Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Christian Institute: There aren’t enough gays in UK to justify giving them equal rights

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. George Forth 29 Sep 2012, 2:05pm

    Alternatively, if the proportion is really that low, that proves it would make no difference to the majority to give equal is. They wouldn’t even notice, so stop moaning about it!

    1. Quite!

  2. Sister Mary Clarence 29 Sep 2012, 2:14pm

    And there are even fewer members of Christian Voice, so if we are voting to remove equal rights conferred on members of Christian Voice, then my hand is up already

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Sep 2012, 3:41pm

      Well said, totally agree! I think the CI along with its supporters are growing even more desperate and close to running out of excuses.

    2. Since the population of Mike Judges in the UK is so amazingly small, I guess that it’s just not worth the state’s time and resources to afford them all the dignity and rights it provides to the vast majority of “Not Mike Judges” out there.
      The strength and principles of our democracy wont be any worse off if we ignore the basic rights of the Mike Judge population.

    3. Ninth Sphere 30 Sep 2012, 11:44am

      and there are even fewer numbers of Transgender people, and at this point I have to wonder…Is Pink News Transphobic? I agree that the Institute is errant in saying that the population is so small..why give them rights? Don’t you people understand that the T is also denigrated by society at large, and by gay inc. as well? why? You talked of LGB, but left out the T…Nice!

      1. Because this was a survey on sexuality presumably. It appears to have asked only whether people are lesbian, gay or bisexual in an attempt to estimate the L, G and B population. Blame the survey if you wanted it to ask more.

      2. Paddyswurds 30 Sep 2012, 6:40pm

        Trans shouldn’t be lumped in with GLB anyway. According to themselves, they are neither Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual. Why don’t they form their own grouping and leave us, who they call “cis gendered” people to get on with our own problems and solutions. Frankly we don’t need the whining that goes on in trans circles and they tend to cause the scorn directed at them to rub off on GLBs and cause us to be seen as freakish and impossible to satisfy like themselves. They have enough varieties of their own to fill a whole dictionary such as trans, intersex, hermaphrodite and so on. I will leave it at that and await the usual transphobia screaming etc, but i am well up to standing for my opinions no matter how controversial they are deemed….!

        1. Excuse me, but who gave us these ‘labels’? I am a trans person and lesbian. That is as far as I and every trans person that I know (that includes the hundreds that I help and support through their transitions) take labels. Personally, I wouldn’t have any label except ‘person’. Don’t wait for me to scream transphobia at you because I won’t. What I will say is something that all LGBT people should remember. If the media had not spent the past 40 to 50 years misusing these labels that ‘experts’ have landed us with, we would not be having to battle so hard to have equal rights with other people in this country.

  3. There are less Mormons than LGBT people in the UK. By this thinking, they shouldn’t get equal rights either.

    1. Right AND RESPONSIBILITIES are everbodies entielments and everyones burdens.
      We will have ours soon enough.

  4. Brilliant. As there are fewer and fewer church going members we can start to reduce their rights as we go. Yes? Is that what they are saying?

    Oh right sorry, that’d be totalitarian!

  5. Spanner1960 29 Sep 2012, 2:22pm

    Unbelievable.
    Since when did the incidence of a certain criteria affect the equality or rights of a group or individual?

    Only 1 in 100,000 people develop Motor Neurone Disease, so would you people like to tell Stephen Hawking he isn’t allowed to marry or have wheelchair access?

    These people are the most un-Christian scumbags on the planet.

    1. GingerlyColors 29 Sep 2012, 5:39pm

      At least Stephen Hawking has a working brain while the Christian Institute has one brain-cell between them!

    2. Well, with the way funding for care of disabled people is going in this country…

  6. I look forward to the day when practicing Christians will become such a small minority that their equality rights will become questionable, because let’s face it, they’re becoming a minority.

    1. Julia Ford 29 Sep 2012, 3:14pm

      Well said Elena . A local church to me has a congregation of about 9 or 10 people and they are all pensioners. When they die the church will be stuffed because last time i walked past it they were trying to raise £300.000 for repairs to the place. I guess the lottery will save it from falling down being such a good cause.

      1. Peter Greensmith 30 Sep 2012, 7:17pm

        Whilst some Churches are shrinking, others are growing. My own Church started with just 10 people, and now has around 10,000 people in attendance. There are four services held every Sunday, and each one is usually filled to the capacity of 2,500 people.

        The established Church is indeed shrinking. Non-established modern Churches are definitely growing.

    2. I don’t think Christianity is the problem, just a FEW people in the community.

      1. Paddyswurds 29 Sep 2012, 5:59pm

        @Stephen…
        …no religion in general is the problem. It is hatred personified and man will never be truly free until it is confined to the dustbin of History. no matter how long that takes. however change has begun and it is slowly being recognised for waht it is and always has been: a cruel fraud!

        1. unlike you, right?
          religion is not “hatred personified”.
          the same way that looking at you as a representative of atheism, one might say “atheism is hatred personified”.
          there ARE many affirming and welcoming denominations out there. whether you agree with their beliefs or not, that doesn’t give you the right to paint them with such broad and bigoted brush strokes.

          1. Paddyswurds 29 Sep 2012, 11:24pm

            “there ARE many affirming and welcoming denominations”…
            ….However they are ALL based on a man made construct, and that you cannot dispute unless you are seriously deluded and frankly crazy. If you have ever read the Bible old or new or the Qur’an you will know that they are filled with advocacy for slavery, misogyny, infanticide, murder , war and numerous other forms of hatred and division that could only ever have been gleaned from the oral tradition of illiterate desert goat herders who didn’t know where the Sun went at night. Sounds just like something you would advocate right?
            How is Atheism hatred personified? Atheism is merely the rejection of theism, nothing more or less.
            BTW, I represent no one but myself unlike religionists who claim to represent a fairy dude in the sky.
            BTW I have the right as a free man to call them whatever I perceive them to be, and that is that they are nothing more than a cruel fraud foisted on mankind by Kings and despots in order to control.

          2. ATHEISM = PEACE

          3. de Villiers 30 Sep 2012, 9:35am

            ATHEISM = PEACE.

            Except for communist China and Russia.

    3. Cardinal Capone 30 Sep 2012, 4:07pm

      I thought the figure for churchgoing Christians in the UK was less than 2%? They should still be allowed to marry and have kids though, no matter how few of them there are

  7. If we assume 40 million people in the UK over 16, then even using 2.7% that works out at just over 1 million people being denied equal rights. Not exactly “tiny”.

    1. Julia Ford 29 Sep 2012, 3:21pm

      Very true Andy! Imagine 1 million people marching into central London on a weekday to protest at being denied equality . I,m free next Thursday.

  8. Red hair occurs naturally on approximately 1–2% of the human population, so gingers are outnumbered by gays…

    1. Unless your ginger & gay – like me!

      1. Aryu Gaetu 29 Sep 2012, 4:30pm

        Ginger Gays are super hot, and always on the top of my shopping list.

        1. Paddyswurds 29 Sep 2012, 7:29pm

          I agree so long as their pubes don’t match I hate ginger pubes. My partner has gingerish blond hair but dark brown pubes otherwise he wouldn’t be my partner. It feels wrong somehow almost like the revulsion one has toward sex with a child….. Can anyone analyse that for me because I know someone is gonna jump all over me for being a gingaphobe…lol

      2. ginger and gay? perfect!

        1. GingerlyColors 29 Sep 2012, 5:42pm

          Ginger beer? (Cockney Rhyming Slang for . . . .) (I must remind you that GingerlyColors is an anagram of my name!)

          1. Hello, “Nicer Glory Logs” ! :-)

    2. That’s right. Fück the gingers ! Let’s march them to concentration camps because they are so little in the world !

  9. A cleric in my faith believes that if all the social and religious prohibitions on gay marriage were dropped, we would see significantly more same sex unions because bisexuals in the Kinsey 3-5 range would no longer feel pressured to pretend to be straight. She believes same sex couples would no longer be a minority if we fully embraced the gamut of human sexuality.
    This man is a twit. Someday, he may find he is the minority.

    1. Would be a great place to be if he was right, though!

    2. Paddyswurds 29 Sep 2012, 11:38pm

      No one wants “gay marriage” Gay people want Marriage equality, nothing more or less than the rest of society. Currently Marriage isn’t called Straight Marriage so why the Gay marriage moniker for Gay people. I just noticed you said “my faith” which explains the “gay marriage” slur dreamed up by xtian hate groups in order to whip up hatred and hysteria amongst their followers and opposition to Equality for Gay people. The entire bru ha ha has been witnessed from the sky fairy crowd often before. They opposed abolition of slavery, they opposed Inter racial marriage, they opposed suffrage for women, they opposed education for girls, they oppose women in positions of authority in their churches, they opposed legalising Homosexuality, they opposed lowering of the age of consent and numerous other human rights. really does sound like an idea I would like to subscribe to, NOT!!

  10. “monumental change”!!!

    A very tiny change is being proposed to allow gay couples to get married. No change is being proposed to other peple’s marriage , civil or religious….it won’t affect anyone apart from gay couples wanting to get married.

  11. bobbleobble 29 Sep 2012, 2:47pm

    Extremely chilling argument from a so called Christian organisation. Also pretty stupid, they clearly haven’t thought the argument through but not unusual for these lunatics.

    Are they saying all gay rights should be removed? How about the rights of Jewish people, Quakers, the disabled? A

  12. And yet according to the UNchristian Institute if we were to gain equal marriage we’ll bring about the end of the world (or whatever ridiculous cr*p they’re saying this week).

    The figure’s probably wrong anyway, but even if there were only a dozen LGBT people in the UK that’s no reason to deny them rights.

    Not that they care about that anyone as they tune their response to fit whatever they’re suing or disputing. If the statistics said we were 60% of the population, the UNchristian Institute would just use that as ‘proof’ allowing us to marry would cause a dreadful effect on society because they are so many of us! Basically, the CI are bigots who’ll fight tooth and nail to deny us rights.

    1. *not “anyone” – should be “anyWAY”!

  13. Cardinal Capone 29 Sep 2012, 2:52pm

    I think people that believe the universe is only 5000 years old have a right to remedial education.

    No wonder they come out with such barmy statements as this.

  14. In an odd kind of way this is a [very odd] kind of progress – the Christian Institute apparently now agrees that the issue is one of EQUAL rights!!!!
    In every other way their comments are pure tripe – equality does NOT rely and has NEVER relied on numbers. They really should get a decent dictionary and look up the word EQUALITY.
    Benjamin Cohen makes the point very eloquently about playing a numbers game – well said, Sir!!!!

  15. Julia Ford 29 Sep 2012, 3:06pm

    What is thier problem? It makes no difference about percentage its about being equal. This subject realy doe,s my head in mainly because the church is run by bigots.
    How about doing a survey on how many gay priests there are! 80%???? And of course they would have to tell the truth because “Thou shalt not tell porkys”.

    Maybe we should import gay lesbian and Trans people and export the bigots?? Just a thought.

  16. If it’s the numbers game then it’s time the Bishops were kicked out of the House of Lords.
    Apart from the business of weddings and funerals churches are increasingly become big empty buildings, what an absurd argument of numbers to introduce, especially when ghettos numbers of LGBT people has never really been revealed.

  17. By trying to play the numbers game, the Christian Institute are playing with fire.

    It won’t be long before the 2011 Census results about religious affiliations are released. (No idea why it’s taken so long, but that’s another matter; I’m just glad that they don’t run General Elections.)

    The results will be absolute dynamite.

