Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Analysis: Behind the MPs poll on marriage equality

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Excellently written article, Balaji.

    Interesting to see that Comres are reluctant to comment on the amount of input C4M had on question drafting or the issue of offensiveness..

    As you rightly conclude, this is not a matter for voting, poll results etc – this is a parliamentary vote where MPs are duty bound to ensure that they protect the LGBT minority. Especially given that civil marriage has ZERO implications for religious freedoms.

    1. Sister Mary Clarence 11 Apr 2012, 8:33am

      I think Andrew Hawkins comments on this and the behaviour of ComRes were fine. The figures are the figures and it is the interpretation of the figures that is what is important and what gives us information.

      There does appear to have been a bit of a delay in the publishing of the results if the fieldwork was in Feb/Mar, however we are not given any indication of exactly when in March the fieldwork ended, but Comres would have turned the results round within a week of end of fieldwork I would guess – its a poll, people tend not to want to wait forever for poll results.

      I think some explanation of the weighting of the results would also have been helpful, so people understand why there has been a shift in the figures.

      I think the big issue really is though how the results are being reported. Rather than the headlines we have seen, equally the poll could have been reported at ‘Only 29% of MPs think the proposals will fail’ which I’m sure would leave us all a lot more comfortable.

      1. Only 57 Tory MPs responded to this poll, after weighting that was increased to 73, After you take away the weighting factor for those who said that the marriage equality bill would fail it comes to around about 23 tories who actually said this.

        WEIGHTING is an extremely important factor to take into accound as is knowing who the 23 Tory MPs who said it would fail. If they are part of the C4M or the anti equal marriage campaign then it’s skewed!!!

    2. Sister Mary Clarence 11 Apr 2012, 8:37am

      Perhaps this is how the gay media should frame it, because the main stream media will pick up the story as they trawl through the gay media for stories, and this would ensure that it is picked up in a way not intended by those commissioning it, and a way that will work against their objectives.

      The poll is a two edged sword and there is no reason why we do not capitalise on the probably considerable amount of money C4M have spent on gathering the data.

      1. Of course PN, GT and other LGBT media should frame it with the positive statistics, perhaps along the lines of:

        “As a poll, recently commissioned by the Coalition for Marriage (supported by the CI, CARE etc) has shown only 29% of MPs think the government proposals to introduce the ability of same sex couples to marry in a registry office will fail’”

        Maybe The Times, Independent, Guardian and others could consider this approach too.

    3. It is a sign of a losing mentality to always be REacting rather than ACTing. C4M acted on a petition, the gay ‘marriage’ lobby (GML) reacting with C4EM. C4M acted on adverts in Country Life Mag, the GML reacted by attacking the publishers. C4M has acted by commissioning several polls, the GML reacted by challenging the methodology and outcome of the polls. Is it that the GML are so bereft of ideas that they cannot act? Why don’t the GML, including PN commission their own polls with the ‘right’ questions and methodology? I think this is beginning to look childish really. Maybe that is why even the left media has been cold towards the GML . Commission your own poll and stop all these whinning!

      1. The C4M mislead the readers of Country Life Magazine – hence the ongoing investigation by the ASA

        1. The ASA do have a legal obligation to investigate EVERY complaint made to it. As such, the mere fact that they are investigating a complaint is NOT an indication that there is merit in the compliant. They are merely doing their job.

          1. The ASA have a duty to make an early assessment of each complaint and determine if there is likely to be sufficient evidence to justify a detailed examination of the allegations. If at face value there is unlikely to be such evidence then the ASA can rule not to investigate as the expenditure from the public purse would be unlikely to be in the public interest. As it is the ASA clearly feel they may be able to identify sufficient evidence as they have confirmed in emails to numerous people that they are investigating the matter.

      2. You have a point: after all, C4M reacted to proposed advances in the law. A losing mentality indeed.

  2. Might be interesting to see if the ASA would be interested in your article as background information about Comres polling on issues in this regard, as it is a material matter for the current complaint regarding misleading advertising that they are investigating concerning C4M

    1. Very good point.

  3. I’ve a feeling I’ve read some of this article somewhere else before…

  4. I guess polls will constantly change anyway and this poll was conducted prior to the start of consultation and the pretty strong statements from May and the GEO that it was all about how civil marriage was to take place and NOT WHETHER it was going take place and that it would definitely happen before 2015.

    I think after several delays in the start of the consultation I was a bit doubtful as well.

