Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Peter Tatchell: I am considering outing bishops who discipline married gay clergy

  • Pablo

    I support him, these closet cases have got some nerve.

  • http://kevinmaxwell.co.uk/ Kevin Maxwell

    It’s not for Peter Tatchell or “any” other gay person to out another PinkNews – We Reap What We Sow #DoubleStandards

    • Chris in LA

      Under normal circumstances I would agree with you. I do an LGBT radio show and one of our rules is that we NEVER out anyone. However, exceptions must be made when we are talking about gay people who have the nerve to hide in the closet and attack other gay people from there, because their positions give them the power to do so. They are always morally wrong. When they are priests, they are doubly wrong.

    • Mark Y

      People don’t reap what they sow – that’s such a stupid pop song idea – which was lifted from another stupid piece of christian text. If it were true, everyone who does bad things would have bad things done to them, and those who do good would have good things done to them – but in the real world, that’s not how it is.

      The real double standards are gay bishops, priests, vicars, and christians who pray and believe in a homophobic god one minute and then cry about homophobia the next.

    • E.

      I do agree with the principle of what you’re saying. While I hate hypocrisy I can’t help but wonder if there are better ways to go about this.

      • MarkN

        Why don’t you name then then?…

    • Geoff McLarney

      Nope, sorry, you relinquish your right to the closet as soon as you use it as a trench from which to throw stones. The “Frank rule” is a widely accepted standard.

    • Joe McDougall

      Ordinarily I’d agree – but I start to change my mind when said closeted people are actively and aggressively working to discriminate against LGBT people… their actions cause pain and sometimes suicide. These people must be exposed.

    • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

      And what has a gay bishop who goes around sabotaging other people’s lives for being gay sown?

    • Jesus_Mohammed

      Utter nonsense, Kevin Maxwell. You expose lies and hypocrisy when you see it, when you find it. You don’t let it continue. You don’t FOSTER lies and hypocrisy. You expose it. Just like you expose paedophiles, thieves, drug barons, and so forth.

  • jamesh

    Good on him. He should definitely out these appalling hypocrites who hurt their fellow gays!

    • Rumbelow

      Totally!

    • john

      If the Bishop who has “disciplined” the vicar who has done a same sex marriage is himself gay then please PT out him now, you really don’t need to consider it any further!
      And please do us all a favour and out the rest of the horrid hypocrites.

      • Alexander Kelso Shiels

        Support you 100%

    • Peter Moseley

      If we approve of Peter outing these clerics, then we cannot condemn the outing of gays in the Uganda, as the newspaper Red Pepper did.

      • Ben King

        That’s hardly a fair comparison.

        The Ugandans outed by Red Pepper did nothing to deserve the exposure and ridicule they received.

        These Bishops have spoken out against their own kind… either during the process that led towards Same-Sex Marriage, or in discussions before and after the bill became law.

        Closeted gay bishops who’ve criticised and attacked other gay people who are happy and open about their sexuality deserve to be exposed as the hypocrites they are.

      • Carl

        Outed bishops will not be imprisoned or killed by a mob.

      • rob

        dont be daft dude – go back and read tatchell’s reasoning

  • Matt

    Acceptance and equality shouldn’t be optained via blackmail, it should be freely given, otherwise we risk the str8’s resenting us and that could comeback and bite us on the bum one day

    Tatchells approach will just make us even more enemies

    • Leonard Woodrow

      Anybody with an iota of common sense can see that such hypocrisy on the part of church “dignitaries” needs airing. Good luck to Peter Tatchell.

    • Rehan

      I think you might be underestimating non-gay people – many if not most of them are surely capable of finding hypocrites loathsome.

    • Russ T

      I disagree Matt. The average man in the street would understand that a gay man being sacked by, it turns out, a closeted gay bishop for the “crime” of getting married is totally ludicrous and completely unacceptable.

      Opinion polls *repeatedly* found a majority of the general public in favour of equal marriage during the long winded public consultation prior to the law change. You only have to look at the massive swing in favour of equal marriage in the House of Lords (the average age of Peers in the HoL is 70!!) to see that the vast majority of people in the UK have no problem with gays getting married.

      The religious loons will, of course, be up in arms about it – C’est la vie!

