There need not be a clamour, there is no justice if 1 person is discriminated against, let alone 1000 or 1million. Perhaps he would like to indicate on the sliding scale of justice that seem to exist inside his ridiculous head where the actual tipping point is?
Religious exemptions are well understood – indeed, the legislative right to discriminate was put in the Equality Act 2010, at the insistence of the religious who wanted their bigotry enshrined because they simply could not bear to act like rational civilised human beings.
Plus, of course, he’s a mendacious bloody quisling. Nor does he speak with anything resembling the authority that he seeks to assert.
Just another self-loathing Uncle Tom Tory.
Read ” there is no clamour for this at all within the gay community” as “I’m ambivalent, haven’t done any research and assume I speak for everyone because… Well just cuz really…” What a tosser. He had better never get married.
Yes indeed another Uncle Tom.
With friends like these who needs enemies.
or as a friend of mine once said: “With friends like these, who needs enemas?”
It is an undeniable fact that there are indeed large segments of the LGBT community here in Britain who are “clamoring” for the right to equal marriage; if there wasn’t, then there wouldn’t have been campaigns to introduce it.
If Mr Burns (and I’m surely not alone in thinking of the miserly right-wing character in The Simpsons) cannot see any value in equal marriage for himself, then that’s fine. He’s entitled to that. But his claims for the Queer community as a whole are simply nonsense, and show how utterly out of touch with that wider community he is. Worse still, they will cause real damage to LGBT people because anti-equal marriage campaigners on the political right of the Tory Party (and elsewhere), will jump on his claims, proclaiming “look, gay people don’t want marriage, so we don’t have to give it to then!”. Actually, many of us do want the right to marry, and I personally believe that it is only a small but relatively vocal minority of gay individuals who do not.
What’s the problem with people having choice? The same choices that everyone else from the highest to the lowest in society enjoy? Nothing more, nothing less. It is irrelevant how many or how few people avail themselves, the important thing is that choice should be there, just as it is for everyone else.
Another traitor who puts his loyalty to the Church of Rome above people’s basic civil rights.
I’ve asked many people (including Nadine Dorries) to point me to a case where the ECHR has forced a religious organisation to carry out a same-sex marriage in any ECHR country where marriage is equal.
I’m still awaiting an answer.
This argument only reveals the empty headedness of those who pursue it. This man should not be in the House of Commons.
Churches have been given exemptions from equalities legislation for doctrinal reasons since 1975 when the Sexual Discrimination Act was passed and never has the ECHR or any court that I’m aware of overruled those exemptions and forced a church to go against its doctrinal teachings. Why is it that the churches were happy to accept the protection of all of those exemptions previously but not in this instance? It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
There is also a specific exemption for them in the Gender Recognition Act, from marrying someone who has benefited from the act’s other provisions, which they have never claimed left them vulnerable to an ECHR case.
This is discrimination against gay people, who believe in God. This is actually horror. I am used to be shouted at by straight fellow Christians, what a surprise there. But I actually do despise from the bottom of my heart those gays, who stab the back of fellow gays, by following the atheist talibanism of today’s society. As a gay Christian I fight at a lot of frontiers. The Pope calls us not completely developed human beings, the straight refuse us the right to be a family, the gay radical atheists steal the rest of our happiness by being as cold and arrogant to us as the worst right wing catholics. I actually start to hate gay atheists! Taking the p’ss of every serious thought, these guys I regard as evil and hateful. I do not mind what they believe, it is not my business, but being procecuted by fellow gays is just unacceptable.
Good grief, quite a martyr complex you’ve got going on there.
Here’s the thing, as an atheist, I would gladly not give a single damn about religion and would not care if you decided to worship the fairies at the bottom of your garden. Your faith has no effect on anyone, any more than your sexual orientation does.
But this is the problem – Organised religion will seek to consolidate wealth and power by exerting influence over others and it has done this for a very long time. The moment it forces its way into law, education, social policy etc then it must be called out and the more oppressive it is, the more it will be vilified. Have no doubt that the key argument against marriage equality is based in religion (with a little “gays are icky” nonsense which is ignored because it’s ridiculous).
There is no consensus on what the dogma of any religion you care to name actually means, nor is belief in it universal, is must therefore be excluded from the law making process.
Bit of an oxymoron that.
The Pope hates you.
God Hates you.
Jesus said nothing, depending on what nutter interprets it.
Mohammed followers want you dead.
Priests vilify you.
Vicars tell congregations to sign petitions against you.
GET IT YET.
