Reader comments · Gay marriage rally at Buckingham Palace · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Gay marriage rally at Buckingham Palace

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. The Lib Dems in Government aren’t just minded towards it, the party made it official party policy at their last conference!

    1. Yes and we know we can trust the lib dems. This marriage policy is aimed at middle class gay people it does nothing for me.

      1. What’s class to do with marrigae? the only restriction on it is that you must be man and woman! The wedding card idea is alos being taken up by the Australian marriage equality as well…they are potentially going to be king and queen of the whole commonwealth so as well as bringing in money to the UK it should hopefully bring in a bit of media on the inequality in marrigae in almost all of the commonwealth countries not just the UK…

        1. Marriage and class have been intertwined for eons.

  2. If William Windsor refuses to support marriage equality then clearly it is yet another reason for the abolition of the monarchy.

    If William Windsor does not believe in full LGBT equaltiy then clearly no LGBT person should ever accept him as a head of state.

    The monarchy is already an embarrasssing anachronism, serving solely to remind us of how in centuries gone by, we used to have an empire. If William Windsor refuses to support full LGBT equality then he can be regarded as a moronic bigot.

    And his wedding to the dreary drudge Kate Middleton shoud be protested.

    Why should LGBT taxpayers be paying for his wedding when we are denied access to civil marriage.

    1. He has his own opinion and while i hope he does support gay equality i’m all for us having a monarchy.
      It’s a great piece of British history, costs us nothing, and benefits us greatly with what we get back in tourism.

      So while i’m all for him speaking out about marriage equality i won’t contribute in monarch bashing.
      Besides, Wills is always seen in gay bars and in Soho so i doubt very much that he’s a “moronic bigot” David.

    2. Not just LGBT taxpayers funding the wedding, the country as a whole is, as are her parents. Enough with the armchair revolution David, p!ss or get off the pot, if you don’t like a situation go do something about it instead of repeating ad nauseum how the royal family are a waste of taxpayers money. The only difference between your above post and ones you posted on a different story about the royal wedding is you now have included ‘LGBT taxpayers’ as a body, previously it was just plain old ‘taxpayers’.

      1. Jock S. Trap 21 Apr 2011, 4:42pm

        The public are only paying for the security, the wedding is being paid from from their personal pockets. Giving the amount of money the country will make through tourism though will be vastly more.

        1. Yeah good luck getting David to see it that way. He and his sans-culottes brethern won’t be happy until the seed of Windsor is smote from the face of the earth. I bet he was f11king punching the air in delight when he found out the day of the wedding was a bank holiday though.

          1. Tim Chapman 21 Apr 2011, 9:18pm

            I wouldn’t be so sure; for some of us, a bank holiday equals loss of income, and there are already too many loss-of-income days at this time of year without an extra one for someone else’s wedding. I’d gladly sacrifice a day’s pay for my own wedding day, but of course, being gay, I don’t have that option, do I?

          2. Wow! @Tim Chapman, the glass is certainly have empty as far as you’re concerned. Eeyore!

    3. All monarchic systems are less related to empires and more related to power grab by force, violence, dictatorship and authoritarianism. Today’s royal families are the descendants of this violent system imposed by the sword by their ancestors.

      1. That’s exactly what I thought when the Colbys was created as a spin-off from Dynasty back in the 80s. Oh the humanity.,,

      2. Anything else is just Disneyana. Cinderellas dreaming of shoes. When you think the system they represent is one of the major motives why gay people are still fighting for equality today, you should wake up from daydreaming.

      3. Unless, of course, your family has already acquired a lordship or knighthood from the despots, in which case you should be one of those who think a sword is an instrument of pleasure.

  3. David, I’m not so sure he or she would be able to comment on marriage equality. The monarchy is not supposed to interfere in the political system let alone comment or show bias towards any party in power. The power of the monarchy disappeared with the Bill of Rights in 1689 I believe in which it declared that the monarch should not have the power to override acts of parliament which translates into not being able to meddle in the political system today. What they think personally is another issue. I suspect William and Kate would probably support marriage equality knowing who William’s mother was.