    They are likely to show that in early 2011 fewer than 50% of the population identified as Christian. Even if was above 50% then, it’s likely to have fallen below 50% now.

    That will mean that Christians can no longer try to justify imposing their will on everyone else by bleating that “It’s supposed to be a Christian country !” :-)

  18. These are truly despicable people. The penny should be beginning to drop amongst some of them, surely?

    1. Talking of despicable people, what about the homosexuals who force their views on to Christians calling them bigots, quite pathetic really, if someone doesn’t agree with your lifestyle resort to insults and bullying, Homosexuals will not get equal marriage, CallMeDave is already loosing masses of voters because of his choice to do this.

      1. bobbleobble 29 Sep 2012, 3:46pm

        You mean Christians resort to insults and bullying because they don’t like the way we are, something over which we have no choice. We are seeking equal rights, some Christians are desperate to deny us that, who’s despicable again? Interesting use of the word lifestyle – drop the ‘style’ bit and you’re closer to the mark.

        Gay people aren’t forcing anything onto anyone, no one’s going to be forced to marry someone of the same gender. No church is going to be forced to marry people of the same gender so tell me how is anyone being forced into anything? And if voters are flocking away from the Tories because of gay marriage (of which there is no evidence) then why are they turning to Labour, a party also in favour of marriage equality?

      2. Oh but yes we will, and we are. Now away and flutter back to your belfry. It’s still daylight.

        1. In case anyone is confused. I am a different Mike to the one above calling gay people despicable.

          1. Julia Ford 29 Sep 2012, 4:23pm

            You look the same as the other Mike:)

        2. You are losing. Face it.

          “Christians”.

          There is not one “christian” bone in your body.

          Disgusting and pathetic.

      3. Who are you to “agree” or not with anyone’s lifestyle? It doesn’t a whit whether you “agree” or not, no one is interested in your agreement. What does matter is people with odd(cherry picked) beliefs trying to influence the law of the land and control others. Surely you can see that?

      4. Paddyswurds 29 Sep 2012, 6:13pm

        @Mike …
        …you should have spent some of the time you wasted on your buybul learning to spell and the correct usage of the English language…. Homosexuals are not calling for the rights of xtians to be withdrawn and you have the cheek to say we are despicable?….. You better get used to it because we will have Equality no matter what the religiously deluded think or want.
        If David Cameron is too cowardly to do it then Labour and the Lib Dems will do it for him post 2015.

      5. “what about the homosexuals who force their views on to Christians calling them bigots”

        Well, Mike, they’d be like the anti-racists who ‘forced their views’ on the ‘christians’ who believed the bible said that black people were cursed. Or like the women who refuse to be relegated to some second-class status in the church.

        Maybe you’d be better off looking inside yourself to see what issues you have that compel you to try to limit the rights of other human beings. Your hatred and spite oozes out of your post. I feel sorry for you.

        1. Paddyswurds 29 Sep 2012, 11:44pm

          pores ** even

          1. Was that aimed at me? Sorry, but I don’t understand your post.

          2. Paddyswurds 30 Sep 2012, 6:49pm

            I think I may have been hasty in the comment. “Your hatred and spite oozes out of your post.” ……I feel sorry for you.” …when i first read that line I thought you meant “pores” rather than “post” but on second reading perhaps you did mean from his post/comment. Sorry Iris if I was wrong…

  19. Dianne Pallett 29 Sep 2012, 3:40pm

    What a bunch of nitwits – I hate it as a Christian that others think that this appalling organisation speaks for me! Shall we discriminate against other small groups – the Christian Institute for example?

    1. I hate it when Christians say “not all Christians feel this way” or “the few give the rest of us a bad name”. You are a member of a group whose leader is spewing utter rubbish. By continuing to belong to this group you are giving him the power to speak on your behalf. If all those who disagreed d took a stand, showed their leaders how out of date thir views are then they would have to take notice. Stand up for your convictions rather than whining about how poorly represented you are

  20. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Sep 2012, 3:44pm

    Totally agree with Ben Cohen’s statement. Hits the nail on the head. I don’t think CI realises just how stupid it is making such a crass and foolish statement not thinking of the implications for other minorities. It proves one thing, they’re becoming more desperate the more they rant.

  21. Yes they shoot themselves in the foot again with their spurious arguments

  22. Thankyou so much Pink News, keep up the good work exposing the Christian Institute for the inconsistent, hypocritical, vile and fraudulant ‘charity’ that it is…

  23. The phrase “scraping the bottom of the barrel” springs to mind.

    1. GingerlyColors 29 Sep 2012, 5:36pm

      Or digging up the dirt from beneath the barrel.

  24. Dangermouse 29 Sep 2012, 3:54pm

    If the number of married men I have shagged reflects on the general population then the percentage of gay and Bi guys must around 30%

  25. Based on this logic, we should dispense with the term ‘equal’ rights and just talk about ‘rights’, with rights given out on a sliding scale. The logic is as faulty as their bigoted religious beliefs.

    1. It reminds me of George Orwell’s book Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”. The Christian Institute apparently believes everyone is equal, but those in lower numbers are less equal than others and don’t deserve equal rights.

  26. Pavlos Prince of Greece 29 Sep 2012, 4:04pm

    And how big is part of devote Catholics in the British population? The Royal succession act was change regardless that.

  27. Considering less than 1% of the UK population has signed the C4M petition (and many of those are Catholic children forced to sign it by their headmistress or aren’t actually UK citizens) doesn’t the CI spend too much time , effort and money on the subject of equal civil marriage?

    Considering the huge percentage of people in the world that need food, housing etc wouldn’t their “christian” money and effort be better spent tending them rather than persceuting gay people?

    Considering the percentage of mps now supporting SSM (including all party leaders) and it’s general support in the UK doesn’t the CI think it’s about time to admit defeat?

    ….

    1. I detect a whiff of desperation!

  28. David Plunkett 29 Sep 2012, 4:14pm

    The flip side is, how then can we destroy the fabric of society as purported by the pope? Have they not just dis-proved their own claims!!

  29. Art Pearson 29 Sep 2012, 4:24pm

    These people need to be reminded that the right to marry is not based on percentages. It’s based on equal rights for everyone.

  30. Aryu Gaetu 29 Sep 2012, 4:49pm

    Just about everyone can be tossed into a minority. Eye color, left-handedness, second toe longer than big toe, maths aptitude, direction aptitude, bladder volume, penis size, third nipple, hermaphrodite, any of the phobias, political office seeker, and any one that believes there is an omnipotent invisible man in the sky that really gives a damn about the brief humanoid infestation of a nondescript planet near a nondescript star.
    Wait… that last one is in the majority and making the rules. Damn, we’re doomed!

  31. Aryu Gaetu 29 Sep 2012, 4:56pm

    Logistically, isn’t it easier just to give a minority the same sets of rules as everyone else, rather than establishing a different set of rules for those few?
    A child can see their logic fails miserably.

  32. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Sep 2012, 4:57pm

    Nobody or any government department can know exactly what the percentage of gay people there are in the country. Many are wary of admitting it on paper so right from the start, this survey is deeply flawed and meaningless. If there were no such thing as homophobia in the UK, then I would think I suspect a survey would reveal a far higher number since people would feel more comfortable about it. The CI is trying to manipulate results and opinions against equal marriage, but this latest nonsense is a total failure. Worthless in fact. Yet another desperate attempt to thwart progress to full equality. Not going to work.

    1. > “Many are wary of ADMITTING it…”

      Oh dear, that’s Daily Mail speak. Null points.

  33. Even if the figure is only 1.5%, that’s still over a million people in the UK. Why should a million people be denied their rights? In fact, why should the size of a minority determine whether it has equal rights or not?

    1. Quite agree. If a survey said there were only ten people who still believed in the tooth fairy, I’d still give them the right to putting it under the pillow in the hope £1 would mysteriously appear overnight.

      Why does the CI need to have a % figure above a certain amount to decide who gets the right? it doesn’t matter if there is only one gay guy on an Outer Hebrides isle. He is still entitled to be treated with respect and dignity. Not bullied because of what sex he loves.

      Honestly, the CI is clutching desperately at straws now to try and thwart the coming equality issue. Its going to land with a bang and these religious groups will just have to get used to it.

  34. How does the Christian Institute know how many gays there are? The figures are low because of evil people who keep wailing on about gay rights and being gay is a sin. There are more gays in the Uk than you know about, CI, and you damn well know that too. So stop being anti gay, and let people be how they want to be. Stop this age old tosh about marriage being a thing only for a man and a woman. Its, old, its ancient, its gone past growing hairs that its actually raw penicillin. STFU, FFS.

    1. John Jones 29 Sep 2012, 5:51pm

      This is the UK, I doubt very much that people would be too shy to ‘come out’ to a polling organisation in this most secular of nations.

      Even if we add another 1% to the figures, assuming that some gays don’t want to say they are gay, then we’re still only talking of about 3% of the population.

      Now, it doesn’t matter how small a minority is, but when groups have over-inflated their population size in order to pressure governments or form collective lobbies, I think it important for all concerned to actually know the real figures involved and to ask: why the 10 or 20% claims of the past?

      1. @ John Jones

        There are many reasons why someone might prefer not to disclose their orientation to a pollster, quite apart from basic privacy.

        How do you know that the questioner is genuine? Not everyone is who they claim to be.

        How do you know your information will be kept confidential, e.g. if contacted by telephone, letter or e-mail?

        Similarly, street pollsters often conclude by asking for contact details so that verification checks can be made to check that street surveys have really been conducted.

        How do you know you won’t get spammed or junk mailed? I’ve had to block disposable unique e-mails given to several apparently reputable organisations (e.g. BT, Primus, Which?) because spammers have obtained them.

        The true figure is likely to be much higher than the surveys indicate.

      2. Then you have no idea about the homophobia – latent and direct – that still exists in the UK, John Jones. People are far less likely to reveal personal information to a questioner than you think.

      3. Sister Mary Clarence 1 Oct 2012, 12:28am

        Of course you’re right there John to an extent, but pray tell why you’re only adding another 1% to the figures?

        It is well known that the UK provides a home for many people from overseas coming to enjoy the cosmopolitan society we enjoy that embraces inclusivity and values diversity. Evidence shows that large numbers of immigrants fail to identify themselves during the census, so I’d suggest we add a good few more than the 1% you are talking about to even out that discrepancy on top of the uplift needed to compensate for previously mentioned under declaration.

        Speaking from my own personal circumstances I fairly sure that my own parents were I to still be living at home wouldn’t think of disclosing my sexuality or that of my siblings on a form – not because they have any problem with the issue, but simply because they view it to be a private matter.

  35. GingerlyColors 29 Sep 2012, 5:34pm

    What sort of pathetic, stupid comment is that? Mind you, you do expect something like that from people who are losing the argument and resort to grasping at straws. As the Christain Institute represent only a small minority of people in this country, then by their argument, they should be denied rights as well. Should we also deny the disabled rights, or Jews for that matter? After all they are only small, minority groups as well.

  36. My research-unscientific I know- carried out behind bushes,in sand dunes and on Gaydar and Grindr-brings me to the conclusion its at least 15-20% of all men who are at it. Stick that in your pipe CI!!

    1. Sorry posted similar thing – hadnt read your post – I’m in agreement though! :)

  37. John Jones 29 Sep 2012, 5:42pm

    A) I doubt very much that the Christian Institute believes that God doesn’t love homosexuals — as implied in the picture caption. Such belief is contrary to the Christian faith, which teaches that God loves every person, and we all fall short of perfection.

