Someone tell the tedious little twerp that it is about CHOICE. Whether we do or do not marry should be down to us and no one else.
Very well said! If straight people can have a choice then it’s our right also! Nobody has yet given me one good reasone why marriage should not be equal!
Oh look, Tory GBLT member is a colluder, who would have thought?
He’s a gay man who writes for the Daily Mail – are we really surprised? Andrew Pierce, there are much more fun ways to indulge your masochism than this
If he was anything but an Uncle Tom he wouldn’t be working for the Mail. Now they can say “Look we employ gay columnists!”.
Openly gay, but against gay marriage. Its even worse than closet and against it (like Liam Fox).
Trouble is people reading the Daily Mail with see Andrew Pierce as the voice of Gay reason and think he speaks for us all. We all know the average brain cell count for any daily mail reader is 1.2 so unable to think for themselves.
Only in England do queers attack each other trying to be ‘better’ and ‘smarter’ than others. And this is just another example of Anglo superiority.
I guess in England as long as you are polite you can get away with murder.
Come to my gayborhood and spew the kind of crap this ‘columnist’ is spreading and we’ll see what happens to you.
This again reaffirms my theory that gay brits are just dead wood within the community. I don’t see fierce nationwide campaigning, no adverts, no protesting, no nothing. Seems to me that gay brits are HAPPY to be second class citizens and since most of you already told me that ‘civil partnerships give us all the rights across the country’ why even bother? All of you have told me several times you are fine with CPs…
You don’t realize the legal consequences of denying marriage to gays. Because if one set of institutional law can be ‘set aside’ why not others like driving a car, getting health care etc?
Guess you have never come across Log Cabin Republicans if you think “only in England” …
I actually never met a gay republican that is opposed to gay marriage. Even the guys at GOProud all support it. So does log cabin.
The problem with gay GOPers like those gay dems is that they put party before anything else.
But no, most gay republicans support gay marriage (the ones that re openly gay of course).
Yes, you’re right Steve, but even the Log Cabiner’s are fighting for gay marriage and fought successfully for equality in the military…
Nonetheless they support a Presidential candidate who is anti gay marriage (such is the strength of their support for gay marriage) and seek to undermine a candidate who does support gay marriage in crass and false ways.
Equally the candidate they do support has a history as a violent homophobic bully.
Real good company these log cabiners keep!
“Only in England” – You’re online, you open a new browser tab and Google: ‘Homosexuals Against Gay Marriage’ and hey presto:
It’s not an anglo superiority complex at all, it’s just you make it easy to feel superior in your company. Us ‘anglos’ are just polite enough to point it out (saves you making a tit out of yourself).
You talk about England and then say Brits which shows you don’t even understand the UK yet feel perfectly qualified to pass judgement. While all English are Brits, not all Brits are English – there’s the Scots, Welsh & Northern Irish too. Nothing surer to get a Scot’s dander up than ignorance like this!
“All of us have told you….” ? So you’ve spoken to every single gay person in the United Kingdom then? Strange, I don’t remember you coming round to my house, but I do have these occasional memory lapses, so you might have done.
But if you don’t live here then I’m not surprised you haven’t seen the political campaigning. In this country we tend to do it by much more civilized means – by writing letters to our MPs – rather than with crass, pointless publicity stunts as they do in that benighted right-wing hellhole across the pond.
I can’t help it if gay rights are far more advanced over here, and you’re massively jealous. When you have goods and services non-discrimination regulations like we do, come back and we’ll talk.
Also, if you think a Daily Mail columnist speaks for anyone but himself then you’re more deluded than you appear. Andrew Pierce speaks for Britain about as much as Glenn Beck speaks for the United States.
Is this Pepa guy a troll? Every time he posts on here he bleats on about “Anglo superiority.” Just what the hell are you talking about? Brits are self-deprecating, always the first to take the piss out of ourselves and we waste no time in highlighting our own failings. Couldn’t be more wrong. Whatever bee-in-your-bonnet you have, posting on here ain’t going to change 60 million of us. So put up with it like we put up with obnoxious yanks like you (not all yanks of course, just you) who talk like they know everything about us because they watched a few episodes of Downton Abbey.
I think Pepa feels having chips on both shoulders makes him a well-balanced person.
This coming from someone who comes from the US and the “Land of the Free”!! LOL what a joke… free my arse!!
But she’s certainly got a point! Has our lesbian and gay community been out there on the streets, in the public eye, on the media, in the papers, campaigning like hell for gay marriage for months on end?
A few statements from our usual spokespeople, like Tatchell, and those great videos by the young guy who got that off the ground, and that’s it, isn’t it? That’s been the sum total of our EFFORT to make sure we acquire the right to marry.
Pepa is right. This is a nation of uptight closet cases. And we can’t even justify it on religious grounds, because we have nowhere near the level of evangelism that they do in the States.
oh pepe, you’re such a plonker. (in England that means fuking stupid idiot with one brain cell)
Yes, Mr Pierce it does make you a bigot.
You appear intolerant of granting others rights that you feel would not benefit you.
Particularly given that there have been numerous explanations of the differences between marriage and CPs – but someone can choose not to listen even if they hear.
Out of touch, on the wrong side of history and failing to stand up for equality – shocking, disgraceful and makes him similar to those black people (rare) who welcomed slavery
I think the technical term for what Andrew Pierce is is a gay Uncle tom, along with David Starkey and a handful of others who enjoy riding at the back of the equality bus.
the fact that he calls himself a “lapsed catholic” tells you that he is a victim of religion and has turned him into a self loather – very sad. very sad indeed i pray that he will finally be able to accept and love himself for who he is instead of who the bigoted masses want him to be.
for if you can’t love yourself, how can you expect anyone else to love you?
Frankly I don’t really care if anyone does love Pierce, I just wish he’d STFU.
just because his a commitment-phobe doesn’t mean the rest of us are. And also why does he only talk about gay men? do gay women not exist in his world?
I think you’re expecting a bit too much, he does write for the Daily Mail – after gay people the group they hate most are women, so gay women probably go straight to the bottom of the pile!
He’s a self-loathing gay man with internalized homophobia and a warped belief in conservativism, as well as Catholic, Sevrin… In other words, “NO”. In that view, at best women are inconsequential in spite of the window dressing. At worst, women are property and their needs/opinions don’t exist.
No apprently not Sevrin…why on earth would gay women marry!? lol Gay women get forogtten about all the time! annoys the hell out of me!
Just shows what an idiot he is….Shame he’s apparently batting for ourside, ie, gay! Idiot! him not you! lol
The most irritating thing is the way that in about 10 years he will be standing up and apologising profusely for his bigoted views…
That’s fine in any member of the public but particularly irritating when the person in question has the power to persuade others along a particular line. Its no surprise that he works for the Daily Mail I guess…
“Mr Pierce is openly gay, and describes himself as a ‘lapsed Catholic.’ ”
(I think under the circumstances we could arguably call him ‘Pro-Lapsed’ then eh? lol – especially spiritually…)
What exactly is it that’s so hard to grasp about Equality?
“He asks, rhetorically: “Well, Mr Cameron, I am a Conservative and a homosexual, and I oppose gay marriage. Am I a bigot?””
…er….YES – quite obviously…
““The Tory Party HQ, I can disclose, has warned the Prime Minister that this issue has triggered the biggest revolt among grassroots members since Tory MPs dumped Margaret Thatcher in 1990.””
But then the Tories are generally always revolting about something or other…
I find Mr. Pierce quite revolting, to be perfectly frank.
He hates it like his paycheck depends on it. Everyone has a price but it takes a certain breed of evil greed to sell his soul for the rights of his own kind.
I just remembered this comment by Patrick Strudwick about Pierce:
“Andrew Pierce attacks those who criticise homophobes: “The very intolerance that was once targeted at gays is now being directed at those who have sincerely-held…objections to gay equality.” He attacks Graham Norton for being a “mincing” “vulgar” “parody”. He mocks Alan Carr for being a “limp-wristed, lisping screamer”. He criticises Gok Wan for being “more camp than an Ascot marquee”. Only those who secretly think there’s something wrong with being gay – or being obviously gay – deem “camp” a valid criticism. When the Pope smeared Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill saying it “violates the natural law” Pierce wrote that he “agreed with much of what he said”.”
How accurate Patrick was.
So Pierce not only seeks to deny gay people rights he doesnt want, refuses to listen to explanations about the difference between CPs and marriage, does not believe homophobes should be condemned and opposed the equality act.
No wonder he
write for the Daily Mail.
And yes, Mr Piece – you are a bigot!
Wow, by those comments it’s easy to conclude he’s a self-hating bigot. Not seen self-hate on such a scale. I’m struggling to believe he’s gay at all, more like a ‘sleeper’ sent by the church speaking “as one of them.” I’m not one for conspiracies but wouldn’t put anything past them.
Sounds like Mr. Pierce is a real world troll.
As for our resident one here, I suggest you read this:
Two years ago Andrew Pierce outed himself as a homophobe, one who believed that you can’t be a homophobe if you are gay. This of course is a ridiculous proposition. Now he’s come out with a more direct challenge in his most recent article’s title: I’m a gay man who opposes gay marriage. Does that make ME a bigot, Mr Cameron?
Well I think the obvious answer to this is no, it doesn’t but you are one anyway. You’re hatred of “camp men”, you’re disdain for the truth and the fact you think your sexuality trumps criticism suggests you are indeed a homophobe.
