The bizarre beatification of Phillip Schofield

Is Schofield brave for coming out as gay? Get a grip.

Brendan O'Neill

Brendan O'Neill

Topics Culture UK

Brave used to mean going to war. Or risking life and limb for your political beliefs. Or smuggling contraband literature into tyrannical countries. Or going to the Moon. Now it means being a millionaire who uses his comfy position as the King of Daytime TV to tell everyone he’s gay. Brave, courageous, amazing, wonderful, powerful – these are some of the histrionic words that have been used to describe Phillip Schofield’s outing of himself on the This Morning couch. What has everyone been smoking?

The response to Schofield’s revelation has been mad. And telling. Overnight he has become a secular saint. St Phillip, patron saint of the stunning and the brave, godhead of gays, a messianic cultural figure whose coming out is ‘a day to celebrate’, according to pop singer Will Young. Maybe it should be a national holiday. Phillip Schofield Day, when the This Morning theme tune is pumped into all public spaces and we all solemnly remember the great sacrifice Phil made in his confessional chat with Holly Willoughby. After all, as Stonewall says, this is a ‘massive moment’ for ‘society in general’, so the least society can do is mark this historic, epoch-quaking occasion.

What rot. This isn’t about Schofield himself. If he’s happier now, that’s nice. Good luck to him. No, the weird thing here is the sacralisation of Schofield, and of the gay identity more broadly. The Cult of St Phillip confirms that in the aristocracy of identity, homosexuality is very close to the top. It’s one of the most ‘authentic’ identities, apparently. One worthy of worship. One which confers upon the individual all sorts of special powers and skills. Sensitivity, authenticity, bravery, good fashion sense, and a sacred place in popular culture, where every gay character is an unusually wise possessor of the secrets to life and happiness – this is the story of gayness now. The secular beatification of Schofield confirms the sanctity of homosexuality in our post-traditional, commitment-sceptic, identitarian era.

We might, if we were being cheeky, refer to it as gay privilege. Virtually every use of the word privilege by the woke set and the cultural elite is daft and unconvincing these days. They bang on about ‘white privilege’ with no regard whatsoever for the armies of white working-class people who enjoy no privilege whatsoever. They accuse trans-sceptical women of enjoying ‘cis privilege’, which is just an underhand and misogynistic way of telling these women to STFU about the men who identify as women who want the right to have a balls-out shower in the women’s changing room. But the idea of ‘straight privilege’ is especially ridiculous. Right now, among the Western political and cultural establishments, it is gayness that is celebrated while straightness is deemed to be drab, dull, predictable and in urgent need of a fabulous makeover (witness Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Ru Paul’s Drag Race, and all the other embarrassing gays-as-cultural-kings stuff that passes for entertainment these days).

The notion of straight privilege, or of gay oppression, is utterly unsustainable today. It isn’t gay commentary that is demonised and suppressed today (thank God) – it’s commentary that is critical of gay marriage, which is casually branded as bigoted and homophobic. It isn’t pro-gay businesses that are boycotted by the great and the good (thank God) – it’s any business that has ever expressed any doubt whatsoever about gay marriage. Think of the Christian-owned Chick-fil-A. Its first UK chicken shop was shut down because of the menacing threat of harassment and boycotting. It isn’t pro-gay politicians who are pilloried as weirdos and perverts (thank God) – it’s gay-sceptical politicians like former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron. Things have come to such a bizarre pass that these days the Church of England feels the need to apologise for saying things that might be construed as anti-gay. The other week the CofE expressed regret for the ‘hurt and division’ caused by its statement that sex is for married heterosexual couples only. Christian church apologises for holding Christian beliefs – this is the power of gay privilege.

Gayness is now such a coveted identity that even someone like Jameela Jamil, the TV presenter, actress and spouter of incessant woke nonsense, wants a piece of the queer action. In response to a Twitter beef over the revelation that she will be a judge on a gay-themed dance show, she came out as queer. Yeah, right. This looked like a pretty transparent attempt to dodge the accusation that she had ‘strayed from her lane’, something that someone as painfully PC and identity-obsessed as Jamil would consider to be a sin of the highest order. This incident confirmed how the sanctification of gayness also robs it of its colour and dynamism, ironically. Courtesy of the cultural elite’s creepy and censorious gay-friendliness, even ‘queerness’ has been reduced to little more than a pose that even vanilla straights like Jamil can claim to identify with. It rather brings to mind that episode of Sex and the City in which Charlotte starts hanging out with lesbians. ‘Sweetheart, this is all very nice’, says one of the lesbians, ‘but if you’re not going to eat pussy, you’re not a dyke’.

To see what’s happening with gayness, consider the double standards exposed by the Schofield affair. He’s been married for 27 years. He has two children. Many people might not agree that the collapse of a marriage, a marriage in which there appears to have been a component of deceit, is something to celebrate. They might feel for Schofield’s wife and children. No doubt they will be called homophobic for distracting attention from the beatification of Phillip and his ‘authentic self’, as John Barrowman called it. After all, the authentic self counts for everything in contemporary society. It overrides everything else. Even institutions like marriage – once the glue of communities and of society itself – fade into insignificance when it comes to the cult of self-realisation and self-revelation. So Schofield’s This Morning revelation is apparently infinitely more important than the question of what has become of his marriage.

Indeed, this is one of the drivers of the identitarian era’s cultural privileging of gayness: the elite’s growing scepticism and even fear of traditional heterosexual relationships and institutions. The sanctification of gay lifestyles has risen in direct proportion to the demonisation of male heterosexual behaviour, the discomfort with old ideas of life-long commitment, and the general suspicion of what goes on ‘behind closed doors’ in the homes of traditional nuclear families. The privileging of gayness as more sensitive and wiser than straightness speaks to society’s increasing alienation from the family and the community, and from the heterosexual relationships which play a very important role in both. The celebration of Schofield’s self-discovery and the lack of discomfort over what has become of his marriage, and what is being felt by his wife, speaks to this curious shift in the identitarian era.

Gay people once suffered terrible oppression. There were laws preventing them from having sex. They were discriminated against in the workplace. They were harassed and attacked. Their ideas and literature were censored. Thankfully, such discrimination is a thing of the past, and public harassment is a shrinking phenomenon. The liberation of homosexuals, in the West at least, is one of the great gains of the mid- to late 20th century. Yet while it is absolutely right for society to remove every legal and institutional barrier to the full inclusion of gay people in society, it is not right for society to sacralise homosexuality, certainly not at the expense of other lifestyles or orientations. Society should not prevent any individual from engaging in public life, whatever their race, religion or sexual orientation. But nor should it celebrate certain identities over others.

