Reader comments · Tory MP Craig Whittaker continues to argue that letting gays marry could lead to three-ways or polygamy · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Tory MP Craig Whittaker continues to argue that letting gays marry could lead to three-ways or polygamy

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Doubling-down on the slack-jawed stupidity and making sure to be recorded on the wrong side of history. There is a reason that the books remember Governor Wallace you know, Mr Whittaker.

    That polygamy is still practiced in some places – and it is exclusively hetero in nature – doesn’t even registered in that ridiculous melon on top of his shoulders.

    1. Don’t give him any more publicity. It’s probably the only way he will be able to impress his core constituents. The people who would pretend to accept any nonsensical argument against SSM.

    2. Jacques Trep 14 May 2012, 12:38am

      Governor who?

      1. Governor Wallace was the politician who – as schools in the US were integrated by force by the National Guard – made the symbolic point of trying to physically block them.

        History now remembers him as “that racist douchebag”.

        Those who stand in the way of civil rights and justice are rarely remembered with any particular kindness.

    3. Jacques Trep 14 May 2012, 12:40am

      The Marquis of Bath until fairly recently had many “wifelets” . I thinks he’s dead now, poor chap.

  2. “…then what will our successors be discussing and have to legislate for in the future? Polygamy? Three-way relationships? Who knows what else?”

    Good! Why don’t we legalise three-way marriages? The anti-equality bigots like to use polygamous marriages as an example of what allowing same-sex marriage might be a gateway to, but fail to give any reason as to why polygamous marriage is bad.

    Open marriages are perfectly legal, why not polygamous marriages?

    1. johnny.33308 13 May 2012, 9:19pm

      Yes, and what of it if some people wished to practice polygamy? It’s no one’s business but their own. And other sorts of relationships, so what? Is it his business to make certain everyone fits neatly into his little labelled boxes? Perhaps not everyone will ‘fit’ into his categories; is it his business to make certain they do? I think not! Who appointed him to label everyone anyway? What a foolish idiot he is! People are entitled to have any sort of relationship with one another that they all agree upon, without hindrance from stupid people with Victorian morals screaming that they cannot do this since it does not fit neatly into categories already established by others long ago…..categories that may or may not be useful any longer. There is such a thing as “evolution” but his sort likely have no idea what that means….he’s probably a Creationist, like the ‘religious’ here in the US are!
      By the way, polygamous marriage has been around far longer than the 2 person marriage.

  3. Is anyone else getting bored with these stupid and unfounded so called reasons not to legalise same sex marriage?

    Society will not collapse, neither will the world end when equal marriage does happen.

    These idiots still continue to scrape that barrel for illogical reasons don’t they? The man clearly is a fool!

    1. Jacques Trep 14 May 2012, 12:37am

      I think really it’s just a “valid” reason to have a go at the gays, who they despise, but haven’t been able to knock for a while, because it’s no longer acceptable. But if you dress it up as defending marriage, which obviously isn’t threatened in the least, then it looks like you’re having a debate about defending something ( which isn’t under attack ) whereas you’re really just making slightly disguised homophobic attacks on gay peoples’ relationships.

  4. Galadriel1010 13 May 2012, 1:17pm

    If we’re not allowed to define marriage for them, how come they’re allowed to define marriage for us?
    I’d write to my MP, but it’s him and I don’t think he’s listening.

  5. Responsible governments do not decide not to legislate in relation to civil rights because they might lead to other demands that they are not happy with. Responsible governments ensure civil rights are protected and persuade and explain where demands are unreasonable.

    Whittaker has no evidence that his scare mongering is factual, because what he suggests has never happened elsewhere. Bizarre claims of links elsewhere have been discredited.

    Whittaker is merely shouting from the bigoted and grotesque hymn sheet of the RC church.

    The likes of Whittaker, Hammond, Dorries, McCartney and Howarth are not only on the wrong side of history at a historic juncture in global civil rights – they also will collectively be responsible for the annilhilation of the Tory party in history as the eternal, unchanging, and unhumane nasty party.

    1. Jacques Trep 14 May 2012, 12:31am

      Yes they will end up as “popular” as UKIP.

