Reader comments · Muslim Council of Britain: Marriage equality for gays ‘unnecessary and unhelpful’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Muslim Council of Britain: Marriage equality for gays ‘unnecessary and unhelpful’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Good comments. Nice to see Muslims, who are probably the fastest-growing section of British society, on board with defending marriage from redefinition. I guess any laws passed now may have to be reviewed in 25 years in light of demographic changes.

    1. You’re back are you, why post on here for something that you are clearly against? Hang on, you won’t bother with a response now either will you

    2. Yawn. Is this the extent of your ability to feel like you matter in any way, writing this mindless tripe on a gay news site?

      Pathetic, isn’t it?

      1. Absolutely, clearly sensing some closet issues for Jean!

    3. Mumbo Jumbo 20 Mar 2012, 1:26pm

      I agree totally. Given the remorseless decline in the numbers of people professing to be religious and the increasing exposure of how weak religious-based arguments are, exemptions from equality legislation on religious grounds may be subject to repeal.

    4. ” . . .on board with defending marriage from redefinition”

      Jean – You assume that marriage has not previously undergone any form of re-definition?

      Show me how the definition of who can and cannot marry has remained constant!!!

    5. I will never defend them if the EDL want to attack. I hope they get what they deserve

    6. Except as the British Pakistani and other Middle Eastern communities grow and settle and integrate into society they will inevitably become less homophobic and intolerant. It happens to all immigrant communities. That’s how these things work. In 30 odd years time British muslims will be as secular as British jews or mainstream Anglicans. We’ll be seeing progressive islamic sects campaigning for islamic same-sex marriage (and there is a long and venerable tradition of man-love in many Middle Eastern cultures, especially Persia).

      Because these people aren’t “muslims”, they’re people. People with the same sense of decency and foibles as the rest of us. To assume that they are incapable of moderation, and will always share your hateful bigotry, is racism pure and simple. Even you, one day, may realise how silly your homophobic bigotry is, and change.

      1. It will never happen. When the Jews moved to the east end they stayed for a few generations and moved on. The bangadeshis enjoy the getto life and have not and will not move on. they don’t know how to evolve and will be happy selling curries claiming benefits and hating gay people and women.

        1. Whats with the hateful rhetoric

        2. Wow racist much?

      2. What a totally deluded view you have. British muslims are going backwards to the 7th century. There are far more women wearing burkas here now than there were 10 or 20 years ago. There were no sharia courts here 10 years ago (now there’s 85 of them). We have 237 muslims in Britain on terrorist charges. Muslims are 5% of the UK population, but only 0.03% of the armed forces. The Gallop poll in 2009, showed that British muslims have zero tolerance for homosexuality. They are markedly more backward than muslims in France and Germany when it comes to tolerance towards homosexuals. You are living in a fantasy.

        1. Paddyswurds 21 Mar 2012, 1:51pm

          …I tend to agree with VPs view. What you are overlooking when comparing the UK Muslim demographic with that of France and Germany is that there o is a preponderance of Muslim immigrants newly arrived in the UK and as most of these come from backward and monotheistic countries they will have greatly more conservative or if you like backward views on human rights, especially as the majority of them have no experience whatever of human rights of any kind from their own homelands. These people will, I believe, also fall into the melting pot and will eventually moderate their views when exposed to western education and mores.

    7. Jock S. Trap 20 Mar 2012, 5:58pm

      Why do people like you spend all their lives hating? Could it be because we as a community spend our lives loving?

      Jealous much?

    8. Jean, don’t you know that many Muslims don’t believe marriage = 1 man + 1 woman? How does that fit with your own definition?


    9. I’m now convinced “Jean” is actually a gay interloper posing as reactionary bigot to provoke “debate”. Perhaps one of our regulars?

      Note that her posts are always FIRST in the comments thread; a pattern which strongly implies this person already has an interest in gay rights that goes beyond that of the passing bigot (why else would they be first off the mark on a gay news site?)

      “Jean” never responds to her detractors. Characteristic of the of the “hit and run” troll is their ability to linger and “fight back”. Their aim is to coerce reaction and feed off the flames, dismissing counter-argument and posting contrary (deliberately inflammatory) opinion, no matter how deranged, in order to feel superior and garner attention.

      A well-meaning “devil’s advocate” by any other name does not help our cause in the slightest and serves only to muddy the waters.

      If you’re gay and/or an advocate of gay rights, then by all means join the debate.

      If not, go back to your knitting.

    10. Congratulations Jean …. you appear to have achieved a consensus on how vile you are. I don’t think I have seen a -57 on the comments before!

      Detestable and a coward though. Comment and run. Such a big person (well you might be obese who knows!)

      1. Jock S. Trap 22 Mar 2012, 10:55am

        Think thats the purpose somehow, to get a negative reaction. It’s purely for attention and nothing to do with debate.

    11. GingerlyColors 21 Mar 2012, 6:50am

      I suggest you stop trolling. That toe-rag who published racist comments on Twitter about Fabrice Muamba is looking at a jail term. You are being watched.

  2. Its funny isn’t it he states at one point “Whilst we remain opposed to all forms of discrimination – including homophobia” but also states they had a “duty” to oppose marriage equality for gays.

    How hypocritical!

