Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Census campaign calls for people to list their religion as ‘lesbian’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Stuart Neyton 24 Mar 2011, 4:27pm

    Why is my sexual orientation any of the government’s business??

    1. Agree: this is a crazy idea… if you’re not religious for God’s sake say so….! Telling the Government you are “lesbian” under the religious question is very mis-guided (and may result in more people being categorised as “religious” …. and we all know what comes from that…… !)

    2. Why is your ethnicity the governments business?

      1. Because they haven’t a bloody clue since the last bunch let everyone walk in for thirteen years.

        1. PumpkinPie 27 Mar 2011, 4:47am

          That’s a different issue. Ethnicity says nothing about your immigration status. I’ve been a British citizen since birth, my father having been born in a British protectorate, where his family lived for a couple of generations since emigrating from their ancestral home in Scotland. And yet I’m still counted as “White Other” (or whatever it’s called now), thanks to my mother’s South American heritage.

          Basically, MoocyCoo’s point still stands.

    3. FeministSmithie 24 Mar 2011, 6:16pm

      Isn’t the point of the campaign to raise awareness about the queer population? The campaign is in the queer community’s favor.

      I agree with MoocyCoo, it’s not their (or anyone’s) *business* what your ethnicity is, nor your gender, nor your relationship status. However, it is in the interest of the entire queer community for us to get as much awareness as possible.

      1. But not under the Religion question, in my opinion.

        1. FeministSmithie 25 Mar 2011, 12:15am

          I agree! I’m lucky enough to have been able to register my sexuality under the partnerships question, but would it be possible for someone to write in both no-religion and lesbian?

          1. I’m not sure – I’ve been avoiding looking at the form after the initial flick-through to see how many questions there were :D

            I’d guess that there wouldn’t be space though – not to write both things.

      2. The queer community? I’m not queer I’m gay….queer makes like there is someting wrong with you!

        1. FeministSmithie 25 Mar 2011, 12:14am

          Such labels are personal choices. I prefer ‘queer’ for its inclusion of anyone who defies normative sexuality, and its rejection of the gender binary: I’m not just a (cis)woman who loves women, but an individual who doesn’t adhere to heteronormativity!

        2. I find ‘Queer’ offensive and ‘community’ a complete misnomer and joke. How would you feel as part of a “Nigga Collective”?
          In my mind it’s the same thing and just as nasty.

        3. Everyone has diferent views on what’s ofencive and not. In school my friends used to joke and call me a fag and I did not find that ofencive but the word faggot I would find ofencive.

      3. “queer” i loathe that word, to me it implies abnormal.

        1. FeministSmithie 26 Mar 2011, 12:36pm

          who wants to be ‘normal?’

          Who wants to perpetuate the status quo?

          1. I do. Most gay people just want to be treated the same as everyone else. Is there so much wrong with that?
            Go back to your Wimmin’s collective and go grow some vegan dungarees or whatever the hell it is you do.

    4. Just want to make it clear I have not and do not support this campaign; my tweet was a personal cheeky question meant to provoke a debate, it was not associated with Stonewall in any way. Stonewall used my image and name without my consent in their e-newsletter; they have apologised to me and the matter is closed. I don’t care what people put on their census; but I do care that queers are counted, in the right & proper way, and I hope there is a question on the next census about sexuality (if there even is another census!)

  2. DUMB IDEA PUT NO RELIGION FFS

    1. I agree – it’s VITAL you put NO RELIGION if you are not religious.

      This is a silly, conuterproductive idea. Please reject it.

  3. Noble cause – if they asked about orientation on the census then we could finally get realistic numbers and statistics on how many gay people there are in the country, and where there are more of us and such. It’s important and useful information.

    However, the same applies for religion. The government needs to know how many people believe in what and where these people are so that they can adjust funding and such accordingly. Putting anything but ‘No Religion’ if you’re not religious is foolish and means atheism gets under-represented.

    1. But would the numbers be realistic? As an example, I know a gay man who is married to a woman – I doubt he’d be ticking any gay box on a census. Not everyone is free to truly declare their sexuality. Another example is a teenager who’s not yet out. I’d bet their parents will be supervising the filling in of the form and they could hardly tick the gay box without anyone noticing. Unless it was completely secret, like an election, then I don’t think we could rely on the figures.

