Reader comments · Court upholds foster ban on couple who oppose homosexuality · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Court upholds foster ban on couple who oppose homosexuality

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Jock S. Trap 28 Feb 2011, 3:00pm

    Excellent news and one for our Equal and Human rights. For once I feel the decision is now on the best place for the child and not the best place for the bigotted parents.

    Waiting for the onslaught of vile hatred from the Likes of Melaine Phillips and the HateMail but I think they are proving to be pushing themselves to be a minority. Will be interested to see how that goes.

  2. Thank god this has been upheld. I had a feeling that the council’s decision was going to be overturned.

    This couple have a right to believe what they like, however any child brought up in their home has a (superior) right to feel safe and loved, something I imagine would be impossible if said child were to grow up gay. Where fostering/adoption is concerned the interests of the child MUST supercede those of the prospective fosterer/adopter.

  3. Incoming cry from christians of “help, help we’re being oppressed” in 3…2…

    Mostly I am pretty ambivalent about faith. Don’t need it myself but if others find it gives them comfort, power to them. But this constant deluge of hateful behaviour from “religious” people is making me start to really dislike them.

    People don’t all share the same beliefs (and let’s be honest, if christians can’t agree among themselves what those beliefs actually are, what chance for the rest of us?) but some still insist on shoving their beliefs in to the faces of others. Only when there is absolute consensus can faith legitimately interact with the law of the land and public policy.

  4. @ Jock

    Me too, I can already hear Melanie cracking her knucles as she dives into another of her ill judged and misinformed anti gay articles! I daren’t check the story on the Fail’s website in the fear that it might cause me to stick my foot through the computer screen.

    Back to the story in question though, are indivduals who hold racist views also banned from fostering / adopting?

  5. This is huge news! The next question to be addressed: should teaching your biological children that gay relationships are wrong/immoral be grounds for an intervention by social services and your kids being taken into care? That seems an obvious conclusion, since the courts have effectively recognised that anti-gay teachings are inimical to a child’s welfare.

    1. The difference is though that they are your children, these aren’t.
      Fostering children requires a neutral responsibility. One wonders if fostered children with these people would have Christian ethics and beliefs rammed down their throats and be forcibly dragged off to church every Sunday.

      I have no problem with people’s personal faiths, but it should remain just that, and they should not be allowed to impose their views on others, and certainly not vulnerable children.

      1. So you think that because a kid is born to you, you have the right to fill their mind with hate for others – and potentially themselves? What about the rights of the child?

        1. I think it’s a step too far to say social services should be involved if the parents disagree with homosexuality. People everywhere have a right to raise their children how they see fit if ultimately that child is healthy. Such a notion does not have the wellbeing or benefit of the child in mind, only the benefit of gay rights.

          Ultimately it won’t matter what the parents tell the child if their school, friends and (if applicable) church group had a more progressive stance on the issue. Which is why it makes more sense to focus energy on teaching equality in schools and churches than it does to demand social services intervene on every homophobic parent. I have close friends who have had homophobic parents (particularly fathers) and have grown up to, as they put it, “love the gays!”

          1. Good luck getting mosques, Catholic churches, Hindu temples etc. to teach gay equality.

          2. You wrote: “People everywhere have a right to raise their children how they see fit if ultimately that child is healthy”. My question to you is, how can a child be healthy, Chris, if he’s brought up with prejudice? It’s a contradiction in terms.

        2. Well, I certainly think a parent has more rights in the upbringing of their naturally born children than say a foster parent or guardian.

          As many parents point out, there is no manual on bringing up kids, you are just chucked in the deep and and expected to cope. Usually that means bringing them up the way you were, rightly or wrongly.

          Children are generally only taken from their parents or guardians under extreme circumstances, and it is not the law’s role to interfere unless the child is at risk. However this is a pre-screening, which is entirely a different matter, and this couple have failed the test. I do feel sorry for them as I am sure they are good people, but I’m afraid the rights of the child have to come first.

    2. Derek:

      I think it’s similar to the rules that also don’t allow you to adopt if you’re grossly overweight, smoke or are seriously ill. People of course can be good parents in all these circumstances – but the rules are different if you are fostering or adopting.

      I did a piece of work for a children in care charity – it’s a very hard, lonely, difficult situation for any child to be in. Making sure that the child won’t suffer from a whole wall of other problems because of illiberal carers is a priority. But similarly, if a gay or atheist couple foster a child who has a religious affiliation, the foster parents also have to be mature enough to deal with it. The central principle is to let children in your care flourish and be who they are – not squash bit of them to suit your own ideas.
      Fair all round…

  6. @ Emma,

    I don’t know for certain but I imagine that is also the case. Being homophobic is still seen my many as a legitimate viewpoint, whereas racism isn not, so I can’t imagine that prospective fosterers/adopters would feel comfortable expressing racist views in front of a panel though.

    1. I thought they would probably be banned also [and rightly so], but couldn’t recall any similar news story. Thanks for the reply :)

  7. Thank goodness. These people are not fit to care for children. A child put in their care who was going through the process of becoing aware of their sexuality and who happened to be gay would be in a dangerous position. For such a child to be repeatedly told that they were evil and inferior would essentially be child abuse and we should not put children into the hands of child abusers.

    1. It’s not just potentially gay kids, it’s the str8 ones too, as they will be brought up to be homophobic by proxy. We have enough trouble with natural-born homophobes, without these people actually creating them.

      1. Good point, Spanner!

    2. Christians don’t believe that gays are any more evil than anyone else – including Christians. They (OK, we) don’t believe that gays are inferior, either. The Bible doesn’t teach that, and don’t believe anyone who tells you it does. Christ was known for his love for everyone. However, that’s not the same as agreeing with what everyone did. He hates the wrongdoing, not the wrongdoer.

      My kids aren’t perfect, and I hate it when they misbehave, but I don’t hate them for it. I don’t tell them they’re inferior either – inferior to whom? Me? I’m a long way from perfection.

      I’m not going to raise them to be homophobic. If Christ loved gay people, so should my children. I’ll teach them that it’s wrong to practise homosexuality though, because that’s what the Bible teaches. It’s not just possible, but reasonable, to love someone without agreeing with them on all points. If it were not so, society would be a lonely place, surely?

      1. That might be all well and good if your children turn out to be straight, but if one turns out to be gay, then you’d have been encouraging him or her to repress an instrumental and immutable part of their being, something shown time and time again to be psychologically damaging. Personally, I think your children’s potential well-being would take priority over your 2000-year-old book of dogma.

      2. Jock S. Trap 1 Mar 2011, 11:11am

        “I’ll teach them that it’s wrong to practise homosexuality though, because that’s what the Bible teaches.”

        And there we have it. Who are you to tell anyone they were born is wrong? What message does that give a child who is struggling with how they are. Why add guilt on top of all things.

        Children are there to be loved and guided but we have no right to tell them how to live there lives, that is for them to grow. The best a parent can do it support and grow with that child. It is evil to teach a child that how they are born is not only wrong but completely immoral.

        If I had my way I would make it illegal for religion to be forced onto a child until they are of an age to be able to make up their own minds as religion is about choice.

        I just hope one of your children doesn’t fall victim to you prejudice if they do happen to be Gay. You’ve already made that already difficult when you should be accepting. A childs love is unconditional and so should yours.

        1. Jock S. Trap 1 Mar 2011, 11:14am

          My parents we very strict religious people. That is how I grew up so don’t think for a minute just because you say its wrong it won’t happen to you.

          Thankfully they now see that a lot of religion is hypocritical and have been very supportive but beware, your actions could have consequences.

      3. Will you teach your kids the biblical prohibitions against working on the sabbath, not being a virgin on their wedding day etc – all punishable by death.

        Makes me wonder if you should be allowed to bring up children. You might cause them to commit suiicide of become paranoids

  8. 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. Quite a few have now – including one from me:-) Mostly favourable so far…

      1. Mostly favourable only one nice one which I’m assuming is from you Mark! The usual predictable rubbish with one declaring that homosexuality may become compulsory if we don’t all act now and vote in the far right, lol. Melanie will be hypaventilating with insipid glee for her next column I’m sure!

  9. Beautiful news. The pigeons are coming home to roost,

  10. Excellent news.

    This court ruling sends out the message that it is no longer acceptable to:

    Stigmitize LGBT people

    Sensibile ruling for a compassionate society. Equality can only exist when there is a level playing field, and the legitimise of religous bigotry parading as a right; is rejected.

  11. You should all go to the Daily Mail and vote down every homophobic commetn and put one up in support of this ruling.
    These bigots need to know that they are not anonymous and we will fight back!

    Vote up every pro comment and vote down every homophobic one! x

    1. I prefer not to interact with the Daily Mail at all.

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 28 Feb 2011, 3:55pm

        Neither do I, but you then allow them to think that their are more like minded bigots than there actually are.

  12. Sometimes I feel like kissing a judge! They really do ‘get it” sometimes.

    1. Only if they take off the periwig!

      Still, excellent result. The Dail Mail are HATING it. What astounds me that the comments on there are actually bordering on the psychiatrically disturbed. If they weren’t talking about the accepted ‘God’ as if he were real but, say, a cucumber god, they’d be straight-jacketed onto the muppet wing in no time. I really do wonder sometimes whether the religious should be investigated by healthcare professionals for mental health issues. Believing in the non-existant and with such fervour is worrying.

      1. I wouldn’t insult the Great Cucumber God if I were you, he may not lettuce get away with it.

        Haw haw haaaaaaw

        1. Q: What did the cabbage priest say to the parishioners at Sunday mass?

          A: Lettuce pray

          Arf, arf, there goes another rib!

          Ok, seriously, this is as bad as the gooseberry in a lift joke of yesteryear ;)

          1. I agree, it’s getting a bit corny

            guffaw guffawwww

  13. I’m continually amazed at the arrogance of religous people and their insistance that their beliefs exempt them from the law. Obviously if the law says one thing and you refuse to recognise it, then you aren’t suitable to have vulnerable children placed in your care. Yet they think their beliefs give them the right to pick and choose what parts of the law they recognise and they need the High Court to tell them otherwise. Unbelievable.

  14. “Mrs Johns has said in the past: ‘The council said, “Do you know, you would have to tell them that it’s OK to be homosexual?” But I said I couldn’t do that because my Christian beliefs won’t let me. Morally, I couldn’t do that. Spiritually I couldn’t do that.’”

    Misguided morality born of bad faith is Mrs Johns problem, homosexuality is not a moral issue any more than freckles are a moral issue.

  15. The world is getting more and more evil. Who are these judges, they must be perverts themselves. A child needs a good natural upbringing and Christian values are the best way. What next? We’ll be railroaded in to accepting paedophilia next.

    1. I thought Christians were supposed to love everyone? Raising a child to disapprove of a loving union between two people doesn’t sound particularly Christian to me, so I disagree that actual ‘Christian’ values are what these kinds of Christians preach or practice. Consequently your “good natural upbringing”, if delivered by this kind of hypocritical Christian, is going to be something rather less good, and far from natural.

      1. lve the sinner hate the sin – in so many “minds” it is translated into “hate the sinner”

    2. Dr Robin Guthrie 28 Feb 2011, 4:36pm

      I think you will find the Catholic church beat you to it..

      1. Catholic priests are obviously just as bad. They are hypocrites, they are not followers of what the bible teaches

        1. Oh and you’re the authority on that? Please, allow me to provide you with a shovel in advance of your next comment.

    3. Paranoid Christian alert (yawn). Paedophilia is ILLEGAL and gay people condemn it as much as anyone else. It is not between consenting adults.

      Conversely, homosexuality is NOT illegal and most people are fine with it. And it’s between consenting adults.

      Comparing the two is as dense as comparing rape and consensual sex. By anyone.

      Stobbob, you are officially free to depart and seek out your nearest eclesiastical dwelling.

      1. I’ll take your advice, I didn’t realise I was in queer street

        1. I suppose the name Pink News didn’t give it away? But I suppose you aren’t used to questioning for yourself what it is you’re reading, even if it’s a tome from the stone age about how people in rags killed each other for eating meat on a friday.

          1. Granted, I should have looked more closely. I’ll gingerly retreatt from this group preferably walking backwards with my back to the wall.

        2. You don’t need to exit with your back to the wall, Stobbob – I doubt anyone here finds you all that attractive. I know I don’t, though of course I wouldn’t as I’m a member of the oft-overlooked female faction of the Homo Party.

          1. Stobbob

            As if that would stop rapacious homos, we’d just gobble you off from the front end instead. Because that’s what we do, obvioulsy!

          2. Jock S. Trap 1 Mar 2011, 11:33am

            “preferably walking backwards with my back to the wall.”

            I’ve always found this ignorant comment hilarious, so clearly uneducated they can’t seem to think it actually might be the ‘front bit’ Gay men are interested in…. well as well for most I guess.

      2. …a recent government study found that 80% of paedophiles are hetrosexual and 92% was carried out in the home by fathers and mothers…….

