Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Comment: The Coalition for Marriage stands for homophobic discrimination

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Simple question – Why should we be forced in to compliance with the faith of strangers who have absolutely no skin in the game? Marriage equality takes nothing away from them.

    1. Perhaps they’re worried if gay couples start getting married they’ll run out of children to molest…

      1. excellent reply – My suspicion is that they fear we will take marriage to a new, more evloved level – because we want it – It’s like adoption – Gay men and lesbians have been proved to be superb parents maybe in part because we want it and are prepared to work at it – Remember we would be taking the unwanted children from Hetros who have no duty of care towards them – They don’t mind us being parents then do they – I believe they fear we will take the institute of marriage and invest it will greater value.

    2. I think everyone who is FOR marriage should just join up! Simples! That would completely undermine their story! It’s a coalition after all!

    3. Let’s just see what Peter Tatchell says: He says “Coalition members are entitled to believe that same sex marriages are wrong, but they are not entitled to demand that their opposition to such marriages should be imposed on the rest of society and enforced by law.” The equivalent proposition mutatis mutandis is “Gay people are entitled to believe that same sex marriages are right, but they are not entitled to demand that their support of such marriages should be imposed on the rest of society and enforced by law.

  2. Craig Denney 20 Feb 2012, 11:29am

    The Coalition for Marriage website only gets 15 hits per day. PN gets 115,000

    The Coalition for Marriage is just another one of those whacky ideas of Carey thats not going anywhere. So ignore it.

    1. Do we know who the key people are in this coalition?

      1. Yes. It’s the Christian Institute, though I they have gone to some length to make it look like a grassroots campaign. I regret to say that I have had to deal with both the Coalition for Marriage and the Christian Institute in a professional capacity and I’m dealing with the same people at both. We’ve not even been asked distinguish the two for billing purposes.

        1. Yes it is the Christian Institute where the website is registered.

          They have an insidious approach to public life akin to that of American Evangelical extremists (perhaps thats because they learned from their immoral tactics?)

    2. Peter Saunders 20 Feb 2012, 2:07pm

      Have another look. 4,000 people have signed the on line petition since it was launched four hours ago!

      1. How many of those are false signatures?

        Remember the fake Scottish petition “for marriage” ….

  3. Does Peter and Ken Livingstone’s friends in Tower Hamlet’s support same sex marriage? If he doesn’t know then he should assume they do not and include them in this article like he has assumed 100 Tory MPs will vote against marriage equality without backing it up with any credible evidence of these individual MPs.

    1. ken’s and peter’s friends in tower of hamlet cannot realistically influence process of implementation of equal marriage law, so whats ur point?

      1. That is true, however, my point is, Peter likes to inform us who is against same sex marriage, especially those who are high up. As Ken Livingstone is proposing to be London mayor and has very close links with people I believe would be against marriage equality, I think Peter should of mentioned this, just like he mentions 100 anonymous Tory MPs apparently opposing marriage equality.

        1. ‘…As Ken Livingstone is proposing to be London mayor and has very close links with people I believe would be against marriage equality, I think Peter should of mentioned this, just like he mentions 100 anonymous Tory MPs apparently opposing marriage equality..’

          unlike 100 anonymous Tory MPs, neither ken (even in mayor seat) nor his friends in tower hamlet are relevant to the proposed law as in only MPs can make the laws. so again i fail to see the relevance of ur point to the story

  4. Peter Saunders 20 Feb 2012, 12:40pm

    Civil partnerships already provide all the legal benefits of marriage so there’s no need to redefine marriage.

    It’s not discriminatory to support traditional marriage. Many people of all faiths and none do so and it is unfair to label them all as homophobes and bigots just because they have a different opinion.

    Same-sex couples may already choose to have a civil partnership but no one has a right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

    1. Your statement is factually inaccurate. Civil partnerships do not provide all the legal benefits of marriage. In particular, CPs are not recognised by a number of foreign countries with marriage equality – a significant inconvenience. There are also differences relating to historical pension rights. The existence of two separate institutions also means that trans people have to dissolve and recreate their relationship after obtaining a GRC, which is demeaning and also has practical consequences.

