Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Tory MP Peter Bone’s equal marriage ‘referendum’ bill to be debated by MPs in November

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Delusional hateful swine. Did we get a referendum on the rape and pillage of the NHS? On the squandering of the nation’s bounty to the bloody banks? On wars? No? But this hysterical BONEheaded freak (how apt) wants one over the rights of private citizens when the people voting have NO skin in the game.

    So bloody sick and tired of the would-be tyranny of the christofascist lunatic fringe. Tell me again that religion isn’t a bloody scourge – that religion isn’t a boil on the arse of humanity – I bloody dare you too.

  2. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Jul 2013, 3:55pm

    How about a referendum on banning divorcees and adulterers becoming MPs and booting out those who’ve already done it for the sake of traditional marriage? Delusional loon. He’s going nowhere with this one.

    1. I would sooner have a referendum on banning Peter Bone.

  3. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Jul 2013, 3:56pm

    You can bet David Burrowes had some part in this too! Another religious nutter who should be sectioned.

  4. Beelzeebub 8 Jul 2013, 4:05pm

    You do not give a majority the right to votes on the rights of a minority.

    NEVER.

    Just give my my bl00dy rights or give me a huge tax rebate, backdated 30 years.

  5. Jock S. Trap 8 Jul 2013, 4:25pm

    What lengths will these vile bigots go to. They lost the argument, democratically, yet can’t and won’t accept it so instead scream to halt the majority vote?

    So sick…. time for them to go if they cannot accept we live in a democracy.

  6. bobbleobble 8 Jul 2013, 4:34pm

    This whole alternative Queen’s speech nonsense is being brought to you by a bunch of idiotic Tory MPs who previously said that there simply wasn’t enough time to consider same sex marriage and instead Parliament should be focusing on important things like jobs and the economy.

    These pathetic hypocrites know full well that nothing on their lunatic agenda stands any chance of being passed into law and yet they are tying Parliament up debating such fundamental issues as whether Thatcher should have a bank holiday named after her.

    It’s time these people started acting like legislators and stopped acting like children.

  7. The man is a waste of oxygen the sooner he stops breathing the better.

  8. Actually, Valksy, I am an atheist and I think same sex marriage is nonsense.

    Any thinking person does-religious or not. It’s like this: opposite sex couples perpetuate the human race; same sex couples do not. Simple really.

    For once, I have to agree with the Catholics (though it pains me to say so).

    1. Beelzeebub 8 Jul 2013, 4:47pm

      “…..opposite sex couples perpetuate the human race”

      Please tell them to stop.

      We are vastly over-populated as it is.

      Breeding like bl00dy rabbits.

      “…..same sex couples do not”

      So who are the responsible ones?

    2. That There Other David 8 Jul 2013, 4:48pm

      Show me the requirements in law for either married people to procreate or for procreation to only occur within marriage and I’ll concede you have a point. Otherwise, please admit that no thought at all has gone into your so-called thinking person’s opinion.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Jul 2013, 4:56pm

      Tere are millions of hetero married people who can’t procreate and procreation has been around a lot longer than the artificial invention of marriage as we know it. There is a current over-population crisis on the planet and inherent abject poverty in some emerging countries because of heteros over populating as a result of poor education and access to birth control linked to corrupt hetero economic policies.

      Allowing gays civil marriage doesn’t stop the breeders from breeding with or without marriage and there is NO mandate to procreate for anyone entering a civil marriage. What about those beyond child-bearing years, ban them from marriage too?

      1. Without children, there’d be no need of marriage at all. It would become totally and utterly irrelevant for EVERYBODY-gay or straight.

        I still think that nobody should be refused employment, housing and financial rights (I see the fairness in civil partnerships) same sex marriage, now I feel that gay people are out to wreck an important civil institution by insistence on inclusion in an institution that clearly was not designed for them.

        Is that what this is about? To wreck marriage? Why -didn’t any of you have a mother and father?

        Clearly, the call for same sex marriage is based upon nothing more than spite against heterosexuals. It’s not as if civil partnerships don’t provide same financial rights.

        If I who is an atheist and moderately liberal feels like this, what do the loony swivel-eyed loons think?

