Friday, May 11, 2012

Advertising Standards Authority persecutes His Grace

C4M

Apparently there have been a number of complaints about one of the advertisements His Grace carried on behalf of the Coalition for Marriage. He has been sent all manner of official papers, formal documentation and threatening notices which demand answers to sundry questions by a certain deadline. He is instructed by the ‘Investigations Executive’ of this inquisition to keep all this confidential.

However, Since His Grace does not dwell in Iran, North Korea, Soviet Russia, Communist China or Nazi Germany, but occupies a place in the cyber-ether suspended somewhere between purgatory and paradise, he is minded to ignore that request. Who do these people think they are?

The advertisement in question is reproduced above. His Grace would like to make it clear to the ASA that he is now reproducing this allegedly ‘offensive and homophobic’ advertisement as an educative illustration of allegedly offensive and homophobic advertising; not as an offensive and homophobic advertisement per se. Naturally, His Grace apologises in advance to all those who find this educative illustration offensive and homophobic, for it is never his intention to be either offensive or homophobic. But those of you who do find it offensive and homophobic are free not to visit His Grace’s blog whenever you wish.

The specific complaint relates to:
c. An online ad, seen on the blog of ‘Archbishop Cranmer’, featured photos of couples on their wedding day on the first frame. The second frame stated “I do”. The third frame stated “70% of people* say keep marriage as it is ... (Source: ComRes poll for Catholic Voices)”. The final frame stated “Help us keep the true meaning of marriage. PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION Click here ... Coalition for Marriage”.
The 'Issue' here is that 24 anonymous complainants, 'including the Jewish Gay & Lesbian Group' (doubtless disclosed to give weight to the allegations), challenged whether the claim '70% of people say keep marriage as it is'. However, His Grace is not required to respond to that point, since he did not conduct the research. But it transpires that 10 of these 24 complainants objected that the ads were ‘offensive’ and ‘homophobic’, and he is requested to respond to these allegations ‘under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 4.1 (Harm and offence)’.

He is informed:
We intend to deal with the complaint as a formal investigation, which means it will be considered by the ASA Council. We will then draft a recommendation for the Council based on your response to us. Once the Council has made a decision, the adjudication will be published on our website.
...We require you to explain your rationale for the ad and comment specifically on the points raised in the attached complaint notification... 
They need to see ‘robust documentary evidence to back the claims and a clear explanation from you of its relevance and why you think it substantiates the claims. It is not enough to send references to or abstracts of documents and papers without sending the reports in full and specifically highlighting the relevant parts explaining why they are relevant to the matter in hand’.

His Grace is asked specifically to respond to the allegation that this:
this:
this:
and this:
are ‘homophobic and offensive’.

His response must be in writing, ‘preferably by e-mail’, by 21 May (typed in bold). If His Grace is unable to comply, he must ‘explain why you are unable to respond sooner and agree a timetable for your response’.

And then we get: ‘If you are not the right person to deal with this letter please tell us and pass the letter on to someone who is.’ His Grace is minded to respond that inflicting such an inquisition on an already appallingly-persecuted long-dead archbishop is perhaps not appropriate. He could then ‘pass the letter on to someone’ he thinks might be the ‘right person’, wondering for how long he might string this out...

His Grace is further minded to respond that he has neither fear of nor hatred for the gay and lesbian community, though he is a little pissed off with 10 of them. They could easily have emailed His Grace with their complaint, and we could all have had a jolly good chinwag about the whole thing. Instead, they called in the Gestapo to censor the assertion that marriage is a life-long union between one man and one woman, in accordance with the teaching of the Established Church, the beliefs of its Supreme Governor, and the law of the land. But to say so is now, apparently, ‘offensive and homophobic’.

Well, His Grace won’t be censored. He is further minded to provide the ASA with a copy of his well-publicised ‘bottom line’ (from the right-hand margin): Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse...

Unless, of course, we are no longer free, our democracy is no longer liberal, and it is now an offence to express the moderate view of the majority and promote the orthodox teaching of the Church of England Established.

354 Comments:

Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Well done Cranmer. Exactly the right response to this gay jihadist lawfare.

Can I urge your congregation to reproduce this ad & this article far & wide, as I will be doing. More than happy to put an offering on your collection plate as well if it becomes necessary.

Turn the other cheek in this situation and you'll be buggered.

11 May 2012 at 11:46  
Blogger Peter O said...

Unless, of course, we are no longer free, our democracy is no longer liberal, and it is now an offence to express the moderate view of the majority and promote the orthodox teaching of the Church of England Established.

Amen and amen.

11 May 2012 at 11:49  
Blogger Utar Efson said...

Your Grace -

Utar is not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination but it would seem self-evident that the ASA needs to provide comment and evidence to you in three areas before you should consider responding

1) The ASA must prove it has athority to pursue you over this matter. Utar would request details of statutory authority including possible sanctions

2) The ASA must explain why they are not pursuing the advertiser rather than Your Grance's blog medium

3) The ASA must provide robust evidence that the advertising is objectively 'offensive' and 'homophobic'.

Apoligies if these have been considered already.

'Til then Your Grace should advise them that you cannot commit to any imposed timescale and any timescales will be the result of exercising your human rights and within the spirit of natural justice.

UE

11 May 2012 at 11:50  
Blogger Jon said...

It wasn't me.

11 May 2012 at 11:54  
Blogger GGAANN said...

Shurley shome mishtake?

Their complaint, if they have one, is with C4M Org?

If they had looked at the ad they would have realised they have been suckered into a knee jerk reaction. I am sure they would claim that once they have received a complaint then they have to follow procedure etc....

Ignore it and they will have to judge the complaints on their (absent) merit and make a judgement, which if they are the professionals they claim will find no wrongdoing.

Your Grace try twitter @guyparker2, I would love to follow that conversation

" The ASA senior management team is led by Chief Executive, Guy Parker"

11 May 2012 at 12:00  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

The CofE stuff is irrelevant. This is a plain and simple matter of freedom of expression. I do hope, Cranny, that you will think several times before recommending again that we vote for the useless, incompetent and -- it seems -- malevolent gang of twerps currently governing this country.

And well said, Mr Utar Efson.

11 May 2012 at 12:05  
Blogger Michael said...

Your Grace,

To paraphrase the fictional Colonel Nathan R Jessup, USMC from "A Few Good Men",...THEY F***ED WITH THE WRONG DEAD ARCHBISHOP!

If you need advice on how to approach them, may I suggest you search on YouTube for Ezra Levant's interrogation before one of those Canadian Human Rights Commissions. As a defamation lawyer, he was the wrong target for such a complaint (he had republished the Mohammed cartoons in his magazine). Levant nailed the inquisitor to the extend that she resigned from the stress of all the exposure. He was brilliant.

It did cost him a lot in legal representation though. I donated to his cause and I will donate to yours if you require it. Please do not be too proud to say the word and give us all a PayPal address and the money will flow, as if it were Woolsey's gold on its way back from Rome.

Yours,

A friendly Freemason ;-)

11 May 2012 at 12:06  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Gosh, who knew that defending the law as it stands should be censored. Would it be offensive to republicans to assert that the Monarch is head of state or to assert to Welsh and Scottish nationalists that the United Kingdom is made up of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?

11 May 2012 at 12:09  
Blogger Utar Efson said...

An addendum to Utar's earlier post:

3b) Ask the ASA to demonstrate why the specific details of the alleged 'offence' and 'homophobia' are not protected under free speech provisions.

UE

11 May 2012 at 12:11  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

We are coming to the time when shortly proclaiming Christ will be an offense to the sensibilities of others, who state His Claims and our proclamation of them are divisive towards the sensitivities of faiths that cannot make those claims or indeed those that claim none.

As Timothy Laurence of London Chairman, Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship has state;
"The ‘old’ tolerance is seen in the conviction that everyone has the right to express differing views, especially when we disagree with them or find them offensive. This, he says, comes from a conviction that truth and goodness can be known and should be pursued by discussion and argument, and that Jesus himself will return to put wrong to right. The ‘old tolerance’ is a good thing and has come in large part from the influence of Christianity within Western heritage as the Reformation gradually led to a clearer distinction between the roles of church and state, expression and coercion.

The ‘new tolerance’, however, is the belief that one should not disagree with another view, but should accept everything (and hence nothing). Its flaw is that it cannot tolerate any view that is intolerant of it. To do so would be to tolerate intolerance; but not to do so would be intolerant! Therefore this ‘new tolerance’ is a self-contradiction.
While claiming to be value-neutral, it inevitably becomes the tool of bullying selfish interests, and Christianity itself is targeted most frequently."

Maybe we are now getting below the tip of an iceberg as these things occur.

We are with you! (But obviously not ALL who communicate on your blog)

E S Blofeld

11 May 2012 at 12:24  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

I suppose it's too simplistic to suggest that you tell the ASA to sod off and that you will have no further communication with them?

11 May 2012 at 12:29  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ps

Mr Laurence states these inferences from reviewing the book;
THE INTOLERANCE OF TOLERANCE
By D.A. Carson

Ernst

11 May 2012 at 12:30  
Blogger Preacher said...

Dr Cranmer.
With you 100%. What sort of country do we live in where freedom of speech is under threat of being gagged.
It makes one wonder what the new laws currently being drafted, where all our e.mails phone calls etc are scrutinised by ....... Who? will be used for.

11 May 2012 at 12:31  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Extraordinary! What an unpleasant country this is becoming!
I don't think you should even reply.

11 May 2012 at 12:33  
Blogger The Heresiarch said...

All you need to say is

1) You are not responsible for the content of the advertisement, which you published in good faith. Therefore you have no information or documentation to provide regarding the accuracy of the figured contained therein.

2) As a purely impartial observer, it appears to you, nevertheless, that an advertisement that says nothing whatever about homosexuality can scarcely be construed as homophobic or offensive.

11 May 2012 at 12:36  
Blogger Daddy said...

Your Grace,

As you know, I am very familiar with the kinds of threats you now face. Indeed, I have a fresh batch on my desk at the moment!

May I offer the suggestion that you publish all the papers in locked PDF form. I would imagine that not only will this expose the whole business but it will encourage skilled people, likewise with no corporeal presence I feel sure, to offer professional insight.

In any event, keep the ad running on your blog, and tell them to 'eat your ashes', or similar.

The idea that opposing something that is not yet law, is against the law, is somewhat amusing. Speaking of law, I am not under it, but under Grace. The Jewish Gays and Lesbians will however definitely find that they are, technically, under 'the law', to which I refer them regarding their professed faith's teaching on the aspect of their life that clearly means more to them.

Like the founder of Fathers 4 Justice, you might get banned from the Olympic torch relay, but I doubt you will want to get that close to the flames again.

Thank you for toughing this one out, Your Grace. Ask for whatever help you need. We need your voice.

11 May 2012 at 12:37  
Blogger Andrew Brown said...

This really is one of the fucking stupidest pieces of harassment I have ever come across. So what if the C4M are dingbats? Trying to get you for carrying their ad is like like Jimmy Goldsmith trying to shut down Private Eye by suing the distributors.

11 May 2012 at 12:46  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
There seems to be a great deal of militancy going on in a grand and organised scale. Maybe they think this thing is beginning to go against them so they are upping the ante.

