Reader comments · Students lobby Christian Labour MP over equal marriage · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Students lobby Christian Labour MP over equal marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. does this bigot not understand that his cult beliefs are not a valid reason to oppose equal marriage rights.

    Equal civil marriage has NOTHING to do with religious cults and when he says it does then he is effectively saying that he believes his hateful cult’s views take precedence over the secular state.

    He is not fit to hold public office if he holds such absurd views

  2. I note that HE got married in 1965. WHY deny this right to others? Sheer HYPOCRISY!

    1. GingerlyColors 27 Aug 2012, 2:10pm

      In fact he was allowed to have sex in 1965, when even that right was denied to others!

      1. Point taken Gingerly-but he wasn’t one of the MPs denyiing us that right at that time- but he IS one of those MP’s denying us the righ to get mrried-at this time

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Aug 2012, 4:52pm

        Because religion is in the mix and it’s that icky factor they obsess so much about, penis/vagina nonsense to justify a ban on equal marriage, even though not every penis/vagina interaction can lead to procreation, because they ignore infertility in many hetero men and women, but that would never occur to them of course. Sickening and unnecessary to oppose it. I’ve attended several civil marriages and not once did I hear any invocation of a deity or mandate to procreate. Has anyone? Of course not!

  3. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Aug 2012, 1:13pm

    Odd for a Labour MP who voted strongly for equal gay rights. Maybe a little more persuasion is in order. One can be religious and not object to a civil law for equal marriage. It’s not as if we’re demanding religious denominations be forced to officiate or recognise them. Any MP who can’t discern the difference between religious and civil shouldn’t be holding public office, no matter one’s personal or religious beliefs. It’s not going to harm him and others of his ilk or affect his marriage in any way shape or form. The sooner these people learn that, the better. Nothing will change for straight people who will continue to marry and divorce. The only ones directly affected are gay people, end of.

    1. There is no excuse for opposing equal civil rights for LGBT people.

      This man is a hatefilled, poisonous bigot who belongs in the BNP.

      1. That’s a bit strong, dAVID! :)

        I strongly support equal marriage, and I hope that others do too. But there are some people who are naturally very wary of change, especially to very old insitutions. It makes them feel a bit insecure and anxious.

        There seem to be a lot of people who strongly support civil partnerships, but are wary of supporting equal marriage: not because they are bigots, but because they feel uneasy about familiar things changing radically, or the word “marriage” is so strongly associated with a man in a tailcoat and a woman in a wedding dress, and they can’t get their heads around anything different.

        If we know that such people are generally decent and supportive people, maybe we can be a bit patient with them. We will definitely get equal marriage: and soon afterwards, most of the doubters will wonder what they were worried about.

        1. Sorry but that is wrong and you need to stop making excuses for bigotry.

          These bigots may be wary of the change but the fact is that civil marriage is a civil right which is not up for ‘consultation’.

          Opposing equal civil rights for a law-abiding minority is BNP-style politics.

          This man is an extremist who is unfit for public office.

          1. dAVID

            I am unwilling to make excuses for bigotry. But I am willing to recognise that good people so often make mistakes and errors of judgment, and I try to forgive them for that when I feel able to. If they had grown up gay, and been on the receiving end of a life of homophobic prejudice, and experienced what that can do to people, they would certainly know better. I used to be very angry about discrimination, and found that I was actually unable to enjoy my life as I felt angry all the time. I decided not to let people do that to me any more. I still get angry, but I have set the barrier for getting angry higher, for my own good as much as for anything else. I don’t want to feel angry all the time, as there are other things I value feeling as well.

            “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” (S. Weinberg)

    2. bobbleobble 27 Aug 2012, 10:22pm

      He’s not the only one. Stephen Pound has also indicated he’s voting against. At least Joe Benton and the other Labour MPs currently voting against are being consistantly bigoted.

  4. Harrassment.

    1. No, democracy. Why shouldn’t Mr Sheerman explain his policies to his constituents?

      Note that Mr Sheerman does not appear to share your opinion, since he discussed his views with the students. I may disagree with him about marriage, but at least he understands the importance of reasoned debate.

