Saturday, June 09, 2012

Denmark's churches obliged to conduct gay marriages



In a poorly written piece in The Telegraph, we read that 'Homosexual couples in Denmark have won the right to get married in any church they choose, even though nearly one third of the country's priests have said they will refuse to carry out the ceremonies'. Apparently, the Danish parliament voted through the new law which makes it 'mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages'.

This is, of course, utter nonsense and very poor journalism. The parliamentary vote related only to the mainstream Evangelical Lutheran Church, to which about 80 percent of Danes profess to belong: it is their equivalent of the CofE. Other churches may also offer same-sex marriage services, but only in accordance with their own rules: none is being forced to conduct anything which is contrary to their historical traditions and theological orthodoxy.

Except, of course, the Lutherans. God knows what Martin would make of it.

The legislation does permit individual Lutheran ministers who are opposed to same-sex marriage to decline to officiate. In such circumstances, the Telegraph informs us, 'the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church'.

Note the 'must', which does appear to be the case. It is not clear what happens when the bishop is also opposed in conscience to same-sex marriage.

We read that the only party in the Danish parliament opposed to the Bill is the 'far right' Danish People's Party, which argued that the government should not be changing the traditional definition of marriage. Quite why the Telegraph chose to tag opposition to same-sex marriage as 'far right' is unknown: they ought to read some of their own blogs if they want a taste of religio-political extremism. The Christian Democratic Party, which is no longer in parliament, announced that it will initiate a class action lawsuit against the new law. It is rumoured that some 440,000 members of the Lutheran Church are considering renouncing their memberships because of the development.

This is important for the debate in the UK, because it is clear that same-sex 'civil marriage' will have implications for 'religious marriage': it is highly likely that ministers of the established Church of England will eventually be obliged by statute to officiate at homosexual unions, and where they demur, the local bishop will be obliged to provide a replacement. His Grace has heard from more than one source that the Prime Minister is telling his constituents in Witney that 'religious marriage' will inevitably be affected by his proposed legislation. It is interesting, is it not, that by enforcing gender blindness at the altar with the objective of making minorities equal, the Prime Minister is content to cause division in the Church and strife for the majority. It is appalling politics.

245 Comments:

Blogger David B said...

Once again, would not the French model be a good one to follow?

All legal marriages civil, any other ceremony purely a matter for the people involved and any officiant willing to conduct it, as I understand it.

David

9 June 2012 12:14  
Blogger Dick the Prick said...

Your Grace

My God, we are witnessing the fall of man. What is the point of government, what do they do apart from destroy things, meddle in things that are none of their concern? Good grief.

DtP

9 June 2012 12:19  
Blogger 123 said...

It's not really what they have forced on the Church that is the matter.

I imagine Luther is turning in his grave simply because his Church is now subject to an authority 'higher' than scripture.

9 June 2012 12:30  
Blogger Michael said...

Hear hear, DtP!

9 June 2012 12:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Disestablishing the CofE would help here I think. That would move religion into its proper place in Society: as a special interest operating in the private space. It would also appeal to my sense of poetic justice as my current conviction has been roused as a response to the stance the aggressive elements of the churches have taken over this.

9 June 2012 12:34  
Blogger Bishop Alan Wilson said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 June 2012 12:36  
Blogger Bishop Alan Wilson said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 June 2012 12:44  
Blogger Bishop Alan Wilson said...

Thanks for the story. Trying to allow for the low standard of reporting, my first impression is that the arrangement may be new to Denmark (the late +Kenneth Stevenson would have been able to advise on that) but it sounds identical to the relief introduced at the request of the Church Assembly when it first decided clergy should refuse to officiate at divorcees' weddings. The procedure was enshrined in the Courts of Judicature Amendment Act 1925. However regrettable any distinction between access to civil and religious marriage ceremonies may be, if the Church of England wishes to object to it, it may care to remember that the Church invented the said distinction in 1907, as a relief contained in the DWS Act. As late as 1957 the Church Assembly required all clergy to apply that distinction. The position on divorcees, has, of course, swung closer to pre 1925 practice more recently, but retaining a right of clergy to object, very much along the lines proposed in Denmark. Should same sex marriage be introduced in England, all the evidence is that a similar relief will apply.

It sounds as though the Danes are implementing procedure that has worked effectively in English law for over 100 years. Good on them!

