Reader comments · The Bishop of Gloucester: ‘The Church of England has to be sorry for its treatment of gay people’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


The Bishop of Gloucester: ‘The Church of England has to be sorry for its treatment of gay people’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. No – I do not “have to realise the church is not homophobic” because of the activities of the church in recent years (indeed, dating back to the age of consent law change and before).

    If you don’t want to be called homophobic, don’t perform homophobic actions. The church is on record behaving in exactly that way and no, they don’t get a free pass based on this meaningless lip service.

    And I won’t hold my breath for the Church to speak out against the kind of dangerous hatemongering going on in African nations either.

    No. We don’t HAVE to do what he has the hubris to expect of us, not at all.

    1. Apologies for accidentally hitting the “report” button for this excellent comment.

    2. Hey guys, just don’t when you are with another man “lay lyings of a woman” … whatever that means because nobody today can honestly say they know what “lay lyings of a woman” means.
      If they say they do know what the phrase “lay lyings of a woman” means they are simply liars laying the lies of a liar.

    3. at least give them credit that this bishop is accepting that the church if out of line? we cannot expect universal change on dogmatic views overnight across the world, these things take a lot of time. Yes i agree with you that the church around the world is very over the line and should be held accountable but at least this is good news?

  2. Robert in S. Kensington 7 Sep 2013, 6:59pm

    Indeed it should be sorry but also deeply ashamed. So what is taking it so long to extend a formal apology by Welby I wonder?

    The gentlemen with the spectacles to the right of Bishop Perham is the wonderful Lord Jenkin with whom I had some beautiful email exchanges with during the marriage debate. A conservative too! His son, Tory MP Bernard Jenkin and his lovely wife, Baroness Jenkin were absolutely wonderful during the debate and incredibly supportive. All three supported the bill enthusiastically and did a lot of lobbying in both chambers.

    1. Christopher Coleman 7 Sep 2013, 7:15pm

      Robert: In answer to your question: So what is taking it so long to extend a formal apology by Welby I wonder?

      I have written this on previous occasions; no one liked it, but it has to be said again. Conservative institutions always move slowly, especially when they have to change their way of thinking and acting. Churches have an even more difficult time than most, because they take their stand on “the word of God” which is supposed to be unchanging. It is difficult for them to admit publicly that many of the attitudes they attribute to God are not His at all. We just have to be patient and wait until they find the right verbal formula, one that admits they were wrong, but somehow right at that time.

      1. Why be patient? Why not condemn them for their evil and bigotry as well? Why should we be patient while they decide we’re worth treating as full human beings?

        If they can’t – if it takes them so damn long to recognise our humanity – why shouldn’t we just see them as enemies and push to have them weakened and exposed as the hate centres they are

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Sep 2013, 3:02pm

        They’ve had almost 500 years to foment hatred, intolerance and in some cases incited death and supported it. You are suggesting patience is required and a verbal formula? What is so difficult for Welby to just simply say, “we are deeply sorry for the harm, pain and suffering we have caused you”? Doesn’t take any hocus pocus formula to admit they were deadly wrong. Welby has no backbone just like his predecessor, afraid of a backlash from the African nations, especially Nigeria and Uganda who are more important to him than a decent apology to his own people in the UK who happen to be gay. Williams was no better either.

    2. de Villiers 7 Sep 2013, 7:34pm

      DUring the gay marriage debate in the House of Lords, I said that the speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury indicated a softer approach to gay policy and that it would open the way to the Church reversing its previous position on homosexuality. I repeated this again a few weeks ago when Justin Welby again made encouraging remarks in relation to homosexuality.

      This is just another step in what appears to be a long term attempt to reverse the position of the Church of England. Rather than frothing at the mouth and delivering fire and brimstone like a fundamentalist, we should all welcome it.

      1. Oh hey let’s welcome a church finally deciding that maybe they were a bit mean in fighting every right we’ve had to battle for while demonise us in the most hateful manner. And they’re not retracting that or even apologising or trying to make amends for that – just making weasley mouthed almost apologies for some better PR

        But hey, let’s be grateful – they’re still hitting us, but not quite so hard!

