Reader comments · Christian foster couple want ‘political intervention’ in gay equality laws · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Christian foster couple want ‘political intervention’ in gay equality laws

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. And I want a 12″ dick but what are you gonna do dickeheads

    1. Jock S. Trap 11 Mar 2011, 3:32pm

      Clearly I’ve been spoilt. See I would say I feel guilty but seriously I’m really not!! lol


    2. So I got angry reading this article, came to the comments and this immediately made me laugh; nice one, cheers.

      1. Yes, and it just goes to show that this couple are not the innocent little butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-their-mouths victims that they were portrayed as, they are frontline zealots and activists for the anti-gay industry.

        I am weary of seeing their dimwit faces though!

    3. So what? I’ve got 12″, but I never use it as a rule.

      1. Just be sure not to stick your foot in your mouth Spanner.

        1. Paddyswurds 11 Mar 2011, 10:28pm

          Lucky him if he can….lol

  2. ffs. The court didnt even ban people for their views on homosexuality, it offered no declaration, and instead granted that the way foster carers would BEHAVE (not think) towards children is a legitimate concern for social services.

    Everyone remember Camerons British Bill of Rights BS? Me thinks that this is just typical tory doublespeak, Cameron will go “yay gays, yay gays”, then cut the Equality Act and ECHR, then go “fcuk you gays”.

    1. de Villiers 11 Mar 2011, 3:18pm

      Cameron has gone out of his way to say that there should be no discrimination against gay people.

      it is stupid to say that Cameron will repeal the Equality Act and even more so to suggest that he will say “fcuk you gays”.

      Those comments are as unreal as those of the Christians in this article.

      1. In opposition Cameron and the Conservatives opposed the HUman rights act and the equality act.

        Man you are a Tory cheerleader arent you, willing to believe that ickle cameron could do no wrong, despite the demonstrable evidence to the contrary:
        – Opposition to equality act.
        – Opposition to Human rights act.
        – Expansion of religious schools with even less control on their curriculum.
        – Scrapping of universal sex education.

        But no, the tories are great and the evil leftists have damaged this country.

        1. Scott, you exaggerate. I don’t know what exactly de Villiers has said in the past to upset you so much but he’s right, in this case Mr Cameron of his own volition offered up the view that Christians should be tolerant of gays – in other words, he’s one our side this time. And that’s all this story’s about – this time.
          If you want to vent about the Tories in general (and I can see why anyone would), start a blog or something.

          1. Oscar, have you thought that perhaps, just perhaps, you’re the one who exaggerate with your fixation on the minucia of time? Scott is analysing the habitual Tory behaviour, and taking the overall view approach, which can give you a less obtuse chance of predicting where things could possibly go.

      2. So the MP’s that raise the repeal of equality legislation in parliament, are they going to be conservative or labour/lib dem mps?
        Nadine dorries or dianne Abbot?
        Mark Pritchard or alan Johnson.
        That nasty ring catholic whose called Edward something or John Cruddas?

        Come now lets not be silly.

        1. de Villiers 11 Mar 2011, 9:41pm

          Calling me names is silly and childish. I’m not a Tory and I’m not slavish to any party.

          Saying Cameron is going to fcuk gays is silly. I think that he is wrong in a number of areas and have posted so.

          Attacking me for that is just vanity and self-centred. It’s easy, indulgent and meaningless to engage in ad-hominem attack.

          1. correct name calling was cheap. but you still didnt answer any of my points.

          2. de Villiers 14 Mar 2011, 8:32am

            > correct name calling was cheap. but you still didnt answer any of my points.

            Name calling is rarely correct.

            The Tories are not opposed to the Equality Act.

            Opposition to the Human Rights Act is about taking away the determination of political questions from unelected judges.

            I am opposed to the extension of religious schools. The independent schools model does allow religions to set up schools but that is not its sole purpose. The UK seems to have a fascination with religious rather than secular schools. It seems to be the culture.

            The government has announced no plans to end universal sex education. As schools have more devolved power, they can teach more of what they feel is appropriate.

    2. Jock S. Trap 11 Mar 2011, 3:34pm

      Exactly, they seem to want to ignore the fact that there are many Christians who passed exactly the same tests they themselves failed and those parents are willing to open up their home for the best of a child, not themselves.

      1. Sister Mary Clarence 11 Mar 2011, 5:27pm

        So Scott is this article actually about your political persuasions or about two deluded God bothering nutcases who are bitter they lost their argument?

        If its the latter, which actually it is, you might want to bemoan the passing of NuLabour somewhere else.

        1. Criticising the tories and doubting there intentions does not make one pro newlabour!
          I voted Greens! Anti war, Anti prejudice,Secular, pro environmental.

          I stand by my claim:
          The HRA is the only institution that has been consistently pro gay. Cameron wants to scrap it.
          – Are the anti gay mp’s going to be labour or conservative?

          1. de Villiers 11 Mar 2011, 9:44pm

            That is wrong. It is not the HRA that is the pro gay “institution”. There is no “pro-gay” legislation. There was the Sexual Orientation Regulations and now the Equality Act that promote equality rather than specific gay rights.

            The right to religion is to hold it, not to manifest it. That is why it is secondary to the right of someone who is gay not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexuality.

            The repeal of the HRA will make no difference to the Equality Act. In fact, it is the HRA which guarantees the right to hold religious belief.

        2. De villiers you are just wrong.
          The HRA is the reason why we have gays in the military, it will probably be the reason why we get gay marriage.

          1. de Villiers 14 Mar 2011, 8:34am

            I agree that the HRA is the reason for gays in the military. I doubt it will be the reason for gay marriage – that will be due more to a cultural shift in the UK.

            France has the HRA. There is no gay marriage. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against gay marriage on at least three occasions.

            Our rights not to be discriminated against come more from the EU than the HRA.

  3. A law isn’t bad just because you disagree with it!

  4. The irony of a black couple being against equality rights astounds me!!

    1. Well as it appears that ‘gay’ trumps ‘christian’ perhaps they are hoping that ‘black’ trumps ‘gay’…….. lol.

      1. Paddyswurds 11 Mar 2011, 10:34pm

        Does this mean that if the Johns succeed in getting the Human Right’s act repealed that i can have them as slaves. After all the book they value over British Law says i can have slaves so long as they arent from my own country so as im irish i can go to Britain and take slaves. And i would have the Johns , thanks very much seeing as they agree with it.

        1. Then Eunice could be your cook and do all the domestics while Owen could work in your fields or garden and do maintenance work, he would sleep out in the shed of course and Eunice would have a room in the attic, they would never be permitted to share a double bed.
          Yes, I’m sure Eunice and Owen would really enjoy life in a world without pesky equality laws.

          1. “Holding a person in slavery became illegal in the UK on 6 April 2010.

            Nineteenth-century legislation made slavery illegal, in stages, throughout the British Empire, but the status of slave had never existed under English common law. Therefore, since slaves did not legally exist in this country, holding a slave was never made specifically illegal – until now.

            Section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 makes it an offence in the UK to hold a person in slavery or servitude, or require a person to perform forced or compulsory labour.

