Gay marriage legislation will need States resolution

GAY marriage legalisation should be worked on at the same as the civil partnership legislation is being drawn up, Gavin St Pier has said.

GAY marriage legalisation should be worked on at the same as the civil partnership legislation is being drawn up, Gavin St Pier has said.

But for that to happen would need a States’ resolution.

The Treasury minister will seek to get the issue on the agenda of the Social Policy Group, of which he is a member, so that it can be taken through to the States.

The States agreed six years ago that civil legislation should be drawn up and the Policy Council said this would be worked on at the beginning of next year.

‘Marriage should be something any two adults, whatever their sex, can do and the States should not prevent that couple,’ Deputy St Pier, pictured, said.

Comments for: "Gay marriage legislation will need States resolution"



Well done Gavin for putting this forward!


Legalise gay marriage. Build on this encouraging people to come over there to get married. Good business opportunity.

Legalise cannabis and do the same.

You wanted diversification and not just rely on the finance industry, so here's a golden oppertunity.

high times

Well said


and bring over all their friends and family to celebrate their marriage... and enjoy their honeymoon here too.... and maybe future anniversaries to reminisce.

Really good opportunity here for the tourism industry not to mention Guernseys image on the world stage by showing the rest of the world that we are not such a backwater afterall.


Concerned - I think your post (2) could actually get him thinking, we would need a bigger airport, a spare Condor and more hotels. Forget Sark Lark and Finance, welcome to Pink Toker Island.

Old glasshouses would be rebuilt, tax on weed would see the hospital ward reopen and everyone would be so stoned, they wouldn't care about missing money anyway.

big al

in the bible, matthew states ' man who lays down with another man should be stoned ' we got it wrong for a long time!!!!

Terry Langlois

do you eat prawns?


Terry I think your stoned your going on about prawns or do you think big al is shellfish.


In the wake of the loss of 2.6 mill by his department, chronic unfettered States Department overspends, no solution to the CS pension issue, zero ten, the shrinkage of the finance industry, UK legislation designed and most probably destined to do us some serious fiscal damage, and all the other stuff we have going on, I am delighted, nay, relieved

to see that Mr St Pier remains firmly focussed on what's real urgent and important....

I must go, I think my meds are wearing off and I've somehow skipped 4 months....

it is April 1st, right......?


I hope they consult Pastor Walter Chapman of La Villiaze Evangelical Church before proceeding with this


I second that call! Oh, I would LOVE to hear what he'd have to say about this...


Was it in his election manifesto?

Herbert Roth

It could just be the way the Press have reported this, but is GSP once again TELLING us what is right and proper and good, or is he just offering his opinion on the matter?

Gavin St Pier

Herbert Roth - I fear it is a little in the reporting. (The article was the reporter's distillation of a telephone conversation when she rang me up at the weekend following my supplementary question to the Chief Minister on the topic in the Assembly.)

I am certainly not telling anyone what is right and proper and good. I made it clear that the views I expressed where my own and it was a topic of personal conscience. For me, this is simply a question of equality - equality of opportunity. The government does not seek to prevent couples of whatever sex living together or committing themselves to each other in a 'union' or 'partnership' - but we do prevent that being recognised if the couple are of the same sex. It makes little sense to me. In my view, those couples should be capable of exercising the same rights.

I did also emphasise to the reporter - which did not appear in the article - that (again just in my view) there should be an opt-out for religious sects or denominations who should not be forced by the state to recognise unions which are conflict with their faith.

It was not in my manifesto - a question asked in another post. For no reason other than space and priorties. But I did freely offer my views on the topic to those who had an interest in it.


Religious sects should not be able to opt out. The whole point is we are all equal before the law. There is no place for discrimination in our society as you rightly recognise and that includes the church.


1.Actually the law and society regularly discriminate. The law is actively aware of age and mental capacity in determining culpability and discriminates accordingly. The law discriminates and debars people with a criminal conviction from pursuing some professions. The law requires some people to have specific qualifications to pursue some professions and discriminates in favour of them. The law discriminates as to who can legally live here. The law and society regularly discriminate against the elderly - and sometimes, when appropriate, for them. The law discriminates in favour of the disabled by reserving parking places for them [if not occupied by deputies!] etc. etc.

2.The logic of your argument about the church would lead to a greater deprivation of freedom than in either the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.


I am tempted to give the churches (of any religion) an opt-out clause in order to "keep the peace" but sometimes the tough decisions have to be made. What about the peace of those persons who live in same-sex relationships? Whose rights are more important- the right of those who want to be treated just like everyone else or the right of those who want to discriminate against them? It is an important question.

I think Benedict is trying to say that we should discriminate against same-sex couples for the ultimate good of the different-sex couple community- but how well founded is this opinion? Does Benedict/anyone have any concrete evidence, any scientific research which demonstrates that family values would be decreased and society harmed as a result of same-sex marriage? I am open and very interested if anyone could point me in the direction of a journal article or equivalent.



I am not interested in discriminating against. I am interested in discriminating in favour of certain things. Discriminating in favour of the disabled for example [although implicit in it is discrimination against the able. Able bodied deputies should not use reserved parking slots].

I am in favour of discriminating in favour of the traditional understanding of marriage, partly because of arguments based on Natural Law, partly because of arguments based on Kant's categorical imperative. I outline the argument in another post.

You call for scientific experiments. I do not see how they could prove anything, one way or another. Any observation would involve judgments that would be labelled 'subjective' by those who did not like them.


There have been evidence-based studies that have shown that children of gay couples do just as well and sometimes better than children of different-sex couples

Just to be clear, I'm not totally for or against, I'm not gay and don't have any friends that are so i don't really have an agenda or strong feelings either way. What i am interested in is filtering out the evidence from the emotion. Will society be hurt by allowing homosexual couples to marry? That is all. At the moment i can't see any evidence to say that it would but that doesn't mean i won't be enlightened by the next article that comes my way. Kant, like many of his time, was very preoccupied with the "sexual act" of homosexuality, he believed that the act was unnatural. However, this is not a debate on whether or not you agree with particular sex acts so is opinion on sex acts be relevant? This debate is only about "marriage". So putting sex acts aside, if two people love each other and they are of the same gender, does it do any harm to society if they are allowed to marry?


I normally agree with everything you say, Dani, but on this occasion... I think the opt-out clause is the best compromise we can hope for.

If if were up to me, though, we'd go down a different route altogether.

We could remove the 'legal marriage' powers from the church altogether. Let all couples, whether same-sex or of the man/woman variety, get legally married at the Greffe. Those that want a religious blessing afterwards can do so. Those that don't, don't have to.

Doing it that way would also remove the need for civil partnerships (a horrible term, which sounds so much more clinical than saying 'we're married').

And it would open up marriage for the increasing number of unreligious heterosexual couples who respect the institution of marriage but don't want to have to resort to hypocrisy by getting married in a church.

Any thoughts on that idea? I really do respect your opinion...



Camera Shy

Thank you for respecting my thoughts and opinions and for telling me how you feel in return. I'm really glad that you have shared with me and everyone else.

I think you have a really interesting idea there. I quite like it. I like how it tackles the hypocrisy of people getting married in churches when they are not religious (although I believe they do have valid cultural expectations as this is suggested what you do and they have grown up being told this)and I like how it gets rid of the term civil partnership. I'm not a fan of the word either. I'm not sure if you can remove their legal ability to grant marriages (or if we should) - I will have to think on that one it's the first time I have heard of the idea. Thank you for challenging the way I think about the issue - I will definitely think about that more.

It still leaves the same problem for some though. I hope you don't mind (and that author does not mind either) but I was reading the GSY Press yesterday and I read a letter that really struck a chord with me and reinforced to me why I do not believe there should be opt out clauses. I would like to share it with you. It was titled I'd Love to get married in my island.

"I am a 25-year-old male and I have known I was gay since I was very young. Although not all my family know yet, thanks to my friends, my confidence is growing.

I have been reading the Guernsey Press recently about gay marriages. I would love to be married one day and I would love it even more if it was right here in Guernsey, where I was born and where I live.

Just because I prefer males, it does not mean I am not a Christian. I love god and I know he accepts me for who I am. If Guernsey cannot accept me for who I am, I will have to leave my birthplace forever.

Please do not let it get to this stage. All people are equal and should all have the same rights as everyone else. Thank you"

I think their last paragraph says it all. I think about what it must be like to have been them growing up; what it must be like for them now. It must be pretty hard and it is all for no good reason either. He is just asking for acceptance and equal treatment now and I want to be part of a community that can support him to live a happy life just like anyone else. He would still want the religious blessing but potentially would not get it from where he would want it from most.

One good thing about the church that it is a place where you have friends and family and you go for support, guidance and acceptance. It provides a strong community to those that are involved. It saddens me deeply that potentially a person in this young mans position would want to get married (something very important to him) and be turned away by his own church and the community within it.

I would say there is absolutely nothing wrong with him and he should be able to get married just like anyone else. The problem does not lie with him but with the church who turns him away. That church that turns him is away is the one that needs to change.

It is assumed that if an opt out clause were given that some churches would allow the marriage and some would not. This says to me you can use religious text either way to say if it is a good or a bad thing. Christians will have different opinions. What I do know know is that stories and passages have been used to justify bad things previously; and to me (although others are free to disagree) this is just another example.

Either way the churches want to justify it the rest of society feels discrimination is still wrong. Law becomes before personal belief systems. I have always believed we are to be equal before the law and I don't understand why we would make a law that say it is bad to discriminate in this way... unless you are that group over there its perfectly fine. I can't believe we would have a law that would condone it in any circumstance. It undermines the whole purpose and does those like this man a disservice. It sends out the wrong messages - that there is something still adversely different about gay people - that it should be allowed to treat them differently - and will keep some of the stigma attached to it.

