So, there's a bit of a fuss because the BBC called on Stephen Green, the leader of an extremist group with 600 members called Christian Voice, to comment on Elton John having a surrogate child. The fuss is largely concentrated on how awful this person is, but I have a different angle; is it not terribly unfair on the anti-gay lobby?
Anti-gay people may be dim, vicious, near-sighted, bigoted, lacking in education and empathy, and prone to writing rambling and unparseable letters to the paper, but Stephen Green is hardly representative. His group supports censorship of the media, the execution of gay people, the blackmail of cancer charities, the lying to the public about the efficacy and dangers of vaccines, and it opposes the ban on marital rape; see here if you doubt me. They are total mad people, and there are 600 of them. This is a bit like, in a debate on privatisation of state services, getting a comment from Stalin. They are actually far less credible than groups like the BNP or National Front; at least those groups have some small public support.
I'm really puzzled as to why the BBC did this, but one thing that's clear is that it was not out of an anti-gay agenda. I can think of two possibilities; they had trouble finding someone on short notice, given the reluctance of most bigots to advertise themselves as such on national television, or that it's a deliberate attempt to discredit the anti-gay lobby by using someone really crazy to represent them.
On a side note, Stephen Green actually has a wife! One has to wonder if he discussed his organisation's opinions on how it's okay to rape your wife (specifically, they claim that a Christian marriage service gives binding consent to sexual intercourse) before he proposed...