Reader comments · Anti-gay marriage group ‘Keep Marriage Special’ says UK Government will legalise incest next · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Anti-gay marriage group ‘Keep Marriage Special’ says UK Government will legalise incest next

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. More of the American influence.

    I notice that the picture is of an interracial couple. There was a time when religious groups, particularly in the American South, claimed that miscegenation was the first step toward bestiality, incest and polygamy.

    And before that it was interfaith marriages…and before that…

    Fear and ignorance seems to be the foundation of religion.

    1. Its interesting that they should show an interracial couple,particularly when the Bible was used for so long to justify slavery.

      Everyone now seems to accept that that particular part of the Bible is rubbish, whilst still clinging on to the rubbish about it condemning gay people

    2. Yes the American anit-gay Christians have gone crazy and are out to take over the world, no joke. They have been training their young how to use psychological warfare to use propaganda to bully and harass gays around the world as well as how to deal with other government leaders in getting them to kill gays like in Africa. Jerry Falwell has a college in Lynchburg Virginia that teaches anti-gay Christians how to become government leaders to take over the American government and set up a covert dictatorship for the Christians. This would be like what the Pope and the people of the Catholic Church have done in Europe and other countries.

      1. look like a fred phelps god hates fags site :)

        Ive emailed them to ask them to provided some evidence that same sex marriage will lead to incest ……

    3. I signed the petition in the name area Ive asked for proof that same sex marriage next means incest etc…

      1. I would think that to be utterly stupid, as you will never get their answer, and they only will have to change the comment into a name to have another e-mail address that seems to be a valid signee….
        Hopefully your name is not easily derived from your e-mail address or found after googling your e-mail address..

      2. th3e funies forget that the bible tells us that even came from adam

        So its obvious we are all the products of incest.

    4. they justified banning black marriage and inter-racila marriage as protecting the sanctity of the white race.

  2. Legalising polyamory and (consensual) incest may well be the next steps in the reform of our rather conservative attitude to sexual relations and marriage but they have nothing whatsoever to do with marriage equality.

    If you wish to oppose polyamory and incest do so when their time comes, stop pretending there’s a magic slippery slope of inevitability. Opposite sex marriages have been around for centuries, they hardly lead to same-sex marriage straight away now did they?

    Silly arguments from silly, small-minded people.

  3. Opponents of gay marriage argue that same-sex marriage undermines traditional marriage because the purpose of marriage is to bear children. In that case, the traditional marital purpose of bearing children is more likely to be fulfilled in a polygamous marriage than a monogamous heterosexual marriage. Having multiple spouses increases the probability of childbearing. Polygamy seems to advance the goal of procreation far more than monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

    The claim that homosexuality is unnatural is also an argument against same sex-marriage and, incidentally, an argument one could use to support polygamy in place of monogamy. When society switched to monogamy, I imagine people argued that it is unnatural for a man to be with only one woman, and that therefore, redefining marriage from polygamy to monogamy upsets the natural order of things. After all, man has been with many women since the beginning of time. Why tamper with the natural order?

    The previous examples

    1. demonstrate how various social arguments against same-sex marriage also support polygamy in place of opposite-sex heterosexual marriage. The irony is striking.

      The arguments against polygamy don’t stem from Judeo-Christian-Muslim values against same-sex marriage (values that historically permit polygamy!) but rather from the provable societal dangers associated with polygamy.

      In 2008 the California Supreme Court distinguished polygamy from the right to same-sex marriage by explaining that polygamy is “inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry.” Polygamist leaders like Warren Jeffs, who last year was convicted of multiple sexual assaults and incest-related felony counts, illustrate how polygamy is inherently conducive to power imbalances, sexual subjugation, and other abuses that do not inherently exist in the case of same-sex marriage.

      There isn’t a shred of modern sociological evidence to support the claim

    2. that gay marriage is harmful to society, whereas there is a plethora of historical and contemporary evidence to illustrate the dangers associated with polygamy. One could even argue that there is less of a power imbalance in same-sex couples compared with opposite-sex couples, because both spouses are of the same sex. With opposite-sex couples, there is arguably a greater power imbalance because men are generally physically stronger than women. The bottom line is that the rate of domestic violence in both gay and straight marriage is basically the same. Aside from gender, the unions are exactly the same.

      Every circumstance needs to be judged on its own merits. When looking at incest, for instance, it is quite clear that permitting consanguineous relationships will lead to power imbalances, psychological damage, sexual abuse, and a high rate of genetic diseases. Again, the basis for society’s objection is not a religious one based on “family values” but one based on provable harm to

      1. You play the same game homophobes play against marriage equality against polyamory. Of course there’s plenty of examples of abuse but there’s also plenty of polyamorous families who are successful!

        Let’s not do conservative folks work for them.

    3. society. The same cannot be said of two same-sex consenting adults getting married. Where is the evidence that children raised by gay parents are harmed? Where is the evidence that gay marriage will lead to the end of civilization? Show me one peer-reviewed, modern, mainstream study demonstrating the inherent dangers of gay marriage. You will not find it.

      It is of course also ludicrous to claim that gay marriage, or a homosexual relationship, between two consenting adults has any connection whatsoever to paedophilia. Although some anti-gay groups try to claim such a link. Minors do not have the capacity to consent to sexual contact with adults, whether in the heterosexual or homosexual context. What about bestiality? Animals and humans are different species. You can’t compare human-to-human relationships with human-to-animal relationships.

      My brother in law is a Rabbi in Chicago and he tells me that he sees no conflict with supporting the legal right to gay marriage, even if he

    4. doesn’t religiously support the union itself. According to the literal dictates of biblical law, atheism, homosexual intercourse, lobster, pork, and interfaith marriage between a gentile and a Jewish person are also forbidden, but he would not oppose a person’s right to engage in any of those activities.

      At the end of the day, Jews and non-Jews should want to follow the dictates of their religion (or none) out of their own volition, not through coercive laws abridging people’s right to marry.

      There is no link between polygamy, incest and homosexual monogamous relationships and this is sheer scaremongering by a malicious organisation that feels their prejudices and discriminatory worldview is being threatened. They dislike the fact many (most) in society support civil rights for LGBT people. They will adopt any technique to try to prevent equality for gay people – including lies, death threats and manipulating children politically.

    5. Paddyswurds 24 Jun 2012, 8:50pm

      …. please try not using the anti equality crowds term “Gay marriage”… It is “Marriage Equality”. They use the gay marriage term in order to whip up hysteria amongst their less intelligent brethern, which is most of them.

    6. They’ll soon want to legalize multiple marriages like those of King Solomon in the Bible – shock, horror.

  4. Well I’m sure they’ll be able to bring forward a body of evidence from those countries where equal marriage has been in place for some time won’t they?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 24 Jun 2012, 5:00pm

      I’ve been espousing that for months, but nobody in authority bothers to do it. They need to be challenged and compelled to produce the factual evidence. No rational, logical person is going to buy into their nonsense. In fact, they’re doing equal marriage a lot of good by showing how stupid they are.

  5. and whats wrong with non close incest and polygamy?