    I’m not surprised by their stance at all, only surprised that they had not commented on this issue sooner!

  3. Oh good, Sikhs think we have everything we need. Well, good job they’re looking out for us, bless their little hearts.

    And Islamic groups are the last people that should be wading in on this argument. Their religion has been watered down in the UK only because the law doesn’t allow them to carry on the way they truly wish to. In countries where Islam is an integral part of every day life and is allowed to flourish, we see the imprisonment/execution of gay people and an extreme suppression of women. It beggars belief that people buy into this “We don’t believe in discrimination” rubbish, they only say it out of necessity. Given half the chance homosexuality in the UK would be outlawed, and burkas/hijabs would be imposed by law.

    I look forward to the first Muslim same sex wedding in this country – it will happen in the next 10-20 years. I hope the police will afford the necessary and proper protection to the couple involved, because that’s the reality.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Mar 2012, 1:26pm

      Plus, there are a handful of islamic countries that for 1300 years or more have permitted to this very day polygamous marriages, up to four wives at a time. So much for same-sex marriage heralding polygamy.

    2. johnny33308 20 Mar 2012, 7:14pm

      and they allow men to marry “women” of the advanced age of 8 years old…..nice…they’re all a bunch of pedophiles and polygamists, and the ‘women’ must marry their rapist or be executed for having ‘sex’ outside of marriage… civilized! they are so deserving of ‘respect’ NOT

      1. @johnny33308. I agree with the bare bones of your argument, but not the sweeping generalisation that “they’re all a bunch of paedophiles”. Of any culture, that would imply that paedophilia is an inherent part of human nature – an offensive rhetoric used against gay people for hundreds of years.

  4. God makes reasonable people do some terrible things.

    1. Reasonable people do some terrible things in the name of God. God him/her/itself has nothing to do with it. Free will, dontcherknow.

      1. Jock S. Trap 20 Mar 2012, 6:00pm

        Well Said George!!

        1. Absolutely.

          You can choose to do the right thing.

    2. Dr Robin Guthrie 20 Mar 2012, 2:41pm

      God doesn’t exist.

      1. That all depends on how you define God and how you define existence

        1. Because we are entitled to our own facts, right? LOL

          God is that feeling you get when you pee and you had needed to pee for the past two hours while stuck in traffic.

      2. Staircase2 26 Mar 2012, 2:03am

        @Dr Robert…prove it…

    3. god made idiots

      1. Paddyswurds 21 Mar 2012, 2:07pm

        who made “god”. This “god” shyte gives mindless bigots an excuse to hate at the level they do. I wonder what these people would do if the concept of a deity had never been conceived by the warped mind of man??

        1. Staircase2 26 Mar 2012, 2:05am

          honestly…THINK man!

          If they didnt have God as an excuse they’d have to find another one…

          This has nothing to do with God – its the work of their own twisted selves…

    4. Staircase2 26 Mar 2012, 2:02am

      God has nothing to do with it – these bigots are more than capable of spouting their prejudicial nonsense without any spiritual intervention…

      …they are, in fact, doing it in a spiritual vacuum…

  5. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Mar 2012, 1:24pm

    So, let’s wait for the orthodox Jews to put the penny’s worth in the mix. I’d like them allow to explain how allowing same-sex civil marriage redefines religious marriage. I don’t think our marrying will stop heterosexual from marrying via a religious or civil ceremony. so how on earth can they call it a redefinition? Makes NO sense when civil marriage isn’t based on the bible, the torah or the quran. There is no mention of this form of marriage in any of them. It’s a fairly new phenomenon invented in the 19th century in the UK by the state and there was strong opposition at the time by the same religious bigots.

    1. DJ Sheepiesheep 20 Mar 2012, 6:44pm

      To their credit, authodox Judaism haven’t said anything yet. Unlike just about every other bunch of god botherers!

    2. Christians do not see marriage as just a partnering, they see it as a divine contract to form the Christian utopian family. The contract being there to protect the children that follow. This is why some are happy to bless gay peaple in a civil arrangement, but still believe that marriage (in the eyes of their religion) can only be between a man and a woman.

  6. If there is no legal differanation between hetrosexual marriage and homosexual civil partnership, why give them a different name. It is litterally a ‘the blacks have to sit there and the whites can sit there’ type of discrimination.

    1. Exactly. Seperate but equal. Equal, but not quite equal enough to be treated equally.

    2. Christians do not see marriage as just a partnering, they see it as a divine contract to form the Christian utopian family. The contract being there to protect the children that follow. This is why some are happy to bless gay people in a civil arrangement, but still believe that marriage (in the eyes of their religion) can only be between a man and a woman. the legal aspect is different, and can be done without religion.

      *I accidently posted this elsewhere, but it was meant for this post.

  7. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Mar 2012, 1:30pm

    Yes Jean, some muslim countries actually practice polygamy in keeping with the old testament. Provide one factual shred of evidence that same-sex marriage impacts and harms heterosexual religious marriage as opposed to civil? We’re waiting, idiot.

  8. Unnecessary and unhelpful to homophobic heterosexuals (I’m not saying that about all heterosexuals of course). It’s necessary to me because I want to marry a woman and helpful to me because of the benefits.

    Marriage was also between white people, interracial marriage was illegal, the woman was the property of the woman, a woman couldn’t “deny” her husband. Now it’s time to move on to the next step in morally correct marriages and allow same sex marriages.

