Reader comments · Labour MSP Elaine Smith: Why not legalise polygamy? if gays are allowed to marry · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Labour MSP Elaine Smith: Why not legalise polygamy? if gays are allowed to marry

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Dozy tart. That’s ridiculous “logic”… since when did fairness equate to greediness?

    1. Dangermouse 30 Sep 2013, 12:18pm

      Most christens should support polygamy as its endorsed by God in the Bible.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Sep 2013, 12:36pm

        As well as incest, e.g. the fictitious Adam & Eve and their progeny to propagate the species. None of them can explain it when questioned.

        1. Christopher Coleman 30 Sep 2013, 4:30pm

          Nor can they explain why human beings have been on the planet for about 200,000 years, but God, who created them all, decided to make Adam and Eve about 7,000 years ago. Were the earlier humans just various experiments? Were they not as yet in God’s image?

          Actually, Adam and Eve’s progeny do not propagate the species. They had two sons, one of whom died. According to the Bible Cain was marked so he would be known and that suggests that there were other human beings around already. The myth is muddled in places, so it is hard to know exactly what the teaching point is supposed to be. Certainly, it was never intended to be taken literally.

      2. That’s not fair: not all Christians are backward traditionalists. A majority of Christians in the developed world are egalitarian.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Sep 2013, 12:50pm

          Not fair? Even if it is true that the so called ‘majority’ of Christians you claim are egalitarian which I doubt, then perhaps you could provide the overwhelming evidence to substantiate the blind faith creationist tale from the old testament? Science thinks otherwise.

          1. Of course it does! And a majority of Christians in the developed world agree with what the scientific shows!

          2. *science

          3. That should read “what science shows”.

            Also, I’m talking about a majority of Christians in the developed world.

          4. PantoHorse 30 Sep 2013, 1:22pm

            Where are this majority you speak of when utter loons make these kind of prnouncements?

        2. Egalitarian is a belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people – which the Bible book of fiction does NOT promote – so egalitarian christians are infact agnostics!

          1. The President of the United States, for example, is a Christian who support marriage equality.

        3. Emma, I think the problem with your argument is that this majority of Christians never seems to speak up when people like Elaine Smith use their religious beliefs for their homophobia.

          It amazes me why so many pro-gay church goers, as we’re constantly told that the majority support gay rights, still attend churches and practice religions they don’t agree with. It’s not good enough to disagree with your religion’s views on gay equality while still attending church and saying or doing nothing about it. If you disagree, speak up and try to change your church’s position or stop going at all.

      3. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Sep 2013, 12:55pm

        They won’t though but selectively choose which parts of fiction suit their anti-equality agenda such as the infamous quote in Leviticus they trot out at every provocation more than any other while claiming that the ‘buybull’ is the ‘word of God’ and therefore must be believed because it tells them so. How convenient for them.

      4. Dangermouse 3 Oct 2013, 11:39am

        Wonder why I have gotten so many negative votes, perhaps I should add, slavery incest and stoning to death as god inspired too. LOL!

    2. She clearly wants to be part of her husbands harem and is just trying it on.

    3. “Dozy tart”? Oh look, yet more sexist insults on the PN. Criticise her for her arguments, not for her gender or sexuality.

      While we’re at it, polyamory isn’t about greediness! And I suspect that polygamy is a lot more complicated than that as well. I’ve noticed that “greediness” is often used to criticise stigmatised sexualities. Bisexuals are always being called “greedy”, for instance. But yes, fairness does not equate to greediness. There’s nothing greedy about wanting to have equal rights.

  2. Theoretically speaking, why not indeed? Except this overlooks the fact that countries practicing polygamy now are all hetero.

    However, as all mendacious fools in this particular debate, she is introducing an irrelevant point to the matter in hand. There is significant jurisprudence and legal understanding of a marital relationship between two, and none at all about a marital relationship between multiples.

    Consider – if A marries B and then C, what is the relationship of B to C? Can B refuse to allow the marriage to C? What if B and C want to remove A, can they? Who is next of kin for decisions? The law does not know the answer to these or any other questions and it would take significant lobbying to frame solutions. Given that those who wish this – both for religious reasons and for the poly community – I don’t see accord any time soon.

    It is, however, a null argument for same sex marriage and another tedious attempt to muddy waters as a smokescreen of bigotry.

    1. It also hideously overlooks the fact that the backward practice she’s referring is outlawed by international human rights law, banned in all developed countries, is an outdated practice which international human rights organisations and the United Nations is trying to rid the world of.

      Comparing that with a pro human rights measure such as marriage equality which now the norm in developed countries, has been strongly supported by international human rights organisations, and is the pinnacle of the affirmation of LGBT rights (which, as the United Nations has affirmed, are human rights)?

      I suppose Elaine didn’t consider all that, she just wants to blab ignorantly!

      1. It is an “outdated practice” typically because (as in the countries that still practice it) it is rooted deeply in misogyny and is dependent upon the women in such situations having no legal autonomy, no rights, no choice etc.

        However, it is also true to say that – outside of such an environment where women are mere chattel – there are people of either gender who may wish to engage in a legally registered polyamorous relationship. It is not necessarily bad thing, so long as all parties are equal.

        And honestly, that is why the necessary lobbying (since it has no relation to same sex marriage and they must start their own cause) will fail. You have one group of raving misogynists who want all the power over others, and another group who recognise an equality of power within a relationship dynamic. These two factions are never going to agree on what the law should actually state because their motivations are so radically different.

        1. Yes, and of course the whole thing is rather a bit of a non-starter: international human rights law bans it outright.

          1. It bans it because it is dependent on an absence of legal autonomy. I am not poly, but know a fair few who are and they are all perfectly capable of making reasonable choices for themselves.

            Laws can change, this law is for a situation entirely different from what I am referencing in terms of the United Kingdom, in that women have legal autonomy denied them in other (theocratic) nations but not here.

            Please keep in mind that there are perfectly reasonable people who would choose this, who are not robbed of power, and who do not need white knights to gallop in and save them from themselves. It is all an issue of consent, autonomy and legal competence – these are concepts well understood here. It’s everything else in terms of relationships structure that is not.

          2. @Valksy That doesn’t take away from the fact that the traditionalist freaks might take advantage of it.

          3. Emma, can you explain why you think plural marriage has more potential for abuse than single marriage?

          4. @Emma while true, you could say that the same traditionalist freaks are already doing that with marriage now – Doesn’t mean we should abandon the concept of marriage, just work hard to ensure everyone involved is legitimately consenting.

          5. @shaed Well mate you can either take my word for it (I’ve worked for the UN Human Rights Office & now work at the local Amnesty International branch, and have a degree in international law), or, if if you don’t want to (which is perfectly understandble), then here are some useful resources:


            Indeed, I was simply stating the obvious though: ensuring egalitarianism and consent within marriage is easier when it comes to equitable monogamous marriage (the former when in conjunction with marriage equality, the latter when in conjunction with the afore stated).

