Reader comments · Ex-Telegraph editor Charles Moore: Will equal marriage lead to people marrying dogs? · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Ex-Telegraph editor Charles Moore: Will equal marriage lead to people marrying dogs?

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. That the concept of “legal competence” does not register in his mind says a whole lot more about him than anyone else.

    Of course, this is some degree of metacommunication – that he equates us, at some level, with beasts.

    As far as I am concerned he has done what all bigots tend to do – expose themselves as small-minded, ignorant, drooling dimwits.

    1. Redfern Jon Barrett 4 Jul 2013, 11:08pm

      These conservative homophobes are so confused! FIRST comes incest, THEN bestiality!

  2. That the concept of “legal competence” does not register in his mind says a whole lot more about him than anyone else.

    Of course, this is some degree of metacommunication – that he equates us, at some level, with beasts.

    As far as I am concerned he has done what all bigots tend to do – expose themselves as small-minded, ignorant, drooling dimwits.

    1. …I have no idea, apologies for any nuisance.

  3. The man continues to make himself look foolish.

    Marriage is an act by consenting adults, why he fails to grasp this simple notion is beyond me.

    I wonder how we can him sectioned. He is clearly unstable.

    1. The really sad thing is that I think he thinks he has been rather clever. When in fact people are just laughing at his idiocy.

  4. This is a man that found Margaret Thatcher sexually attractive. Enough said!

    1. I suppose that’s where his ideas about marrying dogs come from.

      1. Metsän poika 5 Jul 2013, 5:00am

        A joke in bad taste but oh, I laughed and I laughed and I laughed and I laughed and I laughed and I laughed and I laughed. Thank you twit less. :-)

  5. Jock S. Trap 4 Jul 2013, 4:33pm

    Oh, so boring, so predictable…. done That argument… next!

  6. Will working at telegraph lead people to complete intellectual stagnation…

  7. Yes of course it will Charles. Happy now?

    1. Silly reply to a silly question.

  8. Ethel Clutterbuck 4 Jul 2013, 4:39pm

    Why stop a dogs? Why now marry your toaster or even a combine harvester

  9. Tom (Winnipeg) 4 Jul 2013, 4:43pm

    I really wonder about his IQ. Can people be that stupid?

  10. .....Paddyswurds 4 Jul 2013, 4:46pm

    Now we know why the Smelagarph is such a crap news rag. I find it hard to believe that someone who held the editorship of a national newspaper could be so willfully dumb. I mean, really? Marry your dog?. And tell me, idiot, just how do you intend to get your dogs explicit consent which is required by law, well unless you are an eight year old Muslim girl being married off to her 70 year old uncle? What an utter moron!

    1. Spanner1960 5 Jul 2013, 10:03am

      Actually, the Telegraph is a bloody good newspaper. Unfortunately though, it’s editorial gets bogged down with the likes of bigots such as this prat.

      Best to just read the news and ignore all the “journalistic comment”.

  11. poor help the Dog that he would marry….

    1. It’s ok, the dog gave full consent and signed his marriage papers…

  12. so sick of these stupid comments from those opposed to equal marriage.

    you know what, equal marriage will not lead to bestiality or incest, as those are covered under different statutes… but if you really insist, we will be glad to make an exception just for you, since you are so keen on breeding with your dog…

    freaking neanderthal buffoon !!!!

  13. My brain died.

    1. Metsän poika 5 Jul 2013, 5:12am

      Relax Mr Stuie, it is Charles Moore’s brain that died.

  14. Did heterosexual marriage lead to men and women marrying dogs? Sorry, don’t follow your logic …..

  15. …but I have TWO Basset Hounds. I demand the right to marry both!

    He really is a twunt.

    1. Spanner1960 5 Jul 2013, 10:05am

      Vote for polygamous bestiality now!!! ;)

  16. John in Toronto Canada 4 Jul 2013, 5:20pm

    Mr Moore,
    We’re all terribly sorry that you and your dog must conceal your love in secrecy.
    Keep the faith (jerk).

