Reader comments · Prince William and Kate Middleton urged to support gay marriage · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Prince William and Kate Middleton urged to support gay marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I’ve met Will and Kate down the Pub in Shipton Moyne. Will is a nice guy, but his friends are ‘hooray henry’s’

    1. Will maybe nice but I doubt if he and Kate will come out in support of gay marriage.

      Even if they agree with it (and maybe they do – they are young, probably have some gay friends, William’s mother was pretty gay-friendly), doesn’t it go against UK constitutional convention for them to interfere into a political issue like this?

      Good for Tatchell though for using the event to highlight the issue. The man seems to have an infinite supply of energy to continue the fight for gay rights.

      1. He’s also the future head of the Church of England and also the future head of state……support gay marriage as the future head of both of these institutions???

  2. “The royal couple are lucky. They have the option to get married. Gay couples don’t have this option. They are barred by law from marriage.”

    Those in loving polygamous relationships are also ‘discriminated against’ as they cannot collectively marry. So are two 15 year olds in a loving relationship.

    Surely, if Mr Tatchell is so committed to ‘equality,’ he should not only call for the ‘gender-neutralisation’ of marriage, but also the ‘number-neutralisation,’ the ‘age-neutralisation’ and the ‘species-neutralisation!’

    1. I don’t follow your logic at all, I fail to see any relationship between same sex couples having marriage equality and bestiality, paedophilia or polygamy…perhaps you have a mental problem Oll?

      1. The ‘species-neutralisation’ point is merely to provoke controversy at the present stage! However, if we were in future able to detect animal consent, why not allow a loving relationship comprising humans, antelopes and mammoths to marry?

        Returning to the point in question, if we allow monogamous homosexual marriage, we thereby end the ‘discrimination’ against same-sex couples, whilst retaining the ‘discrimination’ against those in polygamous relationships – whether these be same-sex or mixed-sex. Why is it logical to oppose one form of ‘discrimination’ yet support another.

        And what about 15 year olds who are sexually and emotionally mature who wish to marry? What relevance has the arbitrary figure of ’16’ to do with anything?

        I don’t follow your logic either, Pavlos, however don’t believe it would be reasonable to deduce that you have a ‘mental problem!’

        1. “However, if we were in future able to detect animal consent, why not allow a loving relationship comprising humans, antelopes and mammoths to marry?”

          When you have evidence that antelopes have a desire to marry humans, then you have a case.

          As for polygamy, perhaps you can show data for the demand for this, then you have another point. As countries that have allowed gay marriage, have not automatically sanctioned, or led to, marriage with animals, or multiple spouses, so your comparison is clearly flawed.

          Your statements are ridiculous conclusions contrary to the evidence at hand.

          1. Jock S. Trap 20 Apr 2011, 9:00am

            Excellent point Will.

            At least when we say Same sex couple should have the right to marry we know many do support this both Straight, Gay, Lesbian, Bi etc. As yet I have not heard of people wanting the kinds of marriages you state…

            … oh hang on unless your saying thats what you want of course Oli?

            In which case… Perv!

            The arguement Oli gives are not arguements at all but just a distraction. There is no argument, he’s just another pathetic bigot.

          2. And its also the SAME argument he makes, with silly theories, provides no data, and draws ridiculous conclusions. And then he demands we “debate” with him? Only a fool would demand debate to such pitiful correlative fallacies.

        2. You’ve now confirmed my previous speculation Oll, you clearly do have a mental poroblem.

          1. Absolutely, man!

          2. Oh, look. What an amazing intellectual and insightful comment from Rich. Really makes you think, doesn’t it? What a lovely comment, did your mammy help you type it through her burka?

        3. Are animals brains powerful enough to have the same romantic loving feelings to their own species, let alone to humans and how could you tell that an animal consented?

          Maybe there are 15 year olds who are sexually and emotionally mature enough and maybe they should be able to married but its hard to say which ones are ready, by having that arbitary line prevents the ones who are too immatue from getting married and if there are ones who are can wait until they are old enough.

          These rules are there for good reasons, as described but here’s a good question, why do you think banning homosexuals is a reasonable rule, what differences between them and heterosexuals make them suitable for banning?

        4. Jock S. Trap 20 Apr 2011, 8:56am


          Thats just a typical non arguement. It’s baseless and spineless to be honest. Your regarding same sex couple as porns for you ludicrous claims. Your vision is so narrow you cannot see beyond being a bigot.

          This is about human beings being in love and celebating that love equally. Same sex or Opposite sex we should have the right to be with that person we love and wish to spend the rest of our life with.

          It must be difficult for you. You clearly wish to continue down that road of putting all Gay people are sex starved people who couldn’t possibly love another. Get real. You clearly frightened by the prospect that LGBT people are just like you (though not bigotted). Maybe your frightened you are so insecure you’d be questioning yourself, I don’t know but you don’t do yourself any favour let alone us.

          You should be ashamed of yourself. Stop throwing up meaningless barriers to use for your hateful, bigotted discrimination.

      2. Not perhaps, Pavlos! For sure, man!

      3. Please people, don’t even bother to reply to trolls like this.
        I just hope his heart fills with cancerous cells and he dies a slow and painful death.

        And on BBC2 right now…

        1. LOL! Where’s the like button…..

    2. Not really, he’s arguing for marriage to be allowed between two consenting adults, which seems fair enough. ‘Age-neutralisation’, ‘species-neutralisation’ and ‘number-neutralisation’ would be outside of two consenting adult territory, which no one here is suggesting.

