Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Melanie Phillips defends ‘gay brainwashing’ Daily Mail article

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. “Ms Phillips told PinkNews.co.uk that she would always defend gay people against “true prejudice” but maintained that the gay rights lobby intends to destroy “normal sexual behaviour”.

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

    So . . . Will Ms Phillips defend gay people from the prejudice which she is promoting, when she argues that homosexulaity is not a normal sexual behaviour.

  2. Ignore her, she is a troll, who’s only purpose is to get The Mail’s website traffic.

  3. Loopy lou is at it again: “the gay rights lobby intends to destroy “normal sexual behaviour”.”

  4. Ms Phillips, you non-apology is declined. Not only are you a self-hating lesbian drowning in decrepitude, but you have absolutely no credibility in the realm of gay rights, given that you write trash for the fascist dustbin known as the “Daily Mail”.

  5. As is always the way when somebody tries to defend the indefensible, she ties herself in more and more knots. Without explaining what she means by ‘true prejudice’ or ‘normal sexual behaviour’ there is absolutely no apology here.

    So Ms Phillips, given that you may well be watching this, what do you consider to be true prejudice and normal sexual behaviour?

  6. J Williimas 25 Jan 2011, 11:10am

    Hitler defended his position on killing Jews. Phelps defends his position on protesting dead soldiers. Nick griffin defends his position on racism. Melanie Philips defends her position on homophobia.

    She joins a long list of dangerous bigots, and all of them are christians.

  7. Perhaps you were drinking too much when you wrote the original offending article Mel. Even though you may now be sobering up there’s nothing you can say can to justify or excuse the vile and illogical fear-mongering nonsense you disgraced yourself in the writing of, nothing can take those words back.
    If you were trying to outdo Jan Moir’s notoriety then you’ve probably achieved it.
    To think you once won the Orwell prize for your writing, perhaps it was because of your cold capacity to be fully conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies.

  8. Ms Phillips

    Could you please define ‘normal sexual behaviour’ in the most detailed way possible? And with that, I mean a definition of ‘abnormal sexual behaviour’ also.

    Could you explain how it is possible to make homosexuality ‘mandatory’, especially given that it is we homosexuals who have always stated that it is biologically determined and not a choice? Mandatory involves a choice to do or not do something. How could we make people choose to be gay when it goes against everything that we know about the biology of being gay? It is only the religious who believe gay is a choice, resulting from Biblical brainwashing based on myth and ambiguous, antique passages.

    Could you also explain how we have become the new Mccarthyists when it was in fact Christians who were the original persecutors of just about everyone and the dictators of ‘moral society’? Gays, illegitimate children, unmarried mothers, other religions, the non-religious (blasphemy laws, remember those) and so on? How, in asking for the ability to be able to live our lives by the same rules as our heterosexual counterparts are we persecuting others? Surely that means that you DO have someting against gay people? Hence, you must be the Mccarthyist, right?

    Could you also explain how you believe that our equality will mean less equality for Christians? If everyone is treated equally, then Christians cannot be at a disadvantage, right? Or perhaps you mean that you prefer the right of Christians to be a little more equal than others, by way of being allowed to continue the privileges afforded to the church (bishops in the Lords, mandatory collective worship in schools, forced prayer at Council meetings, huge sums of government cash, vast land ownerships, swearing on a Bible in court, interfering with equal adoption rights meaning disadvantaged kids are condemned to orphanages instead of living with caring parents etc)? Is that not Christians FORCING their lifestyle on non-Christians and other groups? If not, I’d like you to explain just how it isn’t. Your hypocrisy is beyond anything I have seen in the DM.

    I’m guessing I’ll be here a while Ms Phillips.

  9. Extremely shoddy journalism on the part of Pink News.

    Why is Pink News allowing the far-right extremist Melanie Phillips repeat her libel against our community unchallenged.

    Shame on Pink News for giving this bigot a further platfiorm to incite homophobic hatred.

  10. theotherone 25 Jan 2011, 11:19am

    ‘I’m not a bigot, you’re a bigot!’ screams Mel.

  11. Nice that she replied but her reply makes no sense. She’s still harping on about ‘normal sexual behaviour’ but fails to define it – although I strongly suspect she’s using that as another way to say straight.

    Melanie – LGBT people do nothing more and nothing less than straight people so your comment makes no sense whatsoever.

