Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Tory MP tells constituent marriage equality could mean ‘polygamy and child marriages’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. The “slippery slope”, a logical fallacy relied upon by the poorly educated to pander to, and impress, the ignorant.

    No, it won’t. Any more than heterosexual marriage leads to those things.

    Legal competence is a requirement of de facto contracts like marriage. And no, making marriage gender blind does not open the door to multiple partner marriages (which I have no objection to – but lots of luck getting bigamists to agree on what they want, countries that still allow polygamy do so because women are chattel. Does that sound like the UK?)

    It’s a lie, a smokescreen, an act of mendacious nonsense, and his party should b!tch slap him for it (I won’t hold my breath).

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Apr 2012, 6:38pm

      Bitch slap? That’ll be the day! Cameron isn’t confrontational enough. If he ever did, the “christian” bigots would scream their religious beliefs are under attack, the usual victim card. Any sane person in the UK knows that polygamy is illegal and would never be tolerated. Such claims are the acts of desperate people who can’t come up with a rational argument. None of them can separate religious from civil, their brains haven’t evolved obviously.

      1. Cameron isnt brave enough to discipline his MPs

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Apr 2012, 6:50pm

          Quite right, he isn’t. He doesn’t want to be the one accused of being intolerant. Nobody yet has the courage to stand up against these vile bigots.

          1. Let them speak and “out” themselves. It’s better they reveal their true nature to the world, rather than pretend to be decent human beings.

        2. But he is brave enough to promote a sort of “right” to “self-determination” for some people, while denying the same for others who are not as closely related genetically to himself… go figure…

    2. The idea that polygamy is a bad thing is fairly nonsensical too.

      1. Polygamy can be abusive (research shows it is more likely to be manipulative and controlling) – although not in every case.

        1. FranklyBewildered 21 Apr 2012, 8:58am

          That can be true of marriage generally, though. (manipulating and controlling)

          1. It is certainly true that any relationship (married, monogamous, polygamous or otherwise) can be manipulative and controlling.

            There is some research which shows that there is a higher incidence of control and abuse in polygamous relationships. Although, it does not come to any firm conclusion as to the reason. Therefore, polygamy itself may not be the reason that abuse occurs. It could be cultural. It could be for other reasons.

          2. FranklyBewildered 22 Apr 2012, 7:25am

            Excellently put, Stu. By the way. I wasn’t condoning polygamy as such. But I know a hetero friend who would be better off getting out of a marital ‘prison’ of the mind and the comment about manipulation and control rang bells. If marriage isn’t about mutual love and respect it is no good to anyone. But that is no reason to deny it to those who want it.

          3. It is about making polygamous relationships as equal as other relationships, if they get the same benefits they will also get the same protections as one on one married couples (domestic abuse help etc).

        2. Statistics are irrelevant to the individual situation, you’re linking polygamy to what’s typically seen as polygamy (in somwhat patriarchal societies).
          Again,if people enter these relationships voluntarily I fail to see how anyone can judge it as bad, for reasons other than that’s what the TV told them to think.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Apr 2012, 6:40pm

      That they suggest polygamy, child marriages, incest and bestiality reveals exactly where their minds are, in the gutter. Who else but they obsess over gay issues and gay sex? Theirs is a very desperate attempt to justify discrimination by keeping us from civil marriage. They can’t come up with one plausible, rationale. The polygamy nonsense is merely a red herring to score points and garner more signatures for C4M at any cost. They’re not interested in the truth obviously since they have to resort to lying about who we are. They don’t even have any factual evidence to support their absurd claims. I wish someone would demand proof. I wonder what they consider to be the reason for the uniquely heterosexual phenomenon of serial adultery and divorce in the UK, prior to the marriage consultation? Who would they choose to blame? How many polygamous marriages exist in the UK and can they identify the group of people who demand it?

  2. The shame here if on those who voted for this intellectual retard.

    1. That Tory has the black propaganda thing down on how to make LGBT people look bad. These nut jobs get their training from MI5 or CIA who has been in these groups and are teaching the anti gay Christians and people in all levels of government how to use psychological warfare and black ops against gay people or any one who they thing they need to attack. Some of these people are really crazy stalkers out to destroy LGBT people or any body the Terrorist Christians do not like. I am sure you can think of a few people and groups they attack.

      1. You have serious paranoia issues, calm down christians aren’t particularly nice to us but I somehow doubt they have MI5 or CIA training. Can you provide proof?

    2. Seriously!! You said that right!

  3. How can we have possibly “exhausted the cause of equal rights” when we haven’t achieved equal rights?

    What he means is, he hopes we become EXHAUSTED and give up pursuing any more equality. He wants us to give up hope and settle for what we’ve got.

    I have news for the good Cllr. we haven’t even BEGUN to fight and, mark my words, those who oppose us will exhaust and give up LONG before we will. BET ON IT!

    The cause of justice and those who fight for it, in the history of man, have NEVER exhausted and given up before those who would deny it!

    1. “How can we have possibly “exhausted the cause of equal rights” when we haven’t achieved equal rights?”

      This is code for . . .

      * Understand that you are a second class citizen
      * Do not try and move above your station,
      * You cannot be on equal footing with heterosexuality

      1. That is exactly what it is code for.

        He can move along because his train left the station long ago and equality is going to happen!

      2. You are so right. The response was so argument . he is miffed because he thinks we should be grateful because we were giving second class civil unions.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Apr 2012, 6:42pm

      Hayden, he’s delusional if he thinks we’ll give up. In fact, his spurious, disgusting allusions to polygamy and child marriages only embolden us. What amazes me is that nobody has challenged them to prove what they’re saying, nobody.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Apr 2012, 7:16pm

      He’s a homophobe of course but he’ll deny it saying he has gay friends or he supports CPs and people are gullible enough to fall for it. Many C4M supporters support CPs but that doesn’t mean they’re not homophobic, such a thing is sometimes called bigotry. Anything but marriage for gays, that’s how they think and what they believe. Bradshaw’s damaging comments recently didn’t help matters either, almost as bad as McCartney’s. They’re gloating over that one too and have posted it on their petition site to justify opposition. They’re nothing more than a hate group and McCartney is a hate-monger, not fit for office.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Apr 2012, 7:26pm

        What is disheartening is that there is no apparent evidence to suggest that the Tory Party overwhelmingly support equal marriage. I just haven’t seen it. If the bill emanating from the consultation fails, it will be because of strong Tory opposition which will guarantee its own defeat in 2015 and Francis Maude’s prediction will have become a reality for them. It’s appalling to think that people like McCartney are quite prepared to see their party go down in flames over this one issue. Obviously he has no concept of what pragmatism means. He’d rather sacrifice his party for his religious beliefs. I guarantee he won’t get re-elected after this since he refuses to represent all of his constituents. Another reason why he is unfit to be an MP. He only just scraped by in the last election. His days are numbered.

        1. I don’t think he even has the integrity to sacrifice anything for his religious beliefs. I think he is one of a great many people who live in a very small world where gay rights is fine as long as it’s kept to the confines of Soho & Canal St. etc. Besides, it’s a great votes winner & everybody’s doing the ‘we love the gays’ bit nowadays so it’s not too radical for the old boys & dears down the legion. Realising that gay rights effects & is important to more people than a couple of gay blokes a lesbian in the corner really doesn’t occur to him. But allowing us to get married? Well that brings it a bit too close for comfort. In his tiny little world everybody’s up in arms about it & he doesn’t much like the idea of it either, I mean if this goes ahead they’ll be turning up to St. Johns demanding disco balls are hung from the 15th century beams in the naive & all sorts! Yes this doesn’t look good, time to take a stand before telling his kids about the birds & the bees means gay stuff too.

  4. Another Tory showing their contempt for a simple demand for equal recognition.
    Interestingly this argument was put forward in the past against when it came to the proposals around civil partnership by the current mayor of London, good old Boris!

  5. Lincoln council – its time you did a Thanet!

    David Cameron – you need to stamp down your authority on your homophobes!

    1. It’s not Lincoln Council. He’s the M.P. for Lincoln.

      1. Ian

        What I think Dan is saying is that when the MP for Thanet made homophobic comments related to marriage, the response of Thanet council was to made a public declaration of support for same sex couples marrying. This is something Lincoln Council could do to counteract the bogus comments of the MP in Lincoln.

    2. Sister Mary Clarence 21 Apr 2012, 3:13pm

      Dan, I’m guessing he’s probably not going to be destined for great things in the party, if he spews cr@p like this. More likely we’ll seem him getting dragged around like a sack of coal on Strictly in a year or two.

  6. What a clown. Another member of the small government and freedom of the individual party. If you must disagree with marriage equality at least try and advance arguments that don’t make you look a buffoon.

    There were people like this around when universal suffrage was being sought.

  7. It’s a tossup as to which is more outdated, his views or his haircut :-D

    1. I was wondering why Rick Astley was so against marriage equality then I read the photo caption.

      1. Yes, thought the same … put on a bit of weight though obviously but 20 years does that to us all.

  8. it appears the MP does not understand the issue nor did mine originally but after i clarified him the issue and directed him to the consultation he said he will take time to read it and write me a response next week.

    Remember they are inanduated with emails from religious groups repeating lies and propaganda make sure you email back and refute the claims.

    1. I agree that we should be pro-active in the face of adversity. But what I find not good enough is that this is a high profile move made by a conservative PM, and a conservative MP is so ignorant as to something that is being proposed by his own party which has been subject to much debate in the media for the past 3 months. In particular, in his letter he uses the tired argument that Church’s shouldn’t be forced to marry same sex couples, this weeks after both the Lynne Featherstone and Theresa May have publicly and repeatedly stated that this is involves only civil marriage.

      I hope that he looks into this further but from his letter I really think he’s too much of a bigot and too lazy to care.

      1. It wasn’t high profile until someone published the letter. Im guessing the constituent didn’t reply to his letter with her own as there is no further reply.

        He brings shame to his political party and hes not worthy of the title conservative. I hope the local Tory members call for his resignation and challenge his seat in Parliament to make someone who reflects the values of the party better.

        1. I disagree that it wasn’t high profile. The letter is less than a fortnight old, 3 weeks after the public consultation began. This has been the cover/major story in the Daily Mail almost every day (my parents buy it, I live in hope some day they’ll see the light) and the Telegraph, Express etc for months. It’s been on every major political show at least once. You can’t have a passing interest in politics in this country and not be aware of the controversy it’s caused. If you’re going to write a letter rejecting a request from constituent the least he could do is log onto the consultation webpage and look skim the bullet points setting out the proposals.

          1. thats what im saying, is he aware that there is a consultation document available which specifically outlines what is and what is not being done. He needs to be educated on the proposals and hopefully he will accept what is being proposed rather then what he thinks is being proposed.

  9. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Apr 2012, 6:05pm

    Somebody should have asked the halfwit what has religion to do with civil marriage which has no religious component? Would he have entered into a CP if they were available to straights? I doubt it. If not, why not if he thinks they’re equal to civil marriage?

  10. As none of these things have happened in the countries that have allowed full equality, the man is clearly (a) a liar (b) a fool or (c) a bigot.

    There’s always (d) All of the above.

    His argument is the desperate recourse of the dull witted.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Apr 2012, 6:19pm

      Time and time again, nobody ever asks these idiots for the factual evidence. Equal civil marriage is now 11 years old in Holland, the first country to introduce it. He should be asked to provide a Dutch governmental document pointing to the occurrence of polygamous, bestial, incestuous and child marriages taking place in that country, or any of them where we can marry. Why doesn’t anybody go after these jackasses? I suspect there are many in his party who support his views, maybe a majority. We’ll find out if and when a bill ever reaches Parliament for a vote. If it fails, then we’ll know who can take responsiblity for that don’t we? He’s parrotting everying C4M is saying.

  11. polygamist 20 Apr 2012, 6:09pm

    The argument that marriage equality could lead to multi-partner marriages has come up again and again, yet no-one has given any reasons why that this would be a bad thing.

    multi partner relationships are more complicated and they don’t work for everyone, but that doens’t automatically mean that they are bad!! (our legal system, our tax system et al. are beyond the scope of most citizens but we don’t just shrug them off!)

    I have two boyfriends and I love them both very much. We live together, sleep in the same bed. Share cooking and cleaning duties and work to provide for our “family”. Is our relationship less valid because it’s not traditional? Does it harm society?

    1. This is very true. It’s a salutary example of how rational consideration can overturn unconsidered prejudice. I used to have the usual instinctive knee-jerk opposition to polygamous relationships, before I sat down and asked myself “what’s the harm?”

      The answer, of course, is that there isn’t any. Not with the idea of polygamy per se. In practise most examples do involve considerable harm. We always think of things like islamic polygyny in which the subjugation of women is central, but just because some ways of doing polygamy can be harmful, that doesn’t mean they all are. Some ways of doing monogamy are harmful, and for similar reasons. The prevalence of harmful polygamous arrangements may well make the implementation of legislation to allow polygamous marriage somewhat harder to manage, but it’s no reason to ban it outright.

      Child marriage and inter-species marriage are, of course, different. Because they do always involve an element of harm. Which is what matters.

      1. Though I do have to wonder at the practicalities involved in achieving such a situation. I’ve spent the ten years since I came out looking as hard as I can, and I haven’t even managed to get one boyfriend. Two at once is a bit greedy don’t you think?!

        1. Ha, ha, ha…. Cute comment. But there is nothing greedy about sharing love and life in a healthy way. Much better to buildup the blessed than rip them down. If you cannot achieve what you want, maybe a healthy look at self, with support of therapy if necessary, could help.

          Good on your boys and girls. Wish I could be so blessed too.

    2. Keith Farrell 20 Apr 2012, 10:20pm

      You have to chose between buying an Alfa or getting a wife, either way you are going to have a lot of problems, what I don’t understand is why one man would want to marry more than one woman, does he not get enough s$%t from one woman.
      A gay 3 way, can be fun, but again apart from the sex, you cannot build a good relationship with either one without hurting the other. I have one husband and that is enough, It is very hard work making a relationship work with just one husband.

      1. Good for you and your one husband, but love is the foundation and sex may or may not be part of that. Most relationships are built on love and sharing that love, not sex. I have never decided any relationship I have ever had based on sex but on campatibility. Healthy well balanced relationships are often the expression of healthy well balanced people; and If you are basing a relationship on sex, thearpy may be necessary. In ife we have and manage many relationship with people, why is it so inconcievable to permit polygamist relationships that are healty.

        I have never patricipated in a polygamist relationship, and have been with my partner for 14 years; however, I completely support , given I have observed one between three loving people, healthy ploygamist relationships where partners are in agreement and equal.

        1. I don’t deny for some people polygamy can work – equally for others it can be a devastating occurance.

          As long as it is consensual, I personally have no issue with it.

          However, I do not believe the debate about same sex couple marrying is linked to a debate on polygamy. They are separate debates, mainly from separate groups of people. I may support consensual polygamy if proposals are brought forward, but NOT piggy backing on a same sex marriage proposal.

    3. Thank you for this. I have two partners as well and we balance all our needs in a thoughtful and conciderate way. Poly relationships aren’t for everyone and boy do they help you develop your communication skills!

  12. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Apr 2012, 6:13pm

    ‘He told his constituent gay people have “exhausted the cause of equal rights and have now picked on an issue which would possibly only affect a few thousand people every year, whilst also uprooting thousands of years of Christian tradition.’

    He’s a typical bloody arrogant Tory ‘christian’ right winger, how much clearer does it get? He’s totally incapable of discerning what is civil and what is religious. Stop apologising for him by claiming he’s inundated with emails from religious groups. He’s already said that the arguments in the BHA text used by the constituent that ‘its arguments could end up in polygamous and child marriages.’ The same vile mantra used by the religious bigots of C4M and their allies in the CoE and Roman cult.

  13. Karl McCartney clearly does not value equality.

    Karl McCartney clearly is a homophobe.

    There has been no developments leading to “polygamous and child marriages” in any of the other countries that have permitted same sex couples to marry and his suggestion this would happen in England and Wales is offensive, disingenuous and bigoted.

    He may be of the view that “majority of people in same sex relationships are happy with the current arrangements” – but even if true, this is not a reason for preventing equality for those who seek it. In any event I believe his perception is bogus and false.