I do not get visitors to my blog as a regular thing let alone commentators. In the last couple of days I have had two different vicious pro-gay comments.

Like the commentators above, I would not rush into doing a lot of work, potentially incriminating yourself, without them first confirming that they have the right (which unfortunately I think they have) and that they believe you have a case to answer. This advert has been published in national daily papers and I also saw it in ‘Country Life’. Do they have a justification to pursue you in particular?

One last comment, I’m sure your won’t automatically go for a Christian Lawyer, they are not always the best.

11 May 2012 at 12:48  
Blogger genghis said...

As with your correspondent ‘Daddy’, I am with you 100%. I have signed the petition, and feel that the other 60-odd million on these Isles should also sign, because one thing I personally cannot stand is being told what to do, or believe, or follow; just because some self-righteous wanker says I must.

I have written a few times about the monstrous campaign evident both here as well as overseas to get homosexual marriage to be ‘accepted; and my position, as stated within my own small blog; can best be expressed in the words of that anonymous American whose words I quoted, namely “God made Adam and Eve; not Adam and Steve’!

11 May 2012 at 12:53  
Blogger Tim Read said...

This is the problem with equality legislation that is based on the feelings of irrational people.

11 May 2012 at 12:55  
Blogger Jimbo said...

Watch out Your Grace, history is repeating itself, they might burn you at the stake, yet again.

11 May 2012 at 12:58  
Blogger Raedwald said...

Thanks for the heads-up Your Grace. I shall now be carrying the ad, and will inform the ASA that I'm doing so.

11 May 2012 at 13:06  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Other commentators are right: if you need financial support to contest the ASA's accusations, stick up paypal.

Good luck and God bless.

11 May 2012 at 13:15  
Blogger CV4UK said...

Persecution, Threats, Harassment.

It must be the Christian hating Gay Jihadists (See above)......... or......... just perhaps it is the same standard letter everyone gets whenever there is a complaint.

11 May 2012 at 13:18  
Blogger Caedmon's Cat said...

It comes to a pretty pass when the great Archbishop is persecuted by the Amateur Swimming Association.. ;0)

11 May 2012 at 13:29  
Blogger Nicodemus said...

Remember Balaam's donkey. He beat it because "that stupid donkey" saw something Balaam didn't see, the sword of the Lord.

Num 22:29-31 And Balaam said to the donkey, "Because you have made a fool of me. I wish I had a sword in my hand, for then I would kill you." And the donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your donkey, on which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Is it my habit to treat you this way?" And he said, "No." Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his hand. And he bowed down and fell on his face.

The secular forces at work in the UK are now going to start beating the Church because they think it is we who are getting in the way of their madness. But we should pray for them, that their eyes would be opened, before the sword falls, and God in His grace would send a revival.

11 May 2012 at 13:31  
Blogger Marcus Foxall said...

I was once called a "breeder".
I found that highly offensive.
Is there , should there be , a crime called "heterophobia"?

A propos His Grace's reaction - he must be joly annoyed , as I do not recall heretofore his use of profanity.

11 May 2012 at 13:41  
Blogger William said...

YG

Thank you for opposing the bullying tactics of the gay mafia. It seems they will stop at nothing to get their own way. Closing down debate being a speciality. Attacking MPs in favour of marriage being another. Interesting that they appear to have targeted you and not other advertising space.

It seems the new secular utopia is almost upon us.

Happy to contribute financially. Just say the word.

11 May 2012 at 13:43  
Blogger dfordoom said...

It seems to be the very existence of heterosexual marriage that is viewed as offensive. Heterosexuality is now "the love that dare not speak its name."

11 May 2012 at 13:48  
Blogger Galant said...

ASA Complaints Procedure: http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-action/Dealing-with-complaints/~/media/Files/ASA/Misc/Advs%20Leaflet%20Jun09.ashx

11 May 2012 at 13:54  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Ummmm ....

One wonders if:

"JESUS SAVES"

Is a breach of advertising standards because one is unable substantiate such a claim. From the perspective of atheists or minority faith groups it could be seen as misleading, bigoted and an attack on them.

I'm wondering what small minded little dweeb complained and, like you say, didn't pick the issue up with you. No doubt the 'Coalition for Marriage' are being asked similar questions.

11 May 2012 at 13:56  
Blogger Marcus Foxall said...

How come most people, unlike I, post under a pseudonym ?

Yes , some are quite witty or offer some insight into the poster's concerns / philosophical position.
The blog owner's name is a case in point ! (at least we all know His Grace's real identity)

But for all the talk of "standing up" to the authorities or other such beseeching from His Grace's followers to exhibit moral courage , are too many conservatives actually rather scared to do so ?

11 May 2012 at 14:03  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"(at least we all know His Grace's real identity)"

Do we? This is news to me.

11 May 2012 at 14:17  
Blogger Revd John P Richardson said...

Please tell how to copy the ad.

11 May 2012 at 14:17  
Blogger Skipper said...

This is ridiculous. The ASA is becoming the agent of the storm troopers of polysexuality. If they are going to prosecute every advert which doesn't say 'Gay is good' they are going to be very busy. I too am with you Cranmer.

Stephen Leeke

11 May 2012 at 14:23  
Blogger Marcus Foxall said...

AnonymousInBelfast said...
"(at least we all know His Grace's real identity)"

Do we? This is news to me.

11 May 2012 14:17

Please see the recent , entirely justified criticisms of David Cameron , by a most articulate poster ,on ConservativeHome.

11 May 2012 at 14:25  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Dodo,
JESUS SAVES (with the Woolwich). That's ok but not necessarily true.
Our Church and Pastor had a complaint about 'Jesus Heals'. It took up much time and expense. In another instance a man who had been healed through prayer was criticised about his testimony because he could not prove it was God that healed him.
One could say 'Jesus. Probably the best healer around today!'

11 May 2012 at 14:32  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The governing assumption of the accusation is "You are guilty until proven innocent." It's almost as if it's impossible to be factually wrong about this subject without the error being considered the result of malicious intent.

The burden of proof should fall upon the accuser. "Your ad was factually incorrect because..." "Your ad was offensive because..." "Your ad was homophobic because..." But to simply get a communication that says "Justify yourself" is unconscionable. This two-bit organization should produce a specific charge first.

I would not ignore them. I would bring as much publicity to this farce as possible. It's an overreach, and will serve only to ruin the credibility of the organization. For the sake of we Americans, what is this ASA? Do it's judgments actually matter to anyone?

carl

11 May 2012 at 14:40  
Blogger bluedog said...

They can dish it out but they can't take it. Keep is touch with developments, Your Grace.

11 May 2012 at 14:43  
Blogger BJ said...

Way to go Crannie....

Totalitarian thugs - I know that you don't like hyperbole but sod 'em.

11 May 2012 at 14:43  
Blogger IanCad said...

The ghost of the Star Chamber rises again.
What a privilege it must be to be harrased by these wretches. It proves that you are in the right.

11 May 2012 at 14:57  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@Marcus:

Nadine Dorries? :p

You'll have to help me out, I've been reading several pages of criticism, thinly veiled and otherwise, on Conservative Home...

11 May 2012 at 15:06  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Carl,
ASA, Advertising Standards Authority.

11 May 2012 at 15:06  
Blogger Lazarus said...

Complete nonsense! I'd say it was unbelievable -but given the present climate, it's only too believable.

11 May 2012 at 15:08  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Belfast,
You are still part of the UK aren’t you?
Nadine Dorries is an MP from somewhere up your end of the country but she is a notorious rebel in the Conservative ranks. Does a good job trying to bring to the forefront the issues of abortion.

11 May 2012 at 15:11  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@MrIntegrity: I meant no particular slight. Marcus suggested that an eloquent poster on Conservative Home who criticised Cameron might be His Grace. I noticed when scrolling through, that Nadine Dorries had posted just such a criticism of Cameron. It was just a tongue-in-cheek suggestion on my part.

And yes, last time I checked I am still in the UK, and have even lived in places other than the one in my anonymous-moniker :)

11 May 2012 at 15:19  
Blogger Marcus Foxall said...

AnonymousInBelfast said...
@Marcus:

Nadine Dorries? :p

You'll have to help me out, I've been reading several pages of criticism, thinly veiled and otherwise, on Conservative Home...

11 May 2012 15:06

Ah, no ! Or maybe - nudge nudge wink wink - it should be "AH - yes!"

I see they're all having a go about Call Me Dave. Quite rightly , too .

11 May 2012 at 15:29  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@Marcus:

You tease.

@Michael:

Those Ezra Levant videos are sublime.

This one seems to be particularly pertinent to Cranmer's present dilemma:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n3SdV2cwn4&feature=plcp

11 May 2012 at 15:39  
Blogger Jim McLean at Acoustic Village said...

If this had been April 1 I would have laughed out loud.
Utterly unbelievable how one side is not obliged at all to explain why they consider something offensive or worthy of investigation whilst the other side is asked to justify why it is not!

You cannot prove that something invisible doesn't exist. I am so fearful of the direction we are headed. It seems such a mix of Orwell and Hitler that it boggles belief!

11 May 2012 at 15:54  
Blogger Jim McLean at Acoustic Village said...

Although I would add that instead of simply a flat refusal to - what they would call - "cooperate", it would be best if a simple sentence or two was sent politely refuting any charge of homophobia and until you receive clearer details of the specifics of the charge there isn't a lot more you can say.

11 May 2012 at 15:56  
Blogger David Skinner said...

Well I am going to out myself as a homophobe. I was born like it; it is genetic. My dad was one and so was his dad and dad's dad's dad. There was never a day when I didn't know that was a homophobe- even from a very early age.

Do people really think that I have not tried to alter my orienation? I have been for gay affirmative thereapy and councelling, even to undergoing the medical procedures which I prefer not talk about in delicate company. Finally I was almost driven to suicide but you know what? The truth set me free. I am an out proud homophobe and have joined and made the most wonderful friends in homophobe football clubs, homophobe ramblers associations,homophobe gardeners and stamp collecting clubs. It's homophobephabulous.

11 May 2012 at 16:00  
Blogger Galant said...

Apparently those who are direct opponents of the C4M acknowledge a right to display the advert:

Pro same-sex marriage campaign group Coalition for Equal Marriage (C4EM), who run a counter-petition to C4M, also commented on the published ad stating: "'While Country Life are perfectly entitled to run whatever advertising they like, it is very disappointing to see that they either actively support a divisive campaign against equality, or they simply do not afford their advertising the same level of scrutiny and consideration as the Women’s Institute, who recently rejected the ad.’"

And that was published in the Gay Star News!

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/country-life-get-mass-complaints-anti-gay-advert310312

If you Google C4M advert you'll see a few people have taken grief over the ad - but I see nothing from the ASA.

11 May 2012 at 16:00  
Blogger Stewart Cowan said...

Your Grace, if the ASA allows those horrendously bullying Stonewall ads, "Some people are gay. Get over it." then I don't see how they can side with those complaining at your ads, which are not remotely homophobic.