      1. The religion figures are just as skewed though, if not more so. People might answer that they are religious when they’re not in cases similar to the ones you’re listing as well as just out of habit. Therefore surely a question about sexuality can’t be viewed as invalid just because the numbers are likely to be unrealistic.

        1. Very true, Oscar. I’ve heard people talking about what to tick in the religion box and it seems more like they’re discussing tactical voting in an election than there real beliefs.

          My fear is that any sexuality question would give a significantly lower number than reality and could then be an excuse to give LGBT people low priority. I also remember that recent survey (sorry – I can’t even remember who it was by) that suggested the number of LGBT people was only 1% and was leapt on by fundie nutters in their usual barking mad and spiteful way.

      2. Nick Maxwell 25 Mar 2011, 1:46pm

        Iris, until such times as government forms etc actually recognise sexuality, and when it’s so everyday and “accepted” then of course people will be hiding their sexuality. I work with the Opening Doors London project for older LGBT men and women, many of whom have spent half their lives criminalised. If they didn’t stand up for our rights we’d have little protection today, so now it’s our turn to stand up and be counted for the sakes of future generations how won’t have to hide who they are… Count me in as a lesbian gay man on the census. great idea!!

    2. “We could finally get realistic numbers and statistics on how many gay people there are in the country” – I’m sorry, but I disagree. I’m 18 years old, bisexual and still living with my parents. I’m not out yet. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve even fully come to terms with my sexuality yet. I wouldn’t feel comfortable putting it down on paper for my mum and dad to see. Especially since my father isn’t exactly the most liberal/tolerant person around. Quite the contrary, actually.

      In an ideal world, asking about sexual orientation in a census would be a good idea and would prove to be helpful in finally discovering the true numbers, but this world is far from ideal.

      But I agree with you to an extent, I think that we should have the option to state our sexual orientation if we wish.

  4. As usual. Too little too late.
    The Census has to be handed in by the 27th.

    Gay people = Brewery, piss-up, organise.

    1. Paddyswurds 24 Mar 2011, 6:53pm

      …the census must be filled out on the 27th and not before and post soon as possible afterwards, according to the forms i have in front of me as i write. and can also be filled out online on that date and the forms destroyed.

  5. Census forms are not confidential within a household (i.e. everyone else can see what you write). If there were a question about sexuality, many people would answer inaccurately and the results would show fewer LGB people than there really are.

    If we want to know LGB numbers, the methodology of the census is not the best way to find out.

    1. Galadriel1010 24 Mar 2011, 6:11pm

      If you’re over 16 you can apply to fill out a seperate one so that other people don’t see it.

      1. Paddyswurds 24 Mar 2011, 6:42pm

        …or do it online….

        1. But violent daddy might want to know why you want a seperate form.

          1. There are relatively few people in that situation, and even if no under-18 was able to list themselves as gay at least we’d get numbers for the adult gay population, which is better than nothing.
            Similarly, many young people are not ‘out’ as atheists to their families, yet the religion question isn’t questioned in this way.

  6. No. Don’t do this. If the answer is “no religion” then put “no religion”.

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 8:53am

      Yep, to be honest I think they does make sense and is what I do.

      We don’t need to give those bigots the fuel by adding the numbers.

  7. Don’t be labelled religious if your not..

    This will do more harm than good for our community, protest elsewhere.

  8. Whilst I’m sure that the ideas behind this whole campaign are very well-intentioned, I’m opposed to the idea of a question about sexual orientation on the census. It’s kind of a personal question and none of the Government’s business. Also, as other posts have pointed out, LGB people who are in the closet will probably just answer “straight” if there is a chance that anyone else in their household will read the form.

    1. FeministSmithie 25 Mar 2011, 12:20am

      Sexuality can be a personal issue when society justly allows people to safely practice their sexuality. Until then, it Must be a political issue! We cannot afford to hide in the shadows and perpetuate the ignorance and homophobia. We all have a moral duty to come out for the interest of our community, and so that the next generation can come out without fear.

  9. George Broadhead 24 Mar 2011, 5:40pm

    Given that governments have used census results to justify granting religious institutions grossly unfair privileges, including setting up more and more faith schools which have been shown to have a higher incidence of gay bullying, it is vital that LGBT people who are non-believers (atheist, agnostic, Humanist etc.) put “Non-Religous” on the form.

