Reader comments · Archbishop of Canterbury to discuss gay rights with Peter Tatchell on Thursday · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Archbishop of Canterbury to discuss gay rights with Peter Tatchell on Thursday

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I hope Mr Tatchell will be wearing a stab proof vest because the vile Oilwellsby is going to stab him and us in the back.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Apr 2013, 2:14pm

      It’s about point scoring for Welby. He will be seen as the first Anglican cleric to meet with a controversial gay activist, NOTHING more.

    2. Sorry? What is there to discuss? Equality is just around the corner. Why are we giving this minority-interest club leader any credence whatsoever by ‘having discussions’ with him? Church attendance is now negligable. His opinions mean NOTHING! The anti-gay stance of him and his ilk is just WRONG and IRRELEVANT. End of discussion.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Apr 2013, 5:02pm

        As much as I agree with almost everything you say, I’m afraid his opinions mean something since more Tories in the Commons voted against than for EM. Had he softened his stance prior to the vote and welcomed blessings for CPs, it might have won a few more votes, not that 400-175 wasn’t more than significant, a huge majority of course, overall.

  2. When will the Archbishop be discussing LGBT rights with the rest of us? Peter Tatchell is a lone ranger and a media whore – he does not represent us in any way whatsoever.

    1. That There Other David 16 Apr 2013, 1:33pm

      I would rather we are represented by someone like Tatchell who is 100% clued up on what LGBT people across the world are facing, ongoing legal challenges, and studies showing that LGBT couples having equality has zero impact on other peoples’ relationships than have a crowd of people all pointing fingers and calling Welby a bigot. Neither scenario will see Welby or his organisation move one inch policy-wise, but the latter option only plays into the CoE’s hands.

      1. bobbleobble 16 Apr 2013, 1:37pm

        Actually both scenarios play into the CofE’s hands. This scenario makes the CofE and Welby look good. We all know the CofE has no intention of changing anything but by inviting along the self styled chief gay so that when the CofE come out with something horrible about us in the future they can point and say – but look we had Peter Tatchell to tea, we’re not all bad.

        Welby has scored a real propaganda hit here.

        1. That There Other David 16 Apr 2013, 1:42pm

          Not necessarily. If Tatchell comes out of the meeting and calmly states it was a colossal waste of time, that Welby never listened to a single point, and that in his view the CoE only set the meeting up as a PR exercise how can the CoE spin it without it coming across as jTatchell speaking the truth?

          He’s quite good at playing the game.

          1. bobbleobble 16 Apr 2013, 1:50pm

            It doesn’t matter what Tatchell says when he comes out of the meeting, Welby invited him over and that speaks volumes. It can easily be spun as Tatchell being intransigent and unwilling to listen to the genuine concerns of the CofE.

            I also don’t think for one minute that Welby is stupid enough to do that. He’s been very clever with this invitation and it appears plays the game just as well as Tatchell. He backed Tatchell into a corner on this and the CofE will come out of it smelling of roses.

            And as you yourself acknowledged, this isn’t going to change anything, just last week the CofE refused to allow same sex blessings in churches. It’s a waste of time and effort which would be better spent elsewhere.

    2. bobbleobble 16 Apr 2013, 1:34pm

      Agreed, plus Welby and his church made their feelings about gay people clear last week when they refused to even countenance the possibility of blessing civil partnerships in CofE churches. Actions speak louder than words.

      This is nothing more than a photo op for both of them. Tatchell gets his mug in the news and Welby gets to pat himself on the back for looking magnanimous whilst being nothing of the sort. A complete waste of time.

      1. Why don’t we wait and see if it’s a complete waste of time or not?

        1. I haven’t got time to wait. I want to know now. Will it be a waste of time?

          1. Ask a magic 8 ball. If you haven’t got one, they’re readily available on eBay.

        2. Why didn’t I think of that? :P

        3. Rehan, people LOVE to guess what’s going to happen next. It’s what keeps us all going. Otherwise we might as well all die.

          1. Here’s me thinking, “people love to have a moan about Peter Tatchell”, when actually all they’re trying to do is predict the future, for the apparent survival of our race.