This is what the Cult of Phillip Schofield fundamentally points to: that we now live in a society which, through its culture and its ideology, has created a hierarchy of identities, an aristocracy of lifestyles. The problem with this elevation of ‘good’ identities is that it necessarily creates ‘bad’ identities. In this case, straight, ‘cis’, traditional and religious identities – all bad, all worthy of denigration, all worthy, ironically, of the kind of demeaning treatment that was once outrageously meted out to gay people. A society that divides according to identity, and which communicates the decency of certain identities and the dangerousness of others, is a society that will be tense, divided and self-destructive. I hope Phillip Schofield finds happiness. But has he become a better, braver, more wonderful person by revealing he is gay? Nope. And it is reactionary, ridiculous and dumb to claim otherwise.

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

Picture by: Getty.

Let’s cancel cancel culture

Free speech is under attack from all sides – from illiberal laws, from a stifling climate of conformity, and from a powerful, prevailing fear of being outed as a heretic online, in the workplace, or even among friends, for uttering a dissenting thought. This is why we at spiked are stepping up our fight for speech, expanding our output and remaking the case for this most foundational liberty. But to do that we need your help. spiked – unlike so many things these days – is free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you want to support us, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even £5 per month can be a huge help. You can find out more and sign up here. Thank you! And keep speaking freely.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Identity Redacted

17th February 2020 at 12:09 am

Finally someone said it. Writing an article like this and attaching your name to it is far more brave than coming out as gay as this author will likely get death threats for daring to question the idolisation of the queer identity. It was 20 years ago that Dafyd wanted so desperately to be the only gay in the village because it made him oh so special and in that 20 years nothing has changed except for more who use their sexual preference as if it’s a personality trait

Robert Wade

15th February 2020 at 1:01 pm

I don’t care what Phillip does on his days off but it seems to me the only person who didn’t know he was gay was his wife, our gay friends have always called him Phillipa, either way he’ll get a massive pay rise

The Killgrave

15th February 2020 at 8:48 am

Double standards. Schofield lies to his wife for 27 years and is hailed a hero, yet I tell one measly lie about going away for a a weekend of debauchery with the lads and I’m labeled a c u next Tuesday.

Victor Cowen

15th February 2020 at 8:46 am

WHO on this earth gives a damn? Even his wife doesn’t seem to care….in public at least (?)

Aunty Podes

14th February 2020 at 11:36 pm

Exactly! What is “brave” about hiding your abnormality and so deceiving you wife for years? What is brave about “coming out” and claiming membership of the new nobility – the later-day-slebs – who imagine that the world is deeply interested in their abnormal sexual proclivities?
Normal folk simply do not want to know.
Normal people are irritated by your miss-use of formerly positive words like rainbow, gay and hero. You distort their meaning to the degree that we have to use alternative words because they have destroyed their true meaning.

jan mozelewski

15th February 2020 at 3:40 pm

I love this refreshingly honest perspective. 😀


14th February 2020 at 11:30 pm

Now let’s examine the even more ridiculous and bizarre (and downright unbiblical) beatification practised by the Roman Catholic church…

James Hamilton

12th February 2020 at 1:10 pm

“all bad, all worthy of denigration, all worthy, ironically, of the kind of demeaning treatment that was once outrageously meted out to gay people”

I think this is as much of a threat to gay people and tolerance of them as it is a threat to society in general. Heterosexuals are the overwhelming majority, and it is (in my opinion) more than likely that if they are denigrated enough then the tolerance which they show towards homosexuals, trans, and other minorities will start to evaporate. I pray to God this will not happen, but humans being what they are I am a little nervous.

Dominic Parker

11th February 2020 at 10:16 pm

Schofield is married with two kids, where is his loyalties to his wife and kids he is getting away with cheating and double crossing his wife with this gay praise rubbish and he has been clever winning the country’s hearts. If he had declared he was seeing another woman he would be hated and slated. Not withstanding we all new he is weird and something not Wright about him so Phill your rearly enjoying the attention and lucky for you the country comprises mainly idiots. However to victims are your family they should throw you out and be done with you.

Kris Hornsby

13th February 2020 at 12:17 pm

His wife is apparently supporting him but maybe she feels pressure to do so as well and we dont know what his kids really think or how they will be affected. But to say coming out is a courageous move in the light of the present day show biz worship of gays is indeed risible. To come out 20 years ago would certainly have been a bit more daring but hardly Victoria Cross stuff either.
Its not unlike girls anonymously announcing they were subject to some sexual misdemeanour 30 years ago being hailed as courageous heroines simply for the political expediency of condemning rape culture.

Dominic Parker

13th February 2020 at 8:13 pm

Wife’s don’t wish for their husbands to convert their sexuality in fact it will be a massive cheat and devastating having lived a lie all those years.

Schofield is hiding behind show biz euphoria and the nation so stupid as to be mugged off by him.

If he was really and truly brave he would suppress and be honourable to his family – I mean come is he really active enough to be participating in rampant gay sex. And if he is in love with another man then he is simply a cheat.


adam savill

15th February 2020 at 5:48 am

I guess most have read suggestions with a name in the press that he had split up with a boyfriend of 7 or 8 years who he first met when he was a teenager and who had threatened to reveal their relationship. If this was a heterosexual relationship with such a big age difference it would have been deemed sleezy

Tim Kennedy

11th February 2020 at 9:22 am

Question I have is why now ? Schofield himself says he knew he was gay when he got married 27 years ago and to be honest he could have come out anytime in the last 15 years or so without damaging his career. Yes, the canonisation process is nauseating but I wonder if there’s more to this than meets the eye. Could it be perhaps that this announcement has been cynically timed to try and counteract some lurid stories which may be in the pipeline – sorry but the suggestion that he has not had a gay relationship until now simply doesn’t wash. Let’s see what happens shall we ?

Michael Lynch

12th February 2020 at 1:45 pm

He’s probably being blackmailed by a former lover.

Alex Ander

11th February 2020 at 8:50 am

As a thought experiment, I just wonder what the media reaction would be if the opposite was to happen? Let’s imagine a famous individual, aged mid-to-late 50’s came out as being straight having been know for the entire career as being LGBT.

Would this be an emotional discovery – a journey to seek the truth of “who you really are”?
Would there be a cuddle-on-the-couch with Holly?

Okay, so Eddie Izzard is practically the same age as Schofield. If he were to announce that he were no longer trans (either gender or vestite) and is in fact completelt straight, would this be seen & reported as a triumphant and BRAVE decision?

