“on yer bike” you old bigot.
Is that you on the DT comments, Dr Guthrie?
If so you look very different from how I imagined!
Doing my bit to correct the stupid….
There are some very stupid people on there. I liked all your comments on there I think.
I have made a couple but one was removed by a moderator (doh – if only the same thing could be done here sometimes with some other peoples comments!).
You look younger than I expected from your avatar!
I do like some of the pro gay comments on there – its amusing how the bigots ignore all the evidence put to them. I found it very amusing that they are complaining about a sexual health doctor pointing out the lies of their claims on STIs by “trying to boggle them with science”. Well, facts do matter. His knowledge of STIs was way beyond my understanding I have to admit though and it amused me.
What is great though is their whinging and repetititve claims that marriage is the opposite of homosexualty (as several people have said – I would have thought the opposite of marriage was divorce or being single!)
I love it when they know they are losing the argument and fall back on the “It Just Is” drivel.
I must admit at one point I gave up, realising the pointlessness of it and just started taking the p!ss.
I particularly enjoy the Odone sections. That is one warped woman.
“Nest of Snakes” . . .
I am more concered with the hysterical attitudes, and lack of reasoned debate which continues to craw out of the woodwork
“On yer bike” . . . Indeed!!!
Indeed! What a sad old dinosaur he is. “The sky will fall in!” “This is the end of the world as we know it!” “Society will be implode!”
It’s nothing but profound and deep-rooted bigotry.
We’ve long ago changed laws so that black people can’t be discriminated against, but still they suffer appalling discrimination, daily, on the streets of all our major cities.
And long after same-sex marriage has been open to us, we will continue to suffer the effects of others’ homophobia.
But every bit of equalising legislation helps.
Take him to court, that is a homphic remark.
Gay has become the new black
Why do they keep bleating on about incest etc? I think we can all agree that marraige is between two people and two people only. Whether they be gay or straight should be irrelevant as long as they are committed to each other.
I am sure this man was one of the creator of Section 28 and is a vile bigot who should have no place in modern politics.
The term ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ will remain. I refer to my Civil Partner as my husband and know other couples who do the same.
He should retire and the sooner the better!
They bleat on about incest and polygamy because it’s the sign of the ever so desperate loosing an arguement, loosing control over society.
By using these lies they show themselves up foe the vile people they really are.
They bleat to try and scare off but instead they just look even more ridiculous!!
Couldn’t agree more!
They were saying the same thing when CPs were introduced, the end of society, the end of marriage, the end of the family. Not one of them can produce one shred of evidence, neither can the Telegraph or the Mail. Incest and polygamy are as old as civilisation, the latter applying only to heterosexuals since it was invented by them. Ditto bigamy! There hasn’t been one bigamous or polygamous same-sex marriage recorded either since Holland became the first country to legalise same-sex marriage. I wish the more progressive papers would take these idiots on and fire back at them. Why do the bigots seem to garner most of the headlines? It’s giving the impression that same-sex marriage won’t ever come to fruition in the UK as if these idiots speak for the nation.
Indeed Robert. Seem these bigots choose also to ignore the evidence of those more progressive countries that have already introduced Marriage equally. The world is a far better place with these marriages and rather than stand in the way of progress these religions choose to remain discriminating. Surely hypocrites since they admit discriminating goes against their religions.
It’s your basic slippery slope argument, “If 16 year olds can drive a car, next there’ll be licences for toddlers driving airplanes”
“If we allow liquor licences, soon being drunk in public will be compulsory” etc.
It’s a lame logical fallacy loved by reactionaries everywhere and anyone who doesn’t like change.
Their obsession with incest and polygamy is revealing isn’t it? Can they produce the evidence to support their claims? Of course NOT! Why doesn’t someone call their bluff and put them in their place once and for all?
Indeed they seem slightly over obsessed with incest and polygamy which begs the question who is it who wants incest and polygamy made legal? Those who wish to join in marriage as two in love or those that keep harping on about such topic??
