Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

American Psychological Association calls for gay marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. It is clearly now time for the UK to introduce full marriage equality.

    1. Here’s the actual APA Public Interest Government Relations Office report of Marriage Equality and LGBT Health.
      http://www.apa.org/about/gr/issues/lgbt/marriage-equality.pdf

      1. Slippery slope:
        “They’re now saying gays should be allowed to get married, next they’ll be saying gays should be allowed to vote and to pay taxes!”

  2. Jock S. Trap 5 Aug 2011, 11:21am

    Excellent… Now who will listen?

  3. The headline is wrong. They called for marriage equality. Terming it gay marriage makes it sound like a separate institution, whereas it is all just marriage equally available to gay and straight.

    1. Absolutely, the APA are calling for marriage equality.

    2. Jock S. Trap 5 Aug 2011, 11:46am

      I agree, there is the fascination with calling it Gay marriage when all it does is give bigots a reason to suggest we want more Rights not Equal Rights.
      -
      It promotes there uneducated views of assumptions.

    3. I’m so glad there are others who find it just as irritating that it’s referred to as ‘gay marriage’ here even when the preferable term ‘marriage equality’ is specifically used by the organisation in question.

    4. Yes. Here in The Netherlands the organisation which campaigned for 16 years for the opening of marriage, finally achieved in 2001, has since been regularly tearing its hair out over the mainstream media’s persistence in talking about gay marriage when there is of course no such thing. Unfortunately it’s very difficult to counteract easy short-hand like this which fits nicely into headlines. Still, LGBT media like pinknews.co.uk would do well to refer to equal marriage, or opening up marriage to all, and thereby set a good example.

    5. They called for marriage equality.

      No they did not.

      They called for gays to be allowed to be legally married.

      Enough with this equality nonsense.

      ~PePa
      Gayrea 51
      Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

      1. They only titled it that way to please you.

        1. How very kind of them.

      2. Specifically, APA recommends
        *Adopting initioatives that support legal access to civil marriage and all it’s associatedrights, benefits and privileges for same sex couples
        *Funding and evaluation of further scientific studies that can enlighten and be utilised in policy development concerning sexual orientation and marriage.
        * Efforts to increase the dissemination of empirical research to inform the U.S. population and policy makers regarding marriage equality issues.

      3. They act like calling it “marriage equality” makes it perfect. There just saying all that to shut us up.

    6. Staircase2 6 Aug 2011, 12:11am

      But then it IS calling for marriage for gay people (equal to that for str8 people)

      As I’ve said on here many times – I honestly don’t see why people are so het up (no pun intended) on the idea of ‘marriage’ – aside from the perspective of equality which I fully support, it confuses me why so many of (predominantly male) commentators on here are so (I believe overly) passionate about it…

      1. Jock S. Trap 6 Aug 2011, 12:55am

        Don’t we, male or female, deserve to be treated Equally? Don’t we All deserve the right to choose to be married? Or not? The answer is all about choice? Don’t we All have the right to choose the right to celebrate our love? All have the right to CHOSE to be married or not to be married?

        1. Don’t we, male or female, deserve to be treated Equally?
          As long as its reasonable, yes. But I would not blur the sexes thinking that males are in fact EQUAL to females. Uh, no they are not.

          Don’t we All deserve the right to choose to be married? Or not?
          NO. We cannot marry our parents, siblings, children, minors, pets, animals, dead people, infants, grandparents… whether gay or straight.

  4. Excellent news! A great statement from the APA. I’d really like someone who opposes equal marriage to come up with one valid reason why that isn’t based on some religious interpretation, which, in mnay cases sadly is just an excuse for justifying their personal prejudices.

    1. One counter reason that really hurts the gay marriage movement is that the majority of gays do not want a monogamous relationship nor live with the same partner for a long period of time.

      In the UK I calculated that only around 8% of the gay population are actually in Civil partnerships. While more than 75% or so of straight adults are married or have been married.

