Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

New ‘Gay Marriage No Thanks’ group launches with ‘ten good reasons’ to oppose equal marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Its clearly homophobic-and The Times should not be publishing this advert.

    This advertisement should be reported to the Advertising Standards Authority.

    1. Brilliant idea – not. Censorship would only lend a spurious credence to their half-baked ideas.

    2. ho/mo=odevi=ance ca/uses mor/al dec/ay 17 Jun 2013, 8:17pm

      They are not bound by the ASA you moron!

      1. Who’s the moron again? A bigot too, sure, but that’s obvious and beside the point.

    3. de Villiers 18 Jun 2013, 8:30am

      It is better to be on the safe side of the freedom of the speech. Otherwise, all sorts of groups would be able to ban things that they did not like and our society would become very law-based and litigious.

      I do not like this advertisement but the public principle of the freedom of the speech should permit the Times to print this, even if it is wrong or insulting.

      1. Sure, though I doubt we’d be having the same discussion if it was equally derogatory towards blacks or Asians. Racism has become unacceptable (and rightly so), but clearly homophobic rhetoric is still okay to be propagated in British tabloids behind the banner of ‘free speech’.

    4. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 9:52am

      Freedom of speech is an issue when the things uttered are lying or abusive, not when they are scientifically accurate, citing research.

  2. These people are desperately clutching at straws. Their list of reasons are desperate at best

    It is shameful that The Times printed this too.

    1. Or. Maybe it is a good thing. If this ad is really the best they can come up with they are showing they don’t have an argument.

      All of their ten good reasons are not reasons for anything. They are either just damned lies or irrelevant to the bill or just statements of fact that have no bearing on the issues.

      1.Intact biological families provide the gold standard for the wellbeing of children.

      Depends which intact biological family you look at surely.

      2.Children have a human right to be nurtured by both their biological parents.

      Statement of fact, but not always possible. Even christians get divorced.

      3.Gay parenting by definition denies the child from having one or both biological parents.

      If a child has a straight parent and a gay one, and they cannot live together then the child can live with either parent. In this case living with the straight parent would also deny the child from having one of it’s biological parents.

      1. 4. Popular support for the bill is based on the unfounded theory that people are ‘born gay’.

        Well I fancied male film stars when I was 6, not female. I had no concept of being gay, just being me.

        5. All school children will be taught that as adults they can have marriage relationships with either men or women.

        In that case they will be taught the truth.

        6.Adolescents commonly experience temporary same-sex attraction: this does not mean they are gay.

        Adults also realise they are gay after not having same sex attraction as adolescents. Your point is?

        7 There is no evidence that SSM (same-sex marriage) strengthens marriage. In Spain marriage rates fell precipitously.

        Just Spain? And what about before gay marriage in Spain? Have rates ever fallen before in Spain. In previous recessions? In other countries?

        1. 8. Behind this bill is a militant move to deny gender difference.

          Just a simple lie.

          9.‘Equal love’ leads to unequal marriage.

          Catchy but what does that actually mean? I suppose we were running thin by now.

          10. Civil partnerships already provide all the legal and financial benefits of marriage for gay people.

          So why did we have to have civil partnerships then? Why couldn’t we have just had marriage in the first place? Unless of course civil partnerships aren’t the same?

          1. Excellent points twitless!

          2. Magnificently stated, twitless. If only we could hit the thumbs up icon repeatedly. Your remarks deserve at least twenty thumbs up.

      2. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 5:03pm

        Christians get divorced, but at a significantly lower level than nonChristians. And it was Christians that opposed no-fault divorce and the 1960s-1970s cusp divorce ‘reform’ – and the secularists that championed it.

        Your answers to 1 and 2 show you have no concept of an average, even where different averages are grossly discrepant. Intact biological families are on average significantly better than their rivals. You are not, surely, the sort of person who thinks that one anecdotal family of their acquaintance is more statistically significant than surveys of many thousands of families. One meets a lot of such people about.

  3. Interesting that every point he made can be effectively refuted. I thought he might at least make a point that was a challenge to defend.
    How many children are raised in single family homes due to the over 50% divorce rate? Is he implying that those children should be removed from those homes because there’s only one parent? That is just so preposterous that it’s hard to even not laugh.