I’m guessing the latter.
God is he still alive?
Would appear so!
Wheeled out from the archives, covered in dust and cobwebs which are being dusted off as we speak and then being claimed for on Peter Bones expenses, probably!
No amount of bitching out against gay couples can save this old bastard from death. tick tock! ^_^ Our time now mista.
God is alive and well, as the churches would have us believe anyway.
Oh sorry, you meant Tebbit…
Tebbit is alive – not sure he is well …
Yeah, he lives in a bedsit in Kentish Town.
What absolute crap from someone so irrelevent to the 21st Century. The man knows nothing, only how to be a discriminating bigot.
Why are these people so afraid of a strong, stable society? Why do they want so much control over a nasty vile bigotted community?
The mind boggles. Lets hope people like Tebbit are the people no-one can take seriously.
The Telegraph of course takes him seriously to have printed his screed.
Yeah, shame on the Telegraph for following such drivel.
And what would be wrong with three people or more joining into union? In Islam they force them too. I prefer free will and loyalty.
No, in some Islamic societies a man can have up to 4 wives. That does not mean, however, that it’s a 3-way, 4-way or 5-way union – the women aren’t married to each other, they’re each only married to one man. Technically I believe the man has a separate marriage with each of the women concerned.
I personally agree, why does a relationship need to be between 2 people along as everyone involved is happy with it whats everyone’s problem
I worry about true consent in polysexual relationships.
I am not saying that there can not be true consent. I have met a thruple who made it work and for whom (whilst no doubt there were issues as with every relationship) there appeared to be love, respect, happiness and nurture.
However, professionally I have come across several polysexual scenarios where abuse and control was at the heart of the relationship and that worries me about the state endorsing that.
Professionally I’ve come across several hetro scenarios where abuse and control are at the heart of the relationship. Isn’t that state endorsment, if they are married? Why is it so much more concerning if its a poly relationship? Please note that I’m talking about polyamory (where every party is equal), not polygamy.
Because love is only something between two people, and a relationship, sexual or romantic should only between two individuals. If they want to do that on their own fine, but that’s not marriage.
There are ways of doing polygamy that are harmful, unjust and unfair. But there are also ways of doing monogamy that are harmful, unjust and unfair. I don’t see why polygamy itself should be prohibited, rather than just the forms which cause harm (such as the kinds of chattel-slave polygyny that occur in many backward Middle Eastern cultures). It’s not a hugely popular thing, but if nobody gets hurt or short-changed then what moral right do we have to prevent people doing it, or to say it is a lesser form of relationship?
Because real love is only between two people
U-hu. And what do you base that presumption on? I have two partners and I’m very much in love with both of them.
That’s disgusting. It’s not real love, you can only love ONE person truly.
Disgusting? Really? Wow. So you can see into my heart and mind and tell me that my own feelings aren’t real… Thats a really special skill you have there Lumi.
Well then, your a bit of a slapper then ain’t ya Oonai!! lol
Because in this country it’s about TWO people in love and always has been. The argument for polygamy is only used to stall debate. It serve no other purpose.
I’m getting increasingly bored with the polygomy and incest comments. Enough already – my patience has worn thin with this nonsense. We’re not asking to marry our sisters or daughters Norman! Nor am I asking for permission to marry everyone in my street. I just want to marry the ONE woman I’m in love with. Now do me an enormous favour and crawl back under your stone and stay there! (and as for the comment about what act qualifies as adultery I wouldn’t worry cos if I catch her she’d be dead and buried in a shallow grave way before the divorce hearing)
Agree Samantha…the homophobes talk a lot of contradictory rubbish. Apparently, a man cannot marry another man – a woman cannot marry another woman -because these unions would not be fertile (in their narrow minded definition)…a straight dad rapes his daughter and she gives birth to a child…so by their reasoning incest is okay then.
