Reader comments · Archbishop of York: Would the Church of England rather bless ‘sheep and trees’ than gay couples? · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Archbishop of York: Would the Church of England rather bless ‘sheep and trees’ than gay couples?

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. YOU can’t get married its against MY religion.

    So we extended our hand to give you asylum in our country and you repay us by stamping on the very values and ideas of liberty and freedom that provided that hospitality.
    I suggest you re-read the story of the cities of the plain and keep reading it till you understand it.

    1. Couldn’t have said it any better! I don’t care what your nationality, creed or ethnicity is, you don’t like how things are in a nation that opened its arms and welcomed you in? Then leave!

      1. Normally I’d be the first to question your motives. On Sunday I went to buy some wine for lunch and the man in the shop gave me the filthiest look and started speaking to his mate in their own language. Some people do come here and want to inflict their backwards lifestyles on us. London has become a no go area for gay people because of fools like him

        1. James!, believe me, London has not “become a no go area for gay people”, or anyone else for that matter. That is one of London’s many strengths; it will cope with the extremists, of whatever leaning, because they will always be in the minority when compared to the good, reasonable and accepting majority.

          1. Rubbish

            Go kiss your partner anywhere in London and see what happens. London will tolerate you but never accept you. If you show any PDA you will get a reaction where as a heterosexual couple will go unnoticed

          2. Well then what 1500-square-kilometre alternative with 8m people would you suggest? Recent events suggest that Paris wouldn’t exactly be better. St Petersburg, perhaps?

    2. Bulls eye…a superb post, thank you.

  2. “Dr Sentamu said, however; that the legislation would cause “ideological damage”, and compared politicians supporting the legislation to “ill-prepared midwifes at the birth of a new institution”.”

    What is all this crap about a new institution? same sex marriage has existed since 2001 in the Netherlands and since then has been introduced successfully in an increasing number of countries and jurisdictions around the world.
    That the church of England, because of it’s institutionalised homophobia, is falling behind the rising social awareness around equality issues is entirely the church’s own problem as it becomes less and less relevant to the reality of people’s lives.

    1. I like the “matter which will need to be discussed”. He already knows they have lost the argument. It is now about damage limitation.

      They have painted themselves into a corner with paint that won’t dry. “What do we do now, without losing face?” “Well we could consider blessing gay couples, that won’t be so bad?”

      1. ideologically conservative, Sentamu has always been against equal rights for gays and lesbians. The fact is that the church does treat LGBT’s as lower than animals and trees when it comes to giving them it’s blessing as Sentamu openly points out but he doesn’t want any changes made to that situation at all, not right now anyway and if he was capable of honesty, not ever.

  3. The church should have no more say in law and politics, than astrology or homeopathy does.

    1. Now be fair. Even homoeopathy has a placebo effect and tends not to start wars.

  4. “Would you rather bless a sheep and a tree but not them? That is a big question to which we are going to come and the moment is not now.”

    What fool would support an organization that would ask such a question and then give such an unbelievably callous answer? The question was basically, “should we value people more than sheep” and then he immediately followed up the question (which seems to have an OBVIOUS answer) with, “we don’t know yet but this isn’t the right time to think about it.”

    Disgusting, hateful, slimy bottom feeders!

    1. They think their followers are sheep. It’s the black sheep they don’t like.

    2. It seems to me that the Archbishop’s “big question” is one for the Church to discuss internally. It has no place in a discussion of equal rights for lesbian and gay citizens.

  5. St Sebastian 18 Jun 2013, 1:40am

    I listened to the speech Sentamu made, his language was so full of superfluous verbiage and solipsism to hide his hateful meaning. We are not so easily fooled.

    I would like to remind him that it was the British who gave him asylum from the hate and danger he experienced in Uganda, so it is rather galling that he he uses the House of Lords as a ‘pulpit’ to spew forth messages of intolerance and hate.

