He is yet another evangelical bigot. He really should know better. Let’s hope he doesn’t become the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Given that the Archbishop of Canterbury is appointed by Downing Street, I don’t think Sentamu will be the next one. The other obvious contender is Richard Chartres, the current Bishop of London, though he’s probably too old and doesn’t have a strong enough record in favour of women priests. My money is on an relative outsider like Graham James, the current Bishop of Norwich. In any case, I’d be very surprised if we get an evo like Sentamu.
Wouldnt the Bishop of Salisbury be a nice idea?
Can’t see it happening, but if we lobby DC?
Graham James would be fantastic, and he is in favour of Equal Marriage! I love the Norwich Cathedral Chapter, all of them are pro-equal marriage and one of them IS gay.
I hope that Graham gets it!
That is reassuring, Rich. My priest thinks Sentamu is a dead cert for the job. He gets in and I will leave the Anglican church.
There are those in the Anglican church seeking to use deception and lies to get Sentamu into the role of AoC. They are claiming failure to appoint him will be racist.
The reality is if he is appointed the church will fracture and dissolve into even less relevance. If they want to be seen as having a role in society then appointing a bigot is not the way forward.
I totally agree with you. I’ve had that discussion already. I could have been shot down in flames for pointing out he is a bigot.
It isn’t the atheists that are pushing me out of the Anglican church. It is the retreating leadership that wish to take us back to the nineteenth century.
Chartres is far too sensible to go for it, I think.
He would be great for the secular cause; it’s guys like this man who’ll do anything to remind us that religion is nothing but a scam and its place in society is an undeserved one. He even turns off a majority of the religious themselves. Go Sentamu!
As a fair minded secularist, I do not think we should try and influence who leads the social club that is the Church of England.
They are doing quite well enough at causing it to break down, splinter and collapse without our assistance.
Har, you beat me to it ! Sentamu would be a very good ‘false flag’ leader. The Telegraph and mail brigades would no doubt be appalled by a black man in a post as traditional as as AoC (although many might be too polite to say so openly), so the CofE’s influence would certainly wane even faster.
And I’d be only too happy to nudge the CofE in any legal way so that it breaks down, splinters and collapses even faster. Considering the hatred it spews out, no fair-minded secularist needs to hesitate for a moment.
Perhaps those promoting ethical practice should not lower themselves to the level of those they condemn?
Then Sentamu is nothing but a vile self-centred sadist. And he can take his poxy book of fairy tales and shove it right up his bloody firmament.
If there are any dictators it is the Catholic Pope and his pawns who sprew hate and destruction of gay and minorities who they do not like. These Catholic dictators appear to be uneducated but they know they have harming gays and minorities and that is their plan. More than one Catholic person has told me the Catholic Church is at war with gays. I think they are crazy because the war they are fighting is in their sick and twisted minds. LGBT people are people, humans who want to love and get married and have good jobs and families like all of God’s creations.
Marriage has evolved continuously over the millennia, was it a dictatorship that introduced inter-racial marriage?
And the early church didn’t permit any sort of marriage.
Just don’t expect an abundance of rational thought when it comes to some people’s religion : all the most hateful arguments hide behind “my invisible magic friend told me so”.
Fortunately there are some people who are involved with religion to spread love and tolerance, and who are beginning to speak up on this matter.
Actually, the early church did permit marriage. But it would have been nothing like the modern marriage ceremony.
It is true though that, apparently in the Middle Ages, marriage was not *permitted* on church premises. It was a totally secular (and sometimes rather bawdy) affair.
But this so called tradition of marriage that the right wing of the church is so vehemently defending is actually a quite modern affair. Not at all one of the great traditions of the church throughout all ages as is being claimed. There were even rites for same-sex unions at some stages in church history.
… and despite all the fears that children would no longer know what colour they want to be and would experiment with “blacking up” and “whiting up” interracial marriage has now been accepted by the majority of the church.
Dispanding and abolishing religion would statisfy our ‘emotional’ need just as much at times, and make the country, nay the world, a better place as well.
However, we’re not pushing for that. We just want to be treated like human beings, the same as everyone else in Love. But the Church doesn’t understand that, nor care, so I don’t care about his statements.
I want to know how he equates his view with “remedy injustice” and discrimination, All that he suggests is that he personally condones discrimination and is against the government making discrimination against the law. Not allowing gay people to marry is discrimination nothing else.
I wonder if he would have the same opinion if it was still legal to discriminate against people because of race or colour? This is just one more reason why religion should not have a platform in the political arena – after all, statistics show that only 45% of the population consider themselves ‘christian’ (whatever denomination). Maybe he should read Leviticus more closely and he would see that his church also sees him as a second class citizen.
This man believes in spirits, angels, the supernatural, fairies, sprites, devils, and a god. In other words, he suffers from severe delusionality and is therefore mentally ill.
Pay no heed to him, but DO advise everyone you know of his very sad state of mind.
While I do not support or agree with the sentiments expressed by Dr Semantu I also feel that what your saying unfairly brands anyone and everyone who has a religious or spiritual outlook or perspective. I am usually the first in line to rail against religiously motivated prejudice and intolerance, but there is also a level of ignorance and intolerance displayed by some secularists and atheists about anything and everything remotely spiritual, and its not funny or clever and it certainly isnt objective.
I am not a religious person, and I support many of the principles and values of secular and atheist perspectives. But I also deal with many people who have a spiritual or religious outlook on life and they are not deluded or mentally ill simply because their perspective and outlook on life is different to yours.
Creator/Admin – The God Debate: Dialogue About Religion In The Modern World.
So shocking that a man who was given asylum from Idi Amin can exact prejudice on others. Evil bigot.
in my opinion its not a case of he doesn’t understand our wants/needs/rights…but that he doesn’t want to. There is none so blind as those who will not see!!
Civil marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with the church.
The UK should not be a theocracy.
Religious aspects to marriage have been seen as irrelevant to civil marriage since 1836.
Sentamu is a bigot and should go back to Uganda.
I wonder would it be possible to revoke his asylum, because this deluded bigots presence in the UK is detrimental to the common good and he foments dissension which is clearly breaking the terms of his asylum. Any lawyers out there willing to start proceedings against him will undoubtedly get the full support, financial and otherwise of the Gay community… Lets make him sorry he ever heard the words Gay or homosexual.
sorry Stu but you sound like a right wing nutter when you start saying people should go back where they came from. I believe a conservative politician was recently thrown out of the party after saying that on twitter….
dont stoop to the level of the EDL.
I’m certainly more centrist than that and particularly on the issue of immigration!!
However (as I have said below in another comment when Rehan checked me on a comment), that particular response was an angry response to bigoted language from Sentamu and I lashed out.
Do I think he is fit to be the second most senior member of the CoE? No
Do I think he is appropriate to be a member of the House of Lords? No
Do I think he acts with honesty, decency and propriety? The evidence of his bigotry suggests otherwise (although he has done some good things in the past which almost magnifies the callous and inhumane way he seeks to treat gay people).
He should reflect on his bigotry. He should stand down as Archbishop and he should find some way of acting constructively to assist society rather than ratcheting up bigotry.
Whilst I would not complain if he chose to leave the UK – I would not seek to force him to.
We shouldn’t tell people to go back to where they came from.
We just shouldn’t let them in in the first place.
