Reader comments · Evangelical Alliance: Equal marriage could lead to bisexuals marrying ‘both male and female partners’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Evangelical Alliance: Equal marriage could lead to bisexuals marrying ‘both male and female partners’

  • Even though I shouldn’t be, I’m often surprised by the completely illogical thinking of the nutty religious right.

    How does the recognition of same sex partnership in marriage lead to all these other things they “claim” it will lead to? They can never seem to explain this radical thinking, and just seem to use this kind of bullsh*t to convince their fellow idiots that there’s more to be “scared of”.

    It’s like saying eating more veg every day will lead to Badgers learning to speak French. It’s completely nonsensical, but their idiot followers no doubt swallow all this bullsh*t with ease, being more than a little delusional to begin with.

  • Beelzeebub

    . It’s always been about the wellbeing and welfare of family and communities for generations to come.

    So denying the wellbeing of gay families is about the wellbeing of family and communities.

    Go stand in the corner with the pointy hat please.

  • Bobbleobble

    If ignorance is bliss it’s no wonder this guy’s smiling. Why would it lead to bisexuals being able to marry both a man and a woman, I genuinely don’t understand. They never actually bother to explain their lunatic assertions and far to often the gullible just accept what they have to say without question.

    • Robert W. Pierce

      The demented freak doesn’t realise that polygamy which is what he’s implying is illegal in civilised countries. Maybe it’s something he himself craves in that repressed mind and body of his. This is a sign of a dying breed, those who know that they’ve lost the cultural war, clutching at straws. Just like what happened with CPs in NI, it will be dragged kicking and screaming into equal marriage, eventually.

      • Hengu

        With all respect, many of you will probably disagree with me but monogamy is also a religious ‘norm’ imposed upon society. It really has nothing to do with civility. The true secular state will not distinguish between monogamy and polygamy. Polygamy may be against the law now but i remind you so was same sex marriage. I for one see no reason why a person can’t be married to more than one person, provided that they are all happy and it’s consentual. True liberty implies being truly free to exercize the choices that make you happy. The law should only infringe upon an individuals rights when it is reasonable, necessary and fair to do so in an open and free society. But that’s just me ;-p

        • Mr Thomas

          What a great comment. Who has the right to tell anyone what is right or wrong based on their religious beliefs and what is the norm. As long as you are not hurting anyone else, people should mind their own business.

      • Craig Y

        Uh, if Mr Smythe opposes polygamy, then does that mean that he opposes the US Christian Right’s antigay efforts in Nigeria and Uganda? Polygamy is legal in both nations and Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni defends it openly.

  • TomSatsuma

    Why should we listen to the views of someone on bisexuality when they have made clear that they haven’t even bothered to check what a bisexual is.

    Really… I have plenty to say about quantitative easing. I’m not an economist and I don’t know what quantitative easing is, but apparently that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t expect the national press and the government to take me seriously.

    You’d think he’d at least ask someone, before demonstrating his ignorance.

    Obviously I’m concerned by his views… but mostly I’m concerned by his poor effort. What’s the world coming to when bigots can’t even be expected to do even the most basic research into what they are flapping their lips about!?

    Maybe we should follow suit – I’m going to start a petition to tie David Smyth down with chains… otherwise what’s to stop him, and everyone else called David, floating into space!? That’s what they do, right? I haven’t checked… but I still think my opinion should be taken seriously.

    Public policy officer indeed. The sad thing is they won’t even be embarrassed by their mistake. It’s like watching a dog try to fix a windmill.

  • David Reid

    He has no idea what he is talking about yet is quite willing to slander and scaremonger. So much for his Christian concern it involves no concern for gay people. It is a self centred selfish controlling and intellectually childish world he lives in.

    • Steven Gregory

      The answer to his and others’ concerns: don’t marry a gay person.

      The thought of stupid violent people marrying is opposed by many people worldwide, but that doesn’t seem to concern Christians.

  • allancsn

    OMG. Straight marriage might lead to men marrying multiple wife’s – WFM is does already and in countries the Evangelicals have wiped up so much hate for is
    Hey – we just want to marry not to commit bigamy well leave that to straights.

    • Guest

      “multiple wives”**

      • allancsn

        Thanks. And of course I also meant .’whipped’ and ‘us’. But proof reading is best left to others more suited to it.

  • Sasha

    Frankly, what would the problem be? If three people wanted to marry each other, fine. The world would trot along quite nicely.

    • Liam

      I’d certainly like to hear the debate on it, it would be hilarious to hear fundamentalists try to argue that polygamy isn’t biblical.

      • Craig Y

        Which fundamentalist Christians, though? Western opponents of polygamy, or African supporters?

        • Liam

          The western variety. Though come to think of it, I doubt it would be just fundies that would freak out at the prospect of polygamous marriages.

