Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Comment: Equal marriage plans must include religion, writes Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I know, it’s good that Labour are now supporting marriage equality (even if it’s not an official policy). We should celebrate this but I can’t help but be bitter over the fact these voices were not only silent but actively opposing marriage equality until very recently.

    Like Stonewall’s opposition this is now causing issues with the debate as anti-marriage groups keep bringing up that the Labour Government, Ministers and MPs told them (and I assume lied to them) that there were be no further moves in the direction of marriage equality!

    It’s good to have you on board Labour, I just hope you aren’t in this opportunistically.

  2. “lesbian, gay, bisexual or transvestite”???????? I can’t believe these ministers who are supposed to be representing our interests, don’t know what the acronyms mean, at a minimum.

    1. Stephen Gray 16 Mar 2012, 5:12pm

      The typo in the original copy has been corrected, thanks for spotting this Gabrielle.

      1. Can Pink News confirm whether they or the Shadow Home Secretary were responsible for this typo?

        It has worrying connotations either way, for either a LGBT news service or a shadow minister?

        1. I would also like to know where the typo came from.

      2. The original copy as received from the Shadow Home Secretary’s office? Not sure that changes much, then. Deeply, deeply worrying.

      3. Spanner1960 17 Mar 2012, 11:52am

        That’s not a typo. It’s a mistake.

      4. Thats not a typo. a typo is a couple letters wrong. it might be a mistake but its not a typo.

  3. I definitely think that while religious buildings/people shouldn’t be required to perform same-sex marriages, religious people/buildings should be able to if they want to.

    1. Seriously though, gay/lesbian/bisexual and transgender are two separate things and should be kept that way.- I’m tired of being grouped in with them.

      1. I agree a transwoman/man has nothing to do with lesbians, gays or bisexuals, these are about sexuality, Trans is about gender, two completely seperate issues.

      2. Hodge Podge 19 Mar 2012, 2:02pm

        Marriage equality will help trans people loads, at the moment they have to get divorced and remarried/CPed when the gender recognition certificate comes through. Not ok really.

        That’s why LGB and T work together, overlapping issues.

        1. No it’s two separate things. One is a sexual orientation, the other is someone confused about their gender who mutilates their body to line up with what they “feel”. I’m tired of being grouped in with them. LOL.

  4. There’s no good reason not to allow religious organizations host marriages for any couples they want, at their choosing. But if it doesn’t make it into the bill, realistically, it will happen within about five years in any case. So I’d argue should, rather than must.

    I also do find it amusing to see Labour trying to outflank this Tory/LibDem government on the equality front, after they didn’t do this themselves, and that religions were forbidden to perform civil partnerships.

  5. Sarah Brown 16 Mar 2012, 5:13pm

    If she thinks the T stands for “transvestite”, it could explain why Labour’s Equality Act is framed so as to, for example, exclude trans women from rape crisis counselling.

  6. Well that will put the cat amongst the pigeons. Truely!

  7. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Mar 2012, 5:26pm

    I applaud the shadow Home Secretary’s statement. I’d rather have her for us than against us no matter Labour’s stand in the past.

    What I would like to see is a more vocal campaign by the Unitarians, Quakers, Liberal and Reformed Judaism taking a stronger stand against the bigotry of the two mainstream religions that are in fact opposing the religious freedom of those who support us.

    1. The Quakers, Uniarians, Liberal & Reformed Jews are doing a very effective job in their quiet way – perhaps that is more effective for them. I know it might make us feel we had a champion if they were shouting from the rooftops but the contrast between their atitude and the angry, vocal violence coming from some in the Catholic & Anglican churches is very telling. And wthout them religious marriage might not be on the agenda at all. I’ve no doubt they are being listened to well enough in government. We shall overcome in the end.

      Anyway, if the Quakers were noisier they wouldn’t be Quakers.

      Of course, we should all, religious or not, be doing our bit at a local level to witness, explain, encourage and convince, The need is not just for a top-down campaign. In the end, MP’s and Lords will listen to the public (as well as their own self-interest)

  8. I have a feeling that the coalition government think that including changes to religious marriage at this stage would inflame the religious bigots too much and be too controversial. It would be easier to quietly alter it after the fact, as happened with the Alli amendment to civil partnerships. I’m not sure if this attitude is really right, but as long as religious same sex marriage is allowed one way or the other that is what counts. If it isn’t it will be terribly unjust.

    1. Indeed, politics is the art of the possible. Labour from 1997 completely changed the political landscape around LGBT rights. I remember what it as like before then. We now have all main political parties in this country being adamant that they are commited to equality for us and are pushing forward all the time. THAT is the great celebration here – that we are now in a position where none of the parties (apart from a few throwbacks in each) are looking backwards.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Mar 2012, 6:13pm

      I concur with your view, a wise approach I think.

  9. Even a crusty old Atheist like me can see her point.

    As for “inflaming” the sensibilities of the religious lot, surely they are as ablaze as is humanly possible already?

    1. Oh I think they will crank it up a bit more if need be.

      Didnt the Evangelical Alliance suggest civil disobedience at one point a couple of years back?

      1. Indeed! I vividly remember that!

        http://forum.mpacuk.org/archive/index.php/t-18243.html

        Does genuinely make you wonder quite how far these types will go to protect their head-in-the-sand attitutes

        1. Craig Denney 16 Mar 2012, 8:41pm

          I’v had eggs thrown at my house already. Someone told me it stands for ‘he who casts the first egg is without sin’ or something like that.

  10. Its a shame that labour didnt introduce this when in power.

    Great comments by Cooper.

    My preference would be for those religious organisations who wish to marry same sex couples not to be prevented from engaging in that process. It may be that amendments are made to the proposed legislation to ensure this.

    That said, my priority is to ensure civil marriage is equal and fair. If the unravelling of religious marriage is going to risk civil marriage becoming equal – then I would be happy to defer the religious element given that same sex couples could have a relgious ceremony in any event. That wouldnt be ideal but it would achieve a better place than the fudge that is CPs.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Mar 2012, 6:19pm

      I agree. I remember a similar backlash from religious nutters when the CP consultation began ,hell and brimstone, the end of marriage etc. This too shall pass I think. I think an amendment will be inevitable once SSM has been passed, just like a religious component for CPs was introduced. If you recall, not even the CoE had a problem with that one as long as none of it occured in an Anglican church.

    2. Remember the word APARTHEID Stu? The word you refuse to associate with the nasty party… you should use it more often. This case is one very good example. Go on, just give it a try, it won’t hurt and will only help your quest for neutrality …

      1. Yeah Beberts, apartheid was what labour introduced.

      2. What is wrong with you? You are so full of extremist anger at everything and everyone I’m amazed you function on a day to day basis.

        1. What’s wrong with him is that Labour lost the general election and having been shouting from the roof tops that the four horse of the Apocalypse would ride across the Earth once more, he’s gutted that the Conservatives (Coalition) are actually doing some good for us.

          1. He believes the NAZZIS can change and do “some good”… probably another apartheid denier …

          2. Beberts, you clearly have a limited knowledge of both the N@zis and Apartheid. Using such extreme and offensively inappropriate analogies considerably undermines what points you might be trying to make.

          3. The analogy is quite simple. Some people believe nasties can change. Why do you feel offended by this?

          4. So Beberts, are you saying YOU can change then,or have I misunderstood?

          5. Jose, I have no intention of changing your ideas, if you believe people can change that’s your belief … what I’m saying is you ignore the attrocities committed by nasty parties and believe they can change and do some good, that’s up to you.

          6. de Villiers 19 Mar 2012, 12:55pm

            The Nzais murdered and tortured over six million Jews, hundreds of thousands of gays, gypsies and other “undesirables”.

            They performed evil medical torture experiments on living men, women and children. They would cut open the bellies of pregnant women and rip out the unborn foetuses. In camps, they threw Jews into fire and let them burn alive.

            They ravaged my country France, instituted a puppet fascist government and caused near civil-war.

            The comparison of a liberal and democratic right-of-centre government with the Nzais is blinkered and bigoted, displays no understanding of history or the present, is deliberately provocative, nasty and evil.
            They burned books, silenced intellectuals and murdered opposition intellectuals.

          7. de Villiers 19 Mar 2012, 12:57pm

            The Nzais murdered and tortured over six million Jews, hundreds of thousands of gays, gypsies and other “undesirables”.

            They performed evil medical torture experiments on living men, women and children. They would cut open the bellies of pregnant women and rip out the unborn foetuses. In camps, they threw Jews into fire and let them burn alive.

