May! That’s the crux and 57 percent of the tiny of the population that attend church doesn’t amount to much.
According to surveys undertaken by the BBC in 1990 (and I suspect figures have reduced since then) – 6.7% of the UK population were regular church goers.
Now, if we are generous and say that figures have not substantially changed (which I would be surprised by) then we need to consider how many of those church goers are below 18.
If we consider that in the 2001 census 18% of the UK population were aged 14 or under. If we assume there is some consistency between the UK church going population and the general population. Again, being generous consider excluding 20% of the church going population as being aged under 18 (making a 2% allowance for 14-18 year olds).
The survey gave a 57% possible unlikely to vote Conservative.
So with a UK population of 62,218,761.
The church going population would be 4,168,657.
So the voting, church going population would be 3,334,926 (or 5.4% of the UK population)
According to official government statistics there are 6% (approx 3.6million …
In my experience, the age ratios at church are very different to the wider world. Far fewer under 21s and a lot more over 60s.
Still not a significant number, but slightly larger than you’re estimating, and one which includes ‘pillars of the community’.
I think the age profile varies from church to church, some are very much blue rinse brigade, whilst others are more younger orientated … thats why I felt it fair to use an approximation to the general age profile of the UK
As for “pillars of the community”, should we give added weight to one persons vote – due to their perceived eminence? I prefer to act on evidence not eminence.
… adults) in the UK – from an official study from HM Treasury to consider financial implications of CPs. Research conducted in 2003-5.
So the LGBT minority communities are significantly more than the maximum number of votes that could be lost, IF all decide to both change their vote and actually go to the polling station. If any decide not to vote, or decide on a plethora of other reasons that equal marriage is only one part of a multi faceted agenda when making electoral decisions then the LGBT communities are in even greater a majority.
Furthermore, who would they vote for instead – Labour? – support equal marriage, LibDem? – support equal marriage, Green? – support equal marriage …
Are any other parties likely to garner sufficient votes to elect an MP?
“It is estimated that 5 million people in the UK attend a church on a weekly basis.” Actually it is about 1 million with Sunday attendance about 950,00 [Cof E] own claim.
Bit of a pointless survey, turkeys don’t vote for xmas.
That’s only one church, though. There’s far more than just the Church of England, and it could easily be 5 million once you include the rest.
I have given some figure above which considered all churches, CoE, RC, Methodist, Baptist, URC, Pentecostal and others …
The figure in 1990 were significantly below 5million and I would suspect have fallen since then
Something needs to be done about this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di04_vKfqNw
57% of 544 polled is hardly representative.
I agree, but their influence even if that 57% is representative of the entire church going population – is marginal at most
‘percentage of the population’
The Catholic Bishop of Arundel and Brighton, the Rt Rev Kieran Conry, said the church would “have to do something” to protect marriage.
This arrogant man, and others like him, would do well to realise that marriage isn’t theirs to “protect”. It belongs to all of us. Perhaps this calls for more humility and less hubris on their part?
They could ban straight people from getting divorced
The bishop should have been PROTECTING CHILDREN.
I suspect that an online questionnaire is not particularly representative. The Scottish Social Attitudes Survey found that those who attend religious worship at least once a week are the least supportive of same-sex marriage, but not by as much as this poll indicates.
In the Scottish Survey, 43% of those who attended worship at least once a week opposed same-sex marriage, while 31% approved. Amongst Conservatve voters, 42% approved of same sex marriage and 30% opposed it.
So it seems unlikely that the Conservatives will lose a lot of votes over this. Bearing in mind that Tory members in Scotland just elected an out lesbian, equal marriage supporter as their leader. And which party would Tory opponents of equal marriage defect to?
Online polls are hopeless. They get passed around within cliques. As far as I know, not one of my christian friends would have voted against gay marriage (I wouldn’t call them a friend if they did – again, clique representation). But then again, most of my friends wouldn’t have voted Conservative in the first place.
I couldn’t find any data showing that Cpanel is representative of regular church-goers. And the data I did find suggests it isn’t.
Cpanel was convened in 2007 for Premier, an evangelical media group. ComRes said Cpanel would offer “a major opportunity… for Christians to influence the nation’s leaders”.
Of the 544 respondents to the same-sex marriage poll, a whopping 26% were either Baptists or Pentecostals – quite out of line with the national average for these small denominations (see http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/Premier_Gay_Marriage_data_tables_Nov11.pdf).
