Reader comments · Cardinal defends ‘grotesque’ gay marriage comment and calls to stop ‘progress’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Current Affairs

Cardinal defends ‘grotesque’ gay marriage comment and calls to stop ‘progress’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. There is no defence. The comment was simply uncalled for, end of.

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 5 Mar 2012, 10:44am

      It is possible to respond to him in just two words:

      1) Child 2) Rape.

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 5 Mar 2012, 11:13am

        I have two numbers to add.

        1 and 13

        1 person dead from AIDS every 13 seconds in Sub Saharan Africa as a direct result of the Vatican’s condom policies.

        247 per hour

        2.3 million in 2005 alone.

        Lets talk about what’s grotesque now Cardinal!!!!

        Lets discuss just what IS an abomination.

        1. I arrived at the comment box after reading more of this despicable, frock wearing bigot – all ready to rant my usual brand of impotent rage – and found your bullet point comments – you have said it all my friend – the tone of comments on this one are stark and understandably digusted.

    2. Good!! He continues to expose his bigotry. Keep giving him rope.

    3. billywingarton 26 Mar 2012, 2:46am

      the grotesque thing is raping children worldwide.

      The archbishop of chicago over a dispute re the church services and the timing of a gay pride parade by the church, called the gay pride parade a KKK event (just in case, the Ku Klux Klan was the terror group of whites who after the USA civil war, created segregation to replace slavery)

      Why did this bitch of a church leader / pedophile hider say this……………….

      To try and create more hate of the gays among the black community.

      BTW he is cardinal george…………..

  2. At what point does he cross the line in to hate speech? If he said these things about people who were black or Asian or Jewish or disabled etc etc etc he would be shot down in flames. We all know the lines about religion, about the vile conduct of the RCC, we all know those arguments. It hardly bears repeating. But his faith is not mine and I should not be forced to comply with it, to try and make me makes him like the Taliban.

  3. mutantgnome 5 Mar 2012, 10:20am

    As a south african gay male the only thing that is currently making the UK look bad is his comments, not the fact that gay ppl wantto be treated like every other person.
    War, Rape, Murder, Poverty, sodomy, Equal rights for gays. Guess which one the church is protesting?

  4. Dr Robin Guthrie 5 Mar 2012, 10:26am

    I dare one religious apologist to come onto this forum and defend this excuse of a man.

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 5 Mar 2012, 10:32am

      I’m afraid there were plenty of Catholics willing to defend mass pan-global child rape and it’s covering up.

    2. There is a reason that the collective noun for christians is flock. What O’Brien has said is the tip of a nasty iceberg – from treatment of women to lying about condom effectiveness against disease to keeping people in grinding poverty by taking their money while living in palaces to a global conspiracy to protect child abusers. Catholic sheep have never done a thing about any of that, this will be no different. Anything said here would be pointless lip service – action is required but passive jellyfish/doormat is their norm.

      1. This is because the minority speak for the majority. This nonsense is not something that a true Christian would believe. True Christians (Catholics included) believe that God loves all of his children equally. As the source of all that is good and pure, he would not make it a sin for some to express their love and then not a sin for others. That would be ungodly. Many non-Christians tend to refer to the section in the bible about the ancient city of Sodom. But if you look at the bible, you see that God says he punishes the people of Sodom because they think of themselves, favour the rich, and the ignore the dying in poverty. God doesn’t mention homosexuality. The writer of that section of the bible, however, did and as a man, interpreted this to meaning that God punished Sodom for conducting homosexual activities. This was purely man’s interpretation. It is an out-dated and backward view which is not part of a true Christian’s faith.

    3. You have called me a religious apologist before, Dr Guthrie …

      See my comments below and tell me that I am a religious apologist!

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 5 Mar 2012, 11:04am

        I have noticed, given the recent onslaught of religious based angst against us that your tone has changed.

        1. It doesnt stop me speaking out in support of honourable Christians. But as I have always said I will speak out against inhumanity and bigotry. Its quite clear both Archbishops and the Cardinal are being inhumane and seeking to preserve hatred against LGBT people. They deserve vehement opposition.

          1. Dr Robin Guthrie 5 Mar 2012, 11:25am

            One scary thing about this is the numbers signing the e-petition against gay marriage is rising over the 100,000 mark, thus triggering a commons debate,

            Given today’s cave in by the coalition regarding child benefit cuts, it is very possible that they could cave in over this if enough pressure and misinformation is applied by the Churches as seems to be happening.

          2. Robin, remember that there are serious question marks over the veracity of that petition. And if it can be proven to he corrupted or false, it can be binned. There was an article in The Scotsman about it, and many people are reporting that their personal details and signature are on it when they never signed. It’s a mendacious phoney.

          3. @Dr Guthrie

            They may be able (whether by genuine means or underhand methods – and i suspect a great deal of the latter) to initiate a Commons debate.

            I would be amazed if the government were diverted from their reasonable course of seeking civil marriage equality.

            The Times are on side. One of the co founders of the Conservative Christian Fellowship is on side. Overwhelmingly opinion polls have 70% of the general population and 61% of Christians on side.

            We need to sustain our efforts to ensure that equality happens and not be caught in a trap of thinking the argument is totally and certainly won until the law is changed, but the argument is being won repeatedly.

            People like the Cardinal and the Archbishops, Peter Bone and Colin Hart, David Burrowes and Fiona Bruce MP are being exposed for their inhumanity and hatred.

            The public can see through the ridiculous nature of their arguments and although they have enough support to manipulate a petition. Thats about all they have

    4. Spanner1960 5 Mar 2012, 11:05am

      Go onto the Daily Mail comments forum: There are hundreds of them, unfortunately.
      Religiously fed homophobia is alive and well in Britain, it is sad to say.

      1. This is the even more disturbing truth. Yes, the cardinal spouts superstitious hogwash. BUT his actions also unleash a torrent of trolls and an unpleasant backlash that the young and/or vulnerable end up being faced with. His behaviour, that the coverage it gives, is taken as an act of permission to abuse LGBT people. He is whipping up a mob and we bleed because of it.

        1. I wouldn’t judge society based on the comment section of the Daily Mail.

          A it’s censored and B there are websites set up by people, whose mission in life seems to be, to flood the place with the most hilarious tongue in cheek trolling.

