Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Norman Tebbit: Ban on straight civil partnerships is discrimination, ban on gay marriage is not

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 May 2013, 11:48am

    What a moron he is. So in his distorted mind, gay men and women should marry the opposite sex which would imply that the majority probably would not have sex with them and subject both to a life of misery, unhappiness and no fulfillment emotionally and sexually? This loon should be sectioned post haste.

  2. “This arrangement has worked well enough for the past several thousand years.”

    Takes a troglodyte to know that.

    1. That There Other David 4 May 2013, 11:55am

      Indeed. By the same logic women should stay in the home, only the rich should have voting rights, and divorce should be completely banned.

      Sadly I suspect Mr. Tebbitt might actually think those are valid policy positions too.

      1. Him and particularly Iain Duncan smith remind me of Victorian mill owners, horrible, nasty people who have set out to bully the less fortunate and those who are already facing discrimination and prejudice. They deserve the same amount of contempt that was directed to towards Thatcher.

  3. “In short there is no discrimination, other than that, between you and me. It is just that you wish to do something that I do not wish to do.”

    Not quite true though is it? As Gay people want to do something that Norman Tebbit does not wish to do but also that he does not wish us to do.

    That is the crux here. Nobody is forcing him to do anything. But he wants to force us not to do something which has no impact on him at all.

  4. “This arrangement has worked well enough for the past several thousand years.”

    Not for us though! Only a few decades ago we would have been thrown in prison. Only 7 yrs ago we had no same sex couples regonition at all. Worked fine for you but not for us!

    Out of interest our arch enemy SPUC has a list of email addresses for the house of lords, it’s easier than theyworkforyou which only allow 6 emails!!

    http://www.spuc.org.uk/lobbying/email/pa-c

    Try writing to Lord Mcginnis. I had a shocking one from him, absolutely bonkers!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 May 2013, 12:49pm

      I sent 6 emails from the other link you mentioned. The problem is apathy among the LGBT community. Some with CPs can’t be bothered, some are just lazy. The opposition will probably be working overtime to guarantee the Lords are inundated with mail urging them to vote no. I looked at the Out4Marriage’s list of MPs who voted no on 5th February. The overhwelming majority of them said they did so because they received very few or no letters or emails in support of EM. The opponents took the time to contact them which isn’t to say that some would have voted no anyway. The point is apathy and complacency on our part won’t bring a positive result. StonewallUK and Out4Marriage have done nothing to address it, except for Peter Tatchell. If we really want equal marriage to succeed, then we have to be proactive, not sit back and let a minority do all the work for the majority.

      1. Spanner1960 4 May 2013, 5:42pm

        1. There is no “LGBT community”
        2. They are not apathetic, they are selfish.

        1. “Gay people are selfish”, says the person who is supporting UKIP, a party that makes Thatcherites look like socially conscious do-gooders.

          Aside from sweeping generalisations, your comments about gay people come across as completely self-righteous. How are LGBT people more selfish than any other “group” in society? I suspect that you consider yourself an exception to this rule. I have gay friends that work for the NHS and give their all to make this country better and to help people. Besides what evidence do you have to support your claim?

          1. de Villiers 4 May 2013, 6:50pm

            And your comments about Victorian Mill owners was not self-righteous?

          2. Chris, sad old Spanner mixes with a very sad bunch of losers, remember. He told us all about them years ago.

          3. Spanner1960 5 May 2013, 9:33am

            I far too much evidence. Enough to fill several volumes.
            As an example, try doing a charity collection for HIV/AIDS around the gay pubs.
            You might have enough at the end to buy a couple of packets of condoms.

          4. That possibly says more about the sort of people who go to gay pubs (I for one can’t stand them) than gay men generally.

          5. de Villiers.

            Well it’s a fact that Norman Tebbit and Iain Duncan Smith bully the most vulnerable in our society so please enlighten me, how does that come across as self-righteous? Or do you agree with “Spanner” that most gay people are “selfish”?

          6. de Villiers 9 May 2013, 9:47am

            Well, if it a fact then it must be true.

  5. Colin (London) 4 May 2013, 12:11pm

    He comes from a different era… Churchy as did Maggi. we can respect what good they did without taking on bitterness. The world has moved on from these view.
    Naturally it is the people still intouch with changes in society accross the world that will recognise the added advantage of an inclusive but diverse society.
    So good luch to Tebbit but he is to me a dinasaur now as probably each of will become at 80+.
    No other comment. This article should have nil media inches to me.