    1. Jock S. Trap 21 Apr 2011, 3:48pm

      Here, Here. Couldn’t have put it better myself.

    2. William’s brother thinks it’s funny to wear N*A*Z*I costumes at parties. Do you think that too could be an influence from their mother?

    3. I agree I doubt whether they will ever support ME , they represent the CofE and as we all know they can’t even bear to have a secular CP held in a church. There is absolutely no way that they would speak against this no would they condone ME which for the CofE is exclusively their rights. The best that can be done is to get publicity on the inequaliy on a big stage..

  4. Lets see whether the Royal Family will bow to the politically correct claptrap of Tatchell and his non-sensical campaign! Whether they will follow foolish leftist politicians…

    1. Tim Chapman 21 Apr 2011, 9:22pm

      This campaign makes sense to me, but thank you for your opinion.

  5. how ridiculous!! Why should the royal family have to accept or not accept gay lifestyle? should we all pop down to number 33 and demand Mrs Smith accepts us too? this country makes me weep, no wonder nothing gets done.

    1. Well said! These militant homosexualists should shut up. They actually damage their own cause.

      1. Jock S. Trap 21 Apr 2011, 4:47pm

        I might not agree with this particular protest but I understand it is their right to do so, just like anybody else. Thats not damaging anybodies cause, thats democracy at work.

      2. Jock S. Trap 21 Apr 2011, 4:47pm

        I might not agree with this particular protest but I understand it is their right to do so, just like anybody else.

        Thats not damaging anybodies cause, thats called democracy at work.

      3. Adam wrote

        “Well said! These militant homosexualists should shut up. They actually damage their own cause.”

        Adam, you appear to assume that the general public are some how against equality for LGBT people. I think you will find that public opinion in the 21st century is very differnet from your 1950s sentiment.

    2. I think it’s an attention thing, the more big names saying yes to gay marriage, the quicker we should have it.
      Realistically i’d rather have Tower Hamlets sorted out and all our terrorists and fanatics locked up/deported.
      Frankly i think that’s something that should be top priority rather than this as it’s quickly becoming very dangerous in places like that and it’s getting worse.

    3. Jock S. Trap 21 Apr 2011, 4:49pm

      Being Gay is not a lifestyle. We do not choose it.

      Unlike religion which is a chosen lifestyle.

    4. Tim Chapman 21 Apr 2011, 9:25pm

      Gay lifestyle? What planet are you on? It’s about equality, not lifestyle.

    5. Tim Chapman 21 Apr 2011, 9:29pm

      And if Mrs Smith’s ‘acceptance’ of us means that she can no longer seek to prevent us from getting married, then yes, let’s pop down to no 33 as well.

      1. who is mrs Smith…..

        1. Jock S. Trap 22 Apr 2011, 11:03am

          She’s married to Mr Smith.

    6. Phil, homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, your ignorance however is.

  6. When will the bigoted old Tatchell shut up and get out of people’s faces?

    1. Hey, while i may not like the guy, you have to admit he does good work most of the time.
      Especially the Mugabe thing, i’d pay to watch him try a citizens arret on Gadaffi in public=]

    2. Jock S. Trap 21 Apr 2011, 3:50pm

      When has he been in peoples faces?

    3. ‘Bigoted old Tatchell’?! What a topsy-turvy world you must live in.

    4. Tatchell a bigot?! LMAO, though he is a pushy opportunistic pain in the face.

      1. Yes; a bigot. He did a ‘documentary’ on Catholicism which actually told downright lies.

        Now whatever your opinion is on religion doesn’t matter. The fact is that Tatchell told lies to further his argument. That is, quite frankly, bang out of order.

        1. Jock S. Trap 22 Apr 2011, 2:24pm

          Yeah coz religion never lies! LOL

          1. Nice logical fallacy. A tu quoque to be exact. Sure, religion lies. So your essentially saying that Tatchell is as bad as the religious organisations you hate. Well done.