9 June 2012 12:47  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

So there is a bright side here depending upon your view of establishment. This kind of government action could mortally wound the established church. Given the nature of modern governments, that isn't a bad outcome. The law specifically applies only to the established church because that is the only church over which the government has dominion (absent active legal repression.) Freedom is just beyond the (alleged) security of establishment.

In other news, Denmark's fertility rate fell below replacement over four decades ago, and has remained below replacement ever since. Parliament is considering legislation to change the rules of math such that population growth still occurs even when women have on average only one child. "It worked that way on Star Trek." said one supporter. "I don't see why it won't work for us."

carl

9 June 2012 12:53  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

DanJO

Be extremely careful for what you ask of your creator, because the 'bugger' will very likely give it to you.

The Devil on his part works in MYSTERIOUS ways, often within the very corridors of established religion, I grant you. However throwing the baby out with the bath water is not often a wise move to say the least.

Replacing the laws of God with that of man leads only to murderous dictatorship. This is not my own idle speculation but well recorded historical fact. May I direct your attention to places like Nazi Germany, China, Soviet Russia ( past and present ) Cambodia, Viet-Nam, Cuba, and North Korea?

You may trust your own politicians not to want to murder you, and in the vast majority of cases you may be perfectly right to do so.

However please understand that your own politicians are as powerless to protect you as they are themselves from the powers of darkness.

The events in Dallas 1963 prove this to be the case. If popular American Presidents cannot protect themselves from these assassins then what hope do we have?

If our true leaders/owners do not fear the ultimate judgment of God, then we cannot trust them with anything at all, least of all our very lives.

There is much evidence to strongly suggest that the exact same people who gave the world HIV are also promoting Gay marriage, and leftist or radical politics in general, need I say more?

9 June 2012 13:06  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Just say NO!

9 June 2012 13:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Atlas: "There is much evidence to strongly suggest that the exact same people who gave the world HIV are also promoting Gay marriage, and leftist or radical politics in general, need I say more?"

You're not talking about Opus Dei or the Jesuits, I'm guessing. Is it the Rothchilds? Wait! Let me put on my tin foil hat before you say, just in case they're reading my mind from afar.

9 June 2012 13:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

When the Inspector was a child in the 1960s, he remembers on a visit to Ireland, being dragged off to see an uncle who had taken great delight in training his dog to walk on just his hind legs. When the dog was walking around in this mode, it made an astonishing, unnatural and deeply disturbing sight. A sin against nature, if you will. Most especially, as outstretched and erect, the dog was taller than himself.
For a few nights afterwards, the young child would hide beneath the bedclothes at night, lest the thing walk into the bedroom and come and get him !

So it is with todays ‘sin against nature’. The equally bizarre sight of two men getting married in a church. And just as in the case of that monstrous hound, the whole thing is taller than the Inspector. A deep unease has set in...

9 June 2012 13:24  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

Also DanJO

I cannot answer for The CofE or The RCC, but I would appeal to all REAL Christians to make a fast break from all that is linked to the establishment, before it utterly destroys your faith, as well as you and your families.

The one thing that the establishment truly fears and therefore hates with a passion is Bible believing Christians.

Most Anglicans, Jews, Muslims, and virtually all Roman Catholics on the other hand either don't read the Holy Book, or have such a highly corrupted and selective understanding of it, that the establishment long since neutralized these chums into various often opposing forms of highly divisive bigotry. Dodo, and our Inspector being prime examples of this method of Jesuitical indoctrination.

I would most humbly predict that if true Christians made a full break from their respective highly corrupted religious establishments, REAL Christianity would undergo a rapid resurgence not seem since the 16 and 17th century's.

9 June 2012 13:40  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

People/society looks to the Church for stability, guidance, morality, to uphold and preach what the Bible says, to help us lead a clean, healthy life and to protect us from evil. They don't expect it to change and meddle with God's word to suit any passing phase or fantasy of the day politicians want to implement in the vain hope it will win them the next election!

How then can the Church ever be taken seriously when they start saying homosexuality is ok now.
SSM, homosexual clergy etc... are all wrong. The Church should not condone sinful behaviour.
And if David Cameron is anything of a man he should not be putting the Church in such a compromising position.

9 June 2012 13:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr Shrugged. On his knees, one of your RC whipping boys deigns most humbly to inquire of your own belief system. As such, you delight in negativity, and one wonders if there is anything positive about you...

