Voices

Views from elsewhere

John Sentamu and the acceptable face of bigotry

To deny that gay people do not have equal rights is to be on the side of evil, no matter how twinkly

By Mic Wright Published 18 May 2012 10:46

John Sentamu is nice. That’s his schtick. He’s one of those religious men that it’s okay for atheists to look at and say: “Oh, isn’t he cuddly with his archaic belief in an invisible man who tells us what to do.”

Read his article on marriage rights though and you’ll see the cuddly facade masks just another reactionary. It is clear from the very first sentence:

I will be the first to accept that homosexual people have suffered discrimination and sometimes worse through the decades and that the churches have, at times, been complicit in this.

Oh bully for you John Sentamu. Thanks very much for conceding that gay people have had a crap time throughout history and that, yes, sometimes, you know, not too much, the church has been an engine for vile bigotry and, oops, still is.

And boy does it get better. This mealy-mouthed cleric has more Thought For The Day wisdom bomb to drop: “…that baleful history does not diminish the need to speak the truth in love.” Truth? To mangle Tybalt: What, drawn and talk of truth? I hate the word as I hate hell, all patronising preachers and thee.

Here’s the kernel of jumping John’s argument:

I firmly believe that redefining marriage to embrace same-sex relationships would mean diminishing the meaning of marriage for most people with very little, if anything, gained for homosexual people. If I am right, in the long-term we would all be losers.

Oh yes. I know that giving gay people the right to express their love as straight couples do would boil my brain within my skull. How the hell can those bastards even dare to suggest that they might have equality in the law? Sweet little baby Jesus wearing a cute babygro emblazoned “Is this dude tripping?”. Sentamu pulls out all the classic anti-equality arguments and it is disgusting, whatever his sweet, folksy presentation.

He goes on:

Drawing parallels between the proposed same-sex marriage and inter-racial marriage ignores the fact that there is more than one paradigm of equality . . . should there be equality between the sexes because a woman can do anything a man can do or because a good society needs the different perspectives of women and men equally?

Dragging Mary Wollstonecraft onto his side, Sentamu says:

Unless one believes that every difference between the sexes is a mere social construct, the question of equality between the sexes cannot be completely addressed by the paradigm of racial equality. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not discriminatory against same-sex couples. What I am pressing for is a kind of social pluralism that does not degenerate into fancy-free individualism.

Fancy-free individualism. It takes some skill to pack so much offensiveness into three seemingly sweet words. Sentamu cheerleads marriage but goes on to say, so what if gay people don’t have the right to it as civil partnerships are really, really awesome and basically the same. It is a disingenuous argument. If civil partnerships are different but essentially equal to marriage why not call the union between man and man and woman and woman a marriage just as that of a man and woman?

Sentamu says:

The question for me is one of justice and not equality . . .it does not mean not treating everyone the same way but giving everyone what they need or deserve . . . equality follows justice and secures its consistent administration . . . if it was a question of justice, what injustice would result from not turning civil partners into married couples? I suggest: no injustice.

I suggest: bullshit. Colossal bullshit. Bullshit of biblical proportions, appropriately. Of course there is injustice, because in making gay people have civil partnerships (which straight people are not entitled to enter into), they are being placed in a different section of society. They do not have all the rights accorded to heterosexual people. They cannot sit at the same lunch counter, cannot choose the same bus seats as the straights. This is a fundamental question of equality. To deny that is to be on the side of evil, no matter how twinkly your smile is.

Here’s what Sentamu thinks marriage does: “Marriage is built around complementarity of the sexes and therefore the institution of marriage is a support for stable families and societies.” Run your eye over the divorce stats and tell me how that’s going. And for your supplementary homework, tell me why gay couples' love is not conducive for family and societal stability. If you can give me a good answer, I might even pretend your invisible opinion former exists.

Mic Wright is a freelance writer. This piece originally appeared on his blog. You can follow him on Twitter @brokenbottleboy

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Religion Gay Marriage

More from Mic Wright

View the discussion thread.