  17. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Jul 2013, 5:23pm

    Demented freak! This is what passes for educated and he’s not alone. There are some in the Lords who think exactly as he does.

    I’m sick and tired too of the delusional swivel-eyed loons in the Lords trying to introduce yet more wrecking amendments, the moronic Lord Dear, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and that harridan, Baroness Deech, a hateful bitch.

    1. Don’t forget Baroness Knight, she of the evil Section 28. ‘Homsexuals are lovely people, some of them are antique dealers’. That’s says it all about her.

      Whay are complete loons able to sit in judgment over equal right legislation?

      Charles Moore needs to be let out to pasture. He should feel at home, having thought a lot about bestiality.

  18. Charles Moore is an evil, extremist scumbag.

    Just like over 50% of Tory MP’s.

    Do these neo-fascist pigs not realise that they belong in the BNP.

  19. CH Brighton 4 Jul 2013, 5:41pm

    Moore’s dogging marriage – yet he and his kind have the audacity to point fingers at us? But are people still listening to this rubbish?

  20. An evil old alcoholic who has wasted many years of his life trying to convince the world that Margaret Thatcher was sexually alluring.

  21. Glasgow Oliver 4 Jul 2013, 6:12pm

    If it’s a totally Platonic relationship i.e. no sex or anything like that, I honestly don’t have a problem. Old people are allowed to marry for friendship, so marriage isn’t necessarily sexual. Some people are REALLY attached to their pets, but not in ‘that’ way, so I don’t know, maybe they should be allowed to marry them. It’s the 21st century after all!

    1. As long as the dog says ‘I do’ and can sign the register……

    2. bobbleobble 4 Jul 2013, 6:22pm

      No marriage isn’t necessarily sexual but it is by necessity consensual and since no animal has the capacity to consent to a contract it therefore cannot enter into a marriage.

    3. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you are not actually that stupid.

  22. silly man!

    ..consumation is for annulment not marriage and the definition is so crap and so difficult to prove it’s fairly useless anyway. I suspect it’s used by Catholics as an easy get out jail clause so that they don’t have to wait too long to get a proper divorce..

    1. Yes of course it will open marriage to dogs. Just like allowing women to vote has opened voting for cats, and abolishing slavery means horses will be set free too. What a dumb ass.

    2. Most divorces cite irreconcilable differences. Non-consummation is rare. But same sex couples must somehow be held to the higher standard.

      Charles Moore I would call him a liar as I’m sure he has the intention to deceive in saying this. However, he may just be stupid.

  23. Mihangel apYrs 4 Jul 2013, 7:15pm

    consent – you brain dead moron

  24. Howling mad 4 Jul 2013, 7:26pm

    Apparently his dog has just put itself up for adoption at Battersea.

  25. He ain’t nothing but a newshound:)!

  26. Mind you, given the choice between a dog and a homophobic ass I think most of us know who the more eligible suitor would be.

  27. Christopher Coleman 4 Jul 2013, 7:41pm

    Scientific and medical research continue to make great leaps forward. They may yet breed a dog that is not only intelligent, but also rational and capable of speaking perfect English. Then, it might be able to walk up to the altar (or civil equivalent of such) and say “I do”.

    I know many people who consider their dogs to be family members. Perhaps this fool takes that a step further. Anyway, if the man was an editor of the Daily Telegraph, why should we surprised that he cannot think logically?

  28. Mumbo Jumbo 4 Jul 2013, 7:54pm


    1. Metsän poika 5 Jul 2013, 5:18am

      Mad, Barking Mad!

  29. BadenBrit 4 Jul 2013, 9:04pm

    Does a Cnut like this really have a parliamentary mandate?

