Of course your not homophobic… oh wait.. yes you are Mr Davies.
Marriage is a right that should not be rationed it creates stability and stability creates a better society. Deal with it.
Mr. Davies attitude may well be why he’s on the backbenches and not in Cabinet.
Ignorance must be bliss for him… but how very dull he is.
PinkNews, why don’t you create a gallery page of all those people, usually Tories and religious persons, who are revealing themselves as homophobes by stating their wish not to “contaminate” marriage by letting the gays in.
A whole page, please. Photographs, names, and positions.
A “rogues” gallery.
I see a giant billboard in Trafalgar Square, headed with:
“These people have stated beliefs showing that they believe that sharing the institution of marriage with people who are homosexual will contaminate marriage. These people are homophobes.”
And then all the faces, along with names, and designations.
A sort of shooting gallery
What’s Mr Davies record on gay rights? Did he support civil partnership or did he vote against it? It’d be interesting to know.
Only elected since May 2010, so I doubt they’ll take much notice of him.
I stopped reading at “Tory…”
So many people don’t seem to realise how homophobic they are.
“a word which has great meaning for hundreds of thousands of good people”
Question: Why then does he want to deny us that wonderful institution?
Answer: He’s a homophobe.
“If this proposal was going to confer some new right upon gay people I would probably support it.”
Did he vote on CPs, I wonder.
Just tried to search his voting record and can’t seem to find anything. But what I did find was that he apparently never votes against his party but that looks very likely to change.
He wasn’t an MP when CPs were introduced.
Ah OK, that’ll be why I could not find anything. Thanks.
On a positive, he is 68, well past retirement age so he should do us all a favour and retire.
The phrase “equal but different” springs to mind.
An example of how ignorant so many straight people are about equal marriage. He genuinely doesn’t think that he’s homophobic but can’t see how his words contradict that.
I’d like to ask him a question: Why should someone’s sexuality deny them a right any more than someone’s skin colour?
Civil marriage is a legal contract and it should be available to everyone.
Extending marriage to interracial couples in the US didn’t ‘redefine’ marriage; it didn’t affect the marriages of same-race couples; and it didn’t destroy marriage. Allowing LGBT people to marry won’t do any of those things either.
And yes, equal marriage WOULD bestow more rights regarding pensions. It’d also make it clear that LGBT people are NOT second class citizens.
He is too blinkered by his own homophobia to realise that.
What is this “ill defined message” to which he refers?
I, for one would like to know.
It’s probably so ill-defined that he doesn’t know himself! There’s often a lot of vagueness in what anti-equal marriage people say, I’ve noticed.
The only things that are ill-defined are their arguments for being against equal marriage.
I hope in his response to Mr Davies, Mr Cameron points out the actual arguments in favour of marriage equality centred on the inherent bigotry of segregating LGBTs from straights enshrined in the Civil Partnership Act. By getting rid of this historic prejudice – which has no more logic behind it than segregating people with big feet or who are left handed – the coalition govt is pulling back the frontiers of state interference in people’s private lives. The PM, Chancellor of the Exchequer and other leading Tories who have the grace to recognise the justice of marriage equality are not just ‘doing the right thing’ but are also securing the future of the Conservative Party by upgrading one of its core values – safeguarding citizens from excessive state interference. It is a shame that Mr Davies is clinging on to the older paradigm so stubbornly and does not offer the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and his party more support.
I wonder just how bigoted some people are.
Just because somebody has a faith or belief that same-sex marriage is wrong does not make them necessarily homophobic. The two facts are not mutually exclusive. Just because I think the churches are reactionary controlling bigots does not mean I am anti-Christian.
At least the man has the bottle to say how he feels. OK, I think he is wrong, but he should be entitled to say so without being branded with nasty epithets.
Most people of faith still choose what to believe. Not all Catholics think that Equal Marriage or contraception is wrong. Most cherry pick the bits that suit their way of thinking. He has revealed himself with his ignorant arguments as a homophobe.
In 1950s USA some Christians allied themselves with Biblical teaching on racial integration. I would imagine they tended to be the racist ones.
Susan B. Anthony “I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.”
In the ’30′s there were Christian followers of N@zism.