          6. Emma, while I don’t doubt your credentials or what you’ve got to say on this issue, you lost credibility as soon as you claimed to be right because of your own experience/qualifications etc.

            I’ve come across this many times on these PN comments threads and find it’s usually an excuse not to bother arguing your point thoroughly and ignoring what others have to say.

      2. Emma you still didnt answer my question. What about if 3 gay men WANT to marry each other?

        All your answers sound like a web bot. There is not intellectual or individual thought in them at all.

        1. A racist bot

  3. Jock S. Trap 30 Sep 2013, 11:32am

    Oh blimey, that old chestnut… Again.

    She means polygamy of bigamy? either way it makes me laugh how the hypocrites deal with something the heterosexuals have been masters of.

    They simply don’t get it. What for the other predictable bigoted comments that no doubt will be coming.

    It’s all nonsense and only makes the person making the comment look like the bigoted fools they are.

  4. This is a null argument serving a smokescreen for bigotry. There are perfectly good arguments for why she is comparing apples and oranges here, but I don’t suppose she as the intellectual honesty to explore or express them (I did, PN seems to have eaten my post…)

    1. …never had an email to validate a comment before (been here a long time). Weird?

      1. me to – weird

  5. Elaine Smith is a neofascist homophobic extremist.

    If the Labour party does not expel this evil bigot thenbit means they condone her extremism

    1. freedommatters 30 Sep 2013, 5:20pm

      To expel someone merely because you disagree with what she says is far more “neofascist” than anything Elaine Smith has said.

      1. freedommatters – normally I’d agree with you, but there has to be line drawn somewhere. I have a feeling that all of the main political parties would throw out MPs or MSPs or Councillors if they made similar comments about jewish people or black people. Can you imagine an MP or MSP saying black people didn’t deserve equality? They’d be kicked straight out of their party. But for some reason, society still accepts homophobia, just so long as it’s somebody’s “personal view” – but here’s the thing, she’s an MSP with the power to vote against government legislation, so it’s not just about her personal view.

    2. I wrote to my local Labour MP and also one of my regional Labour MSPs when Elaine Smith first spouted her homophobic bile a couple of months back. I was told by one that she is free to hold her own opinion, that’s what a democracy is and the other said she was shocked to read about Smith’s homophobic comments but had known her personally for years and insisted she wasn’t a homophobe, merely held a strong personal opinion on this one matter.

      It’s exactly the same type of responses I got when I wrote to various people in the SNP about the homophobic Scottish government minister Roseanna Cunnigham, the one who said gay people go against “10,000 years of nature’s design. Even Out for Independence defended her and made excuses.

      I am disgusted that such bigoted homophobes can hold such senior positions in Scottish politics such as government ministers and Deputy Presiding Officers of the Scottish Parliament.

  6. That There Other David 30 Sep 2013, 11:36am

    I’m sure she’ll evolve her arguments into the bill allowing people to marry pets, siblings and maybe even inanimate objects before too long.

    Slippery slope and all that ;-)

    1. Just as well we didn’t all make a drinking game out of their same risible and thoroughly debunked nonsense. The never ending tedium of watching idiots parade out what they think is a “gotcha” just to have to be patted on the head and patiently explained to. Seems that part and parcel of being a bigot is to behave like you’ve been licking paint…..

  7. Go home, woman, and look after your children and stop meddling in matters about which you know nothing. Your asinine comments are crass to say the least

    1. theotherone 30 Sep 2013, 1:36pm

      because the answer to homophobia is misogyny…

  8. Elaine Smith appears to have equated the committed love of any two persons to polygamy.

    But I wonder if she would equate the love her parents shared to polygamy.

    I suspect she would rapidly answer that her parents’ love did not equate to polygamy. And it would be interesting to hear her explanations as to why it didn’t.

    And then it would be interesting to hear her explanations as to why the committed relationship of a homosexual couple does.

  9. She’s right — there’s no logical reason not to legalize polygamy.

    However, that’s not the issue here. If she wants to introduce a bill legalizing polygamy, let her go ahead and do it. In the meantime, I’d like to hear her reasons for opposing equality for gay and lesbian citizens.

    1. No, she’s utterly wrong:

      The backward practice she’s referring is outlawed by international human rights law, banned in all developed countries, is an outdated practice which international human rights organisations and the United Nations is trying to rid the world of.

      Comparing that with a pro human rights measure such as marriage equality which now the norm in developed countries, has been strongly supported by international human rights organisations, and is the pinnacle of the affirmation of LGBT rights (which, as the United Nations has affirmed, are human rights)?

      No comparison can be made. The logic and the facts go against this silly proposition.

      Elaine didn’t consider all that, she just wants to blab ignorantly!

      1. The Islamophobia on this site is incredible

        1. Oh so we should all permit backward Islamic practices such as child marriage then?

          I think not!

          Welcome to the modern world – human rights matter.

          1. What about backward Islamic practices like force marriage? Should be ban ALL marriage just in case someone gets forced?

        2. and justified.

  10. I think she’s unintentionally doing us a quite a big favour !

    By spouting such obvious nonsense, she’s demonstrating quite clearly that there are no valid arguments against Equal Marriage.

    1. I hope you’re right, and I if I really think about it logically, you are right. But there’s still that wee paranoid part of me which worries she’ll be able to convince enough MSPs to change their minds and vote against marriage equality. She did quite unashamedly say back in June that was her aim.

  11. And the idiot will probably then fall back on the age old insanity of “what about people marrying animals!?!?!?!”

    These idiots should be removed from office the moment they make insane statements and suggestions like this. They are clearly not right in the head and shouldn’t be in such a position of trust.

    She should be removed, not for her opinions against marriage equality, but because she is doing a disservice to her electorate and is clearly not capable of having an intelligent debate about an issue affecting her constituents.

    Why does it seem that so many communities elect the local village idiot?

    1. Colin (london) 30 Sep 2013, 12:12pm

      Well said…..well said.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Sep 2013, 12:42pm

      It seems that when they use the irrational slippery slope nonsense, perhaps its the very thing they crave the most since they are the only ones it bothers. Very sick people in my view and not fit for public office which isn’t the appropriate vehicle to promote and enforce religious beliefs on others which is what this is all about when you get to the heart of it. It’s the same argument we heard and will continue to hear as more countries legalise equal marriage. Desperate rants from desperately paranoid people.

    3. I think she poses a valid question. What indeed is wrong with several consenting adults entering into an arrangement suitable to themselves, if it harms no one? Their private lives are their own and if consensual, should not be subject to the arbitrary standards of others. Espousing this position would probably strengthen the case for gay marriage rather than cloud the issue in random opinions. I also think she’s too smart to infer that marrying animals would be acceptable. Their little paws can’t hold a pen to sign a marriage liscence, even if they were literate. The animal arguement is plain stupid, period.