    1. So you’re not interested in the house of Lords vote then?
      I don’t know why you want to wish luck to a person who actively opposes your rights.

      1. Well said Joss, I second that.

    2. I think it’s a bit unfair to write off older people like that. There are 90-year-olds who are completely accepting of LGBT people, and 16-year-olds who are violently homophobic. Tebbit doesn’t have any excuses – he is just a selfish, hateful man and always has been.

      1. Absolutely, I personally know of people in their 80s who wish same sex couples nothing but the best of luck in their lives and their relationships. Recently William Shatner was speaking about how terrible and disgusting it is that misogyny, homophobia and racism is rife on the internet, he’s 82, only 7 days older than Norman Tebbit actually, but their attitudes couldn’t be more different.

      2. Spanner1960 4 May 2013, 3:30pm

        I disagree. I was listening this morning to Radio4 talking about the UKIP votes, and someone mentioned the gay marriage element, and one person pointed out that same sex marriage is actually more a divide between young and old than politically left and right.
        I am only in my 50’s, but I know many of my age have problems with it, and those in their 80’s find the whole thing bizarre. It’s not their fault, it is simply cultural evolution, and it will all fade out in time as the young replenish the old.

        1. Yes of course there’s going to be a general correlation between support for LGBT rights and age Spanner, that’s obvious. But there are exceptions to the rule and I have first hand experience of this.

          “Replenish the old”

          You make them sound like sweets in a supermarket not human beings.

          1. Spanner1960 4 May 2013, 5:35pm

            Of course there are exceptions, but we are not talking about them are we?
            Why is there always one pedantic cretin always comes out with something like “Yes, but sometimes when you toss a coin could possibly land on it’s side”?

          2. Spanner’s comment below has been given four thumbs-up: that indicates we currently have about four outsiders enjoying our homosexual and very anti-religious company here on this site.

    3. Churchy? Lord Tebbit is agnostic. I don’t know why he supports hetero civil unions though; they are effectively Marriage Lite. Maybe he’s losing it…

      1. He opposed the introduction of civil partnerships in the first place. Now he thinks everyone should be able to have one.

        He is not losing anything he’s always been a spiteful clown.

    4. “we can respect what good they did without taking on bitterness”

      No, Colin, people have every right to feel bitterness and be energised by bitterness regarding the great damage that Thatcher and Tebbit inflicted upon British society.

      Furthermore, it is clear you have taken little cognizance of the most enlightening facts that have been emerging about cold little Margaret, the little girl from Grantham, as a result of the publication of Charles Moore’s official autobiography.

      You also seem to have forgotten that Thatcher urged in and forced through a measure against homosexual people throughout Britain that resembled measures past by Hitler against the Jews he sought to exterminate, and which resembled measures currently on the table in vicious homophobic countries in Africa.

      1. Spanner1960 4 May 2013, 5:37pm

        Are you seriously trying to compare section 28 with the holocaust?
        You are an even bigger f*ckwit than I possibly imagined.

        1. Spanner, while I agree that comparisons to the holocaust are extreme and lacking in perspective, I often find your posts obnoxious and aggressive rather than persuasive and forthright.

        2. You’re clearly a fool who cannot comprehend the written language.

          Let me spell it out very simply for you.

          Thatcher introduced and passed measures that stigmatised homosexual people.

          Adolf did exactly the same thing, long before The Holocaust began.

          It’s very simple.

          Try hard and you may just possibly comprehend.

          1. Spanner1960 5 May 2013, 12:17am

            Hitler was responsible for the premeditated deaths of six million people, not to mention all the others that died in WWI
            I don’t ever remember Maggie building death camps, but maybe that small detail slipped past me.

          2. Colin (London) 6 May 2013, 1:14pm

            Spanner
            Please don’t waste your time on him. You are too precious to us.
            Best

      2. de Villiers 4 May 2013, 7:00pm

        The law by the Prime Minister Thatcher really did not resemble past measures taken by Hitler in their appearance or degree. Measures taken by Hitler and/or activities condoned by him included:

        Forcing gay people to wear pink triangles;
        Castrating gay people who would not be ‘re-programmed';
        Allowing gay people to be medically experimented on alive and without anaesthetic;
        Shooting and hunting gay people for entertainment or amusement;
        The forcible rape of lesbian women to force them to bear children;
        Forcing gay people to work in labour camps and applying a policy of exterminating them through work.