Hm, Well, that would rule out Prince Philip, Maurice and Charles Saatchi, Geoffrey Robertson QC, Joanna Lumley, Sir Trevor McDonald, Sir Magdi Yacoub, Germaine Greer, Zaha Hadid and a host of other distinguished, internationally-renowned foreign-born British people: is that really what you want?
Or Dr Sentamu, to not introduce this legislation would only serve to meet your emotional needs to discriminate
If the state does not meet our emotional as well as legal needs then that is discrimination whatever the Archbigot says. It is discrimination that gay people are denied marriage and thus the emotional fulfiment that they seek. That is an injustice however you try to spin.
By his own words the state should put right injustices. Well it’s injust to deny us the emotional well being that comes with marriage although I realised Sentamu is blind to that.
And Dr Sentamu why should my relationship be simply boiled down to legal rights? My relationship is about a hell of a lot more than that.
John, the only thing you’re missing is the entire point. To say “you are allowed to marry because of who/what you are; you are not allowed to marry because of who/what you are is discrimination by any definition of the word.
Keep on making up your own rules and regulations regarding the legal system – it won’t change anything, and history will judge you as yet another member of the church standing in the way of simple altruistic humanity.
He said it himself that its the “Law of Marriage”, who better to change the Law than the one’s who decide what is Law and what’s not! As already stated in the comments, Marriage is not rigid and has not been rigid in the past, its has been flexible and changed with the times and with peoples changing attitudes. Now is the time for the next change
So he writes another long piece basically saying that we need to keep in our place and not get uppity and pretend to be equal to precious straight people?
What do you expect from a bigot who couldn’t even sign an accord against anti-gay violence.
So the “eminent” Archbishop believes its acceptable to treat some people (LGBT) as sub human because of how they are born but not others (based on race) because of how they were born.
He is on the wrong side of history.
He needs to learn the lessons of the Gospel, his blindness and bigotry has made him unable to live the Gospel and love his neighbour. His attitude besmirches and depraves the message of the Holy Gospel.
His arrogance is extreme and rabid.
He is as vile as the racists who sought to condemn inter racial marriage and who imposed apartheid.
He will be responsible for the hate in his heart when he meets his maker.
He lacks any credibility in his ability to lead the church.
His attitude is shameful, evil and monstrous.
He is no man of God.
one definition of bigot:
‘a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race’
I think you might fit the bill nicely.
Sounds like Rossco believes homophobia and seeking to segregate gay people in terms of treatement by society is acceptable to him.
Well thats a form of bigotry that most decent people would find abhorrent.
As for condemning homophobia or racism – if thats a form of bigotry – it is a form of bigotry that I would be proud to be part of.
Its not bigotry – its recognising inhumanity.
Copied from the FB comments for this story
“If the transport needs for Miss Rosa Parks are met by travelling in the back of the bus, it would be inappropriate to use legislation merely to meet her emotional needs…”
oh that is so so spot on. luv that comment.
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
What a superb analogy!
He is wrong – plain and simple. He is ignorant and is not interested in educating himself. His views should count for nothing if he is not interested in having an informed opinion. Yes, we are legally discriminated against by not being allowed legal recognition for our marriages, and yes this must change.
As a real man of God (Desmond Tutu) said:
A student once asked me, If I could have one wish granted to reverse an injustice, what would it be? I had to ask for two. One is for world leaders to forgive the debts of developing nations which hold them in such thrall. The other is for the world to end the persecution of people because of their sexual orientation, which is every bit as unjust as that crime against humanity, apartheid.
This is a matter of ordinary justice. We struggled against apartheid in South Africa, supported by people the world over, because black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about — our very skin. It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given. I could not have fought against the discrimination of apartheid and not also fight against the discrimination that homosexuals endure, even in our churches and faith groups.
Opposing apartheid was a matter of justice. Opposing discrimination against women is a matter of
justice. Opposing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a matter of justice.
It is also a matter of love. Every human being is precious. We are all — all of us — part of God’s family. We all must be allowed to love each other with honor. Yet all over the world, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are persecuted. We treat them as pariahs and push them outside our communities. We make them doubt that they too are children of God. This must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy. We blame them for what they are.
Churches say that the expression of love in a heterosexual monogamous relationship includes the physical — the touching, embracing, kissing, the genital act; the totality of our love makes each of us grow to become increasingly godlike and compassionate. If this is so for the heterosexual, what earthly reasons have we to say that it is not the case with the homosexual?
The Jesus I worship is not likely to collaborate with those who vilify and persecute
an already oppressed minority. I myself could not have opposed the injustice of penalizing people for something about which they could do nothing — their race — and then have kept quiet as women were being penalized for something they could do nothing about — their gender; hence my support for the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate.
Equally, I cannot keep quiet while people are being penalized for something about which they can do nothing — their sexuality. To discriminate against our sisters and brothers who are lesbian or gay on grounds of their sexual orientation for me is as totally unacceptable and unjust as apartheid ever was.
If only Desmond Tutu would speak to this in the UK.
I think the Bishop of Salisbury should invite him to preach at Salisbury Cathedral and invite Pink News and other media outlets to be there to report on his preaching!
Or maybe Pink News could invite him to write a comment article?
yes we did do well in South Africa, I remember all the fights we had to get just a few little words added to the new constitution. but we did get them in. Now I would love to see the same things everywhere.
Spot on!!!! THe guy is A LEGEND!!!!
He’s not as bad as other clerics from Uganda, but he does not reflect a compassionate view of society.
I prefer the words of the Bishop of Salisbury:
“Before Wilberforce, Christians in this country saw slavery as having Biblical support for what was the God-given in the ordering of creation. In South Africa, Apartheid was seen in the same way by the Dutch Reformed Church. Within the churches, Christians conscientiously disagree about the interpretation and significance of the six Biblical passages referring to homosexuality. Most people now see the Church’s avoidance of equality legislation as immoral and it undermines us. It is a disaster that we have allowed the Church to be seen as the opposition to equal marriage. Some Christians might like to say there are more important issues than gay marriage but we are not connecting with our society and for the churches this should be a mission priority.”
it’s so sad when even our allies misspeak on the topic of the Bible and homosexuality.
other than Leviticus, there is not a single other mention of homosexuality.
Any other passage that references homosexuality does so ONLY in the English translation of the Bible. It is present in neither the original Greek or Hebrew.
I agree, Mikey
Although I took the Bishop of Salisburys comments (when read in full context) to mean those passages that people purport to be about homosexuality.
Even the story of the city of Sodom is, in the Hebrew, about hospitality to strangers and not condemnation of perceived same-sex acts.
Yesterday someone on huffpost tried to say that Jesus had quoted “God made them male and female” to try argue against homosexuality. It was funny cos he was blatantly ignoring the bits before and after which refer purely to divorce and nothing about homosexuality.
A number of senior clerics in the Church of England rightly said:
Marriage is a robust institution which has adapted much over the centuries. It has moved beyond the polygamy of the Old Testament and preoccupation with social status and property in pre-Enlightenment times.
While the Prayer Book states that marriage was ordained first for ‘the procreation of children’ the modern marriage service begins by emphasising the quality of relationship between marriage partners ‘that they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind.’
The Church calls marriage holy or sacramental because the covenant relationship of committed, faithful love between the couple reflects the covenanted love and commitment between God and his Church. Growing in this kind of love means we are growing in the image of God. So the fact that there are same-sex couples who want to embrace marriage should be a cause for rejoicing in the Christian Church.
