Reader comments · BNP: Gays good, homosexuals bad · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


BNP: Gays good, homosexuals bad

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. So, what exactly have you got on them? The fact that they do not embrace the ‘tolerances’ and perspectives of today’s metropolitan elite? They’re not to; they’re supposed to be the ‘odious-and-loathsome-BNP’ after all, and we wouldn’t want them saying something to cnfuse the Commentariat now, would we?

  2. Peter Muller 12 May 2006, 2:12pm

    Richard Barnbrook of the BNP.. Look closely, I would swear he looks a lot like a reincarnated Adolf Hitler.. right down to the brown suit and the way he parts his hair. And his opinions? They are right out of the policy books of NSDAP (WWII era Nazi Germany). Give the man credit – the likeness is uncanny. Just dont give him any time or any votes otherwise we will all be in trouble.

  3. the bnp have never condemned homosexuality, they would however like the majority voice to be heard when ‘alternative’ lifestyles, excuse the pun, are forever rammed downed their throats. check the web site, there’s nothing attacking homosexuals on

  4. Why are there so many cretins 20 Jan 2007, 4:16am

    The BNP aren’t ‘anti-gay’. They just adhere to a conservative view of it. Infact, I would bet there are quite a few members of the BNP who are gay or bisexual. After all, the bottom line with the party is race/nationhood and you can be a gay man and love your country and therefore want to see its identity protected. Straights don’t have a monopoly on patriotism. Also, what is worse – a BNP government that whilst not approving of homosexuality doesn’t want to persecute homosexuals or imprison them or an Islamic fundamentalist one which as we saw on that Dispatches programme might well want to throw them off a cliff.

  5. Richard Barnbrook is a homophobic BNP fascist. This is what Richard Barnbrook has to say about homosexuality:”There is a close analogy here with homosexuality. No one knows what causes some individuals to do what the majority of any healthy society places on a scale somewhere between distasteful and abhorrent, but some individuals will behave in that way whatever the bulk of popular opinion. But there is a world of difference between having a very small proportion of the population behave such ways because that is their natural inclination, and the present circumstances where such “alternative lifestyle choices” are presented as valid – even superior – by the most powerful behavioural modification programme in human history”.

  6. “check the web site, there’s nothing attacking homosexuals on there.”There was until very recently – the fact that they’ve removed it doesn’t mean that the attitudes don’t persist!

  7. Robert, ex-pat Brit 4 Feb 2008, 4:41pm

    I’m fed up with my natural orientation described as a “lifestyle”. I didn’t get to choose it, it chose me, just as heterosexuality chose most others. I have a “LIFE”, not a lifestyle. Since when does one call heterosexuality a “lifestyle” anyway? The answer is, NEVER! Its a veiled form of homophobia, something less than the straights. I’m tired of it.

  8. Bill Perdue 4 Feb 2008, 4:56pm

    Robert expat is exactly right. Our unique sexual and affectational orientation is a genetic gift from nature, and one we should treasure. It’s religious people who have self-chosen, unnatural and destructive lifestyles. They adopt superstitious and irrational beliefs and hold to them in spite of science, reasonableness and the evidence. Typical is the antisexual celibacy of catholic priests which directly leads to raping children.

  9. William - Dublin 4 Feb 2008, 5:42pm

    “They adopt superstitious and irrational beliefs and hold to them in spite of science, reasonableness and the evidence”For once, Bill, I agree with you. That’s exactly what religion is: denial in the face of science.

  10. And just as you think Bill might have said something moderately sensible….he starts spouting his over the top anti-Catholic bile.Par for the course it seems.

  11. Oh, come on, Luke. That is hardly fair. I have seen first hand the damage that this vile institution has done to the people I love. And it is outrageous that they are attempting to influence – yes, influence – the outcome of a democratic election.And as for the BNP sympathiser saying:”alternative’ lifestyles, excuse the pun, are forever rammed downed their throats.” How very ignorant, how very uneducated. So, what precisely does that statement mean? I’ll tell you what it means – it means:”go away and hide because we are ashamed of you.” Well, I won’t go away and hide! Never! Never! Never!

  12. Robert, ex-pat Brit 4 Feb 2008, 6:51pm

    Bill, thank you for your comment, I appreciate it.

  13. Robert, ex-pat Brit 4 Feb 2008, 7:07pm

    Luke said…”And just as you think Bill might have said something moderately sensible….he starts spouting his over the top anti-Catholic bile.”Luke, what do you think the Catholic church and others are saying about us for millenia? Not bile? What about its missionaries who are forbidden to distribute condoms in African countries and other emerging nations to halt the spread of HIV/AIDS? To me it sounds like it is promoting murder or worse yet, genocide. What kind of a mindset is that? Hardly rational. What about its refusal to allow contraception in general? It is against sex education in schools and it tries its best to exempt itself from equality laws; it moves paedophile priests from one parish to another to avoid scandal and what does it do when it is exposed? It conducts a witch hunt in the seminaries and monasteries to expel anyone who may or may not be perceived to be gay and once again, we are the scapegoats whom he refers to as the “filth” within the church, a church that describes our sex lives as “intriscally evil”. How can you support or justify a belief system that clearly doesn’t want you and wants to deny you your civil rights? EVIL if you ask me.