Interestingly, the Guardian carried an online poll the other day. It lasted until midnight and at 11pm the split was 70/30 in favour of ditching the idea, but a flurry of activity on Twitter and elsewhere from pro supporters gave the pro-gays a victory in the dying minutes, but had it not been for that rallying cry, the figure would have matched the ComRes poll almost exactly.

I have screen shots should YG desire them as evidence.

11 May 2012 at 16:01  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

I have this to add to the excellent points made by others.

We should ask ourselves.

Why is this sort of thing being pursued at tax payers expense, when I can't get any complaint dealt with at all by either the police, the local council, the NHS, or any other government agency, unless I pull certain strings?

For example

My seven year old missed the first 3 months of the term as he had not gained a place in our closest junior school. After my wife finally broke down in tears through pure frustration with the entire system, I made a brief call to my local councillor, and we where given a place with the most gracious apology within 48 hours.

This is just one example, I could recite volumes more.

How many homo-sexuals do we think really give a damn about this advert, or the issue of Gay marriage in general?

I suspect very few indeed, possibly not even as much as 5% of practicing homosexuals, and even less of the public as a whole. Those that care to the most part are politically motivated Marxists, and therefore passionately aggressive atheists.

Have we seen any protest marches insisting on the immediate arrest of AB Cranmer, or "GAY marriage now or the baby gets it," plastered on wall of what used to be our local pub?

No of course we have not, neither are we likely to see any worthy of notice in the future.

THEREFORE

Where did this agenda come from?

Who has spent/invested billions promoting this agenda, over the last 30-40 years at least.

Why is this agenda supported by all governing parties, whether their own supporters, or the public as a whole like it or not?

Are not politicians supposed to want voters to vote for them?

How many more net votes does Cameron expect to get? I suspect minus several hundreds of thousands or more. Indeed this matter could turn out to be the difference between winning and losing.

This is just one bit more evidence which confirms the presence of an alternative government, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with democracy, and everything to do with secrecy, manipulation, lies, satanism, dictatorship, fascism, and ultimately mass murder.

IMO If the establishment move true to form, they will eventually turn of the homosexual community big time, once they know who they are and so where they live and work.

Just like Hitler did a short time ago with the European Jews, freemasons, and homosexuals.

Beware, a system run by the people that brought you gay marriage, and AIDS, is not to be trusted.

11 May 2012 at 16:13  
Blogger Oswin said...

Your Grace, I agree with Jim MacLean @ 15:56; do not hand these people a stick with which to beat you.

Let your communicants help you, where we can, Your Grace.

11 May 2012 at 16:14  
Blogger Galant said...

Would any of those of you firing at one another over the marriage/civil partnership issue care to have a stab at this?

The question I'd like to see more people answer - since I think it's central and clarified a lot - is 'What is marriage?'

11 May 2012 at 16:27  
Blogger Pétrus said...

Marriage is the coming together of two people for the primary purpose of raising a family.

11 May 2012 at 16:51  
Blogger David B said...

"Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse... "

Hear hear!

This liberal atheist who is in favour of gay marriage finds attempts to stifle freedom of speech offensive.

To my mind the business of the ASA is, or should be, to prevent ads which state demonstrable untruths, or are clearly intentionally misleading, but not to interfere with ads concerning matters of opinion.

Where will it all end? Banning 'Good without God' ads?

Perish the thought!

David B

11 May 2012 at 16:58  
Blogger LondonVicar said...

Unbelievable.

I do wonder whether conservative Christians need to start complaining about Stonewall ads.

That they are heterophobic.

11 May 2012 at 17:09  
Blogger Matt Wardman said...

>Do they have a justification to pursue you in particular?

They respond to complaints, I think.

So it is targeted at ABC.

Matt

11 May 2012 at 17:11  
Blogger Smoking Hot said...

ASA ... "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram"

11 May 2012 at 17:18  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Who's your contract to advertise with? Blogger is run by Google and you choose adverts that comply to the ASA's standards agreed in a contract between Google and the ASA I would think.
Your contract is with Google. You didn't produce that advertisement.

I wouldn’t even acknowledge anything from the ASA until they give in depth details of exactly what you are being accused of. Meanwhile I'd send the whole lot back to them marked no contract after first publishing it on your blog for everyone to read.

I think the deeper flow of this is the promotion of the common purpose agenda to remould society by taking equality to extremes so that we are all the same, but that can never be, so it is an ill thought out and unhealthy strategy. You're a threat to them as are all the other successful sites that support traditional marriage which is a contract between a man and a woman for the creation and protection of children to continue the species.

11 May 2012 at 17:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

A damnable outrage Archbishop. Hold your ground man, we are there with you. By persecuting you, they persecute us too. They have no jurisdiction over any of us, these blasted quasi fascists, are we not Englishmen ! Do publish any relevant addresses old chap, and the Inspector will be among those to hurl the filth back at these people.

Are they themselves committing a hate crime of being anti Christian ? Best defence is attack, you know. Will move heaven and earth on this one, as we must. Oh yes, do announce a fighting fund if it comes to it. Inspector will dig deep. And don’t forget to inform the Freedom Association – this is the kind of nonsense they specialise in…

Tally ho, together we’ll go forth and multiply them, what !!!

Last thought. We are only months away from the 80th anniversary of Hitler coming to power in Germany. Poignant, don’t you think ?

11 May 2012 at 17:35  
Blogger bradypus said...

I wonder who the complainants are after all Peter Tatchell is on record as saying "The price of freedom of speech is that we sometimes have to put up with opinions that are objectionable and offensive. Just as people should have the right to criticise religion, people of faith should have the right to criticise homosexuality.”

11 May 2012 at 17:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Shame on those Jewish queer types, eh Archbishop. Their forefathers were only allowed into the UK, in the majority of cases, thanks to our welcoming Christian spirit, to get away from anti Semitism, many to escape Hitler. Is it a conveniently short memory, or are they being somewhat selective with this truth. Whatever way, precious few complaints about us being Christian back then, one would wager…

And then there’s your solid support behind Israel over the months. Obviously, this counts for nothing with these ingrates. Must be the membership age is young, and the members not that experienced in life. Polite way of calling them stupidly ignorant , you know…

11 May 2012 at 17:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'd tell the ASA to sling their hook. What's the worst they can do? Post an adjudication on their own website? So what. As for the people who complained ... what a bunch of illiberal tossers. The C4M lot may well be a bunch of fringe conservative-Christian nutters but they're entitled to their say on this issue just like everyone else.

11 May 2012 at 17:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ladies and Gentleman, your esteemed Majesty, Prime Minister, Mr President, Your Holiness…

The Inspector would like to announce his new ‘skipping song’ - soon to be heard in playgrounds the length and breadth of the country and throughout the empire…


The only thing that matters
to a selfish bunch of tappers,
is a changing of the law,
to join two bottoms raw.
The rest of us will say,
a marriage can’t be gay !
And we won’t hear you no more,
so kindly close the door.


I thank you…

11 May 2012 at 17:40  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Good for you, Mr DanJ0.

11 May 2012 at 17:42  
Blogger Sean Baggaley said...

I have no problem with the concept of "gay marriage", simply because marriage originated as a contract between two families for the transfer of property—including daughters, who were considered chattels back in the day—from one family to the other. (This is why the parents of the bride were expected to pay a dowry to the family of the groom: they were literally paying the groom's family to take their daughter off their hands.)

However, like Oswin, I'm an irreligious liberal (the "atheist" is redundant) and disagree wholeheartedly with censorship. I'm very much with E. S. Blofeld on this: I'm an "old tolerance" type. There is no right to "freedom from offence"; any attempt to impose such a right is incompatible with freedom of expression.

So, while I may disagree with your views, I strongly support your right to both hold them and to express them.

11 May 2012 at 17:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Well, I'm a liberal first and foremost. If the blog owner wants a vocal advocate of same-sex marriage who is also gay and an atheist to argue against the notion that the advert itself is homophobic then I'm up for it.

11 May 2012 at 17:46  
Blogger jonathan said...

Archbish. You have to realise that with people like the ASA, or any other quasi-legal body, the process is the punishment.
So, you need to get the tip jar out ASAP and find a lawyer who's dealt with this sort of thing before and unless they're willing to work pro bono, they won't be cheap. Maybe one of your readers or others in the blogosphere can point you to someone.

11 May 2012 at 17:51  
Blogger PaulB said...

I see nothing in the ASA's powers to deter you from referring them to the reply in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.

On the other hand, the petition you're advertizing is a load of old bollocks. The best argument our Catholic friends can think of is that they're against polygamy. And if they're so keen on marriage being a union for life, why aren't they campaigning against divorce?

I suggest you bin the ad and the ASA's letter both.

11 May 2012 at 17:59  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

I've put this up on my blog (http://youthpastablog.wordpress.com/) with a link to the C4M website. To those that are offended and read this I say come and get me! Damned idiotics that they are!!!

11 May 2012 at 18:01  
Blogger C.Law said...

YG,

I have, on several occasions, been the Appropriate Tribunal in disciplinary hearings for a Disciplined Force operating in a Common Law jurisdiction (the equivalent to Courts Martial in the military) and, as such, subject to Judicial Review in the High Court. I have been required to justify my findings under very strict conditions and so contribute from a position of some practical authority.

It is the responsibility of the prosecuting authority to prove that an offence has been committed. While the ASA may be a body empowered to seek responses to complaints, it is certainly not empowered to require a complainee to respond in such a way as might incriminate himself. The Common Law principle of innocence holds good even for sub-judicial hearings.

The advice of Utar Efson and The Heresiarch is, therefore, apposite. In your responses to the ASA you must require them to provide specifics on how, where and when you have contravened which specified sections of the legislation. I recommend seeking professional legal advice - no doubt there will be senior counsel who will give advice pro bono in these circumstances: however, should you be so unfortunate as to find yourself required to pay for the advice you may count on me for some financial support.

May I also suggest that at the end of the erudite legal arguments provided by Counsel with which you respond you also add a simple "Bollocks!"

11 May 2012 at 18:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

PaulB: "The best argument our Catholic friends can think of is that they're against polygamy. And if they're so keen on marriage being a union for life, why aren't they campaigning against divorce?"

The argument that same-sex marriage will be required in Churches next is a bit iffy too as divorcees, Christian or otherwise, aren't taking Churches to court about undue discrimination as far as I know.

11 May 2012 at 18:09  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@David B, DanJ0:

Well said.

@bradypus:

I disagree with Tatchell on many many things, but on the issue of free speech, I think he is positively saintly in his willingness to support not only groups he agrees with, but those whose views he finds abhorrent.

11 May 2012 at 18:10  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

I wondered how long it would take the Thought Police to try to close you down

Not long it seems.

Perhaps it might be possible to move the website to another country? I know it would not solve the problem for your Grace personally, but your Grace could of course make his thoughts known through an intermediary?

If you are closed then Peter Hitchens / Melanie Philips will be next....... and then as Carl said "get the cattle wagons ready".

Phil

11 May 2012 at 18:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 May 2012 at 18:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

C.Law: "no doubt there will be senior counsel who will give advice pro bono in these circumstances"

There's always the Christian Institute, they love a case like this. Mind you, their involvement seems to be the kiss of death if the past has been anything to go by. ;)

11 May 2012 at 18:12  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@DanJ0 (18:09) & PaulB:

Incidentally, as Cranmer has pointed out before, the prohibition against having religious same-sex unions. I wouldn't be a member of one, but if a religious group has no problem with civil partnerships, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to celebrate them.