We welcome current moves by the House of Bishops to
consider again its view of civil partnerships and human sexuality. We hope this will lead to a recognition of God’s grace at work in same-sex partnerships and call on the Church to engage in theological discussion and prayerful reflection on the nature of marriage.
We also welcome recent reported statements by the Bishop of Salisbury and the new Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral calling on the Church to affirm same-sex couples who want to take on the commitment of marriage.
It is our belief that the Church of England has nothing to fear from the introduction of civil marriage for same-sex couples. It will be for the churches to then decide how they should respond pastorally to such a change in the law.
Well, fear is exactly what this extremist bigot is pandering too with the help of the Daily Telegraph. Civil marriage in no way shape or form mandates procreation nor does it invoke any religious component. If they want to keep harping on about procreation, then why aren’t they supporting a ban on infertile couples and those who choose not to have children? This is more to do with homophobia and the ‘ick’ factor, the thought of two people of the same gender enjoying sexual intimacy that they believe is an abomination. They want to redefine civil marriage by imposing religion.
One could also say, if bigoted enough, that allowing Rosa Parkes sit at the front of the bus was only serving her emotional needs, as the seats at the back were exactly the same as those at the front, (although I have serious doubts this evil little bigoted dictator ever heard of Rosa Parkes, someone who would put him to shame), or that allowing interracial marriage was fulfilling emotional needs or that at the time there were a lot of black people who ” forcefully [....] rejected the concept of interracial marriage altogether.” The man, while he claims to be a man of “god” is nothing but a bigot pure and simple and an ignorant one at that. A clear example that these people learn nothing but the fairy stories from their evil old book of how to control and discriminate. Don’t they need preachers in Africa or where ever he came out of to try dictating to us…..??
He forgets his church only exists because a monarch overthrew thr established church and changed the institution of marriage overnight, so that he could produce a ‘legitimate’ heir for dynastic reasons and to divorce/execute wives at will to do so.
If that was not overnight/sudden change, what is?
A church founded on an illegitimate basis has no moral compass by which it any right to define what was always a secular/temporal institution of state.
“meets an emotional need of some same-sex couples (only some, as I have forcefully been led to believe some reject the concept of marriage altogether) ” those are the ones, like straight couples who feel that they do not need a marriage to be happy! This man is such a fool!
Lets consider just some of the relatively recent “redefinitions” in law of marriage that have occurred in the UK:
1753 – all marriage ceremonies must be conducted by a minister in a parish church or chapel of the Church of England to be legally binding (prior to this the law seemed to encourage the practice of secret marriages which did not have parental consent and which were often bigamous)
It was only in 1753 that the law stated that no marriage of a person under the age of 21 was valid without the consent of parents or guardians.
The Marriage Act of 1836 which allowed non-conformists and Catholics to be married in their own places of worship. It was also made possible for non-religious civil marriages to be held in register offices which were set up in towns and cities. Prior to this the law required religious non-conformists and Catholics to be married in Anglican churches.
In 1929, in response to a campaign by the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship,
Parliament raised the age limit to 16 for both sexes in the Ages of Marriage Act.
These are merely some of the alws and do not consider issues of divorce, re-marriage etc etc
The Archbishop is outdated, outmoded and has no insight about humanity where he seeks to prevent human rights being extended to a minority group.
His view is irrelevant and ignorant.
Marriage is an evolving “institution” in the UK and long should it continue to evolve – fairly, appropriately and honestly – for the benefit of the state and of loving and committed couples who can legitimately consent.
Allowing businesses like the Church of England to not pay tax is also a misuse of the state Sentamu – you horrendous bigot
If this bigot ever becomes the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican cult can kiss it’s future goodbye. He’s an extremist which will only alienated people further more. Leave it to the bloody Telegraph to promote bigotry.
Why isn’t anyone confronting these bigots? Never a rebuttal in the media, always negativity and they get away with it every time giving the impression that they speak for the entire country. I just don’t get the silence.
This may be a cynical take on the guy, but the future of the Anglican church doesn’t lie with the dwindling congregations in the UK. Most growth in the church is occurring in Africa which is traditionally homophobic. His pronouncements may be making him unpopular with some sections of society in the UK but his stance against gay marriage will be playing well to the african congregations. They would be overjoyed if he were to become the next head of the Anglican communion.
Yes, but he has no control over the African church.
They are part of the Anglican Communion but he remains a symbolic head only and has no legal power outside of England.
So if he is playing to that constituency then his approach is odd.
Also the election of AoC is not by those outside of the CoE but is appointed by the Queen under guidance of the UK PM – thus playing to a constituency which has no role in the appointment would also be odd.
This is why I never liked the idea of Civil Partnerships. I knew it was a cop-out to avoid the marriage issue, in fact Blair admitted it during the consultation. Now they’re using these second rate partnerships as a shield to deny us access to civil marriage. Most of the bigots don’t even think should even have CPs but it’s become a convenient tool for them to throw back at us. Stupid idiots like Bradshaw and other gay traitors mouthing off that marriage isn’t necessary really did a hatchet job on this when he writes…..: “Up to now, the only reason I have been given for a desire to redefine marriage to embrace same-sex relationships is that it meets an emotional need of some same-sex couples (only some, as I have forcefully been led to believe some reject the concept of marriage altogether).”
I will NEVER forgive Bradshaw and any gay conspirators who signed C4M’s petition. and it matters not that he intends to vote for it if it ever gets that far.
What a prick. His attitude will finish the church
He will finish the C of E if he gets Canterbury. Bring it on.
It will be strife for the country too though – although it might well be worth it.
Separation of church and state.
He has only one vote as a citizen.
But he sits in the Lords.
Which is an outrageous abuse of democracy
Religious institutions are mainly exclusive not inclusive and that is their choice. I would never want to have a ceremony in such a place but a Civil Marriage is removed from religion and therefore every British citizen has the given right to get married regardless of sexuality.
What the h does he think unequal marriage is if it isn’t ‘legal discrimination’?
…of some same-sex couples (only some, as I have forcefully been led to believe some reject the concept of marriage altogether)
Oh, and what about the opposite-sex couples who reject the concept of marriage altogether? Why are they never taken into account in this way?
I wish he’d explain ‘forcefully’. Who are these gay people he speaks of? Can he explain why so many straight couples choose not to marry but live in ‘sin’? If he and others were so concerned about protecting ‘traditional’ marriage, why aren’t they addressing the enormous divorce rate as a result of heterosexual serial adultery and divorce? Who caused that I wonder?
The phobes on these boards usually find some ultimately tenuous link pinning hetro divorce and adultery on us as well, as in the phrase “Hetrosexual married couples look at the number of unmarried gay people cohabiting and think ‘I might as well get divorced or sleep around then!”
Sentamu seems confused, he says,
(of same sex couples) “they are not experiencing legal discrimination”
Yet Sentamu also maintains that “the institution (marriage) should be reserved for straight couples.”
Sentamu is saying that excluding same sex couples from marriage is not discriminatory simply because same sex couples are gay so it’s perfectly alright to exclude them from marriage…I think Sentamu is clearly homophobic and bonkers.
