December 12th, 2012

Gay Rights Campaigners Want to Force Church Marriages

tatchell

Chris Bryant and Cameroon gay marriage campaigners claim that churches will never be forced to bless gay marriages against their conscience. Christians, conservatives, liberals and gays have all expressed anger at Maria Miller’s shambolic gay marriage proposals, and UKIP are wasting no time in taking full advantage. Compromises please no one, and the futility of the entire exercise has been compounded by gay rights campaigners coming out against the government’s line. Backed by Ed Miliband, Peter Tatchell has made Farage’s morning by arguing that the so-called “quadruple lock” legislation banning the Church of England from performing gay marriages could be a breach of human rights laws:

“This faith-based discrimination could be open to legal challenge. The government is treating two churches differently from all other religions. Discriminating between faith groups is probably illegal under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.”

Out4Marriage’s James-J Walsh is also critical, attacking the “enforced bar” put in place by the state. Miller put her faith in the supposedly unbreakable “quadruple lock” swaying Tory MPs’ votes, gay rights campaigners aren’t having any of it. Tatchell and others won’t stop until the Pope, Dalai Lama and Imams bless gay marriages in their places of worship…


311 Comments

  1. 1
    Kebab Time says:

    Would it not just be easier if religions stopped treating homosexuals as second class citizens?

    Like

    • 5
      Quisling says:

      Indeed they should be treat like witches by the religions

      Like

      • 98
        Anonymous says:

        Only difference between civil partnership and marriage (excluding the man and women marring) is marring in the place of God. Without it gay marriage is the same as civil partnership.

        I don’t understand why Cameron is wasting his and everyone else time.

        Like

        • 104
          God says:

          Even if a gay couple go through a ceremony in front of an altar set up to me, I won’t be there. I have better things to do with my eternity.

          Like

        • 273
          Anonymous says:

          “the economy is in the toilet” “We’re taking a great big dump on the electorate”

          “never mind, look over there! gay marriages!”

          now, why are the wasting time?

          Like

        • 304
          Anonymous says:

          I have never heard of any great demand for religious weddings from gays, why would you get married in church as a gay couple, when the churches think you are sinful ? I have no idea why the PM has suddenly decided this is so important, unless Clegg will agree to boundary changes in exchange for church weddings, maybe.?

          Like

    • 25
      This is the dawning of the age of fuckwittery says:

      I wanted to join my local church but when I told them I did not believe in God and was in fact a militant atheist they said they could not accept me. In fact they demanded I make a confession of faith before they would. This is clearly blatant discrimination against non believers and a clear breach of my human rights.

      Like

      • 102
        Herman van Bumboy says:

        Here, take zis cheque for one million euros.

        Zere is blenty more where zat came from.

        Like

      • 135
        Misterned says:

        sarc> I know, I was disgusted that the Christian faith would not accept me as a confirmed Satanist. I mean how discriminatory can you get? Since when is it a requirement of faith to believe in what the church believes? /sarc

        Fucking militant homosexuals should be arrested and charged with inciting religious hatred!

        Like

    • 36
      Hate Sin, love the sinner. says:

      No.

      The Christian church should only marry Christians and then only Christians who lead a Christian life, as the Christian church has always done.

      Given that Homosexual practices are abhorrent to ri Christ then there really no problem here.

      It is not a case of treating people who choose to leas a life if homosexuality as second class, it is a case of them choosing to live a life without Christ.

      Like

      • 74
        LordWhiteadder says:

        please point me to Gospel verses to support your assertion that it is abhorrent to Christ…

        Like

        • 80
          Jesus says:

          Listen, pal, my dad nuked Soddom for a reason. OK?

          Like

          • T. P. Fuller says:

            Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the Americans dragged him out of a bunker, gave him a quick trialette and then hanged him.

            Like

          • LordWhiteadder says:

            Yes, as the book of the Prophet Ezekial teaches us, for having a less than satisfactory hospitality department in local government. Nowhere is the destruction of Sodom about the people being gay, but about is specifically said to be because of lack of proper hospitality. By gum, if you want to pretend to be Jesus, go read some Bible and understand the entire context of a situation before pontificating!

            Like

          • Pillar of salt says:

            Ask Lott’s wife

            Like

          • Jimmy says:

            Yes but He did also say “Get Thee behind me Satan”, so it’s ambiguous at best.

            Like

          • GPO says:

            In the post office waiting for the stamp counter to open?

            Like

        • 114
          Onan says:

          You are a wanker.

          Like

        • 140
          Little sweet baby jesus, meek and mild says:

          Is this the same Christ which the New Testament states is preparing the lake of fire for the devil and his followers, who is quoted as stating that on the last day the human race will be separated into wheat and chaff, with the chaff joining the devil in the lake of fire and who states on several occassions that you should obey the law as laid down in the old testament ? That Christ ?

          Like

          • LordWhiteadder says:

            so which laws are you going to keep from the O/T – if I remeber correctly Christ did not say… right keep these ones, but no those ones, and that group there are fine to do away with, but keep that one in the middle of them etc. etc. etc.

            Christ said to love… from love we forgive, do not harm others, we treat others fairly. If all actions are judged by Christ’s standard of love is there anything wrong with two people who lvoe each other and want t solemonise their love for each other?

            Like

          • Little sweet baby jesus, meek and mild says:

            Im not advocating the keeping of any Laws, Im simply pointing out that if you are going to try and hitch Christ onto your bandwagon you have to take on board what he is reported to have actually said. If you dont believe in him then theres no point in bringing him up. Do you want me to use coloured pencils next time ?

            Anyway since you clearly want to use Christ and the new testament as an authority on this matter you might be interested to know that “Love” is defined as the keeping of the law towards your fellow man. See the epistle of John. In other words to love someone means you dont steal from them, murder them, run of with their wife or their ass, bare false witness against them, lead them into idolatory etc etc Quite what this has to do with having anal sex with them is beyond me

            Like

        • 247
          Anonymous says:

          If God made man in his own image, does that mean that God is homosexual, bi-sexual or hetrosexual or a combination of all three?

          Like

        • 305
          Anonymous says:

          Maybe you should point us to the Gospel verses where he says its ok !

          Like

      • 76
        One-term Dave, dragging the Tories to their grave, says:

        To be perfectly frank, that bally fool Jesus didn’t know what the devil he was talking about. And for the matter, neither did God.

        I know best.

        Toodle pip!

        Like

      • 149
        Living in 97.3 percent white Wirral says:

        So no more church weddings for MP’s.

        Like

    • 46
      Arse bandit of Old England! says:

      Wouldn’t it be easier Kebab if you stopped treating people of faith as filth!

      Like

    • 67
      Wrong, wrong, wrong 'un says:

      It would certainly be easier if militant gays stopped forcing themselves into every institution in the country under the threat of law. And then exploiting their position by threatening everyone with litigation for any percieved slight.

      Like

      • 155
        Misterned says:

        “And then exploiting their position by threatening everyone with litigation for any percieved slight.”

        If only, I am still waiting to see any gayer take on the Moslems, especially those of the “homosexuals should be burned alive or stoned to death” variety.

        Decent, compassionate, fair minded Christians are a much easier target. Aided and abetted by the BBC, they are only too willing to incite racial hatred against Christians.

        I would have more sympathy for the cowardly, hypocritical, intolerant, bigoted homosexual bastards IF they had the courage to take on the Moslems or even the followers of Kosher Judaism.

        Like

      • 254
        Anonymous says:

        Quite so. Most countries manage to leave the churches alone. In fact only oppressive ones insist on passing laws that allow gangs of worthless individuals to harass them through the courts.

        I suspect that Summerskill, Tatchell and co will not be happy until they have some poor provincial vicar in court for “hate”, his family kicked out of their home, and all for simply demanding that people who come to get married be a man and a woman.

        How sickening it is to see the hate for religion displayed in this thread. Live and let live, people.

        Like

    • 97
      CarryHole is a complete Hunt says:

      Forcing people to do things they disagree with isn’t a right, it’s an abuse.

