Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Lord Carey: ‘Love is not enough’ to justify same-sex marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I so wish this fossil would shut up.

  2. Incest is illegal being gay isnt….I always thought you married because of love….you dont have to marry to have a kid these days so he couldnt use that one….why should his views have respect when he doesnt respect anybody elses?….this old dinosaur needs to be extinct…

  3. I bet his wife feels all warm inside being married to a man with that outlook…

  4. The warblings of a mad old man!

    The love I have for my siblings is completely different to the love that I have for my Civil Partner.

    The man clearly has designs on one of his siblings, if he has any.

  5. For him to say what he has said, it is no surprise that I find the churches attitude to “non believers & conformists” hypocritical at best. To say “love and commitment is not enough” is unbelievable. Which planet is Lord Carey now living on. I suggest he dusts off the dust from sitting in the lords and starts actually living and understanding the real world as it is today – now 100 years ago and more.

  6. The consanguinity laws are not about love they are about incest and child welfare. If you were so concerned about them you could have spoken about them any time since the white paper was published. To do so now smacks of straw clutching.

  7. THIS is why I argue for a secular state.

    Not enough is being made of the unelected Lords who are given their position PURELY on the basis of being representatives of the Church of England.

    An absolute disgrace.

    Note – I am not talking about Lords who happen to be superstitious. I’m talking about Lords whose seat is by virtue of being a representative of the Church of England.

    Disgraceful. Replace C of E with Islam and people would realise how ridiculous the situation is.

    1. Andrew McFarland Campbell 31 May 2013, 12:28pm

      I used to be opposed to an elected House of Lords. Having seen some of the nonsense that elderly Lords come up with on this issue, I now fully support an elected Lords.

      It is almost like every elderly Lord is saying “hi everyone, look how stupid an unelected Lords is. Everything we say is evidence that the Lords should be elected,” with the Lords Spiritual adding “Yes, we’re all completely barmy and would like to remind everyone that the Church of England really should be disestablished!”

    2. Asking for “equality” from a “Lord” is a bit of a stretch in any event, innit?

  8. So to all you infertile, elderly or just downright selfish couples out there who don’t want to, or can’t, have children, who wish to marry for love and commitment to another human being for the rest of your life then you can’t. Lord Carey says so!

    Moron!

  9. Andrew McFarland Campbell 31 May 2013, 12:24pm

    Going back to Genesis, as all marriage ‘traditionalists’ should do, you will find that marriage was instituted before the fall, and reproduction wasn’t part of it until after. In other words, reproduction is not part of the ‘ideal’ marriage.

  10. When I read complete and utter rubbish like this from Mr Carey, it is clear he has lost the argument and is grasping at straws.

    So if people don’t marry for love, why do they marry Mr Carey? Maybe it’s because the husband considers his wife his property? Or maybe because he wants to have 6 wives and 300 concubines like the bible permits?

    Of course people marry for love you idiot!

    To suggest that equal marriage will allow mothers to marry their daughters or 2 brothers to get married is ridiculous – it hasn’t happened in Canada or any other country that permits equal marriage and it won’t happen here. To suggest otherwise is simply scare-mongering – I would hope that the majority of the lords have a modicum of common sense to reject these ridiculous and pathetic assertions.

    Is this really the best you can do, Mr Carey?!

  11. Robert in S. Kensington 31 May 2013, 12:27pm

    So there we have it, he’s more or less admitted that marriage isn’t about love at all. The man will make a laughing stock of himself when he gets up to rant this bile on Monday. Ignorant swivel-eyed religious loon. Drop dead, Carey and do us all a favour.

    1. I for one will be opening a bottle of Moet when this bigoted old turkey kicks the bucket.

      This cannot happen a day too soon.

      1. And Tebbit should have the words “I quite fancy my brother” etched into his tombstone. In fact, I think I’ll do a Masonry course at night-school and chisel it onto his grave myself.

  12. Silly old fool – who said it was all about love.

    Someone needs to explain to him it is about equality – not that many religious people seem to care much about that. Then again their ‘I am superior because I believe’ narcissism doesn’t go well with constructs of equality. So I guess what can you expect.

