Reader comments · Comment: The equal marriage bill is not really about equality at all · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Comment: The equal marriage bill is not really about equality at all

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Robert in S. Kensington 27 May 2013, 6:03pm

    What a blithering idiot this man is. Gays are a smaller population than muslims. How does he know? Facts please? Even if we were, what has that to do with the marriage bill?

    In a government survey in 2005, there were estimated to be roughly 3 million gay people in the UK compared to 2.7 million muslims in 2011.

    If muslims are demanding polygamous marriages, then why aren’t the others in opposition supporting him? Loughton, Burrowes anyone? What an embarrassment he is. The extreme to which the delusional religious loons will go to is mind-boggling.

    1. …and not one of my Muslim friends opposes equal marriage. He’s just making an assumption based on one of his (many) prejudices about folks!

      Even if every Muslim, Christian and Friend of Zeus thought equal marriage was offensive, so frigging what? This is not a theocracy, so stuff them!

      Mercifully, this oaf has no standing, no influence, no point.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 28 May 2013, 11:54am

        Thankfully, Sasha, he has no influence except on the miniscule group of people comprising the Christian People’s Alliance. These loons I’m convinced are only helping support for equal marriage.

  2. If muslims want to lobby the government for Sharia compliant then that is up to them to do so, not for the LGBT to fight on their behalf, they can do that themselves.

    Seeing as the UK is not a Islamic country then I really could not see it passing anyway.

    1. Seeing as the UK is not a gay country, I can’t see gay marriage passing either!

      1. androphiles 27 May 2013, 7:03pm

        The United Kingdom is not a straight country either, and yet has never been without straight marriage. Your move.

        1. You will find that the vast majority of citizens are straight in the UK and globally, Checkmate!
          There is no such thing as straight marriage. yet again I am explaining that marriage law does not differentiate on sexuality. Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, regardless of their sexual preferences or perversions. Two gay people can marry each other as long as they are a man and a woman and vica versa. It is irrelevant that they would not wish to. The law does not forbid it and therefore does not discriminate.
          Tatchell doesn’t understand that this is equality under law, so I doubt you will.

          1. Skip rat find the nearest sewer and slither back in. Nobody is interested in your mental ravings.

          2. Robert in S. Kensington 27 May 2013, 10:08pm

            Keith, Adrian Hilton, whoever you are, you’ve actually debunked the myth that the purpose of marriage isn’t about procreation at all. Well done! The likelihood of a gay man and woman procreating are rather slim. What a dumb arse you are!

          3. Christopher in Canada 27 May 2013, 10:20pm

            In a society based on the concept of equality, a majority one way or another is moot.

          4. Troll, I think that your little home under the bridge is being ransacked, you best get back there quick!

    2. Jock S. Trap 2 Jun 2013, 11:34am

      I actually support for once, Julia Gillards stance on the subject.

      Those that want Sharia law can make an exit as it doesn’t contribute to British society. In fact it goes against it.

      They are free to leave our country to whatever oppressive society they wish.

  3. Bionictadpole 27 May 2013, 6:09pm

    “And if now marriage is to be primarily about adults (gay and straight) just loving and choosing each other as they wish, the state logically and inevitably must back off and allow any consenting adults of any gender and any number the right to marry for as long or short as they choose.”

    My last significant relationship was 17 years. 3 of those in civil partnership.

    I did not choose, as I am sure many heterosexuals don’t, for that relationship to end and to say we are choosing the length of a relationship before it ends is ridiculous.

    But even if we were, we would be in good company with the reports of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes union also having a time limit.

    This dinosaur needs to catch up with the rest of the world, ignore the church as we are not a religious country anymore, and let people – regardless of sexuality – marry for love.

    1. I agree with everything you stated except the part of allowing “any number” of people to marry. Multiple individuals in a relationship is fine but the legal definition is too difficult to establish as well as the fact that it would be abused by multiple wives to one man that society would end up having to support because very few could afford to sustain that number of people. Take the religion out of the legal marriage contract and limit it to just two people with a gender blindness.

  4. bobbleobble 27 May 2013, 6:10pm

    Another loon who fails to notice two things first gay couples can and do rear children. If marriage is the ideal place to do that hen shouldn’t gay couples have access to it as well?

    Secondly not one heterosexual couple who cannot or will not have children is denied marriage. If marriage is all about procreation and child rearing then why aren’t they denied marriage too?