          2. Jock S. Trap 23 Apr 2011, 8:17am

            No way is Peter Tatchell as bad as religion.
            As far as I know unlike religion he has never changed history to suit ones teachings.
            Peter Tatchell actually tries to change the present for a better equally accepting future for all.

          3. Jock S. Trap 23 Apr 2011, 8:19am

            See the difference?

            Peter Tatchell fights for a better future and going forward.

            Religion constantly wants to force us back and stay back.

          4. But you’ve just asserted yourself he’s as bad as the religions you hate. Fact. As i’ve pointed out your whole argument is logically fallacious. And good and bad a totally subjective terms.

          5. Jock S. Trap 23 Apr 2011, 1:25pm

            Your now doing what religion does so well, denying the facts and blaming everyone for your own mistakes.

            Typical. In other words you know I’m right and your wrong in this case.

        2. Lies, Adam? For example?

          1. Such as telling a downright lie as to what Papal infallibility is.

            Such as his repeated assertion that Catholic Church dogmas can be changed by any Pope (they can’t. Secular teachings can be changed by not religious or moral ones).

            To name but a few.

          2. Really? I find that odd since I’d have thought he wouldn’t have made claims that can’t be substantiated, but I’ll have to take your word for it. I take it you’re a Catholic? Unfortunately, given your church’s deplorable record in so many respects over the centuries, in this instance I’d say a little light journalistic bigotry might actually be understandable, even – uniquely – permissible.

          3. Yep, really, really. Nice article here which points out Tatchell’s lies.

            Oh, and I’m not catholic.

          4. OK – granted, he seems to have been a bit sloppy in his research. And you’re to be commended for the disinterestedness of your defence of the Catholic church. But I still think it’s more than a little extreme to refer to PT as a bigot. I think it’s pretty clear to everyone who doesn’t have a knee-jerk reaction to him that his principle cause is against injustice and inequality.

        3. Paddyswurds 23 Apr 2011, 10:20am

          ….i watched the program “on catholicism” and as someone brought up as an Irish catholic (now atheist) i didn’t see or hear any lies. That simply isn’t Peter Tatchell’s style. He spoke the truth clearly and concisely as far as i could see. I can see however how what he had to say could ruffle the feathers of those still brainwashed by religion in general and the catholic church in particularor should i say the paedophile and homophobic church.

          1. Well with respect I’ve pointed out how he lied (saying Pope can change dogma, saying that Papal infallibility means Pope is right on all things, etc.). Your assertion is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

            Oh and the old pedophile slur. Tell me; when you think of boy scout leaders, Protestant ministers, sports coaches, foster parents and doctors do you automatically think of pedophiles. Because all those professions have a greater percentage of pedophiles than the Catholic priesthood. And don’t try and argue that the Vatican was unique in covering it up. This happened in secular institutions as well. Especially during the 70s and 80s when it was thought that paedophillia was treatable. The New York social services are a perfect example of a group who covered it up

            In the New York school system alone it is thought there are 10 tines the number of pedophiles than in the the RCC.

          2. @ Adam: what’s the Latin tag for the argument that something (eg paedophilia) is less culpable because other groups have worse records of it?

          3. Different thing. I’m not saying it’s any less disgusting because other organisations have done it. I’m simply pointing out that it’s not unique to Catholicism as far too many people like to claim.

    5. Adam: if you believe Damian Thompson, who is an extremist Catholic bigot, you should be ashamed.

      1. So you’re essentially asserting that because you disagree with his opinion he must, by default, lie? That’s a pretty biggoted position to hold in all honesty. There are plenty of others who pointed out Tatchell’s mistakes in that documentary. And all I was doing with positing that article was simply backing up the point. If you go and read any Vatican documents you’ll will see that Tatchell most certainly does lie to further his own agenda. Ol

        Oh and Thompson is fairly objective in that article. If you actually bother to read it he heaps praise on Tatchell for his other work.