        Thatcher voted to decriminalise homosexuality but later to prohibit local authorities from promoting homosexuality in schools – which had the effect of preventing any discussion of it for children who might require help or who were bullied.

        Whilst a pernicious policy, the section 28 does not really compare to the measures taken by Hitler and the Nazis.

        1. I note with satisfaction your need to admit that you feel that “section 28 does not REALLY compare to the measures taken by Hitler and the Nazis”.

          The fact is that you recognise that just as Thatcher passed a measure which stigmatised homosexual people, Adolf passed measures which stigmatised homosexual people and Jews and others. The degree of stigmatization was obviously not equal, but that’s not the point I have made.

        2. de Villiers 4 May 2013, 11:23pm

          It is how I would say it in French. Perhaps it has greater weight in French. It has always worked when I have said it in English.

          Perhaps if I write in french you could it translate into English with the intended tone.

          You are going very wrong to make a comparator of Hitler to Thatcher.

          1. Spanner1960 5 May 2013, 9:31am

            Some lefties actually DO directly compare them, or in fact think maybe Adolf wasn’t such a bad chap after all compared to her.
            Section 28 came about as a knee-jerk reaction to the “loony left” such as Derek Hatton and Ken Livingstone, so to a certain degree it is actually the socialists who are responsible for “the promotion of homosexuality” to which society turned against.

          2. GingerlyColors 5 May 2013, 4:33pm

            I agree that Section 28 was a knee-jerk reaction, particularly to a childrens’ book called Jenny Lives With Eric And Martain which is about a young girl who lives with her gay father and his boyfriend. There were no prosecutions under Section 28 and it’s demise was practically a non-issue as society has moved on since the 1980’s and most people do not want to go down that road again.

    5. Colin (London) 5 May 2013, 10:08pm

      Surprised to get the negitive thumbs.
      The body of my comment I thought supported gay marriage and equality.

      “The world has moved on from these views. Naturally it is the people still intouch with changes in society accross the world that will recognise the added advantage of an inclusive but diverse society.”

      I’m negitive about religion but don’t see the point in holding bitterness personally. We are all different however. I cannot change the past so let it go and work for a better future for us. On Gay Marriage I have put in many hours contacting various bodies, PM, MP’s, friends, family, friends of friends. I’ve marched as well. And please I’m not looking to be Mr Popular either.

  6. Jock S. Trap 4 May 2013, 12:18pm

    Norman Tebbit – The true face of an idiot.

  7. All unmarried males are free to marry any unmarried woman. All unmarried women are free to marry any unmarried man.

    this is the new clever clever stance that the anti take, along with Im not a bigot …… but

    1. Akin to saying that all quadroplegics are free to utilise the perfectly good stairs.
      All jewish people are free to eat anything so long as it’s from our smorgasboard of French charcuterie and bacon.
      All women are perfectly entitled to use the urinals provided in the gents.
      Black people can chose whatever they want from our wide range of complexion lightening cosmetics.

  8. I’ve now made my mind up – right wing bigots have small brains. How else could someone write what Tebbit has without being stupid. Maybe he has dementia?

    1. Leave dementia out of this, please.

      My later father, a wonderful, kind man suffered from dementia, a sad and disabling disease.

      Tebbit’s odious views don’t stem from dementia or any other form of mental illness/health problem

      Your views Mark in this instance are grossly offensive to those suffering from, or those caring for those who are suffering from dementia.

      Dementure is no joke and it shouldn’t be banded out about the way you have done so here.

      1. I wasn’t joking, I was being serious. However, I have experience looking after someone with dementia first hand as I helped my Mum look after my Gran who had dementia for 5 years before she died, I had to help my Mum as she suffers from MS. And because of her illness coupled with looking after my Gran, laughing about it was the only way we could cope in the end. After looking after my Dad who died from cancer, I am now my Mum’s full time carer whose MS has left her paralysed from the waist down, so I know all about caring for someone with health problems – I have a lot of experience. So sorry if you were offended, but I know from caring for those with serious health problems that making light of a situation is the best way to deal with it – and I find your accusations that I don’t understand grossly offensive. btw, did you look after your Dad?

    2. He’s always been an odious twerp and people with right wing opinions do have lower iqs

  9. Fitting the photoghraph is in black and white – is it a daguerreotype image, his attitutes seem to have fossilised in that time, if not earlier.
    Sad man!