    B) Benjamin Cohen’s analogy seems disingenuous as what it the CI is arguing is not that different groups other than Christians should be barred from marriage, but that marriage shouldn’t be *redefined* (to the point that it becomes radically different) for the majority for the sake of a tiny majority.

    What many observers still don’t seem to get is that a redefinition of marriage in England would not only affect the 2.5%, but it would also radically affect the lives of the other 97.5% — in other words, when marriage just becomes about two adults, and not about natural family and simple biology, as well as two people of the opposite sex coming together, then all those already married and about to get married will be affected.

    1. Please explain how opening same sex marriage will affect opposite sex marriage.

      1. That There Other David 30 Sep 2012, 10:38pm

        It’ll be the earthquakes I suppose. They’re usually our fault aren’t they?

    2. Tim Chapman 29 Sep 2012, 6:07pm

      How will they be affected? Do you seriously suggest that straight couples will stop getting married or that existing marriages will be somehow different just because LBGT can get married as well? Are you on medication?

    3. ” I doubt very much that the Christian Institute believes that God doesn’t love homosexuals.”

      Have you visited their website? This isn’t a mainstream Christian group, it’s a fringe hate group.

    4. bobbleobble 29 Sep 2012, 6:36pm

      I’ll add my request to those who are asking you to give concrete ways in which any heterosexual currently married or intending to marry in the future will be affected by gay couples marrying. It’s not good enough to say it will be so and hope people believe you, how are they going to be radically affected?

      1. Paddyswurds 29 Sep 2012, 7:32pm

        You won’t get an answer from the Jones dude He is a spit and run troll….

    5. “What many observers still don’t seem to get is that a redefinition of marriage in England would not only affect the 2.5%, but it would also radically affect the lives of the other 97.5%”

      Let me put this very simply: NO, IT WOULDN’T! Stop making up reasons to ‘justify’ denying us the same rights you enjoy.

    6. essexgirlbecky 30 Sep 2012, 8:54am

      “… when marriage just becomes about two adults, and not about natural family and simple biology, as well as two people of the opposite sex coming together, then all those already married and about to get married will be affected”.

      How so? Let’s say I buy a green car. Does that somehow diminish the value of everybody else’s green car? Surely not!

    7. Excellent post John, totally agree.

      God did not create homosexuals. They’re a result of an imperfect world. Ask yourself, when these things called ‘humans’ were being created, do you honestly believe that THIS was in the blue-prints? God DID NOT put it in the blue prints that men should place their penis’s into each others buttock holes. Homosexuals make some excuses by saying,’God created them, so God must not have a problem with it!’

      God created a perfect man, and a perfect woman. Homosexuality is the result of thousands of years of slow degradation of the human race. It is safe to say that their can be no natural benefit to placing a penis inside a buttock hole. Can we agree? Based on logic alone, their does not seem to be a valid reason why God would design (or as they put it ‘create’) a creature that would place it’s sex organs inside of another creatures waste disposal unit.

      1. The only logical explanation to create sex organs is for the purpose of reproduction. Homophobia” is merely a propaganda device designed to denigrate and stigmatise those holding conventional opinions, which have been held by most people through most of recorded history. It is frightening evidence of the way in which political correctness is threatening our freedom.

        Homosexuals are able to choose how they behave, they are able to change, but they believe that everyone else should change to accommodate their faults.

        1. Dr. Nicolosi is one of three founding members–and former President–of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH),

          NARTH’s goal is –

          To support mental-health professionals who work with same-sex-attracted clients seeking change.

          To promote respect within the mental-health profession for worldview diversity—whether a person seeks to identify as gay, or to work toward developing his heterosexual potential.

          I am currently reading Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, 1992 (published by Jason Aronson, Inc.)

          As I want to be cured of my homosexual fault.

          1. Paddyswurds 30 Sep 2012, 1:28pm

            “god” created nothing because “god” doesn’t and never did exist., except that is in the minds of the intellectually challenged whose brain cannot comprehend the wonder and enormity of that which is the Universe and all in it and its constant evolution. Man is merely the Universe made sentient…

          2. “As I want to be cured of my homosexual fault.”

            NARTH is a discredited hate organisation – and you’re clearly struggling to rid yourself of your ‘homosexual fault’ as almost every post you’ve made here has been going on and on about men’s buttocks!!

            I honestly and truly feel sorry for you, Matthew. Speak to someone who is NOT part of a religious group; stop beating yourself up about a perceived ‘fault’ that’s not a fault at all, and be happy. These burdens you’re carrying round aren’t real. They’re created by religions to control people. Open your mind and think.

          3. Paddyswurds 30 Sep 2012, 6:53pm

            @Iris…
            …Hear, Hear..!!

  38. To the Chri… can’t be bothered to write the full name… CI… see eye, how appropriate… LOOK!!!! there are 26, 357 likes on Facebook for this website…

    I think thats enough people, don’t you?

    How many like your website? Five? Twelve? Sixteen? Twenty Seven? Ninety Five? Hundred and Three? Two Hundred and four? What? How many? Come on… I can’t be bothered to look at your vile site of hate, preaching to an invisible sky fairy and bullying any non-believer.

  39. John Jones 29 Sep 2012, 5:46pm

    PS — The ONS has now conducted at least 3 comprehensive studies (usually questioning about 400,00 people) of the lifestyles and sexual preferences of the UK population. It is the most objective and scientific polling organisation. It constantly proves that only about 2% of Britons identify as gay.

    What’s wrong with that? Objective science seeks facts, even if the groups being researched feel offended by them.

    1. Tim Hopkins 29 Sep 2012, 5:54pm

      Actually the ONS say themselves that their figures need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. That’s why they call what they measure “sexual identity” rather than “sexual orientation” – an LGB sexual identity translates exactly into the percentage of people who are willing to identify themselves as LGB to someone conducting a Government survey, that’s all.

      Having said all of that, of course as everyone else has said, it doesn’t matter whether we’re 2% of the population, or 5%, or 10% – the argument for equality is identical and equally strong in each case.

    2. It’s doesn’t matter whether it’s 1%, 3% or 10%. It’s not relevant to the issue of marriage. As Ben Summerskill said the govt may want to use these figures for other things so it’s important to get the correct figure for the govt but the percentage isn’t relevant to the SSM debate. Whatever the percentahe is it’s still a significant amount of people to be treated in an unequal discriminatory way for no reason apart from the fact that they are gay.

      As all the political leaders have said , marriage binds society, is good for individuals and for the upbringing of children. Those criteria apply to gay couples. As the political leaders have said that’s relevant whether marriage is between a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman. There is no requirement for the CI to alter their religious views on marriage. No-one is altering marriage. No one is forcing them to marry someone of their own sex.

      1. Paddyswurds 29 Sep 2012, 7:35pm

        Didn’t Kinsey say that the figure was 1 in 9.5 of male births was gay, which if correct would give us a figure of roughly ^.8 million for the entire UK…..

        1. Paddyswurds 29 Sep 2012, 7:36pm

          oops … 6.8 million**

    3. Not all LGB “identify” as LGB for reasons that are discussed and reported on on this site daily.For example, many men, classed as “men who have sex with men” in health service parlance, consider themselves straight, and certainly would identify as such if questioned.

    4. John Jones, how many times do you have to be told that people do NOT give honest answers to such surveys for a number of reasons?

      Many LGBT people are very wary of revealing personal information to anyone even if they’re an official body; some people who would identify as gay are married to a person of the opposite sex; some have experienced homophobia and learnt to keep their sexuality to themselves; some are distrustful of the reason for the survey and who’ll gain access to the information; some have family members around to whom they’re not yet out so they hardly want to say they’re LGBT in their presence; etc etc etc

      It’s so easy of you’re straight, isn’t it? I bet the thought of hiding it has never entered your mind. You don’t have to judge the prejudices of whom you’re talking to; you don’t have to keep quiet at work; you don’t have to give vague answers in a public queue at a bank…. You have no idea what it’s like for LGBT people – you just want to discriminate against us.

    5. they never asked me or my partner. thats two of us not counted.

  40. I think Grindr would give more accurate statistics geographically than the ONS figures.

  41. Paddyswurds 29 Sep 2012, 5:51pm

    It is so satisfying to see these xtian bigots grow ever more desperate. What next I wonder, remove rights from Black people, bring back slavery, make women wear veils or what. These people really are the pitts. A dudbe going under the pen name Blazer just castigated me on the Irish president thread and had clearly not read my comment Typical Xtian ingenuity…sheesh!! Soonest these religious freaks are history the better for mankind and real peace in the world….

    1. Hell, we could even start advocating rape and murder and insisting that Egyptian men have cocks the size of horses and come as much as donkeys! It’s all there. The indisputable word of God.

  42. So the Christian perspective is that the size of the minority population has something to do with whether they should be accorded human rights? Talk about a logically fallacious argument!

    In any case, the 2.6% is obviously not reliable for any number of reasons. Many people do not declare themselves on government forms for a whole variety of reasons, including that within living memory the British government was imprisoning gays and indeed other governments were rounding up and burning homosexuals in concentration camps. It takes a long time to overcome and restore trust after so many centuries of oppression by the church and state.

    1. Paddyswurds 29 Sep 2012, 7:19pm

      @tiptop…
      …..”of oppression by the church and state.” I would have said…”of oppression by the church and state at the behest of the church”, which is clearly why the homophobic Tories are running scared of the blue rinse brigade in the Home Counties…..

  43. I hate to be the nit picking engineer, but the statistics at the start of this make absolutely no sense and look silly. I think what is intended is to say that 1.5% of *people* say they are gay men, 0.7% of *people* say they are lesbian women and 0.4% of people say they are bisexual. The numbers given in the second paragraph imply that 1.5% of people are LGB, not 2.6%

    1. Actually, you’re both right and wrong. The statistics don’t make sense – according to the DM website (I read the article and feel dirty now), because it’s 1 in 66 overall, I.e. 1.5% not 2.6% of the overall population that are LGB. In other words 1.5% of men + 0.7% of women + 0.4% of men and women = 1.5% of total population.

      Not that I believe these findings but at least the DM’s reporting makes mathematical sense. Employ a statistician to proof read your articles, PN. ;)

  44. Ah statistics, used by any group to justify anything. By using the raw statistical data, the average person in the world has one ovary and one testicle.

  45. If LGBT people are so few and far between, then why are they making such a fuss about marriage equality? Surely it is them who are looking stupid.

  46. Wayne a very X Catholic 29 Sep 2012, 7:13pm

    Less than 3% of the population attend church every week, we still have to put up with bishops in the House of Lords.

  47. Paddyswurds 29 Sep 2012, 7:24pm

    Where is Stu when he is needed.
    I think we should have a good Gay writer sending articles to the papers especially the Daily Wail and Smellagraph calling for the now minority religious adherents be deprived of all Human Rights. That would really put the cat among the pigeons…..

    1. ‘calling for the now minority religious adherents be deprived of all Human Rights.’

      I’ve always maintained religion is the root of all evil. Why not ban religion, that would help.

      1. Paddyswurds 29 Sep 2012, 11:49pm

        Hear hear!!

      2. ATHEISM = WORLD PEACE, TOLERANCE and EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL.

        1. de Villiers 30 Sep 2012, 9:38am

          Except for the atheist countries like communist Russia and China.

