Reader comments · Tory Grassroots warn equal marriage will smash family values · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Daily Telegraph

Tory Grassroots warn equal marriage will smash family values

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Mumbo Jumbo 2 Jun 2013, 10:22am

    “….The golden inheritance of every previous generation, that has been lovingly handed down to us, is now being smashed on the anvil of equality and fairness….”

    Inequality and unfairness is a golden inheritance?

    1. Same old argument of fear and “values”. Where’s the proof of all their claims? NOWHERE because there is none.

    2. Carl ROwlands 2 Jun 2013, 12:56pm

      My observation would tend to be that the straight community are doing fairly well at smashing their own family values! How dare they look through rose tinted glasses at us. They are moving into very large glass houses and extending an invitation to have stones thrown!!

    3. Heath was a closet case, Thatcher fell out with her own kids and Major screwed a fellow MP. The party of the family indeed. What a bunch of hypocrites.

      And that is before we start talking about expenses and cash for questions which is still happening.

  2. The antis are pushing this “all the evidence” line hard.

    Only problem? There isn’t any evidence. There is absolutely no scholarly study showing that marriage equality leads to the devaluation of marriage.

    Yes, there have been declines in marriage rates in Spain and Portugal in recent years. Anyone who thinks this is due to same-sex marriage should try picking up a newspaper.

    1. Robert Woollard is probably not aware that the marriage rate in most of the countries that have made it legal actually rose in the first couple of years, which is surprising considering that in ‘western’ countries, marriage has been in near constant decline since the 60s. If he thinks gay people being allowed to get married in the 2010s somehow managed to influence people’s marriages from 50 years in the past, then he needs to have his mental health put under a microscope. Something can only have an effect -After- it is implemented, not before.
      Then there are places like Belgium, which continues to have a growing marriage rate, even after making marriage legal. But Hell will freeze over before a bigot like this admits he got it wrong.

  3. Midnighter 2 Jun 2013, 10:30am

    What a a shallow and obvious attempt to diffuse and divert the inconvenient word “intolerance” they keep hearing levelled against them.

    “All the evidence from countries …”
    Where is it then? Hyperbole.

    The established evidence – and expert opinion such as from Barnado’s – is absolutely contrary to everything stated here. Even in 2005 the American Psychological Association cited 59 studies in support of their statement that there was no disadvantage to children raised in a same sex environment.
    A search of the net can easily find supportive studies:

    The very few papers quoted in support of their views have been criticised and debunked by their peers for bad science, and showing money trails back to the usual suspects who are include designated hate groups. (Eg the Regenerus study was discounted by the ASA)

    The opposition are desperate and spreading lies and misinformation, plain and simple.

  4. Tim Hanafin 2 Jun 2013, 10:31am

    “Is this the ‘new intolerance’?” he asks.

    Oh sorry! I’ve just pissed myself laughing

    1. I suppose it could be argued that this “new intolerance” is intolerance. The “intolerance of bigotry”. If that’s the case, then can I add my “intolerance of racism”, “intolerance of cruelty”, “intolerance of oppression”, “intolerance of injustice”, “intolerance of murder”, “intolerance of rape” and quite a few others to the list? Wow. I hadn’t realised just how intolerant I am. That’s me told.

    2. Yes,
      “Think of the children, think of family values ”

      Because there are no children growing up gay and there are no gay people in families or who have families their own.

  5. They are getting increasingly desparate because they know they are going to lose the vote in the Lords.

    David Cameron CANNOT allow the Bill to be defeated- otherwise he will be going into the 2015 Election as the “nasty party”-he will have failed in his modernisation process-and the conservatives will revert to just representing a part of the electorate.

    Should the Bill be sabotaged in the Lords the government should have no hesitation in using the Parlaiament Act to get it through. After all- it was passed DEMOCRATICALLY in the lower house.

