Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Baroness Knight: Gays can’t have children, but are good at antiques

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. My new screen saver. Mrs Slocombe in real life

    1. Bishop Crusty 5 Jun 2013, 4:48pm

      More like Mrs. Bucket from Keeping Up Appearances, see link for pic:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyacinth_Bucket

      1. JackAlison 6 Jun 2013, 12:41pm

        “its pronounced bouquet actually”

      2. “Not pronounced bucket but bouquet!” As she would say. That show was jolly good.

  2. “taught how to do the homosexual act”?

    I don’t remember that one being taught for the Christmas dance

    1. She’s just a liar. Like so many of these so-called Christians, every time she moves her lips, she lies.

      1. She was part of the hysteria movement against gay rights in the tabloids which led to section 28. All of it based on lies made up by the newspapers whose staff have now been arrested.

        They’ve even since admitted the stories were invented. But buffoons like Knight used the lies to spread their own brand of ignorance, bigotry and hate.

    2. I don’t even remember being taught the heterosexual act. Goodness know which school in particular she is referring to?

    3. Indeed, I for one could have done with a bit more instruction at an early age, rather than being left groping in the dark (metaphorically speaking, of course).

    4. justusboyz 5 Jun 2013, 8:33pm

      Perhaps she can teach me!

  3. Jessica Lovely 5 Jun 2013, 1:37pm

    I see it’s not just my native America which has crazy homophobes in it!

    1. It is true, they are everywhere, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, even Sweden. The difference being that they are largely a dying breed in these countries whereas in America the Evangelical churches gets hold of them young and brainwashes them.

  4. If marriage is just about children, where is Baroness Knight’s bill to ban marriage between men and women who are too old or otherwise unable to have children? Load of nonsense…

  5. Poor old dinosaur, she is still living in the last century. Would someone please tell her the world has moved on?

    1. She’s not content to live in the last century, she also wants to rewrite her own history, the stupid slag. She is enough in this century to realize that she is going down in history as the author of one of the most homophobic pieces of legislation passed in the second half of the twentieth century. If the old bat has any children, they will be profoundly embarrassed by her.

      1. What a load of rubbish claiming that 4 year olds were being taught about the actual mechanics of straight and gay sex acts. Perhaps we should use the technique Margaret Thatcher famously used against Australian journalist George Negus in 1981. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-09/negus-reflects-on-his-thatcher-reverse-grilling/4618066
        I would love to ask Baroness Knight who was teaching 4 year olds about sex, names, dates, places, addresses etc etc.
        Sad thing is she probably believes her own lies.

    2. The frightened squeals of similar dying dinosaurs are being heard the length and breadth of America too. Good riddance to these old fools and their ignorant and redundant beliefs.

  6. FromNewYork 5 Jun 2013, 1:48pm

    So this is the ugly face of Section 28? Anyone remember Tammi Faye Baker (sp)? I feel like I’m looking into those same zombie eyes. Has she always been this stupid? I don’t think all homophobes are stupid, but this one. A right nutter!

  7. Sounds like she has a strong family kinship to Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.

    If you go to the dictionary and look up “dotty” the Baroness’ picture is there staring out at the world in all its bovine glory.

    1. Steve Craftman 6 Jun 2013, 11:48am

      Please don’t be rude about cows: I like the occasional steak or beef curry…

  8. bobbleobble 5 Jun 2013, 1:49pm

    If she was really worried about 4 year olds being taught about any sexual act then why did section 28 single gay people out? It was me of the nastiest pieces of legislative gay bashing ever devised in this country and she has the gall to claim she was misunderstood.

    Vile vile woman. Although it is gratifying to know that her former seat is now held by a pro gay marriage MP.

    Oh and what a pathetic interviewer!

    1. bobbleobble 5 Jun 2013, 1:50pm

      That should say it was ONE of the nastiest, I promise I had nothing to do with section 28!

      1. That There Other David 5 Jun 2013, 2:21pm

        Ha!! That’s what they ALL say now!!! I bet you voted against civil partnerships too, you homophobe!!! ;-)

        1. Yes, of course, she did. However, like the Bishops and other homophobes she now pretends that she was always in favor of civil partnerships and that they are the greatest things since sliced bread.

          1. bobbleobble 5 Jun 2013, 2:35pm

            Lord Fowler said something along those lines in his speech. Actually his was a pretty good speech along with Lords Pannick’s.

          2. That There Other David 5 Jun 2013, 2:55pm

            Fowler’s speech was exceptional IMO. He tore through the arguments the Bill’s opponents have been putting up and showed just how ridiculous those arguments are. It’s a shame more politicians aren’t as astute as he is. Our country could do with a few more like him.