I hope that there are no opt out clauses so one day we can say to this young man that you do have the same equal rights as everyone else, we truly accept you for who you are and we expect everyone to recognize it. I hope one day he could get married here too. I want laws that promote equality and endorse a culture where acceptance does not have to be asked for in regard to sexual orientation but is a given just as it would be to a heterosexual.

Thank you for reading my views yet again and I hope you can continue to respect them even if you disagree on the best way to tackle the issue. I look forward to hearing more from you. :-)



I think you are taking the fact that a true Bible believing church will not marry you to personally. It is not the church members that do not like you.

It might be easier to understand it this way - The church is there to serve God and so God comes first, then his church and then from that church comes the blessing and instruction, charity, support etc.

What is being suggested, is that we turn it around and put the general population first, then get the church to do what they want, and finally put God out of the equation because He doesn't agree with what is being done.

There are and always will be churches that don't believe the Bible or follow Gods ways and so they would probably welcome such a move.

The only churches that I think would not be able to carry out such a service, would be the true Christian ones.

This still does not address the issue that marriage is between one man and one woman, you might need to give it a different title as to try and replicate marriage by calling it the same name might be a bit patronising to those involved. Just a thought, maybe you wouldn't mind?


Hi Dani, thanks so much for your reply - as considered and respectful as ever. I swear I would post on these forums more often if I didn't always find you'd already said exactly what I was thinking, only a great deal more eloquently!

It's no different in this case, either. I really DO agree with your points on the opt-out clause for churches, but I'm torn between what I would want to see in an ideal world (equality for everyone, in all areas of life) and what I think we can reasonably expect to happen at the moment. I realise it might make me seem kind of spineless, but I think my willingness to acquiesce over the opt-out is predicated on the belief that it's surely better for some churches to marry same-sex couples than for none to do it.

There might also be an element of hopefulness on my part - that parish priests are a lot more accommodating than the broader 'Church'. And in the case of that letter you relate, I struggle to comprehend that, if this young man is a practising Christian, existing regularly within the community of his congregation, that his friends in the church would deny him the right to marry the man he loves. But I also know that's the idealist in me speaking!

It really is quite a conundrum for me - even as I type this, I'm changing my mind all the time. What I really want is for the church to WANT to marry same-sex couples, not have it forced upon them. I honestly believe the number of churches opting out would be in the minority, and would hope their number would become fewer and fewer as the practice became more 'normalised'. Because that's what we really need - a new normal. But I think we need to get there with baby-steps rather than giant leaps. We need to give everyone a chance to readjust slowly, or we risk alienating a whole new group of people.

I also appreciate your views on the cultural expectation of getting married in church. I'd add to that there's a romanticism involved - the grand ceremony, the historical building etc. Hopefully the church will be accepting of gay marriage, and that needn't be an issue.

In my idea of divorcing (excuse the pun) the church and state in terms of the power to marry, there would still be the possibility of a religious blessing. Or the buildings could even be hired out for civil ceremonies.

Ultimately, though, the church (at least while it's discriminatory) shouldn't have the power to decree my legal status (ie. you're married) any more than the state should be telling me that, by law, I have to believe in God. The church and the state have no business dealing in each other's affairs, especially in an increasingly secular society.

Everybody ought to have access to the wonderful institution of marriage, and if the church really doesn't want to give them that, then we should give the power back to the state. (It's worth remembering that marriage pre-dates Christianity - it is not a construct of and should not be the preserve of the church.)

Thanks again for your thoughts. And just to clarify: I want see a world where everybody accepts everybody for who they are and who they love, regardless of colour, creed, sexual orientation or the myriad other reasons people find for bigotry. I'm just torn over what level of harmony we can reasonably expect.

I look forward to hashing out this issue a bit further! :-)



Marriage is not something just between a man and a woman. It is an act between two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. As a fan of equality I know that is not restricted to just men and women. Same sex couples can and want to do that too.

I don't think it's patronising at all. By your logic when gay people adopt they should call it something different despite the action being the same in substance as what two heterosexuals would do. I think that is discriminatory. By your logic anything they do should have a different name for it.

I'm not sure if you think I'm gay but I'm not. I hold these views irrespectively.

I think you need to take up whether someone is a true Christian or not with other Christians..

What I do know is that I can respect other people's religions but it crosses a line when it discriminates against others. It is not acceptable. I could be part of a religion, truly believe I was doing God's work and say my god does not recognise different races as equals. That I am part of the master race and others would not have the purity of birth to be married. Truly believing that would be one thing as freedom of thought is ok but then to act on it, treat foreign people differently - when I have the power to effect their major life events through marriage is another. I wouldn't expect a law to condone my behaviour in a society that says we are equal irrespective of origin.

Other races could be allowed to share my religion as I have exported it all around the world but of course they couldn't be entitled to get married. They couldn't possibly be married as that Is only for the master race. Should they ever say they just want the same rights I will tell them as a true believer they should know that it's not me or the people stopping them. It is God's will that they be treated this way. Maybe however you can have your own ceremony that of course God would not bless and make sure you call it something else. You don't want to patronise the master race by diluting the value of what they have by having yourselves be involved in it...


Dani - May I defer to prominent free speech activist Peter Tatchell (who happens to also be gay) in answering your initial point. When commenting on the story of a Christian who was demoted for opposing gay marriage, he said:

“His opposition to religious organisations being forced to conduct same-sex marriages is shared by the Prime Minister and the Equality Minister, the gay rights group Stonewall and the entire leadership of the Church of England. If Mr Smith is guilty, then they are all guilty.”

[Source: Pink News - a LGBT news website]

You talk about there being "no place for discrimination in our society" but by suggesting individual groups should be prevented from expressing their religious beliefs (yes, even the ones you don't like) in the context of their own places of worship you are supporting positive discrimination and potentially violating Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Besides, if any change in the law does happen it's likely those religious groups who support gay marriage (such as the Quakers, Liberal Jews and Unitarian church) will be allowed to conduct ceremonies, so what's the problem? Can you really see gay couples queuing up to get hitched at La Villaize Church?

In the circumstances I think Gavin St Pier writes pretty well about this. He is neither gay or religious and seems to understand the role of government well on this occasion - it is not to impose the demands of a minority (whether gay couples or devout religious folk) but rather to, as much as possible, allow people the freedom to express themselves and hold/express different opinions and beliefs. If we are going to truly be a mature society we need to be able to handle fundamental ideological differences without resorting to Orwellian legislation.

Camera Shy - I think you would find serious opposition to your idea and not just among church folk. The idea of a traditional "white wedding" in the parish church is pretty culturally ingrained. You also imply that under current legislation people who want to get married have 2 choices, the church or the Greffe. Not true - people can have civil ceremonies elsewhere, for example some of my friends got married at Saumarez Manor. They were atheists and presumably considered getting married in a church to be hypocritical - a very respectful stance in my opinion.



You do have a lovely way of putting across your ideas and if you are agreeing with me often I find it especially important you contribute! :P

Thank you for highlighting that marriage predates Christianity. I know that same sex marriage has been acceptable in other cultures historically and that it changes on the demographic of the time. I think this is something people should be aware of - it has been more of a fluid concept than some would want us to believe.

I also love this: "Everybody ought to have access to the wonderful institution of marriage, and if the church really doesn’t want to give them that, then we should give the power back to the state."

I hear that you agree with me but feel it may be a step to far to soon.

I want them all to want gay marriage too but I don't see it happening anytime soon. There will be groups that hold out for as long as possible. Perhaps as Disciple suggests this would demonstrate they are true believers.

The church on the whole has not really kept pace with societal changes and many of those who are religious do not think it should. There is not much to suggest they will all want to change overnight or even in the short to medium term. They are still working on getting legislation together for women bishops and that is far less taboo.

I like to think there are a lot of Christians too that would happily welcome it but we cannot guarantee this young man would be in a group that would. Hypothetically he could be in Disciples suggested group where as true believers their god would tell him that he could not be married at their church and he would have to go elsewhere irrespective of whether they liked him or not.

I think in reality there will always be resistance and the upset will come no matter what. I'd rather just rip the plaster off quickly and face it now, be done with it to ensure a lower number people are discriminated against as possible.



I refer to the European Convention of Human Rights that we are signed up to under The Human Rights (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2000 Ordinance 2006.

Here is article 7:

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 9 provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society".

This says religion can of course be practiced as long as it is in accordance with the law. This law as article 7 states should allow us all to be treated equally and have us all equally protected against discrimination. No opt out clauses are endorsed here.

We are entitled to different beliefs and values as long as we don't reduce personal freedoms of others by discriminatory practices irregardless of whether your religious or not. Which happens when you give opt out clauses.

Orwellian is a term that has many connotations but I believe you use it to suggest that this would be oppressive. I believe that in a situation where legislation is created to prevent discrimination this is the antithesis of oppressive as it will allow all of us irregardless of sexual orientation to engage in society as equals.



Excellent logical post. One of the best I have read for a long time. It had not occurred to me before that the church has that prerogative. I suppose that applies to the female bishop saga too.

Your reference to "individual groups" is true but this is why so many people fundamentally object to payment of rates towards the churches and state provision of religious schools. It works both ways.

I agree that Gavin St Pier's political stance is spot on but it is time to take things a step further and separate all church and secular activities. Then the church and its followers can really do as they please.