          Also most of it’s readership only looks at the pictures.

  5. Cardinal O’Brien is making the pro-equality argument by coming out with remarks of such crudity and ignorance as to alert the public to the absurdity of his views.

    I highly recommend anyone who hasn’t yet to watch “8” to enjoy Kevin Bacon’s marvellous reconstruction (c. 1’20”) of the “we don’t need evidence, marriage equality is new and gay and therefore BAD” line of (non)reasoning which the prop 8 proponents actually thought would convince a court. They didn’t, and hopefully this “argument” won’t convince the British public either.

  6. Keith Farrell 5 Mar 2012, 10:27am

    This idiot again, when will he realise that he is wrong, we are all equal and if his circh cannot accept that, then his church has no place in this world. did you know that churches normally do not pay tax and get hand outs from the goverments to maintain their buildings, money which you and I as tax payers have to pay.

  7. “We’re taking standards which are not just our own but standards from the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations where marriage is defined as a relationship between man and woman and turning that on its head […] I would say that countries where this is legal are indeed violating human rights.”

    WTF?? I can’t help but laugh perhaps because the alternative is to cry.

  8. Mumbo Jumbo 5 Mar 2012, 10:30am

    You can hear the intellectually, emotionally and morally stunted old goat blathering incoherently on the Today Programme this morning here:

    History will judge these people very harshly.

    1. John Humphrys did a brilliant job of exposing that man’s immense prejudice and stupidity.

  9. Cardinal O’Brien is to be commended for speaking out against the intolerant militants who are seeking to impose an unwanted and ludicrous redefinition of marriage on the whole of civil society. The BBC is to be commended for giving him a platform to do so.

    1. The BBC is to be commended for giving him the platform and enough rope to hang himself.

      That’s the result of his ramblings, nothing more, nothing less.

    2. ‘Unwanted’ by whom?
      ‘Ludicrous’ to whom?
      Why should equal access to civil marriage be restricted by some people’s dismissive prejudices about other peoples’ love and commitment?
      Why should supernatural belief dictate the laws under which others have to live?
      Just who exactly is ‘intolerant’?
      The BBC is to be commended for allowing this joker to spell out his emotive and ill-informed attitudes for all to hear.

    3. @Ed R

      The BBC are to be congratulated for giving the Cardinal the air time to make it clear how inhumane, hate filled and wrong he actually is.

      The Cardinal is an embarrassment to the UK.

    4. Mumbo Jumbo 5 Mar 2012, 10:50am

      Under UK law, marriage was re-defined in 1971 to mean “between and man and a woman”. I take it you agree that it’s right to be able to redefine marriage now?

      1. Ben Foster 5 Mar 2012, 12:43pm

        so what was it defined as before 1971?

        Obviously this definition can be changed easily enough. It was in 1971. why not in 2012?

    5. Dr Robin Guthrie 5 Mar 2012, 11:06am

      Back into your cave and throw some stones at the moon.

    6. Go back and join the rest of the bigots at the Daily Mail.

    7. strange how “straight” people always know which gay sites to troll with their caveman clubs and neanderthal ideas.

      1. and why do they seem so pre-occupied with the sex we have – me thinks it’s envy!

        We don’t spend any time thinking about the sex they engage in, do we?

        1. I try and avoid it at all costs, unluckily as it is plastered all over TV its a difficult one to escape.

    8. @Ed R – When will you be sacrificing a goat for us?

  10. Aren’t the Catholics great. they show concern when an issue of equal rights is dicussed, but turn a blind eye to the horrific child abuse taking place within their own ranks.

    1. My 2cents 5 Mar 2012, 4:09pm

      To date, only one catholic prelate has truly expressed contriteness and shame over the scandal of child sexual abuse in the church: the Archbishop of Dublin. The scandal continues to rock Ireland, and church attendance is down to 2%. Only one seminarian will be confirmed to the priesthood this year (from 100-120 average). The church all over Europe is on a downward spiral.

      1. And Eire is contemplating gay marriage, in a country that still considers abortion wrong no matter the circumstances on religious grounds.

  11. So “society would be degenerating even further than it has already degenerated into immorality” as he quotes. His own church has so much immorality within it, it is disgusting, riddled with dirty old men who abuse children and hide behind their ‘religion’

    Being gay is not hazardous to a healthy lifestyle but it would appear that being catholic could be with all that hate and anger he clearly has.

    I really hope that in the not too distant future that some people come forward with allegations of him being a kiddy fiddler!

    We’ve said it before and we will carry on saying it, the world will NOT end when gay marraige is legalised the world over, it is a human right to marry, regardless of who you fall in love with and the sooner he and his ilk get their heads around that the better!

  12. Try as he might, the Cardinal needs to know it is impossible to defend the indefensible.

    Human rights are not the product of the church, they are EVERY human beings rights and entitlements and his twisted interpretation of the UN declaration of human rights bears false witness.

    Human rights are inate. They go beyond the boundaries of organisations or states. They even go beyond the laws themselves. The laws help quantify them and identify them. The rights remain regardless of how they are quantified.

    Organisations or states can restrict rights or prevent people from being able to exercise their rights, but that is what is wrong. That is what is immoral. That does not prevent the rights existing, just uses inhumane, unloving and draconian measures to prevent those rights being responsibly exercised.

    Yes we are seeking a cultural change. A change to a position where the religious no longer have special rights. Where they have equal rights with every other person and relgiious …

    1. … or affinity does not grant exemption from reasonable laws.

      Equal and fair law. Properly protected human rights.

      Of course the Cardinal is entitled to make his views known, and this he has done repeatedly and loudly and they shame the Catholic church and UK. His comments are grotesque and undermine the very fabric of society. His comments are an anaethema to democracy, fairness, integrity and humanity.

      He has lost the argument and he knows it.

      My full response to the Cardinal is here:

      1. RE your blog

        “At the outside” means at the most. You may mean, ‘from the outset’ which means, ‘to begin’

        I don’t want to be a pedant but it’s your first sentence ( it helps to start as you mean to go on… first impressions count… blah blah blah)

        1. @Joss

          Thank you for your feedback.

          Your thoughts as to the overall message rather than picking apart my first three words would have been appreciated.