    6. What facts have I denied? I’ve openly admitted that religious leaders lie. But tell me this. Because those leaders do sometimes lie does it suddenly make it okay that Tatchell lies. Or, does that make Tatchell as bad as the religious leaders you claim to hate? You seem to be dodging the question and simply applying the tu quoque fallacy.

      Tatchell has distorted history to fit his agenda (misrepresented the rulings of the first vatican council).

      So, my dear blinkered fellow, you’re quite wrong.

      1. Jock S. Trap 23 Apr 2011, 3:15pm

        LOL oh your a classic religious Nutjob. Blaming others for exactly your actions.

        1. Ummm, who ever said I was religious. I ask you this: Is it acceptable for Peter Tatchell to lie to further his agenda. It’s a very simple question in all honesty.

          The fact that you debase your argument to a logically fallacious ad hominem argument shows the inadequacy of your own position.

          Why do you refuse to answer any questions. Try and answer this one; where have I blamed others for my actions?

          1. So could you actually answer some of my questions please without having to use an ad hominem please. Or using a tu quoque.

            They’re Latin if you don’t understand what they mean.

          2. Jock S. Trap 23 Apr 2011, 4:47pm

            Has he lied though? Or is just something you just don’t like hearing?

            Can’t help thinking you’ll keep distracting from the real issue, the real problem when it comes to lying is religion. Churches, mosques they all lie to there followers, I really don’t think Peter Tatchell can be compared with the whole religious farse.

            Peter Tatchell tries to continue to do good for humaity unlike religion.

          3. But I’ve already pointed out how he’s lied. Such as the fact he totally misrepresents what the idea of Papal infallibility is so as to further his agenda. In that doc he said it meant that the Pope couldn’t be wrong on ANY issue. What it actually means is that a Pope can define matters of doctrine. Tatchell has also said that The Catholic Church’s dogma can be changed on a whim by Pope Bennedict when this is simply untrue. So yes, Tatchell is lying.

            In all honesty you’re the one who bought religion into this, a tu quouque. So please don’t be so narrow minded.

          4. Jock S. Trap 24 Apr 2011, 9:15am

            Peter Tatchell hasn’t lied, he’s just made an opinion you don’t agree with.

            As for being narrow minded yet again blaming others for what you are doing yourself. Typical religious flaw.

            You are the one being narrow minded. I’m the one being open minded of what Peter Tatchell has said, that you disagree with.

          5. Ha! Are you stupid? I’ve made it quite clear how he lied. He didn’t state an opinion; he stated a lie as a fact. That’s what a lie is; go and read the documents of the first Vatican council and tell me if he’s lying. He is; fact.

            Now why won’t you actually answer the question I’ve put across numerous times. What am I doing and who am I blaming.


          6. Jock S. Trap 24 Apr 2011, 1:47pm

            Why would I want to read something I don’t believe in?
            Fact:- Peter Tatchell stated his opinion, you don’t like it and go completely childish and have a hissy fit.
            Fact:- Religion lies everyday yet you follow it like the herd of sheep in which you belong.
            Fact:- We were given a brain to use, to make our own decisions, our own lifes, not live a lie, reading from texts so I can blame any wrong doing on, “Oh but in the Bible it says…”
            Fact:- You keep asking the question and I keep answering but you arrogance seems to rule your head.
            Fact:- Your ignorance in every comment you make answers you own question anyway.
            Fact:- That doesn’t make me a Bigot, it makes me a realist living in the real world.
            Fact:- If you want to see a bigot look in a mirror.
            Fact:- Why am I bothering with you when it is so obvious your a complete arse?
            Fact:- End of. Ta Da!

        2. Yawn. So another ad hominem. Tatchell did not state an opinion. He said that according to Vatican teachings if the Pope said anything then it was true. The documents actually say it’s only on issues of dogma.

          I don’t know why you’re talking about religion. It’s a side issue; I was merely using an example of where Tatchell lied (and he did, that’s a fact). As I’ve actually pointed out I’m not Catholic or even religious so your smears wrong there.

