Reader comments · ASA responds to claim it ‘persecuted’ religious blog in investigating anti-gay marriage ad · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


ASA responds to claim it ‘persecuted’ religious blog in investigating anti-gay marriage ad

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Just another barking mad bloody christian behaving like they are the damned victims when it is OUR lives that they hurt.

      1. Then why do you condone treating Christians with contempt?

        1. because they are contemptable!

        2. Not all Christians – just those who either are contemptible or who ignore contemptible behaviour

        3. Oh look, the bloody victim card.

          I don’t care if you worship your own bloody nose hair. But I take great offence to any attempt to either force me to do so, or push your beliefs in to law, education or social bloody policy.

          1. Victim card? You’ve got the paranoia card !

          2. Better than your persecution complex, sweetiepie

  2. Uberlectual 16 May 2012, 3:27pm

    Seems to me that some folks need to get over themselves.

    The advert is not in any way homophobic and the ASAs response to the very small number of complaints should have been to ignore them.

    Frankly, this is not about “gay marriage” (which I support) or even equality any more is it?

    1. According to the letter I have from the ASA in relation to my complaint about this matter is that they have had a considerable number of complaints.

    2. Michoacán-Hirschmaus 17 May 2012, 8:04pm

      Dearest Uberlectual, über is spelt either with an umlaut (¨) or an e (ueber). Jetzt sind Sie nicht so „überintellektuell“, oder?

  3. kind of funny, someone who lies accusing others of lying?

    1. Then stop doing it then

      1. I only accuse those who lie of lying.

  4. Cranmer is a right wing bigot and so are the brainwashed goons that inhabit his reactionary godblog.

    I sometimes go there to remind me how hateful and unchristian some christians are.

    And to wind them up a bit….. ;-)

    1. The lack of perspective on the Cranmer blog makes it like a comdey school – its really just a collection of people like Dr Julia Glasper and Dr Cameron.

      Jokers the lot of them.

      1. Indeed.

        All backing each other up in their religious delusions.

  5. The apparently rigid definition of marriage is lifelong? Just what is the role of divorce then?

  6. “Cranmer…is very nasty indeed.”
    Dr Richard Dawkins, Emeritus Fellow of New College, Oxford.

    And if Dawkins says that about the old windbag it must be true.

    1. Dawkins also said –

      “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

      Swallow that !!

      1. Is this “pick a quote in isolation to try and just our spite and throwing the teddy out of the pram” day?

        1. You guys have thrown out the teddys long before I arrived in the nursery :)

          1. Ah diddums are there no more teddys for you to play with. Did it make you cry?

      2. Better harsh reality than mythology, surely?

        1. so you believe that there is neither good or evil?

          1. it is not hard to imagine a society of people that has no religion but has a morality, as well as a legal system, just because it says that people cannot live together without rules against killing, etc., and that it is not desirable for these all to be legally enforced. There have also certainly been people who have had a morality but no religious beliefs.

          2. Not as metaphysical absolutes. Of course not. They’re just human linguistic conventions.

      3. Yeah, thing is that’s all entirely true. There is no design and no purpose to the universe – it’s just physics working itself out. To believe otherwise is utterly deluded, given the evidence. And good and evil are simply intersubjective human signifiers that we came up with ourselves. They have no metaphysical underpinning, they’re just emotionally charged terms that we evolved primates use to describe how we feel about the world around us. Like “up” and “down”. They are meaningful only inasmuch as we give them meaning, they are not physical properties of the universe.

    2. Ironically the real Archbishop Cranmer was burned at the stake a couple of hundred yards down the road from New College, Oxford. What that this odious internet bigot could find his way to a similar fate and save us the bother of listening to his tedious stupid drivel.

  7. Let’s see, his facts as he reports them are probably true, after all the source is a Catholic organisation who probably only asked Catholics in probably a church setting, so lets see if we can do something similar:

    We asked 100 people if the ban on hunting foxes should be lifted, and an astonishing 100% of the people we asked said yes it should, ok, all of the people asked we’re members of the local fox hunting club, but that’s besides the point.

    1. Yeah it’s hardly a fair assessment of the general con-census!

      But that’s what the * is for :P

      1. Con being the operative word!

  8. Urgh, CathoDICKS! ;)

    Anyway, serious face now. The church needs to focus on things more Christian like charity, love and acceptance.

    I bet Jesus would be REALLY proud to have his ‘followers’ focussing on banning expressions of love which, as we all know, was his main message -.-

    I am not even going to face palm …

    1. Well “God’s representative on earth” (ie the pope) did get annoyed at a bunch on nuns in the US actually helping the vulnerable and needy rather than spending their resources and time opposing equal marriage. So if he’s truely god’s representative then actually Jesus will be really happy. Of course if the rest of the new testament is right then he’s mighty peeved.

  9. Christian: “You’re all going to hell! You’re worse than Hitler! Gay people should all die! You’re all paedophiles!”

    Authority: “Um, you’re not allowed to say those things..”

    Christian: “Waah! I’m being persecuted!”

    We see it time and time again. These people seriously make my blood boil.

    1. Your Christianophobia is making you ill.

      1. Are you diagnosing this as sufferer of mental health issues – resulting from your homophobia?

        1. I rest my case

          1. Did you make a case? I didn’t notice.

            Perhaps you should elucidate further so we can appropriately assess and evaluate your judgement and opinion?

            Ah thought you wouldnt

          2. What exactly was your case, Iain?

      2. Oh I’m not ‘phobic’ of Christians. Quite the reverse in fact. I find them absolutely hilarious as they continue to pull reasons out of their ass for hating others.

  10. Oh, so Archbishop Cranmer now decides to play the victim card because he is asked to justify advertising that he receives payment for and which is on a publically available website. The law of the land is very clear on advertising not being misleading, offensive or discriminatory. If Archbishop Cranmer does not want to be involved in an ASA investigation then either he should not run a publically available website or he should be more careful about the advertising he uses.

    Or perhaps, Archbishop Cranmer is another wannabe theocrat who wants to pick and choose which laws he has to comply with and which he feels he can ignore.

    1. No “perhaps” about it.

    2. You’re absolutely right, Stu. What next, murderers complaining that the police are harassing them, wanting to put them in jail?!!!

      I can’t believe this guy! He’s the one in the wrong and when the relevant authorities look into it he acts like a victim! He calls the ASA the Gestapo! What an idiot!

  11. I suspect Archbishop Cranmer is mightily deluded in the extent to which his failure to understand the ASA’s plain English. I would argue that Cranmers decision to use the phrase “endured some appalling persecution and had the most unpleasant encounters with smouldering faggots” (given that no where in his piece is he referring to fires or camping – and everywhere the piece refers to homosexuality – it stretches incredulity to believe that this was not a callous and inhumane attempt to incite hatred and homophobia – if Cranmer denies this he is, in my opinion, lying and bearing ultimate false witness).

    Cranmer is odious, arrogant, oppressive and appears to display all the characteristics of what he undoubtedly would refer to as demonic behaviour.