    4. errrr its not daily cr*p paper website darling

      1. You know Stobbob, it is often those who cry the loudest that end up hiring people to help them carry their luggage…

        It’s not in my nature to say this but – if you are in the closet (you arrived here by accident? Sure….) then please, for the sake of us all, bloody stay there.

    5. These Christian values are what ?

      1. christian values – hateing and enslaving blacks, mass murder of Jews, killing 55 million in WWII and the hitler youth graduate who leads the catholic church UNexcommunciated a bishop williamson in 2009. He is a holocaust denier

    6. Stobbob wrote

      What next? We’ll be railroaded in to accepting paedophilia next.

      . . . . . . . . . .

      Why do you equate LGBT emancipation with the promotion of pedaophilia?

    7. is this serious or a joke wind-up?

  16. There’s a hell of a lot of ifs in these comments.
    Facts stated in the story are the they would be offering short term respite care, not long term fostering or adoption. They had previously cared for 15 children, so their fitness to care for children has been shown.
    None of you actually know this couple, as don’t I, so judging them on their one reported opinion is unfair. Isn’t this kind of prejudice what we have been trying to overcome with regards lgbt? Or is it ok because they hold their particular view.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 28 Feb 2011, 4:39pm

      What you say may be true, but I think that there is a bit of satisfaction having spent you life denigrated by the religious, to seem them get theirs.

      Childlike it may be, but delicious none the less.

      Christ, do you even begrudge us that.

      1. I love your comments Dr Guthrie. If only you weren’t just binary code on my screen, sigh.

      2. “What you say may be true, but I think that there is a bit of satisfaction having spent you life denigrated by the religious, to seem them get theirs.”

        Its not as if the Johns wore their views on homosexuality on their sleeve.Rather they were revealed under interrogation by a social worker.
        And as was mentioned earlier, none of us actually know this couple, so to be judging them so deliciously is no more than reverse bigotry.

      3. I’m not begrudging anything, I’ve never felt denigrated by the religious so I’ve nothing to gloat over.
        There just seems to be a view that ‘they’ aren’t allowed to hate us but we are allowd to hate ‘them’. Not everyone who follows a religion holds the view that being gay is a sin but there are also many who follow no religion that feel that being gay is wrong and abnormal.

        1. I agree that we know neither the couple nor the details, but if a judge (who undoubtedly got to know both rather well) decided it was unsafe for them to continue fostering, there’s probably something mighty fishy going on. Courts aren’t renowned for making this type of decision lightly.

          I’m delighted that you have never felt denigrated by the religious. Speaking personally, having non-homophobic parents would not only have spared me a great deal of pain, it would have spared the NHS a great deal of money spent on counselling.

      4. Where did you get your morals from? They will probably be some form of ‘christian’ morality handed down by your parents and coloured by life experiences. Are yours hideous and unfounded? On the other hand you could be totally amoral and live up to the gay stereotype.

        1. this was in reply to a post further down…

  17. Koshy Abraham 28 Feb 2011, 4:38pm

    Britain has become like Iran. Only in the opposite direction. Both it seems does not tolerate a difference of opinion and tries to stifle what does not agree with the official line.
    This is an obviously unfair ruling. This
    is getting into acting like a thought police. Every person has a right to belief and a right to propagate that belief. Saying homosexuality is a sin is matter of opinion and cannot be legislated. so if the judge feels that adultery and premarital sex is okay with him does it mean that also that the rest of the people also should hold the same view. So when did one view become more equal than others.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 28 Feb 2011, 4:42pm

      “Saying homosexuality is a sin is matter of opinion and cannot be legislated”

      No it isn’t and yes it can and is.

      1. “Saying homosexuality is a sin is matter of opinion and cannot be legislated”

        YES it is(an opinion), and yes it can and IS.
        -Doesnt matter whether being gay is “real”, it can be classed as a sin by any sect that wants to. Like profiteering is a “Sin”, but we are a capitalist society.. (& we have usary laws, we just dont use them)

      2. Koshy Abraham 28 Feb 2011, 5:33pm

        again. that is your opinion. your view. Why does it bother you that someone holds that to be wrong. If you are so sure of yourself, why do you need everyone else to agree to it. I dont. I respect thee fact that you feel it is okay. I just say give the space for everyone to discuss and follow their views. or is your stance so weak to yourself that you need the state to suppress dissenting voices for you.

        1. homosexuality or race is not a choice, unlike belief, maybe that will help you getting around the logic of courts verdict

        2. Views are fine. Using them to damage vulnerable youngsters isn’t.

        3. “your stance so weak to yourself that you need the state to suppress dissenting voices for you.”

          And you think that you would compare the right to discriminate as an equal “opinion” to the right to be allowed live without persecution, shows how weak and silly your position is. An opinion should never impact on the lives or well-being of others. You’re “sin” calling is not an opinion, its an statement that demands the rights of others to be removed. Hardly a convincing argument, is it? Poor you, not being allowed to discriminate, its just awful this evil and twisted world we live in.

    2. Protecting kids is more important than allowing someone to exercise their hideous, unfounded religious claims of morality. At some point, one right has to be prioritised over another. As the kid is REAL, then they get they consideration, not the religious carers.

      Viewa aren’t equal and cannot be treated equally. They have to be considered on the extent to which they screw up other people’s lives.

      Pre-marital sex is not an immutable part of your biology, so it is not comparable to homosexuality. But then you are obviously quite dense, aren’t you.

    3. You honestly expect a comment like “Britain has become like Iran” to be taken seriously?

      A person’s individual, if misguided, beliefs about homosexuality are one thing. The State recognised and State protected concept of equality of people (and equivalence of marriage and civil partnership) is another. If you disagree with the State, and refuse to accept its requirements, you can’t expect to fulfill a State regulated function like fostering children. No one is telling you what to believe.

    4. What ? The judgement means that you cannot discriminate on the grounds of sexuality. What two people do in bed is nobody’s business but theirs.

      It’s clearly nothing to do with some views being more equal than others.

    5. I think I am with you on this Koshy.

      1. That Britain is now Iran? Yes, no hysteria and histrionics in that statement John. None at all. Ever think of going to another site, where people share you bigoted views? Somewhere you can all get collectively more insane and feverish together?

      2. So you don’t believe that the welfare of the child should be paramount? The judge made a decision with all the evidence. The Johns are fully entitled to hold their beliefs, but they’re not entitled to inflict them on someone else’s child. The fact they were more concerned with their freedom to do than with the children they might look after speaks volumes to me.

    6. …telling a child who has just discovered he is gay that in the opinion of an imaginary god, he is disordered, is not and cannot ever be right Koshy. Where would your belief lie if the child you just derided for the way he was born then went to his room and killed himself?. And saying that just because you have an opinion on something you should be allowed to propagate that opinion is clearly bunkum if it causes others great distress or harm….Oh and i suggest a few hours in English lessons would benefit you greatly. Now theres an opinion no one would quibble with.

    7. Koshy Abraham wrote

      “This is getting into acting like a thought police. Every person has a right to belief and a right to propagate that belief. Saying homosexuality is a sin is matter of opinion and cannot be legislated.”

      . . . . . . . . . .

      I agree that every one has a right to think what ever they like, but they do not have an inalienable right to act up it.

    8. I though the council and judge’s decision were there to protect the child not to protect freedom of religious beliefs …I don’t think anybody gives a bugger what these people’s beliefs were,, that not the issue, the issue is are they fit parents for the child (they’re not their natural parents) and anybody that is going to bring up a child in the UK in 2012 has to realise that it’s harmful to society and to the child to tells that homosexuality is wrong.

    9. Jock S. Trap 1 Mar 2011, 11:44am

      Every human being deserves to be treated equally. Equally without discrimination and hatred.

      Christians nor any other religion should never trump Equality. People are born Gay, religion is a choice.

      How we are born should Never play second to what people chose in a religious lifestyle.

      Equality of human rights Must always take president over Any religion. It is a choice after all.

  18. Excellent news!

  19. I have looked at the Mail’s reporting of it and left a suitably upbeat comment praising the court’s decision. However you can’t help but read some of the other comments on there. It sure does make you sad…

    1. Sad, but quietly smug that I am not an irrational god-bothering loon. I intend to revel in it for the rest of the day :)

    2. Jock S. Trap 1 Mar 2011, 11:46am

      The Daily HateMail is Very selective on which comments it allows to go forward. They tend to do so the balance always falls unfairly.

  20. excellent
    also – just cos it’s belief doesn’t make it right and religion doesn’t deserve immunity from scrutiny

  21. also – they use the word “traditional” when they mean “bigoted”

  22. Steve@GayWebHosting 28 Feb 2011, 5:16pm

    Yes, a totally great result..

    They ´Refuse to recognise gay civil unions´ and that makes it right for them to discriminate? Tough… The law DOES recognise them…. like it or not.

    So if I believe that mixed race marriages are somehow ´evil´, I have the right to indoctrinate children I adopt with such bigotry? Sorry no.

    You cannot indoctrinate children in your care to break or ignore the laws of the land.. As far as I am concerned, that also applies to natural parents…. Bigoted parents are doing their kids NO favors in the long run… only harm..

    Take them away I say and give them a decent chance in life…!

    1. Should a homosexual couple be allowed to adopt/foster if they intend to share their belief that Christians are evil because they don’t agree with homosexuality? Would you not also consider that to be brainwashing?

      1. Do you have an actual case of this? If not, you are making a comparison that does not exists. Try keep it real, it makes you sound like less a fool, Danielle.

      2. Only Christians seem to feel the need to discriminate against others. FYI if I ever fostered a Christian child I would abide by their religion and NOT try to force MY beliefs on them. And if they weren’t Christian, I wouldn’t denigrate Christians to them. That’s what decent people do because they understand they have a duty to the child NOT to the promotion of their own beliefs.

        1. So if your Christian child asked you if you agreed with Christianity, would you lie to them and tell them that you do? I would never teach my child to hate or look down on homosexuals because I don’t. I know quite a few homosexual people and I treat them like everyone else because I am able to see that there is more to a person than just their sexual orientation. However, if my child came to me and asked my opinion on homosexuality itself, I would never lie to them.

          1. Agree 100%. I believe homosexuality to be wrong, but I don’t hate gay people, and I don’t treat them differently from anyone else. There’s far more to a person than their sexual orientation.

            I guess, though, if I’m honest, I feel as strongly about you teaching that homosexuality is right, as you do about me teaching that it is wrong. We’re mirrors of one another.

            And you say it’s a biological predisposition – you’re probably right, but if I believe in an absolute moral standard, then predisposition doesn’t make it right.

      3. Jock S. Trap 1 Mar 2011, 12:01pm

        Why do Christians Never see facts? Why do they never answer the questions but instead counter question so they can get themselves of the hook.

        Danielle, love, homosexuality is how we are born, it is not a choice. Religion is a lifestyle choice. You choose to be religious, you choose to be bigotted.

        Fact is Gay people don’t tend to go round spewing the bile Hateful Christians do. Gay people are far more accepting than religious people but it is only religious people who insist on treating us like second class citizens.

  23. So it’s wrong for homosexuals to be denied something because their views oppose Christianity but right for Christians to be denied something because their views oppose homosexuality. Seems like equality only applies when it is in favour of homosexuality.

    1. christians acquired their beliefs, homosexuals were born with their sexuality, like black people were born with their race, therefore its immoral for christians to demand their right to bigotry based no something that cannot be proved. next time try to apply some logic to your thinking, might just help

      1. We may be born a certain way but we all make choices on how we want to live. There have also been studies which suggest that incestuous attraction is a genetic predisposition (GSA) but that does not mean they have no choice but to engage in incestuous relationships. Yes I know incest and homosexuality aren’t the same thing, but they are more alike than homosexuality and race, which are constantly being compared. I suppose I would also be a bigot if I said I do not agree with incest right?

        1. Citation of an article in a respectable peer reviewed journal please.

          1. danielle has problems with logical thinking, if you are born gay (and i bet you can not prove otherwise) than you cannot be expected to live heterosexual ( sex, wife, girlfriend etc) life, coming up with some irrelevant examples like incest to back up the main point is even more moronic

        2. Danielle…your pronouncements are idiotic in the extreme. Don’t you know how to reason or has your religion completely removed that faculty .

          1. You say idiotic and you have not provided any counterargument.

          2. @ Danielle…one can’t and shouldn’t argue with an idiot .. The argument will just go in circles as one side of the argument is nonsensicle….

          3. I suppose that’s why no one bothers to argue with you. Good point.

          4. …how very eloquent Danielle……proves my point rather.

          5. You are right, I should not have stooped to your level, for that I apologize.

        3. The consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality is a normal and positive variation in human sexual orientation. google American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association for starters

          1. There was a time when homosexuality was largely thought of as harmful and abnormal, just like Genetic Sexual Attraction. There are already cases of brothers and sisters who claim to have healthy, loving relationships so who is to say that in a few years time GSA won’t also be seen as a “normal and positive variation in human sexual orientation”?