      Like

    • 144
      bry says:

      I know this will annoy one religion more than the others. So I think we should legislate that anyone gay or straight can get married in any place of worship they choose.

      Like

    • 165
      Jesus says:

      Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish

      Like

    • 171
      Dave the Rave says:

      Has anyone actually explained to Dave that a politician of the moment pandering to the latest group think can not destroy thousands of years of an established church?

      Like

      • 231
        Pundit too too says:

        Compromise? It hardly ever works, look at the shambolic situation in Belfast.
        That stupid woman and her party surely must have known that basically banning the flag over a public building would cause major disruptions and violence, yet she is constantly on BBC radio screaming away and acting as a saint.
        Silly Cow is more like it in letting Sinn Fein run Northern Ireland. Can you imagine Alex Salmond doing the same over the Scottish flag.

        Like

    • 185
      Anonymous says:

      They do not.

      Churches do not have “citizens”

      Like

    • 189
      Anonymous says:

      Simple solution. Marriage is fundamentally discriminatory. Job done.

      Another institution of this country destroyed. Why is it that everyone needs to be equal?

      What is wrong with the fashion of being unique. Why is it that humans form gangs (and political parties) to show their differences. Using these arguments political parties will have to allow everybody into their meetings since they are discriminating on political views. But then that is considered a valid exception. Equality with exceptions. Good concept, puts it all in perspective. Some people are more equal than others.

      Why can one group discriminate on a protected attribute but another can not. Please can we have some unique people in government instead of these delusional people that think we are all born equal. The whole concept of “normal” people and “equality” is a crime against humanity. It is abhorrent to even compare people with the aim of classifying them into imposed groupings or spectrums. Hence the opening idea of “second class”. We need the freedom to choose without the government and its acts discriminating against us.

      There are many laws covering jobs that I can not do for medical reasons. Am I allowed now to lobby for all those jobs to be forced to employ me. No because there are other ways to achieve the same ability to earn. So let there be a concept of “equality in effect” not “exact equality”.

      However it is “hate” that is the failure of freedom. We just need to state our ideas and groupings with a positive attitude without the negative attacks on others. Failed. How could UK politics work without the hate and negative attacks. There would be nothing left.

      Like

      • 234
        Common Sense says:

        Man has an innate herding instinct, and is instinctively tribal.

        The natural formation of groups such as political parties is a reflection of the rational side of this. Irrational prejudice towards others is the basis of racism. Until man evolves at a biological level, these instincts will always be present.

        Homosexuals should be acutely aware of this as their choice of breeding partner reflects a similar construct, which is why attempts to ‘cure’ them are futile and somewhat abhorrent.

        Marriage is the union between man and woman which society has realized in order to provide a stable environment for rearing young and ordering itself. Bonds of marriage predate religion, and forms the cornerstone of the family unit itself.

        Predating the state, religion gives formal recognition to this union under a divinity. The state mangles the issue with legal fiction which makes undoing the union difficult, and allows influence of family union formation through taxation and other means.

        Extension of the divine aspect of marriage to the unnatural union will fundamentally undermine what is an important institution for society. This constitutes a direct attack on the family by the erosion of its cornerstone.

        Like

        • 261
          Anonymous says:

          How will my marriage be undermined by allowing my two gay neighbors to also get married?

          Like

          • dogleg says:

            Why did you get married? Did you understand the true meaning and purpose of marriage when you went through the ceremony? If you did, you wouldnt be asking such a dim question.

            Like

    • 207
      Diddley says:

      The whole point of any religion is achieving your salvation through a strict set of guidelines. religious zealots of all denominations won’t be told by any government or law to change these apparently divine rules for political correctness. I fail to see why governments don’t understand that this is an impossible conundrum and to just stay the fuck away from it where possible. It’s no win.

      Like

    • 271
      Tower torture chamber says:

      It is definitely Red Hot Poker up the arse time for that disgusting Tatchell creature, followed closely by poofter Bryant …..

      Like

    • 282
      Anonymous says:

      Especially when they spout pious crap like “love thy neighbour”, the miserable hypocrites.

      Like

    • 297
      John Adlington says:

      Name one person in history who has contributed anything to society that was born to two men and we’ll start to sympathise.

      Like

  2. 2
    Gonk III says:

    Does Tatchell believe in God ?

    Like

    • 28
      This is the dawning of the age of fuckwittery says:

      Probably not, it’s a bit like me joining my local Marxist party and then demanding they change their constitution to espouse my right wing views.

      Like

    • 82
      North American Priest-Boy Love Association says:

      Why should he? “God” is a fucking deranged fantasy.

      Like

      • 94
        Grumpy Old Man says:

        Then why do homosexuals want a Church wedding/

        Like

        • 112
          Gonk III says:

          Then why do atheist homosexuals want a Church wedding ?

          Like

        • 133
          Anonymous says:

          Exactly, I have no problem in people thinking the concept of God is a fantasy but by the same token I wouldnt expect them to join a church . Similarly the Christian religion believes homosexuality to be wrong. Now feel free to disagree with that, thankfully we do not live in a society which forces you to believe in any particular religion and the homosexual lifestyle is an accepted part of our society.

          If however you did disagree with that view and you are homosexual, why would you want to get married under the auspices of any religion which believes homosexuality is wrong ? There is nothing to stop you getting married with the same civil rights as anyone else . The only reason is that some people simply want to use this issue as a means of destroying religions which they disagree with .
          Call me Dave is facilitating this.

          Like

        • 225
          North American Priest-Boy Love Association says:

          Because some of them believe in the same fucking deranged fantasy as the straight religionists.

          Like

          • North American Priest-Boy Love Association says:

            Funny how “libertarians” tend to be all for state control when it comes to social groups they don’t belong to.

            Like

          • Diddley says:

            Not quite the same fantasy, I think they’d like to re-write the script.

            Like

          • North American Priest-Boy Love Association says:

            Re-writing the script is what religion does. They’ve been modifying their dogma to suit political needs since the start. That’s how the C of E got started in the first place.

            Like

        • 257
          Henry VIIII says:

          Why is it legal for churches, including the COE, to refuse to marry divorced people. Its discrimination and a violation of my human rights.
          Marriage is a “great institution”. So great I’ve married 6 times.
          Now I’ve ended up in an Institution.

          Like

          • North American Priest-Boy Love Association says:

            I expect for the same kind of superstitious reasons they won’t have women bishops.

            Churches are already exempt from many laws that apply to other people and institutions. They can be exempted from a duty to perform marriages, too.

            If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married. And keep those authoritarian, illiberal, statist snouts out of other people’s homes, families and bedrooms.

            Like

      • 283
        Anonymous says:

        Fairy tale – or should be Grimms fairy tales?

        Like

  3. 3
    Anonymous says:

    Fuck me, doesn’t anyone really care? No-ones forcing you to marriage a gay bloke/woman, just let them get on with it.

    Like

    • 33
      Anonymous says:

      That’s exactly what will happen. Priests, vicars and pastors will be forced to marry two gay people against their will or conscience.

      Like

      • 70
        Anonymous says:

        Every other person who’s asked to do something they consider immoral at work has a choice – suck it up or get another job.

        They get enough concessions, especially considering their increasing irrelevance in society. I don’t see many other groups being offered tax free status because they wear silly hats and purple dresses.

        Like

        • 123
          The Public says:

          Your reply shows exactly why this proposal should be refused. Its the thin edge of the wedge. The answer is no. Get over it.

          Like

        • 124
          CarryHole is a complete Hunt says:

          More go to church than are gayers. If it comes down to numbers it’s gayers that are irrelevant.

          Like

      • 232
        Wilde converted to the RCC says:

        As in Gay Adoption.
        Gays could adopt from most adoption agencies. And most adoption agencies discriminate. On race, colour, religion if you are poor or smoke or fat.

        But the RC adoption agencies said they discriminate against gays. So they listed all the agencies who do have gay adoption. Not good enough. The RC agencies were forced to close. Even though they specialised in placing severely disabled children.
        Gays won. Disabled children lost.