Like I said, don’t tar people with such a broad brush.
There are also gay people against same-sex marriage; one cannot simply pigeon-hole somebody because of a single line of thinking.
Thats religion for you.
OH FFS there is no god.
But he hasn’t even formulated his opposing ideas properly, Spanner. I don’t think he’s being nasty just ignorant, but he should have thought a bit more about the issue before saying what he did.
It seems to me to boil down to a vague idea that he ‘doesn’t like it’. Fine – absolutely fine – but no-one’s going to compel him to marry someone of the same sex, are they? Moreover, if he’s going to vote on withholding rights from a minority to which he doesn’t belong, he should think very carefully first. It might not be important to him but it is to many, many LGBT people, and as an MP (and a human being) he should be able to understand that better.
Same old tiresome droning homophobia and misinformation we’ve been hearing throughout from the anti-equality enthusiasts.
To quote Theresa May on the Tory manifesto document “A Contract For Equalities” where the pledge was made to look at introducing same sex marriage,
“In this contract, as with the others, the Conservatives are saying that if we fail to make progress in these areas and do not deliver on our side of the bargain, then vote us out in five years time.
“This contract for equalities will be central to what we plan to do in government”
Sweaty, homophobic troglodyte!
Maybe the homophobic tory MP’s should defect to a party that better suits them – the BNP
Or an Islamic fundamentalist party.
Do you know- I am really beginning to wonder whether its POSSIBLE to modernise the tory party? There must be serious doubts in David Cameron’s mind by now-surely? And – if it is impossible- whats that going to do for them at the next election?
It DOES confer a new right on us though doesn’t it. With marriage our relationships will be recognised in those countries that either have or recognise same-sex marriages, whereas UK CPs are utterly useless once you step outside of the UK.
“….It just redefines a word which has great meaning for hundreds of thousands of good people across Britain….”
Because, y’know, homosexual citizens can’t at all be considered “good people”, can we?
No, we have to make do with sitting at the back of the bus. “Will you civil partnership me?” It just doesn’t have the same meaning.
Glyn Davis is a typical bronze age homophobe from the bogs of Montgomeryshire. i don’t think anybody ever expected anything different from this ignorant homophobic dinosaur. It makes one wonder what sort of people elect these backward beings. it will be such sweet revenge when Cameron finally gets his finger out and does the right thing which is to introduce a Marriage Equality Bill which will cover the entire UK; anything less will condemn those of us living in the North of Ireland and Scotland to second class citizenship as the backward homophobes in these two constituencies are firmly in thrall to the whole religious cult thing and we will, have to wait the next 100 years for equality otherwise……
Better to live in a bog than the sewer where you deviant lot reside. It must be hard to live in a world where you perceive 90 percent of the population to be homophobiuc bigots. No wonder suicide is disproportionate amongst the paedo, sc@t and homodeviant commnuities.
My IQ must have dropped a point after reading that.
Or was it two points?
Dumb self loather!
Please. Don’t even TRY to give the impression this man might be gay. No LGBT person would lower themselves that far.
Erm…according to the latest surveys a majority of the population believe we should have equal rights to marriage. Given that a further 10-15% say they don’t know enough about it to give an opinion either way that would only leave around 30-35% against. A percentage that seems to be falling year on year.
So where exactly do you get this 90% figure from? Or are you pulling the usual trick for someone who’s lost an argument and appealing to a “silent majority” that doesn’t actually exist?
Don’t worry, I don’t expect an answer. People who act like you rarely give one.
David, don’t bother wasting your time with that self-loathing piece of human detritus. He’s a psychopathic liar.
He fails to mention that “Christian” Marriage was initially defined by the council of trent in the 1500′s, ofcourse then it was redefined by Henry the 8th so he could get a divorce.
As Judge Walker put it in the California Prop 8 case, if there is no difference between a civil partnership and a marriage then there is only one reason why you would want to maintain a different name for the one into which a particular group is forced to accept and that has to be one of discrimination.
Separate is not equal.
The problem is the word ‘homo-phobe’ he is not scared of homos. He thinks we are lesser types of humanbeings and therefore should be treated that way.
