This is a couple of months old, but someone posted it on Facebook (thanks Edwin!) and I couldn't help myself. I had to comment.

The Daily Mail is, as usual, throwing a strop about everyone who isn't living in a house with their opposite-sex spouse and their naturally-conceived children. Apparently gay relationships aren't equal to straight ones now and everyone from a broken home is a failure. Well, I have a few things to say about that.

Let's go through the article and complain about it shall we?

1. "The family is the building block of society. If the institution of the family is broken, society breaks with it.

That is what has happened in Britain over the past four decades as part of a deliberate attempt by the 'progressive' intelligentsia to reshape society around the unrestrained gratification of adult sexual desire under the banners of ' liberation', 'equality' and 'rights'."

So apparently, trying to make everyone equal is actually all a ploy to let the birds and the poofs shag around. And we can't have that can we? How dare people not feel guilty about having sexual desire? That's what Britain is all about! You can't take away our repression!

2. "Children from fractured homes do worse in general in every single area of their lives."

No we don't. My parents were married when I was born, so marriage doesn't protect you from this at all. I don't remember having my dad at home. I do remember the divorce being finalised and Mum getting the stuff in the post. I remember my mother struggling with money and our house being cold.

I also have an honours degree, I've worked since I was 16 and I got the highest GCSE grades in my year. I live with my long-term boyfriend (to be fair, as far as the Mail is concerned that counts as a failure). I can look after myself. I'm not exactly unusual, you know? Plenty of people come from backgrounds other than two hetero parents being at home and they do just fine. Plenty do a lot better than I've done.

3. "All stigma and shame were removed from unmarried motherhood."

Yeah, and? Being unmarried isn't the same as being an irresponsible whore who had a kid to get benefits. For most of my childhood, my mother wasn't married. She still isn't. Some unmarried mothers are DIVORCED mothers, not that it should make a difference whether they've been married or not. Many of the single mums I've known have worked hard to make sure their kids have a home, food and clothes, and they've done everything they can to make sure those kids do well in life. So have many of the mums who cohabit with the fathers of their children rather than being married to them (one each, by the way).

4. "The far more serious point, however, is that the gay rights agenda undermines marriage."

Does it? I didn't even know there was a gay agenda. I'd like my LGBTerrific friends (yeah, I stole that from QC, so what?) to send me a copy of the gay agenda from your secret meetings. Don't deny it, we all know you have them.

5. "But is the gay rights agenda really about tolerance, or is it about trying to stop heterosexuality being the behavioural norm?"

You can't make people gay. People have tried to make others straight, and that doesn't work, so I don't see how making people gay would work either. If someone changes orientation, it'll happen on its own- and it probably does happen. But given that people in relationships other than one-boy-one-girl just want to be left the fuck alone (and indeed left alone to fuck, sometimes) it's pretty unlikely that 'the gays' want to make everyone start bumming each other and lezzing it up. Those are scientific terms you know. Yep.

6. "Because it entails treating gay relationships as identical to heterosexual ones in every respect, any differences - over marriage or adoption, for example - are damned as discrimination and bigotry."

But... the only real difference is the gender of the people in the couple. Saying that gay people can't get married or adopt is discrimination and bigotry. Someone's ability to commit to a relationship or bringing up a child is not affected by their sexuality. Being straight doesn't make people perfect parents or perfect partners, so of course not every gay couple will be amazing, but I'm pretty sure that most people are more than capable of being monogamous (if that's their preference of course, I don't want to leave out the people who are poly, although they can handle being monogamous too) and also quite capable of looking after a baby.

7. "Thus opposing gay adoption on the grounds that children need a replica mother and father is denounced as 'homophobic'.

But hasn't that been precisely the problem which the Tories are now - to their credit - trying to address in heterosexual family life, that children do need a mother and father and that family life has been wrecked by those who strenuously pretend otherwise?"

Well, okay, I will agree that kids need a mother and father figure to be balanced. On the other hand, I completely disagree that those role models have to be biological parents. You can do just as well with an uncle or grandfather instead of a father, or with an aunt or grandmother instead of a mother. My uncle John was more involved in my life than my father was, and I don't think I have daddy issues.

Oh yeah, and as I said before, saying gay people can't adopt is homophobic actually.

8. "But the core reason for family breakdown is precisely the view that marriage is merely a ' relationship' for people to choose or not from a menu of alternative lifestyles."

Perhaps it might be a good idea to re-educate the morons who get married in order to get their vacant orange faces into Hello magazine then. Britney Spears got married for 55 hours. Katie Price and Peter Andre got married for three years. Stephen Fry has been with his partner Daniel for 14 years. Who's destroying 'the sanctity of marriage' again? It's not the gay couples who can stay committed even though they were denied legal rights for so long. It's the straight couples who get married for the attention and presents, and then get bored.

9. "traditional Christians are now being discriminated against."

Actually, most Christians over here are just as accepting of gay/bi/trans people as anyone else. Christians who say that God expects us to love everyone and that God made those people a certain way so it's okay are a lot more tolerant than people who are indifferent to religion but write articles talking about 'the gay agenda'.

As for those Christians who do go off on one about a minority possibly having some buttsex in private (a lot of them are okay with lesbians if they're pretty, strangely enough- Bill O'Reilly, I'm looking at you)... They're not exactly doing what Jesus said they should do are they? He who is without sin can cast the first stone and all that jazz. Therefore they don't count as Christians and we can call them as many names as we like without worrying about religious discrimination. Awesome.

10. "the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, called upon homosexuals to 'repent and be changed', which drew the immediate charge that he was promoting intolerance."

Promoting intolerance is exactly what he was doing. What a cunt.

11. "But since Christianity holds that sexual relations should be restricted to a man and a woman inside marriage, aren't those who want to stop Christians upholding their own doctrine displaying intolerance?"

Nobody's doing that though. Nobody said that all religious people have to allow gay marriages in their churches. The whole gay marriage issue, particularly in the US right now, is about the legal ceremony which is separate from the religious connotations. Gay people want religious nutjobs to stay the fuck out of the law. I think that's quite reasonable.

I can't decide who I dislike more, the Tories for being smug cunts or the Daily Mail for encouraging them to be smug homophobic bigoted cunts. I think I'll go with the Mail.