Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Lord Carey rants about marriage but agrees with the merits of a corporate GMail account with PinkNews reader

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. It wasn’t that long ago that I called him “vile” and his apologist magic-boggled gay quislings jumped on me for it.

    How about now? This man is helping to perpetuate a culture of hatred against us. The law changing is one thing, but the national zeitgeist also needs to change for our lives to reach any degree of equality. And this filthy swine of a man is actively opposing that by repeating his bile.

    What’s more, I don’t believe in his absurd toxic sky fairy – the biggest and most brutal savage mass murderer in all of fiction – and suggest he keep his mental incontinence for those who could give a damn about it.

  2. Oh… and the dogmatic bilge he clings to doesn’t exclusively define marriage as one man and one woman. But then intellectual dishonesty, and being an irrational lying tosser is situation normal for the religious.

  3. He just doesn’t seem to comprehend the contradiction of hie comments about marriage + procreations.

    A homophobe in a dog collar!

    1. … but sadly not on a short leash!

  4. “MARRIAGE HAS BEEN UNIVERSALLY AND HISTORICALLY DEFINED AS THE UNION OF A MAN AND WOMAN.”

    Not since 2001 it hasn’t.
    Screaming Lord Carey needs to walk himself into the 21st Century where most of the rest of us live and familiarise himself with present day reality.

    1. That There Other David 3 Jun 2013, 1:17pm

      It wasn’t for most of the period the Bible was written during either. Polygamy was the norm during the late Bronze/early Iron Age, meaning a union of a man and many women was the definition. How many of the characters in the Bible’s stories are in polygamous relationships? Pretty much most of them.

      1. The Patriarch Jacob alone is reported to have married two women who were not only sisters but his first cousins. It is to be hoped that, for the sake of consistency, Carey advocates that sort of polygamy on the basis of historical precedent too.

    2. A quick reminder of what constitutes Biblical marriage courtesy of Betty Bowers
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw
      I think we can safely consign the “One man and one woman” definition to the scrapheap

  5. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Jun 2013, 12:26pm

    James Fendek could have reminded this vile bigot that the CoE was vigorously opposed to women’s suffrage, the way it always was up until it changed as recently as 1928.

  6. Jock S. Trap 3 Jun 2013, 1:17pm

    Proof that all these people are about is not arguments, we just shouldn’t have, followed by endless irrelevant claims and assumptions.

    There whole argument, pretty much centres around ‘procreation’ but when challenged suddenly that no longer matter but only if it’s between and man and a woman.

    It’s nasty, it’s hypocritical and it serve no other purpose than to disagree for the sake of it.

  7. If his concern is procreation, maybe he should refer to the book of Genesis, where procreation started with incest. Or…does he want what David and Solomon had, a cuncubines

  8. When the earth was created the first human was Adam and through his rib cage did Jehovah, create Eve. they procreated and their children like-wise. Therefore, if his argument is keep things the way they were, then he is insisting on industrious relationships. Or do he want a cuncubine

    1. A clone grafted off her mate’s ribcage having incestous relations with her sons… there’s your template for Biblical marriage right there.
      That’s not a genepool, that’s a genepuddle.
      And they get upset about the possibility of Adam and Steve!!!

  9. Cretinous old Bigot who by reason of argument has talked himself into a loop, out of which there is no escape. No child bearing hetrosexual couples can get married. A gay couple cannot.. erm ..well because.. well.. thinks frantically, because its always been that way… oh.. so that argument doesnt work.. lets see if we can come up with something else.. NO.. These oldies have forgotton about the warmth of of love, and cling to old ideas based on their lingering memories of how their lives were. They have no new reference points and cant or wont move forward. time to shuffle off the mortal coil, run down the curtain and join the choir eternal…

  10. Philip Breen 3 Jun 2013, 11:34pm

    While the row about gay marriage is going on, has anyone seen the new DBS filtering rules that were quietly published on 29 May 2013 & which can be found on the site of the charity ‘unlock’. Most of the old gay sex offences remain on the list of offences that will never be filtered which means they will always be disclosed. I am surprised no gay interest group is doing anything to oppose this legislation which still means the ‘pretty police’ routine of years ago will have blighted many lives, even in the future, on the basis that the old gay offences represent safeguarding risks.

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