    In addition, Melanie, you are woefully misrepresenting the intention of this INCLUSIVE policy. You’re either doing that to stir up hate or you’re shockingly ignorant. Giving children a more complete picture of UK society isn’t some ‘agenda’ – it’s for the benefit of society as a whole, as your own prejudice and ignorance amply demonstrates. You hate and mistrust anything *not like you*. That’s very sad at your age. Maybe you should attend some of these inclusive lessons and you might learn something.

  12. What is it they say “The truth hurts” The Tories are inploading and the GDP figures today, is the icing on the cake.

  13. Talk about brainwashing children! What about the brainwashing faith systems that literally immerse children in shortly after birth? Case in point, just taking Christianity for example: through baptism, bible stories, Christmas, baby Jesus, Easter, etc., etc., and this goes on and is reinforced through all their life times in the their respective places of worship, every Saturday or Sunday! The sad thing is many of those infantile early beliefs defy science and reasoning and actually result in people being hurt by these so called Christians in direct contradiction to Christ’s core teaching of love, compassion, being of service, doing justice and walking humbly with God. It goes back to the nature and nurture argument. For most of us being gay is not a matter of choice, but emanating from our very nature ,whereas faith, or a true deep and abiding faith, and not childhood brainwashing, is a choice, tempered by reasoning, continuos growth and learning, questioning and critical thinking.

  14. If you start off on the false premise that gay sex is not ‘normal sexual behaviour’ then you come this loony conclusion.

    Being gay or bisexual is a part of normal human sexual diversity and is clearly demonstrated in the animal kingdom thats just how it is.

  15. Jock S. Trap 25 Jan 2011, 11:22am

    No it doesn’t! It’s a pathetic excuse.

    It is plain the Daily Hatemail are targetting the LGBT community and inciting homophobic tensions.

  16. Christine Beckett 25 Jan 2011, 11:25am

    She’s a right-wing nut job who writes for the Daily Mail.

    Her views are extreme, and well known. She thinks Obama is another Hitler, and believes he is a secret muslim too.

    Does anyone seriously expect her to retract her insane views on homosexuality?

    The best thing to do is just monitor her rantings and when she oversteps the line, which she one day will in her growing, manic desperation, then hammer her for it using the law.

    chrissie
    xxxxxx

  17. Colm Howard-Lloyd 25 Jan 2011, 11:25am

    Another deeply insecure Daily Heil columnist.

    I’d prefer they didn’t hold so abhorrent views, but if they do they should at least stick by them for more than 24 hours!

  18. Don’t want to see her filthy face on the TV anymore…..worse than Stephen Green and far more dangerous.

  19. T’is pity she’s a media whore.

  20. The Heretic Philosopher 25 Jan 2011, 11:45am

    And organised religion doesn’t?

  21. If I owned a B&B I really would rather not have ill-informed pro-Israeli sexagenarian Zionists like Mrs Rozenberg (Melanie Phillips) sleeping in my sheets. But at least I’d make sure their bacon was well done.

  22. I don’t mind her being interviewed on here, it certaily makes us look the more inclusive, accepting and better advocators of freedom of speech than her and the Daily Mail. After all, I’ve posted numerous comments on the DM web site and, as if by magic, almost none of them have been published. Wonder how that could happen!

    Iris

    Exskellent point again. The whole idea of this policy is to portray British society as it is, no lies, no sweeping under the carpet and no favouring of one group over another. And overcome the very ignorance that Melanie is showing towards people who are not HER. Very well made point, take a penny sweet from the jar :)

  23. PeterinSydney 25 Jan 2011, 11:53am

    What a supreme b**ch!! I hope gays stop buying her paper to teach them a good lesson.

  24. its not her bigotery that I find so offending, its her stupidity. Poor sad woman, what it must be like to live in that closed, sad, hate filled mind. Lucky for us her attitiude does not have age on it side. This way of thought is a dying breed. Reglion is clutching on to every last straw it has, because it does not have fear on its side any more.

  25. There’s an answer to that so called apology but it involves a rolled up copy of the Daily Mail and a lot of lube.

  26. de Villiers 25 Jan 2011, 12:09pm

    Ms Philips is not a right-wing nut job. Nor can she be compared to Hitler. To employ either suggestion is to fail to identify the true point of the argument in order to be able to address oneself against it.

    There is no doubt that Ms Philips would condemn any direct, physical violence or harm against any gay person on the grounds of their sexuality. She may, and I say no more than may, agree that there should be no discrimination within the workplace on the grounds of orientation.

