Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Comment: ‘Offended by marriage equality’: the admission of a lost argument

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. The fact that those MPs don’t want to ‘offend’ religious people but are quite happy to offend LGBT people as a result shows how far we still have to go…

    1. Rebecca Taylor 18 Jan 2013, 9:54pm

      Sadly, I think this comes from self-interest on the part of those MPs – they know their constituencies, and they know who is more likely to vote for them.

    2. And religious ‘charities’ (all the anti-gay ones are) don’t pay tax.
      I do …
      A glance at The Charities Commisssion website reveals THOUSANDS of religious outfits. Is it right that these vile homophobes can not only shelter behind ‘religion’ to justify their bigotry but are also non-tax paying….?

    1. Commander Thor 18 Jan 2013, 12:30pm

      But decided to comment anyway.

    2. You should read it, it was actually really good.

    3. What does tl;dr mean?

  2. pooper scooper 18 Jan 2013, 11:28am

    The case for same sex marriage is argued on the basis that as long as there is adult consent, there is no reason why people should not have sex and marry.
    This is also an argument for homosexual consensual adult incest and marriage, It also suggests that where there is adult consent, there can be no deviance or filth.
    Some adults consent to scat just as they consent to homosexual acts. To me, both are disgusting and immoral yet the homosexual, equal marriage supporters view must is that it is ‘phobic’ to find any consenting adult act disgusting.
    I think any right minded person with a moral compass would concede that it is right to find certain consensual acts disgusting, not to mention harmful!

    1. May, I please ask you a question…?

      What in the world are you going on about?

      You post doesn’t make any sense at all!

    2. Pooper scooper if you find it disgusting then don’t do it your self that does not every one should have the chance, don’t want gay marriage then don’t have one don’t like gay sex then don’t do it you must have tried it if you don’t like it, because as the say don’t knock till you tried it, I’m sad for those who think they have the rite to take people’s choices away we they gay community are not asking you to have a gay marriage like we are not forcing straight people to have marriage I’m sure you have already condemned your self to hell as you have Prob broken more biblical laws one day it will not be about gay marriage or straight marriage it will just be marriage and I for one can not wait for my civil partnership in July to be a wedding and my life partner be wife by law

    3. Nobody is talking about certain acts. You’re talking about certain people and pretending it’s about acts.
      There is nothing gay people do that straight people do not do. There is nothing that all gay people do.

      It was never about acts, but about who is doing them. That’s just a way to avoid the actual subject. Because your only stance is bigotry, and you know that looks bad (hint: It looks like what it is).

  3. “The majority of Christians who don’t see homosexuality as a sin”. Where does the evidence for that statement come from?

    1. most polls seem to indicate an unexpectedly high degree of acceptance among people who consider themselves Christian. a considerably higher degree of acceptance than would be imagined, if one listens only to the voices of Christian “leaders”.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jan 2013, 12:50pm

        In America, apparently the majority of catholics support equal marriage in defiance of the Vatican. No different in Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Argentina are I think good examples. More catholic countries will follow of course, Uruguay, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Luxembourg and Brazil. Spain’s conservative government tried to repeal the law but was resoundingly defeated.

    2. Does ANYBODY really believe in ‘sin’ these days? It is a completely out of date idea even for Christians.

      We have laws that define what is WRONG in society – theft, murder, rape, fraud, etc. Sex is not against the law unless it is paid for or with non-consenting parties. People just don’t worry about ‘sin’ in their daily lives or anyone else’s daily lives.

      1. Are you arguing that cheating on your partner should be illegal?

        1. No, I am saying that sin is a ridiculous notion. Most people obey the law laid down by government and that is enough to live a respectable life. Anything else is a matter of individual conscience – even the strange fetishes that poop man is on about if that is what rocks his boat, though I hope he does it behind closed doors.

      2. There was a time when most people in thi country had a basic understanding of the Christian faith even if they rejected it. We are now a nation of religious illiterates who think ‘sin’ is “a completely out of date idea even for Christians” !

