Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

‘Pro-children’ anti-equal marriage billboard travels London ahead of House of Lords vote

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Well there’s a surprise an anti-gay gay group using skewed, biased and contentious research to back up their spurious claims. They did not want to use any of the dozens of properly peer reviewed studies as these show that the opposite is true. Funny that.

    1. Yes, both the methodology and results of this ‘research’ have been discredited.

      1. its not just that study but there are many others that are full of BS.

        Eg the amsterdam study some years ago claimed that gays only live about 42 years – they took the average age of some 39 or so gays who died of age and totally ignored all those who lived a normal life span.

        But it sure appears like these rotten bigots are going to get their cum- uppance today – expect a lopsded vote for equal marriage

        BTW this t raveling billboard kind of crap has been seen in multiple places in the USA . Its worthless

    2. Christopher Shell 15 Jul 2013, 12:47pm

      Can you name these dozens and evidence of Regnerus not being peer-reviewed? Is not Regnerus the largest-scale and most uptodate study?

    3. Christopher Shell 20 Jul 2013, 2:06pm

      Andy and Laurie, if you can’t name them, everyone will have to assume they don’t exist.

      1. Within an ‘amicus brief’ co-authored for the US Supreme Court by the American Psychological Association, the American Academy Of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the California Medical Association, etc., you might read the following remark (note ²⁷ p. 18):

        The research on gay, lesbian, and bisexual parents
        includes dozens of empirical studies.
        Their findings are summarized in reviews of
        empirical literature published in respected,
        peer-reviewed journals and academic books.
        Recent reviews include T.J. Biblarz & J. Stacey,
        “How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?”, 72 J.
        Marriage & Fam. 3 (2010);
        A.E. Goldberg, “Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their
        Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle”
        (2010);
        C.J. Patterson, “Family Lives of Lesbian and Gay
        Adults”, in Handbook of Marriage and the Family
        659, 668-71 (G.W. Peterson & K.R. Bush eds., 3d
        ed. 2013);
        […]

      2. C.J. Patterson, “Children of Lesbian and Gay
        Parents: Psychology, Law, and Policy”, 64 Am.
        Psychologist 727 (2009).
        For earlier reviews, see, e.g., Stacey & Biblarz,
        supra note 26;
        E.C. Perrin & Comm. on Psychosocial Aspects of
        Child & Fam. Health, “Technical Report: Coparent
        or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents”,
        109 Pediatrics 341 (2002);
        C.J. Patterson, “Family Relationships of Lesbians
        and Gay Men”, 62 J. Marriage & Fam. 1052 (2000);
        N. Anderssen et al., “Outcomes for Children with
        Lesbian or Gay Parents: A Review of Studies from
        1978 to 2000”, 43 Scand. J. Psychol. 335 (2002).

        ☞ http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/windsor-us.pdf

  2. bobbleobble 14 Jul 2013, 5:45pm

    Not only has the Regnerus study been widely discredited but even it’s own author said that his study must not be used in the way these goons are trying to stating that being a gay parent does not cause bad outcomes for children. So it’s these clowns who are misleading, not Baroness Stowell.

    Secondly, this is a debate about marriage, not children. Same sex couples have been able to adopt since 2002 and will remain able to whether marriage is extended to us or not. So it’s a pointless exercise and a waste of time and money.

    1. This comment is perfect.

      1. The study has its own massive flaws.
      2. This is a debate about marriage, not children. Gay couples can adopt without marriage and married couples do not have to adopt. The argument is completely and utterly irrelevant.

  3. Besides being outrageous, ignorant and filled with lies this is not part of the debate.

    Same-sex couples have the right to parent in the UK already, regardless if they can get married or not.

    How lovely insulting this to the myriad of parents, mostly straight, who raise their children not within the ‘traditional’ marriage of birth parents too, btw.

    And for us queer folk seeking to or already adopt or foster, I guess we should apologise wanting to provide loving stable homes for children brought into the world virtually exclusively by straight folk who couldn’t properly take care of them theirselves.

    Also: Regnerus study has been debunked to an extreme.

  4. But what about Zach, Dr. May?

  5. I wouldn’t worry too much- it’s just the last desperate gasp. I think the Singers are likely to be more persuasive… ;-)

  6. Why only the one billboard? I thought this was going to be part of a national campaign asking members to contribute to put this posters on billboards up and down the country? One truck not really that impressive is it? Given everyone is so clearly worried about Sophie – you’d have thought given the importance the anti-gay marriage group would have dug deep into their pockets or given a proportion of their salaries to saving her? No? Oh well bigotry on the cheap. Pathetic

  7. The so called study by Regnerus is flawed, and was known to be flawed from the outset. He was biased in his opinions of gay people for a start and set out to prove it. And secondly you can’t equate straight married couples with children, and all the protections that that brings with it, with gay couples who cannot get married, and who also have children, and with all the societal disadvantages that brings with it. If children of gay couples are being harmed in any way, it’s not from the same-sex couple themselves, it’s from evangelical right-wing nut cases being funded from across the Atlantic. What are they trying to prove? That keeping loving couples unwed is a is the best (or the worst) thing for children of gay parents? They can’t have it both ways.

