Reader comments · Lord Jenkin: I was taught that condemning a homosexual is the same as condemning someone with red hair · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Lord Jenkin: I was taught that condemning a homosexual is the same as condemning someone with red hair

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Midnighter 4 Jun 2013, 12:16am

    A saving grace for the system that gives voice to the likes of Baroness Knight is that it also gives us such as Lord Jenkin. Calm reflection set against the Baroness’ hysterical bigotry, wisdom and rationality against foolish illogic.

  2. Robert (Kettering) 4 Jun 2013, 12:45am

    A well argued and thought out speech, thank you Lord Jenkin for your intervention.

    Such a shame though that there are clearly members of the HoL who are being hysterical old “drama queens” over this matter.

  3. Thank you, Lord Jenkin. Eloquently put.

  4. A wonderful speech and an amazingly insightful grandfather!! Thank you ord Jenkin :)

    1. Rob Jenkin 4 Jun 2013, 9:51am

      When you said ‘grandfather’, I thought you meant Patrick himself. Patrick is my grandfather, and I am incredibly proud of him and so humbled. Reading all these comments makes me so full of joy and happiness. Rob

      1. Lucky man – you should indeed be very proud of both your grandfather and your great-great-grandfather.

        1. Rob Jenkin 4 Jun 2013, 3:37pm

          and it wasn’t Frewen Jenkin, rather Dr William Sillar (patrick’s maternal grandfather)

  5. Sounds like a lovely man. And I’m not just saying that because he supports the bill, he just sounds very pleasant and tolerant.

  6. He [my grandfather] said, “My dear boy, it is as foolish to condemn those who have homosexual proclivities as it is to condemn them for having red hair”.

    How wonderfully English. And in fact, very reminiscent of Housman’s poem about the trial of Oscar Wilde.

    Oh who is that young sinner with the handcuffs on his wrists?
    And what has he been after that they groan and shake their fists?
    And wherefore is he wearing such a conscience-stricken air?
    Oh they’re taking him to prison for the colour of his hair.

    ‘Tis a shame to human nature, such a head of hair as his;
    In the good old time ’twas hanging for the colour that it is;
    Though hanging isn’t bad enough and flaying would be fair
    For the nameless and abominable colour of his hair.

    1. Oh a deal of pains he’s taken and a pretty price he’s paid
      To hide his poll or dye it of a mentionable shade;
      But they’ve pulled the beggar’s hat off for the world to see and stare,
      And they’re haling him to justice for the colour of his hair.

      Now ’tis oakum for his fingers and the treadmill for his feet
      And the quarry-gang on Portland in the cold and in the heat
      And between his spells of labour in the time he has to spare
      He can curse the God that made him for the colour of his hair.

      (A.E. Housman)

      1. Thanks for posting this brilliant poem. Ben

    2. Dr William Sillar 13 Jun 2013, 10:38am

      Wasn’t the grandfather Scottish?

  7. Deus caritas est 4 Jun 2013, 5:50am

    I think this is succinctly put. To argue that ‘gay marriage’ redefines marriage is a falsehood. One need only look at divorce rates and convenience to know that’s what has redefined marriage! Sullid it: even.

    I recall being asked – in part because I’m a devout Catholic and gay – what my thoughts on this bill was: it was a simple answer; I’m just not bothered. It will not be recognised by the Church and so it doesn’t effect me. The same way divorce and re-marriage is not recognised; therefore I’m encouraged to say if in civil society two people of the sane gender want to be married; I say let them.

    This will not effect my views. Marriage- for me – remains sacramental and holy between a man and a woman and that’s ok with me.

    A bigger threat, after all, is the divorce rate and celebrity f*ck ups! Society unfortunately creates them as their ideal. That to me is the biggest threat of all!

  8. What a terrific speech, from what sounds like a lovely man. I wasn’t able to watch any of this last night, but I do hope a speech like this, especially coming from a disinterested Conservative, had the impact it deserves.