9 June 2012 13:59  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Why Atlas is an agnostic theist, according to an earlier post. He "doesn't know" but suspects the human race is some sort of alien experiment and that we have been here for millions of years and have been the subject of periodic mass extinctions.

And yet he still regards Holy Scripture as holding some form of cryptic key to the true nature of reality.

Have you got the haloperidol on standby? It could be one of those days!

9 June 2012 14:08  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Ps

Oh, and to cap it all off, he regards little pope len as wise and insightful.

9 June 2012 14:09  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Inspector, we may soon learn that Shruggers has been to see the new Ridley Scott film 'Prometheus' and discovered the Origins of Man.

9 June 2012 14:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

As Mr Spock from Star Trek would say. “Fascinating” !

9 June 2012 14:18  
Blogger Old Blue Eyes said...

I am old enough to have voted in every general election since 1950. I have, each time, voted Conservative and never once doubted that I was doing the right thing. I shall not vote Conservative again as long as David Cameron is leader. The man has been an absolute disaster and this latest ridiculous idea of legislating to redefine marriage in order to placate the gay lobby is for me the last straw. Where oh where are the voices of sanity in the party to mount a challenge to his leadership?

9 June 2012 14:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

“Alien Experiment” ?

“Periodic Mass Extinctions” ?

Len Wise and Insightful” !

9 June 2012 14:23  
Blogger Naomi King said...

I understand it's going to be tough standing up for Jesus Christ, fighting against this culture of our day with all its indecency, injustice, corruption and selfishness. I'll be attacked by Satan, I'll be insulted and vilified as 'judgmental', 'unloving', 'hate-filled', 'fundamentalist', 'a Bible-basher', a 'bigot', 'homophobic', 'intolerant', 'self-righteous' (and a lot more), just for speaking up for the laws of God and the Gospel of the Kingdom.

I'll have to endure hardness with persecutions and afflictions. I'll need truth around me, I'll need my breastplate of righteousness, the gospel of peace on my feet, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. But by the grace of God my faith will be built up and to go into battle online or on the street equipped and ready to witness for the truth of the Bible.

I am standing on the promise of the Lord Jesus, my commanding officer, that as he overcame the world and is now Lord over all creation, I can overcome by the Holy Spirit and receive a crown of glory.

9 June 2012 15:06  
Blogger Andrew Cadman said...

You Grace, your being very naive if you think Cameron cares about the 'appalling politics' of this.

What matters to him is his place within the elite. Yes, it would be nice to remain Prime Minister, but at the end of the day there are many other elite jobs he can do.

What Cameron cannot countenance is being ejected from the most fashionable Metropolitan circles and being caste into the outer darkness. His entire way of life - and way of governing - is to belong to an elite even within elites. After all, what is the notorious 'Quad' except such an elite within another elite body (The Cabinet), just as the Bullingdon Club was an elite within an elite when he was at Oxford?

The man is nothing more than a vapid, arrogant careerist.

9 June 2012 15:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good afternoon Mrs King . The Inspector was remorsefully considering how he upset those ‘happy and gay pink things’ at their site, to the extent of being thrown off.

Would you kindly post a message from him over there....

“Greetings friends. Inspector General sends his best. He misses all his friends, and looks forward to the day he can be re-instated so that he can once again engage in intercourse with you all”

The ’Portsmouth’ story would be ideal. Thanking you.

9 June 2012 15:40  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

A wonderful and generous message to our pink friends. I myself have been barred too. However, I have a cunning plan. I can access a number of ISP addresses - a benefit of a large family, you see. One way or another, I will ensure your desire to have intercourse with them is communicated.

9 June 2012 15:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Splendid Dodo. Best make that “joyous intercourse”. Don’t want them getting the wrong idea...

9 June 2012 15:51  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

And my own little tribute. I do hope they appreciate just what we're we're extending.

"We'll drink a drink a drink
To Lily the Pink’s, the Pink’s, the Pink’s
The certain scourge of the human race
For they invented medicinal complications
Most dangerous in every case."

9 June 2012 15:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, have you considered using multiple/concurrent fake IDs over there too? Perhaps to make it look like you have the weight of numbers to support your opinions and to help you troll the site? Ah, silly me, of course you will have.

9 June 2012 15:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Wash your mouth out with carbolic. This is not a trolling exercise, but a serious attempt to connect with these souls...

