Sat 25th Oct 2014 | Last updated: Fri 24th Oct 2014 at 18:39pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Why has Tesco thrown its enormous weight behind a gay pride event?

If thousands of Christians and others protest then it is likely Tesco executives will think again

By on Monday, 7 November 2011

Tesco has ended its 10-year partnership with Cancer Research and is now sponsoring London's gay pride parade (Photo: PA)

Tesco has ended its 10-year partnership with Cancer Research and is now sponsoring London's gay pride parade (Photo: PA)

David Skinner of Anglican Mainstream, a group of Christian denominations dedicated to supporting traditional marriage and family life, has forwarded to me the following information from Marketing Week:

Tesco has signed a deal to become a major sponsor of London Pride, the UK’s largest gay festival, as it outlines plans to host its biggest ever event in the capital.

Tesco will also host a family area designed to provide families attending the event with a ‘safe, relaxed and chilled out’ place with family-friendly entertainment and activities aimed at younger children.

The supermarket will also contribute to funding the free-to-attend event, which is organised by volunteers.

Tesco joins Smirnoff as headline sponsor for the annual event and builds on Tesco’s presence at the 2011 festival.

The news comes shortly after Tesco ended its 10-year partnership with Cancer Research’s Race for Life fundraising event.

Pride London is already the largest Gay Pride event in the UK and it is extending its carnival route and adding a second day to the festival for 2012, when it will host the global festival WorldPride 2012.

Andrew Higginson, CEO of retailing services at Tesco, says, “Tesco is the UK’s largest private employer, and a very diverse international organisation where everybody is welcome. Our Out at Tesco team will be working closely with Pride London to ensure next year’s event is even more fun.”

Why on earth is Tesco promoting an event like this? Tesco is a supermarket; its remit has been to sell good-quality food and other items at very reasonable prices, and in this it has been hugely successful. Why has it now aligned itself with an aggressive political organisation such as Pride London? Why has it given up its sponsorship of Cancer Research? Or at least, if it has given up this sponsorship, why hasn’t it taken up with another mainstream charity such as the British Legion or Age UK? There are thousands of ex-servicemen and wounded soldiers needing help in this country, and millions of elderly people in danger of neglect. They are a fundamental part of the fabric of our society – the kind of fabric that Tesco should be reflecting.
Why, why, why?

I understand that one in four of the British public shops at Tesco. It is certainly “diverse and international” and a place where “everyone is welcome” – whatever their orientation. Who cares about other people’s orientation when they are shopping? It’s about making ends meet, balancing the family’s food budget, getting value for money and picking up bargains (including Bogofs). I shop there and have done so for years. At its doors there are often charity workers asking for money – notably Children in Need and other worthwhile causes.

Inside the store you can see why it is so successful: organic food, Fairtrade, low-fat, corn-fed chickens, free-range eggs, a range of healthy options, vegetarian foods – any possible new demand has Tesco instantly on its heels with a shelf load of new items. For my taste there is too much Halloween junk, too much piped muzak, too much “Christmas cheer” too soon and too many Easter eggs on display by New Year’s Day – but these are small quibbles; that’s how a retail business works.

But to throw its enormous weight behind a marginal group (but which also has a determined and sinister political agenda) that does not in the least reflect the huge majority of its customers – why?

David Skinner also sent me the letter he had sent to Andrew Higginson and Philip Clarke, the CEO, in protest. I reproduce some of it here in order to encourage as many readers as possible to do likewise.

“I understand… that Tesco is sponsoring London Pride and setting aside ‘family areas as safe places where children can go’. For Tesco to sponsor a tiny homosexual minority (according to the Office for National Statistics) that amounts to little more than one per cent of the population…[it] will be showing the utmost contempt for a large proportion of British society that still adheres, more or less, to the morality and values of the Ten Commandments.”