    1. The seed never falls far from the tree.

  6. Christopher in Canada 18 Jun 2013, 2:12am

    I think it’s presumptuous and egotistical for men to attempt to bless ANYTHING, and I’ve seen churches bless everything from pets to motorcycles.

    They don’t even use glitter…

  7. Sacre bleu 18 Jun 2013, 2:25am

    Homophobia is no different to racism. Just as you had no choice in the colour of your skin, we have no choice in our sexual orientation – it really is that simple. You Dr Sentamu are the beneficiary of legislation to protect you against racism (and quite rightly so) so we gays and lesbians expect the same respect and equal rights be accorded to us. It really IS that simple.

    1. Sacre bleu 18 Jun 2013, 2:45am

      Furthermore, in spite being an agnostic, I respect your right to practice your religion. Your religion is a choice, my sexual orientation is not which behoves you to respect my/our rights. It is telling that as an agnostic, not bound by any ‘book of rules/teaching’ that I can muster from my own intellect respect for your beliefs and yet you, who follow the teachings of the bible, which preaches love above all else, cannot respect my sexual orientation which is not even a matter of choice. Does this say something about you or your religious institution? Your religion professes love to all humans, as you believe we are made in the vision of god, therefore as we have no choice in our sexual orientation, we must therefore be made in the vision of god. I therefore put it to you that you are as an ‘agent’ of god are misrepresenting his/her vision and question whether it is you and/or your institution that violate the so called vision of god? Respectfully……

    2. Sacre bleu 18 Jun 2013, 3:24am

      I’m on a roll.. Dr Sentamu, as a leader of a group, your Church, of which membership is voluntary, you have NO jurisdiction over those that are not members of your Church. You cannot therefore impose your religious beliefs on the rest of the population. As a member of the House of Lords (an unelected position) you are obliged to make decisions for the General Public, i.e. wear your hat for your role in relation to the General Public, not your hat in your role as a Cleric. In a democratic institution, you would have to declare your interest and excuse yourself from voting. Your arguments in the House of Lords have to stand on their own merits, merits arrived through intellectual reason, not on the lens of the Church.

      Get your ‘religious’ views out of my life, especially as I do not tell you how to live your religious life.

      1. Colin (London) 18 Jun 2013, 8:03am

        Sacre bleu
        Perfectly put. Well done.

      2. Keep rolling.

      3. Well put. According to the last census it is a matter of established fact that he does not speak for the vast majority of the population, but then facts don’t appeal to his kind.

        Carry on defying democracy Sentamu; you are providing excellent examples in support of those of us calling for the state to revoke your church’s ridiculous historical privileges.

      4. Sacre bleu, well put indeed – I hope you have written these thoughts to Sentamu yourself, using the LoobbyaLord website if necessary.

        1. *LobbyaLord, even

  8. “What do you do with people in same sex relationships that are committed, that are loving, that are Christian?”.

    What you do is what you’ve always done: absolutely nothing.

    Don’t worry, same-sex couple who want a religious ceremony will head toward the denominations that are NOT stuck in the middle-ages.

    Canada has had full marriage equality for years now. And yes, you can actually get married in a real bona fide church. My husband and I were married by a wonderful United Church of Canada reverend. Our families were all there, our friends, even some members of the congregation joined us out of support.

    people in the street honked when we stepped out for a picture after the ceremony. and there was absolutely NO doubt that it was a marriage of two men.

    you see? two men got married, had a big to-do, and the world did not collapse. As a matter of fact, Canada’s economy is in a far better place than the UK’s. We haven’t had any earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes… it’s all good.

    1. “Canada has had full marriage equality for years now. And yes, you can actually get married in a real bona fide church.”

      Three cheers for sensible Canada and Canadians!

      1. I know there are a lot of “anti religious” people in the comments sections of PN, but, I can tell you that the United Church of Canada has been at the forefront of the fight for LGBT rights in this country. And the UCC is the 3rd largest denomination in the country.

