Reader comments · Report: 71 percent of Britons back equal marriage rights for gay couples · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Report: 71 percent of Britons back equal marriage rights for gay couples

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Even more evidence that the churches are out of touch with modern day Britain!

    Stonewall should also make sure that the BBC covers this article too as they are becoming too one sided with their reporting at the moment.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 12 Jun 2012, 5:05pm

      As long as the BBC is run by a practicing catholic who opposes equal marriage, we’ll never get equal coverage.

      1. It still flumoxes me that the BBC always rely on the likes of Peter Tatchell or Ben Summerskill for comments. It would be nice for them to go into somewhere like Soho or Canal Street to gauge opinion.

        1. Did see some good opinion from a gay bar on C4 news yesterday and Giles Fraser on C4 news

          Shame the BBC seem unable to do similar

  2. I await the reply from the other side of “well of course they found that, they would wouldn’t they” which will be said without the slightest hint of irony won’t it

    1. Reply to a manufactured study? No chance!
      The report is deliberately backdated to 2011 to avoid deeper scrutiny. I am not deceived though. I have checked through Yougov and CANNOT find the data for the study and challenge PinkNews and stonewall to provide the data if it exists.

      1. Did Ken just reply, saying he wouldnt reply – hypocrite!

  3. Interesting ‘NEW’ research which was conducted in 2011! I guess the CofE response to the consultation must have hit the militant gay ‘marriage’ lobby so hard that they had to dust up a non existent report purportedly carried out since 2011!

    1. Spanner1960 12 Jun 2012, 3:40pm

      You will get your response when the government clears the way for same-sex marriage. No amount of fiddling online petitions will hide the obvious fact that most people actually don’t give a toss either way, but of the remainder, the majority are for rather than against. The truth will out, and then you can squirm back under that rock from whence you came.

  4. I challenge PinkNews and stonewall to provide the data supplied to them by Yougov to authenticate this obviously manufactured study! No wonder they backdated it to last year. Pathetic response to the CofE consultation document!

    1. A “heterosexual” man posting ranting and raving posts on a news site for LGBT individuals. A pathetic response to knowing your bigotry is dying a death before your very eyes

    2. Who the hell are you to challenge anything – a sad bitter closet case – whose lace of self worth is staggering – be gone insignificant twat!

    3. I would imagine stonewall and pinknews will jump straight to it for a very important person like you Ken

  5. So so glad someone’s done a poll to show the truth. Thanks Stonewall x

  6. Ah stonewall, stonewall….so far up their own *%$£ they can’t see the wood for the trees. The equal marriage campaign is winning, but it’s not because of anything they’ve done. If we backdate to 2009 they openly said they were not interested in this issue, and yet now they reckon it’s all down to their work and lobbying. I don’t think so.

  7. “Respondents were asked to what extent they supported the idea: “The Government intends to extend the legal form and name of civil marriage to same-sex couples.” 71 percent were in favour of the move.

    “YouGov surveyed 2,074 adults in England, Scotland and Wales online between 25th November and 5th December last year.”

    However, the government only announced the details of its proposals in March 2012. so the question on what basis did the respondents answer the above question when they were not even aware of the details of the government plan? Pathetic response to CofE

    1. If you honestly believe that a 3 month gap will turn a 71% support rate around -especially when the government announced plans that AGREED with the opinions those surveyed had already expressed – then you’re not only narrow minded and hateful, but dumb as a post to boot!

      1. Particularly when a Catholic Voices poll shows 77% of people believe marriage should not be restricted to opposite sex couples.

  8. Cardinal Capone 12 Jun 2012, 3:33pm

    Less than 2% of the population regularly attend church, but their priests want to define marriage for everyone.

  9. Great to see a poll conducted with honest methodology and integrity with simple questions that can not be misconstrued or manipulated – demonstrating without ambiguity what is clear – the vast majority of the UK populus oppose homophobic, encourage quality and see no problem or concern in equal civil marriage – and desire equal religious marriage for those religious organisations that are prepared to do so.

    1. Where did you see the methodology?

      1. If you care to look up the report on the Stonewall website then you can easily find it – undoubtedly you will prefer to bluster in rhetoric not based in fact.

        However, it remains a poll with integrity – which shows the UK population desire equality and fairness.

        1. I have looked it up and the methodology is not stated anywhere there. In a genuine poll, the pollster (in this case Yougov) produces the methodology and the data for scrutiny. Can you point me to this?

          1. Haven’t looked hard enough have you!

          2. I fyou look hard enough you will find a link to the methodology of YouGov. As you appear to be too lazy to look properly, here is a link:


          3. Stu
            … and that is how you shut Ken’s mouth. LOL

          4. I do try … ;-)

          5. Spanner1960 12 Jun 2012, 6:51pm

            If you want to shut Ken up, the best way is to stick a cork up his arse.