    Her real concern, and it is a real concern, is the failure of the state and of civil society as a whole to recognise and enforce a social norm in the realms of religion, behaviour and conduct. On this point, I am in agreement with her. Any liberal, democratic society requires normative anchors if it is not to result in regular upheaval and social discord as people feel constantly uprooted and adrift. Social stability and recognised obligations protect the liberty of the majority of people.

    The disagreement with Ms Philips is what should be relegated to the sub-culture and what should be embraced by the majority culture. No-one suggests that there should be no sub-culture. Ms Phillips complains, by contrast, that the sub-culture now displaces the stable majority culture, which result in greater social disharmony.

    Our position is to suggest that many elements of homosexuality have moved from sub-culture to normal culture. The behaviour and family life of many gay persons has become more conservative and conformist with the advent of civil-partnerships and adoption. The debate is to suggest that this strengthens the majority culture, not weakens it.

  27. Ron Grahame 25 Jan 2011, 12:30pm

    Fortunately for Ms Phillips, the same Equality Act protects her from discrimination for being utterly stupid…

  28. de Villiers: A breathe of fresh air to a debate full of over-reactionaries.

    I fully agree that sometimes in the cause of equality, the pendulum can swing too far the other way. Homosexuality, weather people like it or not, is not the ‘norm’. We are a minority, so we should be treated in the same way as heterosexuals, no less, and no more either.

    All this positive discrimination stuff only serves to upset those to which it doesn’t apply, and smacks of favouritism. Children should be aware of LGBT people, but that doesn’t mean it has to be force fed to them.

  29. @Flapjack… don’t you think that would be one form of revenge best served dry?
    Love it!

  30. I can’t really figure out if you’re supporting her or against her.

    Either way, normative anchors should not be based on unfounded, highly contestible and ambiguous religious doctrine. They should be based on evidence – scientific, statistical and qualitative evidence based on the physical and the psychological. Or, rather, the Earthly. Human emotions, testimonies from different groups in our society and physical actions. Debate and discussion, not indoctrination of myth. That is how we learn to understand each other and set social and legal parameters.

    Any implication that this should be achieved through the promotion of ONE religion, or even one school of thought, should be condemned.

    Just like Melanie.

  31. Spanner

    You contradict yourself: you state that we should be treated as homosexuals, yet you agree with Phillips who is against equality. If straight couples are represented in maths textbooks, so should gay couples. If straights can marry, so should we. That’s REAL equality. The pendulum hasn’t swung too far at all, straight people still have advantages over gay people, though it has fortunately improved in recent years.

    Spanner, you are as much an enemy to equality as Phillips.

  32. she’s not normal

  33. @ de Villiers:
    “Her real concern, and it is a real concern, is the failure of the state and of civil society as a whole to recognise and enforce a social norm in the realms of religion, behaviour and conduct.”

    Equality is the only valid starting place to establish a recognised and enforced social norm and even though it would appear that this is exactly what the state & civil society is attempting by making lessons more inclusive, But inclusivity and equality is what mad Mel is saying she is so ruthlessly opposed to., she wants special privileged treatment for the religious and for heterosexuals, that is she wants special privileges for herself .
    She’s as mad as a homophobic snake.

  34. de Villers wrote

    “There is no doubt that Ms Philips would condemn any direct, physical violence or harm against any gay person on the grounds of their sexuality.”

    . . . . . . . . . .

    So . . . when Ms Phillips refers to homosexuality as not normal, and violence against LGBT people is committed on the premise that homosexuals are abnormal; in what way is Ms Phillips actively condemning indirect violence against LGBT people

  35. @ Spanner ”
    Homosexuality, weather people like it or not, is not the ‘norm’. We are a minority, so we should be treated in the same way as heterosexuals, no less, and no more either.

    The problem is that Ms Phillips is suggesting homosexuality isn’t “normal sexual behaviour”. It may be semantics, but there is a big difference between “the norm” and “normal”.

    The majority of people are heterosexual and always will be. The suggestion made by Ms Phillips comments are that gay and lesbian people are somehow capable of subverting this and “making” people gay. It addition, suggesting homosexuality is not “normal” is thereby saying it is deviant and wrong.

    Creating visibility of LGBT issues within school environments is not force feeding children a gay agenda, nor does it give us any particular advantage. If anything it recognises the diversity of the real world – that not everyone is heterosexual, white or Christian (even Ms Phillips only meets two out of three on that criteria!). If it allows a young gay or lesbian person or a child with same-sex parents to take some comfort from it, it is worth it.