    1. Incest is generally not the best on a genetic level and is one of the contributing factors why it isn’t liked on a social level – although please explain what you mean by “non-close” incest as by that loose definition it could be anything from a half-sister to a 14th cousin. And there is nothing inherently wrong with polygamy as along as all parties are consenting and it isn’t like to cause major issues within the group. (That is just my personal view, I’m no expert on either.)

      1. I was bored of the christians keep throwing it around loosely without justifying it. By non-close incest I mean that which is not a criminal offence under the law such as mother, sister, grandmother, aunt, etc…

  6. Yeah, just like Canada did, right?

  7. Bringing up polygamy and incest is simply a dodge — an attempt to distract people from the injustice of denying same-sex couples the same opportunity to marry that different-sex couples want to preserve for themselves. That others might argue that they want to marry their relatives or have multiple legal spouses requires that those arguments be separately evaluated; it doesn’t make the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage right.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 24 Jun 2012, 4:02pm

      Fear-mongering and pandering to the worst bigotry in people. I smell American involvement in this one. I wouldn’t mind betting it was borrowed from one of the hate groups in America such as National Organisation for Marriage or the Family Research Council if you compare the couples they used for the C4M/CI petition. Nothing remotely like the British couples. The perfectly straight, ultra white teeth are a giveaway too.

      1. again, as I point out elsewher, it is a production of Christian Concern, a UK organization with ties to right wing Christian groups in the US and elsewhere.

  8. Keith Farrell 24 Jun 2012, 3:30pm

    I wonder if this leaflet is lawful. I also wonder which bible they read is it the one when murder and rape are considered acceptable or the one where love and equalitity are the only acceoptable norms

    1. If anyone can get hold of one, it might be worth referring it to the police as inciting hatred material that has been published.

  9. GingerlyColors 24 Jun 2012, 3:31pm

    Since when has there been a precedent for incest to be legalised in a country where they have marriage equality? Eleven countries (with Denmark being the most recent) now have marriage equality plus some US and Mexican states but none of them have legalised sexual relations between close family members. Interestingly France (where they have civil unions) does not outlaw incest. Keep Marriage Special should concern themselves with forced marriages which often take place between cousins. I do not see such a union as being ‘special’.

  10. Keep it coming, all these baseless comments only help our cause.

    I wonder, once we have won our rights and society only improves as a result, will they see that?

    1. not any more then the holy ghost of stalin will apologize for his crimes.

      BTW Stalin went to the Russian ortho seminary in his youth. Not exactly a den of love and acceptance.

      just as old AH went to catholic schools in his youth

      as did franco, mussolini, Dr. Mengele, Adolph Eichmann and most likley machieavelli.

  11. So some of the people who in the past opposed mixed race marriage are now using a mixed race couple on their leaflet cover? Lovely people, not a bit bigoted or hypocritical.

    1. Tell me about it Ray 123. They are trying a clever divide and rule trick here. We have to be careful that we don’t fall for it!

  12. Invoking a slippery slope argument is a red flag. It doesn’t invalidate the argument, but does indicate that further inspection is required to determine whether the progression being described is real or a misleading. In this case, there is nothing in granting a same sex couple the equal right to marry that would lead to incest or polygamy. They are irrelevant to the argument. Invoking the bible as disguise for their homophobia, it’s a shame these people don’t focus on what the bible has to say about bearing false witness.

  13. Since few opponents of homosexual unions are brave enough to admit that gay weddings just freak them out, they hide behind the claim that it’s an inexorable slide from legalizing gay marriage to having sex with penguins outside Burger King.

    The real problem is that there are really only three arguments against gay marriage: One is rooted in entirely “God’s preferences” – which have little bearing on Equal Protection or Due Process doctrine, as far as I can tell. The second cites discredited and inconclusive research on its negative effects on children (but ignores the masses of evidence that show no impact). The backup is the slippery slope jeremiad, which seems to pass for a legal argument, at least on Fox News or over the Atlantic in the Daily Mail. But fear of the slippery slope alone is not a sufficient justification for doing the wrong thing in any individual case.

    The precise challenge for morally serious people is to make rational distinctions between what is arbitrary and

    1. what is essential in important social institutions. … If you want to argue that a lifetime of loving, faithful commitment between two women is equivalent to incest or child abuse, then please argue it. It would make for fascinating reading. But spare us this bizarre point that no new line can be drawn in access to marriage—or else everything is up for grabs and, before we know where we are, men will be marrying their dogs

      Slippery slopes are only metaphors. They are not intrinsic principles of law. Each step in the slope must be analyzed, critiqued, and evaluated on its merits. And that is happening only at the very margins of the gay marriage debate.

      Slippery slope objections to gay marriage present a moving target. No two opponents of gay marriage seem to agree upon where this parade of horribles begins or ends. No one can plausibly explain why the entire institution of marriage is at risk from gay unions. Which raises yet another objection to slippery slope arguments: These are

    2. projections into an unknowable future. Asking proponents of gay marriage to prove that these marriages won’t be bad for kids or families is asking that they prove a negative. The law cannot know the long-term future social effects of legalizing gay marriage. We can only determine whether it is fundamentally unfair to bar one whole class of citizens from a privilege constitutionally afforded the rest of us.

      The problem with the slippery slope argument is that it depends on inexact, and sometimes hysterical, comparisons. Most of us can agree, for instance, that all the shriekings about gay marriage opening the door to incest with children and paedophilia are inapposite. These things are illegal because they cause irreversible harms. Similarly adultery and most would probably agree we can take bestiality out of the mix. While Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, the Colorado Republican who authored an amendment to the Constitution that would bar gay marriage, thinks it’s a short hop from gay

    3. marriage to sex with cats, the rest of us can intuitively understand that there are sound policy and health reasons to ban sex with animals.

      Sound policy and health reasons similarly suggest that there is at least a rational basis for keeping prostitution illegal. This one is a closer call, but there are inarguably ways in which prostitution has negative effects on women, and families, and public health (although there are arguments for legalisation). To the list of mostly irrelevant examples above, I’d add masturbation and fornication (intercourse between unmarried adults) which, while horrifying to Justice Scalia, are not only legal but also great fun as far as most people are concerned.

      Bracket all the hysterical and irrelevant stops along the slippery slope (some of which are there only to trivialize homosexuality) and we are left to try to draw principled lines between gay marriage, in which no one is harmed, and adult incest, adultery, bigamy, or polyamory. This is where the

      1. sorry,you are wrong in your statement that there are good health reasons for not legalizing prostitution. Once legalized, women sex workers have more protection from abusive pimps and abusive johns. The state can also then legally regulate the sexual health of sex workers and minimize the spread of STDs. This is how it works in the Netherlands. Your opinions are rather prudish and squeamish to say the least.

        Similarly, your disapproval of bestiality would have been more logically argued if you had noted the rather obvious fact that it is non-consensual rather than point a finger at some imaginary unnamed health threat.