      Marriage has been repeatedly redefined. Until the Married Women’s Property Act, marriage was a contract transferring control of property from a woman to a man. That change actually did affect all marriages.

      This change will have no impact on different-sex married couples. All it will do is give full social and legal recognition to same-sex couples. That is why there is no rational reason for it to be opposed except in order to deny gay people that recognition.

      1. Peter Saunders 20 Feb 2012, 2:01pm

        So tell us then exactly what legal rights those with UK civil partnerships do not get that married couples do.

        The President of the Family Division has described civil partnerships as conferring ‘the benefits of marriage in all but name’.

        1. Can I get married in a Church.

          NO.

          Can I get married in a church that wants to marry me.

          NO.

          Is my partner my partner when I leave the UK.

          NO.

    2. @Peter Saunders

      Marriage is not being redefined. It’s just evolving in a similar way to when, for example, Henry VIII divorced and then married another woman. Also mixed marriages were once banned, but are now commonplace.

      1. Peter Saunders 20 Feb 2012, 2:04pm

        That is simply not true. The UK legal definition of marriage is ‘the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life’ (Hyde vs Hyde;1866).

        The government plans to change this definition. Stonewall has even pbliched a draft bill doing so.

        1. ‘…The UK legal definition of marriage is ‘the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life’ (Hyde vs Hyde;1866)…’

          yes but that definition was heavily influenced by religious concept and was formed when some aspect of gay life constituted criminal offences.
          and why in XXI century religious concept should still influence some aspects of people’s life

        2. ‘the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life’

          With the current divorce and remarriage statistics that is simply not true either, is it?

        3. Commander Thor 20 Feb 2012, 8:04pm

          ‘the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life’

          PLEASE STOP LYING.

          Your statement would be true only if divorce and re-marrying were illegal.

        4. @Peter Saunders

          If we look to before the English law definition of marriage to the experiences of the early church there are numerous examples of church unions of same sex partners. Were the church wrong to engage in these? Who decided that was wrong?

    3. ‘…It’s not discriminatory to support traditional marriage…’

      but its discriminatory to prevent gay people from getting married, religion doesn’t own copy rights to the institution of marriage as in people do not need church to get married. civil partnership designed for only one group constitutes discrimination and apartheid

      1. Peter Saunders 20 Feb 2012, 2:15pm

        Marriages and same sex partnerships are different types of relationship. This is why there is a different law for each in the UK.

        Same sex couples cannot get married and opposite sex couples cannot form civil partnerships.

        This is sensible. It is not one size fits all. There are 3528 references to marriage in UK legislation that a change would affect.

        What’s the point of changing it when it will confer no new rights anyway? It’s not worth fighting over just for the name.

        1. but your argument against is based on practicality and not equality

          1. Equality is not sameness. Different things = diversity. hence equality and diversity

          2. equal access= equality. in this case equal access to institution of marriage

        2. I doubt many (if any) of the 3528 references would require any change – once law has set marriage equality in train … then the rest of the law regards marriage as marriage – regardless of the makeup of the partnership. The 3528 references are a red herring and speak of desparation in terms of debate.

          Even if some of them have to be changed, why is this an issue? Surely fairness and love are more important than bureaucracy or tradition for the sake of it.

    4. Given the way Hetros disregard, trivialize and abandon their so called vows – how marraige has been turned into a TV Sideshow, ‘lets get wed so we can be on TV!’ – I fail to see why they are making such a fuss about the institute been updated.