          1. Paddyswurds 30 Sep 2012, 1:47pm

            Russia is not an atheist country, but rather quite steeped in religion, Russian orthodox Christian, Islam, Judaism mostly but a myriad of other local religions as well. The official ethos of the Soviet Union, now defunct, was Atheist, but the proletariat never really gave up religion, unfortunately.
            China as a Communist is officially atheist but the constitution guarantees freedom of Religion.. with—Buddhism, Taoism, and Chinese folk religions still widely practiced, with smatterings of Christianity, Islam and Hindi. However upwards of 700 million listed No religion on census but that may be with prudence as quite a few Chinese people still fear the Government and still see Maoism at every juncture.
            So, you wanna have another go at that DeVilliers, or will you now STFU with your sky fairy shyte and typical deluded xtian disingenuous lies and crap……..!….

          2. de Villiers 1 Oct 2012, 9:16pm

            Paddy, your very existence disproves that atheism is peace.

    2. Do you mean Stu aka Diana aka Patrick aka William et al?

      Hope he is ok wherever he is because at heart he is a jolly decent chap!

  48. Just like in the USA, if interracial couples accounted for just 3 per cent of the population it wouldn’t have been worth legalising interracial marriage. Or so few Jews want to join golf clubs, it’s not worth desegregating them. I could go on, but you get the idea with that. Idiots…

  49. Slippery slope fallacy.
    This is step #1 towards rounding up the undesirables in Britain, and sending them to ‘holiday camps’, from which they will never be seen or heard from again.
    And fun fact, the last person to try that on a big scale claimed to have christian morals.

  50. Just how many people does this percentage equal? Several million? And since when do equal rights rest on population percentages?

  51. Catholics are probably less than 7% of the British population, so by their own analysis, they should be denied equal marriage rights.

  52. Paul in Brighton 29 Sep 2012, 8:48pm

    Just aren’t enough gays in the UK to justify giving them equal rights!

    Presumably that’s why the UK military were so afraid of homosexuals in the armed forces/RAF/Navy – there were so few not to worry about!

    Likewise for the police…

    And the medical profession….

    In fact, there’s so few queers in the UK it’s amazing we even have such thing as a gay bar, let alone LGBT switchboards, newssites, helplines, radio stations, magazines, newspapers etc.

    And what has the Christian Institute got that the average UK citzizen hasn’t?

    Tolerance, understanding, compassion and a sense of social justice to bring about equality.

    I suppose really we should be thankful they’ve now lowered the bar to this argument.

    I guess the bible just isn’t long enough.

    1. That There Other David 29 Sep 2012, 9:20pm

      2.6% of 65 million people is still 1.7 million. Even in the unlikely case that the figure is 100% correct that’s roughly the same as the population of Northern Ireland.

      I’d be delighted to know at what threshold the CI would concede that equality was the best route to take. Do we have to start rating LGBT rights worthiness in units of Wales now like we do with rain forest destruction?

  53. That There Other David 29 Sep 2012, 9:22pm

    Oh, and it’s worth noting that according to Census data 1.7 million people is six times the number of Jews living in the UK. I wonder whether CI believe the law should discriminate against Jewish people too?

  54. This is why I stop believing in Jesus and become atheist. I just can’t stand the constant BS from the Christians. IF gay is SO few, then what’s the harm in letting us marry?! Logically, we’re so few and not able to destroy the foundation of traditional marriage!

    1. floridahank 2 Oct 2012, 11:19pm

      Hey Sharkie. How much of the Holy Bible have you actually read and studied?
      Did you use the insightful research of scholars who understand the OT and NT
      much greater than 90% of people who follow Jesus Christ. It’s not enough to look at the Bible without knowing the depth of it all.
      There are many ignorant “Christians” who go to church, pray and read parts of the Bible but are lost and give up gaining kinolwedge and joy.

  55. Best statistic would be the study done in the region where sexuality is seen as unimportant. This would be Rio de Janeiro, which has a relatively high percentage of men who identify themselves as gay.

    Why would you do this research anywhere else in this day and age? The data would be corrupt from the start.

  56. Between 2007-2009 only 944,000 of the UK’s 61 million people attended church on a regular basis. This equates of approximately 1:5% of the population. This should mean, therefore, that Church Attending Christians should NOT have the right to get married as being far too tinyl a proportion of the population.

  57. floridahank 29 Sep 2012, 10:30pm

    Since your thinking/belief is that you originated from apes I don’t think you’ve progressed far enough to demand changes about sexual behavior because your ancestors don’t complain about their sexual behavior. They behavior is still as nature made them.

    1. Another fundie/mentalist who shows a basic lack of understanding of evolution theory. Not that the rest of his laughable post is any more correct.

      These people would be highly amusing if they weren’t so doggedly and unpleasantly trying (and sometimes succeeding, though thankfully less and less often) to make our lives a misery. A lack of intelligence plus a spiteful disposition is sadly not a good combination, and of course it can be very frustrating if you try to reason with such people and assume (almost always incorrectly) that they will change their minds if you prove them wrong.

      (How do these halfwits find this site anyway…?)

    2. Science doesn’t say we evolved from apes floridahank, we ourselves are a species of great ape and we share a common ancestor with gorilla’s and chimpanzee’s, we and other apes all evolved in different directions from a common ancestor way back in time.

      1. floridahank 2 Oct 2012, 11:12pm

        Pavlos, you said, “we ourselves are a species of great ape.” I don’t go along with that. I see myself as something above an animal speicies. I believe man is nowhere inherently associated with any beasts, and that’s why I can see where most of mankiind is vain, greedy and violent and without any of God’s qualitise that are available to some of us, but not all of us.
        Sorry for your kind of “species.”

        1. So floridahank…you certainly must be better than most of the human race (or so you think?)
          Typical arrogant xtian attitude! I suggest that you might want to learn a little humility from that
          god of yours!

    3. I don’t think anyone has said that we originated from Apes, it’s just that all the evidence suggests that we shared a common ancestor with them. Of course the overwhelming evidence to suggest that this is true could just be God’s way of testing us? Does that sound likely?

      1. Paddyswurds 30 Sep 2012, 1:55pm

        You are wasting your time trying to explain that to Floridahank, These peoples brains are so fried by the whole buybul shyte that they have begun to atrophy at an alarming rate. Case in point, the erudite Sarah Palin who went to 5 universities but still came out with the brain power of an amoebae….

    4. floridahank: A’murkin, Cristyun, home skooled and PROWD!

      As a Floridian myself, and on behalf of intelligent, educated people across the state of Florida, please allow me to apologize for floridahank. Not all Floridians are ignorant, science hating/fearing, home schooled, fundamentalist, redneck idiots!

    5. That There Other David 30 Sep 2012, 10:46pm

      We are apes Hank. Also, one day you’ll die and you will no longer exist.

      There’s also no Santa Claus.

      Deal with it.

  58. The (mandatory) 2011 Canadian census did ask about same-sex marriages (21,015) and same-sex common-law relationships (43,560). This after 5 years of legislated marriage equality. FYI, population on census day: 33,476,688.

    “Same-sex couples make up 0.8 per cent of all families in Canada, a share consistent with other industrialized countries like Australia, Statistics Canada says.” http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1258980–canada-sees-a-burst-in-same-sex-marriages

    And of all the calamities that are forecast to arise from marriage equality in the UK, UK, Australia, and elsewhere, it’s safe to say that after 5 years, Canada has disappointing news. Nothing’s changed! (except for lesbians and gays and their families)

  59. I don’t really understand the LGBT position in this issue. Why isn’t a civil patnership sufficient?

    This is genuine question (first time visiting the site, atheist and not gay). It seems to me that by pushing for your ‘right’ you are removing the right to religious freedom from others. Again just want to get a better understanding.

    1. The distinction of choice – the ability to choose whether to marry or not. Also, it’s not religious marriage we’re fighting for – religion hijacked marriage. Marriage used to merely exist as a contract between two or more people.

      1. Thanks for the reply; this is what I’m interested in.

        >The distinction of choice

        I appreciate this, but it doesn’t change the fact that choice is then removed from Christians.

        > Also, it’s not religious marriage we’re fighting for – religion hijacked marriage.

        Isn’t civil partnership just non-religious marriage? Wouldn’t it be more prudent to campaign for the separation of church and state – then both sides can be happy (maybe I’m missing something)

        > Marriage used to merely exist as a contract between two or more people.

        That’s what I think it should be for what it’s worth.

        1. Foreget the distinction between gay and straight and forget the distinction between religious and non religious. If you think that marriage is a good thing then there is no reason not to deny that to gay couples. The benefits of marriage are the same regardless of whether you are religious or not and the same benefits are bestowed on a couple regardless of whether that is a man and woman, man and man and woman and woman.

          If you don’t think marriage between a couple is a good thing then you are advocating something different, that’s not what the SSM is about.

          1. >If you think that marriage is a good thing then there is no reason not to deny that to gay couples.

            I don’t think marriage is good, I don’t think marriage is bad. It just is.

            That said I gave a reason…

          2. Paddyswurds 30 Sep 2012, 7:09pm

            @Andy…
            ……”I appreciate this, but it doesn’t change the fact that choice is then removed from Christians.”
            How does giving equal right to Marriage to Gay people remove “choice” from those who choose to believe in falsehoods?

        2. “I appreciate this, but it doesn’t change the fact that choice is then removed from Christians.”

          No, that’s untrue, Andy4443. Christians already choose whom they want or don’t want to marry (eg divorcees) and the introduction of equal civil marriage would have no effect on their choice whatsoever. They could continue to run their church in exactly the same way. They already have special exemptions from the equality laws regarding the equality of women. It’s CHRISTIANS who are seeking to deny choice to others while retaining special treatment for themselves.

          Every day people get married in registry offices who the church would have rejected. Those marriages don’t affect the church one jot.

        3. “Isn’t civil partnership just non-religious marriage?”

          No, it’s most definitely not! And that’s the whole point! A non-religious marriage for evryone else is a civil marriage, yet LGBT people aren’t allowed to have that. We have to have something separate but not equal – a Civil Partnership. We don’t have separate institutions for black people getting married, for example, so why on earth shoould LGBT people have to have something different? We should have civil marriage just like everybody else – anything else is discrimination.

          1. Hehe I have been going around saying I want a civil partnership for years (as opposed to a religious ceremony).

    2. radioredrafts 30 Sep 2012, 12:56am

      Because, Andy, we’re just as deserving as you. That’s all you need to know.

    3. Andy, would you advocate that black people should be grateful just to be allowed on board the bus, and should consider it sufficient to be banished to sit out of sight at the back?

      You’d say that the back seats follow exactly the same route and stop at all the same stops… They cost the same and even get to the destination at exactly the same time… So why should black people have the ‘right’ to remove white people from ‘their’ seats at the front?

      In fact, civil partnerships don’t even offer all the benefits of marriage:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT6I72W9SMM

      NOW do you understand??

      1. >In fact, civil partnerships don’t even offer all the benefits of marriage

        I was told the benefits are about the same so thanks for the link Gerry. However I’m not sure the cases really hold up for an argument for SSM.

        The first example, is a pensions example which I agree seems wrong but is this not just due to woman having different retirement age to men? It would be more interesting if he included the lesbian case as well, because this maybe a gender rights issue.

        The second example relates to another countries interpretation so seems kind of irrelevant.

        > NOW do you understand??

        Not really but I learned something. It seems to me this is about feeling equal which is fine but forcing the church to carry out SSM is not the way. As I mentioned above to SeanH separating Church and State seems to obvious way forward for everyone…

        1. I don’t know of anyone advocating that churches should be forced to marry people of the same sex.

          Allowed, yes, but not forced.

          That’s a total red herring.

    4. essexgirlbecky 30 Sep 2012, 8:45am

      The Church does not ‘own’ marriage. It was an institution long before the Christian church (doesn’t the gospel record that Jesus attended a wedding in Cana?) and in the UK it has been regulated by statute since the 1830s.