    3. Marriage is for two people to express their love and to promise to be commited to each other for the rest of their live, polygamous relationships don’t really seem suitable for that. 15 year olds are rightfully banned because which 15 knows what they want for the rest of their live but if they actually love each other enough that they would spend the rest of their life with each, then they are surely to wait until they are ready.

      However a homosexual couple can be in love with each other, want to spend the rest of their lives together, want no one else in the world but yet are banned at the moment, from marrying. That just seems crazy to me, should “love” be about what’s on the outside? could we ban blonde people, black people, brown eyed people, jewish people with your logic?

    4. Why do these old arguments keep getting trotted out?

      1) Marriage requires consent. Children cannot give informed consent. Animals cannot give consent. That is why we do not allow children or animals to get married.

      2) Marriage gives each partner financial and legal rights and responsibilities towards the other. Most Western countries recognise only two-person marriage, and almost no changes are required to make two-person marriage gender neutral (as has been demonstrated in every country which has introduced marriage equality).

      Group marriage could only be permitted if a government designed a framework for apportioning property and legal responsibility. How do you divide inheritance? What happens in divorce? Who makes the decisions when someone is critically ill?

      Group marriage is not a logical or inevitable consequence of equalising two-person marriage. There is no ‘thin end of the wedge’.

      1. NIce and succinct, thanks Atalanta.

  3. Helen Wilson 19 Apr 2011, 6:09pm

    The fact we don’t have marriage equality should mean the LGBT should boycott this event.

    The fact the Queen has just received £60 million pounds in rent, for wind the farms placed on seabed. While we are spending over £100 million pounds on this wedding and entertaining the worlds great and the good.

    I wonder how many nurses, doctors and teaching assistants that £100 million would keep employed over the next five years?

    Republic now.

    1. The French had the best solution a few hundred years ago.

      1. Helen Wilson 19 Apr 2011, 8:35pm

        We had it before the French…but….we allowed the buggers back in again.

        I cant help think with all the establishment under the one roof, we would not have a better chance to take our nation back.

        1. Problem is, there are still far too many pseudo queens dreaming of Cinderella’s shoes around…

    2. de Villiers 19 Apr 2011, 9:38pm

      I’m not a Royalist but I can see no logic in boycotting the Royal Wedding on account of there being no gay marriage!

      1. Helen Wilson 19 Apr 2011, 11:12pm

        He will become head of the church of England, thus he will be chief bigot.

        1. de Villiers 20 Apr 2011, 3:01pm

          That is very bad logic – saying that William will become ‘Chief Bigot’ merely because he is appointed to a position in the Church for which he never asked.

          Even putting aside this absurd fallacy, the argument put was that we should boycott the Royal Wedding, putting aside whether or not we were invited and, in doing so, deny ourselves the pleasure from it on account of their being no gay marriage.

          The reasoning then changed from a systemic argument about the state of the law to one about Prince William himself transforming into a Chief Bigot on him becoming Head of the Church – notwithstanding that he is not yet the king and, therefore, not the head of anything.

          So on your advice, we should boycott the wedding because William’s views may at some point in the future might become bigoted, possibly against his will, regardless of his own intellect, resulting from involuntary appointment as Head of the Church, which may before then be disestablished so that he may not become its head.

          1. Abdication (from the Latin abdicatio, disowning, renouncing, from ab, away from, and dicare, to declare, to proclaim as not belonging to one)

          2. de Villiers 20 Apr 2011, 4:56pm

            Beberts, I do not understand your point. However, I understood the word abdication to come from the Latin ‘abdicat’, itself from the verb ‘abdicare’.

          3. Monarchs can abdicate, if they so wish. To call their appointment involuntary is naive.

          4. sorry de villiers but in the UK, the future king comes head of the church of England and state …end of story….this is the UK not some modern democracy…haven’t you got used to the system yet….we’ve had it for hundreds of yrs so we’re used to it…to become head of the CofE and accept gay marriage, gay relationships, allow CPs to be held in church…hopeful but not bloody likely! Boycott the wedding is a good idea, we (if you haven;t noticed) are excluded from marrigae yet this wedding is being rammed down our throats as what the ideal is of the bedrock of society blessed by the archisbishop and god…it’s an insult to us and emphasies our exclusion from it all..

          5. de Villiers 20 Apr 2011, 9:19pm

            I think, John, that you are being a bit English by feeling the bounds of class pressing down on your happiness.

          6. de villiers – you don’t have to be English to be bound by the forces of the royals, I certainly am not …have you never heard of the commonwealth…he’s not only the future king of England!!!!!….I know the class sysem is supposed to be particulary strong in England but itisn’t somehting that is usually associated with my country…

          7. Jock S. Trap 21 Apr 2011, 11:38am

            Indeed the Queen is head of State of 16 countries. 53 countries belong to the Commonwealth while in the Commonwealth Games 71 countries in total take part.

            No small fry for anyone. This is why the wedding is Global. This is why this wedding will do brilliantly for the British/London economy.

            Could we say the same for a President Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron? I very much doubt it.

          8. de Villiers 21 Apr 2011, 4:12pm

            Perhaps, John – you know more than I on the monarchie. But I cannot see why we should deny ourselves the pleasure of a shared celebration and party on account of gay politics.