      Sad reality.

      ~PePa
      Gayrea 51
      Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

      1. Angela S. 5 Aug 2011, 8:09pm

        Yes, so what?
        Just like that a straight guy should not marry a guy if he doesn’t want to, and a straight woman should not marry another woman if she wants a guy!
        Just because other people want to, and should be able to, nobody is forcing you to marry a guy if you do not want to, but only want to sc*** awound….

        1. The problem is that as a community we are demanding gay marriage, yet the overwhelming majority of us do not want it.

          Does that look like its going to convince lots of people to the gay marriage cause.

          A lot of self examination needs to be done but it looks like a lot of gay activists are afraid to confront their own demons.

          ~PePa
          Gayrea 51
          Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

          1. @ pepa: is it because you come from the country that first made divorce universally acceptable that you’re so obsessed with monogamy? As I’m sure you’re aware, that means nothing more than being married to one person at a time – something your nation’s prominent people appear to do with enthusiasm, so much so that they do it over and over again.
            .
            It’s impertinent, to say the least, that some rustic from the nation that specialises in relationships with sell-by dates is accusing those in the gay ‘community’ (which gay community?) of not wanting long-term relationships. As I personally know of more than 2 dozen male couples that have been together over 10 years, half of those over 20, I find your assumptions quite offensive (though I’m aware that’s exactly what you’re hoping for).

          2. Angela S. 5 Aug 2011, 9:27pm

            If you do not want to marry someone, then DON’T marry someone…..

            My gf/partner, for over 12 years, and I are not married, even though we can..
            I do not see any need for it where we live..

          3. Pepa
            .
            How odd!!!
            .
            Are you saying that all heterosexuals want to be in monogamous marriages, and are monogamous all the time in thier marriages ?

          4. is it because you come from the country that first made divorce universally acceptable that you’re so obsessed with monogamy?

            Lets not forget that it was leftists who wanted no fault divorce. I am against it. So go ahead and ban it by all means… put your foot where your mouth is — but I gather YOU would be the last person to support that. Correct me if I am wrong.

            So your argument is by all means moot.

          5. Are you saying that all heterosexuals want to be in monogamous marriages, and are monogamous all the time in thier marriages

            Whats your point? Do want heterosexuals not to have the right to marry? Thought you gay sex activists like Angela, are making the argument that it doesn’t matter what the group is doing, just because gays don’t want to be married we shouldn’t deny the rest the right to do so. So why do you want to deny the rest of the heterosexuals the right to marry because there some who do not?

            Secondly, and most importantly, heterosexuals do not need to convince the public on their marriage, gays do. Whether you like it or not, the political reality is that gays face higher scrutiny than straights. That’s just reality.

          6. Jock S. Trap 6 Aug 2011, 1:18am

            So why shouldn’t I have the right to marry the man who has stood beside me through my illness, through my pain, my guilt, my grief? He is my rock, my support, my life, my partner, my love who without I would probably not be here for…. Why Can’t I give him the thing He wants most…. the right to marry?
            -
            I know that he really hates the thought of this but I would like to think that after I go (hopefully not yet) he finds someone else and is as happy so why can’t he? Why does he not have that right?

          7. Lets not forget that it was leftists who wanted no fault divorce
            .
            I wasn’t referring to “no-fault divorce”, but in any event I very much doubt those of your compatriots who popularised divorce in the 19c had much of a concept of ‘left’ or ‘right’.

      2. Staircase2 6 Aug 2011, 12:23am

        @Pepe (sexy muscles) how did you ‘calculate’ that then? As far as I know those figures aren’t even available (are they?)

        To be honest I don’t for a minute believe that “the majority of gays do not want a monogamous relationship nor live with the same partner for a long period of time” – what makes you say that?

        And even if that were true its still not a valid counter argument against equality in marriage for gay and lesbians.

        1. There are 40,000 CPs in the UK.

          Current estimates of 3% put gays in the UK about 800,000

          So doing simple math leads to percentage I stated.