    Dan is entirely right, Lincoln council need to organise a public meeting and publically support equal marriage.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Apr 2012, 6:28pm

      He’ll defend the homophobia charge by saying he has gay friends of course. All of those right wing so called ‘christian’ bigots of C4M , probably the majority are Tories, can’t even produce one shred of evidence to support their statement in regard to polygamous or incestuous marriage occuring since same-sex marriage was first introduced in Holland. It annoys me that nobody ever asks them. It’s beyond bigoted. He doesn’t even realise that heterosexual polygamy among other aberrant behaviours is illegal in almost all countries with the exception of some Islamic societies. It’s not just homophobia coming from this vile man, it’s also fear-mongering and pandering to the worst of bigotry and hypocrisy. He should be admonished and compelled to come forward with any evidence to support his ridiculous but offensive remarks.

    2. At least he is consistent with his party’s ethos and vast majority of their members and electorate think exactly like him. He is open and honest about it. The opposite of those trying to cover up the party’s past to fabricate an image of tolerance that won’t ever exist.

  14. Mumbo Jumbo 20 Apr 2012, 6:18pm

    And you and your kind have exhausted my patience.

  15. David Nicholls 20 Apr 2012, 6:21pm

    For all of the posturing and proclamations of the various religions claiming ownership of the institution, it is a simple fact that marriage does not belong to them. They are welcome to hold their own views on marriage, just as individuals can hold views based on their own moral and ethical beliefs, but at the point at which they deny others the right to have their own beliefs be they individual, societal or even state, they then fall into the camp of bigots and hypocrites. How religions can possibly believe that they are in any position provide moral guidance to society at large is beyond me.

  16. Christopher Hobe Morrison 20 Apr 2012, 6:42pm

    There are legitimate arguments for multiple marriages if people are of the age and condition to freely consent, but people who advocate this seem to want to allow multiple women to marry one man. Multiple marriage would only be acceptable if several men were allowed to marry one women, or maybe if several men were allowed to marry several women. If people haven’t reached the age of consent or if they have certain medical or psychiatric conditions it means they haven’t lawfully given their consent. If anyone says that a younger age is all right in cases where parents give their permission, it should be pointed out that in many forced marriages the parents are happy for the marriage to take place but the bride and groom aren’t. This Tory has not thought of this, as is the case for many Tories, who are simply trying to appease certain constituencies rather than thinking for themselves.

    1. Bisexual woman in Edinburgh 21 Apr 2012, 6:23pm

      There is a strong difference between cultural polygamy, which as you observe is usually polygyny and exploitative of women, and freely-chosen polyamory, where multi-partner relationships exist in spite of social opposition and are no more exploitative than any monogamous relationship (and after all, all relationships have the potential to be exploitative). I’m monogamous myself, but a number of my friends are in happy, supportive polyamorous relationships.

      As for forced marriage, it’s legal in England. The government is fighting shy of criminalising it, on the grounds that people might be less likely to come forward. It’s no doubt the same reason why marital rape was legal until a few decades ago.

      1. and its very easy to get a forced CP, you don’t even have to speak the vows just sign the bit of paper and your married. People might not know what they are signing such as not being able to read english, or read at all, people being too intoxicated (either voluntary or involuntarily) to understand what is happening etc.

  17. “… exhausted the cause of equal rights …”

    In other words: you can have some rights, but not all the ones I enjoy.

    “… whilst also uprooting thousands of years of Christian tradition”

    The tradition in question is the denial of equality and removal of rights enjoyed by the majority.

    “and its 425 000 plus signatories – the largest petition since the General Election – which would indicate that many of the general public in our Country are not on your side in this regard”

    Would indicate the 425,000 people are not on our side. Out of 60,000,000.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Apr 2012, 9:07pm

      Harry, the problem with these people such as McCartney and even Bradshaw is that they believe we already have full equality via CPs. Bradshaw isn’t much better either.

  18. It is true to say that Britain is predominantly christian, but it is not true to say that all British Christians oppose gay marriage; not only the Quakers but many CofE followers and even some Catholics support marriage equality.
    Regardless of this, the U.K. practices freedom of religion, which also means freedom from religion. If a person believe that same sex marriage is immoral then they have every right to abstain from marrying someone of their own gender, but why should people who don’t share those beliefs be forced to comply with them?
    Considering that none of the claimed apocalyptic consequences of marriage equality have occurred in those countries where it is already legal (most of which are more devoutly Christian than Britain by the way) and given the complete void of credible statistical evidence to demonstrate gay marriage as harmful, it is logical to assume that the only genuine negative of marriage equality is that people who are offended by it will continue to be

    1. offended.
      And if all it takes to ban an activity is that it be offensive to someone, should we then ban interracial marriage if it offends racists? Should we ban religion if it offends atheists, or vice versa?
      NB When I say predominantly Christian (much of that is nominal)

      1. Is that all your post Stu or is it it the one you part nicked off the huffingtonpost comments that was posted 5 hours ago?

        http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/social/Mneme/karl-mccartney-gay-marriage_n_1439781_149299830.html

        1. Its a post I agreed with and deserved a wider audience.

          1. Ah so it’s not actually yours, therefore you should have credited it to the Author. Surly you would know about these things, what with being a Former Police Officer for a short time.

          2. @aiden

            Perhaps I should have credited the author. That was arguably remiss of me.

            Of course. you have your childish attempt at a snide dig at my former career with a totally irrelevant comment. Hardly a criminal matter.

            Now, since you CLAIM to know so much about me thorugh your CLAIMED conspiracy to breach the data protection act about me.

            You say my police career was short. Well how short was it; I’ll even let you have multiple choice:

            a) 4 years b) 5 years c) 6 years d) 7 years

          3. I noticed your guess Aiden, replied to it below

            You were wrong in your lies.

          4. Aiden, you are dealing with a megalomaniac nationalist, a defender of colonialism and imperial conquests. You are dealing with that sort of person, who also seeks positions of power to enforce their ideas… so no surprises there… everything these kind of people do is legal and legitimate in their eyes…

          5. Beberts

            You are either a troll, or self hating, if you support or encourage the white supremacist ways of Aiden!

          6. I’m not encouraging anything. I just find nacional supremacy as bad as colour supremacy. Someone has been challenged about their defence of colonialism, and they failed miserably. So if this this kind of person thinks the moral high ground is on their side, they should think again.

          7. Beberts

            Stu has not said any of the things you have tried to suggest of him on other stories.

            Only in your mind has he failed to answer anything, because he does not have to justify anything to you.

            Your siding with Aiden demonstrates how vindictive and immature you are.

            No moral LGBT person could support Aiden.

          8. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don’t have to agree with some people’s version of beauty just because they happen to be gay like me. People who are as unethical as Aiden is don’t deserve my sympathy.

  19. Ironically the countries where polygamy IS legal tend to be the ones which consider gayness a capital offence, funny how those who keep pointing to the slippery slope argument tend to forget that.

    1. Doesn’t polygamy apply to ISLAM. They are well known for having many wives.

      Which is all of the Middle East.

      1. Mormons too!

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Apr 2012, 2:58pm

          Only a handful of Islamic countries permit up to four wives at a time, not all of them, the majority don’t.

          Mormons abolished polygamy in the late 1890s but there is an offshoot of it which still practices it.

  20. Some days I read stories that just make me slightly embarrassed of being a Tory! Its people like this that do the Party a real disservice. He doesn’t represent the view of the party and it also goes to show that a lack of logic and common sense does not exclude you from becoming an MP! Perhaps the Ballot box should be accompanied by name, party and IQ!

    1. Why on EARTH are you a member of a party that hates you?

      David Cameron makes the right noises but his party is the party of hatred and bigotry.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Apr 2012, 9:04pm

      Sven, are you absolutely sure most in the Tory party support equal marriage? I don’t think that’s the case. We’ve only had three political Tory figures, aside from Cameron, declare unequivocal support, i.e. Theresa May, Francis Maude and Boris Johnson. Why aren’t others speaking up and admonishing the bigots in their party I wonder?

      1. When I did a internet search on Tory MPs supporting equal marriage a couple of weeks back – I found 35 who openly supported and only 10 who openly rejected. The rest were “undecided” or unwilling to say.

        1. New Aussie 21 Apr 2012, 2:06am

          I would guess that some of the undecideds may genuinely be undecided but the rest are canny enough to know that stating their outright opposition to gay rights is a vote loser in the UK these days.

      2. Robert

        As confident as I can be.

        The Conservative party has more openly LGBT MPs than all other parties put together.

        The joint founder of the Conservative Christian Fellowship actively supports equal marriage.

        In terms of leading Conservatives, I have seen support from:
        David Cameron, Theresa May, William Hague, Boris Johnson, Francis Maude, Eric Pickles, Andrew Mitchell, Jeremy Hunt, Sir George Young … and I could go on …

        Then there are new MPs such as Gavin Barwell, Stuart Andrew etc

        I remain convinced the majority will support equal marriage.

      3. Theresa May didn’t support marriage equality until she came into power, and Cameron only when he became leader of the Tory party. I wouldn’t trust any of them to protect our rights if they had a chance to scrap em.

  21. In what way have social morals and decency taken a decline in the last few decades?

    We are a more charitable, socially responsible (domestically and internationally), compassionate, inclusive society than at any time in our history; we should be proud of these developments and encourage their continuation.

  22. He is my MP for Lincoln an he promised at the hustings before his election, that LGBT rights were safe in Tory hands. He is a liar. Please all sign this petition:
    http://www.change.org/petitions/karl-mccartney-must-retract-his-comments-on-gay-marriage

    1. Signed! ;-)

    2. Signed.

    3. Dr Robin Guthrie 20 Apr 2012, 7:55pm

      Signed

    4. Religion is insanity in trolls. 20 Apr 2012, 8:46pm

      signed

    5. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Apr 2012, 9:02pm

      Ian, thank you for posting the link. Signed!

      Since he’s your MP, if you get a chance to speak to him, ask him if he can provide the evidence to support his claim that polygamy and child marriages will occur or have occurred since Holland first introduced equal marriage eleven years ago. He owes us an apology, big time. What he was implying is vile, disgusting, offensive and insulting to all gay people. If he doesn’t know the laws of his own country, he shouldn’t be in public office. Polygamy is illegal in the UK and so is child marriage. That he equates us with heralding such absurdities demands a retraction, but he won’t claiming those are his religious beliefs.

      1. It’s his view and opinion and he is entitled to it. Just as I am mine.

        1. Sorry Aiden but no. He publicly, at the hustings before his election, PROMISED that he would fully support LGBT equality. He lied to his constituents.

      2. I most certainly shall. 4th may at his surgery.

    6. Why should ne retract his opnion just because you dont agree with it? We all know that ‘equal marriage’ wont happen, your all just kidding yourselves.

      1. We all know that equal marriage will happen

        Your extremist political dogma blinds you to reality.

        People were equally blinded in Spain, New York, South Africa, Holland and other nations.

        Your power base has collapsed and your ideology is virtually extinct.

        The only weapon you have left is pointless and weak attempts at ridicule and lies.

        Your compatriots are being arrested for inciting racial hatred.

        Your ideology is outdated, outmoded and gone.

        Aiden – you are a loser.

        1. Well given that this MP is quoted to have ‘lied’ before he was elected in saying that gay people would be equal. What is there to say that the whole Consultation and very thought of ‘equal marriage’ is the same? Just because it’s been sait it will happen, does not mean it will be…. Blair, Fox Hunting….. all talk….

          1. No Vince my last comment wasnt about the MP lying.

            It was about equality happening and you being a liar and a loser.

          2. Religion is insanity in trolls. 20 Apr 2012, 11:08pm

            Aiden, the bore that just keeps boring…… actually he is the closet case loser who just keep boring. I wonder if he ever dared to take the cock test, you know the one, they show them gay porn and measure the electrical reaction in the nob department. Aiden’s would be twitching like someone with St Vitus Dance. It’s Derick Faye with a crush on Brian Souter.

          3. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Apr 2012, 3:05pm

            Even if it doesn’t fail, the onus will be on you and your fellow homophobes to deliver the proof that polygamous, incestuous and bestial relationships have occurred. I want you to identify who those people are who are currently demanding them or intend to. Evidence please. Please provide the statistics of the 10 countries that allow us to marry as well as those that have already occurred in the UK?

      2. “We all know that ‘equal marriage’ wont happen,”

        Bet you said that about CP’s, diodn’t you?

        LOL!

    7. Signed!

    8. Signed :-)

  23. The arrogance from this piggy-eyed little bigot in announcing that gay people have “Exhausted the cause of equal rights” is staggering. It suggests that we should be prepared to settle for less than complete equality. That he and his ilk have been more than generous in allowing us the progress we’ve seen so far. Well, newsflash, Piggy. It doesn’t work like that. Rights are rights. They are not something that are bestowed upon us by those who feel they are in a rightful place of entitlement. Equality is equality and the “cause for equal rights” will be “exhausted” when, and only when, people have equality.

    1. I can only assume that this man’s career as a politician is based on appeal to jingoism, funny handshakes and other connections with a considerable dollop of dumb luck. (I can’t be bothered to Google the twit to find out any more.)
      He clearly cannot frame an opinion without leveraging a straw man and has the political ignorance of a Sun reader.

      1. Take: “Furthermore, I support the right of any Christian in our Christian country to support the long held belief that a religious marriage is one between an individual man and an individual woman over the age of consent: 16 years of age (18 without parental permission).” No person, Christian or otherwise, is going to be forced to redefine what is meant by religious marriage. The government plans specifically exclude religious marriage ceremonies – these will not be possible even where some religious bodies would like to perform such ceremonies. This is little more than a profile raising exercise by a – evidently deservedly – obscure politician. An appeal to bigotry – never a nice thing to watch, but something that, coming from a Conservative politician and self proclaimed Christian, we’ve come to expect.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Apr 2012, 8:56pm

      The problem is, bigots like him and Ben Bradshaw believe we already have our full equality through CPs. My question to McCartney would be, and nobody has asked him, would he opt for a CP if available had they been available to him instead of marrying his wife and if not why not. I can just imagine his answer.

  24. Let us just burn all adulterers at the stake in the good old Christian tradition…Well, that should take care of most of the Tory Party then…..(bye bye John Major and Edwina to name but a few) and a fair few of the Royal Family as well.
    It is impressive how “Christian” traditionalists can pick and choose which rules they are prepared to follow from the Old Testament and impose these rules on everyone else whilst scaremongering the general population.
    To quote Lynn Lavner, “The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love heterosexuals. It’s just that they need more supervision”.

  25. He really does sound like one of those U.S. Tea Party nutters.

    1. He is a fool a dangerous fool. And he’s my M.P. I’ll be at his surgery in Lincoln on 4 May to give him a right mouthful.

      1. good! we need more people like you that are being proactive bring your friends construct your arguments in advance we have all the civil and reasoned arguments. bigots don’t. we WILL prevail.

      2. Religion is insanity in trolls. 20 Apr 2012, 7:24pm

        Written Answers — Women and Equalities: Human Rights: Religion (19 Apr 2012)
        “To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities if she will bring forward legislative proposals to protect workers who choose to wear a visible cross or crucifix.”

        He is a christo fundy and no good can be got of him under any circumstances. This is another rabid homophobe behind the smiley face. How do these characters get to be elected?

        1. ok, i propose that i get to wear a visible pentacle rather then under my clothing imposing my religious beliefs upon everything i come into contact with. Er no jewellery can be worn under your clothing if its that important to you.

          1. He regularly has a coffee in the Coffee House no more than 100 metres from my front door. The staff have promised to text me next time he’s there. It won’t be a pretty sight! ;)

          2. @Ian Bower

            We want a full report please!

          3. Ian, if you can get it on film please do, I imagine it will be funny to watch :P

    2. I agree,

      definitely a “Tea and Biscuit Case”

      So to speak . . .

    3. Try living in the US where people say this stuff all the time! It’s way more common than you’d think sadly.

  26. Seems your Parliament has as many brainless idiots as our Congress does. Obviouls another closet case from the looks of him.