      1. But she’s not actually posing any question about the rights or wrongs of polygamy. She’s simply using it as a tactic to oppose equal marriage. It’s not a done deal in Scotland yet, and we can’t do anything which may stop this bill being passed.

        Polygamy is an entirely separate argument for another time. Look at how much of this thread has been taken up with people discussing and arguing about polygamy, when we should be united in opposing this bigot who is trying to derail the Scottish same sex marriage bill. We’re doing exactly what she wants.

  12. Fine.

    But let those wishing to have polygamous relationships enshrined in law go through all the grief of campaigning for it, like we have for the past 50 years.

    1. It won’t happen: that backward practice is banned under international law.

      Equality isn’t the same as trying to bring back an outdated practice.

  13. Colin (London) 30 Sep 2013, 12:06pm

    I am Scottish, born and educated not far from the area she represents. I’ve lived in other countries and live in London now for several years.

    This is part of a whole attitude thing which I hate. To me she is “as thick as mince”

    Humbly suggest girl get out more and see how other countries deal with situations….travel really does broaden the mind!

    1. Because anyone who’s lived their whole life in Scotland is clearly an uneducated, ignorant bigot? You know, there were even more MPs in London spouting this kind of nonsense than MSPs in Edinburgh. And let’s travel a wee bit further afield, to the USA for example. I’m sure there can’t be any ignorant, religious, homophobic idiots there.

      1. Colin (London) 2 Oct 2013, 9:33am

        Your words not mine.

        Others had commented on her stupid remarks on polygamy. It’s about perspective. The Scottish Parliament still has a long way to go before it educates and produces tallent suitable for Parliament.

        This woman in my opinion represent a type of person and attitude that I left Scotland to get away from. However all over this planet I meet Scots in senior positions doing incredible things. We all talk about a certain attitude but want the best for Scotland.

        I encourage travel as it changes you as you open yourself to other views. It is more difficult if you don’t have the chance to meet others who are different.

        I still have many family in the central belt and encourage them to work in another country for 2 years before deciding to settle in Scotland. I feel they would bring back a changed attitude that would benefit Scotland for the long term.

        I did not mean to insult anyone apart from Smith.

        I wish you well.

        1. I felt your were saying everyone in Scotland is an ignorant bigot and you seem to be saying that the only way to rise above this is to leave Scotland. To be honest, your reply just repeats this view.

          We have our fair share of bigots and knuckle draggers in Scotland, but they exist elsewhere too, including London. There were many MPs in Westminster, for example, who said the same kind of thing as Elaine Smith. Why should they be considered more talented simply because they serve in a Parliament which has existed for a longer period of time?

          Look at the issue of equal marriage. It wasn’t known if Westminster would vote for it until the vote, whereas around 2 thirds of MSPs in Holyrood have already pledged support.

          I think that by saying Scottish people can only make the best of themselves by leaving Scotland is wrong. I will not criticise anyone for leaving Scotland, but it’s a wee bit galling to be told that those of us who stayed here aren’t as enlightened as you.

          1. Colin(London) 4 Oct 2013, 1:08pm

            I did not mean to offend. While living and working in Scotland I met many enlightened and fantastic people who are as good if not better than most i’ve met on this planet.

            I was targeting her and an attitude that allows people like her to get voted into your Parliament that I saw, had to work with while working in Scotland.

            Yes versions of it are everywhere.

            Please don’t take offence. I’m proud of my heritage.

          2. Okay, Colin, fair enough. I don’t want to think I’m the kind of person who takes offence easily, perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying or perhaps you didn’t quite explain what you meant.

            In the past, I’ve come across quite a few Scottish people who don’t live in Scotland anymore and constantly put it down. As I said, I won’t criticise anyone for moving away, but I hate being tarred with the same brush as ignorant bigots like Smith.

  14. CH Brighton 30 Sep 2013, 12:17pm

    Obviously intended as a spoiler from a woman clearly taking orders from her religious masters. She should be ashamed.

    1. I’ve also heard it suggested she’s taking orders from her local Labour party at constituency level, although I’ve no idea if there’s any truth in that.

  15. Derek Williams 30 Sep 2013, 12:17pm

    That’s the Slippery Slope Fallacy. The best evidence to support or refute it is to look at the 16 countries and 16 US states where Same Sex Marriage is already legal, alongside the dozens more which offer Civil Unions.

    Is there a push in ANY of these states for polygamous marriages, bestiality or legalised pedophilia?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Sep 2013, 12:34pm

      According to C4M’s ‘Dr’ Sharon James there is a push. She cited two examples, one in British Columbia, Canada and one in the Netherlands during our own equal marriage debate. Both cases were thrown out by their respective courts because it is illegal in both countries but she insists otherwise. It’s always the religious loons (she’s catholic I believe) who obsess so much about polygamy, incest and gay sex more than any others, a siege mentality if you will. In fact, they are the only ones who do. The woman is unhinged and needs psychiatric evaluation. This is the same red herring opponents south of the border used and look where it got them.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Sep 2013, 2:01pm

        I meant that Smith is catholic, not James.

  16. Hmmm, that explains why all those countries where polygamy is currently legal are rushing to legalise gay marriage.
    Oh wait…

    In any event, this oft sited theoretical ‘slippery slope to polygamy’ starts with ONE couple, the gender mix of the couple in question is irrelevant.

    If you really want to prevent polygamous slippery slopes, it makes as much sense to prevent anyone getting married in the first place.

  17. Why not legalise gay marriage? If straight people are allowed to marry.

  18. She hideously overlooks the fact that the backward practice she’s referring is outlawed by international human rights law, banned in all developed countries, is an outdated practice which international human rights organisations and the United Nations is fighting to rid the world of.

    Comparing that with a pro human rights measure such as marriage equality which now the norm in developed countries, has been strongly supported by international human rights organisations, and is the pinnacle of the affirmation of LGBT rights (which, as the United Nations has affirmed, are human rights)?

    Perhaps those who spout these slippery slope arguments should think a little and do some research before talking!

    1. FreedomMatters 30 Sep 2013, 12:49pm

      Polygamy is NOT Outlawed by any International law or treaty and exists perfectly legally in several countries. Perhaps you are the one who needs to do some research before talking!

      1. Yes it is outlawed by international human rights law:

        And, yes, backward African and Islamic regimes aren’t very fond of adhering to international human rights law.

        Next time do some research before talking. I know what I’m talking about: I’ve worked at the UN Human Rights Office and now work for the local Amnesty International branch (and in addition I have an international law degree).

        So, don’t accuse someone of not having done their research when it’s quite the opposite.

