Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Counsellor who wouldn’t work with gays to appeal

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. What a disgrace. if he doesn’t like his job, it’s simple…. find another.

  2. Ashley Huxley 15 Apr 2010, 11:57am

    “he said his Christian beliefs meant he could not help gay and lesbian couples with intimacy issues.”
    His job is to help couples with intimacy issues.
    My job is write code. If I said to my boss that I could not write code because of my religious beliefs, I’d fully expect to be told to clear out my desk. Why should Relate have to employ someone who has said themselves that they cannot do the work they are being paid to do? Boggles the mind.

  3. They always appeal. A firm of Christian Lawyers is making a lot of money out of these type of cases and all the subsequent appeals! It helps organisations like the CI make lots of money from the appeals to the faithful to fund these cases too!

    Its strange how they dont submit to the bible teaching on this. It says they should obey the ruling authorities over them because they are chosen by God. More proof of the selective nature of Christianity when it comes to scripture!

  4. Check out this morning’s slot on the subject on Today:
    here
    the guest barrister completely demolishes Christian Legal Centre’s clamorings for special treatment

  5. many Christian bigots always want to push their bigotry and don’t get why they can’t, they want special rights! If you do a job then you MUST do your duties!

  6. Would he be happy working alongside a white colleague who refused to work with black clients?

  7. Does he also advocate the beating of sin out of people and widescale torture of Gaysin africa I wonder?

  8. He is the one who needs counselling for believing the christian bible is a fact.

    christians, muslims, jews, hindus, etc….. think they should have the right to discriminate against people because they think that god said they can. They actually think they are going to heaven for discriminating against us. He thinks that when he dies he will be stood in front of a man with a big white beard and the old man will say, ‘you can come into heaven because you don’t like gays’. They need to learn that god is a fictional character written by a manipulative minority to control the majority.

    It’s sad that human beings can be so blinded and controlled by mindless faith. You really can make some people do anything with hocus pocus superstition.

    human being + religion = blind slave

  9. marjangles 15 Apr 2010, 1:27pm

    I can’t see this guy getting any further given the ruling in the Ladele case, on the face of it the facts don’t seem particularly far removed from her case.

    It makes me laugh though, these religious groups go to court and when they lose it is not the fact that their arguments are weak or that they are simply wrong that they have lost, no it’s because the judges are all anti-christian or don’t understand Christianity properly. Clearly unhappy with impartial judges ruling against them, they want pick the judges that they like so as to bias a court in their favour. Yet another example of Christians expecting more rights than everyone else.

    The woman in that clip from Zefrog makes a good point as to why this is wrong, would these christian groups be happy with a panel of judges with an understanding of gay issues and if not then this should surely show them why it’s a bad idea.

  10. BrazilBoysBlog 15 Apr 2010, 1:35pm

    I agree, it´s simple. If you are not prepared to do your job due to your beliefs, then find another one. Why expect the public (which also counts lesbians and gays) to pay your wages if you wish to discriminate? The message is clear.. Leave your personal beliefs at HOME and do your job!

    I think the comment above was a good one.. Would he have been prepared to work with someone who was not prepared to work with a black man? He would have been the FIRST in line to make a complaint!

  11. Where would this end if this homophobic xtian pig were to win his appeal?.
    Could a xtian doctor for instance be allowed to refuse treatment to a flamboyantly gay man or butch lesbian because it was against his myth based “faith”? Could an xtian nurse refuse to work with a gay patient and on and on.
    This must stop, and the government must make it clear by refusing these people wasting taxpayers money and court time.
    Court time that would be better used prosecuting these people for hate crimes and homophobia.

  12. Interesting that Ms Ladele is considering the European Court of Human Rights, since most Christian Churches want to see the UK out of the influence of these courts.

  13. Contradiction One . . . Christian becomes “Psychosexual therapist”, especially inlight of the liberal position psychosexual therapy takes with regards sexuality and sexual orientation.

    Contradiction Two . . . it has been reported in other news stories concerning Mr McFarlane’s case that although he refused to work as a psychosexual therapist with a gay couple, he did however treat a lesbian couple with psychosexual problems.