  9. Oh and they’re opposed to homophobia? They’re homophobic.Yeah, they’re not opposed at all. LOL. >_>

  10. “So while, the state has accommodated for gay couples, such unions will not be blessed as marriage by the Islamic institutions.”

    1. Huge demand, not.

  11. Twat
    At least I know where I stand I will ignore them in future and hope that the EDL messes them up

    1. loveandcrust (chris lowcase) 20 Mar 2012, 2:45pm

      the EDL are extremists and more of a threat to equality in the UK than islam will ever be. what about all the british oposition to marriage equality? will the EDL ‘protect’ us from england to? how are they going to ‘protect’ us? by beating up an asian person or trashing a takeaway? ghandi was right when he talked about eyes for eyes mate.

      1. The point is some muslims want us dead so do the EDL they deserve each other and I hope they all kill each other.

        1. Rachel Haytread 20 Mar 2012, 5:14pm


          You are so wrong, and having read many of your usually reasonable comments I am so disappointed with those above.

          Please read the EDL’s mission statement on its’ website. We are fervent and passionate in our opposition to homophobia. Why do you think we have so many LGBT supporters?

          ‘loveandcrust’, well all I can say in response to your post is that I question your motives in disseminating such poisonous lies.

          1. Why did I not think you might be an EDL supporter/member Rachel? ;-)

          2. loveandcrust (chris lowcase) 20 Mar 2012, 9:54pm

            poisonouse lies? how come the majority of racially motivated assaults or vandalism cases where there are reports of chanting EDL? sometimes they even sprey it all over the place. why are there so many arrests at their demos? why do so many people claim to have seen them shouting abuse at anybody who isnt white at their demos?

            my motive is equality for everybody not just gay people. i have lots of muslim friends, and ones who have given up their faith. not one of them have a problem with my sexuality, some even are sympathetic to LGBT rights and they are very vocal about it. i find it hard to believe that in the year 2012 somebody can say they dont know any muslims, its clear you dont by the fear you have for them.

          3. I have experienced Homophobia at anti EDL marches (from the EDL) and I don’t associate with fascists.

            You know there are gay people who are members of the BNP, having an LGBT section of your organisation is in no way equal to be pro gay and I pity any gay person who does associate with you.

            Your made up of thugs and racists (even have ties going back to the BNP and NF) a fascist is a fascist and in the end they always turn on us, your group will be no different when you have lost your use for us.

        2. loveandcrust (chris lowcase) 20 Mar 2012, 9:58pm

          oh and james you are really not getting their point. rather than hatred towards all muslims. is fighting for gay rights in the muslim community not a better alternative? not just better for the gay muslims, better for LGBT on the whole.

    2. You utter fool. You do know the EDL hate us even more than religious groups?

      1. I hate the EDL and I hate those muslims who seem to be offended by me sexuality. In London it’s becomming quite common to get some verbal from them. So I would be happy if those groups both killed each other. I would also be happy if some muslims stood up and said the MCB does not speak for them

        1. Rachel Haytread 21 Mar 2012, 8:23pm

          Oh James!, you silly boy.

          Please indulge me and take a step back from your current strongly held views about the EDL. Look at the website. Read what we have to say rather than simply believe the distortions and lies perpetuated by sections of the media and extremist Marxist groups such as Unite Against Facism, or to give them their true name – Unite Against Freedom.

          It disappoints me to hear such misinformed views from someone with whom I often agree. I am not a right-wing extremist. In fact, I’m a bit of a left-wing stereotype – gay, vegan and a longstanding member of the Green Party. I support the EDL because of their steadfast opposition to Islamic extremists’ violence and hatred of our LGBT community.

          Open your eyes, please…

      2. Rachel Haytread 21 Mar 2012, 7:43pm

        Proof please.

        1. loveandcrust (chris lowcase) 21 Mar 2012, 7:49pm

          if you was talking to me, (you know you’ve not met any of my points head on).

          i cant be bothered proving that, i wont need to with most people.

          but if anybody doesnt believe me feel free to google ‘EDL violence’

          1. Rachel Haytread 21 Mar 2012, 8:35pm

            May I suggest that you take some of your own advice and investigate violence perpetrated by Muslims (and I do not mean all Muslims – only the extremists) against us. Surely, your memory is not so short that you have forgotten the convictions of those Muslims in Derby who called for us to be murdered?

            Once again, have you looked at the EDL website? Read what we have to say instead of being so blinkered and partisan.

            We are called right-wing extremists and indeed we have attracted support from these people whom we have told in no uncertain terms to go away. We are not right-wing, merely righteous. We are on the side of the angels (as a secularist I am in no way suggesting that such supernatural creatures exist).

            Oh, sod this – think what you want, I’m going out to have a good drink. Bye!

          2. loveandcrust (chris lowcase) 22 Mar 2012, 2:02am

            “sod this, think what you want”. thats usually what people say when they realise their argument is flawed. its a good way of having the last say, after all… if i meet your post head on.. your not replying because you have run out of argument…. its because you are having a drink ;) i know you will be back to read it. so have a stab at an actual rebuttle. all you are doing is giving me more statements to debunk.

            if we are looking at muslims, yeah, everything from 9/11 to derby is noted, and then some. im aware of groups like the MDL, who i consider to be extremists also. the MDL and the EDL are two sides of the same coin.

            the leader has a record of violence, if we look at his former name. you’ve not denied the violence, just tried to justify it. two sides of the same coin. people do not buy this BS, all you have to do is read the local papers whenever they have a demo planned.

