Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Former Christian Peoples Alliance leader Alan Craig: ‘Polygamous marriages should be included in the same-sex marriage bill’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Believe what you want Mr Craig, but those of us who aren’t blinded by ignorance and bigotry know that this bill will bring full equality.

    It is idiots like him that fans the flame of discrimination and constantly adds more fuel.

  2. We’ll leave that campaign to you, T0sspot.

  3. bobbleobble 16 May 2013, 1:04pm

    The relationship between spinster sisters is not analogous to a lesbian couple in the same that the relationship between a brother and sister is not analogous to a heterosexual couple. It’s not hard to undrstand. What a moron.

    1. Notlongnow 16 May 2013, 5:12pm

      I love this post, so well stated bobbleobble :) I get so angry when people compare same sex marriage to everything that is illegal for good reason.
      Mr Craig…Jesus taught that we should love our neighbour and he stood for equailty and tolerance….that is what a true Christian believes. You and all the other ignorant homophobes like you are frauds and should hang your heads in shame calling yourselves Christians.

  4. This homophobe says “in reality the bill does not create ‘equal marriage’ at all . . . . it creates new inequalities and discrimination.”

    Listen, Mr. Craig, just because bad thoughts occur to you, it doesn’t follow that they are true.

    You need to keep repeating this.

    It’s the only way to deal with paranoia.

  5. i find it funny people like that always go on about it leading to polygamous marriages but without actualy saying whats wrong with that so long as all are consenting adults but more importantly as far as im aware there is no push for that anywhere equal marriage has been legalised already

    1. bobbleobble 16 May 2013, 1:25pm

      I agree, I wish someone who talks about the dangers of SSM leading to the evils of polygamy would actually explain why polygamy is so evil, especially since there’s no prohibition on it in the Bible as far as I’m aware. Personally it’s not something that appeals to me, I have enough trouble with one boyfriend never mind several but I honestly can’t see the harm.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 16 May 2013, 1:38pm

        The practicality of it presents problems with state benefits if children are involved as well as divorce settlements, imagine the expense. Then there’s the issue of large numbers of children being born into such unions, a burden on the state I would think. This buffoon doesn’t understand that such unions are illegal in most civilised societies and always will be. He’s making a fool of himself for even opening his mouth.

      2. I think polygamy was encouraged in the bible. I believe King Soloman had something like 700 wives although I’m no Bible scholar.

        I think too that in Mormonism and Islam, you are allowed more than 1 wife although it is not common these days, again I may be wrong.

  6. As soon as I hit the word “Christian” I knew it would be hate filled bigoted rubbish and I wasn’t dissapointed.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 16 May 2013, 1:56pm

      And another bloody Tory too. Their party is infested with this scum.

  7. Robert in S. Kensington 16 May 2013, 1:40pm

    Come on, all ye who voted no in February. Let’s hear your support for this loon? Cat got your tongues?

  8. I think he should add that since one man and one woman marry for life and forsaking all others, divorce will need to be banned and the approprate penalty applied to cheaters

    1. Yea we need to stone Nadine Dorries, the home wrecking shrew!

  9. Craig need to answer the question that Maria raised yesterday – this isn’t just something that is happening to “little Englander Christians”, it’s a global phenomenon and the UK is lagging behind, held back by too much consideration being given to people who have “problems” with other people being treated fairly while all the time bleating that they (“Christians”) are being maltreated for not being allowed to impose their own unpleasantness and misery on the rest of us. He didn’t like it when Peter Tatchell called him a homophobe but what else is he?

  10. Bobbleobble took the words straight out of my mouth.

    And isn’t it rather rich for Craig to use language like ‘Gaystapo’ then slam Stonewall for “vicious name-calling”?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 16 May 2013, 1:59pm

      Yes, but dismisses the antics of the English Inquisition in the name of the Anglican cult whose protagonists, Burrowes and Loughton sit on the Tory back benches and one at the front, Philip Hammond.

      Stonewall was spot on and it stands vindicated for calling the infamous O’Brien a bigot too. Richly deserved.

  11. They tried adding this stuff to civil partnership legislation in an attempt to sink it.
    Didn’t work then, wont work now.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 16 May 2013, 3:18pm

      It failed in Committee by 15-4, it will fail again. It’s a wrecking ploy at any cost. There are six of them leading the charge, MPs Tim Loughton, Rob Wilson, Julian Huppert, Greg Mulholland, Stephen Williams and Charlotte Leslie. The coward, Leslie, abstained from the February 5th vote saying the bill was “deeply flawed”. They won’t succeed. They don’t believe in equal marriage and voted no so why would they want CPs for straights, bloody fools. In my view, MPs voting against, abstaining or absenting themselves for the second reading should be barred from voting and tabling amendments.

      That said, if all those who voted no, abstained or were absent, but vote for allowing straights access to CPs, they would still be outnumbered among those who overwhelming voted 400-175 for the original bill. I don’t see any of them doing a u-turn to derail it.

      1. bobbleobble 16 May 2013, 3:52pm

        Huppert and Williams are genuine but the problem is that now the government has rejected the idea of opposite sex civil partnerships, continuing to support the amendment simply plays into the hands of those trying to wreck the bill.

