Seems to me that someone has not been getting press coverage.
According to Wikipedia, he is one of the most rebellious Conservative MP’s of the 2010 intake.
No one is forcing anyone to accept or indeed hold same sex marriage you fool. Have you not listened to the proposals put forward by Maria Miller or was your rage too strong that you could not hear what was being said?
Obviously, he must be deaf or doesn’t read. I can’t believe they’re still cranking out this nonsense after the government have announced there will be a ban on the CoE and Wales marrying us while all the others can opt in. It’s absolutely astounding that these idiots are still clutching at straws and expecting the public to buy it. Cameron and Miller ought to issue a joint statement in Parliament to put an end to this tomfoolery. There’s clearly something wrong with this man.
what an idiot. Most changes of tollerance over the years have had to start with a law – if we put this off now, we will always be putting it off.
And also the majority of people are for marriage equality, so it is only a small portion of society this will really offend – and who cares what the BNP/UKIP think?
Not all BNP supporters are as intolerant as you think they are on gay rights.
There are many that are but there is a more liberal wing of nationalism. I would say UKIP has more intolerant members and supporters. After all, most of them are refugees from the ‘nasty party’ ie the Conservatives.
Well, whoever they are, if they support equal marriage, then why haven’t they spoken up? I never heard of a more liberal wing of nationalism. BNP official policy is against equal marriage and it’s downright homophobic anyway as well as racist. They’re not much different to the UKIP, both attract right wing extremists, many of of them disgruntled Tories of the ilk on the back bench. I’ve no doubt they’ll be attracting more once equal marriage is legal.
Sounds like a long-winded load of homophobia
Marriage isn’t something private like he claims
The guy is clearly an idiot. He talks about tolerance but seems only to be talking about tolerance for his views. He talks about people being allowed to do what they want to in private without harming others but apparently that doesn’t extend to gay people wishing to marry. And why 10 years?
Nobody is going to be forced to approve of anything, no church is going to be forced to do anything it doesn’t approve of, just like today. But that’s not really his objection anyway, that’s just the acceptable facade these people like to put on their own intolerance.
“I do not think anybody should be forced to approve of a gay marriage,” he said.
Personally, I don’t really care whether someone else approves.
And equal marriage might not improve tolerance within society, but it’s probably another stepping on the road to acceptance and understanding (I don’t want to be ‘tolerated’ as if it’s some sort of pity thing). It certainly isn’t going to lessen tolerance – at least once all this unnecessary fuss has died down.
Either the man is not very bright or he is deviously evil and totally lacking in empathy, it’s quite possible he is both.
Waiting ten years to get married is simply not an option for some gay couples.
Marriage equality isn’t about tolerance it is primarily about equal treatment.
Those who are intolerant of LGBT’s will just have to catch up however long it takes them or they will find themselves increasingly out of step with the rest of society.
Homosexuals don’t actually want to get married, this is all about trying to spite everyone else and rub their noses in the gay lifestyle.
Gay marriage isn’t going to make homosexuals any happier. The claims they’re making now are the same ones they made when they were trying to get homosexuality legalised. People were concerned that homosexuals would try to take things further and try to force their lifestyle on other people, but they denied this and said they’d be content with homosexuality simply being legal.
So, it turned out the gay militants were lying and the “homophobes” were right all along. The fact is, homosexuals will still be just as miserable and unfulfilled if gay marriage was legal, because the problem isn’t society or homophobia. The problem is that gays hate themselves, as much as they might deny it. They feel shame and disgust, and no amount of pandering to the gay lobby is going to change that. The change must come from within.
“The fact is, homosexuals will still be just as miserable and unfulfilled if gay marriage was legal, because the problem isn’t society or homophobia. The problem is that gays hate themselves, as much as they might deny it.”
Nope. Most gays I know are just as happy or not as the next person. Certainly don’t see much self-hate going on. It’s usually external hate we have to put up with.
*looks meaningfully towards Caligula*
As the above post from Caligula shows, the opponents of marriage equality tend to be against just about every single piece of equality legislation, including it seems, decriminalising homosexuality in the first place. Another reason why the publc. Discourse should move on and leave these lunatics to one side.
you know a lot of gay people then? I work within the gay community, but I work with a lot of straight people, have straight friends, and yes gay people do have issues, and these issues are highlighted but the horrid prejudice from some people (yourself included Caligular)
However these issues are not because we are gay, but because we are people and the real world is a cruel place.
Equal marriage will be another step in the right direction.
And another thing – people may have said they were content just to have homosexuality de-criminalized, but I made no promise, and I will fight to my dying breath to be treated just the same as everyone else in this county we call home.
You need to get out more instead of trolling gay websites, boy.