9 June 2012 16:04  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

But of course and why not, er, 'Kris'? However, from what I can tell, one can only use a single email and ISP address so it's just not possible. Such a pity too. Do you have a suggestion as to a way around this?

9 June 2012 16:08  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

"Auntie DanJ0
Strummed away willy-nilly
But his BanJ0, it did recede
And so they rubbed on medicinal compound
And now he can suckseed."

9 June 2012 16:15  
Blogger len said...

The way things are going we(who profess to be Christians ) have only ourselves to blame for the downward spiral of our Society.

The Gospel message has been corrupted and just about lost and instead we(seem) to be be preaching self righteousness and hypocrisy of which 'the World' wants no part(and who could blame them?)

Christians (or those who go by that name)need to discard all the rubbish dumped upon the Gospel by unscrupulous men for their own ends and get back to the Gospel that Jesus Christ preached.

Religion can do many things(most of them bad) but the ONE thing it CANNOT do is to give the Life and the Love of God to those who participate in it.Until we(Christians) return to the Gospel message that Jesus preached and become empowered by the Holy Spirit to do so we will remain ineffective and powerless to stem the tide of secularism that is sweeping all before it.
Isaiah 59:1
19 So shall they fear the name of the Lord from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him.'

'This stemming the tide of secularism will ONLY will only be affected through Holy Spirit filled believers..This is a spiritual battle fought with spiritual weapons.


'For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms'.(Ephesians 6:12)

9 June 2012 16:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

SSM, what’s it REALLY all about ?

A desperate attempt to gain credence for a way of life that is sex obsessed and combines contact of the genitals with the mouth and anus. Gays really have no idea how repellent that is to normal people. Normal people who don’t want their children exposed to that kind of thing, lest they be corrupted. And what about nature, what’s her opinion...

She has saved the most alarming diseases for these types, and even went so far as to actively attempt to kill them all off. They say nature has an answer for everything. Too bloody right she has !

9 June 2012 16:38  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

little pope len
And by who's authority do you declare those who are waging a war against homosexuality are not inspired by the Holy Spirit? Who authorised you to decide what is from the Spirit and what is not? To declare the efforts of religious Christian men and women unworthy?

9 June 2012 16:39  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: I seldom say such as this, indeed it might even be my first time; but by the sum of your bile, I reckon you're going to hell. Not for your opinions per se, but for the delight you take in expressing them.

9 June 2012 17:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Oswin. Always wondered where aforementioned uncle ended up. Training dogs to walk on their hind legs is going against nature too and ostensibly the devil’s work...

9 June 2012 17:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Thinks he must have been a great uncle. Jolly fellow, so he was. Always laughing under that bushy moustache of his. Seeing that dog on a daily basis would have been responsible for that...

9 June 2012 17:26  
Blogger Penn's Woods, USA said...

I am hoping that many of the half million Danes who are considering leaving the Danish Lutheran Church will consider returning to the Roman Catholic Church which was the faith of their ancestors for several hundred years before the Reformation was forced on them in the mid 1500's by their king and part of their nobility during that era. It would be a joy to see Mass celebrated once again by former Danish Luthern ministers who return home to Rome and become Catholic priests in at least a few of the many Medieval churches that dot the Danish landscape. Most of these Medieval churches in Denmark (and in other parts of Scandinavia too)were never looted or viciously desecrated during the Reformation and today their interiors look almost exactly as they did 450 years ago.

9 June 2012 18:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hear Hear Penn’s Wood, back to mother church, what. That protesting strop soon to be over, it’s run it’s course...

9 June 2012 18:23  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Good afternoon Inspector

Loved your post @16:38. Have been in the sun in Greece for a few days so missed you all.

"SSM, what’s it REALLY all about ?

A desperate attempt to gain credence for a way of life that is sex obsessed and combines contact of the genitals with the mouth and anus. Gays really have no idea how repellent that is to normal people. Normal people who don’t want their children exposed to that kind of thing, lest they be corrupted. And what about nature, what’s her opinion...

She has saved the most alarming diseases for these types, and even went so far as to actively attempt to kill them all off. They say nature has an answer for everything. Too bloody right she has !"

Well said.

I have to say I was impressed with the Orthodox Church over there. They say "Man comes to Truth i.e. to Christ incarnate only in His body the Church. Man's redemption, his return to and union with God and his final salvation take place only in the Church. Man thus finds in the Church the meaning of life, his destiny and moreover real communion with other mean and the rest of creation."

