Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Christian Peoples Alliance campaigns for London Assembly on ‘traditional marriage’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. There ‘child bearing’ argument is brought out time and time again. Firstly I’d like to see them try and deny an infertile or post-menopausal straight couple the right to marriage, and secondly many gay partnerships do have children, whether from previous partners, surrogacy, sperm donation, IVF or adoption. You could strain peas through their arguments.

    1. Yes, tired lazy boring and bogus arguments that have been debunked a thousand times over but still they stick to their script, it’s the longest running farce since The Mousetrap.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Apr 2012, 7:14pm

      They wouldn’t deny them a marriage. Archbishop Nichols of Westminster was asked that very question and said he wouldn’t object. It has to do with the penis/vagina “ick” thing, the potential for procreation even if people are infertile or beyond child bearing years. Somehow, they manage to wriggle out of every uncomfortable situation they find themselves in with some lame excuse. They’re extremely adept at it and rather smug.

  2. “I’ve nothing against ordinary gay people but the leadership, well I stick by my word Gaystapo. It is bullying. I oppose bullying and hatred in all its forms. There is no justification for the bullying or intimidation of gays and that has been rectified in law, but we’ve moved on to a new game. We’re now seeing these attitudes of intolerance they accuse their opponents of.”

    A case of “pot calling the Kettle black” syndrome again

    1. Spanner1960 26 Apr 2012, 2:23pm

      I have nothing against people of faith, but the leadership, the church, the Vatican, the organisations – well I stick by my word ‘homophobic bible-bashers’. It is bullying. I oppose bullying and hatred in all its forms. There is no justification for the bullying or intimidation of religions and that has been rectified in law, but we’ve moved on to a new game. We’re now seeing these attitudes of intolerance they accuse their opponents of.

  3. Good news. Plurality in democracy is so important.

    1. What Craig proposes is the exact opposite of democracy. Craig seeks theocracy. The UK will never accept theocracy.

    2. You are right. And so is erradicating inequality under the law.

    3. “Plurality in democracy is so important.”

      Not too well up on democracy, are we Adam? The down side of religious dogma – it makes you stupid.

  4. We need to keep an eye on Mr Craig and his campaigning as he undoubtedly will slip into inciting hatred.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Apr 2012, 7:18pm

      Their very existence incites hatred. Opposing equal marriage is a form of hate. He’s a bigot and a hypocrite, most of them are.

  5. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Apr 2012, 7:17pm

    Here we go again, the christo-fascists trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. Always playing the bloody victim card. They’re going nowhere. Alan Craig is a perfect example of a hypocrite. Let him prove equal marriage will impact heterosexual family breakdowns first. Facts please, moron!

  6. “All successful child-bearing relationships involve marriage.”

    Requires citation.

    1. Absolutely requires citation – and explanation as to how “successful” is defined.

      1. Spanner1960 26 Apr 2012, 2:20pm

        I think they mean their offspring don’t get pregnant by 14, stay out of jail, or turn into a raving wooftah. :)

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Apr 2012, 7:45pm

      There are thousands of successful hetero relationships outside of marriage in which children have been raised. You don’t need marriage to raise children and it’s NOT the primary purpose of marriage either. Craig is an imbecile. There are hundreds of millions of infertile hetero couples around the world and many couples who married later in life beyond child bearing years. In his view, their marriages would have to be construed as unsuccessful. What a blithering idiot. A clown if anything and not even risible. A sad one in fact.

    3. @David W – people that believe that they are eating their god every Sunday and evolution is a “myth” don’t consider the burden of proof to be a biggie for them, it seems.

    4. Tim Hopkins 26 Apr 2012, 10:37am

      Here’s a good citation: Biblarz & Stacey, “How does the gender of parents matter?” Journal of Marriage and Family, Feb 2010. It’s a research review article, and here are some of things the summary says:

      “Contrary to popular belief, studies have not shown that ‘compared to all other family forms, families headed by married, biological parents are best for children’ (Popenoe, quoted in Center for Marriage and Family, p. 1). Research has not identified any
      gender-exclusive parenting abilities (with the partial exception of lactation).”

      “In fact, based strictly on the published science, one could argue that two women parent better on average than a woman and a man, or at least than a woman and man with a traditional division of family labor. Lesbian coparents seem to outperform comparable married heterosexual, biological parents on several measures, even while being denied the substantial privileges of marriage.”

    5. “Like the Virgin Mary’s” as, curiously, they don’t say.

  7. I don’t think anyone actually votes for these people, do they?

  8. I will believe that they actually think that they are working for “traditional marriage” when they put this much time, effort, money and commitment in to banning divorce. Until they do so, this is nothing but poorly disguised animus against LGBT people and NOTHING else.

