Thursday, March 08, 2012

UKIP comes out against gay marriage

Now this is an even more significant intervention in the quest for 'gay marriage' - potentially (electorally) far greater than those of either the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster or the Archbishop of Canterbury. UKIP have accused David Cameron of ' picking a fight' and deliberately provoking a conflict with people of faith over the issue of same-sex marriage. They say he is 'risking turning their beliefs into criminal "hate offences"'. And so the party's National Executive confirmed that 'while UKIP fully supports the concept of civil partnerships, it opposes the move to legislate for same-sex marriage'.

A cheer-and-a-half for UKIP.

The decision is redolent of the party's opportunistic intervention into the whole burqa debate some years ago, when they called for a ban on all Islamic face-covering attire because such garments represent an affront to British values. His Grace disagreed with them on that point, noting that those values include freedom of speech, association and religion: it is the banning of religious attire which would be incompatible with Britain’s values of freedom and democracy. Unlike French laïcité, the United Kingdom has no tradition of the imposition of a hard Enlightenment-secularism: we have instead three centuries of progressive freedom of religion, and it was hard-won.

And here we confront UKIP's ideological tension: their party's appointed spokesman on the subject, David Coburn, said:
"We are a libertarian party which doesn't believe in the government interfering in how people live their lives. We support civil partnerships, enabling gay men and women to register their long-term commitment to each other. I have fought for this all my life.

"But David Cameron seems to be saying that marriage is something else. If so, it is clearly in the domain of the church and other faiths – and it is none of government's business to meddle with it.

"It seems that, through some kind of political correctness, David Cameron is picking a fight with the millions of people whose religious faiths do not recognise same-sex marriages. That, in our view, is an aggressive attack on people of faith, and an act of intolerance in itself.

"In addition, if the government does legislate in this way, we believe that any criticism of same-sex marriage which may be expressed by someone on the basis of their faith could be classified as a 'hate crime'. That would be a grotesque assault on people's freedom of conscience."
'We are a libertarian party, but...'.

To be libertarian is to be extremely liberal: Isaiah Berlin distinguished between 'negative' and 'positive' liberty, the former being concerned with the absence of direct coercion, and the latter with the innate capacity to exercise free will or moral autonomy. Libertarians insist on regarding the state as the sole agent of coercion, and it is true enough that the state has unique power of direct coercion which has produced the worst tyrannies. Vigilance against excessive state power is as necessary for a Kipper as it is for the Tory and the Socialist. Yet it is surely perverse to ignore the libertarian belief in the autonomous self whether that self is concerned with 'higher' matters, such as reason, or the 'baser' nature, such as irrational impulses and uncontrolled desires.

There is no such thing as 'religious marriage': there is no ontological distinction between a marriage licensed by the State and one blessed by the Church. Marriage is marriage whether or not it is viewed as a sacrament. For the libertarian, the instinct for 'pairing' which is observed in nature is to be enjoyed by any pair (or, indeed, union of three, four, or five, for the libertarian is not concerned with coercion).

But UKIP seeks to coerce Muslims and homosexuals in a manifestly illiberal way, under the expedient guise of liberty for Christians. By creating barriers to the freedoms of religion and association, they are displaying the authoritarianism of any totalitarian creed. It is not necessarily that this is morally objectionable in the pursuit of the stability of the state, but it is manifestly antithetical to their professed political libertarianism which is grounded in the right of free choice. Conceptually, there may be a conflict between individual interests and the collective provision - libertarian rights might work against our interests. But that is not a point made by UKIP (rather like the Conservative Party, they appear not to understand the philosophical origins of their political ideology).

If the Government has no business telling the Church what does and does not constitute marriage, then UKIP has no business telling individuals what does and does not constitute marriage. Instead of restricting marriage to a union of one man and one woman, a truly libertarian party would be concerned with campaigning for heterosexual civil partnership. But that, of course, would be to jump off a very convenient bandwagon. Disaffected Conservatives of all faiths (except burqa-sporting Muslims) now have a party which is prepared to defend the sanctity of marriage - and these conservative faiths boast millions of followers, many thousands of which reside in key marginals. UKIP have compromised their libertarianism for electoral advantage: a 2015 majority for the Conservative Party is looking increasingly remote.

159 Comments:

Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

This is indeed fearful news for my party the Conservatives:

‘Disaffected Conservatives of all faiths… now have a party which is prepared to defend the sanctity of marriage - and these conservative faiths boast millions of followers, many thousands of which reside in key marginals. UKIP have compromised their libertarianism for electoral advantage: a 2015 majority for the Conservative Party is looking increasingly remote.’

8 March 2012 10:37  
Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

UKIP ( The BNP for the middle classes ) and Robert Mugabe's Regime both on the anti-gay side.

Not exactly good bedfellows.

8 March 2012 10:47  
Blogger Katie said...

O rubbish. Hitler likes bananas: does that mean we should ban them?

8 March 2012 10:55  
Blogger Katie said...

O rubbish. Hitler likes bananas: does that mean we should ban them?

8 March 2012 10:56  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
I don’t profess to fully understand the significance of your explanation of Libertarianism but I’m not sure that it really matters. UkIP is a vote stealer and they may be viewed as jumping on the band wagon in order to increase their popularity since very few waste their vote on what normally appears as a single issue party, no matter how good that issue is.
UKIP is not likely to win the next election, probably not even one seat, but as you seem to sugest they may take Conservative votes causing seat loses to the Conservative.
The issue of Gay Marriage is with us NOW, not in 2015, and we should be grateful that anyone is speaking out against this redefining of the nature of marriage. It is of no use us fighting a battle now that we might not need to fight until 2015, maybe not even then. Let us embrace as many allies as we can for the battle that we have NOW. (keeping a wary eye on those that might wish to usurp us).

8 March 2012 10:56  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Northcote @ 10.47, would you care to distinguish, for the benefit of communicants, between at heterophile and a homophobe?

The reason for asking this question is that UKIP spokesperson David Coburn states that he has fought all his life for civil partnerships and yet you declare his party 'anti-gay'.

Just wondering.

8 March 2012 10:59  
Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

# Bluedog

I am simply stating given their recent performance that UKIP are against gay marriage and recently took on board known Homophobe ex Tory Roger Helmur MEP without batting an eyelid.

Ergo. Anti-Gay.

8 March 2012 11:07  
Blogger D. Singh said...

This also took Alexandra Swann MP.

In fact it's getting worse - a recent Guardian article noted that they are attracting young idealists. Young people are flocking to them.

8 March 2012 11:14  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Derek at 11.07, there is of course a difference between answering a question and giving an explanation, which is what you have done.

But thank you all the same.

Mr DanJO, at present I am none the wiser. Are you able to answer my question to Mr Derek, noting you call Mr Dodo a homophobe?

8 March 2012 11:16  
Blogger G Lauder-Frost said...

I feel bound to say you are quite wrong here. Marriage is by its very nature, religious. It *IS* a sacrament. However, for over a century now the State has moved in with Civil ceremonies. They call them marriages but of course they are not. They are in reality a license issued by a bureaucrat enabling couples to live together as pseudo man and wife. I say pseudo because as marriage is Biblical and a sacrament a Civil ceremony just cannot have the same meaning. So the State's authority in this matter is merely political, and so if they want to issue their licenses to homosexuals that really is a matter for them. Again its legitimacy is, literally, paper thin. However the State has no right whatsoever to legislate that a Christian Church should alter its doctrines to satisfy degenerate forms of political correctness.

8 March 2012 11:48  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘So the State's authority in this matter is merely political, and so if they want to issue their licenses to homosexuals that really is a matter for them.’

It is not merely political – it has moral and social consequences for us all. For example, if an official were to refuse to register on the ground that she did not want to be made morally complicit in such an act – would she be excused on the grounds of conscience?

If conscience cannot be recognised then we will slip into a totalitarian state.

‘However the State has no right whatsoever to legislate that a Christian Church should alter its doctrines to satisfy degenerate forms of political correctness.’

On what ground does it not have this right?

If these ‘marriages’ become law then under the Human Rights Act 1998 – what possible, logical, argument could be advanced to prevent polygamy? Polyandry?

If there is no logical argument – the court hearing such a case must permit the next step – because a court’s legitimacy and authority arises on the basis of reason alone.

8 March 2012 12:12  
Blogger G Lauder-Frost said...

Yes indeed. But British society's morals come from the church. We are a Christian Kingdom and upon it rests our cultural norms. The Churches wish to maintain these morals at least where marriage is concerned. As for what goes on in a Registry Office I really couldn't care less as it is just an arm of the State. The current argument is whether the State should have the right to impose their political wishes upon religious doctrine and I therefore say absolutely not. They have no rights whatsoever to do that. Are you aware of any legislation in any country which gives a State to change religious doctrines? I'm not. Not even the Soviets did that.

8 March 2012 13:20  
Blogger G Lauder-Frost said...

Error in last line. Should read: "country which gives a State the authority to change religious doctrines?"

8 March 2012 13:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

D. Singh

If conscience cannot be recognised then we will slip into a totalitarian state.

This is not strictly speaking true. The state routinely compels the conscience. Indeed, that is one of its principle tasks. Law by its nature compels the conscience. The problem is rather found in the standard by which the state determines how to compel the conscience. Let us change only one fact to illustrate the point. Assume a couple applies for a marriage license, and the clerk says "No, I refuse to help you on religious grounds because I do not recognize the validity of mixed-race marriages." In this case, the proper Christian response to the clerk is "Shut up and do your damn job." This inconvenient fact places us in the uncomfortable position of opposing one religious exemption even as we demand another.

