Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Tory MP Nadine Dorries: ‘I’ve never met a gay couple that wants to marry, so bin the policy’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Stuart Neyton 6 May 2012, 4:12pm

    “Gay couples are no different from heterosexual couples”

    So why treat them and differently you bigot?

    1. Stuart Neyton 6 May 2012, 4:12pm

      *any

    2. I was thinking along the same lines when I read that phrase (minus the accusation of bigotry)

    3. Jock S. Trap 7 May 2012, 11:00am

      Exactly Stuart. It make me laugh that these people come out with such comments yet fail to see the irony of what they say.

      Should such stupid people really be in any position of authority?

  2. Mendacious lunatic who will lose her seat next time round and is desperately shilling for a job as a professional mouth for some right wing think tank (a bloody oxymoron if ever there was one).

    Plus, of course, the opinion of an already divorced woman who shacked up with a married man (according to her wiki) really is a joke. She couldn’t make it work, so why is her input worth a bloody thing?

    1. She clearly is a vile hypocrite.

    2. Does she have strong views on adulterous divorcees being able to marry? Surely cohabitation will suffice?

  3. Well, if Nadine Dorries is able to provide some contact details then she is more than welcome (if she is not too cowardly or lacking in moral fibre to take up the challenge) to come to dinner with myself and my boyfriend (future husband).

    Or maybe PN could organize an event where gay couples could meet and Dorries and other apparently bigoted MPs could meet couples who they seek to deny civil opportunities to celebrate their love.

    Do you think Dorries has the moral fibre, integrity and transparency to accept such an invitation – or is she just bluster? Does she merely care about bigotry and hatred, and love not matter to her?

    1. Benjamin Cohen 6 May 2012, 4:38pm

      We have something big on this coming on Wednesday Stu…

      1. It seems great minds think alike!

        Looking forward to it.

          1. Thanks, I shall send her a cordial invitation to dinner – bet she does not have the grace to respond!

        1. Craig Denney 6 May 2012, 5:53pm

          Hey Stu, Check out the comments I’m having with a Police Insp at the bottom of the comments with this PN story http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/18/comment-the-gay-community-the-police-and-the-question-of-trust/

          1. Will have a look and make a comment!

          2. So will I !?!?!

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 6 May 2012, 5:08pm

        Ben, was this “big” thing what you were referring to some days ago? The suspense is killing me.

      3. Liking what I see so far!

        Great campaign. Powerful and looking forward to more!

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 6 May 2012, 5:07pm

      Exactly, Stu. The affrontery of this woman claiming most gay people don’t support equal marriage, where does she get this from? A bit rich coming from someone who is having an affair with a married man. Bigoted bint!

    3. Spanner1960 7 May 2012, 10:34am

      Stu: Except I think she would class you as one of those “metro elite gay activists” she mentions. I know plenty of gay CP couples that live right out in the sticks with no axes to grind that would cheerfully ‘upgrade’ given the option.

      The woman is living in complete ignorance and should actually do a bit of research before making sweeping statements like this.

    4. Andrew Howard-Williams 7 May 2012, 6:37pm

      My civil partner and I consider ourselves to be married but would love to be upgraded to be officially married as even some of our family members do not recognise this. With a marriage certificate they would have no choice but to accept we were married.
      It is a human right for all mankind To be able to marry we should not have to fight for it like second rate citizens due to our sexuality.

    5. Nadine Dorries 15 May 2012, 11:14am

      Your boy friend will never be your husband. There is no such thing as gay marriage.

      1. Oh how wrong you are. It exists in 10 countries and 42 others are debating it. It definitely exists and will in England, Wales and Scotland soon.

  4. Nadine’s right. Bens Bradshaw (2012) and Summerskill (2009) have both admitted how little support there is for redefining marriage in the LGBT community.

    1. Well they all should read the comments re Equal marriage in the Pink Paper online! There is lots of support. Myself and my Civil partner who are looking forward to true equality of a marriage.

      1. Spanner1960 7 May 2012, 10:37am

        That’s because everyone on here that makes a comment is deemed by them as “activists” or even the “millitant gay lobby”, whatever the hell that is.

    2. Benjamin Cohen 6 May 2012, 4:44pm

      Jean
      Ben Summerskill now supports changing the law. Why are you still reading PinkNews?

      1. Ben Bradshaw also intends to vote in favour of equal marriage

      2. Jock S. Trap 7 May 2012, 11:08am

        Indeed and why? because the people he contacted told him they wanted it. Why do people like Jean always ignore facts and prefer discriminating assumptions? Fear of losing grip on society me wonders…. but they’ve already lost it so why don’t they give up and give themselves a rest. (& us!)

      3. Why has Jean not been blocked from postin on PInk News?

      1. Just because the same rules apply to everyone doesn’t necessarily mean that the rules are fair and just. You only need to look at the treatment of the Jews in WW2 to demonstrate that.

      2. There are 52 countries in the world where it is illegal to be a Christian.

        Of course, theres nothing wrong with that because everyone can be a different religion.

        Surely its not a breach of their human rights because everyone is being treated the same.

        1. Points and laughs ***at*** the trolls desperate and hilarious attempts at humour and to be taken seriously – ROFL

      3. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 12:19am

        And you should know about deviance, right? Sick bastard!

        1. How many bottles of grog is that today, idiot troll?

    3. They are happy in their own little world and dont care about the opinions of others. They are wrong and don’t speak for me. If at least 2 other people say they DO want to be able to marry then Bradshaw and Summerskills opinions are neutralized. Of course you wont see it like that because you are biased.

    4. Laughing out loud at you Jean, poor love always wrong and always on the wrong side. As a matter interest Jean are you up for changing the law to ban all divorces? See if Nadine is up for that? Oh! Sorry she won’t be will she? What about all those straight boys and girls who ‘live in sin for years’ and then one fine day slide of to a church for a big white wedding, any views on them Jean my love?

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 12:04am

        And wearing a white wedding dress walking up the aisle towards the altar is supposed to symbolise virginity? My arse it does! The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

    5. Robert in S. Kensington 6 May 2012, 5:11pm

      Poor Jean, such an idiot. Bradshaw in spite of his statement said he will vote for equal marriage as a result of a backlash against him. Answer Ben’s question please, why are you still reading Pink News, aside from agitating and knowing you are outnumbered?

    6. You are such a contemptible sow.

    7. Like an ultramontane Catholic gives a stuff about what lgbt people think, Jean?

    8. I don’t know what to believe anymore.

      In another thread I got berated by the same people here that there is no difference between gay marriage and civil partnerships as they are 100% equal…

      So what is it you gay Brits? Is it YES we want gay marriage because it is DIFFERENT and NOT 100% equal to civil partnership OR is it the opposite like how I was lectured by some of you on the other thread?

      In my opinion it isn’t that gay Brits don’t want gay marriage (I think the majority don’t care either way) but it seems to me that they DON’T know what they want.

      1. i want equality, if CPs are so equal why straights cant have them

      2. @Pepa

        What other thread ? Link please ?

        Gay marriage is not the same as civil partnership. What the vast majority of people want is marriage.

        1. Sure why not:

          AB Says: “Though gay “marriage” isn’t in the UK, a 2004 Act introduced Civil Partnerships in the UK affording near identical rights as marriage. This covers 100% of the UK population… No matter the word, it’s the rights that’s most important… Meanwhile, the debate in the UK is mostly about the word ‘marriage’

          To which Robert in S. Kensington replies to AB: “Well said!

          Robert in S. Kensington says: “The UK has far more equality laws passed for LGBT people than does the U.S.,

          Tony says: “the fact that we have far superior freedoms than you do is simply fact.“(referring to CPs)

          It is obvious to me that many of you do not want gay marriage but are okay with just getting the rights that are provided in a “civil partnership” — again, whatever that is because one thing it is not is marriage and marriage is whole different thing legally from a marriage.

          1. I meant civil partnership is a different thing from marriage legally…

          2. i think it is safe to assume that majority of gay people in the uk (and rest of the world) want equality not just (near) equal rights and some of them already lent their support to C4EM petition.

      3. They aren’t the same they are similar there are still key differences between the two. The people on the other thread were wrong…
        -Marriages are ended by divorce or Annulment CP can only be ended by Dissolution
        -Adultery, while grounds for divorce, cannot be used as grounds for dissolution but only as a contributing factor
        -Marriages can be religious entirely or use religious acts/music (prayer, hymn, etc.) CP’s can’t.
        -For Trans people a CP cannot be converted to a marriage or vice versa meaning that any Trans person wishing to get their GRC (gender recognition certificate) must divorce/annul/dissolve their partnership.marriage beforehand even where the couple intend to stay together and this attracts, even in a best case scenario, a cost of £300-400.

        I would have loved to have been able to include my faith in my ceremony and I know many many others who feel the same way.

        1. just to add pensions rights under CPs are inferior to marriage and Cps are worthless abroad even in EU

          1. In different parts of the UK there are real and important differences. In N. Ireland a couple in a CP cannot jointly adopt (even when one is the biological parent). The difference in CP and marriage is actively exploited here to discriminate. They could not do that if we all had equal marriage. This is why there is no prospect of a consultation here on equal marriage.