    You keep building that house of cards and we’ll continue knocking it over.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 27 May 2013, 8:08pm

      I’ve been banging on about that for years. What it comes down to for them is the sex part, having the right ‘plumbing’, complementary sexual organs, the obsession with sex even if procreation isn’t in the picture. They’ve now got around to that one already, one man, one woman, one penis, one vagina, with or without procreation to counter the argument. It’s all they think about. Procreation has actually nothing to do with a reason to marry. From the 19th century on when civil marriage was first introduced in the UK, it’s the exchanging of vows that actually is the binding part of a marriagewhich makes it so. Procreation is secondary and not binding and isn’t a prerequisite of the marriage law, The celebrant, a registrar or cleric is merely there to witness the exchange of vows on behalf of the state in compliance with the marriage law. The law itself doesn’t mandate procreation either. It’s an artificial construct by the mainstream religious cults.

  5. If he wants to try and bring in marriages for muslims, then let him. But what has that got to do with same sex marriage equality?

    1. He thinks that religion should define the legal marriage and muslim law allows for men to marry multiple women and father unimaginable numbers of children that they could not support without public funds.
      Legal marriage should be a civil contract between two people that is blind to gender.
      That guy is just another voice trying to maintain the hateful discrimination that run its course and on its deathbed.

  6. Midnighter 27 May 2013, 6:18pm

    Ok, short simple sentences as this is clearly way too complicated for some.

    The bill is not about making new laws for new sets of people.

    There is a big difference between choosing a belief system, and being born with a different sexuality.

    There is a difference between demanding something new that doesn’t exist in society already, and demanding that which has been denied to one specific group that everyone else has.

    Gays are being denied something Muslims already have, and are asking for Equality to the rest of society.

    This is a fallacious argument Alan, you are conflating several different concepts.

  7. He claims that Muslims are a substantially larger minority than gays. The 2011 census had the Muslim population at 4.8%. That’s remarkably similar to most estimates of the percentage of gays. So when you take into account that some Muslim countries and cultures do not permit polygamy, that leaves gays as the larger minority. So yet another untruth in the stream of ignorance that comes from from the antigay lobby.

  8. Alice Bondi 27 May 2013, 6:40pm

    It always amuses me people cite ‘conventional marriage’ as having been “the cornerstone of society since time immemorial” and often (though not in this instance) claim the bible says so. People, have you read the bible? Do you realise that ‘traditional’ marriage, the one in time immemorial, is in fact polygamous? this man is a buffoon, who apparently thinks that heterosexual couples who choose not to have, or are unable to have, children should not be allowed to marry. Nor should those over child-bearing age. He yacks on about an “adult-centred, child-unfriendly” alternative society (blaming it on Tatchell – please!) without apparently noticing that many gay men and lesbians already have children when they come out or choose to have children later on. Oh, it’s hopeless trying to argue with such fixed views.

    1. I love it when they trot out the old “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” trope against gay marriage.
      Basically the argument runs that a bloke who mated with a clone of his own rib and produced two sons, one of which would have had to mate with his own mother to produce the grandkids is the traditional biblical template we should aspire to.
      If you cite the bible as a template for matrimony you might as well admit “anything goes”. There’s stuff in the OT which would make Caligula blush.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 27 May 2013, 10:12pm

        Yes, it would seem that the notion of incestuous marriage is uniquely hetero-normative. There is absolutely no doubt that the Adam and Eve if they ever existed which I doubt must have indulged in incest many times over. Perhaps that explains why there is so much retardation among the god botherers today, all that inbreeding stuff.

  9. Rob in Vancouver 27 May 2013, 6:41pm

    I don’t think Alan Craig thought his point through. Islamic polygamous marriage is not equal, it is often one man taking multiple wives, never one woman taking multiple husbands. This makes Islamic polygamous marriages the epitome of inequality.

    1. Sam Maloney 27 May 2013, 6:57pm

      Yes indeed– and the truth is, in both Muslim and Mormon polygamy, the junior wives are often below the legal age of consent and are ‘married’ off without any right to make their own choices.

      Since the government grants certain rights and benefits to spouses, I don’t see how we can work around poly marriages. ONE person has to make end of life decisions, receive pension and other benefits and the like. For instance: what a should a hospital do if a woman with two husbands disagree about her medical care?