Christian assumptions are being removed from law, and the West is becoming increasingly pagan as a result. That is our fundamental problem. It puts us at odds with authority and demands that we make difficult choices. A citizen after all has the right to receive legal services from Public servants. You can't be in a situation where (for example) a policeman refuses to answer (the UK equivalent of) a 911 domestic battery call because the couple is homosexual. This demand for exemption then is really a call to be allowed to avoid the choice. That may be the comfortable solution, but it isn't necessarily the right solution.

You can fight to change the law. You can quit. You can request an exemption knowing exemption would be an act of grace on the part of the state. What you can't consistently do is demand the right qualify your duties. Otherwise, we have to answer that question about not giving marriage licences to mixed-race couples. And we aren't going to ahve a good answer.

carl

8 March 2012 13:55  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

"it is clearly in the domain of the church and other faiths "

I presume UKIP have never heard of registry offices? The Church never meddled in either of my two weddings, and it's not the Church's business to interfere with any other civil wedding ceremony. Gay or otherwise.

8 March 2012 13:58  
Blogger Trixy said...

It's rather bizarre to call a party who chose a gay man to be their spokesman on such an issue 'anti gay'.

Your Grace, I would point out that the Ban the Burka policy has been dropped by Nigel Farage and it was something he was lumbered with after a clanger by the now-Tory MEP David Bannerman.

As far as their statement being totalitarian, I say to you that that is nonsense. What they are saying is that they do not believe that one group has greater rights to complain about intolerance than another and thus it's not for the state to legislate. What's more important: gay marriage or the right to religious beliefs?

8 March 2012 14:07  
Blogger Trixy said...

Oh and Derek, don't be such an ignorant fool with your ill informed, chip-on-the-shoulder comments about UKIP being like the BNP. Yawnsville.

8 March 2012 14:08  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Carl

Muelenberg writes:

'Laws banning interracial marriages were unjust, and overturning them did not mean a redefinition of marriage but an affirmation of it. Men and women should be allowed to marry regardless of skin colour, as this does nothing to alter the one man, one woman aspect of marriage. Same-sex marriage however is completely different, and it is a redefinition of marriage.
As one commentator notes, “Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman. Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage.”

Over in the UK Christians who are public servant do not have to perform abortions - on the grounds of conscience.

If grounds of conscience are not permitted - then effectively Christians will be driven out of the public square. State organsiations have large numbers of officials - they can on the basis of the 'proportionality principle' (Human Rights Act 1998) avoid putting Christians in positions which are against their conscience.

The police example is irrelevant - as the reference point is the crime (not the orientation of the victime)- and it is the state's duty to protect its citizens.

8 March 2012 14:34  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Carl
Muelnberg writes:
‘Laws banning interracial marriages were unjust, and overturning them did not mean a redefinition of marriage but an affirmation of it. Men and women should be allowed to marry regardless of skin colour, as this does nothing to alter the one man, one woman aspect of marriage. Same-sex marriage however is completely different, and it is a redefinition of marriage.
‘As one commentator notes, “Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman. Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage.”’
Christians as public officials do have the right to be exempted from performing abortions – that right could be extended to other spheres of state activity.

The police example, is poor – the reference point is the crime not the victim’s orientation. It is the state’s duty to protect its citizens.

8 March 2012 14:40  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

YG
It's a dog eat dog world out there and who can blame a party for tossing aside their true philosophical origins of their political ideology if it is no longer needed in society that already has too much libertarianism, in favour of something that might get them a step further up the ladder to winning seats. It just shows how conservative they have become and highlights a gap where they can gain some ground.

The Conservatives under Call me Dave will not win an outright majority in the next election because they no longer stand for conservatism. If they were, they would not be encouraging this folly of redefining marriage by law to include same sex. Going against the tide of the religious and non religious masses to confuse and baffle them with something that is not necessary.

8 March 2012 14:41  
Blogger outsider said...

Your Grace, I think I follow your argument. If so, is there any objection to one marrying ones siblings, grown-up children or even one's grandparents, which would be handy for inheritance tax purposes?

8 March 2012 14:49  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

You’ve done it! Your stratagem has worked! The opposition is disintegrating!

It is time for my Lord Canterbury to make you into a saint!

TimMontgomerie @SimonSmethMac @graemearcher Gay marriage puts party on right side of history but, I guess, wrong side of target voters

TimMontgomerie @graemearcher For once I disagree with you Graeme. Gay marriage is right but not great politics. If Tories have a Clause IV it's about class

8 March 2012 15:00  
Blogger outsider said...

To tease out my question of 14.49 a little more, I understand the eugenics objection, although this is clearly anti-libertarian. If you allow for that, I presume there would still be no objection to marrying a sibling, parent, grandparent or cousin of the same sex or if one of the marriage partners was demonstrably sterile or post-menopausal. This could be a great help to those carrying for elderly or ailing relatives.

8 March 2012 15:26  
Blogger David Ould said...

I wouldn't want to marry Nigel Farage,anyway. He's far too ugly.

8 March 2012 15:29  
Blogger bwims said...

"His Grace disagreed .. noting that those values include freedom of speech, association and religion: it is the banning of religious attire which would be incompatible with Britain’s values of freedom and democracy"

Can't agree with you there. This "religious attire" is based on the oppression of women by the chief prophet; he didn't like other men ogling his harem. I'm absolutely sure that Allah (if he exists) did not whisper in his ear and tell him to order it.

This is the problem with Islam. Much of it is based on using Mo as a role model. We have a law which bans paedophilia. We also have a law banning cruel slaugher of animals. The last has been relaxed because Islam is more important than cruelty to animals. I imagine when the muslims have reproduced sufficiently to get a majority in parliament, the age of consent will come down to 9 for "religious reasons" for muslims.

Can't you see that the "religious attire" of this despicable religion ONLY applies to women?

We ban hoodies in malls, but not "religious" garments that could have bombs (or male faces) under them. These are the only people who get to go disguised through airports.

Where is the sense?

THREE CHEERS FOR UKIP!

8 March 2012 15:45  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Your Grace, I do wonder about your reasons for phrasing your comments as you have. It seems that you have almost put together an argument FOR gay marriage, rather than welcoming more to the fold in the fight to keep marriage purely heterosexual.

So what if UKIP are doi it for votes? Do you think any of e other parties don't do exactly the same thing nowadays? It is VERY rare to find a politician who is truly about their convictions, rather than being in it for the promotions and the money. Most will claim that they stand up for what they believe in, but most also find that what they believe in is influenced purely by what will get them elected. Hell, why do you think Cameron is doing this anyway? Purely to get votes from people who think that the Conservatives are still the "nasty party". I doubt it will work, but the move is purely being made as an attempt to show the party as one that is socially aware and "with it".

Certainly, as a principle I would agree with you. But given that it is solely about votes from Cameron it would be rather apt if the decision was changed because of votes too!

8 March 2012 15:47  
Blogger Roy said...

@ Derek T Northcote

UKIP ( The BNP for the middle classes ) and Robert Mugabe's Regime both on the anti-gay side.

Presumably you have never heard of the expression "guilt by association" or of the activities of Joseph McCarthy.

8 March 2012 15:53  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

" ... the United Kingdom has ... three centuries of progressive freedom of religion, and it was hard-won."

Hard won indeed and it most certainly hasn't been here for three centuries!

My recollection of history lessons in school is that Catholic emancipation only started in Britain in the late 18th century and early 19th century.

Until its successful completion there were many restrictions on Roman Catholics introduced by the Act of Uniformity, the Test Acts and the penal laws. These included amongst other requirements the need to abjure the authority of the Pope and deny transubstantiation. These measures effectively prevented Catholics entering Parliament and the higher levels of the judiciary or the civil service.

Now back on topic after saying that, although there is a link.

One wonders if there will come a time when one will have to abjure Christian principles to enter Parliament, enter the judiciary, the civil service or work in the health service or for local government.

If homosexual marriage becomes equivalent to heterosexual marriage then certain things follow. It is saying it is wrong to object to homosexuality on faith grounds. To speak against it or refuse to acknowledge its legitimacy becomes discriminatory and unlawful under equality legislation.

8 March 2012 16:01  
Blogger non mouse said...

To approach it from another angle...

Traditionally, we British have structured our society (and its morals/laws) to maximise the well-being of individuals, who depend on the welfare of the family, which depends on larger groups (including the religious one), which depend on, but negotiate with, the nation.

As long as we had our own state, then individuals and families knew where they stood in a nation that had worked, in practical terms, for their like-minded forebears.

Thus if - say a widower - decided for the sake of his family to marry a woman he loved less than another - he made a moral and sanctifiable choice by which all parties could agree to abide. Whatever pressures were applied, the man responded rightly.

Now, instead, a system is evolving in which every individual must answer directly the to the euSSR, regardless of personal circumstances. Communication with the governing body is forestalled, and families, churches, and the nation, are deconstructed. LAW is imposed by Anonymasters, while twittering in small groups provides 'venting' for Nothings and Nobodies.

Thus we approach the totalitarian situation where, if the euSSR tells us we must practice homosexual marriage or submit to gang rape as punishment for bigotry ---> end of.

When we reach the stage where children are battery-farmed... well, all the books will have been burned, so no-one will know that Huxley warned us.

I'll support whatever group moves to prevent this, and to re-establish our nation.

8 March 2012 16:08  
Blogger Oswin said...

Bravo UKIP! It's as simple as that; owt else and it's just blether.

8 March 2012 16:32  
Blogger G Lauder-Frost said...

The entire issue is simple. If the State wishes to go down the toilet and license homosexual marriages providing they get the required votes in parliament for the litany of unrepresentative MPs they can do it. However they are not authorisied by any legislation to interfere in the doctrines and practices of The Church. No legislation will ever do that. It would be a step too far.

8 March 2012 16:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Can someone tell me what the basis of our laws against sex with sheep are based upon?