Cpanelists are highly socially conservative. Only 4 respondents (less than 1% of the total) said they were cohabiting. That is just a tenth of the national average – though I don’t know the average for regular churchgoers. A Cpanel survey in August showed 85% wanting a major campaign on abortion law (http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/Premier_tables_Q5_Aug). Without clarification, Cpanel numbers should be viewed sceptically.
…and I see that almost 80% are over 45 years old. Overall, they are clearly a self-selecting unrepresentative clique. In complete contrast to the British and Scottish Social Attitudes Surveys which are academic studies that put a lot of effort into being reflective of the diversity of the population.
And who on earth are the going to vote for instead? The BNP?
Yes, the Lib Dems are up for it as well, and I suppose Labour will probably support it (though they didn’t have the balls to introduce it)
To be fair, this is only happening because of the Lib Dems pushing for it as part of the Coalition. The Tories don’t have it as policy, and neither do Labour. David Cameron’s tried to take credit for “personal intervention”, but this is something the Lib Dems have been pushing for ever since the Coalition was formed. I can’t see a majority (or minority) Tory Government improving marriage equality when it’s not even their party policy.
I think they are on to a loser either way. If they dont vote Tory then who else? All the other major parties are likely to legalize it anyway within 10 years. Maybe they should take that as a hint that their backward medieval beliefs are not wanted.
They need to face it, their bigotry has lost.
I will be interested to find more about the Premier survey because, as it stands right now, I would be sceptical if that were the finding of that survey.
As an “insider”, although the church make up is far too complex to generalise, I am pretty sure many Christians of the “conservative” (with a small ‘c’) kind would be concerned over this particular development, but equally I would imagine there many other issues that concern Christians that they would want to take into account and balance out. (I would be disappointed if it were any different)
While, I don’t expect most Christians to do as I would, I tend to draw an imaginery matrix, listing issues I care about and what each party (and just as important, each candidate) is likely to do to address those issues and do what I consider to be in the best interests of the country.
I am, as they used to say, “a floating voter” and my decision as to who I would vote for is by no means clear at this stage. Cynically, it could be the lesser of all evils and there is not much to choose between the parties anyway, but hopefully it will take into account social justice and moral leadership as well as economy and foreign policy issues.
The party/candidate that comes out with the best score will likely get my vote.
As a non Christian and a gay man, I also conduct a similar thought process considering a variety of subjects that matter to me (and society) and determine the party and candidate view on those issues.
Whilst some of the issues we consider will be similar eg the economy, criminal justice, social justice, foreign policy etc etc … Although I suspect on some issues where we would like the parties and candidates to be would be somewhat different…. I would obviously include a party and candidate stance on LGBT issues, but that would be “in the mix” of all the issues and not the sole reason to decide to exercise my vote …
I remain a floating voter. Every time I think I have worked out my instinctive party political affiliation – something comes along to surprise me.
@JohnB — and your position on marriage equality is ?
Imho “marriage equality” is an oxymoron. Until recently, it was generally understood to be the union of one man and one woman for life. Marriage is meant for the procreation of children, mutual companionship and for the good of society.
I concur with the traditional view and biblical understanding.
I suspect, returning to the survey, most of those questioned (likely Christians of a “conservative” ilk) have similar views and would have been disappointed that the party historically seen as the party of the family and traditional values has gone away from that position, although in reality all the other major parties effectively are now of this view.
However, like me, most (I think) will recognise there are other issues too and I would be suprised if this issue alone would have caused them to change their view.
Two more things Harry …
1. My personal views on marriage have nothing to do with my post – I was merely stating my reasoning process when deciding which political party to support.
2. It is nice to see you back – hope you are ok :-)
They say 5 million people go to church a week. HAHA. What a lie.
Try going to one… a proper one (Catholic or Orthodox), and you’ll notice that in places like London it’s often standing room only.
On the rare occasions that I have been in one in the past five or six years … predominantly because I was on duty and the church had called 999 due to someone being unwell/injured … my experience is that far from standing room only, that few seats were taken … often no more than a couple of dozen people in the church (and that might be exaggerating for some of them).
Tough. No-one is forcing their churches to marry same sex partners, and marriage isn’t a church thing anyway – if they wish to make it religuious, thats up to them, but its a civil event in the eyes of the state
“No-one is forcing their churches to marry same sex partners” … YET
The Church has a moral obligation, given to it by Christ, to proclaim the truth. On this issue, the objective truth is that marriage is defined as a state that exists between one man and one woman for the creation and sustaining of a family.
