Your words are welcome Dr Williams – but only to a point

Gay Humanists in the UK have welcomed the Archbishop of Canterbury’s condemnation of the murder of Ugandan gay activist David Kato, found bludgeoned to death last week.

The gay- and human-rights community were shocked when Kato – who once went to jail for his campaigning – was found dead in his Kampala home.

Three weeks ago, the 42-year-old campaigner won a court case against the Ugandan magazine Rolling Stone (which has no connection to the music magazine of the same name), which had been publishing the names of gay people and advising readers to inform on them to the police.

Kato had told friends of increased harassment since the court case.

Of his brutal murder, Archbishop Rowan Williams said: “No one should have to live in such fear because of the bigotry of others. Such violence has been consistently condemned by the Anglican Communion worldwide . . . This is a moment to take very serious stock and to address those attitudes of mind which endanger the lives of men and women belonging to sexual minorities.”

However, commenting on behalf of the Pink Triangle Trust (PTT), secretary George Broadhead said: “It is a pity that the Archbishop doesn’t acknowledge that, though they may have condemned violence, his fellow Anglicans’ ‘attitudes of mind’, to use his own words , on LGBT relationships and rights have contributed to this appalling murder and the dire situation for all LGBT people in Uganda.”

Broadhead referred to Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, proposed by MP David Bahati. He quotes the Anglican Church of Uganda, which has said: “We appreciate the spirit of the Bill’s objective of protecting the family, especially in light of a growing propaganda to influence younger people to accept homosexuality as a legitimate way of expressing human sexuality. We particularly appreciate the objectives of the Bill which seek to provide for marriage in Uganda as contracted only between a man and woman; prohibit and penalise homosexual behaviour and related practices in Uganda as they constitute a threat to the traditional family; prohibit ratification of any international treaties, conventions, protocols, agreements and declarations which are contrary or inconsistent with the provisions of the Act; prohibit the licensing of organizations which promote homosexuality.”

Broadhead asks: “Doesn’t the Archbishop realise that the ‘bigotry of others’, which he refers to, must include members of his own Anglican Church?

“More homophobic bigotry in Uganda has come from US religious ministers like Carl Ellis Jenkins, Lou Engle, and Scott Lively, whose hateful and dangerous anti-LGBT rhetoric and actions must also have contributed in no small measure to the death of David Kato and the hostility of the Ugandan population as a whole. Will the Archbishop of Canterbury condemn them?”

The real Stephen Green

So now we know the real Stephen Green, it seems. He beat his wife, he beat his kids, he made his family's life a misery, according to his ex-wife.

Read all about it, as they say, in this story in the Daily Mail. It's quite a revelation.

Oh, how are the mighty – or, in arch homophobe Green's case, the deluded hypocrites – fallen!

Does this mean we'll be spared his dangerous ranting in future? Let's hope so. Rather, let's hope he's thoroughly discredited in the eyes of his followers, and that they will come to see the light – but not the light that Stephen Green espoused.

Protesting too little

First see our post titled "Protesting too much" on that ridiculous woman Melanie Phillips, who, writing in the Daily Mail, brought out the old canard about how there's a gay agenda and how there's a huge conspiracy to turn our kids gay.

Then read this moving article by Johan Hari in the Independent.

It all speaks for itself, so I'll shut up and let you get on with it. But I'll just ask this: why are so many people protesting too little?

Protesting too much

Is it something in the water supply that makes “journalist” Melanie Phillips of the Daily Mail into the unutterable bitch she is? Is she on some sort of medication that’s rotting her brain?

I ask because she’s at it again, thinking there’s some sort of gay mafia running things, pushing homosexuality down everyone’s throat, insinuating it into every school lesson as part of some huge conspiracy.

I refer you to this piece of “journalism” in yesterday’s issue.

Schoolchildren, she says, “are to be bombarded with homosexual references in maths, geography and science lessons as part of a Government-backed drive to promote the gay agenda.”

Her examples?

“In geography, for example, they will be told to consider why homosexuals move from the countryside to cities. In maths, they will be taught statistics through census findings about the number of homosexuals in the population. In science, they will be directed to animal species such as emperor penguins and sea horses, where the male takes a lead role in raising its young.”

So you can just see the school timetable. Monday, 10 a.m., double period of “Homosexuals moving from countryside to city”. Tuesday, 3 p.m., “The number of homosexuals in the population”. Friday, 11 a.m., “Homosexuality in the animal kingdom”.