    5. Here in the American South many, actually MOST, people had deeply and sincerely held and religiously supported “opinions” on maintaining long held “traditions” which they didn’t want black people to “redefine”. They included having black people subservient and generally out of sight. They were more than happy to allow black people to have the same legal rights, as long as they were separate and distinct from white people’s. For example, black people were entitled to water fountains that provided the same quality and quantity of water but from a SEPARATE water fountain, so as to not offend tradition. They were entitled to public transportation that ran the same route at the same time but they had to ride in the back of the bus, so as to not offend tradition. They were also entitled to publicly provided education as long as it was provided in a separate building, across town and on the other side of the railroad tracks, so as not to offend tradition…

    6. …They took great offense to being called racist and bigots. They defended their positions as equally valid “opinions”. I’d like to hear your “opinion” on these people.

      1. Oh, and I’m not speaking as a person who read this stuff in history books. I’m speaking from personal observation of my own family while growing up in Mississippi. In fact I never read ANYTHING about these things in my history books in Mississippi because too many racist bigots took offense to being portrayed as anything other than gentle, loving Christians who were defending sacred tradition and all things good and holy. 40 years ago NO ONE in Mississippi would have considered that their racist opinions would ever be widely considered bigoted. After all MOST people in the South shared those opinions.

        Likewise, 20 years from now people will universally consider those who stood in the way of full, equal and unsegregated civil rights for gay people as homophobes and bigots. One only need look at anyone under the age of 25 to realize this.

  5. Traditional Marriage in this country was in most cases not about love as it is nowadays, but about economic and social security anyway. Biblical Marriage in the Bible in most cases describes marriage between one men and several women. THese people want to stir up hate under the cover of christianity and pray on the idea of change

  6. Mr. Tatchell, on bended knee I ask you, “Will you be my honorary husband?”

  7. Before he became leader of the Labour party didn’t Ed Miliband tell Pink News readers that the party, under his leadership, would campaign to make gay marriage happen?

    I’ve not noticed any of this promised campaign!

  8. If you look at the list of signatories, there are some MP’s from Labour and Conservative as well as the usual religious freaks who wish to deny us what is basically a human right.

    If your MP is on the list, I would urge you to speak out publicly against them and find out what their problems are pertaining to gay marriage equality

    http://c4m.org.uk/signatures/

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Feb 2012, 1:59pm

      Thank you for posting the link. The number is significant and alarming to see it growing. Doesn’t bode well. Their problem with same-sex marriage is rather obvious. It’s about religious beliefs. I already wrote to Edward Leigh several months ago when he first spoke against it, and he sent a very nasty rebuttal ranting on about the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman and the usual procreation nonsense. All of the signatories are of the same ilk, so you don’t even have to ask them what their problem is.

      The proponents and allies of same-sex marriage need to fight back, blow them out of the water with concise, logical reasons why same-sex CIVIL marriage matters and why their opposition is deeply flawed, unreasonable and illogical with the emphasis on CIVIL as oppposed to religious. How dare they try to impose religion on what is clearly a civil issue.

    2. Why is this ‘basically a human right?’

      Sure, if current marital law was homophobic (i.e. only those who considered themselves ‘straight’ were permitted to marry), then sure, there would be a breach of human rights (which would be wrong.)

      However, under the current law, we are all ‘equal’ – one’s ‘sexuality’ is not taken into account when it comes to marriage. A woman who considers herself a ‘lesbian’ has no fewer rights to marry than a woman who considers herself ‘straight’ or ‘polyamorous.’ Regardless of her ‘sexuality,’ a woman way be joined into matrimony with one male human – i.e. forming the only unit which can typically produce human offspring without medical assistance, and the very backbone for marriage.

      Let me also refute the ridiculous attempt by some to compare monogamous same-sex civil marriage to inter-racial marriage. There would only be a valid case here if race were to affect procreative ability, which it of course does not.

    3. A real irritation of mine in this ‘debate’ is Peter Tatchell’s duff point about ending the ‘discrimination’ against ‘straight’ people by legalising civil partnerships for two people of opposite sexes. This is obviously a red herring and should be exposed for what it is.