The law on marriage as it stands does indirectly discriminate against trans people as they cannot get a gender recognition certificate whilst in a marriage without first divorcing and losing accrued rights (e.g. pension rights) under that marriage, OK they can get a CP after they have divorced and got the GRC but it impacts upon some couples financially; with same-sex civil marriage that will no longer be an issue. Therefore by Dr Sentamu’s own argument it is not a ‘misuse of the state’ and he need not trouble his conscience about it further.
“I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history…”
It’s not that surprising that same sex partners have been left out of the state definition of civil marriage. When that was set up, homosexuality was illegal and we were thrown into prison. How on earth do they expect us to have been included in their definition.
Things have moved on!
“only some(want SS marriage), as I have forcefully been led to believe some reject the concept of marriage altogether”
Not quite sure what this line is about but many more straights have rejected the concept of marriage..we haven’t had the opportunity to reject it yet, it’s still illegal for us!
Exactly right! This man is a total fraud as well as an idiot.
Sentamu “I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are.”
I suppose it depends which bit of history and tradition is chosen, perhaps the biblical one man and several women? or possibly the pre-divorce tradition of marriage until death?
Patrick Strudwick :
“Until 1991, husbands could legally rape their wives. Until 1882, a woman’s property automatically became the possession of her husband. Until the 1960s middle-class married women were expected to give up work. Marriage was socially enforced. Cohabiting couples were despised as “living in sin”. Single women were “spinsters”. Single mothers were “sluts”, sent to asylums or distant relatives, ostracised or institutionalised, and robbed of their newborn.
Marriage, when viewed in its complete historical context, does not look like a vehicle for love, but an instrument of control.”
Patrick Strudwick is quite right in that marriage has been undergoing a process of evolution for a very long time – I can’t think of an example where that evolution was NOT of benefit.
The current model of two legally autonomous, fully consenting, loving adults marrying is a relatively modern iteration.
This is why their blathering nonsense about “traditional marriage” exposes them as charlatans – they invoke something that they simply don’t understand (either wilfully or by ignorance).
Marriage was originally used for the construction of political alliances between families…the feelings of the couple were never taken into consideration.
Traditions change, thank goodness. And just because something has been done a certain way for a long period of time doesn’t make it right.
Quite! This has more to do with the loss of power and control that they once wielded and of course, homophobia. They’re trying to impose religion on civil marriage. Good luck with that! They’re very hypocritical because they don’t even permit divorced people a religious marriage. The problem with them is that they want it both ways or the highway for the rest of us.
Why is this guy even relevant!
Civil Marriage! Not Religious!
‘Emotional Needs’…It’s also about basic human rights!
Michael mason wrote:
It seems to me that the central issue is this. Civil (as opposed to religious) marriage is an institution offered by the state to any citizens who wish to declare a certain level of commitment by virtue of which they are accorded a certain legal status. It follows that it should be available to all competent citizens and not just privilege heterosexuals. If a civil institution is not available to all, which others should solely privilege heterosexuals? Education, health care, the vote? Religions, of course, have their own ‘club rules’, but the state needs to justify denying a common institution to a group only of its citizens and I suggest it has not done so.
Pollik: Wow…there’s a real disconnect in his logic.
…well, yes, of course. An emotional need to get married to the person you love, just like heterosexual people. Which makes it very much an equality issue.
“Dr Sentamu writes, homosexual couples should enjoy complete equality with heterosexuals but argues that this does not mean redefining marriage.”
Actually, yes it does. That is part of makes it “equal”
“If the rights of civil partners are met differently in law to those of married couples, there is no discrimination in law, & if civil partnerships are seen as somehow ‘second class’ that is a social attitude ”
So…if different, then they are not equal. He doesn’t explain why a gay person should be “outed” by making civil partnerships for same sex partnerships only. Equal means not different. What Sentamu is trying to say is that civil partnerships are similar to marriages, but different.In any event, it’s not for CofE to define my marriage.
He is not actually as clever as he thinks he is.
Equal access to civil marriage doesn’t redefine it at all. All it does is expand it to include gay couples. It doesn’t impinge on others’ ability or right to marry. Nothing has changed in any of the countries where it has been introduced. Sentamu needs to provide the evidence to the contrary. Henry VIII redefined marriage when he booted catholicism and opened the doors for divorce that eventually led to civil marriage in the 19th century. There was no gay involvement in bringing that about either. If he insists that CPs are adequate, why aren’t heterosexuals allowed to have them all things being equal? Why aren’t they starting their own campaign for them? I think we know why don’t we?
What is a misuse of the state is failing to treat all citizens with equal value regardless of race, orientation, gender etc in civil matters.
What is a misuse of the state is manipulation of civil matters by theocrats.
Archbishop Sentamu exposes his bigotry by playing the victim card. He claims he qants equality (as long as Christian views are more equal).
His version of equality is not equality.
If the bus is going to the same place with the same fare and seats at the back are just as comfortable, then there was no injustice to remedy and no discrimination in law by not allowing black people to sit at the front and allowing them to do so has served only to satisfy their emotional needs.
too many negatives, please rewrite so it’s understandable.
or you could go back to school and learn how to read with understanding
Anyone care to discuss the misuse of the name of God? . . . Dr Sentamu? . . . Where’s he gone?
And this comment is coming from a black man… hilarious!
?? Because black people should automatically be more in favour of equal marriage than those of other hues?
I think Alex is saying that someone who is likely to have experienced wrongful discrimination from society because of his membership of one minority group should not seek to persecute another minority group.
Possibly but Sentamu, as a Ugandan from Uganda, was born and brought up, educated and functioned as a professional man in a society where he was not a minority. Granted, it’s depressing that someone who has, in later life, been at the receiving end of prejudice should not understand that prejudice is prejudice is prejudice, but his career is in a field that doesn’t in general encourage people to think very far out of the box, wouldn’t you agree?
Absolutely prejudice is prejudice is prejudice and bigotry is bigotry is bigotry.
Of course Sentamu was brought up and educated in Uganda as a Ugandan.
He came to the UK in 1974. I suspect he has encountered racism and persecution since he came.
I find it regrettable (if not entirely not surprising) that someone who has most likely experienced on form of unjust discrimination seeks to lead another form.
‘Dr Senatmu acknowledged the Church had been “complicit” in discriminating against gay people in the past, “and sometimes worse”, and said there is still “much penance to be done before we can look our homosexual brothers and sisters in the eye.’
A period of self-imposed silence might be in order…..
His ‘emotional needs’ seem to include wanting to dictate to others. How would he like to be on the receiving end?
YOU seem to be forgetting [so indeed does the Archbishop himself]: he HAS been on the receiving end on diktat.
1) as a black African
2) as an opponent of the Government in Uganda
Can he remember just what it was like, one wonders?
“But, Dr Sentamu argues, it is not appropriate for the state to change social attitudes”
Er, wake up call for you “Dr”, but the state is bring in equality to REFLECT social attitudes. The day of support for the god screaming christian bigot is over, I’m afraid.
Its the church itself that’s out of sync who insists in promoting archaic persecutions.
He’s beginning to more and more sound like Robert Mugabe!!!!!!
What a very sad thing for an apparent hold person to say.
Despair at the comments under articles on the Daily Telegraph. Their readership seem like disgusting troll-fest living in a fantasy theocracy. Yet every time they do a poll on gay rights the results display massively in our favour. Maybe their hacks should listen to their market research and not the self-righteous, fairy worshipers who get out their Basildon Bond.
