Reader comments · Gay Scottish minister reveals struggle over sexuality · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Gay Scottish minister reveals struggle over sexuality

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Brian Burton 5 May 2009, 4:13pm

    Stay and fight the bigots in your midst Scott Rennie. The road may be long and bumpy. You may seem bad to some, it dose not mean you are bad. Grown men and woman know that life is’nt fair and it will remain so. What is inhuman in modern life is officialism. Authority is as destructive to those who exercise it as to those on whom it is exercised.


    “Let the dead, bury the dead!”

    If you possibly can, just dump the bleeding lot and leave them picking the bones; examine your talents. If it’s to teach French, so go and teach French. No.? Well, can you drive a bus? So go and do that while you gather your thoughts in peace.

    Sod the bigots; because they will sod you.

    “To thine own self be true”.

    Try to accomodate all these loo-looz and you will end up like a rag, ripped this way and that by all the dogs in the street.

    Why waste your time worrying about what others think of you..!
    You are here to live YOUR life as YOU see fit, within the law, same as everybody is; you are not here to live it according to someone else’s dictat.

    Sod the effing lot!

    I wish I had known at 20 what I know now at almost 70…you what??!!
    By the left!!!
    By Christ, I wish…!!
    And THEN it was illegal, for fcuk’s sake..!
    YOU have no excuse!
    Go on!
    ‘FRENCH CONNECTION U.K.! them all..!
    Ask your detractors…
    “Oi…! Wot’s your problem?! You have a problem with my sexuality?! Well knob off; keep your problem to yourself and don’t give it me; go and sod yerself..!”

  3. The ‘dogs in the street’ to which I refer are the church-goers, the hypocrites; today’s Sadducees and Pharisees who wouldn’t know a Christian act if it hit them in the face.

    And ‘them’ are the child abusers in parishes up and down the land (oh yes.. there’ll be some of them, nice and quietly!)
    And then there are the serial self-abusers of both sexes, the old and the young. Old biddies, long-widowed and long since dried up and wizzened, castin’ lascivious glances at young blokes in bus terminals..I’ve followed their eyes…old geezers doin’ the same…leerin’ at all the acres of pork fat and blubber-meat on show with today’s modern ‘gels’! I’ve followed their (the old geezers’) eyes too. And then to church/kirk on a Sunday, there to pray for sinners and bitch about the next door neighbour, in the next breath, at the lych-gate.

    Why bother with these toss-pots and…are they lissnin’ anyway…?

    No! They only go to be seen and then it’s straight home; half to their long stiff candles and the other half to the soldier’s best friend.
    Not one of them morally capable, in all honesty, of throwing any first stone.
    FCUK em all…Do your own thing!


  4. Every person who chooses christianity struggles with one issue or the other that the Bible forbids. They are expected to be victorious and overcome these things, not knuckle over, and rationalise them. Homosexuality was alive and well in both in Palestine and Rome when the old and new new testament spoke against it. That is the heart of the matter. Do you accept, or not?

  5. NIKI..
    Are you speaking to me or just commenting in general.?

  6. Dave North 5 May 2009, 7:46pm

    “Every person who chooses christianity”

    Comment by Niki — May 5, 2009 @ 18:49

    Ah, so it’s a choice is it.

    Well I’m pretty sick and tired of your “choice” denigrating the very fabric of my being.

    How dare your “choice” dictate whom I should love, care for, desire.

    How dare your “choice” perpetuate the violence and abuse I have received since my mother gave birth to me.

    How dare your “choice”, violate my life at every turn by having to listen to your ill-educated brain washed drivel.

    By all means, have your “choice”. Just cease foisting it onto those who are not remotely interested in it.

  7. @ Niki

    “Every person who chooses christianity”

    To say that capitulation to historically orthodox Christianity is a “choice” is a bit like saying that victims of the Sicilian Mafia’s protection rackets have a choice!!!

    Don’t believe me?…

    What does the Bible say is the fate of those “unrepentant sinners” who reject Pauline Christianity’s Christ?

    That’s right… it’s the invitation “you just can’t refuse”!!!

    …Until, that is, you discover that the Apostles of Christ were completely deluded about the 1st Century, apocalyptic arrival of the Kingdom of God!

