Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

UK study: 61% of Christians back equal rights for gay couples

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. “In the past, there have often been attempts to use the Christian figure in the Census to justify basing policy on the claim that faith is important to the British people. This time, any attempt to do so will clearly be inexcusable.”

    Won’t stop them from trying though.

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 14 Feb 2012, 1:29pm

      Indeed. So it is important to quote the facts back at them. Here is a link to the full survey results so we can all keep them handy:

      http://goo.gl/wNccI

  2. Of course not all Christians foam at the mouth at the notion of gay relationships – just like not all lesbians wear dungarees & not all gay men are camp! A nasty stereotype that offends us but we are more than willing to apply the same logic to others. Common sense really.

    1. its not that anyone thinks all religous people froth at the mouth about gay relationships but all the people that DO froth at the mouth use religion as thier justification and declare that they speak for the majoraty. what this study show is what any rational person alreadey knew, that the bigots are the minority. and its time the goverment stopped pandering too their sex phobic, curtian twiching intrusions into the lives of the lgbt community.

      ps for all the religeous folks out there who say that your being tarnished with the same brrush, where were the crisisms of the archbishop of yorks BS remarks. “not the loudness of our enemy but the silence of our freind” a wise man once said

    2. how many christians voiced their opposition on the recent comments by the archbishop of york? no ones trying to paint christians with the same brush if anything this study proves what most rational people already knew, that the bigots are in the minority. so why do they get to speak on the behalf of christians? becaese they go unchallenged by the majority of church goers. a wise man once said

      “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

      1. whoops, thought my first comment got lost in the system and doubled up on myself (ps apologies for my spellings being allover the place (new keyboard)

        1. I did. Both on here and at the protest at York Minster.

          I also sent letters to the Archbishop and others to voice my disgust that such hatred could be spouted by a senior church leader.

          1. Me too!

          2. For the record I’m a gay Christian and I objected loudly, as well. It’s not just about how many Christians protested at Sentamu’s remarks, it’s also about how many gay people listened to us supporting gay rights.

            There’s none so deaf as those who will not hear!

    3. Nice to see a bit of sense.

  3. What is terrifying about these results is that 40% of christian cultists believe we should be discriminated against.

    Thank Cher, Britain is experiencing a massive decline in faith as a figure of 40% of christian cultists opposing equality is not only a sign of what a dreadfully inhumane and cruel doctrine christianity is; and it is also a sad reflection that the 60% of christian cultists who alegedly support equality are unable to persuade their bigotted co-cultists to support equality.

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 14 Feb 2012, 1:24pm

      Infidel. Kylie created the universe.

    2. Yes, or perhaps it’s actually brilliant. Especially if everybody just kept to one rule: Love thy neighbour.

      And I don’t find it difficult to persuade my fellow “cultists” at all. What you seem to be missing is that if the real bigot nutters hadn’t joined a religion, then they’d have joined another club to use as their first step to suppress others. Religion is just their excuse. They’d be suppressing, entitled bigot arseholes without it, too.

      1. I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.

    3. Staircase2 14 Feb 2012, 8:20pm

      Using the word ‘cultist’ is stupid and self-defeating…
      if you want to engage with people then you have to actually do that…

      1. I don’t want to engage with christians. I want to stay well away from them. And I want them to stop trying to impose their pathetic beliefs into our secular laws.

        And if I describe them as ‘cultists’ it is in fact an accurate description for them.

        Christianity, judaism, islam, hinduism etc are no more valid as belief systems than scientology is.

        So why is it acceptable to call scientology a cult, yet be required to call the christian cuit by some different name.

        Engagement with cults is destined to fail. I favour making their belief and their believers look as absolutely ridiculous and hateful as their beliefs.

        The Bible – I mean, what a crock of sh** that book is.

        1. @dAVID

          Thank you for your thoughtful and considered comments.

          It is a matter for you whether you wish to engage with Christians or not. If you engage in conversation either in the street or online there is a likelihood that you will have to encounter some (including me). Unfortunately, we may not like to engage with you but that’s life.

          I have no desire to “impose” any of my belefs and your suggestion that I do are wrong and without basis.

          I believe that there should be a complete separation of church and state and that this would benefit every citizen of this country by avoiding the potential for real or alleged bias in government function. I believe a separation would also benefit the Church of England (not my church) and the wider church.

          You choose the word cult deliberately, intending to offend. Its no more than irritating like a 5 year old repeatedly saying “Why?”.

          Consider: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_cult_and_a_religion

          1. A cult is a cult is a cult

          2. Vauxhall-Boy 15 Feb 2012, 4:22pm

            With far more eloquence than I can ever muster. What is a cult?
            http://cultdefinition.com/

          3. Thanks VB.

            Interesting article. For me the most important bit was “The term is confusing because it is ambiguous — infused with a variety of meanings depending on who uses it — and for which purpose it is used For example, the term ‘cult’ can be used in a theological and/or a sociological sense. The word takes on different meanings depending on the context in which it is used.”