        1. Hi Skepchik

          If I didnt make my point about prostitution clear (which on re-reading, it isn’t clear – apologies) then please allow me to try and clarify. Firstly, I think there are good reasons for either legalisation of prostitution or (at least) areas of tolerence. It does appear in studies in a variety of locations ranging from the Netherlands and Germany to Edinburgh and New Zealand that there are benefits both in terms of of sexual health in a geographic area and in societal terms for legalisation. There may also be fiscal benefits. However, whilst I favour zones of tolerance or possible careful legalisation – there are arguments that suggest otherwise.

          I agree with the non-consensual issue regarding bestiality. I did not mention a specific health issue because there are numerous and it is another reason why bestiality is a fallacy.

    4. debate should begin. Not at child molesting. There is an argument that that there is in fact no principled reason for legally prohibiting sex between cousins and I am, I think, persuaded that this is correct. But one can plausibly argue that there is a rational basis for states to ban polygamous and polyamorous marriages in which there has been historical evidence of an imbalance of power, coercion (particularly of young girls), and an enormous financial burden placed on the state. None of these arguments can be made against gay marriage.

      While Stanley Kurtz claims he has won the slippery slope debate outright, his analysis is reasonably limited to the dangers of polygamy and polyamory. But beyond just the policy differences between the two, there is also a legal bulwark between Justice Kennedy’s reasoning in Lawrence v. Texas (and the Massachusetts decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, which borrowed heavily from the reasoning of Lawrence) and the invasion of the

    5. polygamists: The right to sexual privacy Kennedy finds in the line of cases starting with Griswold v. Connecticut, the Connecticut birth-control case from 1965, is an intimate right, between two consenting partners. The court calls these “the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy.” The desire of a group of seven people to marry simply does not intuitively fit into that binary sphere of intimacy.

      Just because advocates of polygamy have tried to leverage the Lawrencedecision to support their cause doesn’t mean there are no differences between the two marginalized groups. And it’s just not an argument against gay marriage to say, “I told you those bigamists would use this in court!” It would be stupid for the bigamists not to try.

      One of the most persistent complaints of conservative commentators is that liberal activist judges refuse to decide the case before them and instead use the law to reshape the

    6. entire legal landscape for years to come. The Massachusetts Supreme Court, in finding that the ban on gay marriage violated the state constitution, did exactly what good judges ought to do: It confined its reasoning to the case before it, rather than addressing the myriad hypothetical future cases that may be affected by the decision. Opponents of gay marriage should consider doing the same.

      Whilst this analysis is based on the experience in the USA, it is directly comparable to other situations such as the UK and Australia.

      The slippery slope argument is salacious and unproveable – but its also impossible to disprove. However, the existence of a risk of something else happening is not a justifiable legal reason to prevent others having equality.

  14. Robert in S. Kensington 24 Jun 2012, 3:49pm

    I knew it was just a question of time before they started to counter Out4Marriage’s campaign.

    What I’d like to see is a push to force the bigots to provide the factual evidence for their offensive and outrageous claims. It’s been 11 years since Holland introduced equal marriage, long enough for them to come forward with an official report from the Dutch government. Nobody ever challenges them on that. That they bring religious belief into it is going to do them in since this is clearly not about access to or forcing religious marriage for gay couples.

    Since their claims are illogical, irrational and not based on any factual evidence, could that not be construed as promoting erroneous information and promoting fear and scare-mongering simply as a means to deny us equal access to civil marriage. The claims are scurrilous and should be countered by the authorities, or better yet, prosecuted.

  15. Robert in S. Kensington 24 Jun 2012, 3:51pm

    Do these idiots really believe that MPs would support polygamy, polyandry or incest? Sadly, there are many out there who fall for this nonsense. It’s breath-taking that even some MPs are behind this latest fear-mongering ploy. How many are there and who are they among those already mentioned?

  16. Robert in S. Kensington 24 Jun 2012, 3:56pm

    And I bet that couple on the glossy leaflet are American! Probably taken from a campaign by the National Organisation for Marriage or the Family Research Council, two hate groups according to the Southern Poverty Law Centre.

    1. Or the Christian Institute?

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 24 Jun 2012, 5:01pm


    2. I wonder whether the couple on the leaflet are actually a couple or just models? And if they are a real couple if they actually know what their picture was being used for and whether they agreed to it?


    3. the leaflet was produced by Christian Concern.

      1. Ah – Andrea Williams bigotry rearing its ugly head again!

  17. There’s the “slippery slope” idea, which says that if we allow gay marriage, we have to allow all kinds of stuff. Rick Santorum used this idea to make his infamous “man on dog” case against gay marriage. But the argument was made by R. D. McIlwaine III, then Virginia’s assistant attorney general, in Loving v. the State of Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case that overturned miscegenation laws:

    “It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state’s prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.”

    Then there’s the “think of the children” line, which says that kids raised by

    1. two parents of the opposite sex are better off than those who aren’t. Santorum made this case in January, when he said kids were better off having a dad in jail than no dad at all, and that gay marriage is “robbing children of something they need, they deserve, they have a right to.” McIlwaine made that case too:

      “Now if the state has an interest in marriage, if it has an interest in maximizing the number of stable marriages and in protecting the progeny of interracial marriages from these problems, then clearly. there is scientific evidence available that is so. It is not infrequent that the children of intermarried parents are referred to not merely as the children of intermarried parents but as the ‘victims’ of intermarried parents and as the ‘martyrs’ of intermarried parents.”

      Its clear that in the USA (and in other nations) the arguments against equal marriage – including the vague slippery slope arguments that lack any evidence – are being based on the arguments used to oppose

    2. interracial marriage – that failed and were shown to be false.

  18. As others pointed out, “slippery slope” is a logical fallacy so that alone refutes it.

    Second, if someone says “gay marriage leads to animal marriage” point out that heterosexual marriage must lead to gay marriage, and so heterosexual marriage is a slippery slope. Then point out that eating beef leads to eating humans, because if one meat is allowed it must be a slippery slope to eating all meat. Then point out that having sex with humans must lead to having sex with animals. Point out that driving 55 mph must lead to 75 and 100. Point out that having one beer leads to drinking a six-pack which leads to binge drinking.

    And then point out that opposing gay marriage leads to opposing gay rights and to hatred of homosexuals and to being a huge bigot in general, which leads to being a racist and hatemonger and the kind of person who advocates denying civil rights to other human beings under the lying pretense it leads to outrageous stupid things that have nothing to do with consensual

    1. relationships between human adults. And point out that their same argument means they must oppose letting gay people vote, otherwise we’ll just let chickens and cows vote, too. And their argument means we should not allow interracial marriage, too, since that’s another marriage-related slippery slope — which also means we should deny voting rights to minorities, too.

      Point out that these are all claims that are just as logical as their bigoted arguments in favor of their desire to deny basic civil rights, human liberty and decency, to gay people. And then finish by pointing out that this is all exactly why stupid slippery slope arguments are considered logical fallacies, and why rational, intelligent, decent people ignore slippery slope arguments, and maybe note to them that bigotry always has to rely on irrational, ignorant logical fallacies and that perhaps this should kind of signal to them how invalid their entire position on the subject really is.