          2. danielle clearly likes to speculate; “who is to say that in a few years time GSA won’t also be seen as a “normal and positive variation in human sexual orientation”….
            what’s human sexuality got to do with fetishes like insect (incest can also happen in gay relationships) and genetically it would be damaging to offspring, so your speculation just confirms your moronic tendencies when forming opinions

          3. has any one else noticed how Danielle is strangely hung up on GSA and incest. If you want to tell us something Danielle, just come straight out with it. It would account for your moronic and idiotic thinking if thinking can be used as a term for your particular thought process’

          4. Andy, the definition of fetish is “a form of sexual desire in which gratification depends to an abnormal degree on some object or item of clothing or part of the body”. Therefore incest probably would not be considered a fetish unless you are sexually aroused by your parasitic twin. GSA is the sexual attraction between close relatives, which can often occur between two, separate, consenting adults while incest refers to the active sexual relationship between these two relatives. By the way, even though your opinion differs from mine, I have enough respect for you not to be unpleasant.

          5. The same way homosexuality is tirelessly compared to race, it can also be tirelessly compared to something else more relevant.

          6. you mention terms “sexually aroused” and “sexual attraction” in terms of conflicting each other. logically (not sure why I bother any more with logic when replaying to you posts) for sexual arousal to occur there (usually) needs to be some sexual attraction to the object. I’m not being unpleasant just tired of ones inability to form intellectual and logical opinions, going on about irrelevant points to the main subject doesn’t help either. agree with Boston’s post 100%.

          7. Sigh, Andy an object is different from a person in case you haven’t noticed. You would have realized this had you bothered to read what I said in context. You are unable to see any logic in my argument because you think you possess more intelligence simply because you are biased towards homosexuality. It is futile to pursue a debate with you because you are blinded by delusional feelings of superiority.

    2. “Seems like equality only applies when it is in favour of homosexuality.”

      How can you equate the right to exist without persecution with the right to persecute? Are you a complete moron? Are you seriously saying that denying the right of people to discriminate is discrimination??? Do you even listen to yourself?

      Seriously, the intelligence level of some people in here is staggering.

        1. This is a forum for LGBT.

          Why do you think the right to broadcast your views on it ?

        2. Like it are not, Christian beliefs on homosexuality *are* harmful and there’s a wealth of peer-reviewed research to prove it.

          As has often been said, you have the right to your own opinion; you do not have the right to your own facts.

          By all means stick to and propagate your beliefs, but have the balls to take responsibility for the consequences.

        3. john …have you actually gone to this link and read whats posted on there. I have and i found it to be 100% disingenious rubbish. If this is what christianity has come to its no wonder they are in latter days and the sooner they are history the better for mankind.

        4. Christianconcern is just another cowardly Christian website , which unlike PN, doesn’t encourage any feedback or comments. I can see why John above hangs around PN becuase at least here his allowed to give his comments, something he and everyone else is sadly refused from doing on the predicably nasty “Christian” websites..

      1. @danielle , there was also a time where christianity, being black etc were considered “abnormal” and “abhorrent” what is your point ? and you are a very unpleasant person, vile actually. you obviously do not value human rights and i think you are a bad mother with your attitude. I only hope that your husband compensates.

    3. Jock S. Trap 1 Mar 2011, 12:07pm

      Your putting preference of superiority of a chosen religion lifestyle over how people are born.

      How can they possibly be right?

      I guess it explains why people like you believe there should be second class citizens like us.

      Fact is children born to, fostered or adopted have shown to be more open minded and accepting than those from religious household esp intolerant one. It is more likely same sex parents are more likely to give balanced arguments not closed minded ones like the ones you have admit you’d use.

    4. @Rapture I do not take personal offence to your attacks on my character because that’s simply your opinion and as flawed as it is, you are entitled to it. Even though I may not agree with some of the opinions shared on this site, I have tried my best not to make any personal attacks BECAUSE I have respect for people as human beings. I do not agree with homosexuality itself but I believe homosexuality is only a part of a person, it does not define them as a human being, so I treat them as such.

      I accept that the Church and State are separate and that homosexuals are entitled to the same legal benefits as anyone else and I accept that if I provide a general public service, I cannot refuse someone because they are homosexual. Fine, I am prepared to abide by these laws, but that’s not enough. In order to make you happy, Christians also have to turn against their religious beliefs and encourage homosexuality.

    5. The Bible is the foundation of Christianity and homosexuals want Christians to impart religious blessings to same-sex unions, even though it contradicts the Biblical concept of marriage. Why would you seek the affirmation of one group of people if you believe you have the affirmation of God and also the affirmation of the majority of people in the world anyway? If God is everywhere, then He must be able to bless your unions outside of a traditional Christian church, right? Why force traditional Christians to turn against their beliefs when you can have it done elsewhere?

      I know it’s pretty much impossible for you to see my side and you will most likely still think I am a disgusting, moronic human being, but you know what? I actually have no desire to force you to like me or to agree with what I believe so this is the last I will say.

      1. There is no god , i don’t care bout marrying in some church , but i do want civil marraige equality. I do not care bout your religious beliefs albeit flawed , its akin to believing in the easter bunny as far as i’m concerned. you can believe and be indoctrinated all you want, but it is christians who try to impose and inflict their superstition on others as this perverse christian couple had planned to do to some innocent child.

      2. Jock S. Trap 2 Mar 2011, 8:38am

        But how exactly does a Same Sex couple marrying affect you? Does it take away your belief in Marriage? Can’t see how it would unless you’ve already been questioning your faith.

        Point is who cares what you think about homosexuality, unless you are blessed with a family member who is then is doesn’t affect your life. You clear have no idea about gay people other that that of what you read and coming from the Bible and newspapers is hardly education.

        Truth is religious people make arguements to suit themselves and they are usually vile in natural because they only assume they don’t know fact.

        This isn’t about forcing Christians to play victims its about Christians following the law of the land not being above it.

        Christians are no more special that anybody else and if they just opened their eyes they’d see these laws protect every human being in the country not separate.

        1. Jock S. Trap 2 Mar 2011, 8:41am

          If people choose to be religious that doesn’t make them superior to how we are all born.

          Trouble is Christians have gotten away with getting their own way for so long they’re having temper tantrums because society is changing around them and like all things old they have problems adjusting to new things.

          Or quite simply won’t but if you won’t you only have yourselves to blame for being left behind.

          One thing though if you lot don’t want to progress fine but stop allowing everyone else too.

  24. Hate christians they are so evil.

    1. I am a gay christian and find your comment very offensive. Although i welcome this ruling, I also believe that this couple have otherwise provided a great service to fostering children.

      1. Why do you believe that ? I mean, what’s your evidence for your statement ?

      2. and you think that this pair of bigots should have the right to tell a vulnerable youn boy struggling with the discovery that he was gay that in the opinion of nomadic tribes in the desert several thousand years ago thathe was intrinsically disordered and an abomination……..

      3. I really despise lgbt christian filth, their hypocrisy is nauseating. you need to be deprogrammed .

  25. Mumbo Jumbo 28 Feb 2011, 6:21pm

    Some reactions from upset Daily Heil readers:

    “These homosexuals might be winning some battles due to stupid actions by immoral organisations and judges who have no sense of decency or values,but they will not win the war. The backlash will come. I have no respect for homosexuals as they have no respect for the views of the majority of British people who feel that having by having decent morals and the right to hold on to good, proven values is being eroded by actions of some homosexuals.”

    “What a stinking twisted country this has become. When it’s wrong to stand against this questionable ‘lifstyle’ then it’s time to pack up and leave. We don’t all think it’s ‘OK’ to be ‘gay’ ( a total misuse of the word) you know. Quite a lot of us actually dislike it – very much. Sick judge, sick country, sick PC zealots.”

    Fortunately, in a development rich with irony, such people have themselves become one of the minorities they so despise.

    1. I read these comment in the daily fail as well. I think they they cant beleive that they are now fast becoming a minorty as is their hate filled rants. I have always considered the Daily fail reader and purchaser of this rag as thick hypocrits, with no common sense.

    2. Jock S. Trap 1 Mar 2011, 12:11pm

      Lets hope the more that leave the better the country will become.

  26. Fabulous news.
    The courtset a benchmark for all future court cases. Christians are entitled to there views but it can not overide equality legislation or sexual orientation.
    Anti gay Christian groups you have been told. Now spend your millions on the poor and not on trying to fight other people. There endeth the lesson.

    1. “Now spend your millions on the poor and not on trying to fight other people. ”

      God, wouldn’t that be nice? That way, they might really change the world for the better.

    2. Very true J Cartier. Think of how many life-saving vaccinations the money to fight that case might have paid for and then wonder (like I do) about so-called “christian values”.

  27. Why doesn’t anyone sue The Daily Mail? It’s sick if you read the comments by their readers. Stonewall or someone really need to take them on! It’s sick and breads tugs and gay beatings. Just vile!

  28. Dan Filson 28 Feb 2011, 7:26pm

    “The couple are not homophobic, according to the Christian Legal Centre, which has taken up their case.” This implies altruistic spontaneous intervention so surely can’t quite be right – a legal centre can’t just take up someone’s case unasked – so chances are the couple asked them to take it up or were persuaded to do so.
    On the main issue, you might think that if the child being fostered is between 0 and 1 year old, what the parents think about homosexuality has little to do with it. After all, what the child needs is a caring, loving home for the period of fostering. But in all fostering, foster parents have to understand they are only temporary custodians of the child. If the natural tendency of foster parents is to shudder at the sight of gay or lesbian people – and this is implicit in their views – even a child of one can pick that up. More importantly it isn’t possible for social services to keep complex records saying these parents are OK to foster below one, but not above it

    1. Dan, the couple are in their 60’s and offering respite care which tends to be for older kids and young teens, exactly the sort of people who might be at a stage of asking questions about their sexuality or indeed others but I tend to agree with your general point.

  29. I think this is sad news because what appears to be excellent prospective foster parents are being disallowed from fostering because of their beliefs.

    I have just listened to which articulates a number of my concerns.

    1. The the solution is for them to keep their beliefs…. to themselves, and stop ramming them down the throats of innocent children and others. They everyone would be happy. But no, they can’t do that. Such is the power of discrimination, its a difficult one to rid yourself of.

      1. When Mrs Johns was told by the social worker that they had to tell any child they foster that it is ok to be homosexual if asked replied that couldn’t do that because their biblical understanding is that it is not ok to be homosexual. That is not the same as ramming their beliefs down the throats of innocent children – arguably they are protecting them. I would adopt the same position if my 12yo were to ask me that question but I would also add the rider that I would love and support him whatever choice he might happen to make.

        1. Yes it bloody well is. To teach a child that a member of society is “wrong”, “sinful”, or should be denied rights is wrong, on every level. I assume you would think its okay for the same person to say its “wrong to be black”? Biblically there is enough “evidence” for that too.

          This is why religion shoudl be a personal thing, its never used for good, only to corrupt. And to corrupt children is as shameful, as supporting people’s right to do so John.

          1. Of course it is not wrong to be black. As for your first question, which seems a bit strange, my view is we should honour and respect all irrespective of their beliefs, but right and wrong only has meaning if there is a reference point so we can decide – and as far as the Johns (and me) is concerned it is what God says, principally in the Bible (10 commandments etc.) that has to hold sway. Sadly, as a society we corrupt children (evidenced by the many instances of anti-social behaviour we see etc.) because we don’t teach them to differentiate right from wrong.

          2. And its not wrong to be gay either, John.

            I can find plenty of passages in the bible to support that black people are “cursed”. I can also find a passage to condone selling my daughter into slavery. Now, you’re telling me its okay to teach a child that being gay is wrong, simply because the bible says so? Such rubbish. Its called selective reading John. You either support the bible or you don’t, but don’t cherry pick and expect me to agree with your nonsense.

            Be honest here John, its an excuse to discriminate, nothing more. And teaching children to be bigoted is not giving that child a good start in life, and would make me questions the suitability of any parent that does so.

          3. @John – I really object to your posting comments like “it’s not ok to be gay”.

            That you feel the right to say this on a LGBT forum says a lot about you.

        2. It can still be harmful to the child whether or not the view is ‘rammed’. When I was 14 I was told by an adult I looked up to and respected that my relationships with the same sex would send me to hell. There followed a long period (4 years or so) of stress and fear before I eventually abandoned Christianity altogether. I would not wish that upon anyone else, whether they asked or not.

    2. @John — the judge who heard the case, and all the evidence, disagrees with you on their suitability.

      Why do you think they are “excellent prospective foster parents” ?

      1. 1. they have had a good history of fostering children in the past.
        2. they have a high moral code and are prepared to suffer in order to maintain it – shows character.

        1. That’s not answering the question !

          Why do you think they have a good history of fostering children ? They may have done it before, but why do you think they’re doing good for the children ?