Its all SH!TE
Newsflash, there are Christian denominations that consider gay relationships completely compatible with Christianity, and no one has any real claim to what God thinks. The leaders of various denominations have homophobic values, but they do not represent the whole of Christianity any more than Richard Dawkins represents the whole of atheism. Jesus literally was never quoted in the Bible saying anything about gay people or relationships, that is not a matter of interpretation. The interpretation comes in only when talking about what Paul said, if one considers him an authority. I’m not sure why you think Islamic positions are at all relevant to this conversation, as while they consider Jesus a valid prophet they don’t give his positions particular weight, but there are also clear pro-gay reform movements within Islam. Again, not a monolith.
I’m not defending Micheal’s misguided attitude, just pointing out yours.
Your post saddened me. All the ill will that is wished on our community by religions is eclipsed, for you, by Gay people who fight through argument (and ridicule) the attackers that wish us serious harm. Surely even those who have a strong faith must realise how much brainwashing is involved. The church has absolutely no reason to hate us – and yet they do. You sound like a passionate and thoughtful person. Please recognise the truth of the position you have put yourself in.
There is as much proof of god’s existence as there is for Santa Claus. Any one with a fully functioning brain can see that. The only thing that religion has brought to society is hate, violence and abuse of power.
Well he’s definitely not representing the Bournemouth gay community …… he’s not even from Bournemouth anyway … clearly if he doesn’t want to marry noone else should get the opportunity either. Duh!
The man is deluded . !! like many of the dinosaurs and two facedness in the Tory party.
I can understand being worried about religions being forced to put aside their bigotry to support the humanity of people they disapprove of. I discussed this with Mother Janet O’Keefe, my local Catholic priest about how she was forced to marry a divorced atheist to a jew…
…except I didn’t. Because the catholic church doesn’t allow female priests – even though sex discrimination has been illegal for some time. And they don’t have to marry divorcees – despite being legal – nor do they have to marry people from other faiths – despite being discrimination against other faiths.
Why, one would almost think that religious exemption to equality laws was common place, understood and never ever under threat! But surely this would mean the bigots are lying through their back teeth to scrape up a reason!
One assumes irony in your comment…..
Best comment ever!!! (Pardon the hyperbole)
but he does fit the pattern of other GBLT tories we’ve seen on Pink news – caring little for GBLT people, always ready to make excuses for homophobia, caring little about our rights
In other words – VOTE FOR ME.
Bournemouth West; remember that and make sure this religiously deluded and brainwashed idiot windbag is sent packing at the next election.
Perhaps it something to do with his ugliness.
Ugliness as a gay man wishing to deny others their rights.
Ugliness as a religious freak wishing to deny other religions their rights.
Ugliness as a person abusing his position and lying to the press with this unquantifiable bilge.
I am screaming out for FULL marriage rights as I am sick of feeling second best.
No need to read further. Stockholm Syndrome. Sad.
Sad self-hating religionist
Well said-I don’t know if you read Mathew Paris’ article in the Times last Saturday-but he said that when any public figure makes negative remarks about gay people’s rights-he immediately looks them up on WiKipedia. And YES- it clearly says Conor Burns is a Roman Catholic. Enough said!
Lay Catholics are generally supportive of equal marriage, a fairly liberal bunch. It’s the senior clergy, on orders from the Vatican, that are making the most derogatory remarks.
Burns completely missing the point. Mostly it’s straight people who express support for gay marriage because they recognize the type of society they want to live in, raise children in: one that is fair and treats everyone with decency. Not a huge leap of the imagination.
I am now convinced that CallmeDave and his Law and Justice Homophobic Tories now intend to kick Marriage Equality into the long grass. The wheeling out of self hating Tory “Gays” to claim that there is no call for Marriage Equality is proof positive of this. LIt is becoming monotonously regular, and there is only one reason for it and that is the Cameron has had a change of heart. The fact that he totally ignored it during his Convention speech is even more proof. Well on his own stupid toff head be it because we will have Equality no matter what the Tories think. We need to start our campaign to unseat the Tories now and not wait til 2014. We have momentum and we should increase it exponentially until they table a bill or say Nay. We certainly must not wait until 2015. It will be way too late then…..
He’s the Tories’ answer to Ben Bradshaw !
If he thinks there is no clamour for equal marriage within the gay community, he should have a word with Matthew Parris.
There’s an interesting interview with Matthew in tonight’s Evening Standard but unfortunately Pink News seems to have missed it !
“the gay community has expressed “no clamour” of support for the right to marry”
Well it’s time the LGBT community in Bournemouth gave him a wake up call. They did it with Barry Sheerman!