    My Gran who was 92 and died some years ago was more evolved than this dinosaur and she thought that gay couples should have ALL the same rights as any other couple.

  10. OH, shut up, you old pig.

  11. OH, shut up, you old pig.

  12. I don’t know why. people were so bothered about whether Thatcher was dead yet when people like Norman Tebbit are still in the HoL spewing shit like this

    1. Though he hasn’t served a prison sentence while a member of the Lords (I think?), so he’s pretty well-behaved by their standards.

  13. Liam the God 4 May 2013, 1:09pm

    Is that thing still moving about?
    As for his response: “Reactionary Old Tory Fart says something Reactionary” isn’t really news. Tebbit is a dinosaur, and will soon be joining his beloved leader to the Crematorium.
    Lots of Love, Liam the Total Bastard.

    1. Liam the God 4 May 2013, 1:10pm

      I meant to type “Following” not “Joining”. EDIT FUNCTION, PLEASE!!!

  14. Anne Clark 4 May 2013, 1:18pm

    Isn’t it about time that fossils like these retire and leave Politics alone?!!!

    1. Wee Cleggie tried to sort that out, but Labour insisted on keeping the fossils in power. They give Miliband hope, or something.

    2. No people shouldn’t retire from politics because of their age, people of all ages should have a say in the running of the country as long as they’re democratically ELECTED to do so.

      The real problem is the House of Lords as a whole not the age of Norman Tebbit

  15. Robert in S. Kensington 4 May 2013, 1:48pm

    So using his brilliant deduction, would he have chosen to marry a lesbian? If not, why not and if she refused to have sex with him what then, Tebbit? Bloody fool! He’s an embarrassment to himself and to his party. Sadly there are many who think like him. This alone calls for Lords reform. Have an elected body with one term limit of 5 years if need be, otherwise, I’d rather see the bloody lot abolished. New Zealand functions very well without an upper chamber. Look how easy they were able to get equal marriage passed.

  16. So he mentions about the ‘unfairness’ of 2 unmarried sisters who cannot benefit from the inheritance laws of a civil partnership yet conveniently omits that for thousands of years exactly the same ‘discrimination’ has taken place regarding an unmarried brother and sister in the same situation and still does. It’s only when gay couples gain official recognition that this ‘discrimination’ suddenly concerns Lord Tebbit

  17. Inspector General 4 May 2013, 2:06pm

    Lord Tebbitt is a wonderful chap and we should all be grateful he is still around and doing his bit for the country.

    Now, marriage is not suited to everyone. It does not mean you are second class, just that you won’t be contributing to the continuation of stability. Important word that, stability. Society is built around it, and efforts to remove such stability inevitably lead to personal and communal problems. A good example is the pregnant single woman riding the benefits mule, before it crashed under her weight.

    You gay types don’t need marriage. And to be perfectly frank, the idea of two people of the same sex being ‘married’ makes a mockery of what is left of the institution after the abuse it has undergone with divorce, and re-marriage. In fact, there is a case to be made that if someone has divorced, they should not allowed to be married to another, while the first spouse is still alive. That’s traditional church teaching, don’t you know.

    So you see. It’s not a question of ‘

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 May 2013, 3:01pm

      And who is responsbile for divorce and re-marriage? HETEROSEXUALS! In the case of adulterers, often serial hetero adulterers, they don’t need marriage either, ban them too, twat along with all the heteros who can’t procreate.

    2. Gary Farrimond 5 May 2013, 7:50pm

      The pregnant woman riding the ‘benefits mule’ was put there by a straight man whom took flight. Possibly the sort of chap that is too selfish to follow through his actions by taking responsibility for the fruits of his actions. Yet your type of person feel he is a suitable person to be allow to marry!

      We Gay types, as you put it want equality and be to allowed to choose marriage if that is what a gay couple wish to do, why is it making a mockery? Marriage is the union of 2 people in love wishing to make a public declaration of their love.

      Traditional Church teaching, all it seems to inspire is narrow mindedness and hate. Hate has caused many problems in the world but solved none!