      Frankly, if we could be sure that polygamy would take place with no coercion and basic legal issues like my example above could be resolved, I see no problem with allowing people to take as many spouses of various genders as they please…

  10. My gods, Pink News is giving space to former leaders of anti-gay hate groups now? Pink news, you want to put a warning somewhere at the top of pieces written by hate group members? It may be naive of me, after all you’ve done it before, but I thought this would be ONE news source I could go to where homophobic bigots wouldn’t be considered an authority

    Does Pink News have any standards? This man adds Islamaphobia, assuming all Muslims are polygamists, to his already clear homophobic bigotry

    Of course, us being treated like full citizens is considered “social engineering”. And never mind the children raised by gay couples

    Not only did you post this bigoted screed, you did it without any counter measure at all

    1. I expect PN published this article so we could all point, laugh and rip apart this christian loons straw man.

  11. Sam Maloney 27 May 2013, 6:50pm

    It is impossible to reason with such willful ignorance.

    I will believe the ‘traditional’ marriage crowd is actually motivated by concerns for procreation when they demand a fertility test for hetero marriage. Until then, it’s an increasingly tiny fig leaf, since we all know of both gay couples and single people raising kids.

  12. Only straight marriage produces children?! Tell that to my 2 year old whose sitting between his 2 Mum’s right now!

    1. keith.,;,' 27 May 2013, 7:50pm

      I think the poster meant biologically/genetically yours. In a perfect world there would be no need for adoption. Nature has decided that homosexual coupling humans shall not produce children. Children are best served by two loving biological parents. In particular, a natural mother bonds with her natural child. Anything else is inferior. The State recognizes this.

      1. Skip rat, off you pop back to the sewer now.

      2. Midnighter 27 May 2013, 9:25pm

        No Keith, nature has decided that homosexuals serve an important function in nature to help nurture and raise the young.

        You really are terribly short on facts and logic, I’m rather embarrassed for you.

        1. You mean someone elses young? Nature says homosexuals cannot produce offspring or are you claiming that a child will do better if it is taken from it’s parents (if those parents are loving and caring) and adopted out to a homosexual couple?
          How shocking the deviant ideas are!

          1. I’m not claiming anything Keith. Didn’t you read the article? It appears not.

            Easy to be shocked if you manufacture your own fantasies and ignore the facts.

            Suggest you go have a read and then try to tell me why its wrong, it will be more fun that way.

      3. Robert in S. Kensington 27 May 2013, 10:03pm

        In a perfect world, all of those religious bigots and other delusional loons of a similar ilk who are feign concern about children and their welfare would put their money where their mouths are by adopting every child in foster care and those who are put up for adoption eliminating the need for any more adoptions. Why don’t you adopt a few if you’re so concerned, bloody fool?

        1. So are you saying that adoptive homosexual parents are better for a child than 2 loving biological parents?

          1. Why do you want you take this hypothetical child away from suitable loving biological parents? Seems a bit cruel, if I may say so. Perverse, even.

          2. Jock S. Trap 2 Jun 2013, 11:45am

            Even adopted children deserve happiness.

            Let’s not forget that the children up for adoption are from heterosexuals who don’t want those particular children.

            That would make your arguments not only shameful but completely hypocritical too.

            Also are you suggesting gay people cannot be loving parents because I have my son (biologically) who disagrees with you since his own mother had little interest in him.

            You’re just nasty. Seriously, Why pick on children?
            And you speak about morals yet you clearly promote the discrimination of children.

      4. Showing your ignorance again. He IS biologically mine!

      5. Jock S. Trap 2 Jun 2013, 11:39am

        Tell that to My son… my “biologically/genetically” son. He profoundly disagrees with you. And no I have never had sex with a women. There are other ways you know. His mother had no interest so I and my partner of 20 raised him.

        He has turned out no different apart from being a lot more open minded and well developed mentally.

  13. If Alan Craig believes that the definition or meaning of marriage means a man and woman coming together for the procreation of children then fair enough.

    But there are very, very many others reason why people get married. The nature of marriage is not defined anywhere in civil law. You don’t have to get married to have children, you don’t have to be faithful, you don’t have to consumate your marriage. None of these things define marriage in civil law at the moment. In fact the lSSM bill isn’t redefining marriage since the meaning of marriage hasn’t been defined in the first place!

    The only thing the law is changing is that 2 people of the same sex are able to get married. They, like straight people ,can define their marriage as they want to.