Now let me get this right (please do correct me if I am wrong).
Am I really understanding the Archbishop correctly?
I think what he is trying to say is that he wants to appear to be a man who is on the side of justice, humanity, honour and love – but wants to do so by being inhumane, unjust, dishonourable and promoting hatred.
I think he is saying that he wants to claim that human rights and dignity are are important by stressing that its important that people in his club have special rights making them superior to any human who disagrees with them and giving them the ability to pick and choose which laws they wish to abide by and which they wish to ignore.
I think he is trying to say that whilst he condemns injustice and inhumanity such as apartheid in South Africa or the genocide in Rwanda – he is happy for genocide of LGBT people in Uganda and to treat gay people as sub human – because he can choose to be a hypocrite.
I think he is saying that he has more insight into human
rights and dignity that anyone else including LGBT people and Archbishop Demond Tutu.
I think he is saying that he knows better than the democratic will of people.
Am I right – is that what he is saying?
Would he really be so ignorant, inhumane, arrogant and blind to his own bigotry?
I think he would.
This ass was given a safe haven in the UK from Idi Amin in Uganda, where he feared for his life. He enjoyed the benefits of a liberal society and its protection from backward values. Now the ungrateful bastard wants to impose backwardness in his new home. Ship him back to Uganda in exchange for 10 honest immigrants.
He compared gay marriage to Stalinism in no uncertain terms. How does he expect to be taken seriously by anybody except an extremely synpathetic audience? (retarded Telegraph readers)
The campaign to get Sentamu to the post of Archbishop of Canterbury is using deception and underhand tactics to try and persuade those with the role of appointing a successor to Rowan Williams by alleging that failure to appoint Sentamu would be racism.
NO NO NO NO NO – failure to appoint Sentamu would be standing up against the bigotry, hatred and injustice of Sentamu to gay people.
Perhaps he should spend some time in chains in the hull of a slave ship before telling people that society’s attitudes about certain things cannot change.
Maybe I should send this video to him. He’d really get his knickers in a twist.
organized religion is about power and control, never about spirituality… people need to stop being surprised that bigotry exists and is promoted in churches… it’s what they’re there for…good and evil, us and them… dogma, division, and strife… walking away is the only cure
I agree with him. It IS a misuse of state powers. But since the fairytale squad had screwed up our emotional well being so much, it falls on the state to correct their mistakes.
So would you agree then that introducing civil marriage for heterosexuals, catering to their emotions in the 19th century was a misuse of state powers? Would you agree that allowing divorce catering yet again to emotions as another misuse of state powers?
I’m saying that because of the abuse that the gay community has suffered at the hands of the church it is up to the government to waste it’s time and step in to make sure their kind can’t screw us over any more
Why don’t you have a chat with Bishop Tutu…..he have flushed down the toilet more than you could ever be Sentamu….go and hide yourself under a rock..
Sentamu says marriage “is set in tradition and history” and can not be changed overnight. Well, tradition is a very poor justification for anything. For instance, discrimination against black people was for millennia traditional among white people. As for history, well, history is made every day. including TODAY.
Yes, and slavery was upheld by the CoE up until Wilberforce fought to put an end to it much to the chagrin of the church. Ironic that a black man chooses to discriminate against others having learned nothing form his own history, especialy the civil rights movement in America during the 60 where he would have been segregated as a second class citizen. It’s beyond bigotry.
Meeting ‘emotional needs’ of religious couples through marriage legistation marriage is a ‘misuse of the state’
Might I suggest that we disestablish the Church.
I’ve been advocating that for years as well as banning clerics from the House of Lords and the monarch as titular head.
Giving money to the church instead of the homeless is a misuse of state money,
Yes, including gay tax payers’ money, how ironic is that?
The subsidies these dangerous cults get are a misuse of the state.
How about using that money for something useful like abused kids?
I’m sorry, Archbishop, but marriage is the business of the state, defined by law, registered under the law and, often enough, dissolved under the law. And, as an issue of equal treatment, gay marriage is the business of the state as well.
Wonder if Sentamu’s comments reported in the Telegraph were timed to coincide with IDAHO day?
Shameless that Sentamu and the Telegraph would pull such a grotesque stunt.
Not surprising though.
Every aspect of the Telegraph and Sentamu in this whole process has been grotesque and rabid and full of depravity and dishonesty.
Who chose the man to be bishop??
Couldn´t they find some one who uses his brain for the right thing. This Christian crap is so annoying!1
This is not a Christian view. This is a very Roman Catholic view. Christ would not have held this viewpoint.
Please stopp muddling up Catholic Church Dogma with the teachings of Christ. They are so not the same thing.
This bigoted man isn’t a Roman Catholic but CofE not that
there is any real difference…
My concern would be that a number of the Bishops in the House of Lords have signed that C4M petition and publically given their support.
This means there is a real conflict of interest and they should not be entitled to vote in the House of Lords. It’s not just that they have stated their opinion, they are in fact the opposition to this bill, but with a vote in the Lords. There are 26 of them, and they are employees of the Church of England, and as such they can be told which way to vote – even if they normally make up their own minds.
This is a good reason why they should not be in the HoL – there is no separation of Church and State if you have them sitting there!
‘…there is no separation of Church and State if you have them sitting there!..’
who said there was a separation of church and state in uk, church and state are still in a proper marriage
Yes and the Church is seen as the Bride of Christ, and evidently the State is the Fatherland… Or maybe the Motherland… It could be either way I suppose.
Seperate but equal is never equal
This is so hard to write….
‘…“If the rights of civil partners are met differently in law to those of married couples, there is no discrimination in law…’
all emotional needs are equal but some emotional needs are more equal than others
these people are each and every one of them serial liars: since when are gay people NOT discriminated against. Gay families have lower incomes, have reduced access to health care, are subjected to bullying, and still their children are more successful in school, better adjusted as adults. It’s money. We have less money to spend on our kids, on their health and their safety. YES it is about discrimination against our families, against us.
Gay types – The Inspector really needs to stick up for ++York. The man is a Christian prelate. Churches have rules; they’re not ‘anything goes’ outfits. Churches do not marry gay people. May be disappointing to you, but let’s be big about it. You can’t always get what you want. Toodle pip.
We know they don’t marry us. We don’t give a stuff. We just don’t think secular law and CIVIL marriage should reflect their taboos. Please try to pay attention.
We don’t want your churches to marry anybody.
You are actually starting to believe the bile and falsehoods your people speak.
Churches do not rule over civil law.
Thought you should know that.
Some of us want them to marry us, in the eyes of the God we believe in. The Episcopal Church, the Unitarian Church, the Quakers and a number of other smaller denominations are more than happy to marry gay folk because there actually is nothing in the Bible to say not to. And if you bother to read the RC doctrine on the Sanctity of Marriage, it does not say that marriage is between one man and one woman. And it never has.
Moron! Obviously you can’t discern with is religious and what is civil. Clearly, praying away the gay didn’t help you did it otherwise why are you here trolling a gay website?
You would know old chap, that religious marriage isn’t being sought. Just civil marriage under the law. You know, like all the adulterous divorcees.
Glad you are so interested in the topic.
who is this idiot? Can’t be Keith. The grammar is improved. But still mental.
this trolls use of the word types indicates he spent some time fagging and sucking c0ck at Rugby School or some other such prep school sixty or seventy years ago and now that he is in his dotage is starting to remember the fun he had which is why he now plagues aGay News Page…..