        1. Emma, not wishing to be rude but you have posted multiple times about this “International Law” which bans polygamy. I wondered where does such a law exist and who enforces it?
          Polygamy is allowed in various countries so therefore can’t be banned as you suggest.
          The link you posted leads to a document which discussed national laws which ban polygamy and in the case of Utah, local laws. Even where individual states agree to abide by a common understanding and behaviours it does not make a single international law.
          Personally I have no problem with polygamy, but that is for that particular lobby to bring about changes to law, local or otherwise, just as the SSM debate has done. I think discussion is good and using a ‘stop everything’ claim of “International Law” only stifles it.
          Regards etc.

          1. Please read the first link (to the international human rights organization), which elaborates on international case law in regards to the matter.

            These pertain to international human rights covenants.

            Some of these are the very same covenants through which the UN Human Rights Office and the UN Human Rights Council have the legal grounds to demand that all nations on Earth respect LGBT rights as human rights.

            If you’re interested in a thorough in depth lesson on international law as it pertains to human rights, visit your local UN office or an international human rights organization.


        2. EDF member?

          1. English Defense League, I assume? How does that even make even the slightest sense in reply to my statements regarding the facts?

            It’s quite a funny accusation considering that my second job at the UN was assisting the UN Human Rights Office section working against racial discrimination (my first job was on gender equality). Now I work at my local Amnesty International branch, doing – guess what? – an Indigenous rights program!

            And anyhow, I’m a British-Kiwi, I’m not in England.

            Human rights: they matter in the modern world.

          2. Well if Amnesty are hiring Islamophobes like you, I ain’t giving them money. Being a lesbian doesn’t make your bigotry any more acceptable. Perhaps you could get to know some real Muslim families and rethink your hateful statements about “backward” African and Islamic cultures.

        3. freedommatters 30 Sep 2013, 5:12pm

          Sorry Emma but your links do NOT support your proposition that Polygamy is contrary to International Law. Your link to Top Violence Against Women says that the UN “Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women have found that polygamous marriages discriminate against women and recommend their prohibition” ie a Committee of the UN “recommends” that Polygamous Marriages should be prohibited which is a long way from your assertion that “the backward practice [ie Polygamy] she’s referring is outlawed by international human rights law”

          If you did indeed work for the UN Human Rights Office and now work for the local Amnesty International branch then that does rather put a question mark as to the legal competence of those organisations. International Law is made by Treaties and not by Committees of the UN or by NGO’s such as Amnesty International.

          I should stress that I am not supporting Polygamy merely correcting your legally incorrect assertions

        4. Actually Emma it IS you who hasnt done their research. The actual intent of the anti-polygamy law is to prevent forced marriages. However these laws throw the baby out with the bath water because they also outlaw consenting multiple marriages as a ‘protection’ mechanism because it would be impossible to prove which was which.

          The flaw in this is that even marriages between 2 people are often forced, so why not ban ALL marriage?

    2. But Emma, what about places like Brunei and Malaysia, where the sultans have more than one wife? On the basis of prosperity alone they can’t really be called ‘undeveloped’ any more, can they?

      1. Good gracious! Money =/= development.

        Development means human development (including respect for human rights).

        1. Well, yes, but development doesn’t generally occur unless there’s general prosperity, does it? (Perhaps it does, but I can’t think of any examples, from Britain to the Netherlands to Switzerland to Sweden to Japan – or, for that matter, the USA.) I’m not referring to places like Equatorial Guinea where the nation’s wealth is solely the preserve of one family.

          1. Absolutely, economic development is a component of (and usually leads to) human development, but development is not finances alone. Human development, as measured by the UN and international human rights organizations, roughly includes literacy, respect for human rights, gender equality, as well as GDI/GNI per capita.


        2. What about a situation where 3 people all WANT to get married to each other, no forcing being involved?

          All your (identical) posts and this ‘international law’ (which is meaningless, toothless rubbish that cannot be enforced in any meaningful way) seems to assume that only women are forced into polygamous marriages. Id love to see your argument when 3 gay men want to marry each other.

          1. Toothless? I doubt it!

            Yes, backward Islamic and African regimes aren’t going to adhere to international human rights law (or any other international law category for that matter) properly, but developed and democratic countries on the other hand almost always implement rulings by international courts.

            In the modern world, sane and educated people have respect for human rights.

          2. Also, it’s rather unfortunate you don’t respect international law, considering oftentimes that forms the only legal basis on which the United Nations can demand that nations respect human rights including gay rights.

            Please be a little bit more thoughtful (and respectful). :)

          3. Emma you still didnt answer my question. What about if 3 gay men WANT to marry each other?

            All your answers sound like a web bot. There is not intellectual or individual thought in them at all.

          4. @Rovex Wow, a personal attack. That’s real classy of you mate!

          5. And yet you STILL have no answer for me. Why is that? Seems to me that your narrow view of what a multiple marriage is causing you to be unable to answer.

            The simple fact is that you assume all multiple marriages are forced upon women and as such should be banned, when this is clearly not the case. How undeveloped of you.

        3. Emma you still didnt answer my question. What about if 3 gay men WANT to marry each other?

          All your answers sound like a web bot. There is not intellectual or individual thought in them at all.
          Answer me if you are able, i will keep posting until you do. Im not letting you get away with deflecting.

          FYI im not pro-polygamy at all, im simply trying to prove the point that your assertion that all polygamous marriages are forced upon women is false.

    3. Emma you still didnt answer my question. What about if 3 gay men WANT to marry each other?

      All your answers sound like a web bot. There is not intellectual or individual thought in them at all.

  19. Stupid cow, why not legalise polygamy if straights are allowed to marry?

  20. Ms Smith could well do with communicating with her fellow labour colleague in New Zealand about this, although I suspect she may counsel here that she is indeed being homophobic. Anyway here was the NZ rebuttal to the slippery slope argument

  21. I agree with her. Polygamy absolutely should be legal. Im not sure what demand there is for the legalisation of it, but even if its very small, people who do want to enter into a marriage all together, should be able to.

    1. So you agree with a homophobic bigot who wants to make sure Scotland doesn’t vote for same sex marriage?

      Elaine Smith is not advocating polygamy. She’s using it as an excuse to try to stop Scotland passing the same sex marriage legislation. Arguments and debates about polygamy should not be brought into the fight for same sex marriage, they are unrelated.

  22. Stupid woman, why not legalise polygamy if straights are allowed to marry?
    Dies she want to be part of her husbands harem or what? Why is she asking this?

  23. I don’t see how polygamouss relationships have anything to do with same sex couples marrying any more than opposite sex couples have anything to do with polygamous relationships.
    We are only talking about couples, is she mad? or more likely just anti-gay equality?