            Some people may use the word for a particular purpose which may be correct in terms of vocabulary but others receive a different interpretation of the word. It may be the person using the word cult may not be aware of the alternative interpretation or perhaps set out to antagonise by deliberate use of the word.

  4. Trouble is, I think I read somewhere that 60% of people who claim to be Christian on census forms are not actually church goers, which means those in church are the hard-liners with no moderate thinkers to leaven the limp.

    1. leaven the lump even. remind me not to type and eat lunch at the same time..

    2. It’s not necessarily a case of the church goers being the “hard-liners” as you put it. England is, by tradition, a Christian country, and so a lot of people will define themselves as Christian even if they don’t read the Bible, go to church etc.

      I myself am a Christian I can say with great confidence that my entire church is behind our cause.

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; the majority of those who are actively disapproving of LGBT rights are the very small minoirty, but unfortunately the very small minority which makes the majority of the noise. Don’t let the actions of the few tarnish your view of the many.

      1. Ben Foster 14 Feb 2012, 6:36pm

        Where is youir church? I would happily pay a visit one Sunday.

    3. Similarly, most gay people do not frequent the forum discussions of PN, which means that those that do also tend to be the extremist hard-liners who claim to speak for all gay people.

      And which is why moderate and opposing viewpoints are often drowned out by the vented fury and wrath of the gay lobby.

      Go figure.

      1. gay lobby?

        Yawn. Another crackpot with conspiracy theories about the “subversive gays” taking over by stealth. Oh, the immorality of those simply wanting equality. Next you’ll be shouting about the need for someone to think of the children. And you think you’re viewpoints are “moderate”????? Yeah right.

        1. @Rick

          Samuels approach does appear extreme, arguably homophobic and reactionary. They are all words used to describe far right agitators although Samuel claims not to be. Go figure! :-)

          1. There are many examples of the extreme right comments littered throughout the threads on PN made by Samuel. Yet he claims not to have a political aligence – he seems to have a presentational difficulty as his choice of wording and tone deliberately seek to agitate others and provoke.

            If a commentator expresses any kind if “moderate” view then you are automatically labelled a PC zealot and are only here to “subvert, conspire, and stymie (his word) free debate. I find this rather odd for a gay man I have to say.

          2. Since Samuel disgraced Stuart from these boards you really have it in for him, don’t you W6_bloke. Why not just live and let live? I for one would like to see Stuart back but respecting these pages and not playing games or trying to trip people up all of the time. The longer you persist in bringing this up the more unlikely Stuart’s return will be, surely? I am sure that is not what you want either.

          3. @ Dan

            As you can see from other commentators, Samuel has a bad press. Sadly Samuel took issue with me initially based on my views on HIV, and hyas then moved onto Stu – all he needs to do is acknowledge he has bullied me (and others) and that he resorts to personal attacks which are really not helpful and result in agitation and spiteful comments being traded.

            I do not like bullies and beleive they should be identified and singled out.

          4. Yes but it is always the same old voices quick to paint people who refer to the gauy lobby as crackpots and conspiuracists.

            I think it is now quite self-evident to most level-headed people on here that the gay lobby I and others have referred to are these same names, also posting under aliases to bolster your numbers.

            As they say, 4 per cent of society are sociopathic and such individiuals have no hesitation in resorting to these tricks to consistently act against the interests of improving our society.

            In an imaginary future scenario where George Orwell’s 1984 is implemented, you guys would be the prison wardens.

      2. Jock S. Trap 17 Feb 2012, 3:09pm

        Crazy says what dear?

  5. As a gay Christian I have always stood up strongly for gay rights and religious freedom.

    There are some “Christians” who use hate inspired language. Its wrong, unChristian and unrepresentative of the church. Those of us who are gay or supportive are trying hard to make our voices heard. Thank goodness for people like the Bishop of Salisbury.

    I am not surprised by dAVID finding a negative in a positively good story.

    We know there are some so called “Christians” who are full of hate for gay people. The number of us able to speak out and be heard is increasing.

    Equally we know there are some gay people who seek to attack Christians regardless of whether they are gay, supportive or trolls. Of course some gay people have a good reason to hate Christians. I hope you don’t hate me.

    1. Staircase2 14 Feb 2012, 8:21pm

      …well said!

  6. Bill Perdue 14 Feb 2012, 12:54pm

    Those are much better stats than we have in the US. Even our ‘liberal’ president is the Bigot in Chief, a pigheaded opponent of marriage equality.

    Religion is the enemy.