We breed them intensively, disgard weaker lambs as uneconomical, leave them out in all weathers, cart them about the country in confined spaces and then slaughter them.

What can possibly be wrong with treating them tenderly, using them for sexual gratification or even "falling in love" with one and seeking a long term relationship with one we may grow particularly fond of?

Simple case of beastphobia if you ask me. Shouldn't be allowed!

8 March 2012 16:47  
Blogger Philip Walker said...

Surely opposing Mr Cameron's redefinition of marriage is in fact in line with UKIP's "libertarianism", due to the threat to the liberty of those who hold the normal traditional definition: "any criticism of same-sex marriage which may be expressed by someone on the basis of their faith could be classified as a 'hate crime'. That would be a grotesque assault on people's freedom of conscience".

UKIP also have always expressed support for this nation's "traditional values", so presumably their opposing Mr Cameron's redefinition of marriage is in line with that too.

However I doubt UKIP can always be relied on to support Christian values. I think their candidate here supports unrestricted abortion.

8 March 2012 17:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace, now what is this all about…

But UKIP seeks to coerce Muslims and homosexuals in a manifestly illiberal way, under the expedient guise of liberty for Christians. By creating barriers to the freedoms of religion and association, they are displaying the authoritarianism of any totalitarian creed.

You giveth with one hand with just a cheer and a half, yet your gift still includes bitter fruits…

UKIP was not founded in, and does exist in, a state of grace. Yes they were wrong in the Inspector’s opinion on the Burkha. He thinks that if a country goes down the mass immigration road, they have to live with the consequences of their immigrants’ attire. Most Muslims are about as British as expats who live in Spain are Spanish. They are mainly Pakistanis living (…comfortably…) in exile. It would be manifestly wrong to demand other of them.

Indeed, If UKIP wish to appeal to the Christian nature of potential voters, then excellent. One would hope that the ‘Independence’ part of their title also includes independence from harmful ways and influences Johnny Foreigner brought with him to this country instead of leaving them behind, and making a new start !

So there you have it. Is it really so shocking that UKIP are playing party politics to impress voters. Remember when the Conservatives did just that. Didn’t need coalitions then, did we !!

8 March 2012 17:56  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

D. Singh @ 8 March 2012 14:40

I agree completely with the observations in your post regarding same-sex marriage and inter-racial marriage. The two are not comparable. Unfortunately, these comments, however correct they might be, are irrelevent to a claim of religious exemption. The basis of the claim cannot be "I am right and the law is wrong." The law officially takes no notice of either position. They are both "wrong" according to the law. So why should the man who objects to same-sex civil unions/marriage be granted a religious exemption, but not the man who objects to inter-racial marriage? If the basis of the exemption is merely a compelled conscience, then both parties have an equally good claim.

Religion is not and should not be a 'get out of jail free' card when it comes to the law. There is not a man alive who could sustain the contrary proposition for longer than 30 seconds in an argument. Don't we all agree that it would be a terrible thing for sharia to get legal standing in a western country? Wasn't it said on this very weblog "One law for every citizen." It surely was.

This is why I said that the problem is not that men will be compelled to obey the law. The problem is the law itself. The problem for us is the increasing divergence between the public requirements of the law, and the public requirements of the Christian faith. It's forcing a choice. I see the claim of exemption as a way to diffuse the necessity of choice. But it's a temporary fix. It won't last.

carl

8 March 2012 18:16  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Can someone tell me what the basis of our laws against sex with sheep are based upon?

I suppose a lack of consentuality would'n't do you would it?

8 March 2012 19:00  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

No, it wouldn't actually. Humans don't typically ask animals for consent.

carl

8 March 2012 19:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dreadnaught, The Inspector believes “Gross Indecency” covers it. Same law that gays used to get caught by in public toilets. heh heh

8 March 2012 19:11  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Humans don't typically ask animals for consent.

Typically??

Well, quite frankly carl, I wouldn't profess to know as much about it you clearly seem to do. Care to expand?
:-)

8 March 2012 19:14  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

Hrmm. It that what is called "Leading with your chin?"

;)

carl

8 March 2012 19:21  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector, but who defines "gross indecency" and on what basis? Surely sheep wouldn't see it as such.

And sex in toilets is still a criminal offence.

Dreadnaught
"Please sheep. Would you mind?"
"Bah, bah."
"Oh good."

8 March 2012 19:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Good Christian men of the past, reflecting a Christian society, glad to say. There is also the lesser charge of “outraging public decency” which the censors relied on. Having glimpsed some of the muck on TV today, rather wish we’d stuck with them...

8 March 2012 20:23  
Blogger len said...

Blimey this will be known as the 'gay ' blog soon.

For and against... and so we go round and round.

What did Jesus say about Gays?......that`s right nothing.

The Bible says though 'For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.' (John 3:17)

So the argument seems to be is being 'gay' a sin or can we re- define it as 'normal'or are we all merely 'sinners' and all need saving regardless?.If indeed the World needs saving then that must mean ALL of us!.

Well unless we are a 'new creation' born from above then we ALL stand condemned.

Which in my mind at least makes it a very level 'playing field.'

8 March 2012 20:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Blimey this will be known as the 'gay ' blog soon."

:)

It's been noted many times that some religious people think more about gay stuff then most gay people do.

8 March 2012 20:51  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len, the argument isn't whether having homosexual tendencies is sinful, nor are we discussing whether acting on those tendencies is sinful.

The thread is about whether marriage between same sex couples is good or bad for society. Cameron says he believes it is. Christian Church leaders disagree.

Which takes us to another issue. Does it really matter what society is like?

In your philosophy it appears not to matter. We are either 'saved from above' or not. Final. In mine it does matter because sin is giving in to disordered tendecies, whatever they might be, and acting on these inclinations. The society one lives in can make resisting evil more or less difficult. Normalising sin disturbs people's moral compasses.

Defending Christian marriage is critically important and I'm surprised you do not understand this. But then, you're a 'new creation' and it wont affect you. And those who come after will either be 'born again'or not.

8 March 2012 21:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

It seems to me in atheist, secular terms there really is nothing wrong in having sex with a sheep. Why would there be? So long as they don't suffer and you do it in the privacy of your home, what could the basis of an objection possibly be?

Sure, it repels most people. The thought of using one's sexual organs for purposes they were not intended for by nature. So what?

Zoophilia, is the practice of sexual activity between humans and animals (bestiality), or a preference for or fixation on such practice. Zoophiles are an oppressed minority. They should be alloed tolive their lives.

In the past, bestiality laws may have been made in the belief that sex with an animal could result in monstrous offspring, as well as offending the community. We now know different and communities should be tolerant and not exhibit such zoophobia.

Children need to taught to be tolerant and to be be warned of the risks should they be drawn to this desire. They should also be reassurred there is nothing wrong with them.

In 2005 there was a farm near Enumclaw, Washington that was described as an “animal brothel”, where people paid to have sex with animals. An incident In July 2005, resulted in a man's death as his colon ruptured due to having been sodomized by a horse.

Infections can be transferred through sexual contact with animals too. Activities that expose humans to the semen, vaginal fluids, urine, saliva, feces and blood of animals can transmit zoonoses such as brucellosis, Q fever, leptospirosis and toxocariasis, so sexual activity with animals is, in some instances, a high risk activity.

With proper education of our young community tolerance will grow and the activity will become safer.

8 March 2012 23:16  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I fully agree with you Dodo let's start the campaign right now. We must stop this gross injustice of inequality of all these minority groups so that we are all the same.
It doesn't matter that it harms society and a few die of agonising diseases, at least the drug companies will get to make more profits. There isn't much difference between homosexual activity and bestiality anyway.

8 March 2012 23:40  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

The thought of using one's sexual organs for purposes they were not intended for by nature.

Well, remember. If there is no created order, then there is no natural usage. Perversion then cannot be determined by measuring deviation from intended use. It must be determined by measuring deviation from the behavioral norm. Now, I am sure our worthy opponents could present some rationale or other for not having sex with animals. What they will never admit however is that their case against bestiality is just as arbitrary as any case that could be made it its favor. Random events don't have moral content, you see. They simply are.

carl

8 March 2012 23:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Perversion , surely a nasty, judgemental word that needs to be deleted from the dictionary?

9 March 2012 00:20  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Marie, I know, all this nasty discrimination is so, so bad. Nobody has a right to impose their views on a minority group. And how can freedom possibly harm society? We should let one another enjoy life. We onlt live once, then nothingmness.

Equal rights for zoophiles - now!

9 March 2012 00:26  
Blogger outsider said...

I have just watched Question Time. It was on the BBC so it must have been balanced. Apparently no-one on the panel or the audience had any objection to gay marriage. The only divisive issue was whether opposing it should be a criminal offence. So no votes for UKIP then.

9 March 2012 00:29  
Blogger David B said...

@G Lauder

So the institution of marriage in many parts of the world which had never come into contact with Christianity until a few brief centuries ago, or indeed those marriages which predate Christianity didn't count.

As a not altogether welcome guest to this forum I try to maintain politeness, but really your post above is a supreme example of ass-hattery.

David B

9 March 2012 00:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...

"It's been noted many times that some religious people think more about gay stuff then most gay people do."

That's because Christians actually think and use reason rather than simply giving in to desires. It's called being moral.

Any views on the oppression of zoophiles? We really need to tackle zoophobia as well as homophobia.

9 March 2012 00:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David B

So the institution of marriage in many parts of the world which had never come into contact with Christianity until a few brief centuries ago, or indeed those marriages which predate Christianity didn't count.

Christians consider marriage to be a creation ordinance which means it predates all human culture. It is a fundamental part of the created order in which we all exist.

carl

9 March 2012 00:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

David B, of course you're welcome here. hatever made youthink otherwise?

