Reader comments · Tory MP David Burrowes: The equal marriage bill will lead to an ‘adulterer’s charter’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Tory MP David Burrowes: The equal marriage bill will lead to an ‘adulterer’s charter’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. David Burrowes really does need to shut the f*** up now.

    But while he does continue to speak, he is just making himself look more a fool!

    1. The guy is a total joke. From which century did they bring him?

  2. He’s right. I’m beginning to like this man more by the day. You gays already have our own union, why do you have to plunder ours? The vast majority of you don’t even want to get ‘married,’ you just want to ruin it for us normal people!
    Lesbian activist spills the beans:

    1. When SSM becomes law why dont you and Burrows get married… are obviously made for each other… would be a match made in heaven

    2. Please go back under the stone from which you crawled,

    3. Loving the desperation in your tone, thank you, what a gift.

    4. Now i know just how much it upsets people like you ….i will definately get married !!!-might even push for a church even though like most of the straight people who get married there …i dont believe in any god !!!!
      have a good day !

    5. ROFL.

      What an asshat….

    6. “Adultery” and “Consumation” are concepts long irrelevant at law in some countries in the Commonwealth, and the sky has not fallen there.

      As for plundering “marriage” – why not? – Christianity already has. The Christian Church, for its first eight centures, was without liturgy covering marriage, accepting the wider society’s definition. Why should it not continue so to do?

      I question why you imagine it ruins it for heterosexual people (I am assuming that is what you mean by “normal” people). One oftentimes hears this, but there never seems any rational explation forthcoming.

      1. “but there never seems any rational explation forthcoming”

        And with Keith don’t expect that to change :P

    7. Poor old chap, do you really consider yourself “normal”? If you do, thanks for providing the best excuse for “abnormality” possible.

    8. Really, I laugh every time – For “WrathofGod” it might as well be “BewareTheEyeOfSauron”.

      Laughing at your bronze age sheep-shagger’s fairy tales.

      1. nixiotemba 21 Jun 2013, 4:21pm

        but I love the eye of Sauron

    9. There are many straight couples that don’t want to get married either, should we just then ban marriage all together then everyone is happy?


    10. You poor pathetic closet case. Why else would you enter this site? It doesn’t matter how much you keep praying to your unproven celestial being for a cure for your closeted homosexuality, it aint gonna happen. I know, I tried before I wised up.

    11. Sandgroper 21 Jun 2013, 5:07pm

      Note to WrathofGod, the ‘pray away the gay’ group Exodus International has just disbanded acknowledging their FAILURE.

    12. Get well soon you sad old sod.

  3. He’s lost the argument-so why waste time publicising his views?

    His time on this is over.

    Equal marriage will be legal and we will be able to get married next year.

    End of

  4. Jock S. Trap 21 Jun 2013, 11:50am

    A new low for Burrowes.

    Burrowes.. you had your chance and lost. Stop being a sore loser/victim. Deal with it!

    1. GulliverUK 21 Jun 2013, 3:00pm

      Well he didn’t say all children would become “barbarians” like some other nutter yesterday – our old friend Linda Harvey. He thinks by speaking softly and trying to present an image that he’s a reasonable person, that people won’t realise that the things he says are utterly incredulous, daft and stupid.

      If I didn’t already know that most Catholics and Anglicans, and increasingly many other faith groups, are in favor of full equality, then he’s make me really hate Christians – but I don’t, I just hate bigots. They waste everybody’s time – there are real problems of poverty, hunger, disease, global warming, wars and conflict, so many inequalities, that we just need to put this inequality right, and move on to tackling those things – we can’t afford for a few rabidly homophobic people to stand in the way of human progress.

  5. Shame Nadene Dorries is against us then. Would have been handy to have her and her ilk on board to draw up this charter wouldn’t it?

  6. It’s so hard to decide what on earth motivates this nonsense.

    Mr Burrowes, I know you read PN, so here’s a bit of free legal advice.

    Same-sex sexual activity outside marriage is already grounds for divorce. It’s called “unreasonable behaviour”. If my wife sleeps with another woman, I will face zero difficulties divorcing her for adultery – it’ll just be called “unreasonable behaviour” on the form.

    Baroness Stowell’s point is that the government does not forcibly divorce couples for adultery. It’s up to the non-adulterous spouse to decide whether or not s/he objects. That is true now for straight couples, and it’ll be true for opposite sex couples.

    Do I think the government should have changed the definition of adultery? Yes. Does their failure to do so make any practical difference? No.