      2. de Villiers 8 Sep 2013, 4:39pm

        That is flippant, Sparky. Would you prefer that the direction were not being changed?

        Life is not as easy as buying a film on iTunes or choosing which cheese to buy at the supermarket. Institutions can be slow to change and have their own politics and personalities and life requires messy compromises for all but the most extreme fundamentalists.

        Both the Church of England and the Catholic Church have many different parts that behave very differently. Each is not one monolithic organisation. The Church of England at least is making major moves to become more modern such as the involvement of women and the changing position on homosexuality.

        That, it seems to be, is something to be welcomed. Whatever the Church of England does until it manages to change its position is going to be not enough for you and many others – so that you would be able to make the same criticisms each and every time that a small step is made. We should all welcome these steps and change in direction.

        1. We do not need to welcome anything. Fortunately in our civilised country the influences of either church, particularly that of Rome, are minimal, as the equal marriage debate shows.

          I agree that the C of E, with a proper democratic participative structure, is not a monolith: the church of Rome is a dictatorship run by the grubby Fascist in the Vatican.

        2. de Villiers 8 Sep 2013, 10:54pm

          You are wrong. You should welcome the change.

  3. Neon Genesis 7 Sep 2013, 7:00pm

    We don’t need the Church of England to be sorry. We need them to do the right thing.

    1. We need them to go away or promote a healthy reality, not continue with their delusions of a god.

  4. The Church most certainly is homophobic and no amount of history rewrites will change that.

    And if you want to repair the damage the church has done to the gay community you can start by dropping the loaded word “homosexual” when speaking of gay and lesbian PEOPLE.

  5. Apologise by giving up all seats in the Lords and removing the organisation from meddling in children’s education. No to faith schools.Sell a cathedral and give the proceeds to the Albert Kennedy Trust. Sack Sentamu.
    Then we’ll believe you are truly sorry.

  6. Church leaders may well not view their church as homophobic but they surely recognise that some of their colleagues are.

    The time for platitudes is over and it’s time for direct challenges to homophobic language and actions. Put up or shut up, if you like.

  7. I applaud the Bishop on his forward thinking, however, there will always be the potential there for homophobia by the church because it exists in its very scripture. And it’s not about ‘interpretation’ or ‘context’ either. It’s there in back and white 18:22, and a couple of other places. So there’s always going to be a problem with the church and homophobia.

    1. That should read “Leviticus 18:22”

      1. I guess telling the truth about the hatred in the bible which INCLUDES THE OLD TESTAMENT, is unpopular on this site.
        Well too f**king bad. The fact is, the homophobic crap found in the bible won’t be going anywhere, any time soon, so nor will the hatred spouted by Christians. You can close your eyes and cover your ears, but you can’t erase the truth of the matter.
        There will always be liberal Christians who cherry pick parts of the bible they’re comfortable with, but the fundamental Christians who take every inch of the bible seriously will always have the texts to back up their views.
        The problem isn’t with how the bible is read, the problem is what’s in the bible itself.

        1. I think the problem is BOTH!

    2. How do you proclaim that it it’s “not about ‘interpretation or context’ either”? Why do you claim that interpretation and context aren’t factors in Leviticus 18:22? Interpretation and context are ALWAYS factors in ANY writing, religious or otherwise. I’m not Christian, Jewish, Muslim or otherwise religious but I would argue that interpretations and context should be PARTICULARLY important when Christians, Jews and Muslims consider verses like Leviticus 18:22 or any other scripture that is used to excuse or endorse hate, racism, slavery, homophobia, misogyny or any other form of discrimination.

      1. So then explain to me how exactly “If a man also lie with a man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. ” – Leviticus 20:13, how exactly is meant to be read?