    1. Asking for “equality” from a “Lord” is a bit of a stretch in any event, innit?

  13. I don’t get what the old git is saying. Putting aside he’s one of the most homophobic members of the Church of England, and was a thoughally disgusting creature when in office, his concept of love not being at the centre of marriage is absurd — it couldn’t be more clear during the marriage ceremony – to love someone so much you are there in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer, to have and to hold, … if people are getting married for any other reason than love then that’s screwed up.

    His words hurt Christianity more than I ever could. He’s a vicious nasty hateful spiteful and odious malevolence. I hope he gets everlasting piles :-p

    1. You are right, I have never heard marriage vows that say: “I (name) promise to have X amount of children…”. Ridiculous!
      For people like Mr Carey is perfectly justifiable to ask a couple that does not love each other anymore to remain together, even if that makes them unhappy.
      But, after all, is about control and power.

  14. Love is enough for straight folks getting married

    And don’t even think of kids as an issue. Gay couples raise kids, straight couples don’t raise kids. There’s no-one out there stopping 80 year olds, the infertile or the childless by choice marrying. Kids are a red herring

  15. Oh get back under your Palaeolithic rock you doddery old fool. We don’t give a damn about what your religion thinks about us, you nit wit. Even if being gay is a choice and it’s all about sex, so what? It’s none of your business what consenting adults wish to do together. If love is not enough for us to get married then people that cannot procreate either because of health, infertility or age by your logic should not be allowed to get married either. You are a moron you hateful imbecilic backwards bigot. We are NOT going away and we are not frightened of you or your imaginary friend. Get over it!

  16. OMG, it's a slippery slope! 31 May 2013, 12:44pm

    The same old slippery slope fallacy!

    1. Same rubbish he likes to repeat in the hope someone believes it. I like this answer from The Times:
      http://timesopinion.tumblr.com/post/33233938699/gay-marriage-does-not-lead-to-polygamy-lord-carey

  17. I see Mr Carey is wearing spectacles….does he not read and follow the teachings of the bible.

    Lev. 21:20 states that you may not approach the altar of God if you have a defect in your sight.

    1. And I bet he’s partial to a Tesco’s prawn sandwich too!

      1. And what’s the betting on all his fancy robes being mixed fibres too? The hypocrisy of these people is boundless.

  18. This fool should go back into his theatre of mumbo-jumboism and continue the futile pursuit of talking to his hands. I seem to recall his babble saying something about loving one’s neighbour – but only if they are a like minded bigot.

  19. The Kitty Channel 31 May 2013, 12:49pm

    My heart always sinks when this crusty relic of a dying swiveleyesation opens his mouth.

  20. More hate, less love? Is that his message to the nation?

  21. It’s horribly revealing of Carey’s state of mind (ghastly, unctuous lickspittle that he is – if you’ve ever seen him on TV fawning on royalty you’ll know exactly what I mean) that of all the things in the world and in this country that might benefit from the attention of a senior clergyman, this is what he chooses to sound off about, over and over again. He truly is a horrible creature, and one increasingly obviously incapable of reason.

    1. Asking for “equality” from a “Lord” is a bit of a stretch in any event, innit?

  22. Paul Halsall 31 May 2013, 12:58pm

    Abraham married his sister Sarah! What do you think Lord Carey?

    1. And the Patriarch Jacob married two sisters – his first cousins – and had a total of 13 children by them and their two serving women. Such a delightful example of Biblical marriage, isn’t it?

  23. Is he one of the seagulls from Finding Nemo …… Mine! Mine! Mine!

  24. I’m always amazed when people in influential positions make such poor arguments.

    Mother and daughter is a clear family relationship. Marriage creates a family relationship between two people where there was none. It brings people together and makes them family, creating that unique family bond which is that between two spouses.

    It makes no sense for mother and child to become spouses.

    I think he is again being inspired by that tax issue that was raised by that other guy, and that other actor guy, a couple of weeks ago. That doesn’t make sense for a different reason: that if that was a risk, the same would be true of civil partnerships (or straight marriages) but it doesn’t strike me as an actual risk that we’ve been running.

  25. Since the current norm of heterosexual marriage does not allow opposite sex immediate family members to marry, why would one assume that legalizing homosexual marriage would mandate allowing same sex immediate family members to marry?

  26. Two arguments here, two points

    1) There’s a law against incest and pretty much everyone doesn’t think that way about their immediate family. Mr Clary’s inability to imagine having sex with another man may equal his inability to imagine having sex with his mother but that alone doesn’t make the two things equivalent!

