utilise his freedom of speech in a free press in a country which values liberty to expose the hideous and insidious nature of hypocracy that is UKIP

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 12 Mar 2012, 9:46pm

      Don’t you mean “for giving him the rope to hang himself.”

      1. Wouldnt have been my personal choice of phrase, but if the cap fits …. perhaps, it would have to be a black cap?

    2. yep indeed, PN should also “give the opportunity” to other self-hating homophobes, particularly those in the Tory party. That would surely “expose the hideous and insidious nature of hypocracy that is the Tory party”.

  31. Could it possibly be that the RC church are being so concerned about UK attempts to ensure fairness, transparency, equality and integrity in marriage when equal marriage is introduced because of their experience here:

    Clearly UKIP share the views of the RC church that it is the church who are victims and that apartheid is acceptable to ensure that gay people are treatment repressively and made to be subhuman in terms of their legal recognition.

  32. I get quite annoyed about the church v gay argument as though gays are a seperate species. I think the census shows that the most gay people tick that they have a religion.

    As for the husband/wife and any other legal aspects then the UK won’t be the first European country to take up gay marriage and it could actually learn how to do things from these countries. I’m not aware of any of these other countries up in arms with what was changed. Its funny in some languages you just have one word for husband and wife and vary or add a letter to the word to indicate gender.

    1. Spanner1960 12 Mar 2012, 9:19pm

      I’m gay and I’m an atheist, thank God.

  33. So he’s against government interference, except when that interference ensures inequality. Nice.

  34. I would like Mr Coburn to consider ….
    I am a Quaker, my family have been for generations, I was brought up as a Quaker and regularly attend the little meeting house where my sister got married and my parents are buried.

    Quakers have now reached the position where they wish to conduct marriages for all couples in exactly the same way. In what way is it “libertarian” for the governement to continue to forbid this to happen?

    I agree with john that we should refuse to accept the lie that we have gays on the one side and religion on the other. The extremist religious elements are seeking to use this issue to capture the ownership of “the religious point of view”. We are all entitled to our own religious views.

    Likewise the idea that “marriage” belongs to “the Church” (whatever that means) is entirely spurious.

  35. Spanner1960 12 Mar 2012, 9:18pm

    Who is this cock?

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 12 Mar 2012, 9:50pm

      Just some brown nosing political wanabee, throwing gays, including himself, under the bus to further his “career” in the failed political party called UKIP.

      They have lost my vote and indeed my families and friends.

      1. Spanner1960 13 Mar 2012, 12:24am

        Same here. I really thought UKIP was the light at the end of the tunnel.
        It seems they are just another feeble trick of the light.

        1. Well, if they decide to support marriage equality, you can still reach the end of your imaginary tunnel darling.. we can guess, but only you know why such a despicable party has ever managed to attract your attention…

          1. Spanner1960 13 Mar 2012, 10:34am

            My main support for them was because they were the only sizeable party willing to get us out of Europe, which is something I think is intrinsically important to this country, but unfortunately they have demonstrated their true colours now with this pseudo-Christian ethos buried behind them, and I cannot accept that, and neither will many others now. I think they have seriously blown it.

          2. There you go… if they ever get into power you can hope to live in a piece of land free of gipsies… we now know you don’t like them… but unfortunately, to rid the land of europeans, you’d have to leave as well…

  36. Gay or not, I think libertarianism is borderline lunacy and I’d never vote for them

  37. Have you ever heard of NAZZI propaganda in reverse? That’s a new concept some people are trying to placate… think about it…

    1. They say… the NAZZIS have changed… go figure…

    2. They think they have a new formula that is able to change the perceptions people have about the Ku Klux Klan too. They claim a new concept that can clean even the dirtiest of attrocities… Their inner feelings orbit around these institutions, and their allegiances are with them too…

  38. Oh no, they’re being denied their right for their marriage to be special, because it would be terrible if they were thought to be just the same as LGBT people…..These people are so thick they can’t see their own doublespeak.