    1. I keep wondering if those people want to run after an absent father and lasso him back to his responsibilities? You know, chuck out any new partner of the mother because the new boyfriend as not the biological parent is very obviously then “not good enough?”. What would they want to do about a parent who is a drug user, mentally incompetent or in long-term prison? All are supposedly the gold standard for kids?

      It’s just all of it really laughable. Those poor “romantics”, they still live in the kinds of 1950s that never were. I’d be embarrassed to be caught with such rose-tinted glasses and blinkers on, they surely must tip over their own feet with those kinds of handicaps?

    2. Dr Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 9:46am

      The high divorce rate is not something that is found wherever marriage is found. It is found only in countries that have liberal divorce laws. These aforesaid liberal divorce laws are something agitated for and supported by secularists and opposed by Christians. The secularists (who caused the whole weakening of marriage in this particular culture) then turn round and blame the Christians who opposed it??
      No-fault divorce is a lie and penalises the faithful while supporting the unfaithful. Makes sense, huh?

  4. That There Other David 17 Jun 2013, 2:05pm

    A bit late to the party aren’t they? What exactly is he hoping to achieve with this?

    1. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 9:53am

      So you think that whatever is fashionable or current is automatically right and/or beneficial? In that case, the story of human history must have been: ‘Every day in every way we have been getting better and better.’.

  5. Ten reasons that are LIES, with no scientific proof, just the beliefs of some ultraconservative people addicted to power.
    Someone should publish an answer to these “reasons” by rationally refuting them one by one, so that the public can see the lies and hate these people are about.

    1. That There Other David 17 Jun 2013, 2:11pm

      The people in the Lords will see this for the ill-informed nonsense it is. No need to formally respond to it.

    2. Frank Boulton 18 Jun 2013, 4:21pm

      I’m sure that there are plenty of people, who are hard at work refuting these ten (and other) false arguments.

  6. Robert in S. Kensington 17 Jun 2013, 2:07pm

    I’m appalled that The Times considered it given the editorship supports the Marriage Bill. I suppose this passes for balanced journalism?

    Now I”m sure we could come up with more than ten good reasons to support disestablishment of the state cult which is the instigator of this uglier side of homophobia.

    Craig needs to explain his views regarding single heterosexuals adopting children or a widow or widower left with children and who never re-marry and what about hetero foster parents?

    Keep ranting Alan Craig, delusional loon. You’re helping the Marriage Bill pass into law.

  7. Poppy Rose 17 Jun 2013, 2:09pm

    I have read the groups list of reasons and its seems to me that any child they seek to protect, a claim that is unfounded and unnecessary could pick their arguments to bits without even breaking into a sweat.
    Why do these people seek to put them selves above us and claim that they know best ,when in this case just reading their list of reasons and Mr Craigs words proves otherwise. As to the Times publishing their advert I think the Times owes their readers an explanation

  8. Most people support marriage equality. Those that don’t are looking more and more like the closed-minded bigots they are. What comes to mind when reading this? Stable door open… horse bolted. Too late.

  9. Cutthrcrap 17 Jun 2013, 2:11pm

    When I was a child, I would’ve traded my intact heterosexual abusive biological family for a homosexual couple any day. Or even one homosexual person if it meant being supported and loved. I have so many problems now because of their abuse: fear of continuous rejection, phobias, paranoia, hate being touched, stress, depressive tendencies, I even tried to kill myself. When my parents came to the hospital they said: “Next time, do it right so we don’t have to keep dealing with you” ….Oh yeah, heterosexual parenting sets the gold standard.

    1. I hear you. Been there, done that…

      Rape, abuse, physical violence, name calling… Virtually from the day I was born. Kicked out at 13 and the last time I saw them was in court well over a decade ago.
      But, y’know, their straight and my biological parents, so by default better. It’s a miracle I’m alive today. However, I fought like a mad man and worked my way up. Now at 30 I have more than they ever had. Just not yet a family, but I will. And they lost theirs.

      Also, my story is, and continues to be, published. With that I have been able to make some people think twice before kicking their kids out. That’s the good that came out of it. My parents brought little to the world.

      You keep fighting to. Seriously. Please do.

      1. *fighting too

      2. Christopher in Canada 17 Jun 2013, 3:28pm

        They brought you to this world – and by your post, that is a good thing! Keep living your life and be there for others – the family you wish to create awaits in your future! The best to you!