          1. Well if you would like honest and constructive criticism here it is

            My thoughts on your overall article are that you waffle a bit too much and your writing style is not engaging enough to appeal to people who are not already interested in your point of view, therefore you are possibly preaching (the tone is quite preachy) to the converted, (although it largely depends on who your intended audience is and what your motives are).

            There is nothing wrong with the content of your article, only the presentation of your ideas.

            That may all sound harsh but you asked for my thoughts.

          2. The content of your blog stylistically is rather all over the place (and I don’t mean colors and fonts). Too many repetitions, no links to relevant data supporting your arguments, it just doesn’t flow.

          3. That’s the point Stu, you lose the reader immediately :)

          4. Thank you for your comments. Your opinion is noted.

            The other comments I have received elsewhere have been somewhat different. It is useful to have a range of opinions.

            My audience was intended to be people who were already interested in the debate on marriage (whichever side of the argument). So perhaps the style is appropriate.

            Nonetheless, thank you for your response. It is harsh. Some of it is fair but overall I will balance it will the other responses I have received and am content in the article, that is not to say that improvements could not be made next time.

            Stylistically it may not be something you like, but style is a matter of subjectivity.

          5. It appears I am now getting more negative feedback.

            Predominantly the feedback has been positive.

            Clearly from the supportive comments I have had some people were not lost, wingby.

            I shall try to be more succinct next time.

            Have to say it met the aims I set when I decided what I was going to write.

            I did ask for feedback. I graciously accept it. Although I balance it with other comments received elsewhere.

          6. It really wasn’t my intention to open the flood gates for people to dump all over you, so to speak.

            It’s commendable that you took the time to write the article and are not staying silent.

            If people don’t agree with you, you have to grab their attention and to keep it you have be succinct and entertaining otherwise they’ll just click on something else. This is why tabloids prosper. That is a better version of what I wanted to convey.

          7. @Joss

            Thanks for you very reasonable final comment.

            I have to be honest and say I didnt appreciate your first comment talking solely about the first three words and saying absolutely nothing about the rest. Thank you for following up with some constructive comments.

            The audience intended was not people who would necessarily disagree with me. If I had intended (for arguments sake) a Daily Mail reader then my style would have been somewhat different.

            I will try to take on board what you say. I am determined not to be silent on this issue. It matters!

          8. So Stu you either live with a person called Zack or are Zack…

            I don’t want to go off on a Samuel B rant (we all know how that story ends) so maybe you could explain.

          9. Logging in rather late in the day for this debate, but I say nothing!

          10. @Joss

            Stu is my partner. I was at his place last night and guess I left myself logged in at one point inadvertently.

          11. Samuel B. 6 Mar 2012, 8:38am

            So the two of you take it in turns to make postings on PN while whispering sweet nothings into each others’ ears?

            Zack, tell me, when did you start posting here on PN?

            I have done my intensive research and can find no previous thread under which you have commented, so how can you just happen to have been logged in as Zack when the name appears new to these boards, period?


          12. Samuel

            I have been here on and off since Sept/Oct approx.

            We have spoken to each other before. Although only once or twice.

            I’ve just spoken to Stu and to try and he laughed at me not realising that I had not logged out. He says he is not surprised you decided to comment. Should I be jealous?

            I have agreed with Stu to try and make it more obvious when I am logged in and have added a gravatar by using a different email to comment to the one I had been using.

          13. Samuel B. 6 Mar 2012, 2:53pm

            How exactly does it work in your household, pray, with two such key-happy lovers and just one keyboard?

            Has such a situation led to strife, or do you take it in turns to get your work down, maybe taking turns to tap a key like the starstruck lovers you clearly are?

            How romantic!

            Can we trust it will be a white church wedding when we finally get gay weddings legalised?

            Now, must dig up my best hat in lieu of an invite…

        2. Stu has a bf?! When do they find the time to do the stuff together, I mean Stu is on here 24/7

          1. @Samuel

            Its early days in the relationship and we are not living together yet. Zack came round yesterday and borrowed my laptop a few times whilst I was on the phone.

            White isn’t really my colour – but its far too early to be talking marriage or anything at this point.

          2. Samuel B. 7 Mar 2012, 6:00pm

            But does Zack also know about Marcus, Patrick, Charles et al or do you have them all manically on the go while he’s not looking?

            On rotation perhaps?

            Or is it some kind of a harem you run at your place?

            Whoever next will you surprise us with, I wonder?

            The words “credibility” and “tatters” keep resonating in my mind…

          3. Samuel B. 8 Mar 2012, 8:22am

            Don’t you think a relationship requires a commitment of time and effort?

            How can you possibly have an ongoing affair with Zack and PN at the same time, Stu?

            I hope you choose and choose wisely.

            Something has to give.

            Will it be PN, or will you be disappearing into the sunset with Zack?

            Do tell!

  13. In my experience the most homophobic people tend to be closet homosexuals and given that it is estimated that 30% of cathalic clergy are gay it is no wonder the Catholic Church can at times be so extremely anti-gay. This goes right to the very top of the Church. Methinks Cardinal Keith O’brien doth protest way too much.

    1. It does seem to be a trend. However, while I would normally invite everyone out of the closet and in to the warm light of day, sometimes I think we should nail the door shut and drop it in a bloody well to stop them infecting the rest of us with their damnable self loathing.

      1. Heaven preserve us, what a horrible thought. I certainly don’t want this specimen on my side of the fence, thanks all the same!

  14. It is high time the clergy of ANY faith become subject to penalties against incitement of hatred and hate speech. They should not be allowed to hide behind their own skirts.

    I don’t know where he gets the Universal Declaration of Human Rights definition of marriage from…the UN has recommended to a number of governments (including Australia in 2011) that marriage equality should be extended (and no longer withheld) as soon as possible, in the UN review of Australia’s obligation to UN treaties and conventions. I see no difference in the UK position, except the UK governments are proactive while Australia’s are not.

  15. It’s always funny being lectured on sexual morality by a celibate weirdo in a gold hat and floor length sparkly frock, that lives in a castle. Why is this still happening?

    1. Because the world in general, and religion in particular, is intrinsically absurd. Pope Paul VI once famously denounced effeminacy in men while wearing a pink satin soutaine trimmed with ermine.

      1. Ooh but I bet he looked a treat. The current pope is also well into his labels as well

    2. hahahahahahahha,,,omg i just snorted my morning coffee onto thte keyboard,,,that was friggin funny!!