    2. Surely they would eave called the police there was evidence that 4 year olds were being taught about the sexual acts or heterosexuals and homosexuals. i think our Baroness has a taste for porkie pies.

  9. She’s a homophobe, end of.

    She likes her ridiculous stereotypes – if she went up in the Lords and said “jews are good at banking” or made cracks about black people and watermelons the Tories would be kicking her out right now.

    Some gay couples raise children. Some straight couples don’t raise children – it’s ridiculous and a straw man

    1. “jews are good at banking” or made cracks about black people and watermelons. Perhaps we could stereo type old conservatives as fibbers.

      Thank goodness she is 87, close to her end.

      1. JackAlison 6 Jun 2013, 12:43pm

        I hope this tired old twat reincarnates as a drag queen’s thong

  10. She should just shut up and go back to her job advertising wonga.com on the telly.

    1. justusboyz 5 Jun 2013, 8:34pm

      lol

  11. I love Ronnie Barker’s disguises!

    1. Especially when he does ugly people.

    2. Ha! You couldn’t make it up, could you? I’m actually sitting here staring at the screen at a loss for words…

  12. Baroness Grotbags strikes again.

  13. Says Baroness Bargain hunt.

  14. That There Other David 5 Jun 2013, 2:16pm

    What I find truly incredible is that she seems to have completely erased lesbians from her worldview. Maybe she’s like Queen Victoria, believing that nice young women are incapable of such lewd behaviour :-)

    1. Funny that, isn’t it? I wonder if her gay lady friends (after all, she says we all have ‘em) are very artistic and good at antiques and that sort of thing too.

    2. I was thinking that too. A sort of.. sex is for men and (straight) laydees just lie back and think of England. Female sexuality does not exist at all and is sublimated into having children. Therefore lesbians simply aren’t there. Our (women’s) usefulness is as a vessel for the next generation, she seems to be implying. But yet she’s a woman past childbearing age, in the political world, making statements and involved in constructing laws for the whole of society. Weirdly hypocritical and quite funny. there is a sitcom in here somewhere.

    3. I don’t know why you find it so incredible, it happens all the time. If you were female you’d have already seen the pattern emerging. To be honest it’s not just homophobic bigots who do this either

  15. If the BBC’s new policy is to let this sort of analysis pass unchallenged, can we look forward to Evan Davis and Eddie Mair getting new gigs hosting Cash in the Attic?

  16. Beelzeebub 5 Jun 2013, 2:24pm

    ““I’m not against homosexuals, I’m for children,” she concluded.”

    Nice to hear Baroness.

    Then I refer the honourable idiot to the following:

    “Children With Same-Sex Parents ‘Happier And Healthier’ Study Says”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/05/gay-couples-children-happier_n_3388498.html?

    1. bobbleobble 5 Jun 2013, 2:34pm

      She’s for children just as long as they’re not the children of gay couples.

      This is one of the bizarre arguments they have. Marriage is the best place to bring up children so they say. Fine, so what about gay couples that have children through adoption or surrogacy? Wouldn’t it be better for them to be married if marriage really is the best vehicle for rearing the next generation?

  17. The journalism of the BBC is an embarrassment. To have this revolting piece of garbage on a program and then allow her to lie again and again with little or no challenge is an outrage.

    1. Oh come on – they use her for the comedy value. No one takes the old bag seriously.
      Do they?

  18. Has Rupert Murdoch recently purchased the BBC? They are becoming much like Fox News in the U.S. (usually referred to as Faux News).

  19. Norman Tebbit's son 5 Jun 2013, 2:33pm

    Folks, Dame Jill Knight is simply of a different era, of an England that (some may say) has passed us by.
    But how fantastic that at the age of 89, she is still actively involved in politics, now in the Lords, although she was an MP for 40 years!

    Whilst her old fashioned views will be slammed by some, who no doubt will call for her immediate death, it is delightful to hear that not all in politics have been hypnotised by politically correct diatribe!

    She’s absolutely right on many points – the criminalisation of buggery was an appalling law, and she was right (alongside Mrs. Thatcher) to vote for its repeal in 1967.

    Although her stereotypes about homosexuals being artistic are dated and show her age, they are nonetheless lovely and flamboyant.

    I, for one, as an artistic homosexual am glad that Baroness Knight is still very much involved in politics :)

    The issue regarding marriage is so very complex, and it all boils down to one’s belief in the function (and utility) of marriage.

    1. bobbleobble 5 Jun 2013, 2:40pm

      I’m sorry I’m not buying that she’s from a different era therefore it gives her a right to abuse gay people. Shirley Williams is 83 and voted against the amendment.

      Stereotypes are not lovely and flamboyant they are degrading, dehumanising and harmful. And why is it something to celebrate that she is still involved in politics at her age.