    Can we stop this now?

    1. Sorry – “it’ll be true for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples after the law changes.”

  7. David Burrowes should google “What is life and how do I download one?”

  8. That There Other David 21 Jun 2013, 12:01pm

    So without the adultery law holding him back would he really be down Spearmint Rhino every night, following it up with a prostitute on the way home?

    It is already up to each individual couple whether they remain faithful or not.

    It must be really awful to be David Burrowes and only see the world in terms of the worst of people’s behaviour.

    Help to sign: prenume=first name; nume=family name; oras=city; tara=country.
    You’ll receive a mail and have to click on 2nd link to confirm. Also you can inform your friends about this campaign and tell them how can support it. Thanks.

  10. Not sure if lying through teeth or just incompetent.

  11. i am amazed his Tory colleagues are upset ….”An Adulterer’s Charter”…surely thats just what they need …legitimate adultery no more shame faced tory ministers stood next to their dutiful wife explaining how he “made a mistake” .

  12. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Jun 2013, 12:19pm

    I was wondering where this loon had been in the past weeks since the third reading n the Commons. Undoubtedly spoon-feeding the old tossers in the Upper Chamber with his bile and mendacious nonsense.

    It’s all about biblical adultery isn’t it, Burrowes? I’m so sick and tired of the religious loons trying to impose religion on everything in this case Civil Marriage.

    Why doesn’t he ask Nadine Dorries, Bob Blackman, Sir Roger Gale about adultery, the real experts who know a lot more about it than he does.

    He whinged about being called a homophobe in Committee. The fact of the matter is, he is and will stop at nothing to traduce equal marriage at every provocation. The man is unhinged and needs therapy. Protesting far too much I think. He needs to recover from his religious addiction.

  13. The Kitty Channel 21 Jun 2013, 12:21pm

    Silly man – so far as I know there’s no such thing as a “law of adultery”.

  14. bobbleobble 21 Jun 2013, 12:27pm

    Is he genuinely saying that the only reason people remain faithful is because of the concept of adultery which exists for divorce proceedings? And given that only covers the specific act of penile penetration of a vagina does that mean there are people up and down the country indulging in other sexual acts with people they aren’t married to safe in the knowledge that it’s not adultery? Seriously David you really need to stop now.

    We are perfectly capable of deciding whether or not to remain faithful and whether or not to get divorced on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour should our partners stray, we don’t need a definition of adultery to tell us how to feel about cheating in a relationship. And it’s not as if the existence of this definition of adultery prevents it happening as some of his Tory colleagues can attest to.

    Get lost Burrowes, you’re talking through your hat as usual.

  15. I like to think I’m faithful to my partner because I love them and want to be with them exclusively, not because the government will penalize me. The quality of our relationship is none of the government’s concern, nor business.

  16. PeterinSydney 21 Jun 2013, 12:35pm

    Some one tell him to go back to sleep. His nasty views no longer count.

  17. Quite apart from Burrowes’ other drivel, this childish obsession with lifelong sexual exclusivity is tedious – and hardly something a great many of his fellow-Conservatives have achieved.

    1. GulliverUK 21 Jun 2013, 3:10pm

      Lifelong marriage makes sense when you have a life expectancy of 35 years, but as people are living longer the divorce rate is an indication that not everything can last forever – length of marriage is simply moving towards a new equilibrium. Now I would want to commit for life, …. awwwwww, ain’t that sweet… but I’m also a pragmatist and it’s quite clear that some people will tire / bore / annoy each other after some years or decades, and we must all be adult enough to recognise that, personally, and in law. There are all sorts of unreasonable behavior that people will have, which might well not involve any adultery. Someone might, for example, simply not want to have sex any more – now that’s not adultery, and it may or may not be unreasonable – that’s a matter for the two people concerned, and nobody else. It’s just bl**dy sex, sex, sex with Burrows.

      1. Lifelong marriage is one thing, lifelong sexual exclusivity is quite something else – and one that very very few men appear to be capable of, or were even expected to be (despite the words of the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer) until the 19c.

  18. The more I read of and see these people ranting on TV about SSM -something that to most ‘straight’ people has little importance and will have no impact – young romantics will still dream of that fairy tale day when all eyes are on them, until they cost it up of course – I just feel something just isn’t right.
    Will all this hate talk further their careers, does it make them look clever, will it make people respect them more, will it improve their own lives – no it just feels creepy and odd.
    Mr Burrows has a big family – lucky him – has he ever thought how he’s going to feel if one of his kids are gay and they read what their dad said in the reports.
    Move on man – this battle was not needed and is lost – perhaps you need to concentrate on the future post the next election.
    I think you’ve been in politics far too long get back into the real world and worry about things that matter rather than making yourself look foolish.

