Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Rupert Everett: ‘Gay men who have children are egocentric and vain’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Ben Cooper 8 Apr 2009, 4:22pm

    For Crying out loud….Too all you gays who expect us to live on the outside of mainstream society I say get stuff. If you want to live on the outside then sol be it and do so but don’t dare expect the rest of us to do so.

    I don’t know about the UK but here in Australia middle class queens have sat on their backside while the poorer half of the gay activists community have been doing all the work.

    IVF is natural. Human thought and natural resources being used to contruct inventions that benift our society is very natural and normal…..we relies this nowadays with comdoms, why can’t we catch up with IVF?

  2. I have met him and he is VILE. Really really nasty. He loves to cruise the clubs in London and likes to pick on couples taking one of them home for sex and leaving the other out.
    Nasty.

  3. I would tend to agree with Rupert on his main point. Homosexuality can be viewed as a built-in method of population control – demonstrated by varying hormone levels in the womb with each sucsessive conception, leading to a greater chance of homosexuality.
    If I were in the position of considering parenthood, I would rather respect such mechanics of nature than let my ego driven desire to propagate my genes take over – it is not natural.
    However, what is natural and is constantly observed in nature is the adoption / fostering of parentless young. I think that this is a far more altruistic approach and is of far more benefit to the population crisis and the millions of parentless children in the world.

    1. Who cares how you think homoseualtiy CAN be viewed in your very narrow opinion. Guess what…there are many gay men who would love to have children and how they choose to do it is none of your business nor is it open for your approval or disapproval.

      I am a gay man who had two daughters with my wife before I realized my same sex atttraction and am glad of it. Anyones personal decision is their own and is not open to your snotty nosed opinion. Butt out!

  4. Rupert Everett has a projection problem. Everyone looks like an egocentric vain middle class gay man through the lenses of his coloured contact lenses. Next that naughty boy will be telling us that all gay men f–k like rabbits in public at fetish clubs with eyes as big as saucers, can you imagine such a thing. Dear dear Rupert not everyone likes the same things as you and not everyone could or should live the life you have chosen. I can’t see how wanting to bring up and care for a child is completely self indulgent and vain, there must be some altruistic element. The little blighters are so expensive after all. I have to agree with you on one thing though Abercrombie and Fitch is so over.

  5. andrew flynn 8 Apr 2009, 5:27pm

    What a pointless statement…and he thinks he’s far more famous than what he actually is

  6. This guy is a shame. Shallow and hollow. And that’s he can’t possibly understand those motivated with less selfish goals.
    We have you in our thoughts Rupert. And not in a good way.

  7. Always thought he was an arsehole. This just confirms it.

  8. Simon Murphy 8 Apr 2009, 6:44pm

    I don’t agree with the idea that gay men are selfish for wanting children. Wanting a child is a natural impulse for many people gay or straight.

    Having said that I have absolutely no desire to have children. In my view one of the good things about homosexuality is the removal of the pressure by society to reproduce.

    As regards the idea that that gay movement is overrun by middle class queens and their agendas – well I wouldn’t phrase it how Rupert did but in 1 way I agree with him. In my view there seems to be an obsession in the gay community with the right to marry and the right to have children. In my view there are far more serious issues facing the gay community that seems to have been lost in the struggle for marriage – namely the rampant bullying of gay children in schools; the disproportionate number of young gay people who attempt or commit suicide; the apparently high rate of alcohol and drug abuse in the gay community; the growth of the gay HIV infection rate.

    These are all as serious as the issue of gay marriage and having children. They tend to be forgotten though.

  9. He’s the queen of middleclass old queens.

  10. Wanting a child may be a natural urge (Simon Murphy) but using IVF is certainly not a “natural” response (Ben Cooper)
    There are advantages and disadvantages to both sexualities, The downside of being gay is it needs one of each sex to make babies. So tuff titties, life’s a bitch, get over it.

    Everett says an of lot of what I think as well. Gay men are self-centered, egotistical wankers. As for the Gay movement, I would change that slightly to “full of middle class, left wing, bitter old queens who can’t get a decent shag any more and resent everyone else who does.”

  11. Egocentric, vain, hideous… I couldn’t have described Rupert Everett more succinctly.

    Maybe he could try shutting his trap and letting people make the right decisions for themselves? There is nothing more natural than the desire to raise offspring; it’s a part of both genetics and human nature, no matter what your sexuality.

    The last thing we need is a self-loathing, bitter old queen doling out sound-bytes about “what is natural” or “grim lesbians”. Scummy old whore!

  12. What an idiot! I used to respect him for being openly gay. Now I think he’s doing more harm than good.

  13. For the sake of God, the Queen and queens everywhere will you people in England please take this sack of shit back to the Motherland? I am so frickin sick of this egomaniacal, pompous, vain twit unleashing his diarrhea of the mouth upon anyone who will listen.

    Does he not at all see the irony of HIM calling ANYONE “egocentric” and “vain”.

    Jesus Christ, I don’t think I’ve EVER seen a more undeservedly self-agrandizing and ignorant person in my life.