            Modern anti-slavery campaigners say that there are currently 27 million slaves worldwide”

          2. Paddyswurds 12 Mar 2011, 9:35am

            ……But according to the Johns and the Christian Institute the bible trumps UK law. Surely what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.. My neighbours work on a Sunday…shouldn’t i get a stoning party together tomorrow to stone them to death. Another neighbour wears glasses in church . How should i smite him as the bible says one who isnt perfect in body and mind shouldn’t eneter the Temple and i’m sure i observed someone eating prawn yesterday. What would be the best way to kill him?/

          3. would rather use em as human toilets. Anyhow they look real old and if they are distressed as much as they claim ,they may die soon.

        2. When I get slaves, they’re going to be around 25, male, tall, blond, muscular… and naked :)

          1. Paul UK,
            Sounds way more attractive than trying to “gently turn” Owen Johns anyway.

  5. Dave North 11 Mar 2011, 3:13pm

    These 2 old idiots want diddley squat.

    It is all being driven by the Odious Christian Legal freaks.

    The Daily Wail looks like it may just set up a petition for Jesus freaks to sign away our hard won rights or at least provide the bigots on their forum with links to the CLC petition.

    I hope they rot in hell, the old sh!ts,

  6. Here we go. This campaign is going to take off, amongst those MPs who are Christians at least. We may have to ask David Babbs to get the nation behind this one! Save the Forests, save the NHS, and now save the rights of gays and lesbians . . . despite the legislation already meant to do so!

  7. Mr Diamond and the Johns seem to want an awful lot.

    1. Jock S. Trap 11 Mar 2011, 3:38pm

      The Mr Diamond that on court statements the judges made the reference about his “travesty of reality” and they want to blame bad laws!

      1. Diamond and/or the Johns should stand for Parliament and see how many votes they get.

        1. They have mine

          1. Paddyswurds 11 Mar 2011, 11:16pm

            @ LU…… They will probably have to take you there and read the ballot paper for you. You couldn’t possibly be allowed to think for yourself…. thats not the xtian way…..

  8. Perhaps if the Johns wish to exercise their homophobia, they should return to Jamaica where homophobia is rampant.

  9. We’ve fought for a very long time to get what equality we have.
    We are going to have to keep going to make sure we keep it

  10. Jock S. Trap 11 Mar 2011, 3:31pm

    Religious Freedoms again. ie the right to discriminate and be above the law.

    Religious Freedom must Never rule over basic Human Rights and Freedoms. If they choose religion they choose the consequences if that relgion shows bigotry.

    So now they want to force the law to be on their side, to force the law to allow them to say how some people are born is unnatural. So they foster victims of abuse who happen to be Gay does that mean they want tthe right to abuse that child by telling them they are unnatural and disgusting? Of course it does.

    All this is, is that they want to be allowed to be above the law, untouchable and it should fail big time. These people need to know once and for all they are entitled to be treated equally the same as everyone. If they don’t want that then reap the consquences.

    End of!

    1. Religious freedom should be the right to go to your church/temple/mosque/ without let or hindrance and not be afraid of the said building being firebombed while you’re in it. This country HAS such freedom. They have no right to ask for anything else.

    2. Paddyswurds 11 Mar 2011, 11:25pm

      I almost want this to go to court. can you imagine the twisting that would go on. Shameless finished this week for the seson so we will need a good laugh to tide us over til january. In what terms could they possibly couch their case. The mind boggles. Send them back to Jamaica. Isn’t it the law that immigrants uphold the law and not try to subvert it. I wish i was rich and i would have them up in court on that charge alone, plus as many others i could find that would apply no matter how obscure.

      1. Jock S. Trap 13 Mar 2011, 8:35am

        Shameless is on a half season break Paddys… it’s back in the Autumn.

  11. Well, there clearly are many people who would like to see us go back to living in a Christian theocracy version of Iran…
    Will be great time for the inquisition again!

  12. And obviously I should not have forgotten to mention exorcism…..

    Well, I don’t think we really had gotten rid of that anyway….

  13. ““Finally, the absurd ‘human rights’ agenda needs to be re-visited including the Human Rights Act.”” – I love it when people assume that we’ll be fine without Human Rights. Amazing.

    1. well they are just a waste of paper really, because everyone is basically nice and good, innocent and pure. If we scraped those stupid laws then there would be no hatred, no persecution and everyone would live peace and harmony, there would be no poverty, hunger or disease.

      Seriously though these two just need to call it a day, I suspect for them it’s more about staying in the headlines than actually helping a child now

  14. I guess some people are created more equal than others.

    It’s time this imbalance in the law was corrected.

    1. im a traditionalist Mormon, based on the bible and our own holy book I do not believe black people have souls and are thus inferior innately to white people, should I be able to foster?
      Should I be able to refuse to serve black people in my business?

      1. Jock S. Trap 11 Mar 2011, 4:45pm

        “im a traditionalist Mormon”

        Scott sweetie, I think it’s sweet how you accidently hit that extra letter ‘m’…


        1. Im not sure if you get that im not a traditionalist mormon… Im sadly not blue eyed and blonde haired.

          1. Jock S. Trap 12 Mar 2011, 10:42am

            Oh so your the only one allowed to make jokes, eh…

            C’mon surely your could see I was joking couldn’t ya….

          2. touche my s.Trap, I stand corrected and mocked :)

          3. Jock S. Trap 12 Mar 2011, 2:45pm

            No mocking mr, just joking.


    2. Well, yes, LU – some Christians seem to think that they’re more equal than others and should have special rights. It’s time that that silly belief was corrected.

      1. Iris: this Christian doesn’t think that but he does feel the balance is shifting such that people who believe / say to be gay is of are treated more preferably than those who don’t. My view is I will try to accept folk as they are (not based on their beliefs) but I can only say categorically that something is ok if God says it is.

        1. de Villiers 11 Mar 2011, 9:46pm

          The right to religion is the right to hold it, not to manifest it.

          If, for example, the eating or rearing of halal or kosher meat were to be outlawed, that would be a permissible interference with the manifestation rather than the holding of religion.

        2. “I can only say categorically that something is ok if God says it is”
          Seriously? Can you then categorically say that silencing women in churches is okay? But presumably you can’t say that cars or having an age of consent for sex or building steeples on churches and putting bells in them is ok? Could drinking orange juice be a sin? Because I mean, God never said anything about that. Or maybe cancer treatment isn’t okay, or at least you can’t categorically say that it is.
          Slavery, however – God’s fine with that, so I assume you are too?

        3. You can still think what you like about gay people, John, but you can’t disobey the law. That seems fine to me. We don’t live in a theocracy so the Law will always come above belief. Allowing belief to rule would mean more racism, more misogyny, more hate and division. I don’t imagine that that’s something you’d want at all.

          I’ve met people with some quite vile beliefs and the idea that they should be permitted to act on them is frightening.

      2. Replace the word Christian with Gay, and you right on the money

        1. Paddyswurds 11 Mar 2011, 11:32pm

          they are not the same thing so cant be interchangeable you dimwit. One, xtianity is a belief in fiction the other, Homosexuality. is being born that way as one is with blue or brown eyes…….

          1. You can’t be born gay. I wish it was that easy, there is no evidence of this whatsoever, and people have been looking for a long time.

          2. Paddyswurds 12 Mar 2011, 9:38am

            and your scientific evidence is….
            I suppose one is born christian and bigoted tho…what what. How does it feel to be a total loser LU??