  9. he got my letter then??? there are LGBT christians in the anglican go and defend our rights please,,,

  10. “Would you rather bless a sheep and a tree but not them? ”

    What??? Is this the power of your reasoning? Sheep??? Trees??? When were we talking about sheep and trees and what relevance do they have in relation to the ‘equal marriage’ rights. Don’t patronise me, I don’t want to be blessed, I don’t need blessing by you or your church. Would you want my ‘blessing’? Hmmm, thought not! I just want the equal right to get married, if I so wish.

    1. The religious prefer parables and analogy over logical argument since it requires no factual basis but can be delivered in a way that appeals on an emotional rather than intellectual level.

      Society has been historically conditioned to pay heed to people who talk utter nonsense – since parables appeal, I am fond of reminding the religious of the tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes. Society has noticed that the Emperor is naked and people are no longer intimidated into silence.

  11. “(A) big question to which we are going to come and the moment is not now.”

    So when is the moment Bishop? As the philosopher Edmund Burke said, ‘(a)ll that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”

    1. that would require the bishop to be “a good man”.

      1. Mikey, my point exactly.

        1. Colin (London) 18 Jun 2013, 9:59am

          You are correct Efron. This whole issue has aired and should be published for the whole world to see. Actions are needed but not now I agree.

  12. Sentamu has no problem though with marrying heterosexual couples who have already been cohabiting or living in sin,

    “He said that he had conducted wedding services for “many cohabiting couples” during his time as a vicar in south London and that,
    ‘We are living at a time where some people, as my daughter used to say, want to test whether the milk is good before they buy the cow.’ (Sentamu)

    The hypocritical religious conscience of homophobic bigots only ever kicks in around matters concerning gay people.

    1. “‘We are living at a time where some people, as my daughter used to say, want to test whether the milk is good before they buy the cow”. Pffft Nothing I have heard Sentamu say gives me any confidence in his intellectual and communication abilities. These are vital qualities to perform effectively as a Bishop. Just how did Sentamu get to be a Bishop? Was he appointed to fill a quota or does he have friends in the right places?

      I mean, did you hear all that babble about his own health prior to launching into his speech? This is not about you nor your sycophancy to your ‘social club’, the House of Lords. It’s not that I don’t care, I wish you good health, but the House of Lords is not a social club, it is a place where important affairs of state are discussed. As a person in business, I would never dream of addressing my colleagues of my health problems during a business meeting – it is a personal matter that I would discuss with my closer colleagues in a private or social situation.

  13. He sounds like a bigger wanker than Welby.

  14. What everyone’s said above. This article has made me too angry to write anything intelligible just now.

    1. Colin (London) 18 Jun 2013, 10:01am

      I’m so glad you said that. How can this person be allowed into our country, hold a position of responsibility, get elected to HOL….It’s outrageous.

      Please all get religion out of Parliament. It has no place in an open free and inclusive society.

      1. He wasn’t elected, I understand the Archbishop of York, like that of Canterbury and 3 senior bishops, sits in the HoL by virtue of ecclesiastical status and nothing else.

  15. Jock S. Trap 18 Jun 2013, 7:53am

    It makes me laugh how they want a law that makes ‘them & us’ different in marriage.

    All it is doing is showing up their own bigotry and insecurities. It also shows up the problem we have had for centuries by the fact they want a law to make Them more ‘special’.

    It’s actually laughable that they have such a low opinion of themselves to warrant such a separate law.

    1. I used to go to Sunday school as a child to learn all about what christ said. I haven’t seen any of that practised by any christian since.

    2. Yes but with respect you do realise that exact mirroring of the rules applying to straight marriage i.e. consummation and adultery (penis in vagina sex-it really IS that specific!), husband being automatic father of wife’s baby (yeah, I know he may not be but that’s assumption made) can’t possibly be applied to ssm?