    1. It does smack of desperation doesn’t it. I really hope it goes though the lords without a hitch.

  6. keith francis farrell 2 Jun 2013, 10:38am

    I find it strainge how these homophobes can justify hate and discrimanation whith a silly book that is all about a invisable friend, made up of several pagan religons.
    Get real and give us equality or give all gay people tax exempt status. If our equal rights are not there why should our tax money be paid

  7. How can allowing more people to become families destroy family values? Where’s the evidence that children raised by same sex parents are any less moral or well adjusted than those raised by heterosexual couples?

    Do they think any gay couple that has a child is going to be giving them an iPhone with Grindr pre-loaded as soon as they hit puberty?

    The demise of any semblance of logic is a sad thing to witness.

    1. Doh!… it’s obvious that equality will lead to unfairness and injustice…erm, isn’t it?

  8. Poisoned pen letters sent to the Prime Minister, full of conjecture and facts which are backed up by no real data. I would call that bad research and harassment. Why is it that those who jeer and lecture in the house always end up being full of hot air. Its laughable to know how many men sit in our Parliament without anything of substance to offer the public who pays them. The Gay Marriage Bill is timely having taken DECADES to see the light and won a majority in the Commons as well as public backing. Gay marriage is the logical evolutionary step towards integrating couples of all sexual-orientation under the one covenant of love and commitment. All other arguments are illogical and have no basis in modern society, a society where people do not always marry to procreate and believe solidly in monogamy with or without a religious blessing. In a hedonistic time of HIV and Hep C, monogamy should be encouraged and not discouraged. The emotional, physical and sexual benefits to all couples

    1. The emotional, physical and sexual benefits to all couples and society is obvious. What kind of pen pusher would gloss over the details? Only an ignorant one.

  9. I can only assume that the Tory party members’ valuing of “The Family” explains why so many of their ministers have two or three of them.

  10. yawn yawn yawn.

  11. Jock S. Trap 2 Jun 2013, 10:54am

    They just don’t get it do they? Such a vile lot.

    Not only are they happy to openly discriminate against the LGBTQI community but also against our families and our children.

    How does that serve a common good to show children they are hated just because of who they are or who their parents are.

    It’s shameful.

  12. This is yet further evidence of the homophobes’ desperate and on-going hunt for apocalyptic images with which to jettison the possibility of Equal Marriage.

    Here we see marriage for heterosexuals painted as “The golden inheritance”, while allowing homosexual people to enjoy that “golden inheritance” is painted as shattering marriage in a black and brutal anvil.

    All such homophobes do is prove to us how they can only paint Equal Marriage as evil by creating horrific metaphors. They cannot refer to reality. They have to imagine and invent horrific scenarios.

    How incredibly hard they are working to find metaphors that paint heterosexual marriage as purest white, and our participation in it as being the pitchest black.

  13. Bring back jobs and bring back affordable housing and lower the cost of living and then perhaps more people will be able to afford to get married.

    Most of my nephews are in their late 20s, have unstable jobs , are lving with or off their parents and have no immediatate prospect of ever settling down becuase basically you don’t want to get married with a rubbish job, live with your parents in law and struggle to bring up a family.

    SSM has nothing to do with declining marriage rates.

    On top of that divorce rates are enormous (already!) and the relgious groups have made it all sound awful.

    In addition in the 21st century women fend for themseleves and sex outside of marriage is fine with most people. If you want high marriage rates then lets become a country like Saudia Arabia where women are locked indoors and a black bag is thrown over them.

  14. Many grassroots Tories are also against white women getting married to black men! I should know I used to be a member of a Conservative association

  15. As a Tory myself, I get so annoyed by this constant reporting of only one side of the conservative party. I have signed many letters and petitions which have all had many more signatures than these anti-marriage ones. Yet this is never reported. The majority of the party is in favour – just a few old dinosaurs who the party needs to get rid of.

    1. I don’t think you’re right there, Alex.

      I wish you were, but I don’t think so.

      Although I’m not a member of the Tory party, or any other party for that matter, I live in West Sussex – an area dominated and run by ‘mad swivelled eyed loons’.