          3. Jock S. Trap 12 Mar 2011, 10:50am


            Why can’t you be born Gay? The is no evidence people are born straight.

            Unlike religion, you can’t choose it, be taught it or teach it so what makes you think we are not born who we are. Why are you not born straight?

            It’s arrogance to suggest we can’t when I for one know that this is how I was born.

            You clearly choose to use religion to prove your own bigotry. It’s small mindedness that is teh real danger, the failure to think for themselves.

            Remember we were born with Brains not a Bible.

        2. @LU

          Christianity is a lifestyle choice not a right!

        3. is lu short for looney? i didnt have a choice people knew i was gay before i did and treated me accordingly. People like you who hate gay people and take every oppourtunity to give us greif youre a massive cnut

          1. “People like you who hate gay people and take every oppourtunity to give us greif youre a massive cnut”

            I’ve never said I hate gay people, or done anything to suggest that I do.

            I am, however, opposed to a lifestyle that has been proven to be dangerous to those who partake in it.

            I am also opposed to those who would wish to silence me, and rob me of my right of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

          2. Oh LU, whatever shall we do with you. No one is robbing you of your right to speech, telling you to stfu is not robbing your right to speak, it is merely an assertion that we are bored with what you say.

            Be honest, by dangerous lifestyle, you mean aids. Lesbian women have a far lower HIV rate than heterosexual women. Therefore by your logic, all women should be lesbians as they have a lower HIV rate.

            Also – a man shall not lie with a man as he would with a women, this is an abomination. I am a bible literalist and im sorry xians such as yourself who think this relates to anal sex are wrong. it was really god expressing his opposition to gay men sleeping together in the way heterosexual did (the missionary position). This proclamation in leviticus is actually biblical justification for doggy style sex.

          3. Jock S. Trap 13 Mar 2011, 8:42am

            Oh Lordy LU, playing the victim, you win no Oscars though for such a bad performance.

            Your nothing but a bigot. You say you don’t hate gay people but then go on to make assumptions.

            A life born CANNOT be a lifestyle.

            A Religion chosen is nothing but a lifestyle.

            Exactly how is being gay dangerous? It’s such a pathetic comment and one of sheer arrogance. Notice is YOU that separates human beings. Something we are all born, we do not choose.

            Who the hell is trying to silence you and rob you of your freedom of speech and freedom of expression?

            No-one thats who.

            This whole vicitm thing is getting boring. It like a spoilt child refusing to play because someone else has got your dolly.

            Do us All a favour… Grow Up!

        4. Ive never seen god or jesus. So i dont really believe in them. Do you know what I have seen, gays, and lesbians, and bisexuals and transgendered people. Whose the loony the one who believes in something they, or anybody they know, hasnt ever seen, or those of us who believe that some people are naturally gay.

          Also on a side note, Gays existed before Jesus, the existed after he dies. From a purely survival of the fittest strongpoint surely this tells us something…

    3. Jock S. Trap 11 Mar 2011, 4:08pm

      I’m glad we agree LU, finally. It is time isn’t it that Christians stopped thinking they are above anything and follow the law of the land. Equality is there for everyone. No-one not even that not so special view is above it.

      It is indeed time to address this imbalance so that Christians were made to stop believing their choosen religious lifestyle trumps how others are born.

    4. Paddyswurds 11 Mar 2011, 10:42pm

      @ LU……Will you get it into your thick xtian head that there is no inequality in law. Thats the problem as far as these two bigots see it They want their belief in fantasy to trump British Law and that just is not going to Happen. There is a better chance of them finding the garden of Eden in the fields of Essex.

    5. i know the bible has a lot to answer for supporting inequality, slavery. Its a good there are some decent people who do not corrupt/abuse their children with this dogma unlike this twisted pair.

  15. The Coalition government did not have to implement the Equality Act but it did so. To argue that they will ‘repeal’ the Act is pretty lame.
    However, if the couple think it’s ok to pick and choose who you foster, and how you represent minority groups once you have fostered, then we’re back to the days when white people wouldn’t foster black children, wouldn’t respect their ‘culture’ and so on. Quite why this couple think discrimination againt gay people is ok, whilst discrimination against other groups (on the ground of race or religion) is not ok, is beyond me.

    1. No they implemented one part of the Act and have yet toi implement it in full.
      Cameron has made clear he wants to remove the Human rights Act, the only British institution that has consistently been pro gay.

      My god I wish these gay conservatives would open your eyes.
      It is legitimate for us to disagree on economic policy, but for you to side with the Tories who still have numerous antigay mps – any bets on whether it will labour mps or Tory ones who raise the Johns case in parliament? – and who wish to remove the Human rights ACt is a slap in the face of the brotherhood/sisterhood!

      1. de Villiers 11 Mar 2011, 9:47pm

        They also have the largest number of gay MPs. And the HRA is not the most consistently gay institution. That is a misunderstanding of the HRA.

        There was the Sexual Orientation Regulations and now the Equality Act that promote equality rather than specific gay rights. The repeal of the HRA will make no difference to the Equality Act. In fact, it is the HRA which guarantees the right to hold religious belief.

  16. Won’t they ever shut up? I am sick to bl**dy death of Christians claiming they’re being discriminated against simply because they have to obey the same laws as everyone else.

    Ok, then Mr and Mrs John – I presume you’ll be absolutely fine with all the racists using their ‘conscience’ to discriminate against you?

    I know people often insult religious people and say that they must be mentally ill to think as they do but I seriously wonder what’s wrong with these two people. They want to live in a Britain where discrimination is rife and no-one’s rights are protected? They want permission to disobey the law?

    It’s time for the Gov to get strict with such people and speak more plainly: no-one is above the law, and your ‘right’ to discriminate doesn’t trump everyone else’s right not to be discriminated against.

    1. Jock S. Trap 11 Mar 2011, 4:24pm


      I don’t think they want to disobey the law as must as just feel they have the right to be above it because it clearly shouldn’t include them. It’s as if somehow the law shouldn’t apply to them. All this religious freedom crap seems to be about is trumping equality which is supposed to include them too.

      I think the more they fight this the worse it will get for them and no doubt somehow through their continued bigotted actions we as a community will suffer the backlash.

      Here’s hoping common sense wins.

      1. Jock S. Trap 11 Mar 2011, 4:26pm

        I have to add, I don’t think religion is a mental illness as much as its just been what they have been taught, They just don’t get it that their religion is a choose lifestyle and no-ones chosen lifestyle should win over the birth of human beings.

        1. I think religion is like a mental virus though, it is transmitted from one person to another or from a parent to a child. Richard Dawkins calls it the religious meme, it’s rather like a parasite that infests the host and makes for itself a compasrtment within the host that is impervious to reason.

          1. That “impervious to reason” bit is true in so many cases. I always think it stems from fear. That’s sad – in the upsetting way, not the loser way.

    2. Iris: the issue is that these people don’t see what they are doing as discrimination and neither do they wish to break the law. Because the law is muddled it is understabdable that some feel it needs to change. While I might respond differently to this couple, I am with them when they say they cannot say something is ok which they don’t think is ok. My worry is that Christians who would be great foster parents will now choose not to do so. I fear our society is going mad and children who need good homes will be deprived – how perverse is that? My understanding is the Johns are also saying that while they don’t think it is ok to be gay, they will love and support children in their care who view things differently to them, including on the issue of sexuality – why should that be such a problem?

