Reader comments · Archbishop of Canterbury says Church will fight moves to introduce gay marriage · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Archbishop of Canterbury says Church will fight moves to introduce gay marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Someone please tell him that no one elected him and he has neither the right nor the mandate to interfere in the law of the land.

    As for the CoE barring GLBTQ couples from having a ceremony on their land, I would guess that their protest will be token and then the ££££ signs will drift in front of their eyes.

    1. The church is happy to take the gay pound without any issue – ever wondered why there are more people in Tesco on a Sunday than church – Williams your outdated

    2. The enemies of equality are fighting.

    3. billy wingartenson 29 Feb 2012, 11:46pm

      Hasnt it been 500 years since the CoE broke with the roman cult of child molestation?

      And we still have old foggies like Williamson in power.

      I know the catholic church is all but dead in Europe. wonder if the same wonderful thing is happening to the CoE
      Religion – the curse of mankind, cause of most wars, divides not brings us together………And always needs someone to hate to get its followers

      Gays are simply its latest victims.

  2. Personally I fail to understand why gay people would want to marry in a place which didn’t/doesn’t tolerate us.

    1. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 6:44am

      Whilst I get what you mean I think for equality to advance it is important that their are Gays and Lesbians within religion. Whilst I don’t agree with religion I can see that without we probably wouldn’t have those religious groups who do want to perform and promote Equal marriage. It also shows the more open minded groups amongst us and the out-dated that need to be buried.

    2. No one is asking to be married in a church that doesn’t tolerate them. AGAIN Jim, you make a comment that is astonishingly ignorant. People are asking to be allowed to marry in churches temples and synagogues that DO accept them; such as Quakers, MCC, Unitarians, Reform and Liberal Judaism.

      It’s amazingly arrogant of Dr. Williams to insist on denying other churches and other faiths to practice THEIR faith and values as THEY see fit just because HE doesn’t want HIS church to accept and embrace its gay members as equals.

  3. I don’t understand how the christians can say “The Church of England is opposed to all forms of homophobia” and then be homophobic?

  4. Why does he care? It doesn’t require the Church to marry gay people, so they can just carry on as before.

  5. Trouble is Valksy, in our political system, he has the right to interfere. He has shown himself to be spineless in tackling the ultra homophobic African anglicans and is now showing his true colours when it comes to equality. He is a joke.

  6. Please send your comments to
    Let’s tell him what we think.

  7. SILLY STUPID old duffer – NOBODY is forcing anything!! The proposed legislation will permit … “should the faith group wish to.” And, perhaps, he’d do well to remember that he is NOT a dictator, it would be up to a vote by the General Synod.

    Another gratuitous opinion, gratuitously expressed!!!

  8. It’s all right for you lot living in the Big City’s but down here in South Gloucestershire the religionists run everything.

    The one good thing the Tories did was to force councils to divulge the above £500 council spending data, because I can now see around £2.8 Million have been spent on Christians in the last 9 months and “nothing” on the gay community!

  9. There is nothing in scripture to support Anglican homophobia, what references there are to same sex behaviour are unintelligible or unclear and certainly do not describe ordinary homosexual relationships, Rowan Williams with his allegedly super power intelligence would be fully aware that this is so.

    Religous leaders are all hucksters and their entire career is based on scamming the gullible, Rowan Williams is no exception.

    1. There is nothing at all that references homosexual relationships in O.T. Bible scripture,
      Leviticus condemns males who might ” lay lyings of a woman”, of which there is no clear interpretation especially as the earliest text is incomplete requiring insertions for it to make what little sense it does.

      In Romans, Paul describes sacred Pagan orgies, what were then ordinary townsfolk going about their then accepted and common form of worship, the people described engaging in sacred same-sex activity are not homosexuals, the men are married because the women are described as “their women” in the text.

      The myth of Sodom and Gomorrah describes the attempted gang rape of two angels, gang rape does not describe homosexuality, nor can this be the reason for the previously scheduled destruction of the city.
      Never mind the most obvious thing, that angels are not men nor even the same species, it’s not attempted same-sex rape being described in the myth.

      Anyone got anything else to debunk?

      1. From what I understand Leviticus was referring to ways to and not to pray to god. Thus “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination” could be interpreted to mean “Don’t shag men, just as you wouldn’t for women, to pray to god: It’s considered rude”. But who knows what was going through that crackpot’s mind… moreover we shouldn’t even be fighting on a religious level. Marriage should not be owned by a single religious organisation.

      2. P.S. You can’t even rape angels anyway. If I were god they most certainly wouldn’t be corporal, and if god does exist I expect nothing less!

  10. mark fowler 27 Feb 2011, 4:53pm

    “The Church of England is opposed to all forms of homophobia and would want to defend the civil liberties of homosexual people, and to welcome them into our churches.”

    Not doing a very good job are you?

    1. The Church of England is the enemy of equality, they do a good line in both doublethink and doublespeak in an attempt to hide the instutionalised homophobia.

  11. this idiot used to be ok with LBG folk and now he’s a loser who’s working against LBG folk
    he’s more concerned about avoiding schisms then people

  12. Let the bigot Williams fight it all he wants, its a los cause. No religious cult will be compelled or mandated to perform let alone recognise same-sex marriages. Its nothing more than red herring to stir up opposition to full marriage equality. He needs to get it through his thick head that civil marriage is not owned by his or anybody else’s cult. What gives him the right to tell elected officials who can and cannot marry in a civil ceremony?

    He’d better watch it because the more he opens his mouth, the more momentum there will be to disestablish state religion once and for all. Diminish its power and take away all funding I say. Let these parasites go out and find real jobs instead of sponging of the tax payers including gay tax payers.

  13. What exactly is a ‘religious civil partnership’ anyway? Surely a CIVIL partnership has nothing to do with religion?

  14. It’s all so hypocritical, allowing gay clergy but denying gay christians a religious ceremony if thats what they desire. It seems as if its one step forward and 2 steps back.

  15. i’m not sure if its me or the world – but i thought the idea of seperating church and state was that the law of the land was compulsory and any notions of churches were optional if not contravening law of the land. so surely a marriage should be allowed in a civil context and in any church which chooses. but those which don’t shouldn’t be forced by the state. the issue seems to me – that LGBT people should be able to marry and that it should be state recognised. …. as far as i’m concerned the churches can go f… themselves but not a civil marriage. why is the gov fighting for a church marriage when we haven’t even got a civil one – or is this part of politics intended to get a no-reaction to all lgbt marriage? a church isn’t a business service to the public.

  16. Northerner 27 Feb 2011, 5:34pm

    Clergy are only permitted to enter civil partnerships if they assure their bishop that they are not having sex. And this is not homophobic how?

  17. Re Northerner – how exaclty does the Bishop monitor this???? its hilarious!!! does he hide inthe bedrooms of his gay clery checking up on them? the whole thing is ridiculous isn’t it.

  18. It’s time for the CoE to catch up with TEC. Moving gloriously forward. Our PB has called us to examine that marriage is an evolving phenomenon and that same gender couples can be and are in fact part of the church.
    The ABC was so progressive as the primate of Wales. It looks like the third world primates and their churches are dragging him into intolerant fundamentalism..(actually isn’t it the nature of fundamentalism to be intolerant?) Jim responded, “Personally I fail to understand why gay people would want to marry in a place which didn’t/doesn’t tolerate us.” I agree, or as a line I heard in a movie once, “How do you embrace something that doesn’t embrace you back?”

    1. Luke from Canada 27 Feb 2011, 10:41pm

      what do the initials mean? other thatn CoE I have no idea

      1. Mike Claridge 28 Feb 2011, 1:29pm

        I think TEC is probably The Episcopal Church (the Anglican Church in the USA). PB is Prayer Book and ABC is the Archbishop of Canterbury.

        I’m, a CofE priest (and also a Methodist Minister as I serve in an Ecumenical Partnership church) and despair of the current stance. Let’s celebrate love and commitment wherever it is found. Also I’d plead for others not to fall into stereotypes about Christians. We’re a diverse group with many of us wanting an end to intolerance and prejudice against gay people.

  19. As i said elsewhere, i’ve spent the last 40 years thinking that gay people were above all this “pixie in the sky” stuff but from what i’ve been reading above, how wrong was I? Someone please post a reasoned response as to why anyone would want to be blessed by an organisation or enter their buildings, who think that to be gay is an abomination. It beggars belief that this is even a newsworthy story to us.

  20. George Broadhead 27 Feb 2011, 5:41pm

    This is not at all surprising. When Williams was first appointed Archbishop in 2003, he was warmly welcomed by gay Christians as a liberal, but it has become obvious in recent years that he has thrown in his lot with the Church’s evangelicals who take a hard line on gay sexual relationships and gay rights. He has been unwilling to distance himself, let alone condemn, the worst of these like the Anglicans in Uganda. Although he publicly condemned the murder of the Ugandan gay activist David Kato, he declined to recognise the part played in stoking up anti-gay hatred by the Anglican Church in that country.