Disdain for the truth?, I hear you ask incredulously. Firstly in this most recent article he uses the same tired phrase of other homophobes; “metropolitan elite”. This from a man who lives in Belsize Park! The idea that marriage equality is some secret plan of the queer toffs belies the fact that the people pushing this (such as Peter Tatchell) aren’t exactly part of that “elite”. And our opposition (including, in the past,
such champagne socialists as Ben Summerskill and Chris Bryant) has often come from the very grouping supposedly in support!
He then moves on to quote Ben Bradshaw’s (another elite me thinks) ill-thought out comments on marriage equality, without then pointing out Bradshaw will, ultimately, support the move!! Such deception!
But his final move is breath-taking in it’s audacity.
Even gay rights campaigners are puzzled by the Prime Minister’s conversion to the cause. Stonewall, a powerful pressure group for gay equality, has not called for gay marriage.
While the organisation — of which I’m proud to be a member — supports the idea of gay marriage, its priority remains tackling homophobia in schools after research showed that gay men in the 16-to-24 age group are significantly more likely to have attempted suicide than other young men.
Stonewall did adopt that position…. in 2009! It is now very much attempting to steal the spotlight and “lead” the marriage equality campaign.
There’s even a whole campaign now!
So even if there’s an argument that Andrew Pierce isn’t a bigot, I think there’s quite a clear argument that he’s not to be trusted.
Ooo… someone loves me at least! ;)
I thought it was a great set of comments (both in its original and repeat), Jae
I like lots of your comments!
Seems I am not the only one!
Really? Does he hate or loathe camp gay men? But that’s ridiculous. As I have said in an earlier message, further down this thread, I’ve watched this man many times reviewing the papers on Sky and I have so often thought, “What a camp little man!”
So this is proof, I reckon, that he hates what he is himself!
He hates his campness.
And he hates his own homosexuality.
(although he would deny both assertions)
Andrew Pierce has form with this kind of thing. He was only employed by the hateful Mail in the aftermath of their hate campaign towards a prospective adoption by a gay couple in Edinburgh so they could say they weren’t homophobic. Amanda Platell constantly uses her friendship with him as evidence she’s not a homophobe and in an article a few weeks ago he said that he can never be accused of being homophobic because he’s gay. He’s a self-hating, nasty man who brings nothing to the gay equality movement.
He’s a gay Uncle Tom who never misses a chance to slag off the queers, and to confirm Daily Mail readers’ prejudices, and always with the noxious rejoinder; “And I’m gay myself.”
t would appear that he was hired push the Mail’s vile homophobic agenda which then allows them to say ‘But Uncle Tom Pierce is our housegay, how can we be homophobic’
He certainly wasnt hired for his creative thinking, original thinking or journalistic ability!
He’s also a vile sleaze bag who tried it on with me when I worked at the KW4 in Hampstead, rubbing himself past me and other staff members when not behind the bar!
it’s a similar thing to “Some of my best mates are black” aint it
“We already have gay marriage — it’s called civil partnership.”
If we already have marriage then why isn’t it actually called marriage?
What a stupid and ignorant uncle tom.
If he were genuinely interested in knowing what the difference between same sex marriage and civil partnerships is all he needs to do is read the consultation document.
But there is the one glaring difference – civil partnerships do not allow couples to be married!
As a wheelchair-bound druid, I think next week’s storm is actually the result of too many people in the Southern hemisphere farting in one day.
DOES THAT MAKE ME IGNORANT OF METEOROLOGY, MR. CAMERON?
Great comments above. I’m afraid all I have to add is ‘wadda self loathing qunt’
Yes you are a bigot and a traitor to the gay marriage movement. We all have rights and we all want to be free to marry the ones we love no matter who we are.
bit arrogant, seems to genuniely believe that he speaks for all gay people. Civil partnerships may be fine for him, but for others they are not and clearly make gays into secondclass citizens
The reason we can’t leave it there, Andrew, is that ‘marriage’ is seen as more ‘real’ and part of the social fabric by society and the law in most countries.
In any case, why shouldn’ we make the choice betwee civil partnerships or marriage?
Why are you opposed to human and civil rights?
This is just as bad as his “Put camp people back in the closet” post except in this one he makes several false claims.
He not only claims Duncan doesn’t support equal marriage but also says Stonewall aren’t campaigning for it (even though, after the need for far too much cajolling, they are now).
And he talks about a “metropolitan elite” supporting marriage equality. Takes one to know one I suppose!
Just because he is happy with Civil Partnerships does not mean that everybody else is. Personally I would be happy to be in a Civil Partnership as it does have nearly all the rights of a marriage but it would be nice just to make that one final step into equality.
Today Denmark joins the family of countries that allow full marriage status for gay people. Even that country that we kicked out of the Falkland Islands 30 years ago yesterday recognises gay marriage! If it is good enough for them then it is good enough for us.
Mr Pierce claims that the historian David Starkey is against equal marriage as well. – So that makes it ok then! David Starkey should never be used as a barometer for gay issues. Mr Pierce appears to be a closeted heterosexual. I think the lady protesteth too much!
Andrew Pierce writes: “The truth is that no one has been able to explain to me the difference between gay marriage and a civil partnership. I have asked ministers and friends. None has an answer.”
Let Me Google That For You…
People like this seem to be saying” I’m ok as I am, I’m not concerned about younger gays who may benefit from marriage equality”. Yuck.
Andrew Pierce, a man who loves himself too much!
I used to work at a well known gay pub in north west London at which Mr. Pierce was and probably still is a regular.
I can tell you about several stories that I am sure Mr. Pierce would not like out there in public arena.
He has clearly been brainwashed by all the bigotry of the Daily Mail, I suppose that he carries the views that he does because he suspects that he will never get married.
I think he loves himself too little.
His birth mother gave him up for adoption and now he wants to make everyone pay for his abandonment at such a young age.
If you and your friends can’t see the difference between marriage and civil partnerships, then why do you get SO worked up about giving them the same name? In your words Mr Pierce, they’re the SAME THING. I often feel the bigots use their ‘gay friends’ to make sweeping statements that other bigots think are the views of all lgbt people.
“He also adds in his column: “The Tory Party HQ, I can disclose, has warned the Prime Minister that this issue has triggered the biggest revolt among grassroots members since Tory MPs dumped Margaret Thatcher in 1990.”
And I don’t seem to remember them changing their minds after that.
Fair enough Andrew, you don’t want it, but there are a clear majority that do. I understand that as a ‘columnist’ you have no requirement to publish fact, but you need to be careful that you you do not portray opinion as anything more than that.
Its certainly a thought provoking article you have written. Having read it I think (opinion) you’re a bigot. I know (fact) you’re not because you’re explained that you aren’t, but I still think (opinion) you’re a bigot.
Just re-read the article and Pierce says he is a member of Stonewall, in that case I urge the powers that be in Stonewall to throw him in the dirt where he belongs!
Unlikely considering until how very, very recently Stonewall shared his views,
It was only the PR catastrophe of Stonewall lobbying against marriage equality at the Lib Dem conference last year, that helped Stonewall ‘evolve’ on this issue – the threat of losing all their funding and support from the community ‘helped’ their evolution.
Even so, not that Stonewall are on the right side of the equal marriage issue, they should rescind his membership!
No they shouldn’t rescind his membership.
So long as Stonewall remain accountable to the constituency which they represent then dissenting voices should be allowed.
On the issue of marriage equality Stonewall were campaigning AGAINST it despite the fact that over 90% of the LGBT population were in favour.
Now that Stonewall has ‘evolved’ to represent the views of the community, I don’t see why minority viewpoints can’t also be allowed in the group.
Maybe, he lives with his partner on a different planet, Civil Partnerships are NOT equal to a Marriage, as he should realise. We wish for a Same-Sex Marriage as soon as this law is enacted, whatever he may think !
Last thing I heard about him was that he was not in a relationship, if you eve met him, he appears to be very high maintenance!
That says it all !
He used to get drunk very quickly on two large glasses of Sauv Blanc! I threatened to ban him one night after an outburst of intense rudeness to me and other staff members at the KW4, told him to leave, we did not see him again for a few weeks and when he returned, very embarrassed and apologetic! He is still such a sleaze bag and should really be ashamed of himself
Compared to a black person opposing civil rights against the majority _ yep he’s a bigot
(Although this should be obvious since he works for the Daily Fail)
I am getting very tired of those who say ‘but I don’t understand the difference between CPs and CMs’. Well, here’s an idea – do a random search and maybe you’ll come up with this : http://www.marriagequality.ie/learn/civilpartnershipbill/
Clearly he doesn’t want to know the differences as that might intefere with his self-loathing desire to curry favour with what he sees as the straight ‘majority’ by appearing to be on their side. Maybe then he’ll hear the words ‘I don’t like gays, but you’re ok’.
It’s very sad.
And once AGAIN, Stonewall is being quoted. They seem to be the only organisation ever asked to comment on equal marriage, which they happily do, despite their lack of conviction over it. When are Stonewall going to apologise for the damage they have done, and also apologise to the Transgender community for not giving a …..about them?
All of the comments on the article are along the lines of EVERYONE KNOWS MARRIAGE IS A MAN AND A WOMAN. NOBODY SUPPORTS THIS. DAVID CAMERON IS JUST DOING THIS TO BE POPULAR
They really can’t make up their minds whether everyone’s against it or it’s popular but against their own principles. As Jon Stewart said, when we’ve got to the stage where people can claim it’s populist to support gay people’s rights (like some Reps did over Obama), our society has moved in the right direction!