      1. The law isn’t muddled, John. It’s just unpalatable to those who think that discriminating against gay people is a wholesome family activity.

      2. @John

        Christinaity is a life style choice, not a right!

      3. John, I have no problem with them being Christians, and neither does the law/ However, they refused to meet the minimum Standards for fostering and so, LIKE ANY OTHER PERSON WHO DIDN’T COMPLY, they were not allowed to foster.

        If you say ‘ah, well they couldn’t comply because that’d go against their belief’ then I’d say to you that many people in this country are racist – so would it be OK for them to refuse to treat a black child equally or to teach white children in their care that black people are inferior?

        NO! The Standards exist to protect the child. You can’t have opt-outs to suit the prejudices of the foster-carer.

      4. Oh, and sorry to harp on about it, John, but did you read the actual judgement?

      5. Jock S. Trap 12 Mar 2011, 10:53am

        The law is not a muddle. It just doesn’t favour Christian and all they want is a law that does so.

  17. What did they think would happen if they admitted they would tell a child being gay is unacceptable. I’m scared to think what could have happened if they’d fostered a gay child.

  18. We often get a number of black Jehovah’s witnesses knocking on doors in this area and one thing they appear to have in common is a simplistic outlook on life and the bible. I sometimes put them on the spot by bringing up the subject of homosexuality or cruelty to animals. I dont think they understand about what being gay is. They just think its a bad choice of life style. That two men or two woman cold actually love each other like a man and a woman doesn’t even enter their heads.

    1. Yes, in many cases it’s ignorance not malice. I wish the Johns would wake up and see the truth – and how they’re being used by the CLC.

      1. Iris: I think you do the couple a disservice. They seem to me to know exactly what they doing and it is disingenuous to them and CLC to say they are being used.

        1. have you read what the judge said?

        2. No, I’m not implying they’re stupid, if that’s what you’re thinking, but I think the CLC is taking their own genuine personal fervour and using it for its own means.

          I feel sorry for them.

    2. Jock S. Trap 11 Mar 2011, 4:30pm

      Yes Allen I had two women knock on my door this week asking if I wanted to be closer to Jesus. Then they bang on about the ‘gay agenda’ yet I don’t see us knocking on doors to hand out Gay Times or Diva in place of the bloody WatchTower!

  19. They are from the Pentecostal Church and guess what that church runs? The Street Pastors!

    1. Les Isaac talks of the breakdown of family values and Street Pastors ‘will’ be on the streets to reconnect with the community!

    2. Cleggy: fyi Street Pastors comprise members of many different denominations and views, including on gay sex (I know – I am one of them and go out on average once a month). We engage with all sorts of folk we meet on the streets in a non-preachy way, trying to practically show Christ’s love. Interestingly, Friday is “gay night” for two of of the clubs on our patch and the relationship we have with staff and punters is invariably very good :-)

      1. Why do you try to show Christ’s love? why doesn’t Christ show his love himself?

        1. Pavlos: every SP duty is different but invariably there are several encounters where we can show some act of compassion – giving a rough sleeper a blanket, coffee etc., helping someone worse off for drink on their way, directing folk who have lost their way, being mediators when situations become tense on the streets etc. … methinks these are the sort of things Christ would have done if he were here but we are his arms, legs, mouthpiece etc. and we humbly try to follow him as he commands.

          1. Paddyswurds 11 Mar 2011, 11:42pm

            The irony is that if Christ were to be in existance today ( there is no proof he ever existed) he would be accused of being gay as he would be in his thirties, never have a girlfriend and go around with a bunch of dudes who seem to have abandoned females as well. Claiming to work miracles and to be able to walk on water would get him accused of dabbling in LSD or some such…. Oh the irony…….

          2. Jock S. Trap 12 Mar 2011, 2:10pm

            You don’t have to be with any religion to be nice to our fellow human beings. The difference is most do help others that don’t feel the need to preach religion. Plenty that do exactly the same don’t have a religion.

            It’s called common decency and respect. You don’t have to belong to some nut club to do it. It doesn’t make you more special because you do belong to a nut club. Maybe focus more on the task of helping without the testy chore of preaching.

          3. John, you say you as a Street Pastor humbly go about these things.while trumpeting about it to the whole world here.

        2. Paddyswurds 12 Mar 2011, 2:00pm

          @john…..and why did “he” not show his love to the people of Japan, New Zealand or the people of Indonesia, or indeed to the millions living in abject misery and poverty in Africa, Jamaica, India and inumerable other places around the world. How many street pastors are there in those places, engaging in a “non-preachy way” and showing christs love I wonder….whats that you say ..non? Ah i thought so. One only sees these parasites in cushy western cities where they can pop into a nearby hostelery for a quick nip now and then. You really do need to go have a word with yourself, you nasty, self righteous parasitic pig.But for the editorial norms of this site i can think of better things i could call you but for now just feck off and stop annoying decent people.

      2. Why did you say ‘gay sex’ and not just gay’s???

        Why are you going into a gay area? is it because there is a breakdown of family values their???

        John: We only have your word for this very good relationship, whats the name of the club, so that I may contact them???

        It’s like your so called evidence that the SP’s are reducing crime perhaps you could give us a link to some independent research on the effectiveness of SP’s???

  20. bad laws and stuff? he’s only ranting cos he’s lost and he’s supporting bigoted idiots! human rights are there for everyone unlike christians like the couple who only care about their own evil agenda! christians like this want to be above the law yet their book says they should obey the law! the ‘conscience’ they refer to is the one that would allow racism etc and people to be stoned etc

  21. How on earth did that Diamond fellow get to be a QC?

    No one should have the right to suggest that anyone else is inferior or immoral or damned or diseased based on an inherent, unchosen and unchangeable characteristic. That applies regardless of whether you personally dislike them, have been brought up to dislike them or told to dislike them because of a religion.

    How can that be anything but the correct state of the law in a modern, enlightened age? How can a QC support a return to a more oppressive unenlightened way of thinking?

    ………ooooooooh, yeah. Money.

    Damn lawyers.

    1. Diamond is not a QC. he has been on the receiving end of quite a lot of judicial disapproval for over-stating things in court.

      1. personally, I think JD is a great fellow.

        1. The Judge didn’t think much of him, and, listening to Mr Diamond on Radio4 the other day what I did notice was that he very cunningly side-stepped crucial questions. If he doesn’t have the confidence to answer then that suggests he knows in his heart that what most people think is right, and that he survives on bombast and exaggeration rather than facts or consideration, in my opinion.

          I listened giving him the benefit of the doubt – yet he had nothing to say. I reckon he KNOWS he’s wrong but just won’t admit it.

      2. de Villiers 11 Mar 2011, 9:48pm

        The Court of Appeal criticised heavily his submissions and said that they amounted to a “travesty” of the truth.

        1. A travesty of reality actually, not even untrue but so out there it was plain bonkers.

          1. Mr Diamond’s submission I mean.

          2. de Villiers 14 Mar 2011, 8:36am

            Completely out of reality. And the court made reference to him having made similar bad points before. He seems like not a particularly good avocat.

  22. Sure, who needs equality laws when you have conscience. We’ll keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best.