70 comments

Wed, 2012-10-17 13:25 — Fordy1968 (not verified)

I look forward to the day I can marry my hareem of beautiful women. To deny that polygamous people do not have equal rights is to be on the side of evil, no matter how twinkly.

Thu, 2012-07-19 23:42 — mzaryta (not verified)

anim3snipe
sadt3ars
animeonlye
nsf7
3solat
mnoms
magicians4all
animexyt
mexyt
delegnet

Thu, 2012-07-19 16:41 — BrandonHogan

Redefining marriage to now include homo couples is something completely different. Most people will go as far as Civil Unions w/full legal rights. I still want to know what we do with the plural marriage folks & the Single people who want full legal, corp health insurance & inheritance equality rights with married people. http://www.squidoo.com/best-baby-cribs-reviews

Thu, 2012-06-14 15:08 — Citric Acid (not verified)

Marriage is built around complementarity of the sexes and therefore the institution of marriage is a support for stable families and societies.
Ascorbic Acid http://www.protexinternational.com

Mon, 2012-06-04 22:12 — esif12

God has freely given us all things, and what makes that an even more awesome fact is that He has given us the ability to receive it, and walk in it, that's what grace is! Even the act of salvation comes by grace. My cross

Tue, 2012-06-05 14:14 — AndrewR (not verified)

White. Noise.

Tue, 2012-06-05 13:50 — AndrewR (not verified)

White. Noise.

Fri, 2012-06-01 22:18 — John Cheese (not verified)

Hetero marriage is available to all people, even those who choose to live homo. Redefining marriage to now include homo couples is something completely different. Most people will go as far as Civil Unions w/full legal rights. I still want to know what we do with the plural marriage folks & the Single people who want full legal, corp health insurance & inheritance equality rights with married people.

Sun, 2012-05-27 14:45 — Andrew_Holden

I think Sentamu is very wrong but I don't think he's a bigot. This article smacks of a terrible illiberal liberalism that would rather abuse and vilify those who disagree than present logical reasons why they are wrong. He clearly does not deny that gay people have equal rights because he, wrongly, thinks that it is reasonable to talk of complementary equal rights - so that marriage is (exclusively) for heteros and civil partnerships are (exclusively) for gays. In his view that is still equality as both have equally restricted options.

I'd suggest that its probably better to deal with people like Sentamu by the gracious assumption that he is genuinely nice and really does favour equality for gay people - and then presenting arguments why his solution doesn't really promote equality for all. That positive way forward will persuade more people than this sort of illiberal abuse.

Wed, 2012-05-30 13:02 — Andybbn (not verified)

Read the article again. The author presents very logical reasons why Sentamu is wrong. Sorry but Sentamu is a bigot.

Wed, 2012-10-17 01:16 — Stagg-Knight

I, just like Andrew Holden, found the article to be venomous, bigoted and abusive- as well as hypocritical. I don't know everything about Sentamu, certainly not enough to judge him (only God can do that), but the writer of this article merely manipulates language in a pretty crude way designed (presumably) to smear Sentamu and everything he stands for.
As a Christian, I will say that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible - the Word of God - says it is. And no, it does not say this in the context of funny old arcane dietary laws but in the context of incest (Leviticus 18) and the context of an overview of human history and how we have turned away from our Creator (Romans 1). I do not apologise for taking God's Word seriously.
However, if I were not a Christian, I could still with full credibility argue against the pretence of the Gay Lobby that there's no difference, it's fine to be gay or straight - though my observation of such same-sex couples as I have known or am friends with does not encourage me to the view that they are, er "gay" at all. Their relationships can never produce offspring - which is one of the purposes of marriage. Biologically speaking, it seems obvious that the two sexes are meant for each other. The idea that because so many heterosexual couples do not respect marriage enough, that this somehow means it's fine to respect it even less, is one of the more obviously contemptible and wrong arguments to be heard on any issue. I could go on but it is wearisome, and now 1.15 am and I tired. I don't think Sentamu is a bigot but I think the writer of the article is a bigot - and full of hate, moreover. It might very well do him good to find a church where the Gospel is preached and the love of Christ practised.

