This man really does not deserve the title ‘Lord’
What a vile cretin he is!
Isn’t it time these dinosaurs became part of a united ireland? They have always been nothing but a money sapping problem
Ha no thank you! Why would we in the Republic want that? You chose to keep NI, its your problem now. Long may it last!
The Irish in Ulster were abandoned and left victim to the Unionists for the last 100 years. Maginnis’ comments are not untypical. United Ireland? Bring it on.
Does he even deserve to be called a man?
These comments do speak volumes about Lord (Lord? A peer of the British realm?)Maginnis but his lack of insight into his comments is even more illuminating. Someone please buy him Keith Sharpe’s instructive ‘The Gay Gospels’ before His ‘Lordship’ explodes with apoplectic bile.
That his first thought is bestiality says more about him than anyone else. That “legal competence” and “human being” does not compute in his addle-witted brain is laughable.
But this is what is happening because of this vile and putrid consultation process – it has been dragged out for far too long and has opened the door for people to be outwardly and unashamedly bigoted.
We are less safe today than we were a year ago because the government is dragging its bloody feet. The amount of anti-gay animus is giving permission to these freaks to stick their heads about the parapet and openly spout hatred.
Well said. Someone should introduce him to the phrase “Consenting human adults”.
I am so tired of having gay relationships, which are consensual, compared to non-consensual acts of violence.
I just had a laugh when I read the wikipedia on MISTER Maginnis, which states:
“Maginnis was perceived to be on the more social liberal wing of the UUP”
… .. .The thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit or post whatever crap they like.
MISTER Maginnis probably wrote his own profile for the page and if not then a toadying lackey was likely employed to do it.
I am surprised at you Stu, admitting that you even reference Wikipedia. E. Britannica is much more reliable…… he was Always a bigoted boor….. You should have heard him during the “Troubles” ….some of his pronouncements were akin to the rhetoric from a certain Teutonic party during the 1930s…..
You take comments so much to heart.
I take everything on wikipedia with a great pinch of salt.
I was merely commenting on the disparity between what is recorded and what appears to be real.
What happened, is a reasonable line of questioning.
Historically, I recall Magginis, who, despite having a couple of interesting and positive inputs to the GFA, was incredibly bigoted.
I still stand by my comments – if the wikipedia author(s) believe he was progressive – what happened – either to justify that comment, or to make him give comments which show that comment to be false (both historically and today).
Whatever Maginnis is or was one thing he never was is progressive, probably one of the least progressive and bigoted politicians the north of Ireland ever had the bad luck to be saddled with. It was proposed to make the day he retired a public holiday of thanksgiving he was gone……btw he was very much against the GFA and at one point threatened to depose Trimble…
btw… He was my Westminster MP for a while and we may as well have had no MP he was so useless….
You have my sympathy having him as your MP at some point.
I recall that he was opposed to the GFA – although I also recall Mo Mowlem saying in her autobiography that he was instrumental in persuading acceptance at the 11th hour in one aspect.
Maginnis is not a man I respect or value and I was laughing at the wikipedia (inaccurate) portrayal.
One of the standard arguments provided by the homophobic right against gay marriage is a form of what we call the domino fallacy or the slippery slope argument. The idea is that if you take that seemingly innocuous first step, it automatically leads to a second, which will force a third, and so on and so on until, next thing you know, there we are in Satan’s own livingroom listening to Yanni on 8-track. In the case of marriage, the argument goes, if we open up the institution to same-sex couples, then we will be forced down the slippery slope to include all sorts of unusual couplings including cross-species arrangements.
So what is wrong with this slippery slope argument? Why doesn’t allowing gay marriage also force us to offer to marry polygamists? adults and children? humans and animals?
What is at issue in the gay marriage question is nothing but the legal status. The issue at hand is whether hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, power of attorney, being able to file
joint tax returns, and all of the other legal protections ought to be denied to people because some folks’ religion doesn’t like the way that these people — many of whom are not in their religion — make love.
Marriage exists to eliminate ambiguities in law that arise from the fact that we do tend to couple up. We arrange our lives in such a fashion that it makes it impossible under the social contract which organizes society to give rights and responsibilities to individuals whose lives are completely intertwined. There is not my money and my wife’s money, there are our assets. There is not my house and my wife’s house, there is our home. There are not my children and my wife’s children, there is our family. When talking about tax liabilities, child welfare decisions, and life choices in general, the responsibilities and benefits are ours together. We are what Thomas Hobbes called an “artificial individual; it makes no sense to think of us as two completely different people in some
legal circumstances because we decide and act as a single entity and the law must account for that. If one of us were in an accident that caused that person to be incapacitated, the decision making rights for that person immediately go to the other partner. If one should pass away, all assets and liabilities, all responsibility for the children immediately go to the survivor. Questions about these sorts of thing need to be completely unambiguous to avoid problems like the Terri Schaivo fiasco where different family members were trying to wrest control from each other to further their own agendas. Marriage exists to make perfectly clear who has what rights and responsibilities and who shares what rights and responsibilities.