I wonder how much Price get paid to spit such bile
Andrew Pierce would write anything for money. He asks the question “Am I a bigot?” Does he really need to ask? If He doesn’t want to get married fine, I’m sure, just like many people, gay and straight, and as proven in France’s PACS, they don’t want the connotation that the word “marriage” has, and for many they want the right to get married. It’s an entirely personal choice, and we should all have that choice.
He’s a bigot because he doesn’t want to allow others to choose for themselves. A bigot is someone who is “obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices and one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group”, and that’s what he’s doing here.
He’s a panderer.
he’s a hatchet man for hire, a mail mercenary, an unprincipled hack… wish Hitch was still here to put the boot in on his hypocrasy.
…and in other news today, it was announced that the Pope will not be going on Gay Pride this year.
FFS – What is this? “State the Fcking Obvious Journalists Awards?”
I suppose the fact that Andrew Pierce was given up for adoption by his birth mother may have twisted his outlook on reality and on life.
And Pierce IS a bigot.
He was hired in the aftermath of the Stephen Gately fiasco purely to give a false image of the neo-fascist Daily Heil as not being viciously bigoted.
Andrew Pierce should not be using his own sad experience of being placed into adoption by his own birth mother, to deny other people happiness.
I suppose the fact that Andrew Pierce was given up for adoption by his birth mother may have twisted his outlook on reality and on life.
Thats bigotry too
Sorry, I am often one of the first to condemn bigotry – but I am struggling to see where you reach that conclusion with that comment. Please do explain.
I took it that dAVID was trying to understand the psychological impacts that may have impacted on Pierce from what he knows about him. dAVID may or may not be right, but voicing reasoned conclusions from evidence is (in itself) not bigotry – unless you know something that you haven’t explained?
Are you for real. Implying that adopted people may have a twisted outlook ie mental health problem is very insulting. swap adopted for gay and see how you like it
Its not the adoption that is the issue – in my perception of the comments dAVID has made.
Its the perception of having being abandoned – something Pierce has mentioned in interviews that some adopted children can feel.
Yes I am implying that Andrew Pierce may have a twisted outlook on life because he was adopted.
I am not suggesting that all (or even many) adopted people are like this.
But it COULD be a factor in why he has such a poisonously warped view on human relationships.
Stu just as Pierce cannot speak for all gay men he cannot speak for all adopted people.
To make a assumption about his adoption is unacceptable
Adopted people are not 2nd class citizens or different or expect to be treated differently.
the assumption is unacceptable
I’m not making an assumption James.
I am making a suggestion.
I don’t think dAVID or anyone else is suggesting that Pierce is speaking for ALL adoptive people – merely expressing an explanation (that may or may not be correct) about HIS situation and experience.
I don’t think that by being adopted it would give him these kind of views, more the upbringing he actually had.
While I agree dAVID’s comments is not in itself bigotry, they are perhaps a little presumptive and would be unfair to blame adoption for Pierce’s views. He is meant to be an educated man and yet he fails to see why equal marriage is such an important issue.
I am not blaming the fact that he was adopted / fostered on his views.
I am merely suggesting that they could play a factor in his opinions.
Many adopted people live happy fulfilled lives. And some adopted people live with a sense of abandonment.
It’s just very strange that a gay man would believe that he deserves to be a 2nd class citizen.
It’s silly not to consider the fact that he was adopted as a reason.
If you had ever met this man, which I have on more than one occasion, he carries himself with an air of ‘I am better than you’ and looks down his nose at people.
He really is a vile excuse for a human being!
It is not bigotry to suggest that an adopted person’s opinions on human relationships may have been damaged by the fact that he was adopted.
I’m not suggesting that all (or even many) adopted people are like this.
It could CERTAINLY be a factor though.
And seeing as Andrew Pierce feels free to offer opinions on other people’s lives, then it’s certainly fair to offer opinions on his own life.
Seriously its’ like saying men are gay cause they were abused as kids
Psychiatrists have proven that there can be deep issues left by a child’s parent dying, or when the child is abandoned.
No-one has ever proven (and it is only even suggested by bigots) that being gay is as a result of child abuse.
So why are you drawing this fake comparison?
It is certainly worth considering the reasons why an openly gay man believes that he deserves to be a 2nd class citizen.
And his adoption could be a factor.
You’re right, dAVID, the Mail did hire him after their disgusting attack on Stephen Gately – I’ve said above it was in response to their other attack on a gay couple in Edinburgh who were lined up to adopt 2 young children. I guess the hate filled Mail attacks gay people so often I understandably got mixed up!
Don’t really like the implication that he’s messed up because he’s adopted….bit bigoted and unnecessary…
Its a possibility of what might have occurred in his situation.
Given how he has described the feeling of some people in radio broadcasts on LBC, articles and interviews – as abandoned – its a reasonable view that this may be a perception he has of himself. It then may inform his psyche on other views.
It might not.
Perusing an opinion of influences on the life of someone in the public arena is not (in itself) bigoted.
Robert, I never said anything about Andrew Pierce being adopted – I was referring to the Daily Mail campaign against the adoption of 2 young children by a gay couple in Edinburgh, which was widely reported on PN at the time. I think the couple pulled out in the end because of the publicity.
In an earlier comment, I had claimed that the Mail hired Pierce in the aftermath of this to counteract accuastions of homophobia, but as dAVID points out, it was actually in the aftermath of the vicious attack on Stephen Gately that they hired Pierce.
I was simply acknowledging my mistake.
Something tells me he’s been charmed by the churches distorting rhetoric on this issue. Its excessively tiring when people don’t do their homework on such important issues.
Depressed and angry little man whom has been emotional and intellectually castrated by his former religious masters.
Why would any one campaign against something many other people want. If you don’t want a marriage, don’t have one.
Self-hating troll is more of your problem than you being a bigot.
I can totally see his point about the gay community being focussed on the wrong thing. Let’s be honest, yeah it would be nice to have the choice to have gay marriage but at the end of the day there are so many more important issues facing the LGBT community. If your relationship requires a legal contract to remind you of its value – you’re doing something wrong. I remember seeing a poll where 40% believed the biggest issue facing the LGBT community was marriage equality, compared to issues like bullying (20%), LGBT homeless youth (8%), housing and public accommodations (1%), workplace protections (15%) and transgender rights (6%) and a couple others. It just irritates me that so much time and money is being spent focussing on this when there are other issues which actually affect the basic welfare of LGBT people in the uk.
If he was just saying that there are other important issues and that gay marriage could also be pursued with a different weight or priority, that would be one thing – many of us would disagree but it would be a perceptual difference of opinion.
However, when you see the collation of his comments where he opposes equal marriage, condemns other gay men and seeks to prevent those who engage in homophobia from being criticized then I struggle to understand how any reasonable person (whether LGBT or not) could agree with him
I mildly agree with the part of his argument where he suggests gay marriage is not the most important issue. I think it’s fallacious to bring in his comments elsewhere to judge the argument he puts forward in that article. The argument stands alone on it’s own merits (or lack thereof) not upon the writer’s opinions.
He asks people to judge whether he is a bigot or not in his article.
Bigotry is a character trait.
In order to understand the man, we have to understand how he has behaved in the past as well as today.
The man is a gay uncle Tom – and thats not merely in relation to equal marriage.
Again I agree and yes it seems he is a bigot. But I stand by my original argument and would say that, regardless of his previous opinions, I agree with his point that there are bigger issues we should be focussing on rather than gay marriage.
We will have to agree to disagree about the priority of marriage.
I see it as being a symbolic gain as well as practical. The symbolism helping to achieve visible and meaningful equality that assists in other areas such as bullying, homelessness, cultural issues etc
it is not simply about the civil right of marriage but moving equality on.
We will have to agree to disagree on that matter. I don’t see the symbolic worth of forcing the religious community to have another reason to hate us.
Let’s be honest, if we wanted true equality then we would be campaigning for the abolition of marriage in general because it is a bigoted, cisgender institution which does not recognise many different types of relationship such as polyamorous relationships.
Ah so your support for Pierce is nothing to do with his views on equality – its because you are anti-marriage.
Part of the equal marriage agenda should be about seeking equality for transgender marriage too (and I hope when the proposals are published there will be progress here).
Simply put, if you do not like marriage – do not get married – but equally do not deny the civil rights of others to have that choice.
Note, I said civil rights – it has absolutely nothing to do with religion and that is a red herring.
No there are NOT ‘bigger’ issues than marriage equality to focus on.
There are ‘other’ issues that can be worked on simultaneously.
Bigot Tory politicians always say ‘We need to focus on the economy and not waste time on marriage equality’, as if the 2 were mutually exclusive.
Some gay people like Ollie seem to think that work on bullying or homelessness (longterm, ongoing issue) means that we should not be also dealing with legal discrimination such as civil marriage inequality.
They are not and never have been mutually exclusive.
Ollie, nobody is forcing the religious community to do anything. They already hate us, so marriage equality won’t make much difference.
By the way, your argument that we shouldn’t strive for equality because it will make homophobes hate us is pretty poor. If we’d done that all along then we’d never haven’t got as far as we have today.
Stu, again I will reitterate my point. I am not saying gay marriage should not be allowed. If I could make that bold then I would so please stop thinking that I’m against it. I will say again (regardless of dAVID’s rather shocking opinion that the countless numbers of teen suicides are not more important than a piece of paper hardly different from current legislation) I believe that this is drawing the focus away from those bigger issues and frankly making the gay community seem a bit petty. And dAVID again we disagree, there being almost no legal difference between the two I don’t see it as inequality. Just seems like petty greediness to me. I don’t understand why people just can’t be happy with what they have.