    I like it when they talk about the ‘absurd human rights agenda’ like who on earth said we need human rights…

    1. The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.. Tatics.

      We might want to learn from history.

      1. Paddyswurds 11 Mar 2011, 11:44pm

        You’ve lost the argument…..get over it.

        1. Jock S. Trap 12 Mar 2011, 11:02am


          Best comment yet! Simple and to the point!

      2. @LU

        You appear to be spinning the hysterical vicitm card again.

    2. Yes, like why do gays need human rights too,ay Eunice and owen, it’s absurd.
      Why can’t we fundamentalist Christians continue to treat gay men and lesbian women as less than human as we freely did in the past?
      We blame the gay agenda that seeks to undermine religious privilege and freedoms and replace it with a level playing field of pesky equality…it’s absurd.
      We Christian zealots are being victimised because we refuse to accept equal treatment under the law.

      1. (Above)
        Yes, like why do gays need human rights too say Eunice and Owen John, it’s absurd.

  23. why are these supersticious Neanderthals still bleeting on about how bigoted they are – respect others – treat others as you would treat yourself – oh and have look back at the black-human struggle to be treated equally…
    Oh and btw God never said anything about homos being wrong – CAUSE GOD DOESN’T EXIST!!! So no excuses – accept your hated as your own – rather than claiming your imaginary lord said you should

    Evolve people

  24. The PM has already said they were in the wrong. What more do they need to confirm they are dead in the water.

  25. Do they also want a review of stoning unmarried non-virgins?
    Shag right off!

  26. Good luck changing politics. The parties realise the uk isn’t homophobic anymore, and to move that way now is political suicide.

    It’s funny and sad these people are politicly close to bnp yet would be as welcome there as we are to them. They would be victims because of their skin colour and they would moan and complain but they hate us based on who we love.

    Do try never learn.

  27. Elitist religions really P me off. They are just as Fascist as Hitler in their beliefs. What these ignorant Aholes miss is that Hitler would have killed all of us, them for being black, us for being gay.

    High time we banned all religious schools, and remved the bishops from the House of ‘Lords’. Well overdue. Personally, I’d blanket ban all religions completely from all public places. Anyone who believes that trash needs their head squeezing and should be put on antipsychotic drugs.

  28. The hypocrisy of this is sickening. A black couple asking for an intervention to reverse equality laws :/

    1. Well Tim LaHaye, author of those ridiculous Left behind movies, DID! I would hope, even John , below, sees this as ridiculous. Lahaye was in Hawaii this Friday, and was ‘relieved’ when move to the top floor of the hotel. However, why is someone who has made megabucks out of the prophecies of Revelation, so scared about death?? Oh of course, most religious demagogues are in it for the money….

  29. I wonder how long it will take for some Christian fundie to claim the Japanese earthquake is God’s judgement on Japanese gays! Egg timers out, guys!

    1. I’m willing to bet that will happen before midnight in the UK

    2. Hi Rose, unfortunately that also crossed my mind, as soon as I heard the terrrible news about the earth quake in Japan

      1. I hope our thoughts and prayers are with the victims.

        1. well of course they are. But where are the thoughts and prayers of ‘Christians’ of that sort of mindset?

    3. It’s not God.. does that help ??

      1. Paddyswurds 11 Mar 2011, 11:47pm

        when you say god which one do you mean,LU.?? There were, at last count, over 2500 gods invented by man.

    4. Gay’s were let off from being blamed for the recent earth quake in Japan. Unfortunately, on Saturday a senior Christian pastor has blamed the Japanese people themselves for the quake.

      I know!!!. These Christians appear to lack basic human decency.

      Quotes from the article.

      “Senior pastor Cho Yong-gi of Yoido Full Gospel Church, the largest Christian church in the world, has faced vicious public condemnation as he called the catastrophic Japanese quakes and tsunamis “God’s warnings.”

      “I fear that this disaster may be warnings from God against the Japanese people’s atheism and materialism,” an online Christian press quoted the elderly religious leader as saying Saturday.”

  30. Let me tell you a story. I knew this kid. His name was Harry. He was raised by his single mum. He came out to her as gay when he was 12. She supported him wholeheartedly.
    Unfortunately, because she became mentally unstable, the authorities decided she wasn’t able to cope with looking after Harry. So he went into foster care.
    He got put with a Christian couple, just like this one. They, too, stood for “upstanding morals and traditional values”. They made Harry attend bible classes which, among other things, taught him that being gay was wrong. When the couple found out he himself was gay, they were shocked and dismayed. They blamed him for “straying from God’s path” and sent him to a Christian counsellor to try and “correct” him.
    Harry commited suicide soon after. He was 15.
    It is RIGHT that this couple and couples like them should not be allowed to have children in their home, because if that child turned out to be gay, they might end up the same way as Harry.

  31. Its all part of the christian right wing agenda, to reverse equality laws, abolish civil partnerships, keep the ban on civil marriage equality legal and stop gays from adopting. You can bet it has the overwhelming support of the majority of the religious cults in our country.

  32. Its all part of the christian right wing agenda, to reverse equality laws, abolish civil partnerships, keep the ban on civil marriage equality legal and stop gays from adopting. You can bet it has the overwhelming support of the majority of the religious cults in our country.

    Melanie Phillips et al must be having a field day.

  33. andrew howard-williams 11 Mar 2011, 6:52pm

    What People should think of is the rights of the child who is being fostered to know his or her options in sexuality.
    A foster parent should not be able to refuse advice from others about this and the child should not be forced into beliefs that they may at a future date wish to fight against.that includes sexuality and religion and racism.

  34. Let me tell you a story. A secondary school near to me expelled 3 boys for being gay and when there parents asked why, the school told them! None of them had come out to there parents, so subsequently 2 were kicked out of home and ended up begging on the streets of Bristol where they were found by a guy that put up youngsters in his own home. His house at one time had 15 youngsters there, all because the majority of foster homes/hostels were run by Christians.

    1. nice parents! Nice school!

    2. sounds typical .

  35. TheSuburban Bi 11 Mar 2011, 6:57pm

    Can the media (especially PinkNews) put a stop to the myth that these people were barred just because they hold traditional Christian views. The court documents (which are available online) clearly show that they held views about altering a person’s sexuality.

    When asked what they would do if a child in their care said they were gay, they said they would “try to turn them around” and similar statements. Attempting to change a child/teen’s sexual orientation would be abusive, that is why they were barred.

    Now, with that record clearly in the public eye, let them try to garner sympathy for their ‘plight’.

    1. thanks for this – a shame there is so much lazy reporting around!!!

      1. Yes, it should be used to educate all parents, not just those fostering, about the damage they do to their children by trying to change sexual orientation.

  36. I actually find this story quite encouraging. It shows how desperate and pathetic the bigoted anti-gay lobby has become.

    1. I agree, the persistent lobbying against equality and for special privileges for themselves to actively discriminate against a minority shows fundamentalist Christians like the Johns, the Christian Institute and The Christian Legal Centre as having lost their moral direction as well as the moral high ground.

      Ultimately they would like to create conditions in the UK similar to those that fundamentalist Christians have created in Uganda and Kenya where legislation reflects religious prejudice against gay men and lesbian women who are systematically and continually vilified by religious politicians, church pastors and the media creating a situation of anti-gay fear and panic.