  27. I see from his web site that Karl himself is married. I presume he married his wife for love. So he is saying that’s it’s OK fir HIM to marry the person he loves- but seeks to DENY that basic Human Right (Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) to certain other people. Well that kind of hypocrisy is not going to work- basically because HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES- none of us are going away!

    1. He is absolutely wrong about it leading to child marriages and, for that matter, should anybody bring up the argument about marrying animals they would be wrong about that, too.

      But he is right about polygamous marriages-I mean why not? If marriage IS to be redefined on the basis of it being about consenting ADULTS who are not related but in love why not polygamy? After all, it’s all about love and commitment, isn’t it? There’s no logical reason to deny it to more than two people who are in a loving committed relationship.
      Some say the appetite is not there and that it is ludicrous, but the very idea of gay marriage was at one time ludicrous, too.

      1. Sall -Marriage is defined as taking place between TWO adult people in love. I fail to see your logic. Marriage is not being ‘redefined’ at all.

        1. John, I think you’ll find that making same sex marriage legal is a MAJOR redefinition not a minor tweak.
          Now whether or not a person agrees with it or not, there is no doubt about it!

          So, yeah, if marriage is to be about consenting adults committing and in love, no reason to deny it to more than one couple. Logic a bitch, eh? LOL.

          I

        2. You’re right, John. YOU are the one using logic here not your detractor.

    2. David Millar 20 Apr 2012, 7:41pm

      Not long before the Catholic church quotes article four back at you – their view is the Universal Declaration refers to a man and a woman. They tried this on me in a BBC Radio Lincolnshire intervie abiout gay adoptions.

      My view is a man ( and another man ) and a woman ( and another woman)

      Will be interetsting to see what fellow Lincolnshire tory MP , out & gay Nick Boles has to say ( when asked to comment!)

      1. It’s Article 16 surely?

        “Article 16.
        (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
        (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
        (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”

        It also does not state that the marriage is of a man to a woman, just marriage of men and women.

    3. You never know though, he may have married just so that he could lawfully procreate – that seems to be the issue these religious fundamentalists are most obsessed about.

  28. David Millar 20 Apr 2012, 7:46pm

    The catholic church will quote article four back at you – Universal Declaration refers to a men and a women. They tried this on me in a live BBC Radio Lincolnshire debate on gay adoption.

    My view is its men ( and other men) women ( and other women) …

    Be interesting to see what Lincoolnshire out gay tory MP Nick Boles has to say….

  29. And yet again Matthew Sephton and those self-hating Uncle Toms of LGBTory have no comment to make.

    The Tory Party remains the party of homophobic hatred.

    1. And that is why their ‘promise’ of ‘equal marriage’ will not happen.

      1. New Aussie 21 Apr 2012, 2:04am

        It will get through the commons: labour and LibDems votes plus a few Tories will ensure that. It is the Lords however that will be the big problem as there appears to be a heady majority implacably opposed to gay marriage there being fanned by the bishops. The only way round that is the Parliament Act.

        1. They said exactly the same about religious CPs and the Lords voted them through.

  30. God I almost forgot that straights can get married at 16. Dirty breeders. And what’s wrong with child marriage, hey? Just like the good old days. Oh no, I forget again – society goes forwards not backwards. Someone tell him.

  31. He continued to say that his “conscience dictates” that he will not canvass other MPs for marriage equality…”

    In other words: I’m a bigot and therefore don’t care for the equality of gay people.

    “and that he is of the view that the “majority of people in same sex relationships are happy with the current arrangements”.

    is his view based on any facts or did he pull it out of his ass? (this is a rhetorical question)

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Apr 2012, 8:52pm

      He’s no different than Ben Bradshaw who believes we already have our full equality, even though he says he’ll vote for it, but not much difference in how both view CPs. Bradshaw still has not apologised for the great harm he’s done since he made that very damaging statement that gave ammunition to the likes of McCartney and his C4M et al compatriots in bigotry.

  32. There are countries where polygamous and child marriages are already legal and where homosexuals are accorded few or no rights at all, so it is a logical fallacy to suggest same sex marriages could be the cause.
    There is no link at all between same sex marriage and polygamous or child marriages and Mr McCartney has shown himself to be an enormous arse for repeating such a boringly stupid and false lie intending to block marriage equality.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Apr 2012, 12:49pm

      Exactly right. I want to see the bigots produce the documented evidence, ideally from the governments of the countries where equal civil marriage is legal. C4M, Archbishop Nichols, Cardinal O’Brien, Archbishop Rowan Williams have some explaining to do to justify those vile, disgustingly offensive statements. The last time I checked, polygamy is an uniquely heterosexual phenomenon, mentioned and condoned in the old testament (Solomon apparently had 300 wives and concubines). I’d like the bigots to provide polygamy statistics as well as those involving incestuous and bestial unions that they claim could emerge since the first country, Holland, introduced equal civil marriage eleven years ago. Show us the evidence. I don’t understand why not one MP or government minister hasn’t demanded proof.

  33. ““majority of people in same sex relationships are happy with the current arrangements”. ”

    No we’re not…

    I think it’s about time that LGBT people, friends and family in Lincoln wrote in mass to this guy to tell him so.

    Perhaps Stonewall can write to him as well. They don’t seem to believe us unless a “senior” person writes to them.

    1. Bisexual woman in Edinburgh 21 Apr 2012, 6:28pm

      And not all of the LGBT people around are currently in same-sex relationships, yet we still support equal marriage. Indeed, one of the reasons why I do not wish to marry (my male partner and I are both bi) is because I find it utterly insulting to be offered one option if my partner happens to be of one gender, and a different option if my partner happens to be of the other gender (positing a binary gender system for the sake of argument). I don’t like the current arrangements at all. I don’t like the way that marriage is held out to be the best thing on this earth, so that entire countries are valued by how many people are married, and then it is flaunted how this is only available to mixed-sex couples. Marriage should be available to everyone who wants it, and those of us who are in non-marital partnerships should be respected as well.

  34. Another set up by the homosexual agenda, first the B & B and now an MP.

    The pendulum will swing back….

    1. David Millar 20 Apr 2012, 9:51pm

      wel, here in Lincs we have little understanding of what consultation he undertook to know how happy we all are with `current arrangements`, tho I am told he was eager to get votes at the Hustings in 2010…..
      perhaps he belived another lincs tory MP,Edward Leigh, who when asked about his lack of support for gay rights, said he didnt think there were any gays in Lincolnshire anyway…

    2. Here speaketh the white supremacist militant homophobic bully.

      This is no case of pendulum swinging – this is a case of society recognising the idiocy of your ideology and your depraved evil.

      Spoke to my HR department again today- they have never heard of you.

      1. Did someone say something then, I could have sworn I heard something..oh yes, look it’s that unemployed lair with the mental health issue…that the Police told me about.

        The Law does not discriminate, as there is no law that specifically dictates same sex marriage, as it hasnt been brought in yet.

        PS, They wouldn’t know my name.

        1. Still not willing to give the details of your call Mr Russell? Seems strange you wouldn’t be willing to give all the details of a call you made if it did indeed show Stu to be a liar. Surely you’d be putting on here at every opportunity?

          1. ‘Kris’ What on here amung this bunch of one sided, twisted, misguided, heterophobic no-hopers? I don’t think so, those details you speak of are now in official channels and will not appear here for risk to contaminating the investigation. Stu’s comments have been noted and added to the very nearly titering pile of documents.

          2. What in the name of (insert your own name – Nick Griffin for you I presume?) are you talking about. You’ve gone from phoning to the police to now apparently being involved with an investigation with a large pile of paperwork? I suspect you’re talking nonsense sir

        2. Aiden

          HR also confirmed that the database connected to my personnel file has not been accessed for 3 weeks prior to my asking, which covers more than enough time for the period you LIE about checking on me.

          I note you refuse to name which NHS bodies you have spoken to. There is no central database of all clincial staff in the NHS.

          I note you still refuse to name who you CLAIM (LIE) you spoke to in Durham Police or give the date/time of call or the incident number where they logged it.

          Because you cant because you are lying.

          Dont worry Aiden I have saved pdfs of our conversations too and if you continue to harass me, then they can go forward in evidence in relation to offences under section 5 of the protection from harassment act 1997.

          As it is everyone knows you are lying and your buddies were arrested yesterday for inciting racial hatred – you next?

          You making a call to arms soon?

          Why does a white supremacist waste time on a site like this if he isnt a fantacist ….

          1. Aiden, you regularly post on the Daily Telegraph site telling everyone – proudly – that you’re a member of the BNP. In fact, you’re pretty evangelical about the dubious joys of the BNP.
            And please don’t try to deny this, Adrian. The word patterns are the same – the phrases… everything. You’re the same guy.
            You’ve posted one hell of a lot on a gay site Aiden. I know you’ve spent a lot of your time on the Telegraph blog posting about how horrific gay sex is.
            Yet you’re here, Aiden, arguing the pros and cons of gay sex.
            I don’t have any fundamental problems with you being gay and a member of the BNP, Aiden. Seriously, I don’t.
            That said, it’s pretty damn dull reading your comments here as a Fascist and then reading your comments on the Telegraph about how you hate all gays.
            To be honest, I’ve never seen a white man in greater need of a blow job. I’m not offering, though.

        3. FranklyBewildered 21 Apr 2012, 8:43am

          The police would not tell a member of the public anything like that. There is such a thing as confidentiality. What aer YOU on abut, Aiden?

    3. Dozens of bogus cases have been brought by extremist bigoted so called “Christians” before the courts in the UK, who have made it clear that the UK is not a theocracy and their cases were without merit.
      Appeals have been made and thrown out.
      Christians involved have shown ignorant stewardship of resources wasting finances that could have been used to deal with poverty in the UK, fight cancer or tackle issues such as research into epilepsy, fund lifeboats or support elderly people.
      But no the ideology is more important than the welfare of old people. Thats the sort of depraved people Aiden associates with (along with the North West Infidels – who were arrested by terrorism police yesterday!).
      AIden wants a theocracy where he can pick and choose which rules apply to him – and thats more important than poverty, elderly people who fought in WWII who need help or children with cancer.
      He is a white supremacist who worships Ander Behring Breivik and wants his plans to use in the UK

      1. I do pick and choose what applies to me, I am an idividual, I dont go around in groups harrassing normal people.

        And they way things are going, these militant homosexuals are most likely going to be on the end of more hostilities if they keep harrasing people to accept them, and sending dodgy letters, and bullying people.

        I have emailed and suggested that he may want to report this matter, as the BHA wrote the letter, just as Stonewall concocked up the plan to harrass the B & B owners.

        The pendulum is coming..

        1. concocked up? What does that involve? Sounds painful.

          1. concocked = It’s when a man ( who has made a choice to fancy other men) and ram his penis up the other mans arse.. I am sure you are fully qualified in this disgusting un-natural habbit?

          2. Ahh making the same mistake as another one of our resident trolls and making assumptions about a persons sexuality. Never a wise move Mr Russell. Can leave you looking a bit of an idiot.

            And what you were after I guess was either concocted or cooked up no? It’s ok to admit your mistakes.

        2. Dr Robin Guthrie 20 Apr 2012, 10:55pm

          You Sir, have just made a direct threat of physical violence.

          Thank you.

          The evidence mounts.

        3. Ah bless the little inadequate impotent white supremacist – he can’t get it up, so he has to make do with w@nking over a gay news website

          He can’t maintain a lucid argument so he keeps repeating the same rhetoric “the pendulum is coming” – so’s fukcing Christmas!

          He talks of bullies – hmmm strange that – he claims to have been speaking to my employers (not that he can state who they are!) … only a bully would act in such a way … in his case he’s an inadequate bully, because all he can do is lie – and his lies have no impact. He can only shoot blanks.

          But hey white supremacist bullies normally are impotent bullies who have small dicks they don’t know how to use.

        4. AIden

          Close friends of the North West Infidels are we?

          They like to threaten minority groups with violence too, that ended up with several of them in police cells yesterday.

        5. Presumably thats like the RC church harrassing gay people by their pre printed postcards?

  35. Perhaps someone should set up a database/website of MPs’ responses to marriage equality somewhere (C4EM website?) so that people know that they need to write to their MPs and try to convince them that marriage equality is a good thing.

    I find these responses from MPs quite enlightening.

  36. Keith Farrell 20 Apr 2012, 10:06pm

    What he is saying makes me wonder just how bad the education is in the UK. I was born here, but grew up in South Africa. I was only able to return when my life partner passed away in 2009 and his estate was finally wound up last year. I really thought I had managed to get away from stipid narow minded policical idiots and I was returning home to a country which was a first world country. Imagine my surprise, you have elected 1st class idiots as MP’s. I hope that nobody supports this idiot any further, let him work for his money.

  37. given the chance, i’d demand he prove it. these people roll out this crappy argument so often but never even have a shread of evidence to back it up in any way shape or form.

  38. @Stu Well your short stab at being a Constable was for 6 years, and I would call that short.

    1. Wrong. You don’t get a second shot at the length.

      Which police service?

      No multiple choice this time.

      Oh how you lie!

      Impotent boy! Can’t even get a simple question right.

      1. So you were not with Northumbria from 1998 to 2004?
        Oh and I didn’t lie, it what I was told.

        1. I thought he didn’t work for them and he was described as a known individual with “mental health issues”?

        2. Would you two just get a room – jeez grow up!!!

          I said no you said ner ner ner!

        3. I know where you got that from. There is a internet story about me online. Yes I was with Northumbria but not from 1998-2004. So if your contact was in the police and you were not lying then you would have accurate dates

          As it is your bullying and harassment is picking up a pace.

          Perhaps I should consider making a complaint against you if this continues.

          Count this as a friendly warning.

          Your attention and harassing and bullying actions are not welcome.

          Your homophobia is vile and impotent

          Please desist.

          PDF has been saved.

    2. Aiden

      Now you say I was a police officer for 6 years … wrong

      Strange how last week my past career was all lies according to you.

      So now you accept I was a police officer?
      Do you accept you were lying last week?

      You were guessing at the length of time and got it wrong.

      Basics – if you are going to lie, keep the same story!!!

      Simple impotent boy.

      1. I shall go back to the official source of my email and let them know your answer, with a screen cap of your response.
        After seeing certain information I can confirm thatt you were a Officer with Northumbria from 1998 to 2004.

        Oh and I’m not impotent, I’ve fathered two children! ;)

        1. The dates are what a news report stated about me, but they are inaccurate.

          I have saved PDFs of your responses, off to the police on Monday.

          Oh you’re impotent, classic case of small dick and no performance from your writings.

          1. Oh right…so…after typing you into Google, found these publically viewable links, you can confirm that these links do not include anything relatingto you? And that this is not you then?
            And the titles, dates and positions given are inaccurate?

            https://profiles.google.com/SometimeParamedic/about
            http://www.Facebook.com.stuart.ross1

          2. Aiden

            Ah right so you can confirm that you do not know which ambulance trust I work for, nor have you a contact with Northumbria Police – you just surfed the internet and lied.

            You just clearly admitted it.

          3. Aiden

            So you were lying when you said you knew I was not a police officer in the past and when you said I am not a paramedic?

            You were lying when you claimed to speak to the Police about me

            You were lying when you claimed to speak to an unknown organisation in the NHS about me

            You just lie.

        2. Are your children as thick as their father

          They clearly need help with the lot your have dealt them in life – I weep for them.

        3. So first I had never been a police officer, now I was.

          There are traces of me having worked for the NHS in the past, but AIden can not comment on any currently.

          Aiden refuses to say which NHS employers he has spoken to. Strange, given there is no central HR department or database, If he is so super confident he would share the organisation names.,

          He has checked my facebook which has inaccurate dates of my police service (for good reason which I am not going to explain). It also mentions having worked for the NHS but not who my employer currently is. It gives my base as Durham – which is not the case currently. Hence why Aiden claimed to have spoken to Durham police – but refuses to state who he spoke to, when or give an incident number.

          Aiden try again. Your lies are obvious – and you are not even keeping to the same ones.

          You would be a breeze to get a confession out of in interview – you are so thick.

          1. So you have given inaccurate details and locations when siging up. I think facebook would be interested in this as not only
            “Providing false information to create an account is always a violation of our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities” but accordingly I am informed that it is a criminal offence to provide false and indded inaccurate information online.

