As many as one in four gay people in Great Britain oppose gay marriage and only a minority describe SSM as a "priority."
We do not know how this poll was done but it suggests far more diversity of opinion within the gay community than the media conveys:
More than a quarter of homosexual people think there is “no need” to allow same-sex couples to marry because civil partnerships already give them the same rights, a poll suggests.
The first poll of its kind in Britain also found that only a minority of gay people believe redefining marriage should be a “priority” and only half said that having the opportunity to marry was important to them personally.
By contrast a similar proportion of homosexual people thought that David Cameron is only planning to change the law “to make his party look more compassionate” rather than out of conviction.
The survey by ComRes, on behalf of the religious campaign group Catholic Voices found that more than three quarters of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people supported same-sex marriage in principle.
And just over seven out of 10 believed marriage should be “more about love between two people than it is about rearing children”.
But only a minority (39 per cent) said that it was a “priority for gay people” and just over a quarter thought there was “no need” to change the law because civil partnerships, introduced under the last government, already confer the same legal rights as marriage.
But 49 per cent disagreed with this argument and 25 per cent were unsure.
The poll suggests that support for changing the law to redefine marriage among the homosexual community could be more lukewarm than previously thought. -- UK Telegraph
37 Comments
I like it too! OK NOMers, 5 words you must use often and fight to prevent:
1. Heterophobic
2. Christophobia
3.Fatherphobia
4.Femalephobic
5.Naturalparenting-phobia
STOP BIGOTRY, AND PROMOTE FULL EQUALITY!
Those "Catholic Voices" polls have been largely disputed. Coming from a homosexual Brit, I can tell you right now that SSM IS a priority for gay people in the UK. A poll carried out by a UK gay news site found something like 97% of homosexual people supported SSM. I'll try and find the link for that...
The biggest backers of this assault on the source of our freedom are those groups that require the ability to silence the voice of opposition to their designs. The financial backers are hiding behind shell corporations hidden behind the cloak of holding companies. These individual are cowards; in that they have gone to extreme lengths to ensure that our ability to make them pay for this assault is hampered by plausible deniability.
These traitors are fully dependent upon a fragmented society.
Yes, do that.
In the meantime we will notice that the Gay Fascist movement in Canada has already succeeded in passing a law requiring forced homosexualist indoctrination in Catholic schools.
Here in America, we understand the consequences of pseudo-marriage, and we have decided to simply crush the movement politically.
Sorry that the Brits didn't stand up and fight earlier, but at least they are starting to fight now.
Interesting.
I love how NOMies find polling and studies that support their anti-gay views to be credible beyond question, yet any poll or study that supports the pro-equality view is dismissed as obviously biased. It really is pathetic.
Why is it significant if 25% of British gays don't support civil marriage equality, yet insignificant that a majority of US Catholics do?
http://www.pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/Religion-and-Attitudes-Toward-Same-Sex-Marriage.aspx
"Why is it significant if 25% of British gays don't support civil marriage equality, yet insignificant that a majority of US Catholics do?"
It's significant because when it comes to reality, the polls showing that x number of people "support" soc-called SS"M" have been shown to mean nothing at the voting booth.
That a significant percentage of homosexuals do not care about so-called SS"M" suggests to me that there is an underlying agenda to the push for so-called SS"M," that doesn't involved homosexuals, such as the intent to destroy Catholicism.
Exactly how will civil marriage equality destroy the Catholic church? And if that is true, then why do a majority of Catholics support it?
John,
How will changing of the meaning of words in order to appease less than 2% of the population help the other 98% of the population.
John:
Same sex pseudo-marriage carries with it the inescapable consequence of redefining gender out of the marriage laws.
This insanity leads to the forced denial under the law of the very concept of "Mom", "Dad", "husband", "wife".
The above terms have very clear meanings in marriage.
They have no meaning whatever in pseudo-marriage.
This proves two things.
First, it proves that marriage is actually different than pseudo-marriage.
Second, it proves that only the most ghastly victims of brainwashing could ever entertain the idea that our society could possibly benefit from the imposition of pseudo-marriage.
Randy,
When you talk about the "2%" you use the word "appease". When you talk about the "98%" your use the word "help". I don't think it would be possible to torture any more bias into your "question/statement".
Rick,
Fail. What a loaded statement and lousey excuse for a proof. Howis revising marriage laws to apply equally to both spouses a "consequence". More importantly, how does your opinion on this matter somehow constitute proof I'd like to know.
(I think for holloween, I shall dress up a fact. That should scare the bejezus out of you, what ever that is.)
Should it ALWAYS be the women who has to pay child support and the man who is granted custodial parent rights? Must the man ALWAYS marry the sister of his dead wife if she dies childless?
You say that the term "wife" has such a clear meaning. . . enlighten us enlightened one.
Reformed,
Semantics does not change the validity of the points made. I come from an understanding that sexual depravity is a choice; a choice you are free to make, but a choice none-the-less.
The question remains:
How will changing of the meaning of words in order to appease less than 2% of the population help the other 98% of the population?