    2) Well, WHY NOT marriage between eman and two women? Why not polygamous families? They can make strong, wonderful and trusting groups with deep relationships. What’s wrong with that?

    1. Pardon the insta-send. I meant Carey. And I meant ‘one man’. Cheers

    2. To your second point, Carey would say because it’s not “biblical”. Of course, he would have to deny centuries of polygamy in the Bible, all with the approval of God.

    3. As to polygamy, without saying society could never sanction it, it is utterly off the point,

      Marriage is well and truly defined in law in the west at any rate as a contract between two people that governs many aspect of financial and social welfare. We know what it means for one to have A spouse who makes one’s medical decisions should the need arise, or to share a pension etc etc. When you have 3,4,5 people each of whom could likewise have 3,4,5 spouses…you are talking now about REDEFINITION. Not saying it can’t happen but it would take a lot of legislative work and years of court cases to iron out polygamy legally.

  27. what makes this man look really stupid, is the simple fact that you can look all over the world at the places that have legalized gay marriage. none of the things he claims will happen, will actually happen. it’s typical christian fear mongering b/c they are afraid to lose their power. they know gay inclusion into society means a dwindling flock, b/c less and less ppl are choosing their hate over civility and love. they have been fudging the numbers on their “flocks” for years to make it sound like they still have lots of followers but i’m afraid it isn’t so. the sooner the better i say.

  28. a man willing to stand up for what he believes in , and face the vengeance of the mob ( readers comments). christ said unpopular things in his day , and was crucified , by the same ilk. it is good in this day and age to see a man that stands for something.

    1. Beelzeebub 31 May 2013, 3:09pm

      The man stands for nothing but bigotry.

      His argument is illogical

    2. I’m afraid Carey is more like the voice of the mob (or so the Daily Mail) and its ilk would have us believe.

      I doubt the person referred to as Jesus of Nazareth would have wasted as much time worrying about civil matters that are none of his concern. Your analogy is erroneous.

    3. Christ said unpopular BUT wise things. Mr Carey say unpopular and stupid things.

  29. CH Brighton 31 May 2013, 2:28pm

    Why doesn’t this man and his friends at Christian Concern, Anglican Mainstream, the Christian Institute, the Vatican etc, put their money where their mouths are? They go on and on about how awful we are, but it doesn’t stop them from exploiting us. One never hears them say they refuse to accept the tax money paid by LGBT people that pays for their faith schools or other services provided via the state. Nasty hypocrites the lot of ‘em.

  30. then explain to me what is enough? Honestly, if love and commitment are not the foundations of marriage, no wonder the divorce rates are up….. It is not enough to marru for love but it is enough to marry cause you got knocked up?

    1. I think his idea of “enough” is using women as nothing other than baby factories.
      He either has no care for, or concept of the love and commitment that many gay and straight couples use as the foundations for their relationships.

  31. Mabye hes right! listen if two non related people who love eachother get a binding legal contract bUt happen to be the same gender, mabye the govermnent will allow for children to be classed as food, or mabye we coUld leagalise pUtting bleach in the water, or mabye mUrder wont be illegal anymore! idn i might be jUmping to conclUsions…

  32. Why are these people so fascinated with incest and polygamy? And why do they constantly threaten everyone with legislative concepts by which to permit it?
    If he wants to lobby in favor of incest and polygamy, then he can do it himself, instead of accusing others of doing it on his behalf.

  33. Rich Hudson 31 May 2013, 2:49pm

    He continues to be irrelevant and illogical…

  34. Har Davids 31 May 2013, 2:52pm

    How can this fool argue against same-sex marriage with incest and polygamy as possible results, while the Bible doesn’t seem to be okay with it? Gays getting married will have the effect of people living more according to Carey’s book..

  35. Lord Carey argues that marriage is “a one man-one woman relationship with procreation linking the generations”. Is he therefore suggesting that a one man-one woman relationship who cannot procreate is no longer a marriage? Flawed arguement.

  36. Dick Rimmer 31 May 2013, 3:35pm

    Everyone here is, oh so conveniently, misrepresenting what Lord Carey is saying, and hence avoiding the points he is raising.

    It is of course true that most marriages take place because of love. I (and many others) would argue that marriages should be based on love, although it’s impossible for the state to regulate this.