        1. Which it IS. people with no religion can lead decent lives. The suggestion that you need Christianity to be ‘good’ is offensive not only to non-religious, but also to every other religion in the world.

      3. So theft, murder, rape, and fraud wouldn’t be bad if they weren’t illegal?

        Seriously, just because “sin” is a word that comes from religion doesn’t mean that its meaning is so hard to grasp.
        That being part of an unpopular minority group is immoral regardless of one’s actual behavior is obviously a flawed idea, but that doesn’t make the concept of morality obsolete.
        The problem, if anything, is that people just let conservatives claim the word “morality”–it is more rightfully ours and always has been!

  4. why exactly are you comparing a sexual act (a rather extreme one, at that, and one that HETEROSEXUALS partake in as well, by the way) with the question of equality?

    No one is making any argument for incest. This makes your entire comment pointless. Are you actually capable of logical thought?

    “I’m against oranges because cars have steering wheels”. That is pretty much the extent (and value) of your above statements.

    And the concept of “deviance” or “filth” is perfectly subjective.
    You obviously think that any same-sex sexual act will be “filth”. Which pretty much shows how deviant YOUR mind is regarding other people’s sexuality.

    What other people do in bed is absolutely none of your business, and has absolutely no bearing on whether they should or should not have equal rights.

    I can’t believe I’m trying to have a rational discussion with a moron… jeeze, must be too early in the day.

    1. Darren Theoret 18 Jan 2013, 12:15pm

      I’m against oranges too!! And they’re grown by straight people. Those perverts!

  5. Your moniker describes you perfectly. Once again, people like you have no real case against Gay relationships. All you can do is compare them to other things that you don’t approve of. I am none the wiser as to why you have such strong views about something which is surely none of your business.
    I suggest you take a look at this. You will, no doubt, recognise yourself.
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn

  6. Cardinal Capone 18 Jan 2013, 11:49am

    Thanks for a very well-written and well-argued article.

  7. Good heavens.

    Do you think you’re going to ‘save’ us with your tripe?

  8. Thank you, Adrian, for a splendid article.

  9. Splendid! Well done :)

  10. wonderfully written, and perfectly phrased.

  11. Jock S. Trap 18 Jan 2013, 12:17pm

    Very well written and all i can say is I agree wholeheartedly!!

    Fact is the religious extremist is getting every so desperate in their approach that all they can do is spread hateful, bigoted propaganda with lies and assumptions, hardly ever actual facts.

    This in one breathe “peace and love” in another.

    Fact is how exactly does two men or two women going to affect anyone who doesn’t want to?

    Simply it doesn’t… but hey they still will find any excuse to discriminate.

  12. Jock S. Trap 18 Jan 2013, 12:19pm

    Blimey Keith, you keep banging on about it doesn’t make you right.

    It just makes you look sad, pathetic and over obsessed.

  13. Robert (Kettering) 18 Jan 2013, 12:23pm

    A brilliant article and thanks to Adrian. I wonder though whether it will ever grace the pages of the DM etc? Articles such as this need to be sent to all MPs at the very least.

  14. pooper scooper 18 Jan 2013, 12:27pm

    Can anyone tell me whether scat or consensual homosexual incest is disgusting when between consenting adults? If so, you are phobic for calling it such since your argument for ‘equal deviance (homosexual marriage) is that any act between consenting adults is no business of anyone else, Surely, this would allow consensual adult incest in theory and encourage those closet cases to come out, just as did the legalization of homodeviance?

    1. “homodeviance”? I think you should look up what those words you’ve glued together mean (they are opposites–and neither is good or bad, btw).

      Anyway, “that’s gross” and “I have the right to you not having the right to do that!” are not equal statements.
      Secondly, those first things are actions. “Homosexual acts” is a meaningless term–it refers to *exactly* the same variety of acts performed by heterosexuals, except when homosexuals do them. So you’re not talking about the actions, but who shouldn’t be allowed to do them.
      You’ll notice that, like “homodeviance”, you are comparing two opposing ideas. Judging people the same for the same actions regardless of who does them, and judging the same actions differently depending on who does them.