  12. What an unbelievably nasty piece of work Cranmer is who states that he “occupies a place in the cyber-ether suspended somewhere between purgatory and paradise” and seems to suggest that he should not be required to comply with UK legislation. How wrong he is. In fact to use the words he uses to describe the polite requests of the ASA “Who does he think he is!”

    Reading the homophobic and bigoted comments he attracts perhaps others ought to also investigate the whether Cranmer is inciting hatred in other ways and subject him to greater scrutiny.

  13. Robert in S. Kensington 16 May 2012, 4:32pm

    I wonder if ‘Archbishop Cranmer’ is Colin Hart?

    … “endured some appalling persecution and had the most unpleasant encounters with smouldering faggots”, clearly that vile statement is aimed at gays, incitement to hate and kill.

    The C4M petition should be compelled to provide it’s methodology to the ASA, Colin Hart prosecuted and the petition voided. The C4M is nothing more than a hate group and should be officially desigated as such..

    1. Don’t think he is Colin Hart. Cramner sounds more like Peter Ould – a ‘post’ gay hate-blogger.

  14. I have just been doubled up in laughter after reading this article about Cramner:

    “What seems to rankle some Christians, whenever such complaints are made, is the mere fact that those complaints have to be investigated and they are not, therefore, afforded the kind of privileged status and unthinking deference that the believe they should be afforded.

    Where ‘persecution’ once meant getting nailed to tree or tossed into an arena to fight for life, it now means nothing more than ‘How dare you treat us the same as everyone else, you inconsiderate bunch of bastards.’”

  15. Could it be Keith?

  16. I question the use of the word “homophobia” by our gay lobby as being in any way appropriate in branding those who oppose our viewpoints.

    We scream “homophobe” these days at anyone who has a differing opinion from us yet we’ve forgotten what it actually means.

    Phobia is fear of someone/thing, not if you hold a differing opinion to them.

    But in their zeal to stymie any kind of a rational debate on the issues that concern some gay people, like gay marriage, the militant gay fringe hurl “homophobe” at all and sundry who oppose it.

    Hasn’t it occurred to radical gays who profess to speak for all that those who don’t agree with marriage – many gays included! – do so not because they fear us but because they don’t happen to agree that it is the way forward?

    In this upside down PC-gone-insane world, the word “Homophobe” is now bandied about like “racist” to silence debate and force our demands on the majority.

    Using the “homophobe” is a shamefully cowardly way of forcing an argument.

    1. If the only argument here was these complaints are misconceived and even, perhaps, vexatious then I’d be inclined to agree wholeheartedly but, as seems to be invariably the case, that’s not the only thing with which Cranmer and others are taking issue.

      What seems to rankle some Christians, whenever such complaints are made, is the mere fact that those complaints have to be investigated and they are not, therefore, afforded the kind of privileged status and unthinking deference that the believe they should be afforded.

      Where ‘persecution’ once meant getting nailed to tree or tossed into an arena to fight for life, it now means nothing more than ‘How dare you treat us the same as everyone else, you inconsiderate bunch of bastards.’

    2. I am gay. That will NOT change.

      The problem is theirs.

      THEY have problems with people being born gay.

      The problem is theirs.

      Given this, what else would you call them.

      I am not heterophobic as I have zero issues with what heterosexuals do with their dangly bits.

      It is none of my business.

      Therefore we can only conclude that these people have some innate dislike\fear of homosexual people.

      Studies have shown that the most homophobic individuals are merely self projecting and in fear of their own sexuality. ie: Fearful that they too may be homosexual, a state that disgusts them

      In other words.

      The problem is still theirs. Homophobic.

      1. @ B L Z Bub

        Exactly, and only extreme right wingers (and probably theocratic ones at that) would defend Cranmers belief that he is being victimised by being asked to co-operate in an investigation. The investigation may decide the advert was not homophobic, it may decide it was. Having evidence to consider the context would help it come to some conclusion. If Cranmer does not wish to give this evidence of his perspective, perhaps there is an ulterior motive he is reluctant to disclose and seeks to hide by his belligerent bluster.

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 16 May 2012, 6:33pm

        Well said. Your statement is actually backed up by the majority of those in the psychiatric and psychological fields.

    3. Psychiatrists and psychologists are coming to the view that extreme bias including homophobia is a mental illness.

      1. Spanner1960 16 May 2012, 5:54pm

        Scientists come to conclusions about anything.
        That doesn’t make them irrefutable proof.

        1. So how do you determine evidence?

          Just accept what right wing extremists like Cranmer say without question – because you as a fellow right wing extremist like their opinion?

        2. Many of the studies that have shown a link between homophobia and mental illness have been authoritately peer reviewed, which represents a high standard of academic research and knowledge.

        3. Empirical evidence is far more reliable than ideological rhetoric.

    4. I agree. The same principle applies to the instantaneous use of the word bigot or an attack on the Christian faith. If people have a different view to me I never use the term bigot. I’d rather say “I think your wrong because of these following reasons. However, I may agree with you on this matter” It makes discussions more engaging rather than instantaneous hate from either side.

      1. There are some people who do deserve the label bigot. I agree it is an overused word though.

        1. Especially on Pink News

          1. and also on cranmers blog

          2. Random check on cranmenrs blog

            LGBT people were called bigots on 4 occasons

            So, Iain, your problem with the word bigot – since “His grace” *wave of nausea* seems to relish in the use of such words – is what exactly?

    5. Spanner1960 16 May 2012, 5:53pm

      That is unless you happen to be gay yourself, in which case you are quite obviously “Self-loathing”, apparently.

      1. Well some gay people are misguided in their loyalties and do support others whose policies are damaging to gay people – its understandable that some people will see that as self loathing.

        Perhaps, thats something you relate to?

    6. SamuelB

      Now where have I heard phrases such as “PC-gone-insane world” before.

      Let me think.

      Ah yes, Anders Behring Breiviks propaganda statements.

    7. -Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality or people who are identified as or perceived as being LGB. Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear
      -Whether or not you want to use the word homophobe, the “homophobes” are heterosexist/anti LGB, which is very unacceptable. We call people who are against homosexuality and bisexuality and/or same sex marriage/LGB rights those things because that’s what they are. Heterosexism etc might be an opinion, but it’s a wrong opinion. Someone might say they think African Americans are evil and disgusting, it’s an opinion, but it’s racist
      -If we have same sex marriage/LGB rights it does NOT affect heterosexuals. If you disagree with us being able to marry, you are homophobic or whatever word you prefer to use
      -LGBs that don’t want equal marriage are self loathing (not all LGBs want to get married but if they don’t support others in their community’s right to)

    8. Samuel B.:

      The term “homophobia” is not a very precise word to use to describe anti-gay sentiment or actions.

      As you rightly point out, the opposition to equality for LGB people is not always based on fear. It can be based on hatred. It can be based on a wish to denigrate others as inferior in order to make the person doing the denigrating feel superior. It can be based on the enjoyment of others’ suffering – Schadenfreude. Or the opinion can be based on a philosophical or religious position, where it might be associated with little or no feeling at all. So in a very literal sense, “homophobia” is not an accurate term. However, it has come to have the “meaning” of “anti-gay”. That seems legitimate.