        Like

        • 256
          Anonymous says:

          What, gays are buggering disabled kids? Sick fuckers

          Like

        • 284
          NE Frontiersman says:

          They weren’t closed, just denied public funding (which, if they’re engaged in helping Catholics, presumably they didn’t always need). Not sure how many actually closed.
          But it’s all about rubbing peoples’ noses in what they disagree with, nothing to do with freedom as far as I can see.
          I’m just waiting for an equalities campaigner to go into a halal butchers and demand pork.

          Like

          • Wilde converted to the RCC says:

            (Catholic Care) “- …was among 12 Catholic agencies in England and Wales forced to change their policy towards homosexual people due to equality laws passed in 2007. Others have since closed or cut their ties with the Church.” Source: BBC

            Like

    • 168
      Misterned says:

      The problem is that it WILL end up with clergy being forced to marry homosexual same sex couples against the wishes and beliefs of the clergy. The ECHR will ensure this. Cameron has been entirely full of bullshit, (as usual), in pretending that the church will have any protection in law.

      Like

  4. 4
    Anonymous says:

    “Tatchell won’t rest until the Pope allows gay marriages…”

    What a bastard, wanting gays to be treated equally. Doesn’t he know their proper place?

    Like

    • 65
      Kevin T says:

      Forcing a church to do something they believe is sinful in front of their altar has fuck all to do with equality and everything to do with malice. How many gays even want to get married in a church?

      Like

      • 150
        bry says:

        a church is a club for its members. should we force a golf club to marry anyone gay or straight? yes/no? just apply the same to all.

        Like

        • 178
          Misterned says:

          A church is a club for it’s members based on a commonly accepted doctrine.

          A more fitting golf analogy would be, would it make sense to allow rugby players to join a golf club to practice tackling each other on the putting greens, when there are perfectly acceptable rugby pitches available to them?

          Homosexual acts are NOT compatible with Christian, Islamic or Judiastic doctrine. Why on earth would they want to get “married” in church then, unless it is to attack that faith, or incite religious hatred?

          They have their equality of rights in law already. Anything else is just intolerant incitement and Cameron is wrong to facilitate it.

          Like

      • 306
        Anonymous says:

        I have never heard any gay person demanding a church wedding, i dont know what the PM is doing it for, its very odd.

        Like

    • 77
      Wrong, wrong, wrong 'un says:

      Tatchell also advocates under age sex between men and boys.

      Like

    • 125
      Onan says:

      On their knees, as in “The Human Centipede” 1 & 2?

      Like

    • 220
      anon. says:

      The Church of England is a joke big time…a few nostalgia merchants…but essentially moribund.

      They’ll go along with it.

      Christianity world-wide….be it Latin Catholic, Eastern Orthodox will NEVER go along with it…Tatchell and co are totally and utterly irrelevant….

      How can you force anyone to ‘marry’ a couple or three of homos….it won’t happen as canon law forbids it and eg the Pope cannot change it without the agreement of the thousands of bishops worldwide.

      Causa finita est.

      Like

    • 235
      Pundit Too says:

      Homosexuals will actually have more options than heterosexuals as they have two marriage options against their one.
      Am I the only person that finds Cameron’s promotion of this issue totally stupid and surely cannot do him any good if he is in place for the next election?
      The country is in an economic mess, the census report in spite of faults shows significant immigration inroads, their recovery programmes are proving slow or not working, yet he and Clegg come up with this fantasy reform issue that can only further damage the social fabric of Britain.
      Cameron may have an expensive education but wisdom certainly seems to be missing UNLESS he is determined to marginalize the Church of England; cause major fault lines in the Conservative Party; make Clegg look half decent; and prepare the ground for a Labour party win at the next election. In that case he is on track.
      Cameron is now in danger of taking over Gordon Brown’s pole position as worst PM in living history.

      Like

      • 308
        Archie says:

        “……..in danger of taking over Gordon Brown’s pole position as worst PM……….” Usurped THAT particular distinction ages ago!

        Like

  5. 6
    Kevin T says:

    Poor Dave! It’s not like anyone could have seen this coming or indeed warned him this was exactly what would happen.

    Like

    • 52
      Grimy Miner says:

      There is no finer spectator sport than watching a fuckwit blow off his own toe.

      Like

      • 87
        Bunny says:

        I don’t know about that, how about the only living recipient of a Darwin? Chopped off his own testicles in an S&M experiment, that is funnier than a fauckwit blowing off a toe.

        Like

      • 293
        Diddley says:

        I’d rather he blow of his own head quickly and get it over with before the next election.

        Like

  6. 7
    Hang the Blair/Brown gang. says:

    So what-who cares? The most serious issue for everyone in the UK is in the news again today due to the census data ie uncontrolled immigration. Truly appalling and seriously worrying most people-yet brushed aside by most commentators & politicians.

    Like

    • 91
      osbad says:

      It seems that anyone who wishes to talk about the elephant in the room that is the massive structural problems caused by rapid, mass immigration is shouted down as a bigot. Similarly anyone who wishes to retain a tradition of marriage that is millennia old is also shouted down. This despite a clear majority of 60% of the UK population still self-identifying as Christian. And while that majority may be down on 10 years ago thanks to the inclusion of a new banding, it is still a clear majority, and even an even stronger one than before as there was more option to self-identify as being of no faith than before.

      Of course the rights of minorities have to be heard, respected and even cherished in a just society. But equally the rights of majorities have to be respected. Heaping opprobrium on a majority view simply because it *is* the majority view is unhelpful and counter-productive, and frankly just ignorant. As Gordon Brown found out at the last election, implying that normal, sensible, British people “bigoted” simply because they are concerned by the trendy left-ist pro-immigration (or even pro-gay or pro-abortion) consensus will not win friends nor will it influence people.

      Like

      • 99
        osbad says:

        Just a second thought. The 60% of people self-identifying as Christian is a greater proportion of the population than any political party has polled in a recent election. Yet *they* presume to boss us about and interfere in stuff that is none of their business as if somehow they had a “God-given right” to do it!

        Just sayin’…

        Like

      • 186
        Living in 97.3 percent white Wirral says:

        How about pandering to us. I’m one of 14.7m – 25% of the population!

        Like

    • 103
      Ex-Tory says:

      Indeed. Almost universal silence from politicians the left-leaning media. The BBC celebrated the news as ‘increasing diversity’. Others in the corrupt media (Evening Standard is top of the pile) have twisted the census figures to promote their agenda. The house building pressure groups – a strange mix of capitalist developers and marxist State funded charities – are all over the media shouting about the drop in home ownership %. The clear and obvious cause is mass immigration. If you bring in 5m people from poorer nations they will nearly all be renting, not buying.

      Gay marriage is a political/media elite alliance to keep the real tragedies out of the news: economic destruction and mass immigration.

      Like

      • 161
        bry says:

        “Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

        Governments have increased house prices and rents, made it so that 1 manual job cannot support a family, watched people have less kids and claimed we need immigration to increase the numbers.

        Whether you think it’s good or bad, what has happened to the English in England is genocide by the strictest definition.

        Like

        • 167
          marge says:

          “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”

          the Labour government’s genocide of the English 1997-2010 and continuing under continuity Blair/Brown

          Like

          • marge says:

            they reckon 45% in London are ‘white British’. I wonder how many are English? 30%? 20%?

            Like

          • Living in 97.3 percent white Wirral says:

            Ah but 1997-2008 was a purple patch especially for us. Reminded me of the late 1950’s under SuperMac when we’d never had it so good.

            Like

          • Archie says:

            Remind me precisely who has been voting for the same showers of shit since immigration began in the late 50s? I seem to remember that even a certain A C L Blair was elected THREE times for fuck’s sake!

            Like

        • 194
          Misterned says:

          It is a cultural genocide of the British culture, traditions, laws and customs.

          They get around this by falsely claiming that there is NO SUCH THING as Britishness, and even reclassifying all imported foreign traits, customs, traditions, cultures as British.

          They are denying another holocaust. Make no mistake, we are witnessing a slow and deliberate genocide of the British culture.