      4. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 12:18pm

        They’re NOT 100% equal to marriage. Don’t your read the facts? The pension scheme for starters differs between a CP’d couple and a married couple, something that is being discussed during the consultation. If they were that equal, why call them CPs? If civil marriage were suddenly replaced with CPs, you can bet the majority of straight people would be in uproar and we all know why. Ask of of the bigoted MPs and those who signed C4M which of the two they’d prefer and the reason why. 11 countries allowing equal marriage can’t be wrong.

    9. I’m starting to think that “Jean” actually is Nadine Dorries!

      Why else would someone be so pathetically obsessed with LGBT issues that don’t effect them in any way?

    10. Jock S. Trap 7 May 2012, 11:05am

      Maybe you should try asking the LGBT community than making assumptions. Using Sommerskill (2009) is particularlly cowardly since his and Stonewall’s position has changed clearly due to the majority of people wanting marriage equality.

      Typical of people like you though… deliberately choosing Not to see it.

      I can’t even imagine how you would get through the day with such a vile attitude and disrespect for yourself let along everyone else.

  5. Well I shall have to introduce myself and my hubby to Nadine Dorries because we both want to change our civil partnership into a full civil marriage.

    1. Merseymike 6 May 2012, 4:47pm

      We will too . Equal marriage for all

  6. Hoooray…So please don’t believe a word that ‘Jean’ and her singular mind says. She is the most contemptible person on here and why she reads the Pink I can only think it is to vent her bigoted thoughts and homophobia.

    1. jean is just a lonely sad ass looking for attention…l even negative attention is better than being ignored.

  7. Nadine needs to get out more and meet more gay people obviously! Who appointed her spokesperson for LGBT issues? Nobody did. I love the fact that she has such forthright opionions on “the sacrament of marriage” when her own personal experience of it suggests she is the last person to be opening her trap. This really does look like the last gasps of the homopobic delusional lobby as they become more and more hysterical at the idea of equality for all.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 12:17am

      She doesn’t know any gay people. She’s reading from the C4M script. Even the so called ‘gay’ signatories in their petition are probably fake gays, sick straight people pretending to be gay. That’s how dishonest they are, a bunch of desperate sociopathic liars.

  8. People who live in cities should be given the same support and representation as those who live in the country. What a bizarre and feeble attempt at justifying outright homophobia.

  9. GulliverUK 6 May 2012, 5:01pm

    Bin Dorries – she’s a rogue anti-gay anti-abortion anti-sex education fundamentalist extremist windbag of the most vicious and nasty type. Everybody thinks she’s a total wingnut. Ignore the adulterer and husband stealing trollop.

    ^ do I sound annoyed yet? :D

    Seriously, it’s only right-wingers stirring it up – we shouldn’t take the bait. Cameron will continue on with the consultation – if it eventually comes to nothing – so will he and his party, in which case Labour will be back in and it’ll be done in the next parliament.

    Whatever happens, it will be done either in this parliament or the next.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 6 May 2012, 5:13pm

      The fac that she’s an adulterer really exposes her for what she is, a bigot! Her kind are the real threat to the meaning of marriage.

    2. A good analysis. Thank you for that.

      Clearly, having done so badly in the local elections, the Conservatives will become more divided as the “Old Right” try to make use of the opportunities that such failures present. The trouble is, they are out of step with the nation as a whole (Dorries in particular) and they don’t seem to understand that they aren’t in a position of influence anymore. Their party isn’t in government exclusively: they are part of a coalition. Cameron knows full well that if the Old Right try to cause trouble, the government may well collapse, in which case we’ll be more than likely looking at a Labour government.

    3. Why would somebody like her know ANY gay people? We do tend to have standards!

  10. So its ok that cheating homewrecking skank to ride ruff-shod over the ‘biblical’ definition of marriage, but its not ok for a commited faithful gay couple to.
    I guess we really arent in a place of equality yet, we arent even allowed to break the same rules!

  11. Nadine Dorries is the Tory MP for Mid Bedfordshire. Have any of you ever been to mid Bedfordshire? If not, it will expain why most of her constituents don’t want equal marriage, cos mod of mid Bedfordshire is livestock!

    This woman is clearly homophobic and I, like Stu,have tried to find contact details to tell her that as a gay man I am not against equal marriage but can not find any contact details. Strange that!

    1. Unfortunatley I come from Mid-Beds but did not vote for this idiot in the last election. As a constituency member I can use the local Conservative website to send her an email which I have just done.

      Doubt it will do any good, but felt much better after sending it.

    2. There may be a lot of sheep and other cows in mid-Bedfordshire but can any be so permanently full of bull as Nadine Dorries is?

    3. Reggie Perrin 7 May 2012, 5:10pm

      Ive been to mid Bedfordshire. Its one of the most homophobic places ive ever lived in. The Christmas Eve before I finally left I was brutally attacked and left for dead in a pool of blood in sub zero temperatures, so Im not surprised to hear that this ignorant, intolerant, oxygen wasting quim wedge is its MP.

  12. Those of us who want to tell her that we are for equal marriage, feel free to garage her with what we can, do Her twitter is https://twitter.com/#!/NadineDorriesMP and her email nadine.dorries.mp@parliament.uk

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 12:06am

      Don’t even bother trying to email her. I did and the response that to get a response to an email requires a full postal address and you MUST be living in her mid-Bedfordshire constituency.

      1. I tweeted her and not surprisingly, no response! As my mother lives in Luton I could try that and let you know, what if anything happens. Although I will need to check if that falls under mid-bedfordshire, I suspect it won’t

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 12:20pm

          Do please let me know if tweeting works. I don’t have a twitter account but I can get family members who have access to send her a message.

          1. Tweeting has not yet worked for me as she has not responded. I will continue to see if I can get a response from her as to why she is so against equal marriage.

    2. I emailed her. Certainly worth doing whether you get a reply or not.

  13. That’s not hard to believe at all when every gay person she knows is a deeply closeted, self hating, publicly anti-gay Tory!

    1. Ben Bradshaw is actually a LABOUR MP.

    2. And Summerskill a card carrying Labourite

  14. Robert in S. Kensington 6 May 2012, 5:26pm

    And a lot of straight homophobes pretending to be gay signed C4M and wrote to their MPs as such giving credence to this stupid bint’s rant in the Daily Mail. Hasn’t anyone figured that out yet? Remember Anne Widdecombe’s rant saying “there are many gay people who oppose equal marriage and who have signed C4M? Identical to Dorries’.

  15. Interventions like this by Cameron, to offer olive branches to the right by losing something from his “liberal” toolbox, confirms a long held belief that the Tory party is held back, from being conservative, by a more “toxic” audience; indeed what has been called the party’s “toxic constituency”.
    In Feb 2011, from a sample of 1004 adults, 37% felt immigration was a very big problem, 37% believed it was a problem, 16% felt it was not a very big problem and 5% felt it was not a problem at all. Further, according to a YouGov poll studying the same period, 35% of those who voted Tory in 2010 appealed to family values over anything else, 41% voted for them on matters of traditional values (compared to 19% for Labour) and 28% on patriotism – while only 6% voted for the Tories appealing to tolerance and diversity (which Cameron sought to highlight).
    The Tory party – very much through fault of its own – is not conservative, but a big tent dominated by tubthumping angry old bastards.

    1. It’s hardly surprising that they don’t take too kindly to gay marriage. What does surprise is that Cameron doesn’t want to challenge them – even from a conservative position.
      But hold up! Should Cameron really be listening to the likes of Stewart Jackson MP, who pleaded with Mr Cameron to drop “barmy lib Dem policies” like gay marriage? As it has been noted, Conservatives were not wiped out by independents, the right, the far right, or the even fringier. They were routed by the Labour party.
      If rumour is true, the Conservatives held a policy review last night at 11.00pm (though that is probably untrue since the mayoral election result didn’t come through until before 12). Regardless of when they had or have it, the proposals when they do are set to see the right get more than just olive branches, but bunches of fukcing great bouquets. Bad move, Dave

  16. Would the Scottish government introducing equal marriage result in successful legal challenges against the UK government for breach of human rights or equalities legislation re gay couples being able to marry?

    In any event, whatever the legal niceties – if and when Scotland do introduce equal marriage – if they get there before England and Wales (which is a reasonable prospect) then it will leave an intolerable position where gay people in one part of the UK are treated unequally.

    Or will Cameron have the balls to get there first and put Scotland in the intolerable position of Scottish gay people being treated unequally.

  17. “I won’t dwell on who got the policy into No10 in the first place…..”

    It was your own Tory leader, David Cameron…..the person you ‘re supposed to be backing up and not stabbing in the
    back…

    13 yrs of being unelectable, just scraping into power with the help of the lib dems and after a year or 2 in govt and the whole party is bitching about eachother….my gawd, haven’t they learned anything?

    By the way, you’re right we don’t all live in so called gay ghettos, we actually live in Somerset, have been fobbed off with a CP and would now like to have a marriage certificate..but I certainly don’t want to grovel to a twit like you, Ms Dorries.

  18. It, of course, begs the question exactly how many gay couples does Nadine Dores – extreme homophobe – actually know?

    I don’t know about anyone else, but this gay couple doesn’t plan to invite her to a BBQ any time soon

    1. Her statement about not having met a gay couple from her constituency who supports marriage equality can be disregarded as so vague and nebulous as to be meaningless. In any event, I suspect it is probably that she HAS met gay couples from her constituency who support marriage equality, regardless of whether their support was voiced.