    It would be interesting to know who the 154 MPs were.

  5. It would be interestingto know what ComRes charged for conducting this “survey”, ie was it paid for at the commercial rate or did ComRes discount it for their own reasons?

    I’ve got to wonder about an organisation who is willing to work for a group like C4M

  6. So well written.

    Thank you for looking into this for us.

    The numbers aren’t really encouraging sadly. Hope it goes through :(

    1. The numbers are very encouraging.

      More than half of MPs believe this will happen.

      The C4M have spun this in a way to make it seem like they have a breakthrough. Its a lie – go and look at the stats.

      1. Sister Mary Clarence 11 Apr 2012, 8:41am

        Absolutely, only 29% of MPs responding think the proposals will fail. That is the notable result of the survey. C4M have spun it and are hoping that no one will pick that up.

        We need to be bit more clever about it, and I hope when any gay commentators are asked to comment on it, they have the savvy to spin it right back round again and say how overwhelmed we are by the massive show of confidence we have had from Members of Parliament, with only 29% thinking the proposals will fail.

      2. Ah, I see! I shall have a word with myself.

  7. Like I’ve said many times it shouldn’t matter what the MPs think of same sex marriage because it should be a guaranteed right.

    I also don’t give a damn what churches think of any government, they choose to follow their hateful religion and they should have no say or influence in anything, and should be left to be hateful on their own.

    Civil partnerships don’t have equal rights and they’re not the same thing as they’re separate. The majority of US LGBs want civil MARRIAGE.

    Same sex marriage won’t lead to polygamy because same sex marriages are between two people. Interracial marriage never lead to polygamy.

    1. us*

  8. what I think is encouraging about this survey is that despite the best efforts of C4M to manipulate the survey (read the questions in detail!) and use an outfit already associated with misleading methodology – they still achieve results which show that a majority of MPs believe that equal marriage will become law.

    I think this is a survey that is positive and endorses equal marriage – although C4M and their supporters (whether open or those pretending not to be) and trying to twist this as a disaster for LGBT people – when in fact its a disaster for the C4M.

    The only crumbs they have is the fabricated signatures on their petition and they are worthless.

    In terms of issues that matter they are losing and will continue to do so.

  9. I spent 30 mins on google trying to find MPs who have clearly said they support ensuring that same sex couples can marry in civil ceremonies. (OK hardly scientific – but I would have expected some level of correlation if the Comres approach was unbiased)

    In just 30 mins, I found 32 Conservative MPs, 1 Green, 41 Labour, 23 LibDem and 4 SNP.

    I purely looked at Westminster MPs. I only counted them if there was an attributable statement saying they either supported the plans to introduce equal marriage or would vote with the proposals.

    I found over 200 other MPs from all parties who sounded as though they supported the proposals but the comment was not worded completely clearly.

    I only found 26 MPs who said they would not support (predominantly Conservative, but with a couple of Labour and a LibDem).

    I believe the 56% claim is suspect at best.

    1. Sister Mary Clarence 11 Apr 2012, 8:45am

      Plaid Cymru have also published their support for full marriage equality on their website, so hopefully they’re all in too. On a good day though, looking at past votes, there are about 3 of them sitting in Parliament

  10. Having worked in PR for many years I can tell you that you can prove anything with a survey. When paid for, the questions in a survey are always biased to the clients objectives. The input ComRes would of had on the questions would of been to make sure they were worded in a way that that bias was not blatant, and in the end deniable.

    As for the Telegraph… I remember an online survey attached to an article about Cardinal O’Brien comments. There were just over 44 000 respondents, of which 78% approved of Marriage Equality. I’ve never heard them mention these results which I guess is no surprise

    1. Yeah and there were thousands of votes if I remember rightly on the Telegraph poll – strange they keep that one quiet! Not as if they would engage in biased coverage!?! As if! ;-)

  11. “Similarly, it is equally well-known that civil partnerships provide the same legal benefits for gay couples as marriage does for heterosexual ones, and the difference is more about the significance of the word and the status it accords in society more than it is about legal rights.”

    cp is a compromise not equality

    i disagree, would a couple in civil partnership working in spain be able to take advantage of higher spanish married couples allowance when only one of them is earning? err, not

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 11 Apr 2012, 12:12pm

      As far as the way pensions are computed, CPs are most definitely NOT equal to civil marriage nor do they carry much portability once you leave the UK. The different forms of same-sex unions in the EU and elsehwere are not identical. For example, if a British gay CP’d couple were to work and reside in France, under the French version (PACs), less than half of the rights of a British CP would be available to the couple, plus gay couples in most of the countries where these non-marital unions exist do not permit adoption. How can this article claim that they are equal, how can anyone?