          What does high moral code mean ? It’s no good saying they have principles, as those principles may be rotten.

          How are they suffering ?

          1. questions, questions Harry. I refer you to the two links I posted … but given your track record it seems you are more interested in scoring points rather than hearing what people you disagree with have to say.

        2. But the links don’t answer the questions.

      2. And you’re not answering the question.

        Sorry, but this is a forum for LGBT people. You are posting comments like “it’s not ok to be gay” on it.

      3. @john …above “…is what god says, principally the bible”
        No John, no god ever said any such thing. However a band of illiterate desert tribesmen did say such things or at least a book of fiction says they did…. Get your facts right for Petes sake.

        1. Boston: one of the axioms for many Christians across many traditions and centuries is that the Bible is God’s book. Many have pondered historical, arcetectual, literal and other evidence and still believe this is the case.

          1. There is no excuse for stupidity, John. For the same centuries that book was used to burn innocent people as witches. So, not exactly a good example of the intelligence level of christians if they still think a book of petty rules is anything to write home about.

    3. @John – I presume you’re aware that this is a forum for the mutual support of LGBT people ?

      Do you think maybe that a first step in having regard for LGBT people would be to stop posting the kind of stuff you feel you have a right to broadcast ? If not, can you tell us the name of one of the Christian forums that I presume you are also a poster on, so that we can repay the compliment ?

      1. I thought it was a forum for respectful debate!

        I try to engage respectfully. I don’t assume any right. I don’t like to see good people vilified. Generally, I don’t post on Christian forums and personally I would welcome people posting with alternative views providing done with that same respect.

        1. Sorry, but you post some disgusting view points.

          1. tempted to ask what these are :-)

          2. “It’s not ok to be gay”.

          3. Please note my response to Will:

            Ok, while I don’t believe being gay is wrong, I do believe sex within the confines of traditionally defined marriage is the only appropriate context according to the Bible

            PS I also posted a reply to you on the Dr Raabes thread – hope it helps.

        2. I agree with Harry, don’t try cloud your homophobia in vague words, its offensive to an intelligent person.

        3. I don’t like to see good people vilified

          and yet you do this to the LBGT community?

    4. Jock S. Trap 1 Mar 2011, 12:19pm

      Excellent prospective foster parents don’t have discriminating beliefs

  30. Mumbo Jumbo 28 Feb 2011, 7:43pm

    The Daily Heil has just closed the article for comments and has removed all the existing ones.

    They appear to be scared of what the opinions of their vile readers might bring down on them.

    Now, over to you Melanie – go on, foam at the mouth and make our day.

  31. ha ….the Daily wail have blocked further comment on this story….how predictable are they. I was able to read a lot of the posts and i seriously doubt the mental capacity of most of the posters and some of the scenarios they concoct are hilarious ……
    Where is the back button on comment page Pink News….none so one has to retype everything again grrrrrr

  32. Straight but not bigoted. 28 Feb 2011, 8:21pm

    The Bible was a moral guide as much as a spiritual guide. Health is an issue since the eating of pigmeat was a risk due to tape worm in those times, and circumcision also reduced the risk of veneral disease. Since the NHS will not accept blood donations from practising male Homosexuals I suggest that Stonewall address this issue and not use equality legislation to override genuine concern by sincere people.

    1. This doesn’t make any sense.

      1. Am tempted to agree here with Harry – can you elaborate please?

      2. Straight but not bigoted. 28 Feb 2011, 9:16pm

        I would have thouight that a statement of fact relating to the Health issue of homosexual practices would explain part of the Biblcal context. Would you not agree with this?

        1. @Striaght but not bigoted . . .

          When you use terms such as “Homosexual practice”, but avoid to mention “Heterosexual practices” . . . ?

          Are you therefore saying that heterosexuals are immune from the HIV virus, by virtue of their sexual practices?

          1. Straight but not bigoted. 28 Feb 2011, 10:00pm

            @JohnK. No I’m not, but the NHS, aka the Government, appear to think it less of a risk. I donate blood and hope it would be available for all in the community since I believe it to be my own Christian duty being reasonably fit.

        2. I do agree. The Bible context is indeed concerned with our overall wellbeing, not just spiritual. but it is important to identify what these health issues are (after all circumcision and pork are arguably no longer issues that affect our health although there maybe an issue with blood donation but I don’t know enough) and how this relates to homosexual practice.

          1. Homosexual “practice”???? Could you pick a more offensive and patronising term. I do not “practice” being a homosexual.

        3. well i think you are either bigoted or lazy, some countries allow blood donations from gay people, NHS policy seems to reflect homophobic prejudices, not medical facts

          1. Straight but not bigoted. 28 Feb 2011, 10:05pm

            @andy. Not quite sure what you mean by lazy?
            Bigoted, no, but American blood donations spread various diseases including HIV/Aids.
            I give blood and hope it is available for both Gay and Straight.

          2. ….”but American blood donations spread various diseases including HIV/Aids.”….. yea its all down to gay people sure, ‘coz straight people don’t contract HIV, doh, and I still think you are bigoted and lazy, boath for the same reasons

          3. Straight but not bigoted. 1 Mar 2011, 8:04am

            @andy. Sorry to be so late, but I desperately needed my beauty sleep last night. Good morning, if you are still there.
            You have apparently put me into the catagory of ‘anti-gay’. If the divisive legislation of the ‘Equality Laws’ are taken to an extreme then you will put all others, other than ‘Gays’, into the same box.
            True Christians should not be ‘Anti’ either. “Judge not that ye be not judged.” However putting people into the ‘anti’ catagory by use of the Equality legislation will do enormous damage to your cause. This is why I drew attention to Stonewall’s apparent blind spot.
            I still don’t understand the Lazy connotation, unless you are bigoted against those who point out problems to you.
            I won’t post any more, my computer is ‘playing up’.

        4. Jock S. Trap 1 Mar 2011, 12:28pm

          Homosexual practices…

          Hmmm you mean getting up, washing, eating, going to work, paying bills, paying TAXES, earning a wages, moaning about earn that amount of wages, drinking socialising, having a cup of Co-co and going to bed.

          Or do you mean the physical act of Lurve making…. in which case get your head out of the sewer perv!!

  33. Dr Robin Guthrie 28 Feb 2011, 8:22pm

    Not surprising.

    The Daily Wail do that often when comments come in that do not sheen with the editorial.

  34. Will: apologies for not continuing the sequence of replies earlier … technical issues.

    About what the Bible teaches and doesn’t teach, that is a much bigger discussion which we did begin in the past and which I would like to continue over a pint of your alternative to Guinness.

    As for discrimination against gays, that is not what I am about. The reason why I am supporting the setting up of an LBGT network in my area is because I want to help challenge discrimination.

    Ok, while I don’t believe being gay is wrong, I do believe sex within the confines of traditionally defined marriage is the only appropriate context – according to the Bible …

    As far as this couple is concerned, it is unacceptable to teach wrong is right and I agree with them. I think it is disingenuous to accuse them of bigotry and discrimination. I am pretty sure you have a moral code Will and you would feel affronted if you were told you have to deny that code.

    1. And you think gay people are ‘wrong’ ? And that should be taught to children ?

      1. My initial response – I think two things:

        “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” Proverbs 22v6

        but practically in a pluralistic society children should also be exposed, withing certain safeguards, to different points of view and encouraged to make up their own minds in a rational way.

        1. Dr Robin Guthrie 28 Feb 2011, 9:00pm

          Of course not. Christians do not want that EVER. They tell them what to think.

          1. Robin – I can assure you that is NOT true with this Christian. Conscious of the plethora of conflicting notions my bright 12yo is being exposed to, I do encourage him to think these through, critically evaluate etc. – risky eh? he might even reject christianity … reminds me on to family prayers :-)

        2. Im sorry this is just silly, you clearly know nothing about the adoption process. The key issue in adoption is the welfare of the child. This is paramount to any rights the parents have. As there is a chance this child will be gay, it is clearly wrong to place such a child in a household where the child would face psychological and emotional neglect. In adoption cases the religion of the parents matters not, all that matters is the childs welfare.

      2. John at twice before you said you weren’t going to post on Pink News because of their rudeness to you.

        Do you know what ? I really hate logging on this site and reading your nasty little posts. This is a forum for LGBT people, not a forum for small minded Christians like you to broadcast the foul slops of their minds. So I tell you what, I’ll go, because I’m tired of this. I’m tired of reading just how little people like you think of people like me. I’m tired of having to justify myself. I’m tired of people like you constantly denigrating LGBT people.

        1. Dont go! screw him! Try and think about how sad and pathetic someones life must be if they spend there time perusing the internet looking for somewhere to oppose gay rights virtually. If anything the fact sad, pathetic and probably lonely people like that do not like LGBT people probably works in our favour, shows that as a group we are clearly of more societal worth!

        2. Harry Wrote

          “So I tell you what, I’ll go, because I’m tired of this. I’m tired of reading just how little people like you think of people like me. I’m tired of having to justify myself. I’m tired of people like you constantly denigrating LGBT people.”

          Harry . . . Please stay. I understand that you are tired. Take a break from the posts this evening.

          I am also tired of the denigrating comments, and constantly having to justify myself; but stay and lets be rejuvenated in numbers.


        3. I’d add my voice to the plea for you to stay, Harry. Your posts are always well-considered. JohnK’s right about taking a break – sometimes these people just do your head in. I think Skinner started the exhaustion – oh, and mbhey or whatever the teen was called.

          Don’t let them wear you down. x

          1. Harry: you have more right to be in these forums than me so if anyone should go it is me. I really don’t want to cause offence and I am sorry if I have wronged you in anyway. Like you, I feel passionately about certain things, but because they are not always the same things there will be clashes but none of this should reflect on you personally.

          2. The need that some rabid xristians have to come on here and rant about how bad we are is mind numbing and depressing. I wish they would all just GO AWAY!

            We LGBT folk don’t have any need to hear your ‘opinions’ about our ‘morals’ or ‘lifestyle choices’.

    2. John wrote
      As for discrimination against gays, that is not what I am about. The reason why I am supporting the setting up of an LBGT network in my area is because I want to help challenge discrimination.”


      Why would any one who thinks homosexulaity is sinful, want to set up a gay network!!!

      1. The only logical outcome of this perverse thinking is this:- “we will not discriminate, but you have to stop having sex, becuase you’re not married and even if you were, we wouldn’t recognise it”.

        How utterly arrogant and self serving this group of muppets must be. Christians never cease to disgust me.

        1. John’s alleged involvement in a LGBT network has nothing to do with LGBT equality, but has everything to do with keeping up appearances.

          Previously, John explained how he had encouraged a friend of his to enter the political arena; and how his friend was then later vilified for his homophobic beliefs.

          It appears that John thinks by having some connection with LGBT activities, this will negate his own homophobic beliefs by association. Presumably, John has political or leadership aspirations within his local community in Essex.

  35. John – whay you don’t seem to get is that people have more extreme beliefs than you. You dismissed Will’s comment that the Bible says black people are ‘wrong’ – but it does to many people. Their views are racist and vile but if we are going to allow people to use ‘belief’ to discriminate then that’s what’ll come of it. Racists will use the Bible or simply their own nasty beliefs to ask for permission to discriminate; misogynists will use the Bible to ‘prove’ women are inferior so shouldn’t be allowed to vote/work etc.

    If the Johns can’t keep their views neutral when dealing with someone sles’s child then they have a problem. The duty of care is to the CHILD not to the Johns.

    You said: “it is unacceptable to teach wrong is right and I agree with them”

    Right – and that’s the same argument that people used in the US against interracial marriage…

    1. Iris: I agree some folk have argued a racist position on bible grounds, which are spurious. Fyi I married my wife; my wife is black and I am white; I love my wife. I agree some folk argue women are inferior, also on bible grounds but this too is spurious,

      I agree the criteria for choosing who should foster should be what is in the best interest of the childs. While I don’t have all the facts (and likely neither do you), I honestly don’t feel this principle was fairly applied in this case.

      I have never knowing spoken about gay people in a derogatory way in these forums. I can’t speak for the John’s of course but I have stated twice these evening (to Will and Harry) what my position is.

      1. John wrote

        “I have never knowing spoken about gay people in a derogatory way in these forums.”


        Saying that gay peoples sexuality is sinful, is derogatory!

      2. Au contraire, the Bible explicitly states that woman must not hold any position superior to man, must not teach man; and that a wife must submit to her husband. All of this in the New Testament.
        On what grounds would you say that the Bible teaches that both sexes are equal?
        (JSYK, I do not believe the Biblical ideas above. Just in case.)

        1. Straight but not bigoted. 1 Mar 2011, 8:08am

          ” A Wife is a pearl above all value”, also in the Bible.
          Please don’t reply, I’m off the site due to my computer ‘playing up’.

          1. Why not reply? Don’t you want to see the glaring contradictions of the bible, and how only a fool would use the bible as any sort of precise “truth”?

