This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Anglican newspaper defends 'Gaystapo' article

Anglican newspaper defends 'Gaystapo' article - Comments

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 1 by aquilacane

What a fucking idiot. Flood the letter box time.

He wants, so bad, to hate.

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:16:35 UTC | #890333

justinesaracen's Avatar Comment 2 by justinesaracen

Comparisons with Nazis mean your argument is crap.

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:18:23 UTC | #890334

jameshogg's Avatar Comment 3 by jameshogg

This is what happens when you have faith. You'll believe in anything as long as it's not reality.

I don't see any virtue or pride in being wrong by definition. Not when it risks you comparing gay people to Nazis and insisting it's a valid opinion.

I would try to come up with some witty or ironic comment in order to point out the level of stupidity here, but I can't because there's just so much of it that it speaks for itself.

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:23:47 UTC | #890341

El Bastardo's Avatar Comment 4 by El Bastardo

Godwin, anyone?

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:26:15 UTC | #890343

Inquisitor Mence's Avatar Comment 5 by Inquisitor Mence

I have a tea-cosy on my head. Your argument is invalid.

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:40:17 UTC | #890354

bewlay_brother's Avatar Comment 6 by bewlay_brother

words fail me....

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:47:05 UTC | #890358

danconquer's Avatar Comment 7 by danconquer

The pink jackboot?! Hahahaha!

We've seen this piss-poor argument a hundred times before haven't we? It essentially amounts to "If you try and stop us from oppressing you, then it is actually YOU who is oppressing us! Boo-hoo, waaaahhh, snivel, please wont someone protect our God-given right to discriminate and bully!"

The worst sin that the article commits however is the sheer naked historical inaccuracy. In it he says "Having forcibly – and understandably – rectified the Versailles-type injustices and humiliations foisted on the homosexual community", thereby strongly implying that the church(es) supported the early improvements to the conditions of homosexuals. This is a lie. The churches overwhelmingly opposed EVERY single legal change from the Sexual Offences Act 1967 onwards. They have never apologised for this, nor publicly announced a change of heart on those matters and in many other countries they continue to support imprisonment and execution. So who are the real 'Nazis'?

The church supported the imprisonment of gays, and he is rewriting this inconvenient fact because they have so thoroughly lost that particular argument, even amongst his own flock, that he lacks the spine even to stand consistently by the hateful rubbish he spews.

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:56:39 UTC | #890364

Red Dog's Avatar Comment 8 by Red Dog

Having forcibly – and understandably – rectified the Versailles-type injustices and humiliations foisted on the homosexual community,... gay Wehrmacht is on its long march through the institutions and has already occupied the Sudetenland social uplands of the Home Office

I'll say one thing for our cousins across the pond, your homophobes are much more literate than ours. Those historical allusions would go right over the head of 99% of the US homophobes who tend to speak at the cave men level: "God no like f*gs! Ugh!" and who think Nazis and Communists are the same thing because they were both socialists (that last part is true not hyperbole, there are literally people on the far right in the US such as Glen Beck who've said such absurd things).

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:59:51 UTC | #890367

Corylus's Avatar Comment 9 by Corylus

The weekly paper, which was founded in 1828 and has a circulation of around 8,000, takes pride in its reputation of being a "bastion of conservative evangelicalism".

It never ceases to amaze me how self-styled 'conservatives' (small c) are often deeply ignorant of history.

Homosexuals and the holocaust.

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:04:20 UTC | #890369

danconquer's Avatar Comment 10 by danconquer

Comment Removed by Author

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:05:31 UTC | #890370

Virgin Mary's Avatar Comment 11 by Virgin Mary

Just another excuse to jump on a religion, ey? Never mind that the guy does actually have a point!

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:08:56 UTC | #890372

prettygoodformonkeys's Avatar Comment 12 by prettygoodformonkeys

If this site had a 'like' button, I would click it for comment #7. One thing mystifies me though: if this can be stated so clearly and concisely, why is no one using it in the actual situation(s)? It seems to me it should end it fairly quickly.

