Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register

Should the Homophobic Pope Visit Britain, Or Stay Home and Polish His Red Guccis?

And so begins the destined-to-fail petition effort to keep Pope Benedict XVI out of the United Kingdom, even if the Queen herself invited him, because he had to gall to say that equal rights legislation was for punks, and Britain’s Catholic leaders should fight it with “missionary zeal.” Which seems to be working!

Times: “Church of England bishops were among those who successfully amended the Bill in the House of Lords last week. Under the draft proposals, the exemptions from equality law enjoyed by religious organisations would have been altered. Churches feared they could face prosecution if they refused to go against their beliefs and employ gays and transsexuals and Catholics warned that they could be forced to admit women to the priesthood. The Church of England and Catholic bishops of England and Wales will now join forces to fight any intervention by the European Commission to win back the ground lost by the Government.”

To which we say: Let Britain welcome the pope with open arms. No, not with a blowjob, but with a grand gesture to show the world that they will let a Raging Jesus Homophobe into their bosom and, through therapy and prayer, change this man’s mutable characteristic. Why do you think the U.S. keeps letting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in? For laughs?

On:           Feb 2, 2010
Tagged: , , , , , , ,
    • ggreen

      The Nazi wears Prada.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 9:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dontblamemeivotedforhillary

      The Devil Pope should visit (The Empire formerly known as) Britain – they need an excuse to be miserable!

      Feb 2, 2010 at 10:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Same Crap

      Uh, he’s a head of state.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 10:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeff K.

      @Same Crap: Yeah, thanks to Mussolini.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 11:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kieran

      Real classy queerty. Article sounds like something Fred Phelps could have written.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 11:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • romeo

      I think Queerty has a point. Banning him outright might give him the edge. People are often cheap with their sympathies. I propose a compromise, which some of you might recognize as much better than banning him. Namely, allow him to make a State visit, but only meet with secondary officials. Not the prime minister or the Queen. They can greet him in deference to the catholics in the UK, but it doesn’t have to be with open arms. Under those rather chilly circumstances, I think he would refuse to come. In any case, his freedom to go there just highlights his own intolerance, and the intolerance of the religious in general.

      C’mon, really, he was in the Hitler Youth when London was being blown to the ground and the Queen was hiding in the basement of Buckingham Palace. They don’t owe him shit.

      Interesting situation for the UK. They do keep out other haters, as they should. I wish we were as consistent, like with ass-face from Iran. But I think our hands are tied because of the UN.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 12:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Patrick

      Benedict XVI = Evil Incarnate.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 12:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC

      Actually, the majority of the British people are against religion interfering in politics and they just would not tolerate it the way we do. This bastard is in for a rude awakening when he arrives in London. Already, a lot of equality groups including women’s groups are planning a huge demonstration. I wish we had that mindset in America and a government that stands up to hatemongers. I’m sure Prime Minister Brown will give him an earful about equality, something that is totally alien to that worn out self-loathing old closet queen.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 1:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • trickstertara

      What invitation from the Queen? I thought I read that she cancelled the dinner her people had arranged after he made that statement?

      Feb 2, 2010 at 2:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam

      No. 5 ยท Kieran said..
      Real classy queerty. Article sounds like something Fred Phelps could have written.

      I have to laugh when people try to attack gays who respond to bigotry as if the gays were the bigots. Sorry Kieran, but if somebody takes a swing at you, you aren’t the agressor for pushing them away. This Pope is still sheltering Cardinal Law from prosecutiion in the U.S. after he fled to the Vatican, not only that, he gave him a promotion. That man hid, covered up and attacked families that complained to the church about their children being molested, and he has this pop’s full protection. Yet he attacks gays as being perverted. Sorry, but He is the Fred Phelps in all of this…he just has a more expensive skirt than Fred does.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 2:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • trickstertara

      Wouldn’t that make a great theory: the Curia chose him to be the new pope because he was facing inquiries in America. I’m not convinced it’s untrue. No one had heard of Joseph Ratzinger before he was chosen to succeed John Paul II. Except child advocates, prosecutors and the families of abused children.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 2:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ritorna

      In a sense the Pope could do the Anglican Church a favor by draining off the worst of the hateful bigots. They would make fine Catholics, leaving the Anglicans a much better church.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 2:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caleb

      @Robert, NYC

      Except the monarch of England is also the head of the Church of England…granted, in name only and generally you are right…but the British still have not gone so far as to separate church and state completely. The French are the ones who have actually go balls out on separation of church/state and I think they rock for it.

      Feb 2, 2010 at 5:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tarxien

      The arguments re equality have been well and truly won in the UK. No government, including the conservatives, would have the nerve to try to reverse the law. Even most of the catholic bishops have given up the struggle. And most ordinary catholics are supportive of gay rights – actually they are generally more supportive than many anglicans. So let the pope come and spew his hatred – it will just reinforce how irrelevant he is in western Europe

      Feb 2, 2010 at 6:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC

      Caleb, the French do have separation of church and state but so does Italy since 1983 and you’d never know with a homophobe in the Vatican that has the Italian parliament by the balls. Wonder why Italy has no semblance of equality? Spain, Portugal, Holland, Belgium, Norway, and Sweden don’t have total separation of church and state either. How do you explain why they have surpassed the U.S.?