      As others have said elsewhere,

    2. if the bigot making the slippery slope argument to you is someone you feel obligated to make any additional attempt to engage in discussion, you should point out that it’s insulting and hateful and honestly pretty worthless as a viewpoint to compare homosexual relationships and love to bestiality and incest — tell them that when they have sex with their spouse, it’s just like they are having sex with their parent or sibling, and ask how they feel about that comparison.

      It’s also worth noting that “same-sex marriage” is honestly a better term, because not everyone who has a same-sex marriage is “gay” — bisexuals might enter into a same-sex marriage, transexuals might enter into a same-sex marriage, and even straight people might enter into a same-sex marriage (for contractual reasons related to marriage benefits, like health care and other spousal legal privileges — and anyone arguing against this as “immoral” due to “lack of love” needs to stick their noses into the tens of

    3. millions of loveless heterosexual marriages before they start ranting about this type of same-sex marriage).

      There is no rational, logical, intelligent, moral argument for denying marriage rights to same-sex couples. It is founded solely on bigotry against homosexuals, which itself is founded on ignorance and/or religiously-inspired hatred and bias. You don’t even have to “like” homosexuality to support gay marriage — I loath bigots who speak out against gay people and who try to deny homosexuals civil rights, but I also think that even bigots should have a right to free speech to spew their venomous views (they just don’t have a right to enforce their views that seek to deny civil rights to other people). Just as I’d not deny free speech rights to people I despise and who disgust me, so too should people who are bigots not allow their bigotry to make them endorse denial of civil rights to gay people.

  19. Kornelijus Norvidas 24 Jun 2012, 4:24pm

    Hot guy. I hope, next time on the poster he will be together with another men, just urging ‘for marriage’. When this campaign is ‘not homophobic’, then another will be not necessary about gay marriage. Of course.

  20. One of the standard arguments provided by the homophobic right against gay marriage is a form of what we call the domino fallacy or the slippery slope argument. The idea is that if you take that seemingly innocuous first step, it automatically leads to a second, which will force a third, and so on and so on until, next thing you know, there we are in Satan’s own livingroom listening to Yanni on 8-track. In the case of marriage, the argument goes, if we open up the institution to same-sex couples, then we will be forced down the slippery slope to include all sorts of unusual couplings including cross-species arrangements.

    Marriage between a man and his donkey…adds a whole new layer to that “not coveting thy neighbor’s ass” thing.

    So what is wrong with this slippery slope argument? Why doesn’t allowing gay marriage also force us to offer to marry polygamists? adults and children? humans and animals?

    “Marriage” has several different meanings. It is a religious ritual, a social

    1. status, and most importantly for us, a legal status. Marriage is a contractual arrangement between two people to adopt a legal status which confers upon them certain legal rights (according to a US Congress report there are there are 1,138 such rights, privileges, and protections under the law afforded to married couples).

      What is at issue in the gay marriage question is nothing but the legal status. The issue at hand is whether hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, power of attorney, being able to file joint tax returns, and all of the other legal protections ought to be denied to people because some folks’ religion doesn’t like the way that these people — many of whom are not in their religion — make love.

      Marriage exists to eliminate ambiguities in law that arise from the fact that we do tend to couple up. We arrange our lives in such a fashion that it makes it impossible under the social contract which organizes society to give rights and responsibilities to

    2. individuals whose lives are completely intertwined. There is not my money and my wife’s money, there are our assets. There is not my house and my wife’s house, there is our home. There are not my children and my wife’s children, there is our family. When talking about tax liabilities, child welfare decisions, and life choices in general, the responsibilities and benefits are ours together. We are what Thomas Hobbes called an “artificial individual; it makes no sense to think of us as two completely different people in some legal circumstances because we decide and act as a single entity and the law must account for that. If one of us were in an accident that caused that person to be incapacitated, the decision making rights for that person immediately go to the other partner. If one should pass away, all assets and liabilities, all responsibility for the children immediately go to the survivor. Marriage exists to make perfectly clear who has what rights and responsibilities and who

    3. shares what rights and responsibilities.

      This has nothing to do with churches, synagogues, mosques, or temples. If a religion wants or doesn’t want to perform a ceremony binding any given couple together in they eyes of their god(s), they may choose to or not to at their own discretion. It’s your club, run it how you will. But this is a question of whether we deny rights, privileges, and protections under the law to honest, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens.

      To oppose this equal treatment under the law is nothing but bigotry. They may try to wrap that bigotry in the cloak of religious righteousness, they may try to argue that their immoral stance comes from family or other values, they may feign concern for the children, but these are all red herrings designed to pull your eye away from the fact that all they are really trying to do is deprive innocent citizens of rights because they find the way they have sex to be yucky. Gay and lesbian couples are every bit the same in terms of

    4. commitment and acting as a unit, and therefore, there is no reason to exclude them from the disambiguating legal status of being married.

      People are capable and some desire lives intertwined with more than one person. Couldn’t three people make decisions as a unit and wouldn’t this argument require affording the legal status to all of them?

      No. The purpose of civil marriage is to make sure that the location of rights and responsibilities is perfectly clear. Polygamy would not only not make these issues unambiguous, it would entrench further ambiguity into the law. It would do the opposite of what civil marriage is meant to do. When Groucho proposed marrying two women, one said to him, “But that is bigamy,” to which Groucho retorted, “It’s big of me, too. It’s big of us all. Let’s be big for a change. What do you say?” The problem with polygamy is that we cannot always count on everyone to be big. Squabbles will occur and the point of marriage is to make sure that there is a clear

    5. legal way to resolve them. If we allowed Ms x to have two husbands and they disagreed on her care, then who gets the final word? This is exactly the sort of question marriage exists to answer. Polygamy not only wouldn’t answer it, it would make it unanswerable. Gay marriage does not entail the necessity to legalize polygamy any more than, say, interracial or interfaith marriages do, that is to say, not at all.

      The idea of equal marriage is to make clear where there are joint rights and responsibilities and where those rights and responsibilities lay when one partner is incapable of exercising them. Minors cannot possess all the rights and responsibilities of adults. Hence, they could not enter into relationships wherein they would be asked to fulfill obligations that they cannot have.

      Ok, but what about the dogs, box turtles, and donkeys?

      Same line of reasoning, of course. Animals may or may not have moral rights, but under our social contract they do not have legal rights. Since

    6. animals cannot be held legally responsible and cannot participate in making decisions, they cannot be married. If children do not rise to the standard, then clearly neither do box turtles. As for Dobson’s donkeys, I have known many people who married jackasses, but that is a different question.

      One might object that Lassie was quite capable of making life or death decisions for little Timmy, so “shouldn’t they be allowed to get married?” I don’t think it is a real concern because while Lassie seemed gentle and caring on screen, everyone knows that off-camera she was just a little bitch.

      Civil marriage is a legal status that has good reason to exist and there is no reason not to extend it to couples of the same sex. At the same time, the function of that status means that the slippery slope that the right claims to exist is complete and utter nonsense.

      1. I love this. Humour + logic = dam fine writing

  21. We already have polygamy (multiple husbands/wives) we just have divorces in between. There was a time not too long ago when that was unheard of.