          And no, its not a valid argument yet:

          1) It is something people look at it to see if we really want it anyways…

          2) JohnK assumes that all straights divorce therefore they don’t deserve to have marriage.

      3. Another way of looking at the stats though is that Civil Partnerships account for just over 2% of all unions entered annually – rising slightly last year.

        If you believe as I do that gay people make up about 3% of the population then that seems quite respectable, especially given that gay people have no cultural tradition of marriage, have lacked role models, and don’t face the same pressure to tie the knot.

        It’s also always likely to be harder for a gay man or woman to meet Mr or Mrs Right – more akin to finding a needle in a haystack.

        So while the gay scene – especially the gay urban scene could be more conducive to long term relationships I think the trend is encouraging.

        I’m one of the fortunate ones. I met my Mr Right more than 20 years ago and we are now happy in a Civil Partnership.

    2. Well, pepa makes it all up as he goes along, he is an extreme and hostile fantasist, his grip on reality is tenuous to say the least, he is angry, aggressive and not well socialised, that is the sad reality in the case of pepa. it seems to me pepa comes here to receive free counselling.

      1. Sadly not, Pavlos. I don’t think he realises he needs counselling. He comes here (and to other sites) to feed off attention and take over threads. So best to ignore him now, I think.
        The rest of your comment I wholly agree with! Pepa is Mr Angry personified.

        1. Iris, I agree with the attention seeking.
          In addtion, one could argue that why would anyone on a LGBT website, present a rather muscular image of a man on ones profile, if the persons was not playing a sexual game!. Moreover, flirting with perceived notions of homo-eroticism!

          1. LOL

            The breakfast club meeting…

    3. The evidence seems to be against what pepa claims.
      The APA say “an abundance of new studies that show that same-sex couples share the same goals as opposite-sex couples in building “stable, long-lasting and committed intimate relationships and are successful in doing so.”

      1. Nope.

        What I am saying is that most gay people do not want “stable, long-lasting and committed intimate relationships”

        Those that do are in fact successful but they are NOT the majority.

  5. I just want marriage equality in the form of state based marriage. Not called civil partnership. ( hate that name sounds so degrading to me )

    Marriage isn’t religious and the dy te morons in power realise that the better.

    We need no difference in laws just say man and man not man and woman. Only change is we don’t get married in churches but a registry office.

    Its not hard.

    1. “just say man and man”

      Er….what about women?! All that’s needed is for civil marriage to be made gender neutral. So simple really.

      1. That statement also threw me off.

    2. Yes, by calling them morons they immediately come to your side.

      ~PePa
      Gayrea 51
      Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

  6. Luke from Canada 5 Aug 2011, 12:04pm

    the twelve countires they are reffering to. I know of ten, are they including mexico in this list? possibly brazil as well?

    1. Israel possibly since they recognize same-sex marriages.

    2. They’re referring to the United States and Mexico as some jurisdictions within each of the countries have Marriage Equality.
      Brazil has Civil Unions not Marriage Equality.

  7. Eddy - the original, from 2007 5 Aug 2011, 12:04pm

    Great! A part of the medical establishment adding their support is significant.

  8. Erika Cart-Horse, QC 5 Aug 2011, 12:32pm

    Ironically the benefits of equal marriage to gay couples and their children was fully admitted by expert witnesses called by the opponents to it in the Perry v Schwartznegger case in Caifornia. One day I hope we can see it all fully televised.

    1. It was also revealed in the case that monogamous long term relationships are a better fit for people psychologically.

      So I’m still waiting for Dan Savage to retract his teachings on “open relationships” and cheating on one’s partner for selfish gains. Oh and the promiscuity that Dan promotes should also be retracted and denounced.

      But hell will freeze over before Dan and his ilk renounce their hideous “advice.”

      1. “It was also revealed in the case that monogamous long term relationships are a better fit for people psychologically”
        .
        Where, and by whom? Are you speaking solely of people in US suburbs? Some evidence would be helpful.