And if not, then why not? Would it be heterophobic?

Sarah Wood

11th February 2020 at 1:36 am

There is a nonsense, perpetuated largely by celebrities, that only famous peoples lives have any real importance. But it was the blood, sweat and tears of thousands upon thousands of anonymous and unremarked lesbians and gay men, working from the ground up over many years that changed society enough that Philip Schofield could come out as gay without being jailed, ostracised or beaten for it. It was most certainly not the other way round.

Jill W

11th February 2020 at 2:40 am

Yes Sarah, PS is no trailblazer. The hugs need to stop. Sometimes feels we are policed by showbiz.

Glenn Bell

11th February 2020 at 12:22 am

Supposedly Schofield and his wife remain friends, but lets face it what other choice has she got? If she castigated him as a liar who has made her life a lie, the WOKE brigade would tear her to shreds. So why now? After 27 years would it have been so terrible to have carried on as husband and wife? No, theres a reason behind the timing and Schofield is now hiding something else.

Sarah Wood

11th February 2020 at 1:10 am


jan mozelewski

12th February 2020 at 9:09 am

Showbiz in general keeps on reinforcing how ludicrous it is. The public, worried and nagged by BIg Problems by the media, now wants celebrities to do what they used to do in times of stress: entertain. The last thing we want or need is celebrities burbling on to us about their own problems. Its rather like going to the Dr and then finding yourself listening to a list of the Dr’s ailments.

Brandy Cluster

10th February 2020 at 11:01 pm

If you want the incarnation of ‘brave’ then look no further than two Clint Eastwood films: “Gran Torino” and “American Sniper”.

Michael Lynch

12th February 2020 at 1:53 pm

Brandy, excellent choice of films. These are great examples of story told and directed by a largely unrecognized master.

Brandy Cluster

10th February 2020 at 10:59 pm

Wasn’t it the late, great Sir Roger Scruton who once referred to “the snobbery of disadvantage”? I think he was onto something.

jessica christon

10th February 2020 at 9:36 pm

You will never catch me celebrating someone else’s identity, sexuality, etc. Tolerating it or not noticing it at all, maybe, but “celebrating” it? Never.

Furthermore I don’t believe half of the people who go out of their way to celebrate minority identities and such; more likely they’re just afraid of what it might look like in their virtuous circles if they don’t.

John Little

10th February 2020 at 8:44 pm

If Scofield is brave, sharks are vegan. I and I’m sure everyone whose seen him on TV since he first popped up on children’s tv decades ago always assumed he was gay. So what! Who cares. If he’d come out as gay at the outset of his career, he might justifiably have been described as brave. But now? Established, famous, at the top of his profession and very wealthy. No. A totally risk free and I would suggest, a totally cynical act. Gurning and crying and cuddling on national tv in front of millions. Sheer narcissism, and a repugnant insult to all truly brave people out there in their various anonymous walks of life out in the real world. If you ever wanted an example of societal decadence and moral and spiritual decay, the Scofield travesty is it. Whatever support and sympathy going should surely be reserved for his wife. He deserves only contempt.

jan mozelewski

10th February 2020 at 8:31 pm

There is nothing remotely brave or admirable about this man’s behaviour. He simply strikes me as an opportunist with a large streak of narcissism. When it was more convenient to be in the broom-cupboard that is where he stayed. When he felt it was more in his favour to come out, he came out.
After all, in the woke media there is no-one more vulnerable to getting the push that a middle-aged white man. So I suppose it seemed ridiculous to keep the ace up his sleeve..
I feel very much for his wife. I was, by coincidence, recently watching an interview with Phyllis Gates, the wife of Rock Hudson. She married him believing he was straight and they talked of a family together….by the time she realised he was bi-sexual (her term…I don’t think she wanted to say her was gay) she was already seeing a shrink and in bits. She never got over it and never re-married.
Hudson’s hollywood friends clustered round him…especially when he was diagnosed with AIDS…..but she was forgotten and died alone.
We can never know what Schofield’s wife knew or suspected. They had two children together after all. But clearly her life is ruined. She can never get those years back. Everything throughout that marriage will feel like a sham. even though it didn’t….and perhaps wasn’t… the time.
I would actually feel a teeny tad better towards him if he was forced into this announcement because someone was threatening to out him. If this is simply a stunt to make himself unsackable it is loathsome. I suspect the reality is somewhere between the two.
It seems to me that reality TV has infected every crevice of what passes for entertainment these days. This circus is more of the same.

Jon Davies

10th February 2020 at 7:44 pm

Schofields Agent: Phil we have it on good authority that a young man you had a sexual relationship with is going to out you in a national paper
Phil: what are we going to do?
Agent: You are going to have to ‘come out’ as soon as possible. Do it on the air and you will get public sympathy and have the LGBT community backing you.
Phil: What about my wife and family?
Agent: you can throw them under the bus, no one will be that bothered.

Colin Broughton

10th February 2020 at 7:26 pm

I don’t think exclusive homosexuality is wrong. I think it is to be in the grip of a mental condition. It is normal only in the sense that it is normally found in a given population, just like a range of other minority preferences.

Quite clearly it is a gross psychosexual miswiring. People who suffer from this condition, as much a condition as, say, being on the autism spectrum, are not to be blamed if they do what they do. It would be inhuman to deny them an outlet.

That said, most normal people, most of the time are repulsed by homosexual behaviour. This is an entirely natural reaction, the result of evolutionary pressures connected with reproductive efficiency. So someone like Schofield who is clearly not exclusively homosexual should do their best to avoid indulging in it for the sake of others.

In his case also for the sake of the woman to whom he made vows and to his children. His ‘coming out’ seems to be self-indulgence and selfishness.

Danny Zbrusi

11th February 2020 at 9:05 am

To expand on your comments Colin with which I entirely agree. You correctly use the label homosexuality not gay. The hijacking of the adjective gay is abominable and was no doubt done to give the word homosexual a cleaner feel. Well, I object. I am gay, sometimes, but I ain’t homosexual. The Flintstones had a “gay, old time” indicating fun and laughter which is the context in how I use the word. Let’s call them what they are. And as to coming out, you have to go in first. Question is in where? Next door Gommorah?

Ho Leephuc

10th February 2020 at 6:59 pm

The boys name is Matthew McGreevy.