      Stripped of their human rights and treated not like humans but like despised hunted animals living in fear for their lives, being driven from their families and homes by cruel taunting, anti-gay mob violence, “corrective” rape & the very real possibility of being arrested, imprisoned,executed or murdered.

  37. not so long ago the likes of samb, rose, rapture and spanner to name just few on here strongly argued about muslims being bigest threat to gays in this country to the point where they felt sorry for foster couple and now we can clearly see that it is christians and not muslim who will actively lobby mps for the right to discriminate against lgbt.

    1. I also pointed out in previous posts, that generally, the Christians don’t tend to interfere unless they themselves are dragged into an argument such as this, the B&B debacle or the gay marriages in Church.

      Personally, I do have an element of sympathy for them as a lot of this is the way people are brought up, and nobody is going to suddenly change their viewpoints 60 or so years on just because of a change in the law. These things take time and people will just have to either learn to accept the new ways, or stay out of the way.

      My concern with Muslims is they are *actively* seeking to change things not only religiously, but socially and politically, and are a far more insidious threat than a bunch of old Sunday school teachers and flower arrangers.

    2. “…..the Christians don’t tend to interfere unless they themselves are dragged into an argument ….”

      surely it must be new fenomen, surely history is not your forte. pls pull the other one

      1. I didn’t argue anything of the sort. I pointed out that muslims are a bloody nuisance to everyone else in this country through their racism, homophobia and selfish refusal to accept any values but their own narrow ones.

        Christians of a certain sort get on my t*ts, too.

        1. @rose: what you actually did was highlight your racism with your references to Asian men being out to get you!
          Interesting how you are able to differentiate between “Christians of a certain sort” yet quite happy to stereotype all Muslims as a result of your experiences with some Asian men!

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


            Actually it is you that is highlighting your racism.

            Being Muslim is a religion not a race.

            “your references to Asian men” as you say makes the calm all, also only Asian men are Muslims.

            Also you are the one pointing out Asian men so I’m afraid the racism buck stops clearly with you AliG!

          2. Jock S. Trap 12 Mar 2011, 12:23pm

            was mean to read makes the claim all,

          3. @jockstrap: are you too stupid to realise I was making reference to Rose’s previous statements! Seconly, I suggest you go through the blogs and see how criticising religious groups has been used as a feeble cover for racism.

          4. Jock S. Trap 12 Mar 2011, 1:57pm


            hmmm all defensive I see and personal too.

            I suggest your one of those people branding others for your own misguided feelings. It’s clear if anyone brings up a serious subject your one of those apologist who sees something in nothing, one of those who can’t debate so instead throws insults because you clearly have a problem understanding and grasping the idea of debate.

            So you want to throw names and brand me stupid well Again religion does not make a race and just because your too immature to understand it, debate doesn’t mean you have to throw in ‘racist’ at every point. It’s pathetic. Your sort do your best to stop rational debates but if fails, miserably.

            The majority of people here are not racist, there are a few sometimes, I mean you have already proved you are but stop judging. it does you no favours.

          5. Jock S. Trap 12 Mar 2011, 2:03pm

            Also AliG

            I think it’s safe to say that most people would totally agree with Rose rather than your whinging which actually offers nothing to the debate of which this story is about.

          6. @jockstrap: you don’t see racism as a personal insult? yet you call me racist for pointing out someone elses blatant racism. Clearly you are too stupid to understand what I have written and if you think racism forms a part of rational debate its you who should go join the BNP!

          7. Jock S. Trap 12 Mar 2011, 2:31pm

            Are you done? Yawn!

          8. i agree to an extent with aliG, It is silly to view muslims as a bigger threat to gay righst in this country than christian evangelicals.
            There are far more evangelical xians in this country, and they also tend to be riched and have a wider audience via the mail?telegraph.
            Can anyone name a national newspaper that gives extremeist muslims the same voice?
            Can anyone name an MP who is financially bought by extremeist muslims in the same way evangelicals own Tory Mp’s such as mark pritchard,Dorries, Leigh etc.
            No you cant.
            So while i agree muslim homophobia needs to be challenged, lets not blow it out of proportion so we start worrying about muslims under the bed, in a mcarthyite manner.

    3. Id say that their about equal.

  38. Robert (Kettering) 11 Mar 2011, 7:58pm

    I’d like “Political Intervention” so I can practice my own nasty prejudice against black people. Why shouldn’t I be able to put up a sign in my window saying “Blacks Keep Out”? After all, the Bible says I can keep slaves doesn’t it so why are the decendants of slaves able to walk about freely?

    Well of course the above obnoxious and racist statement was just an illustration of the kind of mindset and logic beiing advanced by the Johns.
    Sorry to tell you Eunice and Owen, prejudice is prejudice and rightly so is illegal in the UK whether you are black, white or Gay and no words in an old book can justify it any more than I can justify slavery. For god’s sake, I thought you two would have understood this if nobody does?!

    1. Exactly someone who does not agree with being gay is as ignorant as someone who does not agree with being black. Neither being black nor being gay is a moral issue both are just facts of nature and of life.
      Though some anti-gay bigots like to claim that people with a gay sexual orientation choose to be gay, it’s for the anti-gay bigots themselves to explain their mistaken belief that gayness is a choice when all legitimate medical and scientific evidence disagrees with them.

    2. de Villiers 11 Mar 2011, 9:50pm

      I think their (misguided) position is that they are against behaviour rather than status.

      1. Yes, black behaviour should always be discouraged, why can’t black people behave as whites like everyone else?

        1. How dare gay people act gay! they should act straight.

          1. de Villiers 11 Mar 2011, 10:45pm

            Really – there is a serious point. It is that we have to formulate arguments to explain why discrimination based upon active behaviour is as unacceptable as discrimination against passively inherited genus.

          2. De Villiers – fir the sane reason that mixed marriages (a firm of black ‘behaviour’, if you like) should be permitted: because it is ethically neutral. Tha arguments that homosexual acts are immoral rest on faulty propositions and/or logical fallacies.

    3. de Villiers, as Shakespeare’s Polonius advises:

      “This above all: to thine own self be true,
      And it must follow, as the night the day,
      Thou canst not then be false to any man.
      Farewell, my blessing season this in thee!”

      1. de Villiers 12 Mar 2011, 10:23am

        I agree with the seniments, even if Polonius was talking about lending money, was wrong in all of his judgments in the play and ended up being killed.

        1. It comes to something when a Frenchman has to correct an Englishman quoting Shakespeare. :)

        2. Well de Villiers, Polonius was not only giving advice about money, though that was clearly part of it.
          It seems to me Polonius is advising Laertes in all his dealings with others whether they are strangers, friends or just casual acquaintances, to be guarded in his speech and to avoid argument but once engaged in an argument to give a good account of his own views and opinions, advice about where and in whom he should place his trust as well as advice about borrowing and lending money…in all his dealings with others (those listed here not exhaustive) Polonius advises Laertes. “to thine own self be true”… don’t you think?

          1. Excuse the mystery 8220 in last post, I wonder how that got there? think I hit a key by mistake.

          2. de Villiers 14 Mar 2011, 8:39am

            You’re probably right. I’ve read Shakespeare only in French. The old English is too difficult to understand.