            “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (I Corinthians 11:3)

            “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

          2. Yes, I’d consider that a particularly odious example of the Bible’s objectification of women as property.

      3. Thanks for the reply, John. I’m sure you love your wife and your family, and that you’d be angered at any suugestion that your love was wrong. Racism particularly angers me too because my girlfriend’s not white (although I am).

        I understand your point of view better (I think!) from all the comments you’ve made on Pink News. And I hope you understand mine better – that it’s insulting and upsetting for someone to attack your loving relationship.

        I hope that very soon our disagreements will be in the past because civil marriage has become gender neutral, and no-one blinks an eye at two people of the same sex getting married just as they no longer express shock at interracial marriage.

        I’m not trying to catch you out here, I promise, but I’m genuinely interested in the reasons that you dismiss the racist and misogynistic arguments (one thing we agree on – I dismiss them too :D ) whereas you don’t the gay ones? Again. that’s a respectful question, not a trick or an attack.

  36. John

    What you don’t seem to understand is that although you do have a right to think what ever you like about LGBT people; however you do not have an inalienable which to act upon those beliefs.

    1. JohnK: I don’t know what you think I think about LGBT people but as far as I am aware my views are never based on their sexual orientation. Actually, there are LGBT people I like a good deal more than many straight people but that is besides the point. As for beliefs, all of us have them and whether knowingly or otherwise we act according to our beliefs. My mantra is that we all have the right to believe what we will but we should only act according to those beliefs in accordance with the law, unless in the rare case we are asked like Daniel’s friends and are called to bow to the golden image i.e. as long as it doesn’t bring us in conflict with God’s law such that we disobey Him.

  37. Dr Robin Guthrie 28 Feb 2011, 10:14pm


    Just get it.

    Children have died due to your Churches hatred of them.

    Just stop it.

    Please. Stop it.

    1. Robin: can we agree on this – Christians of all people should not hate! Because churches have often done a bad job dealing with gay people or those struggling with their sexuality is one good reason to maintain a dialogue. We won’t agree on some things but I agree with you that the welfare of our children is of paramount importance.

      1. John, religion is a belief; life style choices are not rights!

        1. are you really trying to claim that sexuality is a lifestyle choice? if you are then you really are an idiot and I wonder why you bother coming here

          1. Jock S. Trap 1 Mar 2011, 12:32pm

            Of course they are. These people alway counter anything to avoid having to look at themselves. They just don’t get it that religion is a lifestyle choice. Being Gay is from birth.

    2. I agree Robin, he should just fcukoff, I’m, getting tired of his thinly veiled homophobia. The arrogance to think we should
      thank him for setting this “gay centre” when he convinces people they are sinful and should “abstain” form sex is offensive and severely abusive to gay people. John should mind his own fcuking business, I’m sick of these so called christians interfering where they do not belong…. including this site.

      1. exactly but the losers really don’t care who they hurt or offend

      2. John’s alleged involvement in a LGBT network has nothing to do with LGBT equality, but has everything to do with keeping up appearances.

        Previously, John explained how he had encouraged a friend of his to enter the political arena; and how his friend was then later vilified for his homophobic beliefs.

        It appears that John thinks by having some connection with LGBT activities, this will negate his own homophobic beliefs by association. Presumably, John has political or leadership aspirations within his local community in Essex.

  38. Dr Robin Guthrie 28 Feb 2011, 10:18pm

    Are you happy to see these children killing them selves

    All due to their understanding that the likes of your Churches and God hates them

    That being the case, YOU should be arrested for child murder.

  39. Whilst these potential foster parents have said that they think that homosexual practice is wrong, they have said that they would love and accept their child anyway. It seems to me that (for logical and moral consistency) such an “equality” ruling has to work both ways. So, if I was in a lesbian relationship and applied to be a foster parent and the authorities asked me whether I would morally agree with my child’s religious orientation if it was different to mine (atheist, Christian, Hindu or whatever) – if I said no but I’d love and accept them anyway, should I also be banned from the right to foster that child, and that my views are “bigoted”? If not, how do you explain the difference?

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 28 Feb 2011, 10:37pm


      Black/white/gay/straight/man/woman is what you are. Religion is merely what you choose to believe.

      Human rights are for humans, not ideas.

    2. James, religion is a belief; life style choices are not rights!

      1. Man I hope we can take back the whole “lifestyle choice” thing and use it against the religious.

        1. Yes – we can !!!

    3. Mumbo Jumbo 1 Mar 2011, 8:57am

      James, I should add that your “thinking” also infers a moral equivalence between a racist and their victim.

    4. James,
      If the response to the question was “I am not homosexual/christian/atheist or whatever but I will love and accept the child and ensure that their sexuality and beliefs are supported and given the opportunities for free expression” then I would have no problem with these views as potential adopters, it is the “I could never say it is OK” which infers it is not OK or wrong which is unacceptable.

      1. Many thanks for those replies. I agree that the issue of “choice” is at the root of it. And Mumbo Jumbo, I see your point re racism – clearly there is no choice in how you are born (ethnic origin is a particularly good example of that). I think this issue is more complex than some make out, though. For example:

        – There is talk above about putting the child’s needs first. I think that’s right. But how do you balance the effect of remaining in a foster home (as presumably will now happen to this child, for at least many months, and possibly until adulthood) versus the smaller probability that they will come out at some point during their upbringing, and the consequences of that, given what we can surmise is likely to be a loving and stable upbringing. If I were in that situation and I could choose, I think I would choose the latter scenario, knowing that I had parents, a stable childhood and that they loved me despite my sexual orientation. Part 2 below

        1. – The other point I wanted to make is that I agree with Mumbo Jumbo that human rights are for humans, etc. However, I think the reason why the Christian couple are so upset is because their “ideas” have become “human” for them – they are much more than a skin-deep “I like the colour blue” idea, and so have become part of who they are. So they feel violated, in a similar way to how a gay person might feel violated if they were told that their was something wrong with what they see as something that defines them. Very personal and emotive.

        2. This argument was placed before the Court. The local authority said they had a large pool of respite carers, so losing the Johns wouldn’t be an issue. It’s a moot point whether the decision would have tipped the other way had there been a shrtoage of respite carers.

  40. John wrote

    “Harry: you have more right to be in these forums than me so if anyone should go it is me.
    I really don’t want to cause offence and I am sorry if I have wronged you in anyway.

    Like you, I feel passionately about certain things, but because they are not always the same things there will be clashes but none of this should reflect on you personally.”


    John, you have been unrelenting in your denigration of LGBT people on this site; with your proselytizing that LGBT people’s sexual expressions of love are sinful.

    John, I understand that simply believing what you do is not enough for you; and that you have to act upon these beliefs by expressing them on these forums

    John, when you say that you are sorry, it is clear that you are aware of the pain and damage that your actions cause; but if you were really sorry you would not continue to denigrate LGBT people on this forum.

    1. JohnK: you articulate your point well and I think I understand where you come from. I don’t believe I am denigrating LGBT people – you do – let’s agree to differ.

      I entered this discussion because I really did want to understand why people should believe that the John’s shouldn’t foster and with some heaviness at the court’s decision. Maybe this isn’t the right forum for me to engage in. Ironically, whenever it comes to having a discussion I feel forced to say what I think – I would rather I didn’t have to, and as for proselitizing that is not my intention.

      1. You only come on PN becuase the Christian websites don’t usually allow comments or feedback….They don’t encourgae debate, they simply tell people how they should act. ..the Christian website are so scared of what “christians” actually believe that they stifle all debate. I do agree with you, this isn’t the right forum for you and it sadly seems it never will be.

  41. I’ve noticed that the comments seem to focus on the scenario of this couple fostering an LGBT child but I believe that the main reason for the judge’s ruling is more likely to do with the impact their beliefs would have on a child being prepared for adoption by a gay or lesbian couple.

    Foster parents are responsible for the preparation of child moving from foster care into permanent adoptive homes and how successfully they are at doing this can often determine the success of an adoption. This couple could easily cause an adoption to fall apart if the child in their care was matched to a same sex couple. That is in my view the most likely scenario in which the propagation of these views would likely arise.

  42. John wrote

    “Maybe this isn’t the right forum for me to engage in. Ironically, whenever it comes to having a discussion I feel forced to say what I think – I would rather I didn’t have to, and as for proselitizing that is not my intention.”


    John, I thought that proselytizing was your profession; are you saying that you are not a Plymouth Brethren minister?

    John, when you say that you feel forced to act upon your beliefs, but you do this in full knowledge that denigrating LGBT people causes harm and pain; and that you continue to do this.

    John, I can only come to one conclusion!!!

    1. 1, Not at all – of course I want to defend the faith but loving one’s neighbour is still the Great commandment.
      2. Would you rather I gave a false answer or avoid answering altogether? Don’t you think it is a good thing to be taken outside of our comfort zones?
      3. And what is that :-)
      JohnK: I thought you have mellowed! Take care – I must go – sleep beckons :-)

  43. “Court upholds foster ban on couple who oppose homosexuality”


    The court ruling highlights three things

    1.Christianity only appears obsessed with bigotry

    2.Christianity only appears obsessed with sexuality

    3.Christianity is a lifestyle choice, and not a right

  44. …. i believe that there is a pink coffee pot floating in space on the dark side of the moon.It is inhabited by little green men who want to take over the earth some day and and teach the inhabitants thereof how to grow Marijuana in teacups on the mantlepiece. I along with several others whom we will call deciples, are writing a book which purports to chronicle these little green dudes and we will be fighting the governments of the world to make sure we are respected for our beliefs. our book says that all tea drinkers are intrinsically disordered and an abomination and not in keeping with the pronouncements of the little green coffee pot Dudes. BTW we want it to become law that the are always called Dudes. However we do not believe that children under 30 seconds old should be forced to drink coffeeas that would be tantamount to child abuse.If the come to us at 5 years old and say they they want to drink tay, we will not tell them its rong….honestly.

    1. We also believe that Dinosaurs really only inhabited the moon and when they had eaten all the buns they tried to jump from the moon to the earth and all got kilt when they hit the ground with a bang. Any that survived discovered that what they thought were buns on the earth were really the drumlins of Fermanagh anf Tyrone. They all then moved to the Durassic coast and died out.

      1. ………….. we are currently recruiting more deciples and followers and would like some more passages added to the Dude Testament………….

  45. Lynne Featherstone she said that new provisions in the Equality Act “explicitly” say that faiths have the right to reject gay couples. If this is correct, then this should be reversed….

    1. No, because the aspect of equality legislation to which you’re referring only applies to the right of faith groups to refuse to perfofrm civil partnerships on their premises.

      It wouldn’t surprise me if the decision went to appeal, though.

  46. Just saw that vile christian couple on daybreak. The interview was very biased in favour of the couple. I can’t help thinking they probably have the publics sympathy now and seem to be milking it doing the rounds on any low rate show.

    1. I wouldn’t worry, the viewing figures for Daybreak rarely get above the number of cameramen.

  47. This is a classic case of religion making otherwise nice (if not very bright) people like the Johns do evil things.

    “During the case, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, an official watchdog, suggested that the couple could attend a “re-education” programme, according to Mrs Johns.

    “Why do we need to be re-educated? Because we believe that homosexuality is not right?” she said. “We said we would sit down and talk to the child to find out where it is coming from.

    “They said, ‘No, you would have to tell the child it is all right to be homosexual because there are too many children that are confused with their sexuality.’ ”

    Being homosexual is wrong and immoral like being black is wrong and immoral.

    Otherwise nice but not very bright people who have been indoctrinated don’t understand the harm they do to kids when they manifest their misplaced morality & prejudice. The Johns do require re-education but cannot accept this.

    1. I agree. I also think that they have an untrue view of LGBT people and could not only do with re-education but would benefit from meeting some.

  48. Personally as a gay man I never really see this as Gay rights versus Relgion . I see it as common sense. The law has to draw a line some where. What if we allow relgious belief to be a defence in counrt. Firstly which relgion. Only C of E as that is our native relgion. So that would mean banning all other relgions, or not making allowance for them in court. No that wouldnt work. The other reglions would say what about us, So in come the catholics and every one else. Including those reglions that still think that it is ok and BELIEVE that to murder is their right and their belief, and the law if they took in this as a defence would have to let those walk free. THe law is not a wavering line that gives and takes. It is a straight line and a standard to make the right and fair answer and here it has.

  49. An Cat Dubh 1 Mar 2011, 10:26am

    I think they should be allowed to raise their child if they can honestly say, ‘We think homosexuality is wrong, but these are our views, and you are our child. We may not agree with whatever choice you make, but we’ll always love and respect you.’

    1. I think you should fcuk off you cnut

      1. there’s no need to respond like that

      2. nice riposte , don’t bother trying to reason with the likes of the black cat, you can’t reason with stupidity.