“marriage isn’t a church thing anyway” – Actually, it has been safeguarded and promoted in Europe by the Church. It is one of its sacraments, and a fundamental part of its mission. State marriage derives from the institutions formed by Christianity (based on Judaism).
The first recorded gay marriage ceremony was carried out by the early Catholic church in Rome. Definitions change.
“Many types of same-sex marriages have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to ritualized unions.
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, women would bind themselves in contracts to younger women in elaborate ceremonies. Men also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.
The first recorded mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire. These same-sex marriages were solemnized with the same ceremonies and customs which were used for heterosexual marriages. Cicero mentions the marriage (using the Latin verb for “to marry”, i.e. nubere) of the son of Curio the Elder in a casual manner as if it was commonplace. Cicero states that the younger Curio was “united in a stable and permanent marriage” to Antonius. Martial also mentions a number of same-sex marriages. By Juvenal’s time, gay marriage seems to be common.”
“The Church has a moral obligation, given to it by Christ, to proclaim the truth.”
So when their bishops are found to have been kiddly-fiddling in the past… how on earth did they get through verification processes?
yeah, they told the truth, of course they did!
Like what? Have another wank.
Yeah, they’re real bastions of democracy, aren’t they? everyone has to do what they want, regardless of the will of the people in society, or they’ll have a hissy fit. How enlightened.
Bet the Tories don’t do it anyhow. If you want to do something for gays, you have to do it at the start of your term, or you start to get cold feet about the next election and then don’t do it at all – they think the gays will elect them on a promise they won’t have to deliver
I don’t think they’ll do it either. And if they go into the next general election still promising to do it, I hope no LGBT people will vote for them. If we don’t vote for them because we don’t believe their promise, and church-goers don’t vote for them because they do believe their promise, it’ll serve them right.
Since when do undemocratic religious cults get to dictate governmeny policy on anything for that matter? This is purely a civil matter and no religious cult would be compelled to accept, recognise or officiate a same-sex wedding. In the ten countries that have legalised it, there is an opt out clause for all religious cults. So this is nothing more than a red herring. Do they really think they own civil marriage or religious marriage for that matter? The goverment issue marriage certificates, not churches, synagogues or mosques. As long as that remains, they have no business interfering in what is a civil matter.
“Since when do undemocratic religious cults get to dictate government policy on anything for that matter?”
Since the House of Lords came into formation with part of its members being made up of the Lords Spiritual, I guess.
So, since the beginning of our parliamentary system…
Bit longer than secular atheism’s “brave new world” then! lol
No … not consistently and at all times, since the start of democracy in the UK …
In 11th Century there was the starting of a parliament in the Witans, councils consulted Saxon Kings and attended by religious leaders, magnates and Kings ministers …
In 14th Century, two distincy houses of parliament, one which became the commons (borough representatives etc) and one which became Lords with magnates (Lords temporal) and religious leaders (Lords Spiritual).
In 1642, Bishops EXCLUDED from the Lords …
Clergy Act 1661 returns bishops (Henry VIII seeking to gain religious approval for his divorces and other policies).
Bishopric of Manchester Act 1847 limits the number of bishops who can sit.
There are coalition plans to reduce the number of bishops (Lords Spiritual) from 26 to 12.
Also members of the Church of Scotland, Church of Ireland and Church of Wales are not entitled to be Lords Spiritual, nor are other eg Methodists, Baptists, Jews etc
Hold your horses Charlie Brown
“Since when do undemocratic religious cults get to dictate governmeny [sic] policy on anything for that matter?”
a) The whole British way of life and its unwritten constitution and basic laws and freedoms are based on its Christian heritage. They were fought for and defended by Christians. They are being eroded by so-called democratically elected governments – which seem to ply poor souls with the illusion of freedom whilst actually not being really accountable at all.
b) Every voice has a right to be heard in a democratic and free society. If that means people you hate get to express an opinion, tough. Raising concerns and trying to defend objective truth – even if you think otherwise – is not “dictating”. Rather, your frighteningly Stalinist language regarding those who believe in God and a life beyond materialism, strikes me as being properly dictatorial.
We have every right Not to have Christian beliefs thrust down our throats. State should separate from religion and the churches should become self financing without state help end of. People chose a religious lifestyle and believe that rides roughshot over everything else. Well it doesn’t. The laws are there for ALL not some and others above it.