  14. Because the Islamic community has be so active in support of gay couples?
    Campaigning for marriage isn’t a hobby we do because we’re bored. We do it because we are currently denied rights in this country, and are trying to make things right
    Also, the UK currently does recognize certain cases of polygamous marriages from other countries, such as for foreign diplomatic staff and visiting politicians

    “…Which of course is exactly what Peter Tatchell and others want for their brave new child-free society of the future”
    Can anybody say -Supposition-?

    And most worrying of all, the author goes on to blur the lines between child making, and child raising. Probably a deliberate attempt to suggest that gay couples, by themselves being unable to produce children (a fact not in doubt), are by extension, unable to raise children either (a claim with no real world substance)
    As if the same ‘tools’ are required in both functions. Odd, really, how using a penis and/or vagina on a child is ILLEGAL

  15. Mr. Craig, as you are not, presumably, a member of the homosexual minority it is not up to you to declare that “the Bill is not about equality”. We say it is.

    We say that we wish to share in the institution of civil marriage between two people. Heterosexuals and homosexuals do not wish for civil marriage to be opened to polygamous marriages here in the UK.

    1. Most heterosexuals and homosexuals do not wish to own an elephant either. However, it is legal to do so. Therefore, for the minority of homosexuals and heterosexuals that DO wish to enter consensual polygamous marriage, do you think they should be allowed or do you think that marriage law is right to restrict certain unions?

      1. Jock S. Trap 2 Jun 2013, 11:47am

        Well since being Gay isn’t illegal and polygamy is I guess your argument, as poor as it is, completely baseless.

  16. Boy is he desperate.

  17. Am I being thick??? I don’t understand the connection between providing marriage regardless of sexual orientation to a debate about polygamous relationships under Sharia law. It’s a bit of a diversionary side-step/leap isn’t it?

  18. I wondered what ‘Keith’ looked like, and now I know. Interesting that his real name is ‘Alan’

  19. GingerlyColors 27 May 2013, 9:22pm

    The Equal Marriage Bill is about fairness for everybody.

  20. There’s such an obvious category error here.

    The bill is about treating people equally, not discriminating on the basis of SEXUALITY and GENDER. These are biological, unchosen traits.

    Religious beliefs are chosen and mutable.

    Why did Pink News publish this crap without an immediate rebuttal?

  21. Does Mr Craig not realise that the United Kingdom would probably be bound by Commonwealth case law in this context, and that British Columbia’s Supreme Court ruled against a schismatic fundamentalist Mormon group trying to erode Canada’s anti-polygamy Section 293 in November 2011 (the “Bountiful” case)? It is highly unlikely that the United Kingdom, New Zealand or any other Commonwealth nation that has recognised marriage equality will legislate for polygamy soon

  22. This a specious piece of reasoning. The issue is about equality for individuals not groups. Allowing polygamous marriage does not enhance the dignity and equality of women.

  23. Polygamous marriages come from religions which denigrate women. They harm and subjugate those women. As a society we need to protect the vulnerable.

    1. So you would deny consenting adults polygamous marriage on the basis of your prejudices? Don’t your brigade always state that whatever consenting adults get up to in the bedroom is their own business? So why should their multiple consensual unions concern you?
      You say we need to protect the vulnerable. How about the vulnerable children that have a human right to a mother and a father, you know, the natural way of things?

      1. I agree with your general sentiment in your first point Keith, but Mike did specifically talk about the instance where or those arrangements are harmful to the women concerned. If there was true consent and no infraction on the individuals human rights, it shouldn’t be a problem.

        I will remind you that I’ve already pointed you to evidence that your depiction of ‘the natural way of things’ is actually a fantasy of your own devising; in nature and human society there is abundant evidence of the contribution of homosexuals to child rearing in cases where biological parents are present as well as where they are not.

        1. Your concession that there is a case for polygamy should gay marriage shows in part the can of worms that opens up when you repeal laws that are there to protect the moral fabric of society. Regardless of consent, polygamy is bad for society and especially the children of such families.
          As for the natural way of things, my assertion is that the best way for children to be bought up is with two loving responsible biological parents. Are you saying that it is better to have two homosexuals than the aforementioned?

          1. Midnighter 28 May 2013, 1:33pm

            “should gay marriage [pass?]” – please explain how the equal marriage bill permits polygamy. How is polygamy bad for society? If there are factual reasons that show it is of more harm than good, then we shouldn’t have it, clearly.

            Two responsible and loving biological parents sounds like an excellent foundation to rear a child, why shouldn’t it be? I am certainly not advocating taking a child away from suitable biological parents and offering it up for adoption as you appear to be suggesting elsewhere.