      Plus there’s no getting away from the fact that Knight and Thatcher were both responsible for the particularly nasty section 28, another appalling law.

      As a very much non artistic homosexual I wish Baroness Knight well but wish that when she’d retired from the Commons she’d retired altogether. I don’t the virtue in her being in the legislature just because she’s 89.

      1. Norman Tebbit's Son 5 Jun 2013, 2:50pm

        Shirley Williams is a Roman Catholic and may well have only rejected the amendment because of the implications of it had it been passed. In fact many peers who don’t believe members of the same sex can ‘marry,’ voted no to the amendment just to ensure the bill passed to its committee stage. And as well to avoid the Parliament Act being used and the bill being forced through the Lords in its current (and atrocious state.) The vote at third reading will be a lot closer, although regrettably I expect it to pass.

        Jill Knight has explained that Clause 28 was about the use of public money in encouraging very young children to embrace and act on certain impulses they were getting. And as we know, homosexual ‘phases’ during adolescence is very common. It is surely right to wait until people have find their sexuality, before we promote one over the other.

        It’s worth mentioning she’s not in the Lords because she’s 89, but because she was appointed after serving in the Commons for 40 years!

        1. bobbleobble 5 Jun 2013, 3:04pm

          Shirley Williams motives are her own since she didn’t speak during the debate but her vote suggests that people of her generation aren’t wedded to homophobia as you suggested originally.

          Knight’s explanations for section 28 don’t in any way offset the fact that it was a nasty piece of legislation aimed at denigrating gay people. Thatcher supported it because it was a good way of bashing left wing councils. And the idea of promoting a sexuality is total nonsense.

          Oh and you’re the one who kept going on about how it’s wonderful that she’s still in politics at 89 as if that was a virtue in itself. I don’t see that the fact she was reelected by the people of Birmingham Edgbaston for several election somehow means she should still have a place in the legislature either.

          1. Norman Tebbit's son 5 Jun 2013, 3:14pm

            Well the implicit suggestion in your first paragraph is that you are ‘wedded to homophobia’ if you do not believe it is possible for two men to be married. The term ‘homophobia’ has transformed from meaning ‘fear of the same’ in its literal sense to effectively just bearing a grudge with Peter Tatchell or Ben Summerskill.

            And no, Clause 28 wasn’t about denigrating homosexual people (such as me.) It was about the issue of public money by local authorities in glorifying same-sex acts and relationships in resources that were intended for use by very young children. It is surely right that before puberty, children are allowed to maintain their innocence, and learn only the bear minimums of reproductive biology.

            And, well then, that last point is a separate issue regarding the House of Lords. I for one am in favour of abolishing the hereditary peers, removing the Lords Spiritual and somehow reflecting the wishes of the electorate in the upper house.

          2. bobbleobble 5 Jun 2013, 3:19pm

            If section 28 was about maintaining childhood innocence then why wasn’t the ‘promotion’ of all sexuality included? This was a nasty piece of legislation aimed squarely at gay people.

            And yes I do believe a vote against gay marriage means you are wedded to homophobia. I suggest you invest in a dictionary and consider the term etymology before commenting further.

        2. That There Other David 5 Jun 2013, 3:14pm

          Section 28 was nothing of the sort, as you well know. It was an attempt to ensure that teachers could not acknowledge homosexuality at all. That led to gay teenagers being pushed under the carpet whilst their heterosexual classmates were perfectly encouraged to get on with expressing their orientation. It was divisive, discriminatory and downright damaging, and I’m glad it’s gone.

          And are you seriously suggesting that the large majority the Bill received in the Lords yesterday is only down to people recognising Parliamentary procedure? Ha ha ha!!! You’re deluded son, utterly and totally incapable of admitting when you’ve completely lost the argument.

          1. Norman Tebbit's Son 5 Jun 2013, 3:33pm

            I myself wouldn’t have personally introduced Clause 28. But I understand the reasons for its implementation, and it was primarily concering PUBLIC MONEY used by local authorities.

            The premise was that this money should not be funding resources which are intended for use by very young children that glorify any sexual relationship. Children need only be taught about reproduction and not purely about hedonic sex.

            And secondly, no, what I’m saying is that the vote at third reading will be closer. A lot of the Lords resented the fatal motion that Lord Dear had tabled and disagreed with the ethics of the upper house rejecting the 2nd reading of a bill that had such a large majority in the Commons. But I am sure it will pass. I’ll predict 320 in favour of same-sex marriage and 200 opposed. Of course, there will no doubt be some mighty amendments tabled during committee and report stage.