      3. Thanks Enrico,your story inspires me.. to continue..its good to know in this day that there are still strong souls who carry on the fight for human rights… despite the way we learnt to fight.

        1. Cheers guys!

          I recognise my luck in that I’m reasonably intelligent and inventive, as well as that I later in life found some people who could help me push forward. However, it has been extremely tough nevertheless, including murder attempts, homelessness, and extreme suicidal feelings. It’s all good today, though. And I plan to hang around for another 50-60 years or so. I’m gonna be such a fab senior unicorn one day.

          However, I got through this. How many do not? And it’s easy not to, I know. While marriage equality and whatever more is very important, we really need to focus a little more on those in our community, especially youth, who are in similar situations as I have been. They need us, they need us today. And keep in mind we all could have been in that position.

    2. You and every one in your situation deserve so much better. I am so sorry to hear of all the issues you are having to deal with.
      I don’t really have the words but I want to send you my best wishes and whatever support they might be. Be well and take care of yourself – the best revenge is to live your own life as you wish and know that they will never be able get up to that standard.

  10. bobbleobble 17 Jun 2013, 2:15pm

    What a pile of crap. What a genuine load of tosh. These people are ridiculous. My boyfriend’s three year old nephew could rip this list to shreds let alone someone on here. Is this what amounts to debate from their side? Really?

    1. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 9:54am

      Get him on here. One recalls Geoff Boycott’s boast that his old mum could rip the Aussies to shreds.
      I missed your responses, by the way.

  11. It really are 8 reasons, as the first 3 basically are the same… And those attack many more people than just LGBT folk, while being void of scientific evidence (’cause, y’know, that evidence is ALL on our side).

    Can’t PinkNews do a quick fundraiser and by tomorrow or Wednesday we have an ad out which respectfully but very clearly rebutes these ‘reasons’.

    Perhaps also add that religious freedom applies also to people without faith and people whose faith actually support LGBT folk and their marriages/families.

  12. *The first three “reasons” are the same “reason” spelt out slightly differently, research does not support this reason as children do as well with same sex parents as they d with opposite sex parents.
    *The fourth reason is untrue, it is not presently known whether or not people are born gay or born straight and it doesn’t matter.
    * The fifth, If children are straight they will not want to marry a same sex partner when they are of age, what’s your beef?
    *The sixth, adolescents are not of age to marry so it’s not relevant to the topic.
    *the seventh, considering divorce statistics, there is no evidence that opposite sex marriage strengthens marriage either for that matter.
    * The eighth, the bill is a move to acknowledge various sexual orientations as equally valid.
    *The ninth, Equal love leads to equal marriage actually.
    * The tenth, is untrue, Civil partnerships do not provide EQUAL legal and financial benefits of marriage for gay people and civil partnerships don’t travel.

    1. you said it! in fact studies have shown that two dads are equivalent to a mom and a dad, and two moms are even better then a mom and a dad! so suck on that hetero bigots.i don’t know many gay ppl who abandon their kids or throw them out for not being what they want them to be (except for the bigot closet cases).

    2. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 9:56am

      When you speak of ‘equal love’, surely we all know that we love our family members, our friends, our enemies (if we are Christians), our pets…. It doesn’t mean we have to marry each of these with a ceremony. That would be well exhausting.

  13. are they trying to ban adoption? Or unmarried straight parents? No? Or married people without kids? No?

    Then kids have nothing to do with it!

  14. 1) Then where’s the campaign to outlaw divorce and sex out of wedlock?
    2) I’m not aware this bill is trying to demand that they shouldn’t. Is it?
    3) So does adoption, shall we stop this too and just leave children in care until they’re young adults if one/both biological parents are unavailable?
    4) What?
    5) Oh dear heavens no! What a travesty that kids be taught that it’s ok for them to marry the person they love regardless of gender
    6) What?
    7) And what was the trend prior to this one wonders?
    8) Where?
    9) What?
    10) No. No they don’t. And even if they did so what? Why should one couple have to call themselves something different just because one of them is a mixed sex and one a same sex couple?

    1. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 9:48am

      Your responses of ‘what?’ and ‘where?’ are breathtaking in their analytical power.

  15. Same old pathetic arguements. Still hardly anyone is listening anymore.

    1. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 9:59am

      Correct, they are not listening. That is why they fail to respond to the points that are being made.