    Religion is the greatest folly and at the same time the worst tragedy that humankind inflects on itself.

    All the christer cults, particularly the roman megacult, have a well deserved reputation for their bloodthirsty past and equally repellent criminal present.

    In Africa the roman megacult cult encourages the spread of HIV/AIDS by supporting abstinence and claiming that condoms and meds are poisoned.

    Prot cultists, including Obama’s allies like Rick Warren are behind the proposed anti-LGBT law in Uganda that would legally kill our brothers and sisters there.

    It’s time to tax the cults, secularize their schools, hospitals and universities (without compensation) and close their seminaries.

    1. Do you not see that by sinking to the level of the haters, you validate them?

      Be better than that. Celebrate the good stuff that churches do, too. Some may on balance be more harm than good – but not all. Get a sense of proportion. The world isn’t monochrome.

      1. “The world isn’t monochrome.”

        Unfortunately it is the religions that tend to paint it as.

        1. such………..

        2. @B L Z Bub

          Most Christians I know (including myself) recognise its not that simple.

      2. Bill Perdue 14 Feb 2012, 3:17pm

        My comment was political.

        Please be so kind as to comment on the politics of my comment and lose the psychobabble.

    2. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 14 Feb 2012, 2:53pm

      I totally agree! Tax them all, back-date it to (insert here), that should bankrupt them and with this money, we can repair their handiwork!

      I feel sorry for you Bill, the great and the good america must surely realise they are a christian fundamentalist country. I wonder how american religi-bots would’ve replied to this survey: one-to-one? Answer: with a gun, more than likely!

      Religion will never rid itself of power though.

      1. Bill Perdue 14 Feb 2012, 3:31pm

        Things are changing here, just more slowly.

        The superstitious poluation is higher and its more active.

        Marriage is focus of the bigots here and began when Bill Clintons Defense of Marriage Act(DOMA) was signed in 1996. That was followed by Bush’s campaign to outlaw marriage equality which worked in well over 30 states. We got out first and very slim polling majority nationally in 2010 and last year it was 53% yes and 45% no. Still very slim, but we’re making progress. What everyone wonders is what will happen if the question reaches our very reactionary business-oriented Supreme Court. Most are afraid the Supremes will kick us in the privates and smirk.

        I agree about the tax thing, here we’d want to backdate their taxes to September 17, 1787, the date the Constitution was signed and when citizens had to begin paying taxes for the cults.

    3. I was under the impression that the American Constitution was not originally based on Christian beliefs or claims.

      1. Bill Perdue 14 Feb 2012, 4:06pm

        The Constitution mentions two items: in the First Amendment is the stipulation that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….” and Article VI says that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
        That’s about it in terms of the Constitution.

        Most of the key leaders of the First American Revolution were againat cults and supersititon including Franklin,Paine, Jefferson, Madison and Washington.

  7. So What! are we supposed to be cheered by this – 100% of Gays have to put up with bigotry and discrimination from the supertitious faith brigade – tell us when 100% of ALL superstitions agree with equality for all humanity -

    1. Jock S. Trap 17 Feb 2012, 3:11pm

      Well it is a excellent start thats shows not all religious people are bigots but yes I do agree with the sentiment of your post.

  8. UK study: 61% of Christians back equal rights for gay couples

    This can also be written:-

    UK study: 39% of Christians do not support democracy, civil liberties or human rights.

    1. Or can be written that many of us gay Christians or supportive Christians are doing what gay people have been saying is not happening – standing up for gay rights and condemning fundamentalists who hate. I do this both in gentle (and occasionally direct) ways in my own church and speaking out in other situations. I also support organisations who support gay rights and religious freedom.

      1. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 14 Feb 2012, 2:23pm

        I was 100% behind you, until I read “religious freedom”… thank you, but we need a little bit less of that kind of thing from now on.

        1. Unless we’re talking freedom to live free of the influences of organised religion

          1. sorry Wingby, I meant to give you a thumbs up..

        2. @Mr Ripleys Asscrack

          I guess it depends how you define religious freedom.

          1. Yes, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we all have religious freedom.

            That doesn’t mean we can’t have freedom from religion.

          2. When I say religious freedom, I also include the right to freedom from religion

      2. Zack: if you are a member of a gay-unfriendly church such as the Cof E then you are quite simply not doing enough., because you know that that church will never change. If it isn’t the Catholics who are dragged out for anti-SSM interviews on the TV it is the reps of the CofE.

        So if you haven’t already, please join a gay friendly outfit,

        1. @Harry

          I am a member of a Lutheran church.

          I sometimes worship with the MCC.

          I was brought up in the Church of England. When I am at my parents then I do worship in their church. The congregation are aware of my orientation and supportive. My boyfriend has accompanied me on occasion and been made completely welcome. When I was there just after Christmas they asked me if I would get married in church when it was legal.