    As a gay husband and father I can assure Mr. Everett, and anyone else who may be likewise misinformed, that there is nothing, and I do mean NOTHING LESS “selfish” than being a good parent. The day I and my husband became dads was the day that we as individuals, we as a couple and everything about us became SECONDARY to our son and his needs.

    In Mr. Everett’s case however I will take great comfort in knowing that he won’t be reproducing and I sincerely hope that he doesn’t adopt either. No child should be subjected to the abuse of living with this man’s enormous ego or his endless anger and bitterness.

  14. Brian Burton 8 Apr 2009, 8:59pm

    I just feel full of ‘World Weariness’ when silly people like Rupert Everett spouts negativity. I happened to feel the same way when Elton John (At the beginning of this terrible resession said:) I advise Pop- Stars to employ a Butler!

  15. Doug Pollard 8 Apr 2009, 9:31pm

    “Egocentric and vain” – well, he’d be the expert on that, now wouldn’t he?

  16. What a pathetic arsehole. Live and let live fro chrissakes! Oh, and PS, Rupert, you’re a bloody middle aged queen!

  17. “I want to be illegal.”

    Yeah? Go tell that to every gay person that’s been imprisoned, tortured or executed by their own government. Tell that to gay men standing on the galows in Iraqu.

  18. Edward in Los Angeles 8 Apr 2009, 10:41pm

    Does Everett have mental issues? He’s talking like someone who is on medication (or maybe off it) and whose thoughts proccesses come out like a loose cannon with no regard for propriety or truth. What’s his beef with a gay man have a surrogate baby with a lesbian. Is he implying that a surrogate should only be a surrogate for a straight man?

  19. lol@Rupert. What an idiot, and yes, I agree with the comment from “David” – he is projecting his own thoughts on to others. He probably feels some guilt for his worthless, hollow life and so has to pick on those who are interested in more than drugs, fucks and fame.

    These comments are very similar to those of George Michael (about gay men in general). It’s really damaging for famous gays (who are surrounded by arse kissers, lets be honest) who go mouthing off and generalising about what gay men are or want. Perhaps in his sad life that’s how they all are…. he needs to get a life, a real life.

  20. stephen kay 9 Apr 2009, 1:37am

    Horrible man who has had to good and has missed the whole point of gay liberation. He should go live in Iran where he would find out about living illegally.Stupid idiot with views like that I would shut my mouth. Rubert this is a gay man who is trying to have a baby telling u to go and f**k yourself you DON`T SPEAK FOR ME!!!

  21. The first thing I think of when I see the words Egocentric & Vain are Rupert himself – was he looking in the mirror when he opened his mouth? I hope he never considers IVF – I wouldn’t want his gene pool spreading!

  22. Who needs to worry about homophobes and fundamentalists and BNPers or radical homophobic Tories when we have so many gays like Rupert Everett who have enough homophobia, hate and bitterness to replace the whole lot of them.

  23. “Everybody has the right to do what they want to do, but still…”

    But still WHAT Rupert? But only when it suites YOUR idea of what is appropriate? But only when they first check in with you to make sure that they don’t make themselves happy in a way that will stir up another bitter explosion from you?

    I think this is the bottom line of his complaint.

    He feels that people who don’t have the same values as he does and people who don’t make HIS happiness their number one priorty in life are egotistical, vain and selfish.

    Remember this boys and girls. Before you do ANYTHING that you think might make you and your spouse happy and fullfilled, first ask yourself, “What Would RUPERT Do?” and “Will This Make RUPERT Happy?”

  24. I agree with his opinions, but I don’t think it’s limited purely to gay people, I think it applies to all couples regardless of sexuality. Lets face it some “couples” shouldn’t have children, not just because they can. Population growth is out of control and while it is a “natural” desire for people to want to have children and big families, it is still a “selfish natural desire”. I mean seriously how many people are having children “To further the existence of the human race” as a reason (which is the only biological reason for procreation). No everybody wants children because they want a “family” and to fill a need in themselves to be parents…it’s purely selfish.

    I’m not saying this is a bad thing, but I’m just saying we need to rethink our approach for the sake of the human race because I think it’s starting to get out of control.

    FYI….I do want children, but I fully intent to adopt.

  25. So, is this Rupert the ex rent boy speaking or Rupert the vain egocentric actor or Rupert, the token gay character in those endless chick flicks? I thought Rupert was a rabbit’s name anyway…..Rupert who and who cares?

  26. christopher 9 Apr 2009, 7:08am

    It is very unfortunate Mr. Everett is casting judgment without seeming to acknowledge that each individual’s experiences differ. While I am not married, nor do I have children, I live in a place that it is impossible for homosexuals to adopt or foster. I live in a place where I am lucky to be able to walk down the street, even as a closeted homosexual.

    What makes IVF and surrogacy for gays and lesbians different from that of heterosexuals? Mr. Everett’s argument is weak at best and ignorant in the worst way. While he is fortunate enough to be in a place and position that affords him the ability to be the role model LGBT youths are in desperate need of, his poorly thought out comments seem to substantiate those who oppose us. We are deviant, not worthy and are not deserving of the rights our straight counterpart so easily takes for granted.