    As a Humanist I campaign for a society in which everyone is free to practise their faith, change it, or not have one at all, but I wonder why any self-respecting gay person would want a ceremony in a building which belongs to an institution which oppresses them. After all there are now plenty of plush alternatives to the often gloomy registry offices.

  21. Come on out then ‘gay Christians’, time for you to tell us that he is interpretiing the Bible wrong and that Jesus loves all the gays too, blah blah blah.

    When are we going to get this much needed separation of Church and state? I just want rid of the nutters interfering once and for all!

    1. Given the fundamental control that the church has in this country, it’s unlikely to change any time soon. The church owns an awful lot of land, is woven through many of our legal institutions and so entrenched that it would take a revolution to change.

      I do however believe the French approach to complete secularism is the way to go. France has the definitive line between religion and state and has no interference from religion into state affairs; despite France being a deeply religious country.

  22. Bloody christian , why would you want to get married in some cults den? but can his influence deter lgbt people from gaing civil marraige equality? obviously it must , otherwise why the consultation and his view on it.

  23. gaining

  24. I have absolutely no problems with this backward organisation’s stance as is it out of touch and out of date. Let these people cling onto their nonsense, whilst the rest of us get on with our lives. The law of the land continues, and by granting permission to be married anywhere simply creates equality.

    What little respect I had for Dr Rowan was extinguished by the outburst of backward mentality. For such a “learned” man, he’s shown a complete failure to understand the modern world.

    That which fails to change; dies.

  25. ” The Church still believes on the basis of Bible and tradition that marriage is between a man and a woman and does not accept that this needs to change.”

    I agree and long may it continue though eventually, and the sooner the better, alongside same sex marriage. No need for traditional marriage to change a jot, it’s just scaremongering to suggest marriage equality will bring the end of marriages between a man and a woman.

  26. “Canterbury Cathedral was built by my predecessors to the Glory of God. My desire to be able to marry in any such erection to His Magnificence should not be impeded by the small minded “caretakers” who have usurped His message for their own ends.”

    That would be my argument were I a believer (which I’m not although I would love to get married in such a magnificent monument of my culture).

  27. I don’t know what Biblical tradition he’s talking about; according to the Bible, marriage between one man and 37 women is fine, marriage between one man and his harem of concubines is fine, marriage between a man and his unconsenting rape victim is fine, marriage between one man and any number of unconsenting underage girls is fine, marriage between one man and his family members is fine, and so on. According to tradition one is not even allowed to marry outside one’s own race or religion. So what tradition?

  28. Yeah, yeah. We all know you’ll never accept that homosexual relationships are as good as heterosexual ones. (In fact, let me just pop back to the article to check why this is news… Ah.Ok. Gotcha.)

    Here’s Rowan’s argument, boiled down to the bones:

    The thing that separates marriage from other relationships; the thing that makes it so sacred is not the bodily and spiritual union of two people. Nor is it the love, the commitment to care for and be faithful for life. It’s not even that married couples provide a stable environment in which to raise children. Lord forbid (hey there Jesus – high five!) that I should be such a bigot.

    No, the thing that makes marriage special is what the parties have between their legs.

    I hope that’s made everything clear. Call me narrow-minded, and I may be overlooking something here, but isn’t that a little bit, you know, shallow?

  29. I don’t see how it’s his business – it’s quite clear that his church doesn’t have to hold the ceremonies. I really wish we had a constitutional separation of church and state. =/

  30. Church weddings don’t matter. What DOES matter is civil marriage for same sex couples on an equal basis with mixed couples. Is it still the case in France that you have to have a civil marriage by law and if you want the frills of a church ceremony you do that after, but the church ceremony itself is not legally binding? That would do nicely in the UK for all. See how many people would bother with the expense of a church service then. Meanwhile, everyone would be equal under the law and the Archbishop of Canterbury (incidentally Canterbury is more homophobic than Tower Hamlets) can stuff himself.

  31. Craig Nelson 27 Feb 2011, 8:10pm

    There is this ridiculous red herring of churches being coerced, sued etc.

    As the legislation makes it clear this is not the case why do they keep raising this as an issue. What is the point of having bishops in the house of lords if they are not even capable of absorbing the simplest of facts about the laws they are passing. The other possibility is they are being less than honest and are trying to whip up the right wing press in an antigay direction. Either way he is only embarrassing himself and his church with such pronouncements.

  32. Why a “private” meeting, why with the “church” and why with the Archibishops whose views don’t represent all or even the majority of “Chritians” and whose views are already well know.

    We are told that there is to be a consultation in APril/May which I hope is PUBLIC ….what is this all about!!!!

  33. The interesting thing to me in this story is that a tory mp is openly criticising the ABC for the CofE being out of touch.

    Why is this story significant for us? Because the CofE is part of govt & it is the main church in every town & village, and the ABC will conduct the royal wedding because he is our “spiritual leader”.

    They are completely out of touch with the people and that is unacceptable. The are not just another silly cult which can believe what it likes. If the bishops wish to keep their own conscience let them walk away from our church buildings, abondon their golden robes and their palaces and their large salaries. And then see how many private metings with influential mps they get invited to. But of course they won’t do that; they didn’t go into the church for nothing ….

  34. Bill (Scotland) 27 Feb 2011, 9:26pm

    I think the solution to this problem is very simple:
    – disestablish the Church of England;
    – remove Peers from the House of Lords who represent religious sects;
    – as it wishes to be exempt from validly enacted laws, it should have its charitable status revoked and have its tax exemptions removed.

    Once that happens, whether a particular religious sect wishes to consecrate same-sex marriages (or civil partnerships as provided for under current legislation) in its premises is its business, but should have absolutely no effect on same-sex couples being able to have civilly-consecrated civil partnerships or, pretty soon I hope, marriages, and if the participants wish them to have some kind of religious content, however, bizarre I might personally consider that, then they should certainly be able to do that too if it makes their day happier.

  35. “The Church of England is opposed to all forms of homophobia and would want to defend the civil liberties of homosexual people, and to welcome them into our churches.”

    Fair enough. I don’t see why it’s such a problem. The church believes in love and forgiveness and doesn’t want people going out and harming others. However, they don’t believe in marriage between same-sex couples. Nobody objects to the CofEnot marrying Muslims, Catholics or Jews. It’s pretty much the same thing.
    The amount of people on here who despise Christians anyway…what’s the problem?
    You want to say how dreadful Christians are (despite the many of us who are gay/bi/whatever and have campaigned for equality alongside you) then you can’t whinge about it when the Christians don’t want to let you play in their park!

    1. I don’t think it’s a matter of despising Christians, it’s more that we want to say how dreadful the Anglican church is BECAUSE rather than DESPITE the fact that many Christians are lesbian & gay,and that is where your argument fails because there are no Muslims who are Cristians or Jews who are Christians you are making false and confused excuses for the discrimination against LGBT Christians.

      The statement, “The Church of England is opposed to all forms of homophobia” is patently an untruth or doublespeak as it also says it will fight the introduction of gay marriage equality. At least one of those conflicting statements by the Anglican church must be false.

  36. notice that they didn’t do anything to fight against paedophile priests (this is 100% a crime in the UK), but they DO fight against gay marriage (and homosexuality is 100% legal in the UK)

  37. David Skinner 27 Feb 2011, 10:16pm

    But why stop at marriage between two men or two women? Why shouldn’t there be one between a whole football team made up of a mixture of transsexuals, transgender, transvestites, bisexuals, lesbians, homosexuals, and other sexuals. But why stop there? What about incestuous ones , or those like the marriage between Mohammed and the nine year old Ayesha? There again what about marriage between a woman and her dog or a man and his horse? I believe also that there is one woman married to the Eiffel Tower and another to the Berlin Wall. The possibilities are endless; for who is to say all these relationships are not also loving, caring, enjoyable and consensual? Come on folks think outside the box; let’s have some pink sky thinking.

    1. Go f u c k yourself skinner

      1. …seconded….

    2. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 6:50am

      As usual your narrow minded opinion doesn’t make any sense, so why bother. When you clearly make it up as you go along, it’s just laughable and it is only you that looks the fool.

    3. Skinner it sounds like you are describing the slippery slope that follows on from allowing a man and a woman to marry.

      If you really want it and believe there’s a demand for marriages between whole football teams I suggest you should get a group of like-minded individuals who want the same thing you do and see if you can get any support for it, I have to say you are unlikely to find any support for it here apart from the other trolls who drop in attempting to flame.

      Catholic nuns become married to God and wear a wedding ring to show it and they are called brides of Christ, now there’s a strange one, marrying a fictional Bible character. Perhaps we should object to that and fight it, it’s ghoulish and it doesn’t sound anything like traditional marriage to me so maybe it shouldn’t be allowed.