          People like the Bishop of Salisbury encourage me re the CofE whilst others like the Archbishop of York infuriate me. Dont get me started on the RC church!

    2. Don Harrison 14 Feb 2012, 4:49pm

      Why be negative?

      1. Jock S. Trap 19 Feb 2012, 10:53am

        Positive or negative, the fact remains.

    3. Staircase2 14 Feb 2012, 8:25pm

      Because its his mindset, Don…

      The thing that always bugs the shi!t out of me is how dense those OPPOSING Religiosity can be, how full of dogma, how scared of thinking outside the box…

      What we’re talking about isn’t ‘Religion Versus Science’ but ‘Free-Thinking Versus Dogma'; Love Versus Fear…

      1. Er, I think you need to read Will’s comment again, he’s making a point about the religious right that is opposed to equality and by default, democracy. At least that’s how I read it.

        1. @Rich

          That wasnt how I read the comments, on relection you could be right.

          I saw the comments more as dogmatic.

          1. What I was pointing out is 31% is a big chunk of a religious majority in the UK who do not support human rights.

            This is not “negative”, or dogmatic, its a very disturbing statistic. As for my “mindset”, that comment was just nonsense – while its all happy-clappy that some religions people support gay right (and by extension human rights), the fact that 31% do not is not something that we can ignore in the celebration, it says something about how religion is so far from the normal ideals of modern democracy.

            Thank you Rich for being the only one who actually say what I was writing, rather then what they THOUGHT I was writing.

      2. Jock S. Trap 19 Feb 2012, 11:03am

        “Because its his mindset, Don…”

        An opinion then you might say to the facts?!

  9. Perhaps those 61% should walk the walk and not just talk the talk. What does the survey count as “backing” equal rights? Just saying so? Or do they get up and DO something? Lip service is meaningless.

    1. Ben Foster 14 Feb 2012, 2:12pm

      That is certainly true.

      I wonder when our pet trolls will be putting in their tuppence worth! If they’re worth as much!)

      1. Keith (not) 14 Feb 2012, 10:41pm

        I’m gay and I love all LGBT people.

    2. Recent examples doing that include the Bishop of Salisbury, 100 priests in the Diocese of London, Father Kelly in Australia, a Christian protest group against the Archbishop of York.

      These are merely those which the media could be bothered to publicize, Others including protests at two other cathedrals have sought publicity but not been given it. Others do seek to speak out within their circle of influence but need not necessarily seek media attention.

      1. I hope I don’t count as a troll, Ben

      2. I think it’s really funny how none of the anti-Christian people who are constantly posting hate on these comment pages ever seem to be posting comments on the articles which actually involve members of the Church standing up for LGBT rights. Kind of hippocritical to be saying that Christians are so bad and all that yet ignore all the times when we DO take action.

        The media is biased though, they want to show drama and strife. Nothing provides that better than religion vs modern world issues in their eyes, so they only generally cover stories about such controversies. Good news about Christians doesn’t sell, so we don’t see it as often.

  10. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 14 Feb 2012, 2:20pm

    In yer face Christian Institute!!! Read it and weep!! Losers! Or I should say, losing, losing!!

    There is much to celebrate here! I feel a little more valued that UK christians rock gay people, more than stupid stories of long-dead men on foreign shores in the bibble. I have just warmed to our UK christian family!

    I certainly won’t now continue to make the mistake of thinking that christians in the UK are the same as those to be unearthed in the US.

    And isn’t it interesting that these figures were obtained by one-to-one questioning? Thank you, Richard Dawkins and MORI for a bit of much-needed perspective.

    1. @Mr Ripleys Asscrack

      I think the Christian Institute are evil – and I am a gay Christian.

  11. Mr Dawkins is to be heartily thanked for investing time and money in this valuable piece of research.

    1. Staircase2 14 Feb 2012, 8:26pm

      Sorry – but I don’t for a second buy that – unfortunately he has way too much vested interest in ‘pulling down’ to be taken seriously as the author of this….

      1. Then dispute it on a scientific level:- the sources, the methodologies, margin or error, sample size. Do not take the religions nut approach of disbelieving research simple becuase it suits you not to.

        1. Well said, Will

      2. He’s not the author. His organisation commissioned the work. Obviously he influenced the angle, but as no Christian organisation is going to risk doing this kind of research for fear of exposing itself, it’s the best we can get, and useful for that. He is, at core, a scientist and rationalist, and I see no reason for questionning his integrity in relation to the raw data. The spin he personally puts on it is another matter.