    Mr. Everett…how arrogant and assumptive of you to not take all things into consideration. How disappointing that you, who have the ability to encourage and inspire, would not choose your words more carefully.

  27. He’s right I tihnk, for the wrong reasons. Yes, gay people who have kids, are egocentric. Everybody who has kids is egocentric. the need to pass on DNA is very natural, very selfish. We would not be here if that were not the case.

    Though Everett really meant something different, and pretty nasty. That being gay makes it impossible to care, think of others. AS said above, the problem with Everett’s egocentricity, is that, because he cannot imagine being able to care or think of others, it must be simply impossible for anyone else to.

    As for the vacuous comment on IVF. Well, it’s no more artificial than deciding to have sex withoput contraception on a particular occasion (IVF is a product of naturally selected brains, making it perfectly natural in any case).

    To kids of gay and IVF parents around the world, Everett is saying: he’d rather you weren’t born at all.

  28. Mr Everett should be thankful he’s not experienced the overwhelming desire to have children, as a gay person it hurts like hell (the heart as well as the purse)!

  29. he is making ONE mistake:

    We homosexuals are not ONE stock. There are millions, dozens of millions of gays lesbians trans etc who are very different one from another. -calling them “egocentric and vain”?- How can you assume that millions of people are “egocentric and vain”? Rupert not everybody is like you (and you are an actor, not a psycologist)

  30. He added: “Or am I slightly ahead of the curve?”

    In a word, Rupert – NO. You are stuck in a sad, self-destructive, emotionally immature world, unable to see past yourself and your desires. You can’t comprehend a world that doesn’t revolve around you.
    And your comments about pregnancy are comparable to those of an eight year old – “and then they cut it out” ‘Yuk, gross, etc etc’ Grow up and shut up.

  31. Simon Murphy 9 Apr 2009, 10:28am

    Leaving aside the nasty way in which he delivered his comments and his own personal agenda does anyone else agree that the gay movement is overly concerned with marriage anc children?

    I understand that many gay people have children and want to get married but that a very large proportion of gay people don’t want children; many gay people are single etc. The struggle for marriage and children is seems to taking all the spotlight and headlines and energy of the gay movement and other more serious issues like bullying; eating disorders; drug and alcohol abuse; risky sexual practices etc are being ignored. I don’t think this is either helpful or advisable.

    If as much effort had been spent on ensuring that gay children not get bullied in school then life would have been better for thousands of gay people.

    One small thing – in post #13 Zeke makes the following statement:

    “that there is nothing, and I do mean NOTHING LESS “selfish” than being a good parent”

    Please explain – in my view there is nothing especially selfless about being a parent. Once you are a parent then the welfare of your child is your responsibility – end of story. It is not a matter of whether you are selfish or not. Billions of people are parents. However to claim that being a good parent is any more selfless than being a good friend or concerned citizen strikes me as arrogance. Being a parent doesn’t give someone any extra nobility or prestige.

    It is absolutely vital that the gay community not fall into the trap that thinking that marriage and children are necessary for being gay. That is dangerous, stupid and heterosexist. Being a parent is no more noble than being childless. Being married is no more respectable than being single.

  32. Thank God for people like Rupert. It is sometimes difficult to learn from other people’s mistakes, but it is definitely not when they are so obvious. He is surely a very sad person – but should that prevent anyone for even the fraction of a second from being happy?

  33. Simon Murphy 9 Apr 2009, 10:42am

    Again I’d like to point out that getting married or having children is not the only way of being happy. This message seems to be getting lost in the all-consuming campaign for marriage and children. For some people being single with a varied sex life and having lots of good friends makes them happy. People who regard marriage and children as the only goal for the gay community are being selfish and shortsighted.

  34. I think the issue of the RIGHT to marry and the RIGHT to have or adopt children is of extreme significance to our battle against homophobia. Every time LGBT people’s rights are denied it implies that we are somehow less worthy than heterosexuals. Achieving equality in those fields is going to bring enormous benefits to every LGBT person regardless of whether they want to use those rights or not. Social acceptance of the equality of LGBT people in these fields is going to improve the expectations of LGBT youth and also dampen the edge of attacks they might have to face. I think it is pointless to ask ourselves why the LGBT movement is so concerned with these issues. For me it is because I want equal rights. Full stop.

    This is not to say that bullying and homophobia in general deserve any less attention. We should be working on these as hard as on marriage equality, of course.

  35. RobN: “Gay men are self-centered, egotistical wankers.”

    And the more you think like that about yourself, the less you deserve equality.

    Keep your internalised homophobia to yourself, I have more self respect than that.