Has anyone found a better alternative for this ‘phobe’ thing?
Phobia means “Fear, horror, or aversion, esp. of a morbid character. In Psychol., an abnormal and irrational fear or dread which is caused by a particular object or circumstance.” (Oxford English Dictionary, full edition.)
So Glyn Davies is a homophobe. He has such a deep aversion to homosexual people that the thought of sharing the institution of marriage with “queers” fills him with sufficient anger to state that under no circumstances should queers be allowed to enjoy marriage.
But fear, horror, or aversion is not something you can prove and is easily denied. He does however think gays do not deserve the same right as straights, because we’re different when we are not.
Same goes for racism, misogynists and anti-semitism, same thing. There is no fear or horror in these terminologies. True racists have no problem to acknowledge that they are racist, but telling them that they fear blacks would surely be denied.
Mooz, you have to draw the line somewhere! And stating that the institution of marriage will be demeaned, desecrated, dirtied, by the inclusion of people who are homosexual is pretty good evidence, absolute proof, of the belief that homosexual people are repugnant.
Homosexuals will contaminate marriage = homosexuals are dirty!
The case is plain.
They are homophobes.
This form of the “I’m not homophobic but..” argument has a laughably big hole.
To make us look petty, the argument claims CPs give all the same rights (not true) and then minimises the benefits of marriage equality – as Mr Davies put it, “It just redefines a word… for no real purpose, other than to convey some ill-defined ‘message’”.
Let’s suppose this was true. If that was all that marriage equality meant, why on earth would anyone bother to oppose it? We redefine words all the time, and nobody gets agitated about it (maybe a few grammar geeks..).
Obviously Mr Davies does _not_ believe that marriage equality “just” redefines a word. He believes that it changes the meaning of marriage in a way which is worth getting terribly upset about.
And so it should be obvious to him that the word is important. And so much more important to us, being continually reminded of being excluded from it, than to Mr Davies and others who would prefer to keep it that way.
This video will at least make you smile!
Hats off to these guys for making a point!
I find the following text is an excellent rebuttal of these idiots who “THINK” marriage is religious.
The first written legal texts defining marriage and marriage ‘rights’ date to about 2000 BC and the Code of Hammurabi in ancient Babylonia.
The primary focus of that legal framework was collective social stability and the transfer of legitimate individual property rights.
That focus was further refined by the imperial judicial codes of the late Roman Empire under the Emperors Theodosius and Justinian between 340-735 AD.
Love and God were NOT considered of much importance. Stability and property rights were.
To this day the interest in social order and protection of property rights remains the fundamental justification of civil marriage sanctioned by government.
Indeed, that justification has been so strong that little change has occurred in the traditional definition of civil marriage.
Additionally, we have to look at the root of our current religious marriage doctrines…..
Worldwide historical religious marriage beliefs and rituals have been extremely diverse.
The more structured expectations of religious marriage did not really develop in western culture until 1563 when the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent made reforms to the holy sacrament of marriage in response to the Protestant Reformation.
Prior to that ‘religious marriage’ was a private affair with various pagan or Christian rituals conducted at the discretion of the participants.
The Council of Trent also established the distinct separation between civil and religious marriage, as advocated by protestant reformers, which we practice to this very day.
The Roman Catholic Church reformed the marriage sacrament for four primary reasons:
Firstly to encourage the covenant of marriage, according the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul as a means to spread the faith of the Gospels.
Secondly to counter the Protestant Reformation and re-establish the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church liturgies.
Thirdly to increase political influence over the rising royal family elites of Europe.
And fourthly, to increase tax revenues collected by the Church from both royals and laypersons.
Marriage is not, and never has been, a solely Christian practice. It has existed in many cultures spanning the globe long before the formation of the Christian church. Christianity borrowed previously established pagan ceremonies and feast days throughout the course of its history — eg St Brigid, Christmas Day, the Christmas tree — and marriage is one such example. Same-sex marriages were extant during the pre-Christian era, and ceremonies ranged from the informal to the lavish.
Examples can be found in Asia and all over the Greco-Roman world, including two Roman emperors. It was not until 342AD when Christian emperors enacted laws making same-sex marriage punishable by death. So the notion of a ‘traditional definition of marriage’ between a man and a woman only exists due to the Christian persecution of homosexuals for almost 17 centuries, a situation which still exists today.