      3. They might hate you, but they don’t hate gay people.

        UAF hate gay people and it is they who have appointed a totalitarian fascist Islamist as their vice-chairman. Their founder Ken Livingstone if crawling for the Islamist vote.

        1. Rachel Haytread 22 Mar 2012, 11:03am

          Oh! Chris, thank-you for restoring my faith that there are actually some reasonable and sane individuals on this site.

          1. chris lowcase 22 Mar 2012, 7:24pm

            still not met my points head on rach, i knew you would be back. yeah, one person agrees with you. have any proof that the UAF are anti gay chris? i dont support the UAF but i know what they are about.

            they might hate me? grow up. this is the reason society wont buy your crap. none of it makes sense. when people have doubts you dont reasure them. you cant apply logic to your ideology. everybody is constantly reading about the EDL in the papers. give it up.

  12. I wonder how Muslims would feel if someone called their religion “unnecessary and unhelpful”? Do you think that they might take exception to being summarily dismissed? Sorry, but their reaction too would be “unnecessary and unhelpful”.

    1. All religion is unnecessary and unhelpful.

      1. or, more to the point, organised religion.

  13. Same old story …..
    I find it interesting that religions opposed to each other in their beliefs are so eager to “get into bed’ with each other when gay equality issues are raised.

    1. Not to mention killing eachother ( and us) in some parts of the world. But, hey, we managed to unite them by being a common bogeyman and scapegoat for their own marital infirmity.

      1. Its not fair, we can cause earthquakes, floods, tsunamis and other world wide disasters, how come we not revered like Roman Gods

        1. It’s not us that causes it, silly, it’s a vengeful god that is is so jolly annoyed if we make love that he has a hussy fit and wipes out millions of innocents who didn’t even know we were at it.

          1. I typed hissy fit, but hussy fit works too, thanks autospell.

          2. No apparently its gay people who cause tsunamis according to the fundamentalist Christians – surely it must be true – I mean, they don’t lie (do they?) ;-)

    2. johnny33308 20 Mar 2012, 7:10pm

      yes, it is rather interesting considering they butcher each other over differing beliefs rountinely, and always have done so….but they ALL hate us…..just proves that they are not really of God at all, they are of power and wealth….that is the goal of almost every religion….power over people and the wealth they can claim from their “flocks”….flocks, as in sheep…this should not be lost on anyone…..the truth is in that one little word…..

    3. Homo occidens 20 Mar 2012, 9:05pm

      Yes, that is very true. Christian churches are not allowed in muslim
      countries and Christians are often persecuted in those countries. However, all these awful religions have no problem spooning each other when it comes to condemning gays.

  14. Wow, I guess I’m glad I’m a pagan. We don’t have any restrictions on who you marry, only that it’s consensual. Also, we don’t have a “head pagan” that can spout inanities and supposedly talk for the rest of us.

  15. God forbid society should make any adjustments to protect and better integrate minority communities. Talk about stepping into a steaming pile of irony.

  16. Gays are attacking religion?
    It’s not unusual for abusers to act as the victim to take the focus off of themselves.

    I can list over 1000 facts how organized religion has damaged society with their bigotry, hate, executions and wars, but they haven’t given a single fact how Gays have harmed anyone. They’re only “fact” is the blatantly crazy claim they own some sort of legal or moral copyright to the word “marriage” and how it should be applied.

    They’re acting quite predictably for a wounded monster finding itself under the spotlight of truth.

    1. loveandcrust (chris lowcase) 20 Mar 2012, 2:39pm

      yeah this sort of gets to me too. ‘gays are attacking religion’ some gays are attacking religion, the majority of gays are attacking a specific faiths stance on marriage equality, for the sake the lgbt community, which no doubt overlaps many religious communities.

      i dont like being profiled from one minority to another.

    2. religion attacks us
      we barely defend our selves

    3. It’s a pathetic last resort of those with no sound argument to support them – paint yourself as victim. 1

    4. We’re not attacking religion. We’re attacking homophobia.

  17. Considering how so many religious organisations over the last fortnight have said how delighted they are with the fact that we can have civil partnerships, and how supportive they are of civil partnerships, isn’t it strange that so few of them actually allow us to hold civil partnerships in their premises.

  18. And their opinion is as meaningless as every other bloody faith. No one is proposing kicking down the doors to their holy buildings and demanding that they do it, just shut up and get out of the bloody way.

  19. As a Sikh, I should point out that Lord Singh’s organisation is not an umbrella organisation in the same way that the MCB.

    As a Gay Sikh, I can point out that our religion is accepting of same-sex marriages by way of doctrine.

    Unfortunately, the religion was ‘Anglicised’ during the British Raj in India and this has led to Victorian and conservative beliefs held by most people practicing Sikhism as to homosexuality and same-sex marriages.

    In other words, we are not all the same. If you wish to find out more, visit and read our leaflet on same-sex marriages from a Sikh perspective.