Mik E

10th February 2020 at 6:46 pm

Brendan is completely correct in his comments. The bizarre headlining of Schofield’s ‘brave’ admission and its juxtaposition with the story of the deadly corona virus in China on the BBC 6 o’clock news on Friday was a perfect example of St Phillip… ‘a messianic cultural figure whose coming out is to be celebrated’. And it surely is an illustration of the new religion, also characterised by its unforgiving woke nature in which dissenters are already being judged and cast out.

Ken Bowker

10th February 2020 at 6:16 pm

There are an awful lot of chattering folk wasting their lives writing long and boring screeds about an unimportant man virtue-signalling about his perfectly legal lifestyle. Do grow up, folks.

David McAdam

10th February 2020 at 3:58 pm

Should I come out as naturally repulsed in response or continue to live a lie?

Gordon T Gopher

10th February 2020 at 3:41 pm

I knew he was gay in the 80s when he’d put his hand up my bum

Gordon T Gopher

10th February 2020 at 4:28 pm

Thanks for the article by the way. How is Schofield brave? I’m the bloody brave one. I tried to complain to the BBC at the time but all I could do was squeak so no one would listen to me. Where are Gopher’s voices in all of this? Our lived experiences are being institutionally denied. Anyway the BBC told me it was being shown live on air so it wasn’t like Schofield was trying to hide anything. And they were right – I quite literally didn’t have a leg to stand on.

Gordon T Gopher

10th February 2020 at 4:46 pm

There’s Schofield with his smug, white middle-class, celebrity privilege while I’m locked away in a broom cupboard with just Ed the f***ing Duck as company.

“Brave”?? It’s a bloody travesty!!!

Hugo van der Meer

10th February 2020 at 3:38 pm

The simple purpose behind this ‘confessional’ is because he was going to be decloseted by an ex bed mate who worked on the ridiculous programme as a runner. His wife has always know about his perverse proclivities. More virtue signalling from insignificant puerile poseurs.

Brandy Cluster

10th February 2020 at 11:05 pm

Were I the wife of an actively homosexual man I would feel nothing less than shame and humiliation for tolerating it. And how sad for any children of that union. But, who cares about them when it’s all about meeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

Rob Jones

10th February 2020 at 2:49 pm

He had achieved as high a status as he could and yet the love afforded him by an adoring public just wasn’t enough. He had to raise the game. He’s Gay. So what? Really, so what. He’s just a true narcissist.

Geoff Cox

10th February 2020 at 2:25 pm

The long and the short of this is that Phillip Schofield, like so many in the ever growing world of entertainment, has no class.

I so wish we could go back to pre-Diana days – her funeral signalled, not just her death, but also the death of dignity and the stiff upper lip.

john larkin

10th February 2020 at 6:34 pm

It’s as heroic as a column dodger taking his place in the front row of the victory parade after the war had been fought and won by others, often at the literal risk of their lives; I wonder if Peter Tatchell is celebrating?

Alex Ander

10th February 2020 at 2:04 pm

I’m in two minds over this one.

On the one hand he’s simply made an announcement which as someone in the public eye, he is perfectly entitled to do or not do (freedom of speech etc etc). The subsequent deification and veneration of himself isn’t his fault: other people have taken this and run with it. Exploited it you could argue?

However, you could argue that his sexuality isn’t something that is anything other than a private matter between himself & his family. Why the big announcement? Why the big interview and the emotion and so on? There are numerous examples of famous people who’ve kept major and serious person circumstances to themselves and their inner circle. So was Schofield making this public intentionally, safe in the knowledge of the pro- LGBT community comfort-blanket?

Tom Stevens

10th February 2020 at 2:49 pm

I think you’re correct. He spent twenty-seven shielding his sexuality behind a sham marriage. As a previous poster has commented, in the 1950’s when life for gay men was dangerous and precarious, marriage provided a safe alternative. However, entering into a sham marriage in 1993 was entirely unnecessary and nothing short of the exploitation of another human being.
But it doesn’t stop there!
In 2020, with the imminent prospect (from his point of view) of being ‘unmasked’ he took to protecting himself a second time by entering into an unholy marriage with wokeness, exploiting its ability to celebrate homosexuality and protect him not only from criticism of his previous conduct towards his wife but also from accusations of unsavoury conduct which some young man had gone with to the tabloids.
He is exposed not as a gay man but as a user, someone who exploits both people and ideas to his own personal advantage. The Instagram announcement, the heart to heart chat on the TV couch, the hugs and synthetic tears to pull at the heartstrings of the audience, all of this was highly orchestrated in order to satisfy the requirements of a cynical and self-centred individual.

Brandy Cluster

10th February 2020 at 11:11 pm

Brilliant comments. My cousin was married to a dentist; for years we all heard about his ‘bad back’ and how this put a strain on his marriage, only to find out within the last several years that he’s come out as gay. All of a sudden the ‘bad back’ has been put into perspective, but too late… his wife endured decades of faithful, sex-less marriage and even her mother feels sorry for the gay ex son-in-law. I say CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME. When the teenaged sons found out about their father one became suicidal.

Don’t expect a scintilla of sympathy from me for any gay person who has ruined the lives of others.

Ros Beck

12th February 2020 at 8:16 pm

Yes, I know all about this subject, first-hand. I have tried over the last few days to get various papers, the BBC and even spiked-online to publish my account of what this means, but no-one seems interested. The women don’t matter at all, and as Brandy says, it is also truly terrible for the children – possibly worse for the boys, but terrible for all the children – and suicidal thoughts or attempts are common among the wives and children – not among the men, as they’re having too good a time, leading their hectic sex lives. The damage these narcissistic conartists do though is incalculable. How do you trust anyone when your husband or father lied to you to your face every day for decades? A common response is to say ‘who is he?’ because who the hell is this person whom you should have been completely able to trust more than anyone else? They are a stranger, a phantom, a compulsive liar, a fantasist, the world’s greatest actor.

Chester Minnit

10th February 2020 at 1:53 pm

I think this stems from the spread of virtue signalling. It seemed to start when political correctness got out of hand and TV journalists felt it necessary to show everyone they they were as affronted as the rest of us (despite years of being numbed by the horrors of the world). The result is a Press that can’t report a story these days without pandering to the Twatterati. “Horrific rape/murder” springs to mind as a regular pleonasm. This has now spread to using the word ‘heroes’ for people do the most normal things such as scoring a goal, driving someone to hospital or telling us all something we’d rather not know about their bedroom habits.