            But the aversion is, I think, to behaviour. Specifically, people cannot detach themselves from what they consider is the depravity of the sexual activity.

            There is no natural activity where one is black or disabled or of a religious minority.

  39. Leslie Evans 11 Mar 2011, 8:57pm

    It is bigoted christians like these that give Jesus a bad rap. And they think pagans are…well, pagan!

    1. I agree, most Christian rap songs aren’t that good.

  40. My view is that they can ***k off! Who’s behind them and their insidious campaign?

  41. Maggie Jeffries 11 Mar 2011, 10:13pm

    I wonder how dear Eunice and Owen would feel if a group demanded that their MP repeal the laws on slavery?

    Interesting how these people always blame the ‘Human Rights Act’, when and where it suits, but fail to see the very real and obvious dangers in doing this.

  42. Paddyswurds 11 Mar 2011, 10:27pm

    So now the xtian fantasists want the laws of the land changed to suit their bigotry. Not going to happen Mrs. If this couple of undemocratic bigots dont like the laws of the United Kingdom, they should feck off back to the Carribean where they came from and see how they get on there.

    1. Uganda would suit them well, Uganda has been covenanted to Jesus Christ resulting in the creation of holocaust conditions for gay men and lesbian women there.

    2. Oh by the way, the UK also belongs to Jesus Christ, as well.

      And His name is above all names, and _all_ will bow the knee before Him.

      Just thought you’d like to know.

      God bless.

      1. Do you also have ambitions to criminalise gay men and lesbian women in the UK then LU?

      2. Paddyswurds 11 Mar 2011, 11:54pm

        how old is this LU… reading that last post it struck m me as to how utterly childish it sounded particularly the god bless bit……

        1. Jock S. Trap 12 Mar 2011, 11:09am

          84 I think!

      3. Well, it depends; if you put the names in alphabetical order Jesus’ isn’t likely to be at the top.

      4. @LU

        You sound like an Evangelical Fundamentalist Christian Crackpot ROBOT.

        1. @LU

          Nothing new there then!!!

      5. Jock S. Trap 12 Mar 2011, 11:08am


        Thats is a personal choice not a human right.

  43. I don’t think I’m the only one , gay or straight, sick of these whinging so called “Christians”…If they really had a case then they’d go to the European courts just like gays have to do when they’re faced with dicriminatory national laws…

    Anyway when is some gay organisation going to set up a similar type of petition as these guys asking for marriage equality…I’m sure we could get a lot more sginatures than this ridiculous one set up by the CLC…..

  44. I feel people such as these, well intentioned though they may be, by the lights of their own belief system, should be careful what they wish for. If we are to allow religious views to trump civil law, they must remember that theirs is not the only religion, and there are many which they would find unpalatable.

    1. I feel people like this should actually study what the judge said more carefully not only in this case but others like it and get a life!

      points 21 onwards!

      1. Thank you for directing me to the decision. It was indeed interesting reading.

    2. of course some bible readers could also apply the “curse of ham” theory to them but the UK govt doesn’t!!

  45. Would this couple like it if white couples, who planned to teach their children that black people were inferior, were allowed to adopt?

    1. Hit the nail on the head there. Obviously they wouldn’t. They’re hypocrites through and through. The holy book of crap is just a work of fiction with sneaky Fascist undertones. Give religious psychos like these an inch and they’d start burning us all at the stake again.

  46. The British version of Maggie Gallagher is on the making:

    1. Paddyswurds 12 Mar 2011, 8:17am

      There is clearly a case to be made against this bigoted organisations video under the incitement to hatred laws. The numerous, indeed the entire video is totally disingenous and make numerous incorrect and sweeping statements intended to whip up hatred of gay people and indeed the Judiciary and laws of the United KIngdom. I for one will be making a complaint about this video tyo the Police and i would ask all right minded people to do the same. This pair of undemocratic religious bigots should have their Visa revoked forthwith and be returned to Jamaica immediatelt. There the can practice their bigoted fantasy faith til their hearts content.

    2. man that f”ed me off. Gigantic cnut! Thats just an incitement to hate gays.

      This whole case has driven me to take some direct action, ive contacted my local pentacostal church and asked whether they would hold a debate on whether homosexual rights trump christian rights.
      I would urge others to do the same, go into the belly of the beast and all that.

      THey have agreed, we are now just setting a date. Anyone near dagenham ill post the date at a later point and please come along.

      1. when i say “i” I mean the local humanist association. But I am the debater

    3. Jock S. Trap 12 Mar 2011, 3:18pm

      My, My don’t they like playing the victim!

    4. When Maggie Gallagher says in the video

      “Moral views cannot be separated from their Christian beliefs”

      This is an acceptable way of hiding the real issue which is that, fundamentalist evangelical Christianity has become synonymous with anti-gay and homophobic beliefs.

      Once again it is important to remind these people that, Christianity is a Life style choice; and not right

  47. Ironic, isn’t it, how fifty years ago these two could have been lynched by God-fearing Christians? How soon the downtrodden becomes the oppressor.

    1. I would look to yourself on that one; considering homosexuality was legalised 44 years ago.
      Some people think LGBT people wield way too much power already.

      1. Power in what way? Asking for not-quite-an-equal society to be equal is too vocal a voice for you?

  48. Due to their increasing activism within the anti-gay community, Eunice and Owen must be big celebs at the pentecostal church where they attend services twice on Sundays.

    Presumably any child they were hoping to foster on weekends would have had to attend church along with them. I’ve heard the church services last for hours too.

  49. Proud Gay Canadian 12 Mar 2011, 11:37am

    I am so grateful that our politicians did listen to Canada`s population and not to religious zealots in passing equality legislation for gay. Gays and lesbians are free to marry here in Canada, in full respect !!!

    1. Jock S. Trap 12 Mar 2011, 11:53am

      Yep and my hat goes off to ya!

      I think this is why in the UK we are getting Religious Civil Partnerships while the consultation goes out on Equal marriage. To show these nutters the world doesn’t end because of it.

      1. Bollocks. We are getting CPs because unlike Canada, the spineless politicians in this country are too scared to face the church full-on, and cop-out with a feeble compromise.

    2. gays and lesbians are also free to club seals too. Canada aint that great and dont get me started on the tar sands

  50. Evil comes from a lack of understanding, The evil ignorance of Eunice and Owen Johns is like a dark shadow, it has no real substance of it’s own, it is simply a lack of light.
    You cannot cause a shadow to disappear by trying to fight it, there is only one thing to do to overcome the dark evil of ignorance and that is to shine light on it and show it up for what it is.

  51. Christians pray for equality in the lords prayer: And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. this basically means to forgive, so if they cant forgive us for being gay, they break the lords prayer.

    1. There is no reason to ‘forgive’ individuals for being Gay, Dan. We have not sinned……….
      The problem is when individuals or groups use religion for their own misguided and prejudiced interpretation of what is right and what is wrong. And I deliberately refer to the term ‘use’. I am a Christian and wholly believe that God loves me as I am and is sick to death of the bigots who constantly deride his creation.

      1. hi eddie. im not saying we’ve sinned, i mean that christians believe we have. iv’e lost friends who are christians because of who i am as they say i sinned.

        1. Jock S. Trap 13 Mar 2011, 9:01am

          Then they are not friends.