  18. Inspector General 4 May 2013, 2:15pm

    So you see. It’s not a question of ‘equality’, whatever that word means nowadays, but everything to do with standards. Incidentally, the Inspector is a bachelor, you might like to know. He puts the needs of society ahead of the indulgence of the individual…

    1. The Inspector clearly needs to get himself a life.

      1. He’s just lonely cause he usually haunts Cranmer’s blog but the late Archbish’ is currently on some sort of sabbatical or something

    2. ‘the Inspector is a bachelor, you might like to know’

      Not particularly. One wonders if the Inspector is a closet case though.

      1. I agree it’s perhaps the least surprising thing about our third-person devotee of this site, but the implications of your speculation (however accurate) are inducing acute nausea.

    3. Get well soon, you sad bitter lonely old prick.

  19. Alex Scarrott, I applaud you loudly and long for having the gumption to write back to that silly old dinosaur, to put him right and to re-iterate your initial points.

    Well done!

    I know it’s below the belt to attack an opponent for his appearance, but that photo beside the article is so much like one of a prehistoric lizard, is it not?

    Looks like a prehistoric lizard, . . . IS a prehistoric lizard!

    We must all keep answering back!

    If the Lord I selected to write to, replies to me in Tebbit-style, I will be taking the time and trouble to refute whatever he has said.

  20. Consenting incestuous 4 May 2013, 2:39pm

    “I ask you to consider how you would feel if you were banned by law from marrying the person you love. I’m certain you’d feel upset and offended.”

    Does this mean that if man loves his mother, they should be able to marry? This seems to be the argument the deviant is putting forward?

    1. Nope, it’s quite simple my dear – all that is proposed is that the rights and restrictions which apply to opposite sex couple are extended to apply equally to same sex couples. That clear?

      1. Keith my pet, since your ‘arguments’ always come down to it’s wrong if my interpretation of the bible says so, are you really in any position to question anyone else’s arguments?

      2. Weasel words. So you’re promoting ideals you admit you can’t live up to yourself? Hmph.

        I didn’t know “we” were proposing the universal adoption of “the homosexual model”, whatever that is. I have no idea where you could have gleaned that peculiar thought.

        Humanity, now numbering more than 7bn, is in no danger of extinction, and even if it were it would be more likely as result of nuclear warfare or accident than HIV.

      3. Lost-My-Compass, you appear to have conveniently erased from your little mind the fact that in every one of the arts that colour and shape the world we live in today a great big and wonderful homosexual person has played a MAJOR ROLE.

        You owe much of what you enjoy today to homosexuals, Lost-My-Compass.

        Now toddle off, make your cocoa, and watch a re-run of Graham Norton, Alan Carr, Gok Wan, Paul O’Grady, and dozens and dozens of others who manage to put a smile on that tight old moosh of yours.

      4. Then change the law and they can. Hope that helps.

  21. Enlightening sinners & deviants 4 May 2013, 2:45pm

    Certain consenting groups should be barred from marriage.on the grounds of gross immorality.
    These include the consenting adult male incestuous community.
    The bestiality community.
    The consensual polygamous community.
    The homosexual community.
    Of course, these groups should be free to marry under current legality of one man one woman and since the law applies equally to all, we have equality.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 May 2013, 3:02pm

      You forgot to mention hetero adulterers, many of them serial adulterers and predators who should also be banned including infertile heteros who serve no purpose for marriage either then. F_cking retard!

      1. Inspector General 4 May 2013, 3:06pm

        Robert, dear fruit, we feel your pain, but no need to swear about it, that man !

        1. you mean you and your split personality disorder?

    2. Don’t you think ought to be posting at The Tablet, The Daily Mail, and any other narrow-minded, backward, and traditionalist papers of which you know?

    3. Won’t bother with the rest of your usual drivel Keith but care to explain how “The bestiality community” are “Certain consenting groups”

      Hearig animals now are we? Oh dear :\

    4. Gosh Keith, have you seriously discovered an adult male incestuous community? Well done, old dear. But I could have sworn you informed us not long ago that incest was only possible if there was the possibility of reproduction?

  22. Spanner1960 4 May 2013, 3:24pm

    An articulate and well written letter, but why the hell did the bloke have to lose the plot and make himself look a complete twat and start talking about Daleks?

    FFS GROW UP!

    1. Had this been written by a Labour politician I doubt that you’d be so complimentary about this letter.

      1. Spanner is a saddo, Chris, who cannot get on with his many East London Asian neighbours and who voted UKIP on Thursday in order to try and reverse matters. Ignore him.

