Stick that it your pipe and smoke it then Catholic Voice/C4M/Anti-Gay Institute/RC church/Archbishop Sentamu ….
I reckon the yougov type question is the most valid approach, but this is at least encouraging.
The ComRes one was worse, surely?
Yep. But the most valid question in my opinion (and I think this is what polling experts would say) is one which says “the situation is X. What is your opinion on this?” and offers all the alternatives, e.g. “Same-sex couples can currently enter into civil partnerships which offer the legal benefits of marriage, but cannot enter into a civil marriage. Do you believe that: a) same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into civil marriages; b) same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into civil partnerships but not civil marriages; c) same-sex couples should not be allowed to enter into civil partnerships or civil marriages.” That way it doesn’t lead the respondent in any particular direction, especially if the order the answers are given in is randomised. Also, where a representative audience can be reached, an online or written poll would be better because people are presumably more likely to say what they think people want to hear if they are asked on the phone.
I see the Telegraph are continuing in their homophobic rhetoric – but trying to sound benign about it (I’m only vaguely against it …) …
A referendum on human rights – thats demented!
Mr Waghorne obviously has never had a long term loving relationship. Gay and lesbians marrying is not ‘meddling’ it’s strengthening marriage by making it more inclusive.
Have been checking out some BBC School Report websites today, I’d say that support for equality amongst young children lags behind that of older teens and teachers.
The marriage news was avoided altogether on the BBC’s live web stream for schools (2-4pm) and, of course, also avoided on Newsround today.
I suspect that kids perceive BBC censorship as disapproval. Other diversity issues were given plenty coverage on BBC School Report.
Most people don’t give a damn and see no reason why we should not all be equal.
All they want is a peaceful life and most are perfectly prepared to get on with one another.
There are limits of course but no more than could reasonably be expected.
The Campaign for Marriage tactics seem to be working in our favour. We need to make sure they keep up their violently bigotted attacks. Hahaha
The Coalition for Marriage constantly lies or deceives. This morning their spokesman on BBC stated that marriage was not in the coalition agreement – technically true, although weaved throughout the agreement was an intention to improve equality for LGBT people and other diverse groups (this is a realisation of that goal). The spokesman stated there was no mention in either the LibDem or Conservative election manifesto’s – again technically true. However, Nick Clegg made it perfectly clear throughout the election campaign that he supported equal marriage and that the party was likely to seek it if in power. Of course the conservative party did not make such manifesto commitments either but Cameron did say “I believe heart and soul in equality: the whole idea of prejudice towards people on the basis of their sexuality is quite wrong and that’s why I back civil partnerships, why I told the Tory conference that commitment through marriage was equally valid whether between a man and
a woman – and it’s why a Conservative government will put new rules in place to tackle homophobia and support gay couples.” during the election campaign.
If voters could not see what the leaders of the two parties who ended up in the coalition intended in terms of marriage then they were blind! The C4Ms suggestion otherwise is disingenuous.
There are numerous other policies that either were in neither parties manifesto or which break one party, the other or boths manifesto commitments – concentrating on this one is again disingenuous.
Disingenuity is a typical tactic of the C4M. Why tell the truth (after all they are not a “Christian” organisation – they are an anti gay organisation).
It’s interesting that we will be expected to pay a conversion fee to change our civil partnership into a marriage. I perceive this as discriminatory, and it could potentially be taken to court. A straight couple are able to get married without paying twice. Why can’t I?
It’ll basically be an admin charge I reckon. Similar to what you would pay if you request an extra copy of your CP certificate.
Its realy annoying when PN artciles are full of of spelling and gramatical errors. It makes articles dificult to read. As you will apreciate after reeding this. PN please please get someone to review you’re work before they are published. I’m forever finding errors!
Sorry Phill, my phat phingers voted ewe down by misstake !
Wish PN wood sepperate thee eyecons a bit more…
Errors such as the incorrect use of you’re and your, for instance?
WTF you are talking about grammatical and spelling errors as some sort of gauge to determine who should, or should not, respond on this site. Your message has to be the most atrocious example I have seen in ages.
First word (a good start) should be “It’s” for “It is”, then the third word should be “really”.. “grammatical” has two “M’s”; “difficult” is the next word your looking for NOT “difiicult” — next the word is “appreciate” with TWO (2) P’s not one. “Reeding” makes sense to some North Americans when we go through reeds and swamp to find game, but I assume you mean “READING” as in “I READ a dictionary often.” (Too bad you don’t). “Get someone to review YOU’RE work. Really? The difference between YOUR and YOU’RE was drummed into most of us before we were 8 years old. We were taught “Is this your book or you are book” but that assumed one knew the meaning of contractions.