His arguments about the ECHR have been refuted by many legal experts, even the CofE in their response to the consultation admitted that it was only the Quakers and the like that had a case in Europe and not those churches that didn’t want to do SSMs.
Does LGBTory condemn the bigotry of Conor Burns?
By ” the gay community” I assume he means himself and his two friends. What an ignorant, selfish man. There is PLENTY of clamour – he’s either too self-centred to hear it or he’s simply lying.
The bit about redefining marriage looked like a giveaway to me. Seems all he’s really concerned about is licking the boots of those homophobes in his religion. Embarrassing.
What a load of cobblers ….
If the HRA was going to overule opt outs for religious organisations why wouldn’t it have do so already appropos employment etc?
Catholics & tories are well known for promoting the virtues of marriage as the bedrock of society and family life. The only difference in this case is that the citizens concerned are LGBTI. Which leaves only prejudice.
I trust Conor will equally speak out for the right of those religious orgs whpo wish to host ssm’s to be included in the legislation.
On a positive note, the appearance of Sein Fein & SDLP on the pro side suggests things are evolving even amongst the religious catholic parties. Let’s hope that Conor has not reached the end of his (unusual) political and personal journey
History lesson fella – “separate but equal” – coming from NI you’d think he’d be a little bit more tuned in to basic human rights. Idiot!
Contact him on Twitter on
He just loves hearing from the public.
Perhaps no one has clamoured to marry HIM.
Please ensure he stays on your side of the Atlantic, or, should he wish to cross, that he SWIM.
“There need not be a clamour, there is no justice if 1 person is discriminated against, let alone 1000 or 1million. ”
Yet when I have stated on here that equal marrige would open the door to incestuous marriage and polygamy , the deviants on here have replie that there is no call for it..
Thank you for conceding that it does not matter whether 1000 or 1 million are discriminated against. The principles that you hold are that consenting adults should be allowed to marry, whatever their sexual prefernces. This obviously includes polygamy and incest.
There is no discrimination if you prevent everyone from marrying their proximate family members. There is not discrimination if you prevent everyone from marrying more than one person. There is discrimiatnion if gay people can’t have access to marriage. Therefore Valsky’s comment is fine.
Incest and polygamy are not sexual preferences.
“What’s the problem with people having choice? The same choices that everyone else from the highest to the lowest in society enjoy? Nothing more, nothing less. It is irrelevant how many or how few people avail themselves, the important thing is that choice should be there, just as it is for everyone else.”
There is no discrimination if you prevent everyone from marrying a person of the opposite sex, is is the case at present.
I did not say polygamy and incest ae sexual preferences and sexual preference is not a legal consideration in marriage. The law on marriage applies equally to all whatever their sexual preference. It just happens to impact the deviants more just as the smoking ban impacts the filthy smokers more yet that does not mean that non smokers are allowed to light up in pubs.
Also, polygamy and incest are choices that consenting adults would like to have available. On which grounds would you deny two three consenting adult brothers from marrying each other?
His meds have worn off again. Ignore him hon, his nurses will be along to put the backwards jacket back on shortly.
As usual, an ad hominem attack when difficult questions arise.
Not able to answer why three consenting adult brothers should not be allowed to marry?
Consider yourself defeated!
And you should consider yourself defecated.
Actually, I can, with ease. But there’s no point because you are incapable of following legal argument, or listening to reason.
Reading the article Mr Burns is apparently a “personal friend” of Thatcher. Even in her present state she has a greater grasp on reality than this clown.
It’s also interesting to read his CV. A politics degree, followed by lobbying jobs, before going into Parliament. Everything that’s wrong with our democracy in a nutshell.
Not sure that someone’s mental health, even Lady Thatcher’s, is grounds for personal comment David
If there’s any slur in what I wrote it is aimed at Mr Burns, not at Maggie T. She might have been an evil old crone, but I wouldn’t wish senile dementia on anyone.
I can only assume he’s mentally unwell. He’s certainly detached from anything approaching reality.
The problem is, of course, easily resolved: remove the right of all religious institutions carry our wedding, whatever the gender of the couple.
Blessings can still go on (if people are really determined to have their invisible chum’s seal of approval)
If the religious loons can’t play nicely with their toys, take them away: separate the church from the state.
I totally agree, marriage should be a civil ceremony only.
If Cameron has not published his legislative timetable for marriage equality by Christmas (2012) then it is probably safe to say that he has zero intention of introducing it.
We’ll remember that betrayal at election time.
I thought the Tory party was supposed to promote marriage not be negative about it. If marriage is good for society, the individual, children etc etc then obviously marriage is good for gays so why isn’t he as a Tory promoting it?