Jesper Rasmussen

10th February 2020 at 1:43 pm

Is it ok to be gay and kinda agree with this? Or am I then a de facto self-destructive, self-loathing traitor to my intersectional tribe? 🙂

To be honest, Schofield knew he was gay when he married a woman in 1993. He has two daughters and now comes out after 27 years of marriage. I pass no judgment on that – each to his own. But is it b r a v e ? This man is a multimillionaire TV-personality working in the most gay-friendly industry known to man at a time when fighting out gay rights in Blighty – for white men – mainly consists of kicking in already open doors.

I think in this respect the “brave” moniker must be reserved for gay men and women coming out in (religious) cultures where they stand to lose everything – livelihoods and even their lives – if and when they do so. Philip Schofield, whom I had somehow always assumed was gay (my gaydar lamp blinking pink and my rainbow-coloured Klaxxon wailing!), simply doesn’t make the “brave” cut. Sorry, Phil.

But I’m happy if he’s happy – live your life and to thine own self be true. Even if the truth dawns rather late in life <3

Danny Rees

10th February 2020 at 1:28 pm

“” It isn’t gay commentary that is demonised and suppressed today (thank God) – it’s commentary that is critical of gay marriage, which is casually branded as bigoted and homophobic. It isn’t pro-gay businesses that are boycotted by the great and the good (thank God) – it’s any business that has ever expressed any doubt whatsoever about gay marriage. Think of the Christian-owned Chick-fil-A. Its first UK chicken shop was shut down because of the menacing threat of harassment and boycotting. It isn’t pro-gay politicians who are pilloried as weirdos and perverts (thank God) – it’s gay-sceptical politicians like former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron”

LOL it’s not gay commentary that’s being supressed and demonised it’s people who wanna discriminate against gay people.


Neil McCaughan

10th February 2020 at 1:04 pm

Gay or not, he’s still an irritating twat.

Paul Carlin

10th February 2020 at 12:59 pm

How ‘brave’ would this man have been seen to be if his wife had said something like: “so, twenty seven years of marriage, and an old age to look forward to with someone who has lied to me every day. Yep, ‘brave’.”

Dan Behr

10th February 2020 at 12:52 pm

Inceasing criticism in the media regarding his “feuds” followed by this speactacle. Can’t touch him now though. Very clever move.

Douglas Milnes

10th February 2020 at 12:49 pm

I would just like to announce

I am heterosexual.

There, I said it. Aren’t I a brave person? Can I have my approbation and awards now, please?

john larkin

10th February 2020 at 3:23 pm

I know a stunningly brave man who has remained loyal to his marriage vows, and his wife of three decades, and to their family … he knows that love is about giving and not taking, so he has never egotistically given-way to external temptations; “I couldn’t be more proud of him!”

Brandy Cluster

10th February 2020 at 11:06 pm

I feel very sorry for the wife, though.

K Tojo

10th February 2020 at 11:50 am

Good to see at least one journalist giving a whole-hearted debunking to the brave-guy-coming-out-as-gay myth. I feel sure that Schofield was aware that his coming out would be a cause for celebration not condemnation in the MSM. After all, who would dare criticise homosexuality these days? Celebration is required lest the charge of homophobia be levelled. The (supposedly) shock revelation may even have given Schofield’s career a boost.

There is one worrying aspect to O’Neill’s article though. He says:
“…it is not right for society to sacralise homosexuality, certainly not at the expense of other lifestyles or orientations.”
Intentionally or not, he seems to have relegated heterosexuality (ie. normal sexual behaviour as practiced by the vast majority of the world’s population) to the level of a lifestyle choice.

Rick O’Shay

10th February 2020 at 11:44 am

Only one thing to be said about homosexuality—–UGH.

Jesper Rasmussen

10th February 2020 at 1:59 pm

That’s one way to live 🙂

Davy Hayes

10th February 2020 at 11:36 am

Schofield brave? More like Schofield in damage control mode. What is brave, is someone, living in some sink estate coming out as gay.


10th February 2020 at 11:09 am

No reasonable person now would deny homosexuals the equality due all citizens. But homosexuals form about 5% of any population and have no right to foist specifically homosexual policies (such as ‘Woke’ sex education in primary schools) upon the 95% majority.

Michael Gilday

10th February 2020 at 10:28 am

Back in the late 1980’s rumour on the gay scene was that Phillip Schofield was gay. It was common gossip in the gay community, he had been seen in the Nightingale in Birmingham or so the rumour told. It was certainly picked up by the gay press, but Schofield denied these accusations and got married to prove how false they were. He entered a sham marriage, to protect his career and the gossip died down. Unlike those in the public eye who did not give a fuck at the time, he did not have the balls to be true to his own feelings especially when in the spotlight. Times were changing by then, getting married was often the only survival mechanism for many of the older generation of gay men, pre legalisation in 1967. The days of the 1970’s when police would raid private gay clubs, to check that only members were admitted. In the process their presence was designed to intimidate gay people and curb their freedoms. As it was at night, in out of the way back street pubs and clubs, that many professionals could be who they truly were and enjoy the freedom of being gay. The gay club and pub were a meeting place, to galvanise a community. A development on the earlier Molly Houses of the 18th- and 19th-century England, where people could meet potential sexual partners. A place regardless of class and privilege relationships formed, some casual some long term. But by the late 1980’s things were changing the gay scene was still very popular, but it was no longer the only place where gay folk could be accepted and pull.
But Schofield turn his back on this to hide behind a sham marriage, maybe like many before him living a shady double life. Someone suggested to me the other day that maybe he has taken this action to prevent being finally outed. Whatever the reason he has no right be to put on a pedestal for his bravery in coming out as gay. If he had been true to his convictions, he would have done so thirty or forty years ago. Then he could have genuinely been a hero of the gay community and idolised.

Willie Penwright

10th February 2020 at 10:27 am

Another, even more important, step forward for gay rights was the defeat of Ireland’s first gay Taoiseach yesterday. His defeat was due to his party’s cavalier attitude to homelessness and health care.

So where’s the important step forward for gays? The supreme indifference by the electorate to his or any other candidate’s sexual orientation.

Stephen J

10th February 2020 at 10:44 am

“So where’s the important step forward for gays? The supreme indifference by the electorate to his or any other candidate’s sexual orientation.”….?

Perfectly put, and what I was cackhandedly trying to express, below.

When I used the word “conservatism” I, on reflection could have perhaps expressed that what I meant was “nation”, or “a something, worth preserving”, something worth trying to fit in with and be ignored.

Jim Lawrie

10th February 2020 at 10:57 am

“The supreme indifference by the electorate to his or any other candidate’s sexual orientation.” And with that shield gone that they cannot accuse the electorate of prejudice, and now have to face questions about their own attitudes and policies.

harry briggs

10th February 2020 at 10:12 am

Rumour has it that he had an extramarital affair with his assistant and was forced out of the closet by their breakup, the former assistant was about to spill the beans.

