Peter Tatchell.

In his recent diatribe against Archbishop Sentamu desiring to uphold Christian values, Peter Tatchell has decided to step onto dangerous ground.  In spite of prefacing his comments to make himself into 'an outsider looking in' - he still determines that he is entitled to comment on how Christian should think and act:

"I am no theologian or expert in ecclesiastical matters, but from my understanding of scripture it is not a loving Christian value to demand discrimination against other human beings. To insist that the law discriminate against gay couples and treat them as inferior, second class citizens strikes me as devoid of the love and compassion that is attributed to Jesus Christ in the gospels."

Naturally, he feels that 'a God's eye view of humanity' is not relevant to the argument which is his primary mistake.
Secondly, he makes the basic error which assumes that 'love outbids righteousness'. Clearly he has no concept of what 'sin' is and that forgiveness of it is not the easy option - it is entirely dependent on repentance.
Thirdly, when he goes on to talk about those christians who approve of homosexual 'marriage' - he fails to take into account that these are people on the road to perdition. They do not follow God's commands. They have attempted to downgrade God. They think that 'man knows better'. He speaks in effect, of liberal christians - better known as heretics.
Fourthly, he speaks of a discrimination which does not exist. Homosexuals are not persecuted under UK law. The demands he makes are just 'new kids on the block' and go against all historical definitions of matrimony.
Fifthly, his arguments are specious. Civil partnerships have been put into place because of pressures by people like him.
Next. God is not subject to democratic constraints.
He seems to be using a certain casuistry at one point when using the argument from the YouGov poll of 61% accepting civil partnerships' and confusing this with an acceptance of 'homosexual marriage'. The two are distinct.
Finally, he expects that a 'special interest group' should, as a principle, be granted any request on demand. He has resorted to 'special pleading' which is never logically strong.
I know full well that Peter Tatchell is a courageous, intelligent man and also one of principle but if he were to meet the Living Lord - his views could not survive. I shall pray for that to happen.
If I hadn't had a personal relationship with God - I might have found his arguments more persuasive.