Student fury at gay marriage petition names

Published on Thursday 15 December 2011 12:03

CAMPAIGNERS behind a petition against Scottish Government proposals on gay marriage have been criticised for allowing the names of Edinburgh students to be signed up to the document without their knowledge.

Scotland for Marriage has attracted more than 9000 online signatures from those opposed to the consultation on the controversial issue within the last two weeks.

Yesterday, it emerged that at least 27 students, most of them thought to be from Edinburgh University, had been added to the petition without their knowledge.

Many of them had been working on the students’ association rival campaign for gay marriage, suggesting the move had been malicious.

The names were all uploaded from the same computer, according to the website administrator.

The National Union of Students criticised the Scotland for Marriage movement – backed by the Archbishop of Edinburgh Cardinal Keith O’Brien and other high-profile figures – for allowing the students to be added to the public document.

In response, the faith movement said it had been targeted by “malicious individuals” trying to discredit the petition, including those who had posted numerous messages of abuse to them.

Matthew McPherson, president of Edinburgh University Students’ Association (EUSA) and one of those whose name appeared on the list of supporters, said: “As someone who represents an organisation which has thrown its weight behind the campaign for equal marriage, I must say I was surprised, to say the least, when I saw my name on this petition.

“What’s most concerning for the Scotland for Marriage campaign is that it throws every one of their signatures into disrepute.”

Fellow student Stuart Tooley added that he and his friends had been targeted. He said: “In my view, this petition is totally discredited, and the MSPs should take no notice of it.”

The Scottish Government has promised to consult on new legislation allowing gay marriages in churches.

Currently only an e-mail address is needed to sign up to the petition, but Scotland for Marriage said it would be considering more stringent controls.

Spokesman Colin Hart said: “Prior to this we’ve had people uploading obscene names, quite anti-Roman Catholic sentiment, pretty nasty stuff.

“Despite that we are determined to continue with our petition.

“We’ve removed those whose names have been added to the list without their knowledge.”

Comments

There are 54 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 4

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next >
• Show all

54

Hugh Oxford

Saturday, December 17, 2011 at 11:48 AM

#53 Trainspotter, this is precisely about radically and profoundly redefining the meaning of marriage in a contradictory manner that essentially changes it to be something utterly divested of its universally established nature and purpose. What else is it about? As I said before, anyone can get married. It is a human right. If it became a human right to drive a car, would it become an automatic human right by extension to drive a bus? That is basically what your argument amounts to.

• Report Unsuitable

53

trainspotter

Saturday, December 17, 2011 at 11:15 AM

#Do not patronise me. Are you an English teacher perchance. As I said before, this isn't about defining the meaning of marriage is about the rights of Human beings who are presently excluded.there is absolutely no reason why ''Marriage'' should not be redefined to include, as you say ''conflicting and contradictory'' meanings. There are already plenty of existing examples in the English language. How about... Dust: To add fine particles, or to remove them or.. Flog: To promote persistently, or to criticize or beat. Which you are doing consistently just now to a dead horse. Now go and take your out-dated ideas and morals and hide under the bed before the big bad bogeyman comes and makes you gay.

• Report Unsuitable

52

Hugh Oxford

Saturday, December 17, 2011 at 10:35 AM

#51 Trainspotter, you seem to have a very negative, even derisory view of marriage. Do you not think you should recuse yourself from discussions on its nature and purpose? I don't like football very much, which means I tend to stay out of discussions about it, having very little personal interest. But anyway, the burden of proof on you now is to demonstrate why the word "marriage" in a legal sense can or should be redefined to incorporate two conflicting and contradictory meanings. On you go.

• Report Unsuitable

51

trainspotter

Saturday, December 17, 2011 at 10:18 AM

#50..... NO, NO, NO. The whole point of this debate is that Gay people cannot marry. So NO Not ''anybody can marry. It's a human right''.....By definition.... a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this. If this definition needs to be changed to include between same sex, so be it. I'm not going to respond to the rest of your ramble but Yes, it does make sense to re-define the word marriage, and No it wouldn't lead to the subversion of an out dated contract, that ultimately leads to divorce and misery, for both parties, as it stands now

• Report Unsuitable

50

Hugh Oxford

Saturday, December 17, 2011 at 10:02 AM

#48 Trainspotter, anybody can get married. It's a human right. The question here is, what is marriage? What is its nature and purpose? What is the rationale behind the state codifying and recognising it? Does the state have the right to redefine it? Does it make any sense to redefine the word "marriage" to mean both marriage and its antithesis? Would such an endeavour amount to a subversion of marriage? These are the questions that need to be answered by the proponents of marriage redefinition, not by the defenders of marriage as it is universally understood.

