Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Archbishop of York compares David Cameron to a dictator over his support of gay marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Jason Brown 29 Jan 2012, 11:57am

    “I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is.”
    Well it sure as hell shouldn’t be the role of Christianity, people from every faith are allowed to get married.
    I’m sick of religion trying to highjack morality and the law for their own purposes.

    1. He does understand, doesn’t he, that this is the same Church of England that was “created” because Henry VIII decided he couldn’t accept the pope’s refusal to recognize his “marriage” to his mistress? Or did the good bishop flunk history?

    2. How rich when I see a black man who’s people not too long ago were slaves in chains and sold around the world by wealthy Christians as slaves makes a stupid statement that show how foolish he is when his own people are still being used as slaves today and he finds fault with giving freedom to gays who love each other and want to get married. Proof Christians have lost their minds. Not to mention how the oppression of black gay people is a major reason for the millions of deaths of all black people around the world. Now that is beyond stupid.

  2. I’m sick of religious bullies like him trying to invalidate gay relationships.

    The government has the absolute right to define marriage as the electorate asks it to.

    I believe that no church should have the right to grant legally binding marriage to any couple, regardless of sexual orientation. Let state employed registrars perform marriages and churches can bless and pray for them as they please.

    1. I would go further

      The government has the absolute duty to define marriage as the electorate ask it to and equality commitments demand.

      1. de Villiers 29 Jan 2012, 6:50pm

        Those two may not be the same – and in any event the demand of the electorate is not conclusive as otherwise that could lead to unfortunate legislation such as the reintroduction of the death penalty. The argument for equality is the stronger.

        1. gamerunknown 3 Feb 2012, 9:54am

          We’re typically told that the population isn’t to be trusted because they vote against their own interests (and in the case of AV, that’s likely true). However, the death penalty issue is probably overstated by the media, which as a whole probably have an interest in making us distrust democracy and listen to their opinion pieces instead. If one goes to epetitions, one will find that more people want to keep a ban on the death penalty than support it.

          It’s true that some rights should be guaranteed, but the best method of doing so is by writing a Constitution that a large majority agree to and that requires a large majority to amend. That way rights will not be abridged even if a simple majority support abridging them. If the large majority of people support a reduction in rights, chances are that reduction will happen even if it is prohibited de jure.

      2. John Antrobus 29 Jan 2012, 7:55pm

        Rubbish. Only 33% want marriage to remain as it currently is.

      3. In a survey this week 71% of respondents favoured same sex marriage being legalised …

        Maths has never been my strong point – but I always thought that over 50% was a majority … which would suggest in this case, that a majoirty of people support same sex marriage …

        Or, to put it another way – a majority of people believe in fairness over dogma

        1. May I ask for a link to the survey please Stu. It’s the highest figure I have seen!

          1. I shall dig it out for you when I get home later …

          2. Cheers

          3. @Harry ….

            Have asked my friend to email it back to me as it was in an email I was sent as I had deleted it sorry … will post it as soon as I find it.

          4. @Harry

            Firstly, apologies for taking a while to get back to you …

            Secondly, the survey I was thinking of related to the USA not UK (but I include a link to it below). However, if the USA has figures of 71% supporting equal civil marriage (and these were two separate surveys one where 71% of white Marylanders supported equal marriage and one with 71% of Catholics(!) supporting equal marriage):

            I also found another couple of recent surveys which I have a link to below which I found interesting …

            http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/catholicism/most-catholics-support-same-sex-marriage-church-though

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/half-of-maryland-residents-back-legalizing-same-sex-marriage/2012/01/30/gIQAGeJ6cQ_print.html

            http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-26/college-freshmen-are-more-liberal-on-gay-marriage-abortion.html

    2. Staircase2 30 Jan 2012, 1:48am

      But (unless Im wrong) thats what currently happens now too – thats why you have a Registrar even in Church Weddings – they are acting as State Officials – albeit that they are acting in that role WITHIN the Church…

      ‘Marriage’ is a social recognition of a relationship/partnership which already exists by the act of the two people saying thats what they choose to be…

      1. @Staircase2

        You are right …

        Although, all CofE vicars and some ministers of other deminations/religions are allowed to act as registrar in their own right and do not require the attendance of a state registrant to ensure the marriage is legal …

    3. Singapore Sam 1 Feb 2012, 5:13pm

      I see it as a matter of human rights, not what the electorate does or doesn’t want. Human Rights should never depend on a popular vote, or there would hardly ever be any progress.

  3. Well, my first reaction was unprintable without lots of ****.

    Who is the dictator?

    The man who states categorically “Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman” and denies the right to all others.

    Or the man who says “Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment….. society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other”

    Personally I’m not a fan of Cameron, but he’s the least dictatorial there.

  4. There used to be lots of things set in tradition and history that followers of the non-existant Joshua of Judaea used to do, such as burning of heritics, murder and enslavement of indigenous peoples, the list of horrors is rather long isn’t it. So we now have more of let’s defend the indefensible from another cult follower. His significance? Nothing. The world changes get over it.

    1. And so does religion. In modern times in civilised western Churches, can you honestly say that Christians burn heretics or enslave people? Also, anyone is capable of murder, so you can’t give murder performed by a church member significance just because they’re a person of faith.

      The views being publisized are those who are not really Christian. They are looking at the wrong parts of the Bible, and they are forgetting the true message the Bible is trying to convey: Love thy neighbour as you love thyself. The teachings of Jesus are ones of equality, understanding and tolerance. Any “Christian” who doesn’t follow those teachings isn’t really a Christian at all. We need to remember this when people such as the Archbishop of York make the comments they do.

      1. The main motivation behind homophobia is religion. Homophobia has become murder in action, many times. People of faith? That’s a cute way of saying followers of cults of various degrees of unreason. As for the so called teachings of “Jesus” I could replace that with the “teachings” of Walt Disney both are equally fantastical. Dr. John Sentamu and his ilk need to understand fully, we are not going to be bullied by him or his “people of faith” we demand equality and nothing less will satisfy.

        1. No Mark, religion does not change. Society changes and it demands religion to rein itself in. After the enlightenment Western societies became secular. At least socially. It pushed religion to the boundaries where it could no longer harm anyone.

          Tell me. Has the dogma and tenets of Christianity changed?

          Of course not. Society has.

          And all these changes took place despite of Christianity and not because of it.

        2. de Villiers 29 Jan 2012, 6:51pm

          Not always – homophobia was very strong under the fascists in Germany, atheist Russia, China, Cuba and North Korea.

          1. In no less a way it was all about the state imposing conformity. The churches impose conformity, and when the church and the state are bound together the rule of conformity is a blend of the two determinants. You cite Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea the most authoritarian regimes possible, in no less a way when the christian church had sway they were the same. The same goes for Islamic countries too.

          2. de Villiers 30 Jan 2012, 4:47pm

            Yes – it goes to show that religion is not at the root of homophobia but may be misused as a symptom of control – which is an enemy of liberty in many situations where religion is not present and which in some instances religion seeks to curb.

          3. So, it’s fair to say that fear and loathing of homosexuals is a common response to homosexuality among people heavily indoctrinated into conservative sexual morality, religious or not.

          4. de Villiers 31 Jan 2012, 9:01am

            Not always but the underlying premise that, historically, a conservative attitude to sexuality would disapprove of homosexuality. It would seem inherent in the nature of social conservatism of the past. However, conservatism is a cautious but pragmatic philosophy. It resists the tide for so long, is then defeated and then defends with equal strength that which it previously resisted.

  5. Keith Farrell 29 Jan 2012, 12:04pm

    yes, I agree with Jason, I am tired of the church trying to rule everyone’s life, when they are guilty of so many crimes against humanity themselves. just how many wars and murders have been commited in the name of religion. I wish the churches would stop trying to quote the bible to us,very many times they quote things out of context and the never take what Christ said to heart. They preach hate, hurt and discrimanation but the bible teaches love, forgiveness, and equal teatment

    1. At least you’re remembering the key teachings of Jesus, the ones that Christians should follow.

      We have to remember though, they are the teachings that most Christians do actually follow, but the ones in the higher places in the Church (who are usually of an older generation) have a twisted view of the Bible. They are a minority of hypocrites, and we must make sure that we don’t let them tarnish the kind-hearted, tolerant Church which comprises of the majority of church-goers.

    2. Rubbish. The overwhelming majority of the Christian religions are virulently anti-gay; and frankly anyone stupid enough top believe in virgin births and dead people coming to life again.. do you seriously expect the rational human beings in this country to respect you?

      Setanmu speaks for a clear majority of the practising Christians in this country – there are polls to prove it.

      1. de Villiers 29 Jan 2012, 6:52pm

        The virgin birth and resurrection are poetic and metaphorical – not to be taken literally.

        1. John Antrobus 29 Jan 2012, 8:03pm

          So Jesus isn’t risen, then?

        2. Very surprised to hear you say that, de Villiers. I’m equally curious to know which theologian you are reading.

          Of course, I agree.

        3. I do not think your sect leader, Benedict, would agree.

        4. de Villiers 31 Jan 2012, 9:17am

          The resurrection is not to be taken literally. Christians did not believe that Jesus walked out of his crypt. It was that one would know Jesus no longer as flesh but in ritual and scripture.

          When Paul described Jesus as the son of god, he was not conferring a divine status. It was a description of a man elevated to special communion with God. Until recent times, all kings and princes and priests were described as sons of God or his anointed (le roi te touche, le Dieu te guerrit). Jesus described god as being his father but said that he was the father of all his disciples.

          Similarly with the virgin birth which is only in Matthew and Luke. Mark wrote of Joseph being Jesus’ father. These are stories not of fact but poetry showing how each writer interpreted Jesus’ story and earthly mission. In the same way that Kings of Israel were said to be adopted by God on their anointing, Mark too wrote that Jesus was adopted on his baptism. He was God’s son as ‘the beloved who enjoys my favour.’

          1. de Villiers 31 Jan 2012, 1:26pm

            – Le roi te touche, Dieu te guérit.

            I hit the wrong buttons on the iPad, which then tried to change the spelling..

  6. Pink News: “In 2009, Dr Sentamu did speak out against plans to introduce the death penalty for some gay sex acts in his native Uganda.”

    I have the impression that the Archbishop is more concerned to stop same sex marriage than he was to stop people being executed.

    Video of Archbishop of York’s comments: http://goo.gl/rtYJg

  7. GingerlyColors 29 Jan 2012, 12:10pm

    First off, I pay my taxes to the government, not the church, and secondly I did vote for David Cameron in the last election. If a democratically elected Prime Minister is a dictator, then what does that make the rulers in Africa?
    I call upon Dr. Sentamu to stop cherry-picking which parts of the Bible he wishes to preach in order to discriminate against certain sections of society. For a start the only people like him in this country before the 1807 Manumission Acts were slaves, something justified by the Bible. And I suggest that he gets laser eye surgury and grows a beard if he wants to continue in his job as Archbishop. The book of Leviticus prohibits people with a visual defect from approaching the altar of God and also bans shaving. I have astigmatism so therefore I cannot be a priest!
    Many people have come here from Africa to escape the repressive laws and poverty and we have made them welcome over the years. Please Archbishop, don’t bring your Ugandan values here.