  15. You know what homophobia says about you? Denial is so sad.

  16. Pathetic troll is pathetic.

  17. I bet you get a thrill from watching two girls having sex though! But that is different isn’t it, in your simple mind.

  18. If you wish to indulge in certain fetishes and take precautions then yes, of course you should do that. Any type of incest is worrying; it hints at a very disturbed childhood – however, if people truly wish to do so, and take precautions against pregnancy and such then what they do is none of my business as long as everyone involved in consenting and aware.

  19. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jan 2013, 12:46pm

    Brilliant, Adrian but I would urge you to send this to every MP in opposition and to every member in the House of Lords. What about sending it to the Guardian, the Times, Evening Standard and to the Director General of the BBC?

    1. That shouldn’t be hard. All of those people have email addresses.

    2. Great idea!

  20. @ Poop Repeating your point isn’t helping you to clarify it. There are certain sexual practices that I find unappealing. Many of them are regularly performed by heterosexual couples and have nothing to do with procreation. So what? Your fixation with anal sex is interesting. Most anal sex in the world is between men and women, often as a method of contraception. If you could get your mind out of the gutter for a moment, you would realise that Equal marriage is about the full legal recognition of relationships. It has only as much to do with sex as marriage does.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jan 2013, 1:06pm

      Exactly right, Cal. Notice he never mentions heterosexual oral sex (sodomy is condemned in the bible), mutual masturbation, The pornography industry is overwhelmingly dominated by heterosexuals and anal and oral sex iare very common. Did you know the vast majority of pornography consumers are heterosexuals, many of them conservative types, some of them religious? In America, pornography consumption is at its peak in those so called ‘red’ states dominated by conservative (republican) religious governors?

  21. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jan 2013, 1:00pm

    Incest……provide the factual evidence please. To me, you are disgustingly vile. Why are you so obsessed about ‘deviance’? Heterosexual adultery, having sex with others outside of one’s marriage is rife and you don’t construe that as deviant? Heterosexuals engage in all manner of sexual activity outside of vaginal intercourse, both married and unmarried, including married clergy. The more extreme your illogical rants become, the more convinced I am that you crave the very thing you condemn the most. You are one very sick individual. See a psychiatrist please and sign up for some legitimate long-term therapy. Avoid ex-gay therapy at all costs.

  22. You are a very sick man, mr Poop.

  23. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jan 2013, 1:12pm

    Heterosexual adultery and serial adultery in the case of Sir Roger Gale equals deviant hetero marriage, sticking his penis in others, not necessarily a vagina outside of marriages numbers one and two. Now on his third. I suspect divorce number three and marriage number four will be coming shortly. What is this obession you have with incest? Sounds as if you’re craving it, nobody else is except idiots like you.

  24. “Opposing equality is even inconsistent on biblical grounds. If all sins are equal, why is there no call for denying marriage to the divorced, or all those who have had sex before and outside of marriage, and to atheists? ”

    YES. What informs their choice to target same-sex relationships in this way? Homophobia.

  25. Brilliant piece! Every MP needs to read this.

  26. Commander Thor 18 Jan 2013, 1:57pm

    No.

  27. I have written to over a hundered MPs both Con/LibD and Lab but the most stunning reply from an MP stated: ‘I am a practising catholic and I follow the teachings of the Vatican on this matter…’ So we have a Vatican representative in the House of Commons who doesn’t give a s*** about serving his constituents. Saddly, he was not the only one with similar distortions of Parliamentary democracy.

  28. Adrian Tippetts is a heterophobic, religious hater, and a bigot.

    1. There, there.

      *pats hand*

    2. bobbleobble 18 Jan 2013, 4:00pm

      Except that he’s none of those things but if it makes you feel better….

    3. You’d be a lot happier if you gave up on the NARTH therapy and learnt to love yourself for who you are, Matthew. I do feel sorry for you (genuinely).