You said ...

"So the institution of marriage in many parts of the world which had never come into contact with Christianity until a few brief centuries ago, or indeed those marriages which predate Christianity didn't count."

Of course they count! God's natural order and intended purposes, implanted in the heart of everyman, does not depend on the spread of Christianity.

9 March 2012 00:56  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl

Snap!

9 March 2012 00:57  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Oh how Ernst wishes he had followed His Grace's lead and gave up QuestionTime, if not for lent as Ernst does not observe it, at least for his blood pressure's sake.

Another disastrous show for the majority at home but it appeared delightful for the contrived 'all walks of society' the BBC manage to 'manage' each week.

You know it's going to be dire when you look at the listed panel and see David Starkey as the voice of reason!

Tonight (Would have ben a great night for Peter Hitchen to be on but)

Will Self who only know's about talk bout self.

His fictional style of writing is described as being 'satirical, grotesque, and fantastical' but like the catholic archbishop he was lambasting then. One rule for them and other for those, err.. Not Like Them!

A bad boy who it was said was an emotionally confused and self-destructive child (Nothing changed as an adult then) no class warrior storming the citadels of the literary establishment from the outside, but an Oxford educated, middle-class metropolitan who, despite protestations in interviews, is about as much at the heart of the establishment as you can get, a place he has occupied almost from the start of his career. A PROFESSIONAL LUVVIE!
1st novel Cock and Bull (p.1992) — the stories of a man and a woman who develop sexual organs of the opposite sex.
Self Sufficient and Self Satisfying..Bit like your Self Absorbed commenting, Will!

Caroline Flint
'One of Britain's best-known politicians today describes how being raised in a London pub by an alcoholic mother and hard-working grandparents made her into the high-flyer she is today.' Ever wonder what turned her to drink, lass?
Sweetie, when you start chirping Ernst starts slurping!

Her advice to today's new women MPs is: "Be true to yourself and also get out of the bubble. (Westminster translation. Say whatever is convenient to 'get on' and extract as much bubble from the expenses hookey as possible)" She thinks Mr Cameron is often "crass" towards women in the Commons."

'At Westminster, she has regularly been voted the "sexiest woman MP" but she also complained of being used as "window dressing". (Oh I know, I know. What with all those photo shoots of you in a slinky red dress slumped seductively over a chaise longue. *oh me ribs hurt*)
I Am A Woman which trumps all except Gay men? Will Young tonight as happened when David Starkey was on the show..Oooh, There's a peck(er)ing order then!)

Janice Atkinson
Why were you there?????????? Chocolate kettle!

Eric Pickle
Out of the closet then, Eric!
Doesn't appear to take much for you to change your mind, hmmn.
So Gay Marriage is acceptable and Churches will NOT be forced to give a solemn service for Gays that demand *ahem* Equality, yes.
Bet that Stonewall 'engineer' one pretty sharply once it's put into law. Off to ECHR it is then, just to see who exactly has real jurisdiction over this nation. You can see it coming as sure as Gays demanding children via whatever means are available..Right to a Gay Family Life?

Loved the 'Yes will', 'I agree Will' to hairy canteuse wearing spectacles from the Oxford Lecturer range.

Such a disappointment Eric but then you only mimic davey boy, All Things To All Men, the new 'in' for Torys!

Will Young - Singing/Acting non entity, kitted out in fancy dress outfit from BBC show Inbetweeners.
Hear,..word in your shell-like boy. Putting on glasses does not make you look or sound eloquent nor any points you make having any obvious rationale.
Homophobe, homophobe, homophobe as the answer to anything you disagree with. Pathetic.
The song that people know you by is 'Think I'd better leave right now'. Wish you had, at about 10.34pm last night.

Ernst

9 March 2012 01:43  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Outsider 00:29
The panel didn't really get it on Question time earlier this evening.
Will Heaven sarcastically mentioned the link with the Church, State and the Monarchy but they didn't get that it's about redefining marriage in law and the consequences thereof. They were just outraged about what the Catholic Cardinal said. At least Eric Pickles stood up for freedom of speech.

Homosexuals seem so determined to find homophobia everywhere in society and when it's not they invent some by claiming there is an underlying strain of it that needs eradicating. They have too much time on their hands I think.

9 March 2012 01:53  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

PS

It appears all sorts of non entities can get a seat reserved for 'representing the public Voice' in general on the show, therefore,

A Suggestion To BBC from Ernst

I would like to nominate Mr Alan Dean, Chairman of The Council of The English Tiddlywinks association as your next 'voice of the public' choice. I don't think he is gay, black, a woman, a muslim, an immigrant but may be married with children and grandchildren and is over 65 and *gulp* votes Conservative. Might this be a problem for you?

I am sure he knows a damn sight more about current affairs than reality show 'Yes I'm Gay' singers or ethnically selected professional football assoc presidents who 'ad an Educashion and who are ere on telly coz the kidz iz our future…innit?'.

Ernst 'most disappointed' Blofeld

9 March 2012 01:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "That's because Christians actually think and use reason rather than simply giving in to desires. It's called being moral."

Lol. Apart from the fact that your comment has no relation to mine, it's ludicrous too. Do you actually believe the shite you write here at times?

You're saying that gay people have no morals, rather than just moral reason to a different end to you, and that we're just driven by desire. How does that actually help you, it's beyond even a caricature.

We need more religious people like you in public, we couldn't fail to get our justice then. You ought to go on Question Time as the next candidate for the Right Hand Chair.

9 March 2012 07:49  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Carl

'If the basis of the exemption is merely a compelled conscience, then both parties have an equally good claim.'

My basis is what Francis A. Schaeffer called 'Absolutes' - I reject moral relativity. Those 'Absolutes' are derived from revealed truth. That permits me to make valid distinctions. On that basis both parties, in this case, cannot have an equally good claim.

9 March 2012 07:50  
Blogger Les said...

Christianity/opposition to cults/ anti-left/anti-hard right/ pro-UKIP.

http://christianityisnotleftwing.blogspot.com/

9 March 2012 07:52  
Blogger Les said...

Derek Northcote's 'BNP for the middle classes' is offensive, ignorant and ill-informed.
UKIP has many homosexual members and takes from ALL colours and creeds.
It has put forward candidates from ethnic minorities on many occasions.
IT DOES NOT GENERALLY ALLOW EX BNP TO JOIN!!!
BNP is a 'statist' party - UKIP most certainly is not!

9 March 2012 07:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Well, remember. If there is no created order, then there is no natural usage. Perversion then cannot be determined by measuring deviation from intended use."

There's a large hole in that. I note your use of created order there. Some of the order we see has developed, it doesn't need to have been planned or intended in advance. Hence, I think you have a non sequitur in your point. I also note your use of perversion there. That's a very loaded word often slipped in to carry value judgement, as I'm sure you know. Using one's mouth during sex is perverted in one sense of the word, but most people don't think it's unacceptable in the other sense. Ever had a blowy, Carl? We perverts would be happy to have you in our ranks if so.

9 March 2012 08:04  
Blogger Cork said...

Did you know that in the eyes of Chatham House UKIP is seen like the BNP as an extreme right wing party? Read a report published by the Searchlight Educational Trust at an event at Chatham House yesterday evening.

9 March 2012 08:15  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

SERIOUS mistake by UKIP

Faith" if you are gullible enough is a private matter, as is religion.
No church is being forced to perform Gay marriages.
It is just that they are to be given equal civil legal status.
None of the church's business.
Nor, actually UKIP's IF they really ARE a Libertarian party ...

Libertarian UNTIL it comes to the bedroom, maybe?
Not a good idea!

9 March 2012 08:24  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Tingey, you cretin, THEY ALREADY HAVE LEGAL EQUALITY!!! Ever heard of civil partnerships?
Also, surely if we follow your last comments then it's not government's business either.

As an aside, I'm surprised the comments on same-sex blessings by the new Dean of St Paul's has not been mentioned, either as a post or in comments.
http://cranmercurate.blogspot.com/

9 March 2012 09:24  
Blogger IanCad said...

To Quote HG:

"UKIP have compromised their libertarianism for electoral advantage:"

It was bound to happen sooner or later. All downhill from now I'm afraid.

9 March 2012 09:32  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Interesting aside - This release was not done by Nigel Farage. I wonder why that was? Surely if anyone is going to give the govt a good bashing it would have been him. How strange...

9 March 2012 10:34  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

I've said this til I'm blue in the face, most people throughout the world do not see 'Gayness' as normal and will certainly oppose Gay marriage. Why can't Gays accept the compromise they were given in the form of civil partnerships? This begs the question as to why the UK feels the need to buck the trend ( I know it's not just our government caving in to the Gay Lobby)and the consequences of going down this road could mean more simmering resentment and I'm pretty sure there is plenty of that already over immigration for instance.

9 March 2012 11:36  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

D. Singh

I reject moral relativity.

Well and good. So do I. But you seem to found your claim for an exemption on the following basis: "I should be exempted from obeying the law because the law is wrong." The state obviously does not agree that the law is wrong. Else it wouldn't have enacted the law in the first place. If to listened to your claim, then it would also have to listen to the claim of the man who rejects inter-racial marriage. Your response is "Well, he is wrong, too." You have effectively demanded that the state accede to your understanding and determine its conduct towards you and others according to your guidance. This it will not do.

When Shadrach was commanded to worship the Golden Idol, he didn't say "That is wrong. I demand an exemption." He said "I will not do it." There is a large difference between those two responses.

carl

9 March 2012 12:02  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Carl

There is something we need to be clear about – and it seems to be something that you are imputing to me at the end of your post – I believe where there is a collision between God and Caesar’s demands – it is better to obey God.