            You live and learn…

    3. When will the Archbishop be discussing LGBT rights with the rest of us? Peter Tatchell … does not represent us in any way whatsoever.

      Why would the Archbishop discuss LGBT rights with you Tom, have you invited him to? And in what way do you represent us?

      As one gay individual, I am perfectly happy for Tatchell to speak on my behalf.

  3. On the other hand 16 Apr 2013, 1:49pm

    Its important to talk and listen to each other, and while Peter doesn’t represent the gay community, he has previously demonstrated in front of a previous homophobic and deaf-to-gays Archbish in the Cathedral, so it’s an important shift in approach.

    1. bobbleobble 16 Apr 2013, 1:51pm

      What’s the point of talking if the person you’re talking to isn’t listening?

      1. on the other hand 16 Apr 2013, 2:17pm

        You can’t make assumptions before the event. At least they appear to be making an effort.

      2. Do us all a favour bobbleobble, and never get involved in any peace process anywhere in the world.

  4. Peter Tatchell is a hero and inspiration to LGBT people and other minorities in the UK and all over the world!
    Thank you Mr Tatchell, from Singapore!

  5. We can only hope that something good will come out of this meeting. Dialogue and debate are the first steps toward change. The Churches will ultimately have to change or they will simply become irrelevant and die. Their power comes from the numbers of people that support them and donate to them. When the pews get empty and donations dry up, you’ll see a rapid change of attitude.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Apr 2013, 4:58pm

      I wouldn’t be too sure of that Nikki. The catholic cult has seen dwindling attendance yet it has had no impact on change, in fact quite the opposite.

      The CoE will make not one concession. It doesn’t want female bishops, doesn’t want religious blessings for CPd couples and certainly won’t entertain marriage for gay couples. There is no common ground here. Their ever more dwindling numbers of worshippers hasn’t had any impact for change. It’s primary concern is appeasing the bigots in the African church and those at home such as Archbigot Sentamu of York with the support of Tory opponents in the Commons and Lords.

  6. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Apr 2013, 2:13pm

    Although I deeply respect and admire Peter Tatchell who has stuck his neck out more than other gay or straight activist on this planet, at times risking his own life, I do think this is an exercise in futility. Dialogue is all very well and good, but what would this one actually accomplish? The CoE has drawn a line in the sand in regard to equal marriage and not going to recant in the foreseeable future. The only good thing that might come out of it, is if Welby drew yet another line in the sand and condemned the spurious, vile rhetoric coming from the opposition including Lord Carey, but alas, he won’t. He’s no statesman, no back bone, no integrity, none of them, not even some clergy in support of us. They fear retribution and aren’t prepared to go that extra mile. So I wish Peter good luck with the encounter, but I’m positive nothing good will come of it. It’s nothing more than a PR stunt by Welby to soften it’s disagreement with equal civil marriage, nothing more.

    1. on the other hand 16 Apr 2013, 2:20pm

      On the other hand if you don’t buy a ticket, you can’t win the lottery.

      1. Yes, and Peter is a talented and much more politically-experienced player than Welby. The two men will get to observe each other’s wits and ways. That could be good for future moves. It’s always best to really KNOW your enemy, to observe him up-close.

        The next time Peter speaks about or speaks to Mr. Welby, he will have a much better picture of him in his mind and so he will be able to manoeuvre much more adroitly.

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Apr 2013, 4:53pm

        True, but in this one, nothing will be won will it? The CoE will get good marks for reaching out to our most notorious activist but that’s all. All that will be achieved if it could be called that is two diametrically opposed people agreeing to disagree? I see NO point in it taking place. There is nothing to be gained from it. Welby has NOTHING to offer us.

        1. I agree that nothing will be won – other than Peter’s scrutiny of the strange psychological mess that is the mind of the deluded Mr. Welby. But keen observation of such a mess could enable some good moves at a future point.

  7. Thunderbirds' Brians or Joe 90? 16 Apr 2013, 2:22pm

    Just saying.

    1. Thunderbirds' Brains or Joe 90? 16 Apr 2013, 2:23pm

      That should say Brains.