      Finally, before again accuses me of being a religious fanatic, I’ll set the record straight – I’m an atheist. And before I’m accused of being ‘homophobic’ and a ‘bigot’ by a few posters – I’m neither of these in the slightest. I believe firmly that we all have a right to engage in relationships with other consenting beings, whether this be homosexual, polygamous or heterosexual. However, this does not mean we should change marital law for a same-sex couple, any more than we should change it to accommodate 3 people.

      These are the reasons I’ve signed the petition, and would encourage any fellow rational thinker (whether theist or atheist) to do so.

  9. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Feb 2012, 1:51pm

    !00 Tory MPs opposing is not a good sign. Somehow, I have a gut feeling that American right wing organisations have a finger in this. There are two of them in particular, Stand Up For Marriage and National Organisation for Marriage. They have both been very influential in states of Washington, New Jersey and Maryland over the past week in calling for referenda to deny gay couples their equality. If they are involved indirectly in this, either financially or logistically, then the Home Secretary should be looking into it.

    I expect opposition will be louder as the consultation approaches. The roman cult will be mailing out postcards, getting signatures that can’t be verified and I wouldn’t mind betting some will be falsified to make up the numbers they may fall short of, they are capable of anything devious.

    We need more vocal support from religious denominations that support us. Let the bigots know they are not going to get away imposing their religious beliefs on us.

  10. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Feb 2012, 2:03pm

    Maybe there should be more a current poll for 2012 regarding the 2009 61% figure Peter Tatchell reported. A lot can change in 3 years and I’m sure that figure will probably be higher.

    About time someone in authority started taking on these religious nutters and put them in their place, stop the political correctness and deference and spell it out for them that they’re supporting discrimination, the antithesis of christianity. This is a purely civil matter and the sooner they get that through their devolved brains, the better off we and they will be. I’m not going to hold my breath on that one.

  11. I think equating gay marriage rights to inter-racial marriage is getting things massively confused, race is one thing, sexual orientation is another, lets stick to the point and not try and pinch another groups hard fought liberty.

    1. i think you are confused about whats confused

    2. One is skin colour the other sexual orientation.

      Both are innate humane attributes.

      I see no difference.

      1. Are they? So you are saying they are both absolutely genetically predetermined and both evident at birth? In fact, if they’re both innate, then surely they both could be stamped on a birth certificate?

        Or perhaps not. Although you’d like people to believe that sexual ‘orientation’ is most definitely and categorically a factor beyond our control, it is not. For that reason, it should be treated in the same category as religious beliefs.

        And before anyone makes the attempt at reasoning by questioning why anyone would choose to be gay given the stigma and prejudice about it – the same could be applied to many behavioural traits.

        May I say, you are extremely deluded if you believe someone’s skin colour is the same as their perceived ‘sexuality.’

        1. what a stupid point to make, of course sexual orientation cannot be determined visually at birth like skin colour, as you can see from the name its to to with sexual activity and in most cases as such it comes out in puberty stages, but that doesn’t mean your are not born with it and to claim that sexual orientation is a choice just because you cannot see it at birth is even more moronic.

          1. Please read my reply to Kris below. I chose to reply to his post rather than yours as he wrote more eloquently.

        2. “Or perhaps not. Although you’d like people to believe that sexual ‘orientation’ is most definitely and categorically a factor beyond our control, it is not. For that reason, it should be treated in the same category as religious beliefs.”

          So you argue that orientation and religious belief are both choices then? OK, for talking sake let’s say that’s the case. Why then should your choice be given more rights and benefits than my choice?

          1. No. In fact, being in a gay relationship myself, I believe that I do have a sexual orientation, which is beyond my control. However this cannot be proven in the same way race can.

            With regards to your 2nd point, I don’t believe anyone’s decision/orientation should be given more rights and benefits than someone else.

            And in marital law, your sexuality is not taken into account! A man may join in matrimony with one woman regardless of whether he identifies as gay or straight. This is why the term ‘gay marriage’ is so flawed – it implies that gay people cannot marry, when in fact they can.

            As I’ve said before, the reason I support the status quo is because the combination of one man and one woman is the only known way of allowing procreation to take place naturally. This is the reason that marriage is restricted the monogamous opposite-sex model (and should stay this way.)