  19. Ruairidh Pritchard 6 May 2012, 6:07pm

    I know straight couples who are in happy relationships, and have been for many, many years, and don’t want to marry, but that’s not an argument is dissolve marriage.

  20. Patrick Mc Crossan 6 May 2012, 6:18pm

    As a gay man I also have strong views on who has taken up this policy and who gave them permission to do so on my behalf.

    The idea is sound but the venemous manner it has been pitched was guaranteed to upset the majority.

    Why should men and women who want to marry not be allowed to continue with the words husband and wife?

    Stonewall in their wisdom want partner instead.

    I’m sorry but I hate Nadeine Dorries but I agree with her the claims that its a big demand by Gay Men & Women to have gay marriage is a lie.

    Not one of my vast number of gay friends are demanding it.

    Of course we should gain equal rights and that is happening at a great pace, but I will not agree with gay marriage rights that demeans or takes away the rights of hetrosexual couples to continue calling themselves husband and wife.

    Lets be honest with ourselves as gay people do we want to upset the majority based on bad policy imposed on our behalf by Stonewall?

    Stonewall do not speak for me.

    1. Complete fiction.

      Mere words of homophobes like Dorries who want to use disingenuous tactics to undermine equality for LGBT people.

      In every other country where gay couples can marry the couples refer to each other as husbands or wives. There is no reason to suspect any difference in the UK. In any event when I marry my boyfriend he will be my husband.

    2. and you dont speak for the majority of gay people either. That gay marraige demeans heterosexual marriage in any way is an absurd argument and you fail to make any kind of valid point.

    3. saynotommmmm 6 May 2012, 7:15pm

      Thats all we need a cherry picker. I dont want gay marriage for myself, I want equality for all. And that will include polciys that i might never use or have , but would let other gay people have the choice. So you got the equality that suits you. So stick the rest. Like I said an, Im alright cherry picker

    4. Who’s talking about taking away anybody’s right to call each other what they want?
      And who the hell are you, as a matter of interest? Because you come across as a straight troll or self-hating gay god-botherer.

    5. I thought it was the majority of LGBT that imposed a policy of marriage equality on Stonewall!

      If you didn’t know that, which obviously, Nadine doesn’t realise as well, then I’m slightly suspicious about your comment

      Marriage isn’t being redefined, the change is to remove the discrimination against gay couples in the marriage law.

    6. What are you on about? the problem isn’t what people call each other. I intend to carry on calling my man cherrycake, but I also expect to call him my husband in polite company and he likewise when introducing me to his friends. Who are we hurting by doing that?

    7. Ah it’s Patrick talking bollocks. What a surprise! Talk to most people in the gay community in Birmingham and they know who Patrick is. The idea that he has a “vast number of gay friends” is frankly laughable- especially when put into the context of his vast number of gay enemies!

    8. It is sad that Patrick wishes to protect an imagined minuscule inconvenience to straight people over the vastly important issue of full equality for Gay people. Not a troll, I think, just a self-loathing Gay Tory.

  21. Barry William Teske 6 May 2012, 6:25pm

    Nadine Dorries says allowing gay couples to marry is divisive…lol.
    Somebody’s not getting any me thinks.
    Or as my favorite quote says:
    ” People who concern themselves with the rights of other adults who engage in consensual acts involving sex, love, and/or eating croissants together are damaged and in pain. ” Rob Delaney (full creds to Mr Rob Delaney)

    1. Alexander Pullinger 7 May 2012, 4:02am

      If I could ‘like’ your post more than once, I would – many times over. It is so good to see humour and plain good sense on the front line against all this crap.

  22. As we predicted, I see that Ben Bradshaw’s words are being used by bigots to justify opposition to equality. Well done Ben, you twit.

    1. Yes, I’ve have seen several waving the “not a priority” gay Ben Bradshaw quotes in anti-marriage equality comments following Telegragh articles.
      Now even if he came out totally in support of same sex marriage as the #1 top priority they will continue quoting him in support of cp’s only.

  23. My idea of marriage is for two people who love each other to make a life long commitment. I don’t need someone who is a) divorced and b) been carrying on with another woman’s husband to tell me whether or not I should be entitled to wed the person I want to spend the rest of my life with.

    1. Thank god for Nadine Dorries -the voice of reason. Hasn’t it occurred to the (very few) supporters of gay marriage yet?
      See the truth is this: most people think that civil partnerships are reasonable and fair but simply do not think that to waste time to change it to marriage to satisfy the insecurities of gay people who wish to ape heterosexuality is desirable or necessary.
      These people will not support gay marriage.

      Those who are vehemently against it will continue to be vehemently against it.

      Gay marriage is a lost cause. Good. I am not anti-homosexual but I am anti self-indulgence and I can think of nothing more self-indulgent than gay marriage.

      1. People who are vehemently against abortion continue to be vehemently against it (regardless of the fact it is currently legal).

        Just because some people are vehemently against abortion does not mean the law is wrong. I certainly believe that there should be choice, not least for those who are raped etc.

        In the same way even when gay couples can legally marry there will indeed be those who continue to be against it. Just because some people disagree does not mean it is wrong to change the law.

      2. bobbleobble 6 May 2012, 7:15pm

        The fact that you think Nadine Dorries is a voice of reason speaks volumes about you. I’ve head cows bottoms speak with more reason than she’s ever managed in her entire life.

        People can be as vehemently against gay marriage as they like but guess what, it’s not going to be compulsory. If people don’t want to marry someone of their own gender then DON’T!

        Gay marriage is most certainly not a lost cause. One thing that can be said about every country that currently allows gay people to marry is that there was often a fight before hand to get it passed. But you know what, each time gay people won. The same will happen here.

        And how DARE you describe my desire to marry my husband as self-indulgent. Presumably you think the same about every straight person who wishes to marry? It’s nothing to do with apeing heterosexuality, it’s about equal recognition for my relationships which, as even Dorries points out, is equal to that of heterosexuals.

        1. Indeed. The idea of being anti self-indulgence is completely preposterous. Every human is self indulgent by nature. Our desire to survive is one of self indulgence. Every time we watch the tv, use the internet, drive by car, turn on the lights in our house we are being self indulgent. Realistically we do not need to do any of these things. We could live our lives by the rising and setting of the sun. We could walk to places. We don’t even need to watch tv or use the internet and yet a large proportion of the human race does it. To argue against gay marriage from an anti self-indulgence point of view is therefore somewhat hypocritical.

          1. Yeah of course we’re all self-indulgent to a certain degree,but gay marriage is extremely so.

        2. She’s right about this, even though she is nuts about all else. And, yes, demands by supporters of gay marriage to have civil partnerships converted to marriage IS incredibly self-indulgent. Haven’t you more important thinks to worry about? And as marriage is heterosexual, of course gay marriage is aping it-how can it not be.
          Who gives a **** if you’re labelled as married or not?

          1. bobbleobble 6 May 2012, 8:48pm

            You’ve changed your tune, I though Dorries was a voice of reason. Now it turnes out she’s only a voice of reason when she’s saying something you want to hear.

            Actually, in my life at the moment I have plenty of things to worry about. But one of those is the fact that Dorries and people like you think that my relationship is less than theirs, that I’m not entitled to use the term marriage for some reason. And it seems that you don’t mind me being self-indulgent just so long as it’s not about something you disagree with.

            Marriage is not heterosexual. Just because up until 10 years ago it was uniquely heteroin the modern world does not make it intrinsically so.

            And I and many people like me give a ****about what my relationship is called. Who the hell are you to tell me that I shouldn’t.

            And there are no degrees to self-indulgence, either something is self-indulgent or it isn’t. To say otherwise is idiocy.

          2. Sas – there are young people out there who are being bullied to the point of suicide – thousands of them – because they are perceived to be gay, and this is happening in the knowledge that the state enshrines the idea that gay people are less than equal to straights. Is trying to redress this the kind of self-indulgence you’re opposing. Do you think the bullying and suicides should continue?

      3. I can think of nothing more self-indulgent than gay marriage.

        What a limited imagination you must have.

      4. “Hasn’t it occurred to the (very few) supporters of racial desegregation yet?
        See the truth is this: most people think that travelling on the same bus is reasonable and fair but simply do not think that to waste time allowing racial minorities to sit wherever they like to satisfy the insecurities of a black minority who wish to ape the white majority is desirable or necessary.
        These people will not support desegregation.
        Desegregation is a lost cause. Good. I am not racist but I am anti self-indulgence and I can think of nothing more self-indulgent than black people demanding to be allowed to sit at the front of the bus.”
        It was a crap argument then and it’s a crap argument now.

  24. heteropride
    there there dear. have a cup of tea and a nice lie down for a while… you’ll feel so much better

    1. Jen,

      About two days ago, I think on the ‘kicked into the long grass’ article, this chap posted that he has emotional difficulties. He then got upset because there’s no delete option (indeed, the comments are still there)

      Better just to hit the red button and get his comments closed than engage with the guy.

      S x

      1. Sasha

        I wholeheartedly agree.

        I sometimes get tempted to reply from time to time.

        But having reported him to the police. PN having supported the police investigation by supplying the evidence of his homophobic harassment and inciting hatred. I now leave it to the police to act – which they will in time, and I know who will have the last laugh and it won’t be Keith.