  14. If he wants to do counseling based on his religious beliefs, he should not be working in public service paid for with public money.

  15. Lady Estelle Darcy 15 Apr 2010, 2:42pm

    Oh can you imagine how quick his fingers would be to phone a racial discrimination advisor if he was being discriminated on grounds of his colour!!?

    It makes me so angry that minority christian blacks are so ready to persecute themselves.

    Makes me almost intolerant to THERE cause.

  16. #16 Dont you mean “THEIR cause”

  17. Presumably he’s got a nice big pile of rocks to stone any re-married divorcee that seeks his help? No? What a surprise…

    Society shouldn’t have to accommodate offensive beliefs. If we allow his, then why shouldn’t the strongly held belief of a racist be permitted? The Law’s for everyone – there’s no special opt-out for ‘christians’.

  18. What if I don’t want to work with black people? Would I be allowed to do that?

    I’m sick of these religious (ie freaks) bigots who demand privileges and excempttions from the law!

  19. Sick and tired of other people’s beliefs overtaking common law! He states that ‘the counselling service failed to accomodate his faith’. NO! Your FAITH FAILED to accomodate ALL sections of the population, as your job discription would have required you to do! If you can’t serve all the people, then don’t do the job! Simple!

  20. http://tinyurl.com/y67pkvl
    “Mr McFarlane, said that Britain had “embarked on a slippery slope to a secular society where there will be no religious freedom”.
    There is hope for humanity yet.

  21. Send him to Alabama or rural Texas! He’ll have eternal peace and quiet forever more.

    He’ll soon find out just what bigotry and discrimination are and how the tables will turn against him as the flames go higher and higher, or the rope dangling from the tree gets tighter and tighter.

  22. “It was reported that former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey would call for such cases to be heard by a panel of five judges with understanding of religious issues.”

    So can we have gay bashers tried only by gay judges, then?

    Thanks for the Today show link; predictably infuriating then cheer-worthy, by turns.

  23. The Halcyon 15 Apr 2010, 3:53pm

    *sigh*

    It’s just so maddening the way so-called Christians pick and choose sections of the bible to follow and convienently ignore others. For a start, the Old Testament is the JEWISH part of the Bible, God’s initial promise to his people. All the anti-Gay stuff derives from the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the former being rules for Levites (i.e. the Priest Caste) and the latter being the rules for living in the Holy Land (i.e. the rules of Man, NOT the rules of God).

    The New Testament, God’s second promise to mankind as told through his only Son is of direct relevance to Christians and Christ said absolutely nothing about same-sex relationships but he did say the following:

    1. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone
    2. Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me
    3. Love thy neighbour

    True, St Paul in his many letters went on the record against same-sex relationships calling them an abomination. But then again he went on records saying “slaves should accept their lot, any escaped slave should be returned to his master for he will receive his eternal reward in heaven” and other such controversial (at least by today’s standards) statements.

    Frankly, a true Christian could never, ever work for Relate – the bible also clearly states “What God hath wrought together, let no man come between” on the subject of marriage.

    Religious discrimination my arse.

  24. “A fat cock in his ass would sort him out”
    lmao!
    Yes it would!

  25. He would have had to agree to practice according to a Code of Ethics.

    If he was unwilling to do that and carried on practising, he was breaking that Code.

    I know lots of counsellors and therapists that work with clients, whose moral code is different. It’s part of the job.

    He should not be able to work within this field anymore and would bring disrepute on this field of practice.

  26. It’s nothing to do with his religion at all. I’m sick to death of people using this argument to justify their homophobia. There is absolutely no justification for it. I hope he loses his appeal and a precedent is set that puts this religious fascism to bed. As for the former Archbishop & closet homosexual, Lord (Don’t look at me I’m not gay, honest) Carey, no religion should have any effect on UK law. Our laws are made for all people, not for religious bigots. Many other countries have totally removed religious involvement in government policy, yet the UK still allows prejudice against LGBT within religion and the media. Time to stamp these ignorants out. If you don’t want to live in a free country then go somewhere else. We don’t want you here. Go and find an island somewhere, call it Closet Island, and burn one of your own at the stake each weekend for being too obvious. You did that to Joan of Arc for dressing in male clothes, so why aren’t you burning all women today in male clothes. That’s right, it’s gay you don’t like isn’t it. So your 2,000 year old fairytale book can be twisted to suit your ignorance as you please.