  12. It’s a shame that ResCom is willing to flush their good reputation down the drain in order to make a few million dollars from well funded, organized homophobes.

    Excellent dissection of the biased sham of a poll.

  13. I think the 154 MP panel should reflect how the commons vote on LGBT rights. If there is a dispropotionate amount of ant-gay MPs in the 154 panel then any poll from ComRes will be skewed.

    If 41% of them thought polygamy would be introduced as a result of SS marriage then it suggests there is a higher than normal amount of extremist MPs on the panel. If not extremist then at least stupid!

  14. David Skinner 11 Apr 2012, 6:27am

    Stonewellian man aka homosexual, queer, gay man is not interested in marriage. Witness the fact that only a tiny minority of the Stonewellian population, who, according to ONS figures are only just over 1% of the population, are actually in civil partnerships with dependent children.

    1. Perhaps our numbers are small, but when we do get hitched , I think I read somewhere it generally last longer than straight marriages…..

      Perhaps straights rush into marriage too quickly….they certainly like to get divorced a lot and some guys ,like Roger Gale MP, like to get thru quite a few wives in a lifetime, a bit like Henry VIII I guess…

      Anyway we’ve only had 6 yrs to do CPs and straights apparenlty have had 1000s of yrs to do marriages..

    2. Even if it’s only 0.5% that is still not a reason for preventing it though, is it? The concept of human rights appears to be alien to you, I wonder why.

      And what Stone Age man (recognise the category?) might not understand is that not everyone sees having dependent children the sole reason for existence. The human race is not in any danger of dying out soon.

    3. Spanner1960 11 Apr 2012, 2:15pm

      Surely if that figure is that small only reinforces what a total storm in a teacup C4M are generating. Why should anybody really be interested in this except those directly affected by it. (ie: LGBT people)

  15. David Skinner 11 Apr 2012, 6:33am

    The homophobe is as mythical as the homophile. There is a gene for neither. These Darwinian inventions supposedly have no choice but to be what they are. Both claim to have no choice in matter. Listen folks we are created men and women. Nothing more.

    1. Just because your sexuality was a choice, don’t make the narcissistic mistake of imagining everyone else is the same (God forbid!) as you.

    2. Do you disagree with Mark Russell, Chief Executive of the Church Army who said “Whatever your views on Christianity and sexuality, violence against gay people is wrong, and homophobia is wrong. Jesus died for all people whether straight or gay, and he loves everyone equally.”

      Or the leaders of the 6 main Christian denominations in Liverpool who in 2009 said ““The church leaders condemn this latest homophobic attack and extend their sympathy to James Parkes’ family. We are concerned by the number of homophobic incidents on Merseyside. The leaders of the churches in Liverpool believe it is wrong for anyone in the community of which we are all part to be victimised, or threatened with victimisation, on account of their race, creed, colour or sexual orientation. We affirm our commitment to work with others to build a community where all can have their place of belonging, feel welcome and live in safety and without prejudice”.

      Or the Archbishop of Barcelona who said ““Homosexuals are

    3. people like everyone else, and deserve dignity and respect. Failing to show respect, being discriminatory, causing them hurt or distress or treating them in any other homophobic way is wrong and unscriptural and I rebuke Bishop Reig of Alcala for his recent homophobia and the distress and anxiety he has caused by his impestuous thoughtlessness”.

      All well regarded Christians from all strands of the church – Roman Catholic, traditional protestant and evangelical. All say homophobia exists and is wrong.

      Now, Skinner perhaps you should seek forgiveness for the harm you have caused?

    4. @David Skinner — care to offer any reputable proof of your assertions ?

  16. David Skinner 11 Apr 2012, 6:37am

    The writer of this article is deeply prejudiced for he admits that he rejects a proposition not the basis of whether it is true or not but on whether it is offensive. Clearly he has lot of growing up to do, for as he goes through life he will find a lot of things that are offensive but inconveniently true.