  6. Is this another one of those schizophrenia stories?

    1. Nah, he’s just a tw@t.

  7. Simon Youngh 13 May 2012, 1:34pm

    Whittaker is frightening out of touch with the modern world. I’m confident that there is wide support for gay marriage in Calder Valley constituency! Of course Craig Whittaker would know that if he actually engaged with the very constituents he claims to represent. His reasons for campaigning against gay marriage are frankly laughable.

    1. GingerlyColors 13 May 2012, 1:51pm

      Calder Valley is one of the more gay friendly areas of England and I regularly visit a couple of pubs in the hills above Hebden Bridge which is said to be the Lesbian capital of Great Britain. Calderdale Pride, by the way is on June 16th in Halifax.

  8. Marriage in the UK creates reciprocal responsibilities between two people. Opening it up to more people means creating entirely new types of legal obligation. Mr Whittaker should observe that he (along with some Muslim groups) is the only person currently who seems to be talking about this.

    As for the important issue, there is a real danger of marriage equality going under, as I have been arguing on PN for months. We may have the numbers in the Commons (though the Lords is doubtful) but that is irrelevant because the govt will never bring this forward if the backbenchers keep on like this. Without a serious campaign to reach Middle England, we can forget about marriage equality under the Tories.

    If you believe in marriage equality, mobilise everyone you know. We only have a short window before it’s too late. Many people who don’t understand why CPs aren’t enough are still open to persuasion. We can win this, but we’ll have to do it ourselves; we can’t rely on the govt.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 13 May 2012, 4:00pm

      Even if the House of Lords doesn’t approve it, Cameron could well utilise the Parliament Act to override it. About time that upper house were abolished and put an end to religious clerics sticking their noses in civil matters that are none of their concern.

  9. Craig Whittaker is one paranoid person .

    1. Jacques Trep 14 May 2012, 12:27am

      Fundamentalists are driven by fear, particularly of change.

      Which is ironic, as Christianity was intended to be a love driven philosophy. Not much evidence of it really, is there.

  10. GingerlyColors 13 May 2012, 1:48pm

    Why is it that everybody who is opposed to marriage equality tries to justify their argument by suggesting that allowing gays to marry will also mean allowing polygamous marriages, incest or underage sex. The fact is that children in this country are already being forced into marriages long before they are 16, often getting married in their parent’s home country. Why don’t the government put a stop to that or are they afraid of offending certain sections of the immigrant community?

    1. You only have to look at Saudi Arabia ,where men can marry girls at the age of Nine …..and this Is an Hetrosexual thing .

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 13 May 2012, 3:58pm

        Well, look at their founding paedophile father, Mohammed, married a nine year old girl by the name of Aisha and had sex with her.

        1. And they they get away with it all by placing it under Religion ……they are not stupid are they .

    2. you forgot bestiality which also seems to raise it’s ugly head

      1. Jacques Trep 14 May 2012, 12:25am

        Well it has now.

  11. countrygirl_jo 13 May 2012, 2:21pm

    It’s dead. It was a ridiculous idea that any Conservative Prime Minister could ever get such a measure through and I remember watching Cameron say it with incredulity. His party remains full of bigots, end of.

    1. Jacques Trep 14 May 2012, 12:23am

      I bet you’re an upbeat sort of gal.

    2. What a no-hoping pessimist you apparently are, all it takes a bit of ridiculous and misleading anti-gay propaganda and you give up!…well the rest of us don’t give up so easily.

  12. “then what will our successors be discussing and have to legislate for in the future?; ”

    Its called democracy, you fool. Laws can and will be changed.

    1. The momentum is such in the UK and across the globe that the campaign will not end and will not give up until equality is achieved and sustained.

    2. Jacques Trep 14 May 2012, 12:22am

      Everything always changes and evolves. Fundamentalists hate that.

  13. Why stop at gay marriage? Just to be sure this polygamy and incest doesn’t catch on, let’s ban hetero marriage too.
    I mean in Utah they have hetero incest and in the middle east they have hetero polygamy, which goes to show that anywhere men and women get together and get married you run the risk of encouraging polygamy and incest.
    I think we should ban all human interaction cause it’s all just one big slippery slope.
    I’m off to lop off my genitals just to be sure…. I suggest Craig Whittaker does the same.

    1. Jacques Trep 14 May 2012, 12:20am

      You want him to lop off your genitals too? Surely a second attempt is academic.

  14. I’m reminded of Sam the American Eagle on the Muppets, who used similar logic when discussing the issue of public nudity

    1. Jacques Trep 14 May 2012, 12:18am

      Well, he’s certainly a muppet.