    3. thats hysterical….. i love this comment.

    “Article 16.

    (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

    (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”

    Please note (he said, preaching to the converted), the declaration specifically says “Men and women….have the right to marry and to found a family. “, not “Men WITH women”.
    The UDHR is simply specifying the right to marriage applies to both genders.
    My Husband and I (who said I sound like a Queen?! lol) are, whatever the various churches claim, married (at least all our friends and family, including our 30yo son/husband’s Best Man, seem to think so?!).
    Sod god – this is not its business

    1. @KeithBW
      It also later in the same article refers to married spouses and does not define gender.
      Of course men and women will marry. Whilst a man and a woman marrying fulfills that wording – so does 2 men marrying or 2 women marrying (men and women are marrying!)

      1. Exactly!

    2. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 5 Mar 2012, 8:25pm

      Hear hear.

  17. Craig Denney 5 Mar 2012, 11:49am

    Ben Summerskill responds to article by Cardinal Keith O’Brien (Youtube):

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Mar 2012, 12:33pm

      I don’t think anyone could make it clearer than Ben Summerskill. Concise and to the point. If anything brings shame to the UK, it’s Cardinal O’Brien for his demonstration of ignorance. Given the RC church’s centuries old “tradition” of paedophilia, his reference to how children should be raised I find to be rather hypocritical and bigoted. If anything, it is anti-family for harbouring and covering up of clergy who’ve abused hundreds of thousands if not millions of boys and girls since its inception. He mentions nothing let alone condemns widows and widowers with children, those who’ve never remarried for the sake of the children.

      Now I wonder how he knew about Pink News? Is there something he’s not telling us?

    2. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 5 Mar 2012, 8:35pm

      Oh crap, something gay actually appearing on BBC news and I missed it… and nearly 4 long, do I presume Mark Thomson is away on holiday? You know, while the cat’s away, etc.

      Still, I won’t be paying my license fee this year because I am the invisible sexuality as far as that brown-nosing–pope-arse creep is concerned.

  18. Some interesting figures on Britain’s Catholics….This ungodly man doesn’t represent many …1 in 12 according to the BBC and probably most of those do not set foot in a church very often, if at all. Lots of them will however have Friends, Family, Work mates etc who are members of the LGBT community. LGBT. Give him enough rope, thats my opinion as a person born into the catholic Religion.

    1. Exactly. No Catholic I know agrees with him! So you have to wonder who he is speaking for with his comments? Following orders from Rome is my guess, and since when do foreign dictators get to influence British law?

  19. Pink news has just had a mention on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2! A Catholic church spokesperson mentioned this very site as an example of the vitriol coming from gay lobby groups! At least we know who all the trolls are now!

    1. Ahh… the Catholic church – one of the greatest and most murderous criminal cartels throughout history – playing the “help help I’m a victim” card. It’s a standard move for them. Well, if they watch this site, fine. Shove your buy-bull, christaliban scum.

    2. Dr Robin Guthrie 5 Mar 2012, 12:14pm

      What this “spokesman” fails to mention is that it is WE that are on the defensive..

      It is they who are attacking.

      What does he want us to do.

      Just sit back and take their vile abuse!

    3. @Gavin

      I bet he didnt mention that the Cardinal was bearing false witness in his article in the Telegraph yesterday or his rambling nonsensical mutterings on Radio 4 this morning …

  20. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Mar 2012, 12:14pm

    I raised the issue of false signatures when the petition first started. I wouldn’t mind betting those in charge purchased mailing lists and used the names and email addresses to falsify signatures. 100,000 or more does seem rather high in such a short period of time. It is quite conceivable that people use more than one internet provider thereby allowing them to have different email addresses which means one person could sign it several times. AOL for example allows individuals up to 7 email accounts. Need I say more? This needs to be exposed in the media.

  21. Nutjobsareeverywhere 5 Mar 2012, 12:45pm

    Hopefully mr salmon is taking this grotesque idiot with devolution

  22. How about we get rid of marriage and let everybody who wants to be legally together have a civil partnership, then the problem goes away. The religious could still have their mumbo-jumbo-ism in a church if they want but the default should be a civil partnership.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Mar 2012, 2:45pm

      Not practical and never going to be the universal gold standard for legal unions. Although, I think CPs and cvil marriage should coalesce side by side for either orientation.

    2. I am not in favour of this. People don’t understand ‘civil partnership’. You want to reserve a room for yourself and your partner. What? A business partner? Do you want two single beds? No, not a business partner, my partner, my civil partner. Bah humbug! It’s wife and husband, it is ‘marriage’. It has to be marriage because nothing else will do. Let religious people have their holy unions and whatnot but keep marriage what it is: a public commitment to spend the rest of your life with the person you love. We do not get civil partnered, we get married. Our children want to see their parents married as opposed to civil partnered or civil unionised.
      It needs to be marriage. Fair is fair because love is love. And I for one do not want to have a ‘special’ word just because I got married in a church instead of ‘only’ a regstry office. It has to be marriage.

    3. This assumes marriage belongs to a church. It doesn’t it is (and always has been) a mechanism of civil law, that we should all be subject to equally.

    4. No thanks, Quite simply because the words are different it means that it IS different. Civil Partnership is NOT the same as marriage.
      I want to MARRY my fiancée, in church. We’re both Christian and we both want our relationship legalised and made in front of our God and our friends. We’ll probably have to go to Canada to get it done in church, because there churches are allowed to marry same-sex couples just the same as hetero-couples. I would sooner our country joined the 21st century, and our churches were allowed to do what they think is right for their members, rather than following an ancient tradition that is ignorant and backward.

  23. Another catholic cardinal – another monstrous bigot, whom I have no doubt was somehow involved in the cover up of industrial scale child rape.

  24. Errol Semple 5 Mar 2012, 1:23pm

    Religion has no place in civil marriages. It is time that religious bigots are charges with hate crimes when they try to force their dogma on others.

  25. grotesque religion

  26. If all children are better off born into a family with a mother and father then all the divorces should be ruled illegal and all those people should be forced back into their unhappy marriages so they can follow God’s law and raise their kids in this two-parent household. Divorce for straight people should be illegal for the sanctity of marriage. No divorces for anyone. ever.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 5 Mar 2012, 2:44pm

      Divorced is banned by the roman cult but it gets around it by allowing annulments, but for a price of course. At one time, you could only get one for non-consummation of the marriage, being gay or bisexual, and not wanting to have children. Today, they let you have an annulment for just about anything as long as you can pay for it. So corrupt.