      How, if I decide to get married to a girlfriend, does it diminish somebody else’s religious freedoms? I really don’t understand the position of some Christian churches on this, and I am a Christian!

      No-one is stopping those who want to from arguing that gay marriage is contrary to Christian doctrine (though I know many Christians who would argue otherwise). Christian churches that wish to do so are entirely free in law to continue to hold that belief; thus their religious freedoms have not been restricted.

      Let me put it this way; presumably you would argue as a Christian that Islam is not the true faith. Would you argue that your religious freedoms as a Christian are being infringed by the fact that Muslims have been granted the same legal rights as you?

      1. > How, if I decide to get married to a girlfriend, does it diminish somebody else’s religious freedoms?

        IF the church does not want to marry same sex couple and then a law is passed that forces them too then you have removed the option to act as they believe.

        > No-one is stopping those who want to from arguing that gay marriage is contrary to Christian doctrine…[they] are entirely free in law to continue to hold that belief; thus their religious freedoms have not been restricted.

        Isn’t that like saying LGBT are free to argue for marriage and thus are not restricted?

        If ‘Civil Partnership’ was re-branded to ‘Civil Marriage’ as I understand is under consideration would that end the debate?

        > Christian are being infringed by the fact that Muslims have been granted the same legal rights as you?

        I don’t think so but I’m not religious.

        1. essexgirlbecky 1 Oct 2012, 3:12pm

          Andy, whatever you may have read to the contrary, the churches are not being asked to marry LGB people. In fact the proposed legislation explicitly excludes all religious institutions. Daft as it may sound to you, there are some faith organisations, principally the Quakers, the Unitarians and the liberal and reformed Jewish movements, who actually want to be able to marry same-sex couples and are protesting that they will not be allowed to do so. To some extent these proposals are about rebranding civil partnerships as civil marriage, but it is possible that civil partnerships will continue to exist. And no, allowing me the freedom to argue for same-sex marriage is not the same as allowing me to participate in same sex-sex marriage. Surely you must see that?

    5. Actually the rights of religious freedom are being enhanced, so that those religious groups that want to officiate in same sex marriage would be free to do so and those that don’t wont be required to. What am I missing here? How is that “removing religious freedom”. Genuine question.

      1. > Actually the rights of religious freedom are being enhanced…. How is that “removing religious freedom”

        If I wanted to worship in a religion that recognized all partnerships equally I can do so i.e. religious freedom. By forcing all religions to be the same you are removing the freedom to worship what people believe.

        1. “By forcing all religions to be the same you are removing the freedom to worship what people believe.”

          No-one is trying to do that, Andy4443. No religions will have to be the same. No religions will be forced to marry same sex couples.

        2. No one is proposing that any religion be forced to participate in SSM. Just the freedom for those who wish to, to do so?

    6. DJ Sheepiesheep 30 Sep 2012, 11:01am

      It’s really very simple. It’s because some people out there think that hetrosexuality is superior to homosexuality and withholding marriage equality is their way of keeping the moral high ground.

    7. “Why isn’t a civil patnership sufficient?”

      Because we’re not second-class citizens who deserve to be relegated to some separate institution from you just because of our sexuality. Separate isn’t equal. Would you like to be removed from things that the majority have access to just because of some distinguishing characteristic you have? It’s offensive.

      And allowing us our rights will NOT deprive anyone else of rights – rights are not finite. We are asking for a seat at the table with everyone else, rather than being put on some special lower table like pariahs. There is no need to have a separate institution for LGBT people any more than we need a separate ‘not-marriage’ thing for people who aren’t white, for example.

      1. Paddyswurds 30 Sep 2012, 7:22pm

        @Iris…
        …you are just going round in circles arguing with this troll. You already used the Rosa Parks analogy and it ignored your analogy, so there is no point putting it differently, he will still ignore the obvious. I think he knows exactly what the difference but is using pedantic argument for the sake of argument, not enlightenment….

      2. Probably, Paddyswurds. I guess I just like to give them the benefit of the doubt :D For a while, at least anyway!

    8. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Sep 2012, 1:04pm

      Try taking a civil partnership out of the country and see for yourself just how unequal they are, in many places not even recognised. What if heterosexuals were told that marriage was going to be abolished and replaced with CPs instead? There would be public uproar and we all know why. Marriage is the universally recognised union of two people, the gold standard if you will. CPs will never be the standard anywhere in the world. We now have ten countries, soon to be eleven with France legalising equal marriage next month. Ask yourself why there aren’t even more than two countries with CPs, the Irish version offering fewer rights than the UK? Why aren’t more countries with large gay populations demanding them? If you can’t figure it out, then you don’t understand the meaning of full equality. Prime MInister Cameron understands it, but clearly you don’t. Segregation of any kind is not about equality at all no matter how many rights one is given.

      1. A Civil Union is enough……in the eyes of the Law……to ensure that both partners are enable to have the same legal rights as those enjoyed by heterosexual couples who choose to marry in a Church or Registry Office or anywhere else legally allowed to perform “marriage ceremonies”. So I understand your point that this enables people to “share” the benefits of the Law in this regard. However, a marriage allows for (a) a religious blessing of the union if this is wanted, and (b) a perceived equality with everyone else.

        LGBTI couples are only seeking exactly the same “rights” as the heterosexual couples involved in the most elaborate marriage extravaganzas, and immediately rush off and “screw around” as though such a ceremony had never taken place. It would be interesting to look at the % success rates of LGBTI Civil Unions/Marriages as compared to the “normal” hetero couples. It is my suspicion that LGBTI couples involve themselves in far more soul-searching!

        1. Paddyswurds 30 Sep 2012, 7:31pm

          @Alan….
          ….No, you are wrong. CPs do not offer exactly the same rights as civil Marriage on several points the main one being benefits and taxes. for instance married spouses can collect on a dead partners pension but CPs cannot.CPs do not have an automatic right to adopt with application to the courts which Civil marriage allows . There are as I said salient differences that make CPs not equal to civil marriage; that is why CPs were invented otherwise the whole exercise would have been pointless and in the event proved to be wholly discriminatory. Educate yourself and then come back to argue .

        2. That There Other David 30 Sep 2012, 10:44pm

          Nonsense. You’ll be amazed what straight people will tell you about what they actually get up to once you’re down the pub with them. Put it this way, if you’re a straight married guy and not dogging, swinging, or just sneaking around behind your wife’s back you’re in the minority. Why do you think the divorce rate amongst straights is so high?

          In contrast I’ve been monogamous to my partner for 12 years, and we’re about to celebrate our fifth marriage anniversary.

  60. Two is enough.

  61. Will Christian 30 Sep 2012, 12:28am

    Um…these would be Christians who’ve somehow gotten the Gospel confused with Mein Kampf?

  62. Should creationist loonies be allowed to marry? LET’S HAVE A REFERENDUM

  63. radioredrafts 30 Sep 2012, 12:53am

    DEFINE “ENOUGH”.

  64. Good grief, I stay away for a day and the Christian Institute comes out with an argument worthy of a three year old. They can always be relied upon for entertainment.

  65. Dan Barker 30 Sep 2012, 1:39am

    I agree wholeheartedly with Ben Summerskill on the matter, apart from this bit:

    “…For example, you do not need to have so many primary schools in Brighton as in Shrewsbury, because there are a lot of gay people in Brighton and, although some have children, they are likely to have fewer children….”

    Did anyone else thought this sounded a bit ridiculous? Brighton is mostly populated by students and young professionals, the gay population has no effect on the number of primary schools in the area?!

    1. Dave North 30 Sep 2012, 2:57am

      Apart from paying for it via their taxes.

      Which is fine, until you get the likes of the “christian” institute coming out with this drivel making you wonder that our not worthyness should decree that we be free from taxation.

    2. Stephen Krish 30 Sep 2012, 7:55pm

      I agree, the decision process of building a primary school should consider much more important factors than if there is a slightly higher population of gay people living in the area. Well I hope it does anyway!

    3. I thought he was being ironic actually.

  66. Gay in Canada 30 Sep 2012, 2:35am

    George Orwell is alive and well in the 21st Century.

  67. Dave North 30 Sep 2012, 2:52am

    The more they come out with this nonsense the more they let people see just how insane they actually are.

    Keep it coming.

  68. And there are also not enough handicapped and blind people in UK and in fact in every country of the world, yet we give them rights, even making parking spaces, toilets and special buses for them. But I understand the Christian Institute. Everytime a new flawed argument against LGBT people fails they have to find a new one, no matter how stupid it is, like that one from an article some weeks ago linking gay people and smoking.

  69. Brian Burton and other gay men on Facebook have been fighting the Christian Institute for a longtime. Full marks to them. The Christian Institute is an evil organisation whose Satanic boss, is bent on stopping our equal rights. The figures quoted in the article are inaccurate and misleading and CI needs to investigated for hate crimes.

  70. Har Davids 30 Sep 2012, 6:42am

    Even if the figures are correct: given the fact CI blames gay for many of society’s ills, why the concern about the consequences of equal rights of a tiny minority? It makes it more obvious the it’s homophobia all the way for these people.

  71. essexgirlbecky 30 Sep 2012, 8:26am

    Less than 1% of the UK population regularly attends church. Should they have the right to vote? It’s no less a ridiculous argument than that advanced by the Christian Institute.

    Since when exactly has entitlement to fundamental human rights been determined by weight of numbers?

  72. I really do not know who I trust the least, Christians or Americans. Hypocrisy runs through both of them like a stick of rock.

  73. Helge Vladimir Tiller 30 Sep 2012, 9:28am

    I am so tired of ignorant words from Christians-I have heard them for more than 50 years. What are they afraid of ? Supporting minorities- no ! They simply don’t like our active sexuality !!

  74. Usual fascist, religious oppressor nonsense!

  75. David Myers 30 Sep 2012, 9:58am

    Stupidest excuse for denying equal rights – ever! Stunningly ignorant!

  76. If I didn’t read pink news I wouldn’t even know about the christian institute.

    Why give them so much publicity?

    1. You’re right there. I am a Christian and never heard of them before. Maybe the equal marriage campaign has drawn all the loonies out.

  77. Helge Vladimir Tiller 30 Sep 2012, 11:12am

    —“they simply don’t like our active sexuality”—and THIS is an attitude that can not be described as anything else than religious fascism–neither more nor less. Christians ! STOP degrading LGBTQ-persons ! We have the very same value as everybody else, the VERY SAME HUMAN RIGHTS !

  78. Oscar Watson 30 Sep 2012, 11:13am

    I dispute the figures but the smaller the group the greater the protection they need to achieve equality. The logic (if there is any) behind this statement escapes me.

  79. martyn griffey 30 Sep 2012, 11:13am

    what appalling arrogance from this so-called ‘christian’ group! no wonder so few of us lgbt people want to get married in a christian church, when organisations like this spout forth such bigoted and ridiculous comments. Roll on the day we get a gay archbishop:)

  80. I am well and truly flabbergasted by the sheer stupidity of their claims. The bottom of that barrel must be well worn from all the scraping for excuses these religious idiots are doing.

  81. What surprises me as an American is that there are so many still hiding in the closet! I mean the state of Texas, which has a policy of killing all gays, probably has a larger percentile. I mean you’d think they were some tiny island or African nation where being gay is illiegal. But then what can you expect from a country where Jude Law says he’s stratght and everyone believes him.

  82. The obvious thing about these figures is that they record the number of people who identify as gay and feel comfortable telling stats collectors.

    There are undisputedly millions more people who are same-sex attracted to whatever degree but who choose not to identify as gay or bisexual for whatever reasons, and so these figures are probably an accurate representation of out gay people per se.