    And the guidance by Schools Out is hardly ground-breaking, although perhaps only for attempting to introduce LGBT issues in subjects that perhaps would haven’t been considered in the past. After all, it is far easier to discuss to LGBT issues within the context of English, Social Studies, History or Art classes.

  36. de Villiers 25 Jan 2011, 1:28pm

    > Equality is the only valid starting place to establish a recognised and enforced social norm

    > Either way, normative anchors should not be based on unfounded, highly contestible and ambiguous religious doctrine. They should be based on evidence – scientific, statistical and qualitative evidence based on the physical and the psychological

    I disagree with both statements.

    Social norms are and should be more often based upon custom and practice. Tradition can be seen as the collective knowledge of numerous persons, gradually developed, refined and reformed. The whole purpose of a social norm is to resist that which is new before slowly becoming conquered and embracing the conquering principle as fervently as it had previously opposed it.

    This applies to attacks on religion. Religion acts as an important social anchor, the value of which should not be ignored. Religion does not depend upon a “sky god” as is sometimes simplistically stated but may be more a behaviour than a philosophy, the understanding and appreciation of which comes through practice rather than dispassionate study.

    New scientific theories and theories of society cannot and should not hope quickly to displace such norms. There can only be social stability where there is a general consensus and acceptance of changing circumstances. Contrast the societies in England, Europe and the United States. In the US, society is fractured to a far greater extent and there is little consensus – even to be an American is more of an ideal or an aspiration than it is a fact whereas there is no such concept in France of being unFrench. This may be in large part due to the manner in which social norms are altered by violent, immediate decisions of a Supreme Court rather than by slow deliberation of a national Parliament.

    In the England, broadly one sees the social unacceptance of racism and other elements of discrimination. Slowly, a consensus is forming around the behaviour to be accorded to sexuality. Melanie Philips resists the normality of homosexuality becoming part of the consensus. It is for us to try to ensure that it does so become.

    There will always be elements of gay culture, as with heterosexual culture, that must necessarily remain at the margins or exist happily in sub-culture.

    When people feel that their own world and identity are being erased, they react in opposition. We can see what happens when people do start to feel rootless – one sees the rise of l’extrême droit (the far right).

  37. Iris….”normal sexual behaviour”, is code for sex between heterosexuals, one man and one woman. What she fails to understand is that so called “christians” cannot impose their religious views on society when such views conflict with the laws regarding equality in the public sector, let alone discriminate against anyone. Nobody should be above the law.

    What else can we expect from the Daily Mail and the yellow “journalism” people of the Phillips ilk promote?

  38. What a joke 25 Jan 2011, 1:55pm

    Funny how the right wing nutjobs spanner and de villiers defend philips.

    What a joke they both are.

  39. Mumbo Jumbo 25 Jan 2011, 1:55pm

    Melanie, once again, as with your article, replace the word “gay” with “Jew” and consider what you have written.

    “I have nothing against Jewish people and would always defend them against true prejudice – as I did in my article, and as I often do when considering the threat posed to them by radical Islamism. What does concern me, however, is the ‘Jew rights’ political agenda which, as activists have often made clear, aims to change the basic moral framework of society.

    “I am very surprised that readers may be offended by my suggestion that this agenda aims to destroy ‘normal’ sexual behaviour………..

    “………..And I know that many Jewish people are very decently troubled by my central point, that the equality agenda is depriving Christians of their rights to live their lives in accordance with their principles.”

  40. I bet the Daily Mail wheel out gay consultant editor Andrew Pierce (uncle Tom) to justify Melanie Phillips comments some time this week.

  41. “Iris….”normal sexual behaviour”, is code for sex between heterosexuals, one man and one woman”

    As I thought, Robert. Depressing, isn’t it? And the same ‘it’s not normal’ argument was used when people argued against miscegenation. How sad that some people have to have a group to hate and victimise to make themselves feel worthwhile.

    Melanie’s spreading misinformation and stirring up hate just like so many other mislead people have done in the past in relation to other minorities. Sickening.

  42. de Villiers 25 Jan 2011, 2:15pm

    > Funny how the right wing nutjobs spanner and de villiers defend philips. What a joke they both are.

    I carefully explained that I agreed with Ms Philips as to the importance of civil society but explicitly disagreed with her conclusions.