      And, I can tell you first hand that although we have two excellent Tory MPs – Nick Gibb and Peter Herber, Peter is gay and in a CP – there has been some fairly strong letters in our papers from grass roots Tories who all say much they admire Gibb and Herbert, they disagree with his stance on same-sex-marriage and their view pretty much mirror those in the letter to the Times.

      Perhaps you’ve been fortunate enough to live in an area where Tories are somehow different, but here in West Sussex – they’re Conservative with a Capital C and quite honestly if they’re not banging on about the area being ‘flooded with immigrants’ and warning of the inherent dangers of this happening, they’re blasting gay people.

      They disgust me.

      They really do.

      1. Most immigrant groups are just as Conservative(capital C) as the EDL, they just happen to have been born in a different country, tend to be darker, and are more religious,.

        They are NOT allies of the the LGBT community, nor modern women, atheists, etc.

    2. In that case, unfortunately the fault must lie with those who organise the petitions, since their efforts are getting no publicity – Pink News essentially draws our attention to gay matters as they’re reported in the media.

  16. The anti-gay bigots are screeching mad and throwing an enormous tantrum as they are being left behind on the wrong side of history.
    What an ugly spectacle they are making of themselves.

    1. “Gnashing of teeth and tearing of flesh”

  17. I had understood that this organisation was set up by those specifically campaigning against equal marriage. So they are being dishonest in posing as a ‘Tory’ group that is now against equal marriage.

    This is doing great damage to all moderate support for the tories that Cameron is seeking to maintain – knowing full well that he needs to win the centre ground – even with the spectre of UKIP on his right flank.

    To ‘soft centre’ people like me the tories will only get a second look if they pass equal marriage – but if they don’t then their brand is tainted with intolerance and bigotry – and so, despite agreeing with some policies, I could never vote for them.

    These ‘swivel-eyed’ loons, to coin a phrase, don’t want my vote – and they don’t want Cameron to win in 2015.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Jun 2013, 12:47pm

      If they don’t want Cameron to win in 2015, then they don’t want the Tory party to win. It’s unimaginable they would want to hand the election to Labour just because of this Bill. Immature and woefully foolish. The UKIP has no chance of ever forming a government, delusional loons.

  18. Robert in S. Kensington 2 Jun 2013, 12:45pm

    Well, why doesn’t someone in the Lords tomorrow raise the issue of adultery and reference Tory MPs Nadine Dorries, Bob Blackman and Sir Roger Gale. All of them have first-hand experience. Perhaps evidence should be brought before the Lords citing the reasons for their adulterous, marriage-wrecking affairs before the Equal Marriage Bill was ever conceived.

  19. Heteros smash ‘family values and already ‘weaken the bringing up of children and devalue the family’ everytime they end in divorce. the institute of marriage should not be just for those in the majority –

    all consenting adults deserve equality this is all bigotry and nonsense!

  20. Extraordinary that the inexorable increase of the divorce rate, arguably doing the greatest damage to the traditional concepts of marriage and family, is all due to same-sex marriage, which isn’t even legal yet.

  21. Robert (Kettering) 2 Jun 2013, 12:58pm

    Frankly all this breakdown of family values stuff is total boll*cks and the bigoted homophobes know it.

    Just take Spain as an example. It has equal marriage, is mostly Roman Catholic but importantly in Spain the family is everything. If you go to any Spanish village or town on a Sunday you will see very many Spanish families eating out together. I know many Spanish people and the family bond is very strong indeed.

    YET, and it’s a big yet, there has been no erosion of these family bonds since the introduce of SSM? Strange isn’t it? No sudden family breakdown and as far as I can see the sun still shines and society still functions, despite the terrible recession and poverty.

    So then, the bunch od total bigots who have made this ridiculous claim are talking “boll*cks”, pure and simple.

  22. The only thing Equal Marriage smashes is patriarchy nothing else!

  23. I suppose same sex marriage is OK in terms of equality and fairness and should be brought in for those reasons alone.