Jerry Owen

10th February 2020 at 11:57 am

If your post is correct then we can surmise that St Phil saw coming out as a way to exonerate himself rather than be in the s*it, which could be seen as patronising to homosexuals. The headline not reading ‘Schofield cheats on his wife of decades of marriage’ , but ‘brave Philip Schofield comes out in a straight mans world’ (which is what he intimated ). I’m sure there is a moral issue there but that’s his and his wife’s concern. Personally I cannot believe his wife didn’t know… a book in the offing?

Finbarr Bruggy

10th February 2020 at 10:47 pm

And there’s the rub! Did he engage in unprotected sex with a man and then go home and have sex with his wife? How can this be described as brave?

steven brook

10th February 2020 at 10:08 am

I saw an advert on TV the other day and it didn’t feature black/gay/weird (Grayson Perry) people. What British society lacks is intellectual rigour and the courage to stand up to daft ideas. Obviously I’m not asking that such people go back into the cupboard, just don’t leave the house or if you have to do to it after dark.
If you’re ever asked what’s normal? Just reply pa edop hilia.

Jesper Rasmussen

10th February 2020 at 9:59 am

is it okay to be gay and agree with this? Or am I then a de facto self-destructive, self-loathing traitor to my intersectional tribe? 🙂

Jesper Rasmussen

10th February 2020 at 10:06 am

Oh, and my surprise was that he had lived as a straight man! My gaydar (which is only moderately effective) was blinking pink and sounding a rainbow klaxxon.

Phil Ford

10th February 2020 at 9:52 am

Schofield was born in 1962. Homosexuality was decriminalized in the UK in 1967. Since he was 5 years old, Schofield’s lived in a country where his sexuality was not just legal, and protected, but increasingly socially acceptable. Why was he hiding it? What was he afraid of? I’m one year older than Schofield. I have lived openly as a gay man all my life, never in fear.

The only victim in all of this is Schofield’s wife. He might have discovered his identity, but in finally revealing his, she lost hers. He isn’t ‘brave’ or ‘courageous’. He was a cynical coward.

Rick O’Shay

10th February 2020 at 12:21 pm

Phil, it’s no use you saying being a homosexual is “socially acceptable” because it may be in your (gay) circles, but it definitely is not in anyone else’s.

Asif Qadir

11th February 2020 at 3:04 am

Phil used the qualifier “increasingly”, and is well thought of around here.

Asif Qadir

11th February 2020 at 4:06 am

…held in high regard, too.

Puddy Cat

10th February 2020 at 9:41 am

Under the heading ‘you find love where you can’, I have no opinion on homosexuality, I have no right to pass judgement on others in this respect. What is rather odd is that of the BBC when, on their main news programme, they draw our attention to research that suggests homosexuality was more acceptable than was thought two hundred years ago. In the main news I would have thought that this was manipulative and inappropriate; it comes across as being an agenda, vote rigging.

Perhaps its in the title? Perhaps it should be homoloveable and demote sex to the private doings and discretion. Sometimes being gay represents itself as a movement that is searching for adherents, what, to legitimise it, to reassure waverers? Surely the whole point is that which is in the campaigning, the possibility of men sharing love, an essence which is reflected in inter-reliance, the closeness of men in war and their mutual regard. Why start two hundred years ago. Why not the Quattrocento (no you juggins, not a car) when the love between men adorned the lives of great men, Leonardo, Michelangelo, the studios they belonged to. Such relationships, although rife, did bring censure and in a life dominated by the church perhaps you could be censorious.

Why do we advertise our sexual proclivity? I suppose, in modern life, it is the fear of being outed, as if that would be an indignity. David Bowie toyed with his appeal to troubled sorts by tapping into the sexual angst of teenagers not knowing whether the were fish or fowl. Sex plays a far more intrusive part in our lives than it should naturally. Something that is so intimate and revealing is now scaled-up to appeal to mass markets. Simulations of the act become dangerous viewing even though these are players merely exhibiting their wears. How many of the famous would tell us that they are seeing someone other than their partners in a news release? What we promote now has sociological reasons beyond the obvious.

Who would be Mrs Schofield? Her husband liberated but she condemned? We may inevitably hurt the one we love but the lingering doubt about this deceit is what he did despite himself and how that would play with his misses. How long has their relationship been a charade? The great trouble with gayness is that it has come to be regarded as something of sensitivity and yet may only be a reaction to modern mores only relating to adventure. In this case, fineness of one’s spirituality or tenderness, delicacy have taken a drubbing and we see only guilt and insensitivity dominating.

Peter Dignam

10th February 2020 at 9:27 am

Brave! I’ll tell what bravery is: it’s coming home at 2am, roaring drunk, with lipstick on your collar, smelling of perfume and you slap your wife on the behind and say “you’re next fatty”.

Fred Mutton

10th February 2020 at 9:14 am

It is part of a war against white western men. The sooner it is realised the better the chance of recovery.

John Oakley

11th February 2020 at 12:40 pm

Absolutely agree with you there Fred, well said.

Jerry Owen

10th February 2020 at 9:09 am

Glad to read an article on Spiked about this.
The headline I first saw as this non story broke was ‘tributes pour out to Philip Schofield’ , only out of curiosity did I actually click on the story to see how he had actually died as he was still relatively young.
This is probably one of the best examples of narcissism over recent times. His life will not change one iota with the job he’s in and the cocooned life that goes with the job.
He also said that it was ‘difficult growing up in a straight mans world’ a statement full of garbage on so many levels. Life for St Phil has been better than 99% of the male population.. and it just got a whole lot better it appears. Dare criticize him now?.. you’ll be labelled a homophobe instantly, you may even lose your job whereas this time last week you wouldn’t be in any danger of either.
St Phil has become another ‘untouchable’ ..yeah, life’s hard for a tv star homosexual in a ‘straight’ (sic) mans world indeed.

steve moxon

10th February 2020 at 8:58 am

Extremely handsome man gets on media and all the time, simply for being an extremely handsome with no apparent other talents, and not much up top other than facial features: this is the apotheosis of unearned ‘privilege’.
And how does he use it? To make inane broadcasting, even by the low standards of broadcasting nowadays.
Plus all the while he’s deceived his wife that he had any interest in her in the very way that interest is requisite in marriage.
To say that this extremely handsome man is nothing to ‘celebrate’ (what a debased word this has become) is an under-statement.