      A philosophical or affectively-charged view that deems black people to be inferior is “racist”, i.e. anti-black. Any similar view about LGB people is “homophobic,” i.e. anti-gay. Homophobic and anti-gay have come to have equivalent meanings, despite the etymology of the former term.

      1. Although the etymology is hardly relevant – its the intention of the individual in the use of the word in the evolving language that is English that matters.

        1. Indeed. I was trying to make that point.

      2. de Villiers 16 May 2012, 8:27pm

        Is that not what Humpty Dumpty said in Through the Looking Glass.

        1. Hmmm such flippant comments – how unusual

        2. de Villiers 17 May 2012, 1:56pm

          Can you stop obsessing yourself with me and stop stalking me on these boards.

          1. I am not obsessed with you in the slightest, nor stalking you.

            Believe me – if I wanted to stalk someone – I would have higher standards! I certainly would not pick an arrogant Catholic!

    9. “Using the “homophobe” is a shamefully cowardly way of forcing an argument.”

      Absolutely, you wont win an argument by simpy calling people names.

      1. The same tactic you used above calling someone a Chrstianphobe – hypocrite!

        1. Nice one Stu.

    10. Anyobe that doesnt think gays should be given ful equality is homophobic. Simple.

    11. My problem is people, specifically on the right, who want to say racist things, so misogynistic things, say homophobic things, using whatever language (its almost always masked), and then demand to NOT be called racist, homophobic or sexist, and say your being PC if you do.

      No, it is not political correctness to call out bigotry when you see it, its honesty, right wingers need to stop whining about it.

      Even jokes about it, if its obvious that a joke is intended to convey a certain thought, YES its ok to start a conversation about what thought its trying to convey, that is not political correctness.

      “PC gone mad” is just a bollocks phrase for people trying to excuse their racism and bigotry. The anti-PC crowd is just there to victimize themselves because people are no longer okay with their abusive language.

      I find that most of the people who boast about “not being politically correct” really mean to say “I expect you to find my bigotry endearing.”

      1. Absolutely, Vincent. Couldn’t agree more. Excellent post.

    12. Idiots use the “PC gone mad” badge as an excuse to say whatever they want without consequence. Simple as that.

    13. I think it’s fair to say that our language both reinforces and reflect our culture and its values. So when we realize that a particular term is hurtful, or offensive, to a group of people because it carries, e.g. all of the baggage of racism or sexism or oppression, or any sort of “othering” that reduces a group to ‘less than us’, then … well, honestly, do we (or should we) want to keep using that word or phrase? I don’t. Should we try and encourage others from using forms of oppression? Absolutely.

    14. How can you call out racism or homophobia nowadays and be taken seriously? There’s a ready-made counterpunch – PC GONE MAD! – available to anyone who’s strayed over the boundaries into out-and-out racism. Aha, they say, I am not racist/homophobic at all (in fact I have friends who are black or gay etc); whereas you are a dirty PCgonemad leftie troublemaker who has no grasp on reality.

  17. He will be revelling in the fuss and the- poor persecuted me martyrdom-. Just an attention seeking cultist.

  18. GulliverUK 16 May 2012, 5:07pm

    Re; the C4M poll. You have to question what they are adding every day – I think you’ll find it’s made-up.

    There are 177,586 online signatures ONLY – not 500,000+
    (I set “ipp=1” – displays 1 name per page, and looked to see how many pages it was).

    Over previous days they have added the following;

    1657 added 18:27-18:32 9th new total 504,046
    3759 added 16:59-17:05 10th new total 508,063
    2185 added 17:17-17:22 14th new total 513,302
    2310 added 17:36-17:41 15th new total 515,918

    In just an hour or two that figure will go up against by thousands. Are they claiming they have
    338,607 paper signatures ?
    (516,193 total now – 177,586 online sigs)
    They allow 15 sigs per A4 sheet (see their petition form under RESOURCES)
    338,607 / 15 = 22,573 sheets of paper.

    Seriously !!!

    1. Are those numbers representative of the amount of times homophobe ,bigot ,homophobic bigot, appear on the Pink News postings?

      1. No the number of times a so called Christian has lied on the C4M petition.

      2. If the cap fits …. :) LOL

    2. Rebel Saint 17 May 2012, 12:15pm

      I just sent in another paper petition with 40 names on it collected this weekend. I’ll probably get the same again this weekend.

      And – even if your attempt to discredit it had any basis – it’d still be 3 times larger than your equivalent petition.

      When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

      1. Do they have almost 23,000 sheets of A4 with 15 names per sheet? I don’t think so. The number of people who go to church in this country is TINY and getting smaller every year.

        I’m more than happy for them to hand over all those names to the government so they can all, 500,000+, be scrutinised. Bigoted Christians (as opposed to the good sort) have no valid arguments and constantly resort to lies and distortions – it’s their trademark.

        btw, I’ve noted many duplicate names, often close together, where it appears the same person may have signed twice. Add to this that the CES broke the law by encouraging pupils to sign, when they are not entitled to, and the people who have signed who are outside the UK, then the poll numbers are highly questionable. The C4EM petition started some time after the C4M petition. PLUS, the lies told by Catholic and Anglican leaders making claims that churches would be forced to carry out marriages against their will. Their good at lying.

      2. Human rights should never be determined by petition of decisions of the majority.

        Human rights are innate and it is the duty of government to protect minority rights including the right to marriage.

        The bogus C4M petition is irrelevant. It has multiple repeat signatures. It is manipulated by the politicisation of school children by the grotesque RC church.

        None of it (were it to have been a relevant factor in the first instance) can be taken as acceptable because it is polluted by deception.

        Rebel Saint – your hard work seeking to get people to support your bigoted views is in vain because a) its irrelevant and b) the petition you seek to support is grotesquely polluted by deception and illegality.

  19. The man who goes by the pretentious, grandoise pseudonym Archbishop Cranmer is one of the worst popular UK bloggers on the web next to Guido Fawkes and the people behind Harry’s Place, but even I didn’t think he was capable of being such a far right bigot.

    He deserves to be exposed for what he is.

    1. Rayne Van-Dunem 22 May 2012, 6:46am

      How is Harry’s Place bad? I read it frequently, and they’re ideologically opposed to and behaviorally different from Cranmer and those of his ilk in almost every possible way. Also, haven’t read much about Fawkes beyond his support for capital punishment.


  20. Inspector General 16 May 2012, 5:49pm

    Ah, there you are gay types. That Cranmer fellow is standing up for freedom don’t you know. Must keep authoritarian government and it’s agencies in check. Gays are in the ascendancy right now, but it could all change overnight. You people have the most to worry about from authoritarianism. You see, the public see you as agitators. Authoritarian governments don’t like agitators. Thought you should know this. Now, carry on…

    1. In your dreams sweetheart, in your dreams.

      The public are very much in support of equal rights (including marriage) for LGBT people and the number supporting this is consistently increasing year on year.

      61% of UK Christians support equal rights.

      So your comments about “you people” are as ignorant and arrogant as your extremist and insidious right wing friend Cranmer.

      Thought you should know this.

