Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Kent newspaper angers readers by printing ‘homosexual sinners’ letter

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. That There Other David 15 Oct 2013, 5:18pm

    All the editor has done is print a letter authored by someone whose madness is now visible for all to see.

    No to censorship. I want to know what the opposition thinks. Much easier to counteract their nonsense that way.

    1. Beelzeebub 15 Oct 2013, 5:25pm

      If the “editor” had a modicum of sense he would have realised that p!ssing off his readership and subsequently the advertisers is a bad idea and should have self censored the religious rantings of the loon that published it.

    2. And if someone had written a letter saying that slavery should be made legal (like the bible says) – do you think the editor would have printed it? Me thinks not. Sounds like the editor, Rebecca Smith, is using a reader’s letter to say what he/she thinks as “this was a debate they (she) are hearing in forums, such as churches, across the town.”

      It would be interesting to know what she writes on the subject in her ‘editorial’ and if she categorically states that homophobia is wrong, marriage equality is right, and that the monotheistic homophobic attitudes being spouted in the churches and mosques were wrong.

      I’m betting she’ll take a – can’t tell if I agree or don’t agree with homophobia – approach.

    3. When does a view become hate speech and intolerance? Would you accept a racist letter, a letter praising Hitler, or a letter supporting the subjugation of women?

      The paper itself recognizes that this is an extremist view, the editor has suggested this. So why the hell is a paper printing something that IT KNOWS is an extremist view?

      Censorship is one thing, supporting hate speech and encouraging intolerance is something else altogether.

      This letter clearly intends to attack others, it is vile, it hateful, it is extremism, and it should NOT BE ACCEPTABLE from ANY RELIGIOUS GROUP.

      I don’t give a damn whether it’s a Muslim, a Christian or a fu***ing $cientologist, religious extremism is extremism like any other, and any paper expressing support for it should be open to massive public criticism and should be shunned by all sane members of society – just as the freak who wrote it should.

  2. We all have a right to free speech and if this opens debate then it is a positive thing. After all, doesn’t Pink News bring us daily stories from across the pond and around the world from people with equally radical views?

  3. According to the bible we are all sinners anyway so what difference does it make where we put our penises?

  4. Local papers in Britain are often as dull as ditch-water and they sometimes publish this sort of thing to get some attention. If opposing views are aired as well, and violence is not incited, I think it is a good thing.

    1. Such views published *uncritically* add to the drip-drip-drip effect, building an atmosphere of intolerant homophobia. It may not advocate violence but over time the sentiment becomes acceptable and from there, violence is but a short step.

      1. Read my post. I make it clear that I think such views should not be published without opposing perspectives.

  5. The many many couples who live together are also “sinners” (according to the bible) yet the mouth frothers seem to ignore them? As they do divorcees, including adulterous divorcees. What conclusion can we draw from that?

    1. They ignore all the other “sins” because they only need a minority to attack, and gay people are often the easiest target. If they held their maniac beliefs to the letter their churches would be totally empty and their cult dead already.

      When was the last time you saw any Christian that actually adhered to all the ridiculous instructions in their holy Bible? None of them do. If they did, they would all either be living in Monasteries or Nunneries with hair to their arses and wearing nothing but sackcloth.

      Selective Christianity, aint it grand?

  6. Sounds like it should be called the Widdecombe Times!

    I would say, get in there and argue!

  7. http://theconnexion.net/wp/?p=2921#axzz2hoRyxl1n

    Turns out, when you examine it, the ‘sin of [the city of] Sodom’ is inhospitality and xenophobia, not homosexuality.

    Bite that Daily Mail readers.

  8. http://theconnexion.net/wp/?p=2921#axzz2hoRyxl1n

    Turns of the “sin of [the city of] Sodom” is inhospitality and xenophobia, not homosexuality.

    Bite that, Daily Mail readers.