        1. @Wingby

          I accept this particular report on face value at the moment. If and when I can get hold of a copy of the research and read more into it then I withhold my right to review my opinion if I find any concerns about its propriety.
          However, I would say this; it is a reasonable viewpoint to consider bias when looking at any academic or statistical study and considering who the funders were. For example, a report on alcohol related issues that has funding from the Portman Group may be seen as having some bias towards the alcohol industry. In this case, Dawkins organisation’s funding may well skew the research and/or statistical analysis. Its a legitimate concern. That said, the report seems reasonable from what is easily available.

  12. “… stop trying to impose beliefs on society…”

    Thumbs up, Richard Dawkins.

    1. @Jonpol

      I’m a gay Christian and I do not seek to impose my beliefs on any other person. Beliefs are a very personal and subjective thing. My faith is personal, as is the faith or none of anyone else.

      I would hope you and Dawkins would support my right to exercise my faith personally and privately and in public worship (in church etc), as much as I support your right to not have beliefs imposed on you.

      1. But you do understand that there is a difference between personal belief, and organised religion? The latter needs to recruit to consolidate power and sustain wealth, the consequence is that it tends to try and barge in to law and social policy. Personally, I couldn’t care less if you decided to worship your own nose hair. But it is the nature of religion (rather than faith) to try and compel others to do it too.

        1. @Valksy

          I agree. Religion in itself tends to often be misused and abused for power (and to an extent wealth) which is claimed to be in the name of faith, but isn’t.

          I share a faith that others have and there is a sense of purpose in meeting to worship, pray and support each other. I assume you would not have any problem with that provided we keep that, more or less, to ourselves as far as possible. The thing is when there is that corporate element ie meeting together it becomes religion. Some are better than others at handling it and avoiding corruption, like political parties, the police, newspapers or other thinigs that influence people lives.

          I despair when people talk of banning religion because most Christians I know are not the sort described on here. You also can not stop my faith. That requires thought police.

          1. @Valksy

            I’ve just reread my comment and it sounds too defensive. Sorry.

            I agree with you about the bad things done “in the name of” religion.

            There is a distinct difference between this and personal faith.

            The problem comes in balancing the desire to worship together with people who share the same faith and that not being abused.

      2. Good Grief, Carl, you know perfectly well that I am an advocate of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

        Accordingly, I am not aware that I failed to support your right to exercise your faith, or your religion for that matter.

        You know the caveat as well as I do.

        1. @Jonpol

          OK.

          Your choice of quote from Dawkins reminded me of comments where he has suggested religion could be banned.

      3. “I would hope you and Dawkins would support my right to exercise my faith personally and privately and in public worship (in church etc), as much as I support your right to not have beliefs imposed on you.”

        When was the last time you saw an atheist trolling here and telling us all that being gay was an abomination or “unnatural”? Sauce for the goose and all that….

        1. Well said Will. Carl is being hysterical. No one is stopping Carl from worshipping in church. It’s high time people like Carl had their arguments with the likes of the Christian Institute and CARE, and Anglican Mainstream etc. Not us.

          1. @Adrian

            Thank you for you opinion on my comment.

            I am not being hysterical.

            I do try and raise my concerns with the Christian Institute. I share Zack’s view on here that they are a very bad organisation that seek to inflict damage and hate on society. I do work within and outside the church to tackle gay rights.

            As a gay man I thought I would be supported in speaking out for gay rights by other gay people regardless of ideological religious or political differences.

            I find your comment demeaning and treating me as asecond class citizen because I am not an atheist or humanist. Thats discrimination and wrong.

            I am passionate about gay rights. I am a Christian. I work hard to ensure human rights.

      4. I will support your right to practice your beliefs in private as long as your leaders waive their free passes to the House of Lords, stop indoctinating our children at faith schools (often there aren’t other options available locally), give us equal access to services (b&bs, relationship counciling etc), stop their opposition to equal marriage….. shall I go on?

        What you miss is that ‘believers’ have been taking for themselves extra priviileges for hundreds of years. Some of us want these equalised. When done, please feel free to practice unhindered.

        1. @Wingby

          Why does your supporting my human rights depend on the actions of leaders of a church which I do not belong to?

    2. Staircase2 14 Feb 2012, 8:27pm

      And what exactly is it you think Richard Dawkins is doing every time he’s on TV haranguing someone in the least free-thinking way possible…?

      1. Oh come on, harranguing?? You mean making people give reasons for their belief? How terrible…. :-)

        1. and how terrible for you to be held to account for the methods you choose to use

  13. Following remarks by Baroness Warsi, Richard Dawkins was interviewed on BBC News today.

    1. Warsi is a homophobic bigot and should be sacked from the Conservative party. Why she is their chairwoman, I have no idea.