          2. That There Other David 5 Jun 2013, 3:44pm

            There was no evidence of any teachers “promoting” anything at the time, nor has there been since. The entire legislation was based on a piece of tabloid overreaction to the appearance of a book in a library. That’s all it was, yet that’s all it took for the likes of Jill Knight and friends to use it as the sledgehammer to try and push us back into hiding.

            And they did it by attacking the weakest and most vulnerable of us, children who needed support and were given the message that they were somehow wrong in return. Unforgivable.

            At least you have the decency to acknowledge that the peers who voted to proceed the Bill yesterday did so because they believe in the concept it enshrines. There’s no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples when it comes to building a life together and the love and companionship that entails. The law will now shortly recognise that.

    2. Norman Tebbit's son 5 Jun 2013, 2:41pm

      I happen to agree (prepare for shock horror) with Jill Knight that marriage is (and should continue to be) about more than just platonic love/friendship. As if it was, surely it’d have died out yonks ago – as who on earth needs to obtain a certificate to ‘prove’ their love?!

      To me, marriage is clearly also about practicalities, exemplification of the sexual difference and resulting complementarity when a man joins to a woman, and the irrefutable fact of life that the generic heterosexual union is the absolute bedrock of any society.

      It is my view that irrespective of an individual’s age, race, sex, sexuality, disability (or lack of it) and fertility, they should be given the opportunity to form a union of this nature – the union on which mankind needs to survive, as each child ultimately needed a mother and father.

      There is a very clear state interest too in encouraging couples to form this union, which does not exist between same-sex couples.

      1. Marriage is about love, first and foremost. Children are products of that love.

        What about straight couples who chose not to have children, can’t have children for whatever reason or are over child bearing age. Are their marriages less valid?

        It seems that these days many straight couples have children that they can ill afford to look after and see them as nothing more than a commodity. Or even worse, use them as a punch bag even worse.

        1. Norman Tebbit's Son 5 Jun 2013, 2:56pm

          But if it’s just about love, then what’s the point of it existing? Why on earth should a state (particularly in a mixed economy such as ours) offer such an institution if it’s solely about ‘love’ (whatever that is.)

          And also, if it’s just about love, then there’s no distinction as to whether that ‘love’ be platonic or romantic. If we remove the need for a marriage to be completed (consummated,) then we are essentially removing the necessity for a romantic/sexual element.

          Of course we could amend consummation law and introduce anal sex (between male same-sex partners) and clitoral rubbing or strap-on penetration (between female same-sex partners) on to the statute book, so these would be the means of ‘completing’ a marriage, hence retaining the romantic element.

          Yet I don’t see this catching on. Partly because sexual intercourse, whether you like it or not, is distinct. It’s not solely about hedonism/selfish interest. It is needed in order to continue our existence.

          1. bobbleobble 5 Jun 2013, 3:08pm

            Consummation isn’t a necessary requirement for a valid marriage in many jurisdictions, Australia, France, the Netherlands to name a few. They seem to manage OK. It doesn’t remove the sexual element it is still there, still contained in the vows (with my body I thee worship etc) it’s just that government doesn’t need to mandate it.

          2. The love that I have for my siblings is completely different to the love that I have for my partner.

            I want to be able to marry my partner. I don’t want to marry one of my siblings.

            I also have a love for my friends, which is also different to the love that I have for my partner.

          3. AS was explained in the debate, consummation is also not required in the UK. That is why deathbed marriages are allowed.

          4. “Of course we could amend consummation law and introduce anal sex (between male same-sex partners) and clitoral rubbing or strap-on penetration (between female same-sex partners) on to the statute book, so these would be the means of ‘completing’ a marriage, hence retaining the romantic element.”

            @Tebbit’s Son . . . in this statement you reveal a number of assumptions, as well as your ignorance about heterosexuality.

            Firstly, you appear to make an assumption that “Gay Sex” is always concerned with penetration, or rather the simulation of a penis entering a vagina. This is a heterosexist assumption.

            Secondly, by defining Gay-male sex as anal intercourse you assume it is not only an exclusive practice of homosexuals (which it is not, only about 30 – 40 of male couples engage in this), but you also assume heterosexuals never engage in anal practices, which of course they do.

            Although you seem like a learned person, why is it that your knowledge of human sexuality is rather basic if not rudimentary?

      2. bobbleobble 5 Jun 2013, 2:48pm

        So ultimately marriage is about nothing more than what each party has between their thighs? That’s essentially what it boils down to. I’d much rather it be about love than nothing more than what you propose.

        Your version of marriage also makes it sound like a stud contract for mating horses. Again, not my understanding.

        Also there is a state interest. Studies have shown that the mental and physical health of gay people improves when marriage is available. Bear in mind too that gay couples can and do have children through adoption or surrogacy and allowing gay couples to marry will almost certainly encourage that.