  12. I am not sure why marriage is necessary given civil partnerships provide gay couples with exactly the same rights. Marriage, a Judeo-Christian institution, has always been between a man and a woman and this has been recognised for thousands of years across countries and people groups.

    1. jamestoronto 20 Feb 2012, 4:00pm

      Here we have it….someone claiming marriage as a “Judeo-Christian institution.” This will be news to all the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, etc. around. Marriage was around a lot longer than the development of Judaism as we know it, and certainly before Christianity. A quick trip to Wikipedia or another such site might help expand your narrow concept of the history of marriage. Unless of course you prefer those blinders.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Feb 2012, 4:14pm

        Yes, indeed, I alluded to the Islam component below. The bigots conveniently ignore it. Their argument against marriage equality becomes weaker every time they spew that nonsense. Let them rant all they want, the more they do, the more irrelevant they become.

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Feb 2012, 4:43pm

        Another observation of Carey’s statement. It seems clearer to me now that this is about the erosion of the power of the C of E and allowing same-sex civil marriage is the perfect target for them. Next he’ll be saying it’s an attack on religion.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Feb 2012, 4:02pm

      Well then, if civil partnerships are exactly the same as marriage, then why the distinction? Why call them by another name? This has more to do with religious bigotry than anything else. Carey admits, religion doesn’t own marriage, religious or otherwise, the state in fact issues civil marriage licences and certificates. So the argument is lost. . Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles, both adulterers and divorced were allowed a religious ceremony in St. George’s chapel. How hypocritical and bigoted does it get? Carey is indeed a bigot and so are the people who signed his homophobic list. Using the one man one woman mantra doesn’t work any more. 10 countries have already debunked that myth as well as the harmful effect it was supposed to have had on straight marriages and their ability to marry and procreate.

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Feb 2012, 4:10pm

      May I remind you that the C of E was founded on adultery and divorce by Henry VIII, another example of power grabbing. Carey obviously has developed a convenient case of ignorance of his own cult’s history. Hypocrisy and bigotry all rolled into one.

      If civil partnerships are so equal, why aren’t straights clamouring for them, you know, the ones who don’t want to marry but who want some legal protections under a different name? If you put that to a vote, few would opt for them because they know they will never be equal and carry little portablity around the world.It would further debunk the nonsense you are using to dismiss marriage equality. You also omit one fact. Islam, one of the three Abrahamic cults. Some islamic countries practice hetero polygamy, up to four wives at a time. So much for Carey’s allusion to marriage equality heralding polygamy. Bigots all.

      1. The entire sorry edifice is built on Henry the Eights balls.

  13. Anyone see the repulsive, creepy “uncle tom” christopher biggins on loose women today, he was vehemently opposing marraige equality and supporting homophobia , banging on about his sympathy for the church and how civil partnership is enough and gay marraige is a step too far. Even the old, clueless hags on loose women, some quite homophobic were surprised by his treachery.

  14. religion is the source of all evil! take it out of the equasion and live will be a lot more tolerable and equal and less discriminatory! as long as religious people rule the country in one or another way there will remain discrimination and brainwashing! religion should be a private thing if ever you would want to turn to it, but never be a standard on which to measure others!

  15. The ban on same-sex marriage is not discrimination, you cannot give equality to people that are not equal to the majority. Hopefully many MP’s will be opposing this.

    1. If that were true, ethnic minorities in the UK would be deprived of rights. You seem to be confusing ‘the same’ and ‘equal’. All people are equal regardless of their race, sexuality, gender, age, etc. Just because they are different, doesn’t mean they’re not equal.

      1. Iris

        Matthew is just confused. Its amusing.

  16. This is nothing more than the shop front of homophobic Tories who are importing “franchise” packs from American anti-gay organisations.

  17. Absolutely typical, this is starting to feel like America! NOM anyone!?

    Have you say, help us fight back!