      • Robert W. Pierce

        Indeed, support in the Lords was higher than in the Commons evidently. To think it was acclaimed in 3rd and final reading speaks volumes. No vote was necessary.

    • MarkN

      Isn’t the whole of Christianity – and pretty much any other religion – based on blackmail: do what we say or you’ll go the hell?…

      • JohnMyroro

        Technically, it’s extortion, not blackmail. Religion extorts obedience by threatening violence and pain.

    • Rumbelow

      Nonsense, only other hypocrites will object and they are the very same people who are already our enemies.

    • Edgar Carpenter

      Who cares what bigoted straights might think? If we had pander to bigoted straight people for the last 40 years we would all still be felons living precariously on the edges of society.

    • Steven Gregory

      Appeasing “the str8s” is rarely on my mind, but since you’ve brought it up, that course of action in any circumstance should be roundly rejected.

      Since when do we need approval from “the str8s?” Those who are our allys most likely support gay clergy as well.

  • fagburn

    Do you regret the Unionist MP, Sir James Kilfedder, dying of a heart attack after you threatend to out him, Peter?

    • MarkN

      Why should he? If someone dies of the results of hypocrisy, isn’t that like dying of the results of drinking too much alcohol or over-eating? In the case of any Unionist MP, – along with any religious fundamentalist lunatic – isn’t the world a better place the fewer they are?…

    • Rick

      Is that true?

      Now I have even more respect for Peter.

    • Cal

      Didn’t bother me.

    • Edgar Carpenter

      Oh, come now – are you claiming that Kilfedder had a sound, healthy heart and Tatchell somehow made it stop? Are you accusing Tatchell of witchcraft?

  • Russ T

    DO IT Peter.

    To be sacked because you married the person you love is absolutely horrendous and is the sort of thing you would expect to find in some backward african tinpot dictatorship not here in the UK in 2014.

    But to be sacked by a closeted gay bishop has to be the height of hypocrisy. These rabidly homophobic closets deserve to be named and shamed.

  • Brian-E

    Very tricky. Every respect for Peter Tatchell for considering this course of action and not yet reaching a clear conclusion.

    It must depend on the exact motivations of these bishops for denying their colleagues the right to marry, and also on the reasons why the bishops are in the closet themselves.

    • Steven Gregory

      By voicing his thoughts, he very well may be shutting down hypocrites without actually having to do a thing. People who hide and conceal are primarily concerned with being exposed.

  • Robert W. Pierce

    Though I’m against outing in general, I do think Peter is right about this. We have to remember that the Church of England which has been instrumental in fomenting homophobia since it’s inception at home and abroad has NEVER officially apologised to LGBTI people. It’s all very well for Welby and others to concede that there has been much wrong been done by the church, to date, no apology has been forthcoming and I suspect it has much to do with appeasing the African branch. That said, if there are gay bishops who’ve consistently voted against equality, then they deserve nothing less than outing. I’m sick and tired of their hypocrisy.

  • Daniel

    Ah the self-proclaimed prophet of the LGBT community Tatchell now resorts to one of the most revolting fear techniques used against homosexuals – the threat of exposing a private life.
    I have no love for the way the church is handling equality issues – and believe strongly that an end must be brought to their ability to side-step all equality laws and behave in such a deplorable manner.
    That being said, it in no way justifies such a hateful and repulsive response as to start “outing” people’s private lives. Equality brought by fear, blackmail and hatred is not equality.

    • Cal

      Twisted view. Homophobic, hypocritical bishops get no sympathy form me. I would not enable them to continue their persecutions. I feel differently about those in other walks of life but church and politics deserve no protection.

    • Edgar Carpenter

      It is much more hateful and repulsive for a gay man to actively force other gay men into second-class citizenship. Outing these men is about revealing hypocrisy, which is always splendid.

      • David H

        PT is approaching this entirely from the wrong direction and is turning himself into a bully along the way. The Church of England (wrongly in my opinion) has been exempted from the same anti discrimination laws which affect every other employer in this country. Until mere days ago there was a glass ceiling on woman and they prohibit gay employees from marrying. Effectively, any gay man or woman working for the Church of England is faced with adhering to draconian rules imposed by their employer or taking another job.