    4. And don’t forget david that Bible revelation seems to approve of women who marry sheep
      see below:

      “One of the seven angels…came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.”… coming down out of heaven from God.”[Rev. 21:9-10]

    5. What with all the Catholic nuns who marry Christ when they take their vows and become Brides of Christ, they take to wearing a wedding ring and all, that sure makes God something of polygamist doesn’t it?

    6. David Skinner returns with his dreary, banal, ignorant comments. Science tells us humans orientate to the opposite, same sex or both sexes. Fetishes are not natural states. We do not orientate to works of architecture, animals, bananas, plants.

      It is incredible that in a developed society such as this, we have this know-nothing stuck in the 13th century.

  38. How insulting can you get, Rowan Williams? You “welcome gay and lesbians into your churches” by taking their money and denying them basic human equality. Some welcome that is! I would call on all LGBT Anglicans to withold any further monetary offerings to the church until they are treated with dignity and equality.

  39. David Skinner 27 Feb 2011, 10:37pm

    There is nothing enobling or human about men mixiing the semen with excrement. This is dehumanising and enslavement to base instinct. As for demanding that God bless such unions, for demanding to storm the gates of heaven itself and pitch God out his place of supreme authority, you people must have God in utter derision. How you puny insects must make him laugh. But maybe it not God you are petitioning. Maybe it is the other place?

    1. David, it would appear that you have been reading certain tracts produced by various extremist, right-wing groups in the U.S.A. You must remember that these people are extreme conservatives (i.e. they are particularly frightened by change) and are often only too willing to “re-interpret” their religion to suit their own prejudices and fears. That, if you are a devout Christian, should be anathema to you.

    2. drop dead

    3. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 6:53am

      Don’t see how any of this really bothers you so much if your not Gay!

    4. Isn’t it time for your medication, David?

    5. I have to say it sounds a little bit homo of you as a reductionist man that you seem to worship semen as something sacred and not just another bodily product manufactured in excessive amounts like urine, saliva, snot, feaces and even tears.

      Do you reckon menstrual effluvium mixes so very much better with a fresh splodge of sperm then?
      Sperm mixes well with saliva, have you tried that lately Skinner? it might be more to your taste.

      An interesting fact Skinner is that because the uterus and vagina is so closely situated to the anus when a baby is born it swallows an amount of it’s mothers faecal matter which is very important for the development of the child’s immune system.

      In some respects the dirt is the life and very much a real part of our humanity, where there’s life there’s always sh!t.
      Try to hide from that fact Skinner and your head becomes filled with it, thus you begin to think, speak and write sh!t.

      1. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 9:08am

        I feel a bit queasy!


        1. I hope not totally on my account Jock S.Trap?
          Reductionists like Skinner like to describe humans as combinations of body parts, functions and bodily excretions…only when it suits them of course.

          1. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 10:49am

            I know, its as if he’s got too much to prove.

            Only someone totally unhappy in their own skin would go on quite so much to prove themselves though I never know who it is he’s trying so hard to convince us or himself. I suspect that latter.

            I’ve always thought this one to be yet another Narnia case.

    6. “It’s nice to hear the Church speaking out for a change on social issues.”

  40. This was never really about the C of E. This was about religious freedom for those denominations which do perform same sex marriages. No one expected the C of E to suddenly turn around and say that because the Quakers are getting partial legal recognition for their religious activities that the C of E will follow suit. The fight for marriage equality in the C of E is a separate issue. This may turn some more light on it and add pressure for change but there is still a long way to go before C of E homophobia is laid to rest.

  41. Oh Rowan! Westminster council wants to make homelessness and soup kitchens illegal! Why don’t you do your job and leave us to do ours?

  42. There are two very different issues here.

    Issue 1: permitting the conduct of civil partnerships in religious buildings – the silly old homophobe is perfectly within his sphere of influence to take a stand on this wrt CoE churches.

    Issue 2: Same-sex civil marriage. Nothing to do with him, and no one in the Commons looking to introduce new legislation for this should take any notice of him. The Lords – ah well, that’s a tricky one….

  43. CoE says LGBT people can’t marry. So, every LGBT person should then receive an annual rebate from the gov’t in their pro-rata share of the amount of subsidy the church receives. Despite quaint buildings, archaicly pretty language, and sometimes great music, I’m willing to forgo all the right to get married in a church as long as I don’t have to pay for other people’s religious ceremonies and structures.

  44. I would have thought he would be happy to get anybody under 90 into his old dilapidated falling-down buildings, particularly if the happy couple is paying! Or is he doing like his fellow homophobe, Joe Rat., and developing an App that will fix all that?

  45. Can we have the list of “influential mps” also so that we can start influencing them prior to the spring consultation?..

    There seems to be 2 agendas going on here

    1) interviews with the Church times where religiouis CP only will be discussed in Spring with only “baby steps” taken on full marriage equality with no timetable whatsoever

    2) Intepretations by PN and other media that religious CPs are inevitable by the end of the year with a definite agenda on marriage eqaulity and probably with us before 2015..

    What is it ? who exactly are these changes meant to be for , the CofE or the LGBT community and those religious org that want to either do marriages or CPs…..The CofE as far as I am concerned have ruled themselves out of the consultation process, they’ve got their opt out what more do they want and who cares what they say anymore..

  46. Iran has the Taliban; the UK has bishops in the House of Lords.

    Homophobia is a mental illness.

    Need I say more?

    1. Are you saying David Skinner is mentally ill?
      That would be one explanation for his relentless attention seeking here.

  47. David Skinner 27 Feb 2011, 11:49pm

    James, Thankyou , I had forgotten that one: getting married to yourself . Naturally or unnaturally ( it’s all the same to people from GayTranselvania) this would suit men, or hermaphrodites with penises long enough to reach their anuses. This must surely be the most top of the range relationships. Even for when it comes to divorcing from oneself. Marvelous . Well done James

    1. Dear Pink News… David Skinner is a fundementalist religionist and as such has been posting material on this site which is designed to hurt Gay people.There are many Gay people who struggle with the religion and religious upbringing. We respectfully ask that Pink News remove this poster and block him from posting further inflamatory material on these pages,

      1. I second this request. Skinner is the worst kind of scum imaginable, rancid with hate and seething with crazy ideas.

        That vile excuse for a human being needs to take his madness back to the ‘christians’ like himself and stop polluting these forums with his unwanted contributions.

      2. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 6:57am

        Don’t block him he is only showing himself up and reminding us how laughable the church is. Let face it through the rabblings of the David Skinners doesn’t it show that the Church of England cannot be taken seriously. He proves they are nothing but a complete joke.

      3. Dr Robin Guthrie 28 Feb 2011, 12:28pm


        1. Dr Robin Guthrie 28 Feb 2011, 12:28pm

          OK. I third this request then….

    2. Blimey when were you let out of the nuthouse….bottom of the range relationship would be one involving any combination that would have someone like you in it……..

    3. sicko

    4. Dear David has quite an obession with gay sex, doesn’t he? The very thought of it seems to get him all hot and worked up.

      1. Iris he can’t get enough of it, the more specialist and kinky the more he relishes thinking about it and writing about it here…must be terrifying for him when he believes he’s headed to hell for thinking same.

  48. David Skinner 28 Feb 2011, 12:00am

    Carlos, yes all the old tired ad hominems: fundamentalist; right wing, conservative and so on and so on, like a cracked record . How do you know what I read and what I do not read. Maybe Carlos I meet and talk with LGBTs on their own territory. Maybe Carlos I even talk and even read what Peter Tatchell and Johann Hari say themselves. Maybe you ought to read “Beyond Equality” by Peter yourself

    1. dickhead

    2. David, I did not intend my previous posting to be ad hominem. “Right-wing” and “conservative” are, to me, not terms of abuse; rather they are simply descriptive. Some of my best friends are right-wing conservatives.

      I am guessing at your reading only by what you are saying, and what you are saying is strongly reminiscent of the aforementioned tracts.

      The final part of my previous posting: “these people are…often only too willing to “re-interpret” their religion to suit their own prejudices and fears. That, if you are a devout Christian, should be anathema to you” still stands.

  49. David Skinner 28 Feb 2011, 12:08am

    Boston, yes typical. What happened to all that tolerance, inclusion, non- discrimination and diversity of opinion stuff? What happened indeed to freedom of thought, conscience and speech. Boston you’re wasted. You ought to be in one of those Marxist countries. But don’t worry, you have seen nothing yet. Wait until Islam takes over Britain. Islam , Marxism, Fascism it’s all the same. But it is coming thanks to sensitive people like yourself

    1. twunt

    2. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 7:00am

      If you treat people intolerant what do you expect. Treat people how you expect to be treated yourself.

      If your treat people nasty and intolerant, your can expect nasty and intolerant back.

    3. Its a pity you’re not as bright as you are paranoid Skinner. Then you might be a danger.

    4. All the more reason for you to support secularism David, so that Britain never becomes a dangerous theocracy of any kind, Islamic, Christian or any oither.