• Report Unsuitable

49

trainspotter

Saturday, December 17, 2011 at 09:39 AM

#47 Hugh..... It's about giving everyone the freedom to CHOOSE whether to marry or not, gay or straight. And your comments about homosexuality are totally uninformed. Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice. I don't expect to wake up one day and decide'' Oh I think i'll be Gay this week'' There is no more likelihood of Homosexuality being '' Universally Adopted'' than there is of my left leg being made of cheese. You Sir are nothing more than a moralistic, ill-informed homophobe and your so called ''logic is totally illogical

• Report Unsuitable

48

Hugh Oxford

Saturday, December 17, 2011 at 09:24 AM

#45. Dannyboy, try to look at the big picture. Try to step back from the map. Post-Christian pro-gay, pro-abortion liberal western societies are withering and dying. We have no children. We have to import people from religious conservative cultures half way across the globe to fill the hole left behind. Isn't that obvious to you? Can't you see it with your own eyes? The only tide is the tide going out. Everyone else in the world can see we are lemmings walking towards the cliff. Why can't we?

• Report Unsuitable

47

Hugh Oxford

Saturday, December 17, 2011 at 09:18 AM

#46. Trainspotter, if that is the case, where does that leave your position? If you think the state doesn't need to legitimise marriage (authentic marriage that is), then why do you think it needs to redefine it and give legal status and recognition to homosexuality? What is the purpose and rationale of the state recognising and subsidising a lifestyle which if it was universally adopted would wipe out humanity in a single generation? How is that equality? How is that rational? How is that NOT social suicide? As I said before, forget religion, forget morality, forget 2000 year old books and men in frocks. Please, defend this move on Enlightenment grounds. Defend it using the reasoning of Hume and Locke. Defend it using logic.

• Report Unsuitable

46

trainspotter

Saturday, December 17, 2011 at 08:44 AM

#36 Hugh Morris the Scotland for Marriage group-backed by the Archbishop of Edinburgh Cardinal Keith O'Brien brought religion into it, and I responded. And the union of a man and woman, being essential to the common good does not have to be legitimised by a contract. So take your nineteenth century views and opinions, and go join Scotland for marriage. There again you probably have

• Report Unsuitable

45

Dannyboy

Friday, December 16, 2011 at 11:49 PM

#41 Hugh Oxford Oh... oh! Your feet are getting wet Shuggie! Keep shouting at the tide though (but people are starting to stare).

• Report Unsuitable

44

Artemis

Friday, December 16, 2011 at 10:14 PM

#19 - do you really believe that if gay people were not allowed to marry each other they would go off and marry someone of the opposite sex instead? Gay people marrying makes absolutely no difference to straight people marrying. The only people it makes a difference to is themselves. It doesn't hurt you if gay people marry, it doesn't hurt me, it doesn't hurt anyone. Your arguments are stupid, facile, specious, idiotic, moronic and cockwomblish.

• Report Unsuitable

43

Peterperfect

Friday, December 16, 2011 at 08:26 PM

Just like to add that these days the pressure is to consider GAY as the norm. What will I tell the kids, have fun with uncle Elton and David and meet their kid who will all give you great upbringing tips?

• Report Unsuitable

42

Peterperfect

Friday, December 16, 2011 at 08:20 PM

Can they not put gay marriage on the XMAS agenda v conception of life and the ramifications there of? Point of view that is now described as homophobic. Thank god that the major religions and societies are actually disgusted by all this.

• Report Unsuitable

41

Hugh Oxford

Friday, December 16, 2011 at 04:46 PM

#37 Dannyboy, there is no tide. All polities that have redefined marriage in this specious way share the same problem: they are dying out as the population collapses. This is the inevitable consequence of a confused and disordered society in which love, marriage, sex and procreation have become divorced.from one another. So "same sex marriage" is not so much a tide as a death rattle. It's meaningless, a flash in the pan, a footnote in the obituary of societies to be written by others. It's part of the culture of death. And cultures of death die.

• Report Unsuitable

40

A Friend of Fernando Poo

Friday, December 16, 2011 at 04:10 PM

I wonder how many of the ant-equality people are divorced? Divorce has done a lot more to harm marriage than other people getting married possibly could, but they're very quiet about that.

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 4

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next >
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.