  19. Where is LGBTory group’s condemnation of this extremist bigot.

    DoesLGBTory think he should be expelled from their party?

  20. Adulterers Charter?

    Judging by the typical behaviour of many Tory MPs this could almost have been initially mistaken for a compliment.

  21. WrathOfGod 21 Jun 2013, 1:12pm

    You homosexuals want your deviant behaviour validated with marriage even if it means wrecking the institution, or perhaps with the express intention of wrecking the sacred union. Listen to what this lesbian LGBT activist has to say:

    1. Thank you so much for taking the time and trouble to come onto a gay news website to share your, erm, original opinions. It’s a shame they’re so confused and incoherent, but if you try really really hard you might be able to make sense one day. In the meantime, it might help if you reflect that civil marriage is not, and has never wanted to be seen as, a “sacred union”.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Jun 2013, 1:28pm

      The actual people wrecking marriage are hetero adulterers, many of them religious loons. Why don’t you contact Tory MPs Nadine Dorries, Bob Blackman and Sir Roger Gale who have first-hand experience? We will await your report. Perhaps you can ask them to come forward and speak to the issue and have them explain why they did it.

      1. The point I keep making too loons like this, is pretty much that. If they cared so much about marriage and the upbringing of children they would want to work on the problems in society that cause marriage and families to fail. Both of which marriage equality has nothing to do with.

        And to have the idiocy to cite homosexuals as deviant and the likes of himself/herself as “normal” when clearly they have some issues with the wider world beyond their inodctinated bigitry towards anyone who does not adhere to ancient doctrines unrelated to civil law regarding marriage (heterosexual or gay).

    3. You know that terrible feeling you wake up to each day @wrathofgod
      A sickly, free floating anxiety and fear of living? It’s called hatred.
      Before you spin your vile semantics and denigrate my rights, please get your judgemental self righteousness treated.

  22. Adultery is so badly defined at the moment then I think it should be removed completel;y anyway rather than fannying around with definitions of what kind of sex it means.

  23. This site is fast becoming a silly echo chamber and an embarrassment.

    I am not a fan of Mr Burrows but his point is a valid one. The way the law is being framed DOES make adultery a near irrelevance in marriage law and removing the taboo against adultery DOES take away something from marriage that is important.

    You may think this is a good thing or a bad thing or a bit of both but don’t deny the obvious.

    I post on dozens of sites, everything from the far right to the far left, and even forums that are anti-gay have a higher quality of debate than this one.

    1. Whatever you say, Sparky.

    2. bobbleobble 21 Jun 2013, 2:03pm

      Utter nonsense. First of all adultery will still exist as a ground for divorce when this bill becomes law anyway, it will still only apply to one specific act as it does now and everyone else not covered by that specific act will still have to use unreasonable behaviour as their ground for divorce adultery isn’t defined as any sexual contact with you arent married to but only penetrative penile/vaginal sex.

      Secondly no one is removing the taboo against adultery, cheating on your partner will still be considered a bad thing but we don’t need the government to tell us that. And wasn’t that taboo undermined anyway when adultery stopped being a criminal act. Plus your taboo against adultery hardly prevents it happening now does it?

      Before lambasting us all for poor debating techniques I suggest you brush up in your own first.

      1. bobbleobble 21 Jun 2013, 2:05pm

        ….sexual contact with someone you aren’t married to……

        1. I think JohnE is so busy posting on his “dozens” of sites he doesn’t have time to actually consider his debating techniques.

    3. Then why bother “contributing” here, JohnE? Is it masochism or a level of sadism that forces you to share your ha’penn’orth with us?

      You might care to reflect that enabling divorce rendered the taboo against adultery far more effectively than SSM ever could.

      1. *undermined the taboo

    4. then F**k off to one the others you vile example of humanity!

    5. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Jun 2013, 4:48pm

      I do not agree. Burrowes isn’t even aware and neither are you apparently that the current 1973 Matrimonial Causes Act is already an ‘adulterer’s charter’ because it permits legal divorce and re-marriage with no restriction on the number of times an heterosexual can commit adultery, unreasonable behaviour or re-marry. There are such things as serial hetero adulterers you know, some of them are MPs too. End of.