Jane Svoboda from Nebraska is that you again?
Why are gay people’s emotional needs worth anything less than anybody else’s?
Gay people also generally contribute MORE to the state coffers than married people with children, as we tend to be in higher powered, better paid jobs and work longer hours because of less responsibilities with bringing up a family.
So on both counts I think we are far more eligible than most to at least be recognised by the state for our contributions to society.
Pompous overbearing gap-toothed twat.
Your statement that gay people tend to be in higher powered, better paid jobs etc. Can you substantiate that at all?
Sheer numbers means that is an incorrect statement. For this to be true, there would have to be more gay people than straight people, and that is not the case. We are in a minority. In the multi-national company I work for, 95% of staff say they’re straight, and of those in top management, 0% say they’re gay in a poll conducted last year.
Well, I can only base it on personal experience, but I have found that a lot of gay people tend to bury themselves in their careers rather than spend time organising a family. This can often mean a sharper rise in salary / status. It was something I found quite noticeable when I first came out and went to gay groups as well as bars, that generally the jobs people were in were above the norm, sometimes very high. Maybe your particular company just doesn’t like promoting gay people.
What has his gap-toothedness got to do with anything?
I have to find something else to denigrate him for! ;)
Tut. I never took you for a Gappist.
Well, it could be worse.
He could have been ginger. :)
Surely would it be possible to revoke his asylum, because this deluded bigots presence in the UK is detrimental to the common good and he foments dissension which is clearly breaking the terms of his asylum. Any gay lawyers out there willing to start proceedings against him will undoubtedly get the full support, financial and otherwise of the Gay community… Lets make him sorry he ever heard the words Gay or homosexual. Let him go back to Uganda where his ignorant homophobic attitude is entirely in keeping with the ethos there.
I don’t know the answer to either your theory or my thought as to why it might not be possible.
You might be right – and if you are, then I would hope there was a suitably astute and motivated lawyer prepared to move forward on this.
However, if he was granted asylum (and I dont know his immigration history) then given how long ago it was, I would suspect he now has British citizenship and revoked that is a complex process. Not impossible, but complex and in his case would it succeed – I think there would be the smallest possibility of success, but the campaign to ensure it might be extremely valuable publicity (perhaps we could learn from Andrea Minchiello Williams false court cases – where she takes on illegitimate and pointless cases (given likelihood of success) with the pure intention of creating mass publicity).
Its a thought.
oops revoking that …
Unless I am mistaken, the fact that he is now a naturalised citizen , doesn’t release him from the conditions of his asylum or entry visa whichever is relevant in his case. Others on this thread have opined that he entered the UK as a refugee from the dictat of Idi Amin. If one breaks the rules of entry visa or Naturalisation in the US one can be deported forthwith or after any prison sentence for the breakage and one assumes similar rules would apply in most countries. It certainly is a point that should be examined by those who have authority in these matters.
Been doing some research, and whilst I am not sure this is the right course of action it appears feasible.
All categories of British nationality can be renounced by a declaration made to the Home Secretary. A person ceases to be a British national on the date the Home Secretary registers the declaration of renunciation.
Under amendments made by the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, British nationals can be deprived of their citizenship if the Secretary of State is satisfied “deprivation is conducive to the public good”. This provision has been in force since 16 June 2006 when the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum Act 2006 (Commencement No 1) Order 2006 came into force. This provision only applies to dual nationals, and does not operate to render a person stateless.
I would imagine it applies only to Naturalised Citizens, that is people born outside the United kingdom and Ireland. but not British Nationals British Nationals, ie people born in the UK cannot be deported or as you say, made stateless.
.. .. ..I imagine it applies only to Naturalised Citizens, that is people born outside the United kingdom and Ireland. but not British Nationals British Nationals, ie people born in the UK cannot be deported or as you say, made stateless.
Surely would it be possible to revoke his asylum
He came here in 1974 and is now an Anglican archbishop. I would imagine he is no longer classified as an asylum-seeker, and I’d guess he has UK citizenship by now.
I agree thats probably very much the case.
It would be a legal case with the likelihood of success as one of those endorsed by the Christian Institute or Christian Concern – but it may attract a great deal of publicity and herald an interest in preventing the extremism that Sentamu seems to revel in.
Sorry Stu, I don’t think Sentamu is an extremist at all, he has a pretty good liberal reputation in other matters, notably on race issues (unsurprisingly). I think he’s just someone not overly imaginative and with some unexamined “traditional” prejudices who should, frankly, just STFU. I also don’t think the he-should-go-back-where-he-came-from brigade helps matters at all.
I will admit to using the “he should go back to where he came from” cry above in frustration and anger.
Its not a helpful approach and I usually find it extremely annoying when others (in most cases, there are some exceptions!) use it.
It depends on how you define extremist. If you cocentrate on the issue of gay rights then Sentamu has sought to ridicule, promote prejudice and demonise us. That I call extremism. His language and approach is as grotesque as that of Cardinal O’Brien.
Whilst his approach to issues of racism has (usually) been positive and strong, in some ways this worsens the fact that he seeks to lead persecution of another minority.
Yes, he should STFU. Whilst deep down I would not support his removal from the UK (it would seem unfair given that he is a UK citizen) I can see that a legal case could be a publicity stunt along the likes that Christian fundamentalists have used as a ploy to bring them publicity.
dont you realize that you also sound like a right wing bigot when you say he should go home to Uganda. You have to allow people to have opinions that differ from your own without wishing them ill will. That’s what a civil society is all about.
He can have an opinion – when that means depriving others of human rights – people have a right to get angry about it.
He is not fit to be a leader of any sort spouting the bigotry he does.
I have a deep emotional need to exclude all supernaturalists from public life, but I accept that that would be a misuse of the state. However, I would content myself with disestablishing all supernaturalism from the state and freeing all state legislation from its influence. This is where Sentamu and his ilk have their real problem.
I see from my facebook page that Karma has finally caught up with the homophobic bigot Donna Summer, a sometime singer from the seventies who made her fortune from the Gay disco culture and then turned against them when she said they were an abomination and an insult to “god” and the bible “truths”
As much as some of her comments were odious
Celebrating the death of anyone from cancer is sick.
Sorry, Paddyswurds your comment is in very bad taste.
I can’t see where you could possibly say I was celebrating her death. All I said was that Karma had caught up with her. How can you possibly say that is in any way a celebration. I think it is you who should retract your false allegation that I was celebrating. I just stated a fact. I was also unaware as to the cause of her death and assumed it was old age…
Given that karma is perceived in some Indian religions (from where we can base the etymology of the word) as being related to cause and effect and thus relate to blame.
I perceive that deciding to mention Donna Summers death in the same sentence as a conversation about the Archbishop of York and same sex marriage is suggesting that her bigotry may have been involved in the case and effect (or blame) for her cancer. That sounds very much like revelling in her death.
Is that not a reasonable conclusion to come to?
No because I was unaware of how she died. My reason for posting on this thread was simply as a means of posting the news, as PN does not provide a page for general comments unrelated to Articles.