    5. Not sure I see the connexion between Islam, Marxism, and Fascism. They all in ‘M’. Is that it ?

  50. Not too surprised. Last I checked the man seems to be an arse kisser to the more rightist homohating groups within the Anglican Communion.

  51. Awww don’t ban Mr Skinner! I take your point but he’s so awfully entertaining. I do worry about his mental health and perhaps I am cruel for wanting him to stay, but really – where else do you get free frothy-mouthed entertainment like this?

    I’m sure his ‘arguments’ (sometimes I think I’m just too charitable, referring to these panicky rants as arguments) have been rebutted on here a equipping tomes before. They must have been – they could be rebutted by a mentally subnormal chicken with dyslexia. But he’s never going to listen. He’d probably refuse to budge if Jesus popped round for a cup of tea and said “Can you knock it off with that whole anti-gay thing mate? You’re giving me a bad name.”

    So don’t ban him. On top of all his other hang-ups, the last thing he needs is a bloody martyrdom complex. Ignore him, deride his arguments for the nonsense they are or do what I do and ignore hi
    (while simultaneously fearing for his blood pressure).

    As you were, Mr S!

    1. But you didn’t ignore him after all, anyway why not give David Skinner the attention he so desperstely seeks, he is obviously a sad, lonely, disturbed and impotent old man whoknows he is now set on a course to Hell for being deliberately cruel and trying to hurt others.

      1. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 9:15am

        Attention Deficit Disorder springs to mind.

        1. You may be right, Jock. I wrote a profuse apology this morning, thinking that all the posts to Rachy-Roo were directed at me.

          Has PN thought about introducing an edit button. I sure could use it right now…

          1. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 2:38pm

            No edit button but the self destruct button is on your right.

      2. …this is all very well for those of us who have not been infected by the whole Abrahamic god delusion. But there are those amongst us who have and are also gay and this to them is bullying of the lowest kind. I watched Dr Phil today about homophobic bullying in the USA amongst teens and the incidence of suicide is horrific. Pink News is in danger of being sued if this man continues and i for one will be witness for the prosecution. Stop this man PINK NEWS before there is a tragedy.

      3. I meant to type “laugh at him” rather than “ignore him”. What can I say – it was late.

        You are a much nicer person than I am to be willing to give Skinner what he wants. I doubt he thinks he’s going to Hell though. He probably thinks that the more gay kids you drive to suicide, the bigger your celestial mansion. :-/

        1. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 2:36pm

          Oh Lordy, lets hope he’s in the right religion or it all could be for nothing.

          1. Which would be tragic.

            *removes periwig for a minute’s slience*

  52. Titsiana Boobarini 28 Feb 2011, 1:31am

    @ David Skinner…your understanding of God and Life is erroneous, inaccurate and incomplete. I advise you to read a broader range of material relating to philosophy, religion and spirituality.

    1. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 7:02am

      As with so many in religion, his ‘understanding’ is hand picked like a lottery. They only choose what they want to believe and then make it up to suit themselves.

  53. Titsiana Boobarini 28 Feb 2011, 1:49am

    Are you married David? Are you young, middle aged, or older? How did you come to formulate the views you have expressed here about sex and sexuality? Do you live in the UK? Where were you born, raised/socialised, educated? How do you know what God is like and what Gods opinions are? Who told you about that and why do you accept what they said?

  54. Oh dear, and he was doing so well over the David Kato murder and the backlash against fundamentalist elements that have hijacked Ugandan

  55. I think he should keep his big nose out of it. There are other Christian, Jewish and Islamic denominations who do want to have the right to preform legally binding same-sex religious weddings – and even though I am a Humanist, I will fight for the right of others whether they believe in god or not.

  56. The Chruch is very powerfull, and believe it or not it has a lot of money.

    Lynne Featherstone has said that church ministers will not be successfully sued for refusing to host gay civil partnerships.

    She also said that the Equality Act “explicitly” say that faiths have the right to reject gay couples.

    If thats correct, why were a hotel sude?

    1. Different parts of the Act I think?

      ukhumanrightsblog says:

      – Equality Act 2010 -section 202(4) provides for the insertion of a new section 6A(3A) into the Civil Partnership Act, which will state:

      For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so.

      – paragraph 2 of Schedule 23 of the Equality Act provides a sexual orientation discrimination exemption for “organisations relating to religion or belief” in terms of membership, participation in their activities, the provision of goods, facilities and services, and the use or disposal of premises they own or control

    2. I think that the Government will find it hard to defend any laws they attempt to forge preventing such litigation once the ECHR gets a case brought to it. Once same-sex marriage is legalised, it will then become transparently illegal to prevent same-sex couples getting married where opposite-sex couples get married. The Church is right to be worried about this, & I’d be surprised if Lynne Featherstone really believes what she’s saying. I suspect it’s more likely they’ll happily take the ‘it’s not us but Europe’ defense when the time comes….The Labour Government did, after all – it’s just the easiest & ultimately quickest way to confront and defeat the forces of the Daily Mail in the long run…

      1. Even if they restrict it to civil marriages? Religious CP aren’t marriages!

        The church are only affected by religious marriages .. and CP fall outside any laws about marriages???

        LF was careful to say “civil” marriages

      2. I think the humanrightblog on this is pretty good and they really don’t think you would have much chance forcing the church to do anything…of course it’s only a blog ..

        ” Perhaps more significantly, requiring an actual church, as opposed to some other body with a religious affiliation, to act contrary against its own doctrine would engage Article 9(European convention on human ritghs) rights to freedom of belief in the most acute way.

  57. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 6:36am

    This is just typical of the Church of England. It doesn’t matter if other, more in touch, groups want to hold these ceremonies, the Church of England will do everything to block anyone wanting doing regardless if they want to or not.

    So far in the Dark Ages they truly are living up to there example that most religions have no place in a true democracy.

    Oh sure they want to spew how they’re being victimised just because the world is picking on them, all because they can’t discriminate in the same murderous way any more but seriously what part of not being forced do they not get?

    They need to take a long look at other countries, just as religious, that have opened up equality. I do think Religious Civil Partnerships do need to be first to show these half-wits it isn’t going to affect them, however they will fight on the idea a marriage is between a man and a woman because they are so far up there own ass they can’t see daylight.

    1. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 6:37am

      Like I said before I do hope PinkNews gives us a balanced view not just all those that are opposed. It would be great to see those that are very supportive too

      1. Actually I’ve never seen a “comment” article from the Quakers…they’re one of the main religious orgs to support relgiious CPs and marriges and they’re by far the biggest so far I think…

        on the humanrighstblog it also goes on about vicars who have a freehold title over their churches and therefore can do whatever they like with them and perform religious CP. would be interesting to know which of these vicars would break ranks with the CofE when the law is changed..

  58. @David Skinner – consensual is totally different to non-consensual, you are an ignorant homophobe, the homophobes are always obsessed with scat

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 28 Feb 2011, 12:38pm

      They also incorrectly believe that ALL gay people partake of anal sex, which is NOT the case.

  59. Charley Farley 28 Feb 2011, 8:13am

    It seems that I am censored . So much for gay totalitarian tolerance and freedom of speech.

    1. No, you’re not else I wouldn’t be reading your comment. I expect your computer got over-heated in all the excitement.

    2. The comment section on Pink News isn’t censored at all. Anybody — including those who use names from a Two Ronnies sketch — can post here.

    3. The comment section on Pink News isn’t censored at all. Anybody – including those who post under the name of a characters from a Two Ronnies sketch can post here.

  60. Anyone watching ‘The Tudors’ might find it particularly amusing to observe the current Archbishop of Canterbury squirming to accommodate the self-serving desires of a bigoted & tyrannical mob in order to save his own job/head…The C of E was founded primarily to satisfy the sexual desires of a single individual by legalising sexual promiscuity….A fine authority to be listened to!!

  61. Charley Farley 28 Feb 2011, 8:16am

    There are folk here who cannot read the Bible , cannot be bothered to read it or refuse to read it and yet in the next breath have the eye watering presumptive confidence and arrogance,, more typical of wet behind ears teenager , to dictate to me what the Bible says. There is no answer for that. So maybe if they were to read Peter Tatchell’s pronouncements on marriage they might understand that gays do not want marriage. In the same they do not really want children except to act as trophies and human shields to gain public acceptance (Who can refuse a child?) . Like a spoilt child gays want what another child has got; not because it wants it, but because it does not want the other child to have what it has not got. Having got the other child’s possession and not really wanting it to start with, it then wantonly destroys it.