    But, let’s be truthful: same sex marriage will kill off marriage once and for all making it nothing more than a fluffy-arsed notion of romantic love.
    Is this a bad thing, though? Not really. Marriage for everybody is outdated and the correct solution is to get rid of it and instead treat everybody as single people while giving special privileges to those-both heterosexual and homosexual couples -who raise kids.

    1. Midnighter 2 Jun 2013, 1:52pm

      Carey would have it that it is nothing to do with love.

      I think both of you are wrong. The law states what marriage means, and in a legalistic sense it is about defining rights and duties. Whatever it to the couple concerned over and above that is entirely up to them. Defining something anew seems to me to be the polar opposite of “killing it off”.

      You claim marriage is outdated and yet call for special privileges. There is a name for those privileges already. It begins with M.

      1. Midnighter 2 Jun 2013, 1:53pm

        *Whatever it means to the couple. sorry.

        1. You really think it is a good idea to base marriage upon romantic love? Doing this may very well be connected to the high divorce rate (OK, THIS has nothing to do with gay people, I get that). Making romantic love the biggest part of a marriage is foolish, deeply foolish. What matters is commitment to a common purpose: which is usually a child. Why SHOULD people stay together if no children? Now I’m not saying cruelty and abuse are to be tolerated ever, but romantic love surely fades, does it not? And by saying marriage is ONLY about love (or rather the main focus of it) is destined to up the divorce rate.

          As for rights and duties, civil partnerships provide these already.

          The state shouldn’t give a stuff what a childless couple do. Let them be free of it; relationships (gay or straight).should only be of interest to the state if there are children involved.

          People -gay or straight- who are childless should grow the F up if they want special privileges for ‘loving each other’

          1. Midnighter 2 Jun 2013, 2:57pm

            Re your first point – I didn’t say that, and you’ve clearly missed the point of what I actually did say.

            Civil partnership or marriage – I personally don’t care what it is called as long as it is the same for everyone. Presently it is not, hence the need for change. The proposed change is to correct the inequalities in marriage. Further proposed changes may well do away with civil partnerships.

            You are pushing civil partnership as though it has some inherent value that makes it substantively different to civil marriage. This is erroneous – civil marriage is whatever we choose to define it as. You also seem to think that abolishing the extant system of marriage is a remotely practical alternative solution at the present time; I suggest that is nonsense.

            The state’s interests and the couple’s interests in marriage go far beyond children. Legal definitions of those interests is of paramount importance to protect them from interference.

          2. bobbleobble 2 Jun 2013, 2:59pm

            I didn’t realise that the only people who ever got divorced were childless couples. Or that people in lifelong marriages which are childless are acting like children. It’ll come as a great shock to my heart aunt and uncle when I tell them that 60 years of marriage has been a total waste.

            If we follow your reasoning then people should simply divorce as soon as the kids have flown the nest, after all why do they need these special privileges when the child’s gone away? What keeps people together into old age is romantic love, it’s the commitment that they made to each other. In sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, those aren’t about kids those are about making a deep commitment to each other based on love and mutual respect. Making marriage solely about children makes it sound like a stud contract for horses.

          3. Beelzeebub 2 Jun 2013, 3:40pm

            You sir, are a first class stupid pr!ck.

          4. Jock S. Trap 2 Jun 2013, 4:43pm

            I’d rather have a marriage and a family out of love than the heterosexual religious duty.

            Let’s not forget that places like Barnardos is full of children concieved out of duty so asked yourself which is best. . .

            A stable loving committed family or one just out of duty?

            All relationships should be about love and friendship. That is the best way to decide what happens next. Nothing in relationships or family should be down to duty.

          5. TO JOCK S. TRAP,

            Marriage is about duty (yes, not everybody lives up to this duty, I get that).

            What else is it for? Duty is NOT a bad thing and need NOT have anything to do with religion: it is about self-sacrifice for others and putting their needs first.

            I do not honestly see why I -or anybody else- should think that childless relationships warrant state intrustion.