          This cultural genocide must be stopped. Tragically, all of the parliamentary parties are cultural genocide deniers.

          We must all vote for a party which will defend the British Culture, put an immediate stop to uncontrolled immigration and put in place laws which will recognise British Culture, British identity and defend it here.

          This is yet another reason I choose to vote UKIP!

          Like

          • marge says:

            it is not just cultural genocide. it is genocide full stop. politicians have made it harder and harder to have kids. then imported the difference.

            Like

    • 198
      rocknrolla says:

      True – 4million per decade, a real invasion of unprecedented proportions and the reason why we have so many unemployed and CastIron wants to build on the green belt. And in the next decade there will be more. We are already a minority in our homeland’s capital and one day soon will be in our homeland. God only knows what will happen.

      Like

  7. 8
    The Public says:

    Let’s just eradicate marriage for everyone then there will be no jealousy from fucking hyper emo poofters

    Like

    • 130
      The Public says:

      No.

      Like

    • 269
      Mr BumBum says:

      But attention seeking, needy bumbandits will just latch on to something else.

      This blog’s number contributor is true to type, which proves that trying to ignore them won’t work.

      The red hot poker up the shitter has always been the most effective response.

      Like

  8. 9
    Anonymous says:

    I had a chuckle every time Cameron said that gay marriages could now take place in mosques!!!!!

    Like

  9. 10
    MacGuffin says:

    Guido once again proves his so-called conservative principles are nothing but a cover for traditionalist bigotry.

    The whole point of conservatism, Guido, is that institutions evolve…not that they remain forever unchanged.

    Like

    • 17

      I’m not a conservative.

      Like

      • 63
        MacGuffin says:

        My mistake, then. Can you provide a philosophical label for what you are, and relate that to your oft-stated, strongly-held belief on this issue?

        Like

        • 79
          Arse bandit of Old England! says:

          Why the flying fcuk has he, or anyone else, got to provide you with a “label” to describe their views? Read the blog and you’ll get the idea…

          Like

          • MacGuffin says:

            Well, he just commented to make it clear that he is not a conservative, so it appears Guido wants his philosophical standpoint to be clarified.

            Why so sneer-y about gays wanting to marry, Guido? Is it just a revulsion thing that you can’t really explain? Let’s talk.

            Like

          • T. P. Fuller says:

            You are Larry Grayson and I claim my £5.

            Like

          • Stereotypical representations of homosexual men as espoused by errr homosexual men says:

            Ooohh shut that door !

            Like

          • Archie says:

            Guido has to do no such thing! This is his gig and he can do what he wants, which is getting up the collective noses of our so-called “betters”, and which he does rather well, q.v. Leveson!

            Like

        • 110
          Ex-Tory says:

          You just want to label people to fit into your own narrow prejudices. I’ve put you in the hypocritical c*nt sector.

          Like

          • MacGuffin says:

            No I am not. I just want to know the reasons why an influential commentator takes a particular view on an important issue. ‘I don’t like the idea of gay marriage’ is not an argument. I’d like to know what GUido’s argument is.

            Like

          • Mr BumBum says:

            I think that label sums it up perfectly.

            Like

        • 121
          Wrong, wrong, wrong 'un says:

          I’m all for evolution.

          However, unpopular authoritarian legislation, is not evolution, it’s coercion.

          There’s a huge difference.

          Like

          • MacGuffin says:

            It’s a free vote, is it not?

            Like

          • MacGuffin talking Guff says:

            no you have to come up with a label for yourself before you are allowed to vote and a 5000 word philosophical treatise on why why cant change the meaning of words to suit an agenda

            Like

      • 202
        Living in 97.3 percent white Wirral says:

        I’m not a conservative. Like most people I have left-wing views (not extreme) and right-wing views (sometimes very extreme).

        Like

    • 18
      The Public says:

      In this case I am proud to be a bigot, if you mean does not want to change what marriage means.

      I take that as a compliment so cheers

      Like

    • 24
      Susanna says:

      I disagree with you.

      Tradition is built upon years, decades of treading the right path.

      Trendy vicars & destrcutive extremists are out to tear down everything.

      If there must be evolution on this scale, can someone show me the benefits to anyone outside of a small cabal of extremist fanatics like you?

      Like

      • 37
        Anonymous says:

        The benefits are that gay peolpe will get married.

        I can’t see a downside.

        Like

      • 48
        MacGuffin says:

        Susanna, the 75% of the British public who are currently in favour of marriage equality feel they will benefit because they will live in a society that is a little less bigoted. That appeals to most people. Strange, isn’t it, to have concern for the well-being of other even when there is no direct benefit to oneself…

        Like

        • 64
          Mad as hell says:

          Most British people are too trusting of others, and don’t realise what the gay lobby agenda is. It depends how you phrase the question.

          Like

          • Anonymous says:

            Do they want to force it down your throat?

            Like

          • MacGuffin says:

            Mad as hell, perhaps you should take to the streets and airwaves to link the legislation on marriage equality to the radical gay extremist agenda of your darkest fears. I am sure that will help you convince people.

            Like

          • MacGuffin talking Guff says:

            I disagree with you mate, get over it.

            Like

          • The Central Scrutinizer says:

            Agreed. As with most leftist organisations, their publicly stated agenda is a plea to fairness and social justice (which cannot be denied) – while their real intent is to undermine society, re-engineer it and create a socialist utopia (which they still refuse to believe won’t work – even though its been tried and tried again – and failed and failed again). One of the logos for The Fabian Society shows a wolf in sheeps clothing. Gay marraige is probably the same thing. Next step? Use equality laws to tear down the churches. Political Correctness (and our adherence to it) gives them a clear run at whatever they want. They just have to claim to be marginalised by society (along with all of the other marginalised constituencies in the UK and elsewhere).

            Like

        • 205
          Misterned says:

          The people who responded to the government’s actual listening exercise, a clear majority were opposed, but the tories eliminated 500,000 signatures and counted all those 500,000 opposed as one submittance.

          I think that you will find that a majority are not opposed to homosexuals getting married (in a registry office for example) but that a clear majority are opposed to forcing the clergy to marry homosexuals of the same sex to each other, against the clergy’s own wishes.

          Would those who do approve of such incitement to religious hatred also approve of forcing Immams to have hog roasts in a Mosque? Or for forcing Rabbis to serve bacon sandwiches on a Friday Evening?

          Like

        • 241
          Pundit too too says:

          75% favour gay marriage. You must be joking. You are Gordon Brown and I claim my 5p.
          75% of the population do not care and only about 5% care seriously about it as they are homosexual or lesbian, and they are not all united on it.
          Interesting that the words faggots, queers, gays, and homosexuals was openly stated on the ubiquitious BBC this week in their agenda to promote gay marriage.

          Like

      • 246
        Common Sense says:

        Tradition as a sensible evolutionary strategy is a very good thesis, the anti-thesis you point out should not be synthesized, but removed.

        Evolution is binary.

        Like

  10. 11
    Nom Dom Nom 2 says:

    I don’t know about anyone else but I am more interested in what this artificially whipped up Political/MSM shit storm is designed to hide.

    Like

    • 23
      Bollocks to Getting a Pseudonym says:

      Pretty much what my dad said to me the other day. I’d like to know what they’re hiding, too.

      Like

      • 117
        Ex-Tory says:

        Economic failure, decreasing standard of living, mass immigration…….

        Like

        • 210
          Misterned says:

          Falling unemployment, rising full-time employment, private sector employment rising by more than the rate of public sector job losses?

          Those are very inconvenient for the left wing media who were predicting that the savage cuts would push unemployment up to 5 million.

          Like

    • 251
      Machiavelli says:

      Things to hide:

      Food shortages, due to poor harvests around the world for 2 years running, and food price inflation. (We are only ever 3 days from revolution…)
      Depletion of north sea oil / nat gas, and still not proper access to reliable foreign reserves.
      Gilt (Bond) market about to collapse: 300 year high – clearly a bubble.
      Possible devaluation of GBP required next year when gilt market collapses.
      Minimal gold reserves thanks to Brown, and already warning others whose gold we do hold that it is ours by virtue of location. A lot of this is salted with tungsten, and important only in that when bond market collapses, gold will be needed to settle international payments.
      EU is toast.