    There is no need to misrepresent positions or intentions or to engage in gratuitous insult. It in no way advances the discussion.

  43. David in Houston 25 Jan 2011, 2:18pm

    “What does concern me, however, is the ‘gay rights’ political agenda which… aims to change the basic moral framework of society.”

    In other words, she believes being gay is immoral. When you hold this position, there is no room for discussion. The fact that she thinks “homosexuality will become mandatory” (whatever that means), indicates the paranoid mindset that she has.

    PS: Andrew Sullivan is NOT the spokesperson for the gay community.

  44. Jock S. Trap 25 Jan 2011, 2:23pm

    I think Melanie Philips represents what is bad about some in society who clearly feel the need to reduce everything down to sex.

    When stories like Jack and Jill come about there was no sexualising. It used to be 2 same sex friends could share a bed without the fear of being branded Gay of Lesbian.

    Melanie Philip is a prize candidate for proving the days of the innocent is long dead

    Truth is why does it have to come down to sex?

    How many young children actually want to out to play with the opposite sex? Don’t they usually want to play with their mates and the thought of the boys/girls was a horrible thought. For example girls want to skip an boys want to play football. Not all I know just an example.

    So realistically wouldn’t it actually help more if questions or stories like Jack and Jill became Jack and John or indeed Jacki and Jill. Why the need for Ms Philips to being that down to sex? Surely it might actually work better if children could see and relate.

    It always strikes me that while people like Ms Philips attack the whole of the LGBT community as the ‘gay lobby agenda’ and yet have nothing to do with whats happening, it’s actually the likes of her that are finalising these characters down to sex. Seriously who does that make the pervert Ms. Philips?

    It’s not children of this age that are prejudice and judgemental. It is the adults that are and that is what the children pick up and take as fact.

  45. What are you all doing wasting time posting on this….get back to poring queer hormones into the nations water supply.

    We will never destroy “normal sexual behaviour” standing around chatting about it.

    ;)

  46. “What a joke”: Funny how the right wing nutjobs spanner and de villiers defend philips.

    De Villliers came up with highly intelligent, articulate and erudite post explaining why he felt that way, and I fully agree. And all twats like you can come up with is to dismiss us as “right-wing nut jobs”.

    If that is your best response, no wonder you call yourself “What a joke”
    The joke is really on you.

  47. Spanner

    “De Villliers came up with highly intelligent, articulate and erudite post explaining why he felt that way, and I fully agree. And all twats like you can come up with is to dismiss us as “right-wing nut jobs”.

    Well, you are. ‘Nutjob’ meaning someone who behaves in a way that implies some kind of psychological imbalance and irrationality. Not to mention a potential social danger. So, no, they’re quite right actually. Though, I admit, disturbed, deluded or blinded by mythology would have been a little more eloquent.

    “If that is your best response, no wonder you call yourself “What a joke”
    The joke is really on you”

    Hmmm, not strictly true. As eloquent as De Villiers made those points, unfounded crap is unfounded crap. And, to anyone with a bit of common sense, that is definitely where the joke is. The only reason you’re condemning anyone for that kind of language is because it doesn’t support your view. Had the vulgarities been expressed in your favour, you’d have been giving them all a pat on the back.

    You did call people twats by the way, which kind of invalidates your point, non?

  48. This woman sounds totally paranoid about gays and some imagined “agenda”. She seems to be feeling and pushing some irrational fear of them. Now what’s that called…oh yes, homophobia.

    The Mail has had so many anti-gay scares in one week. The Daily Mail should be officially considered a hate organisation. I gather they used to very racist in this way too.

  49. I love how she’ll defend gays against “radical Islamists” but makes no mention of the larger threat of conservative Christianity. I am sure that muslims are as bad or worse than gays in her eyes anyway. Fortunately she is old and hoepfully these old ideas will mostly die out with her and her generation.

  50. Melanie Phillips wrote.
    ““And I know that many gay people are very decently troubled by my central point, that the equality agenda is depriving Christians of their rights to live their lives in accordance with their principles..”

    Not at all when it comes to prejudiced anti-gay discrimination hiding behind the excuse of religious conscience Melanie, that would mean colluding with religious extremists in our own persecution, how foolish would we have to be to do that.