      Equality’s one thing and that’s a noble principle, but exact matching’s not possible

      1. Beelzeebub 18 Jun 2013, 9:15am

        “… but exact matching’s not possible”

        Or requisite.

        Your point?

        1. My point is that in certain respects it WILL be ‘us and them’.

          Why this attracts negative comments, god knows, Hardly a homophobic rant, is it?

          1. Colin (London) 18 Jun 2013, 10:15am

            You seem to be happy to see the differences and feel that justifies your stance.

            Some of us look at the similarities. We want our friends families, work colleagues, neighbours etc to celebrate our Marriages with us. We want children and already make just as good parents as hetrosexual couples. Science has allowed us to get nearer and nearer to having our own children. We support our neighbours in good and bad times. We support our communities running clubs, coffee mornings, play groups. We are business owners and employees. We provide jobs for others and work for society. We are doctors and nurses, teachers, politicians, Lords and Ladies. We are scientists and entrepreneurs. We are and have been your neighbours since man and women walked the planet.

            Now tell me why religion which cannot agree anything amongst itself should have any say what so ever.

          2. @ Colin (London)

            “You seem to be happy to see the differences….” and “Some of us look at the similarities.”

            Colin, extremely well said. You could add that some of us see difference as being a positive thing, interesting, opportunities to learn, strengthen, to celebrate even! Unlike social conservatives who often see it as a threat and a challenge to the status quo that gives succour to their authority.

      2. Sacre bleu 18 Jun 2013, 9:55am

        Every marriage is different in some way, but we don’t have a different name for every marriage. So the difference between straight and gay CAN be accommodated within the meaning of ‘marriage’. Those that feel offended by equal marriage rights, clearly feel insecure about their own marriage and/or social standing and simply need to come to terms with their insecurities.

        As for consummation, what a ridiculous concept, it is not even necessary given that there are no fault divorces – i.e. ‘irreconcilable differences’.

        1. Every marriage is different but that’s not the point-heterosexuals have their version of consummation, so must gay people.

          As for ridiculous concept, actually it’s not.

          What if you’re rich and your spouse tells you they only married for money and has no intention of having sex with you. This applies to gay AND straight.

          Plus, as sex is the means of reproduction for straight people, it’s damned well important.

          Anyway, regardless of what you and me think, it’s there. Fact.

          And to not have an equivalent for ssm does the following:

          It allows the anti brigade something to use to shoot the bill down

          It highlights the unfairness

          By poo-poohing the idea you are being offensive to straights for whom consummation is the way they reproduce and to make it out as irrelevancy is offensive

          1. “so must gay people.”

            “What if you’re rich and your spouse tells you they only married for money and has no intention of having sex with you.”
            As as already been explained to you, this is already possible to cover that under “irreconcilable differences” if this is an issue.

            Is non-reproductive sex somehow less important then? Would you deny marriage to straight couples who don’t wish to – or can’t – have children?

            You are misconstruing the point made to you. The argument is that the issue of consummation is irrelevant to the definition of marriage, which is not a statement that singles out heterosexual activity over homosexual activity. On the contrary, since you want to be theatrical about it, it is your assumption that straight couples only enjoy sexual activity to reproduce, or only have vaginal sex which is ignorant and could be considered offensive.

          2. And I suppose we should also have the old crone sat by the bed chamber until the morning and to enter after said consumation and come out waving the bed sheet with the red blood stained markings – even dozzy Samantu does not expect married couples to be virgins – but that raises all sorts of hypocritical nonsense about what he expects of gay people, the man is a fool.
            All this nonsense is because the Cof E was given the task in earlier times BY THE STATE of registering marriages because until relatively recently the only person except for the nobility and merchants that could read and write was the parish priest/vicar.
            Marriage in earlier times, if it took place at all between couples was performed by the couple in front of friends and a few witnesses – no priest.
            Buggerie was not a crime in England until 1531 all the other nonsense was introduced by the Victorians.
            Henry VIII and his chief minister Thomas Cromwell with the nacent Cof E are responsible….