            They ravaged my country France, instituted a puppet fascist government and caused near civil-war.

            They burned books, silenced intellectuals and murdered opposition intellectuals.

            The comparison of a liberal and democratic right-of-centre government with the Nzais is blinkered and bigoted, displays no understanding of history or the present, is deliberately provocative, nasty and evil.

          8. Is Villiers ignoring all the horrible human rights attrocities committed by the Tory party against gay people? Is Villiers aware of the puppet fascist governments supported by France and other former colonial powers causing actual civil-war in other countries around the World right now?

        2. Whats wrong with Beberts is that he is politically indoctrinated and blinkered

          1. How to be “neutral” like Stu? One way of achieving this condition is to blame one party for apartheid while totally ignoring the apartheid being offered right now by your favourite party. Stu will perceive you as a neutral, open minded and apolitical person. Just like Stu.

          2. As ever, Beberts rather than responding to the issues put to him (because he knows Labour were wrong and introduced apartheid) and rather than welcome positive news – seeks to deflect, become vitriolic and lash out. How grown up!

          3. Stu is desperately trying to hide his support for the apartheid being offered by the homophobic ConDemned coalition. For Stu Tory’s apartheid is “right” and Labour’s apartheid is “wrong”.

          4. Stu says: Tory’s apartheid is “positive news”… go figure …

  11. de Villiers 16 Mar 2012, 6:02pm

    I never cease to be amazed by the dishonesty of politicians. Not less than two years ago, Yvette Cooper would have stood in front of a television camera and defended the Labour government’s position that marriage should not be extended to gay couples. Now, she actively criticises the government when it introduces such a measure.

    It is an unedifying picture of a politician wanting to attack even those measures with which they might agree. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with Yvette Cooper, it is distasteful for her to dress up agreement as disagreement and to be purely political with her selective, citric sniping.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Mar 2012, 6:15pm

      There are few honest politicians in any country nowadays. It is what it is, politics!

      1. Not just nowadays, it was ever thus.

  12. I appaud this statement by Ms Cooper an wholeheartedly agree with the position she now takes but can’t help agreeing with those comments that have questioned the Labour Party’s commitment to this issue. Where on earth has Labour been these past few weeks? I do hope they make some of what Ms Cooper says official party policy as quickly as possible so that they have more credibility.

  13. Craig Nelson 16 Mar 2012, 6:42pm

    I welcome what Cooper is saying. The government surely have got this wrong and denying faiths who currently marry people to marry same sex couples is an egregious attack on the principle of religious freedom as well as of non-discrimination. Ludicrously religious same sex marriages carried out abroad (or in Scotland) would probably be recognised yet not if carried out in England and Wales!

    Anyway, the legislation to get through will need Labour MPs to vote it in cos there won’t be that many Tories voting for it (perhaps not even a majority of them).

    The other thing I would mention is that the proposal to exclude religious marriage is so bizarre that it needs to be challenged from the front bench – this can only be Labour as the Lib Dems are in government and make a combined front bench with the Tories (many no doubt would vote – esp with a free vote to overturn the ban on religious marriage). So therefore I warmly welcome Cooper’s piece.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Mar 2012, 7:16pm

      I agree. I don’t see many Tory MPs casting a favorable vote. The bulk will be from Liberal Democrats and Labour. I hope we’re proved wrong as time progresses and the issue becomes less of an issue as more reasoned voices influence those who are on the fence.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Mar 2012, 7:19pm

        Having said that, I think if the majority of the Tories don’t support us, then they can kiss 2015 goodbye. They’ll losea lot more gay votes than they already have, guaranteed. As Tory MP Francis Maude said recently, the Tory Party will be “unelectable” if they don’t support it. He’s right, i f you look at the last election result, a hung parliament.

        1. Peter & Michael 17 Mar 2012, 6:54am

          Our point ! Exactly, in previous posts on Pink News we have stated this. We should go for the whole of Same-Sex Marriage and including those religious denominations that wish to perform this celebration in their churches. Many Thanks !

  14. Craig Denney 16 Mar 2012, 7:33pm

    See Michael Portillo raising the issue on This Week last night that marriages in churches will be illegal, even if they would like to hold them:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17394564

    1. Craig Nelson 16 Mar 2012, 8:41pm

      Well, judging by the astonishing level of ignorance of the well informed, I think we have a lot of work to do.

  15. Craig Nelson 16 Mar 2012, 9:36pm

    Of course the other thing we need to look out for is the inclusion of a marriage equality bill in the forthcoming Queens Speech. Failure to do so would be very disappointing

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Mar 2012, 10:15pm

      Well, yes it would be nice. As far as the illegality of same-sex marriages in churches argument…almost all of the 10 countries that allow us to marry do not make any provision for religious marriages, with the exception of I believe Sweden, and probably Denmark in June 2012. I think after same-sex marriage passes in the UK, it will follow the route of the religious component for CPs. All is not lost.

      1. Craig Nelson 17 Mar 2012, 7:10am

        I think you’re wrong on that. In it is the opposite that’s the case i.e. no religion is obliged to marry same sex couples but equally none are debarred from doing so. England and Wales would be the first jurisdiction to allow same sex marriage but actually ban religions from doing so – at the same time offending religious freedom and equality.

      2. Canada amended the definition of marriage federally in 2005, after the provincial courts found that the existing law was unconstitutional. Each province has jurisdiction over marriage, divorce, family law, etc. within the province. Here’s Ontario’s provincial webpage describing civil marriage and religious marriage:: http://www.ontario.ca/en/life_events/married/004444.html#perform
        “A religious marriage is performed by an official of a recognized religion who has received authorization from the Office of the Registrar General to perform marriages in Ontario.” I believe the 9 other provinces and 3 territories have similar rules.

        When the UK proposal was first announced, it struck me as odd that churches would be the equivalent of no-go zones or toxic-waste sites for lesbian and gay marriages. The government should have no interest in where the ceremony is performed anymore than it should have any interest what the newly married couple does on their honeymoon!

  16. I still have a deep mistrust of the Tories on LGBT issues so Yvette Copper’s really strong statement is comforting.

    I’m glad they’re critcising the govt’s plan over not consulting on religious marriages and the statement I liked most from her was

    ” We are keen for it (marriage equality) to be introduced in the Queen’s Speech and legislated for this year. ”

    I really hope they push the govt on this point becuase as far as I can see there is no specific date set by the govt and I don’t want to wait another 3 yrs or wait until the next election. If I have to wait until the next election then it will be labour all the way for me next time around.

    1. I tend not to vote Tory but pragmatically – they are introducing a policy to equalise marriage, they have issued very strong statements supporting LGBT people, they have decriminalised people re certain “gay historic offences”, they have more gay MPs than all the other parties put together, they have a strong gay rights policy in international aid.

      I can not see any of this being comparable to the nasties that Beberts alleges.

      Times change.

  17. Yvette Cooper interviewed by Matthew Amroliwala on BBC News channel –

    http://youtu.be/Zb3HCJrgbNc

    Yvette says that the plans for marriage equality do not go far enough, and that religions should be permitted to marry same-sex couples if the wish to do so.

  18. Rather than the somewhat predicatable cynicism on here, I’d like to say I’m really pleased with what Yvette had to say.

    It’s ridiculous that religious institutions should be banned from holding same-sex marriages even if they want to hold them, and I’m glad that Labour is pointing out this absurdity.

    If only we could have more friends like Yvette in Parliament, true equality would occur much quicker.

  19. I have asked a large number of my straight friends if they want to marry in a church because A; they want to be married under the lord their God. or B; because Its a pretty setting…………guess what they ALL said!!!!!

  20. Peter & Michael 17 Mar 2012, 7:12am

    There is also a human rights case before the European Courts, led by Peter Tatchell and a decision is imminent, hopefully, will be in our favour, so whatever happens the European Courts will have to be respected.

  21. The consultation paper is not about if there should be same sex marriage, There will be same sex marriage before the end of this parliament. This isn’t populist vote on how to stop it happening, so all protests against it happening are absolutely pointless. You are barking up a tree that was never there in the first place. So go back and read the consultation paper and get your facts right.

  22. There was me worried that things on here were close to becoming too mature and adult. Thank heavens you showed up

    1. As I have stated to you before Keith, let polygamous people bring forward the argument and evidence to support any claim for legal equality and I will review it and make a decision. I do not support, nor oppose them at this time.

      And if you have any an issue with MY name than I suggest you take that up with my mother, she gave me it

      1. The troll, of course, being in such a strong position to comment on anyone else’s name!

    1. “I am successfully challenging misconceptions , bigotry, prejudice and hypocrisy.”