    2. LGB people don’t have freedom
      Equal rights for LGBs should not be up for vote, they should be guaranteed
      Lots support equal rights
      There’s nothing harmful about having equal rights

    3. Nebraska Jane Svoboda that’s you and that “Cranmer fellow”.

    4. Yes, I deplore authoritarianism as well,, especially self interested authoritarianism that is camouflaged behind a veil of hocus pocus and superstition and cynically presented as if it was the word of God.

      Anyone with a genuine interest in liberty would question why this debate was even taking place, would question why it was necessary for two consenting adults to be granted permission from a government before registering a *legal* marriage. There is no impediment to serial adulterous divorcees getting *legally* married as often as they like? No matter what it may say in the bible about divorce and adultery.

    5. @Inspector General

      that’s all a bit too foil hat to be taken seriously. It’s “its” by the bye. Hope that helps. x

    6. Boring troll.

      Good grief, if you have nothing better to do with your life than troll, you should at least work on some fresh material.

    7. @Inspector General

      Ooh! I’m scared!

    8. I think you’ve mistaken the United Kingdom for North Korea again. Don’t worry, it’s very easy to do, what with both countries being on similar lattitudes and having a preponderance of cabbage in their national cuisines.

      There’s a simple way to remember the difference. They drive on the right in North Korea. Or if you aren’t anywhere near a road then badgers are native to the UK, but not to North Korea. I hear modern GPS systems are now also quite good at telling the difference, and could save you the embarassment next time.

    9. “You see, the public see you as agitators.”

      No, just those who think their imaginary theocracy is falling apart. Like you.

      Ah, there you are religious types

  21. Anti-gay Christian terrorist spewing black propaganda, they are the same as any anti-social person who wants to oppress and keep other down for some insane reason that is real only to them, inside their sick and twisted mind.

  22. “Waaa, waa, waa. Those nasty [insert group] are persecuting me!” With every plaintive bleat the Christian sheeple reveal their true concern – erosion of their privilege. The ASA queries claims made in an advert and this is viewed as “persecution”. It isn’t. Cranmer is being held to the same standard as anyone else publishing an advert – that they must be able to substantiate any claim made and not mislead. That Cranmer is being treated the same as anyone else is what he objects to – the religious being accustomed to not having to answer to anyone. This isn’t persecution. It’s equal treatment. Exactly what those of us promoting marriage equality want.

  23. Archbishop Cranmer tried to distance Christianity from Anders Breivik.

    Archbishop Cranmer wants to try saying in relation to Breivik that no murderer is a Christian fundamentalist, because according to him the fundamentals of Christianity preclude being a murderer. Well. The Bible is remarkably open to competing interpretations, and No True Scotsman, and all that; but this does bring up a quandary for Christians in other matters, such as the inner-church debates on gay and women bishops, and on conservatives against suchlike. Obviously, given their theology, many Christians want as broad a church as possible. Where do you set the limits? On which side? Excluding conservatives, reactionaries, liberals? Fred Phelps, anyone? Hard, hard questions for those involved.

    1. “Archbishop Cranmer tried to distance Christianity from Anders Breivik”

      Anders Breivik does not need to be distanced from Christianity,its as far away from him as the Andromeda Galaxy.

      1. Really. In denial about so called Christian terrorism then … some of them are members of organisations like Anglican Mainstream. David Skinner has made a call to arms to tackle homosexuals. Now is that really Christian?

        How will you defend that?

        1. I can’t recall Anglican Mainstream as being regarded as a terrorist organisation.
          I am glad that you used the term ‘so-called Christian Terrorism’ says it all.

          1. Please do learn to read.

            I did not say that Anglican Mainstream were a terrorist organisation (although if the cap fits …) I said one of its members had made a call to arms to tackle homosexuals.

            Do you endorse such a call to arms?

          2. Your failure to deny you support “Christian” terrorism must make one take the view that you might!

            Such depravity!

      2. Odd that Cranmer subscribes to many of the facets of Breiviks manifesto!

  24. For those who are crying “freedom of speech” – all that is happening at the moment is the ASA are investigating complaints.

    The investigation may come to a whole range of possible conclusions – including that the advert is acceptable.

    Now if you believe in free speech – surely you believe in the freedom to complain about issues you find concerning?

    In the interests of fairness if complaints are made should those connected to the events not be asked by an independent body to express their views on it (using their freedom of speech).

    Where is the problem?

    Freedom of speech is being expressed. Ah but the freedom expressed you don’t agree with – so you would rather the complaints had not been made – Ah so its freedom of speech, but only when you agree with it!


    1. No, it’s hate speech against a group of people there is nothing wrong with. It’s saying people should be denied the right to marry the person they love because they’re the same gender. It’s lying about the statistics of who supports equal marriage. There’s a difference.

      1. I agree its hate speech.

        Even though you say there is nothing wrong with hate speech, I completely disagree. Hate speech should never be tolerated.

        You clearly do not read my comments above at all.

        I clearly stated that people are saying it is freedom of speech being eroded – and I am saying they are using that as a smokescreen and it is wrong.

        The freedom of speech I am supporting is the freedom to complain about it which the idiots like Cranmer are trying to suppress.

        1. Sorry I’ve seen too many idiots online today, it sounded like you were complaining about us LGB people complaining :P

      2. “No, it’s hate speech against a group of people there is nothing wrong with.”

        So are your comments hate speech, you f****** hypocritical idiot!

        You have said all of the following on this site, all are “hate speech”:-

        “I don’t hold any grudges against trans people, I have an issue with the disgusting, wrong, evil, and immoral thing called transgenderism”

        “Transgenderism is a CHOICE because they choose to go through with the “treatment”

        “Transgenderism is WRONG because it’s a harmful mental illness”

        “Transgenderism is WRONG because it causes you to mutilate your body”

        “Transgenderism is WRONG because it causes people to lie about their real gender”

        “Transgenderism is WRONG because they go in the wrong bathrooms, dressing rooms, etc”

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 16 May 2012, 7:20pm

      I agree that when people make comments not to our liking they should be allowed to voice them, but when they resort to telling lies and spreading false information without any foundation or factual evidence to support it, then they’ve crossed the line, especially when its done to incite and instill fear and promote hatred of a group of people whom they deem to be in conflict with their beliefs. I don’t know of any gay organistion seeking to promote heterophobia or the eradication of religion. If there are, I’d like to know about it.

      1. Robert

        I entirely agree.

        I think the hypocrisy is the likes of Cranmer complaining about so called freedom of speech issues as a cover for their thinly veiled hate speech. Its clear that Cranmers intention is to prevent those who wish to raise concerns with regulatory organizations such as the ASA from having the freedom of speech to complain.

    3. Frank Fisher 17 May 2012, 1:45pm

      “surely you believe in the freedom to complain about issues you find concerning?”

      Not when the objective of those complaints is to silense dissent.

      And, i there is such support in the country for gay marriage, then put it to the vote – don’t try to impose it via the backdoor.

      1. There’s a huge difference between censorship and having freedom of speech and thought. If one believes an opinion is motivated by bigotry or extremism surely it’s acceptable to articulate it.

        As for introducing equal rights, that should not be down to a referendum. Majorities should not have a vote on whether or not they can oppress minorities.