        PT would be better placed by opposing the exemptions which allow the CoE to treat its employees as it does rather than subject those people already being oppressed by illegal employment rules to further bullying.

        • MarkN

          There’s quite a difference between being a closeted bishop who doesn’t act against LGBT interests and one who does. PT is only proposing to the hypocrites, who by definition here have freely chosen to go much further than hiding their own identity.

          • David H

            I understand what he is proposing; I don’t agree with what he says as he’s simply failing to address the bigger picture.

            Personally, I would have to question the personal integrity of anyone who worked for an openly homophobic employer, but especially anyone who is gay.

            That aside, let’s just assume that the gay vicars and bishops who work for the CoE are simply very dedicated to their profession. In which case they are tied to the employment rules placed by their employer. Of course, they can choose to disobey – such as a gay vicar who weds his/her same sex partner; but they do so knowing that they are potentially in breach of contract. Or you can be faced with the alternative of undertaking the role you have been paid to do, knowing that you don’t necessarily like/agree with what you have to do (the gay bishops). To my mind, the bishops enforcing the church’s employment rules are no more hypocritical than ANY gay person who chooses to work for the Church in its current form.

            PT is just taking the “easy” option by taking the side of one bunch of hypocrites over another. If he intends to do anything good and lasting he needs to, as I said in my previous post, tackle the exemption that the churches have from strict adherence to UK Employment Law and then no-one can persecute anyone else, nor be guilty of being more hypocritical than another.

          • MarkN

            PT has spent his whole life ‘addressing the bigger picture’, and to accuse someone who, over decades, has been repeatedly reviled, ridiculed, abused and physically beaten up in the pursuit of LGBT equality as taking an “easy option” is as deeply offensive as it is absurd (not that we should knock easy options if they are available). If you are saying that it is better to let principled, professionally competent and honest gay church employees who choose to disobey a despicable, unjust and outrageous rule be sacked, so that a dishonest, hypocritical gay employee can keep their job, then I find that unsustainable. By exposing these hypocrites I believe the absurdity and injustice of the religious exemptions will become increasingly obvious, further bringing the Church into disrepute and hasten its downfall, or a least its evolution into something more consistent, humane and appropriate for our society.

          • David H

            I don’t understand how my comment is either offensive or absurd. Over the years PT has done some great work and there are times when he hasn’t necessarily exercised the best judgement – in short, like 99.99999% of the rest us.

            Likewise, only minutes ago I found myself agreeing with you on another thread, just as I disagree with you here. Respectfully, you are twisting what I have said. At no point have I stood by the church and it’s hypocrisy. I questioned the wisdom, and indeed ethics, of any gay person who chooses to be an employee of the church because of its homophobic practices – but my whole point, as I believe was pretty clear, is that it’s the WHOLE homophobic culture of the church that needs to be tackled – as the church at present is legally allowed to be homophobic. That is the issue here, not individuals within that organisation who all operate at varying levels of hypocrisy by being a part of it.

          • MarkN

            We obviously agree on the need to address the whole homophobic culture of the church, but I believe that ‘outing’ gay clergy who collude with and apply homophobic legislation is a pretty good way to further this goal, whereas you clearly do not. But by defending a right to privacy in this case you run the risk of colluding with the retrograde notion that there’s something wrong with being gay and something wrong with people knowing about it. If any bishops are outed, being known to be gay will be the lesser problem: it is their apparent hypocrisy that will be focused on, though even this can be defended against after a fashion if they sincerely disagree with equal marriage as some gay people do……’Gay bishop sacks gay priest for marrying another man’ should be a headline that the church has anticipated from the time they embarked on this wholly lost cause….

          • David H

            Outing has always been a contentious issue and not one I’m comfortable with – although that’s more because of personal experience.

            Being honest and specific to this situation, I’m kind of 50% drawn by respecting an individual’s privacy and the other 50% of me disagrees with taking sides in that, in my opinion, the gay vicars are actually no better than the gay bishops because they all chose to work for church knowing its homophobic stance. No-one forced any of them into that career. They knew that they would have to publicly represent its homophobia etc; which is why I’m unconvinced that defending one set of hypocrites against another is the right thing to do.