          Get your head out the clouds and actually read something. Oh and for the record (because no doubt you’ll call me a homophobe). I have no problem what goes on between consenting adults.

          Go figure.

          1. Just answer me this boy. What actions have I tired to blame on others? Because I haven’t have I. Tell me; how it Tatchell saying that someone says something that they don’t not a lie? Simple question really.

            You’re not really very bright are you.

  7. The royal family aren’t allowed to get involved in political matters, so it wouldn’t be permitted for them to make a statement either in favour or against. It would be nice if they came out and accepted the card and thanked the campaigners though: actions speak louder than words…

    1. Actually that’s just the Queen, the rest of the royal family can say what they like, just like Charles has been for years.
      The person(s) on the throne give(s) up the right to get involved politically.

      1. Jock S. Trap 21 Apr 2011, 4:34pm

        Actually It is for them all, it’s just what we hear about Prince Charles tends to be reported from a private conversations. Granted he does push the boundaries sometimes but as a rule they are not supposed to public political statements.

        1. I believe you’re wrong on this one:
          Black Spider Memos?
          Charles is always sending them to the government, he’s allowed to unless he becomes King, in which case he has to stick to the agreed terms where the government gives the Monarchy enough of their estate’s earnings to survive and he has to keep his mouth shut.

          The monarchy are generally smart enough to not speak out politically as they really don’t want to be seen taking sides, Charles on the other hand is another story.

          1. Jock S. Trap 22 Apr 2011, 9:10am

            Indeed Prince Charles has been known to ‘advise’ government on issues but usually it is the other way around. However they are not allowed to have public views esp on politics, which is why as I say we tend to hear about his private views which personally I think he is just entitled to. It doesn’t change anything but of course they’ll always be journalists who go one step further and report it.

  8. Once upon a time, a Princess shook hands with a man who had AIDS. Now those with an ounce of intelligence and common sense knew that there was no danger at all from casual contact of that nature. But to some people (my grandmother, now in her 90s, for example), it was a message that they could not ignore.

    It was a powerful symbolic gesture to make a point.

    Today – William and Kate could make a symbolic gesture of their own. William has no particular political power. But to many people, his words and opinions do have weight. He could take this opportunity to stand up for us, to express a wish for true equality for all citizens of this nation.

    Personally, I am not moved by the royal family and would be happy to see it come to an end. BUT as some people will listen to Katie Price and some people will listen to Wayne Rooney, some people WILL listen to him. Two billion are expected to watch the wedding. He could live up to his mother’s legacy and say something.

    1. Tim Chapman 21 Apr 2011, 9:32pm

      Well said.

  9. How Pathetic…..What right has peter tatchell got…its not always about being gay and rights….

    How many Gay marriages are genuine…i know plenty that have had the civil partnership and still play around….we are happy for no-one…

    Grow up…its pathetic….

    1. Plenty of straight men and women play around. Whats your point?

      1. *married straight men and women

        1. my point is…we make out that we need to demonstrate for evrything and upset plenty of others on the way ….and for what….

          1. @ JOHN: equality. Ever heard of the concept?

          2. Jock S. Trap 22 Apr 2011, 9:21am

            Because Women and the Black communities had is so easy to be treated equal, you mean?

      2. Does that make it right? Deflect the argument, Straw man yet again.

    2. Jock S. Trap 22 Apr 2011, 9:19am

      1) What right has peter tatchell got

      Er, plenty. Last time I checked the UK was a democracy. With that comes the entitlement to protest. Thats the beauti of living in a democracy.

      2) its not always about being gay and rights

      No one said it was. Though this just happens to be a New Site for the LGBT community so you might think it’ll feature quite heavily.

      3) How many Gay marriages are genuine

      None. We aren’t allowed to have them, which is wrong. Everyone in a loving committed relationship should have the choice. Furthermore how many Straight marriages are genuine?

      4) i know plenty that have had the civil partnership and still play around

      I know plenty of straight people in marriage, civil or otherwise, who still play around. Some as swingers others as adulterers.