  14. Robert and David, I completely agree with your comments about the bigotry of the Catholic Church. I would never defend it, especially his holiness who refuses to be drawn into the 21st century regarding any sort of tolerance for gay people.My issue is simply with Bill and his non stop over the top attacks on Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. This is in addition to his other pet rants. It seems an all out assualt on Catholicism is in order on this board, yet when the touchy subject of islam comes up, it’s shrieks of “Islamophobe!” if it’s anything other than a direct attack on some genocidal cleric.Yet we never hear cries (quite rightly) of “Catholicophobe” or “Christianophobe” whenever these religions stupidity are ridiculed.The non stop rabid comments appear time after time on threads that have nothing to do with either. It gets tiresome and needs to be challenged.Robert, you certainly know what I’m talking about. David, I’m not sure if you’ve seen enough of the history here to see the full picture yet.I’ll repeat again, my issue is not with criticism of Catholicism, it’s with Bill’s marxist rants and general hypocrisy about religion, politics and everything else.

  15. Luke, Bill is a fool. Its that simple.Persistence is a fool’s best asset, and this fool cannot be argued with. A wise man changes his mind, a fool never.

  16. Bill Perdue 4 Feb 2008, 8:29pm

    Luke does indeed defend clerical rapists and the catholic cult and that explains his little tantrums when the subject comes up. Why is the subject of clerical sexual depravity and rape over the top? It’s certainly not over the top for the untold tens of thousands of rape victims. The roman cult in the US alone has paid over $3 billion dollars so far in claims. It’s a real question and one that points to the total and unforgivable decadence of these religious pigs. GLBT opposition to the roman cult and christianity is widespread because they’re our openly declared enemies. In the areas where they dominate their bigotry leads directly and undeniably to harassment, discrimination and violence against us. In the EU and the Americans they and not muslim bigots are the prime enemy. Anyone who’s read my comments on christian, islamic and other superstitious bigots will see that I despise them equally because of their crimes against us. But at the same time I am careful not to brand all muslims, all catholics, all jews etc. for the crimes of the leaders of those cults. Doing that, especially with respect of muslims in the US and the EU is simply racism.

  17. Robert, ex-pat Brit 4 Feb 2008, 8:37pm

    Luke I do know what you’re talking about. I have similar gripes with every religion including islam and I refute the contention by politically correct politicians who maintain that it IS a peaceful religion. It is NOT when their Immams and Mullahs call for our deaths and none of their moderates ever defends us, at home or abroad, let alone the leading “christian” denominations in particular. I have low tolerance for religion at best, after all, it IS a CHOICE and it IS a chosen “lifestyle” and it DOES discriminate with impunity. I will remain an avowed atheist.

  18. I have been reading and contributing to this site for many months, so please do not patronise me! Bill articulates what many people feel about Catholicism. As for Islam, the lack of a hierarchy in that religion makes it all the more lethal – Catholicism is a mere pussycat compared with the loose cannon of Islam.

  19. …..and, for your information, I do have a deep, powerful faith. But that faith does not extend to advocating a religion that imposes its values on people who do not agree with them.

  20. Bill – “Luke does indeed defend clerical rapists”Quote me where I said that or be seen as the liar that you are. You’ve just lost all credibilty with anyone on this board. If no one backs you up on your assertion, that’s it.I’m waiting for the quote Bill.

  21. David, I wasn’t patronising you. Apologies if it came across in that way!

  22. William - Dublin 4 Feb 2008, 8:56pm

    “Luke does indeed defend clerical rapists and the catholic cult”This is clearly a gross exaggeration at best, and at worst blatant lies to offend another. Luke said no such thing. Lets not demean this discussion with lies, Bill, no matter how much they make you feel better about yourself. I suggest you calm down, climb off that pedestal you think you’re on, and go back to READ his post. Its in English, so I assume it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to understand.Luke said “I would never defend it, especially his holiness who refuses to be drawn into the 21st century regarding any sort of tolerance for gay people.”Clearly, to me, he is not apologising, defending or otherwise supporting the Catholic Church. In fact, from my understanding of the English language, he does the opposite.So, can someone explain what all the histrionics against Luke are about again? Its seems to me that everyone is actually singing from the same hymn sheet, yet you all launch at someone who agrees with you. Did any of you actually READ his post before you reacted?So much for our tolerance of each other in the EU, when we couldn’t be bothered to even listen to each other. Is that all we are, a pack of over reacting bullies who attack first, read later?Luke, I for one actually read your post, and I agree with you. Well said mate.

  23. Thanks William, appreciated mate.Still waiting for Bill to find that quote of mine though.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.