Please note; you have no way of knowing if this proposed changes will “help” these miscreants; so what you are left with is appeasement. The facts may be inconvenient for your cause, but these facts must be addressed as they exist; as opposed to framing the debate as though the outcome is a foregone conclusion – you have no way of knowing it will help you become more comfortable with the choice you made.
@Reformed,
"Must the man ALWAYS marry the sister of his dead wife if she dies childless?"
You really need to stop misrepresenting what is written. If you wish to base your life on lies you should at least have the decency to keep these lies to yourself.
Shamelessness is not the ideal you seem to believe it is.
Shamelessness: untroubled or unaffected by shame, especially in situations where others would be ashamed
Reformed:
Perhaps you do to understand.
The following sentences are not opinions, they are fact, and every state which has adopted pseudo-marriage has adopted the logically necessary consequence I outlined above:
"Same sex pseudo-marriage carries with it the inescapable consequence of redefining gender out of the marriage laws.
This insanity leads to the forced denial under the law of the very concept of "Mom", "Dad", "husband", "wife"."
Now this is not an opinion, Reformed.
It is a fact.
Is this the place to point out that in the UK EVERYONE who gets married has get married actually register a "civil partnership" with the government. A religious ceremony is optional. Details I know, but an important distinction compared to the marriage is religious misunderstanding here in the US.
Randy,
How will continued legal discrimination against the 2% to appease the anti-gay folks (which comprise far less than 98%) help anyone?
Rick,
Your "logic" isn't simple, it's simplistic.
Mom, Dad, husband and wife remain valid concepts where civil marriage equality exists, in fact the definitions haven't changed a whit:
Mom - a woman raising and caring for a child, who may or may not be biologically related to her
Dad - a man raising and caring for a child, who may or may not be biologically related to him
husband - a married man
wife - a married woman
See, nothing to worry your little head over.
HAPPY FATHERS DAY
I am a gay father living in Canada where we don't have same-sex marriage. In Canada "marriage is marriage" - all marriages are treated equally all across the country under federal law. What a proud moment it was for me, my partner, our families and friends when our minister married us in the sight of God with my grown son proudly standing as my best man.
John,
In what way are sexual deviants being discriminated against?
Affording access to the same considerations within the same parameters as everyone else is the very definition of the equality you claim to value.
And then you have nerve to follow this falsehood up with another blatant lie:
"Mom, Dad, husband and wife remain valid concepts where civil marriage equality exists, in fact the definitions haven't changed a whit"
At this very moment efforts are under way to have references to husband and wife removed from civil marriage licenses; and references to mother and father stricken from birth certificates. Stop feigning victimhood. Everybody has caught on to the fact that you are a perpetrator; not a victim.
Randy:
Since 2003 marriage here in Canada has come to mean families and children, friends and neighbours can practice true Christian values of love and acceptance. Tolerance and equality has been a hallmark for Canada. We are not victims in Canada ...we live in a free and tolerant society where all families are included. We are thankful not to live under the tyranny of US bigotry and evangelical mulahs
John,
Sexual depravity is not a Christian value. You are the victimizer John; you live in a society the size of the population of California spread out over an area larger than the entire United States. You have institutionalized tyranny and are afforded the luxury of out of site out of mind; for the time being.
Families are linked togehter by a common biology; not a common proclivity.
Question John;
I just read that the total number of lawful Canadian couples that enetered into a faux marriage for all of 2011 was (1). Did I read that correctly; are you folks looking to force the Catholic Church to turn its back on its 2000 year-old ideology just to appease two perverts a year?
Randy,
Thanks for the admonition. I don't mean to mislead. Regarding number 3, I should have clarified by adding "if the man demands it". Wait that's not it. It is if the husbands brother demands it. That's it. Sorry.
In any case, your argument isn't with me, it's with the bible.
John,
Does a mom have to be married?
Reformed,
I read the Bible cover to cover; don't recall reading what you claim - the operative word is may; not must. Interesting point of fact; the only two words in jurisprudence that cannot be redefined are "may" and "must."
May: you have a choice.
Must: you have no choice.
"We are thankful not to live under the tyranny of US bigotry and evangelical mulahs"
Mulahs?
I believe it's Mullahs.
And it's an Islamic title.
Considering the large Canadian Muslim population, I'm surprised by your ignorance.
Randy.
I can't speak for any deviants but gay and lesbian couples are discriminated against by laws that treat them as strangers, rather than next of kin.
The only lies are the ones being told by anti-gay bigots like yourself. Just because the wording on marriage and birth certificates is changed, doesn't make the words husband, wife, mom and dad meaningless. Only a moron or a deranged anti-gay bigot would think so. Since you have revealed yourself to be both, it is unsurprising that you believe so.
Reformed,
Of course a mom doesn't have to be married! Have you never heard of Bristol Palin? What a bizarre question.
John McLaren
You claim to live in a free and tolerant society.
Except for toleration for those awful Catholics, right?
John C.