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Jul 2013, 6:12pm

          Gays wrecking marriage? Bloody imbecile! Just look at who it is actually wrecking it…. HETERO adulterers and philanderers for centuries, some of them Tory MPs, Nadine Dorries, Sir Roger Gale (serial adulterer) and Bob Blackman for starters. The latter had an affair for eleven years and now rants about the sanctity of marriage. Name one hetero marriage that has been wrecked or ruined by same-sex marriages in 14 countries where it is legal? Facts please?

        2. bobbleobble 9 Jul 2013, 12:41am

          Why would marriage be wrecked if gay people have access to it. It is because if my huge respect for the institution that I want access to it. I don’t want to damage it, I want to be a part of it.

          Why do you feel our relationships should just boil down to financial rights? Marriage isn’t just about finance and neither is my relationship with my boyfriend. All we want is for that relationship to have the same recognition as that of my parents or my married friends. I don’t believe that’s such a terrible thing and I don’t see how that harms marriage in the slightest. Please enlighten us.

          1. Of course it would be wrecked, of course heteros have done enough themselves, but, really, this is the final nail in the coffin, isn’t it?

            See the problem is that marriage is essentially feminine: I can understand lesbians wanting it.

            When gay men want it, it’s like what’s the REAL agenda, is it to spite the heterosexuals? Is it one-upmanship?

            Come back under a psuedonym if you can’t answer truthfully.

    4. Marriage is not denied to the elderly, the infertile or the incapable. Your point is the meaningless mental incontinence of the mendaciously ignorant.

      And what is more, LGBT people don’t hand reproductive organs in when we step from the closet – we can and do have kids. So if you think marriage is for children (even though that is asinine drivel) then your argument STILL holds no bloody water.

      1. Mateusz90 8 Jul 2013, 6:10pm

        The old, the barren and the enfeebled are the exception rather than the rule. LGBT couples “by definition” cannot bear children. The heterosexual act of love involves the continuation of the species. The homosexual act of love involves putting your member into a man’s bowel. Even mother nature is against this act; HIV transmits far more easily in gay versus straight sex. Homosexuals are being cynically exploited by hard-left wingers to create new ‘alternative families’ and to undermine traditional man/wife families. Just Google what leftist philosopher A.C. Grayling had to say about 3-parent families recently, or lesbian activist Masha Gessen (who wishes to destroy marriage).
        Please don’t corrupt the clean, pure institution of marriage merely to validate your behaviour. I’m an atheist as well (and I’m not old, only 23). And I’m not ‘homophobic,’ (a meaningless boo-word that would make Trotsky proud) -my brother’s gay and I get on very well with him. I just don’t want marriage debased.

        1. Poe’s Law – The rule by which actual babbling lunatic wingnuts are indistinguishable from those who satirically portray them.

          If I was interested in amusing myself at your expense, I would laugh and point out that you wrongfully assume that I am a man, while feverishly describing a male on male sex act. A little angry masturbation and crying in your immediate future, perhaps?

          I am perfectly capable of bearing children, thanks. So your drooling idiocy really is a nonsense. There is absolutely nothing magical or special about placing Tab A in Slot B, no matter what you tedious heteronormative boneheads like to pretend.

          My sympathies to your brother for being related to such a tedious bore.

          1. Mateusz90 8 Jul 2013, 8:16pm

            I didn’t assume you were a man; I’ve read your posts before, and I know you’re a very obstreperous lesbian, almost stereotypically so. I notice you haven’t commented on what Grayling and Gessen had to say about the family unit and marriage respectively. You silence is thunderous. You call me tedious, yet anyone reading your boringly repetitive posts, full of misrepresentation, non sequiturs and bigotry (look it up), might assume that your vocabulary is limited to the language of the late C. Hitchens. The words you constantly use are the ones he used. You’re probably one of those stroppy, tiresome Hitchenites (“the wrong brother died” etc.), many of whom haven’t even read his books.

        2. That There Other David 8 Jul 2013, 9:16pm

          Cynical exploitation results in my obtaining equal rights? Count me in. That it annoys the hell out of some right-wingers is just a bonus.

        3. bobbleobble 9 Jul 2013, 12:36am

          How will marriage be debased by gay couples having access to it? You state it as bald fact but give no reason as to why that would be the case. And if other couples who cannot procreate are allowed access to marriage why not gay couples? You say they are the exception, well why can’t gay couples be part of that exception too? A woman who has gone through menopause cannot by definition bear children either but she wouldn’t be denied marriage.

          Oh and the heterosexual act of love can also involve sticking members into bowels albeit female ones. Also mouths too. And it only involves the continuation of the species when certain conditions are met.