Good point about divorcees, DanJ0, hadn't given it much thought.

11 May 2012 at 18:13  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I'm sure Cranmer is not yet either stupid enough or desperate enough to seek out the Christian Institute lawyers.

11 May 2012 at 18:14  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Naomi

Any mileage in a complaint t to the ASA re the Guardian poll?

Phil

11 May 2012 at 18:14  
Blogger C.Law said...

DanJo,

That had crossed my mind, but as AIB has just pointed out, I am sure that HG is smarter than to seek the advice of such a biased group.

11 May 2012 at 18:21  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Your Grace, a reply in the order of Private Eye's response in the Arkell v Pressdram case is clearly in order.

More power to your sainted ashes.

11 May 2012 at 18:28  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Reading the comments I see at least one other commenter, Paul B, is of like mind. :D

11 May 2012 at 18:31  
Blogger Richard said...

What a gay day ...

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=82609

11 May 2012 at 18:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The content of the advert is produced by C4M, isn't it? The advert makes reference to the ComRes opinion poll commissioned by Catholic Voices to put out the 70% headline. Yet it looks like C4M commissioned a ComRes opinion poll itself and the answer was 51% who strongly agree or somewhat agree with the statement "Since gay and lesbian couples already have the same rights as married couples available to them under civil partnerships, they should not be allowed to redefine marriage for everyone else". I wonder why it chose the Catholic Voices one and not the one it commissioned itself?

11 May 2012 at 18:47  
Blogger Galant said...

For those wanting a 'tip-jar' it already exists at the top-right of the blog, right under-neath the new version of the advert in question, a button marked Donate' under the heading, 'About His Grace'.

11 May 2012 at 19:07  
Blogger Galant said...

With regards to churches not being sued if gay marriage becomes law, apparently all the legal groundwork with be there, all that it will need is someone with the desire to pursue it - and do we really think no-one will have the interest to complain about and sue a church for refusing to marry them when there is already all this furor about gays being denied their rights?

http://religionlaw.blogspot.com/2012/04/same-sex-marriage-and-european-court.html

I really am expecting to find myself on the wrong side of the law in the very near future. May I, and all of us, rest fully on His grace.

11 May 2012 at 19:16  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Freedom of speech does have its limits. Are we seriously saying someone is free to promote paedophilia or beastiality? Common decency applies.

Call me illiberal, I am opposed to homosexuals being able to actively a lifestyle I consider to be harmful, perverse and against Christian values.

The central issue for the ASA is whether the advert was deliberately misleading and motivated by bigotry and homophobia. That's their remit. They are not concerned with homphobia or bigotry apart from this. There are other thought control agencies for this task.

Christians are not a "protected group" under equality legislation because we are not a minority group - yet.

Of course the source of the advert and the alleged false and misleading research is the Coalition for Marriage and it is to them the ASA needs to turn.

As for the comments about the Catholic Church cmpaigning against divorce. Well, they do, along with abortion and contraception. And they do not marry divorce couples, "bless" civil marriages or partnerships.

Such things are tolerated in society but this is not the same thing as being condoned by the Church or being supported by them.

11 May 2012 at 19:21  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

*Call me illiberal, I am opposed to homosexuals being able to actively promote a lifestyle I consider to be harmful, perverse and against Christian values.*

11 May 2012 at 19:22  
Blogger William said...

Galant

"With regards to churches not being sued if gay marriage becomes law, apparently all the legal groundwork with be there, all that it will need is someone with the desire to pursue it - and do we really think no-one will have the interest to complain about and sue a church for refusing to marry them when there is already all this furor about gays being denied their rights?"

Indeed not. The ECHR has already fired a warning shot by saying that any institution that marries people will likely be in breach of equality legislation if they refuse to marry homosexuals in a country that has "same sex marriage".

11 May 2012 at 19:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

William. The ECHR has already fired a warning shot by saying that any institution that marries people will likely be in breach of equality legislation if they refuse to marry homosexuals in a country that has "same sex marriage".

Looks like the tolerance limit of homosexuals in this country will soon be put to the test then. This man does not relish hearing the mass in some farmers field because his church has an injunction on it. Wouldn’t be too long before things started to get ugly, for gay people that is....

11 May 2012 at 19:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Call me illiberal, I am opposed to homosexuals being able to actively promote a lifestyle I consider to be harmful, perverse and against Christian values."

You're illiberal. An enemy of freedom.

"Christians are not a "protected group" under equality legislation because we are not a minority group - yet."

You are by virtue of having a religious belief. It's a protected attribute, like sexual orientation.

11 May 2012 at 19:50  
Blogger The Underground Pewster said...

Your Grace-

Since the majority of us see nothing offensive in the ad and fell that the ASA is wasting their time, perhaps you could enlist the support of your readership. Conduct a poll which would provide some verifiable numbers for the ASA folks. Maybe the readers could cobble together a reasonable letter.

Failing that, I would suggest moving your cathedral to a more friendly, open, and inclusive isle.

11 May 2012 at 20:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "Indeed not. The ECHR has already fired a warning shot by saying that any institution that marries people will likely be in breach of equality legislation if they refuse to marry homosexuals in a country that has "same sex marriage"."

What has it actually said?

11 May 2012 at 20:15  
Blogger genghis said...

The only thing achieved by the actions of the ASA is to have that same advert repeated dozens of times, on blogs from Worstall “to mine. surely a demonstration of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

11 May 2012 at 20:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Right then chaps. We do have recent previous of a state not too far away persecuting Catholics, step forward STORMONT.

Well then Stormont what happened. Speak up man, can hardly hear you. Ah yes, you did it “unofficially with the help of the police”. Yes, one remembers now. Wasn’t official policy, but you did it anyway. We’ll take your nod as affirmation, shall we. Now, what did the Catholics do. What’s that, they set up “ASUs” did they. For the sake of our communicants do explain what an ‘ASU’ is. That’s right, its an “Active Service Unit”. Do stop crying, and tell what these units did. Yes, they assassinated and bombed.

So, Stormont, if you had your time again would you have still persecuted the Catholics. A shake of your head tells us what we want to know. And we know why don’t we. They were never defeated and they jointly rule the province today. Party over loyal Orange men – you’ll never have the like again, that’s for sure, and you know it.

Now back to the mainland. We couldn’t have new ASUs set up here tomorrow could we...

11 May 2012 at 20:32  
Blogger Galant said...

I actually included a link in my last comment.

For speed's sake:

Cranmer's Own Post:

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2012/03/ecthr-churches-will-be-forced-to.html

Other Analysis:
http://religionlaw.blogspot.com/2012/04/same-sex-marriage-and-european-court.html

11 May 2012 at 20:33  
Blogger Harold V. Angryperson said...

Your Grace should simply refer the ASA to the case of Arkell v Pressdram.

11 May 2012 at 20:33  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

OiG: What a fabulous tale you spin, when you put your mind to it. Have you thought of writing them all down in a book?

11 May 2012 at 20:43  
Blogger Fausty said...

Your Grace,

Are you entited, according to the Gestapo, to know who your accusers are?

11 May 2012 at 20:50  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Fausty,

Other than the named group, no.

11 May 2012 at 20:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Belfast. ‘Tale’ Sir ? Hardly ! The world wide story of what happens when you oppress a sizeable minority. Do point out any inaccuracies in that potted history, if you can. Believe the Inspector when he accuses the ECHR of being a nefarious wicked organisation. You see, to this man’s eyes, the only people who need their ‘human rights’ defended are damn criminals, or odd balls like the gays.

11 May 2012 at 20:59  
Blogger Cork said...

I'm afraid that those who would have you burnt again are self righteous bigots. The ASA should not have indulged the bigots and told them that free speech is for all of us. We your disciples support you.

11 May 2012 at 20:59  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

It appears they never learn by provoking us, do they....Even people who wouldn't have given a hoot to come down zealously either way are outraged as a matter of principle or else what on earth did that generation fight for against Hitler, if not precious freedoms!

Ernst has now just gone and signed the petition and will be vigorously encouraging others down the OAP 'pop in' center over early morning tea and jam scones tomorrow.

The northern 'two finger poke', delivered nicely online.

Bunch of interfering Jobsworths?!!


E S Blofeld

11 May 2012 at 21:14  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Your Grace,

As a "Gay for Cranmer", I'd gladly tell them where to go!

11 May 2012 at 21:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Inspector reminiscing now. Do you know, it’s not too long ago when homosexual men used to hang around the entrances to public toilets and generally keep a low profile. Happy days they were...

11 May 2012 at 21:21  
Blogger Oswin said...

Sean Baggaley @ 17:45 :

''...like Oswin, I'm an irreligious liberal...''

You what??? Harrumph!

11 May 2012 at 21:21  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Also,

I have to say, I had not actually seen the add until it has been pointed out in this post- ironic really.

I much prefer reading the content rather than the adds, as well as the debates between Danjo and Jacobs, or Dodo vs Len. These debates remind me of Lincoln Vs Douglas !

11 May 2012 at 21:21  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Your Grace,

So the seige of the Cranmer Asteroid begins!

I believe that your race has suffered more than any other from sneek attacks- Pearl Harbor, 9/11, The terrorist nuking of Hong Kong, the destruction of the First Lunar Colony- it is a long and bloody history. But what were learn from these events is that a sneek attack is the resort of a coward who has already lost the argument!

But fear not your allies from all over the galaxy are rallying to your defense from far and wide, an inter-galactic task force which no no longer see one of their greatest allies fall into darkness and dispair! We are on our way...

11 May 2012 at 21:28  
Blogger Matt A said...

Even Starbucks are getting in on the act, my email to Starbucks:

To: ukinfo@starbucks.com
Subject: clarification of "core values"

Good evening

I have heard that Starbucks has redefining marriage as a "core value".
Could you please confirm if this rumour is true or not? As a
Christian, I will never enter a Starbucks coffee shop again if this is
the case, as I believe that companies should not make such statements.

Reply received back:

Thank you for taking the time to contact Starbucks Coffee Company.

Starbucks strives to create a company culture that puts our partners first, and our company has a lengthy history of leading and supporting policies that promote equality and inclusion and respecting local customs. We are deeply dedicated to embracing diversity and treating one another with respect and dignity, and remain committed to providing an inclusive, supportive and safe work environment for all of our partners around the world.

On February 13th 2012, the Governer of the State of Washington signed a bill legalizing the marriage of same-sex couples. Although Starbucks UK and Ireland is not directly involved in this debate, this important legislation is aligned with Starbucks business practices and upholds our belief in the equal treatment of partners. It is core to who we are and what we value as a company.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact us.

Sincerely,

Matthew L
customer service
uksupport@starbucks.cust-serv.com

11 May 2012 at 21:34  
Blogger Ian Hills said...

First they came for the bloggers......