    1. @GingerlyColors: “…I did vote for David Cameron in the last election.”

      Oh. Well done. *facel palm*

      1. GingerlyColors 29 Jan 2012, 12:47pm

        After the way that Labour put my career on the line in the way they opened up my work to competitors and tilted the playing field in their favour I will never vote for them. I also feel for the traditional Labour voters who were betrayed in that manner.
        Facel Palm, is that another anagram?

        1. gamerunknown 3 Feb 2012, 10:08am

          Well, that’s a reasonable stance, though employment and wages increased for the majority under Labour (and the unemployed were not treated as second class citizens as far as I can tell). If the decisive factor in the election was which party would make one’s job more precarious (and life more miserable if one lost it, or even more miserable if one kept it in terms of pension cuts), then it would have come down to a Labour victory.

          Then there’s the other issue of having a track record of opposition to homosexuality and appointing an equalities minister that unapologetically voted against repealing section 28. Not to mention the Conservative subsidy for married couples (and civil partnerships, to be fair). Then again, there are some old vanguards in the Labour party too, like Ann Widdecombe.

    2. You say “for a start the only people like him in this country before the 1807 Manumission Acts were slaves, something justified by the Bible.” I assume by “people like him” you mean coloured people, or perhaps specifically black people. If so, this is simply not true.

      Slavery was never technically legal in England and Wales, and a test case in 1772 (Rex v Knowles, ex parte Somersett) made this unambiguous. Before that date, slaves did exist in England, though unlike the situation in the Colonies they were never all that common. Nor is it the case that all black people in England were slaves. Equiano (or Gustavus the African as he was often known) is an example of a native of Benin who lived freely in England.

      The Slave Trade Act of 1807 effectively abolished the international slave trade, though even that did not outlaw slavery in the Colonies. That did not occur until the Slavery Abolition Act (1833).

      1. GingerlyColors 29 Jan 2012, 6:57pm

        I believe that Britain was used as a transit point for the slave trade prior to 1807 and following the Manumission Acts which prohibited the slave trade in this country slavery continued in the colonies for some years afterwards. While slavery was not practiced in this country, Britain was still guilty of allowing it to happen in it’s colonies. A token number of non-white people have lived in this country for many years before the arrival of the Empire Windrush and the mass immigration of the 1950′s and 1960′s as the Empire was disolved. For example we have had Muslims living here since the last Queen Elizabeth was on the throne.
        In the USA the importation of people for slavery was banned a number of years before the abolition of slavery in 1865.

        1. Britain was never a significant transit point for slaves because it was never economical for it to be. Most of the slaves in the Atlantic slave trade came from Equatorial Africa, and most were destined for the sugar, cotton and tobacco plantations of the Caribbean and (what is now) the southern US. Taking them via Europe would have doubled the distance travelled and for no good commercial reason.

          Certainly it was mostly British companies and British ships that were responsible for the trade, and it is was principally Britain that got rich on the back of it, but there was no need for the slaves to ever enter the country.

          1. Bristol docks …. slave trade centre …

    3. Cameron wasn’t voted in, in a democratic election… he didn’t get a majority vote.

      1. GingerlyColors 31 Jan 2012, 6:28am

        In a way I have got to agree with you here. Thanks to our ‘first past the post’ electoral system when was the last time a Prime Minister came to power having had more than 50% of the vote? In England, the Lib-Dems are a major third party while Scotland and Wales have their nationalist parties as well. Northern Ireland has it own parties split along sectarian rather than economic lines. The question is which is the most democratic way to elect Parliament? Last year the Alternative Vote was rejected in a referendum. In the European Parlimentary elections you have one vote and it is for a party rather than a candidate and it is called the regional list. In some ways it is more democratic but it has allowed the BNP to send two MEPs to Brussels.
        Israel uses a similar system but on a nationwide scale. This has led to ultra-orthodox Jewish parties getting elected to the Knesset and the major parties often end up having to to a deal with them in order to form a government.

    4. GingerlyColors 31 Jan 2012, 6:31am

      Thanx readers for the 21 thumbs ups. This is my best score so far, following my worst score about the Rabbi which caused a bit of a faux pax.

  8. Imagine that….he’s from Uganda. Uganda needs ALLof it’s aid cut off. Period. There is no compromise.

    1. Cutting aid will not help the situation in Uganda.

      All it will do is punish very ordinary people further. Even GLBT people.

      Money should be donated to the LGBT movements already operating in Uganda whilst keeping aid flowing.

      1. de Villiers 29 Jan 2012, 7:23pm

        How can someone negatively mark a suggestion that aid be given to LGBT groups?

  9. I for one am glad people like him say these things, just shows how dumb and irrational the other side is and why people should support equal marriage rights .

    1. Does he understand that his church was “created” by Henry VIII because he wanted to marry his mistress? Isn’t this an historic redefinition of marriage? He also fails (deliberately) to make the distinction between civil marriage and religiously sanctioned marriages. Or would the bishop like to outlaw marriages between atheists as well?

  10. Please, I don’t know how informed I am on the situation, but i’m pretty sure that civil marriage has no religious elements to it, and therefore has no impact on the church. If Cameron was trying to force gay marriages to be something that must be carried out in a religious environment, I could see his reservations, but Civil marriage is not.

    1. Even if the church will soon allow gay couples to marry in their religious premises, still I will never be interested to get married there. I never enjoyed weddings done at church.

      1. GingerlyColors 29 Jan 2012, 12:43pm

        I prefer weddings in a pub myself.

        1. I prefer funerals myself. The food’s better…..

      2. John Antrobus 29 Jan 2012, 8:12pm

        So what, Jaybur? Just because you don’t want it doesn’t mean others don’t want it as well.

      3. John Antrobus 29 Jan 2012, 8:12pm

        So what, Jaybur? Just because you don’t want it doesn’t mean others don’t want it.

    2. You are entirely correct legally, Lee. It’s the *&%$£ Christians interfering in a matter which is none of their business – as per usual

  11. Separation of church and government, please. The Xtian church has no right and never in the position to dictate whose atheists, buddhists, hindus, pagans gonna marry.

    1. de Villiers 29 Jan 2012, 7:31pm

      We have a separation of the church in France, which has only secular marriage. It has not led to gay marriage.

      1. @de Villiers

        The argument for seperation of church and state is not because of or linked to same sex marriage …

        Same sex marriage should happen (whether the church wants it or not)

        The state should not be influenced by any religion or appear to be influence … situations such as the Lords Spirutual are an anaethema to natural democracy

      2. Father Ted 1 Feb 2012, 5:17pm

        Maybe it just thinks it has separation but is still run by the Catholic Church.

  12. There are really two types of unions: legal marriage and religious marriage. One by the state and one by churches (which have various rules depending on the specific church). Neither side should have a say over the other. I didn’t (nor had any interest to) get married in a church. I also had no interest in forcing any church to accept/perform my marriage, just like many of my str8 friends. But my marriage is legal in Canada. That’s really all that people are want – the same treatment as str8 couples.

  13. I really wish this person would f&@k off back to Uganda. I mean that not in a racist BNP way, just in a “gay” way.

    I listened to him talk about how he graciously passed the civil partnership bill in the (unelected) house of lords, like he was some kind of gay rights hero and wanted to stab myself with a fork. (Note I didn’t want to stab him, so he needn’t fear for his life)

    The logical conclusion to his argument, that marriage is for the religious, would mean that atheists too, should be relegated to the CP league.

    I have to admit I stopped watching him speak after a minute or so, because of the overwhelming urge I felt to self harm, but I did think his, homosexuals should be happy with the civil partnerships we have graciously allowed them to have, was a little similar to white racists asking what is wrong with the back of the bus.

    1. John Antrobus 29 Jan 2012, 8:14pm

      More than a little similar, it’s exactly the same principle.

    2. Wish he never got out of uganda to begin with.

  14. Snaggle-toothed halfwit.

  15. I will be very harsh now- maybe archbishop have to look at the slavery support part and bloodshed in the Bible before condemning love between people.

  16. I tell you who’s the dictator, that big sky fairy who will send over 4 billion souls to hell for simply not believing the exact same things as Mr Sentamu! That’s right Arch Bish, about 2/3 of the world’s population aren’t even Christian and your Bible says they’re going to hell! Excuse me, but your God is worse than Adolf Hitler, another nut job who sent innocent people to their deaths for simply not holding the same beliefs.

    Honest to Buddha, these fundamentalists have no clue…I shudder at their lack of intellectual skills!

    1. de Villiers 29 Jan 2012, 7:33pm

      That’s not going to get people on side

      1. John Antrobus 29 Jan 2012, 8:17pm

        It works for me.

        1. de Villiers 30 Jan 2012, 4:50pm

          You’re already converted – it doesn’t count.

      2. I don’t care. There is no compromise possible with these people.

        1. de Villiers 31 Jan 2012, 9:20am

          It’s not them to whom gay politics can appeal but the broad range of middle, sensible opinion.

  17. go pray for yourself love for forgiveness – you are vile person. no wonder there are more people in B&Q on a Sunday than the church with these views which are way out of date in todays world.

  18. Sentamu, who has never been elected, sounds like a dictator.

  19. In the words of Mike Wazowski from Monsters Inc: “Put that thing back where it came from or so help me!”

    Hopefully this snaggle-toothed donkey will go back to whence it came and leave us all in peace and quiet.

  20. Marriage defined~2000BC by Code of Hammurabi 4 social stability/property rights.Love/God not important http://bit.ly/w5EeD0 The point is, partnership was defined long before anyone had even invented the word Christian – and it wasn’t religious marriage, but controlled by the rulers. And it was about CIVIL property, including women as property.

    All their arguments such rubbish. You only need to ask people who object to SSM how it will affect them and they immediately have to answer another point because they can’t answer that one.

  21. I agree with the archbishop.

    1. Which bit? How will it affect your heterosexual marriage? How would it affect you in any way? Where is the scientific or other evidence to suggest that it would harm anyone given we have had Civil Partnerships already now for 6 years?

    2. I suppose mt would be too much to hope for a rational secular argument against marriage equality from you?

    3. JohnB is in the closet 29 Jan 2012, 5:41pm

      im convinced ! good to hear such well thought out arguments !

      remind me again though what jesus actually said about homosexuality … i cant find any mention in the bible of him saying anything about it

      1. Hey JohnB is in the closet, declare yourself, sir or madam :-)

        I don’t recall Jesus actually saying anything about homosexuality, other than implicitly: what Jesus said about divorce (Matthew 19v3-6) reiterated the understanding of Genesis 2v24, and that of the archbishop, that marriage is a God ordained union between a man and a woman.

        1. JohnB is in the closet 29 Jan 2012, 8:42pm

          you don’t recall ? eh ? you don’t know for sure ? you’ve not read the bible ? v impressive for a christian !

          he did say that divorce was wrong though ?