    1. You write about prejudice on the takes-one-to-know one principle, I take it?

    2. @David Skinner

      Truth hurts and when you have connections to liars and those engaging in deception, misleading advertising and fabrication of signatures on bogus online petitions – whilst yourself quoting untruths as facts; its clear you will be held to account (by parliament doing the right thing and ensuring human rights for LGBT people, probably by the courts for the C4M deception, by the public for the “grotesque” lies you have been perpetuating and ultimately (if he were to exist) by your “maker” for spreading false witness.

      Just because you chose to hate, lie, deceive and be in denial about your own sexuality – do not judge others by your own murky and dubious standards.

      You claim homophobia doesnt exist – you personify it. If only you didnt exist!

  17. Here is the Torygraph poll showing over 77% of 43,000 plus respondents back equalising the marriage laws:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9124963/We-must-protect-true-meaning-of-marriage-says-Roman-Catholic-leader.html

    1. Perhaps GT, PN, Attitude, The Times etc could consider including this in the article about the 29% of MPs from the C4M poll.

      It will smart them even more to use their own statistics!

  18. David Skinner 11 Apr 2012, 8:51am

    Give the name of one scientist who has discovered the mythical gay gene? And please do not mention all those gay scientists, like Simon levay whose findings have been discredited. Also please give me the details behind the myth of homophobic bullying that is equated with the holocaust and the oppression of the the blacks. Precisely what incidents? Names, dates, places and what occurred? Facts please. facts.

    1. “Give the name of one scientist who has discovered the mythical gay gene?”

      So because it has not yet been proven then it must not exist? Hmmm, why does that sound familiar? I know if definitely reminds me of Someone but I can’t think who…….again, much like Keith’s multiple personality/don’t analyse me statement last night, the irony of some people

    2. What’s the point. You are a creationist and pretend that evolution didn’t happen, which means you don’t believe in or understand genetics in the first place. There isn’t a single gene ‘for’ sexual orientation. Why not ask Volker Sommer directly?

      As I have pointed out many times, if the general public and the media knew what people like you and your C4M really thought about gay people, they would run miles from you all. When Chistian Institute people go on TV and say this isn’t about denying gay people equal rights, all we have to do, is highlight what you and your Anglican Mainsteam friends, and refer everyone to the websites calling for LGBTs to be hounded out of the armed forces, and so on. It’s high time meddlesome folks like you were told to butt out of other people’s private affairs.

      1. Well said.

    3. Another point, why did gen. Michael Dannatt, who according to Peter hitchens, was going to be the C4M frontman, back out of publicly supporting C4M at the lat minute? He of course, was at pains to apologise to LGBT service people back in 2004, for the cruel anti-gay policies of the forces that were in operation till 1999. The very policies that the Christian Institute want to bring back. I can imagine how foolish and hypocritical he would have looked standing alongside Colin Hart and Mike Judge.

    4. @David Skinner

      Can you prove that the Archbishop of Barcelona and religious leaders of LIverpool are wrong in condemning homophobia. You claim it does not exist, but eminent religious leaders of all theological persuasions seem to be aware that it does and that it is unscriptural.

      Will you withdraw your homophobic comments?

  19. David Skinner 11 Apr 2012, 9:00am

    I have to say I genuinely feel sympathy for those burdened with same sex attractions. Indeed how would I like to feel bound by urges that controlled me and which perhaps, initially I didn’t choose .

    Unfortunately those with this condition have been sold a Darwiinian, evolutionary hoax, that is just as fanciful as the Piltdown man and Hitler’s superman. But worse those with this condition are being used as pawns by a coalition of Fascist / Marxists to undermine society. When they have served their purpose they will be disposed of. Read the Frankfurt school. All will be revealed

    1. The Hon Betsy Trotter 11 Apr 2012, 9:11am

      You’re a bit nutty, aren’t you David

      1. And I can genuinely say that you can take your sympathy and stick it where the sun don’t shine frankly.

        Although you say

        “Indeed how would I like to feel bound by urges that controlled me and which perhaps, initially I didn’t choose.”

        Are we to take it that you are totally aesexual? After all heterosexuality is also about urges which control you which perhaps, initially, you didn’t choose. If that’s the case then I think we can all say it’s good to know your craziness will die with you when the time comes

        1. A bit?!

    2. Those facist Marxists eh… there’s one crazy mixed up demographic. Silmultaneously at the extreme right wing and the extreme left wing.
      Unsure whether to sing the red flag or the Horst Vessel song.
      Glad you brought them to our attention because I was previously under the impression they were the product of a kook conspiracy theorist’s wet dream.