  30. What else can you expect from an RC convert? Not much.

    1. Rome-o-phobia again

  31. ‘Marrying’ a dog and ‘marrying’ someone of the same sex (pseudo-marriage , or as the homo-lobby call ‘equal marriage’ )has much in common .
    1.union is physically impossible – disordered sexuality is pointless and outside natural law
    2.’Partners’ are not complementary
    3.It is sterile and uncreative can’t be consummated
    5.Marriage IS the union of a man and a woman (it can’t be redefined, just as eating can’t mean putting food in one’s armpit and calling it ‘equal eating’)

    It’s a topsy turvy world indeed.Same-sex ‘marriage’ is a contradiction.

    1. Its not the world that is topsy turvy Ray, it is your world that is – you are so out of sync with the values of today I feel rather sorry for you. Have you considered emigrating to Russia or Afghanistan? – you’d feel much more at home there.

    2. Spanner1960 5 Jul 2013, 9:59am

      1. Union is totally possible. I suggest you watch some gay porn.

      2. Gay partners are actually probably more complimentary than straight ones. How many times have we heard people complain they don’t understand the opposite sex?

      3. So what? Some people are infertile, old or simply do not want children. Does that prevent them getting married?

      4. Consummation is an outdated and antiquated concept, and since when did anybody ever check?

      5 Marriage has been redefined many times over the course of history.
      It is simply the legal and social recognition of a committed relationship, nothing more.

      Same sex marriage is not a contradiction, it is merely an extension to an already proven formula..
      Now you have had all your criteria flattened, will you please sod off and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives?

    3. “It can’t be redefined”? Funny, the OED already has done so.

      1. ever read 1984 ? 2+2 = 5

  32. one would ask said coloumnist to consult his wife.. after all she herself married a dog.. looks like the law already allows it..

  33. James Savik 5 Jul 2013, 5:10am

    Dogs aren’t human fuk-wit.

  34. St Sebastian 5 Jul 2013, 5:34am

    To think that this guy was an editor, let alone a journalist. I cannot understand how someone with an education/ profession that should have given him the skills to investigate, determine fact from fiction and make rational arguments. Such tortured logic, ill informed rubbish, based on fantasy rather than fact – well, I suppose it figures given that he was employed by The Telegraph.

  35. Paul F. Wilson 5 Jul 2013, 6:28am

    JESUS CHRIST AND GENERAL JACKSON! (one of Harry Truman’s favorite [printable] oaths)


    When will these people get it through what we assume are their tiny brains that marriage is a legal contract, and you cannot sign a legal contract with an animal.

  36. Why is Mr Moore so obsessed with bestiality? If I were his dog, I’d be very, very worried!

  37. Spanner1960 5 Jul 2013, 9:51am

    The old “Slippery slope” fallacy at use again.

    Stop being a total prick Charles. Not only is bestiality illegal, it is also non-consensual. On top of that, I doubt if Rover would be capable of signing the register.

    Please get off your soap box, you have lost the battle.

  38. Same sex marriage is only legal in 12 states in the USA so far; but sex with a horse is legal in 23 states in the USA, yet you say same sex marriage will lead to bestiality!
    With your claim that if same-sex relations are acceptable, then one must also embrace bestiality then you are treating some human beings as inferior, as though they were less than human – is itself morally reprehensible. And so, if the objection is wearisome in its inanity, it is nevertheless welcome inasmuch as it exposes the debased and twisted morality of such religious fundamentalist degenerates as yourself, who from your own warped perspective think you actually occupy the moral high ground.

  39. Cue Norman Tebbit: “I rather fancy my dog!”

  40. Colin (London) 8 Jul 2013, 10:52pm

    This half wit does not care about the planet or it’s people. He has no respect for his country.

    All he cares about is his column in the homophobic paper. All he wants is a story and to cause controversy. Thinks thats journalism…enough said.

  41. Staircase2 10 Jul 2013, 2:36pm

    He reminds me of Arthur Dent before he had a chance to travel…

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.