    So read your Tatchell, I say, Read your Tatchell. It is so much better when the gay agenda comes from the horse’s mouth. In this article entitled “Beyond Equality“ he lays out his stall :

    1. I doubt anyone’s banned you – if they had you wouldn’t be posting here under any name.

      You talk about ‘arrogance’ yet you presume to know the mind of god – pretty arrogant that, isn’t it? I do so wonder why you spend SO much time thinking about gay sex; so much time on Pink News; and so much time reading Peter Tatchell’s words. You never answer questions, you just foam and rant.

      You insult other Christians saying they’re not real Christians because they don’t believe the bile and hate that you do or see god as a hateful person. But YOU – you know the truth. *rolls eyes* Talk about a messiah complex.

      Seriously, although people make jokes about you, most people also wince at what you say because it’s unhinged, to put it bluntly.

      You need help – that’s a serious comment. You’re clearly mentally ill.

    2. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 9:26am

      That Gay Agenda again. Where do I find that magazine?

      Peter Tatchell is one voice, why would you take his word for all of us? Guess it’s always easy to pick speeches and comments to suit so you can deny anything else.

      Hang on though, of course it’s easy you lot do it all the time with the Bible.

      Silly me.

      Get used to the fact the Large majority of the LGBT community want Equal Marriage and the majority of the country is agreeable to Equal Marriage.

      It seems you are indeed in a minority.

    3. This makes no sense.

      Can you give an example of just what you’re talking about.

    4. you need to die

    5. “So read your Tatchell”

      Er, he’s a person, not a bible. And I’ll be sure to fix my opinions to that of one gay individual as you seem to think we all must do… would that make it easier for you? Keep it simple, yes? All gays must believing the same thing as Tatchell? Hmmm?

      What a complete moron you must be.

      1. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 10:19am

        I think this goes to proof that these religious people cannot use there own mind. I’m pretty sure we were given a brain to use yet these people insist on one text for all.

        They are incapable of thinking for themselves and sadly believe everyone else is the same.

    6. are Charley Farley and David Skinner not one and the same?

      1. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 10:54am

        I dunno but I think Tina, Charley Farley and mbhey101 might be connected. Tina seemed to morph into mbhey101 then back again and today Charley Farley.

        If it is then yet more prove that while most of us don’t feel the need to change name to prove a point and to agree with ourselves not only can they not be consistent neither does their arguments.

  62. I’m SO impressed! You’ve all actually managed to become just as fanatical, small-minded and bigoted as the people you’re railing against.
    Well, it was bound to happen. Think Animal Farm. Everyone is equal but some people are more equal than others.
    I came to this site hoping to find some decent people who wanted to make the world a happier and more equal place. Instead I find what amounts to a cult that is full of hate and poison.
    So a group of people doesn’t like you…whoop-de-doo, get the pitchforks out.

    1. Have you anything to say about the topic “Church of England fights equality” rather than attacking people who comment here, wise up!
      Nobody who is for a level playing field and for equal treatment under the law can be described as being as fanatical, as bigoted or as small-mided as these spokespersons for inequality and special religious privilege.

      1. People… Can’t you see that charly farly and rachy roo are skinner under another guise. I suspect skinner was barred and now he is sidestepping that by useing different names. Certainly the illiterate style is the same. Pink news should have a proper registration system that entails verification of e.mail address’. This homophobic bullying on what purports to be a gay site MUST stop Pink News….end of.

        1. Got that wrong I’m afraid dear :) I’m just fed up with all the double standards on here. There seems to be a culture of ‘2 wrongs make a right’. You don’t get any respect from foot stamping. Rise above it.

          1. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 1:38pm

            Ignore it and stay quiet you mean? Not be heard, let them just walk all over us? Sure that’ll work.

    2. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 9:28am

      Oh the uneducated! Yawn

    3. “You’ve all actually managed to become just as fanatical, small-minded and bigoted as the people you’re railing against.”

      actually, that’s not true. christians are the small-minded ones whose bigotry is denying LGBT freedom, and making our lives hell. I don’t see LGBT bigotry doing anything to christians, other than leaving comments on a website – BIG DIFFERENCE. You’re just another christian bully who wants everyone to love jesus and your stupid god. and because they don’t you think you can throw a baby tantrum. GROW UP.

    4. Strangely, I’m less then impressed with your little tantrum, Rachy-Roo. How awful it is to think the gays dare stand up against a bunch of hateful bigots who go out of their way to oppress them. How selfish of the gays, eh? Oh, the humanity of it! The poor christians….!

      Get a life.

      1. Tantrum? I’m sorry – my post was clearly insufficiently facetious. I was trying to lighten things up and invite people to stop giving Skinner the attention and sense of importance he so pathologically craves. Please see my reply above. I’m delighted that gay people stand up for themselves! Though I’m afraid I can only offer 5′ of gayness myself.

        I like Rachy-Roo though. Please use it again.

        1. To Rachel – I thought you were a different person to Rachy-Roo whose post is at the top of this little section (ends: “So a group of people doesn’t like you…whoop-de-doo, get the pitchforks out”) ?

          1. I really must get myself checked for ADD…

    5. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 10:13am

      I’ve yet to come across any group in society that when discriminated against suddenly burst into Carniva mode.

      1. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 10:21am

        sorry Carnival mode.

        1. Please see reply to Will/longer reply above.

        2. Scratch that last one. I absent-mindedly thought these comments were directed towards me.

    6. No idea what point you’re making, Rachy-Roo. Do you agree with David Skinner? If not, why take issue with those who contradict him or comment on his words? How long have you been reading PN? You don’t seem very familar with David’s previous vile outbursts and lies. Are you suggesting we should all give him a big virtual hug?

      Many people on PN speak politely to Christians and even fundies (think evangelical John) but you can’t have much experience of the real world if you think that all every single person needs is a bit of love and understanding. MOST people want everyone to get along and be happy too, but there are a minority who seek to bully and provoke and will NEVER agree to get along with others. David is one of these, in my opinion.

      People have tried being pleasant to him – it doesn’t work.

      And don’t you dare judge other people on this forum. Most people I’ve conversed with are decent, kind and admirable.

    7. When you say group of people don’t like us, do you mean the people on the top of the CofE, the general Synod and the Bishops. I doubt very much if this dislike is in the majority…isn’t it about time the whole CofE started looking at itself and tried to work out why so very few people attend the church….the problem is that CofE is part of govt, the established church, we can’t ignore that becuase as this article shows they are in “private” meeting with “influential” mp and guess what they’re talking about us behind our backs!

  63. Where is the story about the gay cricketer? That is far more interesting than ‘effing’ Dr Rowan!

    1. …it’s a ‘sun’ exclusive lol!

  64. The Church of England is the STATE church whether we like it or not, whether we want it or not, but this can be put as “whether they like or not” also. And being in such a position they are obliged to interact with the laws of the STATE.
    If they don’t like that they can disestablish and sail off providing whatever kind of fairyland services they wish or otherwise to their members. I wish them Bon Voyage.

  65. The Church of England should now be disestablished, it could then be renamed The Anti-gay Church of Uganda.

    1. It won’t need to be disestablished by any outside authority, Pavlos. It’s doing a pretty good job of making itself completely redundant. Helped along by fundie loons like David, of course, whose words have probably helped turn numerous young people away from religion.

  66. I think we should all shrug our shoulders and pay other, less narrow minded, churches for our ceremonies. When Williams notices the vast amount of lost revenue for his precious church when we all decide to go to the Quakers or whoever will take us, he’ll have to change his mind. That’ll pave the way for the last bars to equal marriage being removed entirely, along with the remaining integrity and authority of the church in the minds of the public.

    Let him keep talking, hopefully he’ll end up signing the death warrant of his own church.

  67. Surely Williams’ beef is that he wants the law to continue shoring up the Church’s central control on what local parishes permit or allow on their property. The law may allow freedom to local churches to decide what they do in their buildings, but the Church heirarchy is anxious to reserve that right to itself. The trouble is it wants to be backed up in this by a law which also constrains other religious groups over which it has no moral authority. Typical self-serving cynicism.

    1. I think you are right – Willaims has proven to be an impotent man when it comes to leadership. He knows that conservative or liberal he has no control over his Bishops. So he wants violate the tennants of separtion of church and state and have the government set the rules. His weakness of character is exposed by his act of having behind the door discussions with the lawmakers. Those Anglican appointments in the house of Lords need to be sent packing as their leader is incapable of acting in an open and transpartent manner.

      1. Mind you, having such a weak leader in the CofE serves us all well, as the edifice collapses around them.

  68. Her Majesty needs to resign as head of the Williams circus. As head of state she has made her position perfectly clear in 2005 when she said … “My Government will maintain its commitment to increased equality and social justice by bringing forward legislation on the registration of civil partnerships between same sex couples”. Now her government is simply taling this a step furter as social justice was not fully achieved in 2005.