My observation is that both the institutions of the church and marriage are going out of fashion, lesbians and gays are arriving late to an old fashioned party. A modern approach to love, relationships and commitment will continue to prevail surely and this will be the equaliser needed by society.

Perhaps in our children's lifetimes these debates and problems will become obsolete.

New customs and rituals are already on the increase and traditional white weddings are decreasing. Individual rights and freedoms should be universally respected however it seems futile to expect the church can be forced to adapt.


PLP - Don't worry, I wasn't expecting the sinful masses to sign up to my idea. I'm not even sure I like it myself! In fact, I'm pretty sure I don't. And were I to get married tomorrow, I would probably be one of those hypocrites queuing up to get married at my parish church. I was merely offering another workable (albeit a liiiiittle bit radical) solution ;-)

Re. Your point about the church v. Greffe. I was using 'the Greffe' as a broad term for a non-church 'wedding' - i thought it would be easier (for me) than listing all the places it is possible to hold a civil ceremony. Apologies for not making that a bit clearer!


Dani - haha! Well, I'll happily contribute more regularly, but seeing as you seem to be a bit more on the ball than me, you'll have to forgive me if I only pop up under your comments with an 'I agree!' or 'Yeah, wot she said.' ;-)

Yes, people would do well to remember that marriage has been an evolving institution for thousands of years. And thank god (ha!) it has, really, otherwise we'd still find ourselves being married off by our fathers at the age of 13 for a few cows and a parcel of land. I wonder what the traditionalists would make of that...?

In all seriousness though, I understand your concerns about churches being given an opt-out and your fears that many would decide they didn't want to marry same-sex couples. But I think we should also take heart from the fact that, in the General Synod vote on women bishops, it wasn't the Church that vetoed it, it was the laity. I really do think the priests are a lot more tolerant than their congregations and would stand up for the right of ALL their parishioners to marry. It's doubtful any of the less-tolerant members of the regular Sunday congregation would be invited to any same-sex wedding, and one would hope individual parish priests would consider that.

I also think PLP has a point regarding people's rights to religious freedoms. Can you imagine trying to impose a law on Jews banning the circumcision of baby boys on the grounds of child abuse? (Let's not get into THAT right now.) Unfortunately, these issues aren't as easily solved as I'm guessing either of us would hope.

And your final point is spot on, of course: there is is always going to be resistance, and there will always be somebody, somewhere, who gets upset. There's not much I can add to that! I sympathise wholeheartedly with your desire to see urgent change but, to be honest, I'm just glad this is a discussion we're all now having. So, a big 'hats off' to Gavin St Pier, and thanks to you for some intelligent and thought-provoking debate! :-)


Dani and CS

I feel that you still don't quite understand the issue as far as Christians are concerned. A Christian should love homosexual, short tall, fat, thin, everybody without exception. If they don't, then they do not reflect their Saviour or His teachings. But it is understanding what that love is, that causes the confusion.

God the Creator and sustainer of life itself has made it very clear that homosexual acts are very wrong.

Now on the one hand we have individuals born with hormonal differences, through no fault of their own or their parents. They grow up to view the norm, but as they develop they just have different feelings to most around them and then they understand that they are physically made one way but emotionally and psychologically they know they are the opposite. I can't understand how hard and confusing this must be, the decision to live against all I know and feel emotionally just to be like everybody else or to forget what I look like physically and embrace the "inner person"

The person that I have just attempted to describe, should find all the help, support and acceptance that a group of Gods people can muster.

The division comes when that individual actually embraces and lives an active homosexual lifestyle. This is the part that is totally against the way God commands and any church attempting to modernise so as to ignore God's commands on this issue or any others, would not be Christian as it would not be following Christ's way any longer.

Somebody commented that marriage pre dates Christianity, that is true, however it does not pre date God, as He invented it and I think everybody understands that He instituted it for one man and one woman.

To try and show you that it is nothing personal, can I give you an example.

Imagine that a very capable, pleasant and pretty female wanted to play in the mens singles at Wimbledon, she would be refused, not because she was not good enough, not because her image was wrong or her attitude but purely because the governing body is not permitted to make such changes. The female can play and excel, but will never be a mens singles player.

This proposal is very similar, you can find a building that looks like a church, dress a man up as a church man looks, bells, candles etc. but the actual marriage is not a real marriage. Thats why I presumed that it would be patronising to just give it the title marriage just to imitate the real version.

As a Christian, I can't agree with it, but if you have no Christian beliefs, then I can understand that you want to have a contract to show your devotion and commitment to one another, but surely, you want a ceremony of your own and not an adaptation of the Christian one.

Could somebody tell me why homosexuals find a church marriage something to be desired. I can't imagine what the attraction is. Would an ornate building in beautiful grounds not be even better as it would not have all the reminders of God and Jesus Christ surrounding the ceremony.

I look forward to your responses especially on the last paragraph.



There are indeed parts of the Bible that do not look favourably upon homosexuality.

There are also parts of the Bible that do not look favourably upon the eating of pork products, or shellfish.

I notice the Church for some reason doesn't see a need to uphold these teachings by calling for a change in the law banning the sale of prawn cocktail and sausage rolls ...

If we are to follow God's example, as demonstrated by his son Jesus, then we should be allowed to freely hang around with prostitutes, and physically attack finance workers in public.

Claiming the teachings of a religious sect to justify your argument is a double edged sword - abide by all it's teachings or stop trying to force just some of them on others.....


Disciple - you're right. And I don't think I ever could understand it from your point of view. And I honestly don't mean any disrespect when I say that.

Quite aside from the fact that scripture can be translated, interpreted and twisted to support almost any point of view, I don't understand how you can reconcile belief in the Bible (the core of which concerns the sayings and teachings of Jesus, who never tackles the issue of homosexuality but who has a lot to say about intolerance and oppression) with 'it would not be following Christ's way' to allow same-sex marriage

In terms of your tennis analogy, I'd argue that you've distorted the elements a little. You've used a broad stroke on one side of the argument (marriage) and a narrower one on the other (MEN's tennis). I'd repaint it entirely to say marriage is the entire sport of tennis, and you wouldn't say women couldn't play at all, would you?

(Somebody else used a biscuit analogy a bit further down the thread, saying you wouldn't keep cheese biscuits in the same tin as sweet nibbly ones. I'd say there are some cheese biscuits, like Hovis, that would more than happily share the same airtight space as a Digestive.)

Regarding your other points: we'll have to agree to disagree about your notion that God created marriage. And as we've already agreed that marriage pre-dates Christianity, you won't mind me offering a rebuttal to your 'I can understand that you want to have a contract to show your devotion and commitment to one another, but surely, you want a ceremony of your own and not an adaptation of the Christian one'. It is not a Christian concept. It is a human one. But Christianity 'appropriated' the ability to decree a marriage legal. Why should same-sex couples and non-Christians accept anything less than legal marriage if that is what they want?

As to your final paragraph... other than the fact that some Christians also happen to be homosexual, I can't help you there, I'm afraid...

Neil Forman

This is always going to be a contentious issue.

I did not include this in my manifesto, ( like Gavin ) but it was a subject that was bought up often on my campaign.

Personally, I don't see a problem, to me all that matters is that if two people who love each other and want to make a commitment each other want to, we should not stand in their way.

I have friends who are gay and who have gone away to get 'married' . Good luck to them. If it makes them happy who are we to say they are wrong?


Sparty - my views on church and state entanglement are well known - the quicker they are disentangled the better for both!

Dani - I'll try to be more succinct for the benefit of Bored. Putting all the philosophical/legal arguments aside, if you were a gay couple looking to get married would you rather have your special day officiated by someone who voluntarily celebrated and supported you, or by someone who was forced against their will to do it by law?


Dani - one final response:

"We are entitled to different beliefs and values as long as we don’t reduce personal freedoms of others by discriminatory practices"

An opt out clause for religious groups would not reduce personal freedoms in this case. Gay couples would still be free to marry, just not by religious people who don't support their union. If you force religious ministers to officiate at gay weddings against their will you too are reducing their personal freedom by discriminatory practices.

In my view Gavin St Pier's proposal supports the freedom of choice we both seek.



Very intelligent conclusion differentiating the law versus the church.

As ever it has been a pleasure to read this debate and I am grateful to all who have contributed, it is interesting to hear everyone's views. I had a short crisp two word response for "bored" but thought better of it. ;-)



You are quite correct. Gay people are not going to be lining up to get married at a homophobic church. This will still be the case if there are no opt out clauses for the church.

If however they did want to get married there for whatever reason the officator would not have their personal freedom restricted. As I have shown already in the human rights law you can practice as long as you don't affect others human rights which is what they would be doing to a gay couple not the other way around.

Can you imagine a dominant religion turning down someone for marriage because they were black and religion not saying it was acceptable? They wouldn't want to be married there but it would not be acceptable for them to discriminate like this and nothing should endorse their practices on this front.

What you are suggesting is a law to sanction segregation. You may find it a reasonable solution to have a law to tell the gays where they cannot be married. Perhaps these churches should put up a sign in the window to say they are not wanted there. Perhaps we could extend this law to anyone who have strong personal beliefs that homosexuals are undesired in their premises or social groups?

Human right infringement is not acceptible. Why should one religion be able to ignore those of others? Why is the human right of discrimination so easy to ignore? I imagine you balk at the idea of other ones being ignored because of personal belief. Torture, free trial... ablity to practice your religion in line with the law.

As you say homosexuals won't be lining up at the homophobic church but what the government should and can do is reinforce the message of equality. That everyone should be respected and accepted irregardless of their sexual orientation by ALL people in society. Thats what a truly mature society does. The message of acceptance and support is just as important.