            I’m not being homophobic here, nor am I suggesting for one moment that gay people shouldn’t adopt, just I don’t give a rat’s whatsit what two people who are childless do gay OR straight. And I don’t see why others should, either.

            Abolish marriage and bring in privileges for all couples who raise children-be they gay or straight.

            Why this warrants negative comments is beyond me-I’m not being homophobic for heaven’s sake!

    2. giving special privileges to those-both heterosexual and homosexual couples -who raise kids.

      Why? Is there a shortage of people in Britain?

      1. dave,

        Look, the existence of children is about the best reason there is for LEGAL recognition and privileges of adult relationships. It is the only one that has any validity from a libertarian perspective. After all, what two childless adults do is their business.

        There really is no justification for state intrusion into the love lives of childless couples.

        I’m not being homophobic as I think that gay people who adopt should have access to same rights as heterosexuals who reproduce by the usual method.

        1. You may not be being homophobic but you do appear to be espousing a fatuous libertarianism with a smattering of naive individualism and a heap of missing the point. Marriage is not, and never has been, just about children. This is not about “state intrusion into love lives of childless couples”, it’s about equal protection and status in the eyes of the law, including essentials such as next of kin and pension rights.

          It is a fallacy to think that there aren’t many valid reasons why adult relationships should not have appropriate legal recognition. If you think there are alternative means to afford the same rights and protections, there may well be, but that can also be said of state recognition of parenthood. There is absolutely nothing intrinsic that warrants it being the sole basis to offer marriage.

          I’m afraid that the whole tone and content of your messages is suggestive of someone who lacks the empathy and maturity to have ever had a long term relationship

          1. But you’re not going to get the same pension rights with this bill, are you?

            GulliverUK has already pointed this out.

            As for adult relationships, if your view is that childless couples should be legally viewed as married, why does there have to be a sexual element involved at all? I mean just why? Look, I’m not going to insult anybody here about nonsense like bestiality and child marriage and marriage to tables, but the fact is this:

            if no sexual element required ANY couple who are consenting adults of sound mind and body should be allowed to marry.

          2. Midnighter 3 Jun 2013, 10:45am

            Sam you didn’t respond to my refutation of your argument previously, so I can only assume that you now agree that marriage is the most sensible way at the current time of achieving the aims and benefits that you’ve had presented to you here.

            The issue with pensions is a reason to improve the proposed bill to address that issue, not to drop it. You don’t treat splinters with euthanasia. I note that you’ve also skirted Qtoktok’s point that similarly refutes your attack on the use of marriage for this purpose and apparently missed another response below listing further reasons that was made 15 hours before you posted here.

            This argument also ignores the point I made earlier that it does not preclude further changes to the definition of marriage and that there are plans to review civil partnerships. If there is a case for what you propose, it can still happen; it is thus not a reason to ditch equal marriage.

            Also, I’m not accusing you of homophobia, nor has anyone else.

  24. Their argument is so devoid of logic it actually boggles the mind. The equivalent would be like if we let people own cats it will undermine people who own dogs. They just parrot this argument because in reality the only thing their belief is trumy based on is either bigotry or religious dogma, neither of which is a valid point in a secular country.

    1. Midnighter 2 Jun 2013, 7:06pm

      You forgot:

      “it would be prejudiced against dog owners”
      “pet ownership is an institution ordained by Crufts to be one owner, one dog”
      “think of the puppies”

  25. It’s going to be such a hate jamboree in the House of Lords for those lined-up to speak in opposition prior to the vote, every familiar scaremongering lie and fear inducing slippery slope will be wheeled out yet again and recycled in their effort to exclude, smear and belittle LGBT people .

  26. Mark van Fistenberg 2 Jun 2013, 2:23pm


  27. Ken Lewis 2 Jun 2013, 3:04pm

    Family Values What Family Values they went out the door 50 years ago. Lets hope we will bring some value back into Family life

  28. If the EDL are considered right wing fascists for warning against islamic extremism, then the grassroots Tories are even more right wing than the EDL for warning against marriage equality.