OMG is this old cretin for real?!
Wheeling Tebbit out is only going to do our side of the argument good. Unlike many on the anti-equality side he is honest about what they are thinking, so long may he spout his views on the subject. Sunlight is, as they say, the best disinfectant :-)
This idiot doesn’t know how divorce/adultery will be redefined? Which planet is he living on and what was his level of education? Is he unaware that polgyamy is an heterosexual phenomenon as is bigamy? How can same-sex marriage be attributed to any of it? Can he and all of the other morons on the right please provide the evidence? We have 10 countries already allowing us to marry, surely he can back up his assertions ith the proof? This only shows how desperate the Telegraph and the Daily Mail really are, scraping the bottom of the barrel with this idiot’s rants. Better yet, why haven’t the two “rags” provided it?
If a straight married male or woman has a sexual liaison with someone of the same gender, it would be construed under the law as adultery. Which part of that does he find so difficult to deduce? The courts don’t care who you have sex with outside of a marriage, it is still construed as adultery and grounds for divorce.
“If a straight married male or woman has a sexual liaison with someone of the same gender, it would be construed under the law as adultery.”
Actually, that’s not true. Adultery requires there to have been vaginal penetration with a penis. You can do anything else you like, and it will certainly count as unreasonable behaviour, but it won’t count as adultery. This is because the history of the law on divorce is all about property, inheritance, and not accidentally handing Daddy’s estate to someone else’s kid. Adultery is not currently available as a ground for dissolution of a civil partnership.
I did not know that! You learn something new every day!! Thanks Clare.
So Clinton not only didn’t have sex with Monica Lewinsky, he didn’t commit adultery either? I didn’t know that.
Lord Tebbitt is obsessed with sex acts- apart from missionary position sex between husband and wife in a darkened room! Could I just point out that gays have no monopoly on sodomy- or any other sex act you could possibly think of.
For no more than three seconds (he would be defiled if it lasted longer – probably couldnt manage any longer anyway!) ;-)
Precisely, Lord Tebbit seems to be obsessed with Sodomy! What on earth has that got to do with the arguement – other than another spurious comment to whoop up disdain for the gay community and support for his ill-concieved views. Sodomy indeed!
wish he d sod off !
The dirty old homophobe gets a regular spanking from his butler while he’s tied to the bedposts… Who is he kidding?
He was indeed one of the architects of Clause 28, he was the Tory Party chairman at that time, and pronounced that “Tolerance of sexual deviation has generated demands for deviance to be treated as the norm”.
But it’s not just old dinosaurs like Tebbitt that supported the Clause. Cameron, in 2003, voted against the full repeal of Clause 28. 2003! Hague in 1999 sacked Shaun Woodward as the party’s London spokesperson, for refusing to obey the Tory party line on keeping the Clause. These are the men ruling this country today. They’re a bunch of homophobes, always were, always will be.
LGBTory just like the Harlem branch of the KKK
OMG Keith the troll is actually Norman Tebbitt!
No doubt even more polluted comments on the DT comments.
Tebbit is a relic (even for those who endorse right wing policies!). The extremists to adulate him gather and fester on the DT boards – which is increasingly being inhabited by people who support human rights and challenge bigotry.
Tebbit lost control even before Thatcher lost her grip. Their style of politics is a relic of the dark ages and deserves to stay there. He knows he’s lost and he can’t control his temper and whining at the thought.
There are plenty left in power, including Cameron and Hague, who supported the retention of Clause 28. Don’t be fooled into thinking that this one is some kind of anachronism. Scratch these Tories, you’ll find this man lurking underneath.
Being gay myself, I do completely support marriage equality. I don’t buy the argument that CPs are sufficient, it’s akin to saying “Well black people have running water, so why do they need to use the same fountains as us?” Unthinkable now, a few decades ago, not so much.