  27. why doesnt this “man” get equally upset about priests sticking their penises into children? shouldnt the church clean their own house with their bigot broom before they decide who else is unclean?

    1. “As you have highlighted, the majority of clerical child abuse is of a homosexual nature.”

      As you often highlight, that is irrelevant, you silly little bible humper.

      1. You’re not arguing anything, you drunken moron, your regurgitating nonsense. Drunks have little by way of intelligent argument.

    2. B L Z Bub 5 Mar 2012, 2:54pm

      Of course it is perfectly natural for either a gay or heterosexual adult man to live a life of celibacy.

      Remember too that having a good cardinal thunder is also a sin.

      So none of that dirty kn0b play.

      Their b0ll0cks must be the size of grapefruits.

      Anyhoo. P!ss off you drunken piece of sh!t.

      1. B L Z Bub 5 Mar 2012, 4:13pm

        Can you not read. P!ss off you drunken piece of sh!t.

    3. The majority of it is fostered by invisible opportunity in a closed authoritarian environment where most available children are of the same sex as the perpetrators. It tells us nothing for certain about what attracts men to ideologically celibate roles and certainly nothing about men, including gay men, in the world outside.
      But I know that thinking before posting vile rubbish is beyond you, Keith.

      1. “Protecting children”? Like the way the Church did by hiding so much of the sexual abuse. Surely if it was committed by homosexuals then they would have been happy to straight away reveal the extent of the problem, say look what these gays did and that would have been a good result for the Church. But they didn’t do that did they?

      2. Tsk tsk Keith, getting a little agitated, aren’t you? Dont’ forget, we know what sort of attitude you have towards children, since you repeatedly used to try and justify your obsession with father-son incest. You shouldn’t be too quick to call others filthy, you sad specimen.

      3. @Keith

        You wouldnt know what was right and proper or how to look after the welfare of children if it jumped out from a dark alley slapped you round the face and said “Here I am, this is how to behave properly” …. Go [email protected] yourself and take you rampant twisted depraved insidious demented rhetoric and slam it where the sun doesnt shine!

        And no I am not going to comment on anything else you say about me

    4. DNFTT.

  28. Tom Cotner 5 Mar 2012, 1:50pm

    This guy is only concerned with the possible loss of his job due to it no longer being a necessary position for the betterment of humanity.
    Total off the wall bats***.

  29. darkmoonman 5 Mar 2012, 2:31pm

    Yet another bloody Catholic judging others.

  30. To be perfectly honest, I couldn’t care less about marriage. It’s a dying institution among straights and I can’t understand why queers are so desperate for it. It reeks of assimilation. What I object to is a member of the worlds biggest paedophile ring saying that we’re a danger to kids.

    1. You couldn’t care less about marriage, good for you, and I’m not really interested in getting married myself. I am not desperate for it at all, however I do live with other people around me! Am I desperate for the rights of other gay people who want to marry? You bet your life I am. What I don’t want now, I might want in the future and I want equal rights. Equal rights are not assimilation!

    2. You are totally entitled to not care less – it is your right to not want to join a ‘dying institution’ – I am happy in my self defined 12 year relationship, having already survived my married hetro friends matramonial contract. But, I too want the choice everyone in our society has, even if I don’t use it myself.

    3. The issue is one of choice. I don’t want to go sky diving, but I don’t want to tell other that they are wrong for wanting to do it. I simply don’t participate.

  31. You truly are grotesque when you try to defend the indefensible!!!!

  32. I’m lesbian and I am NEVER having children, what then? That seems to be their only argument against homosexual marriage.

    1. We all know there is no cogent secular argument against marriage equality. And their insistence on talking about children just demonstrates their intellectual dishonesty – they make no attempts to make divorce illegal, or single parenting – things that affect far more children than anything us LGBT people do. Their own argument does not work because they conveniently ignore the elephant in the room whenever they raise it.

    2. Janet Lameck 5 Mar 2012, 6:59pm

      Its okay for priests, lay orders etc to sexually abuse children of the same sex. But not okay for others to have sex with lawfully aged poartners. Give me a break, no wonder I quit the Roman catholic church.

  33. Peter Gregory 5 Mar 2012, 4:19pm

    They’re right- he seems confused and incoherent- I guess like the others he’s in a rage about anything which he percieves will lessen the Catholic Church’s grip and power over formerly unquestioning unedaucated flocks. Managing change is an horrific concept to them.

  34. This man disgraces Scotland and the Roman Catholic church. As a Scot, and a Catholic I can tell you that I am 100% for gay marriage and have been witness (i.e. equivalent of a best man) to such a marriage in Canada. Many others that I know, of the same religion and nationality as me, agree with me thoroughly. As Peter Tatchell says, love and commitment are Christian values, promoted by gay marriage. The Cardinal is just being a closed minded fool, and proving himself to be a product of the past.

    1. OK. We get that you are telling us. But may I ask, have you ever done anything proactive to tell people like O’Brien? And I don’t mean, sign an online petition, that’s easy. Have you ever done anything real, concrete and specific? Serious question, honestly meant.

      1. @Valksy

        I had a meeting with one of his Bishops and advisors as part of a diversity development team and told his Bishop that he was guilty of demeaning a minority by pursuing a dogmatic approach to marriage that neglected to recognise humanity, fairness, equality or honesty. I said when considered in combination with other bizarre policies that the Cardinal was endorsing that he was guilty of making the church a complete laughing stock and rendering it likely to collapse in irrelevance in the imminent future. I finished by telling him that his actions were as bad as those who seek to stigmatise on grounds of race and worse than those who seek to stigmatise and discriminate because of someones religion.

        I confirmed it all in writing to the Cardinal and the Catholic Herald. Unsurprisingly I did not get a reply from the Cardinal, nor did the Herald publish it. I did get a contact at work from a Catholic priest who is my professional contact telling me he liked my comments.

        1. Who? You or Stu? Confused!

          1. Me.

            Stu and I may be bf’s but I do very different work.

          2. Samuel B. 6 Mar 2012, 9:18am

            Why’ve we never seen your presence on these boards before, Zack?