  24. Loving how bigotry (stupidity) keeps repeating itself.

  25. I think the Scottish Parliament should call her bluff and insist that she put forward a bill, WITH HER NAME ON IT, calling for legal recognition of polygamic marriages.

    Put your money where your mouth is Ms. Smith! Put up or shut up!

    1. Elaine, you are a homophobe. Why not be proud of it if you are so adamant in your views that gay people don’t deserve the freedom to marry. Speaking at an avowedly homophobic event ….
      What do you think will happen if gays get married ? My husband and I got married on Thursday and the sky has not fallen in yet. We did not see an earthquakes, or lines of people getting divorced.
      Life went on as normal. What a silly little woman you are.

  26. well stupidity is legal !!!!!

  27. keith francis farrell 30 Sep 2013, 1:29pm

    silly woman, she must be in one of those funny relationships, or married to more than one man, don’t know, all I do know is she is silly

  28. How did such an ignorant bitch get a job as a labour MSP?

    1. And don’t forget Deputy Presiding Officer (equivalent to Speaker) of the Scottish Parliament. She got that one by being voted in by other MSPs. Doesn’t really fill you with confidence, does it?!!!

  29. GulliverUK 30 Sep 2013, 2:04pm

    Others have said everything I wanted to say.

    She’s an irrelevance and her comments are nothing more than a very tiny distraction by someone without any grace. She must have a lump of concrete where her heart is supposed to be. She should be pitied for that inability to love and welcome others equally. She also seems to be an attention-seeker.

    1. I’m not sure she is an irrelevance. She’s an MSP with the power to vote against same sex marriage in Scotland. She’s also a Deputy Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, giving her even more status if not power. She seems to be on a crusade to convince as many other MSPs as possible to change their minds and vote against the same sex marriage bill. These comments of hers weren’t just spouted down the pub, they were given as evidence to the Committee who are currently looking at the bill to try and convince them not to recommend that it continues.

      So I wouldn’t quite describe her as an irrelevance, no matter how much I may want to.

  30. There is a big difference between satisfying greedy womanizers of this world like Joseph Smith founder of the Mormon church , creator of prop 8, versus allowing us as a people to enjoy the same fundamental right for our relationship with another human being to be legitimized and celebrated by society. It is wrong that only straight people can enjoy this (that of which many heterosexuals take for granted) while in turn telling us that their relationships are the only ones that are legitimate. That their love is true love and that ours is merely a cheap and flimsy imitation of theirs. That’s bullocks!

  31. Oh dear, can’t we have one comment thread about the polygamy fallacy without attacking people in committed polyamorous relationships, which are more likely to be LGBT?

    As a polyamorous lesbian, I don’t think any part of my relationships with my partners is “backward” or “greedy”.

    1. Thankyou, Sarah. You put exactly what I wanted to say and so I would like to echo your sentiments.

    2. THANK YOU. Gods I’m fed up of being discriminated against within a community I am otherwise a part of because I happen to be a polyamorous lesbian. For crying out loud, if you discriminate against others expect them to revisit it on you, because you will deserve it!

    3. I understand your frustration at the attitudes, but even your very comment is fanning the flames of Elaine Smith’s bigotry. By saying polygamous relationships are more likely to be LGBT, you are giving her ammunition, whether it’s true or not.

      The Daily Mail regularly reads these comments and has already written an article a few months ago in support of Smith and her bigoted views, quoting comments from these threads to “prove” her (and their own) bigoted views.

      We’ve not got equal marriage in Scotland yet and Smith is on a crusade to convince as many MSPs as possible to vote against it. She’s bringing in polygamy, which has nothing to do with same sex marriage, to muddy the waters and try to stop same sex marriage in Scotland. She’s not actually interested in discussing polygamy at all.

      1. If it’s true that poly relationships are more likely to be LGBT, and from my poly friends’ experience I strongly suspect that’s right (a quick google found articles claiming that it’s more common in men, but I don’t have time to do in-depth research today), then yes, we should be able to discuss it.

        However, you’re conflating polyamory and polygamy. While many poly folks wish to be able to marry more than one of their partners, polyamory is not the same as polygamy in a number of key ways. At the very least, polyamory permits same-sex relationships, whereas polygamy does not, and polygamy is almost built on a polygynous model (man with multiple wives) that disadvantages women. Polygamy is frequently practised in communities following a particular religion, whereas polyamory is unconnected to religion.

        But that’s not really the point. The point is that polygamy and same-sex marriage are two different things, quite separate from polyamory, and one is not going to lead to the other.

        1. Erm……that was exactly my point – that polygamy is in no way related to same sex marriage and Smith is only using it to try and stop same sex marriage from happening in Scotland.

          It doesn’t help when so many people in this thread actually help Smith by insisting we should discuss it.

          I am making no judgement on polygamous relationships one way or the other, but please don’t let it hinder the fight for equal marriage in Scotland. That’s what Smith wants and quite a few people here haven fallen right into her trap.

  32. Another vigor clutching at straws to cover her bigotry she should be sacked from the Labour Party

  33. … but then there was NEVER a reason not to allow polygamy – apart from the fact that our laws didn’t accept it. They may change their mind in the future … just as they’ve changed their mind about the acceptablilty and desiarability of EQUAL marriage for two people who love each other. For Ms Smith to introduce this argument at this time is a red herring and quite simply, homophobic.

  34. Why not legalise polygamy? if straights are allowed to marry

  35. So two people of the same sex marrying meakes Elaine think that suddenly ten people of the same sex will want to marry – yet she’s too stupid to see that the whole polyamory argument applies equally to people of the *opposite* sex – eg if a man can marry a woman, why should he marry ten woman.

    These bigots disgust me and their lack of logic is beyond irritating. Next up will be the ‘siblings argument’ – if a woman can marry another woman, next she’ll be wanting to marry her sister. Again, the same could be said of straight marriages.

    The rank stupidity of this argument offends me almost as much as the implied homophobia.

  36. Labour MSP Elaine Smith: Why not legalise polygamy? if straights are allowed to marry

  37. SICK bitch, go and play happy mum with yourself and shut your stagnant mouth.

  38. Hey, if polygamists want to organize and mobilize a movement to have their relationships recognized and respected that’s fine by me !!

    Additionally, if the millions of people who (allegedly) want to marry their sister, dog, or washing machine want to organize and mobilize their own movements then go right ahead. Until then, it’s probably just going to be gay marriage for now. Calm down, paranoid delusional loons.

  39. Michaelandfred 30 Sep 2013, 3:45pm

    Why do they always bring this up? Polygamy has always been around and part of heterosexual unions. She can debate the pro’s and con’s of polygamy, society has for centuries, but what does it have to do with equal marriage?