I would be cautious however on exaggerating the benefits. I think many gay couples will benefit from the legislation, but I do not think it will form a strong society or make the country a better place to live in. Nowadays heterosexual couples don’t last very long, and I know plenty of screaming queens who jump on the CP bandwagon after being with someone for 3 months – the same with straight people I know who get married after a similarly short length of time.
Equal marriage will foster some wonderful relationships, and its pros and cons are largely irrelevant because it should come as standard in a civilised society. However, I also think same sex marriages will fail equally as much as heterosexual ones.
Its not about marriage its about equality to all, and benefit of equality is that no one is left out.
Nobody said that marriage is a perfect institution but at least now everyone be will able to have a go.
Yes, that was the essence of what I was saying. My comment was more directed to those people who keep bleating on about how introducing equal marriage will somehow propel our society into some nuclear family Nirvana. It won’t. But yes, quite rightly, everyone deserves to have a go.
I agree except for this point:
“I know plenty of screaming queens who jump on the CP bandwagon after being with someone for 3 months – the same with straight people I know who get married after a similarly short length of time.”
People always used to get married quite quickly. Their was no such thing as a long engagement when my grandparents were younger. They didn’t used to date as many people either.
The difference between now and then is the speed of divorce, the lack of respect for the vows you take etc. etc. If the marriage equality debate has done one good thing it’s made people think about how important marriage is but that won’t last long.
Anyone who thinks that homosexual marriages are going to be superior to heterosexual marriages is a delusional fool.
Who is she?
What is it?… looks like something from Reanimator.
Well, what can we expect from a man who hailed General Pinochet as ‘the saviour of Chilean democracy’?
Exactly, and look who gave hime shelter, Margaret Thatcher!
BTW as a lover of mixed metaphors I love the idea of a can of worms hiding a nest of snakes.
How would that work… do the snakes eat the worms? Are they very big worms and very small snakes? Maybe they’re slow worms which are often mistaken for snakes but are in fact a type of legless lizard with vestigial limbs.
The possibilites are endless.
But marraige consists of husband and wife, not husband and husband, which calls for a name change, at the very least,
Not necessarily. That’s what’s known as the etymological fallacy, that because a word has hitherto meant only one thing it can never be used to refer to another thing or have a more elastic definition.
Excactly. Why do you think they call us gay when most homosexuals are a miserable bunch of sods wearing dark clothing and no hair. ;)
Hey I wear a lot of dark clothing…. :I
But I’m not miserable and I have hair :P
Why? Are most people so thick they can’t imagine the possibility of a husband and husband or two men being married? I think you underestimate people’s intelligence.
Oh fak off marriage is two people in love or 2 people who have settled. If you want to keep marriage to yourself TOUGH! You are not better than us and you’ll have to lear to treat us as equal of sod off to and islamic country. We are civilized here you cnut
‘We are civilized here you cnut’
Your language is not
Irony is wasted on you
Not very good Irony, as it served no purpose.
…I think your understanding of irony is somewhat askew. i suggest you get out your dictionary……
If a heterosexual couple marries, then they can still be husband and wife. I would just like to be able to call a woman my wife (being a woman myself).
Google St Bacchus and St Sergius Jackie – the two gay male roman soldiers whose marriage is depicted in religions icons with Christ as the best man
Don’t see how it really affects you if your married man n woman, man n man or woman or woman.
All that should concern you is who you choose to marry if you so wish to do so. No-one else’s marriage is a matter for you. You just choose to be bigotted.
Calls for a name change? Seriously so Wife or Husband…. nope same words… what the blazes are you on about woman?
I imagine then that Tebbitt has never been the beneficiary of oral sodomy from his wife? Using his absurd argument, would not heterosexual marriage also be protecting oral sodomy. Isn’t he aware millions of heterosexual married couples engage in fellatio? His argument of course is totally flawed and ridiculous. What is it about these right wingers and their obsession with all manner of sexual acts outside of the “traditional” penis in the vagina sex I wonder?