    3. This is what the media must see. This is not just a battle about equality for LGBT people. If the government caves in and tries to appease gay-hating religious extremists who seem to make up a big part of C4Ms support base, the next target will be women’s rights (abortion), contraception, denying children good sex education in schools, creationism in schools, and a state where extremist Christians are treated above the law. This battle concerns everyone. It is about reason and enlightenment versus dark age theocracy.

    4. I feel sympathy for those whose eyes are blinded by the scales of indoctrination and can not see the lies that they perpetuate or the hatred they use to others. It must be horrendous to be in such denial.

    5. Dr Robin Guthrie 11 Apr 2012, 10:52am

      “Indeed how would I like to feel bound by urges that controlled me and which perhaps, initially I didn’t choose ”

      Like constantly logging onto gay websites and posting comments on subjects that do not affect you. Terrible urges those.

      Like the study said.

      Homophobia is a cover for suppressed homosexuality and a p!ss poor upbringing.

      How sad.

  20. “The panel includes MPs from across the political and geographic spectrum. Results are WEIGHTED to ensure that
    the sample is reflective of the House by party, region, gender and age……”

    I think we ought to know more about how these particular MPs repond generally on LGBT issues. If it doesn’t reflect the commons then the poll is skewed terribly.

    Only 57 cons MPs actually responded to this poll but becuase of the weighting factor the number is exagerated to 73.

    77 actual labour MPs responded to the survey but the weighting factor lowers it to 61.

    So in fact we have a poll headlined as if the majority of Tories think this will fail when in actual fact only 57 Tories MPs responded and of these only 23 Tory MPs said it would fail . If these are the usual homophobic suspects then the poll is skewed. We’re getting exicted on the opinion of 23 Tory MPs, I wonder who these Tory MPs were!!!! probably Burrowes, Bone, Leigh, Gale, Bruce, Brazier, Streeter…

    1. We mustn’t lose sight of the fact that this poll was produced as part of the C4M campaign. It would therefore be surprising if they hadn’t suggested to those MP’s that support them that they should make sure they sent in a response to the Poll.

  21. It is a sign of a losing mentality to always be REacting rather than ACTing. C4M actedon a petition, the gay ‘marriage’ lobby (GML) reacting with C4EM. C4M acted on adverts in Country Life Mag, the GML reacted by attacking the publishers. C4M has acted by commissioning several polls, the GML reacted by challenging the methodology and outcome of the polls. Is it that the GML are so bereft of ideas that they cannot act? Why don’t the GML, including PN commission their own polls with th ‘right’ questions and methodology? I think this is beginning to look childish really. Maybe that is why even the left media has been cold towards the GML

    1. “Why don’t the GML, including PN commission their own polls with th ‘right’ questions and methodology?”

      I believe you’ll find that various polls have been held on the issue showing a majority support for equal marriage so I think to label us with a losing mentality is perhaps a bit foolish. I’d say it’s just common sense that when a poll then shows the entire opposite to previous polls then questions would be asked. And if everything is above board then there should be no issue with a bit of questioning right?

      Plus if any side of a debate is not challenged then everyone might as well just make up whatever h0rsesh!t they feel like and claim it as the absolute truth on the matter.

    2. Plus it’s a lot easier when a campaign is being bankrolled by some “Christian” organisations in the shadows to be “active”. Perhaps they could focus their money on more needy subjects like the poor and then we just have a debate rather than a media propoganda campaign. Wouldn’t that be rather more Christian of them?

  22. David Skinner 11 Apr 2012, 10:03am

    Only 1.6% of the LGBT population are in civil partnerships with dependent children (10,000 mostly lesbians) and only 1% of the LGBT population are cohabiting with dependent children (6000 individuals). This means that in five years since civil partnerships have been launched, there is a sum total of only 2.6% of the LGBT population and only 0.027% of the entire British population who have settled down to family life. This does not exactly show a pre-disposition to forming strong, stable, secure and healthy environments fit for raising the next generation and for the continuance of the Nation – let alone the human race. And yet the LGBT’s want to redefine marriage, not because they want it but just so they can destroy what they can never have. This is not equality but narcissistic dominance of the Stonewellian tyrants .

    1. Figures from UK stats office show that same sex CPs (so far) are much less likely to end in separation that marriages.

      Anyone who can write the sentence ‘narcissistic dominance of the Stonewellian tyrants” and expect to be taken seriously is deluded.