  16. Michael126 17 Jun 2013, 2:47pm

    Maybe they should also print 10 good reasons to ignore stupid uneducated biggotted idiots beside this then let people decide which they prefer…….

    1. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 10:00am

      Whereas the use of the word ‘bigot’ is not bigoted at all. On the contrary, your use of the word ‘bigot’ is a thoughtful, nuanced and scholarly piece of analysis.

  17. Its quite simple if you say ‘Gay marriage No Thanks’ then don’t get married to another man (or insert other gender here)… its not rocket science…. that way you can keep true to your ‘religious’ beliefs of hatred and other people can be happy. After all isn’t ‘God’ the only one who can judge sin… not hateful misunderstanding Christians (or insert other religion here).

  18. lmfao ” the unfounded THEORY that we are born gay”…. ok to all you dumb ass fanatical christians a theory is something that has been proven, learn some freaking english language you simp heads. i think i have a theory at this point, fanatical christians are bumbling idiots. that is a fact i would say.

    1. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 9:58am

      I note that you do not cite identical twins studies which demonstrate the very opposite. Nor rural/urban studies. Nor college/non-college-educated studies.

  19. How nice that they think they can trash peoples’ rights with a polite “no thanks.”

  20. I’m starting my own pressue group to fight back against these bigoted anti-gay chrisian protestors. We will use Peter Pan as the focus of our belief. We believe Peter will one day return and burn all bigots in hell – that’s if he is triumphant in his fight against ‘the evil one’ (Captain Hook). I think it’s disgraceful that these people are allowed to get away with this sort of ‘incitement to hatred’. Can you imagine the outcry if the National Front were allowed adverts advocating the ceasation of inter-racial marriage? “Ah – but this is RELIGION – and you can’t stop religion saying whatever it wants …..”

  21. Wolverine81 17 Jun 2013, 3:06pm

    Did anyone else start singing Jason Donavon to this headline?

    The list reeks of desperation.

  22. glasgow1975 17 Jun 2013, 3:10pm

    oh the irony of ‘the religiouses’ complaining about an unfounded theory – can we have the proof God exists then please? No? Oh well – eff off!

    1. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 10:23am

      Clearly you must have been to finishing school – your manners are beguiling. Far better to have a proper reverence than not in the light of the fact that somehow a universe exists (and so large a universe that there are as many stars as grains of sand on earth) when it is so strange that it is possible for anything to exist at all.

  23. Jock S. Trap 17 Jun 2013, 3:12pm

    Disgusting and way to offend all gay parent as well as the community.

    I think the clue really is in the name though… I mean “Gay Marriage No Thanks” .. simple… don’t have one but stop denying other because you have a nasty, bigoted mind.

  24. He’s right of course. If two gay people can’t get married then it makes raising children together IMPOSSIBLE. Which means that, at the moment, without equal marriage, no gay couples are raising children.

    Or put simply, Alan Craig is a bloody idiot.

    1. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 9:59am

      Make sure you never allow argument or debate to get in the way of a good piece of abuse.

  25. Sister Mary Clarence 17 Jun 2013, 3:54pm

    If that’s their idea of taking the emotion out of the debate and that’s the best evidence they could find, I don’t think we have a great deal to concern ourselves about frankly

    1. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 10:02am

      Loved you in Sister Act. Mwah!

  26. “Won’t somebody think of the children?” has long been the last refuge of the desperate. Even more desperate in this case since having and/or raising children has got nothing to do with marriage.

    1. gentlemind 17 Jun 2013, 4:22pm

      No, that is not true. Marriage – as a human relationship and as a legal institution – exists solely because of the physical reality that the human body itself is made from two other bodies. I can buy a car and never drive it, but the object itself still exists to be driven. That’s the way the whole world works. I can marry and not have children but – by virtue of it being a permanent sexual union featuring sexual difference – the relationship itself exists to bind children to their parents.

      1. Are you aware that shyte is coming out of your mouth – better get that checked out!

    2. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 10:12am

      Correct. No connection between the two things whatsoever. Either historically, or in the interests of the children’s welfare.