  51. Tom Stoppard 25 Jan 2011, 3:57pm

    Anyone fancy a whip-round. I’m collecting money so we can buy her a one-way ticket to Tuscon, Arizona. With all the bonkers right-wing, racist rhetoric and religious loonies in that part of America, I’m sure she’d feel more at home.

  52. Melanie, THANK YOU, for your stance and determination to speak the truth!! Do not be intimidated by these bigots who support the views of this website and its rotten cause!! You have millions supporting you.

  53. Massive, are you interested in engaging with the arguments raised by other commenters on this site, or do you just intend to keep posting the same comment over and over again?

  54. If u are straight u are straight – if your are gay u are gay. What’s she on about crazy woman! Nobodys brain washing school children. If they are born heterosexual they will remain so – if they are born homosexual they will remain so.

  55. The Daily Wail/Fail/Heil/Horsesh*t is probably trying to reach out more to right-wing religious goons in other countries, seeing as it has an ignorant overseas reader base anyway.

  56. @ Massive – Farts

  57. Note the following 2006 comment from Dr Nicholas Cummings, former President of the APA. He says today is worse than McCarthy era.

    “As a fledgling
    psychologist I lived through the McCarthy era with its Hollywood witch hunts, and as
    abominable as this was, there was not the insidious sense of intellectual intimidation that
    exists in my politically correct profession today.”

    See http://www.narth.com/docs/cummings.pdf

  58. Please understand that he is massively stupid!

  59. Iris, it certainly is depressing. What she’s doing is fomenting homophobia and inciting more gay bashings. The Daily Mail is complicit in most of it anyway. It IS a hate rag, no question about that. If this had been any other group Phillips was denigrating, there would be public uproar and the DM would have a lawsuit on its hand for libel. I personally don’t care what people believe in but in this instance, she really has crossed the line and should be taken to task over it.

  60. dave wainwright 25 Jan 2011, 6:29pm

    another mail group publication is stirring it in cornwall please take the time to read the comments which are insidiously appearing under this article , this is the fourth or fifth article this month on this site which is attacking LGBT groups and people , thanks for looking and any comments would be welcomed as I am now blocked from doing so .

    http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/Hoteliers-facing-bankruptcy-discriminating-gay-guests/article-3134797-detail/article.html?cacheBust=RXDX7OiOIpJg&successModeration=true

  61. TheSuburbanBi 25 Jan 2011, 6:31pm

    @”If u are straight u are straight – if your are gay u are gay. What’s she on about crazy woman! Nobodys brain washing school children. If they are born heterosexual they will remain so – if they are born homosexual they will remain so.”

    What she, and others like her, seem to be afraid of is that children who are gay or bi or trans who at the moment cannot name or contextualise their sense of self, will be ‘protected’ from knowing that there are people out there ‘like that’. If they are kept in the dark, the feeling among homophobes is, that they will somehow just live a ‘normal’ hetero life.

    They really and truly do believe that being gay is a nasty choice people make after being exposed to the ill odours of gayness. That is why they can never ultimately divorce their disturbed mental connection between homosexuality and child abuse === to them for a child to even know that there are LGBT people in existence and that they are to accept and treat them as normally as they treat any other person in their society…. to the homophobe that is in itself ‘abuse’.

    I know someone who is straight himself whose family forbids him to mention the word ‘gay’ or talk about his lesbian friends who are married (in US) around his nieces and nephews — treating the word ‘gay’ like a 4-letter word. But they have no problem letting another relative spout the N-word around the kids all the time.

    Hate distorts ‘normal’ people into blithering idiots.

  62. Melanie, this is what wrong with you:

    1. “values which were once the moral basis for British society are now deemed to be beyond the pale”

    Saying gay are bad is morally wrong.

    2. “Expressing what used to be the moral norm of Western civilisation is now not just socially impermissible, but even turns upstanding people into lawbreakers.”

    Yes. It used to be good to say No Jews In University. No Jews As Doctor. Now it against law. You want No Gays In School. You want No Gays Stay In B&B.

    3. “For he is also a leading member of the Manchester-based Maranatha Community, which is dedicated to re-establishing ­Christian values in society and which campaigns against gay rights.”

    Campaings agains gay rights.

    4. “He had written, for example, that marriage is associated with greater happiness, less depression, less alcohol abuse and less smoking. But what’s the problem with that? It ­happens to be true.”

    Gay people marry and treat as same as straight people – then gay people greater happiness, less depression, less alcohol abuse, less smoking. What’s the problem with that? It ­happens to be true. Unless you a evil old bigot.