    3. I hope that people eventually removed all royals from the government and return all royal properties to the country. Royal creatures are ugly!

    4. Helen: And while you’re at it, just take a quick check at how many people, tourists and dignitaries will be in London next week, along with their associated spending. Along with TV rights, merchandising and the whole enchilada.

      That would cover the costs of the event 20 times over, not to mention the general PR and goodwill it provides this country. The monarchy has been around longer than any other British establishment and it pays it’s way. If you don’t like it, fcuk off to Russia and see how they do it there.

      1. Helen Wilson 19 Apr 2011, 11:45pm

        I wont piss off as you put it! I’ll just plot the revolution and you will go on the list.

        Errrrr the mechanizing makes money for private companies and its mostly made in China so its not providing UK jobs. As UK Uncut so eloquently point out most of the big companies avoid paying tax one way or another, so what we pay out of UK coffers wont be re-paid by them. Also that extra bank holiday is going to cost UK industry billions.

        Anybody who thinks we should pay for this should tell the kids in substandard falling down schools, why they wont be rebuilt just to pay for this event.

        1. So tell that to the politicians that sneaked us into the EU without a referendum that now costs the UK £48m a day. You can buy a lot of schools with that. The Monarchy pays it’s way, which is more than can be said for that rabble.

          1. Bahrain King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa
            Belgium King Albert II
            Brunei Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah
            Cambodia King Norodom Sihamoni
            Denmark Queen Margrethe II
            Japan Emperor Akihito
            Jordan King Abdullah II
            Kuwait Sheikh Saad Al Abdullah Al Salim Al Sabah
            Lesotho King Letsie III
            Liechtenstein Prince Hans Adam II
            Luxembourg Grand Duke Henri
            Malaysia King Syed Sirajuddin
            Monaco Prince Albert II
            Morocco King Muhammad VI
            Netherlands Queen Beatrix
            Norway King Harald V
            Oman Sultan Qabus ibn Sa’id
            Qatar Emir Sheik Hamad ibn Khalifa al-Thani
            Samoa Malietoa Tanumafili II
            Saudi Arabia King Abdullah
            Spain King Juan Carlos I

          2. Swaziland King Mswati III
            Sweden King Carl XVI Gustaf
            Thailand King Bhumibol Adulyadej
            Tonga King George Tupou V
            United Kingdom Queen Elizabeth II
            Pay their own way … LOL

      2. I’d save my breath, she’s on her crusade to make the country a republic, albeit confining it to a message board.

        1. Jock S. Trap 21 Apr 2011, 11:43am

          Yep, your right.

    5. Yes but if the entire nations finances were to be decided by an accountant with the sole purpose of value added to life in purely sensible manner, we’d have the best public services in the world, but in a short time there’d only be accountants left to use them because everyone else who had a pulse before the accountants took over would have topped themselves from sheer boredom.

  4. May I also add that considering William is ‘heir-apparent’ to the position of Head of the Church of England, it is unlikely that he will call for same-sex marriage, irrespective of how liberal the CofE is!

    I’m not sure what the Archbish of Canterbury’s view is on monogamous homosexual marriage though, he seems quite a ‘progressive’ sort of chap!!

    1. Ashlee Kelly 19 Apr 2011, 6:18pm

      I don’t know…William comes across as a fairly reasonable guy, despite being royalty. I hope he does offer some support, of any kind.

    2. Considering its a matter for the state, not the church, I don’t think anybody really cares what his opinion is.

      1. Well, as the Archbish is the Principal Leader of the CofE, and the CofE is the organisation that William will become head of when he ascends to the throne, Rowan Williams’ opinion is relevant in this case!

        I think if any member of royalty is likely to come out in favour of homosexual marriage, it’d be the Dark Horse that is Prince Philip!!

        1. Ashlee Kelly 19 Apr 2011, 7:06pm

          That would be amazing.

        2. Prince Philip – that would be hysterical – “So errr, you two… you errr bugger each other do you hey? Well I tried going thru the back door once with Liz, she wasn’t a fan. Charles tells me he does it that way with Camilla, looks better from that angle apparently…. Well err I’ve heard you lot all shag around… much like us really, don’t see why that should stop sliding your fingers thru each others rings, Hey! Hey!”

          (if that’s dreadful I do apologize but it amused me to right it)

    3. William is ‘heir-apparent’ to the position of Head of the Church of England

      To nitpick: no he’s not, the Prince of Wales is. And I’d say it’s fairly likely that after the Queen dies the CoE will be disestablished anyway (and about time).

      1. Jock S. Trap 20 Apr 2011, 11:14am

        Thats a good point Rehan as Prince Charles has already said he wants to be known for his acceptance of many faiths not just the one. Therefore he’s appointment as Head of the CoE may end up not worth the papers it’s written on.


        You seem to forget that many members of the royal family have employees that happen to be Gay and there views are a lot more accepting than you might think. I would think both Prince Charles + wife and Prince William + future wife would support Equal marriage. Weither they’d be able to publically is another thing. But Yes I would like it that they were openly supportive.

  5. If these two had even the slightest idea of the notion they might have done something.
    I cannot conceive of a more ill timed, ill judged, ridiculous spectacle that we are having foist upon us.