  24. Robert (Kettering) 21 Jun 2013, 1:45pm

    Let’s face it MPs should know a thing or two about adultery seeing that so many have been guilty of it themselves including many opponents of SSM. Hypocrites the lot of them.

    1. GulliverUK 21 Jun 2013, 2:53pm

      What like husband-stealer adulterer Nadine Dorris? I give her the fact that I think she has bigger balls than me, if I’d done what she’s done I’d keep religious moral condemnation of others to myself. And if I was a Muslim leader I’d keep my trap shut about marriage because a large number of Muslims aren’t married, in the eyes of the law, having not bothered to get their legal paperwork done. And if I was a Christian leader, like the Church of England or Catholic bishops, I’d not only keep my mouth shut I’d put some rigging tape over just to make sure.

      Let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone. Actually, Jesus never said, it’s a forgery, added to manuscripts hundreds of years after he was dead, it didn’t appear in the earlier manuscripts – but then neither did the resurrection story either.

  25. GulliverUK 21 Jun 2013, 1:58pm

    People don’t need utter f&&kwits in parliament to micro-manage their relationships – the driven ideologically warped fundamentally crazy douchbags of humanity, and especially not a snot-nosed runt like Burrows. Get a f&&k out of peoples’ bedrooms you pervert. Although I think he’s secretly got some attention-seeking personality disorder, and he uses the press to stoke his ego.

    “Unreasonable behavior” covers it perfectly satisfactory. Adultery, like consummation, are ancient and non-relevant religious throwbacks to the dark-age dawn of the Jewish fringe cult, Christianity, and they need to be ripped out of secular modern law – there is no place for stupid terms like those.

  26. Uh, Mr. Burrows? I found your nose — it was in my business.

  27. Nowadays I just wake up in the morning and wonder what’s going to be the day’s consequences of same-sex marriage… Famine? Nuclear war in France? Stomach flu in blue whales?

  28. David Jordan 21 Jun 2013, 3:08pm

    Burrows relying on the old throw enough s**t at a wall and hope some of it will stick tactic, he’s beaten, why can’t he except it?

  29. If it’s Equal Marriage we want, then what applies to heterosexual marriage must apply to homosexual marriage. So if “adultery” holds for heterosexual marriage, then it mus hold for homosexual marriage to.

    Otherwise, what we are getting will not be Equal Marriage. And we’ll have homophobes sneering at our marriages and pointing out to us that they are NOT equal to theirs because ours do not preclude “adultery” as grounds for divorce.

    1. bobbleobble 21 Jun 2013, 4:09pm

      Adultery will still be available as a ground for divorce in our marriages but only in the situation where one partner has penetrative vaginal sex with someone of the opposite sex just as applies to heterosexual marriages today. if a man who is married to a woman has sex with another man today his wife cant claim adultery either. That isn’t changing. For all other forms of cheating we will have to rely on unreasonable behaviour just as most straight people do these days since adultery isn’t easy to prove.

      1. Sorry about my grammatical errors above.

        Anyway, I think “adultery” in homosexual marriage should simply refer to “physical sexual activity with another male”. It doesn’t need to be specified exactly what kind of sexual activity.

        1. bobbleobble 21 Jun 2013, 5:03pm

          But that’s not even the situation with heterosexual marriage at the moment. It would mean that adultery is a much broader term for gay people than for straight people which wouldn’t be fair either. Only vaginal penetration counts for adultery for straight couples, other forms of sex don’t.

  30. GulliverUK 21 Jun 2013, 3:14pm

    When Mr Burrows wife has an affair with a women, he will see how ludicrous the adultery law is, because his wife won’t technically be committing adultery.

    1. And that is the situation presently, similarly if David Burrowes has an affair with a man.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Jun 2013, 5:06pm

      I only wish but even if she had an affair with a man, I’d be content. For all we know, he may well be a deeply closeted self-loather given his obsession with the definition of adultery. He claims he’s not a homophobe as all delusional religious loons do when they claim to have ‘gay friends’ or support CPs as long as there’s no marriage bill around. Bloody hypocrites and bigots all.

  31. David Burrowes homophobic extremism makes him a very bad parent.

    I think Social services need to keep an eye on him.

    He is psychologically abusing his own children through his bigotry.

    David Burrowes is not fit for purpose as a parent.

    1. Common sense 21 Jun 2013, 3:55pm

      I think that is unkind. David is a good father and a decent man. I disagree with him profoundly but see no reason to denigrate him.