  36. Simon Murphy – you’re completely right. I agree that it doesn’t automatically make you happy and I respect people (straight and gay) who chose to remain single and/or not have children. All I believe is that everyone should have a choice and be treated equally. I think the campaign for marriage is because of the inherent second-class, separate but equal nature of CPs. No-one’s insisting that every gay person get married/CPed, but if they choose to, then it’d be nice if there was just one civil route untainted by religion, allowing everyone to get married *if they so choose*.
    Likewise, the desire to have children is – for SOME people – a biological urge, just like the desire to eat and drink. It can be all-consuming. I don’t think this is selfish. It applies to people regardless of their sexuality, so being gay shouldn’t mean you’re somehow ‘not permitted’ to have children. I don’t think it’s a question of copying heterosexuals. It’s just a characteristic that’s shared by some people, straight and gay.
    Yes, there are many other things to fight for. I’m particularly concerned about education to try to stop bullying and discrimination by catching people when they’re young. I don’t see why we can’t fight for ALL the things you’d mentioned. Some may interest you/me more than others, but everyone has different priorities, and hopefully no aspect will be neglected.
    Is having children selfish or selfless? There are aspects of both – ‘selfish’ because you’re fulfilling your own personal desire, but selfless because you have to give up many of your own interests/needs to prioritise those of your children. This applies to everyone, gay or straight. Having children isn’t easy, and nor is it a personal indulgence. Other people’s children will grow up to nurse, to serve in trade and industry, to work to pay the pensions of the people who choose not to have children. An old argument, but true.
    I’d like equality and fairness in every area of life. I think people are only concentrating on children and marriage because that’s what Rupert referred to. I think most people have other concerns too, and are equally concerned about all the things you mentioned. :)

  37. Vincent Poffley 9 Apr 2009, 11:54am

    The point about campaigning for equal marriage and child-rearing rights is that it puts gay people on the same footing as everyone else. It is not an implicit endorsement of marriage and child-rearing as the most important things a person can turn their attentions to, it is simply saying that we do not deserve to be treated as second-class citizens and denied the basic rights that the heterosexual majority enjoys. When gay people have full legal and social equality, then the culture which gives rise to all the other problems that beset the gay community will change. Ultimately that’s what it’s all about – changing the culture so that gay people are not merely tolerated in society but completely accepted. When this happens, the bullying, psychological misery and other problems will be massively reduced.

    Some gay people want to just be the same as everyone else and enjoy a quiet, unremarkable life. Others want to be outrageous, subversive, challenging and unorthodox. Both are fine, but surely the choice should be up to the individual? Surely you shouldn’t be forced into being outrageous and subversive simply by dint of being born gay? Just because some gay people don’t want to get married or have children, that is no reason to deny those options to all of us.

  38. Oh dear me! We don’t need one of What a silly thing to come out withour own getting digs in about gay lifestyles when we have all these Mad Mullahs, bishops and Popes at it as well! What a silly thing to come out with, wanting to be illegal but of course wasn’t Rupe a rentboy when it was still illegal so he should know!!

  39. Simon Murphy 9 Apr 2009, 12:49pm

    #32 Andy – you say:

    “I think the issue of the RIGHT to marry and the RIGHT to have or adopt children is of extreme significance to our battle against homophobia. ”

    Marriage is a right I agree. Having children is NOT a right for ANYONE – gay or straight. It is a responsibility. I don’t think someone like Rose West or Josef Fritzl have the RIGHT to be parents. They merely had the opportunity and they abused their responsibilities.

    I agree that marriage equality the the opportunity to raise families if you want to are important struggles.

    But like it or not these struggles seem to have become all consuming to the gay world.

    In my view that is an extremely dangerous development as it raises the risk that gay people who choose to be childless and single will be seen as irresponsible and feckless by the more hetero-normative members of the queer community.

    This has happened before.

    Stonewall was a riot instigated by drag queens and bull dykes that started the gay rights movement (in the US at least). Within a couple of years the gay movement was excluding these pioneers as they were giving the ‘wrong’ impression to the straight majority. I think there is a very real risk that should the focus of the gay movemnent remain so relentlessly fixated on marriage and children that those gay people who do not fit the new ‘norm’ will once again find themselves excluded as they don’t paint the ‘right’ image.

  40. Simon Murphy 9 Apr 2009, 1:00pm

    Incidentally in case of any doubt – I do fully support marriage equality and equal adoption rights.

    It’s just that I don’t think they are issues that merit such an all consuming focus in the gay movement and media.

    I personally the soaring rate of barebacking is a far more serious question for the gay (male) community. I think homophobic bullying and drug/alcohol/food abuse are far more prevalent and far less reported issues for the entire gay community.

  41. To those few people above who think that Everett is right, just nip out to your nearest remainder bookshop will you and get yourselves a copy of his autobiography. Mine, from national chain “The Works”, was reduced to £1!

    Everett is an upper middle-class toffee-nosed natterer who has not read literature of quality or scientific important for any decent length of time – say, the length of a decent university undergraduate degree, for example. Hence, when by the time you get to the end of his autobiography you find yourself saying, “The man can spout words, and with some colourful flare, but he and his words are so awfully and hideously superficial”. He’s just another brainless actor/dancer type. Everett, sorry you’re having trouble getting acting work because memorising lines and strutting around on stage really is all you have any qualification to do.