    1. Thanks for this insight, Jay.

      1. Mary Marriott 20 Mar 2012, 3:52pm

        I’ll second that too !

    2. Mary Marriott 20 Mar 2012, 3:54pm

      Thanks Jay, really food to hear about Skhism and also about gay Sikhs.

  20. loveandcrust (chris lowcase) 20 Mar 2012, 2:35pm

    unnecessary and unhelpful?

    probably to a straight man or woman yeah, but i doubt many of them would consider marriage equality to be “unnecessary and unhelpful” for society in general.

    this is really worse than the official catholic stance imo. at least they sort of albiet in a backwars way understand that we exist.

  21. I believe religion is unnecessary and unhelpful but your allowed that.

  22. Sister Mary Clarence 20 Mar 2012, 2:40pm

    “Therefore, in our view the case to change the definition of marriage, as accepted throughout time and across cultures, is strikingly weak.”

    Errrr …. what!!!

    For 1700 years the Christian faith conducted same sex marriages. Same sex marriages where conducted in over 200 countries around the world.

    Marriage was only actually ‘redefined’ in very recent history to be exclusive to heterosexual couples.

    The blinkered pig-ignorance of these people is outrageous

    1. Sister Mary Clarence 20 Mar 2012, 5:07pm

      sorry ‘were conducted’ – my spelling is so sh1te when I p1ssed off

  23. They dont seem to understand that just because THEY define marriage that way it doesnt mean everyone does. Marriage doesn’t belong to them, they stole it from secular society in the first place. This is just a step towards claiming it back for everyone.

    What the churches do or do not ‘recognise’ is irrelevant to anyone who doesnt go to church. That would be 85-90% of the population in the UK.

  24. oh so it OK have foe cares what these so called council think or sayr the Muslim faith to have equality but not others – I dont think anyone really cares

  25. Not unexpected.

    We respect the rights to religious freedom and freedom from religion.

    We do not necessarily all agree with the manner with which they exercise these rights (but when they do not interfere with our rights to freedom from religion most of us have no issue with their freedoms).

    In the same way civil marriage has NOTHING whatsoever to do with any religion.

    Of course, those religions that persist in trying to interfere with civil marriage and equality are effectively interfering both with those who seek and expect freedom from religion and those same sex couples (and the religious organisations which support them) from exercising their freedom of religion by participating in marriage.

    Human rights are inate and transcend any state, religion or organisation.

  26. The government here wont listen to this nonsense. Civil law isn’t sharia law or any other religious law. Homophobia under the cover of religious beliefs. We have heard it all before. Let them get on with their medieval thoughts while we get on with real life.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Mar 2012, 4:38pm

      The government may not listen to this nonsense, but we have the unelected House of Lords to contend with. There are plenty of them opposed to marriage equality including 28 Anglican clerics of course. What if the civil marriage equality bill passes in Parliament and fails in the HoL? That’s why it’s important it isn’t rushed through. Hopefully, as the consultation progresses and done with, more will come out in support once they learn what is involved and that religious denominations have nothing to worry about.

  27. I find the remark by Mr. Singh quite paranoid. Equality for gay people is an attack on religion?

    Don’t they get that it’s not actually about them at all?

  28. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Mar 2012, 3:17pm

    My only concern is if marriage equality is passed, will it pass in the undemocratic HoL given the makeup of its body, 28 C of E clerics and some rabidly homophobes? What next if it doesn’t? Wait another two years and reintroduce it? Hearing all of this negativity coming from the religious nutters makes me wonder if it stands a chance.

    1. Mary Marriott 20 Mar 2012, 3:58pm

      Although there are 26 bishops in H of L they have a rota system and only 4 or 5 come on any given occasion – I believe .

      So that is quite good in terms of it passing.

      I do think Cameron feels he can get it thru both Houses for us

    2. Maybe it will lead to enough people being angry enough to get off their backsides and question why a load of UNELECTED people get to sit in a room and play an active role in a DEMOCRACY.

      I think it will pass though. However that would be my silver lining alternative.

  29. While I don’t like religion, I don’t hate religious people and I respect their beliefs. I just want my human rights thank you!

  30. Okay next time I’ll try to get all my thoughts in one post….

    Islam doesn’t own marriage so they have no say in this! Plain and simple haha.

  31. If religion defined who was eligible for marriage, we would have a number of different ages of consent to marry, and quite a lot of child brides around.

    The state decides who is eligible, quite rightly.

    1. Those child marriages are happening, and in Islington too. Our government’s craven Forced Marriages Unit declines to get involved, as the 10 year old girls are being married off in islamic religious ceremonies. The little girls are still being sold off by their families, to be raped by old men. And the racist feminists in our society just turn a blind eye, because it’s not their daughters being raped. Thank god the kurdish feminist group is publcising these things.

      1. Maybe the British Council of Muslims should be asked to comment on that too?

        1. THEN it would be none of *our* business.

          1. Time for a further Panorama, any journalists out there?

  32. Wiki on marriageable age: “55 countries are parties to the Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage, and Registration of Marriages, which requires them to specify a minimum marriage age by statute law, thus overriding customary, religious and tribal laws.
    When the marriageable age under a law of a religious community is lower than that of the state (“country”), the state law prevails. However, some religious communities do not accept the supremacy of State law in this respect.”