      1. If you know him so well, then can you please advise him:
        – that his church was founded on the bollocks of Henry 8
        – that his privilege to denigrate my right to equality is just a power play on his part
        – that he has some serious judgemental hatred flying out of him
        – that if any of his children are gay, he is perpetrating deep pain

  32. Common sense 21 Jun 2013, 3:53pm

    Fidelity and monogamy is hugely important in the relationship I have with my husband and I know that for both of us, a breach of that would be extremely difficult.

    That being said, I would hate to see that becoming a legal issue, not least because monogamy and fidelity is not am essential requirement to many straight and gay relationships these days.

    1. Sexual exclusivity in history in general was only ever seen as critically important for women, and even then principally because a married woman was seen as her husband’s property. In fact I believe the OT definition of adultery only covered married Jewish men and women (I understand having sex with a prostitute or a widow didn’t rate as adultery).

  33. YOU MORON – Burrowes – Heteros have been adulterous for Centuries in their unions – why now will everything fall apart just because same sex couple are included – People of Enfield and Southgate your MP is an embarrassing, publicity seeking Fool – replace Him! Please

  34. Through his obsession with gay relatioships Burrowes own relationship with his family becomes a public interest matter.

    I think Burrowes’ children need to be protected from his extremism. I recommend that he only be allowed to see his children with social services present. They need to be protected from his vicious bigotry.

    1. GulliverUK 21 Jun 2013, 5:23pm

      I prescribe 40mg Lithium twice daily to start with, then add another 10mg per week until he stops talking – so the rest of us can get some piece :-p

      This article hasn’t help my mood this (day off) Friday :( but I managed to carry out some more tree pruning with my new telescopic tree pruner (yeah!) with was very theraputic. It the rain will simply p*ss off tomorrow I can escape PN articles about homophobic bigots and finish off my tiling.

      Please PN, consider simply not reporting anything this f-wit says in future – I think we’ve all made it clear we hate him and hope he gets genital warts. (and I will be honored if he mentions my post at 3rd reading) Give us a rest from this Tory trogg.

  35. Sacre bleu 21 Jun 2013, 4:49pm

    “She was simply making the point that it’s a matter for couples to decide on how they conduct their relationships,”

    That is the reality, people will decide what to do and they have to live with consequences. It really is that simple, we aren’t living in an Orwellian ‘1984’, despite the efforts of David Burrowes. Personally I believe in fidelity, it suits my psyche but I understand that other gay couples are only together now because they have an open relationship. Each person’s relationship with sex is different, varying from purly emotional to purely physical and each couple need only negotiate where they stand on that continuum and how they manage their needs based on honesty.
    It is none of my or anybody else’s business.

  36. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Jun 2013, 5:01pm

    As an atheist and I’m sure I’m speaking for humanists too, I resent my taxes going towards the salaries of religious loons who sit in Parliament traducing the Marriage Bill and our rights. That includes the state cult too. It offends my beliefs as an atheist, so perhaps we should have a law for that too. What a stupid arse-hole he is.

  37. The law regarding adultery is underused already. The only ground to divorce in marriage is the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage found by one of 5 factors, the first being adultery. However it is very hard to find adultery unless the person admits to it, and so unreasonable behaviour is often used. In the case of civil partnerships there is no adultery factor, so why all of this upheaval?

  38. Robert in S. Kensington 22 Jun 2013, 1:53pm

    I’ll repeat what I’ve already said. Burrowes isn’t even aware that the current 1973 Matrimonial Causes Act is already an ‘adulterer’s charter’ because it permits legal divorce and re-marriage with no restriction on the number of times an heterosexual can commit adultery, unreasonable behaviour or re-marry. There are such things as serial hetero adulterers, some of them are MPs too and I daresay, Lords. End of.

    1. I’m sorry but if there is to be equal marriage it has to be equal in all respects: it’s no good taking the ‘what business is it of their’s?’ attitude because, frankly, if you don’t want the state butting in on your relationship you don’t advocate legal marriage full stop-for ANYBODY.

      There simply HAS to be a legal equivalent of adultery for gay people. There’s no good getting around that. Otherwise the bill will be unfairly discriminating between heterosexual and homosexual marriage.

      That cannot be denied.

      Adultery takes less time to divorce than unreasonable behaviour. An important consideration.

      If your spouse -male or female- was unfaithful, wouldn’t you rather get out sooner rather than later?

      And the claim that same sex marriage strengthens relationships is made a mockery of by not having adultery as grounds for divorce.

      I really don’t like Burrowes, but I’m afraid that Stowell has made a major gaffe here.