Sat, 2012-05-19 19:15 — Barry Ewart (not verified)

Sentamnu, Royal Groveller?
We can"t help wonder why?
This intellectual is so convinced:
"THERE"S A GUY IN THE SKY!"

Sat, 2012-05-19 13:55 — JD Curtis (not verified)

Perhaps Mic Wright (a/k/a the bigot who wrote this article) would like to explain just where the dividing line between bigoted and non-bigoted opposition to gay marriage lies?

Sun, 2012-05-20 00:40 — AndrewR (not verified)

What are you talking about, sir. I'm sorry, but are we reading the same article?

Sun, 2012-05-20 02:18 — JD Curtis (not verified)

I believe so. I would like to know where, in the writer's opinion, the dividing line is between bigoted and non-bigoted opposition to gay marriage lies.

Sun, 2012-05-20 09:06 — jankaas (not verified)

i would hazard a guess that like racism or sexism the line is very clear; any opposition is bigoted.

and i am not sure if there is any argument against same sex marriage that ultimately does not boil down to prejudice. to date i have not seen a single convincing argument. do you have one?

Sun, 2012-05-20 17:53 — JD Curtis (not verified)

Before I continue, I just want to make sure I understand your position here. "Any opposition is bigoted". Is that correct?

Sun, 2012-05-20 21:33 — jankaas (not verified)

sure, just for the sake of getting on with it, fine.

"Any opposition is bigoted"

yes, that is correct.

Mon, 2012-05-21 02:32 — JD Curtis (not verified)

So if gays themselves do not want gay 'marriage', their opposition is 'bigoted', right?

Mon, 2012-05-21 09:17 — AndrewR (not verified)

Wanting something is a preference. If an individual does not want to engage in a marriage then that is their choice. If an individual, of any sexual orientation, is opposed to gay marriage (and yes, that includes gay people as well) then yes, they are bigoted. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp.

Mon, 2012-05-21 14:45 — JD Curtis (not verified)

So how are gays that oppose gay marriage espousing bigoted views? From where are you obtaining your definition of bigotry and what specifically in their actions qualifies as bigotry?

Mon, 2012-05-21 17:02 — AndrewR (not verified)

I would proffer that bigotry is a position of prejudiced intolerance to a differing point of view whether it be political, religious, ethical etc. or group i.e. race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation etc.

I would suggest that I couldn't possibly qualify "their" actions as bigotry simply because you have only offered a hypothetical or abstract - "gays" rather than a specific instance or individual.

I would maintain though that offering opposition to gay marriage amounts to bigotry given that a rational argument has not been proffered to justify such a stance . One is not exempt from criticism simply because they happen to be gay themselves. I'm afraid debate just doesn't work like that. After all there is such a thing as self-hatred or sadomasochism. There is also such a thing as holding irreconcilable beliefs. Either one could result in bigotry.

E.g. A gay person could come to a position of being against gay marriage based on religious views. Not only does this have nothing to do with the fact that they are gay; it also does not mean they are not bigoted. This is pure conjecture though.

Do you have a specific example you would like to discuss to put the conversation in some sort of context?

Mon, 2012-05-21 16:46 — jankaas (not verified)

ok JD, this is becoming rather circular and silly. your example of a gay person not wanting to get married was put to bed - you failed to distinguish between 'not wanting' to do something themselves with being 'opposed' to something others would like to.

do you even have an example of your hypothetical gay persons (plural you reckon) who are anti same sex marriage? the reason i ask is because until i see their argument i can't conclude whether it is based on prejudice or evidence based reasoning. maybe there is no prejudice whatsoever, or, maybe there is...

and that is the claim put to you; what is the argument against same sex marriage that is not ultimately rooted in prejudice?

well...?

