Just as there are organisations that deal with women, and children, and black people, and Muslims etc., I think there needs to be funded organisations that deal with gay people, too.

Plus, I'm pretty sure that excuse is just thinly veiled homophobia on his part; politicians of a certain ilk will say anything to avoid helping out the gays :)

If Mr. Charteris has objected in the past to the funding of other "group specific" organizations, thereby showing that he isn't just doing this to be discriminatory against LGBT persons, then I am not only in agreement with him but applaud his stance.

If, however, there is no evidence of him previously withholding his support for other "group specific" organizations, then I agree with CitizenGeek. Hopefully, if this is the case, some detail-oriented activist will expose his potential hypocrisy.

It is essentially the same argument made by some politicians in the U.S. such as Kern in Kansas. Personally, I'm all for inclusiveness, but perhaps some sort of documentation could be provided showing these otherwise heterosexual lads had seriously considered performing fellatio or that some of the good, straight Scottish lasses were willing to graze the shrubbery.

Yeah – it seems valid until you realize that in artfully arguing for funding things that EVERYONE can use, he's saying let's not fund social services for low-income people, or LGBT centers, or… continue listing as you see fit. I work for an organization that provides drug and alcohol abuse counseling for teens 12-20, and has an LGBT group which puts on a huge Gay Prom each year that people come to from around the country – I can only imagine where THAT would fit into his little argument.