            Did a Google search for other threads you may have contributed to but drew a total blank.

            I’m sure you can appreciate why we would want to know in this new age of transparency and PN Glasnost?

            After all, the more scurrilous are bound to add 2 + 2 and let their wild imaginations think you and he were one and the same person…

            B-ll-cks I know!

            Anyway, happy Stu has found a perfect mate who shares his views entirely, 100%.

            A bit narked, mind, that he can find a boyfriend just like that while I search high and low for my prince yet keep waking up with frogs, which I suppose are better than nothing but then they tend to disappear just as quickly.

            Strange that!

            This’ll mean we are not likely to see eye to all all of the time, and that I potentially have my work cut out tussling with both of you simultaneously.

            Oh, and more or less puts the final mockers on Stu and I picnicking in the park any time soon.

            Curses!!!! :)

          3. @Samuel

            You were arranging a picnic in the park with my bf?

            Perhaps I should be jealous!

            I’ve been around for ages. I tend to concentrate on religious posts (an area I frequently disagree with Stu about!). I have no idea why I do not come up on a google search (shall have to go and have a look!)

            I shall look out for you if Stu’s comments earlier when I spoke to him are anything to go by ;-)

          4. Samuel B. 6 Mar 2012, 1:34pm

            Ah, so now you have your own designated areas of, ahem, expertise on PN, do you?

            Hmmm, where on earth do you both find the time to, you know, nudge nudge…

            I mean, Stu hardly finds the time to pull himself away from his keyboard:- note he has now reclaimed his former (most prolific) “Contributor of the Week” trophy by quite some margin.

            Aren’t you just a tad jealous, Zack, that there appear to be three of you in the relationship, PN being the sandwich filling?

          5. @Samuel

            Was a fantastic session last night if you really must know!

            Had a nice dinner out before this at the local gastro pub.

            Off to the theatre on Saturday.

            Hope this meets your approval. Zack certainly seems to approve :-)

            I didn’t know that you cared so much as to hold a torch to the idea of a picnic in the park. I would invite you to join us another time, but unless you find your prince wouldnt want you to feel like a gooseberry.

            Right enough of my love life.

            Back to the subject matter.

      2. Like what? Give me some examples. I would happily join a protest or something similar and of course, I put links up on facebook about these issues 24/7, sign petitions, etc, the usual stuff. Not to mention that vast amount of arguments I have with various homophobes from across the world. Apart from that, there’s not really much else I see myself being able to do.

        1. @Paul, as you are a Catholic, maybe just tell your bishop or priest about your opinion on gay marriage. I was raised Catholic, but am an atheist now. However,I have recently spoken on the phone to the Paisley Bishop Tartaglia about gay marriage and been conversing with him by email. I have no doubt the majority of Catholics do not oppose gay marriage, I just wish they would speak out and let their crusty leaders know how they feel.

        2. Paul, I asked Bishop Tartaglia about Catholics who are pro gay marriage and an interesting thing he told me is that, of course they are still Catholic and should attend mass every Sunday, however they should not take communion, as that is an accord with the church and it’s teachings. Perhaps that could be an idea for a protest, if all the Catholics who agree with gay marriage refused the Eucharist and stay seated. Just a thought…

  35. In what way is marriage equality a redefintion of marriage? Did we redefine the vote when it was extended to women voters?
    I am extremely offended that this berk writes about “overwhelming and unequivocal” proof that he cannot deliver because the true factual evidence does not show what he fondly imagines it does. I am spittingly furious! How dare he.
    I would very much like to see him sued for slander and defamation. Spouting rubbish that he is unable to ever back up. Shame on you Cardinal O’Brien.
    But then I had a thought: Is he a plant? Is he secretly hoping to push undecided UK citizens onto the side of equal marriage? Because that is surely what his ill-informed contentions are guaranteed to achieved.

  36. The Telegraph has a poll going that some of you might be interested in participating in:

    You know what to do.

    1. GingerlyColors 5 Mar 2012, 4:45pm

      Well 61% of the population cannot be wrong – and you will probably find that when same-sex marriages do come in it will be a non-issue, like the equalizing of the age of consent, repeal of Section 28, allowing gays to serve in the military and the introduction of Civil Partnerships. Even I feared that all that pro-gay legislation happening in a short space of time would have been interpreted as political correctness and resulted in an anti-gay backlash.

    2. Dr Robin Guthrie 5 Mar 2012, 5:01pm

      At 17:20

      Of 12,977 votes the tally is as follows:

      Do you think that gay marriage should be legalised?

      No – It would be too offensive for many religious people 12.26% (1,591 votes)

      No – And I think that even civil partnerships go too far 15.82% (2,053 votes)

      Yes – Gay people should have the same rights as everyone else 45.9% (5,956 votes)

      Yes – Religious considerations have no place in a modern society 26.02% (3,377 votes)

      1. Dave North 5 Mar 2012, 5:04pm

        It would seem that the Terrorgraphs readership does not agree with its anti-gay bias.

    3. Thankfully, only the Telegraph appears to be giving the Cardinal and the anitgay marriage lobby a fair voice. The other broad sheets today appear to be in favour of gay marriage . . .

  37. He says

    “We’re taking standards which are not just our own but standards from the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations where marriage is defined as a relationship between man and woman and turning that on its head

    That’s not what it says thicko! It says…

    •(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
    •(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

    It doesn’t say anywhere only men can marry only women. It says both men and women have the right to marry. Declarations like this are very carefully worded by people with brains, not bishops.

    1. Thank you!

  38. And yet again, we have to put up with all of this junk because Mary was a bit of a bike and Joseph was too dumb to realise it. God did it? Cobblers.

  39. johnny33308 5 Mar 2012, 4:33pm

    It is time these religious organizations butt out of our Cvil Societies, unless of course they would enjoy our Civil Societies taking control of their religious organizations…they need to stop, or we need to intervene in their internal structures to FORCE them to stop this unwanted interference in our Civil lives. Our Civil Society is NONE of the business of their religious organizations. PERIOD! This can be turned into a two way street, if they choose to continue in this manner…they have no moral high ground in this matter, in fact, they have no moral high ground in ANY matter truth be told….pedophiles….