Referring to the State: ‘This it will not do.’

Why not?

It listened, eventually, to those who brought wicked King John to the field of Runnymede; it listened to Lord Cromwell and, eventually, submitted to him; it listened to the Dissenters and eventually removed the civil disabilities they were placed under; it acceded to Catholic emancipation; it acceded to Martin Luther King Jr.

We in this country are not yet at the stage where there is systematic persecution of Judaeo-Christians – there is still space and time in our democratic system to argue for exemptions.

I accept, on the evidence so far, that that window (barring a revival) is closing fast. And when it closes we’ll know who worships the Lord our God.

9 March 2012 12:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...
"Ever had a blowy, Carl? We perverts would be happy to have you in our ranks if so."

True to form our resident 'philosopher' descends to the gutter ... again!

9 March 2012 12:46  
Blogger D. Singh said...

DanJo

'There's a large hole in that. I note your use of created order there. Some of the order we see has developed, it doesn't need to have been planned or intended in advance.'

It is an observed scientific principle that matter does not give rise to matter.

9 March 2012 13:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, you've been talking about shagging animals back there, for goodness'sake. My point is a valid response to the comment I was responding to. Oral sex is a normal, natural sexual activity which most people, except perhaps some sexually-repressed Catholics, find completely acceptable. Yet it uses a body part in a way that it was not obviously 'intended for' in religious language. People who do it are not perverts or deviants, except perhaps to some left-of-field Aquinas fans. Honestly, I wonder how you even manage to dress yourself in the morning given the way you argue here.

9 March 2012 13:32  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Having established that zoophilia is acceptable, subject to animal welfare concerns being accomodated and health and safety guidance, it's now time to consider other groups.

There is no 'created order' or 'intended purpose' by nature of God, just human freedom. If it's pleasurable, is not apparently harmful, then why not?
There's no such thing as 'perversion' because this presupposes order and a proper purpose.

We need a program to address zoophobia - and religious people who object because of strange beliefs in mythical beings are denying the rights of the others will have to accept it's a right.

Now we have contraception and abortion, let's accept sex between siblings - heterosexual or homosexual. What possible objection can there be to consensual sex between brother and brother, sister and sister or brother and sister? And why not allow them civil partnerships and marriage? Time to remove this taboo and be tolerant of diversity.

Consensual adult incest is afterall is a victimless crime. Russia, China, The Netherlands, Spain, France, Turkey, Israel and the Ivory Coast have no legal prohibitions on consensual incest. Studies show a large portion of adults who experienced sibling incest see the act as "normal". Who are we to disagree?

Come on, let's stop all these judgemental and Victorian attitudes towards our body parts!

9 March 2012 14:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 March 2012 17:34  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

D. Singh

I am not trying to impute anything to you. I am asking you to identify a consistent basis for your request. Our hypothetical clerk could solve the problem of conscience by quitting. But we presume he would rather not sacrifice his employment. So he goes to someone in authority as a supplicant and he asks to be excused from certain requirements of his job. What is the basis of his request?

Our clerk cannot expect that he will be granted his request on a simple assertion of religious conscience. It is a given that religious belief does not overturn the law. That's why Mormons and Muslims can get arrested for bigamy. It is also a given that our clerk cannot demand to be excused because the state should respect his belief that he is right and the law is wrong. If this was the case, then our hypothetical racist would have to receive an excuse as well. The administrator has a responsibility to treat his employees equitably. So then I ask the question.

When the clerk's supervisor asks "Why should you receive an exemption?" our clerk is going to say ... what?

carl

9 March 2012 18:40  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Ever had a [etc,etc,etc]"

DCI: "What a mess. I don't think I have ever seen an argument quite that mangled before. Who found the body?"

DS: "A bird."

DCI: ...

DS: "Don't ask."

DCI: "Any witnesses?"

DS: "Several. Evidently it struck a heroic pose and badly misconstrued 'natural usage.' Then it became tangled in it's own syllogisms, hopped around on one foot trying to free itself, and finally impaled itself on it's own wooden logic. Not much to it, Sir. I think we can call it self-inflicted."

DCI: "Any dying declaration?"

DS: "Ouch."

DCI: "Funny, Troy. Very funny."

9 March 2012 19:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl,one cannot fault your line of reasoning.

It makes it even more urgent that Christians defend the established values. And when we loose, as I suspect we will, we should be prepared to make whatever sacrifices are called for. That's what the early church did and that's what our brothers and sisters are now doing throughout the world.

9 March 2012 19:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Thanks for that, Carl. A simple "That's not what I meant despite what I wrote" would have sufficed. I'll extend the discourtesy back in due course.

9 March 2012 19:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 flounced and how!

9 March 2012 22:13  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

I'll extend the discourtesy back in due course.

As if you haven't already. The question you asked of me was beyond inappropriate. It was vulgar and crude. There was no reason for you to personalize the conversation like that. There was no reason for you to smear it with sexual innuendo. And what happens? OIG follows right in train with a post just as annoying to me. The whole thread could have dissolved into a collection of double entendres with me right in the center.

That left me with the difficult decision of how to respond. I didn't want to ignore it. I didn't want to respond badly. So I made a conscious deliberate choice to shift the context of your statement away from sex, and still indicate what I thought of the quality of the argument. I tried to make light of it. For the life of me, I don't know why you are offended, and frankly I don't care. You should be much less concerned about how much I offended you, and much more concerned about how much you offended me.

I have never, and will never, and would never make a comment like that to you. I expect the same consideration.

carl

9 March 2012 23:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. Certainly no disrespect directed towards you from the Inspector. Have now removed that which annoyed...

9 March 2012 23:29  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

Thank you for that consideration. I appreciate it.

carl

9 March 2012 23:32  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 sid ...

"Oral sex is a normal, natural sexual activity which most people, except perhaps some sexually-repressed Catholics, find completely acceptable. Yet it uses a body part in a way that it was not obviously 'intended for' in religious language. People who do it are not perverts or deviants, except perhaps to some left-of-field Aquinas fans."

Not wishing to rub salt in the wounds but you really don't get the Christian view on sexual behaviour. Without understanding it, you simply slip into narrow minded abusive and ignorant comments.

If all sexual acts were considered separately then oral sex would not be permissible because by itself it is a non procreative sexual act. If that was the case, then almost anything people do would not be permissible, except for the very basic sex act itself.

Obviously this is not the case. So oral sex as foreplay is part of the entire sexual act, if it finishes with proper intercourse as a part of a sexual act between validly married people, that is procreative and unitive and is permissible.

There is no such thing as a Catholic manual on what is right and wrong! The Church is unlikely to produce a detailed and specific guide as to what is allowed in the marital bedroom.

There is a very moral framework for sexual activity - within marriage, between a man and a woman, for both unitive and procreative purposes. Christians agree on this but differ around whether procreative purpose can be considered within the totality of married life as opposed to each sexual act. It's why homosexuality, zoophilia, incest and masterbation is considered morally disordered.

If you really want to understand the Catholic position, as opposed to making ill-informed pontifications, read John Paul II's "Theology of the Body'.

For both Puritans and libertarians, the body is merely a tool, thought to be manipulated differently: by the former exclusively for reproducing children and by libertarians for pleasure. It is not only Puritanism but also libertarians that fail to understand properly the body and bodily desires in their natural meaning as good.

10 March 2012 02:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 March 2012 03:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I guess it was a bad day on Planet Predestination yesterday. Who knew they were so very prissy over there about ribald comments used to push the point home? Blimey.

10 March 2012 03:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, the point I made and subsequently expanded on was a much broader one i.e. what happens if we don't accept our reality is deliberatedly ordered or intended by a god. I followed the argument as stated and found it wanting. That is, we can still have natural order without intent. The notion of natural usage therefore still exists but morality obviously doesn't blindly follow from that. We throw more into the mix to make those judgements and, in my experience, the value judgements in the words deviant and pervert usually come from something rather more earthy.

The Christian view of sexuality is ultimately dependent on the core premise of Christianity: that a human-centric god exists. I'm an a-theist. Theism doesn't work for me, it's too much belief with too little associated reality. If I accepted all the base assumptions for the sake of argument then the Catholic theoretical view of sexuality is coherent. But so what. I can construct arguments which are valid, making them appear sound is rather more difficult.

10 March 2012 04:15  
Blogger len said...

I see they arguments for and against'gay marriage and lifestyles'have deteriorated in the 'usual way'.

Whilst watching TV the other day I became increasingly aware of the agenda in the Media to make people conform to certain viewpoints and lifestyles.This is done by constantly 'hammering home' points and issues which those behind the Media wish to express.
This is nothing less than propaganda and is used to change public opinion in quite a wide range of issues.

Which brings us to the point does man know have knowledge of what is right and what is wrong?Or is man an empty vessel being filled by the Media?.

No worldly book explains so precisely all the various manifestations of the conscience in man as does the Bible.
In examining negative examples we see how evil deeds evoke in man feelings of shame, fear, grief, guilt and even despair. Adam and Eve, for example, having tasted the forbidden fruit, felt ashamed and hid with the intention of concealing themselves from God (Gen. 3:7-10). Cain, having killed his younger brother Abel out of jealousy, afterwards began to be afraid that some passerby would kill him (Gen. 4:14). King Saul, persecuting the innocent David, wept from shame on learning that David, instead of taking revenge, had defended his life (I Kings 26). The proud scribes and pharisees, who brought to Christ the woman caught in adultery, began to depart in shame when they saw their own sins written by Christ in the ground (John 8). When Christ chased the merchants and moneychangers out of the temple, they left without protesting, knowing that it was wrong to turn the temple into a market-place (John 2).

Perhaps we should listen to that still quite voice inside rather than the loud fanfares of the Media telling us what we should do, what we should believe?.