        1. Read the transcripts of the case, a witness made those arguments.

          Video reenactments are uploaded on Youtube.

          1. Oh come now pepa, you can do better than that! Can’t you provide the evidence yourself?
            .
            In any event, are you seriously saying that ONE witness speaks for all humanity? What a weird, self-absorbed little world you must live in!

          2. The case is evidence itself.

            I saw it on youtube.

            The reenactment is divided in over a hundred hours of drama reenactment. So no, I’m not going back again to pin point the exact video link and time of the witness.

            If you really need to find out you can do it yourself.

            And why should I post it anyway? All you will ever do is reject it and/or ignore it.

      2. Pepa wrote
        “It was also revealed in the case that monogamous long term relationships are a better fit for people psychologically.”
        .
        So are you saying that all heteroexuals are monogamous, and want monogamy?

        1. Already answered.

          1. Staircase2 6 Aug 2011, 12:54am

            ‘Chill’ and ‘Pill’ are two words that spring to mind….

  9. Hopefully when I find someone I would want to marry, I will have the option to! :o)

  10. The APA also mentioned the harm that is done to gay people by the people campaigning against them. It would be good if the APA mentioned some of the mental health issues of people who are so rabidly anti-gay that they set up weird homophobic organisations and websites as well as trolling gay forums. There must be a name for it.

    1. My theory is that excessive homophobic tendencies are caused by sexual abuse by one or both parent, and/or by a priest, or by an excessively strict father. Am making this up of course, just as the homophobes do.

      1. Got a name…Acute Homophobic Disorder (AHD).

        1. Pathiological Bias is what extreme homophobia is sometimes called, the APA have not yet listed it as a diagnosis but some psychiatrists agree it is an illness that should be listed.
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901938.html

          1. Sorry that’s “Pathological Bias”.

          2. Psychiatry Ponders Whether Extreme Bias Can Be an Illness
            (article from 2005)

            “”When I see someone who won’t see a physician because they’re Jewish, or who can’t sit in a restaurant because there are Asians, or feels threatened by homosexuals in the workplace, the party line in mental health says, ‘This is not our problem,’ ” the psychologist said. “If it’s not our problem, whose problem is it?” ”
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901938.html
            (This is correct link though you may have to close an ad that sometimes comes up first).

    2. The APA also mentioned the harm that is done to gay people by the people campaigning against them

      Yes, that’s if however those that oppose gay marriage are bigoted and harsh in doing so, which is what I got from the APA. Bigotry and hatred can cause psychological harm; positions on political questions do not. Hence why I think some gay activists who engage in bigotry themselves should stop as well.

      ~PePa
      Gayrea 51
      Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

      1. Pepa wrote
        “Hence why I think some gay activists who engage in bigotry themselves should stop as well.”
        .
        So Pepa, what is this bigotry exactly?

        1. Should I quote all the nasty comments that were made by your posse?

          Examples include: ridiculing people’s beliefs, calling other people names, saying that you are better than somebody else (that was jockstrap’s post), that others who you disagree with should “shut the fvck” up etc etc…

          Do you think these are bigoted behaviors? I know you would when its done against gay people, okay I agree, but how about when its done BY gay people?

          Bigotry of all stripes should be denounced. You should know better.

          1. Here we have the pot calling the kettle black.

          2. @Pepa
            .
            Do you not think that some peoples beliefs needing ridiculing, especailly Christians who hold beliefs that people existed at the time of the dinsoaurs, or that the earth is a few 1000 years old.
            .
            Pepa, are you saying that we should respect such beliefs?

          3. So what?

            “As long as it doesn’t hurt anybody who are we to judge”

            Does that ring a bell?

    3. Staircase2 6 Aug 2011, 1:08am

      @JohnK – I dont think you or anyone else has the right to ridicule someone elses beliefs – whether thats related to dinosaurs or not!