      LOL! Delusional. Tell us again about the babies and how evolution doesn’t “work”! Go on, I need a giggle.

    2. Please do not rudely troll the discussions of your intellectual superior.

      I haven’t. Take your stink away.

  23. “You managed to muster up an opinion on the basis of purely selfish reasons and not supposed desire for equality.”

    I supported marriage equality because I believe 2 people committing to eachother is good for society as well as the individuals involved, as the historical evidence of heterosexual marriage clearly shows. If polygamous marriage can provide equal benefits then let this be shown through study and fact and I will then decide my view. You accuse me of selfishness in this argument. On what grounds? Have I stated myself to be gay? Have I stated I wish to marry someone of the same gender as me?

    1. Studies have shown ss relations to be just as healthy as os relationships, therefore I feel it is correct for the state(not religions) to offer equal recognition of these relationships.

      Again you use the word oppose in order to throw accusations my way when I have made it clear I do not oppose or support the point you refer to.

      And simply because you, I presume, are hetrosexual does not mean that all heterosexuals who post on here happen to behave the same way as yourself, so maybe less presumption from yourself in future would be an idea.

      1. @Kris —Discussions about Keith’s sexual preferences are academic really, as I suspect he finds few opportunities to indulge them without exchanging cash.

        Based on his use of language and the intellectual rigour of his arguments, I suspect he may be below the age of consent.

        I am sure he’s straight really, and not the least bit repressed. Obsessively posting to gay websites is the hallmark of the real straight man, and not in the least indicative of massive repression.

    2. “Your homosexuality is presumed.”

      As is yours.

    3. In support of masturbation, I quote the boys from Men Beahaving Badly……..

      “I’m a wanker, I’m a wanker,
      and it does me good like it bloody well should
      So I wank wank wank all day….

      Keith, you should try taking their advice. It will keep you busy and thus benefit society hugely by keeping you out of its way.

  24. “AIDS is disproportionate amongst homosexuals compared to heterosexuals and the inability to produce children totally IMPEDES family continuance.”

    So you wish to use AIDS as an argument against SS marriage. In that case should all marriage not be withdrawn, regardless of how it’s rates are spread both homo and heterosexuals contract AIDS so that should have no bearing on the argument(also did you ever explain how 2 people committing to marriage would actually perpetuate the HIV/AIDS problem?). Furthermore impotence/celibacy totally impede family growth. Do you argue those people be excluded from marriage?

    Ultimately can I ask what your argument hopes to achieve? If someone on here agrees to polygamy or admits to only being interested in their own equality so what? Through history, each community has only ever fought for their own equality so what is your point at the end exactly?

  25. So you seek the approval of multiple and incestuous marriage then(I won’t use the term male incestuous since there are other types as well)? And of people who don’t wish to agree with this you can call them bigots or hypocrites or whatever. Again then, so what? What’s the point? Does it affect anything other than you being able to feel like you’ve scored some sort of point?

  26. I see from the erratic typing Keith has had “a few” again.

    Strength through Drink:- the recourse of the powerless and the stupid.

    1. Do you really think it’s drink, Will? I think it’s just he’s a bit, well, deficient, you know. Still, it’s can be funny when he clearly becomes over-excited.

      1. I think its most likely drink, although there is clear signs of a mental health issue.

        There’s the obsession with gay sex….. now that has studies to show that there’s a overwhelming chance Keith here is a closet case homo, and this backwater retrograde tripe of his is his “way” of “validating” this (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn)

        “I will run you over you intellectual pygmy.”

        Indeed. You can’t even write. Did I hit a nerve with you, drunkie? Are you shouting at the wall right now. Nice…..

      2. And this debunks my agument how?

        Your argument (correct spelling) is non-existent, hence it is not debunked, but dismissed. You really need to read more Keith, maybe then you’d understand the definition of words better, and wouldn’t end up writing like a 5 year old dyslexic child.

      3. @Rehan – deficient is a little on the mild side, isn’t it? He’s clearly illiterate, he’s obviously stupid, and he insults people like a 5 year old schoolgirl. I think the drink theory doesn’t answer the obvious severe congenital brain damage this bottom feeder suffers with.

        A damning indictment of the American eduction system of the 1950’s, not to mention a damning indictment of the American health service.

        1. Too mild, agreed, but I was trying to be kind.

    2. “Plese leav the discussion.ou have nothing, never did! except irrelevant wibbling and snot bubbles!”

      That is correctly written as:-

      Please leavethe discussion you have nothing [to add], never did! Except irrelevant wibbling and snot bubbles!

      I doubt you have the IQ to drive a car, let alone “run me over”. LOL! I am actually laughing at your “superior intellect” you illiterate buffoon.

      1. Ben Foster 17 Mar 2012, 4:34pm

        He must be on something. Who talks like that?

      2. “He must be on something. Who talks like that?”

        He’s either drunk or illiterate, or both.

        I doubt he can afford the medication he actually needs….

  27. Another Hannah 17 Mar 2012, 3:45pm

    The guy who post here clearly does not understand the limits of reasonable behaviour. When are the Police going to get up from their behinds, pursue and prosecute him? It’s making a joke of free speech and the righ to exist unharassed.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 17 Mar 2012, 4:05pm

      He’s one sick demented individual in dire need of long term psychiatric care. It does make one wonder why he trolls a gay website doesn’t it? A well adjusted secure heterosexual male wouldn’t even conceive of coming here to rant.

      1. The answer as to why he’s always in here can be seen at this site:- http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn

        Its no surprise that he wants to talk about his anus and penises all the time, and then call it “sick”….. the hospital probably blocks his access to gay porn.

    2. @Robert — I think he does have issues. Will posted a link:

      http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn

      which I think is quite appropriate to Keithy:

      When viewing lesbian sex and straight sex, both the homophobic and the non-homophobic men showed increased penis circumference. For gay male sex, however, only the homophobic men showed heightened penis arousal.

      I imagine his drinking is an attempt to blot out the truth.

      1. ( didn’t see you second posting of the link just above Will )

        1. Not a bother, Harry…. its a valid study, and one with no surprises, so the more times we ram it down the gullet of that piece of human filth, the better! Maybe then he’ll get the psychiatric help he so desperately needs…. not that I’d count on it.

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 17 Mar 2012, 4:43pm

        Harry, I think one of his many issues is purient interest in same-sex attraction. No secure heterosexual would even bother coming here. Thanks for the link, more than revealing.

        1. Point of order, Robert. I’m a secure hetero. I come here to find out about gay issues because my brother is gay and I want to support him by understanding issues affecting him. I find the views of this strange person with the disgusting name disturbing and one reason I don’t often join the comments.

          1. I do agree some heterosexuals would come here and for good reason such as Amanda gives!

            They would not troll in the deluded manner that Keith does if they had a genuine interest or desire to support others, though.

            Amanda, great to see you here!

    3. Has he gone ? Or is he just being changed ?

      1. He’s cunningly “disguised” himself as “Aiden” on another thread, so he an rant about his obsession with Stu and, ahem, fool us all (wink wink).

        I think his illiterate dribble being pointed out gets him all worked up so he has to go find another bottle of methylated spirits before he can go back to the laptop he stole and dazzle us all with his linguistic prowess….

        1. Groan. I mean … words fail me, but for a different reason ( I hope ) than they fail him.

          Seriously, how old do you think he is ? I reckon 15, but with the attitutudes of an uncool pensioner.

          1. You think so, Harry? I actually think much older. I’d say 65+.

            He made some references before that were of the “yesteryear was better” type…. probably before he was admitted.

          2. I genuinely don’t know Will, and am actually quite interested. Much of his debating tactics are those of a school child, but as you point out, the attitude is that of a much older person.

          3. “I genuinely don’t know Will, and am actually quite interested. Much of his debating tactics are those of a school child, but as you point out, the attitude is that of a much older person.”

            Agreed. But wither way, its a very, very damaged and stupid person.

          4. Yes, very ill. We shouldn’t really be laughing at him. But …

            I think you are right about his age, his physica age. He used a phrase on another thread “a bite, albeit a tommy cock” which sounds quite old-fashioned to me.

            I googled tommy cock and got some results back which I’m just off to re-examine … !

          5. Yeah I had noticed that his pseudonym had changed several times – but his obsession with me continues. Shucks – isn’t it quite Hollywood to have a stalker?

      2. “I simply ignore off topic moronic remarks in the view that I have won!”

        LOL! Oh, no, we’ve all been “run over” by the “superior intellect” of an illiterate!