Is this bigoted old fossil still poking around where he is neither needed or wanted. I thought he had succumbed to his hatred of anything and everything remotely civil and right long ago and was down in hell giving old Nick a hard time. As I said before it is so gratifying to see these old bigoted dinosaurs wriggle and twist and attempt to stir up trouble, while sadly failing miserably. Your day is long passed and it’s time you got your crusty old heads around that fact.
Can someone please comment on my post as to what was wrong with it , so that I got a red mark. I am mystified as it would seem I am in agreeance with everyone else on this story. Or is it what i suspect has been going on for sometime now; spite and nothing to do with the comment. Others are getting needlessly marked down to for no apparent reason.. Pink News are you aware of what is going on with this ???
This is great.
He is doing us a big favour only an idiot would agree with his argument.
Let them all expose themselves now so we know where we stand.
and that gap toothed idiot can finish off the chruch
It’s history repeating itself. For Daily Telegraph substitute Der Sturmer, which also used to print similar vitriolic lying drivel about Jewsh people. In fact a columnist (dead now), who ironically used to write for the Daily Telegraph years ago, fled from his native Germany in order to fight against it. Just read his book Defying Hitler. It’s the same thing all over again, and the words used now by the likes of Tebbit aren’t that much different to those used back then to foment hatred. Just remember Tebbit was voted into a position of power, and he thought homosexuals should be made identifiable – presumably by pink triangle
The slippery slope argument is a tactic relied upon by uneducated morons and those hat pander to them. It is a logical fallacy, with no basis in truth of fact. So, perfect for decrepit old christofascists.
How can that be? Snakes are way bigger than worms, there’s no way they’d fit in a can…
He is literally the first person in the entire world to use the “we’ll all be marrying our horses” argument. Nobody else has used that argument before. It is completely unique and amazing. Well done, Lord Smartypants.
Piss off you old fart!
I don’t understand how people can be so stupid *sigh*
I hope that in 50 years these views will be as rare as racism
UGH! Isn’t it about time the old dinosaur go meet his maker he so longs for?
Is this the same guy who pays me to give him a spanking twice a week? He does like familiar….
“Was anyone asked to check in how many pieces of legislation the words “husband” or “wife” appear? Are they to be replaced by some suitable non-discriminatory new word or words? Then what about the grounds for divorce? How will adultery be redefined? Exactly what kind of sexual acts outside marriage will constitute grounds for divorce? What will amount to the consummation of a marriage?”
Not sure he need to worry too much about this … fairly sure there are civil servants who could maybe flick through the necessary Acts of Parliament and associated polices and procedures and maybe pencil in where we need to make changes … I thinking much in the same way they do when EVERY SINGLE OTHER PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT HAS EVER BEEN CHANGED BY ANYONE, ANYWHERE, EVER has been altered!
Frankly I’m surprised as a former government minister that he’s not more familiar with the process.
Further reinforces the view that his mind has gone I suppose.
Most likely… seems the type!! lol :)
I was wondering when he was going to crawl out from under his stone do deliver some bile.
If anyone knows anything about snakes and worms, it’s our Norm.
He didn’t leave out marrying your dog, did he?
Remember Boris thought the same thing
He was at it during Maggies reign and here he is again! Cant imagine what this bigots marriage is like. Gives me the creeps even thinking about it. He should have been put out to graze years ago.
What worries me is that there are enough of his ilk sitting in the undemocratic, unelected House of Lords who’ll vote against us and make sure it never becomes law. What do we do next, even if it passes in Parliament?
I think there are a fair few number of members of the house of lords who can either be convinced this is a good thing or should be voted through, or are willing to change. Not all of them are old dinosaurs like the Tibbitosaurous.