    ‘Love’ alone though is not enough. As if it was, who would bother going to the trouble of obtaining a certificate to ‘prove’ that they loved their spouse? And as already mentioned, how could the state determine whether the parties to a marriage loved each other?

    There is more to marriage than just love. It is also about sexual complementarity and the recognition of the heterosexual union as the absolute bedrock of any successful society. Every one of us needed a mother AND a father – and this will of course continue to be the case.

    As a gay man, I’m as opposed to this abhorrent notion as Carey. To me, same sex ‘marriage’ is as oxymoronic as ‘cylindrical rectangle’

    1. Why can people not get it through their thick skulls that enabling civil marriage for same-sex couples is not going to change marriage for opposite-sex couples ONE TINY BIT?

      If you, as a gay man (one with Ishoos, it would seem), don’t want to get married, don’t. Enabling same-sex couples to marry is not going to overthrow the “bedrock” of society in any way. Nobody is suggesting for one moment that opposite-sex marriage and parenthood should be replaced by SSM. Why would anyone in their right mind think so?

    2. On the same token, why would anyone wanting to have sex or to have children bother going to the trouble of obtaining a certificate of marriage?
      If you marry for social recognition (so others can tell you you’re good and you’re going to heaven) then why do you want to deny this to homosexual couples? Letting others be accepted by society (which is fundamental for humans to be happy) won’t make you a bad person or unhappy.
      The fundamental point is that some people (i.e. religions) want to decide who is “good” and who is “bad” based on the fears and ignorance of people that lived more than 2000 years ago!

    3. I’m sorry but as an American I don’t know if ‘balderdash’ is still an appropriate response. Consider it offered on condition.

      Your comment lacks entirely in common sense, empathy, and any understanding of humanity or social reality. Marriage is a legal fiction or creation depending on your viewpoint. I will freely leave it up to god whether or not a marriage is recognized by her in the eternal ether. The blessings of god are not dispensed by man in general nor Parliament in particular. Since civil unions have all the same legal rights they should suffice right? Wrong. Since civil unions have all the same legal rights, they have no purpose when ‘marriage’ is completely understood in the law across the globe.

      Love alone is not the reason for getting married. Social support. Clarity of the relationship. What hole whose cock does or doesn’t go into is not a bedrock of anything. Though Bed-Rock is a nice pun, I give you that. But you’re Dick Rimmer.

    4. “To me, same sex ‘marriage’ is as oxymoronic as ‘cylindrical rectangle’”

      A cylindrical rectangle is easy, if you have a rectangular piece of paper or other flexible material you can take two opposite ends of the material and join or marry them together then you will have formed a cylinder.

      You aren’t really thinking things through at all are you.

  37. Jock S. Trap 31 May 2013, 3:51pm

    I question why anyone who clearly doesn’t understand the difference between loving relationships and the love between sibling…. or love in general should be able to speak out in public.

    He clearly doesn’t understand about love so who is he to preach it?

    He knows more about hate than love anyway.

  38. After reading Lord Carey’s “dire” prediction, I wondered what I would say to him, in response. I had to smile, when I remembered a 1950s U.S. detective program, Dragnet, and the iconic line Joe Friday often uttered to witnesses: “Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.” It’s simple and effective, as it places the burden of proof on the on the shoulders of the person making the outrageous statement. Just the facts, Lord Carey, just the facts.

  39. He’s a repulsive homophobic fascist bigoted piece of homophobic scum who doesn’t deserve to breathe our air. I hope this bigoted homophobe is beaten, lynched, then set alight. But not before, his wife and daughters are raped. Disgraceful homophobic bigoted homophobic homophobia-riddled bigoted homophobe.

    1. You don’t like him much…do you? :)

  40. George Carey says;
    “You can’t get married – it’s against my religion!”

  41. Soooo, I’m assuming this guy think he is God since he can decide what is or isn’t marriage. We all know the effects of incest, but I’m quite certain NONE of those effects occur during same-sex marriages. It’s so very sad to see someone in the year 2013 stating such ridiculous ideas and actually being published.

  42. Frank Boulton 31 May 2013, 6:45pm

    Lord Carey’s arguments against same-sex marriage are insubstantial. Same-sex marriages already happen in the UK. The new legislation merely seeks to recognise them. They’ve happened in most cultures for thousands of years without dire consequences.