I take issue with your assertion that to say Karma has caught up with her because of her homophobic bigotry is in some way a celebration of her death is totally false, merely the fact that she is dead…. As is your assertion as that is how Karma is viewed in Hinduism. It is not, but rather more often seen as a sad fact that the person died without recanting their sins, as was my use of the word and always is. No one celebrates anothers death no matter how odious that person.
However, that her comments were homophobic, bigoted and related to her religious delusion then posting her death on this thread is possibly relevant?
Karma has nothing to do with “recanting sins”. It is about paying for your demerits in another life, commonly [mis]understood to be ‘getting what you deserve’. Recanting plays no part in the process.
and assumed it was old age…
What has dying of old age got to do with Karma?
I fail to see from my comment, how you can possibly construe that I was celebrating Donna Summers death or that I in any way knew how she died. I assumed it was from old age. Saying Karma caught up with her is hardly a celebration. Rather I think it is you who should withdraw your false accusation against me that I was “celebrating” her death or that my comment was in bad taste……
Karma has finally caught up with the homophobic bigot Donna Summer
noun [mass noun] (in Hinduism and Buddhism) the sum of a person’s actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences.
informal good or bad luck, viewed as resulting from one’s actions. [OED]
Top bloke, met him at York Minster earlier this year.
….One presumes you are being extremely facetious… Only a deluded fool could consider this odious little bigot in a frock and pointy hat a “top bloke”
Even the odious creature that is Dr Sentamu is marginally more likeable than Aiden. Given how repulsive Dr Sentamu is that says a heck of a lot.
Fine. Let him stay there.
Bigots of a feather flock together, duh!
Well you have to be impressed at his nerve/cheek. Came here in the seventies as a refugee from the Amin regime in Uganda. Now he uses his position to try and influence the civil law and deny equality to others.
Thanks as always for taking the time and trouble to tell us so. What did he think of you, by the way?
On your knees again Aiden sweety pie, so Senti is a top eh? Well we always knew you were a taker and not a giver. Now do pop off and have a look at Jane Svoboda she’s you in a dress and a hat.
“Top bloke, met him at York Minster earlier this year.”
Were you begging in the streets or shouting at traffic when you met him?
He should kill himself now.
You can contact the dickhead here:
Separate but “equal” has been tried in the United States. It did not work. Injustice is INJUSTICE.
If the state has to remedy injustice as he said then he would have to be prosecuted for spreading bigotry and hate.
The church has changed its official position on marriage many times already in history, so there is plenty of precedent to change it again …
The church didn’t require that it had any involvement in marriage (priest and witnesses) until 1563, until the 1863 act mentioned earlier made it clear that the country didn’t require the church’s involvement.
From http://rationalreasons.blogspot.co.uk/2005/05/brief-history-of-marriage.html I found the following interesting facts:
“…same sex marriage was recognized in ancient Rome and this extended into the Christian period (see Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality by John Boswell, University of Chicago Press, 1980). There is even evidence for Church-sanctioned same sex unions in ancient times, including a liturgy (see Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe, Villard Press, 1994)”
When is someone going to tell him that unlike the country he ran away from this country believes in equality. He speaks as though he is already AoC and is showing his true colours by spouting this bile. He needs a reality check and come into the 21st century. Time for a major demonstration against him, the church and any other group or individual that opposes equal rights for all!!!
If ‘this country believes in equality’ all that much, would we even be having this discussion?
I’m really shocked by these remarks. I really didn’t think it could get lower than this!
Well now you know how evil the Abrahamic cults can get when their backs are up against the wall. What is even more disturbing is that these remarks come from a Black man who had to flee his own country because of discrimination …
I thought he fled becasue he was a lawyer who got on the wrong side of a tyrannical dictator – is that ‘discrimination’?
I say, types, this site reflect a great deal of hurt in your lives. Now, a fellow can’t believe it’s just because you’re gay, as gays have it rather cushy in the EU, although you do require a bit of pampering. But we’ll put that down to your condition – “I am what I am, what I am”, then collapse in heap, to audience applause. But really, contributing to this grief daily is not good for the soul, you know…
A puerile attempt at superciliousness?
F-* off, silly troll.
Chin up Riondo. A chap disagreeing with you doesn’t make him a troll…
No, but a prat being “provocative” does, eh what old fruit?
“A chap disagreeing with you doesn’t make him a troll”
Is that why you opt for a pretentious language, in lieu of an intelligent statement?
Well good for you, your kind helps our cause enormously!
Every superciliousness comment you make, takes us one step further to marriage equality.
You might not realise this, but let me point it out . . .
Know one really cares about your cause anymore, and also, you do it a massive disservice when you dress it up in condecenssion.
No it inspires and motivates the soul to eradicate hatred from right wing extremists and idiots like you.
Makes one feel good to know that bigotry is being trampelled on.
Good show, what!
Now get back under the rock from whence you came, neanderthal.
You must spend a lot of time thinking about types, I take it your lady wife is understanding when it comes to your preoccupation? She will be your wife of course as you wouldn’t be “living in sin” with the good lady.
Just a word of criticism- I think your irony needs to be a little more subtle and nuanced. As things are it’s more bar room bore than Daniel Dennett, but don’t be discouraged we all have to start somewhere.
He is on here because he is in his dotage starting to remember all the co*k he had in that private grammar school seventy or eight years ago. his use of the word “types” indicates Rugby or that Scottish dump that Willie Windsor attended….. what what, old boy….
oops, didn’t mean to post this twice but thought it had gotten knocked back because of the small reference to a male appendage…sorri…
HI Jane Svoboda please increase your meds there’s a good girl.
Why do the religious even have a platform for their views, it’s like asking a madman how they think the asylum should be run
Oh deary me. I thought this person had moved to Jamaca. When is he going to go back to his homophobic countrymen, sooner rather than later would be nice.
He was born in Uganda (not quite the West Indies) and has been here since 1974.
Gay types – The Inspector has done some research into why you lot are not content with your present lot in life. Here’s what he found: Society is geared up to nurture the next generation, and has little time in indulging homosexuals. Now, you might not like this, but really, did you expect it to be any other way ? So, enjoy what you have and live your lives happily. There now, don’t you all feel better for knowing that…
Ignorant homophobic types (that’s you Inspector General)
Other research has been done and discovered that bigotry and extremism is so last century and your attitudes are deemed ungentlemanly
Do please desist
Toot toot pip, what!
Ex-Gay types – Pinknews readers have done our research into why you lot are not content with your present lot in life. This is what we have found. Society is geared up to nurture the next generation, and nowadays heterosexual and homosexual parents contribute to the continued reproduction of humans. Now, you might not like this, but really, did you expect it to be just heterosexual couples who reproduce. So enjoy reality and live your life happily. There now, don’t you feel better for knowing that. . .?
You’ll excuse me for completely discounting anything posted by someone giving themselves a title and using the third person.
Sounds very much as barking as the so called Archbishop Cranmer – speaking in third person and giving himself a title, and spouting ignorant bigotry …
Only someone seriously needing help would copy that!
Nebraska Jane Svoboda take a look and see yourself. Closet case.
You use the word “society” like it is some official organisation of white, middle-class heterosexual Christians.
LGBT people are as much a *part* of society as you, and we should be expected to fulfil and enjoy our lives as much as everybody else. Many of us, including myself, have no desire for children whatsoever.
They should have your picture next to the word ‘nobhead’ in the dictionary.
Separate but equal isn’t equal. I wonder if he’d be happy using different water fountains.
