[jesaya]

He has tried to step back from the brink by saying that what he meant was that gay couples can't have their own children (physically), not that they can't look after them. As having your own children is fundamental to marriage, that is why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I simply sought to point out that, since same-sex partners could not biologically procreate children, the institution of marriage was one that, in my opinion, should be reserved to opposite sex partners.

I expect his private members bill to restrict marriage to those heterosexual couples who are also able to have their own children very soon...

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/15...parenting-row/

[gemma-the-husky]

Originally Posted by Belligerence

Fine response by Mr Condou.

Tory MP in bigot shocker.

Typical DS Anti-Tory knee jerk though

would you have said "Liberal MP in bigot shocker " for the utterances of iberal darling Simon Hughes on the subject of Gays?

[Kapellmeister]

Originally Posted by exlordlucan

I've never voted tory in my life and his attitude is just one of the many reasons why I haven't

I agree. I couldn't ever vote for them. The 'nasty party' was the perfect name.

[kimindex]

Originally Posted by -Sid-

The Tory party is still infested by deep-seated social conservatism.

Anyway, this is an excellent reply by gay dad and actor Charlie Condou:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ts-hate-speech

I see one of the comments says 'sincerely held beliefs' can't amount to bigotry. I've heard/read this said so many times now.

How did that become some sort of excuse or technical defence? How can they think such rubbish?

[ladymoanalot]

Originally Posted by gemma-the-husky

Typical DS Anti-Tory knee jerk though

would you have said "Liberal MP in bigot shocker " for the utterances of iberal darling Simon Hughes on the subject of Gays?

If their party line was for equality and over half voted against equality, then yes I would!

[SpamJavelin]

Originally Posted by kimindex

I see one of the comments says 'sincerely held beliefs' can't amount to bigotry. I've heard/read this said so many times now.

How did that become some sort of excuse or technical defence? How can they think such rubbish?

The 'sincerity of belief' defence is one of the great weasel phrases of our time. ('Respect' is another big one). Those who advance this defence genuinely seem to believe that the depth of passion with which they hold any particular belief is in inverse proportion to their need to defend it on rational grounds. Sincerity, not coherence, becomes the be-all and end-all.

[koantemplation]

Apparently he only meant that gay couples can't procreate.

[Big Boy Barry]

I simply sought to point out that, since same-sex partners could not biologically procreate children, the institution of marriage was one that, in my opinion, should be reserved to opposite sex partners.

By this logic, sterile opposite sex partners would be banned from marriage too

Should be sacked immediately.

[kimindex]

Originally Posted by SpamJavelin

The 'sincerity of belief' defence is one of the great weasel phrases of our time. ('Respect' is another big one). Those who advance this defence genuinely seem to believe that the depth of passion with which they hold any particular belief is in inverse proportion to their need to defend it on rational grounds. Sincerity, not coherence, becomes the be-all and end-all.

Yep, absolutely. They use it as a justification to cling on to one of the last remaining traditional prejudices, even though they know that no one would be excused racist attitudes because they were sincerely racist.

Another one is pretending that people who disagree with them aren't allowing them their 'right to have an opinion'. That's repeated ad nauseam, too, and is really irritating.

[Big Boy Barry]

Ah yes, "sincerely held beliefs" and "right to my opinion"

Both arguments commonly cited by bigots that are completely irrelevant.

Yes, you have the right to your opinion. That doesn't mean you have the right to have your opinion given credibility. It might be your opinion that the Moon is made of cheese. It doesn't mean it has the same validity as someone who says it's made of rock. It might be your sincerely held belief that black people should still be held in slavery. It doesn't make it an opinion worthy of anything but contempt.

[Kolin Klingon]

Originally Posted by jesaya

He has tried to step back from the brink by saying that what he meant was that gay couples can't have their own children (physically), not that they can't look after them. As having your own children is fundamental to marriage, that is why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I simply sought to point out that, since same-sex partners could not biologically procreate children, the institution of marriage was one that, in my opinion, should be reserved to opposite sex partners.

I expect his private members bill to restrict marriage to those heterosexual couples who are also able to have their own children very soon...

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/15...parenting-row/

And so by trying worm his way out of it he is just digging the hole deeper.

Did anyone actually need telling that two men or two women can't produce a baby unless they get together? I mean why the need to state the bleeding obvious?

And is the "institution of marriage" is ONLY for people who can produce children of their own then is his view that straight couples who know they can't or don't ever want children, should also be banned from marriage? And what about those who have children from a previous get together? One of the marriage won't have "Children of their own" and so will the marriage be invalid until they produce one of their own?