        1. Agreed I’m not playing with them their mind is made up so fcuk em.

          And Alan you can suck my balls

          1. What a charming person you aren’t . all I meant was that while debaye might not change someones mind abuse definately won’t and just hurling insults at anyone who disagrees with you helps no one

          2. Alan

            You can kiss ass and beg for acceptance but remember it was the riff raff like myself who started the stonewall riots not “respectable” people like you

          3. James, why the fcuk would we thank an vile creature like you? You’re obviously nothing but gutter trash. Your fowl language and stupidity offends everyone here.

            how about YOU fcukoff?

          4. Tom still no contribution what have you got to say to An Cat Dubh? If you dont like my comments ignore them but at least challenge the gay hating people

          5. I’m not kissing ass or begging for anything. Also please don’t equate anonymous swearing at random bigots on the internet with stonewall.

            You seem to have a mind as closed as the bigots you rile against and a heart filled with as much hate.
            I pity both you and them

    2. @An Cat Dubh

      I can see that thinking is dificult for you . . . but I urge you need to think through this

      Are you a fundamentalist Christian ?

      1. @An Cat Dubh

        I can see that thinking is dificult for you. But I urge you need to think through this

        Are you a fundamentalist Christian ?

    3. Jock S. Trap 1 Mar 2011, 12:35pm

      But while you choose to be a bigot I know I was born this way.

  50. John wrote

    “As for discrimination against gays, that is not what I am about. The reason why I am supporting the setting up of an LBGT network in my area is because I want to help challenge discrimination.”


    John’s alleged involvement in a LGBT network has nothing to do with LGBT equality, but has everything to do with keeping up appearances.

    Previously, John explained how he had encouraged a friend of his to enter the political arena; and how his friend was then later vilified for his homophobic beliefs.

    It appears that John thinks by having some connection with LGBT activities, this will negate his own homophobic beliefs by association. Presumably, John has political or leadership aspirations within his local community in Essex.

  51. Jock S. Trap 1 Mar 2011, 10:59am

    What gets me about this is no-one asks the real questions… (I mean the journalists)

    How would they react if a child they adopted/foster was Gay?

    Would they refuse a child because he/she was Gay/Lesbian or would they take in with the view of ‘curing’ that child?

    They only talk about how they’d refuse to talk about Homosexuality as acceptable which while is the issue the main problem is a Gay/Lesbian child being in that discriminating enviroment.

    I’ve yet to see any part of the media actually address this in the way it was intented not in a way that somehow it still looks like the Christian couple were put upon.

  52. Iris: would that all PN posters be like you!? :-)

    Seeing the new thread on the “John’s issue”, it might be tempting to wade in – but is there any point? Trying to score points and name calling is counter-productive and too many people get upset with views that conservative Christians like me offer.

    I noted your comments. I agree the discussion should be about the welfare of children, not the sensibilities of individual foster carers. I can’t vouch how they would treat a child who says he/she is gay but if along the lines: “you know my views, and you are at liberty to have yours and we will support you regardless”, I don’t see a problem. It seems entirely wrong to stop good people fostering and depriving children needing a home – there being a big shortage.

    I do not see anything in the Bible that would support racism or misogyny and neither, come to that, homophobia, but equally I don’t see anything to support sex outside marriage or marriage between members of the same sex.

    1. you dont stop do you. youve got rid of 1 person already and your still posting your sh1t and whining when people tell you to fvck of.

    2. Hi John – a quick reply for now. Here’s a link to the Johns ruling if you haven’t seen it already:

      I’ll (hopefully) reply more tonight if i have time, or tomorrow if not.

      1. Thanks Iris: at the risk of being accused by some as not examining the evidence or taking the easy route and take what Christian Concern says on the ruling as gospel, I may well pass on examining this in detail but feel it does highlight some of my concerns. As always, I appreciate your reply and will quite happily incur Bill and JohnK’s displeasure at lingering too long here to say so :-)

        Btw, I did reply belatedly to some comments you made in the last “Dr Raabes” thread – it slightly relates to our discussion here! Take care:-)

        PS: my understanding is that a bigot is a person who is intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion and a homophobe is a person that hates and fears homosexuals. I hope I am neither!

        1. I wish you’d read the judgement, John, even if you only skim through it. I think it shosw that the Johns were not being picked on because they were Christian – indeed many. many people who are Christian are foster-carers and no-one stopping them doing so.

          There were obviously serious concerns about the Johns ability to adapt (they’d fostered before but some years ago). The fear was that they couldn’t or wouldn’t abide by the National Minimum Standards for fostering. These standards exist to protect the welfare of the child.

          Mr Johns said he would “gently turn round” any child that might be gay. I’m not sure you understand how emotionally and mentally distrbing that can be to a child who IS gay. It can cause lifelong problems to be ‘rejected’ in this way, to feel you’re worthless/abnormal/evil. Please try to imagine that.

          There were also other issues eg that they wouldn’t take a child to a mosque if the child were Muslim.

        2. The judgement makes clear that we all must obey the law and that no matter how genuine someone’s belief is that doesn’t mean they can ignore the law.

          I think you’re imagining the Johns are like you – you’ve said you explain all views to your son and that’s good. But it seems they were unwillingly to abide by the necessary Standards. We all have to keep our beliefs private at times – it’s part of my job as a teacher. A foster-carer should ALWAYS put the child’s interests first. If they can’t do that, they shouldn’t be a carer – that goes for everyone not just Christians.

          And if you’re wondering if I’d take a Christian child in my care to church and keep quiet about my agnosticism, well, yes I would. that’d be my duty if I was a carer. I really can’t understand anyone who’d refuse to do this.

          I think the Johns have been misled and used by the CLC to an extent.

          P.S – I’ll check the other thread out tomorrow.

          1. Iris: some fair comments here and yes there may be more to the judgement than I am led to believed. You are right – I do imagine that the John’s have similar views to me and my friend (who I mentioned before) who actually chairs a fostering panel. The need to get the full facts is beholden on us all and I accept your challenge.

        3. your unbelievable john. your here posting comments about how unfair the judgement is and you havent read it. just who on earth is telling you what to think?

    3. “I do not see anything in the Bible that would support racism or misogyny”

      The Bible clearly implies at the very least that women are not equal to men. Women in the Bible are objectified, told to be ‘submissive’ to men, told that they have been created for men, told that they must not teach or lead men in any way.
      How is this not misogynistic?

      The Bible also refers to same-sex sexual acts as unnatural and shameful, which to me seems fairly supportive of homophobia.

      1. Very true, Oscar. An example is the bit where it says that women mustn’t speak in church. Also, the idea that Eve was created to be Adam’s helper is patronising if nothing else.

        Racism – there are examples of that too in the Bible and certainly passages that were used to justify racist beliefs.

  53. John wrote

    “As for discrimination against gays, that is not what I am about. The reason why I am supporting the setting up of an LBGT network in my area is because I want to help challenge discrimination”

    * * * * * * * * * *

    John’s alleged involvement in a LGBT network has nothing to do with LGBT equality, but has everything to do with keeping up appearances.

    Previously, John explained how he had encouraged a friend of his to enter the political arena; and how his friend was then later vilified for his homophobic beliefs.

    It appears that John thinks by having some connection with LGBT activities, this will negate his own homophobic beliefs by association. Presumably, John has political or leadership aspirations within his local community in Essex.

  54. John wrote

    “Seeing the new thread on the “John’s issueit might be tempting to wade in – but is there any point? Trying to score points and name calling is counter-productive and too many people get upset with views that conservative Christians like me offer.”

    But, you continue to wade into this thread; so to speak?

    1. Indeed I do JohnK. I have resisted the temptation to add my bit to a new thread as I feel I have said most of what I wanted to say and don’t see the point of making a difficult situation worse, given people’s sensibilities which I realise I need to respect. I have done so here because someone raised a reasonable point and asked me a question – isn’t that what forums should be about?

      As for your last point, you have every right to an opinion (as do I) but I’m disappointed with your wrong conclusions. I haven’t had political aspirations for a long time and as for community leadership, I am happy to pass the baton onto others, but while there is breath left in me I hope to do some good still – and most of it fyi has nothing to do with LGBT issues!

      1. this is a support page for gay folk not a page where they plead ofr acceptance from the like sof you. why dont you tell us your church so we can go and express our views of crhistians like you express your views of gays here

        1. John, is a Plymouth Brethren minister in Essex.

    2. WTF. This is not a Christian message board so fcuk off

      1. Dude, uncool. He has every right to post here. In the same way I have every right to challenge what he says. You make us look like spoilt brats when you just lash out with fcuk off

        1. I’m done.

          I’m not defending myself anymore and I dont want to change anyones mind I just want them to stop slagging me and my mates off.

          2 friends committed suicide becuase of the aggro they got for being gay.

          So they can all fcuk off and die

          I think guys like you Scott are cowards if some one went to a black site and said all black people are wrong or evil they would get demolished and a pussy like you wants to have dialogue and be challenged. Pathetic

          1. I am truly sorry about your friends, I really am. However I must still challenge your point. I am gay and proud, I am also intelligent enough to show ugly little homophobes such as John for what they are. I believe that LGBT people will be in a far stronger position in this country if every time we are met with hate we respond with a logical destruction of such hate, rather than ad hominem attacks (although these do at times come in handy).

            Also, while I admit I am young (22) and therefore I have grown up in a far more tolerant society than many lgbt people, please do not think that I have not faced homophobia and that I am a coward. Secondary school was frankly hell. And In university I was met by constant opposition by a group of vocal evangelicals who liked to tell me i was a sinner and was going to hell.
            I did not tell them to fcuk off and die, instead I told them of my sexually explicit fantasies involving Jesus, and very openly kissed my boyfriend in front of them.

          2. I grew up in a rough part of south london. I came out when it was unfashionable to be true to myself. I hate when these asshole are given the time of day its make us look weak begging for acceptance instead of saying take it or leave it. Too many lives have been wasted trying to reason with people who only answer to the bible. Lets minimise their impact by letting them know we are not the ones to mess with

          3. Thanks for the reply, James!

            I do see your fear about appearing weak (I saw a weird comment on afterelton along the lines of “We’re a minority and we should act like one” – WTF?!) and I certainly don’t think that we should apologise for who we are or try to kowtow to homophobes.

            I reply to John because I hope that he’ll see that we’re not bad or whatever, and I want him to justify his views and be challenged about them.

            I think your response was absolutely understandable though and I like the mix of approaches on PN. You speak your mind – that’s cool :)

          4. I, too, am sorry for your loss. I’ve lost a close friend to suicide myself and the pain still bites.

            I suggest that, while John’s views may be inevitably offensive to you, he’s being civil – offensive in content not in manner, as it were.

            Meet him in face to face, tell him you’re gay, and see whether he hates you (i.e. he’s a homophobe) or whether he cares about you as a person. If he takes the line that Christ took, he’ll take the latter of the two courses of action. I know I would.

          5. and that makes it ok does it being polite. people kill themselves because of teh constant aggro not bevuase people are rude. you just dont getit. you post your sh1t on this stie and tell people that what they do is wrong and then when they kill themselves all you can say is we were being civil.

        2. And james! has every right to express himself and his disgust at this vile christian.He is commenting for himself so how you feel he makes you look like a spoilt brat is your problem. I don’t feel his expression is always a reflection of mine but nonetheless i prefer his attitude than the passive, wishy washy middle class drivel trying to reason with excessive stupidity.

          1. I never challenged his right to express himself did I? I merely commented in a comment forum that I did not believe it was the right way to go. I dont see why not lowering myself to homophobes level is suddenly wishy washy and middle class. Let them be stupid, Im not. So im not going to act like I am. I just have my own experience of dealing with evangelicals in that while I know I can never convince them, you can convince those watching the debate.

          2. I agree that everyone should be heard but what’s class got to do with anything?

          3. Cheers Rapture I don’t get much back up on here. Iris stonwall pub was full of what some other commentor called me “street trash” working class gay men lesbians and drag queens. These are the people who started the riot not people like Ben Summerskill the great appeaser or the bourgeois queens who crave respectbility. . We are having choices made for us and its all about conformity marriage kids middle class respectability. And anyone outside these paramaters will be despised. Older people, disabled people, people of different ethnicities or backgrounds. It sad and shameful.

  55. Arggh! I’m obviously too dopey to reply correctly tonight. James! my reply to your explanation is above.

    I hope this comment goes properly below yours this time.

    1. Cheers Iris. I think John and skinner come here to slag us off not to debate or be challenged as you say there is room for all approaches. I have no time for them so I’ll give them both barrels every time. I dont mind being challenged but only by people who show respect like yourself, Rapture and a few others.

  56. Class etc etc etc.

    A lot of assumptions appear to be flying around about what class people belong to.For sake of argument, are we talking perceived class; or your class at birth.

    Although, I am a professional with many degrees; I am not from the middle class. I am working class by birth.