        Its sad that someone can be so inhumane as Keith. Well, choices have consequences and Keith chose to be bigoted and chose to incite hatred.

        He will have to face the consequences of the police investigation (and if he genuinely believes in the Bible – and were he to be right in his belief, which I doubt, then he would face severe consequences in the next life too!)

        1. This post is in regard to Heteropride etc. reference to scripture and his original post. First of all, Jude 7 are not the words of Jesus they are the words of Jude himself (just because something is written in the new testament doesn’t mean that Jesus said it.) And I’m sorry but Psalms are first and foremost songs of praise rather than teachings in their own rights. If you really wanted to argue using psalms you could also argue from Psalms 139 that God “all my days were ordained in your book before one of them came to be.” And that “God knit me together in my mother’s womb” If God took such attention in the creation of each individual, and if he really dislikes homosexuals, he wouldn’t have made them. Many Christians that I know of argue that miscarriage is as a result of God. Returning to the book of Jude briefly, it is worth mentioning that it’s actual wording is sexual immorality and perversion. It doesn’t actually mention the fact that the men desired to have sex with other men.

        2. @Keith

          Are you David Skinner ?

  25. Nadine Dorries, The very worst the Conservative party has to offer.

    1. Probably not…but bad enough.

  26. I try not to denigrate people simply because I find their views repugnant, and I’m not going to do so here.

    So when I say that this woman’s tweet stream makes me wonder if she has a personality disorder, I mean it. Her thoughts seem to be all over the place, contradictory, unconnected to each other or her previously stated opinions.

    There’s a level of self-absorption that appears well beyond megalomaniacal, and reminds me of Heather Mills PR-disaster of an interview just after she and Sir Paul were granted their divorce.

    I really feel sorry for her. She must be a deeply troubled person unable to escape from the cavalcade of self-destructive voices in her head.

    1. Ouch and Double-Ouch!!

  27. Look forward to seeing you in court!

    1. I can not dictate how long the police take to do these things.

      Nor can you.

      Although, you could expedite them and hand yourself in at your local police station and ask them to contact the community safety unit in Hackey Borough, Metropolitan Police reference the incitement to hatred relating to postings on Pink News.

      If you genuinely want this cleared up, then balls in your court.

      Until then, you can continue to harass me (as you have stated you will) but the comments will be recorded by PN and the officer investigating can consider these when they have the data they require from third parties to act further.

      Looking forward to it.

      1. Well, I know that I believe Stu more than the troll.

        I also know that I am not the only one who is fed up of the homophobia and bigotry of the troll.

        We now know the police team who Stu says are investigating. Even if the troll is too chicken to hand himself in and deal with it, then I would encourage every person who is fed up with his offensive and illegal harassment to contact Hackney Community Safety unit. Contact details below (I have already sent an email):

        Address: Stoke Newington Police Station,
        33 Stoke Newington High Street,
        London,
        N16 8DS View map
        Tel: 020 7275 3087
        999 Emergency
        Email: hackney.police@met.police.uk

        1. Well, if anyone wants to make similar complaints then I am sure Hackney Community Safety Unit would be more than happy to hear from them.

      2. So you lack the moral courage to hand yourself in?

        I told you what the police told me.

        In my last update from them on 29 April, they told me one of their lines of investigation is taking longer to get answers than they would like, but the investigation is very much ongoing.

        I hope many more PN readers contact Hackney police and make complaints about your insidious and criminal behaviour.

        Dave has provided correct contact details above.

  28. Katherine 6 May 2012, 7:09pm

    “Great Britain and its gay couples don’t live on Canal Street in Manchester, shop in The Lanes in Brighton or socialise at Gaydar in London. ”

    Dorries is hysterically funny. Some people do live on Canal Street actually and some shop on the Lanes in Brighton – never heard of gaydar in London though, what is she on about? If she is going to start spouting on about what gay people like maybe she should meet some first.

    1. I’m presuming she’s conflating G-A-Y with ‘gaydar’. Her in-depth understanding of the gay community clearly informs her outpourings…

      1. Stockycub1973 7 May 2012, 12:14am

        Maybe she meant lo-profile on wardour st. It’s owned by gaydar. :-)

  29. Bigoted bitch. I hope her children grow up to be gay and disown her for being so homophobic and never see her, and I hope her husband is gay and leaves her. Seems like the tories are showing their old colours. Where are those LGBTory to stick up for her?

    1. probably was, she is divorced afterall

  30. Headline should be “Vile Witch Nadine Dorries Sinks to a New Low”

    I can not abide this Christian Fundamentalist Facist.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 12:22pm

      I never knew having an adulterous affair could be construed as ‘christian fundamentalist’ values, did you? Hypocrisy doesn’t even come near to it.

      1. Christian fundamentalist values are the personification of hypocrisy since they represent the worst bible cherry picking of all denominations. So unlike you I’m not surprised one bit that Dorries is an adulterous, deceitful, scourge on humanity.

  31. Lumi Bast 6 May 2012, 7:30pm

    Trust me, plenty same sex couples want to marry. Plenty of LGB people want to get married someday, I’m a lesbian who can attest to that. The majority of LGB people support marriage equality. I personally do not want a civil partnership- it’s separate and unequal, and not the same as civil marriage.

    If you haven’t met gay couples, you must be sheltered.

    Maybe instead of saying LGBs cause the problems, you should look at the close minded bigots who don’t support equality though should.

    By the way, if you say “Gay couples are no different than heterosexual couples” then they should be treated as such.

    1. FranklyBewildered 6 May 2012, 8:28pm

      your opinion doesn’t really matter. 1) you are in America. this is a UK issue. 2) You are as bad as she is when it comes to intolerance.

      1. Lumi Bast 6 May 2012, 9:51pm

        My opinion doesn’t matter? Just because I’m from the US doesn’t make a difference because 1. I still care about LGB people other places. 2, The UK people comment on US issues 3. I might move to the UK someday (England) and/or get married there.

        1. Lumi Bast 6 May 2012, 9:54pm

          it doesn’t*

      2. Lumi Bast 6 May 2012, 9:53pm

        Plus I’m tolerant when it comes to LGB things, which is what this article is about

  32. Paddyswurds 6 May 2012, 7:32pm

    Just had the bad luck to see the vile harridan Dorries on the news and my first impression was she is not getting it and hasn’t had it for a long time if ever. Mind you it was fairly obvious why. I can’t for the life of me imagine any straight dude could possible get it up in her presence, never mind want to….Yeukkkk. her mother should have locked that in a dark room in the basement and forgotten all about her..Vile woman.

  33. How ‘out of touch’ is that?

  34. Carl Rowlands 6 May 2012, 7:48pm

    How on earth did she become a Tory MP? This is very unusual language from a Tory – “posh boys” and ” metro elite gay activists” – I hope no one gives her a bottle of Newcastle Brown!

  35. Carl Rowlands 6 May 2012, 7:50pm

    Never thought of myself as being a “metro elite gay activist” – Can I have a badge??

    1. GulliverUK 6 May 2012, 7:59pm

      I want one too, only I want mine to include the word “militant” because I have commented on several of these threads, hence I must be a “militant” !

    2. I bet its a very stylish and shiny badge!! ;-)

    3. Spanner1960 7 May 2012, 3:03pm

      Only if you are a Tory. LOL.

  36. This woman has no idea what she is talking about! I know alot of gay men and women. Nearly every single one of them support same-sex marriage. I suggest she gets her facts right, before she speaks!

  37. I’ve bought a right lovely frock for my lesbian friends’ wedding in a few weeks. A new one, like, not the one I wore at my last gay wedding celebration. It’s all proper dead normal. Weddings, receptions, confetti, curly butties, piss-ups. Oh, maybe I’m not one of them there metro elite straight women.

  38. That woman is an idiot and she’s lying about what her LGBT constituents have told her.

  39. johnny.33308 6 May 2012, 8:52pm

    She has absolutely no right to speak for any gay people….and she obviously does not care about marriage itself or she would not have had a relationship with a MARRIED man, or gotten divorced…..she has no moral high ground here. She should STF up! What a cow! BIGOT!

  40. @Keith

    Supercilious Feeling or showing haughty disdain is more applicable to you Keith, as demonstrated by your second paragraph “I have shown you numerous times …”.

    Your quibbling over a distinction between hatred of gay people and hatred of gay sex won’t wash: homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality or people who are identified as or perceived as being homosexual. You are correct though when you imply homophobia is irrational: I am glad you are beginning to see the truth.

    Your linkage of homosexuality with incest is spurious: there are excellent reasons for being repulsed by incest, there are none for being repulsed by incest.

    Your ad hominen attacks don’t carry much weight: your callous and disgusting statements on the suicide of Kenneth Weishuhn Jr show how repulsive and contemptible you are.

    1. none for being repulsed by homosexuality*
      :)

      1. @Evan – thanks ! Yes, that should have read:

        Your linkage of homosexuality with incest is spurious: there are excellent reasons for being repulsed by incest, there are none for being repulsed by homosexuality.

        Maybe I should learn to proof read a little more.

        1. no worries :)
          Have a good night

    2. homogameinophobia, an irrational fear of gay people marrying eachother.

  41. Malicious and ignorant. I don’t know anybody who want the Tories so bin them.

  42. @Keith

    You have claimed several times that HIV/AIDS is a gay disease. When I produced figures to show it was often more prevelent in straight populations, you ignored the post. Are you now saying that it isn’t ?