        There will be a vote – in parliament – and it will introduce equal marriage for same sex couples. Thats not the back door, its the usual democratic process (including votes) that the UK follow.

  25. Oh, wah, cry me a river, Christians. You need to get over yourselves. You’re bigoted homophobes who act like you’re the ones who are persecuted and discriminated against. No,in the UK, you are not persecuted and discriminated against, but LGB people are. You realize that you’re losing the “fight” against homosexuality/bisexuality, and same sex marriage/LGB rights so you have to resort to fake polls to try to pretend you’re winning – sad.

    1. Why have you dropped the T from GLBT? When it comes to equal marriage trans folk are probably the most affected by the lack of equal marriage.

      1. T has nothing to do with marriage equality. Yes, some trans people are LGB, but it’s not a T issue. It’s like saying same sex marriage equality is a black issue just because some black people are LGB. LOL no, trans people are not the most affected. LGB people are all affected the same, but if anything LG people are more affected because they don’t have the possibility of finding a partner of the opposite gender.

        1. It has everything to do with it, you vile creature! A married, opposite sex couple where one party transitions are forced to divorce. How is that nothing to do with marriage equality?

          You clearly have a very limited grasp on what equality means.

      2. She’s a transphobic hypocrite.

        You can ignore any other potential reason she may give. This is the true reason. She sees it as ok to berate those of religion who seek to discriminate against LGB people using the same reasons to berate people in the T community herself.

        1. I’ll take your implied advice and ignore her. She has clearly made up her mind and enjoys flaunting her ignorance.

        2. Can’t do it. Have to add why equal marriage affects trans people. Actually if people do feel the need I suggest they read the consultation material from the government. Because clearly the civil servants and minsters who worked on the document thought trans folk affected enough that they gave a whole section of the consultation information over to gender recognition.

          I know people whose EXISTING marriages have been affected by the lack of equal marriage in this country.

      3. There’s nothing wrong with homosexuality and bisexuality while transgenderism is severely wrong

        1. Lumi, do us a favour will you. You don’t even have to wait for the next history month to do it. Go research the history of the Trans community. See what they’ve went through. See what part they’ve helped to play in allowing you to be able to be who you are today.

          With any luck you’ll learn they are part of the LGBT community and, even though, you don’t like them, they deserve to be respected as part of OUR community.

        2. They’re not part of our community, sexual orientation and gender identity are two different things. Being attracted to the same gender is different from being mentally ill to the point where you’re so confused about your gender that you’re sad/depressed/etc and want to mutilate your body and lie about your real gender.

          Last time I checked, it was mostly LGB people and drag queens that helped the LGB rights movement.

          1. In the past, as now, it is difficult to draw the dividing line to separate between things that are exclusively GLB and those that are T. Marriage equality will affect not just GLB folks but T folks because it will allow them to keep already existing marriages. They will not have to suffer state-forced divorced to get their gender fully legally recognised.

            Back when homosexual marriage was illegal, do you think the police cared how the people involved viewed their gender? No they did not. They saw two penises and declared it illegal. This made straight sex for a trans woman illegal.

            People like yourself have tried to erase trans people out of GLBT history. Why do you have such a dislike for people like us? We’re just people with a medical condition trying to live our lives, and attempting to have the same rights as the rest of the population take for granted.

          2. @steven

            I’ve had this out with Lumi on a thread weeks ago. You are just wasting your time. I no longer reply to her but I make a point of clicking the thumbs down on every one of her comments that I notice – no matter what the subject matter is.

            It’s disgusting that Lumi as a gay woman is exactly like the homophobic bigots she hates when its comes to trans people.

            The sad thing is that she does make some very good points and arguments about homophobia, yet she doesn’t see that she is no different when it comes to her own transphobia.

        3. “There’s nothing wrong with homosexuality and bisexuality while transgenderism is severely wrong”

          Get the help you need (probably medication)

          You’re an embarrassment to lesbians everywhere.

  26. There’s a huge difference between censorship and having freedom of speech and thought. If one believes an opinion is motivated by bigotry or extremism surely it’s acceptable to articulate it.

  27. Christians are not persecuted in the UK. SMH.

    1. I just had 2 say that twice because of how baffling it is religious idiots think that. I cant wrap my head around it. They have the freedom to practice their religion, they have the freedom 2 discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, their churches dont have 2 pay taxes, they can wear religious clothing/items w/out a higher risk of offending people, they have their own music genre/subgenres, they have plenty more of their own bookstores, they have their own holidays which people get off of work sometimes, they arent usually aren’t beaten or murdered for their religion, they arent treated like animals, they arent denied rights, people dont attempt 2 treat them 4 “Christianity”, people usually dont look @ them like theyre evil filth, they probably get asylum requests easier, theyre less likely 2 get fired 4 being Christian than people 4 being LGB, straight Christians can get married, men dont rape Christian women trying 2 change their religion, theyre not denied healthcare

      1. GulliverUK 16 May 2012, 7:17pm

        WOW! You’re on a roll today :) You been sniffing that grade A jet fuel again :D

        You did, however, forget to mention they have their own ‘dating’ services too.
        Also, school children are forced to say prayers at school, and this often pervades to all sorts of other areas of life, like having prayers before council meetings, before parliament opens, and having 26 bishops – some of whom are very good, some of whom are very bad – involved in the House of Lords, forcing Anglican positions on everyone else, even those of a different faith, and no faith.

        1. GulliverUK 16 May 2012, 7:19pm


          Checking this;
          against this;

          The following Bishops are listed as supporting the C4M petition.
          Rt Revd Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester
          Rt Revd Anthony Priddis, Bishop of Hereford
          Rt Revd Michael Langrish, Bishop of Exeter
          Rt Revd Timothy Dakin, Bishop of Winchester
          Rt Revd Jonathan Gledhill, Bishop of Lichfield
          Rt Revd Nicholas Reade, Bishop of Blackburn
          Rt Revd Dr John Hind, Bishop of Chichester

      2. Theyre allowed 2 say “No gays/bis!” on their dating services, as well as b religious anywhere (pray etc) while LGB people are told 2 keep it in private, LGB people are called pedophiles while Catholic priests are called innocent/persecuted by most Christians, most US presidents have been Christian but theres only been 1 gay president, Christianity has never been on a list of psychiatric disorders, were not stopping straight people from being married but theyre stopping same sex couples from being married & most likely would stop couples of other religions being married if they could, we dont start wars/inquisitions/etc vs straight people, in the US our currency says In God We Trust, many US state license plates have slogans with God in it, our pledge of allegiance says One Nation Under God, they don’t have (or at least have few) anti Christian hate groups, we still arent allowed 2 serve in many militaries let alone openly, Christians arent banned from adopting, they can donate blood

        1. It’s not controversial to have Christian characters on TV, bookstores carry more Christian books than LGB books and usually don’t turn down Christian books, they get their own radio stations, we don’t think everyone should be gay but they think everyone should be Christian, we don’t have LGB day cares, we’re a smaller minority, it’s not controversial for them to threaten a child with hell but it’s controversial to tell them about bisexuality/homosexuality, etc. They’re PRIVILEGED.