  9. This is my local paper and I was one of the people who wrote in and complained, as did my mum and sister. Our main objection was not that the letter was printed, because as you say, everyone has a right to freedom of speech no matter how bigoted their opinion may be, but that the newspaper had chosen the headline that it had, which whilst yes, does summarise the opinion is, as my mum said (lol), far more confrontational than the stonewall slogan. Credit to the newspaper they are doing exactly what we hoped; printing the response letters and printing an editorial comment on in.

    We felt that we couldn’t let this man’s opinion to go unchallenged.

    And yes, printing this kind of story is indeed most likely done intentionally to get attention, but that doesn’t mean it should be tolerated.

    Thank you to PinkNews for covering this.

  10. Sorry if this posts twice…

    The Whitstable Times is my hometown local newspaper and I was one of the ones that wrote in, as was my mum and sister. Our main objection was not to the letter being printed because as you say, everyone has the right to free speech, no matter how bigoted their opinion (although as others have pointed out, they wouldn’t have printed it had it been saying something similar about black people), our objection was to the headline the newspaper chose to give it, which as my mum (lol) said was more confrontational than the Stonewall slogan.

    We didn’t feel that this man’s opinion should go unchallenged and potentially be viewed as representative of our town.

    And yes, as you say publishing this is more than likely a planned stunt to get attention but that doesn’t mean it should be tolerated.

    Thank you to the PinkNews for covering this.

    (And again sorry if this comment or one very similar goes up twice…)

  11. Next week’s letters; ‘Reprent, you shellfish-eating sinners’ and you ‘Wearer of clothes made of two materials sinners’? Silly, selective, childish nonsense. But I too like to see where the enemy is so one can be prepared when the lunatic homophobic nutjobs finally flip and go on the rampage armed with a loaded bible.

  12. Personally, I don’t have an issue with it. All the letter did was show the writer up for being a dim-witted pillock that believes in something that was written thousands of years ago and hasn’t amended his/her narrow view on life. I’m also as certain sure as I can be that the headline was a tongue-in-cheek warning for us sinners, mocking the author. But we’re missing the point here……..this opens up debate and GLBT people and supporters of all that is right in the world have used good debate in the past to move our case for equality forward. Today Whitstable, tomorrow, Clacton….or somewhere!

  13. What is this obsession with political correctness that no one is allowed to offend or be offended anymore? Oh, sure, we have freedom of speech, as long as no one is offended. That’s called sensorship, pure and simple. So what, the person who wrote the letter is a moron, we all know that. But s/he is allowed to be one if s/he publically chooses!

    1. So when then the hate preachers call for our death, you would defend that as freedom of speech, as well?

    2. Sorry – I don’t agree. If, because of ‘deference’ for religion, we allow ‘belief’ to become a licence to peddle hatred, other imbeciles will capitalise on it for their own purposes. Hitler (and latterly, Putin) made cynical use of the bible to further his political ends. If we do not challenge religious followers to justify their remarks, bullies will interpret our lack of response as fear and will consequently pursue acts of homophopbia. We MUST challenge and keep challenging ignorance and religiously-inspired hatred.

    3. I agree when it’s someone being locked up for saying something offensive on Twitter, because this seems to be a mob rule mentality where the police take action if enough people complain – that’s not right.

      But, there are instances where “offense” becomes “incitement” or “hate speech”.

      As I said before, would it be freedom of speech to allow Combat18 to write an article describing how they would rid the UK of anyone not “Aryan”? Would it be okay in your mind for someone to claim that age of consent should be 5? Would it be okay if this man had been published for saying that women should be stoned in the local square for adultery?

      You can’t pick and choose what is freedom of speech and completely ignore the damage it can do to sections of society, knowing full well that the view is an extremist one.

      Political correctness has often gone too far, but it’s not being PC to use common sense and avoid publishing extremist opinions the MAJORITY do not agree with.

  14. Pretty sick of being fair game to slag off just becuase the bible apparently says it is ok to……funny how freedom of speech to vilify gays is still ok in 2013 and yet so many others things are not!

  15. Jock S. Trap 16 Oct 2013, 10:47am

    Yet again the LGBT community are deemed fair game when it comes to the media and religious bigotry.