  39. auntie babs 13 Mar 2012, 12:17am

    words well and truely fail me.

  40. Separate but equal’ never gives real equality!Thanks for the post or share information. Maybe you’re interested in Nike Free Danmark

  41. Dr Robin Guthrie 13 Mar 2012, 1:23am

    I watched, BBC’s “The Big Question” this weekend, and the question was

    “Is fundamentalism destroying religion”

    They had an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi.
    ( Male )
    a Reformed Judaistic Rabbi ( Female ).

    An Evangelical Christian ( Male )

    A 20 year old Imam ( Male ) who admitited that the Muslim churches are importing ignorant muslims from pakistan to be trained as Imams in the UK.

    Two moderate muslims in suits.

    One ex British Christian in a Burkha after her conversion, and one British Professor of religion trying to make sense of it all.

    After watching the whole thing, I came to the conclusion that none of these people are based in reality. The Christians called everybody sinners, as that is the basis of their religions.

    We love you but you will burn in hell unless you do as our book says.

    The whole thing was one big “our way is right” ” Yours is wrong”.

    Religion should have no place in anything other than in the minds of the fools that follow it.

    1. funny I saw a bit of that when my netflix froze and I thought they were all a bunch of idiots except for the Jewish woman who said who are you to judge.

      It made me think if these idiots are representative of religious people they will have died out in the next 20 years as long as we dont get anymore evangelical africans with their shop front churches

    2. Spanner1960 13 Mar 2012, 10:39am

      I just find it all rather bizarre. I just have this vision of, say, all the Christians and Muslims arriving at the pearly gates and the Hindu God Krishna standing there saying “Sorry chaps, you’ve been reading the wrong books…”

    3. Amazing!

      You really are SO stupid and ignorant that you really think that you can fight for ‘equality’ by denigrating others and insulting them in exactly the manner which, if they did it to you, you would claim was ‘homophobic’? This includes people who follow a faith.

      I am gay, and do not follow any particular faith myself, but I would NEVER – as you and so many other gay bigots on here do – try to belittle, abuse, insult & demean them for it while claiming to be defending some faux-‘equality’.

      WHAT a bunch of nasty, sniping, venomous and bitchy old queens you are!

  42. This website states that a press officer from the UKIP party said that their party was supporting “gay” marriage. Sounds like the Catholic church has got to them!
    “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”

  43. Maybe David Coburn has internalized the abuse religious zealots pile on gay people, and he doesn’t think of himself (or us) as anything but second class citizens to begin with. How else to explain his logic about equal marriage rights?

  44. Mr. Coburn, I don’t know what your ideology is but it most definitely NOT libertarian. Had you argued that government needs to get COMPLETELY out of the marriage business then THAT would be libertarian. Or if you had argued that, if the government was going to be in the business of marriage it couldn’t deny it to ANYONE including multiple partners or siblings. Libertarians believe that government should stay out of people’s lives in ALL but the most rare instances and when they are involved they do so with no prejudice and no discrimination. And, I might ad, TRUE libertarians do not consider it the government’s job to support or promote the church.

    Your ideology is a very bizarre mix of extreme conservatism and personal animus. That’s no surprise, it’s the ideology of most people who claim to be libertarian.

    Your ideology

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Mar 2012, 11:50am

      Exactly right, Hayden. In the U.S. doesn’t the Civil Libertarian party support a “state’s: right to legislate for marriage equality? Coburn is totally off the mark and I agree, it’s more about personal animus.

      As for those gay supporters of UKIP, you are the most despicable people opposing a basic right that everyone should enjoy, even if you don’t personally believe in it. You are indeed NOT libertarians, but more aligned to fascism. Shame on you. Your “party” is going NOWHERE and never will and neither will you, thankfully..