Apparently he received a stock response to this, merely saying that Tesco’s is “inclusive” and that “everyone is welcome”. He now urges as many people as possible to write direct to:

Sir Richard Broadbent, Chairman, Tesco PLC,
New Tesco House,
Delamere Road,
Cheshunt, Herts EN8 9SL

Skinner has told Tesco that he will not be shopping at their shops any more. I am going to send a similar letter with the same message. If only a few people do this, it will appear pathetic. Tesco thinks in terms of balance sheets and profit margins like any capitalist organisation. If thousands of Christians and others were to join a campaign of protest it is likely Tesco would think again. It has happened before: some years ago Tesco announced it would sell the “morning-after” pill at the chemist outlets in its shops. There was a huge outcry and a storm of letters from Christian denominations. The result? Sir Terry Leahy, the then chief executive (and a Catholic, as it happens), sent out a mollifying letter saying he had listened to the protest and that the company had re-thought its decision.

Let’s send Tesco a similar message: stick to groceries and stop dabbling in dubious fringe political movements.

  • Honeybadger

    Oh, you are hardly serene!

    Get your head out of your anal crevice and make the effort to learn what being a Christian REALLY IS!

    So, a different viewpoint is discrimination?

    You poor soul!

  • Anonymous

    No it doesn’t, as those people remain homosexual. They are never ‘healed’ or ‘cured’ – why not? That’s my question.

  • Emma

    Are people really born gay, where is the evidence, as this article makes clear that sexual attractions can change rather than remain the same, or be genetic:

    Even if one person truly cannot change his/her sexuality, they can offer it to Christ who loves us all unconditionally and he knows all our weaknesses. I’m a sinner too, and I’ve struggled with certain types of sin and I still do, but I don’t give up, as I know how merciful Jesus is and how patient he is with sinners.  In fact did you know that the more one resists temptations,  the more purified his/her soul becomes, the same applies to sexual thoughts for someone else of the same sex.

    What God is calling all of us to, not just homosexuals is chastity, even for married people. What is wrong is to use someone like a toy and treat them like a sexual object, heterosexual or homosexual.

    To be honest a chaste homosexual man or a chaste lesbian woman who has unwanted feelings of same sex attractions (but is not sexually active) is innocent and there is no sin. Being a homosexual is not sinful in itself, it’s engaging in intercourse with someone else of the same sex that is a sin, just as it is a sin for married couples to use contraception. A celibate homosexual/lesbian person is no  worse a sinner than a celibate heterosexual man or woman.

  • Johnboy

    No-one has a “right” to adopt. Children have a “right” to be placed within a normal family context. Two daddies or two mummies is not normal, and a lot of mind-bending of the children has to be done to make them think it’s ok. There is no such thing as same sex marriage, since marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman. That is nothing to do with “equality”, it is same sex couples trying to get their relationship to be seen by others as “normal”.  If they are so full of Pride in their state of life, why do they not stop trying to force others to accept them? If a young lad has a natural repulsion for homosexual advances made towards him, that comes from within him – it is not a prejudice, it is part of his heterosexual make-up, and no amount of Pride marches and Tesco support for them will change him. Why are homosexuals so heterophobic when it comes to accepting their natural repulsion for homosexual sex?

  • Cha-Mai

    Why doesn’t everyone keep what goes on in their bedrooms private! Then we wouldn’t have to worry about all this stupidity. I don’t like Gay Pride, but wouldn’t consider coming into someone’s bedroom. What ever happened to keep it behind closed doors? And hey why don’t we have a heterosexual pride day, too. See where this goes. Tesco is making a huge mistake doing  this. the essential argument of the author is correct. Go back to selling food! 

  • Cha-Mai

    We don’t care what you do in your bedroom JUST DON’T MAKE ME A PART OF IT! 