One of the greatest barriers to equality being achieved is culture and attitudes and the law should not provide any grounds to allow / indirectly suggest sexual orientation discrimination is acceptable.


Sorry Dani but you are still not convincing. I find your argument to be flawed, biased and unneccessarily antagonistic.

In contrast I think my conclusions are reasonable, logical and well balanced as they allow freedom of expression and belief for all parties. I also note they are supported by a broad spectrum of stakeholders including (quite pertinently) a prominent gay rights charity. Of course that doesn't make them right but it certainly adds weight.

Thanks for the discussion but I think this is one of those times when we will just have to agree to disagree.


You cannot legally force any person or group to give their blessing to a union, ultimately that's what a church service is about. Can you have a church service without a blessing?


"Sorry Dani but you are still not convincing. I find your argument to be flawed, biased and unneccessarily antagonistic."

I re-read my post and I don't find it antagonistic. I have been polite to you and used different scenarios to demonstrate my reasoning. I've used different examples of discrimination as a litmus test to get you and anyone else to look at the situation differently.

If you find it flawed please do comment of what is flawed.

"In contrast I think my conclusions are reasonable, logical and well balanced as they allow freedom of expression and belief for all parties."

Your suggesting my arguments are not logical but this is incorrect as I have demonstrated my reasoning and you have yet to fault me on it. When challenged I have responded with fair point. I think it is unfair to suggest my post is unbalanced and unreasonable as well.

I feel you have resorted to attacking my viewpoint as opposed to it's content.


Dani - You are very polite, it is your idea that I consider antagonistic.

Your argument is flawed because you claim to support equality and yet you want a system that doesn't protect freedom of religious belief/expression - a human right under law.

My perspective empowers and protects both parties, yours only protects gay couples - that is why I consider it biased.

Gay rights charities such as Stonewall accept legal protection for religious groups so I see no logical reason why you insist it shouldn't be given. That is why I consider your view unnecessarily antagonistic.

It's as simple as this: if a gay couple ask a church minister to carry out a gay wedding, I think they should be allowed to refuse on grounds of religious conscience - and know they are fully protected under law. This is perfectly reasonable as it doesn't stop gay couples from getting married.

If you want attitudes to change, forcing people to do things against their will/conscience will not achieve that. Ironically if anything it is more likely to increase divisions in society. Laws don't change hearts.



"Your argument is flawed because you claim to support equality and yet you want a system that doesn’t protect freedom of religious belief/expression – a human right under law."

Equality cannot exist in conjunction with discrimination. The point of equality is that it applies to everyone, we are all equal before the law and not given special privilege.

Religious belief/expression is a human right. If you read the whole right you will notice as I have mentioned before that it is limited when it is not in accordance with the law. You also do not take note of the human right of discrimination which says we ALL have a right to be protected from discrimination under the law. Saying I do not support equality is false. I just do not support discriminatory practices and neither does the human rights law.

"My perspective empowers and protects both parties, yours only protects gay couples – that is why I consider it biased."

My view is not biased. It fully protects gay couples and religious persons who are in accordance with human rights. It gives special treatment to no-one which I believe is your issue with it.

"Gay rights charities such as Stonewall accept legal protection for religious groups so I see no logical reason why you insist it shouldn’t be given. That is why I consider your view unnecessarily antagonistic."

I have explained my reasoning as to why I do not believe opt out clauses. Having an opinion that differs to anyone else is not antagonistic. No-one is obliged to agree with Stonewall.

"It’s as simple as this: if a gay couple ask a church minister to carry out a gay wedding, I think they should be allowed to refuse on grounds of religious conscience – and know they are fully protected under law. This is perfectly reasonable as it doesn’t stop gay couples from getting married."

If a gay person goes for a job and the employer has strong personal beliefs based on a moral code (protected under the same human right as religious practice so these beliefs are equally valid) he could say it was unreasonable to hire the gay person (even if they were the best person for the job). As discrimination law applies under human rights we all know it is not perfectly reasonable for the gay man to be turned away nor would it be acceptable to give the employer an opt out under the law.

Another example is that there is a religion operating in our society that gives human sacrifices to god. They chose people who do not consent. They claim that their human right to practice their religion trumps the human right of another persons human right to life and that they should not be forced to act otherwise. I would say they should not get an exemption or opt out clause as it contradicts one of the human rights which is a law that applies to all of us.

"If you want attitudes to change, forcing people to do things against their will/conscience will not achieve that. Ironically if anything it is more likely to increase divisions in society. Laws don’t change hearts."

What definitely does increase divisions in society is when certain groups are granted special privileges and ability to act outside of the law.

If you truly believe that a discrimination law (which protects yourself and everyone else) creates division in society I think you should take it up with the government and EU Convention of Human Rights. I think it is also worth noting these human rights which you cite yourself were brought in after WW2. This event left people with the distinct impression discrimination actually caused a few problems and the law was brought in to combat it.

Once laws are in place it actually does help with change views. Gay people will have the full weight of the law behind them which will bring acceptance and allow them to be protected under the law. It also means stigma and untruths surrounding them have no root validated by law and will die out quicker than if they churches were left to their own devices. Laws more importantly should be in place to protect offences against a person and laws to protect gay rights are equally as important.


Religious sects would be able to opt IN to the law rather than opt OUT? That makes a difference to the arguments against this proposal, it would be a permissive law not a compulsory one.

""I am absolutely clear that no religious organization will ever be forced to conduct marriages for same-sex couples, and I would not bring in a bill which allowed that,” (Equalities minister) Miller told lawmakers in the House of Commons in London"


Thanks for responding again Dani but we don't seem to be getting through to each other! We both think our positions are strong so rather than us both banging our heads against the proverbial brick wall with circular arguments let's just agree to disagree.

From my perspective thankfully the mainstream view seems happy to empower and protect both gay couples and religious groups who have very different perspectives on life. This seems an appropriate path for a secular government in a supposedly tolerant society, and indeed the UK government is already following this route. I trust when the time comes the States of Guernsey will have the good sense to do the same.



You can't seem to comment on any of my points and examples...

As I have said if the religious group infringes on the human rights of others the behaviour should not be endorsed in law. This is what you would expect in a tolerant society; respect and equality for all members. My view supports everyone.

The UK have actually created an equality law which allows for discrimination within in it through an opt out clause. It is easy to see the fallacy there.

As Guernsey is a democracy I feel everyone should have their views known and considered equally along with all the facts when the States consider the new law.


Dani - With all due respect I've just got punch drunk reading your replies. You can throw as many bizarre examples of human sacrifice as you like at me but it won't change my mind.

I've made my case and I've read your posts, I just don't agree with your conclusions. That's fine by the way - we don't need to find consensus or "win" the argument to each have valid opinions. If anyone is still following this thread (which I seriously doubt by now) they can make up their own minds.

I agree with your final paragraph though - everyone should be able to get their voice heard. I think we've both managed to do that. There, you see, we can find common ground! Take care and Merry Christmas.

PS this is my final post on this thread.


Dani PLP etc

did you see question time last night? The panelists and audience had obviously been reading TIG as they had all the same comments that we have discussed!

Dani = lady in red check shirt

PLP = Lord Bilimoria

Spartacus = Peter Hitchins

Benedict = lady in yellow

Neil Forman = Will Self

Gavin St Pier = Justine Greening (!)

It's on iplayer if anyone missed it. It was the first question up.


Re election manifesto: you seem to be putting the onus on me - a voter - to ask innumerable questions about what does NOT appear in the candidate's manifesto. This is Alice-in-Wonderland territory. It is also an incitement to future candidates to conceal important issues. 'Ah ha!' they will exclaim after the election 'you failed to ask about that - your fault'. This is a dangerous precedent that you are setting and - worse in my opinion - you are trying to rationalise and justify it. This is subversive and it is one of the reasons why ordinary voters such as myself have become cynical about politicians. Cynicism is corrosive and destructive.


Dani, PLP and Camershy,

Seeing as how you three are unable to express your views in short, crisp statements why not exchange phone numbers or arrange to meet somewhere? I am sure you would have a far more illuminating discussion and the rest of us would be spared your somewhat pompous verbosity.

In my opinion anyone should be able to marry whoever or whatever they wish, male, female, alien, whatever.


Bored - Don't want to read comments? Click the little X on the top right of your browser.

Crisp enough for you?


Surely limiting marriage to two persons is highly discriminatory to some.


No doubt someone will push for it in time Zab,but one gentle step at a time


Brave! one wife is (more) then enough for me !


anon. Whats worse than more than one wife? More than one mother in law!!!!


lol! Zab is the bomb.


I'd love to comment - but dare not!!!!!



I'm guessing you 'dare not' because of the ton of crap that will fall upon your head from the PC zealots of this world,where free speech is not only frowned upon but in certain circumstances is a criminal offence even if a third party who did not see,read or hear the offending remarks decides to take offence on behalf of someone else.The world is going crazy!

I'm now standing by for the ton of crap heading my way !


Oh why not? Free speech is easy when you can hide behind your anonymity :) We all have opinions and each of our opinions are just as valid as anyone else's. You might find that other people are thinking exactly the same.


Hopefully we'll get the legislation in place for this before the UK does.

THAT would make my day.


Whew, meds back in full effect thanks to Nursey.

....Oh yes, Hartley, it would make my day, too!

I mean, in the big scheme of things, our politicians dedicating their precious, well paid time to this (and us getting one over on the UK) is, of course, way more important than the fact we've got a massive great black hole to fill that UK finance legislation is adding to daily and that the whole island is facing an oncoming disaster of unknown proportions because they're trying to shut our main industry down (along with recession etc etc etc).

ps. Ray, ref being p.c, my very dear gay friends over the years have taught me not to give a monkey's about what others's a top tip, I recommend it.