            I have sent a screen cap to Facebook and Google to let them know that you have deliberately and knowingly provided false and inaccurate details and have admitted herewith doing so :)

          2. AIden

            If thats the best you can come up with – it makes me laugh.

            If you have looked at both the google and the facebook account you will see there is a distinct lack of activity – because I dont use them anymore.

            The information is relatively accurate with some specifics for various different reasons not fully complete.

            So you admit lying about where you got the information – what an idiot you are.

            If you persist, then I will make a formal complaint about you in relation to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. That is no joke, that is complete information. That is serious.

          3. Dr Robin Guthrie 21 Apr 2012, 3:29am

            STU. CHILL OUT.

            This clearly homophobic troll has issues.

            STOP feeding it.

            We, as gay men read stories published via PN and and you know constantly have to DEFEND ourselves from poisoned individuals who have noting better to do than wind us up.

            They can see that their end is coming.

            Cornered animals and all that.

            Humanity and logic has seen through their vile hate and they spit back with all their venom.

            Ignore IT. We come here for news.

            IT. comes here to sh!t on it.

            Funny why we cannot comment on religious sites.

        4. Dr Robin Guthrie 21 Apr 2012, 3:20am

          Poor kids.

          When are the Social Workers removing them from you.

    3. FranklyBewildered 21 Apr 2012, 8:51am

      Aiden, what on earth are you talking about, and what does it have to do with an MP with no idea about reality. Stop talking nonsense.

    4. Aiden. I’d call what you are doing with Stu in your comments as stalking and harrassment. It’s very weird and unnerving.
      Stu, it’s best to ignore this individual IMO. I think he may have mental health issues to be so concerned about you that he researches information about your life.

      1. Guys,

        Thanks for your support.

        I will just sit and look and laugh now at Aiden if he persists. Having now demonstrated that he is lying. He even changed his lies part way through, and merely used my incomplete Facebook and Google profiles to try and pretend he knew all about me.

        I suspect he does have mental health issues. I certainly have concerns about the welfare of his children (if they exist).

        Thanks guys, we all know equality is coming and bullies and militants like AIden can not and will not stop it.; They are too impotent to be able to do anything other than bully and harass. Weakens their argument and legitimacy.

      2. Indeed, James E.. Yet above Aiden said he didn’t ‘go round harrassing individuals’. I still can’t get over what a ‘straight’ man is doing on Pink News. I’d hazard a guess that hardly any of my straight friends have even heard of it.

        Stu, ignore Aiden – or pity him. I do. He’s clearly not a happy person.

    5. @Aiden

      When are you going to stop harrassing Stu?

    6. Aiden, you are dealing with a megalomaniac nationalist, a defender of colonialism and imperial conquests. You are dealing with that sort of person, who also seeks positions of power to enforce their ideas… so no surprises there… everything these kind of people do is legal and legitimate in their eyes… these people will get their friends around and bully you to a pulp.

      1. So, Beberts – are you gay?

        It seems to me that no self respecting LGBT person could support or encourage Aiden.

        1. I’m as gay as they come and I’m not supporting, encouraging or discouraging Aiden, I’m just telling him what kind of person he is dealing with, and allerting him about the kind of treatment he can expect.

          1. Well, Beberts you certainly come across as supporting and endorsing Aiden

            Aiden has been exposed as a bully and liar, a self proclaimed white supremacist.

            It seems you are colouring your judgement due to interactions you have had with Stu – which speaks of a lacking of clear judgement and allowing a grudge to fester.

            Your view on this matter is far from unbiased.

            My observation of you is someone who seeks to agitate, attack and irritate and who has no interest in rights. You are more concerned with your own world view and judging others that any humanity.

            Your approach is monstrous.

          2. I’m not supporting or endorsing anything. Someone who defends the right of ethnic Brits while denying the same right to other ethnicities cannot claim the moral high ground against someone else who favours any specific colour. Having a favourite ethnicity or favourite colour, doesn’t make any difference to me. Both are bald choices fighting for the same toothless comb.

          3. So you had a disagreement over politics with someone and you decide to side with the white supremacist that is bullying him.

            Such high ethical standards and morals you have, Beberts

            Such a big man!

            NOT

          4. Who is bullying who? Watching two kind of supremacists unethically “disagreeing over politics”, I find one of them clearly in the minority here. In some kind of political circus, some people have been condemning one while applauding the other, perhaps because one is gay, but I won’t defend either of them. I’ll just tell the one who is in the minority that he is looking at the mirror, and can expect the same sort of treatment the other one deserves.

  39. Emily-Rose Grix 20 Apr 2012, 11:01pm

    Will you watch my video on equal marriage and back and sign this petition http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crM7MbZa8s0&feature=youtu.be

    In relation to the letter i received today from this ignorant man.

    1. Oh grow up, stop harrassing the man, he is entitled to his view and opinion.

      1. How about you stop harassing us LGBs?

      2. Dr Robin Guthrie 21 Apr 2012, 3:19am

        “Views and opinions” STOP and need to be questioned when they affect the lives of others.

        Surely your psychiatrist told you that?

      3. Diddums. Is he not an elected public official? Therefore he is held responsible for expressing his views in public, and if the members of the public are dissatisfied with those views they, in turn, have every right to say so.

      4. He’s entitled to his view and opinion. When he writes it on House of Commons headed paper and signs it as an MP (a public servant) the public have a right to respond.

        You’re telling Emily-Rose to grow up? This from a man whose obviously venting is internalised sexual frustration by stalking people on a gay website?

      5. @Aiden

        You’re telling other people to grow up ?

        Seriously ?

  40. The fact that people think this is stupid

    Marriage should be two consenting adults not related to each other!

    1. Why not more than two consenting adults? Really, you have no right to declare in such a conservative way what marriage should or should not be. Not when you do not fit the conservative model of marriage yourself.
      If the drippy ‘marriage is about love and commitment’ line is taken, then two or more adults should be able to do it.
      Transgendered people should be able to, too.
      Polygamy is the one true slippery slope argument that has validity.

      1. Because true love is only between two people and marriage is the joining of two people

  41. MP makes v valid points.
    But not sure BHA is interested.

    Or PinkNews for that matter.

    1. MP does not make any valid points

      Decency, common sense and love will be the victors here.

      Civil marriage will be a beacon to ignite the flame of passion around the globe,

  42. I have to add…. thousands of years of Christian tradition?

    Where….
    -women were the property of the man?
    -women couldn’t refuse their husband?
    -only whites could marry?
    -interracial marriage was illegal?
    -polygamy was legal?
    -women were told they had to clean and cook?
    -women were and still are considered less then men?

    No thanks!

    1. In any event, even at its extreme the definition of ‘Christian tradition‘ hasn’t reached 2000 yet. On top of which, the church didn’t start getting involved in marriage till well within the last millennium.

  43. Same sex marriage doesn’t take away from heterosexual marriages either.

    Like I’ve said many times before, in the US, UK, many other countries that have freedom of religion- same sex marriage is going to be legal.

    1. The majority of homosexuals and bisexuals are not happy with the current arrangment

      Most of us want marriage!

      1. arrangement*

        1. Go away, bigot.

  44. “If you and your like-minded campaigners were of the opinion that all couples should be able to have civil partnerships, then you might have more credence, but you are not.” Meaning: look! look! a gay person said they don’t see the point in equal marriage! See! They agree with me!

    Really? How many women said they didn’t want equal rights, that their place was in the home looking after the kids and staying loyal their husband even if he spent most evenings screwing his secretary? Thousands. And why? They all had their own reasons. Did that mean their reasons were valid and should apply to all other women?

    1. OK I mis-read that bit entirely but I still think it’s valid point to those who use the fact that some gay people oppose equal marriage.

      So we want civil partnerships for ourselves and the marriage too? Says who? Why on earth would we object to equal civil partnerships as a consequence of equal marriage? To keep CPs exclusive to gays is the govt’s idea, not ours. Everything this guy says shows he really hasn’t thought about what the issues are at all. He just doesn’t want it to happen and thinks that being able to string a sentence in a letter is a good enough argument.

      1. I suspect that the MP is being disingenous and actually means CPs for sister and brothers living together etc. Are you sure he actually means CPs for consenting straights in a sexual relationship. Many of these MPs from the start have wanted to water down the meaning of gay relationship and not put them on an equal footing to marriages. We’re not just friends or relative living together to share the mortgage etc.

      2. Im thinking that the government want to do baby steps and eventually when the government has full marriage equality (these current proposals don’t fix it all btw a gay couple will still not get the same tax allowance as a hetrosexual couple) they will get rid of the CP scheme … im just guessing though, they are keeping it for now to appease the bigots.

  45. Well, Mr McCartney didn’t win the seat of Lincoln by many votes, so next time, I hope he gets ditched! I can’t stand the first past the post electoral system. It is so undemocratic and doesnt reflect the possible preferences of voters. If there was preferential voting, the Liberal Democrat preferences would have elected the Labour Member who formerly held the seat! Yet, you Brits, voted against changing the electoral system. More people voted against McCartney than elected him! Figure that out!

  46. Dr Robin Guthrie 21 Apr 2012, 3:31am

    AIDEN.

    P!ss off and get a life. As you say, you have 2 kids.

    Being in the medical profession, I will see about getting them removed from you as you are clearly not fit to be a parent.

    1. The sort of upbringing those children must be having is worrying.

  47. Well that is the end of your career as an MP. Enjoy the unemployment benefits, what there are of them.

  48. GingerlyColors 21 Apr 2012, 6:54am

    Can somebody tell Karl McCartney that we already have child brides in this country with children as young as five being forced to marry. I would also like to mention that these communities which commit such child abuse are also the most poisonously homophobic.

  49. I would pressume that historically religions were government, with the rules and morals of society. Some religious leaders would have wanted more power which meant your “members” breading “i.e no contrecption” and stopping other religions “infidels.” Gay relationships would not have resulted in increasing the religions numbers and thus not have been in the religion’s interest.

    However the Christian definition of marriage that I found does not prevent same sex marriages “There are three commonly held beliefs about what constitutes a marriage in the eyes of God: 1.The couple is married in the eyes of God when the physical union is consummated through sexual intercourse. 2.The couple is married in the eyes of God when the couple is legally married. 3.The couple is married in the eyes of God after they have participated in a formal religious wedding ceremony.”

  50. @Aiden

    You, and people like you (David Skinner, Keith, JohnB), have responsibility for tragedies like the suicide of Kenneth \
    Weishuhn Jr
    :

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/17/gay-teen-from-iowa-commits-suicide/

    The best that can be said for your sorry life (BNP supporter, homophobe, racist) is that you didn’t post any of your foul\
    comments on that story.

    Well done you. You’re spending your time on this earth well.

    1. FranklyBewildered 21 Apr 2012, 8:56am

      As if they care about people like Kenneth Weishuhn. One less of us in the world is their view.

  51. Aiden talked about the “pendulumn swinging back” over attitudes to equal rights.

    Presumably this is what he means:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17796511

    1. Yeah, he’s “winning” so much he has to anonymously comment bile on a gay site….. LOL! The actions of a “real” winner, eh, Harry?

    2. Wrong about child marriage, right about polygamous marriage.
      Gay marriage supporters support gay marriage because of consenting adults being in love and commited-THAT’S the argument, well then no reason to deny it to two or more consenting adults who are in love and committed.
      Deliciously ironic that those who disagree would seek to deny another minority rights.
      ‘But polygamous marriage is ludicrous!’ say they. Yeah, and so is gay marriage in some people’s eyes. Logic is a bitch.

      1. “Deliciously ironic that those who disagree would seek to deny another minority rights.”

        This would be a valid point if gay organisations were lobbying for the suppression of polygamy.

        As there aren’t, I can only deduce you have a mental health issue. The trolling a gay site for a reaction, and the obvious lack of and anger management, generally gives it away “Sall”.

    3. @S

      So why have there been no calls for polygamous marriage before the calls for gay marriage ? Why has no country that’s enacted gay marriage got polygamous marriage ?

      The concern about polygamous marriage is that it is not about love and respect, but about power of one man over several vulnerable women. It is always that way round, and it is always a heterosexual phenomenon.

      1. Plenty of religions want polygamous marriage. Who are you to deny them this?
        Your concern about men having power over women is not valid-who are you to deny it to them if that is what they want?
        In any case, not all polygamous marriages are imbalanced.

        The only mistake McCartney made was failing to ONLY make the argument about polygamy. Hope somebody points this out to him.

        Polygamy is actually more reasonable than gay marriage, anyway, but that is besides the point.

      2. @S

        Agreed: it is always religions that want polygamous marriages.

        The point is whether the women can give consent. Do you agree that someone who cannot give consent should not be married ? Do you think that the type of religious communities that call for polygamous marriage are places where dissent and free will flourish ?

        “not all polygamous marriages are imbalanced”. Maybe, but can you show that a sufficiently vast majority are to remove the prohibition on polygamous marriage ? Please provide evidence.

        May I ask why you are so keen to permit polygamous marriage ?

  52. how rude. thatbitch needs an education. where are lgbtoms ?

  53. Of course he’s an intellectual midget, bigotted and doesn’t understand complex questions (like ‘What?’). He’s a Tory!
    As ever, they’re only interested in their own views….

  54. With apologies to everyone for the distraction, but I felt the need to defend the lies that Aiden was telling about me. Now that its clear he was lying about where he sourced his inaccurate information and the malicious nature of his comments – I am back down off my high horse and will ignore him.

  55. Incidentally and slightly off-topic, divorce most certainly does pre-date Christianity, as notably seen in the Roman elite (eg Julius Caesar, dicorced once, or the emperor Augustus, twice-divorced and married for the third time to a divorced woman).

  56. I guess that for supporters of gay marriage this guy has hit your Achilles heel-yeah, child marriage=crap.
    But polygamy? Not crap.

    Why not, folks? Mawwiage is all about love and commitment according to you lot; three people can love and be committed.

    Amazing how conservative you all are about OTHER minorities rights!!

    1. If you want polygamy – campaign for it and convince parliamentarians to bring it in.

      You do not establish equality by campaigning against others who are close to gaining rights themselves.

      That makes you seem like a troll – who has not interest in rights at all, and just wants to muddy the waters.

    2. You might not have an emotional bone in your body. You might not feel love.

      Plenty of us do, and you have no right to prevent other people seeking equality because you are emotionally retarded.

      Also, you have no right to try and piggy back your rights demands on another – using the message, well if they can have rights – I (or they – I am not convinced you want polygamy) can, and if I can’t they should not be able to. Thats a kindergarten level of argument – or a troll argument.

      1. You’re retarded because you fail to get the simple logical argument that IF marriage is reduced to being about love and commitment between consenting adults, there is NO reason to deny it to polygamists.
        Polygamists may think homosexuals to be retarded.

        1. Who has tried to deny polygamy on here?

          What is your logical reasoning that polygamous relationships should piggy back policy on same sex couples?

          I thought you said you didnt agree in loving marriage, so what should you care anyway?

        2. Oh back to pre-school age level arguments.

          You called me this, so I am going to call you that.

          No, I didnt call you retarded, I said you might be emotionally retarded – logical and legitimate conclusion from someone who states marriage is not about love.

          Clearly, a troll.

        3. @S

          But you really think that defining marriage in terms of love and committment is reducing it ?

          Really ? Seriously ?

          Does your wife know about your thoughts on love and committment ? Are you married ? ( To a human being, not an upturned mop with a happy face painted on it. )

          How do you define marriage, if not in terms of love and committment ?

        4. @ s

          I take it you’re polygamous then .

          1. S may be polygamous but they have previously said they do not believe in loving marriage. So, how they can argue in favour of any kind of marriage is crazy – S does not believe in marriage, but thinks they have the right to try and sabotage a campaign to enable same sex couples marrying. S has no such right to hijack the campaign.

          2. @ Bruce

            Like I told S

            He sould get a life ,a much healthier one ,that way ,he wouldn’t feel the need to come on here .

            They say ,those who attack will always attack those ,who they feel closest to .