    And there is nothing more putrid than a bully who sobs and wets his pants because his victim (us) gets tired of his abuse and kicks him in the junk.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Apr 2012, 7:48pm

      And civil marriage is not traditional marriage either so Craig should be opposed to that too. After all, it was invented to allow people to divorce and marry as many times as they wish, the very thing that has caused the breakdown in families and uniquely heterosexual. None of these Jesus freaks acknowledge that or admit it.

      1. Because they wouldn’t recognise intellectual honesty if it jumped up and bit them on the junk. Imbecilic snivelling superstitious dim-witted beasts, the lot of them.

      2. Spanner1960 26 Apr 2012, 2:19pm

        “Civil marriage is not traditional marriage”
        Who says!!??

        There are three times as many straight civil marriages as there are religious ones. I would, if anything call that more of a tradition these days.

  9. Anyone wouold think traditional opposite sex marriage was going to disappear if same sex couples are also allowed to marry, these people are very tiresome.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Apr 2012, 7:49pm

      By traditional, the bigots mean religious marriage I think that are far fewer than civil marriages taking place. Civil marriage is a recent invention going back only to the 19th century in the UK, so it’s hardly traditional.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Apr 2012, 7:05pm

      It hasn’t disappeared in any of the ten countries where we can marry has it? It hasn’t produced any polygamous, incestuous or bestial unions has it? I don’t understand why nobody is demanding the opposition to provide the factual evidence. I emailed C4M about it some time ago, but of course, no response as expected.

  10. The Christian Peoples Alliance:

    In the 2008 Mayoral election the achieved only 39249 (1.6%) of first preference votes.

    In the 2010 general election they put forward 17 candidates – all lost their deposit. How relevant they are!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Apr 2012, 7:51pm

      The majority of voters when they hear the word ‘christian’, it turns them off. Craig and his gang are irrelevant and a dying breed. Look at the age of some of them.

  11. In other news, it rained today.

    LOL honestly, who cares about these fruit loops?

    1. Well I really don’t care but it’s bothersome that people are so ignorant

      1. “Well I really don’t care but it’s bothersome that people are so ignorant”

        You mean like you and your god awful transphobic comments?

        Hard to know which of your stupid crap is my favourite line, so much to choose from, the “People on here who support immoral things like transgenderism”, or “Transgenderism is WRONG because people are sad excuses for their “new” gender”?

        You only need to find a mirror to see “ignorant”, sweetie.

  12. They probably think it’s the 1970′s with their attitude.

    The photo looks 1970′s too.

  13. Let them blither on with their moronic non-sequiturs and debunked arguments. They are beyond parody, and can only help us.

  14. A few points here
    -Traditional marriage was
    *Only between white couples
    *Interracial marriage wasn’t allowed
    *The woman was the property of the man
    *The wife couldn’t sexually refuse her husband
    etc
    Traditional marriage is pathetic, it should be between two consenting adult humans not related in an equal partnership

    -I am NEVER having children so that argument doesn’t affect me

    -Gay couples, single people, and unmarried people are just as stable as heterosexual married couples

    -Christianity doesn’t own marriage so civil marriage is NONE of their business

    1. “-I am NEVER having children so that argument doesn’t affect me”

      More egocentricity from the local gay bigot.

      Ever try think of a situation that is about the general, and not about you? This is why you’re such a bigot toward trans people, you have no insight or capability to see beyond your selfish little mind. Its probably a symptom of whatever mental health issue you have.

  15. what leadership? Is there a leader and an agenda that I haven’t seen? perhaps we should elect one and agree on one seen as they are so scared of it think of what we could do! lol

  16. I made my vote yesterday as I am a postal voter, I saw these cretins on the voting form and have never even heard of them. Needless to say, I did not put an X in their box. I saw the term ‘christian’ and it had me slipping my X into another candidates box!

  17. Dr Robin Guthrie 26 Apr 2012, 2:06am

    Point 6 of their manifesto:

    6. PUTTING MARRIAGE CENTRAL
    We will introduce accredited marriage preparation courses, with parental support and a £1,000 first marriage gratuity. This recognises the difference strong marriages make to the well-being of children, stronger communities and lower crime.

    So castigating gay families and their children makes marriage stronger.

    This is the bigot party.