          6. Yougov are regarded as a more reliable polling organisation (in the industry and in the media) than Comres who Catholic Voices and the CI use.

            YouGov opinion polls in recent UK elections, e.g. the 2001 general election, have been consistently more accurate than traditional opinion pollsters who repeatedly over-estimated the Labour vote.

            YouGov’s final poll in the 2008 London mayoral election which showed Johnson in the lead by six percentage points was the only accurate prediction.

            Yougov is the only polling organisation to consistently get TV vote predictions eg X Factor correct.

          7. Is that a joke, stu? I asked for ‘the methodology and the data’ for this poll for ‘scrunity’ and you posted a link to the Yougov’s general methodology. Well, it only confirms that the referenced poll does not exist

          8. Ken

            That is the link to the methodology for this poll that Yougov provided on the link to this study.

            One presumes this general methodology explains the general approach that Yougov utilise.

            Should you wish to investigate further – I suggest you contact Yougov rather than spread scurilous and unfounded rhetoric around. Yougov are a much more respected organisation than that chosen by the insidious and odious CI and Catholic Voices.

    2. Stephen Glenn 12 Jun 2012, 4:54pm

      Stu you mention the UK, but the survey yet again shows that Stonewall don’t care about Northern Ireland. It was only carried out in England, Scotland and Wales.

      Thankfully there are Northern Irish groups such as the Rainbow Project who make up for this shortfall from well funded national bodies so we can present evidence to Northern Irish politicians of attitudes and experiences here.

      1. Its really difficult to get the terminology right.

        I am no apologist for Stonewall.

        There are active government movements that effect England, Scotland and Wales – the majority of the UK and thus why I refer to in that format – perhaps I should say GB instead???

        I wish N Ireland would advance further, more quickly than they are – and I will support N Ireland groups seeking to do that

  10. Interesting article from Peter Tatchell on why marriage is not for gays…

    “Proof of the triumph of Blairism within the gay movement is the way equality has become the unquestioned political objective. But it isn’t the panacea that many claim. Equal rights for lesbians and gay men means parity on straight terms, within a pre-existing framework of institutions and laws. Since these have been devised by and for the heterosexual majority, equality within their system involves conformity to their rules. This is a formula for gay submission and incorporation, not liberation.” – Peter Tatchell

    1. To try and argue your point you use an article written over 10 years ago – thats a clear sign you have lost your argument.

      Try to be up to date PT is a strong supporter of equal marriage these days and is one of the main leaders of the European Equal Love organisation!

      1. Lets say I’m learning from stonewall and Pinknews. To try and argue their point, they throw in a report allegedly carried out last year. – thats a clear sign that they have lost the argument.

        As for being up to date, the article is just a reminder about how members of the the gay lobby easily change their view when it is politically expedient to do so. This is why I would always side with the Church on this. Their views are always always based on convictions!

        1. “To try and argue their point, they throw in a report allegedly carried out last year. – thats a clear sign that they have lost the argument.”

          OK. let’s look at more recent surveys (overlooking those Catholic Voices ones of course, being a bit suspect and all) and what’s this? The same result, majority opinion in favour of marriage equality. Hardly losing the argument is it?

        2. Even if your claims are accurate, Ken (accuracy has never been your strong point in your rhetoric) …

          There is a huge disparity between your quoting something written a decade ago about something for which there is masses of information that the author you claim it currently represents (otherwise why would you quote it!) believes differently – and your accusation about something a year ago.

          Your arguments are so flimsy and weak they have a do not resuscitate order on them!

        3. Lets say you are a facetious ignorant person with no logical argument, Ken

        4. Ken – If you want to gain our respect, and engage us further in your arguments and challenges to equality in marriage, tell us more about yourself.

          What is your occupation?
          Which branch of Christianity do you belong to?
          Where in the UK are you based.?

        5. Ken is crying some post above about a poll that, supposedly, shows results from 2011 (only a few months ago).
          Now HE is trying to use data from 10 years ago!
          Poor old Ken, he’s loosing his head as well as the battle. LOL

    2. Church of England: Marriage is good for heterosexuals and for children thousands of years ago, It is good today, it will be good tomorrow.

      Peter Tatchell/gay marriage lobby: Marriage was NOT good for gays 10 years ago but is good today and inevitably will Not be good tomorrow!