It is great to hear the Church so celebrated.

God bless. Naomi

9 June 2012 18:38  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Oops - should read men not mean.

9 June 2012 18:44  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin

A dangerous statement that could come back to haunt you. I'll take my chances, thanks. Frankly, I'd be more worried about your own situation given your wishy-washy liberal views.

9 June 2012 18:55  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Moreover, as the Holy Spirit gradually teaches you and educates you, everything that you learn tends to make you pray. I say everything, my Brothers and Sisters, whether you read in the illuminated books wherein you see the Glory of the Person of Christ, or whether you turn to the black-letter volume in which you discover the depravity of your own heart.

Whichever may be the book, all sacred literature alike shall lead you to pray. Certainly a sight of your own heart will do it. You will tremble as you see the envy, the pride, the murders, the murmurings, the rebellions of every sort that lurk there—and you will turn to the Strong for strength, feeling that the monster evils of your nature cannot be over- come by your own powers! They have chariots of iron, they dwell in cities that are walled up to the skies! You cannot drive them out, except a mightier power than yours shall be enlisted in the warfare.

Hence you will be driven to cry mightily unto the Lord God of Israel, that He will put forth His Omnipotence because of your impotence to overcome your corruptions and lusts!

9 June 2012 19:01  
Blogger Mundabor said...

The faggotry within the "Telegraph" has become quite unbearable. This was a piece of open propaganda, and the "Telegraph" is not new to this kind of antics.
The homo mafia has infiltrated them all right.
Don't waste your money on that rag.
Mundabor

9 June 2012 19:17  
Blogger Naomi King said...

David Cameron is definitely backing the wrong horse.

Overwhelming apathy about gay marriage was revealed yesterday in a survey by ComRes in the first online poll of gay, lesbian and bisexual people. It found gay people do not regard same-sex marriage as a priority, and show no more enthusiasm for it than for civil partnerships, which give the same legal advantages ; remember only 6,500 civil partnerships were conducted in 2010 the most recent year for which statistics are available. However there is deep scepticism about the Prime Minister’s motives in trying to extend marriage to same-sex couples.

Colin Hart, the director of the Coalition for Marriage campaign, which as we know is opposing the proposed change, has said: “This poll confirms yet again that only a handful of people are pushing the Government to redefine marriage". David Cameron and his Liberal Coalition has faced fierce criticism over his plans to allow same-sex unions in law by the next general election in 2015, with a Conservative MPs in particular strongly voicing their opposition.

Morally marriage between men and women is the sole context for natural sexual union, deviations such as pornography, promiscuity, incest or homosexuality cannot truly satisfy the human spirit. They lead to obsession, remorse, alienation, and disease. Most Christian Churches, Jews and almost all Muslims do believe that sex belongs inside heterosexual marriage only.

9 June 2012 20:00  
Blogger Roy said...

His Grace has heard from more than one source that the Prime Minister is telling his constituents in Witney that 'religious marriage' will inevitably be affected by his proposed legislation.

What authority does the Prime Minister think he or any other politician have over what he calls "religious marriage"?

Marriage was instituted by God and therefore all marriage, even marriage between atheists, is in some way a form of "religious marriage!" (Admittedly same-sex "marriage" would not be "religious marriage").

Contrast Cameron's concern for "gay marriage" with his contemptuous indifference to the forthcoming centenary of the start of the First World War. Max Hastings in today's Daily Mail says that other countries are planning major commemorations but, if David Cameron gets his way, we will turn our backs on Britain's fallen.

The fact that the article is in the Daily Mail will encourage Guardianistas to dismiss his argument but Max Hastings is a leading war historian. Of course unlike PC types, dead soldiers don't vote - but their descendants and descendants of their siblings do!

9 June 2012 20:11  
Blogger Preacher said...

In the beginning after the Lord's resurrection, a group of His followers, All Jewish, were filled with the Holy Spirit at the feast of Pentecost.
They immediately set out to preach the good news, & were soon dying as martyrs rather than deny that Jesus, was indeed the long awaited Messiah who fulfilled the prophecies of the Talmud & Torah.
Men & Women repented of their many sins & were accepted & reconciled to God the Father, because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who proved without doubt that His words & promises were completely trustworthy by coming back from the tomb within 3 days of His public, agonizing execution.
The followers of Christ were known as Christians, & were ALL Kings & Priests. Children of the Almighty God, they received the Holy Spirit & performed miraculous signs & wonders as they invited all who CHOSE to repent & turn from sin, to receive Gods pardon & be set free.
They met together for worship, prayer & fellowship. But they NEVER went to Church. They WERE Church.