  27. So “he said his Christian beliefs meant he could not help gay and lesbian couples with intimacy issues”!

    This means he just couldn’t get his tiny indoctrinated little Christian voo-doo-loving brain around the mechanics of gay sex or lesbian sex! Poor little thing!

    Well, harden up, honey, because you are going to HAVE TO!

    People like this need to get their heads around the realities of human life rather than around pixies-in-the-sky and the dictates of ancient bits of parchment written by pig-ignorant peoples!

  28. “he said his Christian beliefs meant he could not help gay and lesbian couples with intimacy issues.”

    If so this guy badly needs to examine his ‘Christian beliefs’. He needs to reflect that there isn’t a single case of Christ turning away someone seeking assistance. He even healed the Roman Centurion’s servant [young male lover] without a single word of censure.

    This is yet another case of a human bias being dressed up as a religious belief!

  29. Vic Codling 15 Apr 2010, 11:26pm

    If a counsellor said he could not assist a couple because of thier ethnic origin and his religious beliefs, would he still have a job? I guess not…. So what’s the difference. One can choose thier religion, but NOT thier sexual orientation or colour. Yes, recent judgments against Christians were “disturbing” they are revealing certain parts of this belief system as it is – dangerous and bigotted. In previous times common sense views were squashed by The Church… labelled as ‘heretics’. (translated = free thinkers) Well done Relate…. we need more heretic’s

  30. Mary Steckis 16 Apr 2010, 6:15am

    Here is a simple question. This person may have reservations about helping gays with intimacy issues. But what about hetero couples that are not married and having sex which is against catholic teachings. Does he help them with intimacy issues even though they are committing sin? What about a divorced person that did not get their divorce through the church and is technically still married to the first person and having sex outside the marriage. It is so pitiful when homophobes try to use religion to hide their bigotry.

  31. I personaly think you have to watch out for the real snake in the grass… Lord Carey
    What is he upto ???
    He has some clout behind the sceens. So we have to whatch your backs !!!

  32. Vic Codling – unfortunately the homophobes and bigoted Christians lie that sexuality is a choice

  33. Jean-Paul Bentham 16 Apr 2010, 9:18am

    @22:

    I wouldn’t go that far…

    JohnK’s approach (14) is a tad more …creative.

    I would expect a Xian psychotherapist to be more loving, more caring, more knowledgeable, and more understanding, not because he’s a therapist, but because he’s a Xian.

    The Vatican might have a place for him.

  34. Paul Brownsey 16 Apr 2010, 10:07am

    I wonder whether, as a therapist, he has any views on the effect on mental health of stigmatising some would-be clients so that they see themselves as disordered, abhorred by God, abominations ineligible for fulfilled sexual relationships, etc.

  35. Jean-Paul Bentham 16 Apr 2010, 10:39am

    Methinks I just heard a pin drop in his waiting room.

  36. Vic at #30, you wrote “One can choose their religion, but NOT their sexual orientation or colour.”

    You are completely and utterly RIGHT.

    However, last Sunday and I had a whopping great row with a Tory-supporting Church of England Vicar. Yes, we ended up shouting at each other. It was that heated!

    And it became heated from the moment that he began insisting that homosexuality is NOT like skin colour, that homosexuality is (his words) “just your lifestyle choice”!

    I asked him if his sexuality was “just a life-style”. He growled that it most certainly was not, that his sexuality was entirely NATURAL.

    He insisted that I have chosen to live as a homosexual, that I have chosen “the homosexual life-style”!

    I’ve been friends with this Tory-supporting Church of England Vicar and his wife for six years. I thought that I was slowly showing them that a homosexual person can be a decent human being. But no, just as with Muslims, at the end of the day, you find out that you are simply beyond the pale, you’re just a second-rate write-off – as indeed we are in the eyes of the majority of family-loving Tories.