BennieM and Stu, it is to do with religion and it is blindness to the bigger picture if you think it is not. Once we have civil marriage equality if a couple wants to have a religious marriage and take it to the European Courts then I do not see them losing. I would personally see that a gross breach of the human rights of religious believers.
And again, you are putting words into my mouth dAVID. I did not say the two were mutually exclusive. I simply said. And I’ll say it again. I think there are more serious issues we should be focussing on. This is drawing attention away from those issues. I’m not saying gay marriage is bad. I’m saying that I personally do not think we should be bothering. Why can’t we just be happy with having something which is, in my opinion, better than marriage. At the end of the day I do not let the minority group I belong to define my human rights stance. I disagree with the institution of marriage and the baggage of bigotry it carries with it.
When you say things such as:
“if we wanted true equality then we would be campaigning for the abolition of marriage”
then it sounds very much like you are anti marriage – hence why I form that conclusion.
“…there being almost no legal difference between the two I don’t see it as inequality.”
Yep and there we have the bigoted problem.
@Jock S Trap
If its not equal then there is no equality
Stu, I am anti-marriage in general BUT not anti-gay marriage specifically. I think if people are so many same sex couples are intent on having gay marriage, then find. I don’t understand that decision and I think there are far more pressing issues but I have never claimed that I am anti-gay marriage specifically.
And please explain how my point was bigoted. The legal differences are as such: civil partnerships cannot be religious, adultery is not grounds for dissolution and there is a different procedure. As far as I’m concerned, and again this is all my opinion, these are not significant differences. Essentially, I would fully support a campaign that tried to legalise partnerships for straight couples and to remove those infinitesimal differences. At the end of the day ‘marriage’ is a word with religious connotation and – unless you are religious – I do not understand why you would want to have that label on your relationship.
If you are anti marriage, then surely that by its very nature means you are anti gay marriage?
A registry office marriage has no relgiious connotation – so why should a same sex couple not be entitled to the same?
I would concur that CPs should be open to straight couples – should they wish them.
However, when equal marriage occurs – I suspect (strongly) that demand for CPs from same sex couples will decline.
Elaine apologies I must’ve miss clicked please see the reply one ‘level’ up – I hope that makes sense. I must sadly drop out of this discussion now. Please do not think I have been beaten but spending all of my time thinking about this when I should be preparing for my final A-level exams later this week seems a little short sighted.
Elaine I’m pro the right of people to fight for marriage if they want to. I don’t oppose people’s right to want marriage I just don’t understand why they would. I oppose the institution of marriage in general because I feel it has too many connections with religion and with the oppression of peoples for generations but I don’t oppose people’s right to get married. I think if people were to be a little more grounded and not be so obsessed with the purely gay rights then we would see that partnerships are in fact a better way forward. Again, in my opinion.
The trouble with this arguement is the fact that marriage equality is the 1 area of tangible, legal discrimination faced by the LGBT community.
Everyone accepts that bullying against LGBT people is an enormous issue that needs to be tackled.
However tackling bullying is a longterm an ongoing issue.
It does not lessen the need to remove the legal discrimination faced by same sex couples when it comes to marriage.
Saying ‘Oh forget marriage equality and let’s focus on the real issue of homophobic bullying’ is no different from saying ‘Oh forger marriage equality until the economy is sorted.’ These issues are not and never have been mutually exclusive and to pretend that they are strikes me as homophobia.
Allow me to laugh at your accusation of homophobia! I’m a realist and we don’t NEED gay marriage. If you look it up (which I just have). There does not actually seem to be any tangible legal difference between the two save for the religious element of the ceremony, which would still be the same in the current gay marriage plans. You cannot (assuming you are a ration being) deny that while there is a such a huge focus on gay marriage it is drawing attention away from far wider issues like teen suicides and the growing rates of depression, anxiety and self-harm in all teenagers.
Moreover, my so called ‘homophobia’ is just me having the balls, unlike a lot of the gay community, to criticise it from the inside, which I personally think we need a hell of a lot more of. But that’s a debate for another day.
“You cannot (assuming you are a ration being) deny that while there is a such a huge focus on gay marriage it is drawing attention away from far wider issues like teen suicides and the growing rates of depression, anxiety and self-harm in all teenagers.”
Surely only with equality can we effectively tackle discrimination that leads to teen suicides and rates of depression, anxiety and self-harm?
You seem to want to take on and not the other yet they both go hand in hand. So long as people have the excuse of differences they have the belief they have the right to discriminate. Wouldn’t it be better to show the LGBT community as just as important in society as everyone else not separate from it.
Only then can you tackle discrimination effectively.
Finally a ration being! I do love a challenging counter argument as opposed to the same tired arguments you hear every day in support of gay marriage. (I even voted your comment up!)
Yes and no. You see I don’t actually see the problem with civil partnerships. Although, I do see your point about integration and not segregating the LGBT community. However, I think with the little tweaking to make partnerships absolutely equal to marriage (there seems to be almost no significant legal difference) and they would be better as they don’t carry the religious baggage with them – yes I accept some gay people are religious but of course it is only civil so it not going to give them any relief. I suppose my issue is I do not support the marital institution and I kind of feel like we are throwing away a chance to move equality for all people forward and the chance to remove some more of the church’s grip on society because let’s be honest, ‘marriage’ conjures up images of religion for everyone.
Ollie – do you accept that marriage equality and tackling homelessness and bullying are not mutually exclusive issues?
If not then please explain why we need to wait until LGBT homelessness and bullying are solved (and what’s your timetable for that by the way?) until we get marriage equality?
Yes I do accept they are not mutually exclusive nor have I, in any of my many many comments claimed that they are.
I’m not saying we need to wait I’m saying I do not think marriage ‘equality’ is a pressing issue and there are more pressing issues we can be working on (in the long term, as you love to keep reminding me). Essentially, I don’t think that letting same sex couples attach a word which symbolises many things I (as a strong anti-theist and equality supporter) believe are wrong with this world to their relationships is a cause worth this much fighting. Again, I will repeat. that I am not opposed to gay marriage as such, I don’t like the institution of marriage and I think there are more important issues we should be focussing on.
I didn’t say we need to wait I’m saying our focus should be different.
And there are many who think we don’t need civil partnerships either. You just don’t get it do you? Banning gays to access marriage is in and of itself a form of homophobia. If you think CPs are so great and sufficient, explain why they’re not the universal standard for gay couples? Nor will they ever be, thankfully.
1. I never said I didn’t think we need civil partnerships so I don’t know where you’re getting that from although it appears people are having trouble reading what I’m actually writing and what they think I’m writing.
2. I hate the word homophobic. A phobia is an irrational fear. I’ve met people who are anti-homosexual but none have gone running from me or broken down in tears.
3. I don’t know why they’re not because frankly they’re better than marriage. Sure they need a TINY bit of tweaking to make them equal to marriage (although, there is no significant legal difference). But I’m looking forward to a day when everyone but the religious are having civil partnerships because frankly I don’t see why you want to put the stamp of an institution which carries with it so much negative baggage as ‘marriage’.
… onto your relationship. (forgot to add that bit)
Oh and seeing as people seem to have trouble with this next point even though I keep repeating it and I can feel you will mention it. I am not against gay marriage. If you want to fight for it, fine. I won’t stop you. I just think it’s narrow minded and drawing focus away from more important issues.
Fear does not have to be elicited by tears or running away in fear. Thats simplistic and a bogus argument to suggest that homophobia does not exist. It does – whether you like the semantics of the word homophobia, or not, like whether you like the word marriage, or not, does not mean that word is wrong.
Of all the marriages I have been to in the last decade (15 in total that I can recall), 2 were in church, 1 was a same sex marriage and the remainder were in hotels or registry offices. The connection between marriage and religion is a false one – marriage pre dates its religious connection.
Stu where did I say homophobia does not exist? I didn’t. These phantom arguments are starting to tire me.
I simply dislike the word. I don’t think it’s definition in common parlance fits it’s root definition well enough.
And Stu are you honestly telling me that the word marriage does not conjure up images of big white dresses and an organ playing here comes the bride and the bride walking down an isle to an altar? Even if you don’t I think a majority of people would. I’m not saying religion should have control of the word, I’m saying I dislike the connections it has to religion (which you simply cannot deny) and do not understand why someone would want that attached to their relationship.
What you said was:
“I hate the word homophobic. A phobia is an irrational fear. I’ve met people who are anti-homosexual but none have gone running from me or broken down in tears.”
Its not a huge leap to then draw the conclusion that you perceive that because you have not seen such displays of emotion that you then have formed the opinion that homophobia does not exist. I suspect this is what you intended to infer. If I am misjudged your implication then I apologise.
When I think of marriage, sure sometimes I think of big white (or off-white!) dresses. However, not always. I rarely think of church and I have been to a number of church weddings. I think of photographs, family and friends, a happy couple, love, commitment, sharing. I think of celebrations. I do not think of religion.Around 70% of weddings in the UK are not in a church. I suspect most UK people will not assume marriage equals religion. It does not have to – and if its a block you have that you see the
word marriage and conjure up thoughts of religion – then that is your issue, not mine, or anyone elses. I think that given the vast majority of marriages in the UK are not religious that its reasonable to believe that the view of the average person is that marriage need not be religious.