    It’s like asking why people over 60 should be allowed? What do they offer to the institution? The two have nothing to do with each other

  40. GulliverUK 30 Sep 2013, 3:45pm

    If she’s not homophobic and a bigot why not vote FOR equal rights, and equal marriage, then vote against Polygamy if it ever actually comes up. :)

    She’s admitted that this bill doesn’t have any intention to enable recognition of polygamy, but she’s against it anyway – there lies the real truth of her opposition, she just doesn’t like the gays, doesn’t think we should have equal rights.

    She claims her constituents support her, and that a majority of them oppose equal marriage. Love to know if that’s true. She claims practicing Catholics will be discriminated against. How????!! Only a small handful of MSPs oppose equality, so nothing to worry about.

    1. Charliej95 30 Sep 2013, 5:25pm

      What’s worse is her party labour pushed for her to be one of the deputy presiding officers and she got the job! Labour should call for her to be removed from that post.

      1. I don’t think any homophobe should be allowed to hold a senior political position. Apprently Smith’s homophobia has come as a shock to her fellow colleagues in Labour, but as you say they could still call for her to be removed from the position of Deputy PO. I’ve written to a couple of Labour politicians since June – an MSP and an MP. Both defended Smith.

        It was the same with the SNP who defended Roseanna Cunningham. I’ve written to least a dozen SNP party officials, MSPs and Councilors over the last 6 years or so, and every one of them defended her, including Out for Independence, the SNP’s official gay wing.

        Unlike Smith whose homophobia was only revealed after she got the Deputy PO job, Cunningham was given a government job by Alex Salmond about 3 years AFTER her disgusting comments about homosexuality – “goes against 10,000 years of nature’s design” which she said when she tabled an amendment to the adoption and fostering bill to make it illegal for gay people to adopt.

        1. And as for Labour “pushing” for Smith to get the deputy PO job, isn’t that what all parties do? Including the SNP who pushed for Tricia Marwick to get the Presiding Officer job when it was Labour’s “turn”.

    2. I wish I was as confident as you, Gulliver! I’d love to think there was nothing to worry about. But Elaine Smith has admitted she’s trying to change the minds of as many MSPs as possible so they’ll vote against same sex marriage. She actually encouraged the public to contact their MSPs and tell them not to vote for it. Hopefully you’re right and there will be nothing to worry about. I’ll not be able to rest easy until the Scottish Parliament votes in favour of same sex marriage.

  41. The only form in which polygamy is legally recognised in countries which do so, is for a man to take multiple wives -so men marrying men and woman marrying woman bears no relation to the misogynistic practice of men ‘owning’ multiple wives mainly to declare their status.

    One equates to love the other purely to men’s lust and greed.

    Stupid Catholic – but according to her bible –

    Even though a man can marry more than one woman without being charged with “adultery”, a woman cannot marry more than one man (Romans 7:2-3, 1 Corinthians 7:39), and that if a woman is involved with another man, she will be charged with adultery. The reason the man is not mentioned by Paul is because, according to the law, a man could marry another woman while his first wife was still alive and not be guilty of adultery.

  42. How can one person’s “religious freedom” be granted at the expense of someone else’s? The existence of multiple “religious freedoms” that are mutually exclusive of one another cannot exist.
    The U.S. Supreme Court wrestled with this concept in 1878 (Reynolds v. United States), when it was presented with the case for bigamy on the part of the Mormon Church.
    The Court rejected the “religious freedom” argument, citing the “slippery slope” ramification to unfettered “religious freedom”, which could ultimately force, for example, the legalization of religiously sanctioned human sacrifice by those who believed that God mandated it.

    1. 1878? That’s progressive.

      There’s a bit of a difference between marrying more than one person and sacrificing them to the gods.

    2. Like the human sacrifice analogy – the ‘Binding’ crosses three religions – Abraham sacrificing his son. So easy step for the ‘faithful’ to justify chopping up their children after a vision, especially if those children just happened to be LGBT.
      So Elaine should fight for human sacrifice next as it’s in the Bible. You go girl lets roll that clock back to the golden age of the Old Testament.
      She really is the ‘village idiot’ as some else commented.

      1. freedommatters 30 Sep 2013, 5:18pm

        Actually Abraham Did Not sacrifice his son Isaac that was the whole point of the Biblical story in Genesis that God did not require human sacrifice. The sacrifice of First Borns was a common practice in the Middle East at the time but the Jews did not practice human sacrifice and the practice carried out by others was frequently condemned by the Hebrew prophets

  43. Oh that’s an idea! Thanks Elaine for putting polygamous marriage on the agenda for the years following an equal marriage act in Scotland.

    If we can’t have your acceptance and your vote then the least you can do is unintentionally show that there are no valid arguments against SSM and push equal love recognition even further.

  44. she is right – well said Elaine

    1. A disappointing comment from you, JohnB. No, she’s not right, yet you haven’t said why you think she is. Bear in mind that her argument could equally apply to opposite sex marriage – e.g one wife good, five wives better.

      Polygamy has nothing to do with SSM any more than it has to do with interracial marriage. If a marriage is gender neutral – two consenting, non-related adults or something of the kind, what on earth has that got to do with polygamy? You might as well argue that female suffrage means that next we’ll be allowing kittens to vote. The two things aren’t related at all.

    2. Yes, “right” like the people who said that allowing women to vote would mean that next we’d be allowing babies the vote…. i.e completely wrong!!

      Polygamy has as much to do with SSM as it has to do with interracial marriage – NOTHING.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Sep 2013, 5:52pm

      If you think she is right, then provide us with irrefutable evidence SSM has caused demand for polygamy in 16 countries 13 American states and Mexico City where we can marry? She hasn’t so the onus is now on you to deliver the goods. I challenge you. Come on, show us.

    4. @Iris: I respect you too much to want to offend and in a strange way I was pleased for you when the SSM bill passed, in that it will give you your heart’s desire.

      However, what SSM does, maybe unintentionally, is to redefine marriage. It becomes no longer a matter of recognising the union of opposites and with it the principle basis of family life and the procreation and nurture of children but with the Bill passing it becomes a matter of equal love.

      And if that is the principle, then there is no logical reason NOT to allow marriage between more than two people who fulfil that criteria? This is not as irrelevant as you may think – I believe it will be pushed for in some countries that allow SSM if it isn’t happening already.

      @Robert: your challenge is a fair one and despite what any of us may think there is a need to back up our points with evidence or at least some higher authority.

      1. JohnB, apologies for using interracial marriage again but it is relevant. In the US some people said THAT would redefine marriage or lead to *insert offensive suggestion* It didn’t, of course.

        Now I guess you’re going to say that that would still be one man, one woman, but that didn’t satisfy many opponents at the time. They couldn’t accept the idea, either through prejudice or ignorance.

        You emphasise children: LGBT people can and do have children. Why should those children not be brought up in a marriage too, if so desired. And procreation is NOT part of civil marriage anyway. A number of my straight married friends don’t have children. Should they be banned from marriage then?