    5. “but anyone who goes against the politically-correct grain on homosexuality or who has robust Christian views must be considered a bigot and thus have no place in public life.”

    It not politically-correct to say gays are equal to straight. Only bigot old religious views think they allowed to discriminate against gays because of they religion. Religion no excuse for hatred. Religion make you evil, Melanie. Grow up.

    6. “Penalising religious people for speaking and acting in accordance with their beliefs is neither liberal nor tolerant. It is behaviour more commonly associated with totalitarian dictatorships.”

    Melanie, Islamic extremists speak and act in accordance with their beliefs. They blow up people. You dont like that. You are totalitarian dictator.

    No. What is not right is using your religion as excuse to hate people. Your religion is wrong. Not humans. Gay people are humans. Your book is guide to hate.

    7. “What does concern me, however, is the ‘gay rights’ political agenda which, as activists have often made clear, aims to change the basic moral framework of society.”

    Yes. Change hate of gays into not hate gays. You hate gays?

    8. “I am very surprised that readers may be offended by my suggestion that this agenda aims to destroy ‘normal’ sexual behaviour”

    Destroy? Gays want destroy straights? You mad.

    9. “And I know that many gay people are very decently troubled by my central point, that the equality agenda is depriving Christians of their rights to live their lives in accordance with their principles.”

    What about gays rights to live as normal people who marry and not hurt by hate people? You only care about religion. You religious maniac.

  63. “And I know that many gay people are very decently troubled by my central point, that the equality agenda is depriving Christians of their rights to live their lives in accordance with their principles.

    “I hope this helps explain my position more fully.”

    And what about the rights of gays? All we want is to live our lives as well….is that too much to ask? To live without abuse or rights taken away from finding a place to stey. Hmmm weren’t Mary and Joseph turned away from places as well?

    Oh and I don’t know any gays who want to ‘convert’ children! I’m really getting sick of this crap from religious nutters everytime a gay issue comes up.

    As for the last bit, no Melanie your pityful excuse of an apology hasn’t made things clearer…..in fact I had to read it twice to make any sense of it whatsoever. And she calls herself a journalist? No wonder the press is in the gutter if they allow people like her to write for them!

  64. Side note: Homosexuality has existed since before the time of Alexander the Great and is also present in the Animal Kingdom. Unfortunately it appears that a sexual behavior has to be around for more than 4000 years and present in a wider spectrum than ‘nature’ before it can be considered ‘normal’.

    Also Mel thank you so much for defending my sexuality from Islamic extremism. I feel so much better know that the likes of the Taliban subscribe to you column and your idea of a ‘moral’ society.

    bigot!

  65. dave wainwright 25 Jan 2011, 8:38pm

    comments on ms Phillips article are now off line :) I guess they don’t want their readership contaminated with reason and intelligent debate .

  66. Disgusted American 25 Jan 2011, 8:47pm

    so…according to this weirdo lady..somehow,someway…gays are going to make heterosexuals have KINKY sex? HUH…? WTF is this lady blabbering about? ..hiding her the guise of “caring”…cough cough!

  67. This is an irrelevant and stupid debate, don’t let Mel draw you into it, please let it fizzle out.

  68. Wow! I had no idea that heterosexuals were so easily swayed in their sexual attraction that acceptance and inclusion of normal gay people would lead to the wholesale abandonment of heterosexuality! No wonder they’re insecure if they’re constantly battling the urge to merge with their own sex.

  69. Has she got the word “normal” mixed up with the word majority.Straights are in the majority but performing straight sex is abnormal and impossible for a gay couple. I don’t see the problem with young people knowing about all types of relationships….some kids may have gay parents anyway , kids are less shockable than adults, it’s a good idea to get them used to it at an early age before they get “tarnished” by comments from people like this woman…. what shocks some silly old bag from the ice age wouldn’t necessairlly shock a kid, perhaps kids can start educating their parents!!!

    I wonder if other countries have adopted this idea and what, if any , the result were? I doubt when she says there is no evidence tat such materials is constructive she really means she hasn’t bothered do any research herself….