      Harassment – offensive or threatening messages, stalking,etc. – is a different matter. I see no evidence that Mr Fosbrook or anyone else in this student group has harassed their MP.

    2. That’s right. We should never expect elected representatives to receive, er, representation.
      Any more pearls of wisdom?

  5. Apparently, Barry Sheerman thinks that the UK is a theocracy.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Aug 2012, 2:13pm

      Technically, it is a theocracy. A monarch who heads it, laws passed in the House of Lords among them 26 clerics and the CoE is the state cult. The latter’s strong opposition to equal civil marriage should hopefully start a national debate on disestablishing it altogether. That’s why a lot of Tories don’t want Lords’ reform. I strongly support the abolition of the HoL entirely. It’s undemocratic, not representative of the people and of course, unelected. New Zealand functions nicely without it.

      1. And of course, existing MPs get the opportunity to have a second bite at the juicy cherry, provided they have been compliant enough.
        No wonder they don’t want the HoL reforming.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Aug 2012, 4:48pm

          Exactly, Ray!

  6. GingerlyColors 27 Aug 2012, 2:09pm

    Common students, give him hell.

  7. I absolutely HATE the terms “devout Christian” and “committed Christian”!

    What the hell does that mean anyway?

    It is ALWAYS used to mean “anti-gay Christian” so why not just say so? The fact of the matter is, neither being a devout nor committed Christian excludes nor exempts a person from supporting full and equal justice for gay people and their families. I would be willing to wager that most devout and committed Christians are supportive of gay equality, INCLUDING marriage equality and they credit their faith’s teachings on fairness, compassion and justice for their positions.

    1. “devout Christian” and “committed Christian”?

      Just another expression for poisonous bigot.

    2. well, technically, a “devout Christian” would be a poor, avowed socialist, who believes in absolute equality for all, and the total separation of church and state, but is against divorce…

      So how many people really fit that description?

  8. SmallManBigWorld 27 Aug 2012, 3:47pm

    No mention in the article that he’s a Labour MP. Had he been a Tory, you would have highlighted it – big time. Pink News stinks

    1. That’s odd.

      You’d think that the fact that he is in Labour would be the headline.

      After all you almost EXPECT the Tories to be disgusting hate-mongers.

      Not so much Labour. So why was his affiliation with Labour not mentioned.

  9. Apparently, some labour MP’s opposed legalisation in 1967. Their pretext was that “Toffs” would be able to take advantage of the sons of the workers;-). It’s more likely they were theocrats piggy backing into parliament on the back of a mainstream part,. as happens now of course. All that mammon must difficult to resist, even for the most devout. How much more honest it would be if they took their chances and stood as religious party candidates?

  10. Don Harrison 27 Aug 2012, 6:33pm

    There was nothing in the old or new testament relating to homosexuality when you go back to the original script. It was later translations which have been less helpful.
    Basically there are NO religious reasons why too of the same sex should not be married.
    The population of the world is not a need for a opposite sex marriage.
    Any opposition is just HOMOPHOBIA.

    1. Quite frankly it is completely irrelevant what the BuyBull says about anything.

      It should have nothing to do with setting our laws.

  11. Just wish the govt would pull it’s finger out and write a bill with some precise details to argue with. At the moment you ask a MP what he thinks of SS marriage and quite often he says I need to see what is being proposed and how it will affect the church etc etc. At the moment we simply have a consultation with a host of unanswered questions. The French , the NZealders etc produce somethiong concrete , what do we do…dither!

  12. There has been a very long struggle in the Labour Party to encourage it to adopt LGBT equal rights policies. I recall the campaign of Labour activists in the 80s to encourage the Party to support an LGB age of consent of 16, when the National Executive only wanted to lower it from 21 to 18. I also recall Labour MPs who were opposed to lowering it at all.

    The Lib Dems, and the Liberals before them, have always had a very good record on LGB rights, so far as I can recall.

    The Conservative Party is going through the same process that the Labour Party went through in the 80s, and is rapidly catching up. The biggest impediment to progress in the Conservative Party is the lamentable influence of evangelical fundamentalist Christians and reactionary Catholics. But they are losing their foothold.

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.