10 March 2012 08:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len, so why don't you add your voice to the objections to homosexual marriage? Or is that too much to ask from someone who seems to believe no man or Church has the right to name sin for what it is? Would be too judgemental as we are all sinners who stand condemned?

You stand on the sides lines witnessing others explaining why homosexuality is sinful, yet add nothing except criticism of those who challenge the distorted teachings of those who promote it.

10 March 2012 09:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJo

Who are you trying to kid?

You offend someone and he explains why. Your response:

"I guess it was a bad day on Planet Predestination yesterday. Who knew they were so very prissy over there about ribald comments used to push the point home?"

Just like this comment to another decent blogger was intended to emphasise a point:

" ... then a sycophant like you breaks off from rimming him to write stuff like that....
And Dodo, I hope you brushed your teeth afterwards. ;)"


J S. Mills would be so very proud of you!

10 March 2012 10:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo / Carl. Don’t expect an apology from DanJ0. His pre-occupation with oral sex is the homosexual way, and we know he doesn’t compromise. He pay’s the price for it, mind. Not even pro gays would leave him alone with their children...

10 March 2012 13:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "You offend someone and he explains why."

That's not all he did otherwise he might have been met halfway at the very least. Dodo, blowjobs are normal and natural and we're all grown men here. The question I asked was basically rhetorical anyway and I think the point was completely valid. Being a bit ribald at times deliberately reinforces the point. It's like occasional swearing for effect.

Honestly, it's like some sort of alternative reality down here at times. On this thread you talk about someone being sodomised by a horse and on the thread below you are delighted by an ASCII art drawing (now deleted) by your sidekick of a man showing his bumhole. Yet you swish your petticoats when it suits you, in this case about the terribly shocking word "blowy". Get real, huh?

"J S. Mills would be so very proud of you!"

What on earth has he got to do with it? So weird, at times, so weird.

10 March 2012 13:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Not even pro gays would leave him alone with their children..."

You're the unmarried man here and a Catholic to boot. Why aren't you married at your age? Let's face it, it's not a vow of celibacy, is it? Do your happily married friends, who probably all have mid-age children by now, like you bouncing their young daughters on your lap like one of those 'special uncle' types? Look in the mirror hey.

10 March 2012 13:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oooo, well I never, he can be so, so bitchy!

And you know you should apologise; just too narssistic to admit it. Whenever you're in a tight corner you fall back on personal abuse. You know it; we all know it.

10 March 2012 14:21  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

.. that's narcissistic in case you want to look it up.

10 March 2012 14:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Good point on the marriage question. You see, the Inspector was always against ‘shacking up’, so he missed out there, it’s called principles, don’t you know. (You used to find them in politics a long time ago). For him, marriage was a serious lifetime commitment, still is. So there you have it; as he was not content to engage in a ‘see how we get on’ arrangement, he didn’t.

Now, the important thing is this, he didn’t leave society and become part of a group, let’s call them, “disappointed bachelors”. He didn’t rant about injustices like never been able to qualify for child benefit, or the married man’s tax allowance (if you remember that). He wasn’t even disappointed when his mortgage lenders reduced the amount he was hoping to borrow, because his ‘single persons’ status meant that he would need to stump up the usual standard charges like TV licence money and water, by himself because there was no one else to share paying it. No, he stayed with society, accepting his lot, and not making a bloody nuisance of himself...

Paid off handsomely though. He feels that he belongs to society. It’s a good feeling. No axe to grind, no agenda to fight for. No worries mate, as the Australians would say. So how about it for you ? Forget the gay agenda and re-join the rest of us. Come home...

10 March 2012 14:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "And you know you should apologise; just too narssistic to admit it."

He subsequently blew that option (no pun intended) himself. I'm honestly amazed that a grown man can be so shocked at what I said. This is the open internet in 2012, not a seminary college forum. I wasn't trying to be offensive in that instance at all either.

"Whenever you're in a tight corner you fall back on personal abuse."

I don't think I've ever been in a tight corner since I've been posting here so that doesn't really work as an assertion. In reverse, you're offensive almost all the time but that's to be expected from a troll.

I also notice you have stepped over the stuff about the ASCII art. If you were actually self-aware then that would have stung. I also notice that you love using other people to fight your battles with me, your not being up to the mark yourself and all.

10 March 2012 14:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, save it for the judge.

10 March 2012 14:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0, now I'm a troll again, am I?

"On this thread you talk about someone being sodomised by a horse and on the thread below you are delighted by an ASCII art drawing (now deleted) by your sidekick of a man showing his bumhole."

The first was an objective comment about the dangers of zoophilia. Not made to shock or cause offense. You've never answered the points about beastiality and incest. No opinion?

In terms of 'Sid the Sodomite', I did think it funny. I simply asked where it had come from and expressed an opinion it was "creative". Hardly delighting in it?

The other point that has escaped
you is that neither of these posts were were addressed personally to anybody with the intent of causing upset. Unlike your gratuitous sick remarks to carl and Albert.

I see you're now having a dig at the Inspector's private life, even suggesting he's a peadophile. What a grubby, disgusting man you are. His answer demonstrated a degree of integrity beyond your understanding.

10 March 2012 15:00  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ps

How do you know I'm using other people to fight my battles with you? (As if that would be necessary. God what an ego!)

They may all be me ....

10 March 2012 15:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Just like this comment to another decent blogger was intended to emphasise a point [...]"

Dodo, that comment was to you and it was for doing much the same as you are doing here. You're not a "decent blogger" or anything like it. For instance, you used multiple IDs to deceive people into thinking they're surrounded by Catholics in an argument. There's nothing decent about that.

10 March 2012 15:03  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

That's not all he did otherwise he might have been met halfway at the very least.

Yes, actually, that is 'all I did.' My only connection to the 'sheep diversion' was to deny Dreadnaught's assertion that bestiality is wrong because animals can't give consent. My point was that humans never ask animals for consent in any interaction between humans and animals. Why then should sex be different? Unfortunately I did it in a hurry because it was just at the end of my lunch here when I made the post. I left an unfortunate double meaning which I didn't intend. Dreadnaught made an obvious joke about it, and why should I get angry over such mild embarrassment? It happens. There's no sin involved. There's no guilty mind. You laugh at yourself and move on.

That has no relation to your comment however. You had a valid point, yes. But you had no business making it in the way you did. You had no business asking me personal questions about my sex life. You had no business slathering the conversation with homosexual innuendo. But instead of getting in your face about it, I chose to do a parody in hopes of shifting the context away from sex. It still amazes me that you were offended by it. But when subtlety failed, I decided to try the direct approach and simply tell you that you behaved like an ass.

carl

10 March 2012 15:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "I see you're now having a dig at the Inspector's private life, even suggesting he's a peadophile. What a grubby, disgusting man you are."

Have you read what I was replying to from your sidekick? Dodo, when you look in the mirror do you actually see any reflection?

10 March 2012 15:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "But when subtlety failed, I decided to try the direct approach and simply tell you that you behaved like an ass."

Thereby losing any chance of an apology from me for unintended offence in the process. I don't think I need to be sorry for my actual action itself of course.

So, here we are as a result. You're a prude. A puritan Puritan, ironically. Get over yourself, for goodness'sake. Or get out more.

10 March 2012 15:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Having viewed LBGT ‘pride’ marches on television, one cannot help but witness the male younger members of this grouping ‘mooning’ to passers by, albeit trousered, but the insult is plainly there. One can also perceive current gay activity on their marriage prospects also as ‘mooning’ but at society. So you are ‘offended’ by a cartoon showing an obviously gay man doing the same to you, are you. Well, weep away, dry your eyes and we won’t mention it again then.

As for the Inspector’s private life, he has nothing to hide, (...apart from his finest single malt when a certain pal visits...) and certainly nothing to be ashamed about. Do have a go though, if you must...

By the way, before you get to criticise the Inspector’s comments on this blog, do get the opinion of a neutral observer. Don’t want a pot and kettle situation, now do we...

10 March 2012 15:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "So you are ‘offended’ by a cartoon showing an obviously gay man doing the same to you, are you."

I'm not at all offended. Keep up man, I was simply pointing out Dodo's hypocrisy. You seem to have a Get Out Of Jail Free card from him for most of your behaviour around here. I wonder why that is?

10 March 2012 15:44  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

I'm honestly amazed that a grown man can be so shocked at what I said.

Shocked? No, I wasn't shocked. I was irritated. There are some lines that just shouldn't be crossed. There are some things I won't say to a woman simply out of respect. (You know, like "Have you ever given a guy a blow job?" or "When's the last time a guy went down on you?") I apply those same rules across the heterosexual/homosexual boundary and for the same reason. I expect that same consideration. It's not a difficult concept to understand.

You shouldn't have to be told things like this. Neither can you cover it up by flinging around meaningless insults like 'prissy' and 'prude.' You can't justify your bad behavior by making me responsible for the outcomes that proceed from it.

carl

10 March 2012 15:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You can add pompous to the list now, Carl.

10 March 2012 15:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Just apologise DanJ0. That or give me your address and I'll dispatch a spade and pick axe to you.

10 March 2012 16:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, I'm happy with what I wrote originally so there's no need. Listen up, this is not a dinner party environment. If it were then I wouldn't be talking about politics or religion at all, let alone homosexuality, and you would have been thrown out already for talking about sheep-shagging and people being rogered by a horse.

This is the internet where rather different rules of communication apply and where certain benefits follow as a result.

I honestly can't see what the fuss is about over that essentially rhetorical question given the relevance to the point. But hey, I'm not prudish myself. The response could easily have been just a sidestep rather than what followed which simply compound things. There's where this went properly astray. I don't require an apology though, it's just a forum when all is said and done.