  69. Civil partnerships: bluster in bad faith

    The blanket ban on religious institutions hosting partnership ceremonies is an infringement of liberty and must be swept away

  70. John Wycliffe 28 Feb 2011, 12:04pm

    It looks as if any article concerning a religious person or group is to most people, these days, an excuse to launch into the customary anti-religious, misotheistic diatribe. For instance, another article I read on this site (about Justin Bieber, I think), had a number of anti-religious comments, some of which were abominably condescending. One such comment, following on from a number of people who made the grave error of mentioning God, stated that they should ‘run along’, because ‘this discussion [was] for adults’. That is precisely the sort of self-absorbed, vitriolic, contumelious tirade that I simply cannot stand. Nothing drives me more demented than to read people’s asinine, self-important, vainglorious dismissing of anyone and anything religious or belonging to God as stupid, childish and inferior.

    You people are hypocrites! You are more than happy to ‘tolerate’ those of us who are LGBT Christians marching alongside you in the campaign for full equality, and yet when some

    1. John Wycliffe 28 Feb 2011, 12:05pm

      religious person or group displays the merest whiff of a position or an opinion contrary in some way to your own, we gay Christians are no longer welcome. When faced with any opposition from some Christians, all of a sudden, even those of us who are ostensibly on your side become persona non grata – and whenever this fact is pointed out, we are faced with an unending harangue of hatred and abuse. All this, and you have the temerity, the sheer rat-faced impudence to condescend and patronise upon us, to lord it over us in your self-pronounced intellectual (and, dare I say it, moral) superiority. What flagrant and intolerable hypocrisy!

      Certainly, there are Christians – or, to quote John Wesley, ‘those who bear the name of Christ’ – who hate, condemn and abuse gay people. Undeniably, there is a history of oppression and subduing among Christians (I will not say Christianity, and those of you who are real Christians will understand why).

      1. John Wycliffe 28 Feb 2011, 12:06pm

        However, such is the history of the human race – the history of mankind is filled with such actions. It is filled with hatred and abuse, and it speaks as much with the voices of the oppressor as it does with those of the downtrodden and of the liberators, and so it is not surprising that a group of human beings (such as we Christians are, despite a number of anti-theistic protests to the contrary) will mirror this disposition and that the history of Christendom will mirror the socio-political history of humankind in general. And yet, you people can drown out the voices of the liberators in Christian history?

        1. John Wycliffe 28 Feb 2011, 12:06pm

          You are no better than the bigots you so vehemently and wholeheartedly decry. You are no more superior nor more intrinsically moral than those so-called Christians you expend so much of your energies in decrying – and it is when you extend the walls of your decrying to those of us Christians who speak for tolerance, equality and peace that you must be stopped, reprimanded and displayed for the sightless bigots that you have become.

          Think of how recently it was that no Anglican church welcomed LGBT people at all. Remember the days when no Christian church at all welcomed us. See how recently it was that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people were universally declared to be wicked abominations. See the change that has been wrought in so little time. There is a reformation afoot in Christianity today, a new reformation of love, of tolerance, respect and of peace. The voice of Christ speaks for peace, for righteousness and for an end to hatred and hypocrisy.

          1. John Wycliffe 28 Feb 2011, 12:06pm

            Listen to the voices of people such as Desmond Tutu, and you will surely hear the voice of Christ Himself, to whom all glory and honour belong for all ages. However, I warn you – muffle them at your own peril.

            We Christians – and especially we LGBT Christians – are no mean people, to borrow a maxim from Yeats. Ours is a history of the reviled, the hated and the despised. We are used to the concept of being hated for Christ, and we will not diminish because of the petty, self-absorbed haranguing of a maltheistic bigot. You will not crush us, and you will not silence us. I marvel at your lack of shame, those of you who are LGBT and heap this hatred and abuse upon us Christians. Have you no remembrance or consideration of the centuries of hatred and abuse that is part of the history of the gay community? Have you forgotten what it is like to be hated, reviled and denounced? How is it that you can serve out that same bitter wine that you tasted for so long?

          2. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 12:19pm

            My My aint you a hypocrite.

            “Have you no remembrance or consideration of the centuries of hatred and abuse that is part of the history of the gay community? Have you forgotten what it is like to be hated, reviled and denounced? How is it that you can serve out that same bitter wine that you tasted for so long?”

            You mean the centuries that Christianity got away with treatingd people the way they did compare to the Very recent turn of events where we actually have been able to stand up to ourselves mostly without being tortured and murdered.

            I understand it’s still a new concept the LGBT community being able to stand up to the bullying abusive religions.

          3. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 12:28pm

            Seriously what did you expect?

            That these Christians would just continue to be allowed to spew vile while we knelt down and stayed silent. Don’t be so pathetically naive.

            This is 2011 – Hi – we have a voice and we are legally entitled to express it. We are entitled to live our lives Without discrimination and yes when some Christian nutter come here to lecture us in that same boring rant too right we are going to stand up for ourselves.

            The Shame falls on you. You say your Christian and Gay yet I don’t see you defending Gay rights against Christian extremists. I maybe have to question the Gay bit.

            As for the Justin Beiber story read the comments against you’ll actually see many comments had changed subject away from who the story was about.

            Lastly, you seem to feel you have the right to be judgemental against the LGBT community for standing up against extremist, where does that leave you though…. Hypocrite by any chance?!!

          4. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 12:32pm

            “See how recently it was that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people were universally declared to be wicked abominations.”

            You clearly don’t see or know that we still are treated like that within this thread. David Skinner for one.

            You clearly haven’t been here long enough to see what readers have had thrown at them.

            Easy to do when you don’t understand nor know I guess.

          5. The difference being, skinner, wycliffe, rachy roo charly farly or whoever you currently are, is that to be gay isn’t a choice, being a bigoted religionist is and while your wholly fictional texts, priests and leaders continue to revile us, suck it up. We will continue to mock and deride you . Your beliefs are anathma to the modern human race and while your beliefs continue to abraid my being and human rights, that will be my attitude to you and yours.

          6. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 12:57pm

            Excellent point Boston!

          7. “and you will surely hear the voice of Christ Himself, to whom all glory and honour belong for all ages.”

            When you can prove the existence of a god, then I will discuss his “honour and glory”. Up to now all you’ve convinced me of is you are incapable of logical discourse. In fact, most of your droning comment was a diatribe of nonsense and religious buzz words, neither of which I hold in high esteem.

        2. But you are not this cosy group of “we Christians” you refer to.
          As Gay Christians you are separate and second class Christians with additional religious restrictions placed upon you alone.

          It’s not exactly the same but some of you gay Christians are acting rather like Uncle Toms, both despised by your religion that looks down on you while you fawn over it and defend it’s ugly ideology and thus clearly confiused, you abandon all rationality and powers of reason when your religious hackles are raised and can’t decide which side you are batting for.
          It’s not your fault of course, gay Christians shouldn’t be placed in this awkward position by their unreasonable and unreasoning churches.

    2. As a Christian, I’d have hoped you’d have shown David Skinner up for the UNchristian person he is and made some comment on the way he’s portraying Christianity as a religion of bullying hate.But no…. Sad.

      And, if you’d been on PN before, you’d know that there are gay Christians here who speak and are listened to. However, they don’t launch into strange attacks like yours against other gay people. A true Christian would show by example.

      I know a few LGBT Christians and none of them would write such a comment. I don’t get where you’re coming from at all there. I doubt anybody here ‘hates all Christians’. The comments about David Skinner are directed at him alone, not at all Christians.

      1. John Wycliffe 28 Feb 2011, 1:09pm

        Read Neville’s comment: “Poor John Wycliffe does not seem to realise that religious faith is a mental illness, and that he exhibits manifold signs of such an illness.”

        How, then, can you say that you doubt anyone here is hostile towards all Christians?

        1. You do come across as a bit mental when you try to convince us, yourself or anyone that Christians are being victimised by Gay & Lesbian people.

          Treating Christians the same as everyone else is not discrimination however much Christians claim it to be so, they are not being victimised.

          I’d say the abuse received by Christians on these boards is roughly equivalent to the amount of abuse they dish out, you might try sticking to the topic of your church being the self-styled enemy of equality instead of whining and making dramatic accusations for effect.

        2. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 1:51pm

          With the way Christianity is still treating the LGBT community can you blame anyone for being hostile? I think most are actually being as polite as possible considering.

          Now, not only to deny the LGBT community to have Civil Partnership with the hopeful view of Equal marriage within the Christian Church but dictating that no religion in the UK should be able to perform these ceremonies.

          Do you not see the hatred in that, do you not see why this community, that just wants to be able to choose how we celebrate our love Equally, can prehaps feel hostile when still in 2011 the Church still sees fit to allow open discrimination.

          Why should we be quiet about that?!

        3. John Wycliffe – again, it’d have been nice to see you argue against David Skinner’s vileness. And Neville’s comment was, I think, made after your post. I was referring to the comments up to the point you made your post.