    I made a similar point on a recent thread that among gay-identified people the demand and push for equal marriage rights isn’tt universal, and indeed the uptake for civil ceremonies is less than 20,000 of us to date, or little more than 1 per cent of all gay-identified people.

    The uncomfortable question arises that if gay civil ceremonies are so few and far between, why such a wildly disproportionate banging of drums for full marriage rights among our militant tendency, and by posturing MPs and publicity-seeking celebs desperate to be seen to be supporting the latest trendy minority cause?

    1. I know hell rain and fire will rain down on me because I’m not a good little conforming gay stepping into the party line and repeating all the “for” arguments like a parrot.

      Sorry, but having witnessed four civil ceremonies and seen three relationships implode within months – two of which had been relationships of 7 and 10 years standing – I have to say that full marriage is a step too far where two men, at least, are concerned.

      Men, quite simply, are hot-wired to be sexually compulsive, hunter and predator, and two men in the equation will almost always lead at least one to stray:- which rather makes a travesty of marriage vows.

      And if we are demanding equal marriage rights, we should be swearing oaths of matrimony and undying loyalty and faithfulness, nothing less.

      I feel betrayed by my friends I witnessed who, once partnered in law, suddenly felt suffocated and trapped and almost desperate to break free of the contract that bound them:- ending in court scrapping over the spoils.

      1. I’ve witnessed the destruction of two straight marriages in the last year (both by the husband in these cases). So your comment would equally apply to straight marriages. I see what you’re saying about two men being ‘double the risk’, but maybe that could be cancelled out by two women being ‘half the risk’ ;)

        For me, I see the question of fidelity as a separate matter from equality. I’m sure many people, straight and LGBT, treat marriage/CPs not as seriously as they should in terms of commitment, but that’s a complicated problem (ie what’s the cause? increasing selfishness? messages from society? etc etc). We should all individually have the option of a civil marriage – but, yes, maybe think carefully about what that would involve. However, the same goes for straight people.

        1. Good points, Iris.

          I would hope that gay men who decide to get hitched – if and when equal marriage rights are passed – would put a lot of thought into the real meaning of meaning of marriage and its implications?

          I have a sense from a couple of the civil ceremonies I attended that both couples were swept along on the tide of jubilation that finally our relationships could be recognised and protected by law and they were keen to do so as soon as possible without really considering the impact or consequences of a partnership contract on their lifestyles.

          There’s a sense that the push for equal marriage rights is being bulldozed through as much to score a point against religion as it is for any genuine desire among gay people to wed en mass in churches, etc. as the tiny uptake for civil partnerships demonstrates.

          But a good few couples will rush in (like fools?) within days of equal marriage rights being law.

          And many of those will just as surely be destined for divorce soon after.

      2. …Spoils accumulated after 10 years cohabiting largely in peace.

        The only male-male marriage that could really work is that where neither are ruled by male ego that seeks to dominate and control the other:- but it’s extremely rare, I find, to find two passive males interlocked.

        Heck, even many straight women have a hard time keeping their husbands in check, but many do for the simple reason that there is a feminine ego to balance and counter the excesses of the male.

        Male/male relationships are almost primed to evolve into power struggles and invariably are built around suspicion and distrust because, after all, one partner will be basing his suspicions of his partner’s behaviour around his own inclinations and impulses.

        The flip side of course is that two women devoid of aggressive egos are more likely than two men or a straight couple to have long, happy partnerships that would only grow stronger if bound by marriage, but we can’t demand rights just for women, can we?

        Catch 22?

        1. Interesting and thoughtful post, Samuel B. No, I wouldn’t want rights just for women. You mentioned distrust. I think that a good, solid relationship must be built on mutual respect and trust no matter the gender(s) of the couple, and I think it needs to be worked at. Maybe the problem is that people don’t realise that ‘happy ever after’ doesn’t happen without those things and that a marriage/CP needs a strong relationship beforehand and a commitment to work to maintain it from both parties.

    2. Helge Vladimir Tiller 30 Sep 2012, 12:10pm

      Intelligent comments by Samuel B. Thanks a lot from Norway !

    3. Paddyswurds 30 Sep 2012, 8:03pm

      You are willfully ignoring the point. Even if not one gay person ever avails of civil marriage, it should still be legally available. The fact that so few have availed of CPs is also being ignored and that is that no one wants to be consigned to the back of the bus as a CP does. It is NOT equal to civil marriage, end of. If you came into a shop for an apple and the shopkeeper said you could only have a crab apple because you have, say, brown eyes you would be rightly agrieved. Same difference. Now do you get it?

      1. Not really, Padders, for the simple reason that CP was heralded as a major breakthrough for gay rights at the time and those keen to be partnered in law did so as quickly as they could.

        Certainly there were some who deigned to speak for all of us is stating CP was not equal to civil marriage and that it must be fought for at all costs, but no one could foresee at the time if and when equal marriage would ever happen.

        I do not for one minute believe many, if indeed anyone, held back waiting for the civil marriage bus to appear over the hill.

        1. Actually Samuel, I am one of those individuals, who’s ‘waiting for the civil marriage bus to appear over the hill’ as you put it. Having seen all 4 of my siblings get married in civil ceremonies, I was initially intrigued by engaging in a civil partnership with my partner of 9 years.

          I discussed the ceremony with my step-father (a registrar) who explained to me there is a fundamental difference in the ceremony (CP is completed by virtue of signing the CP agreement, marriage completed by both mandatory spoken vows and signing the register) and I investgated the legal differences (already discussed ad nauseum on PinkNews) between the two myself.

          Having done that, and discussed these with my partner, we both decided that until we could engage in the same institution as my (and incidentally his) siblings, we would not ‘settle’ for a CP.

          The ‘bus’ btw, looks to be on its way…

    4. Sorry, I must correct my initial posting where I mistakenly refer to less than 20,000 of us engaging in CP to date as opposed to per annum.

      For example, last year 13,590 gay people very partnered in law.

  83. …there aren’t enough “Christians” in the UK to justify giving them superior and preferential rights or a veto over other people’s rights!

  84. Stewart Cowan 30 Sep 2012, 11:58am

    No two people of the same sex have the “right” to marry, so the number of homosexuals in a population is irrelevant to the debate. Marriage is about more than ‘love’ and the whole ‘gay agenda’ has been put in place as part of the efforts to destabilise society – same with feminism and modern sex ‘education’. It all seeks to destroy the family and turn the population dysfunctional. The Fabian socialist agenda successive governments have adopted necessitates the destruction of the family for total socialist control – that was the Fabian Society’s aim back at the start when George Bernard Shaw and HG Wells were members and it’s the agenda today.

    That’s why all mainstream parties are pro-‘gay’ and pro- every other political correct thing, because they are all following this same agenda.

    1. Totally agree Stuart.

      God did not create homosexuals. They’re a result of an imperfect world. Ask yourself, when these things called ‘humans’ were being created, do you honestly believe that THIS was in the blue-prints? God DID NOT put it in the blue prints that men should place their penis’s into each others buttock holes.

      1. My god, man! You’re obsessed! Stop thinking about men’s bottoms if you’re straight!! How many straight men do you think spend their Sunday mornings thinking about other men’s buttocks??!!!

      2. Evolution is fact, it has been proven – you can even witness it for yourself if you stay around long enough in a limestone cave on an island off North-western Malaysia – The Langkawi bent-toed gecko (Cyrtodactylus macrotuberculatus) is seen to have evolved outside and inside the cave differently.

        Even abiogenesis has been proven to a degree – ignorance is no excuse in this day and age where technology is so important.

      3. God does not exist. Sorry to break it to you. Yes a penis is not meant to go inside a bum but I am sure you put your penis inside a mouth – which is not meant to happen either.

        1. Paddyswurds 30 Sep 2012, 8:10pm

          More breeders have anal sex world wide than gay men and that is also a proven and demographic fact. Billions of poor peasants use anal sex as a form of contraception every day…so get over the penis in the bum thing, creep.

    2. How to link two things that are unconnected perfectly demonstrated in that post, Stewart. By the destruction of society, I take you to mean things like divorce, the birth of children out of wedlock, yes? Well, all those have been instigated by straight people….

      (and I thought you said you weren’t going to post again on PN – or was that last year’s Resolution? ;) Maybe you’d like to ask yourself why you seek to deny others rights – thus causing the very division in society you’re complaining about)

      1. The birth of kids outside of wedlock was actuality fuelled by government welfare policy that garnered social housing for gym slip mums and a benefits system that rewards said mothers the more offspring they have.

        The divorce rate, similarly, is largely attributed to pressures that stem largely from governmental policy and legislation:- for example pressure exerted by financial worries that were initiated by both spendthrift and belt-tightening governments.

        In fact the prime reason most couples cite for divorcing is financial pressure.

        1. In fact successive governments appear to have done their damnedest to destroy society:-

          Our institutions are corrupt to their core, the NHS no longer works efficiently, the police protect pedophiles and collude en mass to cover-up their failures, unfettered immigration has driven vast swathes of indigenous young people on the employment scrapheap and changed the face of our towns and cities beyond all recognition, our financial institutions shaft us because banking regulations were changed in their favour, youngsters are failing to grasp the basics of reading and writing…

          What is their purpose in doing in demeaning and demoralising what being proudly British once stood for?

          Stewart may raise she points that sound uncomfortable and unpalatable to us, but dismissing anything we don’t like the sound of out of hand without researching such claims first is close-minded flippancy bordering on ignorance.

          The truth is out there, it’s certainly not on here to any reasonable degree!!

          1. There are things I mourn about the past, Samuel B. (and things I most definitely don’t!) but it’s facile and oh-so-convenient of Stewart to blame those on LGBT people, and feminism too. It makes no sense at all.

          2. I agree entirely, Iris.

            We had no choice in our sexuality:- it’s innate and not a question of free will.

            But I DO get what Stewart implies by a concerted effort to coarsen and debase society by destroying the traditional family unit so that humanity becomes dysfunctional and easy to control.

            I see that in the hyper-sexualisation of kids, brain-rotting bilge like the Kardassians, the soft core porn of pop stars who equate sex with violence, music videos that emblazon devil-worshipping symbolism, the proliferation of free hardcore porn…all send out subliminal messages that this is normal behaviour to be copied so that we end up dehumanising one another.

            Perhaps the same hidden hand that fuels such degradation sees gays as part of the family-destroying force that it hopes will bring down civilisation?

            Whatever, I do not for one minute believe the motives of Cameron, Clegg, Milliband et al to be honourable in their support of equal rights when there’s clearly an agenda at play.

          3. …an agenda that we’re not responsible for save for the fact we’re clearly being used for political point-scoring and, if equal marriage rights pass law, to change the face of society to a certain extent.

            What we ARE responsible for is not pausing for one moment to ask WHY are MPs en mass coming out to support of a minority group when the agenda little more than a decade ago was Section 28 in every classroom in the land.

            Has society really changed that much in all that time?

            Clearly some force has been at play for MPs to go from one extreme to another in less than a generation.

            Or perhaps it’s something in the water at Westminster?

            So caught up are we in the rush to equal marriage rights that we are not asking the questions that equally matter.

            Sometimes we just need to engage some critical thinking – that some, incidentally, will call conspiracy theory – step back and examine the bigger picture.

            Instead we allow ourselves to be used as a political football for unknown ends…

          4. “I see that in the hyper-sexualisation of kids, brain-rotting bilge like the Kardassians, the soft core porn of pop stars who equate sex with violence”

            Agreed. Don’t even get me started on those slow-mo pop videos that only see women as bums, busts and writhing pelvises, or the horrible sexualised clothes aimed at pre-teens and the ‘bra tops’ for 5 year olds.