  • tb88

    Well some people clearly have the right to adopt otherwise no one would be adopted. It is a right that is given on an individual basis. When I talk about a lack of equality in adoption rights in northern Ireland I mean that homosexual couples are automatically denied this right based solely on their sexuality where heterosexual couples are not. When it comes to marriage you are of course correct that currently it is by definition between a man and a woman. This is going to change in 2015 though.
    When I talked about the prejudices sometimes suffered by homosexuals I didn’t mean heterosexual people rejecting unwanted advances made towards them. I am talking about things like being bullied because of their sexuality. I am a heterosexual myself and I have never been accused of being a homophobe for rejecting the advances of a gay man. I also have a few gay friends but I have never met anyone I could describe as “heterophobic”.

  • Anonymous

    I’m intrigued by your reply to aearon43, tb88, but would be grateful for some clarification.

    Could prejudicial hostility to traditional sexual morality be legitimate from a subjective homoerotic perspective, or from an objective homoerotic perspective, or from either perspective?  

    Following on from that, could you explain your conceptual understanding/application of ‘good’: for example, if hostility to homosexual morality were therefore axiomatically bad, would hostility to heterosexual morality be axiomatically good, and if not, why not? 

    Lastly (in accordance with your concept of what it is good to be hostile or prejudiced towards), if homophobia is analagous to racism, is heterophobia analagous to sexism?

  • Andrew

    I think you should all be aware that sodomy no longer exists in Law, just as homosexuality was excised from the international classification of diseases and the DSM (the psychiatrists’ global ‘bible’) as a disease or disorder.  Anal intercourse is practised by heterosexuals as well as homosexuals and the former have an option in this matter, unlike the latter.  Human indiviuals are persons first, not sexualities.  The personfication of personality into ‘homosexual’ or ‘heterosexual’ is reductive and intellectually incoherent.  Persons love each other, employing sexual expression as part of the process.  The genderisation of loving relationships is, again, reductive.  Catholic doctrine as it pertains to sexuality is deeply flawed from a biological point of view, it is dogmatic in the worst sense of the word.  Just as the sense of the faithful enables the idea of the sin of contraception as nonsense, so it is rapidly coming to the appreciation that the idea of same sex loving relationships as sin is similarly nonsense.  Within a few years full gay marriage will be a reality in Britain as it is Portugal, Spain and New York (etc) and increasingly elsewhere.  Putting marriage within inverted commas will then be intellectually incoherent as it will be an objective legal entity.  The Church appears as King Canute in these matters and the decline of Catholicism in the West is driven by the Church’s erroneous position on such matters.  This demographic shift will bring with it profound financial implications for the Church in due course.  The Church should assimilate the findings of multidisciplinary scientific and clinical research on the matter of human sexuality and modify its teachings accordingly.  There is such a thing, startlingly, as being morally concerned to be up-to-date in these matters, so that injustices are not prolonged.  The Vatican has been said to have the greatest number of gay people per square metre than anywhere else on God’s Earth.,  ITheir condemnation of love between two men or women is to punish in other people what they hate or cannot cope with in themselves.  This is not morality – it is, rather, psychopathology.  And we have seen the results of that worldwide as manifest in the paedophilia scandals.  The suppression of natural instincts as in celibacy and the teaching of self-hate to gay people cannot bring with it a healthy outcome.  Indeed, it has done the reverse.  In my experience the people who object most viscerally to gay people have a personal issue themselves and require healing in this context, psychologically and spiritually.  It has been said that Hell hath no fury than a conflict of interest paraded as a moral principle.  Much hate is disguised and justified by ‘adherence to the Church’s teaching’ and govrnments are right to recognise the same and legislate against it.  I speak as a traditionalist Catholic, not a Modernist. 

  • Anonymous

    Mmm, words… experience… subjective and objective… ideal, conceptual or material…   The way distinctions become words-become different distinctions-become different words, sometimes fraught with unintended claws.  Sometimes slip-sliding away, on the piste, relatively speaking. 