    They will pay the price and it’s about time even silly little rags learn’t that respect is earned. They have just lost a lot of that people’s respect. Defending just encouraged nastiness. They deserve none.

    1. There should be a rule about things like this… would it still be okay to print if they replaced the target (LGBT people) with a racial group, or religious group?

      If this man had written in suggesting that black people deserve less Human rights than he, would they have printed it?

      I’m betting no, and the reason they did is because they agree with his view, or they don’t see the problem – thereby deeming our rights to be worth less than the rest of society.

      However this is challenged it all comes back to the same thing – this is an attack on gay people by a twisted old man and a twisted local paper.

      1. I refer you to my comment earlier, that I would lay good money on this being a way to stir up debate and show this moron up for the narrow-minded bigot he is. Would it be as acceptable to print a letter from a muslim asking for public stonings? I think so. For too long we have pandered to everyone’s right to be who or what they want to be. When letters such as this one are published (or indeed, from someone calling for public stonings), instead of turning on one another and arguing about whether it’s right to publish or not, we should turn our attention outwards. People who hold these extremist views should be shown our outrage and contempt and our energies would be better served in letting them know this. A good, solid, valid argument will bring good people along with it and that’s where we can make a difference.

  16. Every gay man and woman with a Whitstable or north Kent coast address, or even a Canterbury address, MUST write a letter to the editor this paper and knock this homophobia dead. Kent is horribly backward. The “gay ads” in papers there feature mainly ads from closeted gay men into meeting others in order to dress up in women’s clothing. All terribly backwards and self-hating. Kent needs shaking up and the influenced of that damned cathedral in Canterbury needs curtailing.

  17. We all know the bible should be sold from the top shelf wrapped in plastic due to it’s sexual, violent content. People who spout the bible are degenerates for reading such stuff.

  18. I fully support stonewall’s right of free speech but why was a poster with the words “some people are ex-gay, get over it” banned?

    Perhaps a Christian group should respond with a poster saying “some people believe the Bible, get over it!”

    1. You think Christian groups don’t have enough advertising space as it is? Take the Tube in London sometime and you’ll see it’s hardly the case – and many with rather extravagant claims too.

      The “Ex-gay” poster was a blatant rip-off of the Stonewall campaign (you try parodying, say, a Coke ad and see how far you get), and it sought to suggest that psychological manipulation is the same as innate sexuality.

      1. Bob Hutton 16 Oct 2013, 1:49pm

        You may have a point about the “ex-gay” poster being a “blatant rip off” of the Stonewall poster. However, the sentiments behind my original question still stand.

        Is free speech only for Stonewall, or can a Christian group highlight the fact that God can, and does, change people?

        Regards

        Bob

        1. No, Bob. “God” does not turn “change people”. They would be advertising a product that does not work in the hopes of making some easy cash by exploiting vulnerable people. It would be like me renting an advert on a bus that says “I can cure you of dyslexia with my magic jesus juice” – false, fraudulent, wrong.

          1. Bob Hutton 17 Oct 2013, 9:55am

            God DOES change people. I know of a man who was once involved in homosexuality but God changed him. He now reaches out to the gay community where he lives spreading the truth of Jesus’ love and power to give them a new nature.

  19. Chuck Anziulewicz 16 Oct 2013, 2:59pm

    I’m Gay, and I say newspapers should definitely print homophobic letters, even the most extreme and vitriolic. It lets people know how much religiously-driven hate and illogic is out there. The writers may think they’re helping their cause, but in reality they’re just shooting themselves in the foot.

  20. Colin (London) 16 Oct 2013, 3:31pm

    More religious cra-.

    Get religion off this planet. It truly is a global disease. We must talk about religion as a mental disease.

  21. Geographer 16 Oct 2013, 7:06pm

    Of course the letter should have been published but the headline, written by a Whitstable Times sub, is unfortunate, as we don’t know if it’s serious or tongue-in-cheek. My instinct is that it’s the latter. The WT did after all publish this now-infamous story about the town’s custard shortage!
    http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/47913

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all