Doesn't have to take ages, they just write a piece of legislation that enables same-sex couples to legally marry on the exact same terms as a hetero couple and make it non-compulsory for religious groups.

Bish, bosh. Done.


'on the exact same terms as a hetero couple'. According to some lawyers this is not possible when it comes to defining 'consummation'.


...and what planet do you live on where the States take a brief time to make a decision about anything, Hartley...?

I would appreciate our leaders dedicating their time to rather more pressing matters, like the future of our island, which effects everyone, straight, gay or whatever, than the somewhat less urgent matter of gay marriage (which is fine with me, btw).

Seriously, get real.

Royston Gauno

I fear this maybe being used as a distraction tatic in the hope of the public forgeting Spring Heeled Jack is still at Liberty with nearly £2.6M given over by this same department..

Dave P

There can be no such thing as 'gay' 'marriage'. Marriage is the union of man and woman.


There is such a thing as gay marriage. Same sex couples have already been married.


Climbing in a biscuit tin, doesn't make you a biscuit!

You're just Dani in a tin.

GSP is suggesting the equivalent of changing your name to Jammy Dodger, but you're still not a biscuit you are Dani in a biscuit tin with a new name like a biscuit.


Right. Lets be serious. First of all it better be a tin of dark chocolate hob nobs I climb into. (Only because I like them as biscuits don't read into that one too much!)

Secondly for the analogy to work I should be a biscuit as we are all technically biscuits. A Jammy dodgy for me is a good fit!

The hob nobs are a different color, were made differently but they are still biscuits and deserve to be treated as such.

If you think outside the tin you would realize that any concepts of what they can and can't do are just that. They are forced upon them and are not true. A non-discriminatory biscuit tin owner should enable any biscuit to live a stale free and tasty existence.

*Goes off to raid the biscuit tin*


Dani - Wow, that is one impressive analogy and I think that you are correct when you point out that we are all biscuits (members of the human race)

Would you agree that some biscuits are made for cheese and kept separately, even though technically a biscuit.

Thank you for an amusing post.


‘Marriage should be something any two adults, whatever their sex, can do and the States should not prevent that couple,’

Does the person spouting this nonsense, have any responsibility in our States? If he does, then I doubt he is likely to be very successful.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. If he wants to create a new way of breaking up family values, call it something else, it is not marriage and never will be.


I think he is spot on.

It is incorrect to suggest it will break down family values. How?!

If we want family values we should make sure same sex couples can adopt as well.


They already can.


The idea of two men adopting a young girl is something that I find upsetting - for the sake of the girl.

Would it be allowed? If not, then there are some fundamental principles that are being acknowledged, probably based on Natural Law (which is outside religion but actually underpins much theology).

I am aware that, because of bereavement or other cause, some fathers do bring up daughters, and successfully, and all tribute to them. That seems to me to be a different situation.


Why does this upset you? Why does them adopting a young boy not upset you? In nature there are homosexials in many other species so it is not against natural law as I see it. It is as natural as being hetrosexual and rights should be given accourdingly. Religion is not big on eaqual rights generally so these things need to be settled in law. If I were to marry my opposite sex partner in a legal sense I do not have to do it in a religious establishment but I would still be married. I cannot see why homosexial people are still discriminated against in this way.And as for adopting children, the loving, non-bigotted attitude that is often dispalyed by same sex couples can only be a good thing as far I am concerned.


Live and let live Jeffers long as being gay isn’t compulsory then who cares, anyway a lot of the clergy who preach family values are at it too.


markB - To answer your question "Who cares" I think the answer is, not many people these days.

These subtle changes are brought about which dumb down what is really going on. If Max Branning really believed that you can call two people of the same sex married , then he would probably end up making loads of other mistakes. Marriage is between one man and one woman, that is a fact, this proposed legal document, is a certificate of something but not marriage.

If these changes are brought about, will he also want tax breaks to encourage homosexuals to have a pseudo marriage.

If we want to abuse "at risk" children psychologically then why not take Danis advice and remove them from an unsatisfactory home and drop them into an unbalanced one. This will ensure that they grow up as objects of ridicule at school and devoid of any idea of what is normal and appropriate.

I think you are right markB, not many do care, not only about this situation but many others. We are hit daily by headlines that make it obvious that we have chipped away slowly but surely at our social fabric and we are daily reminded of the consequences.


"Marriage is between one man and one woman, that is a fact" No it's not.

Marriages in some religions and cultures are, but many others aren't.

To suggest that placing children with two loving parents of the same sex is abuse makes me worry about you views on the world.

I hope that you don't have any children of your own as I'd hate to think of any kids being parented by such a narrow minded bigot.


Good points Jeffers, Then let’s call it a “certificate of Togetherness” Then everyone will be happy

Yes I agree bringing kids into the equation does bring up other complexities to the situation..... but that’s another discussion.

Dave P

That this could happen in Guernsey is deeply depressing. England is one thing, but I thought the old donkey breed had more sense. Adam and Eve: YES! Adam and Steve: NO!


Ha Ha!! aadam & it


Frankly markB " I don't give aadam"


had a stutter there RRRay


I can only imagine what a sad life you must have if you find this deeply depressing. You should welcome any change in the law that ensures equal rights to all Guernsey residents.

Dave P

You have clearly fallen victim to the PC propaganda machine. Any child knows that men and women get married. Men and men can't. How is it that adults, thinking themselves sophisticated, have managed to unlearn this? Is it because you are all terrified by the monstrous power of intimidation by the militant gay organisations? Is it because you fear being regarded as unenlightened?

The whole fallacy is that of 'equal rights'. Where did these rights come from? What is the philosophical basis? How can we have the right to be equal to anyone else? Equal rights for pedophiles? mass murderers? Any takers?

Equality is a ludicrous myth, invented by the French. The Soviets showed how to implement it, and the course of the 20th century shows that the road to equality is through rivers of blood, and even then it won't work.

The truth is that you are victims of a mass brainwashing over the past 20 years. Gay couples will adopt children who will be deeply psychologically scarred by the experience, and many will be abused. 10 out of 11 child abusers are homosexual. These kids will not thank you for your 'enlightened' attitudes that allowed this scandal to take place.


Thanks Dave, I wasn't aware of any of that.

Thanks for putting me straight (pun intended)


Dave P - "10 out of 11 child abusers are homosexual" Just because you make something up doesn't make it real. You now need to present a reference to the study on which your comment is based and you may also like to explain why you think so many girls get abused? Or do you think they just make it all up in order to present some form of abuse gender balance?


Doug sorry mate but you asked theres loads more but most people now about it so not much point putting it up. They prefer boys for some reason youd have to ask a doctor why but the studys agree that boys are more at risk.You can even go with a boy in Guernsey now as long as he is about 16.

Baldwin says his research not only “confirms that homosexuals molest children at a rate vastly higher than heterosexuals,” but it found that “the mainstream homosexual culture” even “commonly promotes sex with children.”

“The editorial board of the leading pedophile academic journal, Paidika, is dominated by prominent homosexual scholars such as San Francisco State University professor John DeCecco, who happens to edit the Journal of Homosexuality,” Baldwin wrote.

During his research, he also found:

The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, “Male Intergenerational Intimacy,” containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son “not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy’s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home.”

In 1995 the homosexual magazine “Guide” said, “We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual” and “deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …” The article went on to say: “Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality … we must do it for the children’s sake.”


Calco - What a lot of utter tosh. Who on earth is Baldwin?

Having spent many, many years within 'mainstream homosexual culture' I cannot recall ever having come across any 'promotion of sex with children' so it cannot be 'common'.

I have never heard of The Journal of Homosexuality - does it have a wide circulation? Neither have I heard of Guide. Maybe I should get out more?

I believe you are factually correct that one could 'go with a boy now in Guernsey as long as he's about 16' - well in he must be over 16. Whilst you seem to intimate that this is promotion of peadophilia it should be noted that the age of consent is also 16 for girls (and has been for many, many years) so I presume you can go with a girl as long as she's 16? Would you want to?

I do not believe your post is based on any fact and I suggest to you that Baldwin, whoever he is, makes his 'evidence' fit the story.


Would this be the same Baldwin who pronounced “However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization – the nuclear family.”?



I think that you are muddling up Natural Law and the Naturalistic fallacy

- If birds and beasts engage in adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, it must be OK.



Times are changing. Kids really couldn't care about the parents of a child being same sex. They are much more open minded than yourself and I know plenty would be very upset for having you assume that of them. They are growing up in a world where hopefully they can be more proud of who or what they are then ever and we should be setting a good example. I would imagine the only time they would think they could tease is if an adult told them something was wrong with it - when there is not. There is nothing inappropriate about it.

Anyway, if one or two tease who cares? There are always bullies/idiots and the sad fact is they are usually very insecure themselves. They should be dealt with, have it explained to them its just two people who love each - like anyone else. That it is silly to be cruel about such things.

There would be nothing wrong with it at all. Two loving parents who care about a child always make a good home. It is not unbalanced that is just another assumption on your part. Same sex couples would have to go through many more hoops to get a child so I see it as logical they would have planned for their arrival more which can only benefit the child. There are children on this island and around the world that do need loving homes. I have had more insight than most into living in other peoples homes and I can tell you they all have their problems, none of them are perfect but it is the caring and looking out for each other that really matters. Time and care.

If people want family values marriage and children do enable this. It shows a commitment to live together and spend their lives together more than not permitting it.

I mean "tear a part the social fabric". How? Seriously?