  8. There is no need for bile. The issue can be duscussed dispationately. My point is that, many here have taken the view that Chriitianity is not acceptable to them. You do not accept its teaching that homosexuality is wrong, and you do not buy it. But we have Scot Rennie speak of ‘stable loving relationships’? What about the millions who do not have it? They are evil (as the Church says) ?This demonstrates the incongruity of his posotion. He is himself laying new rules, whilst condemning the exisitng ones. It is more honourable to leave, or to admit that you are in it to fight the entire issue, rather than use dissimulation which itself alienates a large number of people that you claim to speak for.

  9. @ Niki

    I can’t make much sense of the middle section of your argument.

    Are you saying that “the millions who do not have it” (what? stable relationships?) are evil? What does that mean?

    As for your accusation that Mr Rennie’s position is incongruous, well, I agree, but for a completely different reason – I cannot understand why a Liberal Christian who knows that the Apostles (and very probably Jesus himself) were deluded about the imminence of “the End” would want to make a career out of peddling half-truths (and whole lies) to their congregants.

    That, of course, applies to all Liberal Christians – not just Scott Rennie.

    As for your accusations of dissimulation – well, that seems completely unjustified to me. If anything, perhaps he’s been too honest – in one respect at least – for his own good!

    Please explain what you mean by that…

  10. NIKI

    Balls to the Church, all churches, all man made religions.
    I do not need silly men in silly clothes, power-dressed up to the max, telling me their version of wot is wot..and for their own ends.
    They bleed when cut, same as me.
    And will begin to stink 5 minutes after they are dead, same as me.

    I do not recognise, holy books, not the Q’ran, not the Torah, not the Old or New Testaments, nothing.
    I do read what Jesus is said to have said, and read His words only, but I want no distorted commentary from Paul or any of the other mysogynistic weirdoes down the ages telling me what they think He said.
    It seems to me that all Jesus said was ‘Love one another as I have loved you and say ‘OUR FATHER..’
    I can and do read his words, all alone and I ponder them quietly, on bleak Saddleworth Moor here, near Manchester; no golden pillars; no Hajj, no Umm, no milling thousands attending some latter day Cecil B. de Mille ‘spektak’ which is what Rome is, with its cast of thousands…fancy golden vestments, knik-knaks, politics in drag…popemobiles.
    I do not recognise Mecca, the Vatican, Lourdes, Fatima or any other ‘holy’ place; a place is a place is a place.
    If any place/s is holy at all, it is Auschwitz-Birkenau, Dachau, Majdanek; the huts filled with shorn hair and prosthetic limbs and suitcases and children’s toys.

    Now to get back to the Scottish cleric.
    He’d be as well just leaving them all to it and just ‘doing one’.

  11. NIKI.

    “No need for bile..”…..?

    There is EVERY need for FRENCH CONNECTION U.K.-ing bile.

    Otherwise next on the list will be a pub beginning with ‘B’…!
    The Phelps have been stopped but there are plenty more loo-looz lined up, just a-itchin’ to get their 15 minutes of prime-time…all of course, having been told by God.
    THE WORD IS ‘NO’….shouted loudly.

  12. Brian (1):
    Welcome home!

    Niki (4)
    Beam me up, Scottie! What choice did I have when I was baptized into the RCC when I was 4 days old? Choice? Choice?? What the hell are you talking about, my good man?

    Rob Fox (7):
    ‘…an invitation you just can’t refuse.’ Gee, that never occured to Niki, and I hope he will be gracious enough to express some kind of gratitude for your enlightenement.

    Niki (8):
    As a big fan of ambiguity (there I go with my post-modernism drivel again), I thought your comment was delightfully meaningless.
    Are you implying by any chance that there are millions of successful heterosexual marriages?
    I don’t know about the solar system in which you are living, but on Earth, I believe statistics show a 50% failure rate in heterosexual marriages; you know, the ones where the bride and groom say things like ‘to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, until death do us part’, and right in the face of gawd too!
    Bile? What bile? Here on Earth we call this good manners, not bile. Bile is the sh*t that comes out of self-proclaimed prophet who has spent too much time in the hyperpyretic sun of middle eastern deserts, and all alone to boot.