  6. OII, the C of E cult isn’t liberal and neither is the Rowan Williams. In case you’re unaware, C of E clergy who are in a Civil Partnership are not supposed to be having sex, otherwise they have to give up the priesthood. Williams and his bigoted cult would be dead set against same-sex civil marriage because they think they own civil marriage. Your support of loving polygamous relationships, whether its tongue in cheek or not, only accerbates opposition to our ability to marry by gives fuel to the right wing religious bigots and their ilk who think that by allowing us to marry will herald polygamy, incest, bestiality and whatever preposterous nonsense they throw in as a red herring to ban us from marrying. You’re not helping matters by such an absurd statement, instead you’re helping the foes of marriage equality. Its the very stuff that the likes of Stephen Green makes hay out of.

  7. Some errors in my statement, I should have said ‘the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams’….and…’by giving fuel to the right wing’… my apologies to the readers.

  8. Ask Marie Antoinette to support the proletariat, then get to know what happened to her necklace.

  9. Thatchell…you do my nut in.
    Stop trying to FORCE people do do things and if people want so support gay marriage, they will, not to have it forced upon them by people like yourself….
    I’m a gay man myself and i would not like people forced to support the gay agenda, if there for us, so be it, if not then its tough luck.

    1. Andy, I’m with you on this. If they ever expressed an opinion I would rather it was their own instead of being cornered into some contrived statement by a baying crowd.

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 19 Apr 2011, 9:06pm

        What is this “Agenda”? I’m curious

        1. Dr, I think the ‘agenda’ is equality? You know the basic human right that white heterosexuals have enjoyed since time began.

          Andy, Tatchell isn’t forcing anyone into supporting gay marriage. He’s urging the Royal couple to support it. And Dave, where is the baying crowd? – very dramatic of you. It’s a good job we’re not relying on people like you two to bring us equality.

    2. I feel sorry that you, Andy, are a gay, but you are correct that Tatchell trying to force people to keep up his hypocritic homosexual ideology.

      1. “a gay”? You needn’t say any more.

        1. Rich, there is no such thing as “a gay”. However, I do question whether “a idiot” exists, given your post

          1. Hate to be pedantic but he’s AN idiot, lol

          2. course there is ken you ‘tard!

    3. Jock S. Trap 20 Apr 2011, 9:08am

      William, oops sorry Andy

      Your a idiots. Gay agenda? Are you for real?

      1. Jock S. Trap 20 Apr 2011, 9:14am


        Your an idiot. Though…

        1. change your nick jock, it makes you look like a twat

    4. @Andy: in what way is P Tatchell FORCING anyone to do anything?

  10. Andy, since when was equality and basic human rights an agenda and specific to gays? You’re sounding like a right wing apologist. If it weren’t for people like Peter Tatchell, you wouldn’t have many of the rights you now enjoy. What have you done lately for equality? Have you stuck your neck out, been physically harmed and prepared to face death for your beliefs? Peter Tatchell has more courage and guts than anyone I know. He was speaking out on marriage equality and human rights long before Holland, the first country to allow same-sex marriage ever conceived of it. If it weren’t for him, StonewallUK among others wouldn’t exist. I grew up when being gay was a crime and punishable with imprisonment. You probably wouldn’t have had any experience of those times, living in fear just because of who you were. Its people like Peter who made it better for others in our country because he spoke up when others wouldn’t.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 19 Apr 2011, 9:16pm

      Hi Robert.

      Want to hear a Joy.

      I live in a lovely Cottage in South Wales, with my Civil Partner ( OK, Not Quite there yet with proper Civil Marriage but legally near enough ) our 6 year old dog, 8 year old cat, 4 Chickens 1 Budgerigar and 98 fish.

      Both of us are Scottish and it took me, as you could imagine 6 months to find a rental property in Wales that would allow 2 gay men and the previous menagerie a look in by any landlord.

      It turned out that the landlady I approached 4 years ago was indeed gay, and lived with her partner.

      I applaud all of the people that went before, even Tatchell. I think younger people are not aware of the
      discrimination they would previously have encountered.

  11. Tim Chapman 19 Apr 2011, 9:14pm

    Andy, what drivel. I admire Mr Tatchell and have probably read almost everything he’s written. Andy, qoute one instance where Mr Tatchel advocates that anyone should be FORCED to do anything.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 19 Apr 2011, 9:18pm

      I just wish he would stop with the word “QUEER”

      Other than that, excellent guy….

    2. Since you admire Peter Tatchell, who is a hypocrite, you admire hypocricy…. How disgusting it is, man!

      1. Tim Chapman 20 Apr 2011, 7:37am

        Please substantiate your assertion and identify Mr Tatchel’s ‘hypocracy’.

        1. He can’t. He’s some religious nutter. Rich’s comments are the result of diminished capacity, nothing more. He puts the word “man” at the end of a sentence, like a 5 year old.

      2. Jock S. Trap 20 Apr 2011, 9:12am


        Again your name is very ironic.

        “Since you admire Peter Tatchell, who is a hypocrite, you admire hypocricy”

        No ‘alf as hypocritical as a religious Nutjob who spews venom but clearly is obsessed with Gay people and their Websites.

      3. de Villiers 21 Apr 2011, 7:53am

        Everyone is hypocritical. We’re not robots.

  12. cant believe this guy is actually comparing gays and jews when it comes to marriage?!

    1. Commander Thor 19 Apr 2011, 10:35pm

      Are you saying Jews aren’t worthy of marriage? What’s this, the 1940s in Germany?