    IMMINENT: ready to take place; especially: hanging threateningly over one’s head.

    You may also care to lookup the meaning of hubris.

    Your presence of these forums is not welcome. What are you hoping to achieve ? Do you think you’ve achieved anything since starting to post here ?

    1. Harry

      Keith only believes that his word is true (even if the facts do not support it!), bit like Dorries views (because she hasnt met a gay couple who want to marry – she presumes there are none) on what matters and what is real.

      1. You are right Stu. He just ignores any evidence to the contrary and just parrots the same offensive garbage. It’s really quite sick-making. I would be very glad when he goes away.

        I am really not impressed that he is still posting here.

        1. Perhaps you could also make a statement to Hackney Police, Harry?

  43. Sophie-Jane Sherwood 6 May 2012, 9:25pm

    I am Gay and I am in a civil Partnership, How much I so HATE the word partnership, Its not that I dont believe that my relationship with my Wife is a partnership
    To me I AM MARRIED, and as soon as us gay couples in partnerships can change our status to Married, Then I will be one of the 1st in the que.

    People like this pathetic woman Nadine Dorries, Do not represent the common person, she has a Issue with relationships it seems in any capacity, maybe before she says anything, she should get HER OWN House in order, or be a committed singleton

  44. Because it sure is elitist to want equal rights to the heterosexuals that we’re equal to, isn’t it?

    Seriously, does she actually hear the words that come out of her mouth when she speaks? I can’t believe she does without realising the idiocy, bigotry and hypocrisy of them!

    Here’s hoping that she gets an avalanche of letters showing her that LGBT people DO want equal marriage rights. Not that I think for a second that she’d actually bother to read any of them.

  45. I want to marry and have written to my Conservative MP who says he is not supporting it!! Absolutely ridiculous that people are making these assumptions..

  46. Sophie-Jane Sherwood 6 May 2012, 9:33pm

    …I am Gay and I am in a civil Partnership, How much I so HATE the word partnership, Its not that I dont believe that my relationship with my Wife is a partnership
    To me I AM MARRIED, and as soon as us gay couples in partnerships can change our status to Married, Then I will be one of the 1st in the que.

    People like this pathetic woman Nadine Dorries, Do not represent the common person, she has a Issue with relationships it seems in any capacity, maybe before she says anything, she should get HER OWN House in order, or be a committed singleton

    1. Well said. Me too. I am one the first to be in CP but I don’t say I’m married because it sticks in my throat. Why? Because it would not be true – for me at least. I want the same chance to marry as everyone else and I will make sure I am again one of the first in the queue. Equal marriage is inevitable.

  47. Is this the Nadine Dorries who’s obsessed with trying to attack other women’s abortion rights? Now she seems to want to impose sectarian religious barriers to same sex marriage as well…

  48. How about finally ending state religion, while we’re at it?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 1:51pm

      A consultation to end state religion, how I’d relish that. I can imagine the screams of “abuse of religious freedom” victim card coming from the religious bigot nutters who oppose the religious freedom of the Quakers, Unitarians, Liberal and Reformed Judaism, damned hypocrites.

  49. That There Other David 6 May 2012, 10:03pm

    Dear Ms. Dorries

    You are a fruitloop.

    Love and hugs

    David

  50. Nadine is a frustrated woman, nobody in politics is taking her seriously, she cries sexism at every oppurtunity just to get attention

  51. auntie babs 6 May 2012, 10:11pm

    so, allegedly most gay people do not want marriage rights and therefore this legislation should be binned?

    Most people (gay straight bi whatever etc) do not want to pay tax…

    Also I think theres a fairly universal dislike that all MPs are getting a £20,000 increase in their pension pots whilst cutting everybody elses. So lets chuck that one away cos nobody wants it.

    A the end of the day, I am not desperate to see gay marriage but that it is because I dont have a significant other…..I do, however, want the option of getting married should that situation ever change.

  52. What have you ever achieved by posting on this site ?

    1. Got him, Harry!

    2. I think you mean “IN NEED OF a physician” sadly.

      We really do feel sorry for you and hope you realise how troubled you are. Why don’t you phone someone and talk about your problems? There are helplines where you can remain anonymous.

  53. You really think what you post on this site is acceptable ? You really think it isn’t very offensive ? You really think it isn’t contemptible ?

  54. Its not my role to collect evidence. Its my role as a victim of crime to make the allegation and police to collect and assess the evidence, identify the perpetrator, give the perpetrator the opportunity to provide their account and then present the evidence to the CPS for consideration of prosecution.

    At this stage the police have the evidence to demonstrate the offence is complete and they are well on the way to identifying the perpetrator. They know quite a lot about you – but are waiting for the last little piece of evidence to be able to completely locate you.

    Other complainants to add to the number who have already given statements to the police, would of course, be more than welcome – to evidence to the court the insidious and depraved nature of your (self confessed) taunting and harassment.

    Looking forward to seeing you in court.

    1. I dont have to produce the evidence, the police have it/

      So, enlighten me – which due process do you believe that I am unaware of?

      Hmmm – humouring your idioacy for a moment …

      Do try and enlighten me?

      Are you tryiing to (using your own words) “taunt” and harass me again …

      As your teacher undoubtedly said many times to you – must try harder!

      You’re not a success in anything you do, are you?

    2. “I am a god fearing, moral individual”. Not so what you are is self-evident in your constant harrasment of people on this site, you are deliberately hateful, provocative and homophobic. You collect the posts made against your repulsive statements to show as a badge of pride to your other equally deluded christo fundies. You are a vile pest. Go away and stay away. You are not wanted here is that plain enough for you. You are not wanted here go away.

    3. “They say that eventually a lie oft repeated convinces the liar it is the truth.”

      Presumably you’ve convinved yourself that what you do is acceptable and has a point.

      “You really are such a panty waisted little girl if you fel threatened by my opinions and harassed by my disgust of homosexual acts.”

      Sexist also. Harassment covers a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. That describes your posts. I think the essential point is that you are spending a deal of time and effort to broadcast your nasty little beliefs on a forum where they are not sought. You’ve been asked many times to stop, but you continue.

    4. The police have evidence and yet he’s failed to produce it : a nonsensical statement.

      “god fearing” – scared of a magic sky fairy. Hmm, impressive.

      “moral” – adhering to the taboos you’ve been brainwashed with, more like.

      Existing in spite of your irrationality is not “championing” anything, although it clearly generates an emotional response. Perhaps you should seek help for that?

      “right minded persons” – code for “people who agree with me”, hardly impressive.

      1. Such is the level of Keiths logic!

        Of course I am not going to tell Keith what evidence the police have – but it is all publically available on PN anyway – and he knows what he has said and how many times he has been told his conduct is unacceptable.

        Looking forward to seeing him in court.

  55. @Keith

    In the United Kingdom, contributions made to the Internet are covered by the Communications Act 2003. Sending messages which are “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character” is an offense whether they are received by the intended recipient or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#United_Kingdom

    Now please go away, permanently.

    1. The police believe that your posts are (and I quote) “vile, offensive, disturbing and harassing” and constitute hate crimes.

      I do not answer to you – you will answer to the police.

      1. Clearly the troll does not grasp the concept of harassment or responsibility.

        I recall seeing him saying he would taunt Stu on here.

        Thats clear and direct harassment, particularly when Stu and others have told him that his posts are harassing.

        You would think he would get the message when PN show their responsibility by deleting his messages, that his conduct is unwanted.

        What the troll is doing when he latches on to a single word “imminent” which perhaps Stu used unwisely – as he has no control over the police investigation – is merely taunting. He is harassing. He is breaching the law on communications offences. As a CPS lawyer I would prosecute the troll for a wide range of offences if the police gave me the evidence of who he is and the wide ranging offensive and disturbing crap that he spouts. I suspect I would succeed in having him convicted too.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 8 May 2012, 8:27pm

          Deleting messages doesn’t stop them though. What would stop them is if PN started to close their accounts altogether the moment any of them start agitating. Yes, they can keep changing their user names and using different computers, but how long will they keep it up if everytime, their account is blocked? Several American gay blogsites actually do it quite successfully.

      2. @ vomit bag
        Now who’s using sock-puppets?!

    2. unless its directed to you as a form of harassment then no. If someone however was telling you all the sexual things they would like to do to you (which i seriously doubt) then that would be considered harassment.

    3. No-one cares. Please just shut up and go away.

    4. “I am grossly offended by homosexual acts. Does that mean all the buggerers on her should be arrested?”

      Not unless they rape you…

      It speaks volumes that you sit behind your keyboard imagining homosexual acts. Maybe you should just give in to these urges.

    5. Sad little person self hating closet case. Hateful and deluded. If you were so offended as you say you are, then you would avoid all contact with gay men, but no, you come here over and over to get gays to pay you attention. Sad very sad. Now do get lost there’s a dear. You are the one who is grossly offensive.

    6. You’re so grossly offended that you keep coming back to a gay website.

      1. This is a forum for LGBT people. Many people have asked you many times to stop posting here, and you continue so to do. Why ?

      2. The reason I keep coming back here is:

        “Pink News covers religion, politics, entertainment, finance, and community news for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community in the UK and worldwide.”