    Ignore Everett. He’s desperately being outlandish to cause a furore and keep a public profile. He’s getting little acting work and he thinks that by saying the outrageous and being in the public eye someone may give him a role. The trouble is the way he’s behaving the only role he’s showing himself suitable for is that of the embittered shallow superficial aging upper-middle-class homosexual man – while many of the rest of us gay men are out there being happy well-adjusted and more thoughtful members of society who sometimes choose not only to lavish love upon a dog but upon children, a far far more difficult task.

    (The only human few pages in Everett’s autobiography are the pages where he details the passing of his dog.)

  42. Brenton Head 9 Apr 2009, 1:18pm

    Poor Rupert, he has failed to realise that people are different in the things that they so desire. My partner and I never would want to have children but many couples do. Many couples reject marriage but others cant wait to get the certificate. What is needed is that gay, lesbain and transgender people have the samt rights to choose WHAT they wish to do. Rupert, back to acting and being a BITTER old queen!

  43. Sorry. Meant to write: “who has not read literature of quality or scientific import . . .”

  44. Simon Murphy 9 Apr 2009, 1:38pm

    #39 Eddy : “while many of the rest of us gay men are out there being happy well-adjusted and more thoughtful members of society who sometimes choose not only to lavish love upon a dog but upon children, a far far more difficult task.”

    I accept that it may be a more difficult task to raise a child but it is by no means more worthwhile. Having a child does not give someone status as a person. Anyone who bases their self worth on whether or not they have reproduced then their life must be pretty empty. Being childless is just as worthy as I’m sure you’ll agree.

  45. Pinkwinkle 9 Apr 2009, 1:42pm

    Nice to see support coming from our own side eh?? And middle class queens, yes because you’re clearly from the gutter aren’t you….twat!

  46. Robert, ex-pat Brit 9 Apr 2009, 2:31pm

    Zeke, he lives in the motherland, I don’t get your comment about that.

    In any event, I don’t agree with Rupert. I suppose he also finds IVF weird for straight couples where the males’ sperm counts are low and subsequently can’t impregnate in the conventional manner. His argument is lost and asinine.

  47. Duane from Florida 9 Apr 2009, 3:09pm

    Good for you Rupert. I also get annoyed with those egocentric gays who think the world cannot survive without their genes getting into the mix. In these days of horrendous over population it is a crime to have a child. For those who feel they absolutely must practice parenting, adoption is the only way.

  48. Simon Murphy: “In my view that is an extremely dangerous development as it raises the risk that gay people who choose to be childless and single will be seen as irresponsible and feckless by the more hetero-normative members of the queer community”

    I certainly don’t think that about gay people who choose to remain single and childless, and I don’t know any gay friends who think that, although if it concerns you then I acknowledge your worry. However, I strongly object to the phrase “the more hetero-normative members of the gay community”. Again, let me spell it out – the desire to have children is NOT limited to the straight community. Wanting children doesn’t make you ‘hetero-normative’ – god, I find that phrase so offensive. Sorry, I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way, but it sounds so bad to my ears. Whether you want to get married or whatever is NOT dependent on your sexuality. No-one’s ‘more gay’ because they choose to remain single. It’s not a competition. Let’s respect everyone’s rights and not try to make out that what we do is somehow BETTER than anyone else. That’s just what Rupert’s trying to do, and although I respect his right to live his life as he chooses, I don’t accept his supercilious, arrogant and vain tone. Nor do I accept that gay people or straight people ‘own’ certain things or have to behave in certain way, which is what I took your comment to mean. YUK, YUK. I still can’t get over it – hetero-normative. Sounds horrible and condescending (and, again, I’m not suggesting that was your intent – it’s just a gob-smackingly bleurrghh term to use in my opinion.

  49. First I’m going to confess that I don’t know much about this Rupert Everett fellow. I was initially just a bit offended by the article but after reading over what he said a few times, I think I can sort of see where he’s coming from. He doesn’t want the image of marriage and parenthood to be an ideal thrust upon gays. However, he goes about it in such a manner that what he’s trying to say is lost. And at the same time, whether he means it or not, he sounds like he wants to replace that image with his own lifestyle which is absolutely hypocritical. Also, if he’d like his own lifestyle to be respected then maybe he shouldn’t be so glibly disparaging about the lifestyles that other people have chosen.

  50. Justin, stop talking like a twat. Hormone levels in the womb, FFS, you’ll be claiming it’s a lifestyle choice next.

    As for Rupert, well, nuff said!

  51. Wow, this topic has really drawn some comment. I have to agree that quite a lot of gay men are egotistical I’m sad to say, but it’s not about having kids.

    The egotistical thing with gay men is a social issue – the whole ‘scene’ is based around the shallowest of precedents. It’s not about pride or meeting likeminded people any more, it’s about partying and showing off!

    Ever walked in to an unfamiliar gay bar and felt uncomfortable? :)

  52. And for the record, I am a lesbian who has no desire in conceiving. I’d like to someday raise children but only through adopting or fostering. So, in that respect I share similar views with Mr. Everrett. But in the same time I feel no need to be “illegal” and I don’t think I have to live that way. Similarly, I don’t think all gay people have to choose to live like us, adopting or fostering in order to have children.