    Why do they say our homosexuality is simply our choice of “a life-style”? It’s pure projection. Masses of them are attracted to their own sex themselves and they have been aware of this same-sex attraction all their lives. THEY KNOW that they have chosen NOT to be true to themselves but to FORCE THEMSELVES to marry a member of the opposite sex, have kids, and do “the normal thing”.

    Because they KNOW that they have FORCED themselves to live according to a choice, they therefore assume that we are homosexual because we have chosen to be.

    The truth is that WE have chosen to be true to our real sexuality.

    A considerable number of “heterosexuals” are not actually heterosexuals at all! They are cowardly homosexuals who have chosen the easy route. THEY are faking the heterosexual way of life because it’s the easiest thing to do. Mummy gets her grand-kids!

  37. Carey was one great QUEEN of an Archbishop of Canterbury! Everyone saw it. The poor man is still fighting the fact that HE has lived a lie throughout his life!

    1. He has lived his entire life in the adoration of a non-existent god.

    2. He has forced himself to behave like a heterosexual. He thinks he’s done it rather well and therefore he believes that sexuality is a choice.

    What Carey and his kind cannot see is that when we look at him and his kind we see deluded fakes so clearly.

    Carey and his kind are not actually fighting US. They are fighting their own selves, their own demons.

  38. I am with the Christians on these cases. Why should everyone submit to YOUR version of morality? The right to express a moral opinion and act upon it is necessary in any true democracy, or we shall have turned into a totalitarian state, riding roughshod over people’s beliefs in the name of “equality”. To view homosexual acts as wrong is not to be “homophobic” – this is just a silly liberal excuse used to attempt to shut down any debate over the “rightness” or wrongness of homosexuality. You can disagree with homosexual acts without being afraid of homosexuals.

  39. so speaketh Jonathan the homophobe, heteros don’t get criticism over heterosexuality so why should lesbians, gays or bisexuals? You ignore that you are pushing your bigoted ‘morals’ on everyone, equality means that people are equal and not that a bigoted believer can over-rule others! viewing homosexuality and the type of disagreement you cite is homophobic

  40. BrazilBoysBlog 16 Apr 2010, 2:17pm

    @Jonathan. No one is asking anyone to ´submit´ to OUR version of morality. We are merely talking about the law of the land, and OBEYING those laws!

    If I employ someone to provide counseling services to the general public, (and gay people, as taxpayers, DO employ these people… and gay people are a part of the general public), then I am entitled to expect that employee to provide the services I require in accordance with the law.

    Don´t like that? Tough! Go and get another job then.

    Can you religeous bigots not see the stupidity of your argument? For example:

    “The right to express a moral opinion and act upon it is necessary in any true democracy, or we shall have turned into a totalitarian state, riding roughshod over people’s beliefs in the name of “equality”.”

    So, using your perverted logic, if I believe that black people are not worthy of any decent treatment, and I BELIEVE that they should be shunned and treated as if they were lepers, and that is my sincerely held view, then I should be ENTITLED to act on that? … and discriminate against them in any way I choose?

    Of course not you ridiculous tosser!

    Religious bigots like you and this guy in the article think your belief in some mythical sky-pilot gives you some ENTITLEMENT to break the law and discriminate against others.

    Not good when the person being discriminated against is YOU though is it? ;-)

  41. I agree (in part) with Jonathon that: “The right to express a moral opinion and act upon it is necessary in any true democracy.” However, that argument is only valid if you are willing to accept the consequences of your actions.

    If one believes the Bible to be the infallible word of G-d, one might firmly believe that anyone wearing both linen and wool together deserves to be stoned to death.

    The consequences of stoning someone to death for wearing mixed textures in a “true democracy” (whatever “true” is!) might involve breaking the law of the land and commit that person to a long sentence in prison.

    But hey, Jonathon, we live in a true democracy. Knock yourself out!