I would bet that 75% of those polled are conservative and/or evangelical ‘Christians’ who consistently misinterpret scripture to support their fundamentalist theology.
Well said Art. The bile that is spouted by conservative Christians is not matched by any of the lovely Christian people I know-and some of them support gay marriage and some of them don’t, but all are prepared to engage in civilised and respectful debate on the matter. Unfortunately, the (sort of understandable) reactionary hatred that is spouted by *some* online respondents here on Pink News does not reach that level of debate. Such a pity this is always a ‘them and us’ ssue, when actually there are loads of gay (and progressive, heterosexual) Christians..
This is a typical example of a meaningless poll. Polls that ask about specific policies invariably get responses that overinflate the importance of the issue, and “does party A holding policy B make you more or less likely to vote for it?” is one of the worst questions going because it tends to just reinforce existing voting patterns. UK Polling Report has demolished so many of these types of poll that this one isn’t normally worth bothering about. No party will lose votes on this scale, or indeed any sleep over this poll.
The real sign of an issue’s importance in polls is when it surges up the “what are the important issues” type questions and people mention it without prompting.
Only about one in ten people go to church regularly, half of them attending Catholic masses who traditionally do not support the Conservatives. As for the Church of England, nicknamed the Conservative Party at Prayer, there are less than 2 million attendees so while the Conservatives stand to lose less than a million votes if they legalize gay marriage, they will gain some of the Pink Vote.
Parties are elected not just on gay issues but other very important issues such as the economy, Europe, the NHS, race relations, law and order, education etc.
All the main parties support gay marriage now. Whom would these people vote for? UKIP? The BNP?
Bingo or one of those charming ‘Christian’ parties which make the Conservatives look rather cuddly in comparison.
I wish all the main parties did support equal marriage, but so far it’s just the Lib Dems; Miliband and Cameron have given varying levels of support, but it’s neither Conservative nor Labour policy.
I don’t think that UKIP has any problems with gays. They believe that the UK should be in the European Union and would like a return to the Common Market which we voted for in 1975. Unfortunately UKIP does have some dodgy characters such as former London Mayoral candidate, boxing promoter Frank Maloney who is homophobic. The British National Party are the ones to be avoided at all costs.
BBC Religious Affairs correspondent, Robert Pigott reported on the decline of Christian belief. The programme is still on the iPlayer for a few more days:-
Robert Pigott’s programme seems to contradict the BBC Director-General’s view (in 2008) that “Religion is back” :-
Thanks for posting these links Dave. I found the video particularly interesting and is a challenge regarding my own hopes for the church.
Robert Piggott seems to be a one man anti-Christian ball of bias. I wouldn’t trust what he had to say, even if he was the last man standing. For example, he called St Paul’s Cathedral “England’s premier cathedral” during a pre-recorded news item the other week. Doesn’t he know that England’s premier cathedral is Canterbury, followed by York, then London (St Paul’s) and Durham?
The actual reality is that we are now living in a globalised world, and that whilst it may be true to say that Christianity is disappearing in the corpulent west, it is actually booming elsewhere. In fact, it is experiencing phenomenal growth in China – our soon to be only super-power. Thank God for that, otherwise in about 20 years’ time we’d be subjects to an atheistic Communist regime. It appears that by that time China will be an enlightened, fair and Christian nation.
I attend a Catholic church in London, which attracts 1000 worshippers on a weekday and 7,000 on a Sunday. The numbers are increasing.
Enlightened, Fair and Christian nation? Cos when religion gets involved in state matters it always turns out so well I mean look at Uganda and America to of the greatest countries ever, with such respect for human life.
A bit of perspective please.
Less than 10% of British people are churchgoers.
Who cares what the minority of churchgoers thinks.
They are stupid, bigots who all political parties should be stearing clear of.
These people have nothing of value to offer Britain, and all they ever do is try to undermine our democracy by imposing their crazy beliefs into our secular statute books.
I agree with what you are saying except for one thing, who cares …?
You could spin it another way and say who cares what 6% of the population thinks about marriage – given UK government official stats of the LGBT population in the UK … we are also a minority …
With that in mind, and given that I care strongly about ensuring we get equal marriage in the UK, I also care deeply about what other minorities think …
We have to be more sophisticated and honest in our approach – rather than dogmatic and using language which belittles minorities (we ourselves as LGBT people are a minority).