        2. @JohnB

          The fact Jesus didnt say anything about homosexuality should be key here …

          Its not an issue Jesus had strong feelings about …

          So, why oh why oh why are some Christians SOOOO obsessed by it?

          1. …er… reaction formation ?

          2. @Jonpol

            In some cases that could be the case, but I suspect not in all …

            There must be other reasons too …

          3. @ Stu -

            Can you name one or two, then?

          4. @Jonpol

            Dogma, unwillingness to unpick what they are “taught”, prejudice, ignorance …

            oh and reaction formation ….

          5. “Dogma, unwillingness to unpick what they are “taught”, prejudice, ignorance …” may be causes for homophobia, right.

            But when talking about aggressive homophobia, a groundbreaking study has shown that obsession is linked with a significant level of homosexual responsiveness in an individual who affirms to be heterosexual, i.e. reaction formation.

            Also, when the obsession is turned against one’s own body, we witness things like flagellation, ice cold showers, or as in the case of some famous saints, eating rotting food, wearing a hair-shirt, throwing oneself into a briar patch, or depriving oneself of companionship.

            A powerful scientific theory…

            Adams, Henry E., Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D., and Bethany A. Lors. “Is Homophobia Associated with Homosexual Arousal?”, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, vol. 105, no 3. (1996)

        3. JohnB is in the closet 29 Jan 2012, 9:18pm

          you don’t recall ? you’re not certain ? nice to see christians unfamiliar with the bible ! maybe spend less time pontificating about other peoples’ lives and more time reading your own ‘good’ book !

          jesus said nothing about homosexuality, but did say divorce was wrong, in clear terms. johnb, do spend as much time on divorcee support sites lecturing people as you do on this site ?

        4. Tony Lambert 31 Jan 2012, 7:03am

          “reiterated the understanding of Genesis 2v24, and that of the archbishop, that marriage is a God ordained union between a man and a woman.”

          Oh, really? So, then if I reiterated my understanding of Genesis, incest is also okay, as clearly Adam & Eve’s kids would have had to engage in sexual relations to have children to spawn the human race?

          Really? You think incest is okay now?

          What a f-ing basket case you are, and a f-ing idiot, John.

          1. He won’t respond to this, Tony. JohnB only like to pontificate, not think. Makes him feel better about his ignorance.

    4. Now there’s a surprise.

    5. You agree because you are a mindless twat JohnB.
      Here’s the church, and here’s the steeple, open the door and out come the sheeple innit!

    6. “I agree with the archbishop.”

      Yawn.

      Another classic form the man with the self confessed education of a turnip.

  22. Firstly the church was heavily involved in the slave trade, some religious secs like the Mormons wouldn’t even allow non-whites to join until recently, then they wouldn’t allow women to become priests, and they’re still utterly divided about women Bishops in the UK. The reality is it’s a church [Anglicans] of liberals/moderates and traditionalists/fundamentalists who are in an unholy war, a marriage which any RELATE counsellor would advise them to dissolve for their own health. They don’t represent their followers because the majority of both US and UK Catholics support equal rights (from polls).

    We can’t allow the small number of loud-mouthed well-funded hate groups and bigots in the church hierarchy monopolise the debate and claim to speak for all Christians – they don’t.

  23. COmmander Thor 29 Jan 2012, 1:41pm

    I say we should bring back slavery, as it is an equally unjust tradition.

    Misquotation alert: No, I don’t want to bring back slavery.

    1. de Villiers 29 Jan 2012, 7:35pm

      It’s not equally unjust. Slavery is far worse. Gays are not treated like slaves in England or France.

      1. hey are in some countries, and the Archbishop seems reluctant to stand against it …

        1. de Villiers 31 Jan 2012, 9:22am

          I don’t see how not permitting gay marriage is tantamount to slavery.

          1. @de Villiers

            I dont see anyone comparing same sex marriage to slavery …I

            ts about a correlation of views …

            He chooses to endorse a particular view on homosexuality and marriage (claiming to take this from scripture) but his argument about what is seen as acceptable in scripture regarding slavery is not something I see him crying out for ….

            Either he accepts Scripture as the foundation stone or he doesnt … or he has a feasible explanation as to how he selects which areas to focus on and which to ignore …. Why is homosexuality of such significance? Why can views on slavery change compared to those in history but human sexuality views (from outside and within the church) are not permitted to evolve???

          2. de Villiers 31 Jan 2012, 1:31pm

            I think that you are disagreeing with me just for the sake of it – I cannot see the substance of the argument that you are presenting to what I said. That is unless you consider slavery to be equal to the prohibition of gay marriage.

            The contributor Thor said that we should bring black slavery as it was an “equally unjust tradition”, before stating that the did not want to bring it back. The question of “equally unjust” requires a comparator – which would seem here to be the prohibition of gay marriage.

            I cannot see that slavery is an equally unjust tradition as the tradition of prohibiting gay marriage.

          3. @de Villiers

            I think you are deliberately choosing not to see a connection between the Archbishops comments on same sex marriage and his views on slavery …

            Its not about either of those things per se, but the Archbishops view ….

      2. Spanner1960 30 Jan 2012, 3:44pm

        You haven’t met my husband then. ;)

  24. Cambodian Guesthouse 29 Jan 2012, 1:45pm

    Agreed guys…so its okay for the church to act as ‘dictators’ of public and private behaviour and individual morals? Are they scared of losing their dictatorship?

    And whilst we’re at it… I’m heartily sick of the church ‘claiming’ sole ownership of marriage anyway! Marriage was around long before the churches and is NOT their sole property!

    Butt out of politics bish and keep your quaint but flawed beliefs to yourself and your brain-washed sheep-like followers!

  25. Mumbo Jumbo 29 Jan 2012, 1:47pm

    If you thing it looks bad in print, watch the video of him saying it.

    http://goo.gl/rtYJg

    Entitled stupidity personified.

  26. In these comments by the Archbishop of York (the CoE’s second most senior leader), the Archbishop does not understand that CPs are not about friendships – they are about loving, committed relationships.
    The Archbishop does not understand that his attempts to maintain prejudice is no different to those who sought to prevent inter racial marriage (was that a redefinition?)
    The Archbishop hould (but given his comment “The Church has always stood out – Jesus actually was the odd man out. I’d rather stick with Jesus than be popular because it looks odd.” probably isn’t) be ashamed of his bigotry.
    My understanding of (if the stories are true) Jesus’ teaching is that he challenged the religious leaders and their unfairness, lack of compassion and bigotry. I know many Christians subscribe to a theology called What Would Jesus Do?, I suspect if real, he would condemn the actions of the Archbishop.

    What is remarkable for the bigotry in his comments he went on to say “Heaven is not going to …

    1. … be full of just black people, just working-class people, just middle-class people, it’s going to be, in the words of Desmond Tutu, a rainbow people of God in all its diversity,”. Clearly, this diversity does not include LGBT people being treated fairly and equally in the Archbishops view. I know Archbishop Tutu has a different view!!

      Furthermore, the phraseology of saying that the church in Uganda “will in due course” take into account these realities (referring to [some level of] support for LGBT people) … seems to lack any sense of priority, urgency or importance to respecting the human rights of others if they are LGBT. “in due course” does not mean human rights matter now … it means we might think about it, but I’m not going to urge them to do it … thats bigotry …

    2. Whatever! It’s all superstitious nonsense. Whatever he said, whatever he meant – matters not one iota. He’s been dead a long time and the world has moved on. Thankfully.

    3. John Antrobus 29 Jan 2012, 8:25pm

      Bonkers.

    4. I merely said if thats what the Bible says … or what anyones spit thinks (interesting concept …) …

      As it is, its largely irrelevant … what is relevant is fairness which the Archbishop seems to know very little about or be interested in …

      1. You had nothing to correct and I won’t prolong a conversation with a troll …

        As for the police … its a matter they are still investigating (in connection with a wide ranging matter) … Good job we are both patient ..

        Good day Keith – your warblings are outdated, irrelevant and ignorant … and fortunately often deleted

        1. “and fortunately often deleted”

          You mean like just now, Stu? *giggle*

          1. @Will

            Yes, it amused me the timing of that …

        2. Moral and disease free! 30 Jan 2012, 4:27pm

          So you still think that Jesus did not condemn men lying with men and lwomen with women?

        3. Moral and disease free! 30 Jan 2012, 4:27pm

          So you still think that Jesus did not condemn men lying with men and women with women?

          1. Er, no, he didn’t. But I don’t really give a stuff what an eccentric 1st century rabbi did or didn’t condemn, or what silly supernatural nonsense you believe about him.

  27. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Jan 2012, 2:27pm

    The arrogance of these people who think the state cult owns and controls civil marriage is quite astounding. Clearly, these people just haven’t or refuse to accept that this is an entirely civil matter. Religion plays no part in it, never has, never will, the two forms of marriage are totally different. I think the government should push for civil marriage for everyone, just like France and other countries. Those wanting an religious element, let them do it after the fact. Only the civil marriage should be binding on everyone. State religion is a very bad thing indeed. They’re not elected and yet they appear to have all this power over us. About time that stopped. I resent my taxes going towards church schools and propping up anything to do with religion. We the people and the voters should have a say in that.

  28. There are 26 unelected Church Of England bishops in the House of Lords, and they will be TOLD (because they are employees of the COE) to vote against marriage equality.

    We need them out of the House Of Lords. Religion and politics should never be mixed together in this way. Support those COE bishops decided Catholics should have their rights to marry taken away !

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 29 Jan 2012, 4:53pm

      Even if Parliament votes in favour of same-sex civil marriage and probably will, the House of Lords can only delay it from becoming law by 2 years and could actually become law with or without them. It’s an exercise in futility for them, it’s coming whether they like it or not. It won’t affect them one bit and they can rant and rave about the harm they claim it will cause all they want. The fact of the matter is, it just won’t do anything to anyone’s marriage. The more they scream the more irrelevant they become. They can’t even produce the evidence to support their claims. They should contact the ten governments where same-sex civil marriage is legal for proof. I think they’d come up against a big fat nil. Polygamy hasn’t happened either, that strange heterosexual practice as old as civilisation condoned in their bible (the old testament) in fact.

  29. Someone needs to remind him that the UK is a SECULAR country, therefore it is actually wrong for the church to define what marriage is!!

    1. @Rhin

      If only the UK was a secular country … it should be …

      This is one of (the many) reasons there needs to be a separation of church and state …

      1. de Villiers 29 Jan 2012, 7:47pm

        The separation of chuch and state is not enough. The states united have that yet it has religion in state functions – the money refers to trust in god, the President says that god blesses America, and religions evades all areas of public life.

        What is required is not the mere separation of the church from the state but positive secularity in the public sphere and the complete independence and superiority over all religions and religious practice.

        1. John Antrobus 29 Jan 2012, 8:30pm

          My thoughts exactly, which I could not have expressed better.