  29. Show me any example of two brothers or sisters wishing to settle down together in a long lasting loving, and yes, consummated relationship. Show me one, and I’ll say yes. I doubt you will be able to find one because it is not found in nature. I suspect they are not found in natire for good reasons. However, homosexuality is found in nature and clearly served an evolutionary purpose. I trust you have read up on epigenomes and so on, before you quote scientifically illiterate statements such as ‘there is no gay gene’. On that matter, feel free to speak to Qazi Rahman, Volker Sommer et al. People orientate towards men, women or both. Fetishes are not orientations. If you see no difference between fetish around excrement and loving relationships, then Like a piece of what do you treat your girlfriend, I wonder? I bet she would agree.

  30. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jan 2013, 2:54pm

    Moron. Why should an infertile heterosexual couple or even a heterosexual paraplegic or other physically disabled heterosexual be allowed to marry people who are incapable of having intercourse? Why should heterosexual adulterers and serial adulterers be allowed to marry. Your book of fairy tales condemns it while heterosexual polygamy isn’t (Solomon having 300 plus wives and concubines). Provide evidence where consensual homosexual and heterosexual incest has been made legal or is going to be made legal in eleven countries where there is equal civil marriage?. Facts please.

    Why should heterosexuals who commit adultery be allowed to remarry? Heterosexual adultery and divorce are condemned in your book of fairy tales although heterosexual polygamy wasn’t.

    1. Robert, why do waste your time answering the coprophagic troll? You’re just giving him the attention he so desperately craves.

  31. Show me, anywhere, two bothers, two sisters, who want to settle down in a long-term, loving and – yes – consummated relationship. Where are they? Find me a couple and I will say, Yes. But it is not likely you will, because nature has probably selected it out of the gene pool. Not so with homosexuality ( I trust you have spoken to experts about epigenomes and so on). People orientate towards men, women or both. Fetishes are not orientations. It seems you cannot tell the difference between a revolting fetish and a loving relationship. And if you can’t, I pity your girlfriend, if indeed you have one. Like a piece of what, I wonder, do you treat her?

  32. Peter & Michael 18 Jan 2013, 3:35pm

    Our Conservative MP has written to us stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman, no doubt he will be sending us a personalised letter asking for our support in electing him in the next general election. We think not !

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jan 2013, 4:03pm

      I would keep the letter and when the time comes, return it saying, sorry but I can’t vote for a religious bigot and enclose a copy of Adrian Tippetts’ article for good measure. My MP supports equal marriage but I’m going to send him a copy of Adrian’s article regardless. Every MP should receive one. I just hope Adrian circulates it. If not, we should do it for him.

      1. Peter & Michael 18 Jan 2013, 4:31pm

        We are going to do that as well as pointing out his failure to support us,

  33. Fantastic article. I feel I should forward this to my MP and hope he reads both the email I sent yesterday and this.

    1. do so!!

  34. Craig Denney 18 Jan 2013, 3:46pm

    Rev Richard Lee with his friend and

    Former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey and his perverted friends.

    A VICAR has been charged with 26 voyeurism and indecent image offences. Read the full story here:
    http://tinyurl.com/indecent-images

  35. Robert (Kettering) 18 Jan 2013, 3:52pm

    Goodness, you really do have an obcession with incest? I detect someone with deep seated “issues” here so may I suggest you pop along to some sort of counsellor or perhaps a mental health practioner and see what he/she has to say about your deluded obcessions.

    That said I think you’ll find that sexuality has nothing to do with a persons desire for an incestial relationship. I’m sure you’ll find instances equally divided between straight and Gay people.

  36. George Broadhead 18 Jan 2013, 3:53pm

    This is a superb article but, like another person who has commented, I wonder where the evidence is for the claim that
    the majority of Christians do not see homosexuality as a sin.

  37. bobbleobble 18 Jan 2013, 3:56pm

    Actually the argument for gay marriage is that gay couples should be treated in the same way as heterosexual couples. That includes being prevented from marrying a close relative. You’re setting up a strawman and trying to score point but failing miserably.

    You also can’t simply brush aside the fact that incest is illegal. You cannot consent to a crime. No incestuous couple is consenting.