        The others as you say are simply being vexatious in order to cause problems, If I did that in my job I’d be out on my ear but for some reason it’s acceptable in Parliament. Time it wasn’t in my opinion.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 16 May 2013, 7:10pm

          What I don’t understand is, why would any of them support CPs for straights when none support equal marriage? Five of them voted no in February, I think it’s a deceptive move to sew division but I doubt if they’ll succeed. Huppert and Williams obviously want to see heterosexuals enjoy more rights by opening CPs to them but barring gays from civil marriage. It makes absolutely no sense and implies that they are indeed not genuine, but just as conniving and dishonest as the others. They’re doing it because the don’t want equal marriage to pass.That’s the bottom line. They’re also doing it to try to manipulate some in the Lords to follow suit and reject the bill.

        2. Robert in S. Kensington 16 May 2013, 7:11pm

          What I don’t understand is, why would any of them support CPs for straights when none support equal marriage? Five of them voted no in February, I think it’s a deceptive move to sew division but I doubt if they’ll succeed. Huppert and Williams obviously want to see heterosexuals enjoy more rights by opening CPs to them but barring gays from civil marriage. It makes absolutely no sense and implies that they are indeed not genuine, but just as conniving and dishonest as the others. They’re doing it because they don’t want equal marriage to pass.That’s the bottom line. They’re also doing it to try to manipulate some in the Lords to follow suit and reject the bill.

  12. Time to start divorcing all those heterosexuals who can’t/won’t have kids! Incest marriages are already banned under s.11 matrimonial causes act – for someone who claims they know about the legal defintion of marriage they need to look up the legal definition!

  13. What exactly is so hard for you to understand Mr. Craig?

    Marriage creates a NEW next of kin family relationship!
    Parents and siblings are already next of kin – apart from the close relationship they are open to coersive exploitation, likely lack of free consent, and in the case of reproduction, genetic abnormalalaties are amplified – therefore not permitted.

    As for more than two people entering into a marriage – they are usually coersive or exploitative, by the male; and free and open consent is not usual between ALL partners – hence not legal in most free societies.

    That wasnt hard was it Mr, Craig.
    Now go away and stop spouting rubbish.

  14. A pathetic attempt to wreck the Bill by a vicious, spiteful homophobe.

    I pity him. He thinks he’s being clever with his stupid analogy, but hate has clearly addled his brain. He might as well have said that marriage as it stands now is unfair as it doesn’t allow a brother and sister to marry.

    He should be embarrassed at his idiocy and ‘christian’ hate.

  15. Jock S. Trap 16 May 2013, 3:33pm

    What a silly little Bigot.

    Incest is illegal.
    Polygamy is illegal.

    Being Gay, Lesbian is NOT illegal.

    You’d think they’d be able to work it out but facts they don’t. Stirring hatred they promote and love.

    It’s very sad, oh silly wee bigot… and to be honest I don’t think anyone’s really listen to you Mr Craig.

    Now bad to that cave you go.

  16. Miguel Sanchez 16 May 2013, 4:39pm

    “And if the bill is about equality for minorities, why are the polygamous marriages of Muslims and Mormons excluded from it? And what about polyandrous marriages where there is one woman and two or more men?”

    Mr. Craig, what part of Polygomy is against the law and has been and will be DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?!!!!

  17. *signs* Yes think of the children – OUR CHILDREN. Honestly, have you never heard of Artificial Insemination, IVF, surrogacy, co-parenting?! For what it’s worth – I see nothing wrong with polygamous marriages anyway as long as everyone is consenting.

  18. Someone needs to call his bluff and submit a polygamy amendment with Craig’s name on it!

    The “Alan Craig Polygamy Equal Marriage Amendment.”

    Our heads would spin watching him backpedal.

  19. Christopher in Canada 16 May 2013, 4:58pm

    Who cares if it does? Whatever floats your boat, provided the people entering into such arrangements have equal say and equal power, which, in the religions, means that women do NOT. It’s this whole notion of enforcing others to live the way YOU do that riles me. I have no say in how others live their own lives and meet their own hapinnesses. I only ask the same for me.

  20. Yes, let’s do that. Let’s try to legalise and introduce polygamy, polyandry, incest, bestiality, and any other slippery red herring the bigoted “pro-marriage” wingnuts care to prevaricate. Then we can actually test and challenge our standards and principles, and support for same-sex marriage will still be as strong as (if not stronger than) it is today.

    I’m interested in their reasoning for forbidding the aforementioned arrangements, beyond clutching onto the tradition of “one man and one woman”. They accuse the bill of being illogical, yet aren’t even willing or able to answer their own questions; their cowardice is palpable.

  21. And him noting Muslims and Mormons as having polygamous marriages is total insane. My friend is full Muslim and he says that today’s world many Muslim believers choose to have monogamous relationships rather than what it use to be. And Mormons don’t really have polygamous at all, he’s either brainwash by some religious labeling or just plain racist. All in all, religion doesn’t even play a part in Marriage Equality. It just points out that people who truly love and are committed to one another can get married. Either in a Church, a Mosque, or in a train for all I care but its recognized by the State and country. Like every living human being who has the right to marry.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all