      Like

  11. 13

    Tatchell will be waiting a long time before the pope allows gay marriages in RC Churches. Hell would probably freeze over before it happens

    Like

    • 60
      Arse bandit of Old England! says:

      Before “we” allow the holy sanctuary to be desecrated the building will be deconsecrated. If the celebration of Holy Mass and the Sacraments needs to take place on secret and awayfrom the sight of the state then so be it. Priests will not carry out sacriligeous ceremonies… It’s back to religious persecution!!!

      Like

    • 68
      Anonymous says:

      And Tatchell will find himself in hell long before any Imams will accept Gays let alone bless them !

      Like

      • 93
        Bill says:

        the problem is that militant gays seem to think unless thye get thier own way and everyone agrees with them it descrimination.

        You can imagine if two gays wished to marry in a mosque, it would be a complete riot with militant muslim threatening the imman and to burn down the mosque.

        most muslim are against gays to start with and think thye should be stoned.

        It would be intersting how the guardian would handle this one, would it back the gays or islam. it would not now what to do.

        the lesbian wedding i attended thye were divorced less than 2 years later even after living together for a number of years.

        Like

        • 128
          Ex-Tory says:

          I know a lesbian couple, who had an IVF child using a sperm bank. Then one of ‘em decided she was not a lesbian and went off with a fella. Homosexuality is not a right its a lifestyle choice.

          Like

          • Misterned says:

            True. I know a gay man who was fully and totally heterosexual for years. He was married to a total bitch who turned him gay and he eventually left her for a man.

            Like

    • 215
      Living in 97.3 percent white Wirral says:

      That’s because all their boyfriends are under-age.

      Like

  12. 14
    Susanna says:

    I dont get it – why are gay activists becoming vindictive extremists?

    I have always supported gay rights – but marriage in church is too far.

    The only reason the extremists want this is to destroy something they feel they have to historically hate.

    Sorry, I am no longer in support of any further “rights” for extremists & fanatics – whether Europe says so or not.

    Are you listening Dave?

    Like

    • 35
      Anonymous says:

      WHy is marriage in church a step too far if that church is happy to do it?

      Like

      • 218
        Misterned says:

        It’s not, IF that church wants to, and some liberal churches do.

        What IF that church doesn’t want to? The EU and ECHR and the militant homosexual fanatics will do all they can to stoke up religious hatred and force these churches to de-consecrate themselves.

        I think anyone who pushes for this should be charged with inciting religious hatred.

        Like

    • 53
      Nonny Muss says:

      Gay used to mean happy and wanted for nothing.

      It now means miserable old queens who want want want.

      Like

    • 146
      A Human Rights lawyer says:

      Becoming? You obviously don’t know many gay activists. They are a total pain to work with. But its a living.

      Like

    • 243
      Wavy Dave. says:

      No! I am now in the ranks of PM who do not listen to the public – I know best.

      Like

  13. 15
    Pope Rat Zinger says:

    I won’t allow gay marriage.

    But I will allow my priests to bugger small boys.

    Like

    • 30
      Roman Preest says:

      Thank you Most Holy One. Molesting small boys is one of my basic religious human rites. My Mozzie counterpart down the road deals with the little girls. We have all options covered.

      Like

      • 223
        Sunny Jim says:

        Nah, the mozzers would boff anything with a pulse – women for children, small boys for pleasure, camels & goats from necessity…

        Like

  14. 16
    Hank the Cat says:

    I still think that Fatty Watson will have a gay marriage, will marry one of the Eagle sisters

    Like

  15. 19
    Stoopid Question says:

    Can heterosexuals enter into Civil Partnerships? Have any done so?

    Like

  16. 21
    The Dirty Rat says:

    If God had intended men to take a portion he would have situated their arse at the front and put a bit of fur round it.

    Like

    • 54
      Hank the Cat says:

      Have you seen the eagle sisters?

      Like

      • 221
        Living in 97.3 percent white Wirral says:

        It depends though. If they are interested in the back they are active and if it’s the front they are passive. Or is it assertive and submissive. Then there’s dominant and whatever.

        And if they’re both they are versatile.

        No such confusion with opposite sexes. And as for women I can only use my imagination about that. I’ve never dared ask a lezzie what they do.

        Like

  17. 22
    Desperate Dan says:

    Well what a surprise. So Gays aren’t as tolerant as they were pretending to be yesterday.

    Like

  18. 26
    Call me Dave says:

    Even I am a friend of Dorothy

    We’re off to see the Wizard, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.
    You’ll find he is a whiz of a Wiz! If ever a Wiz! there was.
    If ever oh ever a Wiz! there was The Wizard of Oz is one because,
    Because, because, because, because, because.
    Because of the wonderful things he does.
    We’re off to see the Wizard. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

    Like

    • 78
      All Right, "Dave," says:

      You’ll go where the goblins go,
      Below, below below, yo-ho!
      We’ll open up and sing,
      And ring the bells out!

      Hi-ho, the merrio,
      Sing it high, sing it low!
      Let them know
      The Clueless Prick is dead!

      Like

  19. 29
    Imam says:

    All gay ceremonies at our mosque will take place on the roof.

    Like

    • 45
      Casual Observer says:

      The conclusion of the ceremony will be when the happy couple hold hands and jump off the roof. The trouble is that they will be beaten up by a pussy posse of disappointed virgins when they land in paradise.

      Like

  20. 32
    Duffer says:

    Shock news for gays: marriage was always available to them.

    All they had to do was marry a member of the opposite sex and then carry on doing whatever with whoever in any way they wanted, and no one gave a toss.

    Like

  21. 38
    Darth Murdoch says:

    Truly, truly crazy.
    If 2 people in love want to get married, let them. If a place of religious worship wants to bless the marriage, let them, if not, don’t make them.
    There is no attempt to make them, the quadruple lock bans the church from making its own decision.
    Aren’t you supposed to be a libertarian?

    Like

    • 81
      Greedo Fawkes says:

      This whole issue has just exposed British libertarians as not actually libertarians at all.

      What blatant hypocrisy.

      Like

      • 174
        Definition of extremist says:

        I’ll spell it out for you then. Libertanian allows for the co existance of peoples and institutions with differing sometimes diametrically opposing views . The militant gay lobby want to force any religious institutions whos views they disagree with to give up those views and conform. Now would you like me to draw diagrams.

        Like

        • 277
          Darth Murdoch says:

          Frankly I’m not overly concerned with the ramblings of some one paranoid enough to believe in a “…militant gay lobby….”.
          But assuming you’re not as crazy as your rant suggested, libertarianism should allow churches to make their own choice. The quadruple lock bans the churches of England and Wales from making such choices. Its also worth remembering, unlike England, the church of Wales isn’t even an established church. The quadruple lock is a text book example of state interference of a church. For these really rather simple reasons you cannot support the quadruple lock and be a libertarian.

          Like

      • 187
        Frosty the Wind Farmer says:

        Nonsense. It merely reveals that Libertarians generally wish to respect the rights of religious groups not to be forced to do things they don’t want to.

        Gays are at all times free to set up churches where they can accommodate their particular set of religious beliefs, should they have any.

        Like

        • 278
          Darth Murdoch says:

          Fine, everyone agrees with that, let churches marry those they want to marry.
          The quadruple lock bans the church from making such a choice.
          That’s all Tatchell is saying. He’s spot on.

          Like

      • 260
        Liberty's Bell says:

        Libertarian views are secular.

        Civil partnerships fall fully within the libertarian view.

        Forcing or coercing institutions such as churches to change or break their doctrine is anti-libertarian.

        Like

    • 172
      JH36312345 says:

      Being libertarian means you do not compel others to do your bidding.

      How would you describe forcing Churches to marry two people of the same sex?

      I used to live next door to a pair of pooves, christ the histrionics coming through the wall was staggering. I can’t imagine how bad things would have got if they were married.