          3. …..responsible for the start of persecution of gay folks by the State because he wanted to seize the Monasteries’ and their wealth, and to do this it was easy to accuse monks of sexual license among one another with the collusion/involvement of their Abbots.
            All this nonsense about consummation and adultery is peculiar to English law it does not apply in other countries including Scotland and I believe Canada, which is why when the Scottish Parliament comes to enact Equal (same-sex) Marriage it will be a lot simpler as there is no established church messing with the law.

            These laws were created by MEN to protect inheritance and wealth and privilege in less knowledgeable times, we now have DNA tests to establish paternity.

          4. Sacre bleu 18 Jun 2013, 1:39pm

            San, there are so many deficiencies in your arguments. I will however focus on just one.

            “you are being offensive to straights for whom consummation is the way they reproduce”

            You fail to acknowledge that straights marry for the sole reason to procreate. Procreation is often the reason for straight people to marry, but not always. Not all straight couples can have biological children, some do not want any children, some are too old etc. It is also possible to reproduce without consummation – IVF and quadriplegics. Does consummation figure in these relationships?

            Once you have no fault divorce, i.e. irreconcilable differences, consummation becomes an entirely private matter and redundant as a reason to dissolve a marriage. I did not say that consummation is irrelevant to married couples, rather it is irrelevant as a public explanation as to why the marriage should be dissolved, i.e. it is ‘too much information’ to be sharing in public. We don’t need and don’t want to know.

      3. San, you are referring to parts of the marriage contract that are barely used, I am not even sure if the lack of consummation has been used as a reason for divorce.

        In reality, those clauses can remain in the marriage contract, they will simply be clauses that we will never breach. It really is a bit of a non-topic.

      4. Some heterosexual men do not have penises at all, the result of casualty, illness or just being born that way, they are still legally able to marry any woman of their choice who will have them.
        Some heterosexual men are simply not capable of engaging in the full heterosexual act but they are not prevented from marrying any woman who will have them.
        No two couples are the same, all couples are different so why make being gay the only difference that automatically bars a couple from marriage…unless you are pandering to homophobic prejudice.

      5. Jock S. Trap 18 Jun 2013, 11:43am

        I have a biological son san, I have Never had sex with a woman.

        I think you need to look and see we are in the 21st Century. Society has changed and so has technology and medical issues.

        I do think the next time we have christians telling us we don’t want to be equal we should throw this right in their smug faces and remind them who it is who keeps campaigning to be separate and divided.

        1. Jock S. Trap 18 Jun 2013, 11:46am

          Secondly… Love is Love unlike people it doesn’t discriminate so please spare us the biology lesson and grow up.

          Love is no different, no matter who it’s between, Man & Man, Woman & Woman or indeed Man & Woman.

          1. No. Sorry, you need to grow up. While I have zero problem with gay sex-being bisexual myself- the difference between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex is that one continues the human race and the other does not.

            Quite an important difference, don’t you think? Or did nobody tell you about the birds and bees?

          2. Midnighter 18 Jun 2013, 1:16pm

            San, accusing someone of immaturity simply because they make points that are inconvenient to your argument is hypocritical.

            By reducing sex to something only performed for reproduction I suggest it is you who is showing a lack of worldly experience and should “grow up”.

            * People can – and do – marry for reasons other than procreation.
            * People can – and do – have sex for reasons other than procreation.

          3. Beelzeebub 18 Jun 2013, 2:17pm

            And to add to everyone elses rebuttals.

            The human race would continue without the “vaginal/penis insertion” combo you are fixated on.

            A girl and a man and a turkey baster and hey presto.

            Propagation of the species.

            Missionary position NOT required.

          4. Sacre bleu 18 Jun 2013, 3:34pm

            Why this obsession with reproduction? With a global population of 7 billion people (& growing), given the capacity of heterosexuals to reproduce, I don’t think that extinction of the human species is remotely likely.