Seriously it's all just complete bollocks to exclude gay people and only gay people from marriage and all his arguments as usual are invalid and total bollocks!

[Big Boy Barry]

Conservatism is basically dead. Politically, socially and economically, conservative policies have been so discredited and debunked that there's no role for them left in modern society.

[Rowieboy]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Barry

Ah yes, "sincerely held beliefs" and "right to my opinion"

Both arguments commonly cited by bigots that are completely irrelevant.

Yes, you have the right to your opinion. That doesn't mean you have the right to have your opinion given credibility. It might be your opinion that the Moon is made of cheese. It doesn't mean it has the same validity as someone who says it's made of rock. It might be your sincerely held belief that black people should still be held in slavery. It doesn't make it an opinion worthy of anything but contempt.

Right to hold your view? Indisputable. However you may find in the real world people don't accept it however much you protest. Legal right does not mean acceptance. Live with it!

[Glowbot]

Originally Posted by Rowieboy

Right to hold your view? Indisputable. However you may find in the real world people don't accept it however much you protest. Legal right does not mean acceptance. Live with it!

Live with prejudice? Ha. Yes a lot if people do. They don't have to accept it though.

[Kolin Klingon]

Originally Posted by Rowieboy

Right to hold your view? Indisputable. However you may find in the real world people don't accept it however much you protest. Legal right does not mean acceptance. Live with it!

From the same poster who told me to get off the religious thread.

Don't I have a right to an opinion? Hypocrite!

As for your opinion who cares less about and opinion that you can't back up with a scrap of evidence or fact. Truly laughable!

[collit]

The man's a fool, and now he just keeps digging. Of course same sex couples can bring up children exactly the same way as any man and woman. I'm a man married to a woman for Christ's sake and today I very very nearly forgot to feed our kids any tea!!!

[kimindex]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Barry

Ah yes, "sincerely held beliefs" and "right to my opinion"

Both arguments commonly cited by bigots that are completely irrelevant.

Yes, you have the right to your opinion. That doesn't mean you have the right to have your opinion given credibility. It might be your opinion that the Moon is made of cheese. It doesn't mean it has the same validity as someone who says it's made of rock. It might be your sincerely held belief that black people should still be held in slavery. It doesn't make it an opinion worthy of anything but contempt.

Another one is 'in the real world' ^. Just pure self-serving meaningless cant.

[Kolin Klingon]

Originally Posted by collit

The man's a fool, and now he just keeps digging. Of course same sex couples can bring up children exactly the same way as any man and woman. I'm a man married to a woman for Christ's sake and today I very very nearly forgot to feed our kids any tea!!!

Sounds like normal married life to me. (Just don't forget the anniversary!)

[BennyJoseph]

The Guardian readers are on the rampage, run to the hills, run, run, before free speech is expunged .

Seriously, the irony of the bigots here against another bigot would form the basis of a fine screenplay

[Big Boy Barry]

Originally Posted by Rowieboy

Right to hold your view? Indisputable. However you may find in the real world people don't accept it however much you protest. Legal right does not mean acceptance. Live with it!

Not sure what you are referring to here. If you mean that conservatives will never accept legal equality for other human beings, it doesn't matter. Their acceptance is not required. If you mean that bigoted opinions will never be accepted by a society that is moving on and progressing, that is correct, and rightly so.

[benjamini]

Children should be in a loving and stable home environment irrespective of the gender. It should always be the child who is priority. Relationships can be difficult, violent and corrosive, these impact equally on a child. The only person with utter and complete rights here is the child. Thats my opinion.

[Big Boy Barry]

Originally Posted by BennyJoseph

The Guardian readers are on the rampage, run to the hills, run, run, before free speech is expunged .

Seriously, the irony of the bigots here against another bigot would form the basis of a fine screenplay

It's not about free speech. He has the right to his opinion. But opinions come with consequence. Had he made bigoted statements about women or racial minorites, he'd be sacked. This is no different.

[Keiō Line]

Originally Posted by jesaya

As having your own children is fundamental to marriage, that is why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Redefining marriage,. How ironic of him.

[Fizzbin]

Originally Posted by kimindex

Another one is 'in the real world' ^. Just pure self-serving meaningless cant.

I misread that, as what I think of the minister.

[Scarlett O Hara]

A safe and loving environment is what matters when it comes to raising a child. As far as I'm aware, anyone of any gender and any sexuality can provide this...

The fact this still needs pointing out to anyone is just depressing. What is it about politicians not actually having a clue about the society they're in charge of? It's crazy.