  38. I ask you again, who are these incestuous people?? Where are they in police records if there is a police witch hunt against them? I am talking about views in both nature and in principle, and therefore, I suggest you reread the above. Where is the evidence for Adam and Eve’s family? Adam and Eve???? You take Genesis 1 to be a literal history of human beings??? Oh well. another young Earth Creationist idiot whose views we can bypass.

    If this is your only argument against gay people marrying, then you may as well give up. If we allow straight people to marry, will it encourage brothers and sisters to have incestuous relationships? LOL.

    I welcome your comments here, because when visitors to this website see the revolting language you use in your monnikers, it shows what is on the minds of the opposition. For all the work of the coalition for Marriage, which never condemns language like yours, support for marriage equality has stayed where it was.

  39. bobbleobble 18 Jan 2013, 4:02pm

    If you dislike gay people so much then why are you here?

    1. repressed sexual desires

  40. Your assumptions of incest among homosexuals have no grounding, and all you are doing is showing that amongst those against same sex marriage, there are some people with incredibly bizarre and strange opinions that shouldn’t be given the time of day. Let alone be taken seriously on a topic like same sex marriage legislation.

    You cannot even stand by your odd principles enough to even post under your own name.

    I wouldn’t say your a bigot, just deranged and deluded.

  41. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jan 2013, 4:15pm

    Gays and straights should be barred from marriage if they engage in incestuous relationships in my view although heterosexuals currently are permitted to marry second blood cousins, incestuous in my opinion even though some such marriages are conducted in a place of worship which would imply they are condoned. I don’t know of any person gay or straight who would agree to such a union and call for it to be legalised. No sane government would even support it and rightly so.

    Since you seem to obsess so much about incest, it makes me wonder if you yourself support it. Your ranting about the subject is questionable. You know that saying, the ones who protest too much? Nobody else brings it up except you and others of your ilk, usually religious bigots who have a very unhealthy obsession about sex and the sex lives of others, particularly if they happen to be gay while there are plenty of hetero sexual practices that are never targeted or held to the same standard of scrutiny.

  42. You fail to recognize that deviance is not a homosexual matter. What about strip clubs and brothels frequented by heterosexuals? How about heterosexuals meeting in car parks for a good dogging session?

    And need I point out the countless cases of child abuse within the church.

    Again, just bile spilled out on a subject you know nothing about.

  43. bobbleobble 18 Jan 2013, 4:27pm

    You’re exposing nothing but your ignorance. You can define sexual morality however you want to but neither you nor any religious institution has a monopoly over what is moral.

    It’s a shame that you feel that a good use of your time is to come onto a gay website and spout bile in an effort to upset people which is what you’re doing. Perhaps you should rethink your life since it’s obviously not making you happy.

    Oh and if you actively avoid gay people then you do have a problem with them. Your hatred is very sad and I think you should deal with that because it’s very self destructive.

  44. bobbleobble 18 Jan 2013, 4:29pm

    I would point out again that you cannot consent to commit a crime. Incest is not consensual because it is criminal.

  45. You can find certain acts disgusting or view them as harmful if you wish. I have no objection to that, we all have our personal hang ups. My problem is when distaste turns into – let’s ban it for everyone.

    As for incest, the issue there is biological. As long as no children come of it and it is between consenting adults I have no particular problem with it. But the children born of it are innocent, so the law has reason to ban and punish the production of children from incest. I see no reason to ban the act itself though.

    Scat is obviously a major health risk and something I wouldn’t care to get involved with. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to tell someone else that they should be banned from doing so. They are only (potentially) harming people who consent to take that risk.

  46. I thought scat was a kind of improvised jazz singing, I have certainly led a sheltered life until now.

  47. I thought SC-AT was a kind of improvised jazz singing, or has my life been too sheltered thus far?

  48. The only moral issues when it comes to incest are consent (normally consent in this context means legal consent, but that’s a poor excuse to ignore your argument when your intended definition is fairly clear) and the inherent biological problem when it comes to children. Incest increases the odds of genetic problems, so to have a child with a close relative is to create a child either intentionally or without regard for the problems that may develop. That might be a reason to ban the production of children from incest, but a blanket ban on incestuous sex (or marriage for that matter) is going too far.