        2. @de Villers

          I live in Britain … don’t have a President … and Pound Sterling does not give a promise to God …

          1. de Villiers 31 Jan 2012, 9:23am

            Et alors?

      2. de Villiers 29 Jan 2012, 7:48pm

        ~ pervades all areas of public life – not evades.

    2. de Villiers 29 Jan 2012, 7:44pm

      Oh no it isn’t a secular country. There is no secularism in the UK. The head of state is head of your church. A third of schools are run by the church. Daily prayers or religious worship is compulsory in primary schools by law. The English left, in complete contradiction to the left in France, support the rights of religious groups over the secularity of the state. No-one supports a ban on religious clothing in public buildings.

      The state should be secular but England certainly has no secularity.

      1. I agree ….

        Church schools should not happen

        There should be no Lords Spiritual …

        Its wrong that the head of the state is also the head of a religious organisation …

        We are far from secular …

    3. There should be no bishops in the House of Lords!

      1. Spanner1960 30 Jan 2012, 3:48pm

        Tell that to Labour. They are the ones that threw out the hereditary peers and replaced them with career politicians, power trippers, God-botherers and anyone willing to bung a brown bag for a peerage.

    4. Spanner1960 30 Jan 2012, 3:47pm

      Actually, that’s pretty untrue. The UK is still defined as predominantly Chistian. However, most of those people who still consider themselves Christians that rarely go to church are still more open-minded and willing to move with the times than these idiots that attempt to run them.

  30. Peter & Michael 29 Jan 2012, 2:55pm

    Whom is the dictator here, certainly not David Cameron. Same-Sex marriage will come whether some religions do not like the idea or not, Equality and Human Rights will triumph, religion has been found through the ages to cause wars between differing opinions of peoples, and this rant by a Jamaican born clergical person has deep rooted homophobia of LGBT people.

  31. Fine … I don’t want to have his MARRIAGE anyway. It ain’t good enough for me and he can keep it.

    1. Let’s not demonize Sentamu too much. We have far worse enemies than he is.

      In a short while, marriage equality will be on the statute books, life will go on as normal, and the Church will wonder why it made such a big fuss.

      1. @Clivejw

        I am usually one of those that leads the clarion call not to demonise our allies …

        I have to say, Setamu may try to sound as though he is supportive of gay people … he fails …

        I have to say I do not believe that he believes in LGBT equality …

        I believe he supports discrimination …

        Yes, support our allies … Setamu is not one of them …

  32. Peter & Michael 29 Jan 2012, 3:04pm

    Sorry, born in Uganda, that says it all!

    1. Well I wouldnt tar all Ugandans with the same brush …

      I do get where your argument is coming from though …

  33. Let’s not demonize Sentamu too much. We have far worse enemies than he is.

    In a short while, marriage equality will be on the statute books, life will go on as normal, and the Church will wonder why it made such a big fuss.

    1. Mr. Sentamu has demonised himself, by opening his mouth.

      He had better get used to the fact that in civilised countries we have two way conversations, that we too can be offended and we will say so.

      The C of E wonders why Churches are becoming like the Marie Celeste – well, they can thank hypocritical demagogues like Mr. Sentamu, who last year wouldn’t criticise William and Kate for sleeping together before their marriage.

  34. The church doesn’t define tax law, or inheritance rights, or next-of-kin status, nor adoption law or property rights, or divorce rights. What thinks they should have any say in who the state can regard are eligible for Civil marriage. Many of the things written in the Bible are illegal in law, such as slavery, selling your daughter, stoning people to death, … because a civilised society decides using reason, logic, reasonableness and thoughtful debate, not emotive collective shuddering of Christian leaders who fear they are becoming increasing irrelevant to society. If they put the sort of effort in to resolving poverty, homelessness they would be seen in an entirely different light. As it is they are seen as interfering dictators whose bigotry and homophobia is plain for everyone to see.

    1. Beautifully put, and an argument I hadn’t ever considered before. It adds a whole new context to the debate. Thank you

  35. this quote from him: “It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are.” instantly invalidates ANY possible legitimacy he might have had.
    Slavery is “set in tradition and history”. Should it be brought back?
    The death penalty for minor offenses is “set in tradition and history”. Should THAT be brought back?

    The archbishop is as deluded as can be. He apparently fits into that new Canadian study that showed that people with low IQs tend to hold racist and/or bigoted views with no rational understanding of how their views might be wrong.

    1. stevesound 29 Jan 2012, 5:39pm

      That’s the problem with people like this man and their followers — they are just ignorant and have no sense of history or the fact that everything they say is completely hypocritical; The largest danger in the world today in terms of violence perpetrated on fellow humans in ‘civil’ society due to bigotry and violence is coming from people like ‘Doctor’ Sentamu; He is seeding violence and hatred with his comments and is fueling everything that the church supposedly stands against. No wonder the intelligent people on planet Earth are leaving these archaic myths (religion) behind; This man is a shepherd of the stupid and violent, encouraging them to act out against minorities in the LGBT community and men like this are smart enough to know the effect of what they are doing yet they do it to maintain power and control. That’s what religion is ultimately about, isn’t it, power and control?

  36. Nicole Hatch 29 Jan 2012, 3:18pm

    I agree that ALL foreign aid should be cut off from countries such as Uganda and other third world countries that violate human rights in such an obsene way. That is the ONLY way that you will force in change in their ignorant and hateful cultural attitudes.
    This snaggle-toothed bigot should go back to wherever the hell he came from. He’s probably living like a king in the UK at the same time he criticises their Prime Minister and human rights…a total bigot and hypocrit!

  37. Previously (on Andrew Marr) he has said (re Civil Partnerships in religious venues)

    “And I, who believes in a liberal democracy and actually want equality with everybody, cannot say the Quakers shouldn’t do it. ”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/9396290.stm

    Yet he seems to want to stop them carrying out same-sex marriages. Hypocrite.

  38. Excellent article here; http://www.andcabbagesandkings.com/2012/01/29/in-which-john-sentamu-loses-my-respect/

    “His argument from “tradition” is likewise meaningless. Marriage is and has always been an evolving institution, and many of the prejudiced “traditions” once associated with it have, thankfully, long since been discarded. Not so very long ago, for example, it was considered unthinkable and contrary to “tradition” in many places for people of different races to be allowed to marry; here in the United States, many states continued to prohibit “miscegenation”, intermarriage between people of different races, until the Supreme Court’s landmark 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia, and plenty of people defended such laws on religious grounds by cherry-picking and distorting verses of Scripture. (Sadly, a few fringe religious leaders still adhere to this position today.) “Tradition” once did not permit interfaith marriages either, and it was not so long ago that a Catholic ….

    1. Rashid Karapiet 31 Jan 2012, 4:14pm

      Jonathan, as a kind of reward – I don’t mean to be patronising – for possibly the calmest comment on Dr.Sentamu’s views, may I recomend ‘The Gay Gospels – Good News for LGBT People’ by Keith Sharpe, published by O-books, http://www.o-books.net – an entertaining comprehensive demolition of the ‘traditional’ Christian teaching on homosexuality.

  39. Too bad we changed that time-honoured tradition of stoning adulterers, right? I’ll bet that was another dictator. These people think they can do anything…

    No, Dr Sentamu, don’t you dictate to /us/ what we can and cannot do.

  40. Sentamu is unaware of the history of the Anglican church.

    The reason for the Anglican church’s very existence was initially to redefine marriage to oblige Henry VIII.

    Sentamu is an idiot, he should be sacked.

  41. Religion is the word of humans – not God.

    Amazing how people can spend their entire lives putting others down.

    1. de Villiers 29 Jan 2012, 7:51pm

      Your first sentence is more correct than most people on this board realise – and most probably fail to understand its significance.

      1. Don’t patronise, de Villiers. Not becoming in someone of your asserted intelligence.

        1. de Villiers 30 Jan 2012, 4:53pm

          Fair. It was unnecessarily defensive.

      2. The Bible as we have it was first put together by Constantine, and many, many texts were left out, i.e. the apocrypha.

        Is that what you mean, de Villiers?

        1. de Villiers 31 Jan 2012, 1:39pm

          I did not see your post here. I have given a bit of an answer above – although there is only so much one can fit into a limited post.

  42. The funny thing is the Christian churches knows full well that if the state legalises full gay marriage for religious establishments or otherwise that it will mean more conversions to other religions/beliefs unless they perform marriages themselves. so basically “if we won’t marry you no one else can” (forgive me if I’m wrong but this sounds rather dictator like to me)

    1. (sorry about the poor grammar)

  43. It’s a great irony that Christianity uses the cross as its symbol. If Jesus were alive today he’d still be executed in the name of someones religion.

  44. James DuPlessis 29 Jan 2012, 4:18pm

    Was this bully born a theocratic dictator himself, or was it his Church that trained him to hate? Put my faith in Cameron before the Church of Englands God!

  45. Galadriel1010 29 Jan 2012, 4:54pm

    Brb, headdesking forever. I have no words, only rage.

    1. A friends of mine who is a gay CofE vicar is similarly angry and disappointed

      1. Suggest he goes and gets a proper job instead, Stu

        1. Galadriel1010 30 Jan 2012, 1:31pm

          Being a CoE vicar is a proper job. It’s a lot of hard work and utterly selfless. It’s not the employees’ fault that the management are knobs.

          1. The job is a completely pointless one which the country would be better off without. As for the vicar in question, he should accept that he is working in an institutionally homophobic organisation and leave, unless he agrees with the institutional line…

          2. Galadriel1010 30 Jan 2012, 10:47pm

            It’s far from a pointless job. Just because you wouldn’t want to have someone there to minister to you as you die, to baptise your children or to marry them, to organise the distribution of charity fundraising to those in need in the local area, doesn’t mean that no one else would. I don’t drink coffee, but I understand that lots of people want Starbucks to be around.

      2. Galadriel1010 30 Jan 2012, 1:43pm

        I’m really not surprised. It’s time we started really making our voices heard – Changing Attitudes is great, but it took me weeks to find it.

        The urge to head into town and stick post-it notes all over the Minster is growing.

        1. Just leave the bigoted institution and find a gay friendly one. Simples.

          1. Galadriel1010 30 Jan 2012, 10:50pm

            Simple to say, but not so simple to do. I was brought up in the CoE. I like the more relaxed atmosphere, the rhythm of the services, I definitely like the people at my home church. And if I left, what then? Should my mum leave, and everyone else who’s gay friendly? I think that my home church would look very empty if they did that, and the church as a whole would get that bit less accepting, and have fewer voices raised in defence of gay rights.

            In short, I don’t see why I should have to leave just because some people don’t like me, and I don’t think it would be a good thing if I did.

  46. Sentamu is the kind of hateful hypocrite that turns swathes of young people off Christianity. Every word he speaks is a nail in the coffin of the church. People who wish to espouse true Christian values will turn their backs on him and join churches like the Quakers.