          Thanks for listening to my rant lol

          1. Pleasure! lol

          2. Hey, it’s my pleasure to rant lol! I have quite the dislike for many religions, especially Christianity. Don’t even get me started on all the things Christianity has done, how Christianity is/Christians are in general, and how evil the Bible is! :P

          3. Not quite sure why you’re in the “minus numbers” here, as a lot of people seem to agree with you. Including me. Well said.

          4. @Mark

            Her points aren’t really what will be getting marked down. It’s more to do with Lumi’s hypocritical and bogotted transphobia on this site which means people are downmarking her, not her points

          5. bigotted*

          6. “Thanks for listening to my rant lol”

            A rant it certainly was. Utter dribble, of course, conning from a bigot like you.

  28. The freedom to speak as we choose is one that we take for granted. We can open our mouths and say what we’re thinking and no one can stop us. We can sit at our computers and type long diatribes about how we’re feeling and who we think is to blame for that.
    In some countries, even in 2012, some countries do not have that freedom, which saddens me. I know that there is nothing I can do to change it for them, but I still wonder what an existence is like, where public opinion is the only one that matters and voicing your own would lead to serious punishment.
    Ever since the invention of the internet, people have been using it to share and re-share opinions of theirs and of other people. We know so much more than we could have 20 years ago simply by being able to go on a computer with an internet connection.
    But when people take the freedom of speech too far, hiding behind it as an excuse to share hate speech, it makes a mockery of everyone else who is trying to make change to the world

    1. through the written word.
      Just because you have an opinion, doesn’t mean that it should be shared. Hate speech is taking the freedom to speak our opinions too far.
      The kind of speech that I’m referring to is not simply voicing a dislike of something, but rather a full on, negative verbal/ written assault on another human being whose difference should be celebrated instead of being the thing that we shun them for. Hate speech creates a culture of ignorance where people believe, because somewhat reputable people write/ speak on, such topics that it must be truth instead of opinion.

      Freedom of speech, YES. Hate speech hiding under the guide of Freedom of Speech, HELL NO!

      1. Seems some people must want to exercise their “freedom of speech” as a disguise to their hate speech – since they are marking my comments down!

        Now they are people who I call ignorant and arrogant bigots.

  29. I get it now. Religious extremists have always made out we are the ones with mental health issues to cover up for the fact that they are all completely INSANE.

  30. Archbishop Cranmer is a well-known hate-blog so its good to see him get some sort of comeuppance :)

  31. Let’s just be thankful that these extremist homophobic odd-balls

    1. Are in a small minority.
    2. Do not run the country, and have no chance of ever doing so.
    3. Do themselves more harm than anyone else, by nurturing a toxic and spiteful psyche that they have to live with 24/7.
    4. Are not our parents. (And hopefully not anyone’s parents.)
    5. Are helping the LGBT campaign for equality by motivating us all to unite against them.
    6. Are motivating heterosexual people formerly indifferent to the campaign for equality to support the campaign when they read of the hypocritical religious bigots opposing it.

    Every cloud has a silver lining.

  32. I think both homophobia and religion should be qualified as mental illnesses.

    1. Biphobia too, as well as whatever the dislike of asexuality is

      1. Do you see your own irony?

      2. Being against a sexual orientation that’s not a choice and there’s nothing wrong with, and being against religion, which is being brainwashed into believing false lies about some magical force- that’s wrong. Being against something horrible isn’t.

        1. Being against Christianity to the degree that many people are who post here could be classed as a mental illness.
          An irrational fear of Christians because they may not agree with you !!

          1. So what is your reason for being on this site, Iain if you dispute everything that most of the other posters say?

            What do YOU achieve by being here?

          2. What do Christians know about rationality?

      3. Lumi, you are insane. Can you not see the sad hilarity behind your statements?

    2. Whats it like to be dead inside?

    3. As should transphobia. Time for you to see a shrink I reckon x

    4. Frank Fisher 17 May 2012, 1:43pm

      As homosexuality was until you lot lobbied against it?

      Ah the irony…

      1. No it was nothing to do with lobbying, it was coming to understand science and losing the blinkers that indoctrinated bigotry caused.

    5. I think you’re suffering from mental illness, as evidenced by your horrific transphobia.

  33. Stewart Cowan 16 May 2012, 7:15pm

    Most of the comments here seem full of hatred, spite and self-loathing, yet homosexuals talk of “love” as the main driving force as to why ‘gay marriage’ should be legalised.

    From the evidence displayed on this comments page, people might say that the homosexual lifestyle attracts those who are not emotionally or mentally capable of marriage.

    1. And strangely you have the “freedom of speech” to say those things on a gay website yet by sheer hypocracy the converse comments would be deleted or barred from a Christian or right wing website (if indeed they allowed comments in the first place).

      Now, what was that you were saying about freedom of speech?

      Oh and of course, you identified strong emotion – because the only emotion you have is hate (as evidenced by your previous posts – utilising your freedom of speech (which you seek to deny others of)) you presume a strong emotion is hate.

      If you want to learn about love, I suggest you view some of the clips @Out4Marriage

      1. Stewart Cowan 16 May 2012, 7:32pm

        Stu, all opinions are accepted on my blog, and Cranmer’s too, I’m sure, if expressed within the bounds of decency.

        I don’t accept accusations of “hatred” from people on here, because a) I know for a fact that I don’t hate homosexuals and b) the amount of verbal bile produced on these comment pages from homosexuals and their supporters indicates that their judgments and notions are highly flawed.

        1. More from Nebraska Jane Svoboda.

        2. “Stu, all opinions are accepted on my blog, and Cranmer’s too, I’m sure, if expressed within the bounds of decency.”

          Come on Stewart !!! . . . you know that is not true

          1. Stewart Cowan 17 May 2012, 1:13pm

            John – From reading these comments, it is clear that the bare naked truth is an alien concept too difficult to grasp for most of you, but it is true. E.g., the comments left on this post are the typical loving ones I expect and approve on my blog and see everywhere else where homosexual supporters try to throw their weight around –

          2. Stewart

            Your blog mustn’t be very popular, never heard of it.

            Perhaps you should invite some of us to engage in robust debate on your blog.

            If you are a militant anti-gay or extreme theocrat (which is the persona you seem to present on these comments forums) then your blog would be virtually unique (in my experience) of allowing actual debate.

            However, I note whilst PN are brave enough to allow you to come and throw your weight around on a gay news website with only reactive monitoring (and rarely used!) – real freedom of speech – you only allow freedom of speech that you “approve” of.

            Not real freedom of speech is it, then?

            How do you determine what to approve and what not to approve?

        3. Well, if I were you Stewart (again judging from your own words on this website that you choose to frequent) you need to assess your emotions because hatred is clearly evident from many of your comments.

          Perhaps thats a learning point for you.

        4. Your blog?

        5. Oh?

          And how do you determine (in your subjective opinion) what is “expressed within the bounds of decency” and which elements of free speech should be denied?

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 16 May 2012, 7:37pm

        Wel said, Stu.