We all know that’s not how it is. In all kinds of subjects, real-life situations are used as examples. No doubt racial groups have been used to make points; gender has been used to illustrate statistics; age and other demographics have been used to discuss social issues.

Now, the last time I looked, gays were a part of the community. Is there any reason, then, Ms bloody Phillips, why the gay section of society should not be likewise used?

Sorry, what was that? There is a reason? Oh, what is it, then?

What was that again. This is “all part of the ruthless campaign by the gay rights lobby to destroy the very concept of normal sexual behaviour”?

Oh, I see.

So a group of gay people have lobbied the powers that be, have successfully had gay-related subjects injected into the curriculum, and their whole purpose has been to destroy the concept of “normal” sexual behaviour? Is that it?

And how are you defining “normal”? Just what’s in the majority? What’s natural? Well there are a lot of things that aren’t in the majority (left-handedness, for instance; red-headedness) that you would consider natural. So let’s leave that one out.

That just leaves “natural”. But, if it happens and it’s part of a person’s nature, it’s natural, isn’t it?

OK, I think I’ve gone far enough in picking the flaws in this ridiculous woman’s excuse for an argument. Read it for yourself (it’s linked to above) and then write to the asinine woman and tell her.

On second thoughts, maybe not. She’d probably revel in getting criticism from what she perceives to be the enemy. It would just justify her ridiculous, vicious crusade against people who have as much right as she does to take part in society and enjoy a full natural life in so doing.

Fortunately, people like Melanie sodding Phillips have become caricatures of themselves by going on and on about sexuality – so much so that you wonder what they’re trying to hide. Doesn’t she just make you want to echo Mr Hamlet and say, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”?

Euro MP thinks it’s OK to ‘turn’ gay men straight

What a dork? But, then, he is an ageing Tory, so maybe we should make allowances. His name’s Roger Helmer, and he’s a member of the European Parliament, and he’s tweeted that, if it’s OK to do sex-change ops, why not “turn” gay people straight?

He’s come in for some criticism – notably from members of his own party in the Conservative gay group LGBTory.

Meanwhile, according to Pink News, a Christian therapist may be struck off for trying to “turn” a gay man straight. The story’s here.

Gay marriage: not revolutionary, just next

What a refreshing headline! The Washington Post says simply, “Gay marriage isn’t revolutionary. It’s just next.”

The story opens: “Opponents of same-sex marriage worry that allowing two men or two women to wed would radically transform a time-honored institution. But they’re way too late on that front. Marriage has already been radically transformed – in a way that makes gay marriage not only inevitable, as Vice President Biden described it in an interview late last year, but also quite logical.”

Quite!

Attitudes to religion

The gay Humanist charity the Pink Triangle Trust (PTT) – this blog’s parent body – has warmly welcomed the findings about religion in the latest British Social Attitudes survey which was published in December 2010.

The British Social Attitudes survey is the primary social research survey in Britain. The annual surveys conducted by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) have continually monitored and interpreted the British public’s changing attitudes towards social, economic, political, religious and moral issues.

As usual, the latest survey asks people whether they regard themselves as belonging to any particular religion and, if so, to which one? When the survey first asked these questions in 1985, 63% of the respondents answered that they were Christians, compared with 34% who said they had no religion (the rest belonged to non-Christian religions). Now, a quarter of a century on, the latest survey has found that only 42% say they are Christians while 51% say they have no religion.

The PTT Secretary George Broadhead commented: “These findings constitute a steady and remarkable turnaround and demonstrate quite clearly that the country has become much less religious and more secular in its outlook. Nevertheless, the powers that be, including politicians and the media (especially the BBC), choose to ignore the findings and continue to give special privileges to the Churches and other religious institutions as if they had overwhelming support.

“Why is it that Anglican bishops sit in the House of Lords as of right, that morning worship of a broadly Christian character is mandatory in state schools, that faith schools are steadily being increased by the government at taxpayers’ expense, and that chaplains provide counselling in our hospitals, prisons and armed forces with no provision made for the majority who are not religious?

“It is high time that politicians and the media took note, not just of these highly significant statistics, but of the words of no less a person that the Queen, our Head of State, when (in a recent speech to the Church of England’s General Synod) she said: ‘It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals and groups of all faiths and none.’ ”