    2. It’s a fair cop, you’ve got us banged to rights… we’re all out to destroy your hetro marriages.
      It works like this…
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8l1GtcpJzw
      I mean if we can get married, it’s a case of you have to get divorced… it’s a law or something.

    3. In 2005, HM Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry completed a survey to help the Government analyse the financial implications of the Civil Partnerships Act (such as pensions, inheritance and tax benefits). They concluded that there were 3.6 m gay people in Britain—around 6% of the total population or 1 in 16.66 people.

      According to Durex Global Sex Survey for 2003, 12% of Norwegian respondents have had homosexual sex.

      A study of 20,055 people in France found that 4.1% of the men and 2.6% of the women had at least one occurrence of intercourse with person of the same sex during their lifetime.

      In 2009, in a survey conducted by University of São Paulo in 10 capitals of Brazil, of the men 7.8% were gay and 2.6% were bisexual, for a total of 10.4%, and of the women 4.9% were lesbian and 1.4% were bisexual, for a total of 6.3%.

      Which suggests the 1% figure David Skinner is fixated on is not necessarily an accurate portrayal of the population.

    4. Robert in S. Kensington 11 Apr 2012, 12:15pm

      “Destroy what they can never have” . If you mean polygamy, serial adultery and serial divorce, I think heterosexual bigots such as you are doing a very fine job of it yourselves without any help from LGBT people. After all, your kind invented it. Go to the old testament, you’ll find evidence for that too.

    5. Robert in S. Kensington 11 Apr 2012, 12:21pm

      There are ten countries soon to be eleven where equal civil marriage is permitted. Provide us with the factual evidence for those spurious polygamous marriages that C4M claim will emerge as well as other forms of unions as a result? Proof please? If anything has redefined traditional (religious) marriage, its heterosexuals and their serial adultery and serial divorces. Then they introduced civil marriage to accommodate them and their promiscuous behaviour in the 19th century, so the latter isn’t traditional, fairly recent in the evolution of marriage.

      1. Netherlands has effectively legalised unions where more than 2 people are involved but these are spcically not marriages but some other form of civil
        Union contract.

        1. I should have added – none of the countries with equal marriage have legalised polygamy.

        2. Polygamy has never been illegal in the Netherlands since the Napoleonic era. There is no link between same sex marriage and polygamy and their legal status in the Netherlands.

          1. Just so – Ironically it’s the very countries where polygamy IS the norm that gay people are most likely to get imprisoned or stoned to death.

  23. Trying to see how many consecutive posts you can achieve in a couple of hours, Skinner? Obsessed much?

  24. David Skinner 11 Apr 2012, 10:30am

    Only 1.6% of the LGBT population are in civil partnerships with dependent children (10,000 mostly lesbians) and only 1% of the LGBT population are cohabiting with dependent children (6000 individuals). This means that in five years since civil partnerships have been launched, there is a sum total of only 2.6% of the LGBT population (0.027% of the entire British population) who have settled down to family life. This does not exactly show a pre-disposition to forming strong, stable, secure and healthy environments fit for raising the next generation and for the continuance of the Nation – let alone the human race. And yet the LGBT’s want to redefine marriage, not because they want it but just so they can destroy what they can never have. This is not equality but narcissistic dominance of the Stonewellian tyrants.

    1. Not all black people want to play golf or join a country club. By your rationale we should ban Tiger Woods from participating in the US open.

    2. Dr Robin Guthrie 11 Apr 2012, 10:48am

      “This does not exactly show a pre-disposition to forming strong, stable, secure and healthy environments fit for raising the next generation and for the continuance of the Nation – let alone the human race.”

      At a population of 7 billion, the human race is doing quite well without our input.

      “And yet the LGBT’s want to redefine marriage, not because they want it but just so they can destroy what they can never have.”

      Pray tell how is it being destroyed. And PS. We WILL have it.

  25. David Skinner 11 Apr 2012, 10:35am

    Oh yes, Rehan, the classic Stonewellian response to reasoned debate: personal attack rather than debating the issue. I expect before the day is out these personal smears and hissies will have been raised to fever pitch. Calm yourself dear.

    1. HAHAHAHA DEBATE??!! That involves responding to people. Not some one way conversation where you just spout nonsense then ignore any reply to it. Although in light of C4M not appearing to have any sort of forum like the one here it certainly seems to fit that this is your idea of a debate.