  27. //de'vian'ce. d/etect'or. 17 Jun 2013, 4:40pm

    Will the homo brigade please stop misapplyin g the word/s homophobia/a.
    Homophobia is an irrational fear/hatred of homosexuality or homosexuals?
    Most that are disgusted by homosexuality don’t have a fear of homosexuality and they are not afraid of homosexuals.
    You really must stop confusing disgust with fear. You must also stop confusing hatred of the act with hatred of the person.
    Many people would be disgusted by sc@/t or consensual adult incest which, like homos are victimless. Does this mean they have a phobia just because they are repulsed by what they find disgusting?
    In truth, there is a disproportioante amount of heterophobia on here since as soon as anybody condemns homosexuality, the ‘comments’ are aimed at the commentator and full o0f personal insult, abuse and expletive.
    You can’t accept that people have the right to be disgusted by homosexuality which unlike heterosexuality, is frowned on by many, is illegal in many lands, is counter to natural order, hence dildos etc.

    1. Adam Thomas 17 Jun 2013, 4:48pm

      “hence dildos etc”, thanks for giving me the funniest thing I’ve read all day.

      “You can’t accept that people have the right to be disgusted by homosexuality.” Ok, think that all you like, but you DO NOT have a right to say it out loud and hence cause offense. This is called “hate speach”. Read a book.

      Have you considered that your militant anti-gay agenda might be a result of your own repressed gay feelings?

      1. D/isgusting practices 17 Jun 2013, 5:14pm

        So are you saying it is wrong to be disgusted by sc@=t and consensual adult incest and would be considered hate speech?

        1. Adam Thomas 17 Jun 2013, 6:14pm

          Your confusing sexual orientation with sexual *behavior*. Just because someone is gay, it doesn’t mean they engage in certain sexual practices.

          It is normal to have a distaste for certain things. Each to their own. But by having a distaste for something, simply don’t practice it, end of story!

          The point where you are crossing the line is using your dislike for these practices as a tool to be anti-gay.

          1. poo eating rights 17 Jun 2013, 8:31pm

            I am disgusted by lots of things and my hatred for them is quite lawful, to your chagrin I am sure.
            I also find consensual poo eating disgusting. The difference is that the poo eating community are not trying to socially engineer things and indoctrinate our children to think that poo eating is natural and proper..
            If they ever do, I will be there to voice my dislike and I will be anti poo eating. Would you have a problem with that also?

      2. D/isgu=sting pract=ices 17 Jun 2013, 5:16pm

        So are you saying it is wrong to be disgusted by s-c-@=t and consensual adult in-ce-st and such would be considered hate speech?

        1. Oh cool, a real life bigot! I thought they’d all died out and only existed in literature. Nice to meet one in real life. I got to see a bigot before they became fully extinct. Future generations will be jealous.

      3. D/isgu=sting pract=ices 17 Jun 2013, 5:30pm

        Actually, you both have the right to say it out loud and to publish it (thatr homosexuality is disgusting and harmful),so you are very much mistaken. It is unlawful to incite hatred. Incitement to hatred would usually need to involve a element of provoking violence.
        I

        1. Hey ignorant fool – You seem to be thinking about the same sex acts of others way too much for someone professing to be heterosexual – look up self loather and seek some counselling – or grow a spine and come out of that self imposed closet!

    2. Sister Mary Clarence 18 Jun 2013, 4:23am

      Just wanted to check De’vian’ce – you still on for coming out dogging a bit later?

    3. Jock S. Trap 18 Jun 2013, 8:08am

      Disgust is fear, therefore you are homophobic!

    4. Medication.

  28. //de'vian'ce. d/etect'or. 17 Jun 2013, 4:42pm

    Will the ho/mo brigade please stop misapplying the word homophobia.
    Homophobia is an irrational fear/hatred of homosexuality or homosexuals?
    Most that are disgusted by homosexuality don’t have a fear of homosexuality and they are not afraid of homosexuals?
    You really must stop confusing disgust with fear. You must also stop confusing hatred of the act with hatred of the person.
    Many people would be disgusted by /s/c@/t or consensual adult in/cest which, like ho/mos are victimless. Does this mean they have a phobia just because they are repulsed by what they find disgusting?
    In truth, there is a disproportioante amount of heterophobia on here since as soon as anybody condemns homosexuality, the ‘comments’ are aimed at the commentator and full o0f personal insult, abuse and expletive.
    You can’t accept that people have the right to be disgusted by homosexuality which unlike heterosexuality, is frowned on by many, is illegal in many lands, is counter to natural order, hence dildos etc.

    1. Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.