You dislike the conenctions of the word to religion. Those are connections in your mind and which you choose to accept or not.
I do not accept any such link and religion does not own either the word or the institution.
No worries these things happen. I just thought it was a little absurd to think I felt like that. Although now I say it – I like homophobia in the strict definition is not particularly common. Although anti-homosexual actions and thoughts are.
I just perceive an association between the two and thereby think of it as a cisgender symbol of segregation and oppression. I also fear for the knock on effect it seems to be having of religious same-sex marriages being pushed for.
And I’ve never claimed religion owns the word or institution.
And regardless of any of this my original point still stands that I think there are more important issues which could be receiving greater focus.
I will have to now step out of this discussion I am afraid. I has been interesting but I feel there is simply an impasse between us. I suppose at 18 I should care more for the idea of spending the rest of my life with one person but frankly until they let people marry wine and cigarettes I’ll be alone.
Oh and I wish you and your future husband all the best.
Oh and one last thing – I just realised there is a bit of joyful irony in the last line of my comment, “I suppose at 18 I should care more for the idea of spending the rest of my life with one person but frankly until they let people marry wine and cigarettes I’ll be alone.” My use of the word ‘marry’. It seems it is engrained into the very language of our culture. That would make for an interesting investigation. Maybe one day.
Thanks for the debate, Ollie
We disagree on the substance of marriage.
We probably agree on the issues of equality.
Good luck with your exams and “marrying” wine!!! Unless you do find someone!
Oh and in this sort of debate I doubt there is a “winner” or “loser”
Probably LGBT homelessness come top of my table – I can’t imagine how frightened and helpless young people who’ve been forced out of their homes by intolerant parents must feel. Abandoned by the very people who should have unconditional love for them. Similarly bullying in school leads some to suicide, and a constant anxiety in many others.
BUT, whilst there is discrimination in any area it’s an area that bigots exploit to point and denounce us as different, unworthy of the same rights as others, and that can lead to bullying, and a feeling we’re still not accepted in society. What does it say to a young person when they grow up thinking they will not be allowed to have a marriage, but will be offered another label, to keep them apart from others? So a push on all fronts is what we need, anti-bullying, dealing with homelessness, I think, are a priority now. Keep the momentum that the consultation has brought up.
Homelessness is also an important issue but like bullying, resolving it will take an ongoing and longer term approach.
Marriage equality is an area of legal discrimination that can be resolved in an easy and quick manner if the political will exists.
Homelessness and bullying cannot be resolved overnight.
Marriage equality cannot be ignored because other problems exist.
I’ll reiterate what I said in my other reply dAVID, there seems to be no legal difference between gay marriage and civil partnerships and unless you can prove otherwise your argument is flawed on the basis you are making a problem out of nothing and taking the focus away from the bigger issues.
Difference in pension rights, international recognition, parenting rights etc etc
Oh and if its the same, which its not – why have a different name?
It’s a pdf file from the Commons Library, scroll down a bit and you come to the differences between partnership and marriage. Different name because is a term with huge religious connotations. Personally I think not being associated with it is a good thing.
The fact remains that pension rights are not equal.
The fact remains there is no international recognition.
The fact remains that the name is different and that is a tool used to pursue stigmatisation.
Ollie – you may choose not to be married (when equal marriage happens) – do not presume to make that choice for me, or others, please.
I’m definitely not. I’m simply saying that it is not as big a deal as everyone thinks it is. I agree, it would be nice to have gay marriage. But at the end of the day I still argue there are far more pressing matters to deal with and the spotlight has been removed from them and onto gay marriage.
Matters relating to homelessness and school bullying are being dealt with — not nearly as forcefully as they should be — but the timing of the marriage consultation was not up to the gay community, but pushed forward by the government. Perhaps now we’ve started to feel more energised about these issues we can now have a concerted effort to push harder and faster on homelessness and bullying.
The government, and in fact all main parties, said they were going to tackle it, but I’ve seen only a limp attempt to do so. I don’t know how we solve the homelessness issue – if gay people don’t feel safe in some of the shelters provided ! I would like to know much more about how we go about, as a community, helping to solve this. Is it money? Is it places? Is it attitudes in the hostels? Are alcohol and drugs treatments sufficient? Do we need to educate parents more? Are there barriers to them getting off the streets, because of benefits and housing laws?
Well Ollie, I am sorry if I misinterpreted your comment “Personally I think not being associated with it is a good thing.” as being against same sex marriage – but it seemed to me thats what you were saying?
Ollie – you have the flawed arguement as you seem to be insinuating that marriage equality should be ignored because ongoing, longterm problems like homelessness and bullying have been resolved,
I suspect that if 1 mythical day, we all woke up and the issue of homelessness and bullying was resolved, then you’d start parroting ‘Oh look at the poor gays in Iran and Russia and Uganda, we must not press for marriage equality until we’ve solved those issues as well’.
Marriage inequality (whether you like it or not) is a major focus at the moment.
And it can be rectified with ease.
Ollie, you say:
“I’m simply saying that it is not as big a deal as everyone thinks it is.”
If everyone thinks marriage equality is a big deal (your words), then it is – if it wasn’t, then nobody would think it is. You seem to be of the opinion that what you think is more important than what everyone else thinks.
GulliverUK, I agree on the energising idea and frankly I hope it works. I just personally think that partnerships are in fact better than marriages (save for the couple of very minor issues) and with a bit of tweaking we would soon have lots of straight couples choosing to have partnerships because they do not want their relationship to be associated with religion, which seems an odd think for the gay community to be fighting for so much. And I don’t know how to solve homelessness (I assume my conclusion here is meant to be that I do know how to solve marriage inequality – if I saw it as something needing curing)
Stu – I am against marriage in general. I was saying I’m not making the choice for you. YET AGAIN: I am opposed to marriage in general, I don’t understand why people want ‘marriage’ and are not campaigning for the equalising of the tiny gap between it and partnerships and therefore think a pointless issue is drawing away focus from more pressing ones (not mutually exclusive)
dAVID well stop making assumptions and actually read what I’ve written. I’ve had to type this quite a few times so clearly it must be me being ambiguous. I never said they were mutually exclusive.
Firstly, I have never, would never and will never ‘parrot’. Secondly, again I never said they were exclusive issues. Just that the focus, not all the light, but the focus is being taken away from bigger issues and therefore I would probably say something like ‘Why are we trying to get gay marriage, which we don’t need, when there are gay people all across the world who can’t even come out?’
I don’t see it as inequality and therefore do not like that it is such a large focus – that has been my point all along!!!! And what is this ease you are talking about? I’ve been witnessing months of political and social struggle in this battle for something which I don’t think is an issue.
BennieM I don’t follow the crowd nor do I think that simply because the majority holds an opinion I therefore should. At the start of the gay rights movement the majority of people were anti-gay freedom. By your logic back then keeping gays oppressed was a big deal, and because the majority of people were for it then it was the right thing to do. (I’m making the inference you think gay marriage is a good thing)
Oh and I’m definitely not of the opinion that what I say is more important that what anyone else says. I just know I’m more intelligent and better educated than a large proportion of the population.
“I just know I’m more intelligent and better educated than a large proportion of the population.”
This does not then mean you reach better conclusions.
Elaine – very true but I would not support the conclusion if I did not think it was the correct/better one.
I am afraid I must duck out of this argument – I am not beaten but my A level exams later this week are receiving a little less of my concentration due to my pondering over this issue.
Just because there are “bigger” issues to deal with doesn’t make equal marriage any less important. Other countries who have introduced equal marriage have identical problems to the UK. Spain’s economy was lagging long before marriage equality was introduced. Even if in an utopian world there were no significant problems, equal marriage would still matter and there would be all sorts of lame excuses to foot-drag on the issue. Using the more important issues mantra is nothing more than a red herring. If a government can’t multi-task, then it shouldn’t be in power. Can you imagine what life would be like if only one issue at a time were addressed? Homophobic bullying will never be totally eradicated, diminished hopefully, but not banished. There is a correlation between equal marriage and bullying. The opposition’s hateful rhetoric against equal marriage only fuels homophobia. In doing so, it dehumanises, denigrates and justifies those so inclined to commit verbal…..
…and physical attacks upon us, both in public and in our schools. Keeping us segregated under a different union only send an extremely negative message, that we are to be treated separately and unequally. How can anyone not understand that let alone connect the dots?
All of those issues you’ve raised are very important and to some a priority, but equal marriage is also an extremely important issue that needs to be addressed. If it weren’t then we wouldn’t have eleven countries allowing it.. Just look at France….serious economic woes, worse than the UK in some areas, it’s triple A rating dropped to double A rating and and President Hollande is soon to introduce a marriage equality bill.
Religious rhetoric against the gay community increased tenfold once we started to push for gay marriage, so if anything pushing for it has increased tensions but of course that is not an argument as to why we should not fight for equality – stepping on people’s toes is part of the process. I see a correlation but not causation. I just do not see the importance of it because I think partnerships are better.
Call me a pessimist but we have eleven countries allowing it because no government is popular with it’s population and it is an easy way to win the majority of the gay vote.
I wouldnt call you a pessimist – cynical and seeking to find any reason to oppose marriage whilst claiming that you do not.
Its not just 11 countries that have it of course, 46 more are debating it or introducing legislation.
Some people said there were more important things than intra racial marriage, abolition of slavery or equalisation of the age of consent – priorities will always be different. Just because you feel equal marriage is not important – does not mean others should share that view – or that your view is the correct one.