        2. Hi Dan

          If those people you mentioned who rejected you, could not accept your sexuality; then they were not your freind in the first place

  52. The best bit is that they’re black. Hypocrisy is so sweet.

  53. Regarding Owen Johns stated intention that he would try to turn a gay child, perhaps he should read this:
    Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Position Statement on Sexual Orientation.

    1. Hi Pavlos

      Well done for thinking that link.

      1. Typo previous

        Hi Pavlos

        Well done for finding that link.

  54. Also the APA (American Psychiatric Association) have a position statement on sexual orientation and homosexuality the Johns would do well to read and take note of (although we know they wouldn’t dare do anything as reasonable and intelligent as that)

  55. Actually, Spanner…if it was spinelessness that robbed us of full marriage equality, lay that at the feet of Tony Blair in collusion with StonewallUK, both of whom said…”no, we didn’t want to go that way”… meaning they didn’t want a confrontation with the state cult. StonewallUK apparently conceded that it was either CPs or nothing. Though I’m no Tory, a Green in fact, at least Cameron is going to have a consultation on full civil marriage equality for gay couples and CP equality for straight couples. A very positive step forward in the right direction and quite frankly, I think we ill get there.

    Don’t forget, Canada started out with Civil Unions long before we did then upgraded to full civil marriage equality for gays. This is the way it will happen in our own country as it has in six others in the EU, plus Iceland.

  56. Typographical error in my last post. I mean to have said, “we will get there”. My apologies.

  57. KatieMUrphy 12 Mar 2011, 8:01pm

    Tatgoo GAY on their forheadss and ship them to Uganda. Problem solved.

    Places like Saudi would be fine also, but be sure to include a box of christian fairy tale books called the bible.

    As for the catholic church, go to **** – a pciture is worth about 1 million people murdered in WWII. there are about 50 pix there.

    ***** replace the 5 letter group before ” .htm” with the same letters in reverse.

    This gets around the machine sensor.

  58. I wonder will they have the support of gay homophobe david starkey, oh wait they already do from his admission on question time. traitor!

    1. It’s usually people like that that turn out to be closet cases.

      1. Yes, but Starkey is an out gay man,
        it’s a pity he is so self-hating that he feels he must kiss up to the homophobes and give them encouragement. He may be some kind of a genius historian but beyond his field of speciality Starkey seems to be a bit of an idiot.

        1. Paddyswurds 13 Mar 2011, 11:37am

          @ Pavlos….”…..he may be some kind of genius historian” Exactly, and this is a bugbear of mine of late. Nowadays we have these experts on a particular subject but narrowly so. They are so engrossed and have been so engrossed in their chosen subject, that as far as general knowledge goes they are bordering on idiots and this numbskull is a prime example. He needs to get out of the dusty corridors of research and experience the real world. His idiotic pronouncements on this subject on QT this week was a prime example. He made IDS look like a “left wing commie pinko” to borrow a quote from our Yankee cousins. Even looney caravan woman Maggie Beckett disagreed with him.

          1. It is so easy to jump on the band wagon to pillory anyone who disagrees with us. While I disagree with David Starkey, I think it is important to remember that he was out at a time when it was still illegal in this country to be gay and its thanks to people like him that we have rights. Is it that difficult to understand that someone from a different generation or a different life experience would have a different point of view?

          2. Paddyswurds 13 Mar 2011, 2:06pm

  ….more generalisations. I was out in the UK when it was illegal to be gay and i didn’t see David Starkey in any of the london gay pubs or Clubs i frequented and he certainly wasn’t evident in any of the Stonewall protests i went on As i said he was probably stuck in a dusty history book about Henry the 8th in the dark libraries of Oxbridge at the time. Do’nt make assumptions you clearly are not old enough to justify. I, by the way am from a middle class irish rc background and i find it abhorrent that an out gay man could possible have the view he espoused on Question Time. Unless that is, he is a self loathing homophobe, as it would seem you tend toward.!!!

          3. Paddyswurds 13 Mar 2011, 2:08pm

            @ Paddyswurds…please excuse the typos…. anger makes me careless….unfortunately….

          4. paddysword, its clear you are not only jumping on the band wagon, you are the one making generalisations. Since when does having (ie david starkey) or respecting a different point of view (ie me!) make someone self loathing? So I suggest you calm down and remind yourself that we live in a democracy where everyone is entitled to their views!

          5. Paddyswurds 13 Mar 2011, 2:18pm

            @ queer,com…how very predictable of you… did you read anything i wrote….i don’t think so.7

          6. Paddyswurds 13 Mar 2011, 2:28pm

   …plus your second comment completely contradicts your first. If Starky was as active and out when you say he was, what happened in the interveneing years to make him side with the vile Johns. Also, he or indeed you seem to not have read the judgement in its entirety. i suggest you do . Oh and please don’t accuse me of jumping on any bandwagon. I have my own clearly defined opinions and if they agree with other gay opinions of like mind that is not a band wagon. I suggest you go away and grow up before making idiotic comment.

          7. should remember that being entitled to free speech does not mean people should have opinions protected from investigation, interrogation, ridicule or contempt if they are irrational, lacking evidence, illogical, unreasonable, or worse.

          8. you clearly have nothing to add other than insult…. I guess that means you still haven’t calmed down.

          9. Paddyswurds 13 Mar 2011, 4:47pm

  …..What exactly have you contributed to the debate other than contradicting yourself. As i said before go away and grow up and leave the debate to those who can..I have serious doubts as to whether you can even spell the word.

          10. Paddyswurds 13 Mar 2011, 7:36pm

  …….further to my point that you didn’t bother reading posts completely….i just noticed that you can’t even get my tag name right….it’s Paddyswurds, not paddysword.

        2. de Villiers 14 Mar 2011, 8:40am

          He’s not self hating. I think its more contrariness. I heard him say he wanted to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

          1. Maybe. He has the social skills of an incontinent skunk.

  59. You know, some time ago black people were treated as second-class citizens but whites. They stood up and rightly did something about it.

    Now they are almost imposing the same loony man-made prejudices towards gays that were imposed on them, in a repeat of history. I guess they forgot what it was like to be told you were a second-class citizen with no soul, rights or values.

    Religion has dominated and cowed people for years and it’s about time we stood up and fought back against this fictional nonsense that plagues our lives.

  60. I just wish these so called “christians” would give it a rest and concede defeat….the UK equality act is proabably based on EU law/directives anyway so I can’t see the govt ever wanting to change them much anyway otherwise they’d probably be forced to change them back again by the EU…the UK isn’t losing any cases in Europe at the moment on discrimination grounds so why get into that position of losing??. At the moment these so callec Christian know perfectly well the UK is doing everything legally, they have no chance here or in Europe and the govt would be absolutely mad to change that position…

    1. Paddyswurds 13 Mar 2011, 4:55pm

      @ john… it has always been the way of bad losers to whinge on at lenght about how hard done by they are….. What they should be doing in fact is preparing for their next defeat. Mr Diamond et al is making a fortune from these fools by egging them on to their next case, much as in the way he fooled this pair of illiterates and the fools at CLC which is paying for all this idiocy.

  61. Christian Concern for Our Nation. I might have guessed.

  62. This is the face of Christians who hate and they should not be given children. The police need to remove the children who were molested Cathoic Priest from Catholic families and put in protective care.

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.