            Even in advanced economies, where populations are about to (or are already contracting) the contraction is of greater concern to economic growth than it is to the survival of the species.

            Given that homosexuals have always comprised about 8-10% of the population, they are a hardly the drivers of population changes. A change to allow homosexuals to marry is going to have little or no impact on the survival of the species.

            The primary reason people get married is love, and the reasons for divorce are rarely due to the inability to reproduce. Given this, there is no reason to exclude homosexuals from marrying.

            Finally, there is enough unhappiness in the world, why do you stand in the way of happiness. Please try to get your head around these concepts.

          5. Jock S. Trap 18 Jun 2013, 5:08pm

            There’s the problem san…. I didn’t say sex I said love.

            Maybe you have heard of a thing called contraception? It allows people to have sex without (hoping) the dangers.

            Also did you not read that I have a son thanks to the wonderful technology called IVF… heard of that too.

            There is always a way and to say sex if difference in this day and age is pointless and outdated.

            There’s plenty of women having children with having the sex yet can find the love.

            It’s about Love whatever way you wanna put it. Sex is part of it but when it comes to Love there is NO difference.

      6. Bulls San….MORE babies, this world is bursting with unwanted kids born from Hetrosexual people…add to that I know of many Gay Lesbian people with children, either their own or adopted.

  16. It’s time to disestablish the church and for the Lords to boot out the bishops. These deluded fossils represent nobody and nothing except the church’s own desire to protect its enormous privilege.

    What’s more, it’s time that MPs and peers all had to declare their religious affiliation so we can all see the sinister hand of the Vatican interfering in our democratic process by cowing and threatening Catholic MPs. Why is trade union affiliation declarable, but not religious affiliation?

    1. No offence but some people here are really sensitive. All I’ve done is point out that, in some respects, it will be ‘us and them’. Hardly a homophobic rant, is it?

      As bad as the religious loons.

      1. Jacob Dugan-Brause 18 Jun 2013, 9:48am

        San, it’s an open room. Anyone can walk in and comment. It doesn’t make ALL of us guilty of ‘being sensitive’. Sooner or later, we all get a negative response, usually when one goes counter to the prevailing sentiment of the thread. That seems to be human nature.

        And isn’t that pretty much how it goes in any crowded room when you’ve voiced a minority viewpoint?

        That said, if ancient custom were to be updated to include people prohibited from its rituals, what would it look like? Voting for MPs was once granted to a small fraction of our country’s population.

        It was based on aristocratic privilege. How can one possibly square that with our contemporary practice of universal suffrage? Something changed and it wasn’t the details.

      2. Rather than finding your argument homophobic perhaps people simply find your argument to be unconvincing and flawed.

        Having said that, it isn’t unusual for PN readers to red thumb comments that buck the popular trend even if they are making a perfectly rational point, since emotions are often running high around some of the cr@p we all have to deal with. I wouldn’t take it too personally, and just argue your point if people engage in discussion with you.

      3. It helps if you have some sense of how these things came about and why – the ignorance and influences and subterfuge that created some of these “customs”.
        No one is all knowing and free of error, but sometimes bad people do bad things and lie for their own advantage or advancement, it is well to know of it.

  17. CH Brighton 18 Jun 2013, 9:39am

    Would the church of england rather bless ‘sheep and trees’ than gay couples? of course it would – and does.

  18. “To be blessed” means ‘to be favoured by God’.

    Thus to express a blessing is like bestowing a wish on someone that they will experience the favour of God.

    I neither need nor desire any favours from your perceived deity.

  19. PeterinSydney 18 Jun 2013, 11:04am

    This old bigot is a total disgrace. Arch-disgrace at that.

  20. John Sentamu is apparently convinced there is some sort of invisible supernatural being present among us here on Earth, so absolutely no one should take a word he says seriously, and it is utterly ridiculous that he is allowed to occupy a seat in a governmental legislative chamber.