  53. I have lost all respect I had for this horrible man. What a load of homophopbic old twaddle. So, he doesn’t want to be normal or legal. Well, why doesn’t he go to Nigeria or Iraq and see how he likes it there. And does he seriously think he is some osrt of working class hero with that ridiculous posh accent! Good grief- he is a middle class queen if ever there was one. He did enough damage to the gay cause with all his lurid descriptions of how much he loves cottaging. People read this sort of thing and think that’s what gay men are like. Perhaps some gay people do actually want to be normal. I am a gay man married to another gay man and we have a baby on the way and that all makes me happy. Why shouldn’t I be happy? Why should I be forced to reply on dirty cheap thrills instead of love? Why should I have to deny my natural instinct to be a parent? Time for one sad old queen to retire gracefully and leave us all alone.

  54. Ryan Haynes - fyi radio 9 Apr 2009, 3:54pm

    Funny how people bandy about the idea of ‘rights’.

    Fundamentally our human rights are to breathe, drink, sleep, eat, excrete, communicate – FULL STOP.

  55. It would be nice to think All gay people have a responsibilty for the security of the next gen. But poor uneducated kids are still getting kicked out to live on the streets or become prostitutes, take drugs get hiv and die. The only time the middle class see us is for rough trade, you can’t take us home! The middle classes get married, have kids and ignore us. You gay guys have made it you’re just like straight conservative people well done.

  56. Rupert really SHOULD take his middleclass egocentric feet out of his vain mouth before speaking :-)

    If he wants to be “illegal” he’s got enough money to book a single ticket to Iran and enjoy that option, for as long as it would last.

    His final line “Everybody has the right to do what they want to do, but still…”, says it just about right. He has the right to be an ecocentric and vain twat who thinks we are more interested in what he says than we actually are.
    More fun for us, hearing of his latest twaddle.

  57. A few years ago being a gay/lesbian with a dog was fashionable. Gay couples can’t naturally have kids. It’s part of our rite of passage to accept that, I feel. But kids need love, and there’s plenty out there who’ll love two mums or two dads. So while I’m with Rupert on the fight against the idea of children as lifestyle choices, I’m also with him totally for adoption. For once, it would seem adopting babies is way more controversial than making them. Strange that.

  58. I guess it’s weird for me, my instincts say to have children but i fight against them because I can’t stand kids.

  59. I once knew a gay couple who had five children between them. Both had been married before when they were “straight” and subsequently divorced. Both of them were on good terms with their former wives and had a good relationship with all their children. They were, however, 100 percent gay and the experience of, presumably, getting married to save face and everything else that goes with producing five children had left its mark on them. Legalised gay civil unions, and even surrogacy if they must, is surely a better option than what my two friends went through.

    All the best.

  60. Each to their own. There is something to be said for being childless, however. You get to be a great uncle to some great kids :)

  61. wow i guess this is the first and last time i hear about rupert everett lmao!

  62. Marc Paige 10 Apr 2009, 2:57am

    I never knew what a jerk Rupert Everett was. Mr. Everett, you were not given the opportunity to play James Bond because you’re gay. You were not given the role because you’re a creep.
    You don’t want kids – that’s fine. Putting down others who do, makes you look sad.

  63. Oreo Cookie 10 Apr 2009, 4:02am

    Rupert is just one angry queen, no films under his belt, Madonna dont even contact him anymore, Rupert is one tired ass queen. Can you blame her, I mean him. SHE IS ANGRY.

  64. Simon Murphy 10 Apr 2009, 11:14am

    Iris – #46

    Sorry you find the expression hetero-normative offensive. I don’t see why however.

    Like it or not the idea of 2 men or 2 women who are involved in an intimate relationship with each other raising a family together is a very recent development. I’m sure it’s happened in the past of course but the concept of ‘gay parenting’ (as opposed to a gay person having a child with a heterosexual partner) is a new concept.

    2 men can’t have a biological child together; 2 women can’t have a biological child together. Therefore outside help is needed. Until very recently the ONLY way to have a child was to have sex with someone of the opposite sex. The fact that gay people are now choosing their own methods of mimicking the age old heterosexual practice of having children is why I call it hetero-notmative.

    I’m curious about the number of gay people who actually have or want children though. It seems to be getting more popular especially among women – for whom it’s easier obviously. But looking at the gay male world I only know of a tiny number who either have or want children. So I think the idea that gay parenting while important to those involved is not and should not be an overriding concern to the larger gay community. It’s important but the focus of the gay rights movement should not be about parenting.

    Having a child is a choice. It is no more valid or worthy a choice than having a dog or remaining single. Gay parents deserve the same protections as straight parents but what they seem to forget is that being a parent is a responsibility. It is not a right. And they often seem to forget that their choices are no more worthy than someone who choose to stay childless.

  65. “Madonna dont even contact him anymore.”

    Hardship indeed.

  66. Brian Burton 11 Apr 2009, 9:06am

    You have all dipped into the pit of dispair over poor Rupert Everette. Like most of us, he’s a man trying to find his way in the world. We are each our own Devil and we make this world our Hell.