  9. I have to admit, I was very surprised to see the amount of support from those speaking yesterday.

    It was also comforting to see many Peers shooting down those silly ideas of how same sex marriage will devalue heterosexual marriages. It is just a shame that a lot of those speeches were not aired by the MP’s too.

  10. Philip Breen 4 Jun 2013, 11:44am

    Those same homophobic & illogical comments from some in the House of Lords have been used to support the anti-gay legislation in the specified offences of the new DBS filtering regulations unveiled this week. I fail to see the link between old, (now repealed) gay offences and ‘safeguarding’ issues where assault, prostitution, coercion or underage sex were non involved. Until we filter out the crimes of those who fell for the ‘pretty police’ entrapment of victimless crimes, gays will continue to be persecuted and held back from living fully happy lives that are free from anxiety, prejudice and fear.

  11. ısa kocher 4 Jun 2013, 11:48am

    good man. god bless hım

  12. Robert in S. Kensington 4 Jun 2013, 12:05pm

    Beautifully laid out, balanced and presented admirably without insulting anyone, although some of them are deserving of that.

    I strongly urge all of us to continue using the website up until and including the third reading.

    I also urge everyone to contact each of the 26 bishops regarding the growing support for disestablishment. Be respectful and polite but be firm. I’ve already written to Welby and Sentamu.

  13. Aww, what a lovely way to say it. You don’t often hear such thought out and eloquently put comments in our political system.

    I’m as shocked as I am impressed.

    Thank you Lord Jenkin

  14. For an old codger, he speaks a great deal of rational sense. However, if we practised what we preach to the world about the merits of democracy, he and forty unelected bishops wouldn’t be in a position to affect the introduction of this legislation anyway. Let’s just abolish the House of Lords. It’s a nonsense, stuck in history.

  15. onesecond 4 Jun 2013, 2:49pm

    Science makes the world better, religion makes it worse. It is as simple as that.

    1. I don’t actually see how that has anything to do with Lord Jenkin’s speech. Do you make it a habit to troll all discussions in this way?

      1. First paragraph: “He was taught by his renowned scientist grandfather Frewin Jenkin”.

        While he later goes on to describe himself as christian, it would at least seem that reason and enlightenment took a greater hold on him than primitive dogmatic crap.

  16. Jay Narey (Dallas, Texas) 4 Jun 2013, 2:57pm

    Well said indeed.
    If only more people exercised the same critical reasoning and rational (as opposed to emotional) thought.

  17. I don’t know about you, but I found Lord Jenkin’s remarks on the ‘character of love’ to be very moving – and at the core of this issue.

    I am happily married to my wife of eight years and wholeheartedly support the right for gay people to get married – precisely because there is no inequality in love, which as Lord Jenkin says so eloquently is “faithful, stable, tough, unselfish and unconditional”.

    Therefore, gay marriage will not redefine my or anyone else’s marriage – because you cannot ‘redefine’ the nature of true love between two people.

    If anything, gay marriage will reaffirm marriage – as an even greater institution to be celebrated.

  18. David Shepherd 5 Jun 2013, 11:26pm

    ‘Last year, I celebrated 50 years as a British citizen, and I have to say that it has been a citizenship of mutual benefit to myself and society. Is an Equal Citizenship Bill going to redefine my citizenship? I cannot see how that could possibly happen.”

    The ‘harm’ agrument is a shell-game tactic. Get people to focus on individual impact, rather than the impact on the limited resources that insure and support heterosexual couples in readiness for the normative potential outcome of children.

    What about childless couples?, they will ask. The fact that a couple is presently childless (whather by choice or current infertility) does not make them any less deserving of those privileges than insuring a person with perfect ‘no-claims’ status. It is the potential outcome that marriage ameliorates.

    What makes marriage a mockery is applying its privileges to a sexual pairing that, by intention, uniformly thwarts any possibility of joint biological offspring responsibility.

    1. Poppycock. It seems your expertise lies in shell-games rather than in joined-up thinking.

  19. Michael AB 6 Jun 2013, 2:43pm

    Why was my comment that was critical about the way PinkNews reported this removed? It had a lot of thumbs up, why was it removed?

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.