      5) we are happy for no-one

      Well go else where then to spread your misery.

      6) Grow up

      Seriously? If you can’t handle it don’t come here.

      7) its pathetic

      Ironic coming from the likes of you, don’tcha think?

    3. and why do you belive gays should not be equal in society,you know no minority or oppressed group has gotten social aceptance or rights without pushing the boundries a bit

  10. Is this a joke? Leave them alone they will have just got married.

    1. Er, no – it’s 4 days before their wedding.

      1. I know I did not realise but still they have more important things to be doing around this time.

  11. To all of you Peter Tatchell bashers, tell us exactly what you are doing to advance full equality in this country? Are any of you prepared to go the extra mile and stick your necks out? The answer is of course, a resounding NO, so you can either put up or shut up! Why do you think Section 28 was overturned and civil partnerships ushered in, through osmosis or some benevolent government? Its because of activists, like Peter who put the pressure on others to do the right thing. None of you have the guts or the courage to do what he has done. None of you could match his bravery or the decency to speak up when others wouldn’t. Leave it to a small minority of activists to do all the work while the rest of you sit back and enjoy the fruits of their hard work. If you haven’t one decent word to say about Peter, again, shut up.

    1. I like Peter Tatchell and will be forever grateful but I just think its the wrong time.

      1. Tim Chapman 21 Apr 2011, 9:35pm

        I like Peter Tatchell and will be forever grateful and I think it’s exactly the right time.

  12. I’m so glad i’ll be out of th uk on that day , i’m so bored of looking at them already. The only one i can tolerate, is princess anne ,cause she looks horsey and has had the same hairstyle since 1972. They’re all inbred anyhow , oh yea that explains the marraige to a commoner.

    1. Dunno, Lord Freddie Windsor was pretty fine looking during his cocaine fuelled heyday.

  13. Its Bank Holiday Monday, no one will hear him, well no one of any importance anyway.

    I do hope HRH Prince William abstates from supporting same sex joinings.

    Millitant homosexuals should shut up.
    They moan about the Asians coming in and changing and taking over, what the homosexuals are doing is no different.

    Im with Adam and Phil on this.

    Go play up your own end.

    1. Jock S. Trap 22 Apr 2011, 6:41am

      How will equality ever be achieved with the likes of you around?

      No-one should be second class citizens. Human beings should have the same right.

    2. Its Bank Holiday Monday, no one will hear him, well no one of any importance anyway.

      Then you don’t need to worry about it, do you?

  14. Jock. I can’t reply in line but for all the good he has done the stop murder music campaign maybe a reason that black anti gay attitudes have increased. We never had it easy but now it’s guaranteed a black person will react. He should have never fronted that campaign. And setting up the black mens advisory group after accusations of racism showed a lack of something. If he was innocent he should have sttod up to his accusers. Now the campaign is finished murder music is still around and I personally think we are in a worse position. I can’t speak for gay jamaicans. And neither can he

    1. All this is about….is Peter Tatchell….making a demonstration…..its not about Black or white, Asian anything like that……
      He does not degree what many gay people believe…..

  15. @James, re: “they have more important things to be doing around this time”, LMAO mate, they sure do have more important things to be doing, like Fergie needs to be sent out of the country (again), Camilla needs to have her face ironed, doddery old Prince Philip needs to be told the etiquette regarding meeting non-white guests (again). They’re just like any other family really except that their wedding is going to be hijacked by opportunists on all sides be it Peter Tatchell or souveneir tea towel vendors.

    1. I think it should be after their honeymoon.

    2. “…just like any other family…”
      … the myth that they’re just like their subjects … mr and mrs penny shop would be glad to know that you hold them in so high regard …

      1. I was being facetious dickwad.

  16. If they do not give us the right to marry we will just have to take it, that’s right take it.

  17. Brendan – the LibDems made marriage their policy after getting into an unpopular coalition but in their 2010 LGBT election manifesto less than 12 months ago there was no mention of it! not a single word ….