  67. Will: “Keep your internalised homophobia to yourself, I have more self respect than that.”

    Who said my opinion was internalised? I just despise the general attitude of most gay men. I think it is part of the psyche. By their very nature, gay men learn to look after themselves far more than straight men, but unfortunately, this grows into one almighty ego trip where it’s “Let’s talk about my favourite subject: Me.”

    I have nothing to do with gay men apart from the occasional chatter on here. I have met many in the past and have NEVER met one that wasn’t selfish and egocentric. Oh, and usually wankers too.

  68. RobN, funny that, I’ve met few straight men I would call truly tolerant and accepting of others without some form of doctored from birth idea of their own importance, arrogance and sheer blind nastiness when confornted with things they don’t understand.

    But hey, that doesn’t make me think all straight men are bad, there must be at least one or two out there that’re okay. Maybe you need to look at why, in your overly generalised term “gay men” are so self-centered to start with. If mainstream society actually helped them fit in instead of castigating, ridiculing and oh, even murdering them, you know, little things like that, maybe society as a whole would have been able to rub along together so much better without these divides.

    Straights created gay hostility by alienting them – through decades of stereotyping and religious indoctrines – into sub-groups on the fringes that made sure gay people never fitted in, because it was you guys who didn’t want to know gays. Sorry, take a look in the mirror. Look at what started this mess.

    As to Rupert Everett, he’s entitled to his opinion but I think he’s generalising in a way which is obsessive, even for him. He knows nothing about the lives of other gay people, many of whom will be reasonable to perfectly happy with their own families.

  69. Btw, I am sorry that you have found all the gay men you’ve come into contact with as being “wankers” but you really have met a small proportion in world terms. And maybe they felt the same about you.

  70. egm: The quantity of gay men I have met, in proportion to straight people may be small in world terms, but like like any statistic, it is based on sample values, and considering the fact that in close to fifty years I have not found a single gay man on my travels that ever finally turned out to be anything else but a complete and utter shitbag tells me that even using statistical analysis, I think I may have a point somewhere.

    Oh, and all this crap about marginalising minorities, by that same token that should also apply to ethnics, disabled, elderly people, even women. Strange how I don’t see all them moaning about all the inequality, whilst shagging unprotected behind their partners backs; And as for sub-groups, who came up with “clones”, bears” “chicken” “queens” and all the other classifications gay men like to pigeon-hole each other? Sure as hell wasn’t straight men.

    I’ve noticed that gay men always love to refer to the “gay community” when they collectively want something, but when they are attacked they claim it is a “sweeping generalisation”, and that we are all individuals.

    If anyone is making generalisations here, it is yourself.

  71. Brian Burton 11 Apr 2009, 1:06pm

    BOYS,BOYS, really! you are putting on a screaming match for us poor creachers who just happen to be passing by at the time. Now you Popinjays of proes. The fact is that we might have an insatiable curiosity to know everything, but do we ever profit by it?

  72. Simon Murphy wrote: “I accept that it may be a more difficult task to raise a child but it is by no means more worthwhile. Having a child does not give someone status as a person. Anyone who bases their self-worth on whether or not they have reproduced then their life must be pretty empty. Being childless is just as worthy as I’m sure you’ll agree.”

    Simon, I entirely agree that if an individual, or a pair or group of individuals, chooses to raise children the doing so does not confer any greater value upon them, the adults involved, than upon people who choose not to raise children.

    However, this is not the issue we are discussing issue here, Simon. We are discussing whether or not Everett is right in believing that ‘. . . gay men who father children and get married are “egocentric and vain”.’ In making this statement Everett is presumably implying that he, in not fathering children and not marrying a man, is NOT “egocentric and vain”. His statement clearly attributes an EXCESS of egocentricity and vanity to gay men who father children and marry.

    But the truth is that any creative act, and even any destructive act, involves a degree of egocentricity and vanity. However, creative acts also involve many other impulses, for example the impulse to shape beauty (or ugliness), or the impulse to give comfort (or cause pain). Immature, shallow, and very selfish actor-boy Everett attributes no such positive impulses to gay men who wish to marry and/or father children. This is the point, Simon. All right. Do you understand, now? There ARE gay men and lesbians who involve themselves in creative acts, including the raising of children, for the positive opposites of egocentricity and vanity, i.e. to raise children in order to contribute, to nurture, and enhance their lives.

    Just as heterosexuals can give of themselves selflessly in their dedication to children, so too can homosexual men and women.

  73. Eddy: Is it necessary to shout?
    How egotistical is that? ;o)

  74. Brian Burton 11 Apr 2009, 3:34pm

    Eddy, and what do’s Simon Murphy know about anything?

  75. Brian Burton 11 Apr 2009, 3:36pm

    RobN, you are a Prince in disguise!

  76. VERY good, I agree with him!
    Gays should NOT be allowed to adopt children
    Children need a MOTHER figure, a female.

    Gays will and do use children as a fashion accessory.

  77. i think the point he is making is that there are kids out there with no parents and its better to look after them than make new babies, i personally agree with him.