I would also like to point out that expanding the rights of marriage to same-sex couples is by no means ‘religious persecution’, no more than universal suffrage was male persecution, or the abolishment of slavery was persecution of whites.
The expansion of rights to an oppressed group does not infringe on the freedom of the group who already possesses these rights. Humanists do not wish to impinge on the rights of any group, merely allow every human, regardless of sex, race, age, sexual orientation or religion, to enjoy the same rights and pursue a happy and free life.
Civil marriage has great meaning to hundreds of thousands of people across Britain? So what does that make LGBT people, bad?
He just doesn’t get it does he? Equal civil marriage does in fact confer a brand new right. It allows our relationships to be treated equally and fairly under the law and not viewed as something different to marriage with similar rights.
Of course he’s not homophobic, he has gay friends. Come on, Davies, stop lying. Having gay friends doesn’t make you non-homophobic. They never really say what “friends” mean do they? Saying hello and goodbye to someone or working with someone they know is gay doesn’t necessarily make them gay friendly. Bigotry comes in all sorts of disguises Mr. Davies. How would he like it if he were told he couldn’t get married but could only have a Civil Partnership because it upsets religious bigots and other homophobes.
Sadly, his opinion is probably shared by the majority in the Tory Party. If equal marriage fails, it will be down to them. Ignorance is bliss for many, especially among the religious nutters.
They keep harping on about CPs being equal to marriage. If that’s the case, why wouldn’t he opt for one if available? Would any of them? If not, why not, all things being equal? He probably disapproves of heterosexuals having access to them and we all know why. That would be the real test to prove his homophobia. I also notice that the opposition has never been able to produce one shred of evidence to illustrate the negative effects on society and marriage which they steadfastly and conveniently gurgitate to dampen support. Eleven countries later, wouldn’t that be sufficient for them to come forward with the evidence?
The only negative effects on the meaning of marriage are primarily heterosexual adulterers. The recent General Petraeus’ affair is a brilliant example of that.
Never heard of him.
This has made me the most angry out of all the doddering fools objections.
This guy has the gall to say that marriage has “great meaning for hundreds of thousands of good people” and he apparently DOES NOT REALISE that he is excluding gay people from all of those “good people”?
I beg your pardon: what??
There is “no real purpose” in according gay people the right to marry, this is about “some ill-defined ‘message’”??? Is this what Mr Davies thinks his own marriage is? Some kind of message? He VERY clearly does not see gay people as his equal, his words are just beyond offensive, I am absolutely spitting mad.
Mr Davies: there is no need to accuse you of being homophobic, your own words demonstrate that you are.
How dare you.
Giselle, this guy only reveals the mindset of hundreds of thousands of people who live in the pretty shires of England, Wales, and Scotland.
When we moved within a pretty shire, the local removal company turned up and the man in charge introduced his team to us. They knew we are a gay couple. Pointing to one of the men we were told “That’s Maisie!” Maisie died inside. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. We showed a degree of disapproval and disbelief. But as the day wore on these packers traipsed in and out of the house we heard poor “Maisie” being called “Maisie” all of the time, never by his real name, and often treated as if he were a woman!
But the really hurtful thing was that it was clear that as far as all of those packers were concerned my partner and I were on the same rung as poor “Maisie”, despite the fact that we were employing them and paying them over a £1000 to move us.
The deep-seatedness of homophobia out here in the shires is still considerable.
It is the disrespect that makes me so mad. I just wish there was more that I could do as a straight ally. I try to speak up wherever I hear name calling or try and provide some information when someone is misinformed, but I don’t actually hear all that much here where I live in London. I can easily imagine that things are very different in the shires.
I do think though that you and your partner’s example, the sheer fact of people living near you and maybe getting to know you, it might make a difference in the long run. Discrimination is so much easier when those people don’t have to look you in the face, much tougher when they know you. I might be naive in that hope and it might take a lot longer but I do think that things are changing. Even if it feels like at the pace of treacle.
I hope you have neighbours you get on with and that you enjoy living where you live!