        You imply that love is a selfish thing, but love can be selfless. Marrying for love is a valid reason. Most straight couples do so. So why hasn’t polygamy been mentioned in relation to them?

        1. thank you Iris. While not a full response to you thoughtful comments I offer the following thoughts:

          1. I accept inter-racial marriage has been opposed for the reasons you say but it never makes it right and the comparison of it with SSM breaks down as IR marriage fits the bible originated definition whereas IR marriage doesn’t. Society can redefine what it sees as marriage as has happened recently but that is not to say it is right to do so.

          2. Your points about same sex couples being excellent parents and some straight couples having no intention to procreate or can’t is accepted.

          3. I wasn’t sure I was saying love is selfish (after all the famous love chapter in the bible 1Corinthians 13 says the opposite) but what I was saying is that these days led by the likes of our Prime Minister marriage is increasingly seen as something that should be open to any couple who love each other and this subtly undermines the biblical definition and how society has seen it up to recently.

        2. errata: “whereas IR marriage” => “whereas SSM marriage”

          about Civil marriage, I well understand one wanting to distinguish this from Christian marriage. In some ways this is a more honest position, albeit confusing and arguably not in societies best interest.

          if Christians were more honest that distinction could / should have been made before SSM becomes a reality. After all a literal rendering of the Bibles teaching would rule out remarriage after divorce.

        3. Thank you for replying, JohnB.

          You said “the comparison of it with SSM breaks down as IR marriage fits the bible originated definition”

          Ah, but in the last century the Bible was used by people against interracial marriage to “prove” that it was wrong. It’s in the OT but I forget what book – apologies, but I’m sure you know your Bible better than me :D As you know, other parts of the Bible were also used to deny black people equal rights.

          We’ve talked about this before, but the Bible is FULL of polygamy. So biblically that should be OK, yes? ;)

          I personally believe the Bible is FAR clearer on adultery and divorce than it is on SSM. Indeed, I really don’t see anything in the Bible saying that SSM or relationships are wrong. You differ in your view because of your religious views – that’s fine. But the introduction of SSM is a civil matter and no church will be forced to marry same sex couples any more than they’re forced to marry divorcees.

          Finally – SSM & polyamory=apples & pears!

  45. Christopher Coleman 30 Sep 2013, 4:22pm

    Whatever Ms. Smith’s reasons and, perhaps, hidden agendas, polygamy is just one more expression of relations between men and women and the social practice of marriage. In the distant past, when societies lost members through disease and war, polygamy provided a way of replenishing the population. It has also been used to increase a population quickly, e.g. the Mormons. Among the Islamic Semites it remains a tradition with a long history; there is biblical precedent for it — and that is good news for Scottish Christians who want to go that route.

    Ms. Smith might be keen to increase the population of Scotland very rapidly. If so, polygamy would be one way to go about it. I would, however, caution Ms. Smith to consider the problems overpopulation creates.

    It should, of course, be obvious to any thinking person that this issue has nothing to do with gays and lesbians, be they married or single. Neither does it have anything to do with “traditional” marriage.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Sep 2013, 5:30pm

      There is also another factor she hasn’t taken into consideration. What if polygamy were legal, does she really believe any government would support benefits for an excessive amount of children born to more than one wife that could arise? Imagine the drain on the economy at the expense of the tax payers. What kind of accommodation would be needed to house them, clothe or feed them?

    2. GulliverUK 30 Sep 2013, 5:47pm

      Very astute and insightful observations.

  46. Fascinating. So many comments attempting to refute bigotry by dehumanizing non monogamous relationships. When did we ask become so reactionary?

  47. Christopher Coleman 30 Sep 2013, 4:55pm

    Polygamy was useful in ancient times to replenish population numbers following wars and disease. It has been used to make rapid population gains, as the Mormons did in the C19th. Among some races it has a long tradition and is still used in some Islamic countries.

    Perhaps Ms. Smith wants to boost the population of Scotland. If so, there is Biblical precedent for it, so Scottish Christians need feel no inhibitions on that score. However, overpopulation comes with a social and economic price tag.

    None of this has anything to do with gays and lesbians, be they married or single; nor with “traditional” marriage.

  48. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Sep 2013, 6:17pm

    Dear Elaine, please read the following:

    “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” Tim 2 v. 12.

  49. Why not allow polygamy, who are we to judge what consenting adults can or cannot do. There are far too many arses in government telling adults what they can or cannot do in their own private lives. If it does not harm anyone else then by all means legalise polygamy.

    1. I’m in total agreement with your statements. This dialogue will have to happen eventually.

      1. Perhaps, but can we please leave it until after we get equal marriage in Scotland, at least? I know it’s being totally selfish, but I don’t want to do anything to risk it becoming law in Scotland.

        Elaine Smith has made it clear her intention is to persuade MSPs who’ve already pledged support to change their minds and vote against it. We can’t actually assist her in this. Even leaving comments on Pink News can help her. The Daily Mail ran a story in June when Smith first spouted her opposition to equal marriage quoting PN comments to prove how intolerant and nasty gay people are. I can just see another article using these comments to argue against same sex marriage – which isn’t a done deal yet in Scotland.

        Finally, this isn’t about the rights and wrongs of polygamy. Elaine Smith is not advocating polygamy, she’s using it as a diversionary tactic to try and stop the same sex marriage bill in Scotland. The two are simply not related.

        1. Colin (london) 2 Oct 2013, 10:31am

          Totally agree……one step at a time.

    2. I think that in reality, very few of these people actually exist in this country. There are probably relationships that consists of more than 3 people of course, but I doubt these people will want to a. marry each other by law and b. go to a local polygamous club meeting that doesn’t actually exist in order to make it happen. I’m sure it would have happened in the sixties if it was going to happen by now, right?

      The whole thing is a distraction. It’s a devious kind of scare tactic. Threatening people with an unknown future. A wild “what if?” to stir up fence sitters. A nasty right wing tradition.

      It’s a joke! The slippery slope does not exist! Why are we STILL talking about it? We won!! Go get married! Nobody is wanting to marry their multiple spouses, sister or their dog from what I’ve read. Have you?

      1. We’ve not won in Scotland yet.

  50. I’m not even remotely a Conservative, but it does amuse me to consider the torrent of vituperation there’d be on this thread if Smith were Conservative.

    No-one’s mentioned how deeply disappointing it is that a Labour MSP comes out with this sort of ill-considered hogwash.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Sep 2013, 6:57pm

      It is deeply disappointing but we also heard similar rants from Labour MPs south of the border who voted against our own bill as well as a small handful of LibDems. I think its probably rare that an entire party has ever voted for a piece of legislation free of abstentions or absences,although in my view, an abstention or absence would indicate a ‘no’ vote. The only exception that comes to mind is Iceland with a 49-0 vote for equal marriage and the first to have an openly gay leader.