    1. OF course
      Don’t forget the mantra that it’s all about the kids

      1. “Don’t forget the mantra that it’s all about the kids”

        Yeah, but you have to scream it in a shrill way to be effective, like you’re borderline insane :)

  18. Even if equal marriage is not enacted, civil partnerships are enshrined in law as being equal to heterosexual marriage…this means that they would legally have to extend the proposed £1000 gratuity to those entering civil partnerships. To not would be a very clear and cut act of discrimination by the London assembly.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Apr 2012, 2:28pm

      Not really, under the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1973, marriage is explicity defined as being between a man and a woman. CPs are not recognised under the law as marriages even though some delusional fools like Ben Bradshaw like to view them as such, so the bigots get off scott free. CPs aren’t actually equal to marriage until the pension scheme issue is addressed, an issue that has been included in the equal marriage consultation. Plus there is little portablility for CPs outside the UK in terms of reciprocal rights with other countries who have many different forms of legal unions for gay couples most of which don’t convey as many rights as the British model. There is no universal standard for CPs either nor is there any demand for them.

  19. So they will push for this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

    It is biblical traditional marriage after all

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Apr 2012, 7:01pm

      Another one of those crazy American loonies, like that other American who comes in here, Ken.

  20. Spanner1960 26 Apr 2012, 11:34am

    Actually, I totally support this.
    Marriage as an institution is collapsing, and we do need people of whatever sex or sexuality to demonstrate commitment, whether they have children or not.

    The way I see it though is that marriage should be available to everyone, and based on that, I think the CPA’s concepts are good ones.

    All we need to do though is convince them that commitment should be allowed to demonstrate it across the board, and not just for those chosen few.

    1. You support the CPA’s “traditional” view of marriage????

      1. Spanner1960 26 Apr 2012, 2:14pm

        I didn’t say that.
        I said I supported the concept of marriage over non-marriage, and the benefits it provides both for those couples/families and society in general.

        I obviously do not support it only being offered to opposite-sex couples with children, that is tantamount to apartheid.

        Try READING what I said next time, instead of reading the first line and making your own mind up about what I said.

        1. Spanner

          I did read what you said, and was unclear what you meant, which is why I asked the clarification question.

          You have now answered (unfortunately in an aggressive manner, apparently ignoring the multiple questions marks) and I accept what you say as reasonable.

          Perhaps, in future, you can respond without aggression when someone is merely clarifying what you have said and not making accusations.!

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Apr 2012, 12:42pm

      You do realise that Craig’s view of “traditional” marriage is religious marriage and nothing else? Civil marriage isn’t traditional, far different.

      1. Spanner1960 26 Apr 2012, 2:15pm

        Define “tradition”.
        They had traditions of partnerships that predate Jesus Christ.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Apr 2012, 2:31pm

          Traditional religious marriage in a biblical context which is what Craig’s argument is all about, has always been between one man and one woman but he wants to impose it on civil marriage as do the major abrahamic cults.

  21. I hope he takes his traditions all the way back. The Patriarch Jacob would be a good choice, I think: married his first cousin and her sister, and had 13 children by them and their two personal servants.

    All in all no doubt an excellent example for this twit to promote.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 26 Apr 2012, 2:23pm

      Don’t forget Solomon who had 300 wives while polygamy was condoned in the old testament.

      1. Are you?

  22. Do they have to give back the £1000 if they subsequently get divorced? If not, I see a nice little earner coming on ;-)

  23. ‘Traditional marriage’?

    Are they campaigning for wives to be legally redefined as their husbands’ property?

    Are they campaigning to ban interracial marriage?

    Those sick, twisted f***ers.

  24. Alan Craig has got other fingers in the pie elsewhere.
    Part of Anglican Mainstream
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/327801/20120413/anglican-mainstream-gay-cure-buses-posters-boris.htm
    He is aprt of Christian Concern
    http://www.christiantelegraph.com/issue12173.html
    Part of Revelation TV and a presenter
    http://www.alansangle.com/?page_id=2
    and
    http://www.revelationtv.com/bin/Revelation%20Tv%20Questionnaire%20-%20January%202012%20Updated.pdf
    Try ringing at him desk at either of these organisations and get fobbed off. All depends what desk he is sitting at!!!!!!!!!

  25. Someone mentioned about Revelation TV?
    They were suppose to have a live debate on 31st March on “homosexuality.”. See this
    http://www.revelationtv.com/bin/nl-mar-2012.pdf
    They decided to cancel it without telling their viewers or those on their data base.
    Perhaps they got scared. I don’t think Pink News was invited

  26. Davevauxhall 3 May 2012, 11:48am

    We know what traditional marriage means, no marriage for gays. I was pretty pissed off that they were allowed their hateful statement after their name on my ballot paper the bnp weren’t allowed a hateful racist statement. I don’t appreciate being attacked on an electoral ballot paper what was the electoral office thinking?

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