11 May 2012 at 21:41  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

What influence does this ASA organization possess? Can it do anything other than publish a condemnation on its website? Does it matter to anyone if ASA does publish a condemnation on its website?

carl

11 May 2012 at 21:54  
Blogger Roy said...

If I were Your Grace I would not bother to reply to the Advertising Standards Authority. Instead I would contact my MP, the local and national press and also foreign media.

I imagine that there would be TV channels and newspapers in a number of foreign countries that would be only to pleased to show how Western talk of freedom of speech is just hypocritical. If your MP is not supportive it will show how we cannot rely on our MPs to defend freedom of speech and expose them as being even more useless than they already appear to be.

In some ways the further the Advertising Standards Authority takes this complaint the bigger better. It will just make the lack of freedom of speech in this country more obvious.

11 May 2012 at 22:01  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

For goodness sake, let's keep a sense of perspective about all this!

Cranmer is more than able to see these bureaucrats off as his article demonstrates. They're not encouraged to think at the ASA; just to react to complaints. In suggesting this "persecution" is anything other than stuff and nonsense we're diminishing the faith and bravery of those who have truely suffered in the past for their beliefs and those living in terror or being killed today.

Yes, it is a serious sign of the increasingly aggressive secular and atheist society we live in. And, of course, we have a duty as Christians to resist. But it's not exactly the same as being crucified upside down or burnt at the stake, now is it?

If we are asked to suffer for Christ we should rejoice and focus on the reward that awaits us.

11 May 2012 at 22:07  
Blogger Roy said...

The Advertising Standards Authority has a web page about making complaints about the Advertising Standards Authority!

http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints/Independent-review-process.aspx

There is an "independent reviewer" of ASA Adjudications.

Independent Reviewer of ASA Adjudications
7th Floor North
Artillery House
11-19 Artillery Row
London
SW1P 1RT
e-mail: indrev@asbof.co.uk

Perhaps people should complain to the adjudicator about the misuse of the ASA to suppress freedom of speech.

11 May 2012 at 22:25  
Blogger Flossie said...

MattA, Starbucks' dedication to diversity obviously doesn't extend to their Christian customers.

Dump them! Sign the petition:

http://www.dumpstarbucks.com/

11 May 2012 at 22:34  
Blogger Joe Public said...

Could you demand that the ASA confirms the legislation which gives an individual the right to be not offended?

11 May 2012 at 23:00  
Blogger martin sewell said...

Your Grace may be aided by the example of Richard Ingrams of Private Eye fame who was once threatened with libel action by Peter Carter Ruck, who made a similar error in suggesting that their response would be dictated by the tone of his response.

Ingrams politely repeated the premise before asking the following.

" I note that your future actions will depend on the tone of our reply. Could you please advise us what your actions might be if we told you to f**k off?"

I apologise for a temporary lapse of taste but there comes a time when we have to confront these neo fascists: we can fortify ourselves with the certainty that on the freedom of speech aspect of the argument we are unassailable in the Court of Public opinion.

We have a sound precedent for saying " Here I stand I can do no other.

11 May 2012 at 23:03  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Joe Public wrote:

Could you demand that the ASA confirms the legislation which gives an individual the right to be not offended?

This is an important point. If I am (say) Emile Artiste, and I create a work of art the whole purpose of which is to "Épater la bourgeoisie" then I will be hailed as a cultural hero for causing offense. People who suggest that humanity would be better served if his piece of schlock was melted down to make coat hangers are called 'censors.' But if I am Bob Blogger, then I am subject to action for giving offense by expressing my opinion. There is a not-so-hidden presupposition in play that says "Some people deserve to be offended, and others don't." Once you grasp that premise, then all of this makes sense.

carl

11 May 2012 at 23:24  
Blogger Dick Puddlecote said...

A precedent that will leave you with no case to answer.

"It was not implying that this opinion was universally accepted or that there were no contrary opinions, and was unlikely to be interpreted that way."

Just give your survey source and let them know, correctly, that you are known as a campaigning source. If the NHS is considered as one, you will have no problem whatsoever.

Do let me know if they object to that as I'll have further questions to ask myself otherwise. ;)

11 May 2012 at 23:27  
Blogger martin sewell said...

I have just watched the trailer for the upcoming film Hating Breibart in which the brilliant Andrew correctly identifies that these leftist bullies intend to close out all opposition by controlling what can and cannot be said. His closing response is absolutely correct. It's War. Let it roll.

11 May 2012 at 23:35  
Blogger Ruari said...

I also have posted this 'advert'.
I will pre-emp the terminally confused by reporting myself to the ASA.
I recommend that others do the same.

11 May 2012 at 23:41  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Inspector, you remembered how gays used to have a low profile. I tweeted this on my way home on the train.

Ivan Massow in the Standard tonight. Nearly made me throw up.

Clearly gives you the basis of how their agenda has grown.

11 May 2012 at 23:45  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Dear Matthew and Flosie

Thanks for the info on Starbucks.

"Why dump
starbucks?
We are urging customers across the globe to 'Dump Starbucks' because it has taken a corporate-wide position that the definition of marriage between one man and one woman should be eliminated and that same-sex marriage should become equally 'normal'. As such, Starbucks has deeply offended at least half its US customers, and the vast majority of its international customers.

On January 24th, 2012, Starbucks issued a memorandum declaring that same-sex marriage 'is core to who we are and what we value as a company.

Starbucks also used its resources to participate in a legal case seeking to overturn a federal law declaring marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

In many areas of the world where Starbucks does business, the concept of 'gay marriage' is unheard of and deeply offensive to cultural, moral and religious values.

In taking these actions, Starbucks has declared a culture war on all people of faith (and millions of others) who believe that the institution of marriage as one man and one woman is worth preserving.

A portion of every cup of coffee purchased at a Starbucks anywhere in the world goes to fund this corporate assault on marriage.

We urge consumers across the globe to join the 'Dump Starbucks' campaign.

Please sign the petition to register your protest."

11 May 2012 at 23:45  
Blogger David B said...

I've posted a link to this thread on the discussion board I co-administrate.

I anticipate that the consensus of opinion on what is predominately a membership that is both secular and atheist, and with a perhaps a bit more than a representative proportion of gay people in the membership, would agree that HG's prerogative to post as he sees fit should be defended, but time will tell.

David B

11 May 2012 at 23:56  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
The ECHC issued the following;
In the Gas case the Court reaffirmed its earlier decision in Schalk and Kopf v. Austria 30141/04 that there is no obligation under the Convention for States to legalise same sex marriage or indeed to legalise same sex civil partnerships. However it also reaffirmed that if a member State did decide to legalise same sex marriage then they had to ensure that it was provided on exactly the same basis as heterosexual marriage.
Heterosexual marriage requires a man to take a woman to have and to hold etc.
How can two same sex individuals fulfil these requirements? They can’t, so they have to change heterosexual marriage to suite. Is that fair or equal to those who are married or want to get married?
There can't be two different types of marriage, that would be unequal.

12 May 2012 at 00:00  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Your Grace, this is what is happening in the US

The bile being spat at the people of North Carolina exposes the ugly elitism of the gay-marriage lobby
By Brendan O'Neill Politics Last updated: May 11th, 2012

Gay marriage: only opposed by bigots and hicks, apparently

Apparently if you oppose gay marriage you are a dumb, ill-informed, brainwashed, knuckle-dragging hick and bigot. At least that’s the message coming out of liberal circles in America this week, as supporters of gay marriage look with disgust upon the people of North Carolina for voting in favour of Amendment 1. A majority of North Carolina’s voters – 61 per cent – voted for the amendment to the state’s constitution, which says: “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognised in this state.” For doing this, for having the temerity to say that marriage should stay as it is, they have been subjected to extraordinary levels of abuse and ridicule.

The media says they’re all “bigots”. Apparently they were driven by a typically Southern hatefulness. In fact, according to the LA Times, “even by Southern standards, [this was a] remarkably mean-spirited initiative”. The LA Times went so far as to argue that President Obama’s newly stated support for gay marriage is “similar” to Abraham Lincoln’s support for the emancipation of slaves, the implication being that it is massively disappointing that modern-day blacks in North Carolina, those ungrateful beneficiaries of Lincoln’s stance, did not vote to “liberate” gays today. Maybe they’ve been brainwashed into hating homos. According to the New Civil Rights Movement, one of the main pro-gay marriage groups in America, in North Carolina “ignorance and hate has enveloped ordinary citizens”, and the support for Amendment 1 shows how “ill-informed, mis-informed and just plain ignorant the citizenry… truly are”.
The idea that hatred and ignorance have “enveloped” the people of North Carolina is widespread. The gay advocacy group Faith in America said voters had been “duped” by religious leaders; they were “uninformed or deceived”. The only reason Amendment 1 passed, says Faith in America, is because of “the populace’s misunderstanding about sexual orientation”. Of course it isn’t possible that voters simply had a considered moral objection to gay marriage – no, they were clearly all brainwashed by religious crazies. The passing of Amendment 1 shows that voters should not be trusted to rule on sensitive moral matters, says the LA Times. Apparently these kind of “anti-gay” votes will continue until “people of conscience put a stop to it by asserting that tyranny of the majority is wrong”. In short, let’s leave the creation of morality to those good people who act on “conscience” rather than to those “ordinary citizens” who have been enveloped by “hate and ignorance”.


Continued...

12 May 2012 at 00:42  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Continued...

Gay-marriage supporters have even deployed borderline racial lingo to express their fury with the uninformed hordes of North Carolina. The secularist magazine Free Thinker describes them as “knuckle-draggers”. So does Daily Kos, the must-read blog of the liberal set: it slated the “hateful, paranoid, bigoted, right-wing knuckle-draggers” who voted for Amendment 1. Sticking with the idea that opponents of gay marriage are knuckle-scraping specimens, Buzzfeed magazine published a very popular piece this week called “14 Steps That Will Evolve Your Views On Gay Marriage”. It showed a monkey in a cage – your typical opponent of gay marriage, apparently – and invited him to become more “evolved” on this important moral issue. Given the widespread criticism being made of North Carolina’s black communities in particular, many of whom supported Amendment 1, all this talk of unevolved knuckle-draggers whose brains are easily controlled by religious cranks is sailing perilously close to racism territory.

And then there’s Facebook and Twitter, where people can say about North Carolina what the mainstream media only hints at. The “Visit North Carolina” Facebook page, a mere tourism outlet, has been invaded and taken over by so-called liberals, who are furiously insulting the “jackasses and homophobes” and the “backward f**ks” who inhabit that “disgusting state”. There is now even a campaign to Boycott North Carolina and damage its tourism industry. On Twitter, the people of North Carolina have been referred to as everything from “idiotic f**ktards” to “bigoted motherf**kers” who should all “kill themselves”.

This orgy of bile, from the mainstream branding of North Carolina’s voters as “ignorant” to the peripheral demands that they do the world a favour and kill themselves, shows what is behind the gay-marriage campaign. This is not about rights and equality, or love and happiness. Rather, gay marriage has become a tool through which the right-minded sections of society express their moral superiority over the dumb, the brainwashed, the insufficiently cosmopolitan, the churchgoing. Gay marriage has become a kind of weapon, wielded by the right-on to demonstrate that they are better – that is, less brainwashed and more caring – than your average redneck or country black. Supporting gay marriage has become a kind of cultural signifier, a way of distinguishing oneself from the ignorant throng.