    1. It’s just the last, best excuse they can fall back on. Never mind the hypocrisy. For example, most would readily argue that if Mum and Dad are not getting on then a divorce would be “better for the children” than having to live with them quarreling all the time. Obliging those parents by law to provide “the best possible environment for the children” by legally forbidding them divorce and obliging them to counseling would be seen as a gross infringement of those (heterosexual) adult’s rights, and of course the move away from a Mum/Dad married biological parent arrangement rationalized and excused. Such splits outnumber the total number of children being raised by gays entirely! One does not discriminate against the majority.

  8. Gosh a bus ! *

    * 1 bus ?

    Dr Peter May is very olde hat

  9. Gosh, I wonder how our daughter will feel being told she will not do as well as her peers with straight parents – oh but she gained a place as just 1 of 4 children selected on their merit available across the whole country, and has exceeded all the SATS levels she is not due to achieve for another year yet.

    And worst of all, she strongly identifies as being straight.

  10. Helge Vladimir Tiller 14 Jul 2013, 6:30pm

    These people sin against commandment 9.

  11. Mihangel apYrs 14 Jul 2013, 6:33pm

    they lie

    again

    Why does that NOT surprise me

  12. So do they also propose banning adoption by heterosexual parents? Because according to their argument it must be the *biological* parents raising the children, within a marriage, in order to get optimal results. What about divorce? Should it not therefore be banned for all heterosexual couples who have children? After all, that is also (well-documented) known to be less than optimal. How about mandatory marriage for all unmarried men and women who produce a child? Does that child not deserve to have their parents be married to give them the best possible situation?

    Notice how “the best possible” scenario for raising children only becomes a matter of law when the children of gay people are under discussion. Heterosexuals, who VASTLY outnumber gays, are considered to be entitled to FAR more latitude in adult-centric rights, including as regards parenting situations, than gays even if it means less than optimal conditions for the children.

  13. Mark Regnerus’ so named ‘study’ is flawed in many ways.

    1. It’s “ideal” family had three or more qualifying points. Intact, heterosexual, non-adoptive families, and so on. The families to which this “ideal” was compared had just one qualifying point. Homosexuals, single parents, divorcees, and adopting families.
    The “ideal” was immune to all the negatives that would burden the families to which it was being compared.
    2. The study can never be deemed as accurate, no matter how it is framed. Relying on a child to evaluate the relationships of their parent(s), including what may or may not have happened before they were born/adopted. It is open to outside speculation and harmful rumor.
    3. Any person who had even the shortest of homosexual relationships is included in the homosexual group. This includes a parent who had a one night stand 17 years ago and has been happily living in a stable heterosexual marriage ever since. Such is not the case in reverse.

    1. “Any person who had even the shortest of homosexual relationships is included in the homosexual group. This includes a parent who had a one night stand 17 years ago and has been happily living in a stable heterosexual marriage ever since. Such is not the case in reverse.”

      This is crucial. The study was about children who had at least one gay parent. This means that the study wasn’t about gay parenting at all. Many unstable families where a gay closeted mother/father came out of the closet were included. It wasn’t about same-sex parenting.

  14. The group’s chair, Alan Craig, said: “Children are at the heart of marriage yet the debate has been about only the interests of adults.”

    This is one of the most tragically funny things a homophobe can come out with. When talking about marriages between adults, it’s somehow all about the children that a couple may not even have.
    But when it comes to the treatment of homosexual children, through so named “conversion therapy”, it’s somehow all about the rights of adults to dictate the lives and deaths of their children.
    These people are backwards in every conceivable way., and a few inconceivable ones too.

    1. Yet, interestingly, the legal rights of marriage are not incumbent on having children. Nor are those who do have children prohibited from divorcing if they decide that they simply cannot get on with their spouse anymore. In those cases adult’s rights are paramount. Children are not given a veto on whether or not their parents may divorce. The adults are free to decide what they feel is best for *them* and their children!

      At least, this is the case for heterosexuals, who do not believe that the law should impede their freedom to decide their own familial relationships. The “ideal” situation need only be legally mandated in the case of homosexuals, a small minority. Because that way the “ideal” is enforced on a small scale, without the majority having to sacrifice any of their own rights and freedoms.

  15. As a lesbian friend of mine once said, heterosexual parents are so much better at raising kids than she and her partner that the 52 damaged children they fostered over the years must simply have been victims of misdiagnosis or maladministration. What other explanation could there possibly be?