    The greatest irony in all of this is the hypocrisy of the Church of England and the Mormons being on the front lines of promoting and supporting “traditional marriage”. The first was SPECIFICALLY founded upon breaking away from traditional marriage in allowing divorce and the other was founded upon POLYGAMY not only being a right but a RITE that was REQUIRED for full participation in the ultimate Mormon afterlife.

    Now BOTH seem to have developed selective amnesia about how they came into existence.

  22. One cannot “prove” that something will happen in the future unless you have a time machine handy.

  23. “In an eight-page glossy leaflet featuring a mixed-race heterosexual couple on the cover”

    Not so long ago mixed race marriage was illegal!!!

    In a democracy it is everyone’s right to be an idiot, even an irresponsible untruthful idiot but I do so wish these hate groups would quit parading their ignorance and stupidity in public … so tiresome!!!!

  24. They have an online petitiion with a thousand ornso signatories. at
    Someone signed using the name Christian S Suck
    The names of signatories get automatically added to a publicly visible list. Would enough really obviously bogus signatures discredit their website or just add to the number count they can claim.

  25. Dangermouse 24 Jun 2012, 4:52pm

    So whats wrong with good old fashioned polygamy. ther is plenty of it going on in bible and sactioned by god. Didn’t Soloman have 700 wives and he was I do belive one of gods favorite people.

  26. Is there no end to their stupidity?

    Let’s all campaign to make divorce illegal and see how quickly they say it’s not fair

  27. Aryu Gaetu 24 Jun 2012, 4:56pm

    When the opposition uses the fear of something completely unrelated, then they are clearing admitting they have no rational reasons. It is just as irrational to say the Marriage Equality will lead to people wanting ice in their morning tomato juice. The horror!

    If there comes a time when people want to marry more than one person (Lord knows one spouse in my life is more than I can handle) or they want to quickly chill their breakfast beverage, then I would be glad to listen to their arguments as a rational person. But for now, let’s stay on topic and not let the alarmist clowns turn this into a needlessly confusing circus.

  28. Domino Fallacy This fallacy consists in assuming, without appropriate evidence, that a particular action or event is just one, usually the first, in a series of steps that will lead inevitably to some specific, usually undesirable, consequence.

    Example: “If we allow gay and lesbian marriages, next there will be some who want group marriages, and soon no one will ever bother to get married.” Let us convert this argument, with its domino thinking feature, into standard form:

    Since allowing gay and lesbian marriages will lead to group marriage,

    (because there is a causal relationship between these two things),

    and group marriages will lead to no marriage at all,

    (because there is a causal relationship between group marriage and the abandonment of the marriage practice),

    (and no marriage at all is not a good idea)
    (Therefore, we should not allow gay and lesbian marriages.)

    This arguer is not likely to be able to show

    1. that there are any causal relationships between the events cited, as suggested in the two implicit sub-arguments. These sub-arguments exhibit faulty causal analyses and are therefore not good ones. Because the argument doe not provide sufficient evidence to support the claims about these causal relationships, it fails to meet the sufficiency criterion of a good argument and the conclusion does not follow.

  29. Ah, the reductio ad absurdum fallacy: the last weapon in the arsenal of the bigot.

  30. Interesting article which suggests that equal marriage is a topic which allows logical fallacies to thrive:

  31. 1.If same-sex unions are legalized, neither existing straight marriages nor future straight marriages will be affected by the legal changes. The rules governing how a man marries a woman, and the legal terms of that marriage, will be unchanged in civil marriages. The religious sacrament of marriage will be unchanged too — and since religious authorities have long distinguished between civil and sacramental marriage among their flocks, doing so is clearly possible.
    2.Although gay couples won’t be able to conceive children together — something traditionalists regard as a core purpose of marriage — even the current legal regime permits marriages among people who cannot conceive children. Sterile people and folks who marry past childbearing age are two examples. (That there is no interest in prohibiting such unions makes gay-marriage proponents suspicious that inability to conceive in fact drives the controversy).
    3.When gay-marriage proponents think about their own marriages, or

    1. the future marriages they hope to enter into, the legality or illegality of same-sex unions doesn’t affect how they conceive of the institution, with the single exception of straight people who are boycotting marriage until gays can marry, a case in which legalizing gay marriage would strengthen it among straights.
      4.One never encounters a gay-marriage opponent who’ll consider their own marriage vows less valid, the marriages performed by their church less sanctified, or their relationship with their spouse weaker, if gays are permitted to marry.
      5.Same-sex marriage opponents can offer no specific mechanism by which permitting gays to marry will undermine civil marriage as it currently exists; and when they make vague claims about how the institution will be weakened, they often misrepresent reality — that is to say, instead of arguing that the institution of civil marriage as it currently exists will be weakened, they proceed with their argument as if they’re protecting something

    2. that has been around for thousands of years. But marriage as it was understood thousands of years ago and civil marriage as it is codified in law today (even before same-sex marriage) are radically different institutions. For example, a man takes one wife, not several; marriages are typically not arranged, and are often entered into by individuals rather than families; civil rather than religious officials often perform the ceremony; there is no-fault divorce; there are no longer dowries; the age of consent is different; there are spousal-rape laws on the books; and serial marriage is common. Given all these changes, permitting same-sex unions is arguably not the most significant change in the institution of marriage over the centuries, especially since it applies to a very small percentage of the population.

  32. Defending the sanctity of marriage, often the most cited reason, is the most fallacious. First, marriage has always been an evolving principle. Marriage is not the same as it was in the Bible. It’s not the same it was 50 years ago. And it won’t be the same in the next 50 (I’m confident that gay marriage is inevitable, so either lead the way or be the last standing bigot that your children will be ashamed of). Further, as illustrated by Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, Britney Spears, and people you probably know, marriage simply is not sacred anymore: it’s “tradition” is marred by adultery and divorce.

    Some “Christians” say that allowing gay marriage will force all church denominations to marry any gay couple that walks in their door. Um, wrong. If you believe that, you have been subjected to false propaganda and should be mad that you’ve been lied to. Your church is lying to you; odd, I know

    They try these arguments they think sound reasonable, they are disproven and then they try

    1. any lies and fallacies they think they can make stick.

  33. Jock S. Trap 24 Jun 2012, 5:20pm

    This is absolutely disgusting and there is absolutely no justification for this kind of discrimination.

    Why are these people So obsessed with incest and polygamy? Why are these people So obsessed with what we do in bed instead of seeing us as people not sexual objects.

    This material is just plain wrong and shows how ever desperate the religious have become, to make such shameful, unjustified accusations and assumes all in the name of their ‘Religious Freedoms’

    This is disgusting and appalling, such deliberate misleading propaganda that surely serves no other purpose other than to put us down and discriminate against us!

    1. Jock S. Trap 24 Jun 2012, 5:23pm

      ““if the only basis for marriage is the desire of the parties to get married then there is, according to the logic of this proposal, no reason not to open up marriage to more than just same-sex couples.”

      Yet again Who we love in the LGBT community is downgraded into nothing. How dare they assume we wouldn’t get married for the love of another.

      How dare they assume our love is meaningless and yet again how dare they be so vile to equate our community with incest and polygamy! They insult but then cry victim when we fight back…. and we will fight back.