      1. Oh nice conclusion you have there… Please, inform me as to how you can be certain gay marriage would not be good tomorrow. I’m sure the American South said much the same about interracial marriage back in the hey-day of that and from what I can see marrying a person of another race has hindered society as much as drinking clean water in adequate amounts has hindered my ability to stay alive… And please don’t come out with “but you can’t be sure of the effects either way and thus should leave things as they currently are and abide tradition” because by that logic we should just give up on anything that might have any possible adverse effects on society despite what sort of advancement it might have…

      2. Spanner1960 12 Jun 2012, 7:00pm

        You are right. Marriage was not good for gays 10 years ago because the social climate was not correct because it was still riddled with homophobic cretins such as yourself spouting their religious lies to all that would listen. However, people hopefully evolve, and become more civilised as time goes on, so now the time is right for us to get married if we wish.

        Who knows? Maybe in 100 years time everyone will be laughing at the fools that visited their churches and mosques every week so long ago before everyone finally figured out what a complete con it all was and realised that men and women define their own destinies and don’t have to rely on dusty books, old wive’s tales, Chinese whispers and imaginary beings.

        Maybe there is hope for us all yet.

      3. No Ken

        Thats one gay person 10 years ago – who now leads a campaign in Europe for equal marriage

        Not every gay person either 10 years ago, or today, agrees with PT on everything

        I mean, as a comparison, it would be true to say that the Bishop of Salisbury and Bishop of Buckingham both support equal marriage. Using you line of reasoning (flawed) this would then lead to a reasonable conclusion that all Anglicans support equal marriage. I suspect that may not be true. In the same way your broad stroke conclusions of what one person believes meaning others believe the same are hilarious.

  11. The statistics in favour of equality are always about 70% in favour.

    Which begs the question – why is the government not legislating for equality right now, instead of engaging in his absurd stalling tactic which is called the ‘consultation on marriage equality’.

  12. So the short and long of all this is – reasonable, sane people are fine with gays getting another step towards equality – but superstition institutes will still get to dole out their particular brand of prejudice, bigotry and cruelness – in direct contradiction to the so called ‘teachings’ of their respective deity’s and messiah’s – what a crock!

    Equality = the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in justice, fairness, impartiality.

    Hasn’t religion proved itself over the centuries to be just a tool used by those who wish to control the masses.

    Keep the superstitious in the past -where they belong.

    1. there is no t in sonewall

  13. Maybe it’s a good sign that I look at this and my first thought is “just 71%?”

  14. Just reading about this in the Times.
    That the church says it will damage the 500 year old tie with the Government.

    Would that not be a good thing. Church and state have always been bad bedfellows.

    Church has had too much influence over the state for centuries.

    Now it is time for the ties to be severed for all nations around the world who have their states dictated to by the church.

    Freedom rules for everyone

    1. Cardinal Capone 13 Jun 2012, 11:00am

      It would certainly make it easier for the wing nuts to take it over and turn it Pentecostal, as some people believe they would like to.

  15. We’ll not rest until every single lesbian, gay or bisexual young person grows up in a country where they’re afforded exactly the same dignity and respect as their heterosexual counterparts.”

  16. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Jun 2012, 1:42pm

    So Pink News hasn’t done anything about removing trolls from this site permanently! Why is it so difficult to do something so simple?

    I advise all of you to desist from enabling them, ignore their spurious, illogical rants, its what they get off on. Many of them are deeply closeted self-loathers anyway and clearly suffering from psychotic disorders.

    1. It has partially succeeded – there are four notorious members of the troll clan that have been absent since the PN blocks and changes.

    2. I assume you refer to Ken and “Aiden”?

      As much as the pair of them may be a pair of planks I can’t recall them being outright offensive. Although they may be anti-equality I don’t see it could be correct to bar them for this. It’s tools like Keith, Inspector and Dodo who need to be blocked who are just outright offensive.

      1. Aiden certainly has been offensive at times, but he usually treads the fine line very carefully.

        Ken is more annoying and frustrating by his ignorance and inability to see that his argument is vacuous and hollow.

        Freedom of speech is an important issue – even when it says things we profoundly disagree with. Of course, it should be utilised responsibly. I would contend Aiden occasionally veers into murky water, Ken less so, and neither as significantly as Keith et al.

        We must be prepared to repudiate incorrect or fatuous comments by those who exercise their freedom of speech here. In time, they may actually listen rather than spout more rhetoric.

        Equally, if they act with inappropriateness or lack of responsibility then we should report them and PN should rightly delete their comments and/or block them. If this persists then it would be appropriate to consider issues of trolling, harassment or (dependent on the content of the comments) hate crimes.

        1. Exactly Stu. Ken and “Aiden” are more in the stupid(and in “Aiden’s” case fictitious) category. I enjoy their input for the fact it is usually moronic and easily taken apart which for neutrals reading this site is of benefit to us. I don’t want this site to simply be for those who agree with everything we think. It is only when it becomes homophobic and/or personally offensive that PN should take action imo

          1. The absence of other trolls is a good thing. I hope it continues.

            But in terms of freedom of speech and reasonable conduct, I agree with you, Kris

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.