The reality is that there is no reason that there should not be equal civil marriage (with the option of religious ceremony for those who desire it, where the religion involved is happy to support this). The reality is that if we live in a democratic society and we believe our needs (as a minority) should be listened to and responded to – then we must be willing to listen to others too.
So are you saying what the churchgoing minority thinks is of no consequence and does that then apply to any minority who express views you disagree with, and who made your the arbiter of what views should hold sway in our society anyway?
As for churchgoers having nothing of value to offer Britain, how do you account for the disproportionate number of people who give their time voluntarily to server their local community: youth and chidlrens work, helping old and volnerable people, homeless and destitute asylum seeker projects and lots more – who just happen to be churchgoers?
In what way are church goers undermining our democracy and imposing their crazy beliefs? How is that possible when by definition democracy is governing that is meant to represent all the people or at least the majority, not just a minority elite and besides do we not all have the right and responsibility to say what is for the good of society? Who is to say your views are anymore valid than those of the churchgoing public you so evidently despise?
Hmm. See my post above.
Glad to see your balanced, thoughtful and fair comments, Paul …
Sometimes, I think PN is dominated by people whose opinion is very much to the mentality that gaining equality for LGBT people – means someone else has to lose some equality … and that is rarely (if ever) the case
When this issue comes up for a vote it is likely to pass as Labour, Lib Dems, SNP and some Conservatives, etc will vote for it.
But there is a large segment of Conservative MPs (esp those that belong to the Cornerstone group of social conservatives) that will vote against it.
Voters attitudes on this subject are changing so fast it looks like such a vote could even enjoy a majority of backing within all three main political parties…. even the Conservatives – who are the first major political party to have a gay leader (in Scotland) and at this moment in time the largest number of out gay MP’s. Unthinkable prior to the last election, let alone 22 years ago!
What this probably should say is “57% of church-goers (who include themselves in online Christian activity and are so emphatically Christian they are happy to be surveyed specifically because they are one may reject the Conservatives) over gay marriage.
ComRes give very little info on how they’ve formed the survey group on their website, which seems a tad suspicious and makes me believe that the above is rather likely to be true.
Who cares what they think?
They are a DYING breed anyway..
You know what I just read?
An ONLINE SURVEY conductedvfor JUST SIX DAYS on behalf of a christian group that has affiliations with the EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE only managed to attract 544 people, 451.52 of which VOTED NO against Gay Marriage plans…
Now re-read that with just the capitol words and boom! Oh my! What a shocker!!
Why don’t we conduct a survey made up of quakers and see what results we get maybe?
And I also don’t get where pink news got their headline from?
”83% of those polled were opposed to changing the law”
”ComRes surveyed 544 UK Christians on Cpanel between 25th and 31st October 2011 using an online questionnaire”
Where has this 57% of church-going Christians may reject Conservatives over gay marriage come from?
considering all three major parties are for the move, it seems futile to change parties, not matter who you vote for they are for the move you oppose
Sadly there’s only one major party in favour of marriage equality – the Lib Dems. While David Cameron and Ed Miliband have given varying commitments of “personal support”, it’s not their party’s policy.
Well avoid the gay marriage topic, and you will lose the pink vote. (Not that there are many gay tory voters anyway), but you can’t have it both ways, somebody’s going to complain, whatever happens.
Very fair point.
Of course politicians should try and listen to all opinions in a representative democracy … but sometimes they have to just do what is right – ensure that people are treated fairly – one of the ways they can endorse that is by equalising marriage
Well, that is supposed to be the basis of a true democracy: You don’t do what the majority demand, but what is just and right. They are not always the same thing.
When racial equality was brought in there were very loud voices suggesting it was an anathema to British culture – and in some polls that had a majority view …
However, it was not the right thing to continue to treat people without human dignity because of their race …
It is the right thing to do to ensure fairness and equality – its not always popular with everyone though
Oh dear, eaters of shellfish and those who don’t stone their unwed non virgin daughters to death had better watch it then. And as for those who work on Sundays………….
And when are Stonewall going to start producing polls and stats and arguments for gay marriage…The Scottish gay orgs have but where are the ones for the UK/Wales? No point just refuting polls etc without evidence to counter them. I also note the eptition calling to ban CPs in churches and ban gay marriage have more signature than the epetition calling for gay marriage and far more than the PT equal love petition. How pathetic that we can’t even bother to sign a petition and the minority christian groups can!
What percent of the rest of us (those that don’t go to church) would like to see the goverment tax churches. Why should these parasites be exempt?