  78. Brian Burton 11 Apr 2009, 4:51pm

    Now Michiel, you are treading on Dangerous ground when you say: Gays should not! Or even Gays should! I love the last words of anything and especially the beginning. Remember to be great is to be misunderstood.

  79. RobN wrote: “Eddy: Is it necessary to shout?”

    Answer: “Yes, RobN, when there are dozens in the room and you wish to be heard. Think!”

    Love, Eddy.

  80. Re: 61 – Simon Murphy – thank you for explaining that. It does make me feel better and I understand now what you meant. I suppose all I meant was that I don’t like allocating preferences to sexualities, if that makes any sense. The desire of a gay person to have a child (ignoring the biological problems) is something innate in them, and all I was trying to say was that wanting children isn’t just the prerogative of straight people – although, yes, it’s a hell of a lot easier! :D I don’t like lumping people together or saying that somebody is less straight/gay/feminine/masculine/whatever because they do or want a certain thing. I’ve always wanted children and I consider that desire to be totally separate from my sexuality. I took your phrase hetero-normative in a more personal way, and I’m glad you explained what you meant because I can see it in a more objectively. I respect the fact that many gay people don’t want children, but some do – a lot. Both are absolutely fine and both should be respected. I just want the choice and rights that straight would-be parents have, and the fact that gay would-be parents need medical intervention to have a child isn’t that important to me because as many as one in six straight couples need help too.
    Again, thanks for taking the time to reply. :)

  81. Brian Burton 12 Apr 2009, 4:26pm

    Poor Rupert Everette looks a bit wild eyed in the Pink photogragh. I had put him on a pedistel previousley. Do all men run to their ruin? no one knows but thing are so.

  82. I work in Soho and now the weather is on the sunny side – you always see this “sad middle class queen” still trying to carry a vest off walking down Old Compton Street trying to squeeze a little bit of attention from anyone who will look! He really should not have anymore surgery on his face. I think he’s now one of those queens that has turned bitter! Please spare us your vest and over gymed pecs this summer please!

  83. Michiel, if you read this… You are a sad prick making hideous generalisations.

  84. This is a distasteful outpouring of gay self-loathing projected onto others. Does Everett think that infertile straights using artificial means to produce kids are ‘horrendous’ or ‘egocentric and vain’? And obsessions about how children are produced instead of concern about their quality of life when they are here is a classic example of missing the point.

  85. Simon Murphy 14 Apr 2009, 3:59pm

    “Does Everett think that infertile straights using artificial means to produce kids are ‘horrendous’ or ‘egocentric and vain’? ”

    Probably – but then he’d be 100% correct.

    Having a child whether you are gay or straight is a selfish act.

    There is no biological imperative that forces anyone to have children. Survival as an individual is not reliant on having reproduced.

    People have children becausd they want them. Not because they need them.

  86. Simon Murphy 14 Apr 2009, 4:02pm

    Well they’re not horrendous and vain as Everett says but no-one should be afraid of calling parenthood a selfish act. The UK and the world in general is massively overpopulated. Those who choose not to contribute to increasing the world population are the selfless ones.

  87. To be honest, although I love Rupert Everett and think hes a great actor, I wholeheartedly disagree with his statement, if a gay couple decide they want to use surrogacy and the option is there they are entitled to use it if they want to. Similarly, I my best friend is a gay man, and I myself am lesbian, and if we so decide to have a baby together in future, I believe that is our choice. As long as the love is there, and the child will be loved and cared for, thats all that matters

  88. Rupert is a slag.. 23 Aug 2009, 5:33am

    Rupert : you’re a bitter old queen.You open your mouth and say nasty,vile,bitter,mean,rude words. Climb back into your out of control ego,bitch, and be quiet. The gay movement is not all old queens. And if people want to have babies, that is THEIR decision. Just because you’re not a nurturing person,don’t judge others. No one cares what you think or say. You’re a burned out,old,has been slag!!!

  89. Stephanie 1 Dec 2009, 1:58am

    I actually quite liked Rupert until i read these articles about him. I was very disappointed. I dont understand why he feels this way. Wanting a child is a natural feeling (I think that was mentioned before), and just because a couple can not have one the natural way and so decide to employ a method used, also, by hundreds of heterosexual couples the world over, they are ‘Egotistical and vain’? Maybe im young and niave, but i just cant see it his way.

  90. Mr Rebbell Barnes 14 Feb 2010, 2:33am

    Sorry i’ve met Rupert and I have to diagree – he is a nice guy. We met him at his book launch in Sydney, Australia. Having chilren takes a lot of hours and money it’s not like having a dog or cat for only 10 – 15years. It’s for life remember that. If you must have chilren why not adopt – there so many unwanted children out there. Just remember that 2 parents are better than one I know I grow up with only one and I didn’t like it. Gays need to be responible couples when having children and what I am seeing in Sydney of those gay couples is not good. So this sends a bad message to the straight community.

  91. Hes actually quite amusing….wrong but amusing. The selfish gene is part of the human animal…given the oppurtunity gays will get involved. The idea of child raising is different, Kids love their mothers , its true throughout nature….Overly involved men are those with nothing better to do

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