Comments on this article are now closed. Thanks for your contributions.

And using extreme, fundamentalist and selective interpretations of religious texts to justify such odious anti-gay bigotry in no way makes it any more acceptable. A Cardinal claiming that same-sex relationships are tantamount to mental and spiritual abuse, or a church describing gay people as 'evil' and 'disordered' most certainly qualifies as bigotry and needs to be highlighted and exposed.

And yet, the author of this seriously misguided piece would have us believe that we in the gay community are the ones being offensive and at fault for daring to use the term 'bigot' against the likes of Cardinal O'Brien, or the Ugandan Minister who had LGBT venues raided and those present arrested, or the NI politician who described gay people as 'deviant'. None of this should be acceptable in a civilised society, and LGBT groups most certainly should not be censored for calling it what is is - bigotry.

As the writer of a much better article in this publication put it, bigotry is bigotry and those who peddle it deserve to be offended.

As a gay man, I strongly challenge the logic behind this article - which seems to be that we have no right to call out the worst kinds of smears directed against our community. It's as if making crass and offensive statements against a whole group of people based on their sexuality is not really bigotry at all. Yet, if some of what those nominated for Bigot of the Year had directed at another minority group, this wouldn't even be an issue. And therein lies the nub of the matter - a clear double standard which affords legitimacy to bigotry and prejudice only as long as it is directed at LGBT people. I find that view very disturbing indeed, especially when articulated by those who claim to be supporters of gay equality. (the author presumably)

I also object to this somewhat smug and patronising assumption on the part of the writer that there is no need for such an award anyway as we are already firmly part of the mainstream - well tell that to the child being bullied in school because of his/her perceived sexuality, bullying that is helped and faciliated by the kind of repugnant words and actions of the bigots Stonewall is right to draw attention to. Or the gay couples being harassed on Britain's high streets for holding hands etc.

Full equality has yet to be realised even in the UK, but in global terms, LGBT people face a battle just to be allowed exist - In Uganda for example (where one of the nominees hails from), they are proposing a bill that would sanction life imprisonment or even the death penalty for LGBT people. Is the author and our corporate 'supporters' saying thiat is not bigotry or that attention shouldn't be drawn to it? They are the uncomfortable questions not being addressed by those who seem so put out by the Stonewall award.

There is no question but that the Bigot of the Year award involves people who have gone far beyond mere disagreement with equality for ou community. The language used serves to demonise gay people, question our very humanity and give succor to those who would harm us in much more direct and violent ways. That is what is truly offensive and what writers such as the above should be discussing in this context.

What this flap does serve to highlight is the shallow and superficial nature of the support our community receives from certain quarters - the kind of individuals and groups who are happy to support us only when there are good headlines involved or brownie points to be won and not a hint of controversy involved.

But thankfully Stonewall is standing firm in this respect and will not be cowed into ignoring those forces who seek to deny what are fundamental human rights to a group of people, and whose extreme homophobia, quite incredibly, is still afforded legitimacy in a way that would not the case were we discussing other forms of prejudice. Well that is a double standard the LGBT community is not prepared to accept and we will continue to call out and expose homophobic bigotry.

'There's no need, these days, to indulge a victim mentality by indulging in playground insults and scapegoating.'

I can almost see you collapsing onto a couch, clutching your pearls as you dictated that to your factotum, before being given smelling salts. What a ridiculous over-reaction to a bit of PR folderol.

To name a man who likens same-sex marriage to child abuse a bigot seems mild indeed. Shit of the Year would be nearer the mark.

Bigotry is definitely not an out-dated concept in the UK: I believe it's dangerous to argue this. Until people stop killing or maiming themselves for being gay, or conceal their sexuality in false marriages bringing unhappiness to all, I believe the task of singling out and objecting to bigots spreading their manure in the public arena is a necessary - if uncomfortable - task.

Get over it: to call "bigot" is not life threatening to the perpetrators… it hardly begins to touch the real damage done to individual lives by people who espouse the sort of vile tripe that Stonewall is highlighting here.

Why should we be afraid to say the word "homophobia" when that's exactly what it is? We may have moved on from the love that dare not speak its name: but now we're not supposed to speak out when people are deliberately spreading hate.