    2. Go post on Cranmer’s blog if you want. There are several long-standing LGBT people and atheists who do. Comments are deleted very rarely – and the only time I’ve seen such an occasion in the last month was for some pretty horrendous homophobic slurs.

      1. Those are merely the comments you are aware of that are deleted.

        I have been on Cranmers blog for a bit of sport on occasion. One can only take the bile and inhumanity for so long from aggressive militant anti gays. Bullying and arrogance and distasteful and ungentlemanly attitudes one finds.

        1. It’s not so much the hate, you expect that where there is a least a sprinkling of self loathers. It’s the pretentiousness!!Yuck, visit if you must but take an anti emetic beforehand.

          1. Pretentious, arrogant hate and ignorant of their own pomposity!

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 16 May 2012, 7:36pm

      Oh and alluding to polygamy, incest and bestiality if equal marriage were introduced isn’t about hatred and spitefulness?. For your information, we do NOT choose to be gay just people do NOT choose to be straight. Do you really believe we would choose to be gay knowing the discrimination, stigmatisation and bigotry that is out there? People lose their lives in some parts of the world because of who they are. Religion is a lifestyle, nobody is born that way, all learned behaviour just like lying and spreading malicious allegations about one group of people and having no factual evidence to support their claims. Pot calling the kettle black.

      1. Stewart Cowan 16 May 2012, 7:59pm

        Peter Tatchell says it’s a choice.

        1. And …

        2. Peter Tatchell is a great activist for the LGBT communities and stands up to the excessive bullying and militancy of show extremist individuals who show risible homophobia.

          In this context he was wrong. There is plenty of evidence to support the view that orientation is not a choice.

          1. Robert in S. Kensington 16 May 2012, 8:46pm

            Indeed! I’ve known since I was 7 that I was gay and neither of my parents were overbearing in any way shape or form, the nonsense the ex-gay ministries spew. I had a normal childhood and upbringing along with my two brothers and sister, all of whom are straight. Tatchell didn’t exactly say it was a choice if you read his article. Those ‘christian’ hate groups have a habit of skewing information and in some instances doctoring an article to suit its agenda as Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out has so many times exposed. All of the fraudulent claims have been debunked by the various Psychatric and Psychological organisations around the world.


        3. Robert in S. Kensington 16 May 2012, 8:32pm

          Even if it were and it isn’t, then that would mean heterosexuality is a choice. How many heterosexuals do you know who have chosen to be gay?

        4. @Stewart Cowan so ?

        5. “Peter Tatchell says it’s a choice.”

          LOL! Oh, sure, we’ll all follow that “empirical data” as a piece scientific reasoning, shall we?

          How low can your intellect be.

          The only choice here is your choice in how you demonstrate this desperate nonsense on a gay site.

    4. Nebraska Jane Svoboda see that? That’s you.

    5. Sour grapes Stewart!

    6. @Stewart Cowan

      I can’t see any such comments, please provide examples.

      This website does appear to attract “straight” people, for some “unknown” reason. I wonder if you had any ideas why this should be ?

    7. Yes I was forgetting, unquestioning respect and deference is still expected by some religious groups. Anything less is of course “persecution”

    8. Actually there are places in the world where Christians are persecuted mutilated and murdered by the other brand. Yet no one seems to worry overly about that? It’s a shrug of the shoulders and back on to the burning issue of the day– “gay marriage”:-)

    9. Most of the comments here seem full of hatred, spite and self-loathing, yet christians talk of “love” as the main driving force as to why ‘gay marriage’ should be illegal.

  34. Robert in S. Kensington 16 May 2012, 7:31pm

    Cranmer states that it wasn’t homophobic or offensive. Then why was the C4M petition launched if it weren’t for the equal marriage consultation? It’s religious bigotry, stupid.

    1. Frank Fisher 17 May 2012, 1:48pm

      Gays have equal marriage rights now. What can I, a straight man do, that you cannot?

      1. You can marry a person you love.

        I can’t marry my boyfriend who I love – why should I not be able to – in a civil, non religious ceremony?

        Ad hominen comments are really quite boring.

  35. de Villiers 16 May 2012, 8:31pm

    The policing of banner advertisements on the Internet seems draconian.

    1. The usual right wing rhetoric from de Villiers.

      1. de Villiers 17 May 2012, 8:47am

        I would have thought it was the left that would speak up for a free internet. It is usually the right that want to restrict civil liberties for the public good.

        1. Rayne Van-Dunem 23 May 2012, 4:32am

          Oh, I’m for the liberalization of laws regarding “intellectual property,” but I’m not, as of yet, against Internet vigilantism. I mean, all that Internet vigilantism (“Anonymous” and all that) is is taking advantage of civil liberties without demanding any government involvement or intervention. Anonymous essentially exercises and aggressively promotes the “freer Internet” of which you speak.

          Yet, I don’t think that you wold classify Anonymous as “right” by any stretch of the trans-Atlantic imagination, would you?

    2. Not even a millionth of a billionth as draconian as the catholic faith you still believe in.

      1. Some Pink News readers do seem to bend toward the Stalinist view of purging all dissenters from their LSE/GLF leftist agenda. And relish the prospect of invoking some form of punishment or humiliation upon them.Especially if those dissenters happen to be of the Christian type.
        Draconian indeed.

        1. and the right wing gay people on Pink News – whats your opinion on them? Eh?

          1. I will tell you when I find them………

          2. Evade the question – typical anti gay militant bullying response.

          3. “I will tell you when I find them………”

            When he schizophrenia is in full swing, you mean?

            Yes, lets wait for that.

        2. “Some Pink News readers do seem to bend toward the Stalinist view of purging all dissenters from their LSE/GLF leftist agenda”

          Ah, there we have it. The paranoia and delusional state of mind always surfaces soon rather then later.

          Medication, Iain. It’ll do wonders for you, I promise. And a side effect will be it’ll help you avoid lunatic persecution comments in public that make you look mad.

      2. de Villiers 17 May 2012, 8:51am

        Okay – policing banner advertisements is not as draconian as the Catholic Church. I’m not sure where that takes you or the argument. We can choose to submit to whichever personal restrictions we wish – we cannot choose to exclude ourselves from state restrictions.

        It still seems that the policing of internet banner advertisements is draconian for a liberal democracy.

        1. So would you allow banner advertisements for example promoting bestiality or terrorism? If you think policing of advertisements is a bad thing.

        2. de Villiers 17 May 2012, 1:53pm

          I would not have state regulation of Internet banners. However, even when there was no state regulation of them, the powers of the ASA being about twelve months old, I never saw Internet banners for bestialty or terrorism.

          1. So you would not interfere with banner advertising.

            Whether you have seen advertising for bestiality or terrorism or not – does not prove it has not occurred.

            Even, if it has not occurred it does not mean it could not occur if there was no regulation.

            So, one takes your attitude to mean you would have no issue with banner advertising for bestiality DVDs or websites or terrorist support groups.

            Sounds like the atittudes of some RC clergy to “matters of the dark side”.

          2. de Villiers 17 May 2012, 5:06pm

            Your post is ill considered for the following reason.

            First, your argument is the same used for the existence of god – just because you have not seen Him it does not prove that He does not exist. The argument does not prove the existence of god and does not prove that internet banners on bestiality exist.