        (btw, I have read the bible completely, so I know the context)

        And sure, you could dust that off to a badly worded verse that’s not actually about homosexuality, but then what about this;
        Lev 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” Again, pretty much the same ‘warning’.
        So how are they ‘out of context?
        Is there any context where killing homosexuals would be permissible to you?
        And how could you otherwise interpret it?
        “Oh, Yahweh was just having an hissy-fit at the time, he didn’t mean it!”
        Of course not. Silly me.
        And failing all that. The fact remains that for centuries that’s exactly how people *have* taken it. In every culture, every nation and every nation

        1. * every era, post judeo-Christian time.
          There’s not one version of the bible, one mainstream church, or one judeo-Christian nation, that hasn’t interpreted those words in that context.
          And that problem will continue to exist as long as people continue to take the bible as a serious guide for moral and social guide for how to live.

          1. I might also point out that up through at least the 15th Century there wasn’t one version of the bible, one mainstream church or one judeo-Christian nation that didn’t interpret the words of the bible to declare that the Earth was flat and lay at the center of the solar system.

        2. Are you an idiot? Do you really believe that those words were written five thousand years ago in modern English? Hence, “TRANSLATION” questions!

          Who was that verse directed to and why? It was directed to JEWS as a means to define them as a race, separate and distinct from the tribes that surrounded them. In that CONTEXT, what does it have to do with non-Jews or for Jews who have no interest in defining themselves as separate and distinct from their neighbors. And what was considered an “abomination” for Jews 5k years ago? Clearly eating catfish or shrimp was an “abomination” as was doing ANYTHING on Shabbat and cutting one’s beard. So what does that mean today? Hence “CONTEXT”

          It’s really not that difficult to understand. Not only are you not a bible scholar but your basic reasoning skills are lacking and no amount of declaring your opinions as “fact” and no amount of superlative statements will change that.

        3. Now I know you aren’t quoting that roughly translated 2000 year old propaganda manual in here of all places surely

      2. Harry Underwood 7 Sep 2013, 8:30pm

        The problem with your argument is multi-faceted.

        1) The scripture is pretty explicit in its recommendation of *death*, particularly any version derived from King James Version.

        2) The goal of the reader who is better-predisposed to rejecting “victimless crimes” will be hard-pressed to gloss over, ignore or positively-spin such explicit recommendations, especially when those who are in power, their families and their peers have lived under the impression that the “correct” interpretation of the scripture is not only the only means of having a good/respectable life, but also a good/respectable afterlife.

        3) There is NO – Zero (0) – scripture in the Bible which can possibly be taken by any generation of readers as being affirmative of non-heterosexual or non-heteronormative relationships, status or “behavior”.

        The fact that we even have a website like this, based in a country in which the state church is the Church of England, is in spite of prior English history.

    3. Leviticus is Old Testament. The Old Testament was fulfilled with the birth of Christ and must be interpreted through Christ’s message of universal love. Any passage or verse that conflicts with that message is considered defunct and such passages or verses cannot be used to justify anything.

      The Bible is not inerrant, nor is it the Word of God. It is the Word of God filtered through the fallible minds of fallible men who possessed free will and could therefore, and did therefore, interpret the Word, as they wrote it down, in ways that conformed to their intellectual abilities and understandings, or lack thereof. Scripture has to be, must be, interpreted usinbg Christ’s, and the Apostles’ messages of love (and Christ and His Apostles worked to spread the message before there even was a Christian Bible).

      One must also remember that more than sixty-three percent of Christians in this country support gay rights, including equal marriage – this very website reported that fact a few months ago.

      1. not sure jesus would agree with you. this is what he said about old testament law

        Matthew 5:17-18

        17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18″ For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

      2. Christ’s message was one of eternal love? What drugs you been smoking? It was the same douche who brought you hell, and commanded you to love him, or to go there. As vile as the OT texts where, they didn’t include an eternal hell for stupid enough to believe the crap inside it.
        And according to most Christians the homophobic, genocidal maniac from the old testament IS Jesus. They’re part of the same being. So how can you pretend that these two fictitious deities are separate?
        Christians in this country hardly represent what most Christians think and feel about certain topics.
        A study done, along with the last census, showed that most people who called themselves ‘Christian’ in the UK, are in fact’ cultural Christians’, who’ve never read the bible, and don’t believe that Jesus Christ was the son of a god. They know nothing about ‘Christianity’. They couldn’t even name the amount of gospels, let alone the names of them.