      Like

  22. 39
    Sandra in Accounts says:

    Oh, Ed Miliband backing ECHR & European Human Rights Act against British Common Law.

    Who saw that coming?

    I have no problem with gay marriage – I do have a problem with militant gays demanding Church weddings.

    Vote UKIP.

    Like

  23. 40
    Alan Duncan says:

    Shut up, ducky!

    Like

  24. 42
    Brutus Maximus says:

    My soldier who shoved the spear into Jesus’s side was indeed a homosexual.This caused a long term problem, I fear.

    Like

  25. 43
    Outraged says:

    Who gives a shit…..with more immigrants than unemployed it doesn’t take much to work out if we shipped them all back to where they came from, then there would be enough jobs for everybody hence no benefits and all that crap.

    Like

  26. 44
    Hank the Cat says:

    Maybe the gay lobby should stand for parliment then get elected, that way they could find out what the general public want

    Like

  27. 50
    Who would have thought it would be the conservatives who destroyed the family says:

    Dear Dave, you’ve lost my vote mate.

    Like

    • 59
      The Public says:

      and mine, the c.unt

      Like

      • 112
        East India Company Wallah says:

        Plus two votes in our house and 90 percent of catholic voters feel betrayed after 13 years of politically correct socialist terror that the tories are exactly the same

        Like

    • 272
      Rebecca says:

      Nadine. I would like to nominate you to stand against Dave for leadership of the Conservative party. Just be careful not to be called a stalking horse.
      Dave likes riding horses.

      Like

  28. 51
    Darran says:

    I just don’t understand why the majority of people should have an institution changed for the sake of whines from the gay pressure groups. Get a life and accept it for goodness sake. I’d like to be king, maybe I should whine a bit for that.

    Like

    • 176
      I want totty says:

      I’d like to be Casanova.

      Like

    • 222
      The Central Scrutinizer says:

      They want cocks – they get’em.
      They want boobs – they get ‘em
      They don’t want their cocks – we take ‘em off ‘em

      They are the social manifestation of Violet Beauregarde from Willy Wonka – with her weak-minded (but wealthy) father as the Government. “I want it now!” She screams – and daddy runs off to make her dreams come true. The only problem is that evntually her demands lead to her own (and her father’s) undoing.

      Like

  29. 55
    Mad as hell says:

    This isn’t about Gay Marriage; it’s about teaching homosexuality in our schools so that our children grow up more inclined to accept the Gay ideology. This is cultural warfare, no equal rights campaigning. Add to that, the terms husband and wife will be defined out of existence. Just look at France, Canada, and other places.

    They say this doesn’t affect other people; it does because the end result is to destroy marriage completely, and just have diverse sexual relationships. The gay lobby have been talking about this for years. ‘Child love’ will be next on the agenda.

    Like

    • 56
      Hank the Cat says:

      Ask Harriet about that

      Like

    • 57
      Anonymous member of the shadow cabinet says:

      Child love eh, well if you ever need an advocate you know where I live

      Like

    • 95
      LordWhiteadder says:

      Highly unlikely…

      What two consenting adults, with the faculties to make reasoned decisions do is one thing, but to then try and equalte that to what some sickos do with young children who have neither the physical nor mental development to understand and avoid harm is a false comparison.

      Relationships should be judged on love and avoiding harm, hence why gay marraige is fine, but sicko’s fiddling with little ones is wrong…

      Like

      • 181
        Anonymous says:

        Correction Gay relationships are fine, but marriage is traditionally a relationship between a man and a woman a completely different thing and hence has a different and particular name. Why cant the two types of relationships co exist without the need to re define marraige?

        Like

    • 139
      ReefKnot says:

      And guess who promotes homosexuality as a way of life to our schoolchildren ? Step forward Stonewall. Guess who funds Stonewall ? You do !

      Stonewall is just one of thousands of Fake Charities receiving Government funding, I.e taxpayer funding.

      About time this disgraceful state of affairs was stopped – Govt should not fund any charities or lobbying and campaigning groups. They can stand on street corners shaking tins like real charities have to.

      Like

  30. 73
    Squeaker says:

    Sally. Sally !!!! Wake up. Benny’s started tweeting — he would just love a response from someone with of your practical experience.

    Like

  31. 75
    ah! monika's moniker is a gonner says:

    If only we had a word count on the number of times Cameron mentions ‘gay’ compared with ‘economy’.

    Like

    • 96
      Alasdair Campbell Murderer says:

      An interesting thought. I did an advanced Google search for “David Cameron” and Gay and got 39,000,000 results. “David Cameron” and Economy.. 14.6million results.

      Like

  32. 88
    The Central Scrutinizer says:

    The satisfaction that gay rights activists take in getting their way (and their day) in court (and in getting exposure for themselves in the media) is the real problem here. For some reason they now want to get married – claimiing that they want to enter into a lifetime commitment with one another. Fine. Do it with a civil partnership. Leave the institution of marraige to those that intend to have children with one another – and stop causing all these problems for the rest of us.

    I am convinced that even if the LGBT lobby get their way (and it looks like there aren’t many politicians in the land who wants to stand up and object to them) – and marriage is allowed – that they will then turn their attention to some other injustice they suffer.

    We already have women who want to be men – so we build them a penis…and men who claim they are women – so we cut their penises off. They want the world to be just the way that they want it – no matter how unatural or absurd their wish is.

    Perhaps the fact that they can’t have kids with one another? Should that be made compulsory for the rest of us? I mean, its not fair is it? And the only way to level the playing field is to stop the rest of us procreating with our chosen partners. Make all of us have to use donor eggs or sperm to have children – even though we were biologically capable of using our own – will that satisfy you?

    Perhaps your real problem is just that. You can’t create a child with a person of the same sex. Your real role in life (which is to create the next generation) is being usurped by your desire for same sex realtionships – and rather than change your ways (and surely lose all of your friends…) – you want to try and change the world. Well good luck to you. Knock yourself out. Biology says NO!

    Find a partner of the opposite sex and have a child. Perhaps then you’ll find that your rage against the world disappears.

    Like

    • 131
      Alasdair Campbell Murderer says:

      “they will then turn their attention to some other injustice they suffer. “

      I think you’re quite correct – an obvious example would be the recent case of a Christian couple who ran a bed and breakfast from their own home. Their Christian beliefs were clearly stated on their website. Quite why two homosexuals would choose that particular B&B – given that it was pretty much a given they wouldn’t like it there – has never been explained, but chose it they did. When told they could not share the same bed, instead of a dignified exit (and perhaps a “we’ll take our custom elsewhere”), we get a court case based on “discrimination”. And I surmise that the anticipation of a court case (based on a desire to humiliate and distress people purely because of their publicly stated religious beliefs) was the real reason that that particular couple’s B&B was selected by the two homosexuals.

      (For the record, I’m an atheist).

      Like

      • 170
        No man is an isle of man says:

        Dignity is such a terribly old-fashioned concept in an age of public outrage…

        Like

        • 250
          LordWhiteadder says:

          Fastyr Mie.

          Dignity is an old fashioned concept… as is emotional restraint and thinking about others before yourself.

          #131 – I don’t understand either… there are pleanty of LGB-friendly hotels etc. out there that advertise that fact, and if you are going to go somewhere for a break you know you have to accept certain conditions… if you go to a random hotel in Turkey, expect seperate single beds for gay couples!

          I’m a traitor to the cause though… despite being happily and openly gay in society and church, I despise militant homosexuals, seeing them doing more harm than good for any hope of equality and acceptance. This latest issue now means that I have an even greater challenge trying to reasonably debate the issue with others since they have now had their soft-spots hit and are more unwilling to listen than ever before…

          Something fishy in the example you mention.

          Like

    • 156
      UKIP - the way forward says:

      + 20,000.

      Like

  33. 89
    The Archbishop of Chipping Car Park says:

    What people fear most are celebrity style camped up gay weddings making a pantomime stage out of a place of solemn worship

    Like

  34. 90
    Cast iron guarantee says:

    Remember we were told that civil partnerships was the final demand and that there would be no call for Gay Marriage. Lied about that as well it would appear. Then they told us that no one would be forced to perform gay marriage. Lied about that as well it would appear. Do you see how it works yet.