Separate but equal is not equal. I wonder if he’d be happy with separate water fountains.
Thank you chaps for responding to the Inspector. He is actually good pals with two fellows who are a couple. Sadly, no children yet. Rather think they are going about it the wrong way, but being polite to the end, would never tell them that. Well, it’s been an experience. Might call in again someday. So, keep well, and don’t do anything the Inspector wouldn’t…
There are quite a few ways the two coves could do it, actually. Probably just don’t want to do it yet. Not surprising, really, considering that raising sprogs is a pricey lark, especially now with thick neoliberal toffs like the dear old Inspector running the show, what. He’s not so much polite as just a bit flaky in the top story, don’t you know.
Toot toot pip what!
So that would be you hiding in a public lavatory hoping to suck dick and not get found out by little wifey you left at home nursing a black eye. So no we won’t be doing anything you do. TTFN and don’t let the door smack you in the arse on the way out old fruity. We’ve forgotten you already.
Rionodo, we know gay sex doesn’t produce children. As for using children from elsewhere isn’t that rather immoral. After all, they’re entitled to a mummy and daddy of opposite sex. As God intended.
“Rionodo, we know gay sex doesn’t produce children. As for using children from elsewhere isn’t that rather immoral.”
Some times heterosexual sex is incapable of producing children.
Should we regard those couples who seek IVF, and other means to concieve children as going against nature, and so imoral?
Now say old chap,
In that muddled brain through too many rain soaked days missing the thwack of leather on willow, or through the fuzziness of incense before bowing down for confession – has one not understood that there are such modern and fascinating approaches that mean children and parenting does not require a bit of slap and tickle – say what. Adoption, surrogacy or part surrogacy are all options (and some of those may have the topper outcome that the DNA of the child may also be that of their gay father or mother – say what!)
Mind you don’t catch the flies with that jaw drop old chap.
Toot toot pip!
So what you are saying is that it is better for children abandoned by heterosexual parents to be left in orphanages than adopted by gay couples ? Is what gI’d intends ?
“As God intended.”
Prove it. Prove god said that.
The bible? Oh, dear. That’s not proof of anything is it, unless you believe in a god what condones rape, slavery an genocide.
Makes you and your archaic nonsense redundant and rather foolish.
We also know that there is no link between the biological production of children and the ability to care for them, which partly explains the runaway success of our species. We are one of very few animals capable of nurturing babies we haven’t produced. Unfortunately we also sometimes dream up Gods who have intentions suspiciously similar to our own, especially when we want to justify narrow and arbitrary social prescriptions which actually reduce our viability. Some even rationalise shoehorning children into these prescriptions as ‘entitlement’.
Stu, depressing news indeed. Still, that’s today for you. Mind how you go….
Say old bean
Not depressing news in the slightest old chap.
Marvellous news making sure of good old fair play and honest.
Thats what us Brits are all about.
And that includes responsible parenting from gay couples
Jane you really must swallow the tablets love, not spit them out, swallow love swallow ok?
oh ffs, not another mental case we have to contend with.
Its also posting under another name on another thread Charlie-O …. FFS.
Never mind, their trolling is neither going to stop us being gay or the extension of LGBT rights and equality.
Just how stupid is this man?
He contradicts himself repeatedly and clearly doesn’t have a godly leg to stand on in this regard…(and personally, if someone doesn’t understand issues of discrimination then they shouldn’t be even put forward for the post of Head of a Church…)
…“much penance to be done before we can look our homosexual brothers and sisters in the eye” – True indeed, God, True indeed…
Three Simple Words: Sod off Sentamu!!!
@ In Need of General Inspection: they’re entitled to a mummy and daddy of opposite sex. As God intended.
‘Entitled’ on what basis? And how do you know what “God” intended, were you and He having a little chat recently?
I went through church of england therapy with a vicar telling me being gay was wrong and god could change me. Cause years of pain until realised they were wrong not me. Later spoke to the Bishop who acknowledged this went on but as this church paid alot of money in to diocese he would not create issue with them. Where is the emotional caring church there!
Obviously considered a liability and not an asset. But the promotion of belief as a corollary of its profitability – and its discouragement in the contrary case – is a commoner event than we are led to suppose.
Did you take an overdose of C pills this morning…!?
Its like Henry Higgins swallowed a whole box of marbles and died and went to Heaven! (The spiritual one – not the nightclub – although the effect in this case would be very similar either way…!)
Excellent summary of historical (“traditional”) attitudes to family and marriage by Monbiot here: http://www.monbiot.com/2012/05/14/kin-hell/
Dear Dr Sentamu.
Civil marriage is a state matter.
Religious marriage is a religious matter.
We won’t bother dictating rules that govern religious marriage as they don’t concern us. Maybe you should take the hint and do the same with regards civil marriage as it too has absolutely nothing to do with you. Even less if your not planning on marrying someone of the same sex.
Having said that what part of your ‘religious freedom’ denies those religion that do wish to perform marriages to same and opposite sex couple? You know the less discriminating ones, leaving your lot back in the dark ages.
It’s such a shame you let your bigotry blind you to so called christian values and a better more stable society.
But then that would mean more losing control over th epopulation wouldn’t it.
What a disgrace!!
I have written an open letter to the Archbish.
I think this marvellous tweet today speaks for itself, … ;-)
Hugo Rifkind @hugorifkind
Still not sure why I should consider any religion’s view on gay marriage any more pertinent than I would, say, Lego’s view on gay marriage.
IMHO…Semtamu is a sexist, transphobic and homophbic bigot – most probably as a result of a deep psychological insecurity which he would be well advised to address. From his pronouncements on the subject of same-sex marriage he comes across as a man who is very frightened over issues of not only sexuality, but gender too.
Why are homosexuals so racist and bigoted? Stu and other comment of “go back to Uganda” makes it sound like you people are returning to your Brownshirt roots. Many ignorant comments above, most of you need an education (no, reading some Freudian sociology freaks from the 1960s doesn’t count).
All of the arguments made in support of the propagation of homosexuality could be applied to paedophilia and bestiality. The only thing you can rely on is amateur psychological warfare against a population degenerated and exhausted after two world wars and losing an empire. Only in urban Western areas that are in moral and social decline is your position regarded as anything other than degeneracy and nihilism.
Homosexuality is not equal to Heterosexuality. Thank God none of you will reproduce.
Some of us already have and many more will reproduce.
Many gay parents are doing a marvellous job.
None of us need to stoop to your level of education, though thanks so much for the offer. Fortunately we know better than to tar all non-homosexuals with the same brush.
‘Emotional needs’? Erm.., equal human RIGHTS. Anything other is treating gay people like second class citizens.
Your ‘God’ doesn’t exist. Gay people DO exist and have been around since the beginning of time. Gay people will always exist and will still exist when future humans are laughing at the delusions of their ancestors who believed in imaginary beings.
Sentamu has missed the importance of the effect of granting marriage for same sex couples that helps to remove the difference that people still see as discrimination by the state, that the bigots see as their permission to continue their cruel campaigns. He still sees marriage as belonging to the church, but the state took control of it a long time ago. He needs to bring his thinking into the 21st crntury!
Wasn’t that what Jesus did, he changed tradition? I think it is time tradition was changed if it goes against the belief of the majority and the majority are FOR people being married no matter what the sexuality or gender is!