  70. johnny33308 26 Jan 2011, 1:28am

    It never ceases to amaze me that otherwise intelligent people seem to think that there is a ‘gay agenda’ that is somehow sinister. It is obvious that all we want is to be ‘equal’ under the law like straight people already are. To even think that we will make ‘homosexuality’ madatory is surely at best paranoid, at worst, idiocy. We will never force anyone to do anything. How can we as a minority ever get enough power to be able to ‘force’ others to become gay? It is outrageously stupid to even think such a ridiculous thing. What she is actually saying is “I hate gays and they frighten me”. Really, people, is she even serious? Really? We do not care what straight people do in their bedrooms. How is it that these sorts of homophobic people continuously scream about our gay sex lives? They seem obsessed with our sexuality-strange of them, isn’t it? They need to mind their own business. They seem to think much more often about our sex lives than we do. What’s up with that?

  71. Melanie Phillips is wonderful. I like her a lot. She would make a superb prime minister.

  72. She is one of the main reasons why ‘Moral Maze’ is one of the few programmes I’ll turn off, on Radio 4, without giving it a chance.

    She’s an obnoxious, self-absorbed twat.

  73. its difficult to have any discussion yet alone intelligent one with someone who deliberately goes against consensus held in world psychology and psychiatry when it comes to issue of homosexuality, she decided to stay on the fringes barricaded behind her stereotypes and attack from there. And surely she can’t be taken seriously when she says “she would always defend gay people against “true prejudice” “. I just find her intellectually patchy at best

  74. Homer Zerrudo 26 Jan 2011, 7:23am

    I would have thought that in this day and age when the word “normal” has been recognized for its relativism, people of influence such as Ms. Philips would have ceased using it to ascribe primacy to the right of one segment of society to live according to their “Christian” principles over the necessity to redress the grievances against another group’s rights via the institution of measures meant to foster tolerance and aversion for prejudice.

    Thus, when people such as Ms. Phillips write about defending the rights of gay people with one hand and then about “gay brainwashing” with another, their own prejudice comes to light and ultimately exposes their hypocrisy.

  75. so she encourages homophobia and uses the “no true scotsman” fallacy to define “true prejudice”! she really is stupid
    gay rights is only about equality and stuff not destroying stuff, plus normal is such a personal emotive word – what is normal for me isn’t always normal for others and vice versa.
    if the christians feel deprived then they should obey the laws of the land as the bible says and they wouldn’t be but them and her would rather cherry-pick to suit an evil agenda, look at how quick she was to attack Stephen Gately after his tragic death and use his death to attack same-sex marriage

  76. @andrzej
    ” I just find her intellectually patchy at best”

    Yes, it’s like here in Melanie we have a person obviously of some intelligence but whose brain seems to has been infected by a ruthless virus so that she doesn’t acheive joined-up thinking abut just writes reams of unpleasantly offensive and often contradictory twaddle.
    I think we know exactly the particular virus that has infected her brain and so ravaged her powers of rationality and reasoning.

    Like the painter Baselitz who paints the world upside-down., Melanie Phillips inverts logic so that she sees the world and describes it as the opposite of what is really there.

  77. John Austin 26 Jan 2011, 12:38pm

    She hates Palestinians too – and Jews who dare to criticise Israel – she call them “Jews for Genocide”
    Shame that such a talented writer is such a bigot.

  78. Let’s get some proof that straight people don’t have oral or anal sex, and I’ll buy that only gay people are pushing ‘abnormal’ sex.

  79. Just who is trying to brainwash whom? These people come up with all kinds of reasons and excuses for why gay youth can’t be gay. It is really stupid to think that we gays are going to turn billions of straights gay.

  80. @YuriFury

    Excellent set of 1 – 9 response

  81. DOC Wrote

    “Note the following 2006 comment from Dr Nicholas Cummings, former President of the APA. He says today is worse than McCarthy era.”
    See http://www.narth.com/docs/cummings.pdf

    . . . . . . . . . .

    Doc . . . just read it – sounds like a pathetic maturbatory rant

    Shameful in the extreme . . .

  82. Stephen Bentley 28 Jan 2011, 3:54am

    Gore Vidal had the last word on this type of rubbish, his essay “Pink Triangle, Yellow Star”. Take heart Ms Phillips – no matter how hard you suck up to the bigots of the far right/planet Daily Mail should push come to shove they’ll have you through the gas chamber doors with the rest of us sooner than you can say knife. True equality at last.

  83. I am a 29 years old lady,mature and beautiful. and now i am seeking a good man who can give me real love, so i got a username josedvilla on — Agelover.СòM —, a nice and free place for younger women and older men,or older women and younger men, to interact with each other.Maybe you wanna check out or tell your friends.

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all