  16. I’m sure that all the heterosexual divorcees, widow/ers, or adoptive parents currently doing their best to raise children will be thrilled by this lovely Christian group’s mobile sentiment. Genius way to get more people onside, Mr Craig.

  17. Mumbo Jumbo 14 Jul 2013, 7:17pm

    Putting aside the use of a study that turned out to be so flawed that the journal that it was published in withdrew it, as same-sex couples are already allowed to adopt, what on earth has this got to do with same-sex marriage?

  18. Let’s suppose it’s true that children do best with married birth parents. Then force these parents to raise their own offspring and outlaw divorce and adoption! It’s still not an argument to prohibit same-sex couples, or infertile couples for that matter, from marrying.

    1. You have an interesting proposal. But the reality is that these people want to have their cake and eat it too. They would never agreed to any of the things that you’re saying. They can’t even manage their own marriages and relationships. They have many unwanted children. Some of these children are just tossed about as nuisances to deal with, to have to feed clothes educate and raise, even within functional marriages. These that make this great noise, these fundamentalist Christians, don’t even read their own Bible. The passage applicable to this subject goes like this: Matthew 7:5
      “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

      This means first clean the disaster in your own yard before you nit pick about the small mess in your neighbour’s yard.

  19. I think they should change the campaign to “What about Sayeeda?” instead of Sophie. Where exactly is Baroness Sayeeda Warsi in all of this? Thought she was meant to be the Minster for Faith & Communities? Clearly only Faith then? Take it she won’t be casting her vote either way then on Monday? Just picking up her Ministerial payroll. Time she joined the C4M where she belongs.

  20. bobbleobble 14 Jul 2013, 8:34pm

    Keith and his gibbering moronic brain farts. I think I’d miss them if he went.

    Keith, have you found a sc@t partner yet?

    1. Christopher in Canada 14 Jul 2013, 8:49pm

      What’s truly sad is that Keith and his ilk have no idea how moronic their crusade is. Will he realize it before he gets old and dies, do you think?

      1. bobbleobble 14 Jul 2013, 8:53pm

        To be honest I don’t think Keith is real. I think he’s just some bored 16 year old who likes winding people up. Certainly his arguments sound like they’re from a 16 year old.

  21. bobbleobble 14 Jul 2013, 8:35pm

    And that has what to do with this story exactly?

  22. Professor Mark Regnerus Is well-known for his quackery on this subject. He based his so-called “research” on an artificially created foundation upon his fundamentalist Christian beliefs. Instead he is totally ignoring and dismissing the years and years of research done by well established and reputable professional institutions that deal with the subject matter. I have hopes that all those that are shown this rubbish of his have the intelligence to do the right thing and do research on this quack and find out his “research” bullocks. As time goes on and more and more children of gay couples come of age, the the facts and research gathered by reputable organizations will inevitably become solidified. Thus people like this man and the religious organizations that attempt to use his “research” will inevitably be cast into the rubbish dustbin of history.

  23. And yet it’s mostly ‘heterosexual’ married men who’re known pedophiles. Would you attribute pedophilia to heterosexuality? No. Nor homosexuality. It’s a small proportion of both, but not the cause of either. One can be a pedophile attracted to same sex youths. Just as likely, but more common considering the demographics, one can be attracted to opposite sex youths.
    Neither has anything to do with consensual adult sexual relations, or attractions. To compare homosexuality to pedophilia, is to compare heterosexuality to pedophilia, and if you judge by the number of incidents, you’re more likely to be an heterosexual pedophile, than an homosexual pedophile.
    But of course, this is common sense. But bigotry like yours blinds you to this,

    1. bobbleobble 14 Jul 2013, 10:56pm

      Presumably you’re the intellectual Pygmy providing the advice eh Keith? I’d say you were exaggerating your intelligence to be honest.

    2. Dr Christopher Shell 15 Jul 2013, 8:53am

      The percentage of paedophilia that is same-sex is grossly above the percentage of same-sex attracted people in the population. Studies of Erickson, Laumann, Freund and Watson (2 studies), JR Hughes, Blackburn, etc..

      1. Not quite sure the relevance of your comment – paedophiles are defined by the age of those they’re attracted to, not their gender, and there is no evidence (see Freund et.al 1989) that homosexual men are more attracted to boys than heterosexual men are attracted to girls. This review of the evidence might help you understand the issue more clearly: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

      2. Not quite sure the relevance of your comment – paedophiles are defined by the age of those they’re attracted to, not their gender, and there is no evidence (see Freund et.al 1989) that homosexual men are more attracted to boys than heterosexual men are attracted to girls. This review of the evidence might help you understand the issue more clearly: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

      3. That’s right.
        Many men abusing boys are indeed heterosexual.

        Nicholas Groth, a psychiatrist who lead the “Sex offender program” at the Somers prison (Connecticut), wrote in “Adult Sexual Orientation and Attraction to Underage Persons”, article in which he & Jean Birnbaum studied 175 sex offenders :
        “The possibility emerges that homosexuality and
        homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive
        and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a
        greater risk to the underage child than does the
        adult homosexual male.”