  47. Let me help you with your arguments, Dr Sentamu. Here’s a list for you to use:

    1) It’s unnatural
    2) It goes against God’s will
    3) It’s immoral
    4) We cannot alter traditional marriage because that’s the start of a slippery slope.

    Know where I got those from, Dr? They are reasons given by those against INTERRACIAL marriage in the US. So don’t trot out the same old crap to try to deny another group of human beings their rights.

    Those reasons were desperate attempts to justify bigotry against people who weren’t white. Your reasons are equally desperate, nasty and hateful. I don’t believe in god, but your comparison of yourself with Jesus is laughable.

    1. @Iris

      Careful Iris, I keep getting told using the word laughable is bullying … lol

      In this case you are undoubtedly right though …

      1. Oh dear! :D It was just the first adjective that sprang to mind :D

      2. Why do the gays keep persecuting the homophobes!!!

    2. I love it when you are angry Iris :-)

      I honestly see the archbishop as one of the churches good guys and can’t see how his reiterating traditional Christian teaching makes him nasty and hateful. I would be highly surpirsed if there is any racism in his approach.

      I may have missed something, but how is he comparing himself to Jesus other than that he is a disciple of Jesus (and not necessarily a good one), as I am too.

      1. By saying that he’s not afraid to ‘be the odd one out’ like Jesus – but Jesus (in the Bible) reached out to EVERYONE. He didn’t pick on and victimise people. He, as portrayed, was a man of understanding and compassion – everything the Archbishop is not.

        Not to mention that gay centurion that we’re…well, not allowed to mention ;)

        1. No Iris, do feel free to mention the centurion (Matthew 8). It hadn’t occured to me he might be gay until someone brought up the possibility recently. Biblical exegesis does not allow me to reach the firm conclusion he was gay and the sick servant was in fact his gay lover. But it is a possibility and I would like to believe that and see it in no way inconsistent with Jesus teaching and ministry.

          I was just reading up on the archbishop and feel he is a man of understanding and compassion who doesn’t pick on gay folk. As for being the odd one out, I feel that is the price of being a disciple. Right now, I am writing a book about my own work in the community, using a similar theme, and would love to send you a copy!

          Anyway, thanks for your thoughts Iris and take care :-)

          1. The original Greek suggests he was, JohnB. See, that’s the bit I don’t get – biblical exegesis, that is. That likely gayness of the centurion can be treated as unproven, yet equally unproven anti-gay bits are taken as gospel (excuse the pun). Paul springs to mind there as just one example.

            The archbishop might have SOME compassion, but if he were Jesus he’d have shown it to ALL not singled out an easy target to discriminate against. I’d also remind you that some of those people quoting the reasons interracial marriage shouldn’t be allowed decades ago were men of the Christian church too, and they had the biblical quotes to ‘prove’ it was a bad thing. Now very few Christians would be so racist. I can’t wait for the time they stop being homophobic too…

            Tell me the name of your book when it’s written :D I’ll look it up.

      2. Traditional christian values…Ah! Yes that would be murder, hypocricy, mendacity, madness, cruelty to name but a few, the list goes on and on, but does include without any doubt institutional homophobia. A cult is a cult is a cult is a cult. Jesus is a made up character no different that any other like for example, Pinocchio he was a compulsive liar too just like so many of the followers of “Jesus” unquestionably are too.

        1. And what would Pinocchio do, he’d do like Sentamu I guess…tell lies.

          Perhaps Sentamu is a follower of Pinocchio and not Jesus after all.

    3. de Villiers 29 Jan 2012, 6:48pm

      The comparison with interracial marriage is defective but I agree with the rest.

      1. I don’t think it is (although, of course, you’re free to disagree :D ) but my point was that the arguments against same sex marriage are sickeningly familiar. My girlfriend’s a black American while I’m white and I find it astounding that her race would have EVER been an issue, and now even though it’s not, the same old ‘reasons’ are trotted out to stop me marrying her on account of her gender.

        1. de Villiers 29 Jan 2012, 7:53pm

          Yes. It is funny that the freedom that most seek is the freedom to oppress others.

          1. John Antrobus 29 Jan 2012, 8:45pm

            Oh, so now you do agree with Iris?

      2. Your comment makes little sense to me de Villiers.

        1. de Villiers 31 Jan 2012, 9:28am

          I agreed that the comments against gay marriage were familiar and unpleasant. However, I disagree with the suggestion that interracial marriage is easily comparable to gay marriage. It is also sad that those from minority groups often seek freedom for themselves but not for others – and indeed even seek the freedom to oppress others. They want freedom not for all but just for themselves.

  48. Last week we were praising the Catholic priest for standing up for rights in Australia….sadly it forward one step and back two….these guys views are apparent…every one has a right to their view….but dont worry guys…the Kingdom of heaven is at hand and we too will be at the right hand of the Lord for all those bigot priests popes etc to see….take it easy…

  49. Another one trying to get a bit of publicity and running to homophobic Jamaica to attack David Cameron and the LGBT Community. That is oh so brave. To be ignored.

  50. stevesound 29 Jan 2012, 5:31pm

    Okay, if ‘Doctor’ Semantu thinks that the state should not change things just because they have been ‘that way’ for a long time, then we should repeal all rulings that were deemed segregationist and racist against visible minorities. Oh, wait, that impacts him directly, so those ones are okay to not touch. It’s not a surprise that he is playing to the Jamaican press with his bigotry — Jamaica is one of the most homophobic places on earth. Maybe inter-racial marriage bans should be brought back — they were changed only a few decades ago. Hypocrite.

    1. Homophobic, corrupt, violent, unjust and oppressive. Jamaica is hardly a paragon of democratic stability, transparency, social and economic equality itself, any more than the Museveni regime in Uganda and the unstable, fratricidal state of affairs in Nigeria. Let’s face, “Christian” frontline homophobe nations have numerous other injustices and forms of oppression cankering their hearts as well. One wonders why the Archbishop did not similarly condemn the human rights abuses in his host nation?

  51. This man is an attention seeking moron & never misses an opportunity to make a complete tw@t of himself. For example–during the Pope’s last visit, he literally pushed Rowan Williams out of his way to shake the Pope’s hand before anyone else. Also, when he became Archbishop of York, his first move was to ‘retire’ the cathedral’s gay musical director. He is a nasty, backward-thinking, fundamentalist bigot.

    1. Yes, its interesting how he likes the press to follow him around (according to my friend who is a vicar) …

      Surely its more grandstanding than honesty …

  52. Yes Natt- but- just think- this man could well be the next Archbishop of Canterbury! He is only one step from being the Head of the Cof E!!. Then we had better watch out- cause it will. Be “all guns blazing” – for US!

    1. Thankfully he’s torpedoing his candidacy rather well. In a cruel twist of the theocracy we live in, Cameron would need to approve his promotion

    2. Although it is a concern, I daresay it will not happen. He is due to retire in seven years anyhow…

    3. I think much more likely is the current Bishop of Oxford …

      Cameron seems to like him …

      1. I bow to your greater knowledge of such matters, Stu. If you have time, could you educate me about the Bishop of Oxford and tell me if this is a good or bad thing. I know that Google is my friend, but your posts are generally pithier, more accurate and better written than Google information.
        Yes, this is witless flattery on my part, but that’s only because I want you take pity on a lazy man and give him the short course on how the CoE works.
        This is as shameful as it looks, Stu, and I hope you’re charitable enough to respond with information. (I have a packet of Jelly Babies from Iceland – the shop, not the country – with your name on it if you give me a heads up.

        1. I dont know lots about him … but I do know that he spoke up in a recent debate in the House of Lords supporting religious CPs when Baroness O Cathain tried deviously to scupper them …

          Other than that I am told he is forward thinking … and seen as a high flyer …

  53. lectures on tyranny and democracy from an unelected god botherer sitting in an unelected House of Lords I do without.
    Give him his fare back to Uganda.

  54. angryoldgit 29 Jan 2012, 6:11pm

    It would be different of course if the Bishop had spoken out in favour of gay marriage, but dare to speak a fact, that marriage is the joining together of a man and woman who will bear children, then how childishly some, not all of the pro-gay lobby react.
    Gay prejudice is a thing of the past, but your desire to corrupt tradition shows an intolerance toward Christians and ‘straight people’ that is almost hysterical.
    grow up and get a life!

    1. That’s ridiculous, when the vast majority of people, both religious and non-religious, including UK and US Catholics, and UK Anglicans support equal rights and non-discrimination. We’re now advanced enough to see our mistakes from the past, such as slavery, such as denying women equal status, and the racism which is still being tackled, were and are wrong. We can see that religion is not the best way of determining what is right and wrong, and frankly never was – but most people now recognise that. Religion has been used to perpetuate all sorts of evils towards others, Spanish inquisition, torture, oppression, discrimination, burning people alive at the stake, the dark ages – they all hail from religion. If only religion had gone the other way and been a force for good everywhere, in all things, but it’s beholden to follow very inappropriate sayings from a man-written set of pamphlets, bound together to form a book.

    2. Unfortunately Sentamu’s has his facts all wrong, he has no rational reason to oppose gay marriage and has come up with unsupportable “reasons” like tradition,some traditions need changing like slavery, anti-miscegenation laws.

      Changing the English language never happens?

      The charge that Cameron is trying to Redefine marriage is especially ridiculous when redefining marriage was exactly what the Anglican church was created to do for Henry VIII. but marriage remains between two committed persons it is not changed but expanded.

      Sentamu really is an idiot, how he became a bishop with such a poor grasp of history and factual reality is astounding…how did he manage it?

    3. No, CHRISTIAN marriage is what you said. Civil marriage is NOT. It has no duty to bear children.

    4. You might take a dose of your own medicine and stop believing in utter nonsense and deal with reality like an adult, or would that be asking too much of you to grow up? People come together to bear children without the idiocy of religion involved all the time and have for thousands of years. Christian’s are the last word in corruption and demand unquestioning obedience to their idiocy. History is leaving you behind thankfully .

    5. I think you need to get a life actually. Start think for yourself and stop relying on comforting tales you have probably been inculcated with since childhood.

      Or perhaps you could try sacrificing a goat? Another tradition your belief system is based on.

    6. Chester666666 29 Jan 2012, 8:35pm

      Not all can or do bear kids plus homphobia is still about, unfortunaty

    7. I think you find there have been several Anglican Bishops who support same sex marriage. One of them who also happened to be a homosexual and had to wear a bulletproof vest at his consercration – because of the obviously now non existent prejudice towards homosexuals.

    8. “that marriage is the joining together of a man and woman who will bear children”

      Er, no it doesn’t. You need to brush up on your history, you sound ridiculous.

  55. “If you genuinely would like the registration of civil partnerships to happen in a more general way, most people will say they can see the drift. But if you begin to call those ‘marriage’, you’re trying to change the English language.”

    The English language already changed when it adopted the use of the French word Mariage. The English language is forever changung.

    “That does not mean you diminish, condemn, criticise, patronise any same-sex relationships”

    Actually it does mean that, separate is not somehow equal. If civil partnerships do not provide fully equal rights then they should do and if they already do then they don’t need to be called something different.