      1. bobbleobble 23 Jun 2013, 1:49pm

        It will be equal as regards adultery. Everyone will still be able to use adultery as grounds for divorce but it will still only apply in one specific instance ie when a man penetrates a woman with his penis whilst one or the other or both are married to someone else. All other sex acts including oral sex between opposite sex couples will continue to be deemed unreasonable behaviour.

        Defining adultery or consummation for that matter isn’t easy for gay couples and the added problem is that most if not all of the acts we can do, heterosexual couples can do too. If for example it was decided that anal sex was adultery for gay male couples then what about those who don’t have anal sex and why should anal sex count as adultery for gay couples and not heterosexuals? And that’s before we even touch on what constitutes adultery for lesbians.

        Far better to leave the situation as it is, adultery keeps it’s archaic meaning and everything else is unreasonable behaviour.

        1. I’m sorry but if you are in a same sex marriage, you’re hardly likely to be putting your vagina or penis near a member of the opposite sex, are you? I mean no offence by this, but it’s not really something that is likely to happen if you are a gay person.

          Adultery is what it is because it REFLECTS a certain type of relationship i.e. opposite sex couple cheating with another member of the opposite sex. It needs a definition for gay people that reflects their relationship type.

          Thought the point of this bill was for equal treatment. Obviously, it is flawed.

          1. bobbleobble 23 Jun 2013, 3:03pm

            Maybe it isn’t going to be widely used as a grounds for divorce amongst gay people but I’m sure that it will be used on occasion. For everything else there’s unreasonable behaviour (and incidentally I can find no evidence that it takes longer to divorce for unreasonable behaviour than adultery, the length of a divorce depends on whether it is opposed or not).

            Adultery doesn’t simply reflect straight relationships, if it did then it would cover all possible methods of cheating including cheating with the same sex. It doesn’t do that. Now maybe the definition of adultery should be updated to reflect the world we now live in but given that we already have a perfectly acceptable alternative to adultery, unreasonable behaviour, there’s no need.

            Perhaps you can come up with a definition for adultery that is better than us relying simply on unreasonable behaviour?

  39. I can’t come up with much better, Bobbleobble, however, I concede that there will be the rare occasion in terms of bisexual people where adultery will be the appropriate way.

    Can’t say that it will apply to the majority, though.

    I still maintain that for the vast majority of gay people the possibility of their spouse going off with a member of the opposite sex won’t occur.

    In any case, I think it should be discussed. Why avoid discussion about gay sex when they’re quite happy to discuss straight people’s sex lives?

    It is good that these issues are discussed-it separates the men from the boys on this issue.

    We’ve got Tatchell- who in all fairness does realise that having marriage equality IS about discussing these nitty-gritty issues.

    Then we have the likes of some here who want equal marriage but complain that that may mean having their sex lives discussed.

    No offence but wtf DID they think marriage meant? Marriage IS about govt interference in people’s love life

    1. bobbleobble 23 Jun 2013, 4:44pm

      Adultery doesn’t apply for the majority of straight people either. It is incredibly difficult to prove that adultery has taken place which is why the vast majority of people don’t use adultery when divorcing.

      I agree the issues should be discussed and I have no problem with people discussing gay sex in general but I honestly don’t see a problem with leaving adultery the way it is.

      I think either adultery should be updated to include any conceivable sex act straight or gay or should simply be removed as a ground for divorce. But the problem is that doing that would change straight marriages and Cameron couldn’t afford to give that kind of ammunition to the bill’s detractors. But there simply isn’t a way of producing a definition of adultery that wouldn’t either disadvantage us as a group or affect the definition of adultery for heterosexuals.

      For example, if say anal sex became the way that gay men committed adultery that wouldn’t be fair since straight men having ..ctd

    2. bobbleobble 23 Jun 2013, 4:48pm

      anal sex with a woman would still not be committing adultery. That’s not fair to gay men. But if you change the definition of adultery to anal sex in all instances then the accusations fly about changing marriage and it makes adultery a heavier onus for straight people than it currently is. And as I say we haven’t even begun to consider what adultery might be for lesbians!

      I personally don’t feel disadvantaged by not having adultery as a grounds for divorce. First of all I don’t intend to divorce but if ever it becomes necessary then I’d be perfectly happy to rely on unreasonable behaviour. It’s not like without adultery then I’m stuck in a marriage I don’t want to be in.

  40. D.Burrows ghastly smug pa Rebecca just phoned to assure me that David was not planning a wrecking amendment tonight…what bollocks. Shes cut from the same cloth.

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.