  13. Peter Tatchell is a hypocrete because he propagating the idea of gay marriage in which he does not personally believe! How disgusting!….

    1. Tim Chapman 20 Apr 2011, 7:46am

      He does believe in gay marriage because he believes in equality. He just doesn’t want to get married himself. I support all sorts of rights but that doesn’t mean I have to take advantage of them all myself. Neither of us is guilty of hypocrasy as a result, and you owe us both an apology.

  14. Peter Tatchell needs to get stuffed and seek paid employment instead of sponging and scrounging off everyone.

    1. Tim Chapman 20 Apr 2011, 7:58am

      The people who support Peter do so voluntarily so how does that make him a scrounger? As long as he continues to do such a fantastic job in the fight for human rights, people like me will fund him and the last thing we want him to do is to ‘get a job’. We want him to carry on doing what he’s doing and we’re happy to pay him for it. No-one’s asking you for anything, so what’s it to you, Sean?

  15. So this idiot Tatchell wants to uproot the whole basis of the constitution? The idea that the royal family stay out of political issues.

    Why does anyone listen to thi bigot?

    1. Tim Chapman 20 Apr 2011, 8:14am

      Exactly how is the Royal Family staying out of politics when no legislation can reach the statute books without the consent of the Chief Royal? And who elected her?

      1. de Villiers 21 Apr 2011, 8:29am

        I understood that the Queen was no more than a figurehead and that there was no prospect of her ever refusing to sign a law.

        Does anyone know the last law that a King or Queen refuses to sign?

  16. Ugh.

    The ‘royal’ family is an embarrassment to Britain.

    Who cares what they think?

    Get rid of them.

    Britain would work better as a democracy.

    With a democratically elected head of state.

    1. Yeah, Let’s have King Dave!

      1. No you idiot

        have a figurehead president like exists in Italy; Israel; etc

        The PM is the person with power. The head of state should not hold power. But he/she should be democractically elected.

        These ‘royal’ parasites are an embarrassment to Britain.

        Ged rid of them.

        1. “have a figurehead president like exists in Italy; Israel; etc”
          Oh, you mean like that low-life Berlusconi? The most corrupt, womanising slimebag in Europe. Sure, that’s really going to help British PR.

          The Royals may embarrass you, but the rest of us (80%) still want them, so hows that for democracy in practice?

          1. I don’t disagree with your point Spanner, but Berlusconi’s the PM – the Italian presidency is largely a ceremonial one. (The cost of a presidency and of presidential elections never seems to be factored into the arguments against the royal family here, I note.)

        2. conkwobblah 21 Apr 2011, 12:50pm

          you’re the fcuking idiot david do you do anything else other than vent your bile on here FREAK!

    2. Paddyswurds 20 Apr 2011, 12:00am

      Britain IS a democracy already David. I think it is possible you mean it would work better as a Republic, with a democretically elected head of state. If so Agreed.
      I would vote for Peter Tatchell as President.

      1. You have got a President. You’re bloody Irish!
        I see no advantage to having one, as we would just be another bland state like everywhere else in Europe. What we have is unique, and it gives us a huge amount of respect in international politics, not to mention the world stage.

        1. The advantage of having a democratically elected head of state means that Britain can be a proper democracy.

          Having a royal family does not gain Britain respect. The royals are nothing but a glamourous soap opera that costs us billions per year.

          They have not earned and do not deserve their positions.

          The history of Britain will not change. The Empire will still be part of British history.

          the Empire is finished. Britain should stop pretending that it still does.

          Get rid of the royals and turn the palaces into museums open to the public.

          1. Jock S. Trap 20 Apr 2011, 11:23am

            Yet we wouldn’t have the world focusing on us and supporting our economy if this was a President son/daughter getting married.

            The Royal Family bring in much more money, both as ambassadors and in tourism. We are respected greatly around the world for our Royal family. Tourism figures just release from last year prove that, esp in London.

            How many 85 and 90 years do you know work as hard as the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.

            Not being funny but Princess Diana did a lot to help fight the myths of HIV and AIDS. At that time she was a Royal. I doubt had she just been a minister or anything else she wouldn’t have been noticed.

            I really wouldn’t want to be just another boring country. We have a Great, interesting history and the Monarchy is part of that and I hope will be for many times to come.

          2. Jock: *like*
            I’d like to know where this figure of “billions” comes from.

        2. de Villiers 21 Apr 2011, 8:39am

          The monarchy is part of British culture. London is not an English city and English is no longer your own language. It always seems to me an outsider that there is no shared sense of English culture and society.

          France is a proud Republic but the revolution is a proud part of our culture, the principles of liberté, egalité, fraternité are express symbols of France, Paris is a recognisably French city and the French language belongs to us and is part of French culture.

          The feeling of rootlessness and change causes people to become fearful and to vote for the far-right as we can see in both England, France and across the whole of Europe. Countries would be well advised to promote their internal culture and institutions so as to give people a sense of meaning and security.

          Although I am a Republican, to abolish the monarchie in England would lead to a greater fracturing of the social consciousness and social upheaval – which is certainly undesirable given the current problems we face

  17. Jock S. Trap 20 Apr 2011, 8:46am

    It would be good, as Peter Tatchell makes a good point. I suspect both probably would but being head of state to other countries may cause a problem.

    However I do feel coming from them it would separate those countries still in the Dark Ages and the rest here in the 21st century.