Mon, 2012-05-21 12:53 — jankaas (not verified)

what he said...;o)

Sun, 2012-05-20 10:38 — AndrewR (not verified)

What he said.

Fri, 2012-05-18 22:09 — LukeFL (not verified)

Well if Sentamu is a bigot then most of the CofE are even worse bigots. I disagree very strongly with him, but he does support civil partnerships and until very recently in America many in the Democratic party (including Obama) stopped short of the word marriage also - and nobody called them bigoted. I really think some of the personal animus against Sentamu is unjustified - although I recognise as AofYork he does have a pulpit and he is using it to deprieve gays and lesbians of something they should have access to. There's some hypocrisy - I wonder if we all gave Williams too much of a pass - just because he was an intellectual liberal - after twice refusing to promote Jeffrey John to the episcopate, depsite him being a CELIBATE gay man. I mean, how much more homophobic were those decisions!

Fri, 2012-05-18 18:50 — JC5000 (not verified)

Reg: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man —

Stan: Or woman.

Reg: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan? You're putting us off.

Stan: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.

Francis: Why are you always on about women, Stan?

Stan: I want to be one.

Reg, Francis: What?

Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me "Loretta".

Reg: Wha'?

Loretta: It's my right as a man.

Judith: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

Loretta: I want to have babies.

Reg: You want to have babies?!

Loretta: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

Reg: But... you can't have babies.

Loretta: Don't you oppress me!

Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Stan, you haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?

[Stan/Loretta starts to cry.]

Judith: Here! I-I've got an idea. Suppose that you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb — which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans' — but that he can have the right to have babies.

Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry.

Reg: Wh-what's the point?

Francis: Wha'?

Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?

Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression!

Reg: Symbolic of your struggle against reality, more like.

Fri, 2012-05-18 15:19 — Oolon Colluphid (not verified)

Sentanu accepts that it is rational to realise that about 10% of our nation is discriminated against and treated unfairly. My suggestion, like that of many even in his church, is to make changes in our policies that promote equality and make that 10% happier. Especially since those changes do no harm at all to the other 90%.

But Sentanu suggests that his bible tells us that his absolute morality should control our laws. and see that its solution to those 10% is discriminate against them.

In fact, Leviticus tells us to stone them to death. Why not, Archbishop?

I hope that the British people would prefer the absolute and objective determination that making people happy is good, while making them suffer is evil. Why? Because I value the human race, and not voices in hateful people’s heads.

So I conclude that John Sentanu is wicked. We understand that he wants the see of Canterbury. Appropriate; John, how full of Cantuar.

Wed, 2012-10-17 01:30 — Stagg-Knight

OOLON, where do you get your figure of 10% of the population being homosexual from? It has been shown that this figure is quite false - if you are in reality interested in facts. The figure is more like 1 or 2 %.
Moreover, to call evil good or good evil is itself evil - and that is the position you are, um, espousing. The Bible clearly and consistently tells us that homosexuality is a perversion of how we were created to be. Of course, we live in a fallen world, as we Christians say, a world in which man's instincts are all bent towards evil instead of good - as history and the contemporary world very clearly tells us. We need God's redeeming grace to 'buy' us out of slavery to sin, to self. Or we can campaign for Gay Marriage

Fri, 2012-05-18 18:56 — Keir

'In fact, Leviticus tells us to stone them to death.'

What does Leviticus have to do with you? Why can't you mind your own business?

But, for the sake of your education, otherwise pitiful, Leviticus told the Israelites to stone homosexuals. The reason is no business of yours, because you don't see anything wrong in homosexuality.

Do you.

Tue, 2012-05-22 12:12 — AndrewR (not verified)

I'll take a theology lesson, Sir. I'm fascinated. And given the amount of suffering I have personally witnessed as a result of these kind of biblical proclamations I'm afraid I cannot mind my own business. Why? Because the religious have never been able to mind theirs. Hense the article above.