        So just as with Knight, you’re talking through the top of your head.

        1. Norman Tebbit's son 5 Jun 2013, 3:06pm

          I believe resorting to straw-man fallacies is usually a sign that your attempt at argument is failing to hold water. Nonetheless, I shall cast your fallacies aside and respond…

          Marriage is (and surely should be about) love, although we can’t ensure it is, as the state cannot legislate on principles of emotion. And anyway, the sort of love it should (in my view) be about is romantic, not simply platonic or ‘brotherly love.’

          But even then, it’s not only about love. It’s about other factors – such as the practicalities involving a couple raising their children and the sexual differences and resulting complementarity that occurs when a husband and wife come together.

          Your third paragraph seems to be arguing in favour of a civil union of some sort for same-sex couples – which we have. Even so, you need to provide evidence to back up the spurious you’ve made. And no, I’m afraid a Stonewall briefing doesn’t count..

          1. This is the whole point. It is Civil Marriage, not religious!

            You need to also remember that marriage in many countries is not permitted by religious institutions. Those who are getting married, do so first in a civil service. They may then chose to have that marriage blessed from a religious body.

            Secondly, even religious marriage in this country has to be permitted by the state by the signing of the marriage register, which is sanctioned by the state, not the churches

          2. bobbleobble 5 Jun 2013, 3:15pm

            My ‘fallacies’ are what your argument boils down to. My boyfriend and I are perfectly capable of romantic love and raising children. Therefore the only factor that we don’t meet your criteria for is that we have the same genitals. Now if that’s your bottom line then you clearly believe that what is between our thighs defines marriage.

            As for your last comment:

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16203621

            http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/12/14/1335521/study-marriage-improves-mental-health-of-same-sex-couples/?mobile=nc

            And that’s just two that I found with a quick google.

    3. “at the age of 89, she is still actively involved in politics” well like any other public servant, she should have been forced retire years ago. If she worked for the local council she would have been.

      The Lords should be no different!

  20. Baroness Knight is just a birth defect, where the bigot outgrows the rest of the foetus and takes control.

    Has anyone made a joke about her being an antiques yet?

    1. Christopher Hobe Morrison 5 Jun 2013, 3:23pm

      Yes.

    2. Yes, apparently we gays know a lot about antiques – and can spot a fake a mile away.

  21. GulliverUK 5 Jun 2013, 2:39pm

    If there weren’t some, perhaps even quite a few older members of the Lords who are possibly wiser than I’ll ever be, and progressive, I’d want to pass a law which says you have to be a) elected by the people, b) no older than 60, c) have progressive values and d) be an atheist. :D

    I’m sure she thinks her “god” loves her, but everybody else thinks she’s a tit.

    1. I was with you until you said age 60. There are some progressive people who are age 60 and above. :)

  22. “Marriage is not just about love” erm, yes it is you senile old bat!

    ” It’s about creating children” not it is not, children are a product of the love which initiated the marriage in the first place.

    She really is a nasty piece of work!

    1. Did anyone tell Charles and Camilla that they are expected to reproduce?

  23. Bloody hell, I thought that old antique had died years ago

  24. Taught how to do the homosexual act? I must have missed that lesson!
    Dammit

    1. What, is there only one?

  25. Jill Knight is a national treasure, and like all treasure should be buried (metaphorically speaking) forthwith.

  26. The Museum of Natural History called; they want their dinosaur back.

    1. Alastair Darling rang too; He wants his eyebrows back.

      1. Who minused this? It was aimed at her, not Dennis.

  27. OK, I can only assume she was drunk. No sane, sober human living in the 21st Century would spout this nonsense.

  28. Christopher Hobe Morrison 5 Jun 2013, 3:18pm

    I heard somebody say yesterday, “Where to start on such an abominable speech.”

    I suppose if they are good at antiques they should know something about her. Clause 28? Being taught the homosexual act? There’s only one? This is heaven for comedy writers.

    1. You couldn’t make it up.

  29. reddevil9 5 Jun 2013, 3:24pm

    Another Torynosaurus.

    1. Brilliant pun. Thanks for giving me the giggles.

  30. Robert (Kettering) 5 Jun 2013, 3:31pm

    You don’t know whether to feel sorry for or laugh out loud at this old biddy as she spouts her homophobic rubbish.

    She just sees Gay people as figures of fun, good at art and great to have at dinner parties. How pathetic and stereotypical is that attitude?

    1. Robert (Kettering) 5 Jun 2013, 3:35pm

      By the way I too missed those classes on Gay sex that were supposedly being taught in school? I personally learned that in after school “activities” with some of my friends!! We had great fun in our early teens and that was during the 1960s!!!!!!!