      1. D/isgu=sting pract=ices 17 Jun 2013, 5:19pm

        I am not saying that homophobia does not exist. I am saying that disgust of a behaviour does not constitute a phobia.
        Do you accept that if a person is disgusted by consensual adult incest, they do not necessarily have a phobia toward it?
        If so, would not the same apply to homosexuality?

        1. Jock S. Trap 18 Jun 2013, 8:11am

          If you are disgusted at behaviour the question has to be why do you think about sex all the time to be disgusted?

          If you can’t see a person beyond sex then you only have yourself to blame for you disgust and fear.

    2. Homophobia => greater likelihood your a closet case queer.

      http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn

      Enjoy the truth.

  29. D/isgusting practices 17 Jun 2013, 4:43pm

    Will the ho/mo brigade please stop misapplying the word homophobia.
    Homophobia is an irrational fear/hatred of homosexuality or homosexuals?
    Most that are disgusted by homosexuality don’t have a fear of homosexuality and they are not afraid of homosexuals?
    You really must stop confusing disgust with fear. You must also stop confusing hatred of the act with hatred of the person.
    Many people would be disgusted by /s/c@/t or consensual adult in/cest which, like ho/mos are victimless. Does this mean they have a phobia just because they are repulsed by what they find disgusting?
    In truth, there is a disproportioante amount of heterophobia on here since as soon as anybody condemns homosexuality, the ‘comments’ are aimed at the commentator and full o0f personal insult, abuse and expletive.
    You can’t accept that people have the right to be disgusted by homosexuality which unlike heterosexuality, is frowned on by many, is illegal in many lands, is counter to natural order, hence dildos etc.

    1. No matter how many times you post it, it doesn’t make it true, you sill douche.
      It does sound like you had some potty training issues as a child – or maybe still do.
      You definitely need some type of therapy, though.
      Best of luck. Hope you get better.

      1. //de'vian'ce. d/etect'or. 17 Jun 2013, 5:07pm

        Are you sc=atophobic?

    2. Hey ignorant fool – You seem to be thinking about the same sex acts of others way too much for someone professing to be heterosexual – look up self loather and seek some counselling – or grow a spine and come out of that self imposed closet!

    3. Homophobia => greater likelihood your a closet case queer.

      http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn

      Enjoy the truth.

  30. diane slater 17 Jun 2013, 4:49pm

    “New Gay Marriage No Thanks” is their name , great don’t bother with getting married to a gay then .

    1. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 10:02am

      But the society we (and our children) have to inhabit will still be affected. We don’t all live alone in little houses unaffected by society at large.

  31. Oh dear, 10 faux reasons and not a single one holds up.

    It must be really dreadful to have to embarrass yourself by spouting this kind of nonsense. How awkward for them.

    Oh dear.

  32. As a mother of three children, one of each as I tell people, that is, one straight (youngest), one bi (oldest) and one gay (middle), I have never heard of such claptrap in all my life.
    If these people were to do their history and not just read from one of the three religions based on the same theory but all taking different routes at different times, they will find that nature has always had at least these three ‘sexes’/’genders’. Reason? Simple, to keep the population within the limits that nature can feed them ( do hope that sounds right!)
    Sorry
    Rant over

  33. Point two – hildren have a human right to be nurtured by both their biological parents.

    So, will we be repealing the divorce laws then?

  34. It is gonna pass! Just watch right wing extremists and homophobe bigots! Marriage equality in UK will happen!!

  35. 1: That primarily relates to adoption.
    2: That primarily relates to adoption.
    3: That primarily relates to adoption.
    4: Assertion relating to where the support comes from.
    5: Or. Children will be taught legal reality. Because deceiving a child about the legal reality of adulthood is so not child abuse.
    6: Assertion again. Also, nothing wrong with homosexual feelings, whether natural or not. So long as it remains safe and consensual.
    7: Confusing cause and effect. Spain’s marriage was falling at the same rate before the law was passed.
    Any reference to marriage is Spain should be treated in the same way as references to Hitler.
    8: Militant implies -No, requires- the use of violence. Therefore the bill is not driven by militancy.
    9: Soundbite. Also, it is an assertion.
    10: Not only is this incorrect, but even if it was, it is a separate legal entity, making it entirely possible for marriage to be granted future rights and privileges that are not granted to “civil partnerships”.