    4. Most conservative faith groups tend to interpret all of the clobber passages as condemning all forms of same-gender sexual behavior, whether by men or women. They do this, even though only one of the seven or eight passages actually refers to women, and this lone passage refers only to women with a heterosexual orientation.

      Most liberal and progressive faith groups tend to interpret the same passages — in their original languages — as referring to:
      temple prostitution,
      in which locations is it is acceptable for two men to have sex,
      kidnapping slaves,
      sexually abusing children,
      engaging in sexual behavior that is against one’s sexual orientation and basic nature, and/or
      engaging in bestiality — sexual activity with a non-human species.

  8. Society ‘gets there’ before the church, does it? Could it be because big swathes of society don’t worship vengeful monarchical gods from ancient tribal cultures? What do you think, Bish?
    Sorry, scrub that one. I don’t actually give a toss what you think.

    1. Helge Vladimir Tiller 7 Sep 2013, 8:34pm

      Like your comment ! Sting and reality.

    2. Society gets there before the church in spite of the fact that the Church drags society down and does EVERYTHING in their power to keep society from moving forward.

  9. Godric Godricson 7 Sep 2013, 7:31pm

    The Anglicans are fighting a rear guard action to protect market share and nothing more. If the Church is truly repentant then let them admit openly LGBT clergy to the East End. I’m increasingly angry at this trickle of ‘pseudo-repentance’ from the Anglican Episcopacy. It betokens nothing more than a recognition that the Church has misrepresented/misapplied the Gospels for years.

    Many Gay men committed suicide over the years because of the message of hate peddled by the Church. No amount of weasel words from unelected Bishops will take away their abundant collective guilt. Disestablishment is necessary along with the removal of all privileges.

  10. Craig Nelson 7 Sep 2013, 7:36pm

    Slowly as in a few months more or slowly as in a few more centuries? No hurry then.

  11. Harry Underwood 7 Sep 2013, 7:46pm

    The least you can do are these three words:

    Change. Your. Scripture.

    1. Change you mistranslation of scripture and change your biased homophobic misinterpretation of scripture.

      1. Harry Underwood 8 Sep 2013, 9:46pm

        Wrong. That just leads to the apologists for any religion saying completely different things, completely antithetical to each other, based upon the same portion of scripture. If a scripture that serves as guidance for members of a religion can’t be amended or overruled by a later scripture, why want a part of that religion or its body of scripture?

  12. Helge Vladimir Tiller 7 Sep 2013, 7:47pm

    An apology from Christian churches all over the world should have come many years , if not generations ago ! READ HISTORY and get angry !

  13. For me Bishop too little too late.

    The two most formative experiences in my life have been first to realise, accept and later celebrate the fact that I am gay.

    The second was to realise that I had never really believed ( I had tried !) and after having realised I had no faith, left the church over 20 years ago. Helped, it had to be said by the utterances I was hearing from Christians about the evil of gay people.

    The Church may now be at the beginning of a long journey. Nationally you are now at the ‘tolerance’ level on gay people. You are decades away from the ‘acceptance’ and ‘celebrating’ level. I, too, am not holding my breath.

  14. They will never “officially” apologize in the same way many heterosexuals don’t want to admit homosexuals are natural – in doing so, they admit to hundreds of years of totally unjustified abuse and murder, and the church admits directly that its ideology is wrong and to do that is to denounce their faith publicly, and we all know they cannot do that !

    When they are desperately scrambling for new subjects to be indoctrinated, this would prove fatal; but at least they’re catching on that to be outwardly hostile towards LGBT people does a good enough job of turning people off joining their club anyway, so they will creep silently into the 21st Century and act as if nothing happened; as per usual.

  15. Too little. Too late.

    No need to bother with an apology now.