  21. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jun 2013, 12:14pm

    I listened to the entire debate ending around 11:10 last night far more grueling than the Commons Committee in my view, same repetitive nonsense of course. However, hearing Sentamu spew his rubbish was unbearable.

    Lord Alli really threw a spanner in their argument in response to the Bishop of Hereford who was gushing at Baroness cumbersome Cumberlege’s amendment regarding opt outs for registrars. Lord Alli said, and I’m not quoting him verbatim…’I’ll make an offer that the church allow as a matter of conscience those clergy the right to marry or solemnise a same-sex marriage’, in exchange for registrars’ conscience opt-outs. No response from the several bishops. It really shut them up for the day.


    1. Yes, I agree the debate became very repetitive and frankly dull.

      For me the highlight was Lord Alli, he is so eloquent, direct, succinct, politely ripping their arguments to shreds and exposing the gaping holes in their arguments.. A truly impressive man, we should all be grateful he is on our side.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jun 2013, 1:14pm

        Indeed he is, Alouette, handsome too.

        I just loved the silence of the bishops when he made them an offer, priceless, one of those rare moments. Baroness Noakes was also very good as was the inimitable and learned Lord Lester of Herne Hill who really demolished some of Dear’s specious comments pertaining to Human Rights and ECHR laws. He has a brilliant legal mind. Love hearing him speak and settting the record straight for the delusional loons.

    2. That was a brilliant response by Lord Alli.
      Why should religious conscience only be respected if someone is opposing gay rights.

  22. He really needs to shut up about this topic forever.

  23. Robert (Kettering) 18 Jun 2013, 2:15pm

    I would like to know how is it the C of E is now happy to Ordain women as Priests yet not so long ago they rejected the idea. Reasons being, it was not biblical and against 2,000 years of tradition? So then Archbigot Sentamu, how come the church can now suddenly accept women’s ordination? What happened to biblical teaching or 2,000 years of tradition? Strange that isn’t it?

    No, the church can and does “reinterpret” the Bible as and when to suite itself. This is about maintaining 2,000 years of tradition i.e. bigotry and homophobia nothing else.

    Finally, not so long ago black people were legally kept as slaves and all backed by biblical teaching and tradition? The church has so much misery and blood on its hands I’m amazed it hasn’t found its way to the Hague on charges of crimes against humanity!!


    1. Midnighter 18 Jun 2013, 7:02pm

      Yes it is a load of rubbish, but unfortunately it is rubbish that this religious movement seeks to impose on those outside of that religion. This is what makes it dangerous and worth talking about.

      I understand you were making a rhetorical point, however if I may answer you; by talking about it we can not only support each other emotionally in our anger over this man’s attitudes, but we can identify and share the weaknesses in his argument and learn the rebuttals which will help us deal with his kind in daily life. Knowledge is power.

      Religion may be so much hot air, but that hot air has lit plenty of bonfires in its time. Ignore it at your peril.

  25. With all due respect, Archbishop Sentamu, one imagines that before the downfall of South African apartheid, many white South African “Reformed””Christians” would have said the same about South Africa’s hideous and deliberately entrenched racist obscenity and its abolition. Fortunately, justice prevailed then.

    1. Strictly to be fair, it’s worth noting that Desmond Tutu was Archbishop of Cape Town years before the downfall of apartheid (which suggests that the Anglican church was rather more advanced than its Dutch Reformed equivalent) and, in any event, South Africa is as far away from Uganda, Sentamu’s homeland, as Libya is from the UK: please let’s not imagine all Africans are the same. Sentamu’s bigotry has nothing whatever to do with South Africa.

  26. Oh f*ck off! I’m sick of these evil dog collared creeps. We want civil marriage as that’s all that’s important , what self respecting gay person or anybody reasonable would want to get a “blessing”?(any fool can give one of those ) from a CofE person?

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.