    Of course that brings up the question of whether we should be banning everyone with inheritable genetic problems (or incurable diseases that can be passed to the child) from reproducing…

  49. Dennis Hambridge 18 Jan 2013, 6:17pm

    oh please, every one should know by now that religion dictates the politics and a large amount of MPs are frightened to death of religious big knobs, the gay vote should be more and more used to weed out bigoted MPs, or should we bother, another 5 – 10 years the church pulpits will be another few million more down as more people turn against them, MPS and Religious figures watch out, LGBTIQ peopes no longer concede to you

  50. Even if you had any valid point to make, which you don’t, your stupid choice of ‘name’ makes it redundant. Stop cluttering up the internet with your nonsense.

  51. The answer is still the same, minus the biological bit. There is no reason to ban such marriages as long as there is consent.

  52. Quite, polygamy should be permitted, again, so long as those involved consent. Those who do not wish to be in a polygamous marriage simple don’t enter into one. Other people doing it does not harm them.

    If people who would engage in same-sex marriage, incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage are a minority of deviants, their activities will make no real difference. The ‘normal’ people simply won’t get married to a person of the same gender, close family members or more than one person at a time. I don’t see any of those events being particularly horrific, indeed, for most people it will make no real difference at all.

    1. I for one am not a minority deviant. I am perfectly normal, thank you.

  53. And there we have it.

    “poo eating” has attempted (and it must be said, successfully with a few commenters) to trap the people here into having no logical comeback by having them support same-sex marriage because it harms nobody else, while opposing different types that more people are in agreement on for no logical reason.

    Naturally, when someone like me doesn’t give him the expected response, he falls back to “it’s icky” without even the pretence of supporting his supposition that such things are wrong with any kind of logic.

    And so it was that the trapper became the trapped.

    1. Precisely. Comment etiquette is to reply on the thread in question. If people don’t, and thereby spam the website, that person should be simply blocked.

      Polygamy and incest are not interesting arguments. Again, the harm principle applies; let people, straight or gay enter arrangements which suit them. You don’t need a law against it. You also don’t see a demand for it, apart from a tiny few cases, for a very natural reason. We orientate to one sex or another or both; we don’t orientate to things or lots of people. Applying anti-discrimination policy to marriage on grounds of sexual orientation, then, has nothing to do with the supposed desire for multiple or incestuous marriages. it is of zero significance.

    2. Poor poo-eating guy, he’s probably mentally challenged. Just leave him alone and he will go away.

  54. Bravo Adrian

  55. poo eating is moral say homodeviants... 18 Jan 2013, 9:23pm

    “Naturally, when someone like me doesn’t give him the expected response, he falls back to “it’s icky” without even the pretence of supporting his supposition that such things are wrong with any kind of logic”

    You are asking me to explain why incest and polygamy are wrong? This says more about you than me!

    I did not come here however to defend my views. I came here to expose the fallacious reasoning of those that hypocritically clamour for same sex marriage yet deride polygamy and andh consensual homoexual adult incest.
    PS Note to Pink News. Any further bans will actually trigger a flood of posts. Far more than if you had left my legitimate comments unmolested.

    Ify ou disagree with my views, challenge them and do not act in a cowardly manner.

    1. Polygamy is an inherently unequal relationship, generally being quite on the misogynist side of things.
      So polygamy is bigotry in the same way that anti-gay is. They are opposites. Like “homodeviant”.

      Oh, but Biblical marriage is typically polygamous (polygynous, specifically), fyi.

  56. pooo eating is moral say hom==odeviants... 18 Jan 2013, 9:25pm

    Sabranan said…
    “Naturally, when someone like me doesn’t give him the expected response, he falls back to “it’s icky” without even the pretence of supporting his supposition that such things are wrong with any kind of logic”

    My reply…
    You are asking me to explain why incest and polygamy are wrong? This says more about you than me!