  29. Helge Vladimir Tiller 2 Jun 2013, 3:25pm

    From the very core of my heart- I hope same sex marriage will become a fact in The UK. The arguments used by those who oppose are fake and unreal- lacking logical argumentation. ( In Norway the far right party FrP, has abandoned the idea of fighting against the already existing Law here ! thanks to the younger generation in their ranks. The moderate right (conservative “Høyre” ) is, and has been- for several years- pro equality marriage. Several of their parliamentary deputies are openly gay ! ) Dear UK, touch my heart and make me happy- vote pro Humanity and Justice !

    1. Helge Vladimir Tiller 2 Jun 2013, 5:11pm

      Just to mention it : Politically I’m not at all conservative !

  30. Cameron gets an A for effort trying to follow through on his promises to the gay community (although he undid a lot of that by defunding the EHRC, creating religious Free Schools and attacking the unions), but the Conservative Party is never going to change.

    Listen to this garbage:
    “Is this the ‘new intolerance’?”
    These people must never be allowed put anybody in power again.

  31. Typical swivel-eyed loon. He must be a hundred and six at least.

    1. Where’s the blue rinse?


    You really are a t**t if you think hetero or homosexuals couples are worthy of having their relationships recognised legally if there are no kids involved.

    Look mate, if gay couples want to adopt, that is fine by me; they’re giving the tax payer a break and contributing to society by raising a child.

    But I think homosexual couples who want the state to recognise their relationship when they’re childless are just selfish narcissists -JUST LIKE their straight counterparts.

    1. Oh feck off you stupid troll. Planet Earth is completely overpopulated and with the birth rate increasing as it has been doing, there won’t be enough food on the planet soon to feed us all. Why are you so obsessed with kids?

      1. Why don’t you feck off? I’m not obsessed with kids at all, you fool. Just I can’t help it if people insist on breeding.

        I think I’ve touched a nerve with you, though. I can tell.

        You’re pathetic if you think the state should sort out the affairs of childless couples-be they gay or straight.

        All these couples marrying when they don’t intend to have kids-pure narcissism. They make me sick

        But, hey, if you’re a gay couple who wish to adopt, I salute you-,may the state shower you with rewards (no sarcasm meant).

        1. Beelzeebub 2 Jun 2013, 6:27pm

          Tax affairs.
          Inheritance rights.
          Hospital Visitation rights.
          Pension rights.

          The state sorts out these affairs for married couples.

          Kids do no even enter into the equation.

    2. Beelzeebub 2 Jun 2013, 5:35pm


      Back to the cave from whence you came and throw some stones at the moon.

  33. José Merentes 2 Jun 2013, 5:33pm

    I wonder wether these people are really serious and sincere on believing that their families will disappear or at least diminish if marriage equality is approved.

  34. Oh, dear. I try to avoid party politics on this issue, mostly because a Prime Minister I really dislike has had the bottle to support equal marriage. But a party which promotes policies which create poverty and inequality and huge unemployment, especially among the young who want to set up their own homes and families, which then starts to accuse OTHERS of threatening marriage and family life is beyond nauseating.

  35. I don’t even need to read this article to know it’s the same old predictable tripe from the anti marriage loons, they are so desperate and stupid , they are now saying the queen can’t sign it as it’s against her oath or someit.

  36. I love how we’ve had 50 years of family decline due to forced and rushed marriages, increased hour and stress work lives, more open promiscuity in society and increasing benefit culture with rapid declines in the economy ….. But it’s still somehow gay peoples fault lol.

  37. If you are teaching your kids that sex is the mainstream of family values, I truly hate it for them. Especially, because family values should be about virtues, respect, ethics, and morals.

  38. Has it smashed family values in those countries where it is legal. I think now- bigotry again

  39. If getting married some how makes straight couples such perfect parents, how come their are thousands of children in children’s homes?

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.