Thanks for the reply! Fascinating to hear you’re straight! It would be good to think that gay-friendly straight folk perused these threads.
Re. familiarity causing local folk to change their minds, I really believe attitudes are formed when people are young and though they may change superficially, they rarely change significantly.
Example: my partner and I are no longer the “only gays in the village”, for another gay male couple have moved in. I didn’t know of this until a straight resident informed me that the person selling the house and moving on had announced it to her. She said that he advised, “I’m awfully sorry, X, but we’ve sold the house to another pair of gay men!”
That was a disappointment, because my partner and I had been on what we had thought we genuinely good terms with the owner for about five years!
Anyway, what did the neighbour tell me she said back to him? “Oh, no need to apologise! They’ll probably give us all a laugh”.
(ran out of characters, above)
continuing . . .
Yep, we’re all supposed to carry on like Graham Norton or Alan Carr!
And one of the most incisive differences once equal marriage is established will be that transgender people will no longer have to undergo a divorce and then enter a civil partnership when they and their spouse wish to remain together as a legally recognised couple. I think that painting equal marriage as merely an ill-conceived message is just such a huge slap in the face for trans people. Unbelievable. Such ignorance.
And this guy honestly believes he’s not homophobic! (He most likely didn’t consider trans people at all and I don’t think I want to hear what he would have to say). I can’t believe his stance. How ignorant do you have to be to suffer from a delusion like that?
He is disappointed with equality, but would probably favour legalising hunting with dogs;-)
So would I, and I’m gay. What’s your problem?
Problem? What are you on about? I was trying to point out that people like this shout the odds about about “freedom” when and only when it suits their inclinations and prejudices.
Oh, and I think hunting with dogs is contemptible. If you have a problem with that, tough titty.
Shows your sick mind set.
Ripping foxes to bits as a fun day out.
Zero empathy for a living creature.
Idiots like this seem to think that marriage needs some sort of protection from gays getting access to equal civil marriage, yet none of them can provide proof as to why their own marriages need protecting. From what and from whom? Where is the evidence? I bet if you asked a heterosexual married couple in any of the eleven countries where we can marry, just exactly how equal marriage has impacted theirs, they wouldn’t be able to come up with one rational answer.
I love how people like him always manage to say in the same paragraph that “marriage” is an unimportant word which same-sex couples don’t need because we have civil partnerships… whilst also saying that “marriage” is a very special word with special meaning to thousands of people. Which is it?
Of course what they mean is that “marriage” is a special word for straight people, and same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to use it. I can’t imagine why people would think Glyn Davies is homophobic with thinking like that! /sarcasm
It just redefines a word which has great meaning for hundreds of thousands of good people across Britain – for no real purpose, other than to convey some ill-defined ‘message’”.
“Good people” meaning??? unfortunate choice of words I think but does convey a wider and more sinister attitude of Mr Davies.
My mother always used to say ‘we should try and live good lives’ It is so depressing!!!!
“Good people” I believe is Tory code for so called “christian”, church-going hypocrites who return to being the same nasty people they were before they leave their homes for services and emerge at the end of the service to go on being the same nasty hypocrites that they’ve always been, though I’ll concede, a small minority of them aren’t that way.
Thinking of the heavy lifting Cameron has to do to get his party over the wire almost makes me have sympathy for him.
For those of you who don;t know his background, He was previosuly a member of the National Assembly for Wales (lost his seat in 2008) where he was also … wait for it … the Welsh Conservative party spokesperson on Equal Opportunities.
He replaced the previous spokesperson on Equal Opportunities (David Davies) when he (DD) resigned in protest over a goverment/police campaign to combat homophobic violence (he though it would give the gays special rights.) I think he (DD) also claimed that he wasn’t a homophobe.
Has he ever worked for a living?
He’s also a self employed farmer
Had to have a little laugh when I first saw the headline. Exactly how BIG does he want Osborne to get when he thinks of gay marriage? :D
Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me.
Or more likely, is that a BUNG in your pocket………………….etc
Have you seen his follow up blog on this article?
If these people are not homophobes, what are the real ones like? I guess we know, but they are actually standing behind these characters anyway.