    1. So the battle between secular states and religions over who is eligible to marry is not new.

      No doubt some claim that having a minimum age is “an attack upon religion”.

  33. All of this from the different religious instituions and yet there is this story about the Catholic Chuch today
    The first line does make me laugh “The Vatican has expressed its “dismay and betrayal” at the “sinful and criminal acts” by Catholic clergy guilty of child abuse across Irelan”.

    Like they never knew it was going on! We can see straight through their lies!

  34. I am always suspicious of the tone of sweet reasonableness of the MCB. Don’t they habitually describe Imams who call for our deaths as ‘moderate’? What do they actually say when the Mosque door is shut?

    1. Homo occidens 20 Mar 2012, 8:56pm

      When the mosque door closes the sniffing each others malodorous
      ass begins. Oh, they call it prayer.

  35. Cutting the heads off of Christians is also “unnecessary and unhelpful” but Muslim terrorist still do that. Muslims need to stop doing that and they need to stop killing LGBT people for being gay.

  36. Islamic immigration is an ‘unnecessary and unhelpful’ exercise…

  37. He talks about how the Abrahamic faiths define marriage as between a man and a woman. Abraham was married to a woman, so that is true. But that woman was his sister, so is this how they want to define their marriages? Obviously they have accepted that marriage has to change from how their faith’s original version was, so why not accept another small change?

    1. It’s a slippery slope isn’t it. If we let those religious heterosexuals, marry then they’ll want to marry their sister.

      Oh no! Have I confused two separate arguments and ended up with bullsh¡t nonsense. How careless…

      1. Lol!

  38. “Like other Abrahamic faiths, marriage in Islam is defined as a union between a man and a woman”, although, of course, a man may collect such unions like kids football cards.

  39. Civil partnerships have almost (not all of) the same rights as full marriage, but they are worthless abroad.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Mar 2012, 5:34pm

      Absolutely right. There is no universal standard for CPs. Only two countries have them, the UK and a slightly watered down version in Ireland. No other country has replicated them or intends to, whereas there are now 10 countries with same-sex civil marriage and an 11th to follow shortly, i.e. Denmark in June 2012. The downside of CPs is that the portability issue is a big problem since more than half the rights of a CP aren’t reciprocated in the other varying degrees of legal unions for gay couples anywhere in the western world. I raised this issue in the consultation survey last week. Clearly there is a need for same-sex civil marriage.

    2. Maybe our country should only recognise as valid those marriages celebrated in countries that recognise all our marriages/cp’s.

  40. The MCB says: “We have total respect for gays and lesbians and we are delighted that there is a Civil Partnership Act. We believe that this gives gays and lesbians everything they need.”

    Oh yeah? This is the same MCB that was opposed to the introduction of civil partnerships back in 2006.

    The MCB has shown throughout its existence that it is a backwards organisation. It should be banned.

  41. If Muslims and Sikhs had a say in it, they would make forced marriages compulsory

    1. Dan – your comment is neither amusing, intelligent, nor well constructed. I recommend that you look at my post above and visit for a more enlightened view on religion and identity from a gay Sikh perspective. Thanks.

  42. Commander Thor 20 Mar 2012, 5:03pm

    “Like other Abrahamic faiths, marriage in Islam is defined as a union between a man and a woman.”

    Koran 4:3 “Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four.”

    4:50 “See, how they invent lies about Allah! That of itself is flagrant sin. “

  43. Jock S. Trap 20 Mar 2012, 5:56pm

    No surprise there then. What would they know when all they do know is how to discriminate.

    On another note to all esp those who think Ken Livingstone is a saint and worth voting for… He visited a mosque this weekend and this is the report…

    “KEN LIVINGSTONE has promised to turn London into a “beacon” for the words of the Prophet Mohammed in a sermon at one of the capital’s most controversial mosques.

    Mr Livingstone, Labour’s candidate for mayor of London, pledged to “educate the mass of Londoners” in Islam, saying: “That will help to cement our city as a beacon that demonstrates the meaning of the words of the Prophet.” Mr Livingstone described Mohammed’s words in his last sermon as “an agenda for all humanity.”

    He praised the Prophet’s last sermon, telling his audience: “I want to spend the next four years making sure that every non-Muslim in London knows and understands [its] words and message.””

    Still feel safe voting for Ken? At least you don’t get this from Boris!

    1. That’s right there are only TWO people you can vote for…

      1. Jock S. Trap 21 Mar 2012, 6:00pm

        Way to miss the point, Joss.

        In any case there’s only one person getting my vote May 3rd and that will be Boris. He does what’s best for London and Londoners without being devisive. Ken only looks out for Ken and his cronies, End of!

        1. I’ve missed the point. That’s rich coming from someone who is making a completely off topic point in the first place

          1. Jock S. Trap 22 Mar 2012, 10:57am

            Never mind, love!

          2. Staircase2 26 Mar 2012, 2:15am

            It’s called ‘Jock works for Boris’ (he often puts in off-topic anti-Kenisms pretending to be conversation…)

    2. Staircase2 26 Mar 2012, 2:14am

      You are bloody well OBSESSED with Ken Livingston – why don’t you come out with it and tell us you work for Boris’s campaign…?