        1. Spanner1960 4 May 2013, 5:30pm

          A bloke writes to his MP talking about Dr Who, and you call me a saddo?
          May I remind you UKIP just totally pwned your lot. Says a lot for you, pinko.

          1. Oh Spanner, honestly – ‘pinko’?! Doesn’t go well with your earlier exhortation to grow up, does it?

          2. Spanner1960 4 May 2013, 5:50pm

            Yes, but I’m not the one writing a letter to a f*cking MP or elder statesman!

          3. Maybe, but the advice is still good in a general sense too!

      2. Surely Spanner1960 was referring to the email written by Alex Scarrott?

        1. Spanner1960 5 May 2013, 12:19am

          Of course I was. Eddy obviously assumes Norman Tebbit is a big Doctor Who fan.

          1. Was he?

            Ok well I must have not been paying attention. My bad.

            “Must do better”.

      3. Spanner1960 4 May 2013, 5:29pm

        Even most Labour politicians know how to write a proper letter without coming across as a total tit.

        1. Was he?

          Ok well I must have not been paying attention. My bad.

          “Must do better”.

  23. Tebbit told BBC News (3.30pm today) –

    Norman Tebbit:“I think Mr Cameron could quietly whisper to his colleagues in the House of Lords Um I wouldn’t be at all terribly upset if you defeated this so-called gay marriage biill- And then we could forget it and get rid of another one of our problems”

    1. This Tebbit is a total HATER. He’ll be DEAD in a few years, but that won’t unfortunately be the end of his kind. The deluded ones keep on coming as long as there is Jesus, Mohammed, and all the other cult icons.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 4 May 2013, 5:04pm

      They can reject the bill all they want, but if the Parliament Act is invoked by the speaker, John Bercow, a pro equal marriage supporter, and since Maria Miller with support of the cabinet announced in December 2012 that it wouldn’t be ruled out, then it will pass into law without them in 2014. It serves the Lords no purpose in rejecting it but if it happens, so be it. They’re only delaying the inevitable a year from now which makes them look rather stupid and useless which would in a way pressure the case for Lords reform.

  24. gentlemind 4 May 2013, 4:05pm

    Lord Tebbit is right, but his abrupt language does not make it clear why he is right.

    Equality exists in context, and context is provided by purpose. Whatever the purpose of Civil Partnerships, it is a purpose that can be fulfilled by a man and a woman, since there is nothing that can be done by two people of the same sex that cannot be done by one man and woman.

    But the opposite is not true: there is something that can be done by one man and one woman that cannot be done by two people of the same sex.

    1. A man and woman can f*** and produce their own child.

      However, Mr. SickMind, are you aware that Planet Earth is already over-populated? Are you aware that there is a need for radically new models of human behaviour?

      There are 1000s of little mouths out there that have been produced by lustful and unmarried men and women who did not for a second f*** in order to conceive a child and those 1000s of little mouths need loving parents. It has been amply demonstrated time and again that those loving parents can be two people of the same sex.

      So you need to shed your antidiluvian notions and get with reality pronto, Mr. Sickmind, and more than anything else I suggest you prostrate your pathetic little self in front of one of your non-existent saints and beg that a touch of human compassion for the unwanted babes that you and your fellow heterosexists have produced in moments of unbridled LUST!

    2. I presume you refer to raising children, “sir”. Well, at this point, there are several studies that show we are just as good at that as hetero couples. History shows that, among Native American peoples,one of the primary duties of their “Two-Spirit People”, ie, Native American Gays and Lesbians, was the task of taking in and caring for orphaned children of the tribe. We may not be able to procreate directly, but considering the number of “you people” who have kids you don’t want and/or can’t take care of, it’s lucky that we are here to pick up after you and give them the love and care they need and deserve…AND we do it voluntarily, with more style and class than you’re ever likely to have, you not-so-gentle-mind!

    3. ‘…there is something that can be done by one man and one woman that cannot be done by two people of the same sex…’

      you may decide to have children within marriage but to have children marriage is not necessary

    4. If you mean reproduction, you had better note that (a) marriage isn’t necessary for reproduction [as should be perfectly obvious in the UK today] and (b) your awareness of historical context is shaky if you think reproduction was ever the only purpose of marriage.