Now I know that the book of Leviticus tells Israelites to stone homosexuals. And no, I do not see anything wrong with homosexuality. The question is, was this order given from god? If so, why would a loving being create so may indiviuals with a predisposition too homosexual behaviour and then condemn them for their nature? Doesn't strike me as loving. Doesn't strike me as necessary. Doesn't strike me as moral.

How does is strike you sir? Where do you stand on this issue? As i said, I'm fascinated.

Wed, 2012-10-17 01:43 — Stagg-Knight

ANDREWR, you claim to not understand how "...a loving being [could] create so may indiviuals with a predisposition too homosexual behaviour and then condemn them for their nature?" You claim, even to be "fascinated" that anyone could apparently think any differently from you.
Yet, even your question *begs* the question, since you assume that the Bible's God created many people "with a predisposition too homosexual behaviour", whereas He may not have done so at all - maybe this whole argument of people being "born gay" is more an argument of the Gay Lobby (which you have bought) than the "scientific" fact you apparently think it.
If you take the trouble to read the Book of Leviticus yourself - the main reference to homosexuality is in chapter 18 as I remember - and think about it, you may advance your own understanding just a little.
Perhaps the fact that - as you claim - you "do not see anything wrong with homosexuality" is itself a symptom of your own fallen state unable to recognise evil. Had that thought occurred to you? Maybe that's part of the disease we call fallenness, clearly and succinctly depicted in Romans chapter 1 (which also gives homosexuality as its prime example of man's (and woman's) fall, or in other words rebellions against our loving Creator. Maybe it is because you yourself hae rebelled against this Creator that you now "do not see anything wrong with homosexuality" - I mean, had you even thought of that? Do you not think you ought to consider it?
But now it is 1.45 am and I need to get a fair night's sleep. May God draw you to Him. In Jesus' Name

Fri, 2012-05-18 15:01 — peterr (not verified)

"To deny that gay people do not have equal rights is to be on the side of evil..."

This sub-headline is actually precisely the opposite to what the writer was trying to say. Is it any wonder that people vote for politicians who will actually work against their interests, when they are so poorly educated that they 'understand' a simple phrase with a mild double-negative to mean something entirely different from what it says---and that a mildly-intellectually-pretentious newspaper lets something like that get through.

Fri, 2012-05-18 13:41 — OH (not verified)

The one thing I don't understand about the whole gay marriage issue is why anybody, straight or gay would want to get a church-sanctified mariage? I find it disturbing that so many gay couples want nothing more than to be accepted by the bigot christian church? If we can't all be atheists and opt for a civil partnership, than can't we - including all gays - at least opt for a religion that doesn't per definition hate you? Just leave the whole marriage-thing already - getting to be a part of the church is no liberatiob for anyone, gay or straight!

Wed, 2012-10-17 01:51 — Stagg-Knight

Just one, small but hugely important point: I have never met people so loving and accepting towards gays as I have in Bible-believing churches. I say this in case anyone believes the untruth promulgated here that Christians "hate" gays. No, we love them - unlike the non-Christian world who are mostly indifferent towards them. We hate sin - as God does - but we love sinners, as Jesus taught us and showed us. We believe in truth, not lies.

Fri, 2012-05-18 14:10 — Keir

It's amazing, on the face of it , that homosexuals want anything to do with any organisation that excludes homosexuality. But things are not so simple.

There are two reasons for the case for homosexuals being part of the Christian church, though with just one cause. That cause is that Christianity is seen as the one true religion.

So homosexuals who do not wish to carry around a guilt complex attempt to argue that homosexuality is accepted in the Bible; though the plain mendacity that involves excludes them as Christians! But there are others, who may not be homosexuals at all, who want homosexuals to be accepted, because, if they were to be accepted, the whole basis of the church, the authority of the Bible, would be swept away. So homosexuals are used as a weapon to try to eradicate Christianity.