This has nothing to do with churches, synagogues, mosques, or temples. If a religion wants or doesn’t want to perform a ceremony binding any given couple together in they eyes of their god(s), they may choose to or not to at their own discretion. It’s your club,
run it how you will. But this is a question of whether we deny rights, privileges, and protections under the law to honest, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens.
To oppose this equal treatment under the law is nothing but bigotry. They may try to wrap that bigotry in the cloak of religious righteousness, they may try to argue that their immoral stance comes from family or other values, they may feign concern for the children, but these are all red herrings designed to pull your eye away from the fact that all they are really trying to do is deprive innocent citizens of rights because they find the way they have sex to be yucky. Gay and lesbian couples are every bit the same in terms of commitment and acting as a unit, and therefore, there is no reason to exclude them from the disambiguating legal status of being married.
But what about polygamy?
But doesn’t this start us down the slippery slope to hell? No. Consider first the case of polygamy. People are capable and some desire lives
intertwined with more than one person. Couldn’t three people make decisions as a unit and wouldn’t this argument require affording the legal status to all of them?
No. The purpose of civil marriage is to make sure that the location of rights and responsibilities is perfectly clear. Polygamy would not only not make these issues unambiguous, it would entrench further ambiguity into the law. It would do the opposite of what civil marriage is meant to do. When Groucho proposed marrying two women, one said to him, “But that is bigamy,” to which Groucho retorted, “It’s big of me, too. It’s big of us all. Let’s be big for a change. What do you say?” The problem with polygamy is that we cannot always count on everyone to be big. Squabbles will occur and the point of marriage is to make sure that there is a clear legal way to resolve them. If we allowed Terri Schaivo to have two husbands and they disagreed on her care, then who gets the final word? This is exactly the sort of question marriage
exists to answer. Polygamy not only wouldn’t answer it, it would make it unanswerable. Gay marriage does not entail the necessity to legalize polygamy any more than, say, interracial or interfaith marriages do, that is to say, not at all.
How about marrying children?
Dobson and the others argue that gay marriage requires being able to marry minors. No. The idea is to make clear where there are joint rights and responsibilities and where those rights and responsibilities lay when one partner is incapable of exercising them. Minors cannot possess all the rights and responsibilities of adults. Hence, they could not enter into relationships wherein they would be asked to fulfill obligations that they cannot have. Whether this should also hold for adults who act like children…we can consider that later.
Ok, but what about the dogs, sheep, and donkeys?
Same line of reasoning, of course. Animals may or may not have moral rights, but under our social contract they do not have legal
rights. Since animals cannot be held legally responsible and cannot participate in making decisions, they cannot be married. If children do not rise to the standard, then clearly neither do box turtles. As for Dobson’s donkeys, I have known many people who married jackasses, but that is a different question.
One might object that Lassie was quite capable of making life or death decisions for little Timmy, so “shouldn’t they be allowed to get married?” I don’t think it is a real concern because while Lassie seemed gentle and caring on screen, everyone knows that off-camera she was just a little bitch.
Civil marriage is a legal status that has good reason to exist and there is no reason not to extend it to couples of the same sex. At the same time, the function of that status means that the slippery slope that the right claims to exist is complete and utter nonsense.
Maginnis’s claims are bogus, false, lies, disreputable and it is no wonder the UUP have sought to distance themselves.
This guy is at the top rung of the ladder towards being a hateful freak.
When are these idiots going to realise that by saying such things they are simply telling the world ‘Hey, I’m gay and I’m hiding in the closet, so please expose me so I can have a real life!’
Oh, give it a rest. Not every bigot is a closet gay, some people are just ignorant or accept the indoctrination of their prejudiced backgrounds.
Please. I just don’t WANT this toad to be gay. Thank you.
Oh god not this old chestnut again……I sick to the back teeth of these nutters saying this!!!
He may be a nutter, but he is a nutter who will be getting £300+ per day just for turning up then going home again.
I wonder if he wants to refuse money from gay tax payers?
This nutter also owns several newspaper titles…..!
What about the fact that bestiality is legal in 37 states in the USA right now and yet they’re trying to *stop* marriage equality. Oh, but you conventionally chose to ignore all that… Yeah, ‘gay marriage’ is the slippery slop isn’t it!
Just because Bestiality laws aren’t on the books in some States doesn’t mean that it is legal. Give it a try and you will deffo end up in gaol as there are a myriad other laws under which you will be prosecuted.
However there are a small number of states worldwide where you will not be prosecuted as witnessed by the dude on the Gerry Springer Show some years ago who married his horse. He was btw, heterosexual. The favourite chestnut for these right wing crazies though is incest, and I am surprised Maginnis didn’t mention it as he looks like the product of an incestuous union…..