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:09:10 UTC | #890373

danconquer's Avatar Comment 13 by danconquer

As for this newspaper, they know they can safely print this bilge because nobody is going to come and firebomb their offices, or kidnap their editor and behead him on the internet, even though the offense in this case is very real, and very warranted.

Thus neatly disproving the claims printed.

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:11:42 UTC | #890375

Corylus's Avatar Comment 14 by Corylus

Comment 11 by tmaxwell83 :

Never mind that the guy does actually have a point!

Why not explain exactly what said 'point' is.

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:12:14 UTC | #890376

danconquer's Avatar Comment 15 by danconquer

Comment 11 by tmaxwell83 :

Just another excuse to jump on a religion, ey? Never mind that the guy does actually have a point!

Why don't you actually tell everyone here very clearly about precisely what parallels you have observed between the campaign for equal treatment of gays and lesbians, and the genocidal National Socialist movement.

By not doing so in that comment, you just look like a troll.

[edit: corylus beat me to the same point!]

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:16:19 UTC | #890380

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 16 by Tyler Durden

"Following a plethora of equalities legislation, homosexuals are now protected and privileged by sexual orientation regulations and have achieved legal equality by way of civil partnerships."

Boo. Hiss. Down with this sorta thing.

Whatever next, the vote for women?

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:23:28 UTC | #890382

Rosbif's Avatar Comment 17 by Rosbif

Ah, the Nazi argument; used to give the impression of something bad. But surely the overriding general impression of Nazis is that they considered themselves special, superior to others, dictated a way of life for those good enough to be part of them, demanded total commitement to the mother cause and opressed groups that they didn't consider acceptable, often making the distinction by physical attributes.

Doesn't this sound more akin to the christian behaviour than people wanting equal rights?

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:24:05 UTC | #890383

irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 18 by irate_atheist

Mein Fuhrer! I can walk!!!

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:28:15 UTC | #890384

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 19 by SaganTheCat

I'm not gay but I'd quite like a pair of pink jackboots. did he say where you can get them? or if they're comfortable?

I saw this blog last week and it set me thinking about "religious freedom". I'm not sure what terms are used in UK law but I'd like it removed if it is there.

I agree with freedom of belief 100% but it's been cynically hijacked by these snivling pond life. in truth being a christian has nothing to do with ones own beliefs and everything to do with everyone elses. Freedom to be a filthy christian means nothing about freedom to gather in a church or say your prayers, anyone can do that regardless of beliefs, but it's about being free to publicly condem other people. this is making them worse as the world moves forward in understanding and enlightenment. in order to have any kind of identity they feel the need to travel culturally backward in time and act as though it's a thing to be proud of.

I live in the same country as these homophobes. I experience the same political and social norms yet I have yet to be interregated by the gaystapo so not sure what it entails but I'm sure as a christian he can forgive them for all the trauma they've put him through. and I'm sure he'll understand that as non-christians we are under no obligation to forgive him for speaking out against equality

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:31:51 UTC | #890388

Steven Mading's Avatar Comment 20 by Steven Mading

"Thanks especially to the green light from a permissive New Labour government [...]"

Uhhhhh - who's controlling the government again? Did something happen that I didn't notice and you guys over in the UK had a new election a month ago? What on earth is he talking about?

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:49:14 UTC | #890394

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 21 by SaganTheCat

besides, can they not be content with the fact gays will burn for eternity in hell?

isn't that enough for anybody? no mater how much they hate another human being?

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:02:42 UTC | #890400

J Atkins's Avatar Comment 22 by J Atkins

I assume Alan Craig when writing his criticisms albeit not online had not heard of Godwin's law which I believe in someways is applicable here even though it's in a newspaper not an internet discussion.

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:14:18 UTC | #890403

Virgin Mary's Avatar Comment 23 by Virgin Mary

Comment 15 by danconquer :

Comment 11 by tmaxwell83 :

Just another excuse to jump on a religion, ey? Never mind that the guy does actually have a point!

Why don't you actually tell everyone here very clearly about precisely what parallels you have observed between the campaign for equal treatment of gays and lesbians, and the genocidal National Socialist movement. By not doing so in that comment, you just look like a troll.