    Like

    • 158
      Alasdair Campbell Murderer says:

      It’s a very old lesson that’s not been learned. There was a great speech by Michael Foot back in 1940-ish where he mocked Hitler’s repeated insistence that he “had no more territorial demands”. Followed almost immediately by another invasion.

      Like

  35. 114
    ReefKnot says:

    The gay rights movement don’t want acceptance or tolerance of their homosexual lifestyle, they want approval.

    Like

  36. 122
    Chutney Monkey says:

    John the farmer was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young layers (hens), called ‘pullets’, and ten roosters, whose job it was to fertilize the eggs.

    The farmer kept records and any rooster that didn’t perform went into the soup pot and was replaced. That took an awful lot of his time, so he bought a set of tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone so John could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing. Now he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report simply by listening to the bells.

    The farmer’s favourite rooster was old Butch, a very fine specimen he was, too. But on this particular morning John noticed old Butch’s bell hadn’t rung at all! John went to investigate.

    The other roosters were chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing. The pullets, hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover.

    But to Farmer John’s amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn’t ring. He’d sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one. John was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.

    The result…The judges not only awarded old Butch the No Bell Piece Prize but they also awarded him the Pullet surprise as well.

    Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making: who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren’t paying attention.

    Vote carefully…the bells are not always audible.

    Like

  37. 129
    What? says:

    The answer is simple.

    if the bible says it is wrong, then change the bible. Then everything is okay.

    It’s been done in the past with re-interpretations and even typos, so why not now?

    Like

  38. 145
    Chutney Monkey says:

    It is about time militant homosexuals stopped acting as if they were something special

    Many Vicars won’t allow divorcees to be married in their church, or people who don’t live in the parish, this is known as tough shit

    Like

    • 179
      Engineer says:

      Careful. You’ll have a platoon of Common Purpose drones descending on it, and re-writing it in their image. Virgin births don’t happen, so that’ll go. Mary wouldn’t have needed to take shelter in a stable, because the Romans would have been obliged to issue her with Social Housing. The Three Wise Men will become the Three Wise Persons Of No Gender Stereotyping. There are no such things as angels, so they’ll go, too. The Flood will be redefined as extreme weather caused by climate change, and the Ark will have to accommodate same-sex and transgendered animals. The parable of the loaves and fishes will be re-written with a vegetarian meal, and the Ten Commandments will be subject to an appeals process to the European Court of ‘Ooman Rights.

      Bad idea.

      Like

      • 197
        Engineer says:

        Oops. Should have a reply to What? at 11:33am.

        Like

        • 279
          This is the dawning of the age of fuckwittery says:

          Still a good post Engineer, made me laugh till I realised you weren’t joking and in this age of fuckwittery thia will all probably come to pass.

          Like

  39. 153
    Engineer says:

    Dave’s best hope now is that the Lords kick the whole idea of gay marriage into the long grass. Then perhaps Parliament could get on with sorting some rather more urgent matters, like a broken economy and uncontrolled public spending.

    Like

  40. 154
  41. 162
    Lady Agatha Wyckham Stench says:

    I don’t understand why society is being turned on its head for a such a small minority? Whatever happened to democracy and majority rule.

    What about the majority of people in this country who aren’t gay? Does their opinion not count?

    I am not at all homophobic (in fact I am a lesbian) but a society must cater for the majority first and foremost otherwise it will collapse.

    Like

    • 173
      Famous quote of the future says:

      “Who shouts loudest wins most”

      Like

      • 182
        Shooty* says:

        According to the 2011 census, there’s a lot more shouty people now…

        Like

        • 209
          Lost my vote says:

          According to the 2011 census the jedi religion is the most practised ‘other’ religion in England in Walse so should Jedi Weddings be recognised in Law ?

          Like

      • 191
        Engineer says:

        True enough, but before Dave came up with his idea, nobody was shouting at all. Civil partnerships had taken care of the inequality in law that same-sex couples had endured previously. Adding gay marriage is little more than symbolic.

        Besides, doesn’t the country have more pressing problems, that affect both straight and gay people?

        Like

        • 203
          Lost my vote says:

          Correct, one term Dave is a twit.

          Like

        • 206
          Hereward the wake says:

          Dave is concentrating on what the EU dictators want him to, not what he wants to.

          Gay marriage is a great distraction for the masses and very much part of the agenda of the neo liberal buffoons in Brussels.

          While the British economy collapses, Dave fiddles.

          Like

    • 184
      And says:

      Don’t minorities count?

      Like

      • 196
        Lady Agatha Wyckham Stench says:

        Of course minorities count, but a society must reflect the needs and wants of the majority, and for the last 20 years the latter have been ignored. We can see the result – the once solid cohesion of British society is beginning to crack.

        I am gay, but to me my sex life is personal and I don’t see any reason whatsoever why I should go shouting my sexual preferences from the roof tops.

        Sex is a very private and personal matter but many in our disfunctional society have become shameless and make fools of themselves.

        Like

        • 233
          Kevin T says:

          A 19 year old gay friend of my best mate made exactly that point in the pub last night. It’s interesting how many gays find the likes of Outrage antiquated and embarrassing.

          This is not about equality, it’s about a small section of the gay community with a score to settle with the Pope.

          Like

        • 239
          Bluto says:

          Excellent points made in both your comments. Unfortunately you are the rational type not likely to join shouty, strident pressure groups! And shouty, strident pressure groups have learned that shouting louder and being more strident gets them their own way even when they are a tiny minority. And governments are too stupid to see the iniquity of that and the media love strife.

          The 21st Century is already the century of the tyranny of minorities. Simply because the majority largely has no axe to grind and the axe grinders prosper in politics.

          Like

  42. 166
    The Public says:

    Can we just agree on one thing.

    Gayers stay away from this blog, and normos will stay away from gaydar?

    Like

  43. 177
    Tiny Tom says:

    How long before Homosexuality becomes mandatory ? If Peter Tatchell has his way it will happen tomorrow.

    Like

  44. 183
    Anonymous says:

    Can someone tell me what prevents homosexuals marrying in a religious ceremony or whatever under current arrangements?

    They could marry in a consenting church for the religious bit then nip round to the Registry Office.

    Where’s the problem?

    Like

    • 188
      Tiny Tom says:

      No fun in that it wouldn’t upset anybody.

      Like

    • 253
      LordWhiteadder says:

      Because I’m an Anglican and don’t think that anyone other than Orthodox, Romans and us are Catholic or hold a valid Apostolic sucession for the sacraments.

      Like

  45. 199
    WTF is that about ? says:

    The point of the argument is not whether the religions which believe homosexuality are right orwrong nor whether the bible is Gods word or not it is this.

    When face with a religious organisation which espouses certain views fundamental to its existence , you have three choices in a reasonable tolerant society.

    1. Listen to what they say, accept what they say and join them. Good luck to you.

    2. Listen to what they say, decide oh fuck off and ignore them.

    3. Ignore them without listening.

    What its mental is those who listen to what they say, disagree with what they say and demand to join them anyway . WTF ?

    Like

    • 211
      Tiny Tom says:

      That’s 4 choices. Can’t you count

      Like

      • 280
        WTF is that about ? says:

        No I was saying there are 3 choices in a reasonably tolerant society, the 4 th choice is evidence of a fucked up society. Coloured crayons at the ready for my next post

        Like

    • 214
      My cat says:

      All this annoyance and anger just so someone can pretend to be a bride and march down the aisle instead of entering a town hall. Pathetic really.

      Like

  46. 212
    Serious Questions says:

    So why can’t girls join the boy scouts?

    why can’t boys join the girl guides?

    why can’t I as a man get changed in the ladies changing at the gym?

    etc etc etc

    Do people not understand that some things are just not for changing?

    Like

  47. 219
    Wearysider says:

    Like

  48. 236
    Bluto says:

    Told you this would happen. And it has, even before any legislation has passed.