      There are plenty of ‘scientific’ beliefs that have been held over the years which are TRULY stupid – this anti-religion thing on the basis purely of ‘I don’t believe what you believe’ is a nonsense.

      You don’t HAVE to believe what others believe – and nor do they have to believe what YOU believe either – the point is just that it is possible for more than one belief to co-exist.

      The only times that it is necessary for people to argue their viewpoint is when they are on one team and debate is part of the creative process or purely for the intellectual thrill of it – and there can be no intellectual thrill in a one sided debate – thats called ‘bullying’

      1. “The only times that it is necessary for people to argue their viewpoint is when they are on one team and debate is part of the creative process or purely for the intellectual thrill of it”
        .
        Is PN not a quasi-debating forum?

      2. “@JohnK – I dont think you or anyone else has the right to ridicule someone elses beliefs – whether thats related to dinosaurs or not!”
        .
        @Stiarcase2
        .
        I am interested in why you think it is not ridiculous to believe that people existed at the same time as the dinosuars, or that the world is only a few 1000 years old?

      3. “@JohnK – I dont think you or anyone else has the right to ridicule someone elses beliefs – whether thats related to dinosaurs or not!”
        .
        @Stiarcase2
        .
        I am interested in why you think it is not ridiculous to believe that people existed at the same time as the dinosuars, or that the world is only a few 1000 years old?
        .

  11. The APA has long supported marriage equality, this is nothing new.

    I just don’t see our own counterpart doing it.

    Luke from Canada, Mexico City and Washington DC which doesn’t include the 6 American states that allow it so far. Brazil approved Civil Unions earlier this year, Chile is mulling it. Colombia is currently looking at marriage equality. Meanwhile, we haven’t even started in the UK.

    The term “gay marriage” is used to agitate right wing fundamentalists and opposition to same-sex marriage, and it’s doing a very good job. Part of the blame can be laid at the feet of gay blogsites, and Pink News isn’t exempt either. Expect to hear that term more frequently if and when the marriage equality consultation begins in the autumn, make no mistake about that. I can just see the Daily Mail and other rags spewing it with impunity.

    1. There is nothing wrong with the term “gay marriage.”

      Your plea is strange and weak. When two gay people marry it is a “gay marriage” when two straight people marry it is a “straight marriage.”

      I disagree with the notion that the term agitates the right wing. They use it more because they see right through gay activists. Some use it because they know the consequences of implying “marriage equality” which could include marriages between family members, pets, dead people, objects, polygamy.

      Just stick to gay marriage and you’ll be fine.

      ~PePa
      Gayrea 51
      Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

      1. There is confusion around this, many people in UK even including UK policy makers think gay marriage refers to civil partnerships, so it is important to emphasise that we do not expect separate classification nor a separate institution that is especially just for gay people called “gay marriage”, we expect “marriage” and that means we want marriage equality.
        Specifically I expect civil marriage equality and I will resist any institution titled gay marriage.

        1. Gay marriage is not by law recognized in the UK.

          Only “civil partnerships”

  12. Fantastic. Just look at how far we’ve come since psychologists used to say we had a mental illness and give us ECT and hormone injections.

  13. Angela S. 5 Aug 2011, 7:57pm

    Time to stop calling it “Gay Marriage” and call it Marriage Equality!!!

    Unless the LGBTQI ‘community’ would like to show their support for for the hater who can’t stop talking about how ‘Gay Marriage” is special rights……

    1. If you want marriage with animals, family members, objects, polygamy, children, etc etc sure use “marriage equality.”

      Under the logic of equality its either all or nothing. Which is something you fail to understand.

      Think about it. What would stop polygamists from demanding “marriage equality” also? However polygamists would look rather funny and stupid demanding gay marriage instead.

      Again just stick to gay marriage and you will be fine.

      ~PePa
      Gayrea 51
      Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

      1. Angela S. 5 Aug 2011, 8:14pm

        Right….
        Troll Alert!!!