      I for one won’t take this kind of abuse, there is no need.

  34. I was reading through a friends draft philosophy book (proof reading) and I amused myself by being able to locate a plethora of rhetological fallacies that the anti-gay marriage campaign have used or are using:

    Appeal to Anonymous Authority
    Appeal to Authority
    Appeal to Common Practice
    Appeal to Ignorance
    Appeal to Popular Belief
    Appeal to Tradition
    Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
    Appeal to Fear
    Appeal to Nature
    Appeal to Pity
    Appeal to Flattery
    Appeal to Ridicule
    Appeal to Spite
    Anecdotal Evidence
    Design Fallacy
    Gamblers Fallacy
    Hasty Generalization
    Jumping to Conclusions
    Perfectionist Fallacy
    Sweeping Generalisation
    Affirming the Consequent
    Circular Logic
    Ad Hominem
    Burden of Proof Denial
    Circumstance Ad Hominem
    Genetic Fallacy
    Guilt by Association
    Straw Man
    Ad Hoc Rescue
    Begging the Question
    Biased Generalizing
    Confirmation Bias
    Misleading Vividness
    Red Herring
    Slippery Slope
    Suppressed Evidence

    Its sad they do not use truth

    1. As a critical thinking student, i want to hug you right now! :) xx

  35. Robert in S. Kensington 24 Jun 2012, 5:30pm

    It’s quite clear I think, that equal marriage is getting close and going to become a reality for these religious nutters. Who else would resort to such absurd, ridiculous rants. An act of sheer desperation than anything else. Nobody in their right mind would buy into any of it. The majority of people will just shake their heads and laugh. These nutters are making themselves become even more irrelevant and on the fringe.

  36. Aryu Gaetu 24 Jun 2012, 5:49pm

    Ok, they’re idoits… blah… blah… blah.
    Let’s stop wasting our time on them and go directly to something more fun to ponder.

    Speaking of monogamy, are you aware it is the invention of weak males? In a polygamous society, the masculine or more intelligent males may get all of the women. The only way a weaker male can have a chance is if the stronger males are limited to just one female.

    Marriage fidelity is, also, created by weak males to prevent the stronger males from taking what they have acquired.

    Apparently, the concept of monogamy throughout history depends more on who is in power, with monogamy and marriage weakening the gene pool.

    Laws on love. Can our society get any more insane?

    1. floridahank 24 Jun 2012, 11:38pm

      When you say, “The only way a weaker male can have a chance is if the stronger males are limited to just one female”

      That doesn’t seem to apply because the divorce rate is close to 50%, so there are many women available. Also because of continuous wars, most of the “better” men are killed or wounded, so there’s a greater choice for
      women in most countries. So marriage fidelity doesn’t seem to have many outstanding benefits in most societies.

      1. Which polygamous societies are you comparing divorce rates of, Hank, and where did you get the data?

        1. floridahank 26 Jun 2012, 2:17am

          Stul, I was not making any comparison, I was telling Aryu that his premise was wrong “Marriage fidelity is, also, created by weak males to prevent the stronger males from taking what they have acquired.”

          Couples who once might have wed and then divorced now are not marrying at all, according to The State of our Unions 2005.
          The U.S. divorce rate is 17.7 per 1,000 married women, down from 22.6 in 1980. The marriage rate is also on a steady decline: a 50% drop since 1970 from 76.5 per 1,000 unmarried women to 39.9, says the report, whose calculations are based on an internationally used measurement.

          “Cohabitation is here to stay,” says David Popenoe, a Rutgers sociology professor & report co-author. “I don’t think it’s good news, especially for children,” he says. “As society shifts from marriage to cohabitation which is what’s happening —

          (I’ve used personal observation for my statement and can’t
          find statistics to back up marriage, cohab, and marriage
          complex figures.)

          1. The comment was about polygamy – so unless you are talking about polygamous marriage in the USA or your own personal knowledge of polygamy then your comments were irrelevant.

  37. I’d like to point out a glaring, if not inconvenient, fact for these people.

    Of the countries in the world who have legalized marriage equality, exactly ZERO allow sibling marriage or polygamy and exactly ZERO have every hinted at trying to legalize incest or polygamy.

    Of the countries in the world that have legalized polygamy and those who allow marriage between siblings, and there are a few, exactly ZERO allow gay couples to marry and exactly ZERO have hinted at considering marriage equality for gay couples.

    These facts are EASILY verifiable yet I have NEVER heard a single so-called journalist challenge the polygamy/incest slippery slope claim.

    1. what countries have legalized incest…. you say this claim is easily verifiable…. please show the verification because I haven’t been able to do so.

      1. I have tried to find a list of nations which have legalised incest. The only information I can find is:

        In the State of Israel there is no statutory prohibition against incest as such, but it is an offense, punishable with five years’ imprisonment, for anyone to have sexual intercourse with an unmarried girl below the age of 21 who is his or his wife’s descendant, or his ward, or who has been entrusted to him for education or supervision (Section 155, Criminal Code Ordinance, 1936). Apart from this particular provision, it would seem that sexual intercourse within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity are not punishable under the Criminal Code.

        There are suggestions that incest is legal in Turkey and other nations but I can find no evidence to support this.

        There are many countries which have no prohibitions on incest. Those which have some, may permit relationships which are not in direct lineage eg cousins etc but not siblings. I can find no evidence otherwise.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Jun 2012, 12:40pm

      I thoroughly agree. Someone in government should pursue it and once and for all debunk the claims that the bigots are spewing. Holland has had equal marriage for eleven years. Wouldn’t that be sufficient time in which to ask the Dutch government to refute such spurious claims? It’s a simple task and I don’t understand why nobody has done just that. Craig Whittaker, Tory MP for a constituency in Yorkshire claims he has evidence to suggest that equal marriage has brought about such phenomena but has yet to come forward and make it public. I asked him to provide the documented evidence, but so far has failed.

  38. Spanner1960 24 Jun 2012, 5:58pm

    Has anybody noticed the closer the date comes, the more frantic, bizarre and absurd the rants are from these people?

    Their desperation is obviously tangible.
    Next it will be “GAYS ARE AN ALIEN CONSPIRACY!” or some equally crackpot notion they will shout about in order to get any attention they can to deflect ignorant people from the real truth.

    1. LOL! Spanner1960! Don’t encourge them! They’ll say that gays are cylons that look like humans hell bent on destroying mankin!

      1. Spanner1960 24 Jun 2012, 7:02pm

        We come in peace.
        Now give us your men. ;)

  39. I’ve been trying to identify the originator of the keep marraige special initiative, and it appears to be a domain registered by christian concern. They have 37 domains registered to them. To make themselves look like a bigger movement than they really are, they just recycle the same news stories on each web site.

    1. YES, it’s CCFON, Christian Concern.

      They know their name is so tarnished that if they used it many people would run a mile, so they make up a new group, talk some DUP MPs in to putting their name to it (not difficult), and the rest of the people listed as trustees, etc (to make it sound big and legit) are unknowns.

      Another wingnut organisation posing as a charity, but really an anti-gay hate group.