        Now why someone who is offended by homosexuality would choose repeatedly to come to a with for the LGBT community speaks of either someone who is “disordered” in their perspective or of someone deliberately seeking to aggravate, upset, distress and harass.

        Even if the intention is not initially to harass, given the commentary that there has been by other users about how unwelcome and distressing their conduct is – for a troll to continue, – the law would consider the continued conduct harassing, unlawful, harassing and potentially inciting hatred.

    7. Jock S. Trap 7 May 2012, 11:22am

      “I am grossly offended by homosexual acts”

      Well thats your problem if you can’t stop thinking about such acts. Maybe, rather than blame us, you should ask yourself WHY you can’t seem to stop thinking of such ‘acts’. Being that ‘homosexual acts’ are not discussed here yet all you comments are based on said ‘acts’ I think it says more about you than anybody else… don’t you?

      Meanwhile the rest of US just get on with our lives. Shame you can’t do the same.

      Goodbye.

  56. Do you find incest between a mother and her son acceptable conduct?

    If you do then it speaks loud of your own depravity.

    If you do not, then your question is pointless and ad hominen.

    1. Eh ? The poster has said no such thing.

      Care to share your views on the subject.

    2. I was not the poster.

      I was merely reflecting on your comments.

      Either you support incest or you don’t?

      Which is it?

      If you don’t support it then the premise of your comment is purely ad hominen.

      If you do support it, please provide an ethical rationale as to why incest between a mother and son is acceptable behaviour.

      Incest has no connection of gay people whatsoever, so your trolling is purely ad hominen and intended to offend, shock, harass and bully. You lack humanity and a sense of responsibility.

      I take it by your refusal to answer a simple question that I put to you to clarify whether you support (or even engage in perhaps) incest, or whether your comments are simple ad hominens means that you regularly enjoy sexual relations with your mother?

      1. So, Keith

        You don’t support incest.

        So what reason would YOU give for being repulsed by consensual incest?

        See how pointless your question is!

        1. Spanner1960 9 May 2012, 6:09pm

          If he is such a bible-bashing hater if incest, could he please explain how the offspring of Adam and Eve had children?

          1. Stu's personal Butt Plug collection 13 May 2012, 9:25am

            I am against anything that God condemns. Obviously Cain married his sister a ta time when God allowed such practice in harmony with his orderto fill the earth. Man was close to perfection and not in the degenerative condition we are now and subject to congenital defects. God in his wisdom prohibited such arrangements in the Jewish law for protection against birth defects and congenital deformity. He also made clear that same sex relations are disgusting and punishable by death.

      2. Pointlessness is keith’s speciality, Aaron. He’ll misread what you say, divert the topic to his favourites – incest and polygamy – and go round and round in circles. It’s impossible to have anything approaching a sane discussion with him. Many people have tried – and failed. You’d get more sense out of a brick.

        I feel sorry for keith. A ‘straight’ man who spends all his time on a gay site raving and ranting. It’s obvious he’s a very unhappy man. Sad.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 8 May 2012, 8:24pm

          “Straight”? Arguably a moot point.

      3. @Keith

        For someone who doesn’t “support” incest, you spend a lot of time talking about it. For someone who isn’t gay, you spend a lot of time on gay websites.

  57. Is it just me, or does this guy’s comments sound camper than John Inman? Calling someone ‘monkeyboy’? ‘keep up the bluster’ – what does that actually mean? He reminds me of a gay guy from American who used to post on pink news called rich. He was a w4nker as well.

    1. Camper than Julian Clary!

  58. Dean Ismail 6 May 2012, 11:06pm

    So they are using the local elections defeat as an excuse to get Cameron to scrap the Equality debate/progress? The coalition’s poor performance at the local election is due to the economic situation – the cuts – NOT because of the plans to grant the LGBT basic human rights in civil law. But yes, unfortunately I am not surprised with these people who use any excuse to discriminate against LGBT, even if LGBT has done nothing to harm them, and giving LGBT equal rights does not in any way take away any of theirs.”

  59. Dean Ismail 6 May 2012, 11:08pm

    And as for Dorries’ suggestion that “most gay people don’t support the changing of the law” : where exactly did she get her facts from? In any case, this law is about the overriding human rights issue – and the fact that it signals to the wider public in general and to those who dislike LGBT – that in civil law, LGBT is equal to everyone else. Regardless of what Koran/Bible and any other ancient scriptures say (or at least interpreted as saying): after all, there are many other things that these books say that are not being accepted by even their staunchest followers.

    1. Ben Bradshaw’s “not a priority” opinion = most gays opinion now
      (according to the coalition of anti-gay hate groups and individuals who oppose same sex marriage equality)

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 12:26pm

      She’s reading Anne Widdecombe’s script, virtually identical. Those gays she refers to are probably bogus. Probably straights pretending to be gay to bolster their numbers for the C4M petition.

  60. I guess she doesn’t get out much. I was at a friends stag and doe party this weekend and these girls are counting down the days to their marrage.

  61. Nadine, some of my best friends are adulterers and they have been perfectly happy to cohabit after leaving their marriages.

    I think it’s because they feel they have damaged the institution of marriage enough already?

  62. I know plenty of homosexuals including myself that want equal marrige honestly im not going to sit and explan why everything said here in the article is wrong and way judgemental. Im not going to rage and give you the drama politics thrives for. I LOVE my GIRLFRIEND. Thats all that really matters.

  63. radical53 7 May 2012, 3:35am

    Even if you don’t support Gay marriage.

    Support the right to have that choice. So others can.

    1. auntie babs 7 May 2012, 9:13am

      exactly. this must be the answer each and every time someone plays the most gay people don’t want marriage” card.

    2. No. I won’t support it. This country is going to the dogs, there are food banks in a so -called civilised country, malnutrition in kids and you want me to support something that has nothing really to do with civil rights or genuine fairness -that was solved with the civil partnership legislation- but to satisfy gay people who wish to be known as married for some crazy notion of aping a heterosexual institution.
      I will NOT support it.

      Get the message: It’s not ONLY the homophobic and religious who have had enough of this issue.

      1. auntie babs 7 May 2012, 10:04am

        but it is ONLY the bigoted that have had enough of this issue.

      2. Spanner1960 7 May 2012, 10:39am

        I agree this country has serious problems, but frankly what the hell difference does it make to 95% of the British population? None whatsoever, but it will make the rest of us a lot happier.

        Your argument simply doesn’t hold water.

        1. The idea that it won’t make a difference to the rest of the population is a myth. Marriage law will have to be written and perhaps some people object to being known as ‘marriage partner 1 or 2′. Their concerns are valid, too.
          Myself? Don’t care. I’m not daft; what my legal title is is of no importance which is why I think anybody cares about being known as married or not is just silly.
          But, I am sick of this issue. If civil partnerships did NOT provide same legal rights as marriage, I’d be on your side completely, but they do so it’s all about being known as married.
          And I have no time for that. No time at all.
          Why should the majority have to change an institution just because a tiny minority want to ape heterosexual institutions.
          It’s crazy; as crazy as a man demanding a stay on a maternity ward.

          1. Jock S. Trap 7 May 2012, 11:27am

            May I suggest you do more researching Facts and a little less reading and believing the Daily Mail.

          2. “Myself? Don’t care.”

            Really? And yet you are still ranting like a lunatic on a gay site? And we’re crazy, eh?

            “Why should the majority have to change an institution just because a tiny minority want to ape heterosexual institutions.”

            The majority do NOT change. It does not affect anyone else marriage in any way what’s so ever.
            This is a fools argument.

            Ergo, you are a fool.

      3. Once again Sas, young people in this country are being bullied in some cases to the point of suicide for being perceived to be gay, an orientation which is enshrined in British Law as being inferior to straight – thus giving legitimacy to the bullying. Your opposition is, in effect, green-lighting that bullying. How does that make you feel? Proud?

        1. Don’t get your point at all. It’s as absurd as saying men should have the right to stay on a maternity ward. Nobody in their right mind thinks that allowing homosexuals right to be married is an issue. And your attempt at making me feel bad is wasted because I will not be swayed from the notion that marriage is heterosexual in nature. That does not mean to say that I disagree with civil partnerships, just marriage itself. And your notion that allowing gay marriage would stop bullying is misguided anyway.
          Those who have a neutral view of it don’t care either way. Those who are against gay marriage will never accept gay marriage so the bullying won’t stop.
          If I had my way, marriage would not be a state institution anyway-I’d shut the indulgent gay marriage and religious crowd up by putting yours and their irrational concerns down the toilet and introducing civil partnerships for all and forgetting marriage. That’s the only way out of it-Cameron will learn this to his cost.

          1. “I will not be swayed from the notion that marriage is heterosexual in nature”

            So this is the issue really. You’re not just concerned that legislative time is being wasted on trivia – you’re just a bigot.

          2. We all know from what we see happening in the world that law has a powerful influence on social attitudes. Your refusal to acknowledge this evident truth can only be taken as willfil blindness to homophobic bullying at best, and complicity in it at worst.

            On a positive note, I’d be happy to scrap marriage abd have CPs for all. That would be equal. But the argument that any legislation should not affect people who are already married should be respected. So marriage for all, regardless of gender, seems the most elegant solution. It will happen sooner or later, so start adjusting.

  64. Christopher 7 May 2012, 5:09am

    What a cunning stunt.