  44. A group of rabid homophobes who regularly advocate our oppression and murder announce their opposition to our equality. Well, I’m shocked.

    1. Lynda Yilmaz 20 Mar 2012, 10:28pm

      Unfortunately, they don’t just advocate oppression and murder. Check out what actually goes on in ALL the muslim countries. Ken Livingstone is an imbecile if he believes Mohammed’s words are ‘an agenda for humanity’ not just an imbecile, but an uniformed imbecile. Agenda for humanity? I’m almost choking with indignation. Legal rape, child rape (in the guise of temporary marriage and under age marriages, government sanctioned targeting of anyone who ‘looks’ gay, stoning to death (mostly women), executions for the ‘crime’ of being gay, The list goes on and on – . In the UK at least I can’t understand why all these religious groups think they have a right to even have an opinion on what is or is not law. Don’t they realise how utterly irrelevant their archaic beliefs and practices are to a modern humanistic world?

  45. Bullying Muslims ‘unnecessary and unhelpful’ and unwanted – backward, women hating, thugs who are so ignorant they have to hide behind hateful superstitions and have no notion of the word equality!

  46. “The Muslim disregard for facts, of how treatment by Muslims of non-Muslims in their midst compares with the treatment Muslims receive among non-Muslims in the West, is obscene.

    The lives and properties of non-Muslim minorities – for instance, the Copts in Egypt – are mostly insecure just about everywhere in the Arab-Muslim world.

    Muslims have engaged in the mass murders of Muslims, and the list is painfully long.

    Muslim atrocities against non-Muslims – Bahais, Christians, Hindus, and Jews – have a long insufferable history, and they continue without any UN effort mobilized to protect the victims.

    In remaining silent and in refusing to publicly condemn atrocities committed in the name of Islam, Muslims, especially those in the West, cannot plead innocence.”

    ____ Salim Mansur

  47. johnny33308 20 Mar 2012, 6:57pm

    Yet another religion that is filled with prejudice and bigotry! Surprise! Religion needs to be extinguished for the good of humanity….it is always used to harm and never to save…no good EVER comes of it in the least!

  48. For the Muslim Council to pretend that there is a single, eternal definition of marriage which we gays are now trying to subvert is so infuriating it’s hilarious.

    This is, after all, the same Muslim Council’s whose member imams routinely perform nikah (religious marriages) for men who are already married to one or more wives.

    Will the Muslim Council now abandon its effort to “redefine marriage” in Britain? Will it stop encouraging polygyny and start condemning it, out of respect for the British tradition that marriage is between two people only? Somehow I doubt it.

    In the meantime, the hypocrisy is breathtaking.

    1. Not forgetting that our minimum age requirement may also impinge on religious definitions of marriage.

  49. Roberto Franciosa 20 Mar 2012, 8:19pm

    I think this is all hot air. Within about five years of a free, just and happy society, the only controversy involving mosques and equal marriage will be whether a Sikh guy can marry a Muslim guy on the premises. And even then, I’m sure they’ll reach a compromise.

  50. Homo occidens 20 Mar 2012, 8:51pm

    It’s what I was hoping for all day, the view of the muslims on gay marrage. The hypocitical bastards have some balls even voicing an opinion on the matter. Hey, at least the pope and his gang dress nice and have financed for some really fine art feathering naked men. The last thing in this world that would change my mind about anything is the muslim point of view.

  51. David Thorstad 20 Mar 2012, 8:55pm

    Very sensible criticism of same-sex marriage. I have additional objections, including the fact that it involves mostly middle- and upper-class homosexuals, and discriminates further against singles by making us subsidize the special rights couples who get state approval enjoy. The state should not be involved in the marriage business. That should be private and/or religious. True equality would mean that ALL citizens are treated equally before the law and the state, and couples would not be given special privileges. It is a lie to use the term “marriage equality” in this conservative, conventional, nonliberation campaign.

    1. I thought like you until a few months ago. If I pay the same taxes as everyone I expect to be treated equally. Reduce my tax and I’ll take a CP.

      1. What changed your mind, if I might ask? I thought the same too, that marriage generally was outdated and irrelevant and should have nothing to do with the state except as regards children. But now I find myself trying to ignore the perfectly rational arguments I came up with to support that position, because I can’t think up a justification for marriage that isn’t purely emotional. I now want to keep marriage, I want it extended to me, and I want to get married myself. And I don’t know why.

        1. Because it is segregation! I don’t want a traditional marriage and I’m much more inclined to Peter Tatchells CPP idea, but tbh I don’t like the fact that we have such segregation between straight and gay in modern society so I will fight for marriage equality.

  52. No respect for any religion that does not respect me. Especially annoyed at a religion that is not indigenous to the UK … Why don’t you take your barbaric practices and crawl back to the hole you originated from!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Mar 2012, 4:24pm

      Christianity is a foreign import too brought to England by the Roman cultists. We had NO “christian” religion before they imposed it on us.

  53. I really wish these religious groups would keep their noses out of my non-religious life! I don’t go to church or any other place of prayer. So in my opinion this gives them no rights to tell me how I should be living my life!

  54. What next ??? …mainstream christian churches supporting muslim honour killings of gays and lesbians ?

    1. GingerlyColors 21 Mar 2012, 6:46am

      Honour murders, not killings.