  8. Robert in S. Kensington 16 Apr 2013, 2:34pm

    Perhaps Peter should show Welby this video and learn a lesson in humility.

  9. I don’t WANT a “compromise” with the church. They accept me as fully equal in all way to straight people or they are bigots

    I’m not meeting them halfway on determining whether I’m a fully person or not – and shame of Tatchell if he is willing to rubber stamp their bigotry

    1. Sparky, the “compromise” that Peter is offering is not one that will compromise you, or us. It is a compromise entirely for them, the members of the Anglican cult. They get to keep all their religious delusions, but they agree to practise them in the privacy of their voo-doo centres and bedrooms.

    2. Colin (London) 18 Apr 2013, 3:45am

      I agree – no compromise. Infact stay away and let religion die. The world needs to move forward instead of all these nutters in fancy dress telling stories that are no longer relevant. Seriously what can they offer us. Why do people need religion? (ex Catholic, very EX)

  10. Peter’s asking one hell of a lot. By requesting that the church continue to believe that homosexuality is wrong but will agree that homophobic discrimination is wrong, Peter is effectively requesting the head of the Anglican cult to agree that cult members should practice their cult in private and that cult beliefs should not in any way impinge on the rest of society.

    But the whole point of the Anglican cult, like any other religious cult, is that as a member of those cults you see yourself as better than all those who are lost, and it is your duty to lord it over them and make them see the error of their ways.

    I doubt that Welby will agree to the removal of all missionary aims from the Anglican cult.

    1. Colin (London) 18 Apr 2013, 3:48am

      Very good point

  11. Good luck with the Mr Tatchell, I won’t be holding my breath for a change of heart from him or his followers!

  12. What a shame it isn’t going to be broadcast.

    1. I hope Peter goes in with one of those tiny digital records switched on and snuggled out of sight in the top-pocket of his snazzy shirt! Just so he can recall every nuance of the proceedings after the event! (They’re only about £35 at Maplins and so forth.)

  13. “I plan to call on the Archbishop to embrace a new historic compromise with the gay community: that the church can continue to believe that homosexuality is wrong but will agree that homophobic discrimination is also wrong – and actively oppose it.”

    Coming from the same wing of the church as the Archbishop, I welcome this statement by Peter Tatchell. I have no reason to believe the Archbishop’s offer is anything other than sincere and is not about PR or point scoring and I hope and pray the meeting will be profitable.

    Creating further wedges between Christians with a more traditional view of sexuality (e.g. homosexuality is incompatible with what God intended) and LBGT folk does harm. In fact as community activist keen on issues like dealing with poverty and social justice, something I believe many LBGT folk share, creating better understanding and respect can only do good in these and other areas too.

    1. “To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.”
      William Shakespeare

      As usual Shakespeare was right about that.
      God obviously intended me to be gay and I have certainly not disappointed him.

      1. great quote Pavlos!

        my take is God intended us to be human and live life to his glory – sexual orientation is not the issue, the human heart is!

        1. “What is straight? A line can be straight, or a street, but the human heart, oh, no, it’s curved like a road through mountains.”
          Tennessee Williams

  14. It is better for everyone if the Cult of England remains bigoted and homophobic.

    As it strengthens the case for the separation of Cult and State in Britain.

    1. Don’t worry Peter Tatchell probably can’t make the church treat gay people with respect, any more than anyone else can force them to see women as equals.

      Even if he has a nice chat with Welby there is not a chance in hell all the others will stfu.

      1. When those unelected bishop bigots vote against equal marriage in the unelected House of Lords, and after marriage equality is introduced regardless we must all remember that the House of Lords is an inherently undemocratic, absurd house that needs to be replaced with an elected upper house.

        And the next monarch must NOT be the head of the cult of England.

        A religious leader (even in name only) cannot be the head of state.

        What year is this anyway?


        1. I agree with everything you say except “the next monarch”. There shouldn’t be a monarch, precisely because it’s not 1570. The monarchy should die with the Queen.

  15. Anyone remember Rowan Williams?

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.