  16. Sorry bishop, your statement that (C of E) “It has not treated the gay, lesbian and transgender community very well.” must be the understatement of for ever. You are not very good at history, that is evident.
    It has been the influence of the church that has kept the persecution of gay lesbian and transgender people alive and ferocious for centuries and that is fully the fault of their interpretation of scripture with the help of mistranslations, whether deliberate or naïve. the passages in the Torah are not the translation accepted by most Jews and their meaning and interpretation is not universal throughout Jewish traditions. But even if that was the case there is no excuse for the denigration and persecution still perpetrated by the church against LGBTI people, the science of gender and sexuality is well proved and has been for many decades, but even before then the manner of the churches teachings could be ascertained to be against humanity and truth and from empirical knowledge.

    1. OOps! wish there was an edit on this site.

      …..the passages in the Torah are not the translation accepted by most Jews and their meaning and interpretation is not universal throughout Jewish traditions.

      hope that makes sense now :( hangs head.
      Should read –……the passages in the Bible are not the translation accepted by most Jews from the same passages in the Torah, and their meaning and interpretation is not universal throughout Jewish traditions.

  17. Many countries had not criminalised gay relationships for many years, Mexico for instance decriminalised sexual relations between same sexes in 1871 CE and France and their dominions in 1791 and carried on in the penal code of 1810 CE till the present day, in both France and Mexico, whilst the English were doubling down on the illegality with the introduction of “gross Indecency”. in 1885 CE. Where was your church but egging the pudding! and cheering on the intrusion in peoples personal lives by the state. The C of E has blood on its hands! Why have they not condemned the incitement to murder in Uganda Loudly and unequivocally by clergy!
    It needs rather more than a softer approach” it needs a root and branch rethink just as happened after the condemnation of slavery and RACIAL discrimination and an admission you all got it wrong. Driving people to self harm and encouraging hate and promoting lies and spreading ignorance is the sin Bishop and putting that right is your responsibility

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Sep 2013, 2:55pm

      With regard to France, several islamic colonies of theirs penalise homosexuality and one of them, Senegal permits hetero polygamy.

      1. hardly france’s fault

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Sep 2013, 10:26pm

          My point is that even if the UK hadn’t criminalised homosexuality, there would have been no guarantee that former African countries wouldn’t have. There’s a lot of posturing about how there was no homophobia before the colonialist powers arrived. I submit that not necessarily to be the case especially where religion comes into play.

          1. It is exactly the effect of religion, the Cof E especially as the dominant religion and “guardian of our moral values” (snark) most of that time until the 1960-70’s that I was trying to illustrate, the CofE had that influence then, to maintain and increase the “English disease” as the French called the English obsession with homosexuality.
            The power of civil society was elsewhere in France and in Spanish and French influenced, Mexico.

            I do take your point there is no guarantee the ex- British colonies would not have re- introduced anti- gay laws if the English had not been so homophobic. but perhaps Singapore would not have done, given its population is mostly Buddhist Taoist and Confucian not many people “of the Book” !
            All pure speculation of course.
            One thing is certain If the C of E do not act to wind down the homophobia and influence African bishops and clergy they will be complicit in the revival of “traditional values” which of course in reality are not traditional at all

  18. They could start by acknowledging that there is no honest scriptural support for church homophobia.

    Biased translations of ancient text and misinterpretation of descriptions of ritual sexual acts found there do not describe homosexuality nor is homosexuality per se mentioned or condemned anywhere in scripture.

    1. You could start by acknowledging that that’s *your* interpretation on the scripture. Most theologians have interpreted it a different way, hence why every judeo-Christian society in the past fifteen centuries has persecuted gays.
      The problem lies within the scripture itself. And even IF it was how you claimed it to actually read, then it’s the author’s fault for not being coherent, and leading millions astray in their incorrect interpretation of it. And the problem will always be there of interpreting it that way.
      Either way, the murder, the slavery condoned, the child abuse commanded, the misogyny, human sacrifices to this blood thirsty monster. it’s all in there. Hardly what you’d expect to read from an all loving, just and merciful deity, as purported by Jews, Christians and Muslims.
      I can’t believe there’s still LGBT people excusing the hatred and violence this vile little book.
      They’re as bad as the theologians who spout this nonsense from their pulpits.