  14. In other words we have simply been rabble-roused and stirred by the lunatic gay extremist lobby who have owned these boards into believing all Christians are evil, full stop. Most Christians are in fact decent and tolerant people. Well strike me pink! Let’s just praise the Lord that we no longer have the disgraced gay lobby spokesman Stuart (also know as Marcus, Patrick, Charles…) and his pious sermonising to put the case forward to continue demonizing Christians as part of his wider agenda to ban free speech, as exposed two days ago.

    1. fundalmentalist christian and the bible do a far better job of demonising their faith than anyone gay.

    2. Stu used to frequently defend the right of Christians to believe what they wanted (so long as they didn’t advocate violence), to the point where others accused him of being a Christian apologist. If you’re going to be spiteful, at least try and get it right.

    3. Staircase2 14 Feb 2012, 8:29pm

      ‘most people’ are just people – Christian or otherwise…

      the sooner people stand up and fight against rigid positionality itself rather than which club those people come from, the better…

    4. Christians are not evil.

      They are mentally ill and deserve sympathy and treatment for their halluicinations.

  15. Why are people so negative on the figure? Let’s get real, the only pan-European study (and a really good one) that measured support for equal rights in the EU (the 2006 barometer) showed support slightly above 50%. I doubt that general population level support for equal rights is higher than 61%. It is probably much smaller among other constituencies (Muslims, or Caribbean Britons).

  16. Matthew Smith 14 Feb 2012, 4:31pm

    This survey indicates that the majority of those who identify as Christians in this country base their approach on “an innate sense of right and wrong” – rejecting dogma. This is the stance of the Unitarian movement and other gay-inclusive churches.

    1. It is also, essentially, the Humanist position. A moral sense is innate and independent of religious or spiritual sentiment.

      1. George Broadhead 15 Feb 2012, 12:34pm

        Well said!

  17. A majority of self-defined Christians don’t go along with what comes out of the pulpit or official doctrine – hold the front page. Theologian H A Williams in the early 70s said that most people who have sat in pews or stood before the communion rail since Apostolic times have either not believed or not understood (or both) the official teachings of the Church. A bit of a relief, really. But good to be reminded of it.

    1. I would think more of these people if they actually did something. As it is they clearly place their belief in fairy stories and the cosy community that I understand membership of a church gives them above civil rights.

  18. Vauxhall-Boy 14 Feb 2012, 6:42pm

    61% Christians support full gay rights.

    Thats more than support the coalition!

  19. Staircase2 14 Feb 2012, 8:18pm

    Broadly speaking the results of this poll would appear to make sense. I was however less believing when I saw it was conducted by or on behalf of Richard Dawkins…

    I really really don’t like his dogmatic brain-dead approach and I find it hard to believe that this poll doesnt just show what he wanted it to show.

    Good (although not unexpected) news if its true though! (Although when a poll says ‘Christians’ it really is likely to depend on WHICH Christians its spoken to…)

  20. Unbelievable!

    Most commentators on here seem to WANT Christains to hate us so badly.

    Why is that? To justify, and indeed perpetuate, their own left wing extremism perhaps?

    Was it not so very long ago that we jumped for joy when surveys began to emerged showing over 50 per cent of the mainstream populace supported gay rights?

    The fact is that most gay people are not the xtremist element that patrol and monopolise these boards seemingly constantly.

    Despite the majority here denying these figures are a positive development, most gays are tolerant and back Christians’ rights to practice their faith.

    I am sure a similar survey would find:

    61+ PER CENT OF GAYS BACK EQUAL RIGHTS FOR NON-EXTREMIST CHRISTIANS TO PRACTISE THEIR RELIGION

    The PC lobby is intent on stigmatising religion and demonising it for their own ends.

    I’m no religionist, quite the contray in fact, but this is just the latest institution they’re chipping away at and trying to destroy to bring society to it its knees.

    1. Staircase2 14 Feb 2012, 8:34pm

      Youre doing the same…
      deeming people who disgaree with you as ‘left-wing’ as if thats somehow undesirable…

      You’re confounding your own argument!
      Which is a shame – because the argument itself holds water – just not the way you then fall in line and start castigating people based on projections of your own prejudice.

      Im very happily ‘Left-Wing’ – Im also quite happy for people to be Christian – Im very happy with my own sexuality – I believe in equality for all people – I believe that we are all entitled to our opinions…

      The mistake you’re ALL making is in thinking this is all about ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’…which is bloody daft

      1. I am happy for people to be christian.

        EXCEPT when they try to impose their superstitions on all of society.

        And they all seem to do that.

        1. @dAVID

          I am happy for people to disagree with my faith, except when they pigeon hole and stereotype me.

    2. Oh great. Another nutty-rant. Good one Sam.

    3. @Samuel

      Up until the point where you got to “patrolling the boards”, I was with you. Then I just turned off.