        LMAO! Oh, mercy, this just gets better and better, best laugh I’ve had all day…..!!!

        1. I’ m imagining that he borrowed Noddy’s toytown pedal car to do the deed with.

        2. LOL @ BEnT PIN

          And even then he’s have a hard time navigating the controls :)

      3. You’re quite right. It is difficult to know how to rebutt stuff like this:

        Plese leav the discussion.ou have nothing, never did! except irrelevant wibbling and snot bubbles!

        You’re winning by virtue of self-parody. We can’t match you I’m afraid.

        1. “You’re winning by virtue of self-parody. We can’t match you I’m afraid.”

          I know, wasn’t that just a classic! I actually laughed out loud.

  28. @Keith — “no study has every shown that masturbation benefits society”.

    Quite. You are a wanker and you don’t benefit society.

    1. Poor little Keith, got himself in quite a stupor today hasn’t he?

    2. “This is a challenge.”

      I’d say a lot of things are a “challenge” to you.

    3. @Keith — alas I have nothing to offer you but pity ! Yes you’re quite right, you have us banged to rights. We aren’t taking you seriously.

    4. Kris didn’t quit. Kris just didn’t feel like wasting a whole Saturday in front of his laptop.

      Anyway, enough of the poosyfooting around the debate anymore I’m bored of it. Let’s move things forward.

      I believe that opening up marriage to 2 opposite and same sex couples is a good thing. I do not agree with multiple marriages, or incestuous marriage based purely on my own moral thoughts and experiences. So again I ask you. So what? How do you wish to proceed?

  29. @Keith — is there a grown up who you can talk to about your problems ?

    1. Or a hospital attendant?

      1. Or a pharmacist? :)

  30. In support of masturbation, I quote the boys from Men Behaving Badly……..

    “I’m a wanker, I’m a wanker,
    and it does me good like it bloody well should
    So I wank wank wank all day….

    Keith, you should try taking their advice. It will keep you busy and thus benefit society hugely by keeping you out of its way.

  31. Ben Foster 17 Mar 2012, 4:28pm

    Same sex marriage benefits society because people in happy, stable relationships contribute to a happy society. Same sex couples can offer a stable and loving home to many tghousands of children of broken heterosexual homes in need of adoption. COUNTLESS studies have said so.

    Keith, please show how same sex couples have harmed society?

    1. Good try, but the moron will just bring up AIDS again. It’s a ne version of Godwin’s Law. Sooner or later some idiot will bring AIDS into a discussion of Gay issues. We can call it Keith’s Law. Or Dribble’s Law.

      1. And he has ! Keith Dwibbley strikes again !

      2. “Because AIDS is disproportionate amongst homosexualites”

        And breast cancer is disproportionate among women. Malaria is disproportionate among Sub-Saharan Africa. Senility is disproportionate among older people.

        So what?

        You make a fools argument. Run along, I’m sure the liquor store needs tour custom. And I need a laugh at your “superior intellect” that is “running me over”, and the word is “homosexuals” not “homosexualites”, you illiterate moron.

      3. By homsexualites I assume you mean gay people ? If so, then the answer is no.

      4. it’s disproportionate in your head!!!!

      5. Ben Foster 17 Mar 2012, 5:32pm

        “Keith, please show how same sex couples have harmed society?”

        Keith’s reply:

        “Because AIDS is disproportionate amongst homosexualites”

        No, that isn’t an answer to that question. Try again.

  32. Robert in S. Kensington 17 Mar 2012, 4:45pm

    Pink News, many thanks for taking the appropriate action against “stinky-AIDS-anus”. It is appreciated by eveyone I’m sure.

    1. Yes I agree, thank you very much PN!

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 18 Mar 2012, 1:19am

        I wholeheartily agree.

  33. Notice how it doesn’t actually show the studies.

    An idiots argument – filled with all the wonders of a drunk inspire rage.

  34. “And if you have any an issue with MY name than I suggest you take that up with my mother, she gave me it”

    Your mother called you “stinky AIDS anus”?

    Hahah.

  35. @Keith — I’m confused. Do you know that saying something repeatedly doesn’t make it true ? I’m sure you really really believe what you bang into the keyboard, but it’s just not true.

    I’ve been doing an analysis of your messages. Often you miss letters from words. I think this is because the keys on your keyboard are sticking because of over-use. The seven most frequently missing letters in your comments are: G, A, Y, P, O, R and N.

  36. Was this YOUR study conducted in your hospital bed, stinky? REAL studies say the opposite.

    Same sex monogomous partners are in no risk fom AIDS at all. (Dribble’s Law already)

    Same sex relationships do NOT fail disproportionately in comparison to heterosexual. That is a LIE, stinky. The doctor has surely warned you what happens to boys who lie.

    Since you are asking, multiple partner relationships harm individuals and society because they are not based on equality in the relationship. In societies which accepty polygamy, like mormons, the man regards his wives as his chattels.

    1. well, Dribble, anything to say in response?

      I will concede, by the way, that AIDS does affect gays in higher numbers than straights. but that is a reason to search for a better treatment and support those affected, not to villify them. And it is irrelevant to the discussion of monogamous same sex couples who are low risk of infection.

      So change the bloody record for heaven sake.

    2. “AIDS does affect gays in higher numbers than straights”.

      Sometimes. I think the point is it depends how you choose your group. You can choose groups of heterosexuals with high levels of HIV/AIDS (for example in parts of Africa) and you can choose groups of homosexuals with high levels (for examples in some Europe cities). The variation in prevalence reflects the fact there is nothing intrinsic about HIV/AIDS to gay people. Of course not, it’s a disease of human beings.

      1. Point well made, Harry. I concede to your more thorough research than mine.

        Has the dribbling one been censored while i was at my tea? some of the threads seem disjointed.

        1. my previous comment was in relation to this from Harry-

          ““AIDS does affect gays in higher numbers than straights”.

          Sometimes. I think the point is it depends how you choose your group. You can choose groups of heterosexuals with high levels of HIV/AIDS (for example in parts of Africa) and you can choose groups of homosexuals with high levels (for examples in some Europe cities). The variation in prevalence reflects the fact there is nothing intrinsic about HIV/AIDS to gay people. Of course not, it’s a disease of human beings.”

          I think this is excellently put, but wasted on Keith who will quote some nonsense of his own.

          1. Thanks again BEnT PIN.

            To illustrate, 5% of gay men in the UK live with HIV (HPA report HIV in the UK: 2011 annual report whilst the figure for adults in Swaziland is 26% ( http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-africa.htm ).

            The facts are unambiguous, HIV/AIDS is not necessarily a disease of gay people. It is a disease of human beings.

          2. Robert in S. Kensington 17 Mar 2012, 8:11pm

            Harry, heterosexuals are contracting HIV now at a far higher rate than gay people globally, especially in the “emerging” nations, many of which are on the African continent and in the far east.

          3. You’re welcome, Harry. Again, I’m sure all this is wasted on the idiots and closed mind fools like Keith. I concede to having learnt something about the AIDS stats. It is a pity though that we are sidelined by his obsession. AIDS is a totally seperate issue to Same Sex Marriage. That is the worst thing about his nonsense.

            I was going to make another point but it’s gone out of my head! When ki remember I’ll be back!

          4. .poo push deviants' 18 Mar 2012, 5:21pm

            You failed to show the percentage of straight men in each instance .Would this be because it is higher, ergo disproportionate, as I originally said.?

          5. @Keith — Unless the percentage of adults that are gay in Swaziland is huge, then the conclusion stands.

            As Robert says, straight people are now contracting it at a faster rate than gay people.

            It’s not a gay disease, it’s a disease of human beings.

          6. Have you had chance to watch the videos yet ?

          7. Oh good, you came back. OK, I want to know what happens if I say,

            “I believe in equal marriage only between 2 non related individuals of opposite or same sex. I believe this based purely on my own selfish, prejudiced beliefs”

            So now what? Is it like Highlander – there can be only one hypocritical bigot so you absorb my power and become even more bigoted?

            Or does winning just means that you get to go on top? Just if that’s the case then we need to educate you that terms like faecal passage don’t pass as dirty talk. And don’t even get me started on finding a man size paper bag :P

          8. @Keith — “Your post confirms the hypocrisy on display since those that disapprove of same sex marriage on the same grounds tat you disapprove of polygamy, are labelled homophobes and bigots.”

            Don’t be absurd. Marriage equality is no more likely to lead to polygamy than straight-only marriage. Why haven’t civil partnerships lead to polygamy ? Why hasn’t marriage equality led to polygamy in those countries which have enacted it ?