Linda Payne

10th February 2020 at 8:42 am

My husband calls this kind of thing ‘an obsession with self’- who you are seems to matter more than what you can do and what you have acheived; I can hardly beleive that Scofield’s ‘outing’ made the national news, he is certainly not the only gay in the ITV village

Adamsson 66

10th February 2020 at 8:27 am

Well if he was having an affair with a young woman who worked for him he would have been called all sorts of names and inspiring and brave wouldn’t have been among them.

Asif Qadir

11th February 2020 at 3:22 am

…most salient point made on here.

Stephen J

10th February 2020 at 8:16 am

Isn’t this about acceptance?

Mr. Schofield mistakenly believes that unless we know how he spends his time in bed, we won’t be able to accept him.

God knows what acceptance means, if you aren’t a nationally known personality, but just an ordinary joe, perhaps it is as a class, ordinary and superficially, just like everyone else? Most people know that they are of no interest to the rest of the world, so they keep schtumm, but people like him, seem to think that they are endlessly fascinating.

Anyway, if you want to really be accepted, the best thing to do is to TRY TO FIT IN, rather than try to stand out.

Oh and how about this? How about we find things that are common to all of us and then coalesce around our commonalities? We could call this “coming together” something like community, where it doesn’t matter who you think you are in your head, you are programmed to accept that you share more characteristics and foibles in common than you possess which make you stand out.

We could call it “conservatism” or something…

Whatever we call it, we and Philip would not have needed to be subjected to all that stuff about his “guilty secrets”.

Nicholas Parsons was 103 (or something) when he died, and at no point in any of his very successful presentations did I wonder how he spent his evenings after work.

Brandy Cluster

10th February 2020 at 11:15 pm

If you’ve got no other ‘talents’ then it’s entirely feasible that a shallow organization like a TV network would consider you ‘brave’.

My husband is ‘brave’ and always has been; when our business suffered a decline and we had 4 small kids (and he one extra daughter in NZ) he went out carrot picking for long hours during the day so that we could put food on the table. I remember well sitting on the front verandah with the four kids waiting for him to arrive home by bus at the end of along day.

Don’t, please, talk to me about the urban effete being in any way ‘brave’.

David Webb

10th February 2020 at 8:13 am

It’s time the government stepped in and stopped TV channels from promoting woke agendas. Mrs Thatcher’s Clause 28 act was a step in that direction. It is time for ITV to be taken off the air until it can guarantee to drop all the Cultural Marxist BS. This man, Schofield, is a disgrace – he is a self-absorbed tool, who cares not a whit about this wife and children.

Danny Rees

10th February 2020 at 1:29 pm

So you are for censorship.

I see.

James Hamilton

12th February 2020 at 1:15 pm

Yeah, ‘cos the best arbiter of truth in society is the government…

Ian Davies

10th February 2020 at 7:45 am

I couldn’t give a monkey’s uncle what he is. But this is a guy who knew he was gay when he married and truth be told got married back then to legitmise himself for the sake of his career. So he deceived his wife and family for 27 years in the name of his career. If that is the definition of bravery these days we are in trouble. Oh, and if this does not get the boost in his ratings he was looking for, I guess he will be cutting off his Johnson next.

Michael Lynch

12th February 2020 at 1:48 pm

Spot on. He was legitimizing his career at a time when people still sniggered behind closed doors at homosexuality. I’m glad those days are over but he is no hero. If he were really brave he wouldn’t have got married to a convenient wife in the first place.

steve moxon

10th February 2020 at 7:41 am

Just what is the insane censorship on here about, to put such a post in ‘moderation’?! It’s beyond insane.

Mark Houghton

10th February 2020 at 7:11 am

Yay, let’s here it for deceit and lying. Way to go Phil – such a hero.

Dominic Straiton

10th February 2020 at 6:34 am

All these years I had no idea he was supposed to be straight. His mrs must have the most useless gaydar going.

Adamsson 66

10th February 2020 at 8:24 am

Yes my lack of surprise was similar

Jim Lawrie

10th February 2020 at 11:06 am

Me too.

Tom Stevens

10th February 2020 at 5:33 am

Sorry Brendan but I have to disagree strongly with this article and the idea that homosexuality has become ‘sacralised’.
Firstly let us bear in mind that this situation has arisen primarily as the result of an act of bizarre theatricality initiated by Philip Schofield himself. Yes, a brief announcement on Twitter would have sufficed, but PS and his team have egged this up to be a major story mainly to throw a blanket over any impending stories about his sexuality and any connected scandal which might have been due to surface in the Sunday tabloids. It is not about homosexuality and identity politics but quite simply a dramatic, hasty and rather clumsy damage limitation exercise.
Then there is the issue of the media’s response to his announcement. You see it as celebratory because they call him brave. I hate to use the words “as a gay man” to introduce an observation in order to justify it, but in this case I feel I have to, so here goes.
As a gay man I cringed when PS was hailed by the media for being brave, for being so courageous about coming to terms with his sexuality. I can assure you it is not celebratory. Quite the opposite in fact. Society may in general have accepted homosexuality but is still not at ease with it. There is a residual awkwardness and embarassment, a feeling that although it is nothing unusual it is still quite not right. I am used to this myself if people are informed of my sexuality, the clearing of the throat, the reverential lowering of the voice. The tone is never celebratory. It is instead slightly patronising.
I mentioned earlier the awkwardness and embarassment people feel. Let me give you an analogy. Imagine that PS had instead made a dramatic announcement that he had battled severe depression for the last twenty-seven years. The language used by the media would have been exactly the same. He would have been called brave and courageous for exposing a personal problem to the world. There would have been hugs, tears and backslapping in front of the cameras. But would we say that the media was celebrating mental illness? I think not! Rather it would be the reaction to the fact that although depression is an accepted fact about people’s mental and emotional lives, mental illness is still somehow not quite right. He would have been celebrated for coming to terms with a defect.
So in conclusion I think it fair to say that homosexuality is not, as you say, at the top of the scale of victim groups, but instead the whole Schofield incident illustrates the degree to which society still has mixed and unresolved feelings on the matter.

Jim Lawrie

10th February 2020 at 11:05 am

Your criticism of society for not being at ease with homosexuality is just another way of saying people should not be allowed to criticise it. If someone thinks homosexuality is wrong, they are free to express that view and free never to be at ease with it.

As for your argument by analogy, that is to say depression, he did not have depression. Stick to the subject.

You make no mention of the subordination of his wife and daughters to this whole drama queen facade.