    5. Robert in S. Kensington 4 May 2013, 6:08pm

      I find it odd that Tebbit doesn’t equate CPs for siblings with the potential for incest and bestiality, two of the three obsessive favourites of the anti equal marriage haters. I wonder why? CPs for hetero men and women would imply their sexual relations would not be construed as consummation since sex doesn’t validate a CP; no adultery applicable in the event of one of them straying to the bed of another which often happens in one in two hetero marriages. Of course, no such thing as divorce either would be applied, just a dissolution of the contract. Tebbit had better be careful what he wishes for. I’m surprised at his support of CPs for heteros since it means fewer marriages than ever would be taking place in churches and registrars’ offices.

    6. Bollocks

  25. alternativepress 4 May 2013, 4:28pm

    He’s perfect for UKIP – even told people to vote for them.

    1. alternativepress 4 May 2013, 4:32pm

      Sorry, told people to win back voters from them – not vote for them.

  26. Lord Tebbit and his ilk should not be in the Lords and should not have a say in anything.

    On a personal level, I really don’t think that the Lords should exist, they are unelected and yet have a say in new laws.

    The system in place in New Zealand was based on the UK system but they abolished the upper house some years ago, I really wish we would do the same.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 May 2013, 6:50pm

      Yes, New Zealand has a far better system and it explains why equal marriage had an easier time getting passed into law with a substantial majority including some conservatives.

      1. Spanner1960 5 May 2013, 9:56am

        Yes, but what about all the other crackpot legislation that gets through because of the lack of independent assessment?
        The upper house serves a vital purpose.

    2. Let’s start a No. 10 website campaign for a unicameral parliament like New Zealand’s then! They say that in New Zealand the elected government can do what it likes, but that’s what democracy is supposed to be about, isn’t it.

    3. Spanner1960 5 May 2013, 9:53am

      Oh right. Yes, let’s vote all the Lords in, and end up with another bunch of career politicians that are just arselicking and buying their way up the greasy pole.
      You forget, a lot of the Lords WERE voted in, on numerous occasions when they were MPs.
      Many lords are there not for the power or the money or the prestige, but just because they are proud to offer their contribution to British society.

      NZ is one of very few parliaments that does not have an upper house, and its politics operates very differently.
      Take the example of the Labour landslide in 1997 where they won 418 seats – had it not been for the Lords, Labour would have ridden roughshod over the entire country.
      They were creating new legislation at over one a day – it was only the Lords that prevented many of these ill-conceived, crackpot ideas from becoming law.
      However you define them, we NEED the Lords to stop any government from racing off and doing what the hell it likes without independent assessment and control.

  27. don’t worry people this old fecker with be day any day now -

  28. I disagree with Lord Tebbit, and those other Lordships opposed to equal marriage. So I shall not vote for them at the next elect… Ah, bugger. So much for democracy

    1. Spanner1960 5 May 2013, 9:38am

      Democracy’s a bitch, ain’t it?
      It’s all good until the majority go against you, then all of a sudden it’s unfair.
      You sound like some kid in the playground – “It’s my ball, and if I can’t be in goal I’m going home.”

  29. tebbit is so ukip he doesnt even know it

  30. Just out of curiosity, what do you consider to be your benefit to wider society, Keith? Have you reproduced?

  31. Restraint would also end the human race if universally applied. But since neither restraint or homosexuality will ever be universal, I don’t think we need worry about it.

  32. Christopher Coleman 4 May 2013, 5:55pm

    It is one of the injustices of democracy that the powerful and the famous get to say anything they want to and it gets reported. Tebbit is wrong to claim that a ban on equal marriage is not discrimination. However, he is correct to say that preventing heterosexuals form entering into civil partnerships is discriminatory. Many heterosexuals simply live together, because they do want all the baggage associated with marriage as it is today.

  33. Robert in S. Kensington 4 May 2013, 5:56pm

    Even if there were universal adoption by gay people, it wouldn’t stop heteros from reproducing. The world is already overpopulated if you look at under-developed countries where hunger is rife and infant mortality very high, absolutely NOTHING to do with gay people adopting let alone marrying. You’re an idiot. Stop hiding behind different aliases, you’re not that bright to assume we coudln’t figure that one out.

  34. Christopher Coleman 4 May 2013, 5:59pm

    If the human race were to become extinct, the earth and the other creatures that live on it would have good reason to celebrate, assuming we do not totally destroy the environment before we go.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 4 May 2013, 6:48pm

      I agree, and since it’s heterosexual run countries that are screwing it up with failure to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels as well as the devastation inflicted on the rain forest and clearing lands to build homes, offices and new cities to cater to the hetero population explosion, then yes, it would be cause for celebration for the other creatures who inhabit the planet a lot longer than we have.