  10. Paddyswurds 24 Mar 2011, 6:39pm

    Well i would expect nothing better from the vile Amy Lamé.
    What utter utter rubbish. The whole idea is just what we have come to expect from this contemptible woman and she sets back the whole campaign for respect for GLBs a hundred years. Ignore the whole idea and fill out the census form as required by law.

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 8:56am

      Actually Amy is a friend of mine and far from comtemptible. Guess it’s you that is comtempible, vile, hypocritical…. the list goes on.

      1. Paddyswurds 25 Mar 2011, 11:05am

        Jock S. Trap… Figures…..What has her relationship to anyone to do with anything. I have been unfortunate enough to have heard her banal wittering on the radio and i’m not in the least surprised you are friends, having witnessed on these threads your equally banal wittering… Believe me it pleases me no end that you in particular would find me contempible (whatever that is), vile hypocritical etc because i would be greatly distressed if you found in me, a kindred spirit. You are neither educated or intelligent and certainly not socialised.

        1. Paddyswurds 25 Mar 2011, 11:09am

          cont….and i have serious doubt’s as to whether or not you are even house trained……

        2. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 3:25pm

          You? Kindred spirit? No, don’t make me laugh. Hysterical Hateful Racist Bigot? Definitely.

          1. Paddyswurds 25 Mar 2011, 4:54pm

            And you being an expert racist bigot would know all about that, now away and check if there are there any Asians peeping in at you…..

          2. Paddyswurds 25 Mar 2011, 5:00pm

            Again you can’t read. I didn’t say we were kindred spirits.. Don’t you understand the english language…..
            Now go look in a mirror and repeat “I must try not to be a Hysterical Racist Facist Bigot.!!”

      2. Brent Martin 25 Mar 2011, 11:18am

        As the author of the original piece in The Guardian from which this story was taken, what wasn’t published was the fact that Amy Lame actually backtracked on this stupid idea by removing her tweet from her twitter feed after I publicised it on my blog. She also blocked me on twitter! Thats no way to engage with people in a proper debate!!!

        Check here for my blog post:

        http://thedailyzeitgeist.com/2011/03/06/amy-lame-backtracks-on-putting-lesbian-as-religion-on-the-census-tweet-deleted/

        1. This is toooooo funny. Ben Zeroskills gets his policy direction from off the cuff and humourous comments from Amy Lame. Comments that, while funny, even she thought the better of on reflection.

        2. Paddyswurds 25 Mar 2011, 5:05pm

          Sounds as if she is as big a fool as some of her “friends” on here.

          1. But not as big a fool as you.

  11. What a stupid campaign, shoulda guessed it would have the support of summerskill. Even if there was a question on sexual orientation included , there would not be true representative figures. We all know there are many peeps who are on the down low/ teenagers who have not come out to families etc .. so any figure would not reflect the reality.

  12. Guglielmo Marinaro 24 Mar 2011, 6:50pm

    Just one thought. If there were a question about sexual orientation in the Census, would paedophiles who molest children only or mainly of the same sex list themselves as “gay”? I wouldn’t want that, but there would be no way of stopping them. What do other people think?

    1. I doubt any of them are gay. I know I read about a survey of paedophiles in which only about 1% identified as gay, even though many molested children of the same sex (if you think about it, children are similar to adult women more than they are to adult men).

      1. “if you think about it, children are similar to adult women more than they are to adult men”

        What on earth does this mean?

  13. Keith Lynwood 24 Mar 2011, 6:58pm

    If there is a choice of ticking a box marked non religious or the same box that fred phelps wuld tick. I know which one I would choose.

  14. With friends like Ben Summerskill, who needs enemies? This idea is daft in all directions.

    Firstly, like many census questions, questions about religion and sexuality are intrusive. You don’t have to be in the closet to feel that ‘MYOB’ is an appropriate response. We’d be under-represented for all sorts of reasons on a sexuality question, so it would seriously backfire on us.

    Secondly, very few people would choose to respond to a religious question with a sexuality answer, so the bigots could claim that only 0.01% or whatever of people are gay.

    Thirdly, anything other than ‘No Religion’ confuses and dilutes the non-religious percentage.

    Fourthly, why on earth should gay men say they’re lesbian? Not only is Ben advocating sexism, but the Hate Mail et al would soon seize on the ‘gay men are officially effeminate’ implication. Ben should have at least asked us to respond either ‘Lesbian’ or ‘Gay’ as appropriate.