    1. There’s a web-link to an opposing group by clicking my name (sorry about that)

      https://www.facebook.com/pages/Coalition-for-Equal-Marriage/379447128733838

  18. I wouldn’t be too alarmed by the number of signatures on that petition. The Scottish petition has about 9,000 votes after a long time; most of those appeared very early on, and since then support has dried up. Relative to population, this petition would need nearly 100,000 signatures before it surpasses the relative level of support for the Scottish one.

    1. 9,000 and counting in just a few hours.

      1. Most of them fake probably

    1. What’s MassiveChewSets got do with anything.

      Sod off

  19. Craig Denney 21 Feb 2012, 1:01am

    My dad is the same age as Lord Carey and the name ‘Carey’ comes up quite a bit and some of them are his kids, but others are not his kids.

    I’m wondering if he is getting under-age kids to Sign The Petition?

  20. Not really bothered about gay marriage when apart from a name civil partnerships are equitable under the law, what does bother me is Peter Thatchell’s continual support for Ken Livingstone depite his obvious recent homophobic comments and is someone that invited to the U.K. a person who believes gay people need to be put to death.

  21. Thanks so much for compiling this info!
    You can focus on Abercrombie Fitch Deutschland</a

  22. The part of this that saddened me the most was the quote which read something along the lines of don’t want them ‘to ruin it for the rest of us’. Almost wept for the ignorance of that statement.

    Keeping tradition for tradition’s sake is just pathetic. The church needs to move with the times, like any other institution.

    1. The church isn’t about what is ‘in the times’, and it is not about what society thinks either. Morals don’t change with the conquest of society, they are the backbone of many peoples belief’s. Just because some people don’t agree with them, doesn’t give anyone a right to try and abolish morals or sin in within the framework society just because ‘they feel differently’.

  23. Peter Tatchell writes: “Coalition members are … not entitled to demand that their opposition to [same-sex] marriages should be imposed on the rest of society and enforced by law.”

    So how come supporters of the Equal Love campaign are entitled to demand that their redefinition of marriage is imposed on the rest of society?

  24. Gareth Edwards 25 Feb 2012, 9:28am

    There is a counter-petition available to sign, just google “Coalition for EQUAL Marriage”, lets show the bigots that they are in a minority

    1. Theft is what aggressive homosexuals or militant gays do best. Stealing the ideas and the shapes of things, then redefining them is what aggressive homosexuals are clearly happy or ‘gay’ in doing, but stealing is wrong, isn’t it?

  25. In the words of Cranmer “But the state does not ‘own’ marriage, either, Ms Featherstone. It is a union observed in all cultures and, according to Aristotle, exists by nature.”

    Your not thinking equally, marriage is defined in the Bible, which you obviously don’t appreciate as it defines sin too. Redefining marriage is an attack on Christianity.

    Isn’t civil partnerships enough?

    Are you saying people who are in civil partnerships don’t love each other but if there are married then they do?

    Marriage is not for same sex relationships, it is clear in the scriptures and in the present law how it should be defined. You are not happy with the Bible, and you think the state has a ‘right’ to attack what happens in our churches, and you demand respect and equality?

    Show a little respect now and leave things as they are, if marriage is defined now, lets say in tens years it may be redefined again for polygamy.. do you really want that?

    1. Second class status is not equality

      1. Why do you think civil partnership is second class? It’s just different in the same way that my hand is different from my foot. Marriage is about bringing together the different genders in complementarity, physically, mentally and emotionally – unity in diversity. This isn’t possible if you’re both the same sex…

    2. Nice one, Chris. But redefining marriage is also an attack on the 12 million people in this country who are already married, and no one’s asked them what they think about the idea. Marriage is about maleness and femaleness melding together – unity in diversity. If people don’t understand the purpose of marriage, how can they properly decide whether they are for or against it being redefined? Hence skewed survey results.