  18. Conservative_Supporter 23 Apr 2011, 4:52pm

    Look guys, the simple thing is this. Homosexuality is wrong! As a religious Conservative I can say with up most certainty that the lord almighty does not want humans to engage in such behaviour.

    The Conservatives were right to prevent its teaching in schools.

    1. If the Lord is Almighty, why did he need to appoint you as his spokesman?

      And, more to the point, when did He do so?

    2. Jock S. Trap 24 Apr 2011, 9:17am

      Is that the same Conservative_Supporter as the EDL_Supporter I wonder.

      I get your game.

      How boring.

      1. Conservative_Supporter 24 Apr 2011, 1:10pm

        I am not EDL Supporter – no idea who that is. Sorry.

    3. You arrogant, ignorant straight male (what a surprise!) speaking for your “Lord”. It’s you who rule the world with your evil tyranny that Jesus has a problem with. We gays are special to God. Same sex love is noble and good.

      1. Conservative_Supporter 25 Apr 2011, 11:27pm

        You sound like an arrogant, self absorded fascist to me. Anyone who doesn’t live in your homosexual utopia is subhuman. You sir are worse than Hitler.

  19. Gays are disgusting and deserve to be deported maybe to Saudi Arabia!

    1. Conservative_Supporter 23 Apr 2011, 5:00pm

      They aren’t disgusting, as people I am sure they are pleasant, but what they are doing is an afront to God.

      1. Jock S. Trap 24 Apr 2011, 9:18am

        See all you did there was demonstrate how you can just change nicknames.
        Clearly whoever you are you need an education.

        1. Conservative_Supporter 24 Apr 2011, 1:10pm

          I haven’t changed names – don’t know what you are on about.

          Why do I need an education? Just because I dislike homosexuality? How prejudice of you.

          1. Jock S. Trap 24 Apr 2011, 1:53pm

            Your just making a bigger arse of yourself now.

            You dislike it so much but can’t help yourself coming to for a crafty look between your visits to the Gay porn sites your visiting.
            Whats up got bored waiting for that rentboy you ordered an hour ago, to turn up?

        2. Conservative_Supporter 25 Apr 2011, 11:29pm

          Couldn’t reply to the other one for some reason.

          Unlike you, I am not some sexual deviant that needs a rent boy. You are engaging in a lifestyle choice that is unacceptable. It’s an afront to God, to civil society and decency.

          1. Oh, get over yourself – talk about self-absorbed! “Lifestyle choice” indeed – the usual fallback phrase of the bigoted. But even if it was a choice, it’s clearly not an affront to us, nor is it to most decent people.

            And I doubt God appointed you as his spokesperson. Since we’re told he’s almighty, why not leave him to speak for himself?

          2. Conservative_Supporter 26 Apr 2011, 10:49am

            Sorry Rehan couldn’t reply to your post directly, I wouldn’t let me.

            What you do is a lifestyle choice and nothing else. You choose to be queerosexuals, no one forces you. You made your choice and you expect everyone to respect the wrong choice you made? nonsense.

            You call me bigoted? You are the bigoted one sir. You think everyone should join in the disgusting anti-social behaviour that you queers willingly engage in.

            Most decent, civilised people recognise that it’s disgusting and creepy and an affront to the Lord.

            God will pass judgement on you all and you will suffer in the depths of hell for all time for your unholy acts.

          3. Thank you, but I don’t need to be told whether what I do is a choice or not, specially by someone who believes in hell and speaks of unholy acts. Grow up.

            And maybe spend a little less time on gay websites, where your essential foolishness is all too desperately obvious..

          4. People don’t choose to be gay Conservative _Supporter, we grow up gay and we choose to accept what we are and be honest about it instead of making the ridiculous choice of pretending we are straight to please people like you.
            Civil marriage equality is probably inevitable.
            As for “holy matrimony” or church marriages well, no marriage without love can ever be called holy.

  20. Gay is sacred.

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.