    Marriage equality has not opened up the way to polygamy in countries which have same-sex marriage. This is about equality; everyone gets one relationship recognised by the law. Polygamy would upset that balance by again giving some people more right to marry than others have.

    This bill is not about Holy Matrimony. It’s about civil marriage.

    Anyone who thinks that their marriage has been ruined by someone else’s marriage should consult a psychiatrist.

  43. if love is not enough to justify same sex marriages, it is not enough to justify straight marriage either. Clearly, we should require that all marriages be limited to those able and willing to procreate, and to those who intend to carry on their family and ethnic heritage, so that families, not individuals, should be arranging the marriages – oh, you say the Taliban already does that? well….

  44. Has he not yet heard that there are different KINDS of love? Does brotherly love, or parental love, or platonic love equate to marital love??

    What an irrelevant piece of trash his comments pile up to…(CRA*). Did heterosexual marriage rise to the level of brothers and sisters marrying??

    AH GRRRRR!! I am sorry I just cannot abide a fool, old or young.

  45. Not one society, after having legalised same sex marriage, has ever, *EVER* gone on to legalise incest, bigamy or polygamy.

    No one has ever pushed for them to be legalised, and we already have laws against them. And why would anyone wanting for this to happen wait until same sex marriage is legalised anyway?!

    Lord Carey is basically being a vile little cretin, grandstanding on a soapbox put under his feet by his Christian belief. He is oblivious to history, fact, society, the modern world, and progress. Idiots like him will die out, and be replaced by secular, thinking people and societies that want to progress and see all humans as being equal.

    I hope he doesn’t derail equality on the basis of his own beliefs that he deems to be superior.

  46. What is it with some of these people and having sex with their mother, father, brother and sister? I love my mother but she better keep her panties on when she’s near me.

  47. As to polygamy, without saying society could never sanction it, it is utterly off the point,

    Marriage is well and truly defined in law in the west at any rate as a contract between two people that governs many aspect of financial and social welfare.

    We know what it means for one to have *A* spouse who makes one’s medical decisions should the need arise, or to share a pension etc etc. When you have 3,4,5 people each of whom could likewise have 3,4,5 spouses…you are talking now about REDEFINITION.

    Not saying it can’t happen but it would take a lot of legislative work and years of court cases to iron out polygamy legally.

  48. It’s amazing how he has so much to say about adults wanting to marry other adults but, little to say about how priest should be punished for their inequities towards children.

  49. Trouble is we have no way of removing these nitwits, the Lords can literally lord it over us until the day they die, At least we can vote out the MP’s who loose their marbles. This is supposed to be a democracy. Time to get rid of the house of lords I think.

  50. Many admirable comments on here but I’d at least be happier if Pink Paper could forward these comments to Lord Carey (but then for him to read and understand them is a different matter I suppose)

  51. Math Tutor for the oxymoronic Dick Rimmer.

    The lateral surface area of a cylinder is the area of its lateral surface that means it does not include the circular ends.
    The area of the RECTANGLE that forms a CYLINDER is called the curved surface area of a cylinder.
    Curved surface area of a cylinder = 2 π rh square units.

    1. sue leitch 1 Jun 2013, 1:28am

      Another red herring – the church is obviously against sexuality of same sex couples – the church however harbours much sexual abuse of young boys by church men

  52. As long as society does decide to impose some kind of official social imprimatur on those in long-term sexual relationships, implying that they are somehow special and superior to other kinds of relationships, we should have this system applied irrespective of the genders of the participants.

    But I do have a problem with this notion in the first place. It seems to me very patriarchal and patronising indeed that society should maintain systems for approving and elevating certain kinds of relationships over and above others. Sure, to some people their relationship with their long-term sexual partner is the most important one in their life, but not to everybody. Some people are far more attached to a brother or a mother or best friend, and would really quite like society to recognise that bond on the same level it recognises those of sexual partners.

    The one-size-fits-all marriage model is outdated and stifling, and it demeans those whose lives and psychology do not fit the norm.

  53. Well, it certainly isn’t enough for conservative Christian straight marriages! Look at this US data which states that conservative Christians have far higher levels of divorce than normal people…
    http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

  54. But your hatred of the LGBT Community is enough to try and stop Equal Marriage isn’t it? You have already been told to go home and stop meddling in matters about which you know nothing. Now off you go. Go home, bye!!

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