            Hopefully, PT’s “threat” will force further progress in the church as a whole and the ends will justify the means; but I’m really not comfortable with it.

  • Jase

    Considering?????? When did your teeth fall out?

  • MarkN

    Name them. Shame them. Show them the same mercy that Christianity has given us during the past 2,000 years….

    • edgar carpenter

      Amen MarkN!

  • doug

    Alternatively, just issue the list of straight ones and let everyone ‘join up the dots’ as Catholic Truth Scotland does in their bi-monthly newsletters when outing priests.

    • Steven Gregory

      I like the way you think. If there is no evidence someone is straight, let them bear the weight of suspicion. It’s sinister and doesn’t directly drive anyone out of the closet.

  • Gerry

    If anyone has a problem with this, just remember Cardinal Keith O’Brien.

    If you had known that he was gay when he was whipping up homophobia so virulently, would you have wanted to keep that fact a secret?

  • Ra

    By: Geoff McLarney
    “Nope, sorry, you relinquish your right to the closet as soon as you use it as a trench from which to throw stones. The “Frank rule” is a widely accepted standard.” see moreBest comment ever regarding closeted people who use it to harm others in the same family. Kick ass.

  • john

    When Cardinal O’Brien was outed by the papers it turned the same sex marriage debate in our favour and really put the Catholic church on the back foot. Outing does do a lot of good when it comes to hyprocites like those in the CofE. Please, please Peter out these bishops and I suspect we all know which bishop in particular will be the first one you want to out .

  • Psychologist

    I don’t normally agree with “outing” people. However, in this case, exposing hypocrisy, as well as massive “internalised homophobia” justifies it, in these cases !
    Go for it Mr Tatchell !!!!!

  • Benji

    We need to be realistic about this. These Cof E Bishops are not in the closet in any real sense. Everyone in the Church knows they’re gay & obviously lots of other gay people know they are gay; all their friends & relations know they are gay; the press know they are gay.
    There is just a tacit understanding that officially they aren’t gay & as long as they don’t allow it to become “a problem” everyone goes along with the hypocrisy and two-facedness. That’s just life in the Church of England
    So do us all a favour and thrust a little bit of honesty upon the Church

  • Ray

    I’m ‘outing’ Tatchell, here goes :

    ‘The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.

    ‘While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.’

    Peter Tatchell (wrote this , just incase you thought Jimmy Saville had )

    Tatchell contributes chapter on reducing age of sexual consent to 1980′s paedophilia book about (inter alia) ‘Incest’, ‘Child Pornography and Erotica’, ‘Child Prostitution’ and ‘How to Make Paedophilia Acceptable’, edited by paedophilia advocate and former vice-chair of Paedophile Information Exchange, Warren Middleton:

    “(I)n the realm of sexual ages of consent, we need to ask whether the law has any legitimate role to play in criminalising consenting, victimless sexual activity.” (The Betrayal of Youth, p 118)

    • TampaZeke

      Ray, sweetheart, please come out of the closet already so that you can let go of your anger and your hatred and your need to troll gay websites.

      • Peter Moseley

        Ray probably comes to gay websites so that he can laugh at the empty-headed stupidity of comments such as yours.

        • Mark Y

          Yeah right, because if Ray went to ‘straight websites’ he’d just read deep meaningful comments between insightful adults who have the most profound philosophical insights on time, space and life itself. You stupid fcking imbecile.

          • Peter Moseley

            Ray probably comes to gay websites so that he can laugh at the empty-headed stupidity of comments such as yours.

            Oh yes, and the unoriginal, gratuitous insults.

            Go and have another little organism, where I replied to your comment on “Anti-gay Ugandan singer due to perform in Birmingham and London.”

          • Dazzer

            ‘Go and have another little organism’?

            Peter, please tell me you’re straight and married…

    • Rumbelow

      “Adults should not have sex with children. I do not advocate paedophilia

      As a human rights campaigner, I would never advocate or condone child sex abuse.

      My critics have selectively quoted from what I’ve written and quoted me out of context, to give an entirely false and distorted impression. They ignore much of what I have written, including my proposals to protect young people against sex abuse and my ethical framework for all sexual relations: mutual consent, respect and fulfilment”. (Peter Tatchell)

      More here:
      http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age_of_consent/Under-age-sex-Statement-of-clarification-by-Peter-Tatchell.htm

      • Peter Moseley

        “My critics have selectively quoted from what I’ve written”

        A lot of Tatchell’s rhetoric is based on selective quotation.