  • atalanta

    There you go, Mr Smyth, breaking the Ninth Commandment.

    I’ve noticed how that rule – “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” – seems to challenge some religious folk when it comes to LGBT rights. Perhaps there is a caveat written in very tiny script in their special anti-gay bibles: “… unless he is a f*****, in which case thou shalt go right ahead and lie through thy teeth”.

    But the public is getting wise to these shenanigans. Brendan O’Neill might not like it, but people are changing their minds, and fast – and a big reason is that anti-gay campaigners keep on lying as if the public had no brain cells at all.

    So keep up the good work, Mr Smyth. Northern Ireland is a tough crowd for LGBT campaigners, but if you keep this up, we’ll have marriage equality in no time.

  • Robert W. Pierce

    Why is it right wing religious nutters obsess so much about the slippery slope? How would this moron explain Kenya’s recent bill approving hetero polygamy? A country in which being gay is punishable, no equal rights and certainly no equal marriage ever happening there.

    • Truth

      It’s because homophobia is much more about internalised self-hatred than any pretend fear they profess to have. They can’t handle feelings they have undoubtedly had of same sex attraction. They have been brainwashed by their religion to hate gays. Consequently they hate themselves for having had those feelings and then project that hatred onto those who represent that which they cannot handle within themselves. The bigger the homophobia, the bigger the closet case.

  • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

    Ehhh, one word; Bigamy!

  • Liam

    So how exactly will equal marriage make bigamy legal?
    It’s the same as when they use the slippery slope argument, saying that it will lead to people marrying children and animals while conveniently forgetting to mention how it will remove consent from contract law.

    • Raybeard

      Precisely. I can never understand why, all of a sudden MUTUAL adult (and, implied, human) consent would become unnecessary if someone wished to marry a child or an animal. Is there a groundswell of demand for this new single-sided procedure to be adopted? – because if so, I’ve missed it. Anyway, how many M.P.s, politicians, judges etc would even dare to support such a change in the law, in the certainty that they’d be consigning themselves (quite deservedly) to general opprobium and pariah-land for the rest of their lives?

  • Yesh U R

    You’d think by now that even in Northern Ireland a total tool like him would be laughed at in the street, but no, Northern Ireland is still in the 16th Century thanks to fuc wits like him and his chums in the religious mobs.

    • Truth

      Well, let’s be honest, they do still march to commemorate religious and political struggles from the 1600s. If that isn’t living in the past… I don’t know what is.

  • Helge Vladimir Tiller

    I can feel the deep sighs gay and transgender people in N.Ireland are drawing right now–all the way from N. I. to Norway ! Oh those Christians, they really keep on. I’m so tired of them-

  • Chris McC

    These people are a joke. The sad thing is that evangelical Christians hold an enormous amount of sway in Northern Ireland’s divided political system. Scaremongering and hyperbole are all they know, but they are on the decline. They are an embarrassment to those of us in Northern Ireland who are proud to be part of the liberal, tolerant United Kingdom.

  • Bikerman

    Quite clearly this mental imparement is the result of inbreeding.

    • Truth

      I believe it’s called ‘island mentality’. A reduced gene pool, in an isolated community, leads to slower evolution. That’s why the royal family have vestigial tails ….
      PS. Happy April 1st. :)

  • Valksy

    The only difference between believing in god and believing that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden is the number of people who share the delusion, and the phoney credibility granted the former by antiquity and bloodshed. It’s all supernatural bilge and I am perfectly willing to discount believers as having as much valuable insight into …well… anything at all as those who think the Seelie court is frolicking in their rhododendrons.

    In short – utter raving nonsense.

  • Peter Muller

    Ok, OK,, For Christians its a no go.. no matter how it presented.. but hey,, lots of us aren’t Christians.. so.. it has no relevance to how I want to live. And one more ting. Its clear that these narrow minded folks don’t get out much, their arguments have been trotted out by their peers all over the western world.. only to be ruled out of touch with the enlightened world. Perhaps a little more time out in the fresh air would do him and those like him a lot of good.

  • Fordicus

    How embarrassing for this idiot that his ignorance has been exposed and it is clear that he thinks bisexuals have to have partners of both sexes. Someone with a bisexual identity or bisexual history is no more likely to have two partners at the same time than a heterosexual man who fancies both blonde and brunette women.

  • Truth

    ” .. as it would also include the rights for bisexual people to marry “both their male and female partners.” Errr – no, you imbecile. Because that would be bigamy. I despair at the ignorance of these mindless religious bigots.

    • Barry Scarfe

      Indeed. Another religious loon who doesn’t understand what he is raging about. This cretin needs to understand that somebody being bisexual ONLY means they have the CAPACITY to be sexually/emotionally attracted to SOME people of BOTH genders. It DOESN’T mean they have a boyfriend and a girlfriend at the same time!