    “The Church has always stood out – Jesus actually was the odd man out. I’d rather stick with Jesus than be popular because it looks odd.”

    Jesus had nothing to say about same sex marriage so Sentamu …perhaps you should shut it !

  56. Rachel Haytread 29 Jan 2012, 6:35pm

    Why are the most hate-fllled always Negroids?

    1. They’ re not. ANYONE can be hate-filled.

      1. Rachel Haytread 30 Jan 2012, 7:43am

        It just seems to be the case that in real life it usually is negroids or other non-caucasians. You should read the news items on this site more carefully and then you will assuredly find that the perpetrators of hate and violence against us fall within these groups.

        1. You should look into education more carefully and then you will assuredly find that the perpetrators of hate and violence against us fall within every group.

          Racism and homophobia are similar in they usually are supported by the ignorant and weak minded.

          Nice KKK symbol there, by the way – why not f***off back to the swamps, there’s a good girl.

          1. Rachel Haytread 30 Jan 2012, 12:58pm

            Sweetheart, as Bryan Ferry once said ‘Education is an important key’ and it would appear that yours is sadly lacking -this is not a KKK symbol you nincompoop.

          2. Oh, really????

            LOL!

            Google white power movements, you moron.

            And then see how fitting it is you chose that particular symbol to back up your repulsive racist nonsense.

            Nothing as pathetic as a debase racist that goes to the trouble of proving just how stupid they really are, is there, sweetie?

          3. Bryan Ferry?

            looks to me like a Celtic cross…

        2. look at russia, balkans and vatican to name just few, hardly black or non caucasians places, and please can you go fishing somewhere else.

          1. Rachel Haytread 30 Jan 2012, 1:35pm

            I am vegan and abhor the cruelty you carnivores inflict on these delightful creatures. Shame on you for advocating such violent and hate-filled behaviour towards other living beings. Fish have feelings too, you brute! Cheery-bye.

          2. Tony Lambert 30 Jan 2012, 1:40pm

            “Cheery-bye”

            Cheery-bye???? Cheery-bye???? Are ou retarded? Wow. You REALLY showed Kane there!

            This little n.azi buffoon must be a child. Its the only excuse one can think of for the lunatic schoolyard comments. How do we get this bigot booted like that other goose Keith?

        3. @Rachel

          In your little world that might be the case, but generally hate is not restricted to one race, sex, gender, orientation, nationality, religion … anyone can be instilled with hatred (as is so obvious from your own comments)

          1. Rachel Haytread 30 Jan 2012, 1:43pm

            You very much put me in mind of some dreadful woman being interviewed on BBC News 24 last year. She was adamant, despite abundant evidence against her, that Muslim men do not form gangs to drug and rape white female children. Funny old world isn’t it dearie? Actually, your name has given me an idea for dinner this evening. Thanks sweetheart. I shall be thinking of you with every mouthful.

          2. And your attitudes put me very much in mind of a dreadful man that is currently incarcerated in Norway for mass murder …

            Whilst some Muslims do rape white (or Asian) women – interesting that you seem to suggest that rape is worse if it is perpetrated by someone of a different ethnicity or religion … any sort is equally vile and horrendous in my book … So, do some white men rape people of different ethnicities …

            Your point is …?

          3. Tony Lambert 30 Jan 2012, 2:57pm

            Stu, his one is an attention seeking basket case.

        4. I’m hoping you’re a troll because it’d be depressing if a real person genuinely thought such things, Rachel. Actually, I’m pretty sure you ARE a troll. Sad.

          1. Rachel Haytread 30 Jan 2012, 1:13pm

            I think I am most definitely a ‘real person’ whatever that may be. There again one must question reality some times. On other occasions one can simply wind up other, presumably, ‘real people’ and piss one’s self laughing as the rabid liberals froth at the mouth rather like dear old Pavlov’s dogs salivating at the ring of the bell. You are just simply TOO EASY!

          2. Not only a troll, but a demented one too, Iris.

            Ah, didn’t mummy breastfeed you enough Rachel? Is that why you need attention on an internet forum, is it sweetie?

          3. Indeed, Will. Why do they bother? I always feel kind of sorry for them really. Ignoring all the sadness of making trolling comments, I always wonder how unsatisfactory their life is that this is the way they have to get their kicks.

    2. Generally people who have low personal esteem seem to need to find others they can look down upon and imagine they are better than.

      1. Rachel Haytread 30 Jan 2012, 7:48am

        At first glance I read your name as ‘Pavlov’, you know – the one with the salivating dogs? I think this name is far more appropriate for you. Maybe you can get it changed by Deed Poll, assuming, that is that you are resident here legally.

      2. Rachel Haytread 30 Jan 2012, 7:51am

        Do you know that you can get help on the NHS for yourself with this problem of low esteem which you state afflicts you? Assuming of course that you are in this country legally.

        1. Do you know that you can get help on the NHS for yourself with this problem of racism?

          A school or a book will have equally similar effects, you bigoted moron.

          1. Well said, Will …

            Usually racists and other bigots are more insecure themselves and feel threatened by others who are different to them … perhaps Ms Haytread needs some support in confronting her fears … professonal help …

          2. Rachel Haytread 30 Jan 2012, 1:26pm

            Sweetheart, please tell me where exactly may I obtain this help as this ‘racism’ business seems to be in the news all of the time and one does so fret about not being ‘au fait’ with issues ‘du jour’.

            By the way, I have been to several (very expensive) schools and have an extensive library. Also, I’ve been told I’m very good in bed. I would dearly love to meet up with you sometime for a nice cup of tea and a fondant fancy or two – my treat. XXX

          3. “By the way, I have been to several (very expensive) schools and have an extensive library.”

            LMFAO!!!! Classic. What are you, 5?

            Er, no one cases, you inbred bigot, now f*** off and bore someone else with your delusions.

          4. Next she’ll be telling us she runs a media company, Will ;) Such…er…..cleverness :D

    3. “Why are the most hate-fllled always Negroids?”

      Given your demonstration of hate against race here, logically you must be black too.

      Or was the irony of that too much for you?

      1. Rachel Haytread 30 Jan 2012, 12:52pm

        Ha Ha, I’m drowning.

        1. “Ha Ha, I’m drowning”

          Indeed you are, my repulsive little friend, but in ignorance.

          1. Absolutely, Will

            It’s sad that “Rachel” finds it so funny …

    4. Tony Lambert 30 Jan 2012, 1:37pm

      Ugh. Another disgusting racist. Why do they always pick here? The n.azi sites must be pretty damn boring if this corn-fed rachel has to come in here and share this insipid crap with us.

      Lucky us.

      1. Rachel Haytread 30 Jan 2012, 1:54pm

        Stop it, you’re killing me! You remind me of those little clockwork toys – you know, the ones you wind up… And another thing, what exactly is so wrong with being ‘corn-fed’? It’s rather wholesome i would have thought, very much like myself and far more preferable to the admonishment of another contributor to these pages to go fishing, This man is an evil brute and fish murderer, I am outraged.

        1. @Rachel

          Your charicature is vile, unfunny and ignorant …

          Now go and take your medication (maybe you should call nurse?) and/or finish the bottle of sherry, dear ..

          Your trolling is not worthy of attention – that is all you seek …

          Good bye!

        2. Tony Lambert 30 Jan 2012, 2:56pm

          “you know, the ones you wind up…”

          Is that why you keep coming back over and over again obsessively? Like a crazy person?

        3. “And another thing, what exactly is so wrong with being ‘corn-fed’?”

          Well, you, to be exact. There’s something intrinsically wrong with you, that much is obvious.

          Odd how you ramble on narcissistically about everyone being “wound up” by your rapier wit (ahem!), and yet you’re still here thinking you have pull the wool over our eyes in some brilliant master-stroke, don’t you think?

          Meds not working today, are they thicko?

  57. de Villiers 29 Jan 2012, 6:41pm

    Perhaps the government should abolish marriage, leave civil partnerships and the church can do what it wants.

    1. No because that gives the mildly mentally deranged (sorry, Christians) control over an ordinary English word. I am married to my husband, not civilly partnered, and it is right and proper for the state to recognise that.

      Also, it is quite wrong not to recognise the 68% of marriages in the UK that are not religious ones AS MARRIAGES, not civil partnerships.

      1. de Villiers 31 Jan 2012, 9:32am

        As you wish – I don’t care what it is called and I don’t really care for what others think of my domestic arrangements. I also don’t think that civil partnerships must necessarily be inferior – equality for me does not mean the same or being identical. I would be happy to remain in a civil partnership if it carried in all respects the same rights as marriage. I feel no need to be like a heterosexual and to call myself a husband. That said, I would not seek to prevent it and would leave it to the decisions of each individual.

  58. This man is a boob. His argument is based on the absurd notion that Parliament should not enact legislation relating to civil marriage. Parliament is precisely the institution charged with legislating the parameters of the civil contract which is called a “marriage.” Moreover, this twit wants to prevent Quakers, liberial Judiasm and other denominations from sanctifying same-sex marriages. What about their religious freedom? Apparently, the only freedom that nitwit wants to protect is his own.

  59. If it is dictatorial to change tradition, Sentamu really ought to grasp the nettle and resign his Anglican bishoprick. His farcical church only exists because a despotic king couldn’t get a divorce from Pope Clement VII and so violated centuries of tradition by repudiating Roman authority over it. This is the dignified position of ‘tradition’ from which Sentamu speaks. He and his ilk are a bad joke.

    1. Yes Riondo, how can an Anglican bishop live in such abject ignorance of the historical roots of the church he is a bishop of, it’s really worrying that he has risen as far as he has through the ranks of the Anglican clergy and remained so unaware. What a sad dope!

    2. Henry VIII never divorced – he just made sure four of his marriages never existed, an annulment to you and me.

      1. Pope Clemente would not grant Henry Viii an annulment so Henry VIII separated the church of England from Rome so that he himself would instead be head of the church of England enabling the church to now redefine marriage to suit his own purposes.

        Bishop Sentamu is apparently unaware of the Anglican church’s historical and defining role in the redefinition of marriage.

  60. Once again the tendency of those who complain most about discrimination to be the worst discriminators is demonstrated.

    Unpalatable as it may be, many people, some who are still alive today would have been appallled at someone of Sentamu’s ethnicity being a bishop. And they would have quoted the Old Testament in their argument against inter racial marriage.

  61. Guys a moron. Marriage is not tied to religion. They just try to steal it

  62. George Broadhead 29 Jan 2012, 9:13pm

    de Villiers wrote:

    “Oh no it isn’t a secular country. There is no secularism in the UK. The head of state is head of your church. A third of schools are run by the church. Daily prayers or religious worship is compulsory in primary schools by law. The English left, in complete contradiction to the left in France, support the rights of religious groups over the secularity of the state. No-one supports a ban on religious clothing in public buildings.

    The state should be secular but England certainly has no secularity.”