        1. “Right….
          Troll Alert!!!”
          .
          .
          Yep, but accurately!!!
          .
          Fundamentalist Christian Crackpot Alert!!!

      2. Pepa wrote
        “If you want marriage with animals, family members, objects, polygamy, children, etc etc sure use “marriage equality.”
        .
        .
        Pepa why are you obesssed with perversion?, no one has mentioned these things, only you!!!
        .
        Pepa, what does this really say about you!!!
        .
        Pepa, that was a rhetorical question!!!

        1. If its rhetorical there is no need to answer then..,

          JonhK, what does this really say about you?

          1. @Pepa
            .
            So why are you obessed with perversion?

          2. Because like many other ills in our society (theft, murder, molestation, rape, war, greed) they all need to be SHUN.

            Or is it fashionable in England to be in FAVOR of perversion (hence proving my assumptions about Stu)

      3. @pepa

        This is such a lame point I’m surprised you labour it.

        All of the suggested “new categories are either incoherent – how would pets let alone objects signal informed consent to marriage? – or raise huge practical and social issues – polygamy would require a completely new set of rules and arrangements, while there are good social and health arguments against incest. So to use the term “equality” is arguable vexatious.

        None of these issues apply to marriage between people of the same sex which mere entails the removal to reference to gender. This has already happened as you know in numerous countries around the world.

        1. None of these issues apply to marriage between people of the same sex which mere entails the removal to reference to gender.

          Then just have GAY MARRIAGE.

          Whats so hard/evil/shameful about saying it?

          Are you self loathing?

    2. The APA is calling for marriage equality for same sex couples and for opposite sex couples and so are LGBT’s in UK, only marriage equality is acceptable.

      1. equality doesn’t have anything to do with the pathetic “slippery slope” fallacy Pepa

        1. Yes it does.

          Equality means that all and everything will be valued the same way.

          Gay marriage is .. well gay marriage.

  14. pepa. you’re an idiot and an enabler for the right wing fundamentalists. Straight marriage isn’t referred to as such when two heterosexuals marry. It’s simply called marriage. In the case of civil marriage law, gender neutral in those countries that allow us to marry. The marriage causation act of 1973 doesn’t even refer to marriage as “straight” marriage.

    Provide the facts to support your absurd claim that the majority of gay couples who would marry would want more than one partner. Facts please. Even if that were the case, which it isn’t, there would be no sense in marrying in the first place. You stereotype the majority of gay people implying that we’re all promiscuous. Maybe you’re talking about yourself.

    Where are you from exactly? If you don’t want to get married, don’t. Nobody is forcing you.

    1. pepa. you’re an idiot…

      And the discussion ends.

      I wont deal with bigots anymore.

      1. @Pepa
        .
        Some throwing a tantrum, and answer Roberts questions!!!

        1. @Pepa
          .
          Stop throwing a tantrum, and answer
          Roberts questions!!!

          1. Nope.

            Once he started out that way, I thought why even waste my time…

            Didn’t even read the whole thing. Just like when I receive emails from homophobes that start out with the gay slur, I just stop and throw it in the trash…

  15. Rich (original) 6 Aug 2011, 12:34am

    Looks like American “psychologists” are paederasts themselves. What a shame!

    1. Staircase2 6 Aug 2011, 1:11am

      You are SUCH a doughnut…

      Although good to see they shut you up for once…lol

      1. Staircase2 6 Aug 2011, 1:12am

        And what’s with the speech marks around the word Psychologists? – They’re PSYCHOLOGISTS FFS!