    2. Yes Robert, and lesbians don’t exist at all! It’s just John Inman, ‘Shut that Door’ and having a mince-about. O those Gays are such fun! Someone should send her a strap-on in the post but she’ll probably just use it in the garden to dig holes for her geraniums. Or maybe someone should invite her to a lesbian pub to stare into the Slough of Despond.

  31. Isn’t she marvellous! A glorious relic of Old England – gorgeously presented, beautifully erudite, and as nutty as a Harrods fruitcake. She seriously confuses equality with “being the same” but, you know, it would be in terrible bad taste to explain her errors of understanding to her, it would just ruin this living ode to Victorian Bigotry. Perhaps the V&A might have room for her?

    1. Perhaps the V&A might have room for her?

      Yes, among the fossil exhibits.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Jun 2013, 6:21pm

      Madame Tussauds would be a better place while she’s still alive.

  32. Jock S. Trap 5 Jun 2013, 3:48pm

    Amazing… She can say My late partner and I cannot have children Even though I do have a son, My son via IVF. A son My late partner and I raised, loved etc. When My partner died 18 months ago my son was upset to loose his other Dad before we could have been able to marry each other. 20 years together.

    She can insult me, my partner AND my son and Yet if I were to tell here what I thought of here idea’s, her ‘religious freedoms’… I’m the one making her a victim of prejudice.

    There’s a reason she’s so old when we live in a new century with a different, fairer, more equal society. She’s so old she hates change and therefore hates society, humanity. She’s angry because her warped value don’t count any more. It’s a shame because there are plenty of her age who do agree and accept change.

    It’s a shame her kicks in the 21st Century is to live via the 1950 where discrimination is rife and clearly to her acceptable.

  33. Mad as a fish.Totally round the twist

  34. “The trouble is people can’t be made to ensure equality, because as I said frankly a rather higher authority than any of us, has already decreed that we’re all different”

    Another homophobe muddling the meanings of ‘equal’ and ‘different’. What a stupid, stupid woman.

    The same argument would have applied to female suffrage – ‘women can’t vote because they’re different from men’ blah blah. Or to any of the Race laws.

    She’s an embarrassment – to the UK and to herself.

    1. Well said, Iris. I was so totally gobsmacked by this that I didn’t know whether to laugh at it or argue. But where to start??

  35. My children will be surprised to hear that I’m artistic and astounded to hear that I can’t have children!

    1. made me laugh – fantastic comment!

  36. https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/386758_442635022457054_657039065_n.jpg. Did she say antiques? How many friends like these does she have with her patronising, conceited and arrogant attitude?

  37. To sum it up. If a person is blind we can’t try and fix.
    If a child has a cleft palette or club foot, we don’t put those wrongs right because a higher authority has said we cannot be equal?????
    How about where there is a wrong, we try and put it right. And it’s clearly wrong that such a person has a say over my life!!

  38. Tim Hanafin 5 Jun 2013, 4:45pm

    Stupid old woman! Marriage is not all about procreation; it’s always been about property and wealth.
    A for us all being delightful and artistic she obviously hasn’t got any gay friends.

  39. Is it just me, or does her picture make her look like an old, “fugly” tranny with no sense of make-up proportion?
    Just asking.

    1. Nigel that comment of calling her an old, fugly tranny is insensitive to the T community. It is like when kids see something they don’t like and say, ‘oh, that is so gay’.

  40. Kelvin Beer-Jones 5 Jun 2013, 5:27pm

    Isn’t she wonderful! I have peers in my family you know, and they are all like that. Dotty, a bit gaga, but even so really nice people. Everyone should know a peer, after all a peer is not just for life.

  41. The Baroness Knight of Collingtree
    House of Lords
    London
    SW1A 0PW

    Dear Lady Knight of Collingtree,

    I met my same sex partner 39 years ago in 1974, we lived together for
    32 years from 1980 until his death aged 62 years following a short,
    sudden illness Christmas morning 2012.
    Now whether or not same sex marriage is finally introduced in England
    and Wales, it is too late for my late partner and myself to take
    advantage of the change in the law to marry, my love is dead.

    We were holding out for marriage with the reasonable expectation that
    marriage equality would become a legal reality shortly and certainly
    within our lifetimes, unfortunately that proved not to be the case.
    We rejected civil partnership out of principle feeling unable to
    endorse legal discrimination by entering into a parallel institution, a
    separate classification introduced solely for the sake of maintaining
    separation, separate is never equal it is a form of apartheid.