    Pass the popcorn, please.

  13. Kay from New Zealand 6 May 2009, 5:48am

    Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say anything against gay or lesbian relationships. While there are 4 passages in the Bible that are taken as disapproving of homosexual acts, they are no stronger than those passages condemning the consumption of oysters. When reading a historical record it is important to remember the context of when it was written, and the likelihood of translation errors.

    I believe in Jesus Christ’s core message of love, not the words from some parts of the Bible that say that adulterers should be stoned. If Niki isn’t stoning adulterers, then she shouldn’t be preaching about other messages in the Bible. Modern Christians have a duty to listen to God and the Bible with an open heart not a closed mind.

  14. Brian Burton 6 May 2009, 7:38am

    I did not seek God, nor did I choose Boys ‘n Girls. God had already found me and chose me. I cannot reject anything or anyone I Love. So, I will never reject God because I love him. Funny, we all think of God as a Man or even Woman. Well, God is neither. God is an all powerful being who sees all and knows all: Like the Deer will thirst for the water flowing in the distance. So my soul thirsts after you my God. What peace I feel with myself at this moment, it’s the peace which passes all understanding.

  15. Dave North 6 May 2009, 9:51am

    Brian, When you next bump into God, Santa and Lord Vader at the Oompa Loompa conference in Neverland, could you ask him how I extract my unicorns horn from my dragons arse.

  16. Brian Burton 6 May 2009, 10:29am

    Dave North? Looks like your headed WEST young man!

  17. I am sorry if I was not clear. What i was trying to communicate is that Mr. Rennie’s position is untenable. he is part of a Church that says Gay sex is sin. he says, not, it is only when not in stable loving relationships.

    My point- he agrees that it is sin when not in loving stable relationships? Who is he to make the distinction? At least the church is consistent!

  18. Dave North 6 May 2009, 6:21pm

    Consistently bigoted.

  19. NIKI

    Mr. Scott Rennie is at variance with his church.

    I have not read the ins and out of it all but I gather, from your summary, that his church dictates that homosexuality, per se, the orientation, is a sin; the very fact of being homosexual is a sin.

    Mr. Rennie agrees with that stance but maintains that where that homosexuality is nurtured, so to speak, in a stable relationship, it is not sinful; the homosexuality is somehow ‘laundered’.

    Now that view point is totally at odds with the teachings of the R.C. Church.
    That view states the opposite with regard to the first part, the orientation.
    The R.C. Church declares that to be homosexual is in itself NOT sinful; it is “intrinsically disordered” but not in itself sinful. However to engage in any sexual act as a result of that intrinsic disorder is a moral evil.
    But the Catholic Church also says that about all forms of sexual activity where the ultimate aim of the participants, in the sexual act, do not have as the goal of that sexual act the pro-creation of another life. So it is not just homosexuals that ‘cop’ it from the Vatican; it is anyone who engages in any sexual activity, as an end in itself, including masturbation, the pill et al.

    I understand all that but cannot reconcile it with a loving God.

    The Pope says homosexuals are called to a life of celibacy..end of story; no ifs, no ands, no buts.
    I would ask whether the concept of ‘free will’ is a hostage here.
    I would also ask what kind of a God would place so heavy a burden on some of His children. “I shall make you attracted only to your own sex. I also ordain that sex is ONLY for the pro-creation of children. Therefore, you can never enter into the sexual act.”
    That is the position of the R.C. Church.
    To put it in story form, it is as if God is telling homosexuals..”Here! You cop for this boulder! It’s very heavy but I do not care. Drop it once, that is have sex according to the proclivity which I have instilled in you [act according to your nature])..and it’ll be hell for you for all eternity!”

    I cannot believe in a God like that.

    I do not agree with the Scottish church and I agree even less with the R.C. Church, the Church I lapsed from 50 years ago on account of this very measure.
    Homosexuality is EITHER all wrong, that is, wrong to be homosexual and wrong to engage in homosexual activity.

    (That I could more or less accept.)

    Or.. NOTHING is wrong with homosexuality, neither the being homosexual nor the engaging in homosexual activity according to the nature that you find within yourself.

    To it can be NOT sinful to be homosexual, your nature, but sinful to act according TO that nature…how that doctrine can be promulgated, beats me.