    How right you are, but how many posters to this list are aware of it?

    In a recent speech, David Cameron claimed that the UK is a Christian county and praised the bible for its moral values. His government is determined to increase the number of faith achools funded by the taxpayer.

    To help combat all this religious privilege join the National Secular Society now!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Jan 2012, 1:03pm

      So would you describe Belgium, Argentina, Spain, Portugal, all catholic “christian” countries that allow same-sex civil marriage as non-secular?

      1. @Robert

        Interesting one …

        Whilst I would perceive them as “Christian” countries in the broader sense … I dont think they have unelected bishops in their parliament or their head of state as head of the church ….

  63. Bernie Rowen 29 Jan 2012, 9:14pm

    To even think of calling Cameron a dictator is just showing a type of ignorance that befalls people who cannot face their own shadow….unfortunately it is religion and the churches who try to dictate….it is a sad indictment on any religious leader who lacks compassion and understanding for their fellow human beings who would like to be joined together to celebrate their love.

  64. Silly old sod…… has he never heard of Mugabe?

    I’m not exactly a fan of “the posh boys’ club” (Tory Party) but the fella’s going a bit far there… needs to get out more and mix with real people, not just the usual boss-eyed nutters singing from the same Hymn book!

    1. Galadriel1010 30 Jan 2012, 1:36pm

      He removed his dog collar and refused to wear it again as long as Mugabe was still in power, which is part of the reason that this comment from him strikes me as so absurd.

  65. Yesterday’s The Big Questions on BBC One – a Christian rolls his eyes at the suggestion that marriage is about love.

    1. Without love no marriage can be sacred.

    2. Without love no marriage can be sacred.

  66. Perhaps Dr Sentamu forgets his position. He is part of a State Church. If he wishes for greater independence from the State, perhaps he should become a Protestant cleric.

    “I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are.” Really – Rome changed it overnight when it declared same sex marriages illegal in, from memory, the fourth century CE.

    From the very beginning of the Christian Church, it has been the State that has defined marriage. The Church was a late comer to this area, waiting eight hundred years before getting involved.

    I read now of “religious” civil partnerships and “civil” marriages. From what I understand, surely there is no “religious” marriage in England, and hasn’t been for more than 150 years – all marriages are “civil”, albeit frequently dressed up with pretty religious ceremonies. Why continue to play semantic games? Why not just ha

  67. They don’t really accept us in the CofE. They say they are not homophobic and are welcoming to gay people but that ‘s only if you don’t have sex.

    They accept our sexual orientation but only if we don’t do anything about it and suppress our sexual desires.

    They don’t really believe that CPs are marriages in all but name. They think we are just friends living together. They don’t see us any different to a couple of old spinster sisters living together.

    Taking all that into context then they aren’t really going to accept gay marriage. What’s new?

    Surely our elected “dictators” in the commons aren’t going to give a toss what our unelected “dictators” say in the CofE or the Vatican etc.. I bloody hope not otherwise I might as well live in Iran!

  68. Staircase2 30 Jan 2012, 1:45am

    “I’d rather stick with Jesus than be popular because it looks odd”

    …Jesus didnt have anything to say AT ALL on the issue of gay men and women….
    NOTHING

    …what a bloody idiot…(and for some reason he really irritates me too…)

    And its bloody preposterous for him to believe that the Christian Church invented Marriage…it didnt….

    There are also (as I understand it) many historic examples of same sex marriages.

    Personally I think the whole idea of contracted marriages is an ass but obviously, from an equality standpoint I fully support the wish for all people to have access to a legally prescribed state of marriage if thats what they wish (regardless of the sex/gender of their partner)

    1. Why is this loon so hell bent on the marriage being redfined altering the english language, English isn’t even his first language.

      Go back to your dictatorship country and force people to live by your values over there PLOISE!

      1. de Villiers 31 Jan 2012, 1:35pm

        That seems racist to me.

        1. Staircase2 3 Feb 2012, 11:41pm

          …there’s a reason for that….(it is!)
          I wish people wouldn’t just come on here with their vented up spleen just waiting for an opportunity to splurge their nastiness all over the comments boards…

          ps what happened with the ‘report’ button!?

  69. the catholic church is coming out with all kinds of crazy statements, eg the pope saying gay marriage will cause the end of humanity

    which he knows will be seen as saying gays will cause the end of humanity.

    the Pope is desperate. Virtually all of western Europe has M or CUs (50-50) except italy and greece. With England, maybe scotland, Denmark, Finland and possibly even Ireland changing from CUs to marriage in the next few years.

    We should all wish him a long life and Papacy. the Pope, even though he doesnt know it, is doing Gods work in giving us marriage all over the world except the islamic and commie states.

    While eg in France, Spain and elsewhere, regular church attendance is at 15% per EWQTN (catholic TV in USA)

    And once super cath Ireland its collapsed from about 90 to 25% in just ten years.

    Keep the heat up. the church / Benedict is doing what we call in the USA “hanging itself”

    Its a wonderful time in which to be living. Our own “Islam” committing suicide

    1. If “EVERYONE” became gay it might cause the end of humanity and if “EVERYONE” became a Catholic priest it would certainly cause the end of humanity but how likely is either scaremongering scenario?

    2. I’m not sure why you are bringing the Catholic church into these comments (although they are as bad if not worse than this Archbishop) but this is about Protestant Christiainity being bigoted …

    3. Both Greece and Italy have an unhealthy fundamental link with the church (in Greece’s case, it’s in the death-like grip of the Eastern Orthodox church). Your comments on the rest of Europe are spot on. Normalization of homosexuality is slowly taking place, and won’t be stopped!

  70. It amazes me that a man who is part of a racial minority that was oppressed by both state and church for hundreds of years compares change from tradition and liberal freedom to a dictatorship…. it truely is astonishing!

    1. Its a lesson in how the oppressed have short memories, and become the oppressors. History is littered with examples, alas.

      1. de Villiers 31 Jan 2012, 1:34pm

        Yes – that happens on this board, too.

  71. S: I used to know this dame and she says to me “I’m the glamorous type”

    B: What did you say in reply?

    S: I said, “Is that so?”

    B: Did it end the relationship?

    S: No, it ended the conversation.

    1. Explanation, my previous post was in reply to a troll’s post now removed.

  72. gaykingdom 30 Jan 2012, 9:20am

    This cleric is a buffoon and serves his followers poorly. His type can feel their hold on things slipping out of grasp, and will squirm and whine, lie and distort, just to try and be relevant.
    It is right thinking that these people should be tossed out of the House of Lords. No nobility of spirit or conduct for his type. Ecclesiastic dross….nothing more.

  73. David Nottingham 30 Jan 2012, 9:21am

    A message to Dr Sentamu…….
    “Your Grace, you’re wrong! The Church of England does not own marriage in the United Kingdom. So please shut up”

  74. Oh, look everyone, its the alcoholic again rambling about how he wants to mate with his sister or lick excrement….

    See all your comments were deleted AGAIN, keith – what a laugh THAT is! And yet you persist in testing – madness is futility, eh? LOL!

    And I am equally delighted to see your anger at them being deleted too. It warms me. Mmmmmm. Toasty.

  75. “The issue of polygamy, incestuous marriage, marriage to an inanimate object, marriage to animals etc. is unrelated since polygamous, incestuous, bestial and Paraphilic marriages can be either homosexual or heterosexual (with the exclusion of asexual objects). I could bring to bear exactly the same slippery slope argument against straight marriage since it has just as much relevance to the gay marriage issue. I wouldn’t though because it would still be fallacious nonsense.

    The reason why slippery slope arguments are fallacious is because it does nothing more than reveal that no sound reasons are available to the person opposing it. There is no good reason to oppose gay marriage so people that don’t like it seek to twin it with something that the person arguing for it might find more objectionable.” Bribase

    1. Moral and disease free!! 30 Jan 2012, 4:32pm

      The reaosn to oppose is the same reason to oppose anal incest, polygamy, etc.
      IMMORAL!
      Detrimental to decent society and moral values.

      1. All together now:-

        “IMMORAL!”

        Delete!
        Delete!
        Delete!
        Delete!

        LMFAO!!!!!

        The madness of futility – how I love watching you defecate from the mouth here, like the drunken ex-gay fool you are Keith. How embarrassing. I’ll take bets on how long this one will last!

  76. “It’s almost like somebody telling you that the Church, whose job is to worship God…”

    I suggest he gets on with that and leaves the real world to the rest of us.

  77. Please take a look at this award winning film, For The Bible Tells Me So, for a complete answer to all the bigotry.

    http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/index2.htm

  78. “notice nobody fighting for the marriage rights of the consensual anal incest community.”

    There’s always the dreary dirty-minded homophobic Christian bigot trolls like you Bfof whose lives are such dry empty husks that their days are spent haunting gay comments boards.

  79. ‘…notice nobody fighting for the marriage rights of the consensual anal incest community…’

    well if they cannot be bothered to fight for that themselves, nobody else will

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Jan 2012, 1:08pm

      “consensual anal incest community”? Consensual anal sex has NEVER been the sole domain of Gay people. It’s as old as civilisation and practiced by heterosexuals and gay people alike.

      Polygamy is an entirely heterosexual phenomenon, sanctioned in the old testament and currently practiced by a small number of Islamic countries and at one time the practice of the Mormon sect up until the tail end of the 19th century. Not a word of condemnation about that by the foes of same-sex civil marriage.

      1. Moral and disease free!! 30 Jan 2012, 4:29pm

        I challenge you to produce the scripture where God sanctioned polygamy.

        1. Here it is, exactly as you requested.

          Trolls 1:2-3
          ” For I am the God and I sanction the polygamy”

          That’s what I call producing the kind of proof you accept and respect isn’t it?

          1. Not forgetting, Pavlos:-

            “If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.” — Exodus 21:10

            “If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn.” — Deuteronomy 21:15-16

            “And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also.” — Genesis 29:28

            “And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.” — 2 Samuel 5:13

            Proof that Keith is not only a rabid drunk, but an incredibly stupid one. But I suppose its what you get when the sum total of your education is from reading the label of a JD bottle….

          2. brown fudge fingers 31 Jan 2012, 10:01pm

            Butt hurt Will? Know your bible before you take me on you rectally obsessed piece of human garbage!

          3. “Know your bible before you take me on you rectally obsessed piece of human garbage!”

            LOL!

            Ohhhh, doesn’t like been proved wrong, does it?

            Well, clearly I know the bible better then you, you drunken degenerate! Ahhh, what’s wrong, did the big smarter gay show you up again? Never mind, just do what you always do, have a tantrum and a bottle of JD – that’ll cheer you right up! Take you’re mind off the sex and the faeces and all that….

            “Butt hurt Will?”

            Well, no, but thanks for asking. Does your mouth hurt? What with all the excrement you spew from it, can’t be healthy, can it?

            You’re stupidity Keith is astounding, I’m amazed you have the brain power to metabolise oxygen and breath at the same time.

            And I’m laughing at your tantrum – hmmmm, toasty!