    3. Maybe, but I honestly can’t get too excited about what 3 consenting adults decide to do between themselves. It’s their business, not mine.
      You don’t find us on polygamy websites telling them they should be banned, or claiming they’ll want to marry a horse next.
      Polygamy is merely employed by conservative (usually western religious) fundamentalists as a faulty slippery slope argument against LGBT marriage.
      As I have said before and I’ll say it again, ask the population of a deeply Islamic country such as Saudi Arabia or Iran if they’re ok with polygamy and you’ll barely raise an eyebrow.
      Then ask them what they think about gay marriage…

    4. Because marriage is for the joining of TWO people

      You don’t deserve to marry multiple people

    5. “Mawwiage is all about love and commitment according to you lot; three people can love and be committed.”

      LOL! Oh, mercy.

      Keith, if you could finds just one person to stupid/blind/desperate enough to marry you, you should count your blessings…. polygamy isn’t a reality for you I’m afraid sonny, so don’t you be worrying ’bout it.

      Back to the moonshine, eh Keith? Better luck next time.

  57. S

    So why have there been no calls for polygamous marriage before the calls for gay marriage ? Why has no country that’s enacted gay marriage got polygamous marriage ?

    The concern about polygamous marriage is that it is not about love and respect, but about power of one man over several vulnerable women. It is always that way round, and it is always a heterosexual phenomenon.

    Why is always religions that want the right for polygamous marriage ?

    1. I think it extremely rich of you to have ‘concerns’ about what other consenting adults do. Perhaps others have concerns about gay marriage, too.
      None of your business about what other consenting adults do.

      You want to reduce mawwiage to about love and commitment between consenting adults, this is what you get.

    2. @S

      You misrepresent me. The concern is about adults who cannot give consent. This is quite clear from what I’ve already said.

      “You want to reduce mawwiage to about love and commitment between consenting adults” [sic]

      I imagine you mean marriage, but do you really mean reduce. If you mean:

      I want to define marriage to be about love and commitment between two consenting adults

      then the answer is YES.

  58. Religion is insanity in trolls. 21 Apr 2012, 11:14am

    With thanks to TheyWorkForYou.com
    • Name of donor: Mr Terry Smith
    • Chief Executive
    • Tullett Prebon plc
    155 Bishopsgate
    London EC2M 3TQ
    • Address of donor: Private
    • Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £8,000 donated directly to my election campaign
    • Date of receipt: 5 February 2010 and 3 March 2010
    • Date of acceptance: 10 February 2010 and 3 March 2010
    • Donor status: individual
    • (Registered 9 June 2010)
    • Name of donor: Mr Nigel Szembel
    • Tullett Prebon plc
    155 Bishopsgate
    London EC2M 3TQ
    • Address of donor: private
    • Amount of donation or nature and value if donation in kind: £4,000 donated directly to my election campaign
    • Date of receipt: 3 March 2010
    • Date of acceptance: 3 March 2010

    1. Religion is insanity in trolls. 21 Apr 2012, 11:19am

      Michael Fallon
      Conservative MP for Sevenoaks
      Voted strongly against equal gay rights.
      Michael Fallon MP – Independent Non-executive Director

      Michael Fallon was re-appointed as a Director of Tullett Prebon plc in September 2010. He is a member of the Remuneration, Audit and Nominations Committees. He had previously served as a Director of the Company from December 2006 to May 2010 and as a Director of Collins Stewart Tullett plc from September 2004 to December 2006. He is the Conservative MP for Sevenoaks and is a member of the Treasury Select Committee of the House of Commons. He was Opposition spokesman on Trade and City matters from 1997 to 1998. He is a Director of Attendo AB, a provider of long term care in Scandinavia and was previously a Director of Just Learning Ltd, Quality Care Homes PLC and Bannatyne Fitness Ltd.

      If you want to know what McCartney’s motivations are look to who supports him financially from the public record, then look at his associations.

      1. Religion is insanity in trolls. 21 Apr 2012, 11:49am

        On the 14th of March 2012 At the Conservative Muslim Forum Over 50 people attended a talk by Mr Terry Smith, Chief Executive of Fundsmith LLP and also Chief Executive of Tullett Prebon plc, on the subject “The most important mistakes people make when managing their savings”. The meeting held in the House of Lords was chaired by Mohammed Amin, CMF Vice Chairman, and hosted by Lord Sheikh, CMF Chairman. CMF Executive Member Mike Mogul gave the vote of thanks.

        As for polygamy and underage marriage.

        1. Religion is insanity in trolls. 21 Apr 2012, 11:54am

          In Islam, polygamy is allowed and practiced under certain restricted conditions. Muslim men are allowed to practice polygamy, that is, they can have more than one wife at the same time, up to a total of four. Polyandry, the practice of a woman having more than one husband, by contrast, is not permitted.

          Is McCartney going to put down a Private Members Bill to ban Muslim polygamy? He has expressed his concerns so why not bring it up at the next meeting of the Conservative Muslim Forum?

          The truth of the matter is he couldn’t care less about polygamy because it is a rare and mostly illegal act, no what he hates is LGBT because of his ‘christian’ beliefs. So out with it McCartney and cut the crap and hate us with an open face!

          1. I may be wrong but wasnt it a Sydney financier who was contracted by Tullett Prebon who was charged with bestiality with RABBITS!!!!

            Shows the strength of character of the people Karl McCartney associates with!

  59. Commander Thor 21 Apr 2012, 11:32am

    If a man can marry any woman he likes, what’s to stop him marrying several women and marrying little girls?

    Misquotation alert: This post contains irony.

    1. Therein lies the fault with slippery slope arguments…
      “They’re allowing 16 year olds to take their driving test, next they’ll be driving combine harvesters at kindergarten”
      “They have late licencing in pubs, next they’ll make being permanently paralytic the law”
      “they gave women the right to vote, before you know it ONLY women will be allowed to vote”.
      Each law passed is an individual case which is judged solely on its own merits, drawing on a range of moral philosophies.

  60. My gast has been well and truly flattered by is blatant homophobia and stupidity! Where do these idiots get off? I wonder whether he will keep his seat come the next election?

    1. Religion is insanity in trolls. 21 Apr 2012, 12:09pm

      The answer to that question is in our own hands if we let this homophobe get away with his distortions and outright mendacity on the matter of equal marriage, then the chances are he will keep his seat.

      If we challenge the homophobes at every turn of the way then there is a good possibility that his consituents will see through him and realise that his is using his political position to further aims that they may very well not agree with or subscrie to. He is not open or transparent concerning his associations or affiliations and I suggest that is the thing they fear having exposed. The want us kept in ignorance of their true alliances with the christian fundamentalists home grown and from the USA. The most of all don’t want you to know who is funding them and why. The UK parliament has been the target of the christian fundamentalists for some time and they have managed to get close to the policy makers. It’s time to expose them for who and what they truely are. They hate us!

  61. What a shock Karl McCartney has payments from Comres for opinion polling – wonder if they were those funded by the C4M?

    Payments from ComRes, Four Millbank, London SW1P 3JA, for opinion surveys (6 occasions)
    http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/karl_mccartney/lincoln#register

    Written Answers — Women and Equalities: Human Rights: Religion (19 Apr 2012)
    “To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities if she will bring forward legislative proposals to protect workers who choose to wear a visible cross or crucifix.”
    He claims to support reduction in red tape but seeks theocratic protection?

  62. @S

    I may be wrong, but you’re ‘Keith’ aren’t you ?

    Here’s my evidence:

    1) Obsessing about polygamous marriage.

    2) Getting yourself worked up to such a frothing state that you can’t even spell words like marriage correctly. (It’s double r not double w: you’re not Wodge Wabbit are you ?).

    3) Using crude insults like retarded when people disagree with you and point out the flaws in your reasoning.

    4) Very rapid negative ratings.

    You are Mr Kolley Kibber. I claim the ‘Daily Messenger’ prize.

    1. ‘Mawwiage’ is spelt to mock the way that moronic people who see it about love and commitment. It’s sarcasm.
      If it has ANY meaning outside of a legal contract, it is because it is about heterosexuality.

      You want to reduce it to love and marriage and consenting adults, don’t be surprised when somebody uses their brain and says that by that logic polygamy should be allowed.
      Think I found the Achilles Heel.

      1. @ s

        Please get a life .

        If you are married and have children ,then please enjoy your time with them ,or do you prefer to mingle with the Homosexuals /Bisexuals/Trans etc……

        Maybe we give you more satisfaction .

      2. Religion is insanity in trolls. 21 Apr 2012, 12:33pm

        I think you found a tube of glue and a brown paper bag!

      3. I want to reduce to TWO consenting adults not related to each other

        1. it to*

      4. FranklyBewildered 21 Apr 2012, 5:11pm

        What do you mean ‘reduce’ it to love between consenting adults. what ELSE is marriage about? It isn’t reproduction. You don’t need to be married to do that. You certainly don’t need to be in love. Abuse victims get pregnant without love involved.

        Love is the only sound reason for marriage.

      5. “Think I found the Achilles Heel.”

        LOL! Yeah right. The logic of a child….

    2. @S

      You master of rhetoric you !

      So marriage to you is about penises and vaginas, and framing it in terms of love and committment makes it less valuable. You red blooded male you !

      Consent is the important thing. Misrepresenting arguments you disagree with does not build your case. You master orator you !

      Alas ! You are the only one who thinks that you’ve found an Achilles Heel.

      1. Yep, its Keith, Harry. The penis obsessions (Oh, I’m, not gay) and the polygamy argument – its about the sum total of what that animal is.

      2. Harry, all I have done here is point out that if gay marriage is made legal there’s nothing to stop polygamous marriage. If it occurs between 3 MEN, fine.

        Why does this upset you so?

        1. Same sex marriage has NOTHING to do with polygamous marriages. Just like interracial marriages.

          Same sex marriage is between TWO people, which is what marriage should be

          1. It upsets us because polygamous marriage is not what marriage is
            Marriage is the joining of two people, it’s a connection that can only be between two people

          2. With respect, my argument is simple: if marriage is redefined on the basis of it being between consenting adults who love each other and are committed to one another as opposed to just being between a man and a woman, there is no reason to deny it to polygamists.
            If the sex can be changed of the marriage partners, then there is no reason to change the number. Why not?

            That’s not being anti gay marriage as such, just pointing out the obvious.

            If same sex marriage is passed, then the polygamists have a good case, too.
            Not judgement, just a reasonable observation.

            There’s really no point getting all dogmatic about the number involved if you are campaigning about changing the sex of the marriage partners.
            That’s being as dogmatic as the religious who only want it to be between a man and a woman. Double standards is what it is.

          3. S

            Polygamy is a battle that those who wish polygamous marriage to be made legal should raise themselves.

            It should not be used as a tool to prevent others who consensually wish to marry to celebrate their love.

            Same sex marriage is an entirely different question to polygamy.

            You fight your battle (if indeed it is a genuine battle of yours and not trolling – as I suspect), and we will fight ours.

            There may be some people who want to seek equal marriage for same sex couples who would support you – you may even be able to persuade others, but if you try to use polygamy as a false barrier to same sex marriage, then you will lose a lot of support due to your ignorant arrogance.

          4. Marriage is the joining of TWO people, nothing should ever change that. Do you hear me? TWO. Same sex marriage isn’t going to change that. Marriage was changed for the rights of women and other races, it can be changed for same sex marriage.

            True love is only between two people
            In polygamy, if a woman disagrees with her husband, he can just ignore her and not work out their issues
            In polygamy, the multiple spouses will never receive proper attention
            In polygamy, there are usually a lot of children and that leads to over population
            In polygamy, it’s almost all about sex
            In polygamy, you can’t get that closeness that you can between two people

            While I disagree with polyandry, if people do that it is their own business. Marriage should NOT be allowed for multiple people.

          5. “Double standards is what it is.”

            LOL! No, its a fools argument, that’s what it is.

            Has pologamy followed same sex marriage in countries where it has been legislated for?

            No. In fact the contrary.

            If you want polygamy, S/Keith., off you go. Go fight for it. Its an argument of no relevant here, other than in the minds of fools.

          6. Will

            You are absolutely right. regarding same sex marriage not leading to polygamy.

            For example, the Netherlands has regarded polygamy as legal since the Napoleonic era but same sex marriage has only been legal relatively recently.

        2. It’s irrelevant to the issue in question. And your ‘logic’ is seriously flawed – try this: “If marriage occurs between one man and one woman, there’s nothing to stop polygamous marriage because it could be twenty men and fifty women ooh blimey gasp gasp”

          Your daft argument makes as much sense as that statement. Polygamy? You go and start your campaign if you want it but it’s not at all relevant to the campaign for same sex marriage. But I suspect you know that.

    3. When can I get my Daily Messenger prize ?

  63. Karl McCartney is an odious homophobe. Lincoln deserves better than having this hateful man represent them.

    1. Kieran – Indeed, indeed, indeed!

  64. According to the comments at
    http://thelincolnite.co.uk/2012/04/backlash-over-lincoln-mp-karl-mccartney-reply-to-gay-marriage-letter/
    Mr McCartney has sent an identical letter to many constituents. Which is not what McCartneys office tried to say – claiming that the “letter that was sent to one of his constituents”.

  65. Amusing comment on Huffington Post:

    “Karl McCartney contacted Huffington Post to say that his comments, while accurately reported, were taken out context. He insists that the full text of the original letter from his constituent to him would provide the full context, but in compliance with privacy and data protection he is unable to release this.”

    The entire text has been reproduced on many websites – and shows McCartney to be a bigot. Perhaps he would like to elucidate further and explain his comments?

    Thought not.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Apr 2012, 1:25pm

      What exactly was taken out of context I wonder? His offensive statements were quite clear. I suspect he obtained his script from C4M, hence the polygamy/child marriage allusions. They are all in lockstep with the hate group, that’s for sure.

    2. TheAnitBarHam 21 Apr 2012, 4:40pm

      Explanation is – He’s a total bigot! As is his tory colleague making the same claims Malcolm Barham, standing for the castle ward seat of Lincoln.

      What is wrong with these bigoted, undereducated morons?

    3. The classic excuse when homophobes are under fire for their homophobic comments: my comments were taken out of context…bla bla bla…

  66. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Apr 2012, 1:22pm

    I just sent an email to McCartney. I urge all of you to do the same. Be polite as best you can, no offensive language or threats even though you might be tempted to as I was.

    http://www.karlmccartney.co.uk/contact-karl/

    1. McCartney is not my MP so why should I send him an email? All these bullying only exposes the militatnt gay marriage lobby as the most intolerant of people in the UK!

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Apr 2012, 2:12pm

        The pot calling the kettle black yet again, you’re such an idiot. If anyone is intolerant it’s your so called “christian” Taliban trying to impose a theocracy on the UK. This isn’t America, pal, get used to it. Why don’t you keep your nose out of our business and run along, go take care of those serial hetero adulterers, and the breeders having children out of wedlock, the real threat to marriage, if you’re so concernned about preserving marriage for heteros?

        Pink News, could you please ban this idiot. He goes under other aliases I suspect.

      2. I thought you liked freedom of speech.

        Do you seek to deny Robert his freedom to express to an elected MP (whether they represent him or not) how he feels?

        If you do wish to deny this, then its you who seek to suppress freedom of speech and who are intolerant.

        Both characteristics you have shown on Pinknews.co.uk frequently; not least but you direct support for those who wish to take up arms to combat LGBT people – and you refuse to say whether you wish to endorse the taking up of arms too.

        Coward!

        1. Religion is insanity in trolls. 21 Apr 2012, 3:13pm

          The problem with the religious delusional fundies is that they are incapable of speaking the truth. McCartney just cannot stand up and speak plainly. He is a christo fundie, he hates gay people, he associates with others of like mind. However, he knows that the truth of him would mean an end of his political ambitions, because most people are actually quite reasonable and don’t like to see others done down or treated like second class citizens. Free speech fine, but when people like McCarthy try to pull the wool over the public’s eyes by pretending to have concerns that are nothing but a mask for his homophobia then he and they are going to be subject to public questioning. Truth in this case will out and hopefully he will also be out of the Parliament after the next general election.