Gordon, I hope you are right. If the Tory members of the HoL want their party to win re-election in 2015, then they’d better evolve and support it. As Tory MP Francis Maude stated recently, not supporting it makes the Tory party unelectable given the slim margin it won in the last general election. It needs every gay vote it can get. I’m hoping some of the opponents will be pragmatic and see the larger picture. A defeat of this bill will be a defeat for the party’s re-election.
I wish Norman Tebbit would hurry up and die.
Is this old f***er in the unelected House of Lords.
I’d like a deadline by which the House of Lords is to be replaced by a democratically elected upper House.
My word he comes on a bit strong, doesn’t he?!
Bigoted old fool.
It’s an anachronism. If it is to be retained, I agree, have elections but ban all clergy from it.
” I think we can all agree that marraige is between two people and two people only.”
Well, actually no. Google polyamory. If everyone is consenting, why shouldn’t marriage be between more than two people.
We can probably agree that incest is not a good idea, because of the risk of inbreeding.
has learned nothing !……
As is so often the case, Tebbit’s words tell us more about Tebbit and his oh-so-nasty little mind not to mention his obvious senility, than they do about the topic in question!
Lord Tebbit wonders whether the move to allow gay couples to marry which was personally backed by David Cameron last year is “another contagion from his Lib Dem partners”
PAY ATTENTION Tebbit!!! Cameron stated his support BEFORE the Election!!!
And Cameron opposed the repeal of Clause 28, as recently as 2003.
Don’t be fooled, the current crop of Tories are quite as capable of thinking just like this old dinosaur, the minute they think they can get away with it.
Yeah whatever – bloody Labour could never stretch to marriage equality though could they. Could it be that the EU didn’t require them too.
In 2008, Cameron voted against Labour’s bill allowing lesbian women to have in vitro fertilisation.
That’s 4 years ago.
And in 2002, Cameron voted to allow straight couples to adopt, but prevent gay couples from doing so.
This leopard hasn’t changed his spots.
Oh well said Sister Mary C!!
Hi… welcome to join us in 2012!!
Straight married people practice sodomy. Are they are snakes in a can of worms too?
Don’t tell me they don’t, I know for a fact they do. Remember my LGBT friends they the Christians are make the population prejudice toward LGBT people not to mention use fear to scare the citizens about gay people. This is called black propaganda and the Christians use it against anybody they do not like or want to destroy. Expose these old bigots and their religious connections to prove they are tools of the Christian hate machine.
In the words of the lovely Patsy Stone at her mother’s bedside…
“For God’s sake just DIE!!”
What is the old duffer crowing about now?
Snakes and Worms? Is that a new board game?
Once again the language used by a senior politician and elder statesman is inflammatory, offensive and immoderate.
This type of rhetoric serves no one.
I think that some of these extreme remark need to be challeged in a court.
Curious isn’t it?
Mention marriage between a man and a woman, think white dress loving smiles, home.
Mention marriage equality, think anal sex. What about the women, Norman?
What does that suggest?
That we shouldn’t listen to Old Duffer Tebbit?
That stuff about how you define adultery and consummation of a marriage is so old fashioned anyway…
From memory I thought the rules about the dissolution of a CP was done in that modern way because they intended to modernise the divorce reasons for marriage.
Honestly to use adultery or not having shagged on the first night as a reason for a divorce is totally outdated.
Go sit on the park bench with your old m8 thatcher it won’t be as big as the can of worms u opened with her that we are still paying for.
Worms and snakes? Are you sure you’re not misquoting him and he’s actually just describing who attended the last Tory party conference?
He probably means snakes and ladders. It’s a board game with dice. I have always regarded him as an avid tosser.
D. McCabe is surprisingly ill-informed if he says that “we can all agree that marriage is between two people only”. There are many people who are challenging that view and in Holland a triangular marriage has already been publicly performed. The Labour government of Blair and Brown crept in recognition of polygamous marriages without any public debate or manifesto warning. The people “bleating on ” about incest include a brother-sister couple in France who went to the ECHR last year – and were unsuccessful. They had two defective children out of four.