    You refer to the definition of marriage as being “currently… between a man and a woman”.  For a very, very long time, linguistically and culturally speaking, the sense of ‘to marry’ has indicated the joining together of different elements in a (hopefully) harmonious way.  For example, in an Elizabethan play, poetry is married to drama; or in a 20th century ballet, dance is married to music.  Hence, and not only by tradition, in a wedding, a man would be married to a woman. 

    “This is going to change in 2015 though,” you inform Johnboy.  I can’t help it, but when I read statements like that, a prophetic voice seems to whisper in my ear:

    - Newspeak.  Double plus good. 

    There’s nothing to fear from Liberalism, you might say. 

    Except fascism.  Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

  • Paul Holford

    I am heterosexual,but also proud not to be homophobic. I also work for Tescos, prior to that I was a Prison Officer for 32 years and was an associate member of two groups , one for black and ethnic minority staff and the other for Gay and  Lesbian staff. These people were my colleagues and it was an honour to work alongside them.We all relied on each other to watch our backs.Try going in a Gay bar, the men in there treat your wife with utter respect, unlike some pubs where some straight blokes only want to fight someone.
    Also lets not forget the sexual/pyhsical abuse meted out by monks at the school in Ealing.As I taught my children gay men are not paedophiles or child abusers .

  • tb88

    I’ll do my best to clarify what I meant.

    In my view, it can be legitimate to be hostile towards a morality that is itself hostile. So it is legitimate to oppose white supremacy on the grounds that white supremacy is hostile towards people of other races, and it is legitimate to oppose traditional sexual morality, IF by traditional sexual morality, one means hostility towards gay people.

    By good in this sense I meant legitimate. Hostility to homosexual morality is not legitimate, it is ‘bad’ in the ‘system’ I described above because homosexual morality is not hostile towards heterosexuals. Hostility to heterosexual morality is legitimate, or ‘good’ ONLY if by ‘heterosexual morality’ you include hostility towards homosexuals.

    Homophobia, racism, heterophobia, and sexism are all analogous in my view. It is important to say though, that my definition of ‘heterophobia’ (and its not a term you hear often) would be something like ‘prejudice towards a person based solely on that person being a heterosexual’. In other words, nothing to do with that person’s views on homosexuality. A heterophobic person would by this definition be equally hostile towards a heterosexual whether they supported gay rights or not. I have not personally ever come across anyone who would fit that description.

  • tb88

    When I referred to the definition of marriage, I meant the legal definition. Surely though, even in the sense of  “the joining together of different elements in a (hopefully) harmonious way”, marriage could refer to two different souls, who happen to be of the same sex, joining together in love, could it not? The difference is the two different people, not two different sexes.

    I am sure you know more about politics than me, but all I will say about liberalism/fascism is that I don’t think allowing gay marriage would be fascist, and I’m not a fan of ‘slippery slope’ arguments. And the egg came before the chicken. I know you weren’t really asking for an answer but I can’t help it when people ask that.

    Thank you, God bless you too

  • Anonymous

    Thank you, tb88, for your courtesy in taking the time to clarify your points. 

    I recognize what you mean in the opening paragraph, inasmuch as it concurs with ages-old Catholic teaching right down to the present day, all the way from the concept of the just war to Pope Benedict’s exhortation that the Catechism reminds us of the duty of love for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. 
      IF, as you say, by traditional sexuality morality one meant hostility towards homosexual people, such a thing would be morally wrong and would justify legitimate opposition.  On the other hand, as I am sure you would agree, that IF – though undeniable – is still a major conditional, and should never be applied in order to confine traditional sexual morality to such a narrow definition. 