    The best thing Ben could do is to shut up and stand down !

  15. Mumbo Jumbo 24 Mar 2011, 7:45pm

    As others have pointed out, if you are not religious, then you must tick “No religion”.

    By putting “Lesbian” or “Jedi” or any other “amusing” or self-indulgent invention, you will be counted as “Other” religion and your answer will then be used by the religious lobby to support faith schools who will teach the next generation that you are evil and faith leaders in Parliament who will vote against your human rights.

  16. It’s the religious twats who are infringing upon the rights of gay people.

    If you want to help gay rights, put ‘No Religion’.

    1. Absolutely!

  17. David Skinner 24 Mar 2011, 8:33pm

    Ben Summerskill poking his nose again into our private lives! What the blue blazes has it got to do with him whether one has a fancy for Welsh Cross – dressers with Chippendale legs or teapots with either bent or straight spouts?

    One good thing I suppose is that it gives the lie to the claims, made by some, that gays, standing on their own two feet, have no need of religion. Ben has more or less admitted that they worship the vagina and penis. This is nothing less than pagan idolatry going back thousands of years to the worship of asherah, baal and artemis.

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/japan/100315/japan-penis-japanese-vaginas

    It is wonderful when it comes from the horse’s own mouth.

    1. Well of course, Christianity itself, invented by St Paul, simply borrowed from other mythologies that existed in Egypt, Babylon and Ancient Greece. Virgin births, resurrections, water into wine and all the other cheap party tricks reportedly performed by the supposed Jesus of Nazareth have been dreamt up many times before.
      (Funny how all Abrahamic superstitions actually HATE the birth canal).

      Darwin had much better answers – the Road to Damascus is a two way street, David. I invite you to walk away from infantile nonsense, that even my own god son can see through, this evening.

    2. “OUR private lives”, David?? So you include yourself in the LGBT group then? Or has your anger with the nasty gay boss who didn’t appreciate you got so extreme, the “peacock” as you called him has actually taken over your mind??

      I hope so – because I’m sure he’s a much nicer person and doesn’t share your perverted little fantasies.

    3. “Ben has more or less admitted that they worship the vagina and penis”

      Good lord, he’s off again on penisis….. I believe the clinical term for what Skinner suffers from (among other things) is mentulomania. He should seek help.

  18. Do you really want your sexual orientation stored on a central government database for future less scrupulous government’s to gain easy access too? Nope, thought not. Yet another in a long line of reasons why Stonewall and Zeroskills – no doubt calling for this absurd, double-loaded strategy at the behest of his Fabian masters – is out of ideas and out of time.

  19. Rubbbbbbish. All the questions about marriage/relationships have clear, equal options for straight and same sex couples.

  20. Write LGBT in the national identity question 24 Mar 2011, 9:15pm

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Make-LGBT-people-visible-in-the-Census/156937164359592
    The way to avoid the religion issue is by using the ‘national identity’ question, in the ‘other’ box write LGBT.
    That’s if you are out and have no problem recording that, as is the case for many of us. It is a protest, slightly jokey like the Jedi thing but like that does carry a serious point. If this data is used to design services, how do council’s know how many LGBT older people, or LGBT younger people, LGBT disabled people, etc, etc are in their area.

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 12:48pm

      I thought question 17 was funny because it only is a question in Wales isn’t it. Can you read, speak and/or write Welsh? I think it should be in the English one too… Can you read, speak and/or write English?

  21. David Skinner 24 Mar 2011, 9:29pm

    By defining oneself by any sexual behaviour ( the word homosexual has the word sexual in it and please, Ben, I do not define myself as a heterosexual; I am just a man) as being equivalent to being religious is nothing less than pagan idolatry going back thousands of years to the worship of asherah, baal and artemis.

    And by defining one’s sexual behaviour as being equivalent to race is just bad science . This requires the kind of faith that would make a witch doctor green with envy. Some people have escaped from Gaytranselvania . Get over it.

    1. Get ovet it? Only if you get the treatment you so clearly need, David. I can’t believe you’re sitting there frothing away again on a gya site all because of a little vendetta against a gay boss. Do you not realise we PITY you?

      How Jesus would appreciate your quest to discriminate and bully gay people – NOT. Grow up and sort yourself out.