        2. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Apr 2012, 3:16pm

          Thank you, Phoenix! The fact that McCarney isn’t his MP proves how stupid he is, as if that should prevent anyone from sending an email regardless of where they live. Many of us have emailed MPs in other constitutencies that aren’t our own. Just proves how really uninformed he is and clearly doesn’t understand the British system. I suspect he’s one of those American shills cum hate-mongers who are losing the battle in the United States. You know what they say about those obsessed with gay issues who claim to be straight and married with children of course. None of my straight friends and family members troll gay web or blogsites and why would they, just as we don’t troll ‘christian’ sites abusing their members. We’re a lot better than they are by far.

          1. Robert wrote: “None of my straight friends and family members troll gay web or blogsites and why would they, just as we don’t troll ‘christian’ sites abusing their members.”

            I suggest that you check the Coalition for Marriage facebook page and see the handiwork of the militant gay lobby there. I actually only got to know of PN because of their trolling there. Their comments there reveal a group of people in need of help and some truths. That is why I am here to help make the truth sink in!

          2. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Apr 2012, 4:55pm

            Ken, Keith, Aiden whoever you claim to be, you don’t know what the truth is. Your group of hatemongers believe that polygamy, incestuous and bestial relationships, child marriages will be heralded if equal civil marriage is allowed. Your lot can’t even produce any evidence to prove your disgustingly vile and offensive claims. It’s worse than bearing false witness against one’s neighbour (LGBT people). It’s downright bigotry, hypocrisy and blatant homophobia. Who are the people demanding polygamy and the other disgusting, illegal activities that you believe will result? Why can’t you and your C4M hate group as well as McCartney provide the evidence? How many polygamous marriages have occurred in the UK since Holland, eleven years ago, introduced equal civil marriage for the first time, followed by nine other countries and Denmark in June this year? Statistics please. Which groups have demanded them? We’re waiting.

          3. Rev Andrew Knight 21 Apr 2012, 4:58pm

            Ken

            Unfortunately the lies of the Christian Institute and the Coalition for Marriage are crystal clear.

            It saddens me and hurts me that there are some people who call themselves Christians, they behave in such a damaging and vindictive ways to other people. Their deliberately callous words hurt LGBT people, LGBT Christians and many other Christians who see the torment caused by the unscriptural approaches of some who abuse their faith and blaspheme through their acts.

            These are not the actions that Jesus would teach – they lack love, compassion, neighborliness and honesty.

            Archbishop Tutu said “If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn’t worship that God.” and when he says homophobia is a ‘crime against humanity’ and ‘every bit as unjust’ as apartheid’. I entirely agree with him.

            Take care, your actions may be something you are held account for in the future.

          4. “I actually only got to know of PN because of their trolling there.”

            Trolling is the correct word. You make the arguments of loser.

            Ergo, its why the christian right are losing.

  67. TheAnitBarHam 21 Apr 2012, 4:36pm

    Surely his resignation MUST be called for? What a complete bigot.
    To make matters worse, a fellow conservative member standing for election in Castle Ward, Lincoln. Has been heard making the same claims – Malcolm Barham, standing as Conservative Cllr candidate -DO NOT VOTE FOR HIM, intact, if he is supporting Mr McCartney in these bigoted claims surely a protest at the polling stations needs organising??

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Apr 2012, 6:32pm

      I would hazard a guess and say the majority of the Tory Party in parliament would vote against equal civil marriage, thereby defeating it. I just don’t see majority support in their party at this time do you? I voted for them in the last election for the first time, but probably won’t in 2015 if this fails. They didn’t exactly do well in the last general election. With fewer gay votes, I doubt if it would get re-elected subject to the failure of equal marriage.

  68. Rational Wiki has a comprehensive list of the ways same sex marriage will affect opposite sex heterosexual marriage.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ways_same-sex_marriage_will_affect_heterosexual_marriage

    1. Pure genius !

      * like *

  69. I’ll keep it brief: *anker! And he doesn’t work in the city!

  70. Bisexual woman in Edinburgh 21 Apr 2012, 6:32pm

    Could someone please explain to me why England has seen fit to ban same-sex marriage but continues to allow forced marriage? Apparently they don’t want to criminalise it in case it deters people from coming forward, which makes me wonder what the reasoning was for not criminalising marital rape until a few decades ago. Fabulous tradition of marriage we have in the UK!

    1. It hasn’t banned same-sex marriage, it has not drafted legislation to permit it-there is a major difference here.
      And the government does not ‘allow’ forced marriage; it is just hard to detect.
      Your point of marriage is valid, which makes me wonder just why anybody in their right mind would want it when civil partnerships- which are far more civilised and make no mention of sex- are the better option for everybody-heteros and homosexuals included.
      There’s never been any nonsense of conjugal rights in a civil partnership.
      With respect, the supporters of gay marriage are cutting off their noses to spite their faces to a certain degree.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Apr 2012, 9:08pm

        By default there is an unspoken ban on same-sex marriage in our country if you look at the wording of the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1973 where it clearly defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

        Can you point to any group advocating for heterosexual CPs replacing civil marriage? I can’t. Where is the demand among heterosexuals if they’re so equal? In fact you’ve done a nice job by explaining that they are not by the differences between the two. The ones who are cutting off their noses to spite their faces are actually those in CPs who oppose equal marriage for the overwhelming majority of us who want it. Just because some of you don’t care for marriage doesn’t mean you should oppose it, just as I wouldn’t oppose people to have freedom of religion even though I’m a non-believer. Further, if CPs are the cat’s whiskers, then why aren’t other countries imitating them or demanding them for both orientations? They carry barely any portability once you leave the UK.

        1. In fact CPs aren’t recognised in at least some (if not all) countries that have same sex marriage. Like Portugal, where the surviving partner of a couple who got a CP, retired and bought a house there was made homeless because she couldn’t afford the inheritance tax payable on her late unmarried partner’s property.

        2. Sorry, Robert, the word ban indicates a positive action.

          And, yes, there are people who want cp’s who are heterosexual.
          You must know that there is no reference to consummation and other sexual aspects to a civil partnership; that has its appeal to some people.
          You want equal marriage, I can only see that means you want how marriage is at the moment and that means discussion over what constitutes adultery in homosexual terms. Now this is not homophobia on my part, I feel discussion of ANYBODY’s sex life in terms of a legal union to be wrong in this day and age.
          So, yeah, plenty of heterosexuals want civil partnerships.
          All this fetishisation about marriage. It’s so daft. Why not just have civil partnerships for all? I’m not a hypocrite, as a heterosexual, I would honestly not mind at all.
          The only point on which I agree is the portability aspect, that’s valid. Fair enough.

          1. S

            Firstly, why do you feel the need to attack same sex marriage? Why not (if you genuinely believe in polygamy do something constructive to advance your cause rather than trying – albeit, unsuccessfully – to damage other peoples attempts to have the right to marry?

            Secondly, “ban” – one definition is “to deprive others of various rights due to a personal characteristic” – that is exactly what is in place in the UK. Indeed, the C4M themselves have called for (and I quote) the BAN on same sex couples marrying to remain in place. Cameron said he saw no reason why there should be a BAN on same sex couples marrying etc etc. You might not like the language, but its language accepted by many in this debate.

            Now, be a good chap – get lost, go and rally your polygamist troops and stop being an evident failure.

      2. S

        You don’t believe civil partnerships are much more civilised, not making mention of sex and nonsense of conjugal rights blah blah blah. So stop trying to play devils advocate to make it look like you are making a point and winning the argument.

  71. What?

    …again WHAT????

    Who is this dude? Why is he even relevant? Obviously he’s a bigot who has nothing better to do but to discriminate agains others. Why do we even care what this idiot thinks about us?

    1. Because he is an MP who will join the equal-marriage opposition movement headed by the conservative MP for Enfield & Southgate to try and de-rail the governments plans to legalise equal marriage. Within parliament he speaks for part of England & Wales on this consultation. If there are enough MPs like him equal marriage may not happen by 2015. David Cameron might have said it’s not if but when but that is spin, until a Bill has been drafted and been approved by both Houses it can stalled or shelved just like any other piece of draft legislation. If not enough people within England and Wales care about this happening, it may not happen.

  72. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Apr 2012, 9:17pm

    To digress a bit, check the BBC’s documentary on Mitt Romney. I can see a parallel between what the religious right in America and their counterparts in the UK. This is what we’re up against if someone doesn’t put them in their place.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Apr 2012, 9:19pm

      I forgot to post the link in my last post. Here it is. McCartney should watch it.

      http://joemygod.blogspot.com/

    2. Spears
      You sound as puritanical and self-important as any priest. In fact, from a neutral viewpoint, I’d say that supporters of gay marriage are the new puritanicals.
      Listen I can use your own words back to you:

      ‘consensually wish to marry to celebrate their love’

      If this is the ONLY reason for gay marriage, the only justification you can give for it, then nothing you say makes it non-applicable to more than two adults who wish to celebrate their love, too.

      Face it, the only logical stance is to support both gay and polygamous marriage or refuse all attempts at marriage redefintion and simply maintain the status quo.

      1. “Face it, the only logical stance is to support both gay and polygamous marriage or refuse all attempts at marriage redefintion and simply maintain the status quo.”

        Oh, beautiful example of “false dichotomy” logical fallacy.

        You should also look up “mutual exclusivity”. Its ctualy applies here. You’re argument is as flawed as your veiled attempts to hide your bigotry in “logic”

        Better luck next time.

        1. ‘Mutual exclusivity’ -never heard of open marriages?

          Please don’t lecture me on what marriage is. Who do you think you are? A traditional republican with an aproned wife and 2.4 kids?

          If the FUNDAMENTAL numero uno point of marriage i.e. between man and woman can be changed, so can other aspects.

          This is patently obvious.

          1. Obvious to an indictrinated idiot!

          2. “Please don’t lecture me on what marriage is”

            I’m lecturing you on basic logic, get over the histrionics.

            “between man and woman can be changed, so can other aspects.”

            Who said this is fundamental? You?

            So?

            Quit the ranting like a demented animal and make a valid point.

          3. “A traditional republican with an aproned wife and 2.4 kids?”

            And why would you think I’m an American? Time to open your ego-centric small mind here, sweetie. And a good education on logical facilities wouldn’t go amiss either.

      2. S

        Where is you campaign for polygamy?

        Why do you feel the need to piggy back the campaign for same sex marriage?

        What makes you believe that 19 people married to each other is more legitimate that 2 gay men who love each other marrying?

        If you did persuade society that polygamy should be introduced would you recognise same sex polygamy – somehow, I suspect that will not be the case!

        Oh do you have emotions – are you human, because if you do not recognise the reasons for love and committment then you are a very shallow and insular person!

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Apr 2012, 1:20pm

          Carlos, there is no campaign for polygamy in any western country and these idiots know it. If you ask them to provided official government reports of the ten countries where equal marriage is legal, they won’t be able to find any statistics to support their lies. It’s a red herring to foment fear-mongering, in fact a lie. Telling lies and bearing false witness against gay people and equal civil marriage are not what christians are supposed to be doing. It’s also a display of desperation. They know they have no rational argument so they invent fear-mongering and spurious claims that have no foundation or truth. I’ve already asked C4M for the evidence and of course I received NO response because there isn’t any. They’re nothing more than fraudulent and dishonest and refuse to admit they’re homophobic which is really what this is all about.

  73. Any reason why this hasn’t got into the local newspapers in Lincoln. I’ve looked at various websites BBC lincoln, thisislincolnshire etc but nothing. Have the receivers of these offensive letters written to their local papers.

    Also don’t know whether there is a non conservative majority council in lincoln but following in the footsteps of Thanet seems a good idea to me….

    I think Roger Gale has been truly and utterly trashed for his lies and rubbish and I think this guy should as well…

    1. David Millar 22 Apr 2012, 2:25pm

      John, I spoke to BBC Lincs Radio duty editor on Friday eve. Just Lincolnshire Equality & Human Rights Council has an embargoed press statement which will be referred to on BBC Radio Breakfast Show Mon 7.30 a.m. . My persoan letter published in Lincolnshire Echo 12th April derided a regular contributor`s `pet hate` of gays and gay marriage.
      Its the weekend, am afraid!

    2. The thelincolnite.co.uk has reported on this.

      I also received Mr McCartney’s letter.

      Roll on the next election, ANYONE will represent Lincoln better.

  74. How can a politician be sooooooo stupid? How can voters elect such stuuuuupid people to represent them??

    1. Lumi Bast and others against polygamy
      You’ve no right whatsoever to dictate to polygamists what marriage should or should not be.
      It’s not as if you’re married according to GOP principles, is it?

      You bang on about how marriage is about TWO people with exactly the same conviction as any Catholic is about it being between a man and a woman.

      Totally no self-awareness as you are disrespecting one so-called ‘alternative’ lifestyle but expecting your own to be tolerated.

      1. S

        You have no right to try and piggy back the campaign for same sex marriage in the “cause of polygamy”

        Go and start your own campaign elsewhere!

      2. “Totally no self-awareness as you are disrespecting one so-called ‘alternative’ lifestyle but expecting your own to be tolerated.”

        Fine, then f-off to a religious/republican site and make your case there, its irrelevant to us either way. You want polygamy, then go fight for it.

        And spare us the pain of your histrionics.

  75. Owen,
    I am a militant atheist. I don’t really care if you gay people can marry, as long as you accept the rights of other consenting adults to marry.

    Frankly, though, supporters of gay marriage are as closed-minded about what marriage ‘should’ be as any priest.

    Don’t tell me or others what it ‘should’ be. Cameron shot his mouth off-fool that he is about gay marriage- now, OK, forget child + animal marriage, that IS b.s., but polygamy? Yep, a real possibility. Get over it.

    1. @S

      For someone who doesn’t really care if gay people can marry, you’re spending a lot of time arguing the point !

      You’re spending a lot of time arguing for something that has never happened !

      Please provide a link to what Mr Cameron said that so upsets you.

      You keep stating that polygamy is a real possibility, but you have not shown it to have occured !

      Why are you obsessing over something that you say you don’t care about, and has not actually happened ?

      1. “For someone who doesn’t really care if gay people can marry, you’re spending a lot of time arguing the point !”

        You said it Harry. S or whatever she calls herself should go to a polygamy web site, her “logic” has no real bearing on reality here.

        1. Totally, if she genuinely believes in polygamy – she should concentrate on advancing that cause, not suppressing the cause of LGBT people.

          She certainly is militant, atheist – doubt it, polygamist – doubt it, lying religious extremist – probably!

      2. Thanks Will !

        Quite. He employs slippery slope arguments and seemingly cannot see them to be fallacies. The fact that they are well known errors is really quite embarrassing.

        Other examples:

        + giving women the vote will lead to the vote being given to animals.

        + letting black and white people marry will lead to polygamous marriage

        1. or to put it another way, Harry. The false logic would also extrapolate to these facetious arguments:

          If you believe black people should be able to marry white people – then you must assume white or black people can marry rabbits?

          If you believe that non white people should only be able to sit on the back seat of the bus, then it follows that left handed people should only be able to go to a supermarket between the hours of midnight and 6am.

          If you believe a man should be barred from marrying more than one woman – then he should also be barred from marrying any woman.

          All crazy arguments that are similar to the pure ad hominems on the part of S.

    2. @S

      So do you care if groups of 72 people can marry each other?

      Do you really care?

      You seem to show no emotion other than anger and attacking gay people.

      You also lack logic.

      Do you REALLY care about polygamy?

      If you don’t care about gay people marrying, why on earth are you crowing on about it so much?

      Evil personified! Keith/S

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Apr 2012, 1:12pm

      Provide the evidence for polygamy occuring please? Same-sex civil marriage has been legal in Holland for eleven years, the first country to introduce it, nine others have since legalised it. Surely, eleven years is long enough for polygamy to gain any traction? Just for the record, tell us how many polygamous heterosexual marriages have taken place in the last eleven years? Identify who the people are who are demanding it in any of the countries where we can marry? We want to see the statistics. You seem to forget, polygamy was invented by heterosexuals and predates biblical times . The old testament condones it. It is ILLEGAL in most countries, including the UK, so anyone attempting to commit polygamy or bigamy faces imprisonment. Who in their right mind is going to take that risk? You’re delusional to even buy into such nonsense and pandering to fear-mongering. I challenge you to contact the governments of 10 countries for a report of polygamous marriage statistics.

    4. “I am a militant atheist. I don’t really care if you gay people can marry”

      And yet you use right wing religious definition of marriage…… funny that. For an “atheist”.