      What we need to have in this country is a complete review of charities, because some of them are just political lobby groups.

    2. Interesting that Keep Marriage Special share an address with the Church Society.

      Church Society are of course an evangelical wing of the CoE who oppose homosexuality in any form and who have links to Anglican Mainstream.

    3. I wonder if this means that Christian Concern and the Church Society regard the C4M as tainted and damaged goods due to the manner in which their campaign has been discredited?

  40. These people can’t be for real, surely. They have obviously not read their bibles and have no understanding about anything. Silly, mutton headed people when will they grow up. This is getting tedious.
    David Cameron please move a little faster and get same-sex marriage made into law as soon as possible. You are lagging behind. Be a leader not a follower.

  41. jonnielondon 24 Jun 2012, 6:26pm

    Hmmm…that’s odd, claiming that same sex marriage will lead to legalized incest and polygamy. Hasn’t happened here in the Great White North (Canada), in fact the opposite has happened…especially with regards to polygamy. Sheesh…where do these chicken little’s get off spouting such nonsense?

  42. People who condemn incest and polygamy and cite the Bible as their authority can’t read or are stupid. And I really think it’s time these foxes were shot. Why should anyone give a damn about extending civil marriage to group participation or close relatives? The only point in a free society is that all parties should be consenting, uncoerced adults.

  43. … the long grass must start somehow somewhere … keep the gullible busy, debating the sexual behaviour of rare Madagascarian butterflies … meanwhile gays are being flogged on a daily basis … it’s just another ordinary day for the coalition of the ConDemned…

    1. Jock S. Trap 24 Jun 2012, 8:03pm

      Last time I looked the Democratic Unionists weren’t part of the coalition.

      But hey anything for a jibe eh, Beberts!

    2. de Villiers 24 Jun 2012, 8:31pm

      Where in England are people being flogged and/or what relevance is the coalition to that?

    3. So when should British LGBT people seek equality for themselves would you suggest, Beberts?

  44. They can distribute the brochures they want, but will not prevent gay marriage being legal in the UK.

  45. it is really strange that the opponents of gay marriage always say that should it become legal even the pet poodle won’t be safe or that all of a sudden brothers will be marrying their sister, fathers, mothers etcetera, Is this Southern Baptist philosophy or just common practice in their religous beliefs if so count their fingers and pass them a banjo

  46. Paddyswurds 24 Jun 2012, 8:34pm

    I never cease to be amazed at how fixated on incest these xtian crazies are. But then I realise their whole religion, if one starts at the Adam and Eve thing, is based on incest. After all if Adam and Eve were, as they assert, the first Man and Woman who had two sons, one of which was a murderer, the other one had to have had it away with his own Mum or sisters, if there were any, in order to “go forth and multiply”. Then there was the whole virgin birth thing where “god” had to make his future mum pregnant in order that he/she/it could be born and become human. It also mystifys me as to why they thisk gay people would want or desire legalised incest as gay brothers are rare and I just cant see any boy wanting to marry his father gay or not… World wide incest is a heterosexual thing within families where fathers rape their daughters and brothers have it away with their sisters and mothers. So the whole incest scenario is entirely a heterosexual breeder phenomenon… Major FAI there!

    1. Paddyswurds 24 Jun 2012, 8:34pm


      1. Paddyswurds 24 Jun 2012, 8:43pm

        Several typos…
        …..”had two sons, one of which was a murderer, the other one had to have had it away with his own Mum or sisters,”…should read; “had two sons, one of which was a murderer,and the one who had to have had it away with his own Mum or sisters”….**
        thisk…think **,

        …of course incest is a big thing in the south. They really do like to keep it in the family down there and we see the results every day as only inbred cretins like that could come up with the perverted ideas they do when talking about Gay people….

    2. Actually, Adam and Eve wasn’t the only incest bottleneck in the bible… rather more damning is when the almighty decides to wipe the slate clean yet again by drowning everyone on earth barring 10 members of the same family he considers to be righteous on a big boat full of livestock.
      Just how any family would remain ‘righteous’ after repopulating the earth from the family genepool is a bit of an oversight in the masterplan.

      1. Paddyswurds 25 Jun 2012, 10:36am

        It would appear that the “Intelligent Designer” wasn’t so intelligent after all. A bit of a serious boo boo to cause so many bottle necks, the first being the Adam and Eve one where Adam had to reproduce from his own cloned sister, no wonder they produced the murderer Kane from the off. Supposedly the “god” dude ripped a rib from Adam and used it to make Eve. Today we might call that cloning and we would not mate such a clone with the clone donor.
        Re: Noah and the flood debacle…. How did the animals in Australia, New Zealand and the penguins of Antartica get there once the “flood” subsided, one wonders?
        I know kangaroos can jump pretty impressively but 14 thousand miles is stretching it a bit.
        A great pity these morons don’t spend more time thinking about the glaring anomalies in their “holy” book than thinking about what gay men do in bed……

    3. noah’s daughters had sex with their father, and that was supposed to be righteous!

      1. It wasn’t so much a genepool by that point, more of a genepuddle

    4. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Jun 2012, 12:32pm

      That these so called ‘christians’ obsess over polygamy and incest I think indicates a craven desire for it, but for themselves. There are no others raising the issue except them.

  47. That There Other David 24 Jun 2012, 9:13pm

    Anything that has the backing of the DUP will end up backfiring on the originators, because that particular group have absolutely no sense of when to stop.

    However, echoing what others have already posted above the fact they are now resorting to slippery slope arguments shows that even they realise they’ve lost the debate as it stands.

    The only slippery slope is the number of losses they’re about to face.

  48. Is it just me, or does the picture look suspiciously like it was taken from an elective full-frontal lobotomy catalogue? Those aren’t smiles, they’re the result of serious cranio-facial nerve damage…

  49. “The immigration service is already swamped with false marriages – this would only add to their problems.”

    Nice. Two varieties of small-minded bigotry for the price of one.

  50. Har Davids 24 Jun 2012, 9:52pm

    If you want your marriage to be considered special, just work on it, and leave other people to find their own happiness. Why don’t these bigots come out and tell us what we know: “We’re against same-sex marriage, because we are homophobes.” All the energy they waste on their faux arguments could be put to a better use.

  51. Why are they bringing God into this?

    This is CIVIL marriage, NOT RELIGIOUS marriage.

    God has no place in this argument. Neither does the Bible.

    People should STOP focussing on the personal lives of people they don’t even know.

    I reckon if people opposed to this actually got to know a same sex couple…their stance would change considerably.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Jun 2012, 12:30pm

      Because they believe it’s rooted in religious marriage. There is not even a religious marriage ceremony performed anywhere in the old testament. In the new testament there is the wedding feast at Canaa but no ceremony. The idiots believe that because Adam brought Eve to him by taking a bone out of his side while he was sleeping and created her out of it, signifying a marriage. It doesn’t. Civil marriage didn’t exist in biblical times so it can hardly be construed it’s religious in origin. It’s a red herring they use every time the question of equal marriage surfaces in an attempt to thwart any progress and interject their beliefs on the rest of society that isn’t even religious.