  35. So he reckons there isn’t inequality with marriage as all unmarried males are allowed to marry unmarried females. That might be equality based on gender, but it certainly isn’t equality on the grounds of sexual orientation.
    But he thinks there’s inequality against heterosexual couples when it comes to civil partnerships?

    Well surely all single men can enter into a civil partnership with another man. And all single women can enter into a partnership with another woman. Under his logic, surely this is equality too?

    If you’re gonna try and be ‘clever’ to claim that there’s no sort of inequality going on, maybe he should at least apply that across the board and not be a hypocritical fool. His stances make him look like an idiot, then his mouth confirms it.

    1. And why is Tebbit so very eager to ignore the fact of different sexual orientations?

      Maybe Norman Tebbit has been his whole life suppressing a sexual orientation other than the one his wife knows about!

  36. Just like anti-miscegenation laws in the American South weren’t racist because white people weren’t allowed to marry black people just as much as black people weren’t allowed to marry white people.

    Bigots never change; only their targets change.

    IDIOT!

  37. Dave North 4 May 2013, 8:14pm

    Oh hurry up and die you old bigot.

    Not content with screwing my 80’s childhood he is now doing it in my adulthood.

  38. Just DIE & join Maggie you vie old sod.

  39. Get well soon, you sad bitter lonely old prick.

  40. Master Adrian 4 May 2013, 8:39pm

    Everyone should be allowed to enter Civil partnership, and everyone should be allowed to enter marriage, both regardless of gender, orientation, preference or whatever!

    1. Everyone, Adrian? Brothers and sisters? Fathers and daughters?

    2. Spanner1960 5 May 2013, 12:27am

      CPs were always a manufactured compromise in order to appease the religious right.
      Same sex marriage would directly replace civil partnerships and there would be no point whatsoever in having two parallel systems.
      CP’s are not fit for purpose and should be disbanded and everyone in them automatically upgraded to full married status free of charge.

  41. “the plague”, coarse brute?

    You appear to have just crawled out of a lice-infested carve sometime in the mediaeval period, or possibly earlier.

    I’d get back in if I were you. The REAL world is clearly not something you are equipped to cope with.

  42. Well done, Alex. Beautifully put. But pearls before swine, I’m afraid.

  43. Just ignore the silly old sod. He was past his sell by date several decades ago. He will soon be in the same state as his lady colleague.

  44. Isn’t about time this fossilised c*nt did all of mankind a favour and upped and died ? . God knows his brain did just that years ago!

  45. That There Other David 4 May 2013, 10:52pm

    It’s interesting. The closer we get to marriage equality the greater the number of trolls and other anti-equality fools that are appearing on this site.

    They’re obviously very upset at what’s happening.

    Good.

  46. Staircase2 4 May 2013, 11:13pm

    Stupid old sod!

    He never was the brightest biscuit in the biscuit barrel when it came to anything concerning Equalities or Human Rights was he…

  47. They should have buried him with Thatcher….hateful old c**t

  48. GingerlyColors 5 May 2013, 4:46pm

    Everybody should have the right to either marry or enter into a Civil Partnership, regardless of sexual orientation. Once, the church had the monopoly on marriage. Starting with civil marriages, the institution of marriage has evolved and now it is only a matter of time before gay marriages become a reality.
    While I respect Norman Tebbitt for his long marriage to Margaret, having to care for her after the IRA put her in a wheelchair at Brighton in 1984, I feel that his comments on gay issues are misguided and that he should keep them to himself.
    If marriage equality is good enough for Argentina then it is good enough for us.

  49. Norman Tebbit, that well-known authority on every aspect of humanity both physical, psychological and spiritual. I well recall his words of wisdom that aimed to defeat the Gender Recognition Act in 2004 “Sex is decided by the chromosomes of a human being. If we have XX chromosomes, we are women; if we have XY chromosomes, we are men”. If I stood up to speak authoritatively on any subject I would make very sure of my facts first. Tebbit obviously draws his ‘facts’ from the National Curriculum sex education for Primary schools. Chromosomes are simply instruments in the orchestra of gestation, they do not govern it and they certainly do not override the brain. It is this organ (and genetic inheritance) which controls gender identity, sexuality, behaviour, cognition etc. In other words, everything that makes us thinking, feeling beings.

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