You are a fraud; a bald face liar. You pimp an ideology that exists to separate the terms Mother, Father, Husband, and Wife from the public records as they relate to families; separating biological fact from the equation as a matter of law and then you have the audacity to claim that nothing has changed.
Then you step up and demand the word Kin be separated from its link to biological fact just so you can lend a greater appearance of acceptability to your depravity.
Kin: a member of a group that shares characteristics with another group
Family: a group of people who are closely related by birth, marriage, or adoption; all the people who are descended from a common ancestor
Your arrangements have no connection to the above, but it is the very definition of:
Depravity: a morally corrupt or wicked act
Decadent: showing uninhibitedly or immorally self-indulgent behavior
Pervert: to lead somebody or something away from what is considered good, normal, moral, or proper; to bring something into a state regarded as morally inferior or reprehensible; to use something incorrectly or improperly
I didn't think so.
Thanks for confirming.
Laws in Canada are designed for all citizens not just "re-born Christians" and Catholics but for everyone...including those who do not want others religious beliefs foisted on them. The Catholic school system annually receives 7 billion dollars from Ontario tax payers and must abide by rules set up by the Dep't. of Education which allows Gay-Straight Alliance clubs in all Ontario schools. If the Catholic school does not to follow laws set out for all public schools simply refuse the $7 Billion and become a religious school system and teach strict anti-gay Catholic doctrine.
It is very useful to watch the levels of deceit and dishonesty to which the marriage corruption advocates are required to descend.
John Colgan, for example.
Here is the text of the pseudo-marriage law which we defeated in Maine:
"§ 650-A. Codification of marriage
Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people. Gender-specific terms relating to the marital relationship or familial relationships, including, but not limited to, "spouse," "family," "marriage," "immediate family," "dependent," "next of kin," "bride," "groom," "husband," "wife," "widow" and "widower," must be construed to be gender-neutral for all purposes throughout the law, whether in the context of statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law."
So.
The truth is exactly as I have stated it:
Dadas are not male.
Mothers are not female.
Husbands are not male.
Wives are not female.
This is the insanity which we defeated in Maine.
Please fight very hard against the insanity of marraige corruption.
The marriage corruption movement is at war with reality.
John McLaren
I understand that Ontario's Catholic schools are funded by the taxpayer. However, these schools are not "foisting" Catholic beliefs on anyone who isn't Catholic.
It is a fact that, at least in Toronto, Muslim prayers are permitted in Public school.
So your claim that this is about keeping religion out of taxpayer funded schools is BS.
If it is no longer in the State's interest to have excellent Catholic schools available to all, then fine.
We should close them, sell the property, and open a new, smaller Catholic school system entirely immune from public funding, and hence, of course, from the Gay Fascist agenda.....
Yeah.
Rioght.
They'll stay out of it as long as its not publicly funded.
I sincerely hope the Canadian people are not half as stupid as the pseudo-marriage social engineers think they are.
As for the Catholics, it his quite simple, the law is invalid and will be ignored.
Start building prisons.
Lots of them.
If you intend to foist this filth on children you are going to need them.
Rick said:
"§ 650-A. Codification of marriage
Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people. Gender-specific terms relating to the marital relationship or familial relationships, including, but not limited to, "spouse," "family," "marriage," "immediate family," "dependent," "next of kin," "bride," "groom," "husband," "wife," "widow" and "widower," must be construed to be gender-neutral for all purposes throughout the law, whether in the context of statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law."
Excellent point and I remember watching and following the marriage debate in Maine when the Yes on 1 leader actually grabbed the contents of the original state recognition of marriage as passed when the state chose to recognize it. The state legislature at that time passed it to encourage the natural usefullness of marriage and the continuing of our species by responsible procreation.
Nice, I like how my comment that pointed out flaws in the poll and why marriage equality isn't a priority for everyone (because of other issues including homophobic and transphobic violence, LGBT youth suicides etc) didn't posted.
John Colgan asserted that,
"gay and lesbian couples are discriminated against by laws that treat them as strangers, rather than next of kin."
Same-sex sexual attraction does not make kin of two men. Nor does same-sex sexual romance. Nor does same-sex sexual behavior.
You must have used "kin" only as a metaphor rather than as a reality independent of the law. In other words, you'd rely on a fiction entrench in the law so as to express for all of society your faith in a metaphor rather than in reality.
Coital relations is the basis for the vigorously enforced legal marital presumption of paternity to which the bride and groom give their mutual consent when they say, I do. It is also the sexual basis for provisions for annulment, adultery, and so forth.
Marriage integrates the sexes and provides for responsible procreation; this is the reality of the union of husband and wife -- indepedent of legal fictions and the like.
Coital relations is entailed in the comprehensive union known as marriage; it is a volitional union that is also a bodily union. No same-sex sexual behavior forms a bodily union in a comprehensive relationship. Sure, perhaps only in a metaphorical sense, but that is the point here.
You rely on fiction rather than reality and seek to impose your fantasies onto all of society via force of the law. That is both immoral and profoundly anti-social, on your part.