    1. So what. Is that your contribution?

      1. James, I can see that you are very wound up about some thing.

  57. Well ok we are going a tad off topic here James, but I really dont get your point. Gay people who want to get married and have kids are somehow less gay? WTF? You sound like a character out of Priscilla queen of the desert. I dont get the class thing either, how on earth is wanting children a class thing? Or did I miss the message where the TUC had decided to campaign against reproduction?

    I agree with the idea that all LGBT people; drag queen, disabled, ethnic minority, religious etc etc deserve respect and protection. Yet you seem to lament the fact that some gay people choose to live a monogamous and child rearing life, who are you to judge others for doing that? If you dont want to do that, that is fine, but dont attack others who do.

    1. Scott the people who are directing the gay movement have forgotten the basics.
      We are not safe. No comments were made when Ian Baynham killers were done for manslaughter not murder no outrage when a man gets stabbed in Camden. If you can afford to insulate yourself from homophobia then you’re ok and most of the decision makers can. That’s why marriage and kids are the priority, people getting stabbed or murdered when out or cruising bring it on themselves. That what happens when the bourgeois take over.

      And read this if you want an alternative view pride

      1. Forgotten the basics? You mean like hiding in dirty gay bars back in the 80’s where we had to fear the police? If your fowl mouth and obnoxious language is an example of what we’ve lost, then good riddance.

        1. Yep showing your true colours. I am right you’re a cnut

        2. Jock S. Trap 3 Mar 2011, 10:17am


          Dirty gay bars – 80s – fear the police?

          Dunno where you were but not how I remember it.

      2. I agree there is huge problems of homophobic violence, however the manslaughter verdict is a legal technicality not a sleight against the gay population. I law (if my memory serves) the bar for murder is very high, there has to be virtual certainty in the mind of the defendant that their act would cause death.
        I dont get how ive insulated myself from homophobia? I live in a pretty working class area, im still friends with the same group of working class lads I went to high school with, I told them I was gay, they asked if I was going to start talking funny, I said no, then we got on with our lives. Theyve met my boyfriend, they were nice and we are all friends. Do they still sometimes say things which are homophobic, yup they do, but its out of ignorance not hatred. Plus not being old enough to remember the 80’s I cant possible comment, but as far as I can tell gay bars today are still pretty grubby. I would rather face discrimination every day that have to spend time in a gay ghetto

        1. No one straight or gay can say anything homophobic in front of me. And you apologising for them your still young you find out who your true friends are

    2. “Well ok we are going a tad off topic here James, but I really dont get your point.”

      Does any one get what James is going on about?

      1. No. Unless being called a “cnut” is of any relevance to people?

        1. I have the measure you two. Ignore me and lets see you contribution to the debate

  58. had a go at a satirical look on the issue of gay oppression of christianity in the uk – think im funny, so I guess thats all that matters.

  59. “Dave 10 hours ago Report Reply
    I, too, am sorry for your loss. I’ve lost a close friend to suicide myself and the pain still bites.

    I suggest that, while John’s views may be inevitably offensive to you, he’s being civil – offensive in content not in manner, as it were.

    Meet him in face to face, tell him you’re gay, and see whether he hates you (i.e. he’s a homophobe) or whether he cares about you as a person. If he takes the line that Christ took, he’ll take the latter of the two courses of action. I know I would.

    Good greif be polite above all else? Get lost you dickhead

    1. James: I wasn’t intending to add further to this thread and as for those who are hostile to me – well that goes with the territory. Re. lost friends who felt driven to sucide because of homophobic attitudes, these are things I deplore although you may not think so. I have tried to debate the issues and when challenged have tried to robustly state my views but I have never done so out of hate. If your “meet him face to face” comment refers to me, I hope I would take the line Christ took as you have well stated.

      1. where is your church john? i want to attedn your chruch so that i can tell the folk there that what they do is wrong just like what your doing here. i want to invade your space just like your invading ours. and i want to get all indignant when they tell me im being unacceptable.

      2. whether you hate us or not john makes no difference. you spout your views whethere your invited or not and your the type who cause gay folk to kill themselves and yoi dont stop because your so convinced your right and were wrong

        1. I never know whether to feel amused or depressed when anti-caters think their views are wholly unobjectionable if they’re motivate by anything short of rabid hatred.


          So if I think black people should be aves nit because I hate them, but simply because I believe it’s their divinely ordained role in society, I’m somehow not a vile racist?

          1. P.S. I really hate autocorrect. And my own shoddy iPod typing skills. I do apologise.

      3. ” have tried to debate the issues and when challenged have tried to robustly state my views but I have never done so out of hate. ”

        The fact you want to debate the validity of homosexuality is hateful you pussyclart fool

      4. John, ignore James, he appears very wound up about something; which he increasingly appears to find difficult to articulate

        1. Naturally any lgbt person with any sense of self worth would be wound up and feel indignant by some of the homophobic comments left by indoctrinated christians here.

          1. Cheers Rapture. Jonkkk is the sort of person who likes to keeps the status quo as long as the only gay people getting attacked are not in his social circle. Selfish and spineless typical of a bougie queen.

        2. Jonkkk

          And who the fcuk are you?

  60. “bill 10 hours ago Report Reply
    and that makes it ok does it being polite. people kill themselves because of teh constant aggro not bevuase people are rude. you just dont getit. you post your sh1t on this stie and tell people that what they do is wrong and then when they kill themselves all you can say is we were being civil”

    Good one Bill the guys a dick.

  61. Bill, normally I would be happy to invite you to my church but not if your intent is to disrupt. I would be happy also to discuss further on neutral ground if it would help. I thought PN reader comments is for any to do so on the issues raised. I only “spout” my views because I am pressed why I feel the John’s should be allowed to foster etc. As for my “type” being the reason why people take their own life, I find insulting but then given your ignorance you might feel that is good thing!

    1. if you have a problemn with the johns fostering you should take it up with the judge, not spout your views here. you want to post here and disrupt here but wont allow us to do the same in your space. your viewxs is the reason why some gay folk have helloish lives and kill themsekves and all you can do is say your insulted at the suggestion that you might be partly responsible. and what does my ignorance mean ?

    2. Jock S. Trap 3 Mar 2011, 2:06pm

      “normally I would be happy to invite you to my church but not if your intent is to disrupt.”

      Hmmm and yet here You are not taking no for an answer.

      Religion = Double Standards.

    3. 1 – the Johns have not been barred from fostering. While I think they should be, that is not what the court case says, so get facts before you comment.

      2 – Being met with a barrage of – “we love you but we hate what you do”, “the almighty god, the defender of all that is god wants you to repent” and my favourite “its not me who says homosexuality is wrong but jesus (insert allah/buddah/Yaweh etc) – can and does lead people to suicide. Imagine if every day you went into town you were met with some ponce on a soapbox telling you what you are is sick and against god?
      3 – Are you defining disrupt as expressing views which go against the teaching of your church? If you are then you are a hypocrite, and you are also clearly nervous at how easily your churches opinion would be changed by reality.
      4- Im in a minority here you thinks you should spout away, as long as you dont incite violence, then keep on posting.

      1. 1. happy to be corrected!
        2. certainly that is not my intention, which is to debate issues – not to cause offence. Something I am sure we do agree on is that people should not feel so put down by homophobic attack, that it leads to depression or worse. It is a sincere offer, but other than stop believing in my religion, I would want to help stop such attacks happening and would be amenable to talk to LGBT folk to explore what can be done.
        3. the church I go to has a number of elderly folk who probably wouldn’t have a clue what you would be talking about if your were to disrupt services. There is a time and place for everything and I am open to engage in civilised discussion although for reasons I would think are obvious I don’t want to publish my contact details in a public forum.
        4. I would like to repay the favour.

        1. you can believe in your religion john but do you have to keep posting here telling us that we dont deserve some rights and what we do is wrong? can you not understand thats a nasty thing to do and that people are fed up of it on our site? yoiu wont say where you chruch is so why dont you tell us one of the xtian websites you post on and we can a debate there.

        2. i take it your not going to explain what you meant by ‘my ignorance’ is in your other posting?

          1. bill: wouldn’t you feel affronted if accused of being responsible for someone else’s death, especially when trying to act in a way to stop the sort of attacks that give rise to people feeling there is on other option than take one’s life? My beliefs also lead me to want to respect gay folk. I feel v.sad when I read of gay folk taking their life, where homophobic bullying is a factor, and why I made the offer I did.

            I may well eventually come to a view that I should have refrained from saying certain things – not because I don’t believe them but it may not have been appropriate. While I try to be diplomatic when dealing with folk who think different to me, I try to answer questions put to me as straight-forwardly.

            While there are Christian websites I visit, they either do not have a reader’s comment facility or I do not engage in this way. It is to Pink News credit their reporting is mainly fairly balanced and they allow people to contribute without censoring unpopular views.

        3. What you don’t appear to grasp, John, is that the views you express fertilise the soil in which anti-gay violence flourishes and gay people poison themselves. So your professed distress at these things rings a little hollow.

          1. Dr Robin Guthrie 4 Mar 2011, 3:17pm

            “While there are Christian websites I visit, they either do not have a reader’s comment facility”

            Funny that?

            They seem to not like giving you the right to reply.

            But there damn good at preaching.

    4. have you read the judgement yet, John? I hope you can see that the problem was that they wouldn’t comply with the Standards NOT that they happened to be Christian. Anyone not complying with the Standards would find themselves barred until they could.

  62. There was an interesting article today in the Guardian about Christians who are proud to be prejudiced.

  63. Anyone see that homophobic, homosexual historian david starkey on question time? He was speaking in support of this vile pair. Talk about the enemy within,what a traitor!

    1. While i do hate david starkey, I dont think its fair to call him a homophobe, hes just very right wing, he would scrap laws which say its unfair to discriminate against blacks/gays/women etc. For one thing if you search for him versus Jeffrey Archer on the equal age of consent he clearly believes very strongly in gay rights, he just defines them differently to you and I do.

    2. I watched, speechless in horror.

      What a pompous arse!!!

    3. What was ironic, was how Starkey made Ian Duncan Smith look like a liberal!!!

      1. yes i agree , it was surreal.

    4. Ok i must admit I havent watched QT tonight, thus my defence of David Starkey could have been a tad premature. It would be strange if he was homophobic though as he has pretty good record on speaking out against prejudice.

      1. Maybe you should watch the show before you determine whether you think its fair of me to call him a homophobe or not.

        1. well im pretty sure hes not a homophobe as hes always taken a consistent line against prejudice. However I accept the point that I should have waited.

          1. And i’m very sure he has very homophobic views about gay equality which he publicly declared tonight .He has also made very spurious claims about female historians which are mysogynistic.

        2. I apologise entirely, I opened my mouth far too quickly. I have just watched QT and you are entirely right and I was entirely wrong. What he said was complete BS and I was upset that no one on the panel said how Mr Johns intended to run a gay child. I was also scared by the applause Starkey/ the telegraph cnut and Malloch brown all got.

          On the telegraph guy – typical telegrap person i.e. massive idiot. Im so tolerant but if you nasty queers make me see you im going to go intolerant. Grrr angry now. I shall never comment again before getting full info.

          1. Thats ok ,I have prior knowledge of his bizarre outbursts concerning women, gay people .Yes he was disgusting and gave the bigots in the audience the green light. Now they can say they have a gay “intellectual” who supports their claims of being dicriminated against by equality legislation. And he even mentioned he thought it ok that gay couples be discriminated against by hotel owners. He is guilty of crimes of treachery against the lgbt community. shame he can’t be taken to the tower and disposed of .

            Never heard of telegraph to**er either . he must be trying to raise his profile maybe hoping to get a column on the mail. Yes anyone who tells me they are tolerant i instantly dislike .It’s a bit like telling someone you have lots of gay friends to somehow wipeclean the overt/covert homophobia espoused. you either accept or you don’t . Really he meant by tolerating he will have to put up with but hopefully a day will come when he can drop the facade.

          2. yes i do believe this couple do have the sympathy and support of the general public ,hence the support of the audience. But i’m sure fred and rosemary west had some support as well . I guess some people are not morally evolved.

    5. Just watched it he cames across as really weak and he kept repeating hes gay like he didnt believe it himself and he mentioned his mothers dislike of homosexuality.

      Maybe he’s confusing mysogony or his dislike like of his mother with homosexuality either

      1. Thats a point, maybe he has some love/hate messed up oedipus complex thing with his mum and yea he did try backtracking at the end saying he was gay . But don’t have time to psycho analyse every cretin. Whats clear is he is a liability and a threat to lgbt equality mouthing off his stupidity on public media.

        1. If you go to youtube and search for Jeffrey Archer David starkey on equal age of consent in question there is a very funny video.

          1. starkey tries desperately to be witty but his parents conceived the joke.

  64. Hey everybody, My names Tom ive been reading the comments made on this story and I felt the need to comment.

    I would like to challenge the notion that all christians are against gay people. I myself am a Christian (quaker) and I find people who say homosexuality is sinful and people such as the Johns despicable and responsible for the disproportionate rates of mental illness amongst LGBT people.