Tom Stevens

10th February 2020 at 11:44 am

I’m sorry you found my post difficult to understand. I’ll try to make it simple for you.

1) Nowhere was I trying to defend him. Just read the beginning where I said it was nothing more than a damage limitation exercise on his part in order to avoid public censure. So why do I have to mention his wife?
2) Nowhere do I say that homosexuals should be immune from criticism. I merely said that society is still ill at ease with the subject. It’s just a fact. Being ill at ease with something doesn’t mean outright hostility. It just means discomfort. I’m not criticising people for feeling uncomfortable. We all have the right to feel ill at ease. I was explaining why the media and the public reacted in the strange way they did.
3) As for depression. It was an analogy. Of course he didn’t have depression. An analogy is a comparison between two DIFFERENT things in order to make an explanation clearer.

I have generally found it a good rule of thumb in life to read things twice and to spend a few minutes thinking about it before making a comment.

Danny Rees

10th February 2020 at 1:33 pm

“Your criticism of society for not being at ease with homosexuality is just another way of saying people should not be allowed to criticise it. If someone thinks homosexuality is wrong, they are free to express that view and free never to be at ease with it.”

Yes they should be free to express that view.

But at the same time others should be free to disagree with and criticise that view.

The problem is whenever someone expresses a view against homosexuality and people criticise and disagree with that view so many people scream and shout that those criticising and disagreeing are guilty of censorship and trying to stamp out free speech.

Whilst many defend the right of those who have a problem with homosexuality to freely express their views they do not defend the right of others to criticise and disagree with such views and label doing so as censorious.

Jim Lawrie

10th February 2020 at 8:07 pm

To Stevens I understand your position perfectly well. You use analogy because you cannot argue the case in question based on its own facts. Do you think us so easy led as to be duped by your trite analogy? Depression is a mental illness – just like homesexuality?

Jim Lawrie

10th February 2020 at 8:17 pm

Danny Rees there are many things we tolerate but that we are not at ease with and never will be.
To criticise anyone for showing vocally or by body language that they are ill at ease with something is challenging their right to express themselves.
I cross the road to avoid certain types of people and I have every right to do so and do not need to explain myself to anyone, or be subjected to their questioning or disapproval.

Tom Stevens

10th February 2020 at 10:55 pm

You are so obviously low intelligence. You say my analogy of homosexuality with depression is false. Then in the next sentence you equate them. How dumb is that.

Asif Qadir

11th February 2020 at 3:15 am

Your life is a lie Tom, so it isn’t any wonder that you choose lies to attempt to justify it.

Jerry Owen

10th February 2020 at 10:13 pm

Homosexuality isn’t ‘normal’ and will never be ‘normal’.
It will always be abnormal, look up the word in a dictionary. Those are my views, having said that I would not discriminate or be prejudiced against homosexuals. I suspect I speak for a lot of people.

Asif Qadir

11th February 2020 at 3:13 am

Jerry Oven-Kraut and the Platitudinous Bilge would make a great name for a Lancashire folk ensemble.

Ros Beck

12th February 2020 at 8:19 pm

What about the wife and children? You talk about him and about your life as a gay person, but he perpetuated a gigantic fraud against 3 other people and has damaged their lives irrevocably.

Jonnie Henly

10th February 2020 at 4:53 am

“Overnight he has become a secular saint. St Phillip, patron saint of the stunning and the brave, godhead of gays, a messianic cultural figure”

Chill with the hyperbole Brendan, Schofield has actually been getting a fair bit of criticism, on twitter at the very least, for the collapse of his marriage and the implications of that.

Marriage is still respected as an important institution by the vast majority of society, despite the best attempts of you and others to bar gay people from participating in it.

Chris Causey

10th February 2020 at 8:54 am

And arguably, gay people are actually saving the institution of marriage given its extremely rapid decline amongst heterosexuals.

K Tojo

10th February 2020 at 12:25 pm

“Arguably” you say, Chris Causey. Well here is an argument.

Gays, far from saving the institution of marriage, are helping to speed its demise. A civil partnership would have been legally adequate but gays demanded the right to marriage. The object seems to be an act of defiance against heterosexuals who must be dissuaded from the belief (prejudice?) that gay sexual bonding is in any way inferior to heterosexual bonding. Some gay activists even object to the term “gay marriage” as being slightly pejorative. Only “marriage” should be used – to avoid discrimination of course.

This is all about taking new territory. Gays have moved in and colonised an area previously excluded to them. In doing so they have fatally weakened marriage as the foundation of the family. Importing children into a gay marriage by adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination or whatever just emphasises its artificiality. Gays have not saved the institution of marriage. They have helped to make it irrelevant.

Jonnie Henly

10th February 2020 at 8:24 pm

“In doing so they have fatally weakened marriage as the foundation of the family.”

Which heterosexual couples have had their marriages weakened by the legalisation of gay marriage?

Ward Anthony

11th February 2020 at 12:22 am

“Gays have not saved the institution of marriage. They have helped to make it irrelevant.”

Hope you’re right Ktojo. I’m gay but voted ‘no’ when we had a postal survey here in Australia. Marriage started losing it relevancy in the 60’s and 70’s when feminists scorned it. For a minority group to plant their rainbow flag in marriage and bellow ‘equality!’ is about as convincing as the plot of a Carry On movie.

Jerry Owen

10th February 2020 at 10:04 am

Little Jonnie
Please quote where Brendan has campaigned to stop homsoexuals form participating in marriage?

Jerry Owen

10th February 2020 at 10:04 am

* homosexuals *

Jonnie Henly

10th February 2020 at 1:28 pm

He’s written numerous articles on Spiked and elsewhere against gay marriage.

And he appeared before the Commons comittee on the bill to legalise gay marriage arguing against it.

Jerry Owen

11th February 2020 at 12:26 pm

Little Jonnie
I found an article dating from 2015 before I arrived at spiked. He did indeed argue against homosexual marriage in Ireland .. I am fully on board with his article.

Asif Qadir

10th February 2020 at 4:09 am

Ur Fake News, Beta No’Zeal. Yeah, we all know it. This is all part of ur fake news agenda. Get involved in the circle-jerk, so other fake news ad-whor es can all discuss what kind of who re would have Tatchell on.
You know nothing. What do you lot make of the rubbishings you receive BTL?

Howard Taylor

10th February 2020 at 8:29 am


Ven Oods

10th February 2020 at 9:07 am

I believe it’s a form of catharsis.

Asif Qadir

11th February 2020 at 3:40 am

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.

Deplorables — a spiked film