      1. I agree, Robert. I wish that one of the main parties would just make an example of these homophobes and say they aren’t welcome in that party. But it will never happen. There are homophobes like this in Labour, the Conservatives, Lib Dems and the SNP – some of them even hold government positions. I’ve written to both Labour and the SNP about this, but just got fobbed off with lame excuses.

        For some reason, homophobia is still tolerated in a way other forms of bigotry such as racism or anti-semitism aren’t.

  51. Disingenuous and smug comment from Elaine.

  52. Polygamy is abusive. The only people asking for it are men belonging to backwards religions which disrespect women.

    1. A few corrections:

      Polygamy is SOMETIMES abusive. Some of the people asking for it are….

  53. I think this issue will have to be adressed sooner than later. What indeed is wrong with ploygamy if all parties involved are informed, consenting adults entering freely into such an arrangement? I think a dialogue should be entered into by all progressive societies.

    1. Except it’s not progressive. It’s backward: it’s something which is found only the most backward African and Islamic regimes, which routinely violate human rights.

      1. It’s not backward. If anything the sex negative and possessive attitude that you can only have feelings for one person at a time is backward. The difference is consent and you just ignored the words ‘consenting’ and ‘freely’ in the original comment.

    2. It looks like your own your then. Gays have got their acceptance and don’t want to help (if PN readers are representative of the LGBT community).

  54. I know of plenty of gay triad relationships that work well. I have no problem with legalized polygamy, if it is a completely voluntary and equal legal contract between all parties and all domestic abuse is criminally punishable. This is the main problem with fundamentalist religious groups that routinely practice polygamy. End the abuse and inequality, and I don’t see the problem.

  55. Except for Canadian case law. Yesh, why is it that Christian Right activists fail to recognise that Canada’s Bountiful case demonstrated that straight polygamy was abusive to women and children and shouldn’t be decriminalised on the basis of that harm? And that was as recently as 2011! And it’s a recent British Commonwealth court case, so…

  56. Elston Gunn 30 Sep 2013, 10:26pm

    This page has been hijacked methinks… very strange voting downs today. Did not know polyamory was that frowned upon. Legally of course its probably a minefield, but I’m sure the law would find a way if necessary.

    Liberation being replaced by a traditionalist position… it’s very sad to see.

    1. I’m usually very liberal, but I assume the people voting down the pro-polygamy comments are doing so out of frustration that they could be seen to back up Smith’s argument, and therefore are against same sex marriage. I don’t believe this myself, I’m just suggesting a reason.

      Remember, when Smith first made homophobic comments back in June, the Daily Mail ran an article supporting her, and they had clearly trawled Pink News comments, because they quoted some of them to show how nasty and intolerant us gays are, calling her a bigot.

      And it’s also not been voted on in Scotland yet, Smith is hoping to change the minds of enough MSPs who’ve already pledged support – she admitted in June that was her aim. It’s unlikely to happen, but it’s not impossible that this bigoted woman could achieve such an outcome. We can’t do anything that might actually help her. She’ll probably be e-mailing links to this page to every MSP showing how gay people agree equal marriage will lead to polygamy.

      1. Elston Gunn 30 Sep 2013, 11:44pm

        Ah, I see your point! Sometimes I think PN just exists in a bubble – maybe they should make the comments hidden like on Gaystar.

        re. polyamory, it’s a fine line however, and I haven’t enjoyed seeing it linked to bestiality and pedophilia. Nor do I like reading repeatedly how “backward” Africa is. It’s the same language the imperialists used in the age of empire.

        1. Yes, I do understand your point. I just think the pro-polygamy comments on this article have missed the point, though. This isn’t a debate on polygamy. Elaine Smith doesn’t advocate polygamy, she’s using it to try and stop the Scottish equal marriage bill dead in it’s tracks. So by agreeing with her, we’re helping her to do that.

      2. Elston Gunn 1 Oct 2013, 12:33am

        No I think something did happen, just now 20 comments have been added from around 10 hours ago

        Either people went mental posting earlier and the servers couldn’t cope or there’s been some strange things going on with this page.

        1. I’ve also been having bother posting comments in the last couple of days. I’ve had to verify some of them using an e-mail link before they appear, which I’ve never had to do before.

          Maybe Pink News are having some technical problems.

      3. Oh please if an MP is sending comments a few people have written on the internet to prove a point she will only make a fool of herself, this is the internet. Nobody takes it seriously. My post was clearly a joke. Nobody is actually suggesting THEY want a polygamous marriage on this page. If she can somehow turn around equal marriage on the basis it will lead to polygamous or other relationships based on a few comments on an internet forum I’ll eat my god damn hat bennieM.

        This scare tactic has been disputed COUNTLESS times. The “slippery slope” crap does not hold water. . It didn’t work anywhere else, it’s not going to work in Scotland.

        1. Easy for you to say. Until the Scottish Parliament actually votes for equal marriage, I’ll not be able to rest easy.

  57. Greetings from the PHILIPPINES, England and Wales just have the law.. I think it’s time for Scotland, and eventually Northern Ireland to have marriage equality laws! Too much lame excuses, and that’s right, there are dozens of nations who legalize polygamy!!! The bill here is about same sex marriage… Mrs. Smith SHOULD BE ASHAME of herself! Truly sick!!

  58. Kelly Glasgow 1 Oct 2013, 4:40am

    Time for Scotland to have same sex marriage law. Parliamentarians should pass it as soon as possible.. It’s gonna happen, and I’m proud for Scottish people for favoring this bill.

  59. dorsetbob 1 Oct 2013, 8:44am

    I think that smith has thrown in polygamy as a smokescreen to hide the fact that her true allegiance is to Rome rather than the people who voted her in.This is her ‘christian’ brain talking.

  60. Owen Williams 1 Oct 2013, 12:21pm

    Marriage is a legal contract for the exclusive use of sexual organs. Why should it be limited to parties of two people?

  61. Angela S. 1 Oct 2013, 2:44pm

    Well, it seems we have here an other christian who has forgotten that polygamous marriages were very christian and Biblical…..
    No idea what she has to link that with us LGBTQI people bein allowed to get a civil marriage…..

    1. The relationships in the bible were more Fritzl-esque than polygamous I’d say. It was more like “do as I say” and “how much?” instead of “I do” and “here comes the bride!”

  62. Indeed. Why shouldn’t poly people be allowed to have our relationships recognised as equal to those of monogamous people?

  63. sounds great fun if all involved in it are happy with it, what,s it got to do with polititions

  64. AS I have never nor will never vote for the Labour Party, its really none of my business but I think perhaps the Labour Party should remove this ninny as soon as possible. She is obviously unfit to represent anyone.

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.