        • Ray

          Rhetoric indeed ! – Adults having sex with children from the ages of nine to 13.Is it not time Tatchell handed over his secret dossiers to the Police about who these adults were & about his connection through the Gay Liberation Front with the homosexual group The Paedophile Information Exchange ? Or would that be considered ‘homophobic’ ?

          In 1996 Peter Tatchell wrote Ian Campbell Dunn’s obituary in The Independent, which described him as “a pioneer for lesbian and gay human rights, remaining a central figure in the battle for homosexual equality – in Scotland and internationally – for 30 years”.

          What Tatchell failed to mention is that in 1974, Ian Campbell Dunn co-founded the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a group that wanted the age of consent reduced to 4 years old and advocated sex with children.

          Strange how Tatchell has on numerous occasions campaigned to lower the age of consent ? This is the man given time on news coverage by the BBC (we know all about them), a CH4 hour long propaganda smear campaign against the Church & of course Pink News and the fascist Guardian regularly let him have a pedestal to sprout his sick ideology .Operation Fernbridge is under way ….- watch this space ….

      • Ray

        ‘Selectively quoted’ – indeed .He is entirely clear on the fact that he thinks (some) nine year old children can gain “great joy” from sex with adults.Tatchell’s letter was a written letter to the Guardian defending an academic book called ‘Boy Love’ – says it all !

        In 1996 Peter Tatchell wrote Ian Campbell Dunn’s obituary in The Independent, which described him as “a pioneer for lesbian and gay human rights, remaining a central figure in the battle for homosexual equality – in Scotland and internationally – for 30 years”.

        What Tatchell failed to mention is that in 1974, Ian Campbell Dunn co-founded the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a group that wanted the age of consent reduced to 4 years old and advocated sex with children.

      • Ray

        ‘They ignore much of what I have written, including my proposals to protect young people against sex abuse’ – like this ?:

        http://www.matthewhopkinsnews.com/SharedPublic/BetrayalOfYouthTatchell.pdf

        He’s among some people who hold the same views it seems from the chapter headings : Warren Middleton (aka John Parratt) , Tom O’Carroll etc Look them up on the internet .

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002181/Stephen-Freeman-convicted-making-drawings-children-raped.html

        Anyone defending Tatchell, a self-styled ‘human rights’ campaigner must believe that ‘sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13′ must be ok and that to believe this is wrong must be ‘homophobic’ .

        • MarkN

          Until last year the age of consent in the Vatican was 12, and it’s 13 in Spain now, so your indignation about the 9-13 age group rings a bit hollow; ………And I do not think the $3 billion payouts made by the Catholic Church to victims of clerical abuse is the result of ‘propaganda’ by CH4, the Guardian or Pink News or anyone else…..It’s because it’s full of child-abusing monsters and their protectors……Mentioning Jimmy Savile (a papal Knight, I seem to recall), is apposite, of course – because, along with Rolf Harris, he passed himself off as a protector and benefactor of children, and like the Catholic Church used his influence to ensure the silence of his victims and anyone who would call him out while he was alive; If PT was a paedophile – which you seem to be somewhat libellously implying – he would hardly be so forthright in his support of lowering the age of consent and thereby drawing attention to himself. And having spent most of his life attacking the establishment, I’m sure that if the police had anything to pin on him they would have done it by now….Given your own passion for attacking paedophiles, and child abusers (the two aren’t necessarily identical, of course) and the whole LGBT community by trying to equate the two, calls to mind your name-sake and fellow Catholic Cardinal Keith O’Brien who tried to hide his own homosexuality by attacking LGBT equality……We all know how that turned out….Incidentally, you do seem to have gathered large amounts of information about paedophiles and child abusers, Keith….Very noble of you to be so ‘protective’ of children….How much of it is ‘illustrated’?…..Hopefully Inspector Knacker will understand it’s all gathered in the name of ‘research’….