        This is their collective professional considered opinion

    2. I noticed the Robot is back!!!
      .
      The Robot only has one message
      .
      The Robot only has one story

    3. Nutcase alert, the scumbag Rich (original) has surfaced again. When will Pink News deal with these trolls?

  16. Jock S. Trap 6 Aug 2011, 1:11am

    So to show a raise of hands:-
    -
    Who here wants the Right to choose if they should have the right to marry or not to marry?
    -
    If people choose not to, that is irrelevent because it’s all about having that right to choose as opposed to not have the right to decide, surely?!
    -
    I want to marry my man and celebrate my love I have so committed to him for the past 18 year and for the rest of my life.
    -
    Why don’t I have the right to be married to the man that is seeing me through my pain of cancer and painful treatment i’m having to go through?
    -
    The man that stands by me through the pain and grief of chemo and the man I wish and he wishes to spend together through Everything to spend the rest of my/our lifes as happy and contented as one?
    -
    My son, who has a girlfriend (for those who want to question) often asks why can I not celebrate my love with my man… (his stepfather) Who I love deeply, so deeply..
    -
    So, seriously, why can’t I?

    1. Staircase2 6 Aug 2011, 1:13am

      er……

      1. Jock S. Trap 6 Aug 2011, 1:29am

        So tell me, why can I or he, not have the right ot choose marriage?

        1. Are you in a civil partnership Jock?

    2. Paddyswurds 6 Aug 2011, 2:23pm

      @Jock S Trap..
      …while i absolutely believe we should have equal right to marriage and such a marriage to be Marriage, not “Gay Marriage”. There should be no tag because with a tag it is being devalued and so not equal.
      However, one is absolutely mystified why approval by church or State is necessary to prove or legitimise your love for another human being. A piece of paper signifying approval from third partys should not be necessary to enable one to celebrate ones love for ones significant other if the love was real. Gathering a group of friends in a leafy forest glade should be all that is needed to celebrate ones Love for ones partner.
      Even hetties are abandoning official marriage in their droves. To quote one hettie friend recently “it is so yesterday”.

  17. So go ahead and ban it by all means… put your foot where your mouth is — but I gather YOU would be the last person to support that. Correct me if I am wrong. So your argument is by all means moot.
    .
    The above in English would be helpful.

  18. @Pepa

    I have a few questions:

    Are you actually gay?

    Are you against gay people being allowed to marry?

    Are you a member of a religion? If so, which one?

    Do you want gay people to be treated equally, or, do you believe that discrimination against gay people is acceptable?

    Do you believe that gay people are equal to heterosexual people?

    1. Are you actually gay?

      Yes.

      Are you against gay people being allowed to marry?

      No.

      Are you a member of a religion? If so, which one?

      Yes. Catholic in name.

      Do you want gay people to be treated equally, or, do you believe that discrimination against gay people is acceptable?

      I don’t believe that it is acceptable. But right now under the guise if runaway equality, homophobes are going to use the same tactics of “equality” to get away with what they want to get away with. Here is where equality for all contradicts itself and many who push it don’t realize it.

      Do you believe that gay people are equal to heterosexual people?

      No. Gays are sexually attracted to the same sex, while heterosexuals are not.

  19. JohnK, he can’t answer my questions because he doesn’t have the facts to support his statement. He sounds like one of those right wing radical Tea Party scumbags in America who parrot all their information on soundbites, no substance, no facts, no intellectual curiosity or grasp.

    1. Robert, I tend to agree. There does appear to be a rhetorical preoccupaton with sound bites in Pepa’s messages.

    2. You start out by calling me an idiot and then demand that I read your posts and answer whatever questions you have.

      It seems to me you are interested in getting at me than actually engaging in meaningful discussion.

      Not interested Robert.

      This goes for anyone. If you start out with childish name calling I’m simply am going to pass.

      If you want to engage me, be direct, clear, and to the point of what you want to make.

      Is that too hard to do Robert? Are you so impatient that you are waiting for the right moment to act like a child?

      And no, you don’t have to answer those questions. Cheers.

  20. Andrea B. 6 Aug 2011, 2:30pm

    They may support gay marriage but the APA vehmently opposes the rights of transsexual people and made that very clear over there support of the most the most transphobic clinicians in the history of the APA.

    There award to Raymond Blanchard for pathologising transsexual people in every way was pure, blatant bigotry.