  40. GingerlyColors 5 Mar 2012, 4:39pm

    I just don’t understand what that man is on about. Firstly how can gay marriage be the same as slavery, and secondly, how on earth can it be a violation of our rights. That man is completely ga-ga and the best thing for him is to deny him the oxygen of publicity.

    1. I disagree about denying him publicity. He is off his nut let everybody hear/see that.

      He is currently doing just as much to further gay rights as stonewall and Peter Tatchell combined. We should all write to him and thank him (be careful though, he might misconstrue your thanks as death threats).

      If you “deny him the oxygen of publicity” he will say “the gays are persecuting me” or “the gay lobby are denying my free speech”.

      1. GingerlyColors 6 Mar 2012, 8:43am

        I suppose it is a good idea to let clowns like him air their homophobia in public. The people have a choice: either accept folk like us or accept a mad man like him. With hindsight, I reckon that Section 28 did more to further gay causes in a perverse way than anything else.

    2. And lets not forget that the Bible actually condones slavery so he seems to be sending out a mixed message here. ie: I like the bit about gays being bad but I’m sure they didn’t mean it when they said we should stone cheeky children, not eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics

  41. You are simple

    1. He doesn’t get it, its not just the abuse of children that is so horrendous, but its also the fact that catholic church turned blind eye and did nothing to stop it

      1. A man abusing a boy is not of a homosexual nature. It is of a paedophile nature. Thats something different.

        1. Poo on the penis..,....,....euuugh! 10 Mar 2012, 6:46pm

          The child abuse is almost always of a homosexual nature, meaning that the orientation of the perpetrators is HOMOSEXUAL. It is not rocket science!

          1. That’s a load of BS. Abusers can be anyone.

          2. Your name is enough to make it clear what you are, a gay man with serious internalised hatred of himself.

            In point of fact more girls are abused than boys, 1 in 3 girls, 1 in 7 boys. You do the maths, it doesn’t take much to figure that out, when the vast majority of paedomaniacs are men, not women.

          3. poo (good name for yu btw)…educate yourself on homosexuality n pedophilia. they are as close as the moon is to the centre of the earth. i thot this belief finally died in 1953

  42. The cardinal is saying what he is being told to say, otherwise he would not be a cardinal.

    Accordingly, he is out of date.

  43. Dave North 5 Mar 2012, 6:24pm


  44. Oh, the chief of the child molesters has something to say? Sorry, not interested; he has no credibility14

  45. Dave North 5 Mar 2012, 6:32pm

    Suck on it freako. Disproves every one of your allegations.

  46. Janet Lameck 5 Mar 2012, 6:51pm

    The Catholic clergy is an abomination.
    Man was put on earth to populate NOT celibate!

  47. I though Henry the 8th got rid of Catholic clergy trying to interfere in our politics. On another note, I’ve always wondered if the sexual organs of someone who is celibate just dry up and wither off?

    1. So he did James, so he did. I love being Anglican and sticking two fingers up at the Pope. Unfortunately, the Anglican bishops are saying similar things. It’s about time this government told the church to butt out of civil legislation.

  48. Robin Evans 5 Mar 2012, 7:43pm

    Who cares what this old fossil thinks….. Blah Blah Blah……… Tired of the droning sound of the religiously uptight…..

  49. I really wouldn’t go down the road of child welfare if I were the Catholic Church- given its abhorrent lack of concern for child welfare above institutional facesaving when it comes to clergy pedophilia. Now that is beyond grotesque, it is hypocritical and highly destructive.

    1. As long as the child has a mother and father all is right in the world….

    2. Paedomaniac, not paedophile.
      a maniac is someone who takes their desires to an unacceptable level.

      A francophile is someone who loves the French.
      A paedophile is someone who abuses children,

      doesn’t anyone else see that this is the wrong terminology?

      Can you change your terminology. The clergy abused children, they didn’t love them.

  50. Look you silly antiquated buffoon!!!

    YOU CANNOT STOP CHANGE. You cannot deny that change HAS to happen, you cannot stop this. Accept it. Live, learn, accept. If you can’t face the future, crawl back into the cave!!

  51. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 5 Mar 2012, 8:57pm

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz… keef bores me.

  52. Art Pearson 5 Mar 2012, 9:07pm

    What is even more grotesque is the attitude of the Catholic Church which forces gay men to remain hidden in the closet in order to realize their Christian ministry.

  53. I get fed up listening to the equality drivil. I have never had or experienced any homophobic attitudes as just get on with life and people instead of trying to make it an excuse.

    1. How wonderful for you!

      I am pleased you have never suffered any homophobia. Are you gay?

      If you are gay, you are fortunate.

      Many of us have experienced such homophobia and unless we combat it many more will in the future, and if you are gay – that may include you …

      We should have equal rights as human beings. I would hope you would agree with that.

      1. Your comment lacks in logic and basic knowledge of law

      2. Dave North 6 Mar 2012, 10:39am

        P OFF. Imbecile.

  54. Until the Catholic Church cleans up its act on the appalling record on child abuse by its clergy this grotesque man should keep his mouth shut.

  55. Thank God we had Henry VIII !!

    I can’t image what it feels like being a gay person in a Catholic family. I think I would have to disown them otherwise I would go bonkers.

    I keep having to remind myself that the only thing the govt is intending to do is to offer SS civil marriage so this really has f$#k all to do with any church and indeed any straight person.

    This is for LGBT people only! We do exist and it is normal even if some Catholic twits want to bury their heads in the sand.

    1. My family are Catholic we get along just fine.

      The Church of England are no better so I’m not sure why you’re so pleased about Henry VIII, (who was a sociopathic to$s pot).

      1. I don’t know , not keen on the CofE but I’d rather have them than the Catholic church. They’re a bit OTT aren’t they?

        Glad to hear you get on with your family. What we need is more Catholic family’s speaking out against their leaders and speaking up for their gay reatives. Sadly they either don’t get the publicity or you’re just lucky.

    2. I grew up in a Catholic family. I had to come out twice. First as gay and then as an atheist. Being gay didn’t really raise an eyebrow, being an atheist and all hell breaks loose, and I’m literally going to hell for that as far as they’re concerned.

      Christopher Hitchens when asked about his book “God is not great”, if the sub text “Religion poisons everything” was a hyperbole, responded “No, I mean it! Religion POISONS everything”. How true.