    I also appreciate what you intend by ‘good’, but there is a danger when ‘good’ is defined relatively in terms of what is legitimate, rather than absolutely in terms of what is transcendent: it is easily corrupted by human concupiscence which blinds us to the reality of our motivations and the possible consequences of our desires. 
      In other words, it is not “heterosexual” but  sexual morality that is at stake here, let alone “homosexual morality”.  If, for example, sexual practice causes harm, physically or psychologically (whether immediately or in the short or long term is beside the point) to either participant, it is axiomatically immoral – or at least ought to be considered so by anyone with a moral conscience. 
    Although there is a tendency in your posts to imply otherwise, immorality and hostility are not exclusive to (particular) heterosexual people.  To put it another way, homosexuality does not preclude immoral and hostile pratices and attitudes with regard to others. 
      Indeed, by extension of your own definition, it is legitimate to be opposed, you would say hostile, to any sexuality that finds expression in practices that are hostile to the sanctity of the person, regardless, for instance, of whether consent is freely given or complicity is assumed.  It is for this reason that group sexual activity and display has traditionally (and wisely) long been considered immoral in most world cultures – including our own until relatively recently in European societies. 

    I don’t think I can agree that homophobia, racism, heterophobia and sexism are all analagous: heterophobia and sexism… perhaps; but sometimes it’s better to just agree to disagree.  At least while we get on with the business of living and loving. 

    God bless    





  • Bob Hayes

    Francis has not attacked anyone ‘afflicted’. Her article attacked a large multi-national company. Surely you’re not suggesting Tesco is ‘afflicted’ and deserving of Christian charity! 

  • OneVeryVeryTiredCatholic

    Regrettable to see all these so-called “practising catholics” begging not to be branded into the brackets of “narrow-minded bigots” and tat-tatting on other fellow Catholics/Christians for being mean and nasty.
    Time after time we are forced to explain that it is the practice of it, not the state itself. Quite frankly, not many of us have the time and effort to have much feeling towards a particular group of people; we are all already tired with our daily lives, getting from A to B, serving in our parishes and feeding the younger ones the same old pastas. I do understand as Catholics we are called to corporal works of charity and more opportunities and channels should be promoted to accommodate and catechise Catholics who are living in the state of sin of sexually active same-sex relationship. And when opportunities allow, I do the best I can to explain to them that whilst it may seem their lot (terrible way of putting it, I know) to experience such unique, unequivocal pain to feel rejected and “out of the crowd”, victim souls were known to be around holding the banners high for salvation through their extreme ardour and spiritual discipline. Our Lady is the supreme example; the most beloved of all human beings ever born and yet the most bitterly grieved and the most heroic of all saints. And that as for us who are called to other walks of life such as marriage or priesthood, should be doing all we can to assist these unsung heroes in their battle, which we clearly are NOT. And that is partially why we still have angry homosexuals picking on us and even fellow Catholics (poorly catechised through no fault of their own) calling us narrow-minded. The Church has been quite negligent on this issue, we must admit and the best they came up with so far was “gay mass” which is a poor excuse for a Catholic ministry. 

    And lastly, for those who are calling Orthodox Catholics narrow-minded because they feel unsure about shopping at Tesco’s upon reading this article, do not bother, there are still plenty of other supermarkets selling good stuff out there that are not known to be supportive of Pride London. At least not yet. When all else fails, we have Borough Market, though pricey at times.

  • B Harris

    Tesco supported Brighton Pride in 2009 so anyone thinking of boycotting them now over this is a bit late to the party as they say. Also, don’t wear anything made by Levi or Nike as they openly support gay marriage. And don’t drink Starbucks, they had pro-gay messages on their coffee cups back in 2005. And im sure no one commenting on here in support of the article is using a windows computer, because Microsoft donated $100000 to Washington Families Standing Together in support of Referendum 71 – a law giving same sex couples in civil unions the same rights as married couples. Of course, they’re not using a Mac either because Apple gave $100000 to a campaign opposing a law in California that would restrict marriage to a man and a woman. (So remember, no ipods or iphones either people!) There’s lots more companies you should be boycotting too over similar issues – just do a quick google. Oh, wait! don’t do that! Google donated $140000 to the same campaign as Apple. Better use a different search engine… but not Bing. (Microsoft, remember…)

  • JohnJ

    @Cha-Mai: People do generally keep what goes on in their bedrooms private. Don’t see what that has to do with Gay Pride though, as the participants are not actually having sex while they march!