      1. Well I say fcuk the theologians, they are usually biased in any case by their preformed assumptions. Have a nice day!

  19. I cannot believe the amount of debate on here about ‘the interpretation of this biblical passage and that biblical passage’. IT’S A BOOK – WRITTEN BY MEN WITH AN AGENDA!!!! Would you endlessley debate ‘Peter Pan’ in this way? For crying out loud, take a reality check, people. Talking snakes and women made from men’s ribs???!!!! Oh PLEASE!

    1. There is no debate, the earliest versions of scripture written in their original languages make no mention of homosexuality per se whatsoever but rather to ritual sex and other acts.

      However most CONSERVATIVE faith groups tend to interpret all of the clobber passages as condemning all forms of same-gender sexual behavior, whether by men or women. They do this, even though only one of the seven or eight passages actually refers to women, and this lone passage refers only to women with a heterosexual orientation.

      Most liberal and PROGRESSIVE faith groups tend to interpret the same passages — in their original languages — as referring to:
      temple prostitution,
      in which locations is it is acceptable for two men to have sex,
      kidnapping slaves,
      sexually abusing children,
      engaging in sexual behavior that is against one’s sexual orientation and basic nature, and/or
      engaging in bestiality — sexual activity with a non-human species.

      1. Harry Underwood 8 Sep 2013, 9:58pm

        And yet, there’s nothing in the Bible which “allows” for homosexuality to be a natural sexuality. If liberal/progressive Abrahamic spin is good at softening the blow of “clobber scriptures” (and doing for historic Abrahamic religion’s leading apologists what the Communist Party of China judged about Mao Tse-Tung after the bloody Cultural Revolution – “70% right and 30% wrong”), it’s very poor at actually stating what affirmation of homosexuality can come from the Bible or Quran.

        That particular aspect of either scriptural anthology, even ignoring the clobber scriptures, makes them particularly inadequate as guides on familial and gender relations for the discerning reader who knows better.

    2. Yes I agree – I had seen through this load of delusional nonsense before the age of 10 and have never had a religious belief.
      I did have to discover, like many people, what these delusional loons were on about in a lot more detail so that I could argue against some of their more egregious infringements of my rights to not be imposed on by their nonsense. Unreasoning belief sometimes needs to be exposed at its roots to de-bunk it.
      Application of ancient explanations of how things work by ancient peoples trying to understand their world with lack of knowledge is not sensible in the modern world.
      What really leaves me in a cold rage is when they commission studies to prove these ancient beliefs are valid and twist the data and methods to fit their pre-established conclusions based on the belief and then try to con people it is valid science, or just lie. “See, this proves we are right this is not just our belief its proved to be true”. The Regnerus study being a case in point.

      1. de Villiers 8 Sep 2013, 4:52pm

        The story of creation is not literal – there were no talking snakes or the creation of a fruit tree. The story intends to capture and explain the nature of the human condition. It should be read as metaphorical – not an historical account.

        1. I never said it was – my own view is it is all delusional nonsense, all of it. My own point of departure was just before age ten I was told at my Sunday get together with friends, (Sunday School) I had to learn by rote and memorise the catechism,
          It is the truth you need to learn it!
          But, I’ve read it and its nonsense I don’t believe it.
          You must learn it and remember it.
          NO I dont!!

          I remember getting up and walking out the door and waiting there to be picked up by my Mum.

          I Never went back!

          We had lots of books at home and two different, Multi book encyclopaedias I read a lot

          There is evidence from modern analysis of text structure etc. that vast areas of the new testament were added later when supposedly written by the same author Paul.

          But from my perspective I only look into these things as self-defence from arrogant theism and its demented hateful followers
          people like John Deighton, Jill Knight or Vlad Michaelovich – Kirill 1

    3. de VIlliers 8 Sep 2013, 4:51pm

      The taking of the rib speaks to a powerful meaning of the duality of man. There are two contradictory accounts of creation. In the first, God creates man and woman at the same time. In the second, God creates woman from overpowering Adam and causing him to sleep. From Adam sacrificing part of his body, Eve is created.