            I’ve no idea where all that came from, and I doubt there’s just one source. I see it as losing focus on what’s important in life – eg letting children think that their greatest ambition must be to ‘be famous’. I also think that some people have lost their judgement – just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you necessarily should.

            Hmm, that could be a long discussion – the ills of society, their causes and what to do about them – so I’ll stop there :D

          5. Thanks Iris, so refreshing to debate with someone on here who doesn’t jump down my throat when I raise some challenging and uncomfortable points and conjectures.

            I would never for one moment claim I have all the answers but I think it is important to sometimes step back a little, take stock and question why things happen the way they do and why trends develop at certain times and to what end…or agenda.

            The irony with the hypothesis that equal marriage rights could be being pushed through at this time to fragmentise the family unit along with a whole host of aforementioned factors is that wider acceptance of gays in mainstream society is actually reinforcing family ties as old-fashioned values that once disowned gay children have given way to a more enlightened mindset that embraces them.

            Of course this will not always be the case, but it would be great if we too could start speaking out for the family unit of ALL denominations, creeds and sexualities.

            Those of us who are…

          6. raising families of our own in loving environments will understand how vital and nourishing such close-knit family structures are to infants, and how two parents are infinitely preferable and more productive for a child than being brought up by a lone parent who struggles to balance their time adequately to the child’s needs.

            For many years we saw the family unit as part of our oppression:- wouldn’t it be a major step forward if gay people took the lead in championing family life now that we have had a few years to experience it ourselves?

            And legally recognised partnerships too, come to that?

            We seem to send so much time moaning about what we have still yet to achieve:- perhaps we need to acknowledge the sanctity of that which we have.

            We must come across as a demanding and ungrateful minority of society:- isn’t it time to turn things around and earn equal marriage rights by winning the respect and admiration of the mainstream by our own example instead of stamping our feet?

          7. Paddyswurds 30 Sep 2012, 8:13pm

            The vile Maggie Thatcher once said there was no such thing as society….so how can something that doesn’t exist be destroyed?

          8. So you took everything that came out of her mouth as gospel then, Padders?

            I have no idea how old you are, but if you can remember back even just 25 years you will know that we now live in an intensely uglier, more depressing time.

            Can you recall that far back when, by comparison with today, things still used to work, life made some kind of sense and the human spirit was more alive and not being constantly eroded, desensitised, undermined and dumbed down?

            Well, do you?

    3. That There Other David 30 Sep 2012, 10:52pm

      Maybe you’ve not been following the news, but in the following territories two people of the same sex have the right to marry.

      Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Connecticut, Denmark, District of Columbia, Iceland, Iowa, Massachusetts, Mexico City, The Netherlands, New Hampshire, New York, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Vermont.

      It must be terrible to have facts get in the way of Bronze Age myths. Now, haven’t you got a dinosaur to go ride or something?

  85. Stewart Cowan 30 Sep 2012, 12:00pm

    ….But rest assured that once the militant homosexuals, Muslims, etc., have outlived their purpose as useful idiots, they will be just as hated and victimised by the state and corporations as Christians, smokers, fat folk, etc. are now.

    You think the government cares about ‘the gays’?

    Think again. It’s to spread dysfunction in society and to act as a divide and rule mechanism and to destroy our culture and traditions – and country.

    I love homosexuals far more than the Government does, you know.

    1. “It’s to spread dysfunction in society and to act as a divide and rule mechanism and to destroy our culture and traditions – and country.”

      I doubt it – and even if it was, that’d only work if people like you persisted in trying to deny us equality. If you stopped fussing about equal civil marriage, then there’d be no dissent or division, would there? So maybe it’s YOU who’s the tool of government?

    2. God created a perfect man, and a perfect woman. Homosexuality is the result of thousands of years of slow degradation of the human race. It is safe to say that their can be no natural benefit to placing a penis inside a buttock hole. Can we agree? Based on logic alone, their does not seem to be a valid reason why God would design (or as they put it ‘create’) a creature that would place it’s sex organs inside of another creatures waste disposal unit.

      The only logical explanation to create sex organs is for the purpose of reproduction. Homophobia” is merely a propaganda device designed to denigrate and stigmatise those holding conventional opinions, which have been held by most people through most of recorded history. It is frightening evidence of the way in which political correctness is threatening our freedom.

      1. “The only logical explanation to create sex organs is for the purpose of reproduction”

        So you think most people should only have sex a couple of times in their life (taking the average number of children to be two)? How boring your life must be!

        You might also like to wonder why ‘god’ placed so many erogenous zones around the whole body if only the genitals are important. Oh, and you might also like to stop obessing about genitals and what other people may or may not do in bed!

      2. Actually in some cultures were are as a blessing as we were the peacemakers. In no competition for a partner and without the urge to reproduce.

        Now that some religions have cast us as the enemy their cultures are usually the most violent and barbaric

        Thats a fact

      3. EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN – dammit, why when the knowledge is there at your fingertips and even in the local wildlife do you still persist to be so ignorant… Even abiogenesis has somewhat been proven.

        Go away!

      4. There is also the point to be made that without gays, we would be struggling to feed far more mouths.

        I always thought homosexuality – in ALL species – was nature’s way of keeping numbers in check…

      5. Cardinal Capone 30 Sep 2012, 2:40pm

        Hardly “perfect” since they were cast out of the Garden of Eden, and populated the Earth through the immorality of incest.l

      6. “The only logical explanation to create sex organs is for the purpose of reproduction. “…Actually both the fanny and the willy are “waste disposal units” (you also pee thru them) so from your logic it would seem un-Godly for a man to want to stick his willy up a female’s waste disposal unit. Indeed why do grown up straight men slobber over women’s breasts when they only things that should be doing that are babies.

        I guess to expect a member of the CI to apply logic to an argument is a big ask, isn’t it.

      7. That There Other David 30 Sep 2012, 10:58pm

        Those same sex organs are also used for urination. Pretty rubbish “design” for an Almighty, don’t you think? Even forgetting all the weak lower back and appendix stuff that show humans aren’t particularly well “designed” as possible creatures go.

        Just sayin’

    3. Your argument might have more validity if LGBT were seeking special treatment as opposed to equality under the law.

      I don’t believe that governments care about gays anymore than they care about any other group, but eventually governments evolve and recognise the reality of human nature. If not we would still be stoning non virgin brides to death.

  86. Given that we live in a country where such homophobic views , prejudices and demands for continuing and increased discrimination against LGBTI people and others persist and are given daily encouragment in the national media, I am actually very surprised that the percentage of people willing to state their orientation unambiguously to government inspector is this high. Plainly the true number is much higher

    1. When comparing it with San Francisco and Rio de Janeiro then it’s most probably between 15 and 20%, though the actual spectrum of sexuality would define pure heterosexuality and homosexuality as the minority.

  87. Listen, we all know that the 6% figure is correct. There were 3.6% of people who did not give an answer which means that the vast majority of those are gay/lesbian/bi. 3.6 plus 2.6 is 6.2%.

  88. Julian Morrison 30 Sep 2012, 1:42pm

    You don’t know how many gay, bi, or trans people there are. And you won’t find out until the discrimination has been at zero for a decade or three.

    My suspicion is that there are a very large number of potentially-bi people out there who simply choose not to come out. And likewise a large number of slightly-trans people.

    1. I think there are more Bi people than there are straight or gay, but I can’t prove it. Of course a lot depends on how you define bisexuality.

  89. I fully agree with the CI when they say that “There aren’t enough gays in UK “.

    1. Paddyswurds 30 Sep 2012, 1:59pm

      I agree too, But how do we “recruit” more unless we start importing them or find a cure for theism so those who are but in thrall to theism can be free to be who they truly are….

  90. There is no human right to marriage.

    1. Cardinal Capone 30 Sep 2012, 2:33pm

      Article 12: Right to marriage
      Men and women of marriageable age shall have the right to marry and to found a family, according to national laws governing the exercise of this right. 

    2. Sorry Mike, but the LAW begs to differ!

    3. There’s no human right to voting. There’s no human right to citizenship. There’s no human right to thousands of civil rights. That’s why they’re called CIVIL RIGHTS and not HUMAN RIGHTS. Regardless, civil rights are provided by government and should be available to ALL citizens equally.

      What’s YOUR point?

      1. Cardinal Capone 30 Sep 2012, 4:25pm

        In Europe it’s a human right, hence Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which dates back to the 1950s. I’m not sure what the difference between civil and human rights is, tbh, though civil rights are not such a dirty word as human rights in some authoritarian Asian countries. I think it’s the universality of human rights they don’t like.

  91. Cardinal Capone 30 Sep 2012, 2:29pm

    These people veer between contradictory arguments. Either there’s too few of us to matter, or there are so many of us that the human race will die out if we’re allowed to marry. It just shows that they pluck any argument out of the air, and their real motivation is animosity towards gay people.

    1. It also shows that they don’t have a single good argument against equal marriage and so are forced to come up with dross like this. On the bright side, no-one’s going to take this argument seriously at all because it’s so stupid. Equality doesn’t depend on numbers.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Sep 2012, 4:11pm

      The real motivation is homophobia, plain and simple.

  92. Also in responce to Andy4333 on this issue…well i don’t understand the churches stance on this issue! As less than 3% of the population attends church, get out of the House of Lords now and stop political preaching to the masses who you clearly do not represent!

  93. 2.6% is the exact percentage of Jews in the American population. By this argument they should be ineligible for civil rights.

    I’m sure that they’ll be surprised to hear that.

    Muslims, even fewer.

    What percentage of the population of England is Jewish? If it’s similar to the USA it would be a VERY effective counter argument to this ignorant statement.

    Besides, I remember reading a considerably higher percentage of gays in an official survey of England. Is this another case of lying in the name of Jesus?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Sep 2012, 4:10pm

      There are about 250,000 Jews in the UK, miniscule just as much as CI. There are far more gays in the UK because many of them don’t feel comfortable enough completing a survey, in spite of the progress we’ve made in the UK. CI’s poll should be ignored.

    2. GingerlyColors 30 Sep 2012, 5:08pm

      The majority of the world’s Jews live either in Israel (7,000,000) or the United States (5,000,000). French Jews make up 1% of that countrie’s population while as Robert says, some 250,000 (<0.5% of the UK Population) identify themselves as Jewish with many of them living either in London or north Manchester. Argentina has a similar proportion of Jews in it's population to ours. As for Jews living in Muslim countries there are very few, with one, quite ironic exception, Iran which has a population of some 30,000 Jews who are allowed to practice their faith as they, along with Christians and Zorastrians (who together make up the <2% of Iran's population who are non-Muslim) are 'People Of The Book'. Sadly Iran does not extend any courtesy to it's gay population, prefering to hang them from the jibs of cranes instead.

  94. Ninth Sphere 30 Sep 2012, 4:25pm

    Hey, nice I kind of thought this would happen…:-) I did ask the question…is Pink news Transphobic? you answered the question by not posting my response to some of these statements, and the article itself. This is great..;. I can put this in my Blog! :-)

    1. Pink News sometimes does that – certain threads won’t let people post. It did it to me last week (can’t remember which thread). Or sometimes it *does* post it but you can’t see it unless you reload the page. It’s not personal just technological mess-up.

      1. Glad to know it’s not just me then! :)

  95. GingerlyColors 30 Sep 2012, 4:57pm

    The Christian Institute have really shot themselves in the foot here. In most Arab and other Muslim countries such as Syria, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan there usually is a Christian minority, often <1% or 2% of the population. By the CI's own argument why should Christians have rights in such countries?