And by the way not all straights are clamouring to get married but it’s you party that is supposed to be the party all for marriage. If your promoting it for straight then it’s illogicial not to promote it for gays and by the way churches already have the option to refuse to conduct marriages. As far as I know you can’t get married in a church if you’ve been divorced.
What a cynical exercise in vote grabbing from conservative Conservatives. Perhaps if he lifted his head up from his pit of self loathing occasionally, then he’d hear that there IS indeed clamour for equality, both from gay people and those who are not gay but believe that equality is a fundamental requirement for a fair society.
Ostridge syndrom. What a pleb! He has no idea what he is talking about. Where do people like this come from?
The deviant brigade propose that no consenting adults should be barred from marriage and that it should no longer be one man one woman.
However, if there are no restrictions other than age and consent, the case for incestuous and polygamous unions is a strong one since they may also claim discrimination, and there woul be no grounds on which to defeat them if consening aults should be allowed to marry.
It would then be legal for three brothers and their father to marry each other and bugger each other. Whether this would happen is irrelevant, it would be legal.
Rubbish. And while I know you are a troll with what you think is a gotcha, it is still worthwhile to point out to the equally ignorant why your argument is bunk:
Incest is illegal. This is due to both genetic/heredity concerns as well as in the inherent issue power in familial structures – both inter and intra generational – that causes full informed consent (to both sex and to a marriage which also requires consent) to be inherently suspect.
Marriage equality simply makes existing legislation gender blind. To try and equate that to a mutiple-partner relationship is apples and oranges as the latter would require a re-building of marriage law to determine the relationships between all parties. We understand the relationship person A married to person B. But if A marries B and C, we do not understand the legal consequences. If people who want multiple partner marriages (I have no objection to this) they have to be in accord on what they want and lobby for it.
I am aware that incest is illegal, so is gay marriage. It is the illegality that is in question.
Incestuous liasons between consenting homosexual adults cannot produce offspring. Are you opposed to marriage for the homosexual incestuous? Do you think homosexual incest is morally wrong? If so, on which grounds?
If so, on which grounds?
I know you troll this site with heterophobic ad hominem attacks but in this instance, an objective, considered reply to my ‘probing’ questions would be reveal much.
The fact that you do not mind living in a society where polygamy is permitted is quite scary indeed, especially if your views represent the majority in your ‘community’.
It also appears that your only objectiosn to incest and incestuous marriage are harm based and not morally based, which would afford those incestuous deviants the right to practice their filth. Do you have sexual morals?
Insest is always wrong, no matter what the gender of the participants, as in most cases there is serious emotional or physical abuse involved.
Homosexuality is always wrong too! CONSENSUAL adult incest can and does take place and is abuse free.
Oh dear me, it’s chicken little. Guess what, the sky won’t fall in.
Of course, this entire argument is utterly disingenuous given that most incest is heterosexual and those cultures that still practice polygamy are also heterosexual. It is a dog whistle to try and attach incest/multiple partner r/ships to being LGBT when straight people have a monopoly on those things.
If I was feeling dishonest, I could blame straight marriage for this. But I am not. What we do know is that marriage between one man and one woman has not led to demands for legal recognition of incestuous or poly r/ships. And to suggest that marriage equality will cause this is a logical fallacy of the highest order.
“Of course, this entire argument is utterly disingenuous given that most incest is heterosexual and those cultures that still practice polygamy are also heterosexual”
Most sex is heterosexual of any sort. Homosexuality sex is also in the minority, besides, was it not you that supported the rights of the minorities a few posts ago, turncoat?
LOL @ thin end of the wedge fallacy.
Please get a new argument. This one makes you look foolish.
And a little sad too TBH, even without that father/son four-way thing that gives us a glimpse into how your mind works. Honestly, that you even think of something like that shows you up as not right.
I am not suggesting it is the thin end of the wedge and I doubt there will be a large take up of incest or polygamy. I simply do not want it to be legal in society yet the call for deviant marriage empowers the call for polygamy and homosexual incestuous marriage since the grounds are the same, that of adult consent.It may be succesfully argued that consenting adults should have the right to marry any number of other consenting adults, be they 1, 2 or more or be they related or not.
is it not the homo deviant mantra that what consenting adults do in private is nobody’s business? Homodeviants, incestuous and polygamists may all argue that they consent so why should the homodeviant community be favoured above the homoincestuous community and the polygamist community?
speak for yourself you self-loathing imbecile.