Equally, if we do not grasp this opportunity the govt are presenting for equality – when would we next get it – if as LGBT people we said – oh, not yet – there are more important things.
Again, I oppose marriage in general but not gay marriage. (I’ve explained that in more detail in one of my other replies) Oh and I am definitely cynical.
So what? Why does it matter how many countries are talking about it?
I don’t care if other people don’t share my view. I read the article, I had an opinion, I wrote a comment expressing that opinion, now we’re discussing it. Oh and it would be absurd for me to hold a view that I did not think was the correct one.
Again, we’re pressing for an illusion of equality for lgbt peoples. What about straight people being allowed to have civil partnerships? Why don’t we fight for their equality as well? Or are we just selfish?
You are expressing an opinion, I disagree with it and I am defending my stance – so what?
There is nothing wrong with healthy scepticism – provided it does not become dogmatic and controlling.
I profoundly disagree that equality in marriage is merely illusional.
I agree with CPs for heterosexuals if they wish them. I suspect when equal marriage occurs in the UK that there will be very much fewer LGBT people seeking CPs.
As I’ve always said I would never seek to tell people what to do in a dogmatic or controlling way. Only try to highlight the possibilities as to why they should do otherwise.
Fewer lgbt people having CPs does not mean they’re bad.
I’m afraid I’m ducking out of this discussion. It’s been fun but it’s becoming a little fractious, we’ve reached an impasse and I have A levels later this week. And I certainly am not ducking out because I feel beaten by the way :P
I don’t see it as important because I don’t see why we need the word marriage, with all it’s negative connotations, attached to our relationships. Again, if people want it it’s fine. I won’t stop you. As I’ve always said. I simply don’t see the significance because I think partnerships are better (save for the incredibly minor differences, which are almost infinitesimal). Again, I’ve never said they are mutually exclusive just that the focus is in the wrong place (incidentally, I shan’t say I don’t think this government should be in power but I don’t like that they are). Again, I agree with you in terms of homophobic bully being a never-ending issue – I hope it becomes one like racism where all but those with the extremes of opinion severely frown upon it. (I’ll reply to the correlation in the next one)
You might have negative connotations with marriage – neither me nor my husband to be have. My friends actively want to support us and celebrate our love and commitment to each other. The 15 weddings I have been to in the past 10 years – were all important to the couples, families and friends.
All the married couples I know value their marriage.
All couples I know in a CP want to be married.
Now, my experience may be unusual.
However, you do not find it important – others do.
And that’s your choice. I’ve never purported to say you should not be allowed to. I simply do not understand the obsession with the word marriage. And I’m sure they were important to them but I suppose my opinion is coloured by the fact my parents had to get married twice. Once secularly and another in a Catholic ceremony so I could go to the best school in the area.
The number of people who support it means nothing. It just means that a lot of people have a different opinion than I do. You, and many others, may consider it important but just as you’ve said: I don’t. I think there are more important issues and that’s that. We just have different opinions.
Andrew Pierce sold his soul a long time ago.
To Paul Dacre of the Daily Heil – a racist, homophobic misogynistic piece of thrash.
No he didn’t because he never had a soul in the first place!
He writes “Am I A Bigot?”
Yes, you are because just as you oppose it your also denying others the right to choose marriage. Not only does that make you bigoted but increditably selfish.
Then I suppose it would be news if a Daily Mail columnist came out supportive of Marriage Equality. As it is “Daily Mail columnist opposes equal marriage” just isn’t news.
What makes people like Andrew Pierce think that because he doesn’t want marriage he has the right to stop others who do with to have such a ceremony? Or indeed to use a phrase for the argument, to have the choice of “to have or not to have…. that is the question?!”
So we now have our own little lord haw-haw.
The guy is obviously so guilt ridden about being gay that it’s warped his mind.
He appears regularly on that bastion of equality the BBC, which was anti Elton’s adoption and I think (from their breakfast piece on gay marriage at the beginning of the week) anti gay marriage.
I would say ignore this waste of human DNA, but the little worm inveigles his way into platform after platform for his odd views.
I feel sorry for the guy. It must be horrible to be such a pathetic self loathing idiot.
He is, like all of his sort, are on the wrong side of history.
Just watch him and his partner upgrade their Civil Partnership to a Marriage when it inevitably becomes legal to do so.
What a hypocrite!
Why the hell is a gay man working for a homophobia paper like the Daily Bigot anyway?!
Perhaps something about lacking integrity.
The only thing the Daily Mail is useful for is recycling in to cardboard boxes. :)
He’s a self-loather wishing to deny rights to his fellow gay brothers and sisters just because he doesn’t want marriage for himself. There’s a word for that: BIGOT!
This only porves that being Gay does not define you – but being a Tory Bigot does!
A spineless, self loathing fool who has no regard for true equality onlt in brown nosing his homophobic colleague in Parliament
Given that civil partnership in the UK is de facto gay marriage and that changing civil partnership into gay marriage is merely a question of semantics I cannot understand how someone who is pro civil partnership can possibly be against gay marriage!
Mal, it is NOT a question of semantics. CPs are NOT marriages but an alternate union to marriage confined to a small minority of people, gay people. Nobody else has access to them. There is no law in the land which recognises them as marriages. Leave the country with your partner and you’ll find the evidence. Just because some regard them as such, including the delusional Andrew Pierce among others, he shouldn’t even imply that they are since he’s against equal marriage. He’s living proof that the two are different because of his vociferous opposition. I don’t see much of a demand by heterosexuals for CPs, do you, even though I believe they should be available to them? I wonder why?
““Well, Mr Cameron, I am a Conservative and a homosexual, and I oppose gay marriage. Am I a bigot?”
Yes. It also makes you appear to be an extremely selfish man who is trying to stop others having the choice to do something just because of your own dogmatic point of view.
By all means don’t get married, but don’t try to stop other LGBT people having that choice. And the only ‘arrogance’ I’M seeing isn’t from Cameron it’s from YOU, Mr Pierce. How DARE you lie and misrepresent the wishes of thousands of LGBT people who Do want the choice to get married. Arrogant and nasty too, in my opinion.
Well said, Iris. The fact that he wishes to deny us access to marriage proves he’s a bigot and anti full equality. I don’t much care for CPs and what they represent and would never enter into one but I’m not going to demand that they be abandoned. It’s a simple lesson he refuses to learn or is incapable of understanding just like all of them in opposition. Their brains haven’t evolved obviously.
Exactly, Robert. I don’t like CPs but, having read the views of a few people on PN who DO prefer them, I took that on board and voted that they should be retained for those who want them in the poll on Equal Marriage that PN did a while ago.
It’d be nice if Pierce showed the many, many LGBT people who DO want marriage the same courtesy.
Totally agree, Iris. I think Ben Summerskill needs to get involved in this one, take Pierce to task at least.
“Well, Mr Cameron, I am a Conservative and a homosexual, and I oppose gay marriage. Am I a bigot?”
This is a provocative yobish statement, which translates as “come and have a go if you think your hard enough”
If Mr Pierce is truly a conservative, he might want to consider the importance in successive Tory administrations of the importance of choice, rather than monoculture.
Well said, JohnK
Of course, Pierce welceomes choice (as long as its the same choice he makes!)
Andrew Pierce works for the Daily Heil?
Isn’t that called Stockholm Syndrome or something?
Indeed! Andrew Pierce speaks only for himself. He’s not our spokesperson thankfully. Maybe he should contact Lynne Featherstone for an explanation of the differences between CPs and marriage.
I agree with it being comparable to Stockholm Syndrome – but doesnt there have to be a hostage taken or kidnapping for true Stockholm Syndrome?
I have to ask – who the hell is stupid enough to want to hold Pierce hostage!
But I can see what comparison you are driving at!
What is it with these dimwits? If he doesn’t know the difference between CPs and marriage then I suggest he look at the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1973 where it quite clearly states that marriage is between one man and one woman. He’s another Ben Bradshaw, deluding himself into believing they are marriages just because friends, family and some in the media construe them as such.
Of course he’s a bigot and a traitor to LGBT people. Ben Summerskill needs to explain to him why it now supports equal marriage.
Is anyone forcing him at gunpoint to marry?
Is there anyone who would want to marry him back?
“The truth is that no one has been able to explain to me the difference between gay marriage and a civil partnership. I have asked ministers and friends. None has an answer”
If there is no difference then why do we need two definitions? Surely one system called marriage would do?
Exactly. Actually, the main difference between the two is in the area of pensions which has never been addressed.
Just exactly who does Pierce think he’s speaking for I wonder? Wasn’t it the majority of StonewallUK’s members who overhwhelmingly declared support for equal marriage? Just becauseit didn’t support it initially, it now does and Summerskill needs to address Pierce’s unwelcome comments that only give impetus to the opposition to make hay out of it. I’m sick and tired of being told that homophobic bullying is the main priority and I agree it is an extremely important issue, but if it weren’t, then what? Homophobic bullying will NEVER be eradicated, perhaps diminished somewhat but not entirely gone, not while religious cults rail against equality and gay people which is where much of the homophobia originates if you look at our history. I’m also very sick and tired of being told that I already have my rights via CPs and that I should be content. Enough!
I do not agree with Andrew Pierce and I do not like or trust him but if gays are to have equality then we have to accept that we do not all sing from the same hymn sheet and agree on everything. Terms like ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom of speech’ come to mind. It is good to have discussion forums like this excellent one on Pink News which gives us the opportunity to debate serious issues and listen to all sides of the argument.