    Like

  49. 244
    Faith says:

    Is twitter or face book a grouping a of faiths ?
    How many followers do you have to have to be a faith ?
    And where do I then go to collect my compensation ?
    ( not sure what I’m going to be compensated for yet by I bet it a tidy sum )

    Like

    • 264
      Henry VIIII says:

      The Pope Bene had 500,000 followers on Twitter after a few days.
      The only problem is when he eventually tweets – they’re infallible.
      Or I may be confusing him with Pope Cameron.

      Like

  50. 245
    Bluto says:

    Backlash coming – big time. I think the gay lobby has just shot itself in the foot.

    Like

  51. 248
    Disco Biscuit says:

    Tatchell opposed gay marriage until very recently. His longstanding position was that gays shouldn’t adopt a “failing heterosexual institution”

    Like

  52. 252
    Bernard says:

    Of course a church should have the option of not recognising marriages when it doesn’t want to – in the same way that the Church of England regards the Prince of Wales as an unmarried adulterer, who had to avail himself of the Human Rights Act to have his canonically invalid marriage recognised even at civil law (the Civil Marriages Act states that it doesn’t apply to members of the Royal Family). But that shouldn’t bind anyone else.

    It does seem odd that the Church in Wales won’t have the option of opting in, when it’s not an established church, its archbishop has said it should have that option, and the “never change” rule isn’t applied generally.

    But overall, this is a storm in a teacup, which will become as accepted as civil partnerships once the fight is over. Lots of people (especially straight people) call those gay weddings anyway.

    Like

    • 258
      Tiny Tom says:

      The hole thing is a cock up

      Like

    • 281
      dogleg says:

      Storm in a teacup? You’re one of those “we’ll wonder what all the fuss was about” five years from now types. Wrong.

      The average person has had little to no interest in the gay community and as long as they have been content to quietly run their lives and NOT impose themselves on the majority of us, then no problems. But now that they have raised their heads and are assailing the main bedrock of society, i.e marriage, then that’s quite a different matter. Those who can’t see “what’s wrong” with gay marriages in a church simply have no capacity for understanding what marriage is supposed to be. Clearly, for those people, their marriages had no spiritual content or feeling; they were just ceremonies, a dressing-up day and a good feed-up afterwards.

      The incessant onslaughts in the name of “equality” have dragged innocent people into court cases. Gay activists are intent on persecution in order to obtain their “rights”, with no regard for tradition or how many people they upset in the process. If this goes through, then what’s next? Man and cat? Three men? Groups of ten or more mixed? And when will the paedophiles start shouting for THEIR rights, to have young kids as partners? and then every other vile combination of human or animal imaginable?
      Once you open the floodgates, you’ll get bowled over so fast you won’t know what’s hit you.

      Several people have commented on what really is at the bottom of this (if you’ll pardon the pun); what is being hidden? It’s like a huge huge red herring, a distraction from something else. Akin to the “good day to bury bad news” idea.
      It is certainly highly suspicious.

      To those who keep whingeing about “I can’t see how gay marriages affect my marriage”, it’s all to do with the mission creep that will make its way outwards from any future law. Some of those things have already been discussed. Government “says” it won’t abolish husband and wife, but the gay activists no doubt have already targetted that one.

      Teaching about gay sex in schools and manipulating children’s minds to believe that everything beyond male-female sex is also “normal” will be the next outrage.
      Then we will wonder why our children turn into unbalanced teenagers, as they try to cope with the ghastly mix of teachings about their gender, who they are, what they should be, what’s normal, what they ought to become, how they should marry, should they marry a bloke or a woman?

      You laugh now…….but the smirks will be fast fading before too long. In the animal world, Nature occasionally throws up a gay animal, or some other “oddity”. In most cases, it is either outcast by its peers, dies from some disease or else is beaten up and killed. Why? Because anything that doesn’t quite conform to the “normal” is seen to be a threat to that balance of normality. In the human race, we tend to try and accommodate these minorities, but by doing so there is always the danger of backlash. That’s where we are right now.

      Like

      • 302
        Darwin says:

        The genetic lineage of homosexuals should be recessive over time as their genes should not be passed on to the next generation.

        For the continued survival of the species they serve no purpose.

        If in competition for resources required by breeding couples, their activities will result in direct conflict which invariably will be won by the dominant normal population.

        Like

  53. 259
    MB. says:

    It has always been obvious that, despite any government promises, the homosexual activists will push for marriages in CoE churches and challenge any exemptions in the courts. I can imagine them using the same techniques of entrapment as they have used against poor innocent B&B owners.

    Like

  54. 263
    George says:

    Why oh why are we still in the EU ? What do we need a revolution? Give is the vote very simple IN/OUT and abde by the result if it’s IN then man the lifeboats.

    Like

  55. 285
    Dr Evil says:

    Hell will first of all have to freeze over and Satan reinstated as Lucifer in heaven before the Catholic Church will marry homosexuals. Tatchel can whine all he likes, the Church will not comply.

    Like

    • 299
      Anonymous says:

      well, it seems the church doesn’t believe in equality – or basic human rights. If it did there would be equal opportunities in hiring (want to be a bishop, of course you can ma’am!). Other religions, in places of the world, discriminate saying you’re not allowed an education, or free choice of clothing, just because of your physical characteristics. Maybe the church should be told to decide – does it support discrimination based on gender/orientation or not? Very easy question. If it does not, then anyone can marry anyone in church. If disagrees with that position & has a problem with it, then it agrees with those who feel girls are second-class citizens who must not be treated as human beings. One can’t chose one’s own degree of appalling discrimination to declare ‘reasonable’. Discrimination is discrimination.

      WRONG.
      WRONG.
      WRONG.

      Like

  56. 286
    Jack the Ripper says:

    Anyone lost a human right? Found one on a train. Apply Lost Property.

    Like

  57. 295
    Observer says:

    Cameron and Miller seem to be creating an utter bugger’s muddle.

    Like

  58. 298
    Bus Poster You Won't See says:

    Some religions don’t approve of homosexuality. Get over it.

    Like

    • 301
      Anonymous says:

      “Some religions don’t approve of homosexuality. Get over it.”

      Not their decision to take for a nation. They want special privileges for religion – which most get (special treatments from governments when it comes to tax, planning laws etc) – then they get to play fair with everyone else and not discriminate based on anything.

      Let’s say I don’t approve of people who like the colour yellow. I don’t tell other people yellow must not be worn in my building. Even if you like yellow and the law of the land says your are entitled to enjoy the colour yellow. My dislike of the colour yellow has just as much basis in provable fact.

      Yes that’s a silly example of a dislike – it’s almost as silly as a dislike of teaching girls because they are girls, or saying a marriage should be allowed between an underage, forced, terrified girl and an older man simply because tradition says so. Or being a complete fool and saying a female relative can be physically abused for offences against “honour” for simple conduct that is within the law of the land, such as thinking for herself.

      Get over it.

      Like


Seen Elsewhere

How Avoidable Scandals Destroy Stupid Politicians | Alex Wickham
UKIP Mosque Confusion | The Week
Let’s Ban the Word Internet | Padraig Reidy
Are the Broadcasters Ready For the Election? | Specccie
Moral Bankruptcy of the BBC | David Keighley
UKIP’s ‘Starsky and Hutch’ | Total Politics
Innocent Sun Journo Just Doing Her Job | Sun
Boris Sent Up North | Times
The Only Way to Mend the EU | Leo McKinstry
Northern Labour Tearing Party Apart | David Aaronovitch
Osborne is Son of Brown | Peter Oborne


Find out more about PLMR AD-MS


Tony Blair threatens Ed:

“If you had a strong political lead that was combining the politics of aspiration with the politics of compassion, I still think that’s where you could get a substantial majority…  If I ever do an interview on [the state of the Labour Party], it will have to be at length…”



Left on Left says:

The lefties are attacking because the panellist is a millionaire and lives in a London home worth upwards of two million. Someone had best tell them he’s called Ed Miliband.


Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:






RSS




AddThis Feed Button
Archive


Labels
Guido Reads
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,616 other followers