“I’m forever finding errors!” The only time your words mad grammatical and spelling sense.”
Last line Mad should be Made. See people err but that does disqualify them from commenting. If so, you would have been knocked off this blog ages ago. Most of us have the courtesy to ignore most spelling/grammar/punctuation errors where the meaning is understood. But you have made a point of it. Back to grammar school you go.
Correction … Does NOT disqualify. See it happens to all of us but we don’t get on a high horse and judge others for keystroke errors.
Instead of nit-picking at a contributor’s grammar/spelling you should be taking an acceptance therapy course. instead. And, an English course won’t hurt either.
jamestoronto, was there this much anti marriage equality in Canada when it was being considered, especially from the religious denominations? What about the Canadian media?
When did this become a spelling bee.
“As you will appreciate after reading this” = “You will appreciate that spelling errors are annoying after reading this comment, which is full of spelling errors.” I think Phill was just illustrating his point with all that bad grammar.
To paraphrase a saying I heard somewhere or other:
“Let he who is without a spellchecker cast the first typo”
If you are going to nitpick people’s spelling and grammar, be bloody sure your own English is perfect. That said, I would expect it of the comments boards, but PN should really know better.
How strange, a similar survey finding just a couple of weeks ago resulted in venom and bile being hurled by certain PN visitors who contorted the results as somehow proving its participants must hate us. Now let me see, ah yes, it was a survey of…mainstream Christians.
Well strike me Pink:
Obviously this story came very close to blowing wide open PN’s resident PC mafia’s scheming to make us think ALL Christians are extreme nutters – just like they are!
Hypocrites of the highest order.
Ho bloody hum.
Let me get this right, are you saying that Christians using language such as that used by the Cardinal is acceptable?
Do you support their homophobia?
Do you seek equal marriage?
Oh Papa Tooney we got us a Looney!
Newsnight debating this now
Interesting to read the Telegraphs comment.
It appears they assert that the rank homophobia being used by the religious extremists is the fault of Lynne Featherstone.
They seem to suggest that because the Equalities Minister proposes improving equality for gay people that it is her fault others respond with dark age homophobia.
Thats about as sensible as saying that when the US introduced inter-racial marriage that the politicians who sought to ensure fairness were to blame for the racial violence of the KKK.
Come on Telegraph, you may be biased and have your policy dictated to you by the RC church. You may be in the pocket of C4M. But surely even you can come up with a better argument than that!
My guess is they actually can’t come up with a better argument. Demonising us as Cardinal O’Brien attempted has badly backfired on them, so now they’re going after the government ministers tasked with pushing this through.
Absolute rubbish! 70% of the public do not want any gay “marriage”! People are fed up with unnatural causes ruling public policy!
Yes people are fed up with unnatural causes ruling public policy that’s why you religious cult fundies are being told bluntly to fk off and mind your own damned business, Keep your claptrap out of our lives and take yourself off to your church get down on your knees and accept that you and your kind are now irrelevant. Your unnatural and delusional ideas are not wanted.
Things that happen in nature in every species studied, CANNOT by definition by “unnatural”. “Abnormal or” “unusual” maybe, but most definitely NOT “unnatural”.
You do not see rabbits on bended knees praying to the great sky bun nie.
If anything is unnatural it’s religion.
Justice will prevail … :o ))))
PLEASE VOTE HERE TOO:
Within the midst of an offensive report in the Telegraph there is a poll being run on marriage (please vote and demonstrate the strength of feeling!).
Within the article, the RC church are at it again and saying gay relationships are merely friendships. Devalue, dehumanise, substandard treatment – the usual rhetoric of the Archbishops.
PLEASE VOTE IN THEIR POLL FOR EQUAL MARRIAGE!
That poll is another classic example of lies, darned lies and statistics – The stats are presented in such a way that the yes vote is split between ‘Yes, anyone regardless of sexual orientation should be allowed to marry’ and ‘ Yes, but not in church’ whereas there is just the one tickbox for all the no votes: ‘No, marriage should be kept between a man and a woman’.
I guess the RC church still want us at the back of the bus. Just as well it’s not down to votes.
If black civil rights had been voted on in 1930′s Alabama the majority would’ve been against. I think they call that tyranny of the majority.
Just go and vote YES, marrage must be equal to all of us, Im not worried about, do you want to be married in a church, who cares, it is about the right to be married not a 2nd class civil partnership. If you chruch is happy to marrygay people, that is their right
I wish there were a poll asking heterosexuals the following: “If CPs were available to heterosexual couples, would you enter into such a union? If not, why not with an explanation for your reasons?” I think the responses would be very revealing. I’ve not seen anyone pose those questions in the media either, certainly no journalist.
Would be interesting to see a well conducted opinion poll on that issue.