    (cont’d)

  42. I am presently having to deal not only with the grief of bereavement
    but also with the very real financial consequences of being unmarried
    and the burden of the heavy inheritance tax that follows on from that,
    my attempt to establish a right to receive some payment as a dependent
    from my partner’s pension is ongoing. Anti-gay discrimination and
    prejudice written into the law has cost me dear and legally it treats
    me and my partner of 38 years as strangers.

    Your recent speech leading up to the vote on the same sex marriage Bill
    amounted to no more than a vulgar and embarrassing display of hackneyed
    prejudice.

    You are apparently not able to distinguish between what is “not equal”
    and what is “different”. All people are different and unique but all
    people are equally worthy and deserving of equal treatment under the
    law in a just society.
    (Cont’d)

  43. Presently gay people/gay couples are not treated
    as equal under the law as gay couples are prevented from marrying
    whereas straight couples are free to choose to marry or not.

    “Some are stronger, cleverer, lazier, plainer, better looking, than
    others. Some people can see Others are blind”

    Yes, as you say but this is totally irrelevant in an argument against
    same sex marriage because presently all these classes of people you
    deem unequal can freely marry the person they choose to marry, whatever
    their understanding of marriage may happen to be, just so long as they
    happen to be heterosexual.

    Badly done, yours was a very poor and ill-researched speech full of
    anecdotal inaccuracies and misinformation and lacking in evidenced
    facts, you so deserved to lose the vote.

    Yours sincerely,

    Pavlos

    1. Sorry for your loss, Pavlos, and a brilliant letter. I wouldn’t know where to even start with this one. Thanks.

      1. Thanks snowy.
        I sent the message to Baroness Knight via “They work for you”
        I’m really not expecting a response but I may post it here if I do get one.

        1. “Write to them ” actually was the one I sent my message through..

    2. All I can say is and “I know”

    3. JackAlison 6 Jun 2013, 12:51pm

      hey sorry to hear of your loss.
      It makes it very painful when you have to listen to garbage from an unelected ignoramus.
      Take care
      hope the best for you in the future

  44. I thought Betty Turpin was dead.

  45. We can also give make up tips: less is more dear! Reminds me of Professor Umbridge in Harry Potter – sickly sweet on the surface with a sinister, hateful core.

  46. I sadly (and rather disappointingly) can’t recall the homosexual acting lessons at school. The poor old Baroness has obviously watched so many repeat episodes of “Are You Being Served?” that she’s a tad confused. No, dear, you are NOT Mrs Slocombe, and Mr Humphries, although delightfully artistic, is not the archetypical homosexual citizen.

    Quite what this ‘lady’ has done to deserve her seat in the Lords, I cannot imagine. Age is no excuse for her bigotry either. My Mum is 92 and fiercely defends her beloved gay grandson against anyone and everything, including the vicar at our local church!

  47. I have emailed Joan and told her maybe she be best suited to working in a charity shop rather than making decisions for the rest of man kind

  48. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Jun 2013, 6:28pm

    She hasn’t heard of IVF or surrogacy. The only thing she is right about is that biologically, two people of the same gender can’t procreate with one another, but that’s where her argument ends.

    By her definition, she should support a ban on marriage for infertile heteros and people beyond child-bearing years if to her it is ‘primarily for procreation’. Delusional loon.

  49. The poor old biddy clearly learned everything she knows about homosexuals from listening listening to Julian and Sandy on ‘Round the Horne’.

  50. It’s all about the children for her, is it? What about the homosexual children?

  51. I wonder what she thinks Lesbians are good at? Road digging ?

  52. What a monstrosity. Somebody should tell her to walk towards the light. Her time is up….

  53. Daft cow.
    And patronising with it.
    Yeah, good at antiques and composing the most sublime music and breaking codes in wartime.
    Marriage and the procreation of children..?
    What has the one got to do with the other?
    What has a silly bit of paper got to do with making babies?
    What was man doing hundreds of thousands of years ago?
    Keith.
    SALFORD

  54. justusboyz 5 Jun 2013, 8:37pm

    Pantomime season hasnt started yet…has it?

  55. Using the same old piece of rhetoric. It baffles me how she made it to the Upper House. In any case, she has basically declared to millions that if she had the power to cure the blind she wouldn’t use it, all for the sake of keeping inequality alive. A wonderful lady (!)

  56. Itchycoo Mark 5 Jun 2013, 11:47pm

    I dont mind the marriage is for procreation thing- if sterile couples are forced to have their marriages annulled and couples who don’t want children/cant have children aren’t allowed to marry I’d be quite happy with that arguement

  57. No need to blame it on her age; she was stupid before, and (clearly) still is. End of.

  58. I guess she misses the obvious point that if marriage should be primarily for procreation, at her age, she shouldn’t be allowed to get married. Just another in a long line of silly arguments against equality.