  42. There is a massive difference between saying something and acting on it. Sure this man has his opinions and that is his choose and Freedom to express it but when it comes to acting out Against the law then no, that is unacceptable. At the end of the day I’m sure there’s something about most people’s jobs they don’t like do. Nevertheless we have to do it. Either do the job he is being paid to do or failing that, find another.

  43. there’s not always that much difference Squidgy

  44. Response to Post 39

    Jonathan wrote
    “I am with the Christians on these cases.”

    JohnK’s response
    Jonathan . . . presumably are you a Fundamentalist Christian then.

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Jonathan wrote
    “Why should everyone submit to YOUR version of morality? “

    JohnK’s response
    “This about a collective morality which is enshrined in law, we understand you disagree with it”

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Jonathan wrote
    “The right to express a moral opinion and act upon it is necessary in any true democracy, or we shall have turned into a totalitarian state, riding roughshod over people’s beliefs in the name of “equality”.

    JohnK’s response
    No one is stopping Fundamentalist Christians believing in whatever their religion teaches. However, a problem does arise when Fundamentalist Christians believe they are above the law

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Jonathan wrote
    “To view homosexual acts as wrong is not to be “homophobic” – this is just a silly liberal excuse used to attempt to shut down any debate over the “rightness” or wrongness of homosexuality.

    JohnK’s response
    The debate over the whether homosexuality is right or wrong was resolved in the 1960s and 1970s. In the 1960s homosexuality was decriminalised, and in the 1970s it was no longer viewed as a mental illness.
    We understand that Fundamentalist Christians still disagree with the decisions made by Civil Society in the 1960s and 1970s.

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Jonathan wrote
    “You can disagree with homosexual acts without being afraid of homosexuals.”

    JohnK’s response
    It is telling when you use the phrase “homosexual acts”.
    Homosexuality is not an act a pretence or a performance; it is a creative expression of love.

    No one talks of Heterosexual acts . . . because no one tries to separate a heterosexual from their sexuality.

    Sexuality is an intrinsic expression of self. To separate this because one is afraid of the sexual expression, is in itself and expression psychological violence motivated by intense fear called “homophobia”

  45. Correction of typos

    Jonathan wrote
    “You can disagree with homosexual acts without being afraid of homosexuals.”

    JohnK’s response
    It is telling when you use the phrase “homosexual acts”.
    Homosexuality is not an act a pretence or a performance; it is a creative expression of love.

    No one talks of Heterosexual acts . . . because no one tries to separate a heterosexual from their sexuality.

    Sexuality is an intrinsic expression of self. To separate this because one is afraid of the sexual expression, is in itself an expression of psychological violence motivated by intense fear called “homophobia”

  46. Yes, Jonathan, you have the above quite wrong.

    You have said: “To view homosexual acts as wrong is not to be “homophobic”.

    For whatever reason you have not acknowledged the connection between judgement and resulting attitude.

    Let us have a look at the homophobe Joe Bloggs.

    Joe Bloggs sees “homosexual acts” as wrong.

    What are these “homosexual acts” that Joe Bloggs sees as being wrong?

    There are many many homosexual acts.

    A homosexual act is any action that is performed by a homosexual.

    But let us assume that Joe Bloggs has got one particular and specific “homosexual act” resonating in his mental chamber!

    Joe Bloggs’ response to this “homosexual act” of which he is thinking is that it is “wrong”.

    But actually, we ought really to use the words that more accurately reflect Joe Bloggs’ response to the “homosexual act” in question:

    disgusting,
    filthy,
    vile,
    wicked,
    evil,
    harmful,
    noxious,
    pernicious,
    malignant,
    sinister,
    obnoxious,
    onerous,
    corrupt,
    destructive,
    dreadful,
    horrid,
    horrible,
    dire,
    rank,
    foul,
    fulsome,
    rotten,
    base,
    wretched,
    deplorable,
    lamentable,
    pitiful,
    pitiable,
    depraved,
    shocking,
    abominable,
    detestable,
    execrable,
    accursed,
    damnable,
    and,
    diabolical!