  76. @S

    “If the FUNDAMENTAL numero uno point of marriage i.e. between man and woman can be changed, so can other aspects.”

    This is your definition, not that of other people. You have previously argued that a definition in terms of love and committment is of less value that this. Does your wife love you, and is she committed to you ? What about your love and committment to her ? Your previous comments state that this is less important that the fact that you have a penis and she has a vagina.

    You continuously argue that gay marriage will lead to polygamous marriage. But gay marriage has happened already in many countries, not one has enacted polygamous marriage.

    1. The cold point of marriage in reality instead of la-la land is that it is a legal framework in which heterosexuals to bring up children-this is NOT to say that adults need to be married to reproduce, just marriage provides framework.

      If you want to make it about love and commitment between consenting adults-fair enough- then it should be accepted that there is no reason to deny it to polygamists.

      In Canada, polygamists are callng for marriage.

      1. What does ‘framework’ mean ?

        Apart from the question of consent. Please stop ignoring this question.

        Link please.

        1. You beat me to it Dwayne !

      2. @S

        Are the case of Canada that religious extremists keep using.

        Canadian Federal government have made it clear there is no intention or prospect of polygamy being viewed as legal in Canada.

        The Toronto Sun reported in Nov 2011:
        “B.C. Supreme Court has upheld Canada’s polygamy laws, but says minors who end up in polygamous marriages should be exempt from prosecution.
        In a 335-page decision released on Wednesday, Chief Justice Robert Bauman ruled in favour of the section of the Criminal Code outlawing polygamous unions.
        In his ruling, Bauman said while the law does infringe on religious freedom, it is justified given the harm polygamy causes to children, women and society.
        “I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm,” Bauman wrote in the decision that was handed down Wednesday morning in Vancouver.”
        “More specifically, Parliament’s reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the

        1. institution of monogamous marriage.”
          But he suggested the law shouldn’t be used to criminalize minors who find themselves married into polygamous unions.”

          As reported earlier this month in the Huffington Post:
          “The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have renewed investigation into possible polygamy within the Bountiful B.C. religious commune, a settlement of roughly 1,000 members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints located in southeastern British Columbia near the U.S.-Canadian border, the Canadian Press reports.
          Shirley Bond, the attorney-general of British Columbia, issued instructions this week for special prosecutor Peter Wilson to consider filing polygamy charges against members of the commune, which was heavily investigated last year on allegations that underage girls were being moved across the border from the United States into Canada for the purpose of being entered into plural marriages with older men”
          During a trial in 2009 which led to the earlier

        2. BC constitutional court review, Loy Nielsen, former president of the FLDS’s legal department, was found guilty on three charges of bigamy, though he was alleged to have 30 bigamous wives .
          During the trial, Nielsen was also accused of playing a role in 326 mostly bigamous marriages, 50 of which involved girls 12 to 18-years-old.”

          It seems to me some of those seeking polygamy, are religious extremists who wish to engage in underage and incestuous relationships and have zero relevance to same sex couples making a loving commitment to each other.

          It seems to me that most other people who seek polygamy are disingenuous and have no real interest in polygamy and seek to use it as an irrelevant excuse to try and muddy the water about same sex marriage.

          Polygamy and same sex marriage are not connected.

  77. @S

    Reading for you about slippery slope fallacies:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

    But de Quincey puts it more elegantly:

    Once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination. Once begin upon this downward path, you never know where you are to stop. Many a man has dated his ruin from some murder or other that perhaps he thought little of at the time.

  78. @S

    “You’ve no right whatsoever to dictate to polygamists what marriage should or should not be.”

    You’re saying that there should be no discussion about marriage at all. Hardly a way to win an argument.

    “It’s not as if you’re married according to GOP principles, is it?”

    What does this even mean ? Using American references on a predominently English site is not going to convince. What is your point here ?

    “You bang on about how marriage is about TWO people with exactly the same conviction as any Catholic is about it being between a man and a woman.”

    Any Catholic and you. The difference being that we argue for equality and extension of human rights, whereas you argue for inequality and denial of human rights.

  79. @S

    “Totally no self-awareness as you are disrespecting one so-called ‘alternative’ lifestyle but expecting your own to be tolerated.”

    This is your claim about what we’re doing. It is manifest that this is not the case. We are advocating marriage equality between straight people and LGBT people. You ignore all posts that point this out. You provide no evidence that this has ever happened. You’re conflating lifestyles (polygamy) with genetic makeup (homosexuality). You accuse us of disrespect. I submit that people who talk in terms of respect are those with a sense of entitlement and who cannot defend their beliefs so want no debate about them. Your first statement supports this conclusion. If this is the case, then stop posting on this site. If you do want to argue your case, whatever it is, then argue it logically. Otherwise go away, as the sport you provide is beginning to pale.

  80. Dwayne’s just posted this link:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/11/23/bc-polygamy-ruling-supreme-court.html

    I should like to draw a few paragraphs from the judgement to general notice:

    “I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm.”

    “While the law does infringe on religious freedom, it is justified given the harm polygamy causes to children, women and society.”

    “Women in polygamous relationships are at an elevated risk of physical and psychological harm. They face higher rates of domestic violence and abuse, including sexual abuse.”

    He also pointed out higher mortality rates of children born into polygamous families, the dangers of early sexualization of girls, gender inequality, and the problem of so-called lost boys – young men turfed out of polygamous communities as a result of competition for young brides.

    1. So? I’m sure not ALL polygamous marriages are like that. So why shouldn’t they, too, be able to marry each other if all are consenting adults?

      You surely have heard about all the harm homosexual marriage is supposed to lead to (I’m neutral). Maybe those against it have got a point, too?

      As for ‘framework’ for reproduction, all this means is that the government grants marriage in order to protect the main caring parent against desertion/divorce. That is, marriage allows compensation for parents via maintenance (in theory).

      As gay people are inherently infertile (apart from a few) government has no real reason to recognise their relationships at all. Just two adults living together when all is said and done.

      But if even a few gay couples adopt and a FEW polygamous marriages are non-abusive then arguments for both gay and polygamous marriages have weight. Gay marriage has no more of a right to happen than polygamous ones.

      1. Infertile in sense of not being able to have children as a couple.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Apr 2012, 2:34pm

          Just like some heterosexual married couples who are infertile and have to resort to invitro fertlization or surrogacy. How convenient you forgot to mention that. Why should they be allowed to marry if procreation is the primary reason for marriage? There is NO procreation mandate in civil marriage nor is it a requisite. So again, your argument is flawed.

        2. S

          You might have deceved yourself into believing that you are unbiased on the issue of same sex couples marrying, your words betray you.

          You are about as unbiased and balanced as Anders Breivik is about Muslims.

    2. @S

      All polygamous marriages don’t have to be like that for the proscription to be justified: the proportion and severity of harm determine that, not the hypothetical existence of one harmless example.

      Please provide a reference to a reputable source detailing the harm of marriage equality. I am unaware of one currently, please give details.

      As far as a framework is concerned, your saying that marriage exists to protect against divorce. Slightly circular.

      So you’re saying that the government should not recognise the marriages of infertile couples, of couples who choose not to have children, of elderly couples who cannot have children ?

      1. Ask yourself this: why should the government provide marriage at ALL for anybody? No reason. But it does because it has an interest in how children are raised. Yes, it is an insurance policy against the caring parent becoming destitute.
        OK, not all couples reproduce, but it would simply be not possible to check out every marrying couple for this.
        And to deny it to the elderly would get bad press.

        But to actually introduce marriage, to go out of its way to allow gay couples to marry? Why when homosexual unions are sterile by definition.

        The truth is this: even civil partnerships are OTT for most homosexual unions but are there because there is enough similarities between homo and hetero’s to grant them. Most gay people don’t even want cp’s let alone marriage. THAT’S the truth of it.
        Once you strip away the essence of marriage about being for procreation, anything goes as long it’s about consenting adults.
        If marriage has no core truth, this is what happens

        1. What is the core truth of marriage to a militant atheist like you, S?

          NB I do not believe you are a militant atheist – as Yvonne said earlier, your words betray you.

      2. Well it’s good for society.

        How exactly is marriage an insurance policy against the caring parent (which one ?) becoming destitute ?

        With your concern for efficiency, why not allow couples to marry only when they’ve had children ?

        Only by your definition is marriage about procreation only. Others define it differently. Are you married ? Do you have children ?

        Please provide evidence for your assertion that most gay people do not want civil partnerships. You seem to spending a lot of time arguing against gay marriage (though your argument is now different to what it was earlier) for someone who claims they are 1) not interested one way or another and 2) does not believe even CP’s are really wanted.

        As far as ‘anything goes’ when we expand your definition of language, the reality of the situation is this has not happened.

        If you think it has, why not provide evidence ?

  81. David Millar 22 Apr 2012, 2:27pm

    John, I spoke to BBC Lincs Radio duty editor on Friday eve. Just Lincolnshire Equality & Human Rights Council has an embargoed press statement which will be referred to on BBC Radio Breakfast Show Mon 7.30 a.m. . My personal letter published in Lincolnshire Echo 12th April derided a regular contributor`s `pet hate` of gays and gay marriage.
    Its the weekend, am afraid!

  82. The argument that tries to claim some (false) link between same sex couples marrying and polygamy is what ancient Romans called it ‘argumentum ad vegetation’, which can be summed up as “If a man can marry a man then what’s to stop people marrying plants?!” For example, see C4M director Don Horrocks, who argued in 2006 that allowing gay marriage will lead to “people wanting to marry their horse”, If you don’t understand why that’s a stupid argument, then you’re probably still trying to work out what all these funny letter-symbols mean.
    The Coalition for Marriage’s version of the argument goes: “If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?”
    One answer is that marriage already has been redefined, not once but many times, throughout history and across multiple acts of Parliament.
    Another answer is that this is thinly-veiled totalitarianism, which becomes clear when you strip back the terms and realize that the core of this sentence is: “if people

    1. are allowed to change laws, what’s to stop them changing them to something we think is bad?!” Democratic societies changing laws can only end in madness and destruction after all.
      A third answer, and the one Guardian blogger Martin Robbins went with, is “so what?”. He went on to say:
      “What’s wrong with polygamy? It seems to me that a child brought up by three loving parents would have some quite big economic advantages, and humans have cooperated in child-rearing since the year dot.”
      Thus the Christian Institute’s indignant response, “Guardian blogger defends polygamy and attacks C4M” – it may not be a coincidence that the C4M.org.uk domain name was registered by a Jon Errington, and that a Jon Errington also works as an administrator at the CI. Their article continues:
      “A blogger on the Guardian’s website has denied there is anything wrong with polygamy as he attacked a new group which supports marriage between one man and one woman.”
      This seems like a pretty poor attempt at

    2. misdirection.
      Still, it’s an interesting misdirection because it led to the Christian Institute making (or at least trying to make) an evidence-based case against polygamy:
      “A study this year showed that societies where monogamy is the norm are safer than polygamous ones. Researchers at the University of British Columbia found that polygamous cultures have higher levels of robbery, rape, kidnapping, fraud and murder.
      “Professor Joseph Henrich, one of the report’s authors, warned that the crimes were primarily driven by pools of unmarried men, a result of some men taking multiple wives.”
      The study they cite is sadly tucked behind a pay-wall. While it makes interesting reading, it’s really about the historical development of social institutions that enforced monogamous marriage and their relationship to the rise of Western civilization, rather than an attempt to put forward a predictive model of the world today.
      Modern case studies would be more useful, and The Christian Institute are

    3. appy to provide one:
      “In Holland, where same-sex marriage was introduced in 2001, three-way relationships were given legal recognition through a “cohabitation agreement” in 2005.”
      So are gangs of blue-balled Dutch men roaming the streets smashing windows and shagging livestock? Hardly. The Netherlands retains a low crime rate that has been in gentle decline for most of the last decade. I’m not saying that disproves the thesis, but it doesn’t exactly support it either.
      Even if polygamy did somehow affect crime rates, the number of people likely to take advantage of such a law in the UK is minuscule, and people who want to have multiple partners are perfectly able to do so now. It’s a struggle to see how the crime rate would be affected either way, and frankly C4M’s arguments sound more like post hoc justifications than the genuine basis for their stance.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Apr 2012, 12:52pm

        Well said, Yvonne. I’ve said this many times but I want C4M and its rabble of hate-mongering homophobes to provide the consultation with the factual evidence in regard to polygamy, child marriage and incestuous and bestial relationships. They’ve had more than enough time to come forward with the proof considering there are now ten foreign governments that have introduced equal civil marriage. Nobody has challenged them and it needs to be done to really expose them for the frauds they are. None of them are ‘christians’ if they’re spreading lies and false information. Last time I checked, telling lies is a violation of one of the commandments.

  83. The idea of redefining marriage, removing the need for consummation by sexual intercourse, so that there is one type of “marriage” encompassing both straight and gay couples manifestly leaves us with a concept of “marriage” so enormously distant from the Christian concept that state marriage is no longer a form of Christian marriage – indeed, it could even be argued that the state marriage concept is not even a subset of Christian marriage, but actively in conflict with it such that churches should not merely not recognise state marriages but should actively discourage believers from participating in it. But that is not because gay marriage threatens the Christian concept of marriage. The churches have this quite wrong. Rather, it is only because state marriage is already so different from (and incompatible with) Christian marriage that the idea of modifying the marriage concept to include homosexual unions is even contemplated. Given what state marriage already is, there is no

    1. good reason for state marriage not to include homosexuals.
      Traditional Christian marriage, as a regulator of sexual activity, implied a permanent and ongoing contract of consent to sexual intercourse – traditionally there could by definition be no such thing as a rape within a marriage. (That was also much of the force of the so-called “buggery laws” – when you married she agreed to have sex with you, but she hadn’t agreed to do just anything.) Failure to provide sex within marriage was a serious matter and indeed a motivator of public policy – during the Commonwealth, Cromwell was famously petitioned by Puritan women to ban the sale of coffee on the grounds that when their husbands drank too much coffee they lost sexual interest in their wives. Violating the sexual covenant in the other direction, through adultery, was a serious crime and violation of the Ten Commandments on a par with theft and murder.
      The granting of any form of divorce / separation / annulment was a serious

    2. and rare matter – even in the late 19th century liable to be covered in the newspapers; earlier the sort of thing that led to wars and schisms and the establishment of new churches. If there were to be divorce, that was because someone was seriously in the wrong – e.g. an adulterer. The wronged party would have all the sympathy, retain property and dignity and children, and the party in the wrong would face serious sanction.
      State marriage has removed almost all of this. There is almost no connection left with sexual activity, with contracts about sexual activity, or with justice of any sort in a state marriage. The state does not recognise contracts of permanent consent to sexual intercourse – rape within marriage is now conceptually possible and a crime. Violating the covenant through denial of sex within marriage is no longer a matter of public policy; indeed it now barely even qualifies for stand-up humour. Violating the covenant through adultery carries no legal sanction

    3. and virtually no social sanction – it makes no difference whatever, for example, to the allocation of children in a divorce. The state does not see marriage in terms of a contract regulating sexual activity – it does not believe it is the role of the state to intervene in people’s sex lives, telling them that they ought to have sex with A because they promised to do so or they ought not to have sex with B because they promised not to. All that remains are a few details in the law about consummation – but these are nothing more than an echo of a bygone age.
      And aside from a few eccentrics, virtually no-one regrets any of this. Few would want to go back to locking people up for adultery or telling married women they had agreed to have sex with their husbands and so could not be raped or to allocating children and property to the innocent party in a divorce?
      State marriage is not today anything to do with regulating sexual intercourse. It is simply a bundle of contracts about matters

    4. such as inheritance, next of kin for medical purposes, pensions, and so on. It is not the solemnization of a mystical union of two people joined in one flesh in covenant partnership. So there is no good reason for churches to object if state marriage encompasses homosexuals, allowing them to bundle their contracts in the same convenient way.
      And of course, the corollary of all this is that when people enter into a state marriage, they do not enter into a Christian marriage. So if churches want people to be married* (where “married* = Christian-married”) they will have to do it themselves.
      Unfortunately some churches are confusing the issue and creating false arguments about polygamy, animals etc which is as ahorrent as the legitimizing of rape in marriage which the state resolved years ago.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Apr 2012, 4:48pm

        Well said, Michael. Further, there is no mandate to procreate through civil marriage or admonition by the officiant to the couple about to enter into a marital contract. Religious bigots don’t see it that way who seem to equate civil marriage with traditional. As for the polygamy red herring, they’ve yet to come forth with the evidence or point to any group of people intent on legalising it should equal civil marriage become the law. Polygamous relationships are as old as civilisation, are condoned in the old testament and are uniquely heterosexual, an invention of theirs. What they fail to acknowledge is that polygamy is illegal in almost all western societies. They are delusional and disingenuous if they really believe government are going to allow it.