          4. Tony Lambert 1 Feb 2012, 11:04am

            L.O.L.@Will – Nice one. Potty mouth Keith doesn’t have the brains to even answer what you put to him, is it any wonder intolerant troglodytes like him are an evolutionary dead end? And his anger at you proving him so clearly wrong is a real treat to watch :)

          5. Archbishop Halitosis 1 Feb 2012, 12:39pm

            My ribs hurt from laughing at that immoral tosspot. We all know he’s moral free, he doesn’t need to put that into his title lol.

            On another matter – can I sue the Bigot of York coz that fugly mush has wrecked my monitor. The glass shattered. You ever wondered what it feels like to be a Eurostar approaching the Chunnel – well take a look at that donkey-gob.

          6. Singapore Sam 1 Feb 2012, 4:55pm

            Personal attacks on appearance don’t score any points is a debate they just disclose your personal insecurity about your own looks.

          7. Singapore Sam 1 Feb 2012, 4:56pm

            @archbp Halitosis

          8. disease free! 3 Feb 2012, 9:46pm

            Sore bones is a sympton of HIV, a disease prevalent amongst the promiscuous and immoral, of which fudge packers are disproportionately foremost.
            How many that abstain from sex till mutually monogamous marriage contract STDS? The question is rhetorical!

          9. He is a laughing stock if he honestly believes he knows anything better than you, Will (particularly in his drunken state) …

            Stupidity is generous, Will – all his comments are shallow, puerile, absurd, ignorant and incongruous (often simultaneously!) … gross stupidity is more apt …

            I don’t know what is more risible and farcical, his comments, his desire to interact on a gay news site (when he alleges he feels dirtied by it – could you get any more unclean than Keith???) or his bizarre obsession with faeces and incest (can’t be good for you to have such obsessions, but he just doesnt see it ..)

            I used to pity him …. now I just laugh at him …

          10. Why Tony, Stu, you are both too kind in your comments.

            Comments, I might add, that will last and that WONT be deleted (giggle)

          11. “rectally obsessed piece of human garbage!”

            ???

            Sounds like you’ve been surreptitiously engaging in such activity too with a username like that!!!!

      2. Singapore Sam 1 Feb 2012, 5:09pm

        100 years ago it was practised by about 90% of the world population, and is still legal in around half of the countries in the UN, not just in Muslim countries, but traditional African countries and until fairly recently across the whole of China too.

        A study in 1980 concluded:

        “According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.”

        Monogamy may be better than polygamy, unless there’s a huge shortage of men, but societies that are purely monogamous were the exception rather than the rule and it cannot be said to be “traditional” marriage in any way.

  80. (Jan 30 2012)
    “Lord Carey backs Christian psychotherapist in ‘gay conversion’ row.”

    “Leading church figures including the former Archbishop of Canterbury have sparked controversy by championing a psychotherapist who believes gay men can be ‘cured’ of their homosexuality.”

    “The joint letter states: “Psychological care for those who are distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions has been shown to yield a range of beneficial client outcomes, especially in motivated clients … Such therapy does not produce harm despite the Royal College of Psychiatrists and others maintaining the contrary.”

    Anti-gay, anti-science, anti-legitimate research and evidence, anti-reality actually.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9046487/Lord-Carey-backs-Christian-psychotherapist-in-gay-conversion-row.html

  81. Burningworm 30 Jan 2012, 10:12am

    I don’t happen to agree with the continued stance of any religious institution that seeks to deny people a simple ceremony.

    Though the history of marriage is tangled and undeniably a religious affair. If you are lgbtqi and religious and want a ceremony it should be granted without question.

    A lot of legislation will need to change. We are in a time of paralysis. So much energy over what?

  82. Are we sure it’s only one man and one women ? :-D

    http://yfrog.com/z/h7y8kmgj

    Seems the Bible has some quite wacky (in our current view) of what is a valid marriage.

  83. Mind the gap….he’s had plenty of wang in that gob of his if those teeth are anything to go by.

  84. How disappointing to see that National Treasure Stephen Fry hasn’t tweeted any comments about Sentamu’s statement. The Archbishop is following Fry on Twitter.

    1. Galadriel1010 30 Jan 2012, 1:33pm

      He’s filming at the moment and largely out of signal, so maybe he’s just not had time to be aware of it?

  85. There is a brilliant article in today’s issue of The Times by Libby Purves that completely demolishes AschBish Sentamu’s argument. Do read it if you get a chance.

  86. Read Libby Purves in tThe Times today-as usual much sense. Let’s have her as the next Archbishop of Canterbury

  87. Writing as a devout atheist I have little interest in what the man says, save for his activities as another tiresome night soil stirrer. However I do wonder whether his beliefs stem directly from the colonialist bible thumping missionaries to Africa of the 19th century. They seem to have done a good job.

  88. We only have ourselves to blame. We sent missionaries to Africa to inflict our religion upon the natives and they took it literally. Now it’s coming back to haunt us.

    If we’d left well alone, they would still be hopping up and down with bones through their noses.

    I’d like to know how many times heterosexual marriage is mentioned in the bible? Just how important is it on paper?

    1. Galadriel1010 31 Jan 2012, 8:00pm

      I dunno, but heterosexual couples get admonished a lot more than gay ones.

      It’s not that he doesn’t love them, or that he loves gay men more than them (and gay women get off completely), it’s just that straight couples need more guidance.

    2. Staircase2 3 Feb 2012, 11:50pm

      What a crock of racist sh!t

      ‘we’ sent…?
      …I bloody well didnt!

      Enough with the ‘bones thru noses’ bollocks already!
      HONESTLY!

      DEAL WITH THE ACTUAL ISSUE INSTEAD OF COMING OUT WITH EVERY PREJUDICE YOU THINK NEEDS AIRING….

  89. I think Dr John Sentamu should definitely go and see a psychotherapist who will make him a caucasian man. Also, whilst he’s there perhaps he can turn himself into a REAL Christian instead of a Bigot.

  90. What with this and the Arch Bish of Canterbury backing a ‘gay cure’ therapist to mention but two articles of late, what on earth gives these homophobes the right to any place in the unelected House of Lords? Religion is on the back foot and its trying to rise up again and take centre stage with a right wing agenda. Resistance is futile! Lets separate the state from religion for good! Throw the lot out of the Lords for starters!

  91. Anyone in or able to get to York on Wednesday and interested in protesting against Sentamu’s comments, please attend or show support for the following event organised by YUSU (York University Students’ Union) LGBT and supported by York Pride and York and District LGBT Forum:

    https://www.facebook.com/events/197779990320501/

    Andy Law,

    Secretary
    York Pride
    York and District LGBT Forum

    Email: secretary@yorkpride.org
    Web: http://www.yorkpride.org

    1. Galadriel1010 31 Jan 2012, 7:58pm

      See you tomorrow :)

  92. “I challenge you to produce the scripture where God sanctioned polygamy.”

    “If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, [both] the beloved and the hated; and [if] the firstborn son be hers that was hated” [Deuteronomy 21:15]

    “If he take him another [wife]; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.” [Exodus 21:10]

    “And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.” [2 Samuel 5:13]

    “[These were] all the sons of David, beside the sons of the concubines, and Tamar their sister.” [1 Chronicles 3:1-9]

  93. johnny33308 30 Jan 2012, 7:26pm

    How many times must we repeat this truth: we live in a Civil society, a Secular society, a society that is NOT a Theocracy. Therefore the views of the religiously bigoted cannot and will not be FORCED upon the citizens of our Secular society. The views and opinions of the religiously bigoted have no meaning in the context of our Civil society. Such views only serve to further isolate the religiously bigoted from our Secular society (fortunately for us), and show them for what they TRULY are….plain ordinary bigots filled with illogical malice and hate. Keep your religious opinions where they belong…in your churches…they are unwelcome and unwanted out here in our Civil society. Or would you prefer we begin demanding our Civil values to be forced upon your ‘religious’ society? That can be arranged…..beware of what you demand because it can and will be turned around and bite you bigots in the rear end.

  94. johnny33308 30 Jan 2012, 7:37pm

    I have posted this hundreds of times when Christians say such ridiculous things as “Marriage has ALWAYS been between one man and one woman”. Really? Here is some Church history, and fact:
    http://christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/whensamesexmarriagewasachristianrite.html

  95. Moral and disease free!! 30 Jan 2012, 10:10pm

    Please keep me updated Stu. As you know I find you inadvertently funny.
    Also, did you find thepost where I allegedly said HIV ws a gay disease? You said you would produce it after me denying Is aid it. It looks lkie you have been found to be the liar regarding my arrest and my alleged post.

  96. Galadriel1010 31 Jan 2012, 7:56pm

    There will be a rally outside York Minster tomorrow afternoon at 1pm to support marriage equality and oppose the archbishop’s comments.

  97. brown fudge fingers 31 Jan 2012, 9:59pm

    Polygamy was tolerated but where does it say that God himself sanctioned or approved of it? Nobody denies that it happened but the scriptures you quote do not show God’s approval or sanction. Try again thicko!
    Monogamy is God’s original standard, reestablished by Jesus in the Christian congregation. (Ge 2:24; Mt 19:4-8; Mr 10:2-9)

  98. Great to see the protests at York Minster against the Archbishop referred to in this post mentioned in the lunchtime news on BBC North East & Cumbria’s Look North …

  99. Poor Keith.

    Its all rage and anger with him, isn’t it?

    And all the more so when he’s proved wrong/stupid/retarded. You’d think he’d be used to that by now?

  100. disease free! 3 Feb 2012, 9:41pm

    I challenge Will, or any other fudge packer, to produce the scripture where God sanctioned polygamy. That’s SANCTIONED! Approved of, endorsed. Not tolerated , put up with or allowed.
    Solomon is a clear indicator of God’s dislike of polygamy. He had his kingdom ripped away from him after his death , as God promised.

  101. disease free! 3 Feb 2012, 9:42pm

    I challenge Will, or any other fudge packer, to produce the scripture where God sanctioned polygamy. That’s SANCTIONED! Approved of, endorsed. Not tolerated , put up with or allowed.
    Solomon is a clear indicator of God’s dislike of polygamy. He had his kingdom ripped away from him after his death , as God promised.,,

  102. This sad little man could learn a lot from Desmond Tutu, the first ever bishop to speak about and defend gay rights. The bishop or York has the audacity of calling Cameron a dictator just because he is trying to open rights for gays. This man seems to forget that no long ago black people like him had no rights in South Africa and that in the USA interracial marriages were banned. Now he brings the bigotry suffered by black people to gay people. He is no better that members of the KKK.

  103. soundsteve 7 May 2012, 1:12pm

    I love how easily people like Mr. Semantu spout bigotry against minority groups now that his rights are guaranteed. Maybe we should re-open the debate about slavery? The bible says that is okay, after all. Mr. Semantu is a slave already… to the vile right wing policies of an institution that has little relevance to most people in the west and continues to decline with every bigot like him opening their big mouths.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all