        4. OK I think you need to calm down a bit, mate. You’re dangerously close to sounding like David Skinner, actually. You need to cool down the rhetoric, drama never achieves anything. I’m Christian too, but I realize that people here are way more on my side than some Christians are. Even the people here who are more hostile to religion. You sound hurt, i can sense that. But you need to step back from that and calm down. Anger’s not going to solve anything, OK? Peace. =]

          1. Btw, that was a reply to John Wycliffee, not Iris.

        5. … as religious belief is a choice, slavish adherence is clearly a mental illness. Your brainwashed to a point beyond human reasoning and logic and while you frequent these pages with your hatred and bile, be prepared to be mocked and derided. We have a rightto defend who we were born as against a fanatsy that is a choice.End Of.

    3. one simple question Wyecliffe….Why are you posting on a gay website where 99.999% of the readers don’t share your fantasy.?

  71. Poor John Wycliffe does not seem to realise that religious faith is a mental illness, and that he exhibits manifold signs of such an illness.

  72. All my posts have been swallowd by the ether. I’m trying one last time.

    1 – I am sorry. I was being facetious, my aim being to invite you to stop looking at Skinner’s shadow and giving him the attention he craves, and to look instead at the mouse he is instead.

    2 – I was brought up by evangelical Chrsitians, so I completely understand the fear about exposing vulnerable young LGBTs to this kind of bile. I can only take this attitude because of years of therapy and the love of a fantastic woman.

    3 – Do I think Skinner should be banned? If Pink News is supposed to be a safe gay haven, then of course. If it’s supposed to be a news source available to one and all, then yes, if you can’t otherwise moderate him.

    I apologise once again. I hate the fact that I have upset/enraged so many of my own.

    1. “I apologise once again. I hate the fact that I have upset/enraged so many of my own.”

      There’s no need to apologise, we just mistaken your post for genuine. You have to admit, you made yourself sound just like Skinner and John Wycliffe… and with so many of these nuts in here, its hard to separate the lunacy of their posts from one being sarcastic.

      1. Thank you, Will. I completely understand why you all read it as you did. Sometimes my sense of humour gets the better of my common sense. And my sensitivity.

        1. RACHEL – hi! Please say whether you are also ‘Rachy Roo’ before I get extremely confused! The comment you put your explanation on above was a comment by Rachy-Roo – is that you? I thought you, Rachel, and Rachy-Roo were two different posters?

          1. We are, we are! I wish there was an edit button. I’ve clogged up that thread no end.

      2. It’s just been pointed out to me that the comments referring to Rachy-Roo are not directed to me.

        I suddenly feel SO much happier!

        1. Thank you, Rachel :) I was pretty sure you weren’t but I was starting to doubt myself there, it being Monday and all!

          1. No, thank YOU for pointing out my confusion. I think I may borrow that “Monday” excuse.

            As for Rachy-Roo, she needs to improve her understanding of human nature. And informal logic.

  73. John Wycliffe 28 Feb 2011, 1:15pm

    Jock S. Trap, I feel I should speak now, before you continue to rather gloriously miss my point. My comment, as you would know had you actually read it properly, referred to those people who, though they are perfectly happy to have LGBT Christians march alongside them in striving for equality, and in speaking out against homophobia in the world, then turn on us once they have no further use for us. I have had experience of such people, and it is to those that my comment was directed. But then, you would know this had you actually read it – and understood it. Your complete misunderstanding of my comment is proof enough that you did neither.

    As for questioning my sexuality, how dare you. I am a proud and happy gay man, and an even more proud and happier Christian. I will stand up against those who hate me for my faith just as I stand up against those who hate me for my sexual orientation. I oppose christianophobia just as I do homophobia.

    1. “I oppose christianophobia just as I do homophobia.”

      The former term implies an irrational hate of christians. Its far from irrational. Gay people have, by countless precedent recent and historic, everything to fear from christians. From experience:- Most are hypocrites, and the remainder are either silent to persecution of gays, or don’t really care. There are a few that speak out, yes, but the majority fit into the other categories.

      There is nothing irrational in fearing a group of people who insist in a god they cannot prove and insist that people are persecuted or discriminated against becuase they think they know what that non-proven entity is thinking…. when you look at it, its insane.

      1. John Wycliffe 28 Feb 2011, 1:41pm

        I do not attempt to prove God simply because I do not think that God lies within the remit of human reason. The bible is not, to me, an infallible document written literally by God. That is quite demonstrably wrong. However, I do think that it is a record of human experience of God. Even the concept of God is a metaphor, in that it translates (albeit poorly) that which lies beyond our definitions and experiences of being and of existence into something to which we can relate. Many Christians now approach the Bible with a silly kind of surface-rending, a type of painful literalism that would have been anathema to the great thinkers of ancient Christianity. That is precisely what Christ warned against when he spoke of all the Law (i.e. Leviticus and Deuteronomy) being summed up in the great commandments to love one’s neighbour and God. Anything that cannot be reconciled to that has not been understood properly – most likely out of context.

        1. “I do not attempt to prove God simply because I do not think that God lies within the remit of human reason.”

          How arrogant and utterly convenient of you to say so. “I don’t need to prove a god, because you wouldn’t understand it”. Are you taking the piss?

          This is the same old circular nonsense I have come to expect, and of course drives my respect for religions even lower than it already is. Your comments above are written in the “of course there is a god” tone, which I find disturbing and contemptible. The fact I do not believe in a god is as valid, if not more so, then your non-proven entity (the one that I cannot obviously understand) my favourite line was “The voice of Christ speaks for peace, for righteousness and for an end to hatred and hypocrisy.”

          Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for your beliefs, and your right to have them…. but I’m rather sick of them been spoken of as if they were fact, and then told how to live my life becuase of them.

    2. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 2:06pm

      Actually I did read your comments and missed no point. What you need to understand is that we do have Christian extremists here that seem to anger those on here and this occasion you may have gotten the wrong end of that.

      Having said that there are plenty of times when some of the LGBT community could fight back against these extremists instead of laying into the community itself.

      Yet again, having said that there will be people who disagree with religion as I do and will express it openly via a comments thread. For a lot of people siding with a group that has been so oppressive of not only Gay rights but Human rights is a difficult issue.

      1. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 2:07pm

        I would be right to say PinkNews regulars are a small community with a strong sense of debate with strong opinions. We can differ strongly but when pushed by extremists we certainly do stick together. There are Gay/Lesbian Christians here already that debate equally and have the same respect for each other.

        Maybe you should spend some time to get to know people rather than make an on the spot judgement.

    3. ….could you explain how one can be a member of a cult that considers your very being as a gay man an “abomination” Thats like a turkey being a member of a christmas club. As for whether any one knew or cared that you were a religionist when you marched alongside i seriously doubt, unless you were wearing some of the medieval gard members of your sect wear from time to time.

    4. But there’s a difference between fear of Christians and homophobia.

      1. Christians aren’t kicked to death by gay people.
      2. Christians aren’t prohibited from getting married.
      3. Gay people don’t base their lives on a book that says Christians are abominations.

      You talk about Christians as though they are a homogeneous group. That’s not true though. Compare the actions and beliefs of an English Quaker with those of a Westboro Baptist. Both Christians, but separated by a chasm.

      Interesting coincidence that you have the same name as the fourteenth century theologian.

  74. And finally, if I may:

    For three years, I I was trustee of GALOP, the gay hate crimes charity.

    I am part of Amnesty International’s LGBT newtwork.

    I make monthly donations to Peter Tatchell’s fund.

    I’m a charity lawyer. I’ve given Mr Tatchell free informal legal advice. I’ve also submitted a lot of information to the Charity Commission on the abusive practices of some religious charities.

    You get the picture. I’m an activist. Kick off at internet trolls if you like, but I reckon you’d be better off focussing your anger where it’ll make a difference.

  75. LOOK FOLKS – IGNORE DAVID SKINNER. He is a basket case with morbid sexual obsessions rationalised by selective appeal to the particular kind of voodoo he believes in. You are wasting your time and column inches.

  76. Bigot, self-loather Skinner seems to forget that polygamy is a straight invention, sanctioned in the old testament. There was no same-sex marriage at the time so how can scum like Skinner dig up that old worn out canard that allowing us to marry would herald incest, polygamy and the like. He isn’t aware of course that incest is also legal according to the old testament when you read the fairy tale about Adam and Eve. Allegedly, they were the first parents of the human race who had several children. Now ask yourselves, assuming this was the first family of the human race, for the planet to have become populated, there is only onbe thing one can deduce….. .incest must have taken place.

    As we see marriage equality becoming a reality in our country, we’ll be hearing more of this nonsense coming from the religious loonies, proof positive that devolution of the human brain exists. Rowan Williams et al have it in abundance.

    1. Robert,

      I’m sure those clamouring for biblical marriage have no idea how kinky it is.

      Incidentally, is it wrong that I quite like the sound of polygamy? I suspect my wife would frown upon it, but still….