    Appointing James Cantor to a senior post in the APA was pure hatred of transsexual people.

  21. 2 “gay” marriage epetitions out on government website, possibly out today, not sure…

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/2797

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1826

    Please sign!!!

  22. Rich (original) 6 Aug 2011, 9:05pm

    Pepa, don’t argue with bastards!

    1. Oh dear Rich, lost your powers of debate again!

  23. Thanks, John for posting both links.

  24. Eddy - from 2007 6 Aug 2011, 9:58pm

    This person who calls him/herself “Pepa” and uses the picture of a musclebound young man as an avatar has aligned himself with the following website, where homophobic comments very much the same as Pepa’s comments on these threads are posted.

    One notices that the postings on that website contain copious grammatical and logical errors of the same variety as those that Pepa posts on PinkNews.

    One deduces therefore that this Pepa individual is a sad homophobic fraud.

    You can view his transparent juvenile hate-filled nonsense at:

    http://gaysagainsthomosexualextremism.blogspot.com/

    1. Eddy, thanks
      .
      This certianly looks like the work of Pepa, pity he does not practice what he preaches
      .
      A quote from his website:
      .
      “A homosexual extremist enjoys insulting, humiliating, and ridiculing those who oppose the efforts of gay activists. Sometimes gay activists are homosexual extremists. A homosexual extremist may sometimes use his/her sexual orientation to place guilt on heterosexuals or people of faith.”

      1. Pepa is the same individual who also goes under the name Rich (original).

        Pepa is a christian extremist whose posts demonstrate ideals not dissimilar to Anders Breivik’s.

        Let us also not forget that Hitler is possibly the most famous christian extremist of modern times (he was a practising catholic his entire life and maintained close relations with the pope). Christian fundamentalism is as violent and dangerous as Islamic fundamentalism. The christian church as a whole is guilty of genocide, murder and other sexual and violent crimes never before seen on such a grand and global scale. To be a member of such an organisation is to condone those crimes – no excuses! African churches even teach their male congregation to rape women who are suspected to be lesban. All christians should be regarded as deluded and mentally unstable at all times.

        1. Here we go again with the conspiracy theories.

        2. All christians should be regarded as deluded and mentally unstable at all times.

          And you wonder why I belong to a blog that exposes homosexual extremism?

          *shakes head in shame*

      2. Eddy - from 2007 7 Aug 2011, 2:20pm

        Hi, John. Nice to cross your path again, after so long!

        Isn’t it so sad that an individual like this “Pepa” pours so much of his little life’s precious time and creativity into setting up a website upon which and by which to spew hatred. It’s actually a mental illness. And probably based upon religion-inspired delusions. So sad. Such a waste of life.

        1. Hi Eddy, I agree it is rather sad, and what a travesty of wasted creativity, turned hate so to speak

          1. LOL

            John, if you people weren’t so extreme an vile maybe we would all be on the same exact page. But the world isn’t perfect.

  25. Traust…RIch, the “unoriginal” as I call him, once stated he was a muslim. Either way, islam is an equally perverted cult that supports paedophilia and polygamy. Apparently, Mohammed married a 9 year old girl, one of his several wives and I daresay incest is fairly common. If any cult should be banned it’s islam, closely followed by the romans and anglicans if you look at their collective histories of oppression and slaughter of ethnic groups and gays, to say nothing of their sexual perversions and subjugation of women.

    1. Rich (original) 7 Aug 2011, 4:12pm

      Robert, you are a strange person…. In one way you are defending innocent Muslims in Palestine against jewish violence, but in another way you condemning their Religion….. Where is your LOGIC, guy? You need to check up with psychiatrist, perhaps….

    2. Rich (original) 7 Aug 2011, 4:18pm

      One more thing. Being unintelligent, you don’t see the difference between marriage and sexual relations, mixing these acts together….. That’s the problem with your brain…. Just take a look into OED and make simple analysis of its semantics. You will be astonished to see how stupid you has been before!

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all