    These are the responses that cause Joe Bloggs to issue the judgement that the homosexual act that he is focussed upon is “wrong”.

    Now that we have a clearer understanding of Joe Bloggs’ judgement as encapsulated by the term “wrong”, we understand what then informs his ATTITUDE towards the perpetrators of the “homosexual act” in question.

    It is no more possible for Joe Bloggs to consider the “homosexual act” upon which he is focussed as being an act that can be described by all of the above adjectives and to then feel true respect and love for the homosexual person who carries out the act in question, than it is for little five-year-old Suzie to take a nice big ice-cream from her mother and to then bear her teeth and sceech at her mother “For this ice-cream, Mummy, I totally HATE YOU! I HATE YOU!”

    Judgement = Attitude.

    Attitude reflects judgement.

    Attitude does not come before judgement.

    Negative judgement informs a negative attitude.

    Positive judgement informs positive attitude.

    One cannot pretend there is no logical connection or link or flow between the two!

    To detest a typical manifestation of homosexual behaviour is to have an ill-considered and an irrational response to homosexuality, i.e. to be homophobic.

  47. Jean-Paul Bentham 18 Apr 2010, 8:49am

    The problem would be solved with a wee bit of honesty.

    For example, Gary McFarlane could simply state:

    “Christian heterosexual psychosexual therapy ONLY”

    on his homepage: http://www.garymcfarlane.com/

    He could make his fame and fortune at the Vatican treating countless thousands of petrified pedophiles.

    And honestly, Jessica, that photo of Gary must be 20 years old!

    Green tea?

  48. Hi JP

    I was going to post Mr Macfarlane’s web link today, you beat me to it so to speak.

    Thanks for contributing this information, I think the fact that he does not make it explicit about only treating heterosexuals should be ammended on his website; as should reference to his ongoing legal case. Curiously the only mention of this is highly covert, i.e when he lists his psychosexual therapy training as ongoing.

    Who is going to be the first person to add to his web blogs

  49. Jean-Paul Bentham 18 Apr 2010, 10:25am

    Hi JK:

    Well, when it’s 9 am your time, it’s 5 am here, and I couldn’t sleep…what can I say!

    Getting back to this story, how does a man who states in his bio on his homepage (ABOUT) that he was trained as a marriage counselor by FOCCUS (www.foccus.org.uk/) – a rather traditional spin on marriage – and then hired by “Relate” (http://www.relate.org.uk/home/index.html) which is clearly gay- friendly.

    Mr. McFarlane also has a background in Law. m-m.

    Now, why would a man like that go to work for a LGBT-friendly counseling service and then refuse to serve a gay couples because of his religious convictions?

    Could someone please connect the dots!

    Blog anyone? http://www.garymcfarlane.com/

  50. Jean-Paul Bentham 18 Apr 2010, 10:34am

    …er…Getting back to this story, how does a man who states in his bio on his homepage (ABOUT) that he was trained as a marriage counselor by FOCCUS (www.foccus.org.uk/) – a rather traditional spin on marriage – qualify to work for “Relate” (http://www.relate.org.uk/home/index.html), which is clearly gay- friendly.

    z-z-z-z-z-z-z

  51. mcfarlain is on the BBC he is a big old queen. it’s gonna be funny when he gets outed

  52. Hi Dean . . . I am watching Mr Macfarlane on the BBC “Big questions” programme at this moment. . .

    Dean . . . is there evidence that Mr Macfarlance is a “Gay” or “ExGay”. . . if there is – lets out him!!!

  53. Jean-Paul Bentham 18 Apr 2010, 1:38pm

    It’s the retired archbishop Carey who’s put McFarlane up to this.

    Eddy’s comments at 37 & 38 make a lot of sense, then.

    If McFarlane believes, as Carey and the right-wing Anglicans do, that being gay is a ‘life-style choice’…and if he is determined to be publicly humiliated again, let him go to the Court of Appeal…

    With a record like his, what is he doing on BBC? killing time??