          • Ray

            The biggest silencer of child abuse today is so-called ‘homophobia’ – the political correct mantra forbids mentioning homosexuality and child abuse in the same sentence .Countless children adopted by homosexuals have been abused and the social workers have looked the other way – it would be ‘homophobic’ you see .Homosexual rings (eg Islington) in social work settings have flourished because fear of ‘homophobia’ have stopped people speaking out .

            The biggest paeodophile ring ever discovered in the UK was run by LGBT ‘community’ Youth worker Jamie Rennie chief executive of LGBT Youth Scotland (formerly Stonewall) , a campaigner against so-called ‘homophobia’ , advocate of homosexuals adopting/fostering children (Rennie raped a baby boy) and I’m sure if he was not in prison he’d be behind the distorted so-called ‘equal marriage’ pseudo marriage bandwagon.The media quickly buried this story .

            Most clerical abuse in statistics is well below the rate for the general male population.Most cases of abuse have been on young adolescent males – making it a homosexual problem not a paedophile problem .Anti-catholic polemic from the homosexual lobby have banded about the well known factoid about the age of consent in the Vatican – totally unfounded (if you repeat a lie often enough!) .

            Journalists are only just getting to the crux of the matter and the links between the homo-lobby and paedophile organisations has become clear. A ‘gay’ political elite is now being linked to child abuse in children’s homes – watch this space .

            Strange how you do not mention Tatchell and his fellow gay liberation activists Warren Middleton (aka John Parratt) & Tom O’Carroll ? You still seem to support the adult man who wrote :

            ‘The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.

            ‘While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.’

          • David H

            Ray. All verifiable data shows that between 95 and 98% of paedophiles identify as heterosexual (including the ones who abuse children of the same gender). Indeed a significant majority are parents themselves. Of course there are some LGBT people who are pedophiles, however, you are blatently ignoring the (almost daily) revelations that the most notorious of them all are heterosexual men.

            No-one in their right mind would try to link all heterosexual men as paedophiles, despite them being statistically the most likely offenders; so your attempting to pin the flag on the LGBT community is clear homophobia.

            No-one disputes that these disgusting individuals exist in all walks of life, but most people have the maturity and sense to recognise that paedophiles are paedophiles – they not some sub-section of any other sexual orientation. They are attracted to children – unlike the vast majority of gay people who are attracted to adults of the same gender, the vast majority of heterosexual people who are attracted to adults of the opposite gender and the vast majority of bisexual people who are attracted to adults of either gender.

            There is NO LINK AT ALL between being gay and being a paedophile any more than there is a link between parents and paedophiles.

            You are as morally bankrupt as people who condone their actions as you are attempting to tag and entire section of society with this evil.

          • Ray

            At the conference of the powerful Campaign for Homosexual Equality in 1975, a time when it claimed 5,000 members and 100 local groups, Keith Hose of PIE challenged members of the audience who had no “interest in children” to stand. One third remained seated (Sheffield Morning Telegraph, 26 August 1975). The conference refused to agree a lower age limit for membership. At the 1977 conference a Liberal peer said, from the Chair, that the conference expressed its support for objective and rational discussion on paedophilia and child sexuality in general. At the 1978 conference, two representatives of the National Council for Civil Liberties supported a motion proposed by a teacher calling on Gay News to give paedophilia more coverage. They did, and subsequently published “contact” advertisements. Two representatives of the Haringey Lesbian and Gay Unit defended PIE as “a sexual minority whose rights were under attack” (Homosexuality: Power and Politics, Alison & Busby, p116). Rights to what, one may ask.

            The first major survey of homosexuality in America, The Gay Report of 1979, remains one of the largest of such surveys and is widely regarded as a benchmark. It commented: “Since the decadent Roman wrote two millennia ago about the attraction of boy-man love, observers have noted the linkages between homosexuality and paedophilia”.

            In the 1980s, Operation Circus and Operation Babe, carried out by the Metropolitan Police, showed significant homosexual involvement in the abuse of 500 boys.

            To deny that there is an overlap between the homosexual and the paedophile and pederast cultures is false. The paedophile and pederast movements in Britain were launched from within the homosexual movements and fostered by them. It is considered politically incorrect and illiberal in Britain to question “gay opinion” and there is growing evidence from the Christian Institute and the St Thomas More Legal Centre of the Establishment’s intent to censor debate and deny freedom of speech on the issue. No one, least of all bishops, should allow themselves to be swept along by such an ideologically driven consensus rather than being guided by careful research.