    3. While I do NOT agree with the stance taken by the Bishop, I would like to remind everyone that RC religion is not the only intolerant religion out there. Read the comment by the Archbishop of Canterbury (29 Feb 2012): Changing culture with gay marriage laws would be wrong. And we don’t even want to go anywhere near some other religions where the death sentence for just being gay, let alone getting married, seems to be favoured.

  56. Not true. You’re being obsessional again.

  57. Andrew Quinn 6 Mar 2012, 12:35am

    Your shameful you are truly grotesque. If Christ were live today he would be ashamed of the Catholic Church and priests defiling children ruining them for life. The the church protects them SHAMEFUL!

    1. According to the Catholic Church, Jesus is alive today. He died and came back and obviously he could but doesn’t have a word to say about the Catholic Church, ergo he does not exist. I get your point though.

      1. Funny if someone found him living with a man though!

  58. It’s like a game of Alien Attack. This is the next wave of enemy attacks in the Telegraph

  59. I may be wrong, but I don’t remember the Catholic Church coming out against slavery, at least not before most of the world outlawed it.

    1. Thats because the Bible condones slavery

  60. Why are WE so behind the Americans on this?!

    You can watch the play about Prop 8 here…

    The judge in this said that one of the reasons against same sex marriage was that hetro couples could procreate with out the intervening help of a third party. So does this mean that if you are a hetro couple who are infertile you CAN’T marry? It seems not!!

    I want even COMMENT on this religious fool!!!

    1. The procreation argument has always been a logical dead end. It’s deliberately designed to exclude gay people but taken to it’s logical conclusion would also veto the elderly, infertile and those straight people who expressly don’t want kids from getting married.
      Have any of those other groups been asked to return their marriage certificates due to lack of offspring or potential to create offspring? Nope.
      And that’s the hypocritical bit the Cardinal was so quick to gloss over.

  61. this nutter again shut your mouth you out of date prick the 21st century people have spoken your religions ass is going like it or dont like it. people will never ever forget the abuse theses catholic priests abuse kiddies. here is a message from the 21st century people cardinal soon you will be tasting the rainbow

  62. Diesel Balaam 6 Mar 2012, 6:11am

    The Pink Triangle Trust’s George Broadhead is spot-on about how out-of-touch the Roman Catholic Church (and others) have become on this issue. By the way, the Bronze Age scriptures which inform the good cardinal also condemn eating shellfish. Why isn’t he fulminating against seafood chefs in the same insulting way? Yet another reason to ditch your religion.

    1. Yeah, shellfish and seafood are an abomination! and what about all you people who insist on wearing clothes made of different fabrics, how gross is that?
      Presumably, poly-cotton is indeed the work of the devil!! (Actually, yes it is, thinking about it…) :)

  63. The population of Scotland is around the 5 million mark.
    The catholic population of Scotland? Even if it was 5 percent or more it’d probably be less than the gay population.
    Desperate rear guard action or the final striking out of a dying beast are the things that come to my mind, concerning this idiotic mans comments.

    1. GingerlyColors 6 Mar 2012, 9:04am

      You will probably find that Catholics make 800,000 of the Scottish population, about one-sixth of the total, which will fill Celtic Park 13 times over. You will also find that the biggest oppostion to gay rights do not come from grass-roots Catholics, but from the Free Church of Scotland, a Presbyterian organisation (or the ‘Wee Frees’) who make up only 0.1% (5000 adherants) of the population. The main church north of the border is the Church of Scotland (or the ‘Kirk’) which is also a Presbyterian church with some 500,000 members and is a separate entity from the Church of England but not quite as conservative as the Free Church. Church attendance is highest on Lewis and Harris (which is actually one island) where the Presbyterian Churches still exercise a ‘never on a Sunday’ lifestyle. On the Uists, Benbecula and Barra the congregations are mainly Catholic and they have more liberal ideas when it comes to observerance of the Sabbath.

  64. This militant Christian needs to be on TV more so that the general public can hear his extremist agenda to push for an intolerant society. I think most people find such extremist views unpleasant

  65. George Broadhead 6 Mar 2012, 9:18am

    DC78 wrote: “I grew up in a Catholic family. I had to come out twice. First as gay and then as an atheist. Being gay didn’t really raise an eyebrow, being an atheist and all hell breaks loose, and I’m literally going to hell for that as far as they’re concerned.”

    As a fellow atheist I find this very significant. As far as the RC Church is concerned, atheists and secularists are at least as reprehensible as gays.

  66. I’m sorry but have a look at this pic and tell me if he doesn’t look guilty.

    good people don’t look like that

      1. He looks like Milo O’Shea playing Durand Durand to me! Old fool!!

  67. more pseudo science from attention seeking troll

    1. He doesn’t even try to pretend its science. Its attention seeking indoctrination to a piece of literature (fiction)

  68. The RCC has always been opposed to “progress in society”. It threatens their power. But just wait, in a few years after they finally realize they are on the losing end of this argument the Poop will have a revelation from god telling him gay marriage is ok. It happens all the time to these religions when they perceive their power and influence is waning.

  69. This guy is moronic and needs to pipe down. I dont believe but was brought up a catholic in a family where my dad and his (huge) side of the family were devout catholics, I went to catholic primary and secondary schools and regularly attended church on Sundays. I was not once taught to despise gay people or taught anything anti-gay at school or church, so I hope most people dont think this moron represents everyone in the catholic community. This guy is on par with Fred Phelps, religious nuts who use the book as an excuse to prevent other humans rights are sickening. Same could be said for Islam. These people are backward and need to come into this century, Jesus taught to love everyone and he who is without sin to cast the first stone. They need to get with the New Testament. I dont believe to be honest but please dont tar all catholics as a huge percentage are fully for gay rights. I know I am theres nothing to be ashamed of in being gay at all, those who think so are very wrong.

  70. Oh bishop, bishop… your clothes are grotesque, your pointed Ancient Egyptian hat is grotesque, your superstitions are grotesque, the attitude of your church is grotesque, your paedophile priests are disgusting and your intolerance is dangerous. Love is beautiful. You are not.

  71. It would be so ironic if he was gay, oh wait, most RC priests are 0_o

  72. yeah I know exactly what he’s tallking about, Canda has just gone hell in a hand basket since same sex marriage was legalized :P

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