  65. Shes just bitter because no 1 will marry her lol xx

  66. Gay activist Paul Mitchell 7 May 2012, 5:42am

    Another bigoted bitch!

    Bigots are always dirty and ugly!

  67. Gay activist Paul Mitchell 7 May 2012, 5:44am

    No one in the whole wide world will ever marry her anyway, she is just angry because she has sand in her vagina!

  68. If you ‘have never met a gay couple that wants to marry’ then you haven’t lived, have you? We shall accept your resignation now and of course waiver the notice period. That is the end of your career, madam, try to bow out with as much grace as possible without opening your poisoned mouth any further.

    1. Who would end her career? You or your insignificant gay votes?

      1. There is a much larger gay electorate than a church going electorate

  69. Marcel Wiel 7 May 2012, 9:13am

    I am so fed up of being any passing politician’s public punch bag whenever they feel need to whip up some support among the more or less bigoted …may 1,000 pigeons poo on Nadine Dorries’ car

    1. Not her car her head

  70. @Keith

    Are you David Skinner ?

    No.

    But you do live together ?

    1. Maybe Ken and Aiden live with them too, and that’s why they’re obsessed with the polygamy. Just a thought

  71. My boyfriend and I would like to get married. And I’m pretty sure we’re not ‘metro elite gay activists’.

    Do we not count?

    1. I think commenting on here qualifies you – don’t worry!

      1. Woohoo! Although being a metro elite gay activist does sound kinda cool.

    2. Spanner1960 7 May 2012, 7:28pm

      You’re just another of those “Gay Mafia”, aren’t you? ;)

  72. Jock S. Trap 7 May 2012, 10:58am

    Of course she hasn’t but then this is exactly what you expect from such bigoted bullies.

    They clearly don’t want a stable society so they can carry on discriminating against us by putting us all in their ‘simple minded’ idea that we all have sex with everything that moves.

    It’s damaging, it’s disgusting that people like Nadine Dorries chooses to be so bigoted without seeing that if the public voted against the Tories because of the marriage equality issue then why did they vote Labour and Not parties that don’t support marriage equality either?

    Stupid and short/narrow minded people yet again using the LGBT community to allow discrimination to over ride decency.

    Nadine Dorries and people like her should be thoroughly ashamed that they use what they must consider and easy target to gain some kind of political point scoring on something they cannot see and has anything to do with them. If they don’t wish to marry… don’t but stop other having the choice.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 12:31pm

      Believe me, there are many in the Tory party who are of her mindset. Just look at the backbenchers.

  73. Who in hell voted for her? . . . What was that Satan?

    1. Lumi Bast 7 May 2012, 4:19pm

      Even Satan wouldn’t want her

  74. Dirty liar.

  75. Hmm, yeah ok, Nadine. Obviously everyone’s going to take the word of an anti-gay bigot with a fundie anti-gay agenda over the word of LGBT people themselves. Not.

  76. Avalokiteshvara 7 May 2012, 11:52am

    I suggest she introduces a new consultation, “should Christians be allowed to divorce?”.

    Of course this would entail Christians registering their religion, and having a special partnership register for their marriages, so that the courts know that they have contracted never to get divorced.

    1. Perhaps anyone signing the C4M petition should automatically be barred from divorcing.

      1. Avalokiteshvara 7 May 2012, 11:58am

        Their definition does indeed underline that it is for life.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 12:29pm

      Good point. I think there should be consultation to demand the disestablishment of the state cult. Having the monarch as titular head of it implies theocracy. About time that changed.

  77. Paddyswurds 7 May 2012, 12:25pm

    @Sas…
    …so by your twisted logic, Rosa Parkes should have been happy sitting in the back of the bus.
    No, CPs is not Marriage Equality no matter how you twist it or proffer stupid reasons why it should be so …you are a homophobic bigot like the vile Dorries woman and your day is long pat……..

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 12:28pm

      I bet if straight people were asked if they’d rather have a CP or a civil marriage, I think we know what their response would be. If CPs are so equal to civil marriage, I wonder why straight people aren’t demanding them, assuming they don’t want to marry but have something that’s less than marriage and not universally recognised with precious little portability outside the UK?

    2. Anybody who dares disagree with gay marriage must be a homophobic bigot. Of course, stands to reason doesn’t it?And you are self-indulgent and deluded to think that gay marriage is an issue worth fighting over.
      No wonder even cynical people like me who sees marriage as having no special powers and are agnostic and despises religion thinks you are all shallow people who have nothing else to worry about apart from semantics of being called married because, after all, civil partnerships offer same rights.
      I’ve no time for gay marriage. Hope to goodness it is dropped for being the whingeing demand it is.

      1. So presumably for the sake of consistancy you’re of the opinion that straight people should only entitled to call their unions civil partnerships and not marriage?
        No?
        Your bigotry is self-evident.

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 1:46pm

        FYI, it won’t be dropped. So what will you do when it eventually passes? if marriage has no special powers, why do a few billion people around the world marry? If CPs are equal, then explain to us with the factual evidence why they are not the universal alternate to civil marriage? Name more than two countries that have adopted them or are demanding them? You’re an idiot.

        1. Yes it will be dropped. What do you think all this double talk about ‘focusing on the economy’ a la George Osborne is all about-it’s telling the gay marriage lot to get lost in a polite way. Any ‘idiot’ can see that.
          Civil marriage -no such thing. Again, an ‘idiot’ like me can see that. You won’t get away with it because the religious ‘get it; they get the notion that ‘civil’ marriage is bollox. Marriage is marriage.
          I’ll tell you what is truly idiotic, that gay people can be married. That the anthropological reality of marriage that exists outside of religion can be magically denied to suit the ‘needs’ of a minority whose self-esteem is so chronically low they need to ape a heterosexual institution. This only applies to the gay people who are demanding gay marriage.
          Crikey, even somebody who despises religion with a passion and sees no great worth to marriage understands that marriage is an athropological reality in that it exists between men and women.

          1. “Civil marriage -no such thing.”
            Well that’ll be news to all those straight couples who married in registery offices, won’t it?
            Do you want to tell them?
            “…marriage is an athropological reality in that it exists between men and women.”
            They call that the etymological fallacy, that words are set in concrete and definitions never change over time.

          2. “Civil Marriage – no such thing.”

            Well you certainly are an idiot if you think that is true.

            A little education for you:
            The Act for Marriages in England 1836 6&7WmIV, c85 (17 August 1836) was an act that legalised the concept of civil marriage into England and Wales from 1 January 1837.
            A register office (frequently referred to as a “registry office” in non-official and informal use)is a British term for a civil registry, a government office and depository where births, deaths and marriages are officially recorded and where one can get officially married, without a religious ceremony.
            Every country maintaining a population registry of its residents keeps track of marital status, and most countries believe that it is their responsibility to register married couples. Most countries define the conditions of civil marriage separately from religious requirements. Certain countries, such as Israel, only allow couples to register on the condition that they have first been married in a …

          3. … religious ceremony recognised by the state, or were married in a different country.
            Today marriages in England must be held in authorised premises, which may include register offices, premises such as stately homes, castles and hotels that have been approved by the local authority, churches or chapels of the Church of England or Wales, and other churches and religious premises that have been registered by the registrar general for marriage.
            Civil marriages require a certificate, and at times a license, that testify that the couple is fit for marriage. A short time after they are approved in the superintendent registrar’s office, a short non-religious ceremony takes place which the registrar, the couple and two witnesses must attend; guests may also be present.

      3. YOU don’t want to have something so nobody else is allowed to have it either? Why not?

      4. Jock S. Trap 7 May 2012, 2:24pm

        “Anybody who dares disagree with gay marriage must be a homophobic bigot.”

        Maybe but I want Equal Civil marriage… Gay, Straight shouldn’t come into it.

  78. ‘One rule for me, another rule for them.’ Bloody Tories!

  79. Mike Parish 7 May 2012, 12:33pm

    Why don’t these people realise that every time they make public statements that refer today people as not worthy of the same rights as everyone else it gives credence to 100 mindless general public and children to hold negative views about homosexuals. Until there is NO DIFFERENT RIGHTS there will always be an excuse for homophobia. We need 100% equality and we need it NOW!

  80. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 12:35pm

    To think that some people are that gullible to support this vile poster girl for bigotry. A so called ‘christian’ fundamentalist committing adultery is truly beyond the pale. it defies bigotry and hypocrisy. Someone should take her to task over it.

  81. Go away, Keith. We really are not interested.

  82. “If you are projecting anything menacing, anything of an agenda, or any negativity towards others, those are the things you’re going to receive back. But if you project love and acceptance and tolerance into the universe, you will receive that.” – Lady Gaga

  83. What gay people does she know that don’t want marriage equality? Ben summerskill? ,christopher biggins?

  84. Jock S. Trap 7 May 2012, 2:36pm

    Have to say this would also be a perfect opportunity for Anyone in any party to stand up and stick up for us against Dorries comments and as yet none have risen to the occasion, none from the Tories, None from Labour and None from the Lib Dems.

    As of 14.35pm I am yet to here a supportive voice opposing Nadine Dorries From Any party!!!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 2:45pm

      I second that, Jock. It’s long overdue. I’d also like to hear someone in government take on her adulterous affair to expose her bigotry. Sometimes you have to play dirty to get the message across.

      1. Jock S. Trap 7 May 2012, 5:50pm

        Not just government what about the opposition? Yvette Cooper for example? Nick Clegg? Anyone?