10 March 2012 16:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0, you caused offense. That's reason enough to apologise.

I accept this is a forum and we are all inclined in 'the heat of battle' to cross certain lines. I recollect carl himself describing blogging as a 'contact sport'.

There are certain comments I would make to you that I just wouldn't address to others. It's like the time you insulted the Eucharist. You really don't get it sometimes.

Man up and say you're sorry. We'll all think more of you for it.

10 March 2012 16:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

So, let's take an alternative look at this. The conversation is about "using one's sexual organs for purposes they were not intended for by nature." where you're trying to position homosexuality and zoophilia side by side in typical Dodo fashion.

Carl chips in with this "Well, remember. If there is no created order, then there is no natural usage. Perversion then cannot be determined by measuring deviation from intended use." in direct response.

I think the argument is flawed anyway, as most of Carl's are because they usually segue from his religious construct to the complete opposite, and I show the flaw turning on 'natural usage' with the reference to using a mouth as a sexual organ. Carl takes offence at the question as we now know.

Note I also raise the issue of his use of perversion and deviation there given that this is also catching homosexuality in its net. I infer that we're being called perverts and deviants by the side door. The implication is actually there, I think.

I then get Carl's response, which insults the argument rather than simply points out that he didn't mean 'natural usage' in that way. It's not still clear what he meant either, but hey. He unnecessarily draws you into it by reference, provoking your glee in the thread below and resulting in your posturing from behind him now. Note there's nothing about his self-imposed line there.

I just shoot back with a pithy warning in response and I get an arsy comment about offence, including this "For the life of me, I don't know why you are offended, and frankly I don't care.", which sets the whole tone for me. Of course, you and your sidekick are ramping it up in the background which was, of course, inevitable at this point and I've got a Merkin being pompous on top of his prudery and posturing.

So, no, I won't be apologising. If an apology for offence is universally necessary then that's for Carl to give in the first instance about the perversion stuff and his subsequent incivility. Not that I require it myself, it's just a forum when all is said and done, not a dinner party.

Of course, the follow on from this is you will adopt the word perversion, along with pervert and deviant, to continue with your homophobia and trouble-causing, erroneously believing I will be offended by it from you. So be it. It's just a game with you and your sidekick to fulfill some inner psychological payoffs, I know. It becomes a game in reverse to disrupt it. I really ought to refuse to play, which is in itself a game of course.

10 March 2012 17:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "It's like the time you insulted the Eucharist."

I'm off to Tescos shortly, I might cast a few insults at the Ryvita too when I walk by. That's the kind of guy I am.

10 March 2012 17:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

So how much of that self jusification are we meant to swallow?

It wasn't the question to carl. It was the way you posed it. Try to understand.

The points about zoophilia and incest were serious ones and I'd be interested in what possible objections your ethical code to have to one or both inclinations and practices. And I never used the terms "sheep shagging" or being "rogered by a horse". Again, indicative of your crude mind and mouth.

And this ...

"... the follow on from this is you will adopt the word perversion, along with pervert and deviant, to continue with your homophobia and trouble-causing, erroneously believing I will be offended by it from you."

It really isn't about you or trying to offend you! Certainly, I find it useful to use provocative tactics to break through your pomposity but I've never actually called you a deviant or a pervert - although I do regard the behaviours of homosexuals as being both - same with beastiality and incest - objectively speaking.

Let's face it you want to be the "Oracle of Cranmer" around here. Whenever you start to loose face you attack me with my past transgressions. Fair game, though you do lie about the extent and purpose of it and get all self righteous. On top of this you use smutty and unnecessary references to homosexual practices and even stoop so low as to insult Christ Himself.

" ... it's just a forum when all is said and done."

10 March 2012 18:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "So how much of that self jusification are we meant to swallow?"

All of it, of course.

It's a coherent explanation of what actually happened. It's subjectively true, too, as I expect an unbiased reading ought to show.

"It wasn't the question to carl. It was the way you posed it. Try to understand."

No. It's the question. Try to understand, yourself. He thinks I've no business asking him it. He said so himself. He also thinks I should know this, though I think otherwise. You're projecting for your own benefit and getting it a bit wrong in normal Dodo fashion.

As we both know, this is nothing really to do with Carl here. You're simply using him. It's about you and me. In particular, about your humiliation over your systematic deceit over the IDs and its subsequent exposure. You think this is your payback moment, having laughably tried numerous times recently to find one. The faux glee and call to comrades in the threads above and below show this perfectly. Well, dream on.

I'm on solid ground here as ever. I didn't consciously set out to offend him but I'm quite happy with the point I made and the role the question played in that. Had he set out his objection openly afterwards I would have taken note of his personal quirks there and probably expressed regret in his case as I usually find his comments very interesting. However, he didn't.

So, sling your hook.

10 March 2012 19:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

And kick your racist sidekick about the thing a little earlier there, if you have any sense of personal integrity left. I shan't hold my breath waiting though.

10 March 2012 19:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0, flounced, shuffled his petticoat, twirled and shrilled ...

"So, sling your hook."

"I'm on solid ground here as ever."

And so modest too!

"Had he set out his objection openly afterwards I would have taken note of his personal quirks there and probably expressed regret in his case."

And generous to a fault.

" ... this is nothing really to do with Carl here. You're simply using him. It's about you and me."

And I never knew you cared. Why on earth didn't you say so, dear boy? Mind, I'm way too young for you having not reached 80 years yet.

"I shan't hold my breath waiting though."

Please do.

10 March 2012 19:29  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

No. It's the question.

No, it was the fact that you involved me personally in the question. If you had asked it in the abstract, then none of this would have happened. But you insisted on personalizing it. For effect? For emphasis? For what? All it did was irritate me.

So I purposely ridiculed an argument that was founded upon a bunch of impertinent questions that should never have been asked. Which is evidently much worse than asking a bunch of impertinent questions in the first place. I did it to do exactly what you suggested - to side step the issue and avoid conflict. Do you know I actually expected you to laugh. But you got your nose out of joint, and decided that I had acted 'discourteously.' As discourteous as asking that question you shouldn't have asked? As discourteous as presuming to stick your nose into places it doesn't belong? That's actually what got me mad enough to respond. I was just irritated until you threw in that bit of hypocrisy.

carl

10 March 2012 19:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl

The highlighted part is what really got his goat.

DCI:" .... Who found the body?"

DS: "A bird."

DCI: ...

DS: "Don't ask."

10 March 2012 20:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "As discourteous as presuming to stick your nose into places it doesn't belong?"

For'goodness'sake, it was essentially rhetorical. The reason I asked was because it's almost inconceivable that you haven't, thus driving home the point. Lordy, look at the sort of stuff that is thrown at me here over the details of sex between men and what they imagine I do. I just shrug it off. Impertinence? Dear oh dear, listen to yourself.

I don't know you from Adam. You don't even live in this country. In reality, I don't care whether you wheelbarrow your wife around the room dressed as a construction worker, or have sex only to conceive, using just the missionary position, and trying desperately not to enjoy it because it's a bestial pleasure of sorts.

You're words on a screen. It's not like I'm looking you in the eye over the dinner table, passing you the salt, and asking whether you and your wife have had rumpy pumpy earlier in the day because of her rosy glow that evening. Give it up. Sheesh.

10 March 2012 20:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

I really cannot believe you have just written that DanJ0 after all that's been said!

You're a Graham Norton wannabe aren't you? Shock factor through crudity?

10 March 2012 20:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Right then DanJ0, lets get this ‘racist’ tag sorted....

The Inspector appreciates black people as members of humanity and for the contribution they make to society. HOWEVER, certain members of the black race are anti social and destructive not just to society but to themselves. NOW, we’ll treat these as ‘the problem’. If the ‘the problem’ was relatively small in numbers and their behaviour only slightly worse than the norm, it wouldn't be a problem, but it’s not so it is. What’s more, it is manifestly clear that ‘the problem’ a) is resulting in their continent failing b) themselves failing c) areas where they live are failing c) people they come into contact with are failing

All the Inspector wants to do is to find out WHY. And get this, with NO stone unturned and NO sacred cows.

Why him ? Very simple, academia won’t touch it. Not now, and maybe not for a hundred years...

So, if that makes the Inspector a racist, off you go and call him that and anybody else who is concerned with the truth on this subject, and has the balls to declare it....

10 March 2012 20:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 March 2012 20:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, save it for the football match.

10 March 2012 20:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "I really cannot believe you have just written that DanJ0 after all that's been said!"

I've written it precisely because of what's still being said. I'm getting a bit tired of the prissy, pompous berk now.

10 March 2012 20:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, was rather hoping you would put the Inspector down on your ‘well deserved apology’ list...

10 March 2012 20:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Apologies are apparently in short supply at the moment. The austerity period, you know. Still, at least you didn't get a kicking from Dodo for your earlier comment. You can thank me for taking that for you, if you like.

10 March 2012 20:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

You're words on a screen. It's not like I'm looking you in the eye over the dinner table

I suppose that's the difference between us, DanJ0. I don't change how I interact with people simply because the interaction occurs on the internet. I try always to be conscious of Whom I represent. For it is a certain fact, isn't it, that if I behave badly, then people will say "Look at that 'Christian' behavior. They are such hypocrites."

carl

10 March 2012 20:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I have to say, there is definitely something quite satisfying about being vulgar periodically in order to cut through the flimflam in an argument. The juxtaposition does tend to stop things in their tracks. Of course, rather like swearing it mustn't be overused. I never used to swear at all until well in my 20s but these days I can't fault the strategic deployment of the F word now and again.

10 March 2012 20:35  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0
How can you call somebody a "prissy, pomous berk" after your faux indignation at my behaviour?