    2. Now he’s on to “idolatry”. Yawn. He must have gotten as far as “i” in the dictionary now. Tuesday we were at “d”. Not bad progress for someone with acute mentally damage like Skinner. They might even let him out for good behaviour.

    3. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 8:59am

      Oh dear, I see the morons back!

    4. Skinner wants to be a cocksucker ahh bless

    5. I think maybe you do define yourself by your sexuality, Mr Skinner. Conducting a campaign against people of a certain sexual orientation is a constant reminder and reference to your own in opposition to theirs. The way I see it, you are every bit as defined by sexuality as the people you oppose. It can’t change; it’s an integral part of who you are. How then do you presume to criticise other people for wanting to define their sexuality? Yours is a hypocrisy of the highest order.

      Muppet.

      1. Excellent point, sven!

    6. Mumbo Jumbo 25 Mar 2011, 1:29pm

      The bitch is back.

  22. If people feel strongly about it they could always just put gay/lesbian/bi/trans in the Q17 box (the ‘intentionally left blank’ one). No good for those in Wales and would probably be ignored though, but I certainly intend to tick the no religion box

  23. David Skinner 24 Mar 2011, 10:10pm

    Bully you Iris. Never let it be said. Suggest a way out perhaps – but never bully.
    You don’t have to remain behind the Gaytanselvanian curtain. You can choose to leave. Or would you not even allow others this choice?

    1. LOL! Still crying becuase your gay boss picked on your Davie? Ahhhhh…… did he make you cry, or were you just aroused?

    2. David, that would be like me suggesting that if only you woke up you could find a way out of your marriage and away from your wife…

      ‘Jesus’ isn’t the opposite of gayness. Only people like you seek to place them in opposition and portray gay people as the enemy, just as previously women/black people etc were ‘the enemy’. That says more about relgion’s need for an enemy to further its control of people.

      There’s no difference between loving consensual adult relationships between two people of the opposite sex or two people of the same sex.

    3. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 9:04am

      “Or would you not even allow others this choice?”

      That coming from you is rich. And pray, what choice do You give to the LGBT community?

      None, you dictate, because being true to yourself you know full well that if it was about choice you wouldn’t even be here.

      What a bloody hypocrite and from someone that chooses a religious lifestyle and thinks he has the right to dictate how people are born.

    4. I bet skinner would like a big throbbing unsheathed member up his back passage

      1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 11:07am

        Up norf I think they call em Binmen James!

  24. How bizarre!!! to list ones religion as “Lesbian”, some people really do have some strange suggestions. I don’t think its the governments business or anyone elses for that matter!!!

  25. DJ Sheepiesheep 24 Mar 2011, 11:57pm

    “Lesbian” and “Jedi” for religion. Pah! This time round I’m putting “Sith”. Go on, give in to the dark side…..you know you want to.

  26. What about atheists? We’ll be under-represented!

  27. I’m out of the country at the moment but can you put civil partners and religious on the form. Surely that shows that religion is open to all including gay people. I think the lesbian idea is a bit naff and people should just fill in the box correctly. The problem is that many people just say they’re chrisitan becuase they’ve been taught RE at school and have been to church once in a blue moon. Perhpas the box should say regualr church goers or something, it’s difficult to say not religious when you’ve been brough up with somekind of religious background, however minor, it’s kinda of imprinted on you. The sexual orientation box has proved not to work in the past since people don’t always fill it in truthfully. It’s still a bit of a sensitive issue and having a crap percentage figure is worst than having no figure.

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 9:06am

      Yes, Civil Partnerships are included on the form.

  28. It’s pretty worrying that the head of Stonewall is pedalling this ill-conceived nonsense. I wonder what Stonewall’s trustees would think of it?

    Then again, they’ve already shown their lack of teeth.

  29. This is a moronic idea.

  30. I have to agree that this is pretty stupid. Like others have said, it’ll raise the ‘religion’ count by people who would normally define themselves and not religious. The very LAST thing we need is to give more fuel to religious groups to spread their hate.

    Does Ben Summerskill actually think about things before he does them?

    (Or supports them, in this case)

  31. Brent Martin 25 Mar 2011, 11:19am

    As the author of the original piece in The Guardian from which this story was taken, what wasn’t published was the fact that Amy Lame actually backtracked on this stupid idea by removing her tweet from her twitter feed after I publicised it on my blog. She also blocked me on twitter! Thats no way to engage with people in a proper debate!!!