Like you hate yourself for being gay huh? Since when did someone so ignorant as you get to speak for the vast majority of gay people who support equal marriage. Provide us with the factual evidence, dumb arse.
An odd piece of logic. Can’t help wondering how far the campaign for the abolition of slavery would have got had they adopted such an approach
His name is Steve Baker not Barker
Someone needs to let Mr. Barker know that his right to disapprove of a gay marriage ends where another’s right to choose one begins.
It’s very childish to go around saying “I don’t like it so you can’t like it either.”
Of course, I’ve often wondered if some of these windbags who scream about being forced to accept gay marriage might actually secretly be attracted to a gay marriage and are too deeply closeted to admit it.
well not with that attitude it won’t Tory Twat
If he thinks that it’s a good idea for same sex couples to wait for another 10 years before we can marry, then we should extend that out to all marriages. I’m not after anything special, just equality. Equality would mean that no one should be allowed to marry for the next 10 years. Somehow, I don’t think his proposal is going to find many supporters.
If you’re a man, you have the right to marry a woman, exactly the same right as me. That is equality. What you’re asking for is special rights for homosexuals.
“If you’re a man, you have the right to marry a woman, exactly the same right as me. That is equality. ”
Thank you for making me laugh out loud and disturb my colleague in the office.
You’ve basically shot yourself in the foot by suggesting that love doesn’t need to be part of marriage. Well done, that person.
It ought to be, although nobody has an automatic right to marry the person they love if that’s what you’re getting at. The person they love might be already married.
It’s not equality if a straight person can marry the person they love and wish to found a family with but a gay person can’t. You have a very dim view of marriage if you believe that the current system affords equality.
Oh and it isn’t extra rights for homosexuals because once same sex marriage passes a heterosexual man will be able to marry another man if he so chooses. I think you’d refer to that as equality no?
As I say, nobody has an automatic right to marry the person they love. That person may already be married, for example.
Why would a heterosexual man want to marry another man anyway?
So a gay man should marry a straight woman and refuses to have sex with her? You’re an idiot. What woman in her right mind is going to do that? Would you marry a lesbian who said she woudn’t have sex with you but marry you anyway just because she’s of the opposite gender and because you can marry any woman? Your stupidity defies intelligence.
No, they shouldn’t get married at all. It’s what we used to refer to as confirmed bachelors and spinsters.
I don’t understand why Caligula is so bothered by it. Self-loathing seems the only answer. This is a happy time. Shame you can’t see that. Get some help, dear.
I admire the misogyny in trying to sneak the qualifier by unnoticed, “If you’re a man” Heard of sexism? If someone’s a woman, they don’t have the right to marry a woman, exactly the same right as you’re so cheerfully flaunting.
You can play shell games as much as you like, condescendingly explain that women can marry a man instead, but the simple fact is that if there was equality here, then no one reasonable would object to making different sex marriage illegal and same sex marriage the only legal form. Because by your definition, that’s equality. Every man, gay or not, would have the right to marry a man.
Have you ever looked into the Jim Crow laws in America? Having different train carriages and water fountains for “Blacks” and “Whites” was equal, because everyone had an equal chance to use their assigned carriage or fountain. As long as the two groups both had something nominally similar, the context that gave the differences meaning were ignored.
I assumed he was a man since his name was David….although I suppose you can’t be too careful around here……but a lesbian has the right to marry a man just like every other woman, so they have exactly the same rights.
Don’t see where misogyny comes into it, although I admit I don’t like lesbians or feminists much. Don’t think I’ve ever met one who wasn’t a whiny, bitter, insecure and paranoid man-hating shrew.
An intollerant bigot tells everyone what will make society more tolerant. Hahahaha. He’s an idiot.
How dare this idiot think that we are not equal to him and how can he say that we need to wait another 10 years to have equal rights.
he just makes me see red, if he was here I and said this to me, I would give him such a slap accros that mouth that he would not know if he was Arther or Martha for a month of sundays. How can anyone be so stupid
Of course-like all these hypocrites- he’s married himself- ” Do as I tell you-not as I Do” comes to mind.
Same old sh1t. Different assh0le.
It’s not really an issue of tolerance. We’re not trying to get married so that people will “tolerate” us. You tolerate a cancerous tumor.
We’re doing this because we want to have the same recognition of love as everybody else. Intolerance of homosexuals is the result of a heteronormative society, and that can only be changed by visibility and the support of heterosexuals. But that’s got practically nothing to do with why we wish to marry and so his argument falls apart again.