    Looking forward to the wedding, It’s be good for the country, brilliant for the economy in London and will add had this been President Blairs son we wouldn’t be seeing all the tourism, memorabilia, basically all the money and worldwide interest that goes with it.

  18. Evolved & educated 20 Apr 2011, 9:24am

    Please disregard the uneducated trolls. No single gay individual would include the words ‘gay agenda’ within their debate.

    The individuals who claim to be gay are simply christian nutjobs attempting to sabotage a reasonable debate.Most of the trolls have linked to here from facebook and have had their fb profiles deleted numerous times due to extremely offensive rants, including, but not limited to calls for violence. One of the most notorious offenders is an immigrant who calls herself ‘Krystal Canter’ on FB. She is an uneducated homophobic anti white immigrant rasta stoner from Jamaica living in a council house on British benefits — she has referenced this in several of her FB rants on anti gay marriage groups. She is known to impersonate existing pro gay marriage posters with fake profiles — my opinion is simple — trolls like her are simply too stupid to be taken too seriously so tease her and those like her and wind her up rather than attempt serious debate with her.

  19. I want Willian Windsor to announce after this wedding that he has no intention of becoming ‘king’, as the whole royal institution is rotten to the core and fundamentally undemocratic.

    I hope this couple don’t spend their lives sponging off the taxpayer like their grandparents, and they actually go out and get a job.

    1. Bugger democracy. Not everything in life is fair.

    2. Yeah I’m sure he’ll do that especially for you David. More than a little bored with the Royal Family equals tax payers money. Can you come up with a different argument or is it just your pocket your worried about?

      1. No – I won’t come up with an altermative arguements.
        Why should my tax money be used to pay for security for worthless idiots like ‘prince’ Andrew? Why does that moron ‘prince’ Charles deserve to have his life subsidised by ordinary taxpayers?

        Why do we have to pledge allegiance to a ‘queen’ who is in her role through an accident of birth.

        They royals are parasites.

        They serve simply as a reminder of a time that is past.

        Britain is not a world superpower any more – we are an island off the west coast of Europe. Yes we are wealthy and influential but the whole charade of ‘royalty’ has become an embarrassing joke.

        The ‘royal’ palaces can become big revenue earners when they are opened as museums to tourists. All those Japanese tourists will remain fascinated by royalty, but Britain can actually earn some money by showing them where ‘queen’ Elizabeth’s bedroom.

        1. Parasite this parasite that, that view is about as original as calling a dalmatian puppy “Spot”. You’re just full of hot air like some boring old codger sat at the bar having a gripe about the ‘injustices’ of the world. You seem to have an answer for everything so do something about it or shut up. And not just the UK have a royal family and those other countries seem to be happy with what they have. I’m guessing a lot of your views dates from when you were a punk and bought in to a Sex Pistols style ideology. It ain’t 1977 anymore, we’ve all moved on, I suggest you do too unless you’re gonna prove your worth by your words and actions, otherwise stop boring us.

        2. ‘my tax money’ lol you’re a scrounger living off the state david – you never seem to be off here!

    3. Jock S. Trap 20 Apr 2011, 11:29am

      Erm his ‘grandparents’ hardly sponge of the state. They do an emormous amount of work, in fact I challenge you to find another 85 and 90 years old who tirelessly work for the country.

      May I remind you that Prince William himself does incredible work with his search and rescue.

      It’s easy to sniff at them if you are unwilling to note what they do and how much they bring to this country.

      1. How awwful life must be with titles, influence and priviledge. ..tirelessly having to put up with gay servants and eunuchs coming and going in your way, not letting you clean your own toilet… cook your own food, drive your own car… it must be an awwful life… they must sweat a lot…

        1. What (if anything) is your point? That it can only be considered work if it involves sweat?

          1. Human work or labour always involve sweat, so the answer is yes.

          2. @ Beberts: labour and work aren’t necessarily the same thing. I think a great many people who work with their minds (and employ cleaners) will consider your formula ludicrous.

          3. Do you think people don’t sweat when they work with their minds and employ cleaners?
            I haven’t heard of any of the “royals” being diagnosed with hypohidrosis.

          4. Poor queen must sweat a lot to lift her sword, which is not a weapon of course…

    4. Paddyswurds 21 Apr 2011, 12:25am

      @David Actully his name isn’t Windsor really….It is William Saxe-Coburg & Gotha.

      1. Actually Paddyswurds, if you want to be precise, it’s Mountbatten-Windsor.

        1. Paddyswurds 22 Apr 2011, 7:13am

          …….actially to be even mor precise its Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg as that is Philips real name or Philips fathers name. Mountbatten is actually a reconstruct of Philips mothers name Bettenberg. So pedantically Williams real name is
          William Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg as that is the paternal line he belongs to.The name Windsor was assumed in the early 1940 as the royals thought thought the family name to that pont,Saxe-Coburg & Gotha. was too german and that the natives would turn against them because of it.

          1. Paddyswurds 22 Apr 2011, 7:16am

            actually**, more**, point** German**

          2. Paddyswurds 22 Apr 2011, 11:12am


  20. Ed Johnson 20 Apr 2011, 9:47am

    Oh how ridiculous, Peter Tatchell has done nothing for equality. Why on earth should the royal family be roped into his outcry for media attention? They are getting married, leave them alone Mr Tatchell.