Liberal left pussyfooting - stuff that - are we supposed to take the verbal abuse from the mainstream Catholic church lying down? They can call us evil paedophiles who tear society apart … who cause the destruction of rainforests … who threaten "ordinary" families (how?) … it goes on and on. Stonewall calls them bigots and causes all sorts of furore. COME ON, it's all so David and Goliath.

Does getting a bit of funding support from Barclays mean that Stonewall has to lose its campagining teeth? (Urm - contrast this with the funding support the Catholic church receives and it's a drop in the financing ocean). The extreme end of homophobia is what happens in Iran. Get real people - do you think this is unconnected with what comes out of the mouths of homophobes right here? This isn't whinging victimhood: homophobic hatred - under the protective veil of so-called religion - causes widespread misery in society. Really. God forbid, your son or daughter may be gay. Please think about what this means.

Catholicism was opposed to divorce in the same way it opposes gay marriage. I would suggest that divorce is a bigger threat to marriage but then bigotry and hate has always been the core Catholic value not ethical standards. Their ethics have always been an after the fact justification for their oppression and cruelty.

Calling a Catholic a bigot is not in itself bigotry. Bigotry is when someone is cruel to someone for an accident of birth. Nobody is born Catholic. They are raised Catholic (bullied into in most cases) and remaining Catholic in a relatively enlightened secular society is a matter of choice.

Calling a Catholic a bigot is not an insult; it's redundant since they mean the same thing (although technically Catholicism is an extreme form of bigotry).

One final key point:

Let's be clear every single Fascist leader was raised Catholic. Only one was excommunicated (and that was for marrying a Protestant). The current Pope being a fine example of that upbringing. Before se start throwing around Nazi or Fascist let's be clear they are basically just militant forms for Catholicism.

Catholicism was opposed to divorce in the same way it opposes gay marriage. I would suggest that divorce is a bigger threat to marriage but then bigotry and hate has always been the core Catholic value not ethical standards. Their ethics have always been an after the fact justification for their oppression and cruelty.

Calling a Catholic a bigot is not in itself bigotry. Bigotry is when someone is cruel to someone for an accident of birth. Nobody is born Catholic. They are raised Catholic (bullied into in most cases) and remaining Catholic in a relatively enlightened secular society is a matter of choice.

Calling a Catholic a bigot is not an insult; it's redundant since they mean the same thing (although technically Catholicism is an extreme form of bigotry).

One final key point:

Let's be clear every single Fascist leader was raised Catholic. Only one was excommunicated (and that was for marrying a Protestant). The current Pope being a fine example of that upbringing. Before se start throwing around Nazi or Fascist let's be clear they are basically just militant forms for Catholicism.

Stonewall is an LGB organisation. They hold no brief for trans people.

Hair trigger sensitivity of the catholics. Do I recall that overdressed ponce Ratzinger calling me, an atheist, a nazi when he visited the uk? Ratzinger, the hitler youth. Ratzinger the pope. Now tell me who the bigots are.

Hair trigger sensitivity of the catholics. Do I recall that overdressed ponce Ratzinger calling me, an atheist, a nazi when he visited the uk? Ratzinger, the hitler youth. Ratzinger the pope. Now tell me who the bigots are.

Besides shouldn't the bigot award go to the muslim president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmedinijad, for the policy of stoning homosexuals to death in Iran?

Then again to pick on a christian for a lesser instance of 'homophobia' is typical of the spinlessness of the liberal -left!

The response to Ruth Davidson's appeal not to classify everyone opposed to same-sex marriage as bigots - ' She left the stage to a chorus of boos and jeers' - encapsulates the intolerance and bigotry of Stonewall itself.

There is no god. Stonewall is an example of what Chris Hedges calls "boutique activism"; feel good, self-congratulatory nonsense that does nothing but claim to drift along with the current of history-as if liberation were nothing more than a leaf on a stream.
O'Brian and Stonewall deserve each other.

There is no god. Stonewall is an example of what Chris Hedges calls "boutique activism"; feel good, self-congratulatory nonsense that does nothing but claim to drift along with the current of history-as if liberation were nothing more than a leaf on a stream.
O'Brian and Stonewall deserve each other.