            “Own goal ‘K’ris!”

            No. Have you watched the videos I posted yet ?

          9. Eh ? Your argument is that marriage equality will lead to polygamy and won’t lead to polygamy. I’m confused !

            Why hasn’t it happened in countries that have made marriage equal ?

          10. And civil partnerships haven’t led to it, but two men or two women will lead to it ? Why ?

          11. Robert in S. Kengisnton 19 Mar 2012, 11:35am

            Exactly. Actually, polygamy is an uniquely heterosexual phenomenon, mentioned in the old testament and condoned I might add. It has existed since the dawn of civilization in pre-Abrahamic societies and after. The Mormons sect in the American state of Utah practiced it up until 1893 when it was outlawed, but an offshoot thereof still continues this unlawful practice. Bigamy is also an uniquely hetero practice that has existed long before same-sex marriage was legalised in the first country to do so, Holland. The rabid religious fanatics of course refuse to acknowledge it or take some ownership since it’s all heterosexual in nature.

          12. I think it was Solomon in the Old Testament who set the world record record for polygamy at 700 wives and 300 concubines.
            And it was so frowned on that they dedicated an entire book of the OT to him.
            I don’t think Casanova could’ve beaten that if he’d married all his one night stands.

          13. Has he been deleted again ? What a terrible waste !

            From the BBC article:

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17399027

            there’s a link to the Communications Act 2003 -(Section 127):

            http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

            which governs the internet, email, mobile phone calls and text messaging:

            + Under section 127 of the act it is an offence to send messages that are “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character”

            + The offence occurs whether those targeted actually receive the message or not

          14. “Has he been deleted again ? ”

            He sure has! LOL! He’s the most consistent laugh in here in a while!

          15. What is he trying to achieve ? I mean, really ? What a waste.

            Glad to see you’ve not been run over by his superior intellect !

        2. Thanks BEnT PIN !

          He seems to have gone. No doubt in a puff of outrage. And puff of outrage kind of describes him well.

          Until the next onslaught, I’ll leave you with this:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQmprNdamNg

          Pip pip !

    3. “The doctor has surely warned you what happens to boys who lie”

      Apparently they — and their nasty little posts — disappear.

  37. George Broadhead 17 Mar 2012, 5:24pm

    “Nor should this get polarised around religion, as there are many views within and between different faiths.”

    This shows how Labour as well as the other partiies, with the exception of the Greens, tries to play dpwn the hostility and influence of the mainstream religious lobby.

    The fact is that this hostility is stronger and more vocal from religious sources than any other.

  38. To our Stinky friend:

    Wow, it must be really hurting you to see society turning it’s back on your deluded beliefs, huh?

    I think we all know the same-sex marriage will be legalised before long. And completely powerless to stop it from happening all you can do is pretend to be a keyboard warrior and post childish comments on a gay website! How sad!

    And you wonder why your side is losing the argument!?

    Rational and mature arguments simply don’t exist for the anti-equality brigade, so instead, in their impotence, they have to resort to name-calling or screaming ‘God doesn’t approve of it’ while nobody listens. It’s quite pathetic to watch.

    But anyway, you’re fooling nobody love – you’re a gay man too scared to come out. I don’t blame you for visiting a gay website – maybe one day you’ll muster up the courage to finally come completely out of the closet.

    1. Well put, James.

  39. Not really sure that Life Site News is a good source of reliable information. From their mission statement:

    LifeSiteNews.com understands that abortion, euthanasia, cloning, homosexuality and all other moral, life and family issues are all interconnected in an international conflict affecting all nations, even at the most local levels.

    Bit obsessional and paranoid. I wonder how you chanced upon them ?

    1. I’m sorry ? You want me to find a study that shows that LifeSiteNews.com is not obsessional and paranoid ?

      I don’t think I’m likely to find one of those ?

  40. By the bye, what are homoexuals ?

  41. Also from the Life Site News mission statement:

    LifeSiteNews.com emphasizes the social worth of traditional Judeo-Christian principles but is also respectful of all authentic religions and cultures that esteem life, family and universal norms of morality.

    Not sure what authentic means, but they are beginning to sound as though they might be a little biased.

    LifeSiteNews.com’s writers and its founders, have come to understand that respect for life and family are endangered by an international conflict. That conflict is between radically opposed views of the worth and dignity of every human life and of family life and community. It has been caused by secularists attempting to eliminate Christian morality and natural law principles which are seen as the primary obstacles to implementing their new world order.

    This sounds really paranoid. Bit scary too. Not sure it’s a compelling source of evidence !

    1. Ahhh, “christian morality”… now it all makes sense!

      1. I don’t understand what this means.

        What are multile partnerships ? Is it something to do with hair cuts ?

  42. What are multile partnerships ? Can only homoexuals have them ?

    Are you a homoexual in multile partnership Keith ?

  43. @Keith — now I am really confused.

    Is a multpile partnership different from a multile partnership ? Which is best ? Can homoexuals be in both ?

    I found this which I think supports you views:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASsJQY5jgmk

    and flapjack found this also:

    1. Thanks Harry, but I can’t really claim all the credit for that one… Mumbo Jumbo posted it on the Daily Mail thread a couple of days ago.
      Still, it’s always great to know how many unconventional marriages the bible supports… that said they did omit this one –
      http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1sam/20.html
      But then it’s “Mosaic law” so fundies get to pick and choose which bits of the Old Testament mosaic they wish to use to complete the picture ;)

  44. I am really not sure of anything you mean !

  45. Yes! I love to hear this coming from a heterosexual! This is why the LGBT community have been saying for years! Yvette I applaud your commitment and openness about gay marriage! Right tho moment I could give u a massive hug! Which I may do being as Though u live down the road! :) there’s still a long way to go people but change is happening and that for one makes me incredibly happy and incredibly proud to be not only a lesbian but a human being!

  46. By the bye Keith, Mormon polygamy is not legal.

  47. I believe this will answer all your questions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

  48. I have done some research Keith and definitely say I am not in favour of multile relationships.

    And please, for the sanity Keith, never watch this:

  49. And this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQmprNdamNg

    Oh … you’ve gone. You might have said good bye Keith …

  50. LGBT & religion don’t mix! We’re real, they’re fake & they target us because they don’t like that we’re fact with plenty of evidence!

  51. I really do need to go and pay my respects to St Patrick, but have just found:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1LY7Rl66V4

  52. Ah it seems I missed such fun whilst I had my day out in Harrogate. Well done guys on your dealing with the troll and thank you PN for taking action!

  53. Hetersexuals need not consume themselves with the studies of the lgbt community, and no their duty is to treat all people fair and equal an corgeal, if the people are not causing physical terrorism to others and trying to live their lives with their loves ones you have no busines in thier face or privacy at all, their concerns need to be on the hetersexual hate religions and klans who commit sex cirmes and assaults against everybodies gender and communities, this our high amber alert and crimes in our nations all 99% hetersexual high crimes, effecting everybody, focus on correcting these problems, and let peaceful famiies alone and ensure others do are be occosted and courtmarsheled including the dangerous hate clergy, Eric holder, and valerie Jarrett to be commended on tackling making all schools safe for gay children, because of bigoted facultiy ,administration and kids, they must be protected along with having gay alliance safe groups, everywhere they must be implemented

  54. some of the lgbt boards you are doing well with your brainstorming and evaluations of trying to find the very best candidates for all people comunites, those who focus on the core principles of fairnes and equality is a must, checking their background to make sure that they do in action have acolades of what they have accomplished for the lgbt famileis and children , and against bigoty and unfairness in schools , businesses, and ecsonomy, and programs, their communites, they must also have been active on womens rights issues and disabled , and veterans affairs and minority abuse eveywhere, the overcrowding must be fixed in everyones district, so this must be dealt with, new york, jersy and chicago and californa are some overcrowding areas, the bronx , manhattan, the urban areas, the crimes and gangs against families, their local security, cleaning the bigotry out of the local police force an sex harrassment and assault as well, these same abusers endanger the citizens lives

  55. you always choose the person who have taken action against hate crimes, terroirism, you remove the bad, fort, worth and all texas states must continue to be overhauled because of the racism of minorities and lgbt, this effects all urban areas, and families with mixed family members, they must choose candidates who have taken action on behalf of them all, always choose gay candidates that have taken actions an goton things done, and legislation passed because they cared and was a serious candidate against heart ache of he people , an empathetic and sympathetic soul, not a bigot, who cares less, choose the ones who have done the most for the people in need, therefore you no they have the right kind of heart and sincerety, they should have to get things done for the families and economy, because they care, ,not people who have already violated others and stigmatized other more, for instance, alma allen of houston has a good background for the people does not want to see the chidren