  • JohnJ

    People who use phrases such as “you people” are generally the intolerant ones.

  • JohnJ

    If you’ve been invited into someone’s bedroom and you don’t want to take up the invitation, then just don’t go – no one’s forcing you!

  • Anonymous

    “When it comes to marriage you are of course correct that currently it is by definition between a man and a woman. This is going to change in 2015 though.”

    Really? What else can a provincial parliament redefine: could it redefine the sun to mean the moon, day to mean night? It already has tried to destroy the meaning of love and justice…

    No parliament on this planet can ever have the power or the ability to redefine something that is beyond its authority to do so. Both Divine Law and the Natural Law are, like the fundamental laws of Physics, above the remit of the English Parliament.

  • Anonymous


  • Anonymous

    You’ll find out on Judgement Day – failing that, ask his Vicar, the Supreme Roman Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI. He has been given the authority by Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to speak in his name and with his authority.

  • Bob Hayes

    I’m not sure smugness becomes you.

  • Anonymous

    Pride is the root and foundation of all sin. It caused, as St Augustine said, angels to become demons. It is also the ultimate cause of all human tragedy.

    Also, as Archbishop Fulton J Sheen said, ” pride is an admission of weakness; it secretly fears all competition and dreads all rivals.” Think about it.

  • Anonymous

    I think you mean hostile to truth, to objective reason and to anything that helps diminish the raging ego of broken man.

  • Anonymous

    Jesus didn’t ask the Pope to represent him – as I have already said, it would be reasonable to expect that Jesus would not be too pleased to find himself represented by such a figure.

  • Petros

    Thank you for giving the address in which to write to Tesco in support of of this.  I will forward it to many non-political and non sinister gays which will probably be a bigger “minority” than Herald readers 

  • Bob Hayes

    ‘Jesus didn’t ask the Pope to represent him – as I have already said, it would be reasonable to expect that Jesus would not be too pleased to find himself represented by such a figure.’ 

    ‘… it would be reasonable to expect that Jesus…’     Who appointed you to represent Christ? 

  • Anonymous

    I’m not representing Christ, unlike the Pope, but merely stating that (I have to repeat myself here)it would be reasonable to expect that Jesus would not be too pleased to find himself represented by such a figure as the Pope. Read my comment again to see if that helps.

  • karlf

    Don’t be silly. Of course he hasn’t

  • JohnJ

    It’s just a fun day out, isn’t it? What’s so unpleasant?

  • B Harris

    Yeah, civil marriage on the other hand, is well within its remit.

  • Bob Hayes

    ‘It would be reasonable to expect that Jesus…’  On what do you base your expectation and by what measure do you consider that expectation to be reasonable? 

  • Anonymous

    By the New Testament. What else? ??

  • Jon

    Tesco haven’t replaced funding for Race for Life with funding for Pride. Tesco do not support just one cause – I’m sure they have ended support for other things whilst starting to support other things.

    Gay people get cancer too you know!

  • A.T.

    Aggressive agenda?! Give yourself a break. LGBT people simply want equal treatment and protection under the law. The argument about sexual orientation is over now – every medical and psychiatric institute in the Western world understands it to be natural, neutral and harmless expression of love. Yet in this country, LGBT people are abused, attacked every day. Events like Pride are sadly necessary to counter this. Pride is a party, a carnival, and if you don’t like it, don’t go.

    Is Francis Phillips remotely aware of Anglican Mainstream’s agenda – its links to hardline, dominionist US groups like the American Family Association and the Family Research Council, which seeks to make homosexuality a criminal offence? David Skinner does too, in fact. Is this publication also aware of the level of hatred posted by Skinner on LGBT website fora? I think the wider world needs to know that the Catholic Herald doesn’t care less about this.