To the true Christian today, it does not matter what Laws are passed for man to indulge in self destroying sin or to encourage men to partake of the poisonous wine of self degradation, to further their ambitious plans to rule the World.
We are not bound to man made religions, but to the King of the Universe. To Who, ALL must give account on the day of judgement. To Him Alone we will bow & obey.
Meanwhile we will attempt to reach perishing humanity with the love of God as shown in Jesus Christ,before they no longer have the chance to choose & must face Judgement.
The time to choose is now. For some tomorrow will be too late.

9 June 2012 20:59  
Blogger Naomi King said...

He says, “Continue in prayer.” “Pray without ceasing.”

The LORD says, “Continue in prayer.” “Pray without ceasing.” Pray that our Brothers who preach the Gospel may go as God-sent servants, having their feet winged with love and their souls fired with zeal! Pray for yourselves and your families and your neighbours! “Continue in prayer.” “Watch and pray.” Watch continually, and pray also, and the Lord will hear you, for Jesus’ sake. Amen.

9 June 2012 21:49  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

It is interesting, is it not, that by enforcing gender blindness at the altar with the objective of making minorities equal, the Prime Minister is content to cause division in the Church and strife for the majority. It is appalling politics.

Your Grace, please do not confuse this kind of thing with party politics, because it clearly has nothing to do with political parties, indeed hardly anything does.

Gay this or that has everything to do with the establishment, and their begotten NGO's which cook up these long standing plans to undermine everything but their own positions of absolute power.

The Ford and Rockafella foundations for just two examples out of many, without whose approbation Cameron would not even have been allowed to stand for election to lead the Conservative Party, never mind win it, and then be allowed to gain office in a general election.

These sort of policies are written on tablets of stone, and work to a timetable. They and a few others very much including Thatchers stated opinions on The EU, where the real reasons why she was got rid of, more then 20 years ago.

The establishment tolerated her while she was selling off public assets for pennies in the pound to there bankster chums, but once her allotted task was all but done the Bilderburger knives could not come out quick enough.

Indeed the proverbial they even tried literally blowing the women up, but failed only by pure chance. Surely no one still believes that the IRA would try to pull off such a stunt, without masses of insider help, or do they?

Still they got their way in the end, and then swiftly lobotomized her into effective silence.

Thatcher may have not been an idiot in our ordinary eyes, but she was a very useful one to our slave owners for almost a decade.

Thatcher got far too big for her tiny boots, by starting to believe her own Iron Lady Rhetoric, and so just had to be dealt with ASAP.

She should consider herself lucky, at least she still has all of her brain, even if hardly any of it still works properly, for it is more then JFK managed to retain.

9 June 2012 21:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Naomi: "Overwhelming apathy about gay marriage was revealed yesterday in a survey by ComRes in the first online poll of gay, lesbian and bisexual people. It found gay people do not regard same-sex marriage as a priority, and show no more enthusiasm for it than for civil partnerships, which give the same legal advantages"

You can actually look at the data now, you know. So, for your "It found gay people do not regard same-sex marriage as a priority" statement there, the numbers are that 33% of men and 47% of women who self-identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual or other, "think redefining marriage is a priority for gay people". Or, 39% of the total.

Of course, one has to think how the question might be interpreted. For instance, a priority when compared to what? Sorting out the euro crisis? Paying the mortgage? The police dealing with homophobic attacks in the street?

One interesting side thing from the survey is that ComRes pulled the self-identifying lot out of a wider sample, and there were 7% of men who self-identified as gay, bisexual or other, and 3% more who refused to answer. That is, there's nearly 10% of the total number of men who didn't self-identify as heterosexual. With the usual nod to margins of error, methodology, etc, of course. Interesting, huh?

Finally, it's a pity they didn't ask how many self-identifying heterosexuals thought that "Marriage is more about love between two people than it is about rearing and raising children". Or, indeed, some of the other questions about attitudes to marriage.

9 June 2012 22:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The ComRes highlights are here.

Note:

More than two-thirds (77%) of gay people disagree that marriage should be only between a man