    4. Samuel, your rants make you sound like an extremist, not left wing, just extremely paranoid. Who are the PC lobby? And who are the left wing extremists? And why would you think this imaginary group in your head are trying to bring society to its knees? It sounds like something Jan Moir would write in the daily mail to me.

    5. Points taken Staircase2, Joel and James E.

      I guess that after recent heated debates of the last few days where I’ve held my corner and stood up for the right to debate without facing the “Stuart Inquisition” I’m still a little highly strung, and so will take a couple of days to chill out and steady and compose my thoughts.

      I will return refreshed to debate without mention of the “PC lobby” or extreme left-wingers (note “extreme”, I’ve nothing at all against moderate left wingers whatsoever!).

      So long, of course, as my right to debate openly and fairly is not baited or trolled by self-interests out to suppress and stymie all opposing viewpoints in the manner I’ve detailed elsewhere.

      1. @ Samuel
        Seems you are in agreement with Baroness Warsi when she says “British society is under threat from the rising tide of Millitant secularism, reminiscent of totalitarian regimes”. Sounds very paranoid to me as extreme as your perception of any political thinking that does not fit with your extreme right wing, traditionalist approach…….

        It is good to see that you have acknowledged the comments of others, long may it continue! However I am unsure why you have to refer to previous threads to justify the way you post your comments.

      2. “I guess that after recent heated debates of the last few day”

        You mean the personal one man tirade of insanity against someone who you never met before, and how the entire site was comprised on one person with many names who was out to get you – you personally, I might add – becuase everyone who disagrees with you is part of some conspiratorial “PC Brigade”?

        Yes, I suppose a basket case could pawn that off as “heated debate”

        1. Do we really want to go there again, guys?

          That “someone” failed to speak for himself under his own name. If he was the innocent party in all of this he’d have done so and nobody would have agreed with what I was saying.

          I have to dice whatsoever with moderate political views. Peter Tatchell is one of my all-time heroes:- a fine orator of true left wing politics.

          Conversely the likes of David Skinner and co. are to be fought tooth and nail but, conversely, extreme leftism is essentially no better.

          Both are fanatical extremes of opposite sides of the political spectrum and are proven to be equally destructive.

          By claiming all Christians are extreme nutters is also to say all gays are extreme nutters, and that is simply not true.

          Which is why moderate voices must speak out on PN for balance and fairness.

          They’ve been suppressed on PN for too long, W6 and Will.

          I do hope in this new era of PN Glasnost we can respect each others’ opinons from now on and debate in an adult manner.

          1. “Do we really want to go there again, guys?”

            You did. Repeatedly and ad nauseum. You can’t overlook your recent relentless persecution and bullying of a regular to this site, it was quite frankly abhorrent behaviour.

          2. Abhorrent to you and all gay militants like you Will but a breath of fresh air for the rest of us. Kudos to SamuelB for playing you at you own game. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire and nice of you to recognize that Sam gave as good as he got.

          3. “gay militants like you Will”

            Since when does having an opinion make one a “gay militants”? What ever that stupid histrionic term is supposed to mean.

            “Kudos to SamuelB for playing you at you own game”

            I hardly think so. He mad a fool of himself obsessing like a basket case.

            “recognize that Sam gave as good as he got.”

            No, he didn’t. He has a little hissy-fit on-line with 30 or so paranoid comments directed at another commenter here, one he has never met not has done him any harm, other then to have a difference of opinion. Wake up call for you:- its allowed to have a difference of opinion, its a comment board for opinions. SamB is one of the worst culprits on this site for off the wall abusive behaviour and then playing the poor victim – its pathetic to be honest.

            The fact you need to support his bullying and near-lunatic behaviour here says very little indeed about the state of balance in your own mind. The histrionic attacks without any merit are the give-away, you see….

          4. Samuel B and Dan both seem to use the term ‘gay militants’, and as with the last time Dan made a comment, it was in praise of him. Funny that, in’it?

          5. The problem as I see it Samuel is that your choice of wording and the tone often does not reflect a moderate voice. As we know, the difference of opinion we have on a particular topic has resulted in some very bitter and personal comments being made.

            You have labelled me as a PC zealot because of this difference of opinion and this has now prejudiced your views about me, which is very at odds with your “free thinking” ideology.

          6. Free thinking ideology??? Samuel B??? Stalin allowed more free thinking. Samuel B is just a extremist who most people here find disgusting and now he’s trying to cover it up by painting himself a moderate. Its all toss of course the man is a lunatic and a bully. The thumbs down are always against him and for good reason.

          7. @ Rick

            I was quoting Samuel with regard to “free thinking” where even the best scientific proof is somehow corrupted and worthless…….

            Samuel has revealed that he has had to deal with been bullied all his life, which may explain his world view. One has to ask why this is the case?

          8. Is that the classic bullied becoming bully?

          9. It would seem so, but perhaps Samuel can enlighten us as it has become very clear that there are many PN readers who view him as a bully.