  56. you must take action and get things done promptly it does not take long at all to right up legislation and pass it when your heart is for the people andf their families, you dont stand or tolerate any unfair treatment of others, no matter who the perputrators are, like hate religions, your duty is always for the victums of hate an abuses, not for the instigator of harrassment , meddling , hate, do not for get that, evey judge, every police, the victums of the crimes and the abuse, you do not re victumize the victums by not acting on what you already should no , the person who raped her or him is the enemy, the person who murdered the victum, is the enemy, UNLESS THE VICTUM HAD TO SELF DEFEND THEMSELVES AND THEN THE PERSON THEY KILLED WAS THE PERPUTRATOR, BECAUSE THEY WHERE TRY ING TO KILL OR RAPE THEM, THATS WHY YOU CAN NOT ALLOW HATE CRIMES TO EVEY BE TAKEN LIGHTLY NOR WOMEN AN CHILDREN WHO HAVE BEEN RAPED, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR IT, THEIR, JUST HIGH VINDICTIVE MALICE

  57. YOU NEVER EVER ALLOW PEOPLE TO THINK IF THEY GET A CERTIFICATE IN SCHOOL OR OFF THE INTERNET THAT SAYS THEY ARE A PASTOR THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO RAPE , MURDER, DISCRIMINATE, TERORIZE, OR MISTREAT OTHERS UNFAIRLY, ALL RELIGIONS MUST BE BROUGHT UP ON CHARGES FOR HATE CRIMES AND MALICE AS WELL, FOR INCITING VIOLANCE AND INSTIGATING WARS CAUSING MASSES OF KAOS AND ATROCIITIES, AND CASUALTIES, THEIR SIMPLY PART OF THE CRIMIANAL ACTS OF TERROR, NOT REAL DEITY, OF GOODNESS, AND ANGELIC AT ALL, YOU DEAL WITH THEM AS JUST MEN AND WOMEN, GOOD OR BAD, NOT BY THEIR TITLES, EVERYONE MUST TREAT OTHER FAIRLY AND EQUAL, AND RIGHT, PERIOD, THAT MUST BE THE ONLY FOUNDATION, THATS THE ONLY WAY TO CIVILIZATION A HUMANE E SOCIETY, YOU MUST TAKLE AND BRING DOWN TERORISM, THATS BIGOTY, AND RACISM , HATE , MALICE, HATE CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND CRIMES, NO ONE SHOULD EVERY BE ALLOWED TO VIOLATE THEM, WE MUST HAVE A CIVILIZED SAFE NATIONS, FOR ALL, AND CHILDREN, PERIOD , SO ACT

  58. THE ONLY RELIGION TO KEEP IS THE RELIGION OF LOVE AND KINDESS AND FAIRNESS , GOODWILL TO ALL, THESE TYPES OF RELIGIONS HELP OTHERS IN CHARITY AND KIND ACTS, THE OTHER ONES ABUSE AND HARM BECAUSE THEY ARE SATANIC, AND OCCULTS , YOU MUST NO THE DIFFERENCE, YOU TEACH KINDESS AND FAIRNESS , YOU LIVE IT, AND YOU GET IT BACK IN THE LIVES OF OTHERS WHEN THEY DIGEST IT, YOU SEE A MORE CIVIL PEACEFUL SOCIETY, OF HARMONY , YOU DONT ALLOW MEN ON ANY LEVEL TO CONTINUE TO BRAINSWASH FAMIILIES AND CHIDLREN, INTO BELIEVEING THE LIES OF ABUSIVE MEN WHO SEEK TO SSEXUALLY VIOLATE THEM AND WOMEN, YOU TEACH LITTLE GIRLS AND BOYS THOSE TYPE OF MEN ARE NOT REAL MEN AT ALL THEY ANIMALS AND COWARDS WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IN JAIL, BECAUSE THEY ARE PERPUTRATORS OF CRIMES AGAINST OTHERS, DANGEROUS BEASTS, TEACH THEM WHAT GOOD DECENT MEN ARE SUPPOSE TO BE WHICH IS AT HOME WITH THEIR FAMIEISE , NOT HARMING THEM AND OTHERS, GETTING ABOUT HIS BUSINESS, TO HELP BRING JOY AND HAPPINESS INTO THEIR LIVES, AND SAFTEY ,

  59. YOU TEACH THE PEOPLE RIGHT, BY TELLING THEM THE TRUTH ABOUT THE WICKED HETERSEXUAL MEN AND THEIR EVILS ESPECAILLY THE ONES WITH BIBLES, THE HIPPOCRITES, NO MAN IS SUPPOSE TO SEXUALLY VIOLATE ANY WOMAN, STALK, BEAT, MISTREAT, THEY ARE NOT TO TOUCH CHIDREN IN A SEXUALLY WAY THEY ARE NOT TO HARM THEIR NIEGHBORS, NOR BOTHER OTHER PEOPLES FAMIIES OUT OF HATE , JEALOUSY , MALICE, OR SEX ADDICTIONS, THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO VIOLATE AND DISRESPECT THEIR OWN WIFES AND CHILDREN AS WELL, NO OPPRESSIONS ANDF REPRESSIONS SHOULD EVERY BE A TRAIT OF HIS OR ANYONE, THESE ARE MONSTERS, AND BEASTS, MANY IN JAIL WHERE THEY NEED TO BE, BECAUSE THEY HURT OTHERS AND LIKE TO HARM, RIGHTS NOW OUR NUMBER ONE PROBLEM IS IS HETERSEXUAL MEN THEIR DANGEROUS SEX;UAL HARRASSMENT SEX CRSIMES, PEDEPHLILEIA, AND BATTERY, IT MUST BE STOPED HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AN CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY RAPES AND MURDERS YOU FOCUS ON THESE REAL PROBLEMS AND WHO IS CAUSING THEM INCLUDING THE HATE AND MALICE THE HATE RELIGIONS AND KLAN

  60. Aw man. Did he leave again? I wanted to find out what happened if we admitted to hypocrisy. If he comes back can we find out.

    Is it like Highlander – there can be only one hypocritical bigot so he absorbs our power and becomes even more bigoted?

    Or does his winning just means that he gets to go on top? He hates himself so much that instead of charming a man into bed he has to argue them in? Just if that’s the case we need to educate him that terms like faeces passage don’t pass as dirty talk. And don’t even get me started on finding a man size paper bag :P

  61. The nations must have officials in every country state and nation city town, that care about the people their famlies and their children, as the bottom line, repressive and oppresive and abusive religions and officials are not those kind of people but instead the demons an enemy of our nations, their own wickedness and greed to hurt an hoard everything unto themselves, and when their pockets are fat, they care not about the lives and famlies of others, and this keeps our nations abused, and its people , wicked racist and bigots ,abuse society, ans when placed in offices they continue the cycle of abusing others on a larger scale, an that brings even more damages an atrocities, RIGHT NOW OUR NATION IS DEVASTED WITH HIGH CRIMES AGAINST PEOPLE A;ND THEIR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN DO TO RACISM AND BIGOTRY , RAPEST MURDERS, ASSAULTER ALL MOSTLY THE HETERSEXUAL MEN, WE HAVE A MAJOR RECESSION WHERE OUR NATION AND ALL OTHER NATIONS SHOULD BE WORKING ON LOWERERING GAS PRICES AND OTHER HIGH COST

  62. THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NO ESCUSE FOR NOT BREAKING OUT THE RESERVES, AN LOWERING THE GAS PRICES, THERE ARE NO ESCUSE EVER
    IF CANADA WILL BUILD A PIPLINES TO THE UNITED STATES THAT WILL KEEP THE UNITED STATES AN OTHERS WILL LOW GAS COSTS, THE PIPLINE SHOULD BE BUILT ADDING JOBS AND GETTING THE GAS LINE BUILT- THE RICH BILLIONAIRS LIKE GATES AND OTHERS PLEDGING TO GIVE HALF OF THEIR BILLIONS AWAY, SHOULD FUND THIS GAS PIPLINE WITH OTHER BILLIONAIRS FROM OTHER PLACES AROUND THE STATES , IN ORDER TO NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH ENEMY TERROTORIES, OF WICKED, ABUSERS, IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES, THIS IS A WEAK GOVERNMENT HERE IN UNITED STATES TO TOLERATE SUCH HARDSHIPS ON PEOPLE, THEY DONT CARE MANY OF THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE RICH THEMSELVES, ASK OBAMA, IF HE WASNT RICH, HOW FAST WOULD HE BE DONE CALLED THE WHITE HOUSE TO LOWER AND CAP GAS PRICES TO HELP HIM AN HIS TWO CHILDREN IN THEIR OWN PRIVATE LIVES ASK ALL OF THE SENATORS LETS LET YOU FEEL THE ANGQUISH OF THE REST OF THE HURTING NATIONS , AN SEE CHANGE