      But by all means feel free to continue coming on here and spouting your nonsense. We get a laugh from it, and PN gets a hit on their site, these hits add up which means it’s more attractive to advertisers, they pay money to have ads displayed on the site, this money then goes back to PN who can then use it to continue the excellent work they do reporting the nonsense people like you get up to. Win win for us! :D

      1. Oh yes. Sweet is the day when every Skinner click adds to the fight for equal rights.

        David. Take a seat. Calm down. You’re increasingly hysterical. If
        If you want debate then starting making sense. Your writing is full of supposed rhetorical flourish but has no meaning.

        Let’s start again. After all we agree on SO much. Marriage is a great thing for the bringing up of children. It brings adults together in (relatively) Lin lasting relationships that bring happiness and proven benefits in terms of mental and physical health etc.

        And those are the exact reasons is should equal for all pairs of consenting unrelated adults.

        Try and answer just one point at a time instead of goin off your trolly about Darwin and stuff.

    2. Nothing coming even close to a ‘reasoned debate’ was evident in your anguished witterings, as evidenced by your quaint neologisms (which I daresay amuse you enormously, if no-one else).

  26. Proper polling companies do not allow their clients to dictate the framing of their questions.

    I’ll take my poll stats from YouGov, Ipsos-Mori, ICM and Populus not this joke.

  27. hissies will have been raised to fever pitch. Calm yourself dear.

    As 9 out of 12 consecutive posts are yours, I think it’s pretty obvious who’s having a hissy fit and is wound up to fever pitch. Take your own advice (dear).

    And while you’re at it, try only preaching to the converted. You might find it more rewarding.

  28. David Robertson 11 Apr 2012, 4:34pm

    Oh yawn – the same old prejudice and ignorance masking itself as ‘informed’ comment. Who says that C4M is homophobic? Is everyone who disagrees with same-sex ‘marriage’ homophobic? And how do you know these organisations are ‘cash rich’ – that is as ludicrous as someone suggesting that pro-gay groups are de facto cash rich. And why try to hide the question about polygamy? I guess that any form of rational and intelligent discussion on this is trumped by the emotive bullying, paranoia and ridicule exemplified in this article.

    1. “Who says that C4M is homophobic? Is everyone who disagrees with same-sex ‘marriage’ homophobic?”

      Let’s just say it’s a fairly safe bet.
      What other argument is there barring the etymological fallacy [which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning], and some scaremongering assertion that if gays get married hetro marriages everywhere are instantly devalued and spontaneously fall apart.

      And trust me, whenever I’ve scratched the surface of those two arguments, the homophobia usually makes itself pretty apparent.

    2. Is everyone who disagrees with same sex marriage homophobic? Probably

      Why try to hide the question about polygamy? No one has, some C4M supporters have tried to link polygamy with same sex marriage – this has been clearly repudiated with facts here and elsewhere.

      So, David Robertson – do you support the lies of the C4M, the misleading advertising they have issued and the breaches of the data protection act they have committed?

    3. @David Robertson — you ask And why try to hide the question about polygamy?

      Good question. The only people who mention polygamy are people against LGBT rights. They use it to support their desire to withold rights from LGBT people.

      It is a slippery slope argument, and a poor one, as it is trivially answered by posing the questions:

      1) Why has marriage equality not led to polygamy in countries that have marriage equality ?

      2) Why has straight marriage not led to polygamy, given that it is a heterosexual phenomenon ?

      No answer has ever been given to either of these questions, which are usually silently ignored. The topic of polygamy seems to particularly exercise a poster on these forums called Keith though he usually goes by more juvenile tags these days.

      1. Interestingly the most homophobic countries on the map tend to be the most polygamous countries too. So that’s that theory biting the dust.

  29. David Skinner has returned to this forum, with complaining about the classic Stonewellian response to reasoned debate.

    Here are some examples of his reasoned debate:

    1) Really Brian, if I had been a kid fighting on the beaches of Guam in WW2 and I discovered that what I was really fight for was for queers to have the licence to smash the rules underlying any civilised society – the freedom get AIDs, be promiscuous and destroy marriage and the family – I would have joined the Japs.

    2) On the death of Kristian Digby:

    There does some seem to be a link, connection, association ( though in the minds of some here it seems to be very tenuous), between homosexuality and death.

    all from the pages of Pink News. Remember this is a man so principled that he will not shop at Tesco because they funded London Gay Pride.