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 28 May 2013, 12:02pm

        Yes, the natural way of things, single women having children out of wedlock long before equal marriage came along. Some of them are discarded them like rubbish, some of them abandoned, some of them given to adoption services, some of them passed from one foster home to the next, some of them abused in the process, some never adopted because of physical and mental disabilities. Why don’t you and your rabid lot adopt all of them then we won’t have any need for adoption, delusional loon.

      3. Jock S. Trap 2 Jun 2013, 11:49am

        Why do you only think about sex?

        Are you so stupid a person you cannot think about anything else?

  24. Andrew Hawkins-kennedy 28 May 2013, 11:17am

    What an idiot! He gives Christians a bad name. Bigots will stoop to any low depth to justify their hateful intolerance.

  25. David Skinner 28 May 2013, 11:54am

    In a multi- cultural, tolerant, inclusive and democratic society gays should not object to the equal right of Muslim parents making arranged marriages for their 4 or 5 year old gay Mohammed with the 6 or 7 year old gay Mustafa of another Muslim family.

    1. There is an age of consent in this country you know.

    2. Midnighter 28 May 2013, 2:11pm

      That is an incomplete premise for your conclusion. Society would need to additionally ignore the rights of individuals and condone the abuse of children, and clearly democratic societies tend to feel that is not a good thing.

      An Inclusive society is not defined as one that allows unlimited freedoms to one faction, especially not when it comes at the expense of others freedoms.; society should determine what is fair, based on the interests of society as a whole. To make it more ‘inclusive’ to your proposal it would necessitate making it more ‘exclusive’ to others..

    3. Your gay ex-boss still niggling at you, David? You need to get over him – you’d be a lot happier.

  26. Midnighter said…
    ““should gay marriage [pass?]” – please explain how the equal marriage bill permits polygamy. How is polygamy bad for society? If there are factual reasons that show it is of more harm than good, then we shouldn’t have it, clearly.

    Two responsible and loving biological parents sounds like an excellent foundation to rear a child, why shouldn’t it be? I am certainly not advocating taking a child away from suitable biological parents and offering it up for adoption as you appear to be suggesting elsewhere.

    My reply.
    I am not inclined to explain why polygamy is bad for society any more than why consensual father and son sex is bad for society. I merely assert that the argument for same sex marriage also works for polygamy and father and son marriage.
    Re adoption, I am say it is better for a child to be brought up by 2 biological responsible loving parents than by 2 homosexuals. The world would be better without orphans but where would that leave gay parenting?

    1. Midnighter 28 May 2013, 2:19pm

      “I am not inclined to” – very well, I’m not inclined to believe that your views are anything other than empty headed baseless nonsense. I am listening if you change your mind.

      You seem to be rather struggling with your second point. No one other than you is asserting that orphaning children has any bearing on gay parenting.

  27. Oh Alan, honestly….!

    I could write an article in reply, but I think the best idea would be to meet up with Alan and have it out, over lunch and Belgian Trappist ale, e.g. at half-way location like the Dove in Broadway Market. Maybe PN could finance this, in return for having publishing rights after? ;-)

    1. Alan Craig 2 Jun 2013, 11:01pm

      Very happy to have lunch Adrian although I’ll give the Trappist ale a miss.


      1. Well, I eat my hat! Good to say hello tonight by the way. I’ll send you an email.

        Bear in mind I work till 5.30 and my commute in 90 minutes, so it would have to be an evening meet-up. I only represent myself – I am not a paid-up member of any LGBT pressure group.

        This will be most interesting. Just one point…. I would urge you to reconsider your position on Westmalle Dubbel at least – honestly, you don’t know what you’re missing!

  28. He’s an idiot. There is no other word for him than that. If his logic were to be followed, infertile straights, post menopausal women and men with little or no sperm count should not be allowed to marry…or their marriages dissolved for being barren! The whole ‘homosexial agenda’ of ‘childless’ marriages is rubbish.

    Even the Head of the Church of England has divorced children.

    Like I said: IDIOT!

  29. David Skinner 28 May 2013, 11:50pm

    Tatchell likes to equate gays with black people and Jews . But if all the world were black or Jewish, the world would still carry on but if all the world were either lesbian or homosexual it would no last one generation. If I go into an electrical shop and ask for a plug and socket and the man behind the counter offers me two plugs or just two sockets and says that these are equal to a plug and socket , I would think that his brains are short circuiting.