    It’s a poor analogy but it is like creating a bird and keeping it in an open cage for the rest of its life. “The cage is not shut and you can fly out if you want! (the having of homosexual sex) But fly off just once little birdie and you’re dead..!”..says the owner.
    All the equipment to fulfill itself, open cage, free will, but dead if it even thinks about flying off.

    How perverse is that?
    Is God a pervert..?
    This is why I said that Mr. Scott Rennie should just dump the lot and go and do summat else; he’ll not win whatever.
    Just go and get on with your life, Mr Rennie, and let the nit-pickers do what they are best at…and that is picking nits..

    The popes down the ages haven’t the answer; and your elders do not even understand the bleeding the question, let alone come up with a valid answer..!
    Do your own thing, live your own life according to the lights within yourself and you’ll not go far wrong.


  20. Brian Burton 7 May 2009, 6:58am

    Dave North, you are a good, sweet, kind and gentle man, it’s up to you now to sort it?

  21. Dave North 7 May 2009, 7:19am

    Why thank you Brian.

    Must pop out not to sell my daughter as a sex slave. Exodus 21:7-11


  22. Stephen Glenn 8 May 2009, 3:49pm

    It was very said reading some of the comments on here as a gay community we have fought for inclusion for so long. However, someone from our community who is different in this case a Christian, and a minister to boot, who have come to terms with that possition and is ‘proud’ to be both is getting knocked back by some.

    For Scott, like myself it is a paradox that as a gay Christian we are often not accepted by the Church and also not accepted by the gay community. Those who are out as gay Christians have if my experience is anything to go on come through a lot of hard times not just from the respective communities but from ourselves.

    If anyone in any other profession was in danger of being dismissed because of his sexuality we would all be united and up in arms standing with them. But even though he is one of us in an organistaion that in many ways needs to change its view of us we don’t give the same support. The chruch needs changing on its views on sexuality the best way for that to be done is from the inside.

  23. Brian Burton 8 May 2009, 5:05pm

    Stephen Glenn,
    My sentiments entirely Stephen, If only Anti-Christian, ignorant Gays, would channel there energy to fighting something they understand like Gay rights, rather than us Gay Chritians. It’s patently obvious to me, they do not know (or even care) about our plight. They ‘shoot from the hip’ constantley and without realizing It’s a fellow Gay they are hurting. I wonder If they realize, we are exactly the same as them on the inside. Why oh why do some run to their ruin?

  24. Stephen GLENN
    Interesting comment.

    I hold the opposite view as I have said previously.

    Why try to change the opinion of bigots?
    Let those who want to wallow in the mud of their own ignorance do so; their bigotry is too entrenched; too part of their mindset; too “God told me!”
    Lif’s too short to waste talking to those who won’t listen.

    MR. RENNIE should dump them all and shake the dust of his shoes.
    They are willing to dump him are they not?
    Well, then..!

  25. Stephen Glenn 9 May 2009, 1:58am

    Keith while you may hold a different opinion it does never, and should never mean that the other opinion is any less valid. But you are denying a fellow gay man who has said he in content in the job he is doing, he is also doing a good job, the same rights as any of the rest of us have. The right to follow the career he wants because of his sexuality.

    As for the Church being willing to dump him that is not clear cut. His church and Presbytery are the two bodied to verify that. The motion before the General Assembly is not as clear cut, from what I’ve been hearing. The press are talking up a minority into a big thing here.

  26. Dear Mr GLENN,
    I take on board your point and agree; all opinions are valid and I do not think I said owt different; if I conveyed that opinion then I am sorry.
    He may very well be content in the job he is doing and good luck to him; but will the bums-on-the-pews let him…?
    If the audience doesn’t like the fat-lady’s singing at the MET, they don’t come back and neither do their friends.
    It will be the pennies on the plate that will ultimately decide.
    I have no doubt he is doing a good job; he looks a very kind and affable chap..sort of motherly..very caring..just like ‘moi’ .!