Fri, 2012-05-18 16:17 — jankaas (not verified)

what is amazing Keir is your inability to accept times have changed, for the better too i would argue. i am a married heterosexual but didn't do so in a church. no need for me and my wife to engage in the charade that is Christianity in order to be legally wed. and my marriage in not under threat either by heterosexual marriages ending in divorce at a rate of 1 in 3 (this statistic holds true for Christians also), or by the prospect of same sex marriage.

and your hysteria knows no bounds it seems, you argue that same sex marriage could end Christianity?! but then you also argue that the Bible has "authority" which is yet more wishful thinking. in essence you come across as a man who, if married, is uncertain about his relationship with his wife, and as a Christian who has barely sufficient faith to cope with the modern world. i have a hunch the message of Jesus has completely passed you by.

Fri, 2012-05-18 14:25 — Mark Gristock (not verified)

No sir. You are hugely mistaken.

God loves all his children. But not, according to you, the gay ones. This belief is based on following selective Bible quotations.

The Bible can also be used to support slavery. Do you believe that slavery is acceptable?

The Bible can also be used to support the stoning of women. Do you believe that this is acceptable?

It also suggests that women can be sold. Is this acceptable?

You can also burn people for wearing garments of two different threads.

Or can you accept that while the book of Leviticus may contain the best teachings of 2000 years ago, we might have made some progress since then?

This is about all people being seen as equal, and that who people fall in love with is not a personal choice.

Surely the basic tenant of Christianity is love. You, for someone who wants to protect Christianity from a non-existent threat, appear to be astonishingly hate-filled.

Fri, 2012-05-18 16:54 — Keir

God loves homosexuals. God detests the hi-jacking of the English language. If he's anything like me.

The Bible can be used to defend slavery if the alternative is death. The taking of slaves is condemned by the Bible, but this was ignored during the Slave Trade. The Bible does not support the idea that anyone can be permanently owned or sold. It does not support insurrection of slaves, but slaves are encouraged to gain freedom where legally possible.

The Bible used to support capital punishment within Israel at a time when every other nation did so, which was the case until the 20th century, afaik. It makes no comment about secular civil and criminal law whatever, in any period.

'You can also burn people for wearing garments of two different threads.'

That was never true, and mixed fibres are not prohibited for anyone now. None of the dietary, hygiene, ceremonial laws now apply. Most of them cannot even be applied. They were for a particular nation in a particular place and time, taking account of local beliefs and customs, so as to give no offence.

Mosaic Law does not now apply to anyone. Before Moses, theft, murder, adultery and buggery were all immoral acts. Moral law always applied, whenever mankind evolved. Mankind has made no moral progress at all. Mankind destroyed over 100 million of its own through warfare in the last century.

The Bible does not indicate that two males can 'fall in love'. It does indicate that they can fall in lust, and that it's highly predictable that those who fall in lust will claim that they are in love. The Bible principle from Genesis onwards is that masculinity is designed for femininity, and vice versa, like north and south poles of a magnet. The homosexual idea is that one pole changes its polarity, which in the biblical view is psychologically destructive, or is induced by self-hatred.

There are worse things than homosexuality, according to the Bible, and rejection of its message is liable to be one of them. That fact should not be forgotten.

Tue, 2012-05-22 03:14 — John Cheese (not verified)

Keir: Very calm, logical comments & discussion about meanings in the Bible without all the hater's emotion & distraction. The image of hetero marriage is defined all over the Bible. God set the standard. However, with God-given free will, not all will follow our Creator's instructions. He calls those people stubborn beasts.

Fri, 2012-05-18 18:32 — jankaas (not verified)

"If he's anything like me."
i would suggest that many Christians sincerely pray He is not.