  36. David Shephrd 17 Jun 2013, 7:31pm

    It’s also shameful that an atheist group were allowed to advertise their opposition to theistic faiths by declaring in a bus campaign: ‘God probably does not exist’.

    One might also reflect on the anti-religious purges of atheist political systems in the 20th century.

    Yet, few here would consider a public campaign that holds religion up to rationalist scrutiny as ‘hate speech’.

    Oh, I know: that’s because the religious are never victims of hate and sexual orientation is the only worthy protected characteristic, right?!!!

    1. Oh, sorry David, we forget we ALL have to believe in god like you to make sure your pathetic weak little mind is validated enough so you feel special. Do let us know if you believe in Santa too, we don’t want you to feel stupid,

      1. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 10:24am

        Belief in God is a deduction from the existence of the universe, which ought by rights to be impossible. Last time I checked, Santa didn’t create a universe.

  37. Nothing they witter on about is remotely relevant to marriage as a legitimate civil contract. The true desperation of those who know that they have definitively lost.

    1. “YOU can’t get married because it is against MY religion”… is all these idiotic tyrants are saying

  38. “Individuals.” Is this because their professional associations all support marriage equality?

    This CPA strikes me as a “microparty”- an electorally unviable entity spouting bizarre notions of ideological purity that render it unelectable. New Zealand has our own version, called the “Conservative Party”

  39. Why do I suspect that GMNT’s silly “ten points against marriage equality” are lifted from a US Christian Right group like NOM or the Family Research Council? Possibly because our own “Family First” down used exactly the same parrot tactics?

  40. If he believes in points one, two and three then he should be campaigning to ban divorce, adoption, fostering etc

  41. 1) That’s why rapists and victims make such excellent parents
    2) So what if my mother uses my late father as a hand puppet
    3) Can’t fault that logic
    4) Correct, people have to wean themselves onto same sex relationships. Why bother putting in the effort!?
    5) Imagine how your third period Marriage classes would have been!
    6) I’m not gay! I loved a man at school but that rainbow flag? How gaudy!
    7) Remember that “evidence” on the drop in the number of divorces in Massachusetts after same sex marriage was legalised? Nah, me neither.
    8) Honey, I’ve forgotten…you’re a woman right? God, I can’t even tell our genders apart anymore!
    9) It was all going so well until he told me he loved me…
    10) Property and inheritance tax are just material

  42. Clearly a man who is comfortable only with his personal hatreds, prejudices and bigotries! While scorn is so easy, perhaps profound pity is more appropriate!!!

  43. Deanna Joy Hallmark 18 Jun 2013, 12:42am

    This is not in defense of the content of the advertisement, but as long as the advertiser takes full responsibility for the message, regardless of its accuracy, there is no good reason for the publisher to not print it.
    Furthermore,even though I strongly oppose it’s message, there is no point for me to express any outrage about its publication because there are those who would be equally outraged at those of us who hold that opposing viewpoint and as long as we have the “God-given” human right of free will, that will always be the case.
    As far as I’m concerned, equality for all is a done deal and as we get closer to our goal, the opposition will be “upping the ante” so to speak, of which this advertisement is but one more classic example.

    1. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 10:27am

      Equality for all is not a done deal – it is miles away. Children can’t marry. Relatives can’t marry. Trios and quartets can’t marry. Anti-equality bigots are still opposing all three of these things. It’s shameful, I tell you.

  44. Stupid people. Not even worth refuting or getting angry about.

    1. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 10:29am

      But of course you could refute them if you wanted to, Felipe, couldn’t you? You just can’t be bothered. Just like Nigel Molesworth who answered his exam questions ‘larfably easy’ and expected full marks.

  45. Wow, they couldn’t come up with a single reason that actually makes sense in the framework of the issue at hand. All their points are mostly irrelevant.

  46. de Villiers 18 Jun 2013, 8:21am

    > Intact biological families provide the gold standard for the wellbeing of children / Children have a human right to be nurtured by both their biological parents / Gay parenting by definition denies the child from having one or both biological parents.

    These rights are broken by the biological parents when they behave in such as way as to cause their children to be taken into care

    > Popular support for the bill is based on the unfounded theory that people are ‘born gay’.

    What year is this – 1895? Even the Catholic church accepts homosexuality is intrinsic, albeit disordered.

