Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Executed Iranians may have been gay

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I am awaiting that deafening calls of protest against this “outrage” from the many “moderate” Muslims we hear so much about. Yet the latest cruel act orchestrated by this Islamic Theocracy. Methinks we will hear only silence as the “Moderates” think up their excuses and attack those who highlight to the world the many evils done in the name of that religion.

  2. For a government that claims to be pro gay rights, I find the lack of attention given to such incidents shocking. If they had been hanged for being of the ‘wrong’ religion or ethnic group, I bet we’d be hearing condemnations left, right and centre.

  3. elizabeth veldon 27 Jul 2007, 4:32pm

    Methinks we will hear only silence as the “Moderates” think up their excuses and attack those who highlight to the world the many evils done in the name of that religion.–OK ythen Roberto you asked for it…you’re a racist hiding behind suposidly radical politics.You use your Sexuality as a weapon to make sure people don’t atack you for being bigoted.BTW: I’m not a moderat Muslim, i’m an Agnostic.

  4. Elizabeth: your reply is typical of the far left, communist Islamofacist loving looneys that are encouraging the Islamic extremists to continue their barbaric ways. Your ONLY defence is to instantly accuse anyone who condemns Islam as a bigot, a racist or Islamophobe. You are in fact dangerous. I suggest you read about the subject more, start with Melanie Phillips who just about reflects all I say and believe. Now Elizabeth, interesting you say nothing at all about Iran and its murder of Gays and Lesbians?I can assure you though if it were a Christian country hanging people from cranes in the street because of their sexuality then I’d be just as scathing. The problem is it’s twisted Islam that delights in the practice! Get real.

  5. elizabeth veldon 27 Jul 2007, 5:54pm

    yawn…i know nothing about this subject? Funny i’ve writen on it on more than once (three times infact for diffrent publications.)you’re a Troll. Now just go away.

  6. So when it’s Catholics saying they don’t want to join in gay couples adoption, it’s all guns blazing denouncing their bigotry.When it’s Islam hanging gay people then we have to tiptoe lightly in case some idiot screeches “Islamophobe” or “Racist”.In reality, they are the racists, as they don’t seem too bothered about Iranian gays being murdered.

  7. elizabeth veldon 27 Jul 2007, 5:59pm

    Luke:I do not suport them nor any other goverment that discriminates against ANY minority.i run a blog where i catalogue these abuses, i’ve (as i said) writen on this issue more than once but what i will not condone is people making my and other’s position untenable because they use defence of minorities as a way to hide their racism and phobic reactions.i’ve had this in the past with the Pro-Isralie movement which i withdrew from as there where so menny Anti-semites in it and i’m not going to let it happen again.

  8. Elizabeth, thank you for the reply. I can’t actually access the site you have in your signature btw.Criticism of Islam is no more racist than criticism of Christianity. Neither can be remotely classified as a race.I have not seen any evidence on this site as criticism of Islam being used as a cloak for racism. What is annoying, is the evident double standards of the Left. Just look at any article criticising any branch of Christianity (especially Catholicism) and compare that with articles where Islam clerics in theory, and Islamic governments in practice, persecute gay Muslims to a far greater extent than saying they don’t approve of gay marriage etc which is largely the extent of the Church’s power in Europe.We have had numerous Islamic clerics in Europe openly calling for gay people to be killed. Why aren’t the Left denouncing these people from the rooftops (which incidentally, is one of their theologically preferred ways of killing us along with stoning and hanging)

  9. If the Koran, Qu’uran, whatever way its spelt is supposed to denounce killing, then why does it not condemn what is going on in Iran and elsewhere, not matter that the victims are gay. Killing is killing. I find it much like christianity, all rather hypocritical and all supporting a double standard. But when it comes to gays, they look the other way and allow it to happen which proves we are the last vestige of hatred. If it were heterosexual jews, blacks, hindus, rounded up and killed because of who they are, there would be international uproar and condemnation. The double standard is so transparent and obvious.Robert, ex-pat Brit.

  10. Still Elizabeth refuses to condemn Iran obviously because to do so would result in squeals of “Racist” from her leftist and Ismaofacist friends!Apeasement will get us nowhere and never has – just look at Chamberlain before WW2!I stick firmly to my stance and will “defend” Gay rights and “offend” those who seek to kill, murder and discriminate against us. If that’s Islam then so be it. If that’s the Church then so be it. (A religion isn’t a race by the way Elizabeth)?The apologists for the violent mobs that have taken over Islam are as dangerous in my eyes as any hook handed would be terrorist!

  11. Sister Mary Clarance 28 Jul 2007, 4:23pm

    Ladies, Ladies, lets not argue. Those of us that have ‘chosen’ the gay way of life are in a very difficult situation with the Muslim faith (even more difficult I would have though if in fact you are both gay and Muslim).Increasingly the positions of gay people and practising Muslims are being polarised. Any practising Muslim cannot in good conscience accept homosexuality any more easily that any practising homosexual can renounce it. Quite clearly there is going to be a great deal of friction.It is clear again that many people using this site are going to have a heavy bias towards the homosexual argument, and unlike Elizabeth (I believe) I can understand this point of view without labelling those expressing their forcefully as racist. I don’t believe that the anti-Muslim opinions expressed are ‘unfounded’ comments as they come from a group that consider differential and extremely unfavourable treatment towards homosexuals to be acceptable. Discrimination towards, and differential treatment of, homosexuals by Muslims is to some extent tolerated or ignored as it goes under the banner of religious belief.Similarly, for those who follow Islam, from what I understand it is not possible to cherry pick which parts of the Koran you do or do not acknowledge, and therefore irrespective of any legislation being passed, if they are true to their beliefs it is difficult for them to accept us as equalCompromise from either side I think is unlikely to say the least. Even if I made a solemn oath not to do so, and refrained to do so for a short while, sooner or later I’d be giving it to someone up the Gary Glitter again for sure. Equally its unlikely that the nations of Islam would ever stick their hands up and suggest the bit about us homos was probably just and error in translation and we should carry on as we were.As long as we have weak willed people who cannot accept responsibility for their own destiny we will always have this difficulty. We live in a free society, we permit and even encourage free speech, we allow an individual to put religion above state. Perhaps this is our mistake.

  12. elizabeth veldon 30 Jul 2007, 9:04pm

    Sister Mary Clarance:I’d hate to live in a country where free speach was a ‘mistake.’ i am mearly commenting on the use of terms such as ‘death cult’ to describe the Muslim faith, the labeling of the Muslim faith as a violent one ect. I am not seeking to defend the despicable behaviour of those who would use Religion as a mask for their own predices.It is not that i didn’t respond BTW but that i havn’t been online.I’ll make sure i time table my life better in future.

  13. “As long as we have weak willed people who cannot accept responsibility for their own destiny we will always have this difficulty. We live in a free society, we permit and even encourage free speech, we allow an individual to put religion above state. Perhaps this is our mistake.”Sister Mary Clarance, I concur with your statement. I think the same is true of the Church of England, putting religion above the state. If there were no state religion (something I strongly support), I think there would have been an easier chance for full marriage recognition. Civil Partnerships I believe were a concession so as not to offend the state religion and others. It should never have been allowed to happen considering that it was a civil marriage issue without th religious component. Disappointing though.Robert, ex-pat Brit.

  14. elizabeth veldon 31 Jul 2007, 2:31pm

    all that Civil partnerships where for was to keep us happy, nothing else.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all