  45. I don’t want to get married but if I pay the same taxes as everyone else I expect the same treatment.

    If these idiots who don’t want us to have to option vote for some sort of rebate then I’m cool with that

  46. David Coburn and UKIP’s list candidates who are openly gay = kapos

  47. James Justice 13 Mar 2012, 11:13am

    Excellent! . I have voted UKIP for a long time now and agree with all of what you say.

    We have Civil Partnerships so why try and deliberately atagonise those that don’t agree with gay marriage?

    It’s like poking a stick into a wasps nest!

    Gay and libertarian – the way to go!

    1. I thought like you until a few months ago.

      It’s not about marriage in a church these idiots are jumping on the last availiable prejudice to make their failed organisations relevent.

      There are non religious marriages in registry offices. Whats wrong with us having that?

      It’s about equality. I pay my taxes like everyone else I expect exactly the same treatment.

    2. Where is the libertarian argument in supporting apartheid in civil marriage?

    3. Yes, why have full equality when you can have the back seats on the bus?

      No seriously, your mindset is depressing. I’m sure if it was up to people like you, Section 28 would still be on the books.

    4. Civil Partnerships is not equality! For example in a marriage if your wife/husband has an affair it is adultery and so is grounds for divorce!

      If your are civil partners and the same happens you do not have grounds to dissolve the partnership because there is this wild assumption that ALL gay people have ‘open relationships’ as if straights never do themselves!

      So yes we want marriage!

  48. Inaccurate polemical drivel.
    And on the subject of ‘grabbing votes’, this stuff whiffs of UKIP trying to lure away more Eurosceptic homophobic Tories to their cause. Transparent and hilarious.

  49. The guy is an idiot.

    He is worried about the ‘ownership’ of a word without any apparent understanding that it is not a word but a law. The law has vast international currency allowing different sex couples to have their relationships recognized across Europe and the world, while the word ‘civil union’ does not open as many doors.

    1. Some people keep repeating the mantra – marriage is a pre-
      Christian tradition -Then get married at Stonehenge or a Greek or Roman Temple. Even then these pre-Christian cults were presided over by priests and only married men and women. Look up the word marriage in any dictionary and it is clearly defined. Unless you are a Christian why bother to get married in a church in the first place? Civil Partnerships are perfectly acceptable

      1. Despite the fact there is historical evidence of homosexual marriage,which fundamentally undermines your argument, this isn’t about getting married in a Church you absolute moron.

        This is about CIVIL marriage and being treated equally by the state.

        “Unless you are a Christian why bother to get married in a church in the first place?”

        There are plenty of gay Christians why shouldn’t they get married in a church if their church wants to marry them. If their church doesn’t want to marry them they should take their business elsewhere and encourage their friends and family to do the same.

  50. David Coburn has a wonderful ally! The Anti-Gay Institute seem to love him!

    Birds of a feather and all that …

    So the C4M have UKIP, Mugabe, the CofE, Andrea Minichiello Williams, the RC church and a few minor irrelevant Tory relics on their side …

    What a bunch!

    1. With friends like those, who needs enemas?

  51. UKIP … never the brightest pennies in the purse!!!

  52. Live and let live unless your gay i think is what he meant to say >.>

    UKIP has become extremely right wing and un-democratic. Sad as a new alternative party was good but their out of touch and idiotic views have now damned them to the leagues of the BNP. Where one doesent like you unless your a white male the other now doesent like you unless your a straight christian.

    Luckily the main parties are now waking up and joining the 21st century.

  53. David Coburn’s use of the term “same sex marriage” will one day hopefully fall out of use as ALL marriages will be of equal value irrespective of the gender assignation of the parties involved

  54. Dr Julia Gasper 29 Apr 2012, 2:47pm

    I totally agree with everything David Coburn says in this article. He is not the only moderate homosexual to have taken a stance against hysteria. I believe that Ben Bradshaw has publicly said something along the same lines.
    As for all the ignorant abuse of UKIP in the comments that just shows that Pink News is for mindless gay-fascists.
    You are racist, you are foul-mouthed, you are against freedom of speech and you have even made death-threats to me. Despicable!

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.