  26. I would like to congratulate all of the beautiful women who would like to meet and Marry a beautiful women
    http://www.Lesbianknot.com

  27. This article is written very well. I really like. Maybe you’re interested in Ralph Lauren France Boutique

  28. I think everyone who is FOR marriage should just join up! Simples! That would completely undermine their story!

  29. You may want an update: the c4m site is getting 5000 signatures per day. The total is now more than 70k and it’s only been going just over a week…

  30. Oops! It’s only 60k signatures. Was that a mistake similar in kind to the one Peter T made when he said the churches were responsible for slavery? Has he never heard of William Wilberforce? Does he not know that England was willing to commit econocide to compensate slave owners?

  31. one thing I would be interested to know is can you sign it if you dont reside in the UK. If so this would make it invalid. Has any one tried to sign it that lives outside of the UK?

  32. Patrick Mc Crossan 12 Mar 2012, 8:22pm

    As a gay man and as a gay catholic I have problems with Stonewall’s Draft Marriage Bill

    I think they have deliberately chosen words and phrases to assist me as part of a minority that will offend the majority.

    I believe Stonewall who have done and who do great work have chosen to upset the majority by removing Husband & Wife by amendments completely from the marriage bill. ( see )

    Extension of Marriage to Same-Sex Couples Bill 2012 [HC] a husband and wife” substitute “parties to a marriage”.

    For those who have been married and see it as an institution, and as Husband & Wife are part of the worlds accepted married status I feel it will create far too much upset to achieve marriage rights for gay people by removing the majority’s right to continue to be called Husband & Wife.

    Stonewall should achieve equal marriage rights without upsetting the majority.

    It is issues like this that gets people to believe we are going too far when we denigrate others rights to achieve our own right

  33. David Skinner 13 Mar 2012, 5:54pm

    The Population of Britain is 61,000,000, whilst the population of gays is 6- 800,000.(ONS statistic based on 1% of population)
    Gay civil partnerships equal 60,000 couples and this equals 120,000 gays or less than 20% of the gay population, or 0.2% of entire British population.
    Gay families in civil partnerships with children equals 5,000 couples, or 10,000 gays or 8.5% of gay civil partnerships, or 1.6% of gay population, or 0.16% of entire British population.
    Gay co- habiters equals 60,000 couples, or 120,000 gays or less than 20% of gay population, or 0.2% of entire British population.
    Gay co – habiters with children comes to 3000 couples, or 6000 gays or 5% of gay co- habiters or 0.00198 of entire British population.
    When we add the civil partnerships to the gay cohabiters which comes to 0.4% the entire population, we see that gay families with children amount to 0.0256% of the entire population.

  34. David Skinner 13 Mar 2012, 5:55pm

    Clearly in Gaytranselvania there is no stamped to form either any permanent relationship- still less to have children. What narcissism, brain irritation, delusion of grandeur is it that drives someone to think that gays will create a renaissance of marriage? No it was the bisexual, pervert Alfred Kinsey and his degenerate pamphleteer, Hugh Hefner of Playboy, who has driven the process of destroying marriages and families in the West.
    No ladies and gentlemen. Only God can authorise and bless marriage that He alone created for the increase of the human race. To force one’s way into God presence and cry like a baby, stamp one’s feet and demand that God authorises and blesses amalgamations, confederations, alliances that are an abomination to Him whatever will only result in an increase on the curse that homosexuality already is. Bring on that curse, Islam, that is multiplying very nicely, thank you very much.

    1. Sir,
      Which God?
      There are hundreds, if not thousands of Gods,
      I’ll give you one thing; pornography does harm marriage where two members of the same gender making a life long commitment to one another do not.

  35. One of the biggest reasons you here people using against same sex marriage is;
    ‘It will redefine marriage and this will lead to the collapse of Western civilisation.’
    Not exactly that, but roughly. But tell me, how many words have been redefined over the years?
    How many people use windows, sweep and physician to mean what they originally meant?
    Words are being added and redefined all the time in the English language and civilisation isn’t being destroyed or even harmed.

    1. One of the biggest reasons you hear, not here.
      Sorry.

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