      2. sorry one correction,

        civil marriage for homosexuals will actually INTRODUCE a need for consummation (ie can get an annulment) and will allow homosexual couples to cite adultery as a reason for the breakdown of their relationship and asking for divorce.

        The fact these were excluded from CPs is shockingly worrying as to how MPs at the time time saw our “sexual morality” with the assumption of we would never not have sex, and it didn’t matter if we had sex outside of our marriage as if that is somehow seen as acceptable by the LGBT community.

        I for one will be glad it these provisions are added, I would want the right to divorce my partner if i found out they were sleeping with someone else.

        1. Fair point James

          But I agree with everything else Michael said.

  84. Religion is insanity in trolls. 22 Apr 2012, 4:52pm

    http://manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx

    The above cited website and the actual “Manhattan Declaration” is the source of the propaganda that McCartney and his ilk are presently vomiting out. Note how homosexuality and polygamy are used as an interchangable term in that document. In all probability this is a policy decision to try and fix in the public arena that spurious connection. I challenge McCartney to state for the public record that he does not subscribe to the Manhattan Declaration as I do the other ‘christian’ MP’s in the UK Parliament. This is the charter for organised homophobia they follow to the letter of the words used.

  85. Archbishop of Taunton 22 Apr 2012, 6:55pm

    I will not now be voting Conservative, after all, as this man reminds me of the larger part of the iceberg of bigotry and ignorance that lies hidden under the surface.

  86. @Keith

    Glad to see you’ve using more mature names than you have in the past.

    Agreed. Marriage is a matter of equality and fundamental fairness. I am glad you now accept this.

    Could you provide any reliable evidence about your claim that gay (is this what you mean by ‘homosexualite’ ?) relationships fail disproportionately ?

    Could you provide any reliable evidence about your claim that gay relationships yield a disproportionate amount of cases of HIV/AIDS ?

    Could you provide any reliable evidence about your claim that gay relationships are disproportionately promiscuis ?

    When you call Stu a shameless, demented turd pusher do you think that comment says something about you ? Do you find you have a lot of success in debates ? Or do people just laugh at you ?

    I am concerned about the polce: are you in danger from them ?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Apr 2012, 8:46pm

      Harry, heterosexual marriages are failing at almost 50%. Who was responsible for that I wonder? Who is responsible for serial adultery and divorce? We all know the answer to that don’t we?

      1. Robert, is it the polce ? Are they (it ?) what Keith is afraid of ?

        I think we should be told.

  87. @Keith

    By the bye, are you suggesting that the British Columbia Supreme Court judge, Chief Justice Robert Bauman, would use ‘dodgy statistics’ ?

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/11/23/bc-polygamy-ruling-supreme-court.html

  88. Actually if you look at the divorce statistics and compare it to dissolution ones you will see that more same sex unions are working then opposite sex ones but perhaps this is because the same sex couples have been waiting years for the right to be recognised whereas straight couples have no respect for it such as Kim Kardashian’s recent one which was made purely for tv.

  89. @James

    I am beginning to be convinced by Keith’s arguments: it is vital that we protect things like the sanctity of Britney Spear’s 55 hour marriage to Jason Allen Alexande

  90. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Apr 2012, 8:49pm

    Pink News, could you please block Keith 1 Stu(pid) 0 from posting here. He’s using abusive language at other people and is contributing nothing to the discussion other than absurd statements in order to agitate. He goes under other aliases I believe such as Aiden, Ken, Buzz. Thank you.

    1. Seconded.

    2. @Keith

      The beliefs you hold and act on lead to tragedies like the suicide of Kenneth Weishuhn Jr:

      http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/17/gay-teen-from-iowa-commits-suicide/

      Why don’t you do something good instead of making more hatred in the world ?

      Do you really want your epitaph to be:

      A life devoted to spreading hate.

      Have you nothing more in your life than trolling on LGBT forums ?

      1. So you believe using terms clearly intended to offend without any factual basis is doing good?

        1. You asked Harry that not me. I was addressing a question to you

        2. @Keith

          With your posting under so many different names, you’re making the assumption that other people do this. Although I cannot speak for Kris ( I suspect he does not ): I certainly do not.

          You ask what I do to promote moral cleanliness and virtue. I seek to build a world where people can spend their time free from intimidation and irrational bigotry, where what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their concern, not anyone else’s. If just one teenager reads my opposition to your foul bigotry and draws hope, and this lessens their chance of suicide, then I count my time well spent.

          Now let me pose the question to you again. I accuse you of increasing the likelihood of tragedies like the suicide of Kenneth Weishuhn Jr:

          http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/17/gay-teen-from-iowa-commits-suicide/

          and you don’t attempt to defend yourself.

      2. @Keith

        “Many … homosexuals have infected pregnant women.” You seem a little confused about the whole gay thing. Generally speaking, gay men aren’t that interested in women. But thanks for you interesting perspective.

        Do you think talking about homosexualite deviants to a mainly LGBT audience helps get your message across ?

        For the record, HIV/AIDS was originally spread by heterosexual transmission, the dominant form of transmission in many parts of the world.

        By the bye: you’re starting to sound quite like David Skinner. In fact, very like him.

        1. “Homosexual acts though isareboth promiscuous and unnatural, being unhygenic, contrary to the design of the genitals and to thwe wishes of the creator. AIDS an STDs prove this.”

          Overlooking the gibberish are you making the point that AIDS and STDs are proof that sexual acts where they are caught(you cite homosexual acts) are contrary to the design of the genitals? Cause that would rule out vaginal intercourse as well would it not?

        2. You say that closet gay men have married women and infected them. Surely this is an argument to encourage gay men out of the closet, and the surest way of doing this is to have a free and tolerant society ? I’m glad you are able to support LGBT rights now.

          Saying homosexual acts are promiscuous doesn’t actually make sense. You might claim that gay people are promiscuous, but this isn’t really true, and you still have provided no evidence.

          As to what you mean by ‘unnatural’ I can only guess. Is shaving ‘unnatural’ ? What about IVF ? Antibiotics ? Caesarian sections ? Teapots ?

    3. Just want to point out his name isn’t double barreled. His name is Robert and he’s in South Kensington. Get it?

      And I’m sure you’ll reply with your well thought out reply of “butt buggerer” so before you do I’ll ask you to provide evidence for use of the term in relation to me if you wish to address me as such as fact and not to simply be offensive

      1. Your use of the term is clearly not intended as complimentary. And you use it against me with no proof or knowledge of my orientation or sexual activities so your intent is clearly not factually based to show I am part of the LGB “community” rather than just a supporter

      2. @Keith

        “Is it not he case thay the homosexualites seek to penetrate the fecal passage (which was designed solely for fecal evacuation) with the penis, in order to facilitate incorrect and immoral intercourse?”

        Well it is not just gay people that have anal intercourse. Straight people do too. Is this also incorrect and immoral intercourse ? Could you point out the biblical passage to me please ?

        When you talk about parts of the body being designed, could you tell me by whom ?. Were the lips designed to play the trombone ? Or is it possible for one part of the body to have multiple uses ?

      3. “Is it not he case thay the homosexualites seek to penetrate the fecal passage (which was designed solely for fecal evacuation) with the penis, in order to facilitate incorrect and immoral intercourse?”

        I don’t know, you tell me…. you seem well up on such acts. Was that before you became “ex-gay” or were you born with such acute mental damage?

        See here, it ill give you a starting point: http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/06/15/sex-addiction-linked-to-brain-damage-in-rats/14567.html

    4. Just intrigued by Keith’s clever and witty use of the word homosexualitis, and after brief googling I found this:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xw35CFOrgzE

      Is this where you get all your information from Keith ?

    5. I suspect his clever name was intended to be Keith 1, Stu(pid) 0, bit like a football score. It is actually very clever.

      Unfortunately he got the comma in the wrong place, and typed the letter ‘O’ rather than the number zero. So it makes no sense at all.

      I don’t mean for one instant to suggest that he’s been drinking again, or has gone blind from excessive masturbation whilst reading gay web sites.

      1. Clever … far from it, Harry!

        Oh was that sarcasm … I do apologise!

        They have tried to block him – and no doubt will keep doing so.

        Until he is arrested and then convicted of his inciting hatred and other offences. Looking forward to my date in course.

        1. Oh it will come, Keith.

          I bet you can’t wait for the showers in prison, bet you have been practicing dropping the soap!

        2. @Harry

          Re Keith

          Lack of humility – tick
          Overconfident pride and arrogance – tick
          Condescending – tick
          Loss of contact with reality – tick
          Overestimation of competence – tick
          Delusional – tick

    6. Robert. You are being funny asking that all those whose opinions do not align with yours should be banned. That is censorship and intolerance.

      For your information, I am Ken and Ken alone. Get over it!

      1. He’s asking for a user who posts using abusive language is banned. Would you not agree with such a move or do you agree with the language Keith uses?

    7. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Apr 2012, 12:45pm

      There is no such word as homosexualitis, moron. You need psychiatric care, long-term. Where on earth were you educated that only a devolved brain could dream up such a word?

      1. A child with learning difficulties is also prone to making up words.

        Funny the similarity.

  91. Nutjobsareeverywhere 22 Apr 2012, 10:03pm

    And this twerps an MP? This country has no chance!!

  92. Keith,

    Of course marriage law should not be based on statistics – nor should they be based on spurious historical fiction.

    As for the police, well when they are ready they will come knocking at your door. I know there are some investigations they are waiting on to move forward and they should have that information shortly.

    Maybe you the next person to be arrested for inciting hatred on the internet – there were 7 right wing extremists arrested for that in north last week.

    Keep going – you are digging yourself a hole.

    As for your made up score. I’m not here to play games with you – and even if I were, I wouldnt trust you to referee or decide on points.

    I am here to ensure LGBT people are treated with fairness, integrity and humanity.

    Looking forward to posting my wedding pictures on here to rub it in your face!

  93. I’m sure whatever creator you believe in will be glad to see

    1. your concern for fellow lives

  94. Your callousness is breathtaking Keith. A fourteen year old boy commits suicide because he cannot stand the bullying he receives, and your comment is Should I care ? I don’t.

    I hope you feel proud of yourself. To me, you are disgusting.

    1. “Why not for once challenge me on my views.”

      Er, because you’re nuts?

      Am, you’re a vlie uneducated and drunken fool?

      Em, you’re views are those of a demented ape?

      What to choose, what to choose…..

      1. And because he lacks even the most basic readiog comprehension and is incapable of understanding other people’s points even when they’re explained to him patiently and clearly?

        Maybe if he had better literacy skills he’d be less of a bully as he wouldn’t feel the need to make up for his feelings of inadequacy by picking on other people?

  95. “Should I care? I don’t!”

    That’s more than apparent. And a symptom of one of many acute mental health issues.

    Quel surprise.

  96. “you shameless, demented, turd pusher!”

    What a glowing testament to your lack of education. Well done.

    Can we not afford some methylated spirits tonight, hmmm?

  97. Well done mr Karl for your forthright and truthful views.

    I am not surprised by the ‘backlash’ from the militant gay marriage lobby though. It is said that the truth is usually bitter!

    1. “It is said that the truth is usually bitter!”

      What’s the after taste of denial, then Ken?

    2. Mr Karl?

      Where are you from, Ken?

  98. Copying this from your other reply but I think we can tie it in here too

    “My view is thath omosexuality is deviant and against all moral sense. This is backed up in the bible Not only can I defend those views but I have a legal right to hold them. If that upsets some,so be it!”

    First, you’re correct. You do have a legal right to hold your opinion regarding homosexuality, regardless of where you obain it from. However, nowhere in the Bible or in law, I believe, does it state you have a legal right to seek out people and to insult them using offensive terms, particularly when you have no factual evidence to argue that your use of the term is for anything other than to cause offence or upset. The fact that you do it so often, even openly admitting that you have been banned from this site, presumably more than once, is harassment, if nothing else.

    1. He also claimed to be using someone else’s ISP – a sign that he knows what he’s posting is wrong, I think.

  99. Eurrgh….it’s like the kid in the playground with a bad home life who throws rocks at the other kids to get their attention.

  100. Still obsessed with Stu, are we Keith?

    My, my, my, you just can’t hide that desire to be with a man, can you?

    I doubt Stu feels he same way, I’m positive he’s not into beastiality.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Apr 2012, 3:00pm

      Or incest! The obsession with polygamy, incest, bestiality, gay sex is rife among religious extremists more than in any other group of people. I wonder why? Sexual repression perhaps, really wanting the thing they loathe so much? Damaged goods if you ask me.

      1. “Damaged goods if you ask me.”

        You said it. Keith is damming indictment of the American health and education system. There are viruses more worthy of the name human that Keith. He suffers from some acute mental health issues.

  101. Staircase2 24 Apr 2012, 2:08am

    …the bloody idiot…

    How long before he’s caught in a toilet with his pants around his ankles and a euphemism up his bum? (…He’s gay right?)

  102. Gay activist Paul Mitchell 25 Apr 2012, 2:08pm

    Can I vote for a law that says:

    “idiots who are religious fanatical anti gay bigots may not marry under the law forever”

    Yes____
    No_____

    What would be the outcome of the vote?

    They get to vote on gay people marrying, surely we get to vote on there right to marry (it is only fair right?)

  103. And today in the local news http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/Lincoln-MP-Karl-McCartney-defiant-views-sex/story-15918962-detail/story.html he doesn’t retract a single word. If I was religious I would be asking everyone to pray for the people of Lincoln.

  104. Dear one and all, can’t you respect a man who disagrees with you? Isn’t this the mark of a decent, civilised society? Or must he be attacked with all available weaponry for daring to speak against something you like? Many would agree that the freedoms granted to homosexual couples are right and fair, but to allow is not to condone, nor should people be forced to condone.

    So there you were.. oppressed and attacked.. imprisoned for gay sex, vilified and excluded.. and so you fought for a fairer Britain where this would no longer be the case and gay people would be free to live as they chose.. but freedom isn’t enough, marriage must now be changed beyond it’s historic and thoroughly established meaning to mean something quite different.. forget that this effects the millions of married couples. no.. equality at all costs.. ALL COSTS. Those who oppose must be stopped, they are intolerant, anti-revolutionaries.. enemies within, they are full of hate, so they must be destroyed! (irony included for free).

    And so, like in George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’, the freedom fighters become the oppressors, and all the principles that first guided them are slowly betrayed, twisted and turned into that which they once sought to overthrow.

    Oh Gay rights movement.. you are becoming that which you once fought against.. oppressive, cruel and intolerant. As someone who wants to see a free, fair and tolerant society (tolerance means allowing, not condoning) I ask you to think about some of the things you say and do.. please.

    Let this MP have his say, and you too will have your say, and I will have my say, and as a democracy, remember our duties to all, we’ll find a decent way forward for everyone, that understands that freedom is more important than compliance.

  105. ps.. had to laugh at article comment that ‘many Christian groups’ were in support.. The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement support gay marriage.. well there’s a surprise lol. The VAST majority of Christians, according tothe polls anwyay, oppose gay marriage and perhaps think the idea a contradiction in terms. There are of course, some who disagree with this position, and I respect their view, though challenge them to defend it from a Christian basis.

  106. One more point.. to back up what I was saying about the Orwellian reversal of roles. I’ve read on this page people threatening contributors with police action and removal of children.. sugesting mental illness in those who disagree with the PInkNews line and other things. . and you wonder why they coined the phrase, ‘Gaystapo’? For GOd’s sake listen to yourselves and see what you are becoming! Remember the liberalism so many of you once cherished?? Where did it go? I miss it.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all