Given all this, it is possible that the voters of North Carolina were not only voting against gay marriage, but were also sticking two fingers up at the sneering cultural elite which has been hectoring them for weeks to do “the right thing” and embrace “liberal values”. In the intensively divided America of 2012, being against gay marriage can now be seen almost as an act of political rebellion, against a faraway elite which fears and loathes anyone who is not like them.

12 May 2012 at 00:43  
Blogger Naomi King said...

From The Telegraph 11th May

12 May 2012 at 00:46  
Blogger bluedog said...

Excellent suggestion, Mr Roy @ 22.25.

I shall complain about the complaint forthwith, demanding in particular full details of the initial complainants.

12 May 2012 at 00:48  
Blogger TLF+ said...

Elitists and Nazis - whether they were born that way or chose it doesn't really matter.

12 May 2012 at 00:49  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJo said ...
"You're illiberal. An enemy of freedom."

Why thank you; that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me!

12 May 2012 at 00:51  
Blogger dfordoom said...

Dodo: "Call me illiberal, I am opposed to homosexuals being able to actively promote a lifestyle I consider to be harmful, perverse and against Christian values."

Add me to the ranks of the illiberals. Illiberal and proud.

12 May 2012 at 01:22  
Blogger dfordoom said...

Your Grace should certainly seek legal advice. If this particular branch of the Thought Police has no enforcement powers then you're safe, for the time being. But I wouldn't take the risk.

12 May 2012 at 01:24  
Blogger dfordoom said...

Marcus Foxall: But for all the talk of "standing up" to the authorities or other such beseeching from His Grace's followers to exhibit moral courage , are too many conservatives actually rather scared to do so ?

I'd say there's good reason to be scared. I live in Australia where freedom of speech is already a thing of the past. In Australia the Thought Police do have enforcement powers, and they use them.

12 May 2012 at 01:27  
Blogger Londiniensis said...

Surely the "null hypothesis" must be that marriage is between one man and one woman, as sanctioned by religion, law and custom for millennia, and as can demonstrably be shown to have a sound natural and societal basis. The onus should be on those wishing to pervert this state of affairs to make their case, rationally, if of course they can. Resorting to name-calling smacks of desperation; trying to induce fear in those innocent of any wrong-doing smacks of the bully-boy tactics employed by the many vicious tyrannical regimes which have disfigured history.

12 May 2012 at 01:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Mr I: "The ECHC issued the following [...]"

That appears to be an interpretation from the religionlaw blog site. The actual judgement is here. Which bit is pertinent to your bolded text?

12 May 2012 at 01:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It might be worth pointing out that the Atheist Bus slogan: "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" generated complaints to the ASA too, on the basis that it was offensive to Christians and monotheistic others. There were hundreds of complaints.

12 May 2012 at 02:03  
Blogger Katy Anders said...

The ad that is right under your blog name right now reads, "JOIN PRESIDENT OBAMA in supporting marriage for everyone."

Coincidence?

12 May 2012 at 02:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also, the use of the phrase "Immaculate contraception ? If only" to advertise a morning-after pill offended a number of people a few years ago who subsequently complained to the ASA, including the National Association of Catholic Families and the Catholic Truth Society. The ASA upheld the complaint on the basis that it was likely to cause widespread offence and the adverts were pulled.

12 May 2012 at 02:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The picture in this advert by PaddyPower resulted in complaints to the ASA too on the basis of offence.

12 May 2012 at 02:22  
Blogger dfordoom said...

His Grace might want to consider at the very least backing up his blog on another site. Google have been enthusiastic supporters of the Thought Police so Blogger might not be a safe home.

12 May 2012 at 02:28  
Blogger Martial Artist said...

Your Grace,

You write: "Unless, of course, we are no longer free, our democracy is no longer liberal, and it is now an offence to express the moderate view of the majority and promote the orthodox teaching of the Church of England Established."

Congratulations, your Grace, on having sussed teh precise nature of reality in your nation, soon to be emulated in mine, I suspect.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

Washington State, USA

12 May 2012 at 02:53  
Blogger Angry Exile said...

Good for you. I don't agree with you on the gay marriage bit but how bloody dare anyone tell you that you can't speak your mind on your own blog. Tell 'em to rack off.

12 May 2012 at 06:00  
Blogger Effie Deans said...

If you had asked someone twenty years ago whether gay people should be able to marry, they would have suggested that you did not understand the word "marriage". This point of view is still the teaching of the Catholic church, the Orthodox church and many Protestant churches. Whether or not it is legal for gay people to marry is a matter for the government, but I have the right to believe what I will and I have the right to calmly and politely debate about important matters such as these. Well done Your Grace for standing up for free speech.

12 May 2012 at 06:53  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Your Grace, be of good cheer remember our Lord's words you are blessed to be persecuted for yours is the Kingdom of Heaven, rejoice and be glad. You are doing good works for His sake :-

MT 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

MT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

MT 5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

MT 5:13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

MT 5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

MT 5:15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

MT 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

MT 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

MT 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

MT 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

MT 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

12 May 2012 at 06:56  
Blogger Naomi King said...

David Cameron is in the unhappy position of having to renounce the bad idea he believed in (homosexual "marriage") for a better idea in the Queen's Speech (Marriage Classic) that he foolishly turned his back on.

As a result he has both an authenticity problem and a credibility problem.

Pity he made this blunder.

12 May 2012 at 08:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I suppose the ASA has to at least consider the complaints but who knew they needed to contact the 'advertiser' in every instance?

As far as I can see, the purpose of the advert is to promote a political petition run by a religious special interests group.

The advert itself does not breach standards of taste and decency. It does not aim to shock or deliberately cause offence.

It does not contain homophobic content. The site to which it leads does not contain explicitly homophobic content as far as I can see.

The claim about the 70% might raise an eyebrow or two, especially given my earlier comment, but the result is backed by a poll using a reputatable poll organisation and referenced. One can readily look it up online.

Hence, I would have thought the complaints could be handled swiftly and internally by the ASA without bothering anyone. The whole thing is a bit weird.

12 May 2012 at 08:12  
Blogger Naomi King said...

TEN REASONS FOR REJECTING HOMOSEXUAL ‘MARRIAGE’.

1. Marriage is a God given institution between one man and one woman for life. It is perfect therefore. It requires no amending, and is not to be defined by passing culture, or governments, but by God’s Word. (Mk.10:9.)

2. Same sex couples already have civil partnerships and so no inequality exists and no need therefore to redefine the concept of normal marriage.

3. Redefining marriage without full consultation with the whole electorate is undemocratic. The proposal did not appear as a priority in any election manifesto.

4. Equality does not mean uniformity. Same sex couples do not fulfil the eligibility criteria for marriage, just as children or brothers etc do not.

5. Protecting traditional marriage safeguards children and society. The family unit of father and mother is therefore ideal, and also a God given provision for stable society.

6. Marriage is a unique biologically complimentary relationship ordained for the reproduction of children. SSM by definition is incapable of this.

7. Redefining marriage would be complex and expensive. It would cost £billions (estimated - £5 billion). It would also involve amending hundreds of existing laws. It is a legal can of worms, and it will confer no new rights.

8. Schools will be forced to teach a new definition of marriage. This will cause deep confusion for children, especially younger children for whom the concepts of ‘mum and dad’ are normal. Education then becomes subservient to a false ideology.

9. Redefining marriage will not stop with same sex marriage. It would open the floodgates of evil – to possibly include polygamy, bisexuals, and Polyamorists (group marriage). It has not been thought through.

10. Redefining marriage would lead to faith based discrimination. It would place faith based groups to act against their own consciences, so fuelling marginalisation, exclusion, and litigation and antagonism.

12 May 2012 at 08:12  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Oh, and in 2010 (the last year for which statistics are available) there were 6,500 civil partnerships I would suggest this is not about equality at all but about ideological take over, my friends.

12 May 2012 at 08:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The contents of that list, apart from #7, is a load of shite to varying degrees.

12 May 2012 at 08:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I've found another 10 reasons here too. No, no, there's no need to thank me. ;)

12 May 2012 at 08:50  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

The Archbishop of Canterbury should inform all Anglicans, politicians included, that it is their clear Christian duty to firmly oppose homosexual unions and homosexual marriage.

The Catholic Church, always at the forefront of the fight against moral evil, has made this position known to its members. Anything less constitutes a departure from the will of God. To support it, or stay silent, is to collude with sin.

This is not the time for liberal nonsense about "equal rights". Whilst homosxuality should be tolerated and homosexuals not suffer unnecessary discrimination because of their disorder, legitimising this evil must be unequivocally condemned.

12 May 2012 at 09:30  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

So, departing from the line of pro homosexual propaganda is now a crime is it?

Wilfully taking offence now criminalises people does it?

I wonder what goes through the tiny minds of the jobs-worths and HomoNazis who seem to hold sway in this country?

Little by little we are becoming (have become?...) a Police State where anyone deviating from the State Sponsored Party line is persecuted, censored and criminalised.

I find it hard to see how those in government cannot see where we are going - I therefore conclude that it is all a part of their plan for us.

Get out while you can.

12 May 2012 at 09:50  
Blogger graham wood said...

Is this the same David Cameron who was once so "passionate" about 'gay' rights?

Is this the same man who one day can declare(at a Tory Conference) that he cares about equal marriage rights for 'gays' etc and that the law then should be changed on that count, but when the going gets tough and he starts to lose votes and elections, suddenly the great principle of "gay marriage" is abandoned, left out of the Queen's Speech, and appears to be quietly dropped, at least for the moment.
Strange is it not, that one's passionate crusading principle can suddenly lose importance when the votes fail to come in as hoped.
Ah, poor fickle creature !

So, most of us are right then are we, if we think that politics can be defined as "A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage" ?

12 May 2012 at 09:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nowhere Man: "So, departing from the line of pro homosexual propaganda is now a crime is it? Wilfully taking offence now criminalises people does it?"

No, not in this situation.

"I wonder what goes through the tiny minds of the jobs-worths and HomoNazis who seem to hold sway in this country?"

You could try asking the, erm, ChristoNazis who complained in the examples I provided earlier.

12 May 2012 at 09:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nowhere man, the National Association of Catholic Families and the Catholic Truth Society each have an email address or a online contact mechanism. Let us know how you get on and what they said.

12 May 2012 at 10:00  
Blogger Neuroskeptic said...

I'm surprised anyone saw the advert what with all the other ads plastered over this blog!

Then again... I guess getting people to donate to you for the privilege of having you rant at them is in the best Christian tradition.

12 May 2012 at 10:27  
Blogger dfordoom said...

"It does not contain homophobic content"

Homophobia is a meaningless buzzword. That's the real issue here, that any criticism of homosexuality is immediately labelled with this nonsensical politically correct term. Freedom of speech means freedom of speech. That must include the right to express the view that homosexuality is wrong, unhealthy and unnatural. Atheists should be free to say they don't like Christianity. Christians must be free to say they don't like atheism. Traditionalists must be free to say they don't approve of homosexuality, just as homosexuals should be free to say they don't approve of traditionalists.