"The homosexual idea is that one pole changes its polarity, which in the biblical view is psychologically destructive, or is induced by self-hatred."
nope, that's not the "homosexual idea", it's your personal eccentric bigoted idea. the facts and evidence show the following Keir; many animal species show homosexual behaviours, us humans are no different. that's just how things are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

for you to insist against all evidence that homosexuality is somehow not part and parcel of our shared humanity is silly. demonstrably so. the only conclusion we can draw, if the Christian God did create the Universe and everything, is that He ensured a proportion of humans would be homosexual.

capice?

Fri, 2012-05-18 13:00 — Jim H (not verified)

The whole gay marriage thing is, IMHO, simply an excuse for the militant gay lobby to rub straight society's nose in it. It's vengeance pure and simple. Civil partnerships give gay couples equality of outcome which is, by definition, equality. Not changing the definition of marriage is, therefore, not discriminatory.

If you want to campaign against discrimination, how about campaigning against the discrimination against heterosexuals that is the civil partnership. Why shouldnt two heterosexuals enter into a civil partnership? It could resolve the cruel and unusual punishment of, e.g.spinster sisters being forced to sell the family home on death to pay inheritance tax.

Fri, 2012-05-18 12:44 — Keir

One thing that anyone knows about children who have no religious indoctrination is that they instinctively think that homosexuality is horrible, and stigmatise the small minority of effeminate boys.

One thing that a child growing up in a home run by two homosexuals knows is that those two are not its parents. That seems to be a very dangerous situation, that could eventually lead to bloodshed.

Which we have quite enough of already.

Sat, 2012-05-19 11:11 — Martin Pye (not verified)

What utter rubbish, I have rarely encountered such bigotry.

My children are non-believers, heterosexual, and do not think homosexuality is 'horrible'. They include gays among their friends.

'Bloodshed'? Come on, grow up

Fri, 2012-05-18 13:34 — eJay (not verified)

Where's your proof of this apparent 'thing that anyone knows'? I've /never/ seen this to be the case. No parent I know 'knows' this, and they would probably be pretty shocked and appalled to discover that someone thinks their children are 'instinctively' bigoted. And by the by, gay parents do exist, you know; you're not just making things up about some hypothetical situation here - you're making things up about a situation that seems to have already proven you wrong.

Honestly, I think you're projecting your homophobia onto other people. You should probably talk to someone about that.

Also, effeminate =! homosexual, but regardless of this, femininity is stigmatized because being female means being a second class citizen in our society. And a first class citizen emulating a second class citizen is always open to ridicule.

Fri, 2012-05-18 12:54 — Mark Gristock (not verified)

What on earth are you talking about? One thing that anyone knows about children is that they think kissing is horrible.

They also think the opposite sex has the lurgy.

One thing that a child growing up in a loving home run by two homosexuals is that they love him and that the child is supported as it grows. You know, like parents.

Which we clearly don't have enough of already.

Fri, 2012-05-18 12:00 — organisemeetings (not verified)

I think the problem here is the amplification in tone to ill-controlled anger, which replaces any semblance of a reasonable argument. Sentamu alleges that gay union would 'diminish the meaning of marriage'; the columnist responds sarcastically that gay marriage would boil brains in skulls.

Well, some critics of equal marriage do evoke such ludicrous, end-of-the-world similes; but Sentamu isn't one of them. It would have been simpler and more effective to refute the point directly, rather than amplifying it in order to express a vague and undefined contempt.

To the extent that the author is generally right and Sentamu is transparently wrong, this article is a missed opportunity. Hard to believe that the writer put this piece aside for an hour before deciding there was nothing that needed changing before he pressed 'send'.

Fri, 2012-05-18 12:03 — John D (not verified)

here here, the author has continued to patronise people in the comments section below. I guess anyone who disagrees with him is a moron and just doesn't get the joke. It is an article about a black and white world that in reality is more nuanced.

Fri, 2012-05-18 12:06 — Brokenbottleboy (not verified)

OK, so I explain where I was coming from and admit other people think different and that's patronising. Do you prefer when writers don't bother to answer commenters and critics? It's a no-win situation.