  63. EVERY DAY YOU SHOULD STAND UP FOR WOMENS HEALTH , BY STOPPING SEX CRIMES AND BATTERY AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN ALL COUNTRIES AGAINST ALL WOMEN INCLUDED, EVERYWHERE MEN MUST WHERE CONDUMS AND STOP GIVING WOMEN SEXUAL TRANSMITED DESEASES, AND UNWANTED PREGNACIES, ITS THE MENS FAULT . WOMEN SHOULD ENCOURAGE OTHER WOMEN TO JOING WOMEN SUPPORT GROUPS WITH THEIR CHILDREN, AND ADVOCATES FOR WOMEN, AGAINST CRIMES AGAINST THEM AND THEIR CHIDLREN, ACTIONS MUST BE TAKEN , LEGAL MOMENTUM MUST CONTINUE TO ACT AS WELL, IN ORDER FOR THE WORLD TO BE A BETTER PLACE, YOU MUST STOP THE ABUSES OF OTHERS, MOST OF THE ABUSERS ARE HETERSEXUAL MEN, THE NATION MUST STOP THESE PROBLEMS EVERYWHERE, THEIR THE ONLY THING THAT KEEPS OUR NATION FROM BEING CIVILIZED AND HARMONIOUS AND FREINDLY AND SAFE, HETERSEXUAL MEN, THEIR EVILS , BIGOTRY , SEX CRIMES, MURDER, AND OTHERS, STOP BEING BLIND AND PAY ATTENTION TO THE NEWS AND MEDIA YOU SEE WHO THE REAL ENEMY IS IN EVERY CASE, THERE IS NO ESCUSE

  64. OUR NATIONS MUST TAKE DOWN ALL RELGOUS EVIL ORGANIZATIONS, THAT FEED ON AND OFF THE PEOPLES HEARTEACHE, THEY MUST BRING THEM DOWN FOR THAT, THE DEVINCI CODE TALKS OF THE CHURCHERS BEING OPPRESSORS IN OUR NATIONS AS A TACTIC OF WICKED HETERSEXUAL MEN, WANTING TO BUILD VAIN IDOOLIZED BUILDING TO THEMSELVES, WHILE NOT ACTING ON TRUE CHARITY WHICH IS WHAT EVERY CHURCH IS SUPPOSE TO BE, AND YOU CAN SEE THIS NOW BECAUSE OF THE BILLIONS OF WASTED DOLLARS SPENT ON MEGA CHURCHES, OPEN TWICE A WEEK TO TAKE UP MONEY FROM THE PEOPLE AND THEIR FAMLIES, AND THE PASTOR RUNS AROUND THE WORLD TO HAWWAIA AND BOAT TRIPS ON PRIVATE JET AIRPLANES, WHLE THE SUFFERING INSIDE THE CHURCH POOR PEOPLE BRAINSWASHED OUT OF THEIR LAST TWO CENTS, ON THE LIE OF MIRACLES COMING, WHEN THE MIRACLES ARE THERE BY REACHING OUT AND USING THE CHURCH TO BE ALMS OF KINDESS AND CHARITY LIKE IT IS SUPPOSE TO BE, HELPING OTHERS, INSTEAD OF THE PASTOR HELPING HIS SELF TO THE PEOPLES MONEY, AND BUILDING KINDOMS TO HIMSELF,

  65. THESE SO CALLED RELIGONS, WHO WANT TO GET IN THE FACE OF OTHER PEOPLE AND THE MEDIA AND CAUSE OTHERS TROUBLE, YOU NEED TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION BEFORE THE MEDIA, AN ASK THEM WHY HAVE YOU NOT TAKEN AN SPENT ON THE PEOPLE AND FAMLIES TIME HELPING HEAL WOUNDS AND NEEDS INSTEAD OF WASTING BILLIONS ON AN OUT SIDE FRAME FOR A CHURCH YOU COULD BUILD REGARLY SIMPPLY BUILDING THAT ARE NICE WITH PLENTY OF ROOM FOR UNDER FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS, SOME OF THE SO CALLED MEMBERS AND FREINDS ARE CONTRACTORS AND CONSTRUCTIONS WORKERS THEMSELVES, AND WILL BUILD IT FOR FREE, DONT YOU KEEP LYING TO THE PEOPLE ABOUT BEING CHRISTIANS, YOU THING MORE OF THEIR BUILDING OF REALLY NO USE THAN TO PROMONADE THEM THAN TO HELP OTHER FOR REAL, THERE SHOUD BE REAL SAFE SHELTERS THERE AND SOUP KITCHEN OPERATEING DAILY, THERE SHOULD BE PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES AND PEOPLE HELPING THE DIASABLES ANF VETERANS, PEOPLE THERE HELPING TEENAGERS AND PREGANT MOTHERS WHO ARE SINGLE AND POOR FAMILIES , WITH AIDED HELP AIDS,

  66. THE CHURCH OF LOVE AND KINDESS MUST BE IN YOU , BEFORE YOU EVEN DAWN INTO A NATURAL BUILDING OF MARTER, AND BRICK , SO YOU DONT BECOME BRAINWASHED, INTO MISTREATING OTHERS, THE REAL MESSIAH, TAUGHT LOVE AND KINDESS AND CHARITY, NOT RACISM HATRED AND ABUSE, THAT MANS ADDITVE IN HIS OWN WORDS ANF PENCILS DOCTRINES HATE, AND LLIES TO THE PUBLIC, HE WENT AN MADE MIRACLES FOR THE POOR AND HELP WITH KINDNESS EVERYWHERE, , NOT GOING AROUND BUILIDING

  67. YOU SEE WHEN YOU GET THE RIGHT FOUNDATION DOWN , YOU DONT NEED ANYKIND OF DOCTRINE , OR BIBLE, THAT FOUNDATION IS LOVE , KINDESS, AND CHARITY, THATS IS THE ONLY PLATFORM, OF PREACHED INTELIGENCE YOU NEED, IN ORDER TO STRUCTURE YOUR LIVE IN GOODNES, NOT HARMING OTHERS, NOT VIOLATING OTHERS, TREATING OTHERS FAIR , AND RIGHT, IT DONT TAKE A BUNCH OF MISGUIDED POLLUTED AN DILLUTED WORDS TWISTED UP BY MEN, IT JUST TAKES ORDINARY PEOPLE , WALKING IN AND DELIVERING LOVE AND KINDESS, CHARITY, FOR THE WORLD TO BE A POSITIVE ONE

  68. THERE SHOULD BE NO GAS PRICES OVER $2.00 TO $2.50 THE WHITE HOUSE HAS NO ESCUSE FOR NOT BREAKING INTO THE UNITED STATES RESERVES, THE COURT HUMAN RIGHTS JUDGES AN ATTORNIES SHOULD FILE A SUIT AGAINST THE WHITE HOUSE AND HAVE THEM DO SO THIS IS A EMERGENCY, HORROR, AND ABUSE OF THE NATION BY ITS OWN PEOP.LE , THEY CAN NOT BLAME THE FOREING PEOPLE FOR NOT BREAKING INTO THEIR OWN GAS RESERVES AND LOWERING COSTS, OBAMA AND THE WHITE HOUSE IS GUILTY OF THIS PROBLEM ALL OF THEM, AND NONE OF THEM EVEN TALKS ON IT IF IT IS NOT BROUGHT UP , BUT THE MEDIAL AND JOURNALIST NEED TO KEEP IT IN THE FACE OF ALL OF THE THE CANDIDATES AND OBAMA, ESPECIALLY OBAMA , THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO BE THE THE PEOPLE CONCERNED, NATION, WHO CARES FOR THE HURTING AMERICA, THE REST OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MUST VOTE FOR THAT GAS PIPLINE FROM CANADA, NOW AND GET IT PASSED BUT FUNDED BY THE BILLIONARES, NOT BY THE ALREADY HURTING PEOPLE AND ECONOMY, THAT CANOT AFORD IT, ANYWHERE, ONLY EVIL OFFICIALS WOULD NOT ACT QUICKLY