      • Truth

        I’m afraid ‘blind faith’ is responsible …..

  • AndyAS

    Dear Mr Smith
    If you must spout TRIPE – try at least to spout vaguely intelligent tripe!!!! this is usually referred to as BIGAMY and is against the Law!!!!
    ” it would also include the rights for bisexual people to marry “both their male and female partners.” ” this is usually referred to as BIGAMY and is against the Law!!!!

  • SGL

    But they wouldnt be allowed to marry both male and female at the same time, we have laws for that.

  • Thomas

    What a silly and deluded young man – there he is, living in a country that has been riven in two by religious violence and community hatreds for decades, and he thinks equality is immoral and exerts a negative influence on society. His ugly religion has resulted in the slaughter of 1000s of innocent mean, women and children, and he’s fretting about bisexuality. Just like the zoo-owner, his comments speak volumes about his own sexual identity.

  • ian123

    That’s as daft as saying that if you are heterosexual you can marry a blonde woman and a brunette woman.

    • ian123

      You would have thought someone would have had a word with him before he went public with his stupidity?

  • The irony is that he didn’t say that polygamy was an actual consequence of same-sex marriage, he indicated that it was a logical consequence for future marriage law, if marriage is treated as nothing more than a means of recognising the normative relationships of all sexual orientations. In other words, if marriage is no more than the social affirmation of any committed personal decisions about sexual relationships, why should any of the normative boundaries in terms of gender, number or permanence matter?

    One critic here illuminated us no end with the facile observation: ‘this is usually referred to as BIGAMY and is against the Law’. What he missed was the obvious counter-argument: ‘so was same-sex marriage’.

    Another claimed: ‘three people wanted to marry each other, fine. The world would trot along quite nicely’. Thereby, he gave credence to the slippery slope argument: that is, it’s clear that some liberals also can’t see how a three-way or four-way (or more) conjugal identity would complicate the primary family identity, making it a legal nightmare to prioritise the biological parents. They just think the more the merrier because, to them, marriage policy is a social accolade of adult love, a public ‘well done for finding love’ with little to do with parental rights.

    Marriage has wider ramifications than two people who love each other. By law, it prioritises the welfare of those types of sexual relationships that are open to the possibility and natural responsibilities of the biological family. That’s why, in spite of genetic screening advancements, we still don’t allow two close family relations ‘who love each other’ to marry.

    Just to be clear, age and fertility are not types of sexual relationships. So, please don’t trot out the shop-worn ‘so why is it that elderly and infertile couples can marry?’.

    By law, marriage confers automatic parental recognition on the spouse of the birth mother called presumption of paternity. For a heterosexual marriage, this can still be over-ruled by an outside party’s proof of paternity. In the case of homosexual relationships, most jurisdictions have applied marriage law irrationally to favour the parental claims of an unrelated same-sex spouse above the rights of a known and committed natural father. The ‘solution’ in British Columbia has been to invent three-parent families, which only work until the married couple decide to migrate, after which the rights of the known and committed biological father are comprehensively undermined.

    In the US, Canada, the Netherlands and Australia and elsewhere, same-sex marriage has been used to enforce a false parental presumption that favours the non-bio partner over the known and committed biological father.

    Fortunately, UK legislators had the good sense to ensure that marriage did not confer that parental presumption on the birth mother’s female partner. Nevertheless, in accordance with the stated policy of the International Lesbian and Gay Association, it is the next logical frontier.

    What the hell, let the down-votes begin.

  • Colin

    Ah well he got his 15 minutes of fame eh. Bigot.

  • David Greensmith

    Looks like he needs informing that “bisexual” means attracted to either sex, not “having two people at the same time”. The argument that a bisexual might want to marry both male and female partners makes even less sense if you consider that a male heterosexual is not allowed to be married to both is wife and his mistress. Scary that these people are allowed to vote.

  • masteradrian

    And give me one reason why a person should not have more partners?
    Why should a gay man not have two (or when even more) partners, in marriage?
    Marriage as we know (two partners I mean!) is fabricated, once decided for some reason, prior to that it was not uncommon to have more then one partner in life.
    When someone loves two persons why should those tree person not be able to marry?
    Sharing life and goods with each other, having the documentation in order (on the heritage, children, money, responsibilities, accountability, etc. etc.), what is the problem?
    Social problems? Religious problems? Rubbish!

  • Munchmagus

    Man is clearly ignorant of the law standing against bigamy – perhaps he should do his research before opening his mouth to avoid revealing to the world, the extent of his stupidity.

  • Steven Gregory

    Prats like Smythe tremble at the possibilities, but nowhere in the world where equal marriage exists have their fantasies come true.

    Of course, BEFORE equal marriage, heterosexuals engaged in polygamy, bigamy, bestiality, incest and marriage to children. Are they scared gays and lesbians will intrude upon their longstanding monopolies?

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.