  54. I’m glad to say I don’t know him it’s just instinct

  55. So he has his own website? What a sh*tload of publicity he’s getting from this silly claim of discrimination. Convenient for him because, sadly, he’s not the only ‘christian’ in the UK, but also all part of the ongoing push to portray Christians as being victimised and under threat.In my opinion, this reeks of the attitude in the US shown by many fundies.

    No-one’s discriminating against you, Gary – they’re just asking that you obey the Law like every other person. But to many US fundies that’s not necessary for ‘christians’, is it?:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Declaration:_A_Call_of_Christian_Conscience

    And as for ‘homosexual acts’. To categorise a loving relationship in that way is sick and says a lot about the person who uses that phrase and nothing about LGBT people.

  56. David Cameron: “I met a good Christian black man the other day in Bristol and he told me he’s absolutely sick of being forced to accept that homosexuality is OK! This is what the people of this country are telling me!”

  57. Maybe McFarlane is indeed gay :D I mean it would be very difficult for him to counsel a gay couple with his clipboard on his lap & the inability to stand up for the entirety. Oh well, he can just hide behind ‘God’ blow the dust off that old bible instead & kneel down to his master at night. Pray hard McFarlane & you too could end up like Carey, a gay man who’s never actually lived their life but tells everyone else how to live theirs. I’m sure your ‘God’ would be so proud of you.

    Ban all religions & all religious schools. Lets live in a free society without labels & ignorant dinosaurs.

  58. Well said, Louise!

    David Cameron: “I met a retired Church of England vicar last week who has spent his entire life working to improve people’s lives and he told me he is absolutely fed up with gays and lesbians expecting to be treated as equals!”

  59. Lets contribute to Mr Macfarlane’s website blogs, and educate the unaware of the mans real capacities for relationship empathy . . . on his website, interestingly – he omits any reference to his legal and political anti-gay activism.

    Join me . . .

    http://www.garymcfarlane.com/blog/

  60. boh of the comments from cameron shows the bad side of christianity and him, a good christian equals a homophobe plus a vicar who works to improves peoples lives yet doesn’t get why people should be equal!

  61. I saw the big question on Sunday …!

    He says he has worked his way through why he councells un married couples. REALLY thats good of him I thought councelling was suposed to be non judgmental

    He says that It was put to him as a theroetical question as to would he councell a gay couple and then sacked fro gross misconduct when he said NO

    Am i being simple ?

    He says he was a solicitor If that was is the case then he must realise that he is not above the law of the land ?

    The man is living a contradition or are we all aloud to cherry pick what we think is right or wrong ?

    I hope this goes all the way to the european court and costs the chritian society everything they have got in thier coffers.

    It is shamefull.

    FEED the poor !!!

  62. Jean-Paul Bentham 21 Apr 2010, 3:11pm

    @60:

    Looks like he hasn’t posted a blog or a comment since last October.

  63. Thanks, JohnK! Have just posted the following comment beneath McFarlane’s latest blog!

    “Why anyone should take such a precious thing as their relationship to a conceited ego and a bigot such as yourself defies imagination.”

    Will it make him stop and think? Yes.

    Will it make him feel that somebody out there sees through his little money-earner? I hope so.

  64. Hi Eddy thanks for making a start on Mr Fs blogs, lets try and encourage others to challange this “Bigot” on his egocentric website . . .

  65. John, thanks, but I have just gone back to the page and found that McFarlane has removed my Comment! So, posing as “God”, I have now posted another Comment, as follows!

    “Gary, I see you are exhibiting considerable signs of vanity. Now, vanity, you ought to remember is not a quality that I think highly of. When a person points the finger at you and suggests to you that you are powered by extraordinary egotism I wish you to behave in the Christian way, not the vain way. I wish you to leave that comment there for all to see, as a sign of your humility. In olden days, Gary, I encouraged people like you, of inflated ego and feelings of deluded grandeur, to go about in sackcloth and ashes. Today I send people to exhibit unfortunate aspects of your behaviour in public places, and I, thy Lord and God, require you to leave those comments in place and I require you, Gay, to think about them. I, thy Lord and God, am mightily displeased when you quickly and vainly wipe those Comments aside so that none others may see them.”

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