  69. FOR ALL OF THOSE MONSTERS WHO TREAT OTHERS UNKINDLY AND UNFAIRLY ARE PHAROUGHS, AND HE ANS HIS ARMY WAS KILLED FOR HOW THEY MISS TREATED THE COUNTRY AND THE PEOPLE IN IT, WE ARE STILL DEALING WITH PHAROUGHS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND IN RELIGIONS AND SOME BUSINESSES , THE MUST BE ROOTED OUT AND OVERHAULED AND RELPLACED AND THEN REPRIMANDED FOR THE ABUSES AND UNKINDNESS THEY HAVE INFLICTED ONTO OTHERS LIVES, YOU SEE THE PROBLEMS CAN BE FIXED SWIFTLY, YOU JUST HAVE TO ELECT AND MOVE UP THE RIGHT PEOPLE WITH GOOD HEARTS AND GOODWILL FOR THE PEOPLE AND THEIR FAMLIES,

  70. YOU SEE, IF YOU TOOK PEOPLE OUT OF OFFICES WHO HAVE DONE NOTHING TO BETTER THIER DISTRICT AND THE STATE , IN POSITIVES WAYS THAT DOES NOT FURTHER BURDERN PEOPLE, YOU ELECT THOSE WHO ALREADY HAS A BACKGROUND FOR ACTING AND GETTING THINGS DONE NOT JUST RUNNING THEIR MOUTHES WITH LIES, WE NO THEIR ARE MANY THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE OVERNIGHT , WITH NO PROBLEMS THAT HAS NOT EVEN TAKEN PLACE BECAUSE TO MANY OF THE OFFICIALS ARE JUST RICH PEOPLE WHO ARE PIOUSED AND SELFISH AND DONT CARE, AND CAUGHT UP IN GARABAGE , SATANIC SEX RELIGIONS, OCCULTISM PARTYING OF DANGEROUS DRUGS, AND ABUSES, WOMEN HIGH PROFILE AND ALL HAVE BEEN DEVORCING MEN LEFT AND RIGHT FOR THEIR HORRIBLE ABUSES IN THEIR FAMIKIES MANY OF THEM OFFICIALS, LOOK AT THE ONES WHO HAVE MURDERED HIS PENSYVANA WIFE, THE SENATORS WHO HAVE SEXUALLY ASSULTED UNDER AGE BOYS THAT WHERE REPUBLICANS, AND THE WIVES TOO, MOSTLY REPUBLICANS, THEY HAD ABOUT FOUR DEMOCRATS LISTED TO ABOUT THIRTY REPUBLICAN MEN HORRORS THIS ;YEAR ALONE NOT GOOD MEN

  71. You should see the number of comments on this discussion forum 3308(!) and many of them vitriolic racist, xenophobic and homophobic comments. There are a few great gay people giving them as good as they get. I am finding it quite entertaining with my popcorn watching it!

      1. Wow ! There are some really scary comments on there.

  72. @Keith — Unless the percentage of adults that are gay in Swaziland is huge, then the conclusion stands.

    As Robert says, straight people are now contracting it at a faster rate than gay people.

    It’s not a gay disease, it’s a disease of human beings.

  73. You dont let any religion or any man in any title go around assaulting others out of racism no one, just like you dont allow this sheriff in san fransisco to get away with beating his wife for years, the next door neighbors said this inicident that caught the sheriff, abusing and hitting , assaulting his wife which is violent assaults, that if isnt stopped leads to murder of these women, and children, and stigmas on the children, or the horrors of seeing thier mother being beatien by a man in the house suppose to be a father or who ever he is, you dont ever take that kind of assault lightly, you must act to ensure that the sherriff does not do it again , he should be arrested for assault and battery, of harm to the women adn the many years she has endured the pain and suffering of his brutality, the neighbors said she has cried out for help on other occasions, to ask them for help because of his beatings any judge that does not arrest this man should be put in prison with him hisself,

  74. you do not allow young girls and boys to believe that its ever okay for a sheriff to beat on his wife, it sends the wrong message to children, and causes young boys to become abusers at an early age to girls in school they date , which has been brought out to be a problem also, the brutiality of cowardly men who like to harm others especially women an children thru sexuall assault and battery, the other police chief was arrested for kicking his wife almost to death and put her in intensive care, the other sheriff murdered three women in his town and was finally arrested , but the women lost their lives to a monster of abuse and hidden terrorrism, an there are many more officers found to sexually and pnysically violate an abuse thier wives and citizens, one just raped a disbled person, an was arrested , another pulled a woman he was trying to date around a building while on duty, and beat her ;until somebody caught it and reported him, an he was arrested , Its never alright, stop them

  75. These types of cops and sheriffs that batter their wives like are all the time the same ones running buddy systems of other men abusers and allowing to happen because they do the same thing, they are a danger to the other women on the police force and other citizens , because of their brutality, and i guarantee you every one you catch beating and abusing their wives, you will find a horrific history of him abusing other women including the one he is with, and also aabuses other situations in his job tilte, you never take wife baterry and rape lightly its a high offense and crime, children as well and others, if you are not self defending your self you have no business harming and beating on others at all no justifications, men like to hurt women and its one of the highest problems we are dealing with now and child pedephiklia by the same types of hetersexual men, one evil runs in them runs into another evil, and another like bigotry, how much you bet this sheriff has many others

  76. people must walk in love and kindness and charity, and teach it, and you would never hve to worry about bigotry , violence, and sex crimes , and murder or any other harmful crimes against humanity, and human rights violations, that must be the foundations and plat form of every nations , civilized people, equality , fairness, and humanity flows automatically from that structure, this instilled positve , produces positive, and bigotry, racism , discrimination, murder , rape, battery, all produces evil and abuses, and thats all the facts you need, its simply, no escuses will do, its simply, no tolerance of the abuses of crimes against humanity, human rights violations and assaults by these characters, our nations are losing the young boys daily into terrorism like thier fathers the monsters they are , pedephiles, abausers , rappest, batterers , pimps , gangsters, their dying are haveing to be put in jail to keep them from kill and rapping like the wicked men are teaching them to do

  77. @Keith — “Your post confirms the hypocrisy on display since those that disapprove of same sex marriage on the same grounds tat you disapprove of polygamy, are labelled homophobes and bigots.”

    Don’t be absurd. Marriage equality is no more likely to lead to polygamy than straight-only marriage. Why haven’t civil partnerships lead to polygamy ? Why hasn’t marriage equality led to polygamy in those countries which have enacted it ?

    “Own goal ‘K’ris!”

    No. Have you watched the videos I posted yet ?

  78. This comments board makes no sense any more. the threads are broken. All because of that stupid little infantile git and his nonsensical arguments. A serious issue can’t be debated properly.

  79. “Your post confirms the hypocrisy on display since those that disapprove of same sex marriage on the same grounds tat you disapprove of polygamy, are labelled homophobes and bigots.
    Own goal ‘K’ris!”

    I don’t think you get what my post was meant to achieve Keefy-weefy. I wanted to move our relationship to the next level. I said everything you seem to want me to say so now what?

    Oh and FYI it’s Kris(not K’ris, I ain’t some rapper) – and I never said anyone who opposes SS marriage was homophobic or a bigot. I label you a bigot for entirely seperate reasons.

  80. separation of state and religions , what are you doing to the republic . UK is backwards with queens that should not be .religion has nothing to do in the pubic array

  81. We must NOT forget that Labour were too afraid to give us full and utter rights in the first place! Yvette Cooper can say what she likes but her party were scared of religious institutions back when they gave us the half baked Civic partnership and thought that we would be thankful!
    Ms Cooper you are an opportunist!

  82. Has he been deleted again ? What a terrible waste !

    From the BBC article:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17399027

    there’s a link to the Communications Act 2003 -(Section 127):

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127

    which governs the internet, email, mobile phone calls and text messaging:

    + Under section 127 of the act it is an offence to send messages that are “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character”

    + The offence occurs whether those targeted actually receive the message or not

  83. Same sex marriage should include the right to have a same sex religious marriage. Religious organisations should not be forced to conduct these. But those who do want to conduct them, should be allowed.

  84. Lynda Yilmaz 24 Mar 2012, 8:16am

    Doesn’t the expression ‘religious freedom’ also mean you are free to NOT be religious? Doesn’t ‘religious freedom’ also give rights to atheists and agnostics? I feel that government and religion have absolutely no business being part of the same debate. If this fundamental philosophy were adopted, most of these debates would be irrelevant.

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all