Honestly I think it is up to the individual to choose how they live their life. What the government should do, and Gavin is right in saying is that they should not have discriminatory barriers in place.

Too right they should get married couple allowances too.


Dani - Please don't think that I am purely anti homosexual, I am equally against heterosexuals who end an evening out with a Chinese takeout and mating with a random stranger. The poor children conceived in this manner are probably greater casualties than those we are discussing on this forum.

I just feel that most of what made for a stable society is being eroded. I would put family very high on that list. Protection of the weak and disempowered, addictions, debt culture, lack of respect for any authority whether it be parents, teachers, police, employers etc. all of these areas of life make up our social fabric.

I feel that to have two dads or two mums is just not natural, it might be better than certain alternatives, but it is not what nature intended and I feel adds further confusion to a society that is already struggling.

I hope I haven't come across as rude, it is not my intention and I thank you for your level and honest opinions above.



Those in civil partnerships can adopt according to and those that are unmarried. So I guess that covers same-sex couples. I am very sorry if my incorrect assumption has misled anyone. Or do they still need the law to validate this?


No need to apologize to me, you were not rude but please think about the people in question.

They would just be two people in love. Marriage means spending the rest of your life with someone. Surely that type of commitment is a family value and from your point of view something we should be embracing?


"is just not natural ... it is not what nature intended"

Ever flown in a plane, pal? Communicated by email? Lit your house in the dead of night? Watched videos on YouTube?

Go figure.

The idea that homosexuality is somehow unnatural and should be banned is as baseless as it is ignorant. Putting aside the fact that it's a well documented occurrence within numerous species in the animal world, human kind have swum against the tide of nature so many times during their evolution that it doesn't even bear mentioning.

I ask you this: What is the atom bomb if not the ultimate abomination against nature?

The only reason that marriage is, as you put it, 'for one man and one woman' is purely that it's written in legal documents created by man for man. The law can be changed overnight, it's not a finite entity and it evolves as time progresses.

Deliberately preventing that progress is the real crime against nature.


"I feel that to have two dads or two mums is just not natural"

Quite. In nature it is far more common to have one dad with lots of different mums.

I look forward to your vigorous campaign to legalise bigamy .....


Just a point Dani - were you brought up by 2 mums or 2 dads in a relationship? If not - you cannot possibly make the comments you have made above I quote 'kids really couldnt care about the parents of a child being the same sex'. - how do you know that? I think the only persons able to make such comments would be the children who have been brought up by a same sex couple. I imagine there are a few out there in this big wide world now and it will only be in the future that we will understand more about the feelings of those children and how it may have afected their lives - or not......



Surveys show that the younger part of the population are more accepting of same sex couples. As a younger person I can say quite honestly I don't know anyone who around my age and in similar social groups who has a problem with them. This forum is the really the first place iv come across such open negative views in such number. I think if any kids do pick up such views it's from the parents whose views are becoming more open too.

I think it's worth pointing out that they can already adopt as well. I was mistaken before for thinking otherwise.

I did know someone with two dads. I knew them well enough to know they wouldn't have traded them in. They did get a bit of ribbing but that's generally part of being a kid. We all get it same sex parents or not. I think they would be twenty sevenish now and a lots changed again since they were at school too.

old guern

Why should there be only man/wmoan marriages? Let gay couples share in the misery!

guern abroad

It is not same sex marriage it is same sex civil partnerships. The sentiments might be the same but the legal position is different.

Each to their own we all walk the same life.

Family values have been broken by the dispobable world we live in, rather then work at something it is throw it away and start again and have another child. I do not see how this proposal will make any difference to that.

We should be supporting anything that helps people stay together and build strong relationships that last till death do us part regardless of sex.


Well said!

I really don't see how supporting people making a commitment to each other is detrimental to 'family values'?

It is encouraging to see so many other positive comments here too.

The racists and homophobes need to get over it and maybe take a look at their own failings and not those they profess to see in others?

sarnia expat

Dave P, whilst I might not be totally in favour of gay marriage per se, I think that your comments about 10 out of 11 child abusers being homosexual are completely ridiculous and totally without foundation.

Please can you provide us with the proof that this is the case? Can you tell me if Myra Hindley was gay? Can you tell me about Ian Brady - I know he was a nazi-loving sadist, but I wasn't aware he was gay. Rosemary and Fred West? The "loving parents" of Baby P? Come on. You are completely deluded.

Are you therefore concluding that it is better to be one of the many children Ms. Guernsey-Benefits has from her many different sperm doners, than to be the child who is really wanted and loved by two people who just happen to be the same sex?

Life has moved on. We have to move with the times too. I think the only one who is completely brainwashed is you, Dave P.


Ignore him, he's either a troll or unbelievably ignorant.


Time and again the church is attacked for its stance over marriage. In fact quite outside the church there are philosophical reasons for advocating the traditional understanding of marriage. It should be open to any parent/society to proclaim an ideal, viz marriage is a union of a man and a woman, the man employing his 'membrum virile' for the purpose of procreation. That ideal is consistent with Kant's categorical imperative:

'Act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature.' The positive affirmation of the traditional concept of marriage leads to the continuation of humanity.


The Church is attacked because it doesn’t practice what it preaches, Its full of sexual predictors.


I think you mean 'practise' and 'predators' (although, truth to tell, there will be lots of sexual predictors around for the next few months, telling us whether Kate is to bear a daughter or son).

But to return to your main point: shall we attack the concept of the States of Guernsey because some deputies fail?


It wasn't the point that some were predators it is that they were protected by others and enabled to harm and harm again.

Funny point about Kate! :)



Absolutely wrong for them to be shielded, whatever the institution - Church, BBC, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, asylums, etc.


Hartley, The human race has fought against nature, true, but they (we) have disobeyed the Creator, the one who designed and made human beings. He set up the human race, He set the rules for marriage and family. When we go against the makers instructions, there is a price to pay. If I buy a diesel car and decide to run it on petrol because it's cheaper, I will have a dysfunctional vehicle , not because the manufacturer punished me, but because in my "enlightened" state, I decided that I knew a better way or an alternative way.

To answer your question about flying in aircraft, it doesn't begin to compare. Life would continue very well indeed if aircraft were done away with tomorrow and life would continue for the next hundred years. Life on this planet would die out if it was restricted to this unnatural behaviour. Indeed, is this not, why you are pushing to be able to acquire children from those who procreate the way nature intended.

"Laws can be changed overnight" This is true, however, just because it's legal does not make it right. If any laws are passed permitting homosexuals to live together with a document, it will not be marriage, even if the piece of paper has that word "marriage" written across it. Marriage is between a man and a woman as many have pointed out above. I can see the attraction of labelling such an act "marriage" as it gives it an air of acceptability, but it does not change the facts.


I think you'll find 'he' exists only in your imagination. Therefore it is within the remit of society to decide what is right and what is not. The view of which can, and does, change over time. Your argument needs to stand up on that basis without invoking the bearded sky man.


1.Many philosophers and experts in jurisprudence would dispute your assertion. If a majority decided that theft was not a crime society could so legislate. However the legislation allowing theft would not necessarily be moral or just. And a natural law jurisprudence would say that there is something legally deficient about an unjust law.

2. I am weary of hearing about 'rights'. There is a philosophical argument that 'rights' only exist with complementary 'duties'. I haven't heard about 'duties' for the last twenty odd years.


You pitch in with an argument about theft? Probably not too much real debate about the 'morality' or legality of that eh?

It was once legal to beat one's wife and now it is not.

Marriage was once the preserve of the church but then along came civil marriage.

Mixed racial relationships were once illegal in South Africa and the Dutch Reformed Church found a basis in your bible for it.


Many examples of times changing.


We could use natural law to ban contraception, doesn't mean it would be a good decision, nor wise. Sometimes you have to use a bit of phronesis when making the big decisions in life Benedict.

Terry Langlois

I think that you are confusing "fact" with your belief.

Oh, and life on the planet will not die out - no-one is saying that it will be compulsory to be homosexual, just that those who are homosexual should have equal rights to those who are not.

So, if the Creator designed and made human beings, why did he make some of them love people of the same sex unless he wanted to, unless it was "natural" for some people to be that way?


1.'Love' is a word that has four different nouns in Greek. They were better at analysis. See C.S. Lewis 'The four loves'.

2. If I a male have 'eros' love for a female, it does not necessarily follow that it is moral for me to express it physically, however natural the inclination may be.

Terry Langlois

Morality is subjective and open to change. I would contend that the majority of our society now views homosexuality between consenting adults as being perfectly acceptable. Therefore, it ceases to be immoral in accordance with the moral standpoint of society as whole. Obviously there will always be some outliers in society who occupy the extremes and have different morals. They (in I include you in this based on your posts) are entitled to consider something to be immoral as far as their personal view of morality is concerned. But that does not mean that they can label it as generally immoral as if there are fixed boundaries of morality.

But we're not talking about homosexuality. It is a given that this is moral in today's society. We are talking about whether two homosexuals can marry. If their relationship is moral, how can a formalisation of that relationship not be moral?

By the way, all of your references to philosophers impress no-one and they are no substitute for reasoned argument. Try arguing the merits of the issue rather than making oblique references to what some other people may or may not have said in a different context. Philosphy can inform your debate, but not be a substitute for it.


Dear Terry,

Thank you for your post. I'm not trying to impress anyone with references to philosophers. European civilisation has a tradition of two and a half thousand years of logical debate - from Socrates through to Wittgenstein. I think that it is worth listening to what they have had to say. I think that you would find them rigorous in their logic if you were to read them. It seems to me to be lacking in humility to write off centuries of philosophy.