    However I am not criticising those of you who attack religion/christianity as it is definitely the case that it is religion/forms of christianity in this country (and the world) that do oppose gay rights.

    However as a Quaker I believe that God is love, and I know that two men or two women love and express love in the same way as a man and a woman, so God therefore cannot be against Gays and Lesbians and Bisexuals.

    Christians who belong to organised religions and profess that homosexuality is a sin are in my mind frauds. The message of the Jesus is clearly and consistently that it is …

  65. … Christians duty to aid and defend the downtrodden and the needy. In my mind there are few groups in society more downtrodden than the gay community who face consistent attacks in the media and physical assaults in the street not for what they do, but for who they are.

    Supposed “evangelicals” are the most dangerous as all they do is play on narrowminded and outdated prejudice in order to recruit people to their cult and to increase their churches coffers.

    I can absolutely understand the majority of Gay people being atheists and anti religion, as most religions deserve it. However (warning evangelising on the way) I would urge people to read about quakerism in the UK and see that we are not like most other religions.

    To John; do not claim to be a christian but also support a nasty couple in their campaign to indoctrinate and infect an innocent child with their venom. Children are born without hate, yet it is people such as the Johns who put hate in them.

    1. If you are right in your assertion Rachel then I would feel distressed, although some Christians do contribute to anti-gay violence, which I abhor. But I would say to both you and Tom that part of being a Christian should be to uphold principles such as truth, righteousness and justice and sometimes one has to tread a fine line. Of course aiding and defending the downtrodden is most important and is also a personal passion. I am sorry to have upset folk in these forums and while I cannot apologise for coming to a view that is, in the main, not accepted in these forums, I will evaluate my approach. I cannot accept Tom’s analysis of this couple though and while evangelicals have their faults, the picture he paints of them is not one, in the main, I identify with.

      1. John

        Do you abhor mental violence too?

    2. Tom. Im indifferent to religion i like to think each to their own. I think by trying to prove you’re somehow better seem unchristian. Shouldn’t you also be loving the “fraudulent” evangelicals too , not slag them off and leave us “downtrodden” homosexuals to make our own descisions? Religions are like farts you don’t mind your own.

      1. I think you are being a tad touchy, by downtrodden I did not mean to confer any less autonomy or dignity to LGBT (or indeed other downtrodden groups the poor, the disabled, the homeless), what I believe any fair reader would grasp that I was asserting that the LGBT community face a great deal of violence and hatred still today, if you want to moan at me for saying that, well so be it.

        I do love the fraudulent evangelicals, I just do not love what they say or what they do. I am in no way trying to prove I am a better person, but that rather Quakerism reflects more accurately the teachings of Jesus.

        I understand the opposition to religions, however I have to say that as a quaker I stand against all forms of intolerance and bigotry, against all violence, against all poverty and instead believe we should struggle each day to remove the false division we have created between us so that we can cure every illness, clothe every child and then dedicate ourselves to expanding human knowledge

        1. If you think that such a religion is equally as damaging to the world as say a religion that teaches that condoms don’t protect against STD’s, that teaches that stem cell research is the work of murderers then I guess we are never going to see eye to eye.

          Ido realise I have a tendency to come across holier than thou, which is not my intention. I just get angry when I see people who give something I have dedicated my life to a bad name.

          1. Tom

            There are sites where you can go to to get all the affirmative responses you desire. this is not one of them I deal with people every day who give me a bad name because I am homosexual. Not in cyberspace but in supermarkets on transport or walking down the street so toughen up or go to the sandpit

        2. The poor
          The disabled
          The homeless
          The gays

          Any other people you want to dehumanise?

          1. I desire no affirmative responses I was trying to explain that some religious people in this country really dislike homophobia and do not believe being gay or having gay sex is wrong.

            What do I need to toughen up on? I don’t understand? I think you may have some issues whereby you take support from a non gay person as an attack.

            I work in a palliative care home, and I have done all my adult life. Ive seen many gay, straight, poor, homeless and disabled people come in and try to spend their last days in dignity. Ive seen the problems and loneliness many gay/disabled/homeless people suffered as they had been abandoned by others. It was seeing this that made me want to challenge homophobia and all other forms of discrimination.

          2. james what the hell, the fella is clearly a good man, stop being so pathetic and trying to see the worst in what he says. He was obv saying tht people are treated badly in the country and that is wrong.

          3. In the past 20 years society has become more hostile to gay people it may be immigration or it may be home grown either way religion has played a big part.
            What we have done to challenge homophobia has not worked. So I do not want to wait another 20 years to find that we are in a worse position. I dont want a pat on the head I will not be patronised and called downtrodden or be a project so someone can get into heaven. I will fight my own battles so treat me as an equal or get lost.

          4. Scott you can be grateful for whatever scraps of dignity you’re thrown.

            Homophobia is not my problem its the problem of the person who holds it in their heart. Maybe Tom should be posting on those sites and report back about the conversions.

  66. I don’t agree that society has become more hostile to gay people in the last 20 years. In my own work I know for a fact we see a lot less gay people coming in and having no one to come visit them.

    I also think you being a bit of a pedant, maybe downtrodden was a bit patronising,I was trying to make the point that prejudice and hate are wrong, and that those people subjected to prejudice are marginalised in our society.
    Also you really dont understand Quakerism, we dont believe in hell, we believe people will go to a form of heaven no matter what you do. So the work I do is not done to get into heaven, but rather because we get a limited time on this world, and I would like to spend it making it a better place for the next generation.

    I have never not treated you as an equal,I have said repeatedly that religions have played a huge part in homophobia in this country, however as I consider you my equal I felt it ok to criticise your claim that all religions are the same lacks nuance

    1. Tom

      Are you gay?

      1. James

        No I am not. So yes I know that I have not had to experience homophobia directly. But I do remember in the early 1990’s that when I used to come out of gay bars with friends we would be met with verbal abuse, this does not seem to happen to me and my friends anymore.
        Also I saw many gay men pass away with no one around them, it was sad to watch, in my work this does not happen so much anymore, gay people when they come in have friends and family who come and visit them openly and are told they are loved. This for me is an improvement, maybe for you it is not.

        I came on this site as wanted to expand my knowledge of LGBT issues, im sorry if this has offended you in some way, but get over it.

    2. Tom if you’re not gay dont make statements like this

      ” don’t agree that society has become more hostile to gay people in the last 20 years”

      I am gay and I can tell you its worse now there are more murders and casual homophobia. Rarely is there a day when I don’t experience some sort of homophobia in London. A man got attacked on a central line tube in rush hour FFS.

      I think thats whats winding me up you’re making assumptions and seem to be a bit patronising. I know you have apologised but you need to take my opinion seriously as I am not the only person on these boards who thinks homophobia is worse now.

      I know my language can be very rude but I want to make it clear that discussions about wether homosexuality is wrong or right is over, discussion closed time to move on. Any anyone who wants to drag it up should be demolished in the worst possible way. Imagine going to a black site and saying all n*ggers should be enslaved

      1. I disagree with your statement that as i am not gay i cannot comment on the rate of homophobia in society. As i have explained consistently I have for a long time worked with many gay people, and I have seen a real increase in the numbers of visitors gay patients get today.

        Perhaps i should be more nuanced, while I think general acceptance of gay people has risen, I agree with the point that the segment of society that is still homophobic (daily mail readers) has become more violent and more extreme. So I guess I see it as homophobia has decreased in extent but increased in seriousness if you get my meaning.
        I do not see what assumptions I have made, I have explained my personal experiences working in a palliative care hospice and you attacked for that!
        In my mind, in yours and in all sensible people’s mind the argument about whether being gay is ok is over, and I have never said that that was an issue up for debate, so please don’t say I have.

        1. Cheers Rapture

          Tom you dont have to trust me read this.

          1. I dont see your point, I never said homophobia was gone and not an issue, in fact I said the opposite. All I said was that there have been improvements as far as I can tell in that families increasingly dont reject their gay children.
            20 years ago we had many gay men spending their last days alone, today hardly any.

          2. Tom I’m sure you mean well but look at this site.


          3. And this from 2010 about pensioners prefering to die alone to aviod homophobia in care homes


    3. I disagree on your point about hostility in society .I do realise that you are speaking subjectively. But there is now a cycle of regression where homophobia is becoming more extreme. violent gay attacks/harassment and murders are on the increase as supported by police statistics and lgbt equality and charity submissions. Also from my personal experience and from working with younger people in central london , the language and mentality used in connotation with lgbt people is virulently homophobic. James! lives very much on the frontline of this homophobic abuse daily from what can be seen from the content of his texts so i admire him for that that, he is a survivor.

  67. James, seriously stfu. Scraps of dignity I am thrown? The guy has come on here and said he opposes allowing homophobes to foster, that he hates all forms of discrimination and that he believes love between gays is no different than love between straights. You attack this as a being thrown scraps of dignity? You have serious issues man.
    Tom, allow me to say that I found what you said moving, and that while I dont particularly like religions, I have always found quakers (and unitarians) to be totally nice people who seem dedicated to spreading love for everyone. If the world was full of people such as that this would be a much better planet.

    1. “The guy has come on here and said he opposes allowing homophobes to foster, that he hates all forms of discrimination and that he believes love between gays is no different than love between straights

      So what does he want a biscuit?

      Most sensible people know that already

      1. My god what is wrong with you. He was explaining how his religion is accepting to gay/straight/rich/poor and thus challenging people’s opinion (such as my own) that all religions are against gays. You may think its a bad idea that straight religious people want to stand against homophobia (which at the same time you claim to be endemic yet also claim everyone knows its wrong).
        Im sorry if im getting personal here but you sound like a terrible cliche, that gay people can only be friends with other gay people inside nasty gay ghettos, that we have to all have one hive mind that agrees with you.
        Well I disagree, i have straight friends, I have gay friends, I go to places which arent gays only, and I also dont feel the need to attack someone who happens to share my values but happens to not be gay.

        1. “Christians duty to aid and defend the downtrodden and the needy. In my mind there are few groups in society more downtrodden than the gay community who face consistent attacks in the media and physical assaults in the street not for what they do, but for who they are”

          You want to hang around with people who think you’re downtrodden and needy be my guest. We will have to agree to disagee and thats ok too you know

          1. Dude you have serious issues. The fella was saying that he wanted to advance gay rights.
            One minute you say that gay hate is everywhere and that we are in constant physical danger. The next you say that anyone challenging such prejudice is demeaning us.
            Dear god I hope this isnt the attitude of the wider gay community or Im going back in the closet.

            I agree it is fine to disagree, but it is not fine to mischaracterise someone and paint them as a bad person when they clearly are a good person.
            Tom having worked in a care home myself let me just say I think people such as yourself are national treasures who deserve respect.

          2. I dont like Tom’s chioce of words like duty, downtrodden and needy, I think I’m allowed an opinion I dont want to discuss this anymore we dont agree lets leave it there

            And BTW

            I’m a rarity. You’ll fit right in

  68. Fair nuff. BTW all the people who want to find christians and argue with them about this may i suggest
    I am literally pulling my hair out with these a holes. Its like a form of sadomasichism, I know I should stop but i cant help it

    1. Scott IMO you should aviod those discussions they are full Telegraph nutters and some comments are pretty disgusting. I know I’m one to talk but they’re on another level

      1. I must agree, I am a little scared talking to some of these people. Someone told me i should be “carefull or there will be consequnces” to which I replied I may be going to hell, but Im going knowing how to spell careful and consequences!

        1. Nice one

  69. A ‘belief’ can NEVER be allowed to trump the law. The law exists to protect people from discrimination. It does NOT exist to protect people’s ‘beliefs’. Sjoud I expect protection for MY belief … in Peter Pan?Why is MY belief not to be taken seriously but theirs is? Because it has history on its side? Nonsense. Let’s grow up as a democracy and separate church and state once and for all.

    1. Thats right there was a Rasta man who wanted to smoke weed for his beleifs and he lost the case . If he won it would probally be the most popular religion in the UK

  70. Just disgraceful, the police should attend meetings and eject anyone shouting abuse.

    1. wrong thread sorry

  71. ALERT

    A must Read !!!

    Perverse commentary in the Scotsman on the courts decision.

  72. I was please with this decision but was shocked to hear David Starkey’s comments on BBC Question Time on Thursday night on this matter. Himself a gay man think the couple should have been allowed to keep on fostering despite their hateful beliefs. The entire panel (except Margaret Beckett) also mocked the idea that a chil below 10 would ever question their sexuality. I completely disagree with this as well.

    1. “I was please with this decision but was shocked to hear David Starkey’s comments on BBC Question Time on Thursday night on this matter”

      Me too, what a pompous arse Starkey is

  73. The Catholic News Agency (CNA) has reported that the couple have decided no to appeal against the courts decsion.

  74. Interesting article in the Guardian by Alan Wilson

    “Homosexuality, Christianity and child welfare. This week’s court ruling against a Christian couple seeking to foster children was right”

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.