I agree with everything you say. Part of that freedom of speech is to be able to answer questions such as those posed by Pierce – and yes, I do believe he is a bigot.
Part of that freedom of speech is to be then able to discuss why that view is taken.
If Pierce (or his supporters) do not want us to discuss the issue then either they should seek to curtail freedom of speech (which I would strongly fight against) or try not to raise questions which might answered and discussed.
Here’s an idea Andy, If you don’t want to get married, don’t, but don’t presume to make that decision for other couples
No Andrew, you are not a bigot. You are what is commonly known as an “Uncle Tom” after Harriet Beecher Stowe’s seminal work, ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’. Your inability to confront your personal demons manifests itself in trying to stop other people from enjoying their full civil rights. I hope you are proud.
He’s certainly an Uncle Tom.
Given that a bigot is someone intolerant of others views (at its simplest) and he seeks to deny rights to others (because he can’t see any reason for it and won’t listen to the argument for it) then he is also a bigot. His bigotry is reinforced by his prior conduct whereby he has condemned those who condemn homophobia – that is the vile and odious behaviour of a bigot.
Whatever. The Right have their little gay poster boy, and to Hell with what the rest of us damned homos think eh?
I’ve met Pierce a few times in real life, albeit over a decade back. He’s quite a self-centred berk all in all.
Why doesn’t that surprise me!
Clearly he is a Daily Mail columnist first and a gay man second. The people who pay his salary and from he happily takes that money decide what he thinks.
This reminds me of that time an Indian man stood as a BNP councillor musty try and send out a message that they were not racsist, yeah as if!!
Revolting little Quisling. It’s bad enough selling your soul for money but he seems to do it to get approval from his nasty friends as well. Pathetic.
Andrew Pierce is the Uncle Tom for the right wing press. He has a lot of form on opposing pretty much every advance for LGBT rights and provides the hateful DM with the cover it needs. “Look how gay friendly we are, we have our own one here.”
He is a man of little honour and no integrity.
However he is perfectly entitled to hold his views and to express them. They would carry a lot more weight were he not such a well-known quisling.
Even if he’s not a bigot (just plain wrong instead), he’s certainly a twat …
Yes, I agree, and working for the Daily Mail he’ll be well paid for it, too! For my sins I gave permission for the Daily Mail to use a photo from my archive, and I was paid more money for that one photo than I earn in a month. So it was ‘sorry Iceland I’m off to M & S’ !!!
marriage isnt for everyone .and its sure not for me . but I will defend and support anyone who wants to marry .. .. for a “openly gay man” to oppose the basic rights that we should have is a crime against nature .. I guess some of us are just in it for the sex
.. wonder what his sex partners think of him and it goes without saying he is the worst kind of bigot ..
How tedious! another self loathing, self harming, bigoted,homophobic homosexual. This breed of masochistic self hater walk among us.
I’ve watched this weak personality summarising the newspapers on Sky many a time, and he has never impressed.
But now that I hear that he describes himself as openly gay AND a lapsed Catholic, I perceive that here we have yet another gay self-hater, seeking to ingratiate himself with all of the straight gay-haters that there are in the UK, and particularly in the corridors of The Daily Mail.
Shame on you, Andrew Pierce. The straights whose arse who are attempting to lick will never admire you.
I know that a lot of gay people are opposed to the institution of marriage but Andre Pierce’s position is just ridiculous.
I know a man exactly like Mr. Pierce. He’s gay, conservative, and opposes gay marriage ..and bemoans that he’s never had a serious relationship despite being 37 years old.
No one has a turkey gobble like that at 37.
He is a bigot. He doesent want marriage so nobody should be allowe it ? This shouldnt be up for debate. Its about equality.
If one person wants to get married. They should be allowed.
Daily mail really is written by hateful small minded people.
Who know how to make a shed load of money…so how about having a pop at the idiots who buy the paper?
She earns her keep by being narrow minded.
Turkeys do support Christmas, it seems
There always have been and always will be self-oppressing gay people. This idiot comes from the class that have always done what they wanted. Tories have resisted virtually every equalities measure ever proposed. That’s why they’re called Conservatives. If it wasn’t for radical reformers and heroic compaigners, we’d still have rotten boroughs lorded over by Tory grandees. Mr Pierce would do well to look up the true definition of equality.
There are people, rather sad people who enjoy being the victim….
YOU UTTER CONTEMPTUOUS FOOL!!
You’re giving bigots more ammo to use against us AND your comments simply fuel homphobia!
THINK, MAN, THINK!!
As someone on another thread said recently, Andy Pierce, “if you want to sit at the back of the bus feel free”[....] but don’t ask me or the rest of the Gay community to sit there with you looking at the arses of the rest of society.
Brainwashed by the sick Daily Mail. You are a silly man Mr Pierce, a disappointment, a bigot and a member of the anti-Christ Roman Catholic Church. I was going to add the words ‘a traitor to the cause of human rights’ but i won’t.
Andrew Pierce, the modern day gay equivalent of William Joyce. Happy to sell out anyone to the highest bidder. It’s quite sad seeing him trying to curry favour with the Daily Heil bigots. He seems unaware that for all his boot licking and toadying, the Heil readers still see him as a degenerate pervert. And, of course, yet again we see Stonewall’s hesitancy over marriage equality being used to attempt undermining the argument – thanks Ben.
I agree, and nary a word out of Summerskill since that absurd bus poster debacle. Notice the absence and deafening silence of StonewallUK during the consultation and its lack of response to those never ending countless anti marriage equality comments in the DM and Telegraph as well as those Tory backbenchers.
What an odious little twerp.
A gay ‘Uncle Tom’ who exists solely for the pleasure and amusement of the Daily Mail readership.
What a pathetic, cowardly excuse for a man.
The very fact that he could work for a “paper” like the Daily Mail says all that needs to be said.
Does anyone know this toadying twit. Are we sure this is not a non de plume of some Daily Wail staff writer hoping to sway the consultation with this rubbish….
Yes, it does miake him a bigot. If you oppose same sex marriage and you’re gay, you’re self loathing and that’s sad. Just because you don’t want to get married doesn’t mean that others don’t. The differences between a civil partnership and “gay marriage” (I put it in quotes because it should be equal marriage) are 1. The name. It’s separate and unequal. We want marriage, a wedding, a wife or husband. We don’t want to be second rate citizens 2. Marriage has more legal benefits.
Andrew Pierce… separate, but equal is NOT equal!!
So. You want to join the online army of the Far-Right and aid the BNP blog, do you? Well, such a noble enterprise is a big commitment.
Some of you on the Far-Right will have jobs, however, and simply cannot spare the long minutes needed to create something so majestic and eponymous as the Green Arrow site. No. Mere mortals – possibly with only a passing interest in fascistic bigotry as a lifestyle choice – have to set your sights lower.
Have you considered the Daily Mail Comments Boards as an entry-level introduction to the wonderful world of petty-minded racist imbecility?
As a budding numbskull, you will possibly be a reader of the Daily Mail, already. Its comforting blend of film stars with cellulite (for which they must be roundly condemned), gentle nostalgia for The Good Old Days When You Could Leave Your Front Door Open And Teenagers Didn’t Go Round Stabbing Each Other On Their Facebooks, allied to a reassuring lack of too much actual “News”, has found favour with the ill-
educated since the days of Moseley (sterling chap, by the way, and just the sort of no-nonsense politician Britain needs today…).
On the internet (or “t’internet”, as you amusingly call it, ever since you saw that hilarious – and CLEAN – family entertainer Peter Kay do his routine) you can not merely read all the stories of the print edition; you can COMMENT ON THEM, ALSO!
Imagine! YOU can pass ill-informed, kneejerk judgement on the Issues Of The Day! YOUR baseless witterings will be there for ALL THE WORLD TO SEE!
That’ll show ‘em, eh?
But first, you need to understand a few basic ground rules.
The most important is this: Regardless of how much damage the current Government do with regards to the economy, public services, foreign relations and the general wellbeing of the Nation, everything (wherever possible) remains the fault of the previous Government for at least the next two years. The previous Government will, at all times, be referred to in your comments as “LIEbour”,
“Liebore”, “Nu-Labour” and “Za-Nu Labour”. (The appellation “Za-Nu Liebore” is something of a philological stretch, and should only really be used by the more experienced utter twat. Don’t worry – you’ll get there one day!)
The current Regime should be referred to as “LibLabCon” or “ConDem”.
Remember: You should NEVER admit to being a member of the BNP. In fact, we find that an active DENIAL of membership or support will allow you to get away with even more outrageous buffoonery (in much the same way as anyone who begins a statement with the words “I’m no racist, but…” is very probably still pining for the Good Old Days Of The Wehrmacht).
By way of practice, why not try copying these statements out fifty times each:
“I’m not a supporter of the BNP, but if the Marxist elite ever allowed them to form a Government it would surely usher in a new Golden Age of peace and prosperity for all in our once-great Nation.”
“I have no time for Nick Griffin, but anyone can see that he would
rule with exactly the sort of iron fist that this country needs.”
See? It’s easy!
Now then: What story to pass comment upon? There are three categories of Daily Mail story involved in this. I suggest you start with Category One – the Nursery Slopes of commentary.
Category One includes all those pieces which bear a direct relation to BNP policy. Something about Asylum Seekers crossing the Channel in a lorry can easily be appended with something lazy and obvious.