    I did not come here however to defend my views. I came here to expose the fallacious reasoning of those that hypocritically clamour for same sex marriage yet deride polygamy and andh consensual homoexual adult incest.
    PS Note to Pink News. Any further bans will actually trigger a flood of posts. Far more than if you had left my legitimate comments unmolested.

    If you disagree with my views, challenge them and do not act in a cowardly manner.

    1. Yes, that is exactly what I am asking you. Why is incest (assuming no children) and polygamy wrong, to the point that it must be banned in law?

      It is unfortunate that people do not recognise their arguments (I say arguments, I haven’t actually seen any here yet) against incest or polygamy is based on society, upbringing, religion etc., just as the arguments against same-sex marriage are. It is something worth thinking about (for everyone here), I suspect people will find they cannot come up with any argument against polygamy of incest, which is of course what “poo eating” was counting on.

      We end up with people using reasonable arguments for one thing and not others. However, this just means they are being inconsistent; it does not make the reasonable argument any less valid.

      1. Don’t encourage him. He’s just a troll. He has nothing sensible to say about anything.

        1. That is not important. What matters is that when people come to read these comments later on, they will see that stupid arguments are exposed for what they are.

          Indeed, writing someone off as a troll makes it seem like we’re unwilling to engage with people. Especially when (like in this case) the troll actually had a good point to make buried among the poor posting etiquette.

  57. Rebecca Taylor 18 Jan 2013, 9:51pm

    Excellent and well reasoned article, and I’m speaking as a bi Christian (I go to an Anglican church regularly, where we are involved in vociferous protest and action against the phobic elements of the wider church).

  58. Is it too late to restart the discussion about MPs forgetting that they don’t just represent the religious bigots or has Keith and his distractions totally destroyed this comments page?

    1. Not at all. Don’t let anyone making fresh threads all over this page shut the debate down – keep calm and carry on :-) I am sure people who make repetitive posts on fresh threads will get their spam removed.

  59. Frank Boulton 19 Jan 2013, 7:38am

    Thanks, Adrian, for another well written piece. Please note, however, that the Bible does not prohibit divorced people from marrying again.

    If you read biblical law on sexual relatioships, you find that not only is homosexuality condemned but also most heterosexual intercourse. The religious right wing picks on LGBT people, because they perceive us as a small and helpless minority. They refrain from criticising “sinful” forms of heterosexual activity, because that would land them in a pitched battle against the majority of people and they’re too cowardly to get involved in that.

    I believe that the constant hate speech of the religious right wing is swinging more and more people in favour of LGBT rights. They’re responsible for emptying out their own pews.

  60. Robert (Kettering) 19 Jan 2013, 11:46am

    Glad to see that the disgusting bigot who was obsessing about incest has been removed. His comments were blatantly homophic and had the comments been about any other minority such as black people or the disabled then he’d have been removed far sooner.

    Frankly I think his comments ammounted to serious homophobic bullying and should have been referred to the police.

  61. Philip Martin-Summers 20 Jan 2013, 12:47am

    I am afraid that the arguments in this article are more porous than a colander. The suggestion that the redefinition of marriage is a matter if equality flies in the face of reality. What rights do gays lack in the UK which they do not already have under they Civil Partnership Act?

    1. “what rights do gays lack in the uk which they do not already have under they civil partnership act?”

      the right to marriage!

  62. Abused by police 20 Jan 2013, 4:59pm

    So there are Mp’s who are quite happy to offend gays by voting against equality just to appease religious fanatic’s dogma

    …no change there then

    I’m so glad I stopped believing in any god about the same time as I stopped believing in other children’s fairy stories like trolls under bridges, the tooth fairy & Santa Claus.

  63. David Griff 25 Jan 2013, 8:41am

    I can’t say that I think that people arguing for gay marriage have been much more rational. More rational when it’s useful for have we not been priveleging marriage itself for no other reason than submission to some form of civic religion?

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all