    Check here for my blog post:

    http://thedailyzeitgeist.com/2011/03/06/amy-lame-backtracks-on-putting-lesbian-as-religion-on-the-census-tweet-deleted/

  32. Why not just state at the end of the form in a blank space that you’re gay or lesbian? In any case, even if there were a provision to tick sexual orientation, I really don’t think all gays would tick it, so it makes no sense. There will always be paranoid, closeted gay people and they for sure aren’t going to reveal their orientation regardless.

  33. I put Greenpeace as my ‘religion’, but put :gay human being :in the ‘national identity box’.

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 25 Mar 2011, 1:35pm

      Unless you want to be counted as “Other” religion and therefore boost the apparent number of believers so leading to more faith schools teaching that you are evil, more religious figures in parliament voting against your rights and more religious exemptions from equality laws, you still have time to change your answer.

  34. It’s a stupid reaction to an interesting issue. I admit when I filled in the census I was slightly disappointed that the government cared about my ethnicity, marital status and religion but not my sexual orientation.

    Slightly disappointed. Not offended. Not hysterically outraged. Screwing up the religious statistics in revenge is nothing more than childishness, and again makes us look like we’re obsessed with our own sexuality which doesn’t help our cause at all.

  35. This is a pointless campaign. If you are not religious, that is actually believe in a diety and other associated nonsense and go to church etc then just tick No Religion. Any protest type vote will just dilute the numbers and the religious get more cash and laws with which to bash us.

  36. For those of us of faith this is ludicrous beyond any measure and it’s just stupid for Stonewall and Amy Lame (who I actually like) to put such a measure forward.

    If Stonewall had done their job in the first place and challenged the Labour Government to include sexuality in the first place then they wouldn’t have to do this stupid campaign now . . .

  37. Barry Grant 25 Mar 2011, 3:29pm

    Read the information on the census, they don’t look at the answers in enough detail to see all the lesbian entries. if everyone puts gay or lesbian in the “other” field they will allocate more money to all religions.

    State no and do as much as you can to indicate your sexuality on the rest of the form (as in if you live with your partner make it clear on the form!)

  38. Not sure what I’ll write. As apagan I have helped in the campaign for pagans tp have the right to add paganism as a religion….I can’t do both….or can I?

  39. PumpkinPie 27 Mar 2011, 5:09am

    Seriously considering putting “bisexual” for the national identity question, as several people have already mentioned.

    You guys are (mostly) a smart bunch: any reason why I shouldn’t do this? I think we’re all in agreement that artificially inflating the numbers of the religious is bad, but surely messing with the national identity section won’t hurt, right?

  40. David Skinner 30 Mar 2011, 7:47am

    LGBTs if they really believe that they are as genetically formed as say someone from the Caucasian, Hottentot, Fulami or Romany tribes, they ought to put down in the ethnicity box, Gaytranselvanian. I am not sure where on the map this might be, but the isle of Lesbos would be an obvious starting point.

    But hey What’s in a name?

    It is only when we compare the original Greek words, “hetero” and “homo,” that things take on a very different meaning. The pseudo scientific and spurious nomenclatures of “homosexuality” and heterosexuality, were as everyone knows nineteenth century constructs, invented by people like Károly Mária Kertbeny, inspired no doubt by Darwin, in an attempt to legitimise homosexuality by making it genetic, a distinct sex, innate, immutable – maybe even more highly evolved orientation than its antithesis, “heterosexuality,” another bogus “orientation,” coined later by the zoologist, Gustave Jager. Others who contributed to the myth were Ulrichs and Krafft- Ebing.

    In my view, the homosexual, or for that matter the heterosexual is no more real than the fairy at the bottom of the garden, Dawkin’s slimy, custard man, or Hitler’s superman.

    In attempting to give their claims the weight of classical scholarship and authenticity, I believe that they made a big mistake in using Greek prefixes and suffixes, homo, hetero, philia and phobia.

    In essence the word hetero means different, other, conglomerate and motley; whilst homo means the same, unified, consistent and pure.
    And even though it appears at first glance that the Greek word homo, meaning the same, bears no relationship to the Latin, homo or homin, meaning man, mankind, or that which is from the earth (which is where we get the word humus from) I believe that there is link.