    2. He’s a fundamentalist I guess, he reads everything really literally uses that as an excuse to hate people. Take no notice of him, he’s just craving attention. It’s like a quote from JK Rowling that I really like “I take no responsibility for the lunatic fringes of my religion”. Peace =]

  77. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 2:23pm

    Excellent news about the Christian couple who are morally opposed to Homosexuality losing their High Court battle over the right to become Foster carers!

    Get ready for the Daily (Hate)Mail bashing!!

    1. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 2:33pm

      Cue Melanie Philloops

    2. Finally – legal recognition of the harm caused by homophobic parents! I suspect Melanie Phillips is going to explode, blood pouring from her eyes.*

      *If she does, can it be filmed and put on YouTube?

      1. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 2:56pm

        Yep news is coming in Melainie Phillips head has exploded having heard this latest news. Witnesses have said there was very little mess all considering. They believe the 3 kg of earwax found at the scene may have actually been her brain…

        1. Hahahahahaha! Please warn me before you make comments like this, so I can slap on a Tena Lady.

    3. “The couple are not homophobic, according to the Christian Legal Centre, which has taken up their case. But they are against sex before marriage and do not recognise civil partnerships between gay couples as marriage.”

      Above is an excellent illustration provided by The Christian Institute why gay people really do need to demand full marriage equality, civil partnerships are not recognised by many Christian bigots.
      Thanks for that The Christian Institute.

      1. I meant:
        Thanks for that the Christian Legal Centre

        1. They’re very much in bed with each other, Pavlos. (Don’t pitcure it, you’ll only upset yourself.)

      2. Oh, The Christian Institute – such wags! Always making their little jokes, not realising that people think they genuinely are paranoid homo-haters.

        I once had the gross misfortune to be seated next to Colin Hart (the CI’s director) at a think-tank lunch. I think I deserve a medal for only using my cutlery for eating purposes. Though I suppose you could say I was a coward who wasted the perfect opportunity to rid the world of an evil influence.

        1. Hahaha. Now now, the pen is mightier than the sword – or the fork, I suppose. =P

          1. The cheese knife presented the greatest temmptation! You’re right, Tom – the pen is mightier than the sword. Now please excuse me while I sharpen my Mont Blanc…

  78. Hmmm… Another example of Rowan Williams lacking spine. What’s amazing is that when he was appointed Archbishop, he was considered a liberal, especially when it came to homosexuality! Ever since, though, he’s been bowing to the will of evangelicals. I’m at one remove from the CofE, being an Irishman (I’m a CofI member), but a lot of Anglican clergy people I know are sick of Rowan Williams. There’s a lot of good work being done by Anglicans for gay rights, and Rowan Williams is threatening to mess all of that up.

    What’s even worse is that, in England, Church and State aren’t totally separate (the CofE is established, unlike places like here in Ireland which have no established religion), so he has a say over the denominations who actually do want to allow gay marriage. Not to mention the fact that he has a say as to *civil* marriage!!

    Someone needs to tell him that he needs to either shut the feck up or go – now!

  79. John Wycliffe Wrote

    “I do not attempt to prove God simply because I do not think that God lies within the remit of human reason.”

    . . . . . . . . . .

    John, as I am sure you are aware, since the Enlightenment; reason and logic have been in the ascendency

    John, when you resort to self-referential statements as a way of argument . . .

    John, people are not going to tolerate conjecture, without the possibility of refutation; because this type of thinking is viewed as incongruent with the spirit of the Enlightenment.

    1. I understand that a number of Gay Christians on this site have felt under attacked, and on the receiving end of prejudice; derogatory and belittling comments.

      I think one issue connected with the rise of this, is the legitimate belief that science, reason and logic; should triumph over religion.

      Moreover, post the enlightenment, there is also the question as to whether or not religious views are comparable with progressive; and secular approaches to civil society.

      1. I’m not sure what to make of him, to be honest. His original post was way too long, it’s more of a blog than a comment, isn’t it? Also, it sounds as if he’s angry, possibly feeling belittled, as you said just there. No doubt, though, that he’s taking the wrong approach to things – not to mention having a go at the wrong group!

        I honestly think, though, that belittlement isn’t the way to go about talking about anything – especially not religion! Mocking and anger won’t get us anywhere. That’s why I for one don’t really like discussing religion in a secular forum, I prefer to keep my faith to myself. Unless, of course, I see a religious person spreading hate, in which case I will speak up. I’m not ashamed of my faith, like, but I don’t go forcing it on people. Which is probably the best way to go about it, I’d say.

        @John Wycliffe: Shouldn’t you be angry with Rowan Williams, rather than with gay people? After all, the man is a joke.

        1. “That’s why I for one don’t really like discussing religion in a secular forum, . . . ”

          . . . . . . . . . . .

          Tom . . . I agree.

          I think no matter how much we want religion to go away, or evolve into more liberal accommodating forms; capable of recognising the suffrage of LGBT people. Unfortunately, the reality is that fundamentalist relgions will always have an edge. Simply, because they promises to offer the same clarity about the fabric of reality; which science is always in the process of trying to clarify.

          Although personally I would not want to impede the process of science and logic, in favour of prizing a ruminative; self-referential metaphysics.

          1. John – While I don’t want religion to “go away” (I presume you mean to be no more), I totally agree on the point about fundamentalist religions. People have got too used to the idea of certainty, I think. That’s why people expect that from religion. They expect facts and scientific analytical logic, which of course is outside the remit of religion. Science and religion aren’t really at odds at all in my mind, but that’s just a personal thing.

            But I’m not here to talk about God. Unless someone asks me, of course. And if they do, I’ll try to explain myself and my faith as pleasantly and politely as possible, but otherwise, someone’s religion (or lack thereof) is their own business, just like mine is my own business. I don’t hate atheists at all (one of best friends is an atheist!!), I don’t think they’re evil or immoral or bad. I don’t judge, I try my best to love and respect everyone with whom I share this planet. Live and let live, yeah? =]

  80. What a bigoted old C@@t

  81. He is between a rock and a hard place. He’s gay friendly, but has to appease to the many homophobes in his parishes and congregations…

  82. From what I know, Rowan Williams himself is fairly liberal, but doesn’t stand his ground on contentious issues in order to keep the Church from splitting. He has to do what he feels is best for what is, essentially, his to look after, in much the same way as the Government ought to do for us. That said, I do think that he should leave it up to the individual churches and their priests and possibly congregation to decide on this one…

    1. There’s a huge spectrum of opinion in the Anglican Communion – between ultra-conservative (Evengelical) and ultra-liberal. The liberals not only want the communion to accept gay marriage, but to allow openly-gay people to become priests too. The Evangelicals, on the other hand, are the complete opposite – Leviticus, 1 Corinthians 6:9, etc at every turn, and they want none of that. Rowan Williams is stuck between them.

      I suspect he’s still inwardly a liberal, but is afraid of the Anglican Communion tearing itself apart over the issue of homosexuality, and he’s doing it in the most spineless way! He’s effectively trying to please too many people at once, but by bowing to the conservatives, he’s disenfranchised the liberals. There’s discontent in the Episcopal Church of America, for example. It’s all politics, you see, it’s got nothing to do with religion per se, it’s an unfortunate case of religion being used as the cover, if you will, for a political agenda. The man has no spine.

      1. Oops, I meant ‘over the issue of homosexuality. He’s trying to protect the Communion, and he’s doing it in the most spineless way!’

        1. I agree, this is spineless, but really points to Williams inherent heterosexism; and provisonal liberalism.

          Power always corrupts!!!

  83. I think the best comment so far is

    Please send your comments to

    I’ve sent my comments today……

  84. Ian Bradley Marshall 1 Mar 2011, 7:28pm

    Well, there you have it! That bunch of lunatics I wrote about of the 1930s last month, are still with us, firmly set within the church!! I’m even more glad now that I was invited by LGF to write They Came in the Night.
    If any UTAH bods see it, think on it, and consider well your response, and that goes for similarly minded religious people wherever. Get real, get a life and stop twisting the Truth.

    Ian Bradley Marshall
    1 March 2011 Liverpool UK

  85. The only question is whether the church will disolve to dust before this poor old man who cant stand change disolves to dust.

    I dont think williams is a bad person per se. He just should have been retired 20 years ago, before his brain turned to cement

  86. stan James 3 Mar 2011, 5:26am

    A poor old man fighting a lost battle. He supports the unity of a church that had to break free from the unity with a monstrosity called the vatican.
    time will cure this wound, and I’m sure that Rowan Wiilams will have a little talk with his Boss in the next life.

    if there is one.

    the longer he fights, the more he will preach to the dust in the pews and the dust of the departed.

    And mankind and womankind will be free of the church hatched originally by the monsters of Rome.

  87. Jock S. Trap 3 Mar 2011, 3:00pm

    If the church of England splits anymore with any luck they’ll be nothing left but different sects of loonies.

    1. Hi Jock

      I thought that had happened already, so to speak.

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.