  55. No wonder that ISLAM is a backward and unprogressive religion.

    Look at the Middle East. As long as Islam remains like it is, the future of the Middle East nations will continue to blocked from moving forward and building a better future for themselves.

    Muslims must speak up again and demand change.

  56. GingerlyColors 21 Mar 2012, 6:45am

    Since when we’ve been a Muslim country?

    1. Rachel Haytread 21 Mar 2012, 7:50pm

      You mean you have not noticed?

  57. Dr Robin Guthrie 21 Mar 2012, 11:06am

    If you want Islam, then p!ss off back to your dustbowl of a country.

  58. Speaking of unnecessary and unhelpful, how is Muslim justice giving us an example?

    Please sign this Avaaz petition:

  59. Paddyswurds 21 Mar 2012, 2:30pm

    Isn’t it time we rethought the whole freedom of religion thing. I mean it is clearly becoming a detriment to the peace and stability of not only our country and it’s citizens, but the stability of the entire world. I would not advocate restrictions on thought but all public utterance of religion, which is a lifestyle choice, should be made completely illegal and punishable by imprisonment…special delusion jails perhaps…just a thought. Religion should never have any influence on schools and faith schools should also be abolished. While some may say it is a generalisation to say that all religious are bigots and socially divisive, none the less, proof to the contrary is becoming, to say the least, as rare as hens teeth. Why do we not have more religious standing up for human rights and speaking out against their religions homophobia and bigotry, than we have religious bigots if the generalisation isn’t valid?

  60. I find the MBC’s comments the definitive example of both unnecessary and unhelpful. Who asked them anyway?

    1. Question is, why do they even exist?

      The MCB came abour during devolution, in which all nations and regions, except England, devolved. The so-called goody party (Labour), then gave England the MCB. I do not recognize it as a part of our democracy and it shouldn’t even exist.

      Supporting the MCB (a council that was forced upon our country) would be the ultimate suicide, not just for gay right but for everyone’s rights. Sure there is an argument about Muslim rights but then there is the counter-argument that Islam is supremacist by nature and persecution is perfectly justified.

      The flaw of political correctness.

      The Tories are also fooling everyone.

      *eats popcorn.

  61. I find recognising Muslim marriages “unnecessary and unhelpful”. It always astounds me how Muslim clerics condemn the Torah and the Bible as being wrong and how God had to give His word again to humanity in the form of the Koran, the supposedly correct, uncorrupted form, and then go on to argue against same sex marriage based on “incorrect” and “corrupted” scriptures. Do Muslim clerics spend a lot of time studying “corrupted” scriptures? Is it not haraam for them to look to these “corrupted” scriptures for morality?

  62. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Mar 2012, 4:26pm

    At least the muslim council’s rhetoric hasn’t been caustic on the marriage equality issue. We can all agree to disagree with them, but compared to the hate coming from the two ringleaders in hatred and bigotry, the CoE and the Roman cults, it pales.

    1. The CoE and the RC Church do not threaten to kill us if we speak our minds; Sharia does.

      We need more people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali… more people who will encourage nominal muslims to walk away from that religion and to defend human rights rather than dogma and untestable propositions.

    2. Give me a break…..-Jonpol is so right! You can’t even compare Islam with the COE or RC church. Try living in Saudi or Iran with STATE sanctioned beheadings in the town squares for gay acts….now that ‘pales’ with anything the Christian leaders say!…take a reality check!

  63. isnt saying that civil partnerships are good enough for gays and lesbians a bit like saying that allowing blacks to be considered full people under the law is good enough for them.

  64. ISLAM & all its backward ideology is the scary future of the UK & EURABIA. Welcome to ingrained homophobia, repression of women, honour killings, female circumcision, forced muslim conversions, sharia law & the list goes on. Over 90% of new immigrants to UK/EU are from muslim countries with many majority muslim areas already. We need to follow Holland & stop this religion making inroads now or being unable to marry as gay men will be the least of our worries!

    1. Agreed, the future for london looks especially bleak.

  65. The MCB just made my list of ‘Organisations that can go get stuffed’,along with the catholic church and the US republican party.

  66. Staircase2 26 Mar 2012, 2:22am

    Once again I am appalled at how so many of the regulars on here (especially) have used the fact of a story about Muslim homophobia as an excuse to vent your own bigotry, racism and Islamophobia.

    The way a few people have picked up on Lord Singh’s ignorant pontification and used it to bash Sikhs in general is similarly disgusting….

    THINK PEOPLE – If you can’t control your own bigotry, intolerance & racism how on EARTH do you expect other people to do it…?

    It was good to hear from Jay in answer to the Sikh faith’s traditional philosophy towards gay people and the way it has been twisted and corrupted by British Victorian influence during British Colonialism.

    James(!)’s comments re the EDL were absolutely disgusting and should be removed by Pink News immediately on grounds of incitement to hatred.

    1. Your comment is full of fail. You are an idiot. That is all.

  67. Israel with 6-7 million people has more scientists than the one billion plus muslims in the world. Wonder why..?

    Muslims are stealing the language of the real oppressed when they claim “islamophobia” – which of course doesn’t exist. Rightfully critisism of islam exists.

  68. Errol Semple 19 Apr 2012, 12:23am

    Go back to your barbaric country.

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.