    The Bible states that man was formed from the ground whilst the woman was
    formed from the man, so that though she became different she was bone
    of his bone . So perhaps the Latin and the Greek prefixes both mean the same kind – mankind.

    If we use the Greek prefix, homo, meaning the same, to describe not a state of being but a qualitative relationship, we see that it describes homogeneous sexual relationships that are pure, uniform, stable and harmonious, pure, alike, balanced ,comparable, compatible, consistent, equal, same, fixed, connected, consistent, continual, equable, immutable, invariable, perpetual, steadfast, unalterable, unbroken, constant, of a piece, true, undeviating, unfailing, unvarying, persistent, faithful, and dare I say complementary, in the same
    way that a lock and key, plug and socket , man and woman form two constituent parts to form a complete whole. One could therefore say that the relationship that a man has with his wife is homosexual.

    The word heterosexual is not only not a word of the straight world’s choosing, but of that of 19th gays and their supporters ( useful idiots). It describes sexual behaviour and relationships that are impure, different, inconsistent, disparate, conglomerate, discordant, diverse, incongruous, inharmonious, mongrel, odd, complicated, promiscuous and motley.

    Under the umbrella of the word heterosexual, gays, queers or LGBTs, there are therefore (are -apart from lesbians, bisexuals, trans sexuals and transgender) those who are engaged in multiple relationships for an indeterminate period of time, thus expanding the class of sexual behaviour and relationships into the polyamorous and polygamous – both straight and gay. However there are other groups wanting to join diversity legions such as those that are incestuous – both straight and gay. There are also paedophiles pushing for their human right for acceptance – both straight and gay. Beyond that are the zoophiles – both straight and gay. Finally there are the objectumsexuals – both straight and gay.
    The American Psychiatric Association recognises thirty orientations – so far.

    All these using the Greek properly can be coined as heterosexual.

    Read the confusion and contradictions of Peter Tatchell, from his article, “Beyond Equality” as he use these prefixes to take on diametrically opposite meanings in the same passage of writing.

    “Lesbian and gay people help make a more heterogeneous and interesting society. That’s a good thing. There is nothing great about social homogeneity. It’s boring and results in social stultification and sclerosis. In contrast, the existence of difference, including sexual difference, is a force for social innovation and renewal. It enlivens an enriches our whole culture.”

    He then contradicts himself by suggesting that heterosexuality is boring and needs to be transcended, whilst homosexuality is exciting and experimental when he has just said that homogeneity is boring:

    “In many ways, our transcending of heterosexual mores is a positive and immensely liberating experience. Compared with most straights, queer tend to be more sexually adventurous with a wider repertoire of sexual behaviour, less bound by the strictures of traditional morality, and more experimental in terms of relationships.

    But clearly Ben Summerskill is encouraging people to break the law for the census form suggest that those who deliberately make inaccuracies or don’t fill it in at all will incur a fine of a £100. No doubt gay will get let off because they are a sacred cows but straights will have to pay the fine.

    1. Jock S. Trap 30 Mar 2011, 3:21pm

      Sorry I have a nut allergy.

      1. Jock S. Trap 30 Mar 2011, 3:22pm

        Can we please keep this a Nut free zone!!

    2. Oh, look. Another cut and paste slab of Skinner “wisdom”. Too dumb to write his own articles or think for himself. Suppose its difficult to think for ones self when all one can think about is penises and sex…. poor Skinner, A raving penis-freak.

      1. Jock S. Trap 31 Mar 2011, 8:48am

        Yep he does seem a tad on the obsessive side, if only he could see he is showing all the signs of a classic closet case.

        1. He can stay in the closet for all I care, wallowing in his own anger…. a vile and repugnant animal like Skinner is of no gain to add to our erudite ranks :)

      2. Jock S. Trap 31 Mar 2011, 8:49am

        Do he really think people are actually going to read all that tripe… yawn.

        1. Yes Jock, I believe the clinical term Skinner suffers from is mentulomania… He has penis on the mind so much one can be forgiven for assuming their is a male member rammed in his ear constantly though out the day.

          Still, its the lest of his worries really, given he sounds like a raving lunatic with acute mental health issues. And a total tosser, so popularity must be up there with Fred West (ironically he was sexually obsessed too). Not forgetting acute learning difficulties. I can only assume he got his “art teaching” qualification he claims to have with 20 tokens plus £1.99 P&P on a cornflakes packet.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all