[edit: corylus beat me to the same point!]

He doesn't mean that at all though does he! Gaystapo is quite obviously nothing more than a play on words. All he means is that they march around stamping their feet and demanding that their rights be imposed on everybody else. I believe in equality and freedom above all else, but the gaystapo don't want equal rights they want want Islam has which is complete immunity from criticism of any kind, and to prevent anyone from making any negative remarks what so ever or else they'll stick their pink boots up your arse.

A quick for instance would be saying that you don't agree with gay couples adopting kids. You simply cannot say that without being labelled a homophobe. I personally don't agree with it because I believe that maternal and paternal influences are of equal importance, yet I would be labelled a homophobe for saying so despite not being one and there being nothing homophobic about the statement.

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:17:14 UTC | #890404

Virgin Mary's Avatar Comment 24 by Virgin Mary

Comment Removed by Author

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:20:17 UTC | #890405

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 25 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:21:50 UTC | #890407

canadian_right's Avatar Comment 26 by canadian_right

Hey, tmaxwell83, and what point was it in that article that you support? Do you think that people should be able to discriminate, in public, against gays due to their religious beliefs? Are you saying that people who run a bed and breakfast that is open to the public should be legally allowed to turn away gay people? Should pharmacists be allowed to not dispense birth control if it offends their religion?

If you want to allow this bigotry where would you draw the line? Which religions get this dispensation to discriminate in a manner contrary to the law? Once you allow this bigotry what is to stop other forms of bigotry from being allowed due to religious belief?

I do not see any rational reason to allow religious belief to trump the law of the land. We have secular law and government because people found it the only way to improve society, increase justice,and allow equality for all.

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:22:54 UTC | #890408

Moderator's Avatar Comment 27 by Moderator

Moderators' message

We would ask users not to use the term 'gaystapo' in their own comments on this site, please. Quoting it in connection with the OP is one thing; adopting it is quite another.

Thank you.

The Mods

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:24:23 UTC | #890411

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 28 by Tyler Durden

Comment 23 by tmaxwell83 :

All he means is that they march around stamping their feet and demanding that their rights be imposed on everybody else.

How does one impose gay rights onto others? Please elaborate.

A quick for instance would be saying that you don't agree with gay couples adopting kids. You simply cannot say that without being labelled a homophobe. I personally don't agree with it because I believe that maternal and paternal influences are of equal importance yet I would be labelled a homophobe for saying so despite not being one.

This is not what you claim above. A difference of opinoin is clearly not one group imposing their rights onto others. On the other hand, the church and marriage, adoption, divorce, hotels, condoms...

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:25:05 UTC | #890413

sunbeamforjeebus's Avatar Comment 29 by sunbeamforjeebus

Duh, another fuckwit spews bilge because the world is turning against the anti-homosexual stance of the sinister men in funny clothes.Tough shit, get used to it.And if you're sitting around without a choir boy to play with you might like to do a little research into the Nazi's attitiude to gays.

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:31:26 UTC | #890415

Virgin Mary's Avatar Comment 30 by Virgin Mary

Comment 26 by canadian_right :

Hey, tmaxwell83, and what point was it in that article that you support? Do you think that people should be able to discriminate, in public, against gays due to their religious beliefs? Are you saying that people who run a bed and breakfast that is open to the public should be legally allowed to turn away gay people? Should pharmacists be allowed to not dispense birth control if it offends their religion?

If you want to allow this bigotry where would you draw the line? Which religions get this dispensation to discriminate in a manner contrary to the law? Once you allow this bigotry what is to stop other forms of bigotry from being allowed due to religious belief?

I do not see any rational reason to allow religious belief to trump the law of the land. We have secular law and government because people found it the only way to improve society, increase justice,and allow equality for all.

At what point in anything I've said have I condoned any of the above? Quote me.

At what point did I say that I would allow bigotry? Quote me.

At what point did I say that any religion has special dispensation to discriminate? Quote me.

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:33:25 UTC | #890417