          • Matthew

            Actually, The Gay Report has been heavily discredited and
            even its authors acknowledged that they “do not claim to have a scientific or representative sample of lesbians and gay men.” The report achieved a mere 1% return rate on the questionnaire (just over 4000 out of 400,000 issued) that formed the basis of their thesis, The report also classed “underage” sex as including people aged 16-19. In all honesty it exists as a “benchmark “only for homophobes.

            Paedophiles are paedophiles. They are not gay, straight or bisexual in any acceptable definition of those words; and to
            suggest otherwise simply misdirects people away from them (which I assume is their intent).

    • Robert W. Pierce

      Why do you troll gay sites? Wouldn’t your time be better spent ranting in the Daily Mail columns along with your fellow bigots and low information idiots? Christian Concern I’m sure could do with more people like you. You seem to exhibit an obsessive prurient interest in aberrant sexual behaviour that also includes many heterosexuals. Speaks more about you than the offenders.

  • http://twrl.github.com/ Tom Robbins

    Under normal circumstances I tend the the view that people are whatever they say they are, and it’s not for the rest of us to label them. However in this case it strikes me as the lesser of two evils. If a bishop is actively doing harm, and we can greatly diminish the capacity to do so by exposing them, then that’s what we should do.

  • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

    When people actively attack others and their freedoms and rights, their own right to privacy when proven to be hypocrites is no longer valid or justified.

    Out these cretins wherever they hide. They do not deserve the luxury of abusing others while hiding behind their own cloak of self-loathing.

  • Charles

    ‘I am considering…’

    Why the wishy washy language? Out them, if I was you.

    • Brut

      Why the wishy washy language? Because Pink News missed something out. The Bishops aren’t “disciplining” off their own bat. Canon Law says marriage is between one man and one woman. Civil Law prohibits C of E same sex marriage. Since clergy would be hypocritical if they same sex married at the same as proscribing this for their “flock”, they decided to ban clergy from civil SSM marriage. Tatchell is making it incumbent on gay clergy to defy these laws or be outed

      • MarkN

        I wonder where Christianity would be if its founder had been such a zealous defender of ‘canon law’?….

  • Robert W. Pierce

    I wonder who some of these bishops are? Does anyone know?

  • Alexander Kelso Shiels

    The more of these closeted queens in all walks of life are exposed the more it will become a “problem” no more.

  • Steven Gregory

    OUT EVERYONE, gay or not. Let them experience some of the bulllshiit they so eagerly inflict on others.

  • Silly Old Bastard

    Can we all pause and give some thought to the numerous homosexual men who were blackmailed before 1967 in the UK. Those who weren’t shocked into committing suicide immediately or soon after would have woken up to the daily depressing thought that someone somewhere was thinking about them and if the money was not forthcoming or late, the police would be knocking at the door. Only a despicable and morally bankrupt renegade would visit an updated version of that grief onto a fellow human being today.

    • Edgar Carpenter

      Oh, Please! The gay men who were blackmailed before ’67 WERE NOT blackmailed for taking active steps to destroy the lives of other gay men, they were being blackmailed just for being gay. Pay attention to the context of actions, context changes the meaning drastically. These bishops will be outed as hypocrites, and will not lose their jobs or their pensions.

      • Silly Old Bastard

        A gay offensive then, led by the odious Tatchell. I can
        imagine the headlines: “New Gay threat announced”

  • David Nguyen

    Oh come on. Yes in general outing anyone is wrong people need to out themselves in their own time. But surely if YOUR boss was Gay and fired YOU because YOU’RE Gay the first thing you would want to do is to say ‘but you are gay how can you do this’. Its absolute hypocrisy.
    Mind you, there is something to be said for a Bishop who is gay and says ‘look sorry I have to do this but this is the way of the church at the moment, I am working hard to have that changed, and when it is changed i will happily marry you myself’

  • mariaskay

    my gf’s dad just got an awesome 9 month old BMW X6 M SUV only from part time off a computer. look at here C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all