One reason for my making reference to Kant and others is simply to point out that much teaching about ethics comes from sources that have nothing to do with the church.


Terry/Doug, I believe you are the ones who are confusing the facts. The whole subject of who we are, where we came from, ultimate destiny etc is vast and it would not be possible to cover the subjects here.

There are some things that just do not change, whether we choose to believe them or not, it's a poor analogy, but I might not believe in gravity, but if I attempt to walk out of a top floor window, the facts would become very clear. Even good intentions count for nothing in these scenarios.

I understand that life will not die out as we still have a majority of people that act naturally and do as God instructed "Go forth and multiply"

There is nothing wrong with loving any sex or age, indeed love is another instruction given by God. It is when this love is perverted, that it becomes wrong. The Bible makes it clear that we should love our neighbour, that doesn't mean fornicating with him/her/them.

On your point about "Equal Rights", this is just a man made nonsense that doesn't and never will exist. Some can attend school others can't, some can claim a pension, others can't, some can drive, others can't. Some are permitted to use one set of showers, others are not. There is no equality and never will be. We are all "discriminated" against on a daily basis, either because of age, gender, health, intelligence, social standing etc. Discrimination is actually a poor word for discernment. The medical profession discern that a blind man will not make a good surgeon, the traffic officers discern that a ten year old should not drive a car, the Fire Service will discern that a 60 year old, 24 stone asthmatic, with a wooden leg will not be made welcome as a firefighter.

None of the above are being vindictive, it is just how life is.

Without foundations, the structure fails and we witness this crumbling on a daily basis.


Exactly, Disciple. There is so much discrimination in the world already, why add to it?


Look over your shoulder, the men in white coats may well be approaching..........




Ok - so you see angels in white coats.


Excellent post Terry ..level headed and to the point.


Perchance GSP is widening the net to maximise a celebratory cake tax proposal in the budget.


funny. My aunt who is the Mother Superior of one of the orders of nuns in Australia (and who was on national radio last week talking about child abuse) is one of the most supportive people of my relationship with my wife. How can being in a loving, stable relationship affect a child negatively?

What if you weren't allowed to marry your blue eyed or red haired partner for no reason? would you fight for equality? I am interested in how gay marriage actually affects outsiders PERSONALLY on a daily basis, other than hurting their feelings of 'morality'? as far as I can see it doesn't.


You're right. It doesn't.

I actually feel sorry for those people who seemingly carry around so much hate with them. It must be exhausting. And over something they don't even have to face on a daily basis? Madness. It's so much easier to just live and let live.

King Maker

Every six months or so we get the Gay story - which then rattles numerous cages and we have the whole 'pressure' the heterosexuals scenario.

Who gives a monkeys, Gay marriage - who cares - as these days anything goes and the wringing hand brigade will always back the weirdo's and the anti establishment.

Gay hypo marriages, same sex aardvark civil ceremonies etc. etc. bore off!

King Maker

Are gingers not legislated against?


Whats worse, Gingerism or racism? Could you be turned down for an acting role or modelling shoot for being red haired?


Gingerism IS Racism!


You can always dye your hair... but you can’t change what you are or feel.


you can try but the hair grows back! Funny how red is the most popular hair dye though. Red hair is awesome.


Before civil partnerships, Guernsey could think about getting rid of specific homosexual offences from its law. Just saw this:


Stephen - I don't think we want to see employees committing lewd acts on board ship as we embark on a family holiday and I don't want to have to navigate my way through men buggering each other, if I need to use a public toilet.

A man would not do this to a woman in those circumstances, in fact a man would be breaking the law if he committed those acts in his own home, let alone in public places.

There is no way, this should be permitted.

At present, these acts are done in out of the way places and usually at night, some necessitating climbing over walls as the areas are locked up. Lets not let it get any worse than that.

That said, I do feel sorry for the workmen that have to clean up after these individuals.


Can you please explain for the crowd exactly how allowing two people who love each other to get married instead of facing ignorance and discrimination would mean you having to 'wade past men buggering each other' ?

Do you wade past heterosexual couples enjoying sexual intercourse in public on a regular basis?

I'm going to assume not.

I will truly never understand why a handful of people are so hell-bent on preventing others being happy, especially when it costs them absolutely nothing to let them achieve it.


Hartley, it was in response to Stephens link. -

"Even the retention of a specific legal provision dealing with "sexual activity in a public lavatory" enforced in respect to male, homosexual sex."

I am quite glad that this is enforced.

I do not have to witness a woman being sodomized as this is against the law. The law has been altered to permit men and boys of 16 to have this done to them.

Women also use a separate toilet block.

It makes some people happy to take photos over toilet cubicles, others prefer to set fire to them or smash the basins, you can't let everybody do exactly as they please, I don't think you really think these things through, you just have tunnel vision to see homosexual lust permitted anywhere and everywhere.

Terry Langlois


The reason that you do not see men and women copulating in public is due to (a) common decency and decorum and (b) laws against public indecency.

The same applies to sex between same sex partners. You do not need a specific law to deal with homosexual acts, whether on a merchant ship, a toilet or wherever.

Sex between a man and woman is permitted on a merchant vessel but you don't see people going at it in the aisles. If they did they would be arrested for public indecency - laws which apply to same-sex displays of lewdity as well. So why the need to have an additional offence simply for homosexual acts?

It simply smacks of the institutionalised prejudice which you clearly have - the idea (based on ignorance) that homosexuals present a danger to others and have no ability to control their urges or to act with decency - which is clearly false.



I am only guessing, but the only reason that I can think homosexual activity might be singled out is that in the areas listed in that report, normally, men and women would be segregated ie public toilets. Ships, I guess are divided into male, female sleeping quarters.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were similar rules in army barracks etc.


You seem to know an awful lot about where and what goes on Jeffers. Not one of those dreadful closet cases are you? All very vocal and homophobic lest anyone guesses?


Doug, I have been involved with various cases unrelated to this topic, which brought many things to light. It is of no value to give details, needless to say that these activities do go on, but because of the law, they are conducted in secluded places and when the public are not around.

If it has to happen, then it is better happening as it is at present, rather than in public.


You are 'only guessing'? - you make some sweeping statements above but are only guessing?

As for the cases you've been involved with - were you found guilty or not?

Just admit you're common old homophobe and be done with it eh?


Doug - The person was found guilty, but not of anything of this nature, as I mentioned, the case was about something very different, the activities were incidental.


Y’alls missing the point, you fill your arguments with erroneous point like sexual activities, (my straight friends do way freaker stuff then I would ever dream of) and I have never ‘buggered on the street’ and inability to father a child, I’m confused to what you think I couldn’t teach my daughter and the naivety in thinking she wouldn’t have an abundance of female role models in friends and family.. and none of what I have just said really matters.

Firstly it’s as simple as two people loving each other and wanting that love recognised in the same way their friends love is.

Second marriage is more complicated now, so two people work for a company which offers a family health care system, the women’s husband gets ill and thankfully his is covered, the man’s boyfriend get ill, and while there is no difference in the time the couples have spent together or the amount they love each other the man’s boyfriend isn’t covered .. not fair

And finally.. Guernsey right? Who cares just let the gays get married.. there is really not that many gays on the island, even less couples, even less couples wanting to get married, if it was happening people wouldn’t even notice anyway, I can’t imagine the people arguing against it have many gay friends who are going to invite them to their weddings..


I have read through most of the threads, and I just have one comment, can someone convince me please that anal sex is a natural act. Thank you in anticipation of the many replies.

Terry Langlois

Define 'natural'.


I'm confused why you need to be conviced about anal sex..

although as they say don't knock till you try it


Again, what does it being a 'natural act' have to do with anything whatsoever?

I presume you're following the others' tack into saying unnatural = wrong, but Humans do unnatural things every single day, the vast majority of which are hugely beneficial to both themselves and others, even if only on a psychological level.

Let's try something different.

YOU convince ME that two consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to do things to each other in private which make them both feel amazing and affect nobody else.


A bit personal and not a thread I would normally leap into but I see absolutely nothing unusual about annual sex


Aw Ray you poor thing! Even if your long married I think your expectations should be a bit higher than once a year! :P


That is a new one to me - is this Beano and Dandy kind of thing?


The question is whether the other half goes elsewhere on the other 364 days of the year?


I'm gay, I've never had anal sex....*.hmmmm maybe I'll ask my girlfriend if she wants to try it tonight and I'll get back to you*

Oh, no need, I just asked a couple of my straight mates and it turns out that anal sex is not just for the gays, anyone can do it - another win for equal rights, anal sex for everyone, yay!!!


If only dogs could talk!


Call me old fashioned but I believe that 'two wrongs do not make a right!'

Probably going to be attacked

I really don't get the whole gay marriage thing. Marriage is something that happens between a man and a woman. A homosexual couple should be happy and comfortable in themselves and not feel the need to conform. Why do we have to change this. If I fell in love with my kettle surely I should be allowed to marry it?

I'm not a homophobe in the slightest I just don't get why certain things need to change. Have a ceremony and party then just legally become a couple.

People just need to be happy in life. It's like moaning about a woman's only gym.....people should just be happy with what they can use and there's a lot worse things happening in the world


I'm not attacking but firstly comparing a marriage between two humans to one with a human and a kettle.. no.. just no..

the problem is that it suggests one type of duel human love is different to another which is regarded as a suggestion that one isn't ligitimate or accepted.. not cool

It's not like moaning about women's only gyms it's like moaning about women not getting the vote, it's a human rights issue, it's a feeling of spending your life in school being bullied because people regard your sexuality as wrong, it's an unbelievably deep set desire because of something you can't help has branded you slightly more discrimated for your life.

honestly i think it's difficult for any straight person to understand and at the end of the day it comes down to do you really care that much?