    1. Peter Tatchell has done nothing for equality.

      He has highlighted and spoken out against inequalities more times than I can remember, which has (if sometimes indirectly) led to changes in attitudes and legislation.

      You may not have noticed that, however, if you were living in some parallel universe or a galaxy far, far away.

      1. Peter’s done anything? No, he really hasn’t. He’s gained media attention- big deal. Stephen Fry has done just as much as Peter, if not more. Along with every other gay celebrity; no real need for another one who is famous simply for gay rights!

        1. There may not be a need for another, but I’m not alone in thinking there was and remains a need for PT.

          I seriously doubt Fry has done more and, further, I’d say he (Fry) wouldn’t think so either.

        2. Jock S. Trap 20 Apr 2011, 12:45pm

          I dispute that. Stephen Fry for many years announced himself to be ‘asexual’ and seeing him do a program or two on LGBT issues has actually come across very naive.

          While I am not a particular fan of Peter Tatchell I do acknowledge that he is a Human Rights activist as well as a Gay Rights activist therefore has done a lot for the LGBT community.

          1. Stephen Fry would align himself with wife beating goat-herders if he thought it would keep him in the public eye. His years of celibacy and asexuality is not in dispute, nor is his homosexuality (who did he think he was kidding in the first place?), what I do have a problem with is people (DavidZ) calling him a gay rights champion. Fry’s championing goes no further than the bullsh1t Twitters he feeds countless imbecilic followers. To compare him to Tatchell is more than a stretch.

    2. Tatchell is a gay rights legend. Thankfully there are people like him who have protested for my rights – more than I’ve ever done for own equality. I don’t know who you are Ed, but I’m guessing he’s probably done more in a few weeks for human rights than you’ve done in your whole life.

  21. fleur black 20 Apr 2011, 1:40pm

    religious buildings are dedicated to God or some man-made deity whose core teachings are anti-gay so it would be wrong to expect such buildings being used for gay marriage.

    1. Or for a gay couple to get want to be married in a religious building. I find the term “gay christian” a total contradiction but they do exist.

      1. I don’t call myself a Gay Christian, but I find the sense of superiority some atheists seem to claim for themselves as ridiculous as the sense of superiority some theists do. There is no way of telling if a God exists, the purely rational approach would be to be agnostic. Further ridiculing your point there is no mention by Jesus on subject of homosexuality within the bible, there’s a few before and after him – but the whole point of his alleged arrival on earth was to do away with the fallacies created by man’s twisting of God’s word. So if Jesus is judged to be the only true pure source of guidance for a Christian and he never spoke on the matter of homosexuality then it is not in the slightest bit unreasonable for someone to refer to themselves if they so choose as a ‘gay christian’ (which should have been in inverted commas not speech marks btw).

        1. Whatever Damien but unlike you I just can’t be arsed quoting or referencing the Bible and if you want to be pedantic about my use of punctuation you must have very little else troubling you.

        2. screendump alert

          1. There is a Pavlos clone here

        3. “Further ridiculing your point there is no mention by Jesus on subject of homosexuality within the bible, there’s a few before and after him ”

          Who cares? Not everyone believes in the bible. I have issue with taking moral direction from a book that covers talking snakes, taking a vacation in a whales stomach, and a god that gets kicks out of marching an old man up a mountain to kill his son, and then a right old laugh last minute? Are you for real???

          I find you’re whole post patronising and ridiculous, typically smug of Christians to assume everyone believes Christianity.

          1. or those who don’t believe in christianity are mugs

          2. …when the contrary is actually the case. Religions are for the lower intelligence, and that’s scientifically proven.

        4. or those with a mental instability- the zealots anyway. which category do you fit Damien, a nut or an idiot?

          1. Nut or idiot? If PN comments have though us anything, its that these two marvellous traits tend to exist in these types together.

          2. A Pavlos clone

        5. Paddyswurds 21 Apr 2011, 12:38am

          ….”There is no way of telling if a God exists, the purely rational approach would be to be agnostic”
          The way of telling that no god exists is to know that god is entirely a human construct and to deny this is to abandon rationality.
          To insist that there is a possibility, is to say that the “big bang” was not the beginning, and to say there is a possibility of a god and that he/she/it created everything must then be followed by the rational question of who created god and so on ad nauseum.

          The big bang was the beginning of the current epoch, but there is a distinct possibility that the current era is only the latest in infinite number of epochs. In other words it is like a pulse, bang, expansion, retraction bang expansion etc.

    2. Really? All? And the Unitarians? How insular and silly your views are.

      I suppose that’s why you cam up with the really stupid comment about gay people being “addicted to male pheromones” on the Darren Brown thread? How embarrassing for all of us.

    3. Fleur, do you think it would also be wrong for churches to be used for those who eat shellfish, have been divorced, women who have had abortions, people who have impure thoughts, those who don’t turn the other cheek, those who wear mixed fibres……. and the list goes on and on. If the churches were not used by those who don’t do exactly what the bible says, there would be no one in them.

    4. Tim Chapman 20 Apr 2011, 5:22pm

      Rather than asserting that it would be wrong to use religeous buildings for gay marriage because they are dedicated to a god whose teachings are anti-gay, consider that if your god exists at all, then he/she/it is wrong to be anti gay.