          I feel sorry for your brother, I’m sure he cannot realise the hatred you bear for gay people otherwise there is no way he could possibly get on well with you.

        4. Jock S. Trap 9 Jul 2013, 3:20pm

          Seriously, educated yourself not only in relationships but it seems biology too!

    5. Ja. You seem to have fallen for the old “marriage is about procreation of children” nonsense, that is just an excuse used by religious nutbowls in the same way they bandy about the phrase “redefining marriage” . There shouldn’t be “gay” marriage it’s just “marriage”.

    6. Gay people can and do have children, ja. And children aren’t compulsory anyway, even for straight people who marry. So why not be more honest about your reason for disliking same sex marriage – surely, it can only be homophobia? Or envy maybe?

      Most straight people I know don’t care at all about whether we have equal marriage because it doesn’t interest them. Moreover, even the ones who have no wish to marry themselves don’t seek to deny it to any other couple, straight or gay.

  9. That There Other David 8 Jul 2013, 4:45pm

    Can’t we have a referendum on banning Peter Bone instead?

    1. Beelzeebub 8 Jul 2013, 4:49pm

      And his stupid hair.

      Why do I think of some kind of demented insane penguin when I look at that photo….

      1. Midnighter 8 Jul 2013, 6:01pm

        ROFL.

        The troubling part is that this was presumably chosen as a publicity photo, which really makes one wonder what the hell the rejects looked like …

      2. That’s exactly right, Beelzeebub :D

  10. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Jul 2013, 4:58pm

    I think its time Cameron reined in these demented loons, censure them or boot them out.

  11. these ‘haters’ seem to forget that opposite sex couple produce the majority of LGBT children – we don’t appear from thin air – hating us with so much fervour is really about hating yourselves.
    Denying us equality is denying your own children the right to happiness and freedom – if they considered the right of the child so important how can it be good parenting to hate your own child – particularly if you’re doing it because some tarted up old virgin priest is telling you to.
    Don’t these people care about any other human being.

  12. Wonderful Mr Bone – please can we hear more of your ideas every day. The result will be that the tories will never win an election. Is he perhaps taking stuffed brown envelopes from Ed Miliband for this?

  13. I don’t judge people by the way they look – but he looks totally demented on that photo. It almost looks as if its been photoshopped he looks so sniggeringly evil.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Jul 2013, 6:03pm

      He looks far worse in the Commons. More of the appearance of a circus clown without the makeup. A real fright but a total loon, one of many on the Tory backbenches making it the largest freak show in Parliamentary history.

  14. Colin (London) 8 Jul 2013, 5:58pm

    This is sad, shocking and this man lives in the past.

    Please constituents in Wellingborough deselect this old has been. You need someone who lives in the real changing world.

  15. I’m not gay, I have no gay children so I will make bit of a name for myself by making life a bit more difficult for those who are gay. That’s what it amounts to. Nice eh.

    Oh, and if asked he would probably say he believes in individual freedom and the small state.

  16. I want a referendum on the rights of Christians to practice their religion.

  17. Does this mean the current bill can’t be implemented until Peter Bone’s referendum passes?
    Or will marriage be legal for a short time, then suspended pending the referendum results?
    Or will the referendum bill be about keeping marriage legal, rather than making it legal?
    I wish idiots like Peter Bone would be prohibited from walking into parliament and proposing legislation.

  18. What’s really daft is this loon is wasting up time with this hopeless private members bill (just like his other bill to make the August bank holiday Margaret Thatcher day) Neither will pass the Commons and defo not the Lords. It’s good to see their lordships are ripping through the loony amendments today during Report stage today. SSM is going to pass the Lords with a thumping majority next Monday. What this Bone head streak of piss in the Commons should be doing is looking to use parliamentary time to introduce constructive measures that might stand a chance of passing. Still once the eyes start swivelling they are uncontrollable. Just reinforces the description of Downing Street regarding its nutty MPs was spot on.

  19. Spanner1960 10 Jul 2013, 1:58am

    Am I just being a bit thick here, oir does PN just talk in riddles?

    Can somebody please explain in simple layman’s terms what the hell is going on here?

    I was under the assumption that a same-sex marriage bill was going through its final stages. Surely one cannot set up yet another bill to disallow the first if it was democratically decided by due process, or am I missing something?

    Anybody?

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