    > All school children will be taught that as adults they can have marriage relationships with either men or women.

    Popular culture teaches people this, not school children and teachers. The law now merely reflects the popular culture.

    1. de Villiers 18 Jun 2013, 8:24am

      > Adolescents commonly experience temporary same-sex attraction: this does not mean they are gay

      Which adolescents are these? None of my straight friends experienced the same-sex attraction. I did not experience the opposite-sex attraction. But in any case, people are more likely to discover their sexuality without any group forcing it upon them, as in this way this organisation does.

      > There is no evidence that SSM (same-sex marriage) strengthens marriage. In Spain marriage rates fell precipitously.

      Yes – that is probably because of the crash in their economy and inability of couples now to find work, buy a house, settle down and raise a family. The marriage rates will rise with the economy. Marriage has crashed also in Greece.

      > Behind this bill is a militant move to deny gender difference.

      Sexuality is not gender.

      > ‘Equal love’ leads to unequal marriage.

      The logic on this escapes me.

      1. >> ‘Equal love’ leads to unequal marriage.
        > The logic on this escapes me.

        I have engaged some of the more rabid commenters on the Archbishop Cranmer blog (basically muscular Anglican Tories – that sounds a bit sexier than it is…) on this point. I really wanted to know if they had any rational basis other than religiosity or bigotry to oppose SSM. (They don’t).

        They say it’s unequal because SSM cannot be ‘consummated’ – ie penis penetrating vagina plus ‘emission of seed’. For the religious this is apparently a sacred act, although in my view it confuses chrism and jism, and is therefore a good thing, better than anything gay couples can do. As a gay couple cannot ‘consummate’ their marriage according to this definition, non-consummation is therefore not possible as grounds for annulment, nor is adultery (defined in the same way, but not with your spouse).

        (continued…)

    2. de Villiers 18 Jun 2013, 8:26am

      > Civil partnerships already provide all the legal and financial benefits of marriage for gay people.

      In which case, there is no real difference remaining – merely that of the nomenclature. On this basis, one should also open the civil partnerships to both gay and straight people in order that everyone can share the benefits without the historic, religious identity of the marriage.

    3. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 10:26am

      Not instrinsic. Identical twins studies prove that. So do rural/urban studies and college-/non-college-educated studies.

  47. One thing I learned about selling long ago – you dont change peoples minds with lists of good or of bad

    BTW note the biz about spain and marriage rates fell after gays got married there

    yes, because at the same time divorce became much easier.

    that was tossed right in the face of Lord Dear after he spoke to the House of lords

    I saw it online, forget which news service had it – Dears face turned red as a beet.

    the right wingers just recycle things like our bodies recycle food.

    1. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 10:15am

      Exactly! Societies which make divorce easier are precisely the same ones that want homosexual marriage. Why? Because they are enemies of real marriage.

  48. friday jones 19 Jun 2013, 11:10pm

    “Intact biological families” ALSO “provide the gold standard” for the sexual and physical abuse of children. Like Josef Fritzl’s “intact biological family,” it just got extended biologically, again and again. But it stayed intact!

  49. He left out a few more fantasy reasons:

    – Homosexuals cause earthquakes (according to a rabbi recently)
    – Homosexuals also cause floods (Scott Lively)
    -Homos cause hurricanes (John McTernan on hurricane Sandy)
    – Humanity will die out (according to many)
    -Homos cause school massacres (Westboro Baptist Church on Newton)
    – Same sex marriage will make everyone gay (French industralist Serge Dassault)
    – If gays marry they’re more likely to smoke (Australian Christian Lobby)
    – Homos are the biggest threat after euro crisis (German politician Katherina Reich)
    – Homos cause mice infestations (Christian Voice on Tesco’s mice problem)
    – Gay Games will cause the end of the world (Hungary’s Jobbik nationalist party Gabor Vona)
    – America will fall because of gay marriage (Rick Santorum)
    – Women will turn gay if they drive (Saudi cleric)

    ….

  50. 10 reasons. All stupid. Not even one remotely smart one. Talk about advertising your ignorance.

    1. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 9:50am

      Well, if they are stupid, it won’t be difficult for you to explain why. I look forward to your analysis.

    2. Christopher Shell 29 Jun 2013, 10:04am

      How about advertising your learning, Veritas? You haven’t refuted any of the 10 yet.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all