How will it impact your life if gay people are allowed to get married? Is it really going to impact your life that much?

If the answer is that you don't care that much then just support it because there are gay people who care immensely about this decition who believe that it does make a differenct to their lives.


You can't have two gays getting married in a church, that's just no way right. Next we will have somebody asking for a casino in a church or a bluey.Have a register in the court building and sign a certificate of friends for life etc. Two people the same sex can't be married thats like America where they marry dogs and cats, its like a joke.Are they really talking about this at politicians meetings, really.


I am baffled that today in the 21st centuary this still causes such a stir for debate. I don't see this as a religious issue but more of a impingment upon an individuals human rights and am deeply saddend by some of the above comments. I was raised by Grandmother, a 96 year old strict Roman Catholic. In her life time she has lived through Two world wars, seen the abdication of the throne, women take to the picket lines for equality and the right to vote and yet she is still so much further forward in her beliefs than some of the above comments. To say it is wrong, immoral and unnatural for two men/ women to wish to express there feelings for each other in holy union is ridiculous,does my sexual orientation effect my morals or beliefs?? No. When we have moved so far forward in society to abolish racisim, equality between the sex's, social acceptance across religion and cultures it is sad to see Homo-phobia is still so prolific. Watch the news, the world over are shocked by the proposed legislation in Uganda, do not suggest for one moment you think this type of persecution is moral or correct in the eyes of the church or expresses equality amongst man-kind. My partner and I plan to tie our union by civil ceromony.I wait in anticipation for the day my rights are deemed socially acceptable and our union is recognised upon a level playing field.



You go on about the infringement of the human right of a gay couple to get "married" in Church. What about the human right of the minister at that Church. You also go on about Church. By using the name Church we assume you mean all places of worship. How about the Muslim faith can you see them agreeing to gay "marriage".

I'm sure the church can come up with a type of service for after a civil partnership as it does for those who enter a civil marriage.

Anyhow a Church marriage and for that matter a civil marriage talks about the honourable state of marriage between a man and a woman.



I use the word church as I do not believe there are any mosques in Guernsey that perform marriages and the law we are talking about only relates to Guernsey.

As I have explained above (kindly read) there is a human right to have no other human infringe upon by another human right and the human right regarding religion says that the right to practice religion is of course ok as long as it does not infringe on anothers as in accordance with the law. Discrimination is a human right being infringed upon and the human right discussing this right states no one is to be discriminated against and this right is to be given full protection of the law (i.e. no opt out clauses).

The minister does not have his human rights infringed upon because he is acting in a discriminatory manner. It anyone else acted in a discriminatory manner such as an person with strong personal beliefs they would have to recognise the law. You would not say they have had their human rights infringed.

I do not think it is acceptable for any religion to discriminate in this way and I would mention that there are Muslim mosques that do perform gay marriage. In the UK as they are changing the law currently it may allow mosques there for the first time to perform these ceremonies.

Yes I'm quite aware of what some Christians says marriage consists of. Its just that you do tend to pick and choose passages of the bible for whatever you believe is right or wrong (example slavery.) Which is why some Christians are happy to allow gay marriage. The quotes people use to validate discrimination towards homosexuals do tend to come out of Leviticus which is full of lifestyle advice which has been conveniently been ignored. I believe a lot of other posters have adressed the point above as well.

This however is all irrelevant as the view is discriminatory and that is the argument which should not be detracted from. Being religious does not exempt you from infringing on others human rights.


Dear Dani and Isaac - You really are taking this too personally. It is not the fact that true Christians do not like you, it is purely that the lifestyle seeking the blessing is in opposition to Gods commands and so it is not a vicar or denomination that turn you down for this particular request, they are merely doing Gods will. I would sincerely hope that you would be made very welcome at a Carol service , Bible Study, Worship service or funeral, it is just not possible to be a true Christian and do these things.

Now, some places with a steeple, don't go by the Bible anymore and they still call themselves Christian and so it would be very possible that this type of church would even employ a homosexual vicar, they probably don't believe in creation, miracles or the return of Christ, but they still have candles, sing religious songs and wear religious type clothing. I would imagine that they would conduct a service, whether they could call it marriage, I don't know, but they tend to make things up as they go, so maybe they would. Bible believing followers of Christ will remain unaffected and the religious liberal ones can conduct a service with no talk of Adam and Eve or sin or anything like that and so everyone will be content.



I'm not gay. I mentioned that before when you assumed that. Can you read what I'm saying please it really is rude not to.

You really need to take up your issues with other churches not me. The law is made by man and not god and you should really focus on that.



I am only trying to help you understand a news item and so I don't keep case notes! I haven't been blessed with a retentive brain like you have, but I do my best.

I haven't got any issues to take up with others on this matter, if some churches wish to go down this route, then that is up to them (as long as they don't pretend that they are acting in accordance with Gods will)

Human beings do make laws, and unfortunately, they are not always very wise ones as they tend to favour the perpetrators over the victims.

I think several contributers even today have added many different reasons why this suggestion cannot work and I have to question whether it might be you that might not "read what they are saying"


Dani, You comment on the fact that individuals reading The Bible reach different conclusions. This is correct and you are also right when you mention Leviticus. There are many things written in the Old Testament which appear strange to us today. The Old Testament was the law used up until the time of Jesus Christ's death and then we have the New Testament. You will find mention of homosexuality in the New Testament too. It is always described (The act, not the person with a hormone imbalance) as wrong and usually appears in lists of sins such as greed, immoral, and those given to rage and so homosexuality is not singled out.

If it helps, we are all sinners, it's just that some of us recognise it and acknowledge that we need help, hence asking for forgiveness from Jesus Christ. This is one of the reasons that we attend a church.

In Gods eyes, you are as important as any church regular.

Cher Eugene

Charles Dickens coined the phrase "The law is an ass" The Human Rights law is the biggest donkey of them all. It ranks with the dinosaurs and should, like them, be consigned to the dustbin of history.

On another tack, it annoys me that the homosexuals wish to ruin another good word. "Gay" was a splendid descriptive adjective - it is no longer possible to use it in this way. "Marriage" will go the same way if we let this tinkering with the law go through.

Personally, aged 79, I dont particularly care for myself but I am desparately concerned for my children and grandchildren.



Where did I mention a mosque in Guernsey. Nowhere. Don't read what isn't there.

Also are you aware what the civil marriage service consists of.

As to picking and choosing most mainstream Christians do not. Those that pick and choose are in the fringe.

I would suspect that in any religion there are those that pick and choose.



You asked me about what the Muslim faith and gay marriage. And immediately prior to that you reference consideration of all places of worship.

"You also go on about Church. By using the name Church we assume you mean all places of worship. How about the Muslim faith can you see them agreeing to gay “marriage”."

Yes Christians do pick and choose. Thats why there are so many divisions. People who practice in church and in private. You all entitled to believe what you like as long as you don't infringe on the human rights of others.

I'm quite curious - do you know me?



Thankfully not



You can't blame me for asking. Plenty of people comment on here, sometimes saying similar things to myself but you always have something to say to me when you do comment.

If you find the idea of knowing me so noxious you can always stop engaging with me...

St Marcouf

The concept of marriage, and the derivation of the word "marry", is uniquely heterosexual, i.e. a man and a woman come together as husband and wife.

It is not possible for two people of the same sex to come together as husband and wife, however much tinkering is done to the definition of marriage, unless the definitions of husband and wife are also changed.

Why, therefore, debase and interfere with the centuries old institution of marriage just to please and pacify the very small homosexual and PC minority, when homosexuals can easily be afforded their own equivalent of marriage which doesn't hijack the existing institution.

We should also not forget the Norman heritage of this island. So-called "gay marriage" would fly in the face of it and Norman law.





Don't let them get to you, they go on and on about how they are discriminated against and yet as soon as you don't let them have everything they want, they discriminate against people who see through their perverted ways. Last time they were banging on about 16 year old kids and anyone who didn't agree was homophobic, this time it seems as though we are people who make butter! Honestly that is quite desperate.

The shower who wrote the link above are the ones that are really scraping the barrel if the best they can insult you with is a story about people who enjoy museums.

There are still good sensible people that use common sense and decency as you can see throughout this discussion. Don't be put off by a minority of hollow tins, banging and clanging in an attempt to intimidate others.

Thank you Marcouf and others for keeping it real.

Don once upon a time was all summed up in one word beginning with P......!

Bob Holnes

Can I have a p please Bob?



Integral to the continuity of a liberal society is the capacity of its citizens to appreciate and embrace the different articles of faith that exist with in it. You should be deeply ashamed of yourself for using a word such as 'perverted'. Your fatuous remarks suggests that you lack the capacity to embrace contextual changes, but instead show hostility towards aspects of society that appear alien to you. DISGUSTING !



Just seen the perfect stocking filler for you. It's called The Horologican

by Mark Forsyth. I think you'll like it. :)


I'll have a look when I next get a chance. Sounds like it could be amusing!


Dictionary Perverted =Having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state.

Dictionary does not agree with you Ed.

Maybe you meant to write Integral to the continuity of a liberal society is the capacity of its citizens to procreate.

Just one more banging tin using cap lock to clang a bit louder.


What evidence do you have to prove that these people diverted from their course ? How do you know that some people do not naturally feel that way? These are some of the right-wing views that I disagree with. Perhaps you need education in being a more broad-minded citizen. Then again, it's impossible to transform the world view of some people. After all, a crab will never be made to walk straight...