  52. Christopher 25 Jun 2012, 1:19am

    Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian were approached to be the poster girls…

    1. only Britney Spears is pro gay rights and has said in regards to gay marriage “love is love”

  53. can some one explain to me,now the current govt is in a coaltion btw the labour and cons, with the liberal dems in as well now even if the cons were to all vote against it wouldn’t the other parties still be able to pass it if they were whipped to do so?

    1. If the Tories who have said they will support equal marriage (some of them very convincingly) support the bill, the Green MP supports the bill, the Lib Dems support the bill – then even if Plaid, SNP, Irish parties and Independents all voice against, it only requires 77% of Labour MPs to support the bill for a majority in the Commons.

      Bear in mind – one Independent and 2 Plaid MPs have also stated they will vote in favour and only 1.95% of Labour MPs have said they willl vote against.

      It seems very likely there will be a large Commons majority for the bill to bring equal marriage.

      1. Jock S. Trap 25 Jun 2012, 10:07am

        Agreed and I will say that I hope that both Scottish and Irish MP’s will be denied a vote since this is about England and Wales.

        1. Paddyswurds 25 Jun 2012, 10:45am

          We here in the north of Ireland would prefer that central government included us in the Act as they did with the Sexual Offenses Act 1972 and others., because Sinn Fein aside, the DUP, UUP and SDLP backwoods men will never agree to Marriage Equality here. Imagine trying to get Poots or Donaldson to enact Marriage Equality. … ….

          1. I’m not in N Ireland, but whilst I can see your point it does perhaps cause two difficulties?

            Firstly, the exact legislation in N Ireland is not identical (on marriage and other areas) to that in England & Wales.

            Secondly, this is a matter subject to devolution in N Ireland currently.

            In practice I think that means that changes in the law (currently) have to come from within the N Ireland political arena. I am pessimistic that this is likely to happen with any sense of urgency.

            I think it is incumbant on those of us in the rest of the UK, and in the Republic who are seeking equal marriage to encourage and support people in N Ireland seeking similar changes.

            I do think that political pressure will exist when England & Wales, Scotland and the Rep of Ireland introduce equal marriage – for N Ireland, the Channel Islands, Isle of Man etc to do likewise.

  54. There really is no end to their stupidity on the issue of same sex marriage!

  55. What ever next? Mixed races couples getting married?! A certain irony in the picture they use.

  56. “It also says that “the immigration service is already swamped with false marriages – this would only add to their problems.””

    So… it promotes mixed race couples yet accuses equal marrage of swamping immigration services with false marrage? They think homosexual marrage is false?

  57. Jock S. Trap 25 Jun 2012, 10:03am

    I have the perfect solution…

    If Civil Partnerships are adequate and ‘equal’ according to the religious extremist then lets make Civil Partnerships for all and scrap marriage.

    Bet you’ll hear then complaining soon enough after it’s suggested.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Jun 2012, 12:53pm

      I posed that same question, to anti equal marriage hater, Tory MP Craig Whittaker. He avoided the question of course, totally ignored it and we all know why even though he believes CPs are equal to marriage. CPs have given the bigots cover to rail against equal marriage, yet most of them don’t really even want us to have any semblance of equality, not even CPs.

  58. Another reductio ad absurdum argument here.

    Its seems to be the default for religio0us people – less church, more school, that’ll help.

  59. I see that this set up is all part of the church society they use the same building and address etc…

    E-mail :
    Telephone : +44 (0) 1923-235111
    Fax : +44 (0) 1923-800362
    Web :
    Address : Church Society,
    Dean Wace House,
    16 Rosslyn Road,
    Watford, Herts,
    WD18 ONY

    1. Re their website

      Domain name:


      Registrant type:

      Registrant’s address:
      70 Wimpole Street
      W1G 8AX
      United Kingdom

      This is the registered address of both Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre (Andrea Williams odious brainchild)

  60. Julian Morrison 25 Jun 2012, 11:50am

    Polyamory should be legal. Incest should be legal.

    1. Another Hannah 25 Jun 2012, 12:21pm

      There are clear MORAL reasons for not allowing those things. There are clear MORAL reasons for gay marriage. Right wingers can never quite seem to grasp the notion of morals and right and wrong…..You don’t leave a wounded fellow soldier to die without help because it’s wrong. You don’t leave a countries youth to become homeless because it’s WRONG. The cesspit these people must live in!

      1. I tend to agree there are good moral reasons for not permitting incest or polygamy – I wondered what Julians justifications might be (because I can’t see any solid reasons to endorse such things)

    2. Spanner1960 25 Jun 2012, 12:34pm

      Sure, why not legalise bestiality and paedophilia while you are at it?
      There is a big difference between a human right and a sexual preference.

    3. because the bible says so!

  61. Strange the bring up incest giving that it more likely in heterosexual marriages of fathers abusing daughters.

  62. Another Hannah 25 Jun 2012, 12:18pm

    Oh, no! And they’re going to legalise eating babies!

  63. Spanner1960 25 Jun 2012, 12:31pm

    I think this is setting a dnagerous precedent:

    If they continue like this and allow people to get married in churches, we are on the slippery slope where more people will belive in God and EVERYONE will want to get married in a church.

    It stands to reason that if you hang around with like-minded people, you will become like them. Just like hanging around with dwarves will stunt your growth.

  64. New wrapper: same smelly old garbage.

  65. After hetrosexuals have trashed the institution for last 1,000 years – with women as property, divorce and convenient annulments, polygamy, sex before marriage, 72 hours marriages etc, etc, – what specialness is left?

    Ah, gay people! That’s what they mean. They don’t like the idea of us reinvigorating a totally degraded institution a bit of class.

  66. no need to legalize incest – hardly anything done to stop it now as it is

    1. Spanner1960 25 Jun 2012, 3:55pm

      “A game for all the family.” ;)

  67. Miguel Sanchez 25 Jun 2012, 3:26pm

    Marriage between close relations has never been allowed here in the States (First cousins) because of the strong risk of birth defects. 2nd and 3rd cousins have been allowed.

    I guess these people some hoe lost their common sense. But since the Church has its fingers in this, we know the driving force behind it.

    They all need to get their heads out of their asses.

  68. “next logical step will be legalising incest and polygamy.”
    Well, what is their problem…??
    At least incest and poligamy are absolutely undenyable Biblical values…..

    1. Spanner1960 25 Jun 2012, 3:56pm

      Good point.
      Weren’t Adam & Eve brother and sister?

      1. lol

        but isnt that a bit like the philosophical chicken and egg story … in that do you require to have had parents to be brother and sister?

    2. I think Betty Bowers does a pretty good rundown of “Traditional Biblical marriage”, such biblical characters as Adam and Eve, King Solomon, Lot and his daughters, Noah and the rest would make our marriages look pretty dull by comparison.

  69. Er, does this Christian Right group not realise that most societies where polygamy is practised are Muslim majority states and therefore criminalise homosexuality? In the case of Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Iran and North Suden, it is a capital offence.

  70. “Don’t tarnish marriage with queers!” is the subtext of this campaign.

    That deliriously happy smiling couple on the front of the leaflet represents an attitude that is dripping with HATRED of us.

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