      Whatever services churches and the like offer to the consumer, whether baptism, marriage, funerals, or anything else, they should be required to offer them to everyone without discrimination. To refuse a service to anyone because some imaginary, non-existant, invisible, silent ‘being’ has ‘taught’ you that what they are is ‘wrong’, is ridiculous and offensive. Yes, it’s currently lawful, but it’s still ridiculous and offensive. The law is wrong and so is god.

  22. Dr. Robin Guthrie, how heart-warming it was to read about your experience. You’re absolutely right, the younger generation who post here have no concept of what it was like back in the day when we lived in fear of being discovered and the blatant, often vicious homophobia that was ‘de rigueur’ in those days. Peter is a hero , unsurpassed by any other that I know currently living. His courage and conviction to speak out at the injustice taking place around the world, especially for gay people, is unmatched, anywhere. If I had it in my power, I would nominate him for the Nobel Peace prize, deservedly so. He’s a national treasure.

    1. “He’s a national treasure”
      Well I wish they would bury him from wherever they dug him up from.
      The man is nothing but a self-publicist, he makes Max Clifford look like a wallflower by comparison.

      His heart may be in the right place, but he does nothing but rub people up the wrong way, ever since his days as an MP and later for Outrage, he has done nothing but interfere, but ultimately achieve nothing except put LGBT people in a bad light. If there is such a thing as a “gay community”, he sure as hell doesn’t represent me.

      1. he does nothing but rub people up the wrong way

        Correction: some people. Fortunately not all.

  23. Oh shut up. Marriage, by definition and tradition is between man and woman. End of. We have Civil Partnership which is on the same legal status as Marriage, but can be between people of the same sex. Stop going on about being able gays being “allowed” to marry, because its not a case of permission, its about definition.

    1. Jock S. Trap 20 Apr 2011, 5:01pm

      Yada, yada, my, my ain’t you all controversial.

      Yawn. What a bore.

      1. Tim Chapman 20 Apr 2011, 5:32pm

        Civil Partnership does not have the same legal status as marriage, Paul, so until you know what you’re talking about, I suggest you shut up.

    2. (‘End of’ is almost as silly as ‘period’ – just means you can’t argue a point properly.)

      You would have a point if the UK insists that CPs have the same legal status as UK marriages globally, but that isn’t the case, is it?

    3. It’s strange how people go on about same legal status yet the EU are in the process of working out how to deal with marriages and CP and to get all countries to recognise these civil statuses …it’s strange becase they have made one legal status for marriage and another for CPs/civil unions becuase legally they are different…full stop…anyway if you want to comment on their green paper then submissions by 30th April (the christian factions have been submitting madly for the last month!!!) —

    4. “because its not a case of permission, its about definition.”

      Who’s definition, yours? Who cares what you think? You think using “end of” is a testament to your intelligence, so, mad idea here, how about you “shut up”, eh? Educated gays are having a grown up conversation. Cheers.

    5. We just want equality. Full stop.

    6. Paul
      “It’s that word ‘tradition’ that should raise our critical hackles. It refers to a collection of beliefs handed down through generations – as opposed to beliefs founded on evidence.” (RD)

      A definition fbased on tradition should also be examined and subjected to critical analysis, a bumper sticker slogan is not a reason to exclude same sex couples from civil marriage.

      Regarding holy matrimony, no marriage without love can ever be described as holy or sacred.

  24. I like sex with muslim boys, it pleases Allah. It is written Allah likes gay bum sex too. I wish me was smart like you gays.

    1. Rich, I suggest therapy might help you, whoever you are.

  25. Paul, really? Try taking your civil partnership outside the UK and see just how portable and unequal they are. In France where they are recognised, you would not be entitled to as many of the rights under a CP in the UK, because it would only be construed as a PAC which offers far fewer rights. How equal is that? Marriage is the universal gold standard and that’s not going to change. Why do you think more countries are allowing us to marry? Ever wondered? I don’t see CPs becoming the norm for legalising gay or straight unions either. You have to see the larger picture and not be so UKcentric.

    1. Tim Chapman 20 Apr 2011, 9:38pm

      It’s not even equal in the UK. If my partner was my wife, she’d be entitled to a pension from my Company pension scheme based on all of my 27 years of contributions, but as my partner is my civil partner, the law says he’s only entitled to a pension based on my contibutions from December 2005 (when the first CPs (including mine) took place). Incidentally, Theresa May, our new minister for Equality already has the power to put this right, but with her track record, I won’t hold my breath.

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 22 Apr 2011, 11:36pm

        I’m glad I don’t work in the company your in.

        Even before my CP my partner was entitled to all of my benefits and is named as the recipient.

        Private Dental, Private Medical, Insurance etc etc.

        If I were you I would seek a new employer.


    Seems the Autralian marriage equality teams Getup and AME are using the royal wedding to focus on the inequality as well!!! I guess he’s the future king for those poor buggers as well..

  27. Gay marriage? who wants gays to get married?

    1. Try civil marriage equality, nobody wants special gay marriage
      ever considered the fact that gays themselves might want the option of getting married to the person they love and want to share a life with.

      Meanwhile why not look to your own marital affairs Damn, no marriage without love can be called holy,

  28. Mr. Tatchell, I think William and Kate have a full plate just now, don’t you? Let’s get them through the wedding first shall we?

    1. “Let’s get them through the wedding first shall we?”

      Well, that is exactly what Mr Tatchell is also asking we allow gay couples to do.

      So close…you almost got it MrWriteSF

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.