And, yes, God forgive me, I'm enjoying witnessing you being taken apart and exposed in this way after your earlier self rightousness towards me - godfather.

" ... it's just a forum when all is said and done."
"You're words on a screen."

10 March 2012 20:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "How can you call somebody a "prissy, pomous berk" after your faux indignation at my behaviour?"

Because he's being a prissy, pompous berk and he's getting on my thrupennies. At least I'm being brutally honest, you're just riding him like a mule for your own psychological needs.

"And, yes, God forgive me, I'm enjoying witnessing you being taken apart and exposed in this way after your earlier self rightousness towards me - godfather."

Taken apart? The guy is just huffing and puffing and you're trying to make the best of a bad job by trying to fan the flames. The laugh is that you're overplaying your part by a country mile, here and on the adjacent two threads, and it makes you look like you're on stimulants instead. With the embarrassing blows you've absorbed along the way too, I think it's you who is suffering rather than me.

10 March 2012 20:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "I try always to be conscious of Whom I represent."

One for you there, Dodo. ;)

10 March 2012 20:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Agreed DanJ0 and I suspect it was directed as much at me as you.

10 March 2012 21:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

You're still being made to look like a silly, self absorbed plonker. Please don't try to deflect your embarrassment onto me.

10 March 2012 21:06  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

I suspect it was directed as much at me as you.

Then you would be wrong. It was directed at no one. It was a statement of fact.

carl

10 March 2012 21:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Please don't try to deflect your embarrassment onto me."

You embarrass yourself here almost every day without any help from me. In the name of Jesus, too, which must really choss him off if he exists. I'm fine with what's gone on here so far, it's unpleasant but things always are around you so I'm used to that.

We can reconvene at some point on another thread if you still want to talk about sheep-shagging and people getting rogered by a horse. In the meantime, you can look at what JS Mill has to say about public decency. Perhaps even explain what on earth you were on about him for earlier, too.

10 March 2012 21:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oh do get over yourself DanJ0 and stop all this wallowing in self importance. It's unbecoming - even for you.

As for how I conduct myself, well I'm not really that bothered what you think. You're committed to your way of life and no one's trying to change you.

Just be sure I will on ever occassion that presents itself challenge your representations of human sexuality and your attempts to justify what I regard as perverted and deviant acts. If that means being unkind towards you, well tough.

10 March 2012 21:52  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...
"We can reconvene at some point on another thread if you still want to talk about sheep-shagging and people getting rogered by a horse."

And that's it, isn't it? There's no way in your ethics to distinguish between bestiality, incest and sex between people that focusses solely on sensual pleasure. And, just to be clear, I'm talking about heterosexuality as well as homosexuality and self indulgence.

10 March 2012 23:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "And that's it, isn't it? There's no way in your ethics to distinguish between bestiality, incest and sex between people that focusses solely on sensual pleasure."

Huh? What part of "We can reconvene at some point on another thread of you still want to talk about [...]" didn't you understand there? Of course there's ways to ethically distinguish between them. I've covered incest in the past, which was hardly difficult.

If you really must raise zoophilia then I'll deal with that as well when I'm minded to, though the arguments are rather different. Just not here given that you've completely trashed the thread in your dubious quest for reputation rehabilitation.

11 March 2012 06:59  
Blogger len said...

'you've completely trashed the thread in your dubious quest for reputation rehabilitation.'

That seems to be 'The Way of the Dodo'.
And more evidence that religion is best kept well away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

11 March 2012 08:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Not judgeing me are you len? Tut, tut, tut.

And I think you'll find you friend Danj0 disturbed this thread with his gratuitously offensive comment to another blogger and thereafter his childish attempts to justify it. Do read things before you comment.

11 March 2012 10:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 March 2012 10:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I don't think it's offensive at all in the context and offense was not intentional either. However, scanning the thread from the top about the UKIP intervention in the gay marriage debate, I notice someone else rather strangely and suddenly launched into a sub-topic about sheep-shagging and someone being rogered by a horse. *meaningful look*

11 March 2012 10:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

*throws hands up*

Look Dodo, you're completely hopeless at this sort of stuff. It's like shooting fish in a barrel most of the time. It makes me embarrassed, you're basically indulging in masochism.

11 March 2012 10:52  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0... flounces (again)

Shooting yourself in the foot, more like! What, still licking your wounds?

11 March 2012 14:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "What, still licking your wounds?"

My wounds? Lol. You must live in a dream world. You overplayed your part as usual and it went pear-shaped for you.

11 March 2012 15:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0: yeah, yeah. In your dreams. Do you really think you can reconstruct reality this way and actually get away with it?

The only person falling for your 'spin' is len and that's only because it means opposing me.

Poor lad. Have you always been so competitive?

11 March 2012 16:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

What have I got out of your latest shenanigans?

Well, I have multiple demonstrations of your unashamed hypocrisy. I've had a laugh teasing you, too. On top of that, you've shown your almost complete lack of self-awareness ... again. Most importantly, you've shown your desperation to recover from your multiple ID damage, being willing to callously ride Carl like a mule just to try to throw some mud at me. Boy, that dénouement over the IDs must have hurt you even more than I thought. Of course, you tried to bluff that one out too without success. The over-stimulated comments on the threads above and below are funny in themselves, of course. Not a good look, though I don't suppose you see that.

What have I lost?

Nothing, really. Carl taking offense at the start is unfortunate but hey. Besides, that's irrespective of your shenanigans.

So, a fairly good result and you brought it all on yourself too. Thanks.

11 March 2012 16:34  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

In your dreams.

Do you have many fantasies? DanJ0's world is a strange and magical place!

11 March 2012 16:50  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

Carl taking offense at the start is unfortunate

Like you I have neither remorse nor regret for anything I wrote yesterday. But I will accept this as an olive branch and attempt to resolve the matter.

1. I will agree that you did not intend to offend me with your question. Will you accept that I did not intend to offend you with my police parody?

2. I will refrain from using any form of parody or ridicule when dealing with your arguments. Will you refrain from asking me questions of a personal nature?

3. I will attribute the 'pompous, prissy berk' stuff (whatever the hell a 'berk' is) to anger and let it go. I was angry yesterday as well.

Are we agreed?

I have been pondering whether this was caused by a difference between Europeans and Americans. I don't know the answer. I know that kind of question is unacceptable over here.

carl

11 March 2012 18:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Will you accept that I did not intend to offend you with my police parody?"

If you say that's so then yes, no problem.

"I will refrain from using any form of parody or ridicule when dealing with your arguments."

Actually, I don't really mind ridicule if it's in keeping with the context. I give enough of it out at times. That particular one just didn't go down too well for various reasons.

"Will you refrain from asking me questions of a personal nature?"

I've already resolved to do that once this thread has died its death. I'd say it must be a cultural thing given the reaction. That said, it's definitely vulgar over here and I was certainly being irreverent for effect. I'm also from near Liverpool and we tend to be a bit sweary up there.

I can offer more than an olive branch, I can give a compliment too, albeit it with a slight edge. I maintain that your arguments are usually false dichotomies of a sort but I do find them fascinating and they do get to the very core of some things, perhaps because of a Calvinist slant. Hence, I think they're very worthy things here. I thought it would be a shame for me not to feel able to comment on them in future.

So, is that one of these?

11 March 2012 18:53  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

Yes, it would be one of those.

A few years back, I knew a young woman who played Women's College Basketball here in the US. She was very similar to me theologically. It so happens that an extraordinary percentage of women's college basketball players in the US are lesbians. Something on the order of one in two. So she had a considerable amount of experience in maintaining a faithful witness, yet respectfully. I learned much from her, but I have never had a chance to practice what I learned until I arrived here. That is because you did not immediately dismiss me as a bigoted homophobe. For that I am grateful. Respect is to me the foundation of human relations. As long as it exists, there is wide room for disagreement.

A Christian can struggle with respecting homosexuals. The judgment of the behavior as unnatural can oh so quickly slip into a judgment of the man as unnatural, and from there it is but a short step to contempt. It is a dreadful application of Christian anthropology, but it is as easy as falling asleep. We are all sinful creatures, and we by nature love to cast others down that we might by relative measure appear to be lifted up.

Liverpool btw is where my Father disembarked during the War. He arrived on 14 June 1944 on a converted Ocean liner that was considered fast enough to not require convoy. During the trip, the ship's Captain was warned of waiting U-Boats and so he took evasive action that delayed arrival by two days. When my father got off the ship, the dock workers were surprised to see them. The Germans had already reported the ship sunk. Said one of the dock workers to my father "We thought you was dead."

Welcome to England.

carl

11 March 2012 21:15  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Carl

'Our hypothetical clerk could solve the problem of conscience by quitting.'

Why not fight the issue through the law courts?

Why quit?

Did not St Paul appeal to Caesar?

12 March 2012 07:57  
Blogger Stone Wall said...

Such a great discussion going on. I have read blog and all comments, People really commented well. I have found Gay Rights Movements book which provides so many love story of gay!!!

12 March 2012 11:14  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

D. Singh

Why not fight the issue through the law courts?

He could. But the same question still stands. What is the basis of his legal challenge? Religious freedom? Why does his particular religion warrant special exception from the law? Couldn't the hypothetical racist also fight the issue in the law courts as well? Or are you saying that any religious exemption is sufficient to excuse a man from the requirements of his job?

carl

12 March 2012 11:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Carl

'What is the basis of his legal challenge?'

Article 9 European Convention on Human Rights.

12 March 2012 12:38  
Blogger Chris said...

Politicians, apparently we can't live without them.... surely sometimes I wonder if they make everything way to complicated to save their own jobs.

I mean if things were a bit simpler, we wouldn't require so many politicians and that would save our country a fortune both in wages and expenses!

12 March 2012 19:45  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older