    1. Midnighter 29 May 2013, 1:42pm

      ” if all the world were either lesbian or homosexual it would no last one generation”
      False. The ability to procreate is not related to sexuality.

    2. Jock S. Trap 2 Jun 2013, 11:54am

      Yeah I think that argument went out of the window when we had the introduction of test tube babies/IVF etc.

      Also lets not forget Bisexual people David.

      You mind is too limited to see the progression and possibilities.

  30. David Skinner 29 May 2013, 12:04am

    In his article, Beyond Equality, Peter Tatchell says that, “Who we are attracted to largely derives from a combination of social experience and ideology. In other words, everyone is born with the potential to be queer. Exclusive heterosexuality is mainly the result of a socially-encouraged repression of same-sex desire. In a society where there were no pressures or privileges associated with being straight, a lot more people would be queer or bisexual. Lesbian and gay attraction would cease to be a minority sexual orientation and become something that almost everyone would experience.”:
    But when he is talking to the public he says the opposite. He equates being gay with being black.
    So it ought to read: what colour or race we are largely derives from social and experience and ideology. In other words, everyone is born with the potential to be black. Exclusive whiteness is mainly the result of a socially encouraged repression of being black. In a

  31. David Skinner 29 May 2013, 12:07am

    In a society where there were no pressures or privileges associated with being white, a lot more people would be black. Being black , Chinese or Jewish would cease to be a minority and become something that almost everyone would experience.

  32. David Skinner 29 May 2013, 7:38pm

    According to scientists from Montpellier a quarter of Emperor Penguins display homosexual attraction. Which sex they are attracted to largely derives from a combination of social experience and ideology . In other word, every penguin is born with a potential to be queer. Exclusive heterosexuality is mainly the result of a socially – encouraged repression of same sex desire. In a colony where there was no pressure or privileges associated with being straight, a lot more penguins would be queer or bisexual. Lesbian and gay attraction would cease to be minority sexual orientation and become something that almost every penguin would experience. Indeed the whole of the natural order would be gay if it were not for conservative repressive views of the older generation

  33. Jock S. Trap 2 Jun 2013, 11:32am

    All I can say is Some Gay people have children… Get over it.

    Why deny? Why separate and divide just to satisfy your own ego.

    The fact is the majority of the country accept and agree with this bill and in this country it’s the majority we listen to and act upon…(Usually).

    Just because a minority scream louder doesn’t make them right.

    Considering what protests and actions had to be done to get notice for women’s right, for black rights, I do think the LGBT community has shown itself to be more decent, restraint and completely civilised. Certainly a damn site more peaceful.

    And yet you know these idiots want the disruption, any way they can get it.

    It’s almost as if they are disappointed they cannot slate us for the arson, violence etc of past reasons to get rights for all so they, the religious, will do it themselves, you know, kind of in the fashion of throwing the toys out of the pram syndrome.

    It’s pathetic, it’s childish.

  34. David Skinner 2 Jun 2013, 5:15pm

    According the Office of National Statistics there are only 5-6,000 couples in same sex civil partnerships, who also have dependent children, or 1% of the gay population or 0.016% of the entire UK population
    This means that the 16% of the population who are married with dependent children, 10,000,000, are to surrender their unique identities and differences and become instead partners 1, 2 3, 4…and Parents A, B, C, D….. for the sake a sterile 0.016% of the population. This disproportion becomes even greater when we consider that there are in fact 24,000,000 or 40% of a population of over sixty million people who are married and who are all potential fathers and mothers.

  35. David Skinner 2 Jun 2013, 5:16pm

    When we add to this that lesbians in civil unions dissolve their partnerships at a faster rate than straights get divorced, we see that the gays are unequal in both power and influence and ability to ride rough shod over the rights of Children, who according the UN charter on human right have the right to know and be brought up whenever possible by their natural parents.
    To deliberately take away this right is a crime that will be a stench in the nostrils of the One who created marriage.
    Lesbians and homosexuals can only get children either from previous marriages, by adoption or the frankensteinian method of IVF

  36. David Skinner 2 Jun 2013, 5:18pm

    If what I have written is the product of a homophobic imagination then thank God for this imagination and may God make it as genetic -as the gays claim homophilia to be – and send it to everyone who is in sexual bondage, for their slavery, far from being imaginary is a hellish reality.

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.