    I hope the majority of well-meanig Catholics  speak out against bullies like this writer, who is claiming to represent you all.

  • Foxywarrior

    This demonstrates why religion is dangerous and why churches are losing support and failing to the point of becoming a joke. Tesco actually sponsor many charitable organisations and London Pride is just one of those. Tesco will no doubt be looking for another mainstream charity to sponsor but in the meantime remain diverse, progressive, open and welcoming to all sections of the community. Unlike religion that is bigoted, narrow minded and is a true example of archaic and backward thinking policy as you could imagine. The church and those who hold gay people in contempt are morally bankrupt, living in the past and devoid of all human worth.

  • Bob Hayes

    I suggest you read through the comments made by Catholics on here, read Catholic teaching on the subject. The Catholic Church most definitely does not ‘hold gay people in contempt’ – your claim is without foundation. The Church teaches that same-sex activity is sinful. That is a condemnation of the sin, not the sinner – less still is it a condemnation of people who are attracted to their own sex. 

  • Bob Hayes

    Anything specific in mind?

  • Melaniej Watson

    Some people are missing the point I feel. Cancer research has relied on that money for 10 years. We all know somebody who has been affected or killed by cancer. Gay pride doesn’t need that money.

  • Deesis

    Gay Pride events are actually shag fests! The whole point is to have as much sex with drugs as one can get. Of course it is also a real snub to the mainstream society and revenge on parents dead and living. If only Tescos grasped what it is funding. Perhaps if I said it is like openning Tesco’s and letting people with food compulsive eating stuff there faces and vomit in the shopping aisles while calling it “freedom” they might grasp the point. It is assisting people destroy themselves and self respect(control) without having any conscience about it! We have all heard of corporate greed. What of sexual greed, or narcisitic greed! Oh I felt like it and feels so good ( for the moment)  Like Elvis eating a peanut butter sandwich!

  • Deesis

    Sodomy is actually one of the 4 sins that cries out to heaven for vengeance! It was on the statute books and was certainly useful in cases of rape and sexual abuse. Sadly it isnt now and I have read victims groups lamenting the fact.

  • Deesis

    God didnt create behaviour….parents, rearing, personality, society, (environment)and choices made influenced by these create behaviour. Not to mention habit good and bad

  • Deesis

    Tough love… iI hope you support the right of arsenists, rioters and thieves to assemble. When I last looked society didn’t like those things.

  • Deesis

    Oops God didn’t give you anything of the sort! If I said we should have a Paedophile Pride day in which we celebrate the inclinations God gave us…do you get the point?
    Just a joke. Wasn’t it Hilter who said if you repeat a lie often enough people believe!

  • Anonymous

    So you just choose what it is you’d like God to be responsible for creating, and of what he isn’t?? Very convenient!

  • Leemondo1

    I also love “…traditional marriage and family life..” part… because of course, we know that once Heterosexuals are married, they never divorce or cheat… and indeed they marry ONLY Virgins as stated in Leviticus… 
    Oh and it’s a proven FACT that most abused children are abused by Heterosexuals, so your argument for “traditional (man/woman) family life” is base and void!

    Then we have the irony of his “little more than one percent of the population” comment… If your CHRIST heard you say those things about a minority, which side do YOU think he’d choose? Huh?
    Because of course, Christ ONLY went with the majority vote on what was ‘socially acceptable’ didn’t he? Glad we’ve cleared that up!

    Oh sweet Jesus! May your God save you from your own ignorance by striking you down!

  • Martley1

    You’re crazy all of you haters.  There is no point in trying to debate in order to try to get you to see sense.  It will never happen as you hide behind the religious dogma.  And that is ok because for the most gay people have long discarded anything that religion has to say about sexuality and sin.  So just jog on and carry on thinking whatever you want.  Not one single thing will alter people’s natural state of sexuality.

  • Bob Hayes

    Your bitterness will damage your soul. Pray for enlightenment. I will pray for you.