Obviously marriage is NOT a human right as human rights are not up for voting one way or another. There I was thinking it WAS a human right. Hey ho! Yet the U.N. says internet access is a human right. Priorities appear a tad sqewed to me.
Internet is a human right as it is where we gather most of our information, and access to information and education is a human right! They are both human rights and we should have them both but don’t attach the internet it has allowed us to free information which in time will better our society
They say that but I’m sure they already vote BNP. Scum
And this is a surprise to who, exactly……But reall 57% of nothing is exactly nothing so one doubts if many at Conservative Central are sweating under the collar about this. just as here in Ireland with the freaks from Rome, England isn’t exactly stuffing the C of E establishments weekly or even yearly. Oh the God fiction freaks will, like a dying wasp, make lots of noise but they have had their day and we are glad of that.
And your utterly pointless reply is what? Thrilling?
I think would be great we could have gay marriage made legal and help to get rid of the conlib government (sorry could not help a bit of political griping in that lol)
The conservatives using their on consciense of right and fairness and standing up for equality and human rights like they should , needs to tell the so called false christians to kiss their assess, These people are just bad ass individuals men and women who where bad ass kids in clicks in high school and sorieties, and misused people there also, there is nothing angelic about a hate filled kid who grew up to be a hate filled adult and abusing and discriminating against others, the republican senator that came to his senses and said he had a gay son and his sons happiness and saftey came before any party are people , well said, you dont let a religious accult or a politiacal party or a klan club tell you to mis treat and abuse and shun your children, you brought them into this evil world , you wish the best for them and try and make that happen, you love them, and know that they are to be proud of if they are not out hurting others and violating others, they are just good gay kids
Anytime anyone or group of biggots who call themselves christians, get in your face, you simpley point to all the bible thumping , spitting , and bashing lunatic false prophet wicked men in long dresses and crosses like the US archibishop, and all those countless priest well into the thousands, arrested in all colors, in us and other countries for pedephilia, and child rape or sex trafficking , like Arizona mega church and the so called christian men right there in the politiacal arena calling thems selves christians, caught with underage little boys , philip hinkle , ted haggard, purto rico, senator craig, and eddie long, and david karesh and jeff warrens and one arrested just last week in a sex ring bust a bad pastor running a gang bang rape on eight year olds they had kidnapped with other buiseness men, durgood, street bad pastor, sexual assults kidnaping, and the list goes on, you tell these sick creeps to shut the hell up and sit down are you will knock them out, and down, Human
The estimate of 5 million is very generous, and it’s not going to stop any of them voting conservative. Who else will they vote for? They’re so filled with hate they won’t be able to help themselves.
Now, lets get one thing perfectly clear. Neither the Church of England nor the Catholic Church in England are the owners of marriage, gay or otherwise. The state owns marriage. The inequality between those who can and those who can’t get married in the United Kingdom, where gender and sexual orientation is given as the reason for that inequality, is plain and simple discrimination. I am at a complete loss when trying to understand those that see it otherwise.
Let’s get another thing clearf: there are loads of committed Christians like myself who are not homophobic and who are very distressed, both at the words/actions of some of our fellow Christians and at the assumption by many in the LGBT community that we are ‘all the same’. Do you know what it feels like to be piggy-in-the-middle? Distrusted by both gay friends and (some) other Christians.?
Personally, I think if this decision stops people voting Conservative it will be a wonderful thing!
Fortunately not all of us in the LGBT communities think that all Christians are homophobic.
Thank you for your support.
All this survey proves is that religious fundamentalists are trying to manipulate democracy to further their irrational beliefs and that these same people are obsessed with interfering in the sex lives of others.
544 opinions is hardly a fair number to come up with 57%, is it.
I don’t know who these people were who were involved, but i’m a churchwarden and didn’t know anything about it – nor does any one else i’ve asked.
If these people want figures, let them do the job properly and target everyone who attends church regularly; surely it can’t be that difficult!
Everyone I speak with in church circles is fully in favour of gay marriage (and not one of them is gay, incidentally!)
What do these figures really represent? A storm in a teacup, methinks. And single-issue voting is not generally a feature of the British political culture, unlike the American, where a significant minority of religious fundamentalists seems to vote in line with its sexual and Creationist obsessions.
Well good riddance to the bigots I say. Good on the Tories for trying to make a difference by leaving out the discriminating out in the cold.
Some company surveys 0.0001088 of the relevant population and we are supposed to take it’s demographic generalisations seriously?