          10. Tony Lambert 16 Feb 2012, 1:35pm

            “It would seem so, but perhaps Samuel can enlighten us as it has become very clear that there are many PN readers who view him as a bully.”

            A bully at least would be a category!!! This entire site is now littered with his endless whining at others, insults, paranoia, and delusions of martyrdom! He’s not so much a bully as he is crazy! And Dan here is clearly one of SamB’s “new” names – its obsequious to the stage of nausea, it can only be SamB giving himself a boost to make him feel one bit less of a twat in an anonymous chat room (anonymous for him, that is – some of us use our names)

            The sad part is he as success in driving Stu away. And Stu has done nothing other then to call out what SamB is. What a tosser SamB must be in the “real world” if he’s such a sad bollox on a chat site?

          11. Hi Tony

            Thanks for your comment.

            I have been watching. Samuel has not driven me away.

            I think that I have tried (mainly) to comment on stories, and speak out for fairness. I stupidly tried to be devious to try and overcome the bullying from Samuel. That was stupid, I wholeheartedly regret it and apologise (as I said several days ago).

            The reaction from Sam (and his real or otherwise) supporters was even more balistic and obsessive than I predicted. The outcome of that is Samuel showed himself up for the obsessive he is.

            I am watching. I will contribute some more at some point. I feel the time is for me to take a gap to allow the air to settle. Samuel will not provoke me to respond, however childishly he tries to bully and goad me. That does not mean that I do not regret my stupidity and idiocy in 2 or 3 comments which I made under a different name (somehting Samuel himself has said is not a problem in itself!).

            No doubt join you all in a debate sometime soon

            Stu

          12. Tony Lambert 16 Feb 2012, 2:17pm

            Stu, good for you. Do not let that degenerate think his aggressive bullying has won. He’s only shown himself up as pathetic nut he really is, and in public too. His moaning and delusions of martyrdom are tiresome, and none one supports his tedious insults…. well, other than that Dan chap, but if you can’t support yourself, who can, eh? :)

          13. Very good to see your comment Stu, and look forward to your comments going forward.

            Samuel B has clearly demonstrated that he is bully through and through…..

          14. “Samuel B has clearly demonstrated that he is bully through and through…..”

            Indeed, W6_Bloke, adn the worst kind of one too. Its simply appalling to see the level of abuse and persecution of others from him, but its just bloody pathetic to see him whimper like a demented child about how its all “Glasnost” now. What a frickin’ lunatic!!!Guess who wasn’t breast fed enough by mommy when he was small.

            Stu, I agree with Tony and W6_Bloke, do not let this freak drive you away, if Sam can’t handle different opinions (as he can’t without paranoia and “PC-Brigade” conspiracy theories), he’s hardly alone in here, he’s up there with those other lunatics Skinner, Matthew and Keith the reptile – as Tony alluded to, anonymity bring out the bravery to be crazy in public.

            Then again, in his dark and troubled mind, we’re all the same person, aren’t we? I wonder what the personalities in his own head think of him?

          15. I for one will not let him continue to bully me and others on this site – the guy is a nasty piece of work and I think your analysis is sopt on Will

          16. LOL, do all of you boys go to the same groupthink training sessions?

            Classic intimidation technique – all gang up on the lone voice of truth until it succumbs and falls in with the group think consensus, but it will never happen.

            Never in a million years!!! :)

    6. Jock S. Trap 19 Feb 2012, 10:49am

      What it means is their is no excuse for marriage Equality to now come in and be fair to all who wish to matty the person they love.

      Most people accept religious people’s right to their faith but what they don’t have a right to is to think themselves above the law when it comes to equality. It has to be equality to human being not just those that choose a religious faith.

  21. Not surprised by any of these findings.

    I think most of my family and friends would regard themselves as Christians, most of them don’t go to church and most of them would be amazed at the remarks that are put out there on so called Christian websites.

    It’s a bit depressing though that the Synod and the important people at the top are more interested in the minority views of Christianity rather than the views of ordinary Christians.

  22. Well I’m not surprised. I have plenty of christian friends to know they’re not all bigots. Nobody should be instantly judged because of their choice of beliefs. There are more ‘good’ Christians, Muslims etc than there are bad.

    1. Which mainstream muslim group (and by mainstream I mean non-gay) muslim group has fighting homophobia as one of its policies.

      Can someone please give me 3 examples please?

  23. Gay marriage? The STD dating site stdster.,.c0m, the gay subscribers increased continually. Most

    of them are sexy.

  24. I don’t need the approval of any religious group to exist and be me. The survey means nothing!

  25. I am about to become Catholic & straight, I have no problem with Gay Marriage… who am I to judge anyone!

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all