        Also:
        “The child offender is a relatively young adult
        either who has been sexually attracted to underage
        persons almost exclusively in his life or who
        turns to a child as the result of stresses in his
        adult sexual or marital relationships.
        […]

        1. Those offenders who are sexually attracted
          exclusively to children show a slight preference
          for boys over girls, yet these same individuals
          are uninterested in adult homosexual
          relationships.
          In fact, they frequently express a strong sexual
          aversion to adult males, reporting that what
          they find attractive about the immature boy are
          his feminine features and the absence of
          secondary sexual characteristics such as body
          hair and muscles.”

          In “Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference” Freund & Watson write:
          “The results of the present study suggest that the
          erotic attractiveness of male children (or
          pubescents) for androphiles is not greater than
          the erotic attractiveness of female children (or
          pubescents) to gynephiles.”

  24. David Gervais 14 Jul 2013, 10:26pm

    The UK has strong truth in advertising laws. What would happen if the appropriate agency were to act on this?

    1. bobbleobble 14 Jul 2013, 10:53pm

      Where do you get the idea from that this ad wouldn’t be covered by the ASA? This isn’t an electioneering ad, they aren’t a political party so it’s unlikely to be exempt on those grounds. If the BHA’s ad was covered then I don’t see why this one wouldn’t be.

      1. bobbleobble 14 Jul 2013, 11:16pm

        The ASA monitors adverts not groups. Unless there is an exemption which this particular advert comes under, and there may well be although I can’t find one, then the advert is regulated by the ASA. As I said before, if the British Humanist Asociation ad can be regulated by the ASA then I don’t see why these clowns’ ad wouldn’t be.

        We are free to advertise provided we comply with the ASA codes which are there to protect those who are being advertised to.

  25. This GayMarriageNoThanks campaign that sets out to ‘prove’ children with a married mother and father attain higher educational standards etc than those with a single parent, two unmarried parents, or a same-sex couple, is in the same league as the Nazi campaigns of the 1930s which set out to prove aryan children were the ‘purest’, or some Victorian moralists who spoke of the racial supremacy of people of European descent.

    The majority of children in the UK are now brought up outside the traditional marriage family structure therefore they are insulting, deeply offending and alienating the majority of the British families with their ugly, self righteous superiority.

    So that makes them really stupid as well as morally repugnant.

  26. If you are so in favour of children being raised by married couples then why are you against gay marriage? More often than not gay people adopt the kids that some heterosexual parents have failed to raise for one reason or another. If you are so pro-children then you would realise the importance of this and if you think marriage is important for bringing up a child then you should support same-sex marriage.
    This has nothing to do with the children, they’re just a scapegoat that you are using to twist people’s opinions.

  27. But no one needs to be married to have children….gay or straight!!.
    What’s the logic of their premise?.

    1. The bad peopel should save their Ire for the 50% f str8 couples wrecking marriage by divorce and the 3(% of American children growing up in single parent households

  28. John in Toronto Canada 15 Jul 2013, 3:14am

    Fact: just because you label something a fact, doesn’t not make it a fact.

  29. Unfortunately Dr May the study fails to look at the social impact of ignorant bigots that seek to ruin that poor child’s life in the education system. For if it wasn’t for you poor Sophie would have had a happy childhood without bullying think of the poor 75% of LGBTQ children or those of LGBT families that get bullied daily due to ignorance and intolerance and told their families are worthless.

  30. Jock S. Trap 15 Jul 2013, 8:30am

    Typical bigots… they choose to ignore facts so they can show their hate and discrimination by spreading lies for the goals of their religion.

  31. BTW thiis stucy comes from the witherspoon group in the USA – right wing xtains that by comparison make hte catholic church look progressive.

    Its original use / creation was for influencing the USA supreme court, which sure seems to have ignored it

  32. The question is how will those children who have been adopted for decades react to the statement children do better with birth parents? It does not just tar LGBT but also those heterosexual couples who adopted and also single parents.

  33. They’re going to alienate anyone with children who’ve been divorced, as well as adoptive parents, foster parents, other family members who are carers and single parents for whatever reason, as well as those who choose not to marry. Well done, keep up the good work.

  34. sat outside St Martin-in-the-fields yesterday afternoon as the billboard stopped at the lights. Gave the thumbs down sign to the passenger in the front, but a passing woman went one step further. She grabbed the corner of the poster and pulled it off half way along its length – to the cheers of passers by!

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