“These “people” are criminals – let them drown!” says “Mr Brown”
“WE MUST BRING THE ARMY BACK FROM AFGHANISTAN AND POST THEM AT DOVER WITH THE ORDERS SHOOT TOO KILL! NOW!” adds “Force Five”. (Special note – using capitals makes your post appear more important and will draw the Reader’s eyes away from any grammatical errors.)
As you can well see, Category One stories are almost too easy a target. After a short time learning the basics, however, you should be ready for the move to Category Two: Those stories and articles
which can be related to the BNP mindset, but it takes a little more work.
A story about a comparison between the standards of living in France and Britain, for example. Not, at first glance, something the average Online Warrior might have much interest in, but look!
“I would like to leave Britain to all the riff raff from the Eastern block countries and elsewhere! No! Rather ship them all out and stay here! Soon it will be a case of SPOT THE ENGLISHMAN!!” says “Teacher”. Beautifully done; notice how “Teacher” begins to advance one argument before dramatically reversing His/Her position and ending on an hilarious punchline. Certainly a Master of the craft in the making.
Category Three, however, should be left to the truly expert. These are the stories with, seemingly, no conceivable bearing on BNP policy or concerns. To the True Master, however, there is NO SUCH THING as a story which cannot be turned into an opportunity for simple-minded bigotry.
Take this piece, for example: A
genuinely tragic story concerning a double suicide. Surely, one might think, no-one could possibly get away with scoring cheap xenophobic points off something as awful as this? But no…
“Anyone wondering why this is happening isn’t living in the real world” says “Oliver”. He continues: “competition from taxpayer-funded foreigners is excruciating…What will eventually happen is a breakdown of civilisation…that will be the end of government in the UK.”
A work of genius. To move so effortlessly from a story of personal tragedy to an apocalyptic vision of future anarchy brought about by “foreigners” is truly masterful.
Such a towering cretin surely has a glittering future among the ranks of the BNP.
So Has that fired you with enthusiasm? Go on then – sign up for the Daily Mail Comments Board and you, too, can show yourself as the confused, narrow-minded, bigoted bile-dribbler that you undoubtedly are!
Good luck – and remember: Although the Boards claim to be moderated, ANYTHING
will get through!
However, I read a story on one of the far right chat forums where a BNP supporter complained that he was just banned from posting on the Daily Mail comment boards. His “crime” was instructive. He had been happily posting racially loaded, homophobic and pro-BNP/Griffin comments for a year without a problem. He went on to post a comment criticising the singer Cheryl Cole about the fact that she liked to date Black men and was pro gay, and he was immediately banned by the Mail and threatened with legal action.
The moral of this? Post racist stuff about ordinary black/brown/Eastern European people or bigted homophobia and that will be welcomed by the Daily Mail but state anything about one of their celebrities (who they have contractural deals with for photographs) and you’ll be shown the door sharpish.
Perhaps it has a relatively high circulation (historic – maybe due to its support of N4zi’s in WWII?) but it also has the largest fall on a percentage and numerical
basis since 2003. In 2003, 2518544 editions were sold on an average day, in January 2012 the figure was down to 1945946 (Audit Bureau of circulations).
The bigotry of the paper as espoused by Pierce is decreasing in both popularity and relevance.
Oh, and while we are at it, before these people start taking pot-shots at other ‘journalists’, shall we have a whip-round for Edmund at PN and get him a spellchecker?
“Consultant” only has one ‘L’
Well, he might not be a bigot, but I’m convinced he is an incredible idiot!
Otherwise you would not argue against your own equal rights… No matter what you think of the institution of marriage…
Great article in the Independent on this matter:
What matters? It’s not a simple question. Subjective perhaps, philosophical definitely; the type of thought that the human mind will tussle with for eternity. Unless you’re a Conservative MP, that is. Then you’ve got it sorted. Just ask Liam Fox, the latest in the growing line to get on the record with the answer.
It was (in case you missed it): social mobility not social engineering. To clarify – as you undoubtedly scramble to note life’s meaning – “social engineering” is code for ‘equal marriage’, a policy of such marginality that it shouldn’t be referred to with actual words.
Fox’s thoughts on matrimony came soon after Theresa May’s; the Home Secretary declaring an immigrant having a wife or husband in the country isn’t enough to stop them being deported.
Typically painted as the piece of paper standing between citizens feasting on the goodness inside their neighbour’s intestines, it’s a strange state to hear marriage dismissed
by Conservatives as not being a “priority”. Strange until it’s realised this is only the case for certain people: namely homosexuals or non-Europeans with low incomes. For certain people, being with the person they love in the way they choose is fundamental. For others, it just isn’t a “priority”. For some, having equal rights is obligatory. For the rest, it’s a luxury – one of those marginalised issues that distracts from important policy.
The ‘distraction’ claim is central to this form of opposition: the myth that a government can’t ensure people have enough to live on whilst giving them the right to marry. Except people don’t have enough now – and it’s smoke and mirrors to infer that would change by a penny if the equal marriage campaign ended. If only the London elite weren’t wasting their time with greedy homosexuality, parents wouldn’t be going hungry to feed their disabled children.
That a choice must be made – ‘economics or equality’ – is an illusion; a convenient ruse that
can demand a minority hush for the good of the nation. Beyond that though, it misses the point: even if a choice did exist, a citizen’s rights are not things to be sacrificed.
Money matters. A hospital when you’re sick, a decent school for your kids, a job to pay the bills…These things “matter”. That is not to say, as the Defence Secretary did, that other things don’t; to infer that disparity in income is the only inequality we need address. It’d be a soulless society that would settle for this, that would say this is the only inequality that demeans us. There is more to living than these Conservatives suggest, a greater depth of dignity that a person requires and deserves. Not facing discrimination sanctioned by the state. Having the same rights as the stranger you pass in the street. Being treated the same as if you had been born different. It isn’t tangible, it isn’t touched by the hand – but you can feel the loss when it isn’t there.
The ‘distraction’ argument sounds so
reasonable, almost apologetic in its way. It isn’t bigotry to simply set priorities, to say some things matter and others don’t. Marriage simply isn’t important…that is, unless you’re straight. Equality may not be important to Fox and friends, but they’re giving a good lesson in how it works: what needs defending for one person is expendable for another.
Pierce is so similar to Fox in very many ways.
I really am sick sore and tired of this openly gay man continually airing his facetious opinions …. he’s nothing but a homophobic gay man!!!!
So he works for the Mail, one of the most bigoted newspapers I have ever read! The paper that will add that someone is gay/lesbian into the headline even if their sexuality has NOTHING to do with the article!?
That gives me a VERY good reasone not to take a blind bit of notice what he says!!!
One more thing…..
Here’s a thought for all those who DON’T think that we, as gay people, should fight for equal rights.
Where would black Americans be now if Rosa Louise McCauley Parks had never stepped on that bus back in the 1950s? Would they have the rights they have today? Probably not!
Each and everyone of us has to be the gay equivilant of Rosa Parks! We have to stand up for what is right with regards to our rights as human beings. And not just for our gay rights in the UK but for all our gay family throughout the world!
mollie judith olgin and mary christine chapa
two lesbians were shot in texas. okay, so why shouldn’t they have been shot? i’m sure that the one who died was put out of the misery that reeked of gender-disorientation, and i hope the one who didn’t die realizes the injustice she is committing against herself with the self-compromise that is always the mark of homosexuality. i think a line from my screenplay puts that self-compromise best, “How can you expect to be man enough to satisfy my hunger for a man…or anyone else’s hunger, for that matter…if YOU hunger”.
to put the err of homosexuality in another way, “if you’re not man enough to be your man, good luck filling anyone else’s void”.
back to mollie and mary. now, with females being of the lesser gender, monthly egg-leaks and booby milk-leaks not withstanding, one might think that it’s okay for a woman not to be all the woman she needs if women are not meant to be strong. getting right down to it, the egg-leak and mil
I’m sorry, are you real? Ramblings of nonsense with little language skill and little understanding of logic or anything scientific. Childish, disrespectful and unintelligible.
You do realise that to a person of knowledge you make no sense? Where are you from?
Why do you have a problem with homosexuality, it’s not religion is it? How about you proselytise to all the other species in which homosexuality exists, maybe they’ll see some sense in what you’re saying, but I think not as nature is all that drives them.
It’s interesting. Because you like to annoy people, but all you could hope to get from Europeans is pity. Either you actually believe all that you say or you simply say it to waste people time, that is, including your own which means you are put off from doing anything productive in your life, anything which marks as anything meaningful in your existence. What difference do you think you make? Unless you simply enjoy all of this for the sheer hedonism in the fun of it. And if you are religious I think you’ll find you are “sinful”. I say in quotes because I don’t believe that. I think you could be more as a person. But it is your choice.
Ah, yes. I think I remember reading this a while ago. I know his question was to Cameron but I thought the answer was short and obvious. YES! Andrew Pierce, you are a bigot. There have been a number of homophobic gay people in history why not just use the word ‘bigot’ instead as it will probably cover all the other areas I’m sure he has such opinions on.
He is a bigot because he doesn’t just stop himself getting married with that attitude he is also looking to stop others who fancy entering a marriage who have same sex partners. What right has he?
No different from me saying ‘I don’t fancy marriage at all, I know, I’ll get rid of marriage rights completely’. There we go.
I am asexual, I am not religious I don’t like marriage particularly BUT I am not looking to rule over other people’s choices (like Pierce seems to be). Also I am a Humanist, if people are happy with entering marriage then they should be able to.
I hope Pierce reads this.