  15. Someone who can only argue like the mentally ill lady is best ignored. He will be enjoying grandstanding for the Colonel Blimps and the back woodsmen.

    1. Jacques Trep 14 May 2012, 12:17am

      That’s no way to talk about…, oh forgotten her name.

  16. Me Craig, you Jane?

    1. Jacques Trep 14 May 2012, 12:15am

      You credit him with too much literacy.

  17. ‘… Conservative MP for Caulder Valley, Craig Whittaker says he worries that changing the law to allow gay couples to marry could lead to legalisation recognising three-way relationships or polygamy…’

    yes that could be the case, but legislation recognising polygamy and 3-way relationships would not replace conventional marriage. same-sex, poly or 3-way marriages are not compulsory.

    and whats with the fake tan?

    1. Jacques Trep 14 May 2012, 12:13am

      He’s been Tango’d.

  18. Robert in S. Kensington 13 May 2012, 3:54pm

    About time David Cameron grew a pair of balls and confronted this bigot and all the others coming out of the rotten woodwork in their party. Why the silence? I just dont get it.

    1. Jacques Trep 14 May 2012, 12:12am

      To his credit, he hasn’t been silent. But many of us long thought that he was the only humanitarian in the Tory party.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 14 May 2012, 12:11pm

        He needs to be more forceful and address the bigotry among his backbenchers. It’s inappropriate and pandering to hysterical fear-mongering where there really isn’t any. Why should we have to put up with this daily hammering and spurious nonsense? I mean,, do rational people really believe equal marriage will herald polygamy and incest when both are already illegal and does this moron believe that the majority of MPs would support such a ridiculous and offensive statement when there is no demand for either? I don’t know of any country in the western world where polygamy is legal. So far, Whittaker hasn’t provided any factual evidence when I asked for it recently. He ignored my request.

  19. de Villiers 13 May 2012, 4:16pm

    > “If one looks back over time to only 45 years ago in England and Wales, 32 years ago in Scotland and 30 years ago in Northern Ireland when homosexuality was decriminalised, could politicians of the day ever imagine that their successors would be looking at changing the law and re-defining marriage at some point in the future?

    I’m sure after the defeat of Napoleon I, the French Empire, and the revolutionary thoughts involving the rights of man, the British government would never have imagined that in less than twenty years’ hence they would be enacting bills to extend the franchise and form the foundation of the British democracy.

    1. Jacques Trep 14 May 2012, 12:10am

      I wonder if, when the French decriminalised homosexuality, they realised that 220 years later they would only have got as far as a Pacte Civile.

  20. GulliverUK 13 May 2012, 4:19pm

    All these people need to get a grip on reality. The proposals are for extending civil marriage between two people, period. If and when a growing movement for polygamy starts advocating publically for that then they can make their case against ‘that’, ‘then’.

    It’s good job nobody is stupid enough to be against polygamy on religious grounds because the bible doesn’t have a problem with polygamy as well as rapists marrying those they have raped.

    Craig Whittaker voted strongly for Trident – I say NO!!!! The unintended consequence of replacing is it is that we might use it and kill people.

    1. Jacques Trep 14 May 2012, 12:07am

      Craig Whittaker should have his marriage annulled against his wishes, just because we don’t like him.

  21. “Marriage has a unique place in our society. It is a bedrock institution and the most stable environment for raising children. Redefining marriage would make marriage adult-centred rather than child-centred.”

    Is he not aware that LGBT people also bring up children in their partnerships? He seems to be supporting a measure to deny children the opportunity to be raised in a marriage, just because both their parents are of the same sex.

    Well, never mind, though. There is so much support for equal marriage in the community at large and in Parliament, that it is an inevitability.

    1. Jacques Trep 14 May 2012, 12:05am

      Hasn’t he heard of dogs?

  22. 3 ways? We know what’s on his mind. How exactly does the marriage rights of a same sex couple have to lead to 3 ways and polygamy? And does he mean heterosexual polygamy? If heterosexuals want to campaign for polygamy, then let them, I couldn’t care less. I’m not interested in polygamy or incest or any other type of marriage that heterosexuals might campaign for. I just want same sex marriage equality.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 14 May 2012, 12:04pm

      Notice it is the hetero bigots who obsess about polygamy, incest and bestialty, while normal people like us don’t? The man is irrational and almost all of them in my mind are psychopathic liars.

