It would seem that over in there in London they have a one Reverend Peter Mullen who seems to be rather opinionated (translation: crazy) in his views of "the gays" and how they should be handled (Mmm...yeah, pun probably intended there.). His anti-gay stance (oh, puns abound in that one) felt so important to him that he felt the need to post his thoughts on his blog. (Oh, that explains it. he's a blogger. Sheesh. Bloggers!) I'm sure you can guess that hilarity did not ensue.
According to the fine blokes down under at couriermail.com.au, his blog post, among other things, deemed all gay pride parades (all? Like the Kinda Gay, the Really Gay and the Flaming Gay parades? All?) to be "obscene" and called for them to be outlawed, and "He also criticised the blessing of two gay priests at a "wedding" performed earlier this year in a City of London church." And while I understand that some people out there really have a problem with the whole gay thing and are going to say, do or write stupid, stupid things, I think he might have over empowered himself just a bit as he continued to blog his hateful and ridiculous thoughts. He probably should have left out the part where he suggested "that homosexuals should have their backsides tattooed with the slogan: "Sodomy can seriously damage your health." Wait. What?
Correct. Tattoos. And tattooing. For "the gays". He's in favor of tattooing "the gays". Actually, just so you can enjoy what he wrote in all of it's glory, the complete text read, "Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed with the slogan SODOMY CAN SERIOUSLY DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH and their chins with FELLATIO KILLS." I see. Well, that's pretty clear now, isn't it? Yep, pretty clear. That the man is a moron who should NOT be in the position of Reverend. (I'd like him to be in the position under Bubba, the 300-pound florist down in the Castro.)
Now, right away, if you know anything at all about the gays (oh, admit it, you say you don't know, but you're pretty curious. What about that time in the garage during halftime of the Super Bowl about 10 years ago? You guys just weren't looking at his new saw!) you know that he has clearly not thought this thing through. I mean, really, fellatio doesn't kill people! People kill people! You should know that by now! And on top of that (pun SO intended) they're not billboards, sir! And they're also not looking for a little light reading at the time that they might be seeing your tattoo of hate sprawled across their posterior.
Why the chin? That seems like just poor product placement. Shouldn't he have suggested the forehead for the fellatio one? It seems like it would be more effective there. But what do I know? I'm a chick. Hey, and that reminds me, what is he planning on doing for the lesbians? Having them get a tattoo that reads "Save the bushland! Get a husband!" on their stomachs or what?
Of course, when the good Reverend was spoken to about this, he "insisted his remarks were "light-hearted jokes" and "satirical". He also proclaimed (translation: lied) "I certainly have nothing against homosexuals. Many of my dear friends have been and are of that persuasion." First of all, I don't know too many gay people who would take the notion and the suggestion that they should be involuntarily branded with an anti-homosexual message as a "light hearted joke", nor would they interpret the idea as "satirical". Homophobic and asinine, perhaps. Light hearted and satirical? Probably not. But what's with the "have been" part? How does that work? "Hey, Bob! How's it going? Long time, no see! Still gay?" (To which the appropriate answer would be, "Yep! Still an ass?")
Fortunately, the Church of England ordered him to remove the comments from his blog because they said they were "highly offensive." Oh, you think?! But Rev. Mullen also added, "What I have got against them is the militant preaching of homosexuality." Militant preaching? He must not have heard of "Don't ask, don't tell." There's no military anything involved with the gays when it comes to the preaching, especially if no one asked.
Now, of course when there's any sort of a gay slur out there, a gay rights group has to come up for air and denounce the comments. Taking their turn in the rotation this time was the gay rights group Outrage. They described the comments as "Neanderthal". Right behind him (pun way intended) was the gay rights group Stonewall. Their chief executive, Ben Summerskill, said the comments were "nonsense" and "If I were a vicar at the heart of the City of London, I might be praying about other things at the moment rather than getting hot under the collar about gay sex." Dude. Getting hot under the collar is usually how the gay sex starts! It's definitely how it ends in some instances! Nothing wrong with a hot collar, after all. (And after that collar gets all hot underneath and there's all the subsequent sex, you know what? Not so bad! In fact, done correctly, it's quite good! My God, was it good. Oh, whoops. Sorry. I digress. )
Just for the record, a Diocese of London spokeswoman said the remarks did not reflect its views. Well, I should hope not! Being a diocese and all, the homo hating? Not very church-y. Not at all. They said, "While clergy are entitled to their own personal views, we fully recognise that the content of this text is highly offensive and it is in no way reflective of the views of the Diocese of London." (Translation: We're not stupid. But he is. We don't hate gay people. But he does. We'd like to get rid of him, but you know how we roll. Anything else? No? OK, then.")
While looking for pictures of this buffoon, I ran across some photos from an event he spoke at (presumedly without all of the gay bashing and tattooed chin suggesting) a few years ago. He was at the 37th Anniversary Dinner for the Ancient Society of College Youths. I'm going to have to guess that a few people who were there that night would not be happy to learn of his comments and his tattooing suggestions that he's made of late to help control all of the militant gayness over there.
Sphere: Related Content