Traitor! i’ve had enough of vile gay christians and their bizarre masochistic behaviour.
“Incest is illegal. This is due to both genetic/heredity concerns as well as in the inherent issue power in familial structures – both inter and intra generational – that causes full informed consent (to both sex and to a marriage which also requires consent) to be inherently suspect”
incst is not illegal due to any power mongering issues and power is not even a factor in marital considerations otherwise there would be bans on such legal power issues asthings as teenge girls marrying rich old men or deviant .
However, I take it that should marriage ever be available for same sex couples or triples or quads etc etc, you would support a call for restricting such marriages only to those that could deemed free of control/power issues?This would rule out large age gaps, money gaps etc etc. Social engineering the likes we thankfully do not have but you appear to support!
Hahaha!! Yes I spotted it…this idiots Catholic!! That will probably account for this ridiculous comment!!
I’m sorry Gary, it has nothing to do with us clamoring for the ‘right’ to marry!!! It’s called Human Rights…look it up!!!
Fine…you’re happy with CP….But you/we have to have the right of choice, as do we all, regardless of sexuality. So even those who are straight should have the choice of marriage or CP!!
““Incest is illegal. This is due to both genetic/heredity concerns as well as in the inherent issue power in familial structures – both inter and intra generational – that causes full informed consent (to both sex and to a marriage which also requires consent) to be inherently suspect””
So what? Lot’s of unions are also suspect. Is it not the deviant argument that what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms is nobody’s business or are you now saying that it is sometimes appropriate to restrict sexual activity between consenting adults, for instance when there is a potential power issue? Does this not underine your main argument that consenting adult sexual activity should suffer no government interference and as adults are free to decide for themselves?
If you now say that government should legislate to prevent power issues, (which they currently do not in marriage) I propose that they should also legislate to prevent homosexual which harms society morally.
The point, you ridiculous twunt, is that the CONSENT itself may not be legitimate. I know the concept of legally competent consenting adult being the fundamental requirement of human sexuality under law in the UK boggles your mind. But that is how the world works.
You are a total basket case. You seem to think that two adults that are family members cannot consent to a mutually agreed sex act ecause it is incest and incest is illegal., The fact is that consent may be given for an illegal act or did you not know that non consensual sex is rape? Two family members that agreed to have sex wold not be charged with rape.
Homo acts used to be criminal, so by YOUR confused reasoning, consent was never given for those homosexual acts? .
The law could be changed for the incestuous deviants as it was for the homodeviants because as the homodeviants such as yourself say, whatever adults do in their own bedrooms is their business.
Would you restrict the sexual activity of two consenting adults just because they are family and why do you deem incest immoral yet not homosexuality?
Repulsive as sex between hetero family members is, it is not close to the depravity of same sex relations.
You favour change in the law for your filth only, not other filth.
Ignore him, Valksy. He’s a sad and desperate attention-seeker. See how he’s aimed all those comments at you just because you gave him a bit of attention. It’s impossible to reason with him – he’s incapable of holding anything approaching a logical discussion (and believe me I’ve tried in the past). See how he’s started a new comment each time where he’s actually replying to a previous comment because he’s so desperate to have some kind of response that he keeps hoping someone will reply.
I pity him – but I ignore him. PN will remove all his venomous/mad comments anyway. He’s been blocked but he keeps using different ISPs because he’s that desperate for attention. Don’t give it to him – satisfying for you, and ultimately better for his mental health as the more responses he receives, the madder his comments become and he gets himself into a right state.
It will come out later that money has been involved in that statement. You mark my words.
What selfish hateful person. Just because you don’t have a strong enough love with someone, doesn’t give you the right to try and stop others who do and want to be married.
As an American, it truly blows my mind how many self-loathing gay men there are in the British Isles. Truly pathetic.
These people just give the other side more ammunition.
And Gay Catholic is an oxymoron.
Yeah, the Brits are so self-loathing. You never heard of GOProud or something?
And an oxymoron has to involve terms that, while true, are inherently contradictory on the face, not that have implied characteristics that are contradictory.
What a sad man – having to apologise for his own life.
Ridiculous arguments from someone whose very existence (as a gay man) is an affront to the religion he follows. I’ve not heard there has ever been any serious attempt to get the Catholic Church to marry divorced heterosexual couples – it is accepted that they don’t do it, just as it would be that they would never marry same-sex couples, but that certainly shouldn’t give this (or any other) religious organisation the right to try and ban same-sex marriage under any circumstances, including by those religious organisations which would be happy to do perform them. There is no logic behind this man’s arguments, just blind prejudice.
Two words: Uncle Tom