Freedom of speech means the right to offend. If you're offended by someone's exercising their freedom of speech, too bad. People should grow up and get used to the idea that not everyone will agree with them and not everyone will like them. We shouldn't be running to Nanny every time someone says something we don't want to hear. We're not small children and we should not let the government treat us as small children.

We're so cowed by political correctness that we're meekly tip-toeing around the real issue here.

12 May 2012 at 10:59  
Blogger Naomi King said...

The Prime Minister’s mistake was not just to stir up controversy, but to look as if his sole objective was to pick a fight with his own activists. This has had the effect of crystallising concerns about his leadership in general, and making many Tory activists ask why they bother. For a while, senior Conservative strategists were quite happy about losing certain supporters, arguing that repelling the most Right-wing 20 per cent of the party would lead to a far larger increase from more mainstream voters. Well, supporters are certainly going – but they are not being replaced. Chipping Norton, the corner of Oxfordshire that has become associated with the Cameroons (and the Brooks), fell to Labour in last week’s council elections.

If this were a real battle for equality, with a genuine goal, Cameron would probably be backed by his party. But as things stand, this just looks like a fake re-enactment of a battle won eight years ago by a Labour government that was not stupid enough to pick a fight with Britain’s churches in the process unlike the Liberal Democrats. Like so many of this Government’s mistakes, it would never have been attempted had it been properly thought through. The Tories’ sole consolation is that the Prime Minister will not be attempting such manoeuvres in the future. He is now only too aware that he needs all the votes he can get.

12 May 2012 at 11:09  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Dear Bloggers

May I recommend you to this site:-

http://lutheranweddings.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/wedding-sermon-by-dietrich-bonhoeffer.html

It is a sermon on marriage written by Dietrich Bonhoiffer, during World War II, whilst he was in prison for Christ. He wrote for his niece and then fiancé, Mary.

12 May 2012 at 11:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

dfordoom: "Homophobia is a meaningless buzzword. That's the real issue here, that any criticism of homosexuality is immediately labelled with this nonsensical politically correct term."

Personally, I'm fine with criticism of homosexuality but homophobia is something different to that, as I think most people know. I don't care that much about homophobia either to be honest but let's at least recognise it when it appears. It's like racism in that respect: people holding racist views is fine by me, acting on them might not be. It depends on the context. I'm no fan of racist views at all but, let's face it, is it really a show stopping moment if people here start throwing about words like nigger or paki in what they write? It's the same with queer and faggot. For the most part, it just makes the people who use those terms look thick and antediluvian. Of course, it looks even worse if those people are self-identifying Christians but hey. People who use the word nigger or think special policies should apply there based on their personal beliefs can hardly claim that it's political correctness gone mad when others sneers at them and shake their heads in disgust. It works both ways, you know.

12 May 2012 at 12:08  
Blogger PaulB said...

Can you please direct me to where the Anointed said that marriage has to be between a man and a woman.

I saw that Naomi King cited Mark 10:9 as her principle reason to reject homosexual marriage, but she seems to have made a mistake, because that's part of His answer to the pharisees' question of whether a married man and woman may divorce. (The answer is no, so I suppose the existence of legal divorce in this country causes you all great pain.)

12 May 2012 at 12:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This youtube video is doing the rounds. It that just homosexual criticism on display there, or something rooted in homophobia, laughable though it is in this instance?

12 May 2012 at 12:17  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

We are existing during interesting times.

My advice is DON'T PANIC.

If you are in the mood to do so remember that our forefathers and mothers have likely also been through some pretty interesting times to say the least.

Marxist Fascism, sometimes known as fabianism in its worst possible form is again on the rise and rise, indeed IMO it never went away, simply changed sides for a while during the early part of the last century, and has now permanently come home to roost.

Resistance as before will be shown to be futile, however this should not stop just and upright citizens doing their peaceful upmost to resist the forces of darkness.

It is essential to use the enemies own weapons against them; political correctness for example.

Remember, united we stand a chance, divided we have, as well as deserve absolutely none whatsoever.

Remember that feminism is not the responsibility of the vast majority of women, and neither is this particular agenda the responsibility of the vast majority of homosexuals.

Please be perfectly assured that both of these establishment sponsored agendas, indeed all political agendas are the work of exclusively white heterosexual gentile males on a long standing mission from hell.

Remember this is not just a battle for our worldly possessions, it is one for our minds, bodies and spirits, all of which we are most evidently losing at a rapidly increasing rate.

12 May 2012 at 12:45  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

PaulB:

I've resisted lengthy quotes from Scripture, but you did ask:

"Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. [*] Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
"

Matthew 19:3-11 with my emphasis in bold.

[*] This is a paraphrase of Genesis 1-2, the latter part specifically 2:24.

"So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground. ”


Genesis 1:27-28.

Procreation is an essential (though not the exclusive) quality of the marriage which Jesus explicitly affirms.

Finally: "“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 5:17-19.

12 May 2012 at 12:52  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Incidentally, divorce does cause me equivalent pain. And I hold to Christ's teaching on divorce, and on lust, and on anger, every bit as much as I do to His teaching on heterosexual marriage.

12 May 2012 at 12:54  
Blogger PaulB said...

Thank you AiB. That's the same passage as Mark 10 (synoptic gospels being what they are). Clearly Jesus was opposed to the divorce of married heterosexual couples. But he doesn't comment on marriage (or divorce) between homosexuals.

Are you pained also by the church's willingness to allow sterile couples to marry?

12 May 2012 at 12:59  
Blogger The Life and Musings of Kelvin J. Patterson said...

Surely if you want to make money out of your blog you have to play by the rules.

12 May 2012 at 13:08  
Blogger Naomi King said...

PS 33:10 The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: he maketh the devices of the people of none effect.

PS 33:11 The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

PS 33:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.

PS 33:13 The LORD looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men.

PS 33:14 From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth.

PS 33:15 He fashioneth their hearts alike; he considereth all their works.

PS 33:16 There is no king saved by the multitude of an host: a mighty man is not delivered by much strength.

PS 33:17 An horse is a vain thing for safety: neither shall he deliver any by his great strength.

PS 33:18 Behold, the eye of the LORD is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy;

PS 33:19 To deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine.

PS 33:20 Our soul waiteth for the LORD: he is our help and our shield.

PS 33:21 For our heart shall rejoice in him, because we have trusted in his holy name.

PS 33:22 Let thy mercy, O LORD, be upon us, according as we hope in thee.

12 May 2012 at 13:17  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

AIB

Nice to see you quoting scripture for a change.

Gen 2:18 And Jehovah God saith, `Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper -- as his counterpart.' (A counterpart is a harmonious opposite..a : a thing that fits another perfectly b : something that completes : complement )

Gen 2:23 and the man saith, `This [is] the [proper] step! bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh!' for this it is called Woman, for from a man hath this been taken; (Taken out of him rather than created miraculously separate as Adam was..to show their completeness as one. There was a reason for God doing this)

Gen 2:24 therefore doth a man leave his father and his mother, and hath cleaved unto his wife, and they have become one flesh.(NOT that a man leave his father and mother and cleave to 'him' as his wife/partner)
Gen 2:25 And they are both of them naked, the man and his wife, and they are not ashamed of themselves. (The man and his wife as defined as Adam and Eve in God's narrative..not Adam and Everhard).

Gay/homosexuality/lesbian is a man-made construct and NOT therefore commanded of God nor recognised as being part of His creation or plan for man!!!

The Lord could have easily created many men and women and said to either or all 'choose', He did not...and by doing so showed the closeness of a husband and wife and creating a family of children from that bond of holy companionship as a model for all.

But obviously this offends this modern age, where a menu and multiple choice options MUST be the norm..so as not to offend those with exotic, divers tastes, To instead choose 'what is right in their own eyes' rather than what is good and healthy from the menu.

Ernst

12 May 2012 at 13:27  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

PaulB
Are you stupid?

Read the bible verses given above again. They clearly state marriage is between a man and a woman for the purposes of unitive love and the transmission of life.

So far as an inability to conceive is concerned, there is nothing in Christian teaching that prevents a man and a woman marrying because of this. It is not the predictability or certainty of procreation that legitimises marriage in the eyes of God. What is required is that the sexual relationship is directed towards a loving union, is not perverted in its practices and does not deliberately exclude conception.

The Catholic Church would not permit the marriage of people who are unable to consumate their relationship through natural sexual intercourse. Neither does it permit artificial methods of birth control.

Hope this clarifies the position.

12 May 2012 at 13:35  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

'Whether or not it is legal for gay people to marry is a matter for the government...'

I am baffled by this statement. Of course it is legal for 'gay' people to marry. As long as they do not try to marry someone under age, or are already married to someone else, or are trying to marry a close relative as proscribed by law.

They must, of course, marry someone of the opposite sex.

12 May 2012 at 13:36  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@PaulB:

He upholds a heterosexual model of marriage that is defined by procreation. Given that the treatment of couples who are infertile is consistently dealt with throughout Scripture as being something to be mourned, and those affected by it to be comforted - and indeed, on several occasions God miraculously heals couples of it (not least the foundation of His Chosen with Abraham), my answer to your question is thus: no it doesn't pain me that they are married, their infertility pains me, very often as it pains them.

Those who cannot fulfil the model of heterosexual union are, by Christ's teaching, eunuchs by nature. It is not a question of refusing homosexual marriage - it is simply that it cannot be eligible for the marriage which God created.

By your argument, incidentally, He doesn't comment on the legitimacy of marriage between men and bicycles, or the marriage between many men and women, or even the benefits of legal civil secular marriage. You make of this, it seems, a tacit form of approval - but if what Christ did not talk about is considered to be equal in value, there's a lot of positions (many of which are mutually exclusive) that might be said to be true. How then would we decide on which of them pleased and displeased the Lord?

Assume though, that hypothetically you are right, that Christ did tacitly approve of homosexual marriage. How then do we treat the clear teaching elsewhere in Scripture that same-sex sexual activity is a sin? I suppose we could be really pedantic and say that someone could be celibately in a same-sex marriage - but, no, Genesis makes sexual activity for procreation an essential part of marriage, so it must presumably be part of a homosexual marriage. God wouldn't want people to commit a sin - He expressly hates sin, the entirety of the life, death and Resurrection of Christ was to bring about its destruction in the lives of those who follow Him. So, as Christ isn't recorded as having said homosexual activity was a sin, we must assume that those other exhortations in Scripture are wrong. But if we assume that they're wrong on that - why would we assume they're right about the other things they teach? The Resurrection itself was not, quite plainly, taught by Christ - it was taught by those who remained on earth, including Paul, whose credibility would have to be brought into question. If we assume that Old Testament Law is also wrong - we'd run into a bit of a difficulty, because Christ taught that He came to fulfil it.

No, PaulB. Setting Christ against Scripture to achieve tacit approval for homosexual marriage can only result in the utter collapse of its authority (including that of Christ's). If that's your position, and perhaps even your desire, well done: you've worked out that rejecting part of God's Law will end up with a rejection of God. If not, perhaps it's time to have another look at those warnings about false teaching.

12 May 2012 at 13:38  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

It amazes me how soon and how easily these conversations get out of hand. The only issue here that matters is whether or not Cranny should be allowed to display the advertisement in question. That in turn depends on the judgement as to whether the ad is or leads to illegality.