    1. Specially Egypt with the Copt Christians. The fundamentalist Muslims of the country think exactly like the Christian Institute.

  96. Thankfully I live in South Africa. I am not Gay in the traditional sence but am opposed to homosexual marriage since by definition Marriage is between a man and a woman although I do believe in Civil Unions between Gay people, and I do believe in Equal rights for all, especially minority groups. Our constitution, in South Africa allows for both, gay Civil Unions and equal rights protection especially for minority groups.

    1. You don’t even know the laws of your own country!

      South Africa a FULL legal MARRIAGE equality for gay couples, YOUR opposition notwithstanding. People in YOUR country don’t even care about your opinion so why should anyone in the UK?

    2. Paul in Brighton 30 Sep 2012, 9:23pm

      Sean, I’m thankful also that you live in South Africa.

    3. That There Other David 30 Sep 2012, 10:34pm

      What exactly does “not gay in the traditional sense” mean? Do you have sex with people of the same sex as you or not? That’s as “traditional” as being gay gets Sean.

  97. And this is why we have an elected government as apposed to simply mob rule.

    … sadly that distinction is often very blurred.

  98. Jonathan Derby 30 Sep 2012, 9:34pm

    Does anyone else think that the statistics in this article don’t add up? In the first chapter: “Office of National Statistics survey were that 1.5 per cent of men say they are gay, 0.7 per cent of women say they are lesbian, and 0.4 per cent of people say they are bisexual”. Sure 1.5 + 0.7 + 0.4 = 2.6 however men and women account for 50% of the population each, therefore the correct calculation would be: (1.5*0.5) + (0.7*0.5) + 0.4 = 1.5. This would insinuate that only 1.5% of the population is gay not the 2.6% which is stated by the title, slightly worrying. If I am right and you would like to hire a statistician in the future you could email me on: Death-of-an-interior-decorator@live.co.uk.

    1. I would say the 1.5% of the population who are out or forthcoming about being gay/bi is in fact a very respectable figure.

      If we reasonably estimate that to be a quarter of all people who actually are gay/bi but are still in the closet, in denial or simply lied to the stats collectors, then the figure is most likely around 6 per cent.

  99. i thought love was the highest Christian values​​. but it functions as a weapon of hatred ,unkindness and exclusion.
    in my opinion, religion is a crime against humanity. “hypocrisy “

    1. Oh dear, here we go again.

      What about the all the religions that want marriage equality (Unitarians, Quakers, Pagans, Liberal Jews, Reform Jews, Metropolitan Community Church, and now United Reformed Church) and have been campaigning for LGBT rights for decades (Quakers, Unitarians, Pagans, Liberal Jews)? Are they a “crime against humanity”? Why don’t you educate yourself.

      1. hola thats the problem, people get lost in the jungle with its hundreds of religious denominations, sects and divisions in Christianity,
        but its not my intention to hurt you, but i take the liberty to give my opinion;) and yes religions evolve ~

  100. I think most men are bisexual at the very least. They’re just not going to admit it to a survey. They won’t even admit it to their wives so why should they admit it to a survey?

  101. Peter Greensmith 1 Oct 2012, 1:15am

    I know I might get neg ‘reps’ for this. But seriously, I’ve been reading this website for months and often read the comments pages but refrain from commenting. I don’t enjoy arguing with my fellow humans but….

    I’m a Christian who also happens to be attracted to other guys. The arrogance I see on this website and sometimes blatant dishonesty about Christians really disheartens me. For a start,this article even says ‘the CI believe that God doesn’t love homosexuals’. That is not only innaccurate, it is blatantly untrue.

    I see comments from the most militant of homosexual atheists on here saying that if someone is a Christian they can’t think from themselves, they are stupid and unintelligent. This is arrogance and bigotry as much as the Christians you accuse of bigotry.

    Seriously, if the comments I read on here have any bearing on what the gay community has to offer.. I’m glad that I’ve stayed away from it since my teenage years.

    *Waits for usual predictable cliched responses*

    1. Christopher, te one who carried Christ across the river 1 Oct 2012, 3:38am

      Please continue to stay away from the Community. Your kind is of no help whatsoever. Let others march the marches and fight the fights, so you can benefit. If you were American, you’d be a Log Cabin Republican.

    2. Don’t you think that there is quite a difference between the CI and Christians? If I was deeply religious to call myself a Christian I don’t think I would want to be lumped in with the CI.

      Re the intensity of comments on this site. I think it has a lot to do with just how horrible anti-gay comments are. It really isn’t easy to keep your cool and respond in a level-headed let alone dispassionate way. Commenting on the Internet does feel quite anonymous so I don’t think it’s to be wondered at that passions often ride quite high. But I wouldn’t take this intensity as a gauge of an entire community. Which in itself is very diverse and would not speak in one voice.
      I know I’m only a straight ally and not gay myself but I find that I’m often driven to react strongly and quite a bit over the top because it is just so horrible when anti-gay voices who call themselves Christian stigmatise and demonise my friends, the people I love. I do forget that there are a lot more actual Christians…

    3. …who are wonderful, lovely people and some of my wonderful friends are also Christians. That going over-the-top is easily done, particularly on the Internet.

      The true gauge of the gay community is the people themselves, and that has got to be about contact with real people in real life.

      Give it a chance, get to know people. It is really rewarding to speak with people from many different backgrounds, who all contribute to the diversity of human mankind in some way or other. Don’t stay away from life.

      All the best.

    4. “*Waits for usual predictable cliched responses*”

      If you’re going to pre-judge every member of this diverse community, then that’s just as bad as people assuming all religious people are stupid.

      Most of the comments on here are about the CI who are fundamentalist, extremist Christians, and any anger is mostly directed at their silly idea that equality depends on numbers. Most people, in discussions about Christianity, are careful to put “some Christians” or indeed ‘christians’ to show that they understand that not all Christians are as hateful as the extremists and that many of the values such extremists espouse are far from most people’s idea of Christianity.

      You’re not the only LGBT Christian – some post here and make good points. You won’t get on with everyone on PN but most people are perfectly friendly and welcoming and keen to take part in courteous discussions. You assume too much about ‘the gay community’ – yet criticise others for making wrong assumptions…

    5. …… Polite posts are usually met with politeness, and, although there are diverse opinions on here regarding everything from religion to politics, that’s no different than you’ll find amongst straight people. So – with respect – I really don’t get your point. If a particular comment seems unfair or incorrect to you, then debate it. But to judge all LGBT people in such a sweeping way is absolutely wrong.

      P.S – You don’t have to argue if you disagree. I’m not fond of arguing either. There are plenty of people here that’ll discuss and debate with you without arguing.

  102. radical53 1 Oct 2012, 2:46am

    What about all the hidden queers who still have not come out yet.

    Then the total will rise dramatically

  103. The right-wing fundamentalist Christians are getting really desperate to deny us equality now… that must mean we’re winning. Keep up the good work, Out for Marriage, Campaign for Equal Marriage, etc.

    1. The more desperate and meaningless their argument the more it means we are winning.

  104. GulliverUK 1 Oct 2012, 9:13am

    Don’t they mean there aren’t enough bigoted homophobic anti-equality f-wits who pretend to be Christian to justify the anti-gay hate group, The Christian Institute?

    Most of the public support equality, quite naturally, and that includes the majority of Christians in separate polls, most of whom lean towards a liberal viewpoint. The Christian Institute has always been against any gay rights whatever they were, equal age of consent, protection in employment, against repeal of Section 28, against any funding for support groups, against Gay Pride, against Civil Partnerships, against equal adoption, etc. There is not one group here in the UK which gets anywhere near to their level of bigotry.

  105. GulliverUK 1 Oct 2012, 9:26am

    6% of the UK population identified as LGB and a further 8% said they had some same-sex attraction or were engaged in same-sex sexual activity, but who still self-identified as heterosexual. This is from the 2009 Equality and Human Rights Commission study. A not insignificant number, as Catechism 2358 also attests to.

    The EHRC report is here;
    http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/research35_so_explored.pdf
    (1.4mb)

    The 1.5% reported didn’t take in to account many things, and given only 94.8% said they were straight you have to ask what were the others ?!

    0.5% didn’t answer, and 2.8% didn’t know or refused to answer.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdFVoZVV1NXZJanYzMjRuUlhmdktQMlE&hl=en#gid=0

    The ONS report was also the a) first of its kind, b) “experimental” as described by the ONS themselves, and c) mis-reported by certain newspapers, not noting the numbers who alleged didn’t know, or refused to answer.

  106. Dear Writer of this article, James Park.

    You quote government statistics and appear to affirm that they are true. However, I recall that prior to the granting of Civil Partnerships the government conducted research that caused it to announce that the proportion of lesbians and gays in the British Isles was far higher than the figure you have quoted. I seem to remember 6% was the figure the arrived at. But check.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 1 Oct 2012, 11:48am

      6% is probably under-rated. It could well be as much as 10%.

  107. Spiritbody 1 Oct 2012, 12:18pm

    I am not a number!! I am a man!! You cant withhold anyones rights simply because they belong to a minority. On the contrary, they need more attention (not more rights obviously) but more attention needs to be paid to minority issues to ensure that they are not getting overlooked. I wouldnt care if there were only a few gay people in the entire world!- the percentage figures are of no relevance to how they should be treated.

  108. Putting the accuracy of the ONS study aside, who did these maths? If 1.5 out of 100 men said they are gay and 0.4 out of 100 women say they are lesbian and assuming the 0.7% who say they are bi came out of that same 200 people, that’s 2.6 people out of 200 or 1.3% saying they are GLB, NOT 2.6%.

  109. Enough already – We have struggled enough to really be intimidated by these bigots who persist in using a book and deity of pure fiction to brandish their hatred –

    We pay taxes into this society so we are entitled to the same rights as our hetro counter parts – that is democracy and we live in what is taken to be such a state – We do not live in a society dictating superstition as devine rule -

  110. I think the members of the Christian Institute would be well advised to look at what St Paul told the Romans about their duty to the state:
    Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
    13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

  111. Crossowluk 1 Oct 2012, 5:00pm

    one thing I can say..there are more gays/bi’s in my home town of Stourbridge, than the number that attend all the churches here!!!
    When they get to this level..it just proves how desperate they are getting

  112. Tom Cotner 1 Oct 2012, 7:10pm

    Even their own God, whom they supposedly follow, said that the city would be saved if only 10 righteous men could be found.
    I wonder why they don’t practise what they preach! (no, I really don’t wonder — they simply want to be bigots).

  113. Attanasio66 1 Oct 2012, 8:25pm

    The Christian Institute should do their research before making such stupid statements. What about other communities in UK: Black (2%) Indian (1.8%), Pakistani (1.4%), Irish (1.2%), Bangladeshi (0.5%) or Chinese (0.4%) – should they not be allowed to marry???
    Repeat after me: this is not a religious matter, but simply a civil one. Do not interfere with politics!

  114. a country is judged by how it treats its minorities.

  115. little Deb 67 2 Oct 2012, 11:24am

    What a load of rubbish! We are all humans so by this mere fact we are all born with equal rights……minority group or not.

  116. Something tells me that 2.6% is more than a bit off. But even so with about 62,262,000 people currently living in Britain, that’s still about 1,618,812 without the right to marry. But even with that it wouldn’t effect the majority of the population. But by this logic then the only people that should be able to marry are Christians and Atheists as they are the only people with a statistic over 10% of the population. Some how I just don’t think that’s right…

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