Is it reasonable to equate gay marriage to inter-species relationships?

[sp1814]

This is something good old Melanie Philips alluded to in a recent article opposing gay marriages in the Daily Mail. Now Tory councillor James Malliff has taken up the cause:

http://www.guardian.c...ed-gay-marriage-tweet

Personally I don't get their point. Seems to be world of difference between walking down the aisle with someone of the same sex, to walking down the aisle with someone of a different species - for a start it would make the seating plan at thhe reception a nightmare.

Mental right wingers, or sensible conservatives (with a small 'c').

[emmie]

Not really, rather an unfortunate turn of phrase.

[BrainsTracy]

No, but I'm surprised that "marraige" is necessary, what purpose can it serve?

[anotheoldgit]

Is it not unusual for us all to make exaggerated comparisons, that are not meant to be taken seriously or literally?

We will soon all have to employ the services of a lawyer before we dare open our mouths.

[emmie]

AOG that was rather what i thought, every little comment, tweet, AB answer can be held against you, as though it's writ in stone, bizarre

[sandyRoe]

Shouldn't politicians consider their words carefully?

[anotheoldgit]

sandyRoe

/// Shouldn't politicians consider their words carefully? ///

Not only politicians it seems, even some ABers find it necessary to.

[emmie]

SR, they should, but surely we shouldn't be held to account for every little remark, to be pored over for slights or innuendo, this just leads to not being able to say anything that might upset someone, somewhere, very strange

[Davethedog]

Its just an insult to the gay types, for some reason they take against gay people and are then allowed to insult them at will.

I find it strange this degree of insult and am with whoever it was, who stated that people who are so openly homophobic, are afraid of thier own sexuality, and fear that they are also gay. (Paraphrase obviously)

[flip_flop]

The first Mrs flip_flop was most definitely a different species....

[andy-hughes]

Is it reasonable?

Only if you are a closet Nazi - otherwise, no.

AOG - yes we do make comparisons not intended to be taken seriously - but we also have an in-built common-sense filter that stops us from making stupid crass insulting and homophobic comparisons - that is where the difference lies.

Trying to defend this odious man by hinting that maybe he didn't mean it is really heading down the same path of reasoning - I can say what I want, and if people are offended, than that's their fault.

Next you 'll be agreeing with people who 'believe in plain speaking', which they think gives them carte blanche to be offensive as and when they please.

A little thought and consideration goes a long way - especially in politics.

[flip_flop]

Andy - if there is one thing that has always wound me up, it is people proudly boast that they "speak their mind" as though it is admirable and an asset, when in fact it is neither.

[sp1814]

em10

This wasn't a simple slip.

Malliff wrote: "There is no doubt the PM is wrong on this issue. We may as well legalise marriage with animals, crude I concede but no apology."

Another tweet on his feed read: "Great keynote address by David Cameron, not sure about legalising gay marriage though, what happened to sanctity of marriage #odd." The tweets have since been removed.

In a statement to the Press Association, Malliff admitted his comments were "ill-conceived and crude".

The point Mr Malliff was trying to make (he explained later) is that he was trying "to establish where we draw the line on these things".

[emmie]

so he has apologised, shouldn't that be the end of the matter.

[sp1814]

Personally, I think that rather than forcing him to withdraw the statement, those that disagree or are offended by his remarks should have challenged him:

"Are you saying that a marriage between two loving people of the same sex is as bizarre as a marriage between a farmer and a Fresian, or a horticulturalist and a marrow?"

Better to challenge someone's world view in these situations. Now the chance is lost.

[sp1814]

em10

Hang on...he's opened A debate (well, not exactly - Melanie Philips said the same thing earlier this year) - so it should be okay to discuss it. Leaving aside what his party has done, and his apology, the idea is still out there, and if people really DO believe that gay marriage can be equated to bestiality, should we keep quiet and not question that position?

[andy-hughes]

If he had used a little thought and sensitivity, he wouldn't have needed to be 'forced' to apologise.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

/// Is it reasonable? Only if you are a closet Nazi - otherwise, no. ///

What on earth has that got to do with it?

Do you know for a fact that he is a 'closeted Nazi'?

If not then you especially should not be criticising him for his homophobic remarks, when you yourself are prepared to issue out much more serious accusations against him, or anyone else for that matter.