The issue in this is not whether marriage may be redefined, or whether homosexual practice is sinful, or whether the C of E should be disestablished, or even what the Bible says about anything. The only question here is that of freedom of expression. That is why DanJ0 and I are able to be on the same side.

12 May 2012 at 13:48  
Blogger Callum Davie said...

This is a brilliant post, it seems to be happening a lot lately that people are accusing Christian's of hate crimes- against Gay Marriage. If it's ever a crime to disagree with legislation, we might as well move to Saudi Arabia.

12 May 2012 at 13:50  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@Anabaptist:

Good point. I was just answering PaulB's direct question - but I shall desist from cluttering up this thread any more.

@PaulB:

There are other threads on this subject. If you want to carry on discussing this, perhaps we could adjourn to one of your choosing?

12 May 2012 at 13:52  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

So, as Christ isn't recorded as having said homosexual activity was a sin, we must assume that those other exhortations in Scripture are wrong. a miss applied understanding, my bird.

Do you take a maths A level student and teach him multiplication again.

The Lord was speaking to a group brought up on the Law of Moses and to presume they knew not what sin was sin would be utterly preposterous!

The reason ST Paul majors on this is precisely because the gentiles had not been brought up and trained in the school of moses so needed to be taught as infants.

This is the truth. why Christ does not deal with this, bestiality or incest etc..It was a given to the audience (Jews of the Old Testament) He was sent to preach to. Just as the principles of democracy must be taught to those who are not fully aware of what it means or should be applied.

Ernst

12 May 2012 at 13:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Time for the pledge....

“I hereby state that if gay marriage goes through under a Conservative administration, I will not just never vote Conservative again at parliamentary level, but I will do my utmost to wind up the party locally and see it dissolved in favour of its son and heir, UKIP”

12 May 2012 at 14:01  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

'The only question here is that of freedom of expression. That is why DanJ0 and I are able to be on the same side.'

Nonsense..Define and express its boundary's and the consequence of them or the limitations.

The argument is that the agreeal to stand by the term of 'what is marriage' is biblical and therefore authoritative, hence the scripture to justify this position. Else it simply becomes emotive and whim for the moment (remember we have arrived at the current status from a position of millenniums, not just one solitary generation), as DanJo always argues from, emotional relativism.

Ernst

12 May 2012 at 14:05  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

It does not contain homophobic content. The site to which it leads does not contain explicitly homophobic content as far as I can see.

Interesting you should say so. I have been told many times that it is impossible for me to make the moral case against homosexuality without that case being intrinsically homophobic. That is the problem with this concept. It isn't a description so much as a weapon that assumes such form as its wielder desires. Homophobia has no fixed definition. In truth it is nothing but a means by which the opposition may be de-legitimized and dismissed. My very moral principles become the chief evidence of my own mental illness.

I am not afraid of homosexuality. I fear the social consequences of the sexual libertinism that is necessary to justify homosexuality. A culture requires sexual boundaries to function. Those boundaries have all but been annihilated in the name of consent. We are reaping a fearful harvest as a consequence, and yet the fields are still white. We haven't even begun to store the wheat in the barn.

carl

12 May 2012 at 14:09  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

@ESBlofeld 14:05
No, it's not nonsense. The issue is whether or not people should be free to express their opinions, so long as those opinions are not defamatory. Your problem is that you want the space to assert your own opinions without granting the same space to other people. Certain forms of Christianity have been claiming the right to tell people what to think for so long that now a vocal minority stands up and tells Christians what to think you can only fall back on the old 'authority' argument.

Take freedom of speech away from others and you should not be surprised when others eventually take it away from you.

This has nothing to do with what you call emotive. It is to do with whether or not all of us should be free to say what we think without being oppressed or threatened. My right to express opinions is no greater or less than DanJ0's, or even yours for that matter.

12 May 2012 at 14:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Anabaptist: "The only issue here that matters is whether or not Cranny should be allowed to display the advertisement in question. That in turn depends on the judgement as to whether the ad is or leads to illegality."

Well, quite. Unless I've misunderstood something significant, the Authority bit of the Advertising Standards Authority is not from anything Statutory. They're a body set up by advertisers for self-regulation. If they adjudicate against the advert then so what? Any sanctions are imposed by other advertisers. If the advert is actually illegal in itself then it won't be the Advertising Standards Authority who investigate it, determine its status, or issue punishment. The whole thing is a bit weird, as I said earlier.

12 May 2012 at 14:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Interesting you should say so. I have been told many times that it is impossible for me to make the moral case against homosexuality without that case being intrinsically homophobic."

*shrug*

Take it up with the people who tell you that.

"I am not afraid of homosexuality."

That's not what it actually means despite what the word appears to suggest.

12 May 2012 at 14:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blofeld: "Else it simply becomes emotive and whim for the moment (remember we have arrived at the current status from a position of millenniums, not just one solitary generation), as DanJo always argues from, emotional relativism."

I argue from rather more than that, I think. Or perhaps I'm just not familiar with your term.

12 May 2012 at 14:30  
Blogger PaulB said...

We seem to have agreed that Christ made no comment on homosexual marriage.

It is argued however that he implicitly endorsed everything in the Old Testament that he did not explicitly gainsay. That seems reasonable to me, but it implies that he approved of slavery, to give just one example. Is that your position?

To answer Dodo the Dude: no, I am not stupid. It's unambiguous that what Jesus has to say in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 is in response to the Pharisees' question "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" He gives them reasons why it is not.

Incidentally, I would have been quite happy to restrict discussion to the excesses of the ASA. But many others sought to tell us that homosexual marriage is abhorrent to Christianity. I am trying to understand why you think it so important.

12 May 2012 at 14:31  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

Perhaps you should take it up with your compatriots. It is your side that employs the word with such abandon. You can't even agree among yourselves what it means. How then am I supposed to answer the charge?

carl

12 May 2012 at 14:32  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

A thought

If we are only campaigning to keep the law *as it currently stands*, how is this homophobic.

If the previous generations who applied the law and enshrined it were 'homophobic' on what basis was this 'homophobic'. They had all the facts before them (Ernst presumes all gays over millenia have stated it was all about 'Love' and not carnal lust, and that the people enshrining were not all christians over the ages so there wad generality.

Perhaps those who committed this 'heinious' miscarriage of justice should be dug up from their graves and placed on their judgment seats they issued these edict from and be hung drawn and quartered and tossed back in the ground as a warning to those who have offended the 'few' over the many.

You could not make this nonsense up but within a perverse generation where right is wrong and wrong right and bitter is sweet and sweet bitter.

Ernst

Anabaptist

It is still based in emotive relativism, old fruit and Ernst is expressing his freedom to express..the consequences are always in the detail and outcome.

"It is to do with whether or not all of us should be free to say what we think without being oppressed or threatened." O puhleazee. DanJo is one of the worst bullies at oppressing others for their 'homophobic' expression of opinions. Freedom to cause offense.???..If so, why the feigned outrage from the boy when Christians stand by God's Word that He says what He means and means what He says.

Strange the lad 'Adores' this blog and regularly attends posting then, is it not? Not exacting a 'Questioning Mind' now is he!

12 May 2012 at 14:34  
Blogger Oswin said...

Inspector @ 14:01 : well, you'll not be alone!

(Just a thought, but who owns the real-estate of the hundreds of Conservative clubs around Britain?)

12 May 2012 at 14:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blofeld: "O puhleazee. DanJo is one of the worst bullies at oppressing others for their 'homophobic' expression of opinions."

Lol. I seem to have suddenly acquired rather more power than I thought I had. Blimey.

12 May 2012 at 14:44  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

PaulB

We seem to have agreed that Christ made no comment on homosexual marriage.

He also didn't say anything about boiling and eating children. Or having sex with them either. That silence is not typically used to infer approval. Jesus was the second person of the Trinity. In the economy of the Trinity, it is the Second Person who gave the law - not that it matters since the Godhead is undivided. His words in the Old Testament are no less authoritative than His words in John or Matthew.

If Jesus did not discuss homosexuality in first century Palestine, it is because it was not an issue in First Century Palestine. He had no reason to discuss it. No one was going to make the case that is currently being made in the Western world - that homosexuality is blessed of God.

carl

(when this thread goes past 200 comments, how do I still see the comments?)

12 May 2012 at 14:47  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

DanJo

emotional relativism.

The prostitute in jail is argued by counsel, despite breaking the Law.

She was only trying to earn a living for herself and children?

She broke the Law. (She was FORCED to. ER)
Is this the only way/means for a woman with children to provide for her and her offspring.(Do all women have to resort to prostitution to provide or are there options she refuses to take except law breaking to meet her emotional needs that it is easy money with consequences if caught? Provide evidence empirically this is the case for all mothers.)

Emotional Relativism is to argue emotionally despite the opposite being the case, as you do frequently my boy.

Ernst

"Lol. I seem to have suddenly acquired rather more power than I thought I had. Blimey." then obviously you are blind to what you accuse others of, bit like the attorney arguing for the prostitute's reasons for her predicament?

12 May 2012 at 14:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Perhaps you should take it up with your compatriots."

Oh for heavens'sake, how is it suddenly my problem what other people tell you? Jesus Christ on a fecking bike.

12 May 2012 at 14:49  
Blogger Kennedy said...

Shocking stuff. More power to your elbow. Please keep up the good work.

12 May 2012 at 14:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blofled: "Emotional Relativism is to argue emotionally despite the opposite being the case, as you do frequently my boy"

Such as when someone tells me that homosexuality is morally wrong because it isn't according to their god's plan and I point out that other people claim a different god in place of theirs and point out that their argument is founded on a premise which is by no means obviously true? That's not emotional relativism is it? And I do that rather a lot too since plenty of people here seem to thinking that stating that premise as though it is a fact somehow makes it a fact.

12 May 2012 at 14:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Oswin. Good question. Probably held in trust in perpetuity for the membership LOCALLY. Not a problem, old chap, not proposing these fine buildings be vacated and the power turned off at the mains. If the membership decide to go over to UKIP en masse, and the objectors expelled from membership, everything should be carried over intact. Ownership is nine tenths of the law. Needless to say, plenty of lawyers making a few shillings out of it, but that’s what they do. Profit at other peoples difficulties...

12 May 2012 at 15:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

how is it suddenly my problem what other people tell you?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because this thread began with an accusation of homophobia against the blog owner. Maybe because of the fact that your determination about homophobia in the ad has no authority whatsoever. I don't give a damn about any personal definition you might use. Your personal definitions aren't going to be used in adjudications.

I guess I am just supposed to guess what you mean by the word when you use it. I guess I am supposed to guess what everyone else means when they use it. Maybe I'm just funny that way, but I do like consistency in the use of words. This is why I said the word doesn't represent a concept but a weapon.

I realize that a fixed definition would decrease its utility as a weapon, but for the sake of intellectual integrity could you get together and come to a common agreement about what you all mean when you use the word? It's a small request, and quite reasonable.

carl

12 May 2012 at 15:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blofeld, is this an example of the emotional relativism you are talking about? Just so I know, you understand.

12 May 2012 at 15:05  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older