  59. Gary Farrimond 6 Jun 2013, 1:18am

    In the dim & distant past I taught at a school in Bartley Green which is in the Edgbaston seat.

    For La Knight to say that Section 28 wasn’t against homosexuals is a downright lie, her comments at the time were anything but temperate as I recall.

    As for being good at antiques! well she has a problem herself in this regard, she has stated her dob as 1924, 1927 and 1928 whichever date if she were porceline she is chipped at the edges & covered with crazing!!

    To compare equality/inequality with people with good sight & those that have impaired vision says more about the mindset of this unhinged harpie! Clearly she did not stop to think before she said these things. That is about the sum of it! What value is this personage bringing to the Lords? She was bigoted at the outset and life experience has taught her nothing!! Her view of the world ends at her nose end!

  60. Mark Ansell 6 Jun 2013, 9:57am

    It’s the old school who need to be shunted off to the funny farm in the House of Lords. She needs to shuffle back to her mansion and her servants in the burbs….

  61. Keith Evans 6 Jun 2013, 10:13am

    This patronizing old bitch should realise by now that her outdated bigoted ideas are perceived as laughable by the majority in this country. The “homosexual act” was NOT being taught in schools to small children at all, it was all happening in her twisted little mind. What is the “homosexual act” anyway? Part of a play? Something Shakespeare wrote? If marriage is for people to procreate then what is she going to do about all the people who have children and are not married – take the children away from their parents, OR force the unmarried couples to get married? This woman is a fossil in her own time and I say “woman” but I’m not that sure, because to be quite honest she looks like a badly “made – up” DRAG Act ! and that IS an act/

  62. So using this logic…..

    “Marriage is not just about love. It’s about creating children. After all, the whole setup really is about people created to create children, to create children,” she said.

    What about heterosexual married couples that can’t have children?
    What do they do? They adopt. Sooooo….
    What is wrong with homosexual people adopting?
    Don’t these children go on to have a chance in life and ultimately to create children of their own?
    Oh — but they should only have male/female parents?
    Then what about all the single parents raising children – are they failures?

    Do people ever think through their stupid and insensitive statements?
    And I haven’t even touched her stereotypical comments!

  63. Sorry to disappoint the baroness, but this gay man knows sod all about antiques. Except the kind that inhabit the House of Lords and spout all kinds of antiquated nonsense, that is.

    Still, even the homophobes don’t sound quite as homophobic as they used to, so that is progress, I guess.

  64. carriageclockseller 7 Jun 2013, 8:55am

    I am in possession of a carriage clock which I inherited from the estate of my late grandfather. My mother says that she can remember it having pride of place in the parlour of her parents’ home during her childhood.
    I reckon it is about 100 years old.
    I was wondering if any of youse guys have any free time and are in the area could you come round and give a valuation? I serve nice tea and am a fan of Liza (although I personally prefer Judy-natch).

  65. Really ???

    Her Intelligence Lacks severely so!
    Gay People All around the world are Smart Successful And Passionate

  66. I think that part of the problem with people like Baroness Knight and Lord Tebbit is that they simply cannot understand that same sex love is exactly the same as the opposite sex love that they are so familiar with.

    This is why Lord Tebbit likened same sex marriage to marrying your sister, horse or car and why the best the Archbishop of Canterbury could manage was to say that same sex couples could have a ‘profound friendship’.

    They don’t understand that it is the same love they have exoerienced that causes your tummy to jump and your heart to skip a beat when the person you are falling in love with enters the room. The same love that leaves you all tongue-tied and unable to string a coherent sentence together because a certain person has just come over to talk.

    (continued)

    1. It is the same love that leaves you anxious and excited as you look at your phone and hope that it will ring and be object of your affection and the same love that shoots an electric shock through you when the phone finally does ring or a text message arrives.

      It is the same love that makes you finally feel whole when you get together in a relationship, that makes you feel you can’t imagine not being together and the realisation that you are meant to be together, you are the ying to their yang.

      (continued)

      1. Same sex love is exactly the same as opposite sex love.

        It is the same love that Baroness Knight experienced with the poor s0d who was unfortunate enough to be married to the mean spirited witch for all those years.

        I think I may have wandered in my argument a bit towards the end.

  67. Look at the vulgar biggot from a by gone day, why she has any input in our legislature is frightening, some vile characture from spitting image

  68. Master Adrian 10 Jun 2013, 10:16pm

    Ah The Baroness then probably also agrees with the Russian new laws, that prohibit the “promotion” of homosexuality, probably also protecting the innocence of the kids……..

    What could one expect from a person who seems to have been living in the past, and still does!

    One can only pity the poor old woman, for loosing all touch with reality!

    Poor thing…….. lets hope she soon to be elated…………

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