  23. johnny.33308 13 May 2012, 9:08pm

    Marriage in NOT a religious institution, otherwise people who happen to be athiest would be unable to get married…period. I have never heard of atheists being barred from marriage….has anyone else? These bigots are absurd and illogical…and history will remember them and point to them as examples of how NOT to ever be so stupid or narrow minded.

    1. Jacques Trep 14 May 2012, 12:03am

      Except in Uganda.

  24. Get this man some botox and filler already. Mr Whittaker’s smug smile and general ensemble needs an intervention.

    1. Jacques Trep 14 May 2012, 12:01am

      Don’t mock the afflicted missus.

      1. OK, I’ll admit I’m being mean. I’d feel terrible but the man is more than happy to intervene in the folds and creases of our bed sheets so it’s only fair game to stick it to him in his personal folds and creases.

  25. Could this silly man please explain by what process a move which promotes an increase in monogamous relationships might lead to the promotion of the opposite.

    I’m now worried that, having virtually given up alcohol I’m clearly on the road to alcoholism…

    1. Jacques Trep 14 May 2012, 12:00am

      Allowing tea shops to open will lead to late night pub binges according to his logic.

  26. Jacques Trep 13 May 2012, 11:57pm

    The French decriminalised gays in the 1790s. It’s taken them over 200 years to get to PACs. That’s not a slippery slope, it’s a barely noticeable incline.

  27. Fallacia McWhirter 14 May 2012, 1:16am

    Strange that no one argued that if you let women into parliament, the next thing you know is children and animals will be allowed in and we could end up with a cabinet of monkeys.

    1. Good point.

      Only thing that flaws the logic is that many people would say that we have ended up with precisely that…

      It’s the cause and effect bit that doesn’t quite work…

  28. Hasn’t he resigned yet?

  29. You know, I honestly have no problem with polygamy as long as it’s consensual. I sometimes wonder whether Gay rights groups should just say they’re in favour of it.

    Of course, this would only lead to “We knew it! We knew you people want to destroy marriage and the family” from the homophobes.

  30. Hopefully, will be a one term MP! Once again the combined votes of the Labor Party and the Liberal Democrats would not seen this conservative elected. Get preferential voting!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 14 May 2012, 12:01pm

      The problem is, these bigots say things like that because they live in constituencies that gave them a comfortable majority. I doubt if this idiot would have opened his mouth had he just scraped by.

  31. None of the Conseratives give a crap about gay people or equality – this is just being used to make it look like they are changing! They are not! They are the same self serving low life cowards they have always been!

    1. Agreed. Any member of our LGBT community that supports a conservative, is an idiot.

    2. Fallacia McWhirter 14 May 2012, 10:43am

      If they are getting cold feet, we should press for a change of government. But are labour electable yet?

  32. In short he says. Mummy I’m scared of progress, the sky might fall in.

    What a backward thinking person. I really feel sorry for his constituency.

  33. Makes me ashamed of being from West Yorkshire. People always use the slippery slope argument, and present yet more things that have ill-defined moral value – eg. three-way marriages and polygamy, who’s to say these are wrong too? Polygamy is practised by the vast majority of the animal kingdom, what’s so bad about it? Does it therefore make us more like our animal ancestors? Well first of all the answer is no, but even if the answer were yes what’s so bad about that?

    1. And yet again, people are making such an ado about ‘redefining’ marriage, yet marriage has constantly been redefined and changed to the social norms of the age, until the Abrahamic religions came along AND REDEFINED marriage, homosexuality was mostly accepted and in fact, in many cultures, encouraged. Take Japan, Samurais were openly encouraged to engage in homosexual acts as it was seen as fulfilling and enriching, it’s only recently as Christianity has started to spread into the country that homosexuality has started to be frowned upon.

  34. I see Pinknews is maintaining it usual high standard. A spelling mistake in the 1st word of the 1st sentence.

    1. Fallacia McWhirter 14 May 2012, 10:39am

      It’s also incorrect grammar to say 1st in a sentence rather than writing first.

  35. “Government minister commits logical fallacy shock”

  36. His wife must be desperate.

  37. wot a total twat

  38. he d luv it 3 ways at once he means !

    in his dreams !

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