    1. Mr Skinner also sees a secularist agenda controlling the Government’s actions which will not rest until society is rid of religion: “This doesn’t affect just Christians, although we’re the first in line, but it will be the Jews, and then the Catholics — and eventually, it will be rather like N@zi Germany. “There is no such thing as homophobia, because there are no such things as homosexuals. Homosexuals are the invention of a German in the 19th century who was a pederast.”
      So let me get this straight… according to David Skinner homosexuals don’t actually exist and we were all invented by a 19th century German pederast? And therefore homosexuals must be stopped? Am I reading this correctly?
      So by his own account he’s on a personal crusade against ficticious people who only exist in the imagination of a German pederast? And here was I thinking we’d tapped the full extent of his rubber room fantasies.
      Surely this man is an incredibly good example why the right to free speech should be

    2. defended? Clearly each time he opens his mouth, he shows what a loony crackpot he is?
      David Skinner advocated that Christians may need to take up arms against gay people . . . not too difficult to believe in light of his recent argument about homosexuality published on the Anglican mainstream news site.

    3. @Stu — I admire your bravery in plumbing the depths of David Skinner’s mind. But when he can write:

      If the gaystapo expect the British people to roll over on their backs and have the tyranny of gay Marxist ideology imposed on them, they are living in cloud cuckoo land. Bring it on I say.

      It is not even a case of traditional marriage; it is a case of the universal recognition that marriage has always, even in the animal and dare I say plant world between binary – between male and female – between sperm and egg and never between sperm and excrement.

      People talk of Christians trying to impose their views on the rest of society. Ridiculous; it is Hegelian Marxism and gay ideology that fall on us daily like black atomic dust. It comes out of the TV and radio and it is sweeping through our education system.

      I think one has to accept he has profound mental health problems.

      1. @Harry

        Your exposing David Skinners bizarre and demented ramblings are worthy of credit.

        The mental health issues appear very clear where Skinner is concerned.

  30. The exact margin of error in this sample is 7.17%; in order for a voting intention opinion poll to be considered statistically significant, it must be at least within a 3% margin of error. To achieve that, you’d need to interview 402 MPs – in which case you may as well just wait for the vote. Opinion polls of MPs cannot be taken seriously. There are simply too few MPs to make any such survey meaningful.

  31. More slops from David Skinners ‘reasoned debate':

    3) Two men, three men, five men and a donkey or man with a bicycle or pavement, fusing their sperm with excrement or axle grease, do not produce new life – only the production of HIV, AIDs and a trip to St Barts Hospital to the bum department.

    4) Listen folks there are no gays, lesbians, bisexuals, trans sexuals, trans gender, necro sexuals, homosexuals, objectumsexuals, paedophiles, incest sexuals and a multitude of other sexuals. There are only men and women cursed with unnatural desires. The men of Sodom were not homosexuals; they men, brute beasts who were hot on anything.

    You get the idea. Readers of a strong disposition should google:

    david skinner +domain:pinknews.co.uk

    1. This is the same Skinner who supports Bill Muehlenberg the bigot, Christian fundamentalist, bully, moral coward, idiot and intellectually impoverished theologian.

      Skinner encouraged Muehlenberg when he said
      “We cannot both exist. One of us has to go.”
      and then began to promote a sense of Christians taking up arms and preparing to tackle LGBT people. If thats not an indication of being willing to participate in terrorism, then I don’t know what is.

    2. David skinner is a closet homosexual battling internally with his sexulaity. I would pretty much bet my life on it.

      I mean I understand religious people, and conservative politicians writing on their own web pages to gain support from those who love to hate… But this guys is one of the most prolific commentors on a gay news site and utterly obssesed. I mean come on… Its obvious. This is not normal heterosexual activity.

  32. David Skinner 11 Apr 2012, 10:36pm

    Harry, I’m so glad that someone recognises the worth of my wiriting. I feel deeply honoured. You hav’n’t got anymore that you could promote. I didn’t know I was so good!! Mind you, what you have found is quite tame compared with my present style of writing. Thankyou

    1. Are you back to advocating Christian fundamentalist terrorism?

      Adopting an approach to commit a genocide of LGBT people.

      I recall you commenting that you advocated that Christians may need to take up arms against gay people

    2. @David Skinner — “Mind you, what you have found is quite tame compared with my present style of writing”

      I very much doubt that.

    3. On behalf of Pink News, we thank you for your continued use and support of this site. Your support allows us to attract revenue generating parties to use our site. So again, we thank you

  33. Dan Savage on What the Institution of Marriage Means (2.51mins, watch this)

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all