        It is increasing looking like Labour are supportive of marriage Equality Only in the hope it will lose the Tories the next election rather than being supportive and creating a better, fairer society. Does the Labour Party see Marriage Equality as someone else’s ‘dirty work’? Not as a right… a Human Right? Is Labour only supportive for negative reasons and not real reasons to support the LGBT community? When the opposition parties could be making gains, standing up are they? No. Why?

        This is an opportunity for government and/or opposition to make a stand but neither seem to want to do so. Why? How supportive of marriage Equality are the three main political parties Really committed?

        1. Jock S. Trap 7 May 2012, 5:52pm

          Sorry Robert, I should have said I agree… and yes about taking on her adulterous affair to expose her bigotry.

          I realise on second reading I didn’t read properly.

  85. Spanner1960 7 May 2012, 3:04pm

    Hands up who would like to buy a “Metro elite gay activist” T-Shirt?

    I think we could start a trend here that would get Stonewall, Bradshaw, C4M and the odious Ms. Dorries frothing at the mouth.

    1. Quite possibly – provided it was stylishly designed!

      1. Spanner1960 7 May 2012, 7:26pm

        I’m a professional designer. I’ll see what I can drum up.

        1. Ideally something glittery but understated!

    2. I would love one!

  86. zipperlip 7 May 2012, 3:07pm

    gas all fags!

    1. Gil Grissom 7 May 2012, 3:40pm

      I feel sorry for you uttering such hatred, comment will be recorded, your IP address traced and you will face the consequences for incitement of hate crime.

    2. Lumi Bast 7 May 2012, 4:07pm

      If anyone should be gassed, it’s homophobes, at the very least the ones that advocate violence towards and death for gays

      1. Lumi Bast 7 May 2012, 4:08pm

        I’d like to add that I really hope zipperlip is a troll, because
        -if they were a troll, it would just show how immature they are
        -if they weren’t, that would be extremely sad at how much of a lowlife they are

    3. @zipperlip

      Sorry but we’re used to a better class of troll on this site. Please try harder – you don’t give any sport.

  87. Gil Grissom 7 May 2012, 3:38pm

    Dont tell me what to think and say, that is blatant FASCISM!

    1. To FLAPJACK,
      Actually, yes, it is (or rather was) a surprise to me being an atheist who has zero time for religion that I was talking utter **** when I droned on about my ‘civil’ marriage and somebody pointed out to me that marriage is marriage (religious or not) and the only difference is where it is conducted. Think the great Will Self (disclaimer: I know nothing else about his views on the subject of marriage) pointed out that this is why religious have knickers in a twist.

      And, yes, gay marriage is a (deluded) attempt to redefine reality.

      1. How is it deluded, other than by the terms of your previously expressed circular argument “marriage is between a man and a woman because it is” and etymological fallacy “marriage is between a man and a woman because in the history of mankind no-one has ever altered the meanings of words”?

      2. You are an atheist – yeah really!?!

        1. Yes, I bloody well am. Not everybody who thinks gay marriage is ridiculous is a god-botherer.
          Wake up to the fact that even the cynical heathens have had enough of your posturing.

          1. Correction – one cynical heathen. Mainstream atheism has no issue with gay marriage.
            Sorry if civil rights issues bore you.

          2. Wake up to the fact that human rights and fairness do not respond to your bullying!

          3. Oh grow up for goodness sake, if you seriously think that gay marriage is a civil rights issue, you clearly haven’t a clue what they are.
            Not even lefties’ paradise ECHR agrees that gay marriage is a civil rights issue-and, believe me, THEY would agree with you if it were.

            Stop comparing this to slavery and the like-all this is about semantics about being known as married when you’ve already got cp’s which provide civil rights. You seriously expect people to care?

          4. If it’s only about semantics and means so little to you, why not simply back down?
            I’ll stop pointing out the hypocrisy of the “seperate but equal” BS, when you stop enforcing “marriage is between a man and a woman” like your own marriage depended on it.
            Until you’ve walked a mile in our shoes, and spent your life as a second class citizen you won’t get why “seperate but equal” is such a pile of crap.

          5. @Sas

            If you are going to reference the ECHR please do get your facts right. The ECHR actually said that marriage is a civil rights issue and were divided on the issue of discrimination. The stated more cases this coming year may resolve the issue and they stated very clearly in paragraph 61 of the recent Austrian case that marriage does not refer just to unions of opposite sex couples.

          6. However everyone who thinks gay marriage is ridiculous is usually a homophobe of one kind or another or a self hating closet case. You seem very agitated by the entire issue. Reasonable people like to see other people enjoying the same rights they have. Equality is exactly that equality. If gay people wish to be married why is that any skin off your arse? Homophobia? Closet case? Or just a closed minded twat?

      3. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 6:59pm

        Explain ‘redefining reality’ for us please. Explain why 11 governments have legalised equal marriage and many more will follow, France, Germany, Australia, Slovenia, Luxembourg and yes the UK? All it does is expand a civil contract to include gay people, nothing more. Civil marriage is a fairly new event in the UK, iintroduced by the government in the 19th century that allowed divorced people to marry multiple times who were forbidden a religious ceremony, nothing more. The civil model does not allude to any religion nor does it mandate procreation. Even infertile women or those beyond child bearing years marry. What next ban them as well as adulterous divorced people, the real threat to marriage. Ask Nadine Dorries, she knows a thing or two about adultery. Civil marriage isn’t traditional marriage either!

  88. GingerlyColors 7 May 2012, 4:07pm

    Some gays are happy with the status quo – such as John Barrowman but most of us would like that final endorsement of equality. The Tories had better pull their socks up or judging by last Thursday’s local election results they will be routed at the next general election and Labour will certainly bring in marriage equality. Therefore the introduction of marriage equality is a foregone conclusion and the Tories might as well bring it in. I personally do not wish to live under Labour – my job and my pension was jeapordised under them thanks to their policy of pandering to Europe and deregulating the postal service.

  89. I bet she only has sex with the lights off!!
    Quarterly!!

    1. Spanner1960 7 May 2012, 11:30pm

      Lucky cow. I don’t even get that.

  90. Poor dear Nadine. Care in the community just doesn’t work.

  91. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 7:11pm

    In case the people at C4M, polygamy is condoned in the bible, hardly the result of equal marriage.

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/polygamy.html

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 7 May 2012, 7:11pm

      In case the people at C4M aren’t aware, I meant to have said in my previous comment.

  92. Ah yes, Nadine Dorries, that pillar of integrity who got investigated for house ‘flipping’ in the expenses scandal and saved herself by claiming that her incriminating blog was mostly fiction. That bastion of moral fibre who had a fling with a friend’s husband. That chum of gay rights-loathing, fundamentalist blowhard Andrea Minichello Williams.

    No, Dorries can go in the political bin.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 8 May 2012, 12:22am

      Well said, Stuart! Dorries and Williams are total frauds. Not much in the cranial department either.

    2. I love yr sardonic humour, it really hits home lol, I for one, want nothing to do with gay-marriage, if it is attached to any churchy institutionalized agenda…. Keeping the religous format out of
      reach of gay marriage also keeps religious ideaology out of our politics too. For those gays who want religious institutions in their
      lives, supports this man-made farce. I would smother it out of existance and feel that the world would be a better place for it. Niygella

  93. And incidentally, according to the Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance website, conservative Christians divorce more than normal people (based on US data- although given Ms Dorrie’s track record…)

    1. Spanner1960 7 May 2012, 11:30pm

      “Normal”.
      I like that.

  94. How can be equal when she says we should not be allowed to marry ?

    She is a homophobic hate mongering biggot. >.>

    I feel ashamed living in a country with such people

  95. the torys twats are out at the next election then

  96. Nadine has missed the point and it’s sad that she does not have a diverse circle of friends or aquaintances – point being that heterosexuality is not normal it’s just extremely common – come and visit us but a pity you missed our 32nd anniversay dinner last week!

  97. Benjamin Kidd 8 May 2012, 12:37pm

    ER *waves hands* Over here youu dafty!!!!!! Honestly what a stupid woman… talk about blinkered!

  98. Fabulous Keith has been culled again!

  99. Paddyswurds 8 May 2012, 8:08pm

    This is a copy of an e.mail I just sent to Nadine Dorries.
    Dear Ms Dorries….please watch this piece of video when you get a private moment and when it is finished please examine your heart. I don’t know if you have children but if you do or ever will please try putting your son or daughter in the place of either one on these two young people and then ask yourself if this pain is something you would want them to suffer.. If so then you will know that you are doing the right thing with regard to Marriage Equality, if not then you will know in your heart what you must do for their sakes if not for the sake of a lot of your constituents who are gay and may suffer this pain.. Please find time to watch… You may just be glad you did:… Patrick O’Gormley… N Ireland.

  100. You haven’t met any gay couple who wants to marry Nadine? You must be mixing with the wrong gay people OR you don’t actually know any and just want to look hip and in with it kind of crap and so want admit to that!

    When I meet the right woman I want to be able to marry her…I am not happy with taking second best with civil partnership. And if I am so much the same as a heterosexual why do prats like you insist on treating me like a second class citizen?

  101. You can tweet this silly cow here! https://twitter.com/#!/NadineDorriesMP

  102. Homogameinophobic woman.

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