    BUT the most vociferous, hard-bitten of his detractors will win in the end.
    I hope I am wrong, I really do.
    But I think not.
    For all the ranting and raving these little local Christian sects do against the RCC, they very quietly, ape her precepts.
    They might be vehemently opposed to the doctrines of Trans-substantion, Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception but all these fundamentalist God-told-me so’s spout the same Hymn to Intolerance.
    Let’s hope I am wrong.
    Put the stew on the back burner..and let’s see how it’s doin’ in a little while, eh..?


    I would agree with you that it would be great if he could remain inside his church and turn things around, yep…absolutely.

    In so doing he would be imitating his Divine Master who also came to turn things round, who came ‘that they might have life…more abundantly’.
    But they would not listen and in the end they cru….

    I was just coming from the point of why waste the time with bigots..unless you are J.C.
    They still haven’t got the message of love after 2000 years.
    If Mr. Rennie thinks he can do what others fail to do, then give him the chance….
    Now…how’s that stew doin’……?

  28. I wish Mr Rennie well. Logically, Niki is kind of right – you either accept all of the Bible or none of it.

    It’s fine saying Jesus’ message of love and compassion is central to Christianity. However, it was not until the appearance of gentle jesus, meek and mild, that the concept of hell, as in matt 25:41, arrives. No refernce to it in the OT.

    The reason why Fred Phelps shouts and screams at funerals and gay prides, it because, according to him, we are heading for the gates of hell. If that were the case, I would want someone to warn me.

    We have to take comfort in the fact that this is non-true.

    I have heard some fine arguments from Quakers and moderate christians about the explanations of Matt 5:17, and why the supposed Jesus was not referring to upholding the execution of homosexuals as mentioned in the laws attributed to ‘Moses’.

    What I want to hear, is a good reason why the celebration of murder, genocide and slavery should remain in the Bible. Can you honestly hear yourselves saying that we should keep these stories, like Deut ch. 18, most of the book of Numbers, recommending child rape, because ‘it’s beautiful prose’.

    If you sincerely want the message of hope, compassion, and the Golden Rule, to be what Christianity is about – then you must clear out the hateful, or the ambiguous stuff. Otherwise,Niki’s argument above is the more logical.

    How do you decide, which verses to venerate, and which to ignore? If you use some guide other than the Bible itself, then what do you need the Bible, in its present state, for? Moreover, do you really need to be told, not to kill, steal, lie? Niki clearly thinks so. However, I wouldn’t want to meet you in a dark alleyway if that were the case.

  29. Brian Burton 9 May 2009, 10:49pm

    Adrian T. Keith. I know I do not need the Bible to sustain my indestructable faith in God. After all The Bible was written over a long period of time after Christ’s Minitry on earth. Faith in anything you cannot see or touch, but can fill your sences like the fragrance of a rose garden; is how I feel inside. Bother space and time! They spoil life by allowing such a thing as distance. But no distance, no space, no time will stop me reaching out and touching God.

  30. @Stephen Glenn

    Some of us have been Christians, but have chosen to eschew Christianity for a number of reasons. In my own case, it was primarily:

    1) the violence attributed to God in the Bible, including the NT

    2) the sometimes viciously anti-Judaic bias of the NT, which fed into the anti-semitism that culminated in the Holocaust

    3) the discovery that the historical Jesus was – like the Apostles – in error about the apocalyptic arrival of God’s Kingdom in the 1st century. If he was anybody else, we’d call him deluded.

    Having experienced the Evangelical cult from the inside, I know that it really is like a mental prison – it’s a horrible delusion that actually injures people psychically and spiritually. And there’s a lot of tribal narcissism in it too.

    I do understand that Liberal Christians experience their faith quite differently (I grew up nominally affiliated to the Kirk when liberal theology was still in the ascendant). However I now have little sympathy for the dishonesty of liberal ministers who don’t tell their congregants the truth about what they learn in Theological College – and actually help set them up as ‘marks’ for Evangelical cult recruiters.

    I have a great deal of sympathy for those still caught in the delusion – but if you cared about a friend on a bad acid trip, you’d want to help stop it ASAP, if you could, right? Not encourage them to ‘work it in’ to the other aspects of their lives!

    I’m sorry if that sounds rather harsh and facetious. I know spiritual practice works, and that there’s more to life than the phenomenal realm – yet I also know now that conservative Christian doctrine has a VERY much more tangential relationship to that reality than Christians would like us to believe…

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.