      The first account speaks to our need to act as equals in society, working with each other to achieve all that we can. It can be seen as a metaphor for the social contract, equality under law, the need for friends on an equal level, liked for our abilities.

      The second account speaks to the more personal feeling of loneliness and love. Here, happiness in a relationship requires sacrifice, acknowledging the greater importance of one’s partner. In defeat and being compromised, in his weakness, Adam finds his wife. Personal relationships work when we can admit to our partners our greatest fears, when we sacrifice our own needs for theirs, when loved for our faults.

    4. de Villiers 8 Sep 2013, 4:53pm

      The story of creation is not literal – there were no talking snakes or the creation of a fruit tree. The story intends to capture and explain the nature of the human condition. It should be read as metaphorical – not an historical account.

      1. Even as a metaphor it sucks and bears no relationship to reality. I love poetic lyricism but this isn’t it.

        1. de Villiers 8 Sep 2013, 10:57pm

          It does very much. Much of the human condition is moved by loneliness, friendship and love.

  20. somehow i dont think african branch of cofe would support the bishop’s sentiment anyway. but the real change wont happen until roman catholic church, the true powerhouse of global religious domination changes its dogmatic position on gays.

    1. Yes perhaps, but the Catholic Church has been seen time and time again with their fervent supporters to support oppression and despotism, fascism and give it succour. When the people eventually realise the truth they the church and their doctrines of “tradition” do not come out of it well. this can be seen in recent times in Spain Argentina, Portugal, Brazil, Mexico, and in past times France although they may hold on in these places with the bigoted and with those of self serving prejudice, they become a spent force of dominance and respect. I suppose Ireland could be added to that list for different reasons and possibly Poland but that has not played out fully yet, although the trends are clear.

  21. postopgirl 8 Sep 2013, 1:40pm

    well then let them marry in church along with all parishioners including transsexual women who want to marry their male partners and transsexual men to marry their female partners and the church will benefit from it by being seen as an inclusive place, but I don’t hold my breath on that becoming a reality just yet.

  22. When do we get to start analyzing other ancient MYTHS and pretending like they’re historical, scientific documents that should rule our lives, communities and world today? How about the Iliad and the Odyssey next! Then we can move on to Sumerian, Egyptian and Druid myths and have a deep discussion about what the gods REALLY meant and whether Unicorn horn is made of ivory or pearl!

  23. Robert in S. Kensington 8 Sep 2013, 3:08pm

    Meanwhile, in Russia, laws are enacted to discriminate against gay people some of whom have been subjected to brutal attacks, some of them fatal much of it fomented, aided and abetted by the orthodox church. What are the CoE and RCC saying about it? NOTHING! They can’t even condemn it so we are left to assume their silence gives consent. Nothing has changed.

  24. Bill Cameron 8 Sep 2013, 5:00pm

    Too little, too late!

    The Church should be disestablished and their should be no unelected religious people sitting in our Parliament! And their tax exempt status should be abolished – hit them where it hurts, in their pockets.

    The Bishop of Gloucester sounds like a ‘good man’, but the harsh reality is that he has been a member of an organisation that has peddled bigotry and lack of inclusion for centuries. If Canterbury stands up tomorrow and announces to the world that he apologises on behalf of his whole sad group for the evils they have perpetrated, that would be good, but it is not going to happen. The Bishop of Gloucester needs to leave his Church and find less harmful employment.

    I have grown weary of listening to their platitudes.

    1. Bill Cameron 8 Sep 2013, 5:02pm

      In my irritation I wrote “their” rather than “there” in the first line of the 1st para. ;)

  25. The C of E is changing is it? How many bishops voted in favour of marriage equality two whole months ago??

    1. I fear they will have to be dragged by the cassock out of the building and thrown in the Thames before they wise up and come to their senses.
      Oh! and even if they do, come to their senses that is, they should never be allowed back into that Baroque building by The West-Minster.

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.