            Second, the government should legislate for real and not imaginary problems. I have never in my entire life ever seen an internet banner for bestiality or terrorism. Ever. The problem of there being such banners appears to be imaginary or of such little significance that there is no point the state addressing it.

            Third, not being in favour of censorship does not mean that you are in favour of what is not being censored. I am not in favour of Holocaust denial. However, I would not make it illegal to do.

            Your final remark as a reference to my being Catholic is bigoted and nasty – just like the nasty people against whom you now rail.

          3. I view your desire not to see regulation of advertising as being an opportunity for those who seek a platform of irresponsibility to seize and those who seek to ensure it lacking the moral rigour to ensure fair regulation.

            As for my comments on the RC church – it is based on my personal experience and that of which I have read in the history books. The organisation involved in the biggest cover up of global child abuse in history is hardly an organisation that an upstanding person would seek to defend.

          4. de Villiers 18 May 2012, 2:59pm

            Every organisation has faults. The government of Barack Obama incarcerates individuals in Guantanamo without trial. It allows naked body scans and intrusive pat-downs. He has ordered the execution of Bin Laden without a trial. That does not prevent people supporting Barack Obama or part of his government.

            That the Catholic Church has had disgraceful issues with child abuse does not mean that one has to condemn the entire church rather than those parts which have behaved unconscionably.

            As for “fair” regulation – what is “fair” rather depends on the subjective views of each individual. I am of the view that banner advertisements on the internet require no policing by the full weight of the state. How that fairly liberal view has caused you to attack my integrity and my religion continues to escape me.

  36. ‘Archbishop Cranmer’ is actually a man called Adrian Hilton, who was the Tory candidate for Slough at the 2005 general election, before he was sacked by then leader Michael Howard for making “anti-Catholic comments”.

    Yes, that’s right, Cranmer was so repulsive that even Howard couldn’t stomach him!

    1. He is apparently a “friend” of Iain Dale who has now gone down significantly in my view.

      How Iain Dale could be friends or associates with such a loathsome individual who is so categorically homophobic and inspired by hatred is unfathomable.

    2. Adrian Hilton that reptile who endorsed civil disobedience.

      A man of high values and stature.

      Homophobia and civil disobedience. So honourable!

      1. Rayne Van-Dunem 22 May 2012, 7:01am

        It’s not the civil disobedience that’s an issue. It’s the civil disobedience to defend the social tyranny of homophobia that’s the issue here.

  37. Adrian Hilton aka Cranmer ( is a rejected Tory candidate for Slough. He was deselected by the Conservative Party in 2005 for anti-Catholic bigotry after making unsubstantiated allegations that the EU is the result of Catholic conspiracy, he also claimed that former PM John Major, guilty of an act of treason for signing the Maastricht Treaty, was the dupe of a Roman Catholic conspiracy to impose Vatican sovereignty over Britain. Hilton’s blog is packed with his particular brand of soteriology and is frequented by a small number of similarly inclined cult followers to whom he preaches and whom he refers to as ‘communicants’.

    Hilton maintains that he does not delete critic’s comments, however a cursory view of posts shows the truth of this statement, this persecution complex usually results in those who oppose his crystallized world view as liars/bigots.

    For all their faults the Tories got it right on him

  38. Even though I despise Damien Thompson from the Telegraph (particularly regarding his apparent involvement in the Catholic schools politicising debacle). I do recall this blog he wrote on Cranmer which amused me:

    1. Oh Holy Smoke has his good points occasionally – this was one of his tweets a few months back:

      Adrian Hilton, aka @His_Grace, describes gay people as “gayers” and then wonders why the Tories don’t want him as an MP.

  39. friday jones 16 May 2012, 10:49pm

    Persecution? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    1. Nice reference!

      1. “Prepare to die” – now that would constitute persecution!

        For the equal marriage debate, though, my favourite has to be “This is true love. You think it happens every day?”

  40. silly self centred man who is irritating and a time waster. Crackpot.

  41. People seem to think that the concept of free speech is a shield that allows them to spew bigotry and hate without repercussions. Any criticism of said hate speech is treated as an assault on free speech itself which is patently absurd since one is using free speech in their criticism. No, calling out bigotry and asking people to be more considerate (i.e. stop being jerks to marginalized classes) is not “censorship” or “fascism”. I simply exercise my own rights to free speech to point out bigots, and call out for others to enforce peer pressure on them to change their bigoted ways.

    Free speech does not mean “No consequences for your speech” anymore than Free Religion means that all religions need to be “respected”. If what you say (or believe) is hateful and hurtful, then you will rightly be called out on it and should expect people to take direct action against you. What that action is, depends on how much harm your free speech causes but those people have as much right to take

    1. action to hurt you, as you took action to hurt them.

    2. Frank Fisher 17 May 2012, 1:42pm

      There’s no bigotry or hate in Cranmer’s writing. There’s plenty here though.

      1. Oh how blind are those who choose not to see.

        1. There is no hate or bigotry in the ‘offending’ advert. There is a survey result (which you may claim is flawed) and an opinion on what marriage means (which you may disagree with, but cannot argue with the fact that there’s a decent amount of historical/cultural support for) and an opinion that the rules around this should stay as they are (again, disagree at your leisure).

          I’ve come to this story via people concerned at the idea that the authorities can be used as a tool to suppress someone taking a position in this debate. I don’t really care about the marriage question (I think everyone must be equal where the law of the state is concerned, but see this as the battle for a word which holds no value to me… and, that being so, I have no business in the debate).

          I’ve no doubt that the religious objections to equal marriage are, frequently rooted in bigotry and hate. This Cranmer fellow might well be a nasty piece of work. But that’s not the point here. It’s about the ad.

  42. The way I see it is these days (not all but) a lot of of opposite sex couples getting married are doing so to see how big and fluffy they can make the day, to follow the trend of seeing who can spend the most to outdo each other. Then a couple of years later it ends in divorce.

    A Gay couple get married for all the RIGHT reasons, because they love each other and want to seal the deal so to speak.

    So isn’t it more ethical to marry for the love and commitment rather than merely to put on a show for popularity?

    If that is the case then Gay Marriage should be right up there alongside a ‘normal’ couple. The world is changing so it’s about time certain religions were put to one side to allow people the freedom to do what they want to do.

    I speak as a straight person so I’m not just being biased.

  43. the churches blatantly knowingly deliberately lie and condemn gay people to hell then proclaim religious persecution when their blatant homophobia is questioned. apparently jesus is a hate monger since that is what his followers feel is his most important message.

    1. Rayne Van-Dunem 23 May 2012, 4:39am

      I wonder if it can be explained this way: claim an hawkish, authoritarian “doctrine” (you’re saying what’s right and wrong!) when you’re feeling froggy enough to jump on someone, then claim a dovish, weakened “culture” (you’re persecuting my way of living!) when you get attacked by those who see something wrong with your jumping on someone in the first place.

      As Christianity and, more pointedly, Islam are combinations of ideology (AKA doctrine) and a way of living (“culture”), I’m not surprised that those who combine the two can alternate between the two depending upon the circumstance.

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.