media fail

The BBC Had To Interview Gay Genocide Advocate Stephen Greene For Fair Elton John Coverage

The practice of surrogacy is a sensitive subject and remains controversial in some quarters. Our short news bulletin featured Elton John talking about wanting to have a child and an opposing viewpoint. All sides of the debate on surrogacy have been widely reported in the news media and our coverage has reflected this.

—The BBC responds to justified criticism over inviting pro-gay-execution monster Stephen Greene, of the extremist group Christian Voice, to opine on whether Elton John and David Furnish should be raising kids — and completely ignores the fact that the debate isn’t about surrogacy, but about a gay person’s right to raise children.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #bbc #bigots #christianvoice stories and more


  • Jack

    When the BBC marked the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, I must have missed the section where they asked Holocaust-deniers for their opinion. When Madonna added a Malawian baby to her collection of children, I guess I didn’t catch the bit where the BNP shared their thoughts on interracial adoption…

  • Franky

    You bring up a good point.

  • gooneisguy

    @Jack.. very well put!
    @Tallskin .. Thanks for the link.. I was just thinking I wish I knew how to get my complaint to the right person. I sent mine and hope many more do as well!

  • Kev C

    Wasn’t it last december when the BBC asked “should gays face execution?”. The BBC should be put on notice for inciting genocide.

  • Just a thought...

    Nazism and interracial adoption are settled questions.

  • Jack

    @Just a thought…: Um, not by everyone. Racism isn’t ‘settled’. White supremacy isn’t ‘settled’. They’re both still controversial issues in some quarters. Surely if the BBC is being consistent about it’s need for “balance”, their reporting should reflect this?

  • Just a thought...

    Um, I didn’t say racism. I said interracial adoption. And yes, in mainstream society, it and nazism are settled questions.

    Of course there’ll always be nazis and racists, but they are–now listen carefully–on the marginals. That is why we call them marginal. The margin is the opposite of mainstream society.

    On the other hand, large swaths of the population throughout the US and UK–including perfectly normal and respectable people right in the center of the mainstream–dispute the notion that gays should adopt or be allowed to marry.

    To deny that is to exhibit an inability to see outside the narcissistic little gay bubble inhabited by you and your like-minded friends, and absolutely no one else.

    You might want to sit down for this: there is a much much much bigger world out there, and neither Dan Savage nor you are going to magically wish a debate out of existence.

  • Jack

    @Just a thought…: Haha, you’re funny! And nauseatingly arrogant. But mainly funny!

  • Jack

    Amusing, too, that you’d accept without question the validity of the opinion of a bigoted voodoo practitioner who presides over a cult of less than 500 people (in your mind, it seems, somehow representative of the “swaths” of decent mainstream people you speak of).

    You’ve totally missed the issue at hand – the problem is not simply that balance on a “controversial” issue was sought, but that the opinion chosen to represent the balance was not a scientist armed with facts, but a dangerous religeous extremist, and proud cheerleader for state-sanctioned genocide.

    In the words of the wonderful Richard Dawkins, ‘I don’t see why we should have to listen to him, just because he has an imaginary friend!’

  • Just a thought...

    @Jack: Arrogant…like the arrogance of a person who seeks to foreclose debate on a topic because they don’t like the other side? Or arrogant in the sense of dismissing the other side for not being scientific, when niether side has much in the way to offer when it comes to testable scientific propositions. The debate is one of values, which is a perfectly legitimate topic, requiring no scientistic (look it up) buttressing for validity. Arite…speaking of foreclosing debate, you don’t seem particularly up to it, so I will wish you a happy new year and let you have the last word. Mmmmmmbye.

  • Tallskin

    @Just a thought –

    My thought is that you’re just a fucking idiot.

  • Tallskin

    @Just a thought –

    a gibbering sky pixie worshipping fucking idiot

  • alan brickman

    promoting falsehoods is hate speech and the BBC should rethink their “policies”…

  • JM

    @Tallskin Actually, Just a Thought is right. In mainstream society in the US and UK, the issue of gays being allowed to marry, raise children, etc. is *not* settled. In most urban communities it is split, while most rural (or more religious), communities favour denying us equality. The religious groups are also more vocal.

    If everyone loved us faggots, the issue would have been settled, gays would be allowed to be married and adopt, and this site would likely not exist.

    And, Tallskin… you shouldn’t ever sling about accusations of arrogance. Not only is that arrogant in and of itself, you come across looking like a douche who couldn’t find anything else to say, but figured a charge of arrogance would suffice.

    Aside from my monstrously arrogant paragraph above, though… Why hasn’t someone posted Stephen Green’s address? I’d like to ask him if he thinks assholes who promote genocide should be euthanized…

Comments are closed.