Sounds like one of their progressives then?
Still he will be on £300+ per day just for turnng up and signing the book. Nice. But that is your money and mine, maybe not so nice
When Lord Maginnis said to Stephen Nolan “This is not something private like your marriage or my marriage” he should have remembered that we gays are “you” – we are right there in society, and there were gay people listening to those words. Our marriages are your marriages.
I hope that some people hearing this show will have been inspired to (to paraphrase Harvey Milk) come out, come out, come out… break down the myths… destroy the lies and distortions.
Northern Ireland isn’t always an easy place in which to be out, and for many people being out isn’t safe and shouldn’t be considered. But for those of us who are safe from violence and retribution, coming out is usually the single most powerful thing we can do to help change things.
So many people – including certain popular celebrities – live in the “Westlink closet”: out in Belfast city centre but not at home. Everyone’s circumstances are different, but if you are safe and financially secure, please consider coming out.
How truly wonderful it would have been if he’d said “This is not something private like your marriage or my marriage” to a broadcaster who’s gay but not widely known to be, like Eddie Mair!
[Lord Maginnis] would be “concerned about young children, that they would be influenced by [gay neighbours].”
Influenced in what way? In realising there’s such a thing as diversity? Big deal: why so worried?
If, on the other hand, this eejit is worrying that these poor li’l children might “turn gay”, he should reassure himself that most of us know sexuality isn’t mutable.
I haven’t noticed any clamour in the Netherlands or Canada or Argentine for bestiality to be legalised.
‘Lord’ Maginnis (whose existence is a strong arguement for the abolition of the undemocratic house of ‘lords’) needs to educate himself.
And bigoted comments are just one rung on the ladder to genocide. Which is more accurate?
Anyway – sweepstakes time. How long before we hear about the rent boys?
What a silly thing to say, linking GLBT rights and bestiality. Even if same-sex marriage were to become legal around the world tomorrow, I wouldn’t have sex with Maginnis.
Lord Maginnis is a rung on the ladder to insanity
Gay rights – object of political discussions? Good progress, No.(to gays) Ireland! Maybe marriage equality 2020, or so?
What truly astounds me is the power these ignoramuses have over others. It’s amazing that any medicine, surgery, science, art, music, literature, poetry, exploration or discovery has been made at all with these people around – they only serve to hold the entirety of humanity back – paralysed in the shadows. They belittle ALL our intelligences just by existing.
Who is responsible and how do we as a species address such stupidity?
“Deviant sexual practices?” So since the abrahamic cults regard oral sex and masturbation as deviant, Maginnis would have to include all of those millions of hetero married couples too. What a jackass and a bigot!
The hetero obession with bestiality, incest, polygamy in regard to equal marriage is quite revealing. They alone are the only ones who raise these aberrant behaviours and it’s totally irrational but then they’re not rational anyway.
The fool looks like a beast, another dumb animal or another anti-gay Christian spewing lies and propaganda to stir up the other beast, also known known as anti-gay Christians.
If there is one reason to disband the House of Lords in forth coming reform its this man’s verbal and repulsive tone and his look of pure evil. What a nasty human specimen. I remember all the comment from the right wing the like of Lord Maginni,s when section 28 was finally ditched and all the pathetic storys they peddled about gays hanging around school gates etc. A load of tosh then and another load now!
“The Ulster Unionist Party has distanced itself from comments made by Lord Maginnis this morning that marriage for gay couples was something ‘unnatural’ that would be ‘imposed’ on society, calling it a ‘rung on the ladder’ to bestiality.”
I guess I would also, especially if it looked like he has potential to become a case study for the potential correlation between ignorance and insanity contributing to the early onset of dementia!
I’m sure I saw him at XXL! Or was it The Hoist? LOL – sad old git!
Is this what too much Colonel Sanders fried chicken does to peoples brains?
Can’t they get rid of him. He’s a liability! He is rather old and perhaps he’s losing his marbles… He would be better off in a care home sipping cocoa.
I take it he’s on the top rung.
Once again, the “best” argument against gay marriage they can come up with is the exact same stuff they said about interracial marriage 60 years ago.
So The Coalition for Marriage link homosexuality to bestiality.
Let’s get that one out there.
The slippery slope lies which have been discredited many times continue:
Maginnis, I don’t fear hell, ’cause Hell is following your views, siding with your hatred. I love my inborn homosexual identity !
Greetings from gay-friendly Norway-
Maginnis, I don’t fear hell at all- ’cause Hell is following your hatred, siding with your views. I love my inborn homosexual identity
What a nasty creep. I sent him an email protesting his hateful comments, and he replied calling me a “faceless twit” with “no balls”. (Funny how homophobes are always referencing male genitalia…)
Here are the contact details of this walking anachronism:
The Lord Maginnis of Drumglass