      As for the UK, it has far more equality for its gay people than the French could ever dream of. The only think the French have done for its gay citizens is grant a handful of rights in the form of those very unequal PACs and they can’t even adopt children. Whereas, the UK has granted ALL of the rights of marriage without the name including the right to adopt children; bi-nationals in a relationship with a Brit have the right of abode and authorization to work in the U.K. and they don’t even have to have a civil partnership. We in the U.S. have NO equality and can’t even bring in foreign partners, and we have NO state religion. I don’t see how you could think the French rock.

      Feb 3, 2010 at 12:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hudson

      is it just me or does he look like Lord Sith in the photo?

      Feb 3, 2010 at 12:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hudson

      just googled Lord Sith and the photo comparison has already been done. not as brilliant as I thought……..

      Feb 3, 2010 at 12:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • IGMorrison

      Balancing freedom of speech alongside the rights of minority groups is a difficult task. But freedom of speech itself is a wonderful thing.

      Many Brits take it for granted – however we are fortunate that those of us in the real world at least, live in the modern age. An age where a quote once uttered, can reach a global audience in seconds.

      The Pope can come, and he can go.

      By holding on desperately to his outdated views and vitriol, he simply shows himself and his institution to be outdated, archaic and in serious decline with no lifeline. Yes, there will be modest fanfare. But he’s staring into the abyss of cultural and social irrelevance. And the pace of that irrelevance is increasing. If he wanted to ‘modernise’, he’d be appearing on X-Factor and going for a meet & greet in Soho.

      So as far as I’m concerned, let him keep making those kinds of statements. He’s just hammering more nails in his own coffin.

      Amen to that…

      Feb 3, 2010 at 6:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike

      Can’t we like, get him banned from entering the UK ?

      I mean he is the representative of an organisation that promotes hatred of people. We’ve had other people banned from entering the UK for this kind of think (Buju Banton ?)

      Its an interesting idea ?

      Feb 3, 2010 at 2:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tikihead

      Pope Benedict, and it pains me to say this, is obviously straight. A gay man would know how to sew hem weights into his capelet (a thin steel chain, hello?). This has happened too many times to be an accident. He is STRAIGHT!

      Feb 4, 2010 at 10:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • McShane

      Maybe he wants to look like a nun!

      Feb 5, 2010 at 11:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • EveryoneKnewHimAsNancy

      Is this the same UK which won’t ban fanatic Muslim clerics who preach violent misogyny and homophobia from living in the Land of Hope and Glory? The same UK who tacitly allows Musilms to set up “no go” enclaves where sharia law is enforced? Just checking…

      Feb 5, 2010 at 1:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville, nee "in Brooklyn"

      @No. 19 Mike

      Well the Brits have a different view of freedom of speech than the Americans, so perhaps you are right. The UK has banned US wingnut homophobe radio talk host Michael Savage over his ill words.

      But more than just works, this pope has an active and personal hand in permeating the sexual abuse of children. One would think the all countries would be leery of having the world’s biggest supporter and protector of pedophiles into their homeland.

      Feb 5, 2010 at 1:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC

      We don’t have total freedom of speech in America either. I’m all for banning hate speech. Its all very well to be politically correct invoking the right to say anything we want, but I draw the line when hate speech, if its allowed to go unchecked, leads to acts of violence and in some instances death. Hitler was allowed to say what he wanted long before he was legally elected in 1933. He didn’t refrain from espousing ethnic cleansing before and after his election and look what happened, the greatest man-made holocaust in human history. I find it ironic that in America people can be prosecuted for shouting “fire” in a theater or other similar edifice while espousing freedom of speech. Shouting fire doesn’t exactly incite others to go out and commit acts of violence now does it? In addition, any citizen verbally threatening to kill a political figure is subject to arrest and imprisonment, a fine or both, two examples of not being allowed to say just about anything we want.

      Feb 5, 2010 at 2:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC

      Another thing, I bet if a foreigner outside of the U.S. espoused violent acts on American soil, he or she would be barred from entering our country. It would prove that there is a limit to what one can say. I don’t blame the Brits for barring undesirables who are a threat to the common good of society.

      Feb 5, 2010 at 2:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hephaestion

      Pope Maledict. Possibly the most evil man on earth today, along with Bishop Akinola.

      Feb 6, 2010 at 6:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lucius vorenus

      He is the demon, if there ever was one. Pure evil.

      Feb 6, 2010 at 9:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul F

      Well at least we can be thankful he’s the LAST pope! That is, according to the celisteen (sic) prophecies. Yeah I know that’s not how they’re spelled and not being a member of his private cult I can get away with it because I don’t give a poop, pope.

      Mar 9, 2011 at 4:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Codswallop

      @Paul F: Are you sure you don’t mean the CelineDion Prophecies? They’re really quite dire but hilarious when read with a silly French accent.

      Mar 9, 2011 at 5:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.