I don’t approve of heterosexual adulterers and adulteresses, Bob Blackman, Sir Roger Gale, Nadine Dorries come to mind but I wouldn’t oppose their right to marry or remarry even though they violate the 10th commandment in regard to coveting one’s neighbours wife or in Dorries’ case, a husband, while professing adherence to a religious belief. I think they call those people hypocrites.. Yet I am tolerant of them and they’re not in conflict with my personal disapproval of their behaviour.
So I would assume that this Tory bigot doesn’t find anything wrong with that because they happen to be heterosexual?
I have a suggestion for him. Why not force all heterosexual adulterers to wait 10 years before they can remarry?
I’m beginning to think that the younger generation of Tories are really no better than the dinosaurs in opposition. Their party will never be able to remove the stigma of ‘nasty’. with idiots like this holding public office, in my view, unfit for the job.
If I and others don’t “approve” of, say, two fatties, two gingers, two shorties, getting married should they be banned?
To be honest, I don’t really approve of these (mostly celebrity) types who marry in a big show and then divorce within months.
But I’m quite happy to let them get on with it.
Perhaps this idiot could afford us the same ‘tolerance’.
What exactly would a bigoted Tory know about tolerance? They make me sick. Every time its about us, we’re accused of being intolerant of others but when its them, they play the victim card when they can’t get their own way because their bloody religious beliefs are offended. Too f_cking bad. These morons have been offending and abusing us for centuries and they just don’t like it when we turn it around on them. Get over it, idiot, or get out of politics altogether.
“Fellow christians” – Nuff said. Just more repetition of the same pile of steaming nonsense they have been spouting for months.
My RIGHTS come before your bloody conscience, Mr Barker. Your faith, your beliefs, are only of relevance to you, the rest of us are not and should not be bloody subject to them.
Tolerance would certainly continue shifting towards acceptance and greater understanding with equal marriage.
The biggest one-off improvement will be when Steve Baker is kicked out by the electorate for being a grade A tosspot. Clearly he speaks without understanding the proposals, so since we all understand them, but are not politicians, and he is an MP and doesn’t even understand them … why would we be interested in what he has to say.
A typical Nasty Party MP – Telling lies at the drop of a hat.
He has not exactly put forward the best image of the Tory party, but then there have been another couples of dozen who have been equally or even more vile.
It’ll be passed before the next election, … but, these particular MPs have given opponents every bit of ammunition they need to paint the Tory party as a bunch of extremists, nutters, homophobes and bigots. The fact that most Tory MPs aren’t like that doesn’t matter – we know that – because people will see the nutters and assume the rest are just the same. They done a Todd Akin on their own party. Every bigot and homophobe in the Tory party, MP, councillor, local association chief, they all help to make the party unelectable. Extremism like theirs only serves to push people away. No skin off my nose, I vote for the other lot, …. just sayin.
Barker is an idiot.
Quite frankly I don’t care whether equal marriage increases tolerance or not.
I simply want the same civil rights are everyone else.
Barker is a bigot who belongs in the BNP because of his homophobic extremism.
I hate the way we’re referred to us as a ‘liberal elite’ – don’t put us in a box to dismiss us; engage with our reasons and tell us why we’re wrong.
And I just think of children growing up in a world where gay couples can marry – it normalises homosexuality just that little bit more and WILL make society just that bit more understanding and tolerant.
It’s not bloody rocket science!
Baker or Barker and his ilk, the majority of them Tories of course, really don’t consider homosexuality as normal. It’s at the heart of their opposition to equal marriage, religion based obviously. Most of them don’t even really like us having CPs although they’ve now found it an extremely expedient tool to keep us down and unequal. They even lie about that when they feign support for a union they would not want for themselves if available which really means they’re admitting that CPs aren’t equal to marriage, just not the same. What this also does is reveal what they are. BIGOTS!
What’s Barker’s marital situation?
I hope he’d not ever had an affair, because if he has then he has invited to press to have a nose about in his private life, to make sure that he is living up to the christian ideal he wants to impose on society.
He’s married probably to an equally clueless Tory bigot.
I object to anyone being intolerant of my intolerance. I demand tolerance of my own self-serving intolerance. I am also deaf, blind and dense, and who is Maria Miller anyway? I also have difficulty drawing my own name.
It seems to me that the crux of many anti gay marriage arguments is that those who hold homophobic and bigoted or anti gay views are concerned that more and more their anti gay views are not supported by others and that the state will cease to support them as well and they don’t like it. We’ve got to the point were racist views in public are unacceptable and there is no reason why the same should be the case for anti gay views no matter how strongly held. About time we called out the bigots for what they are.
“Our religion is one of universal acceptance and love..”
“Don’t let the gays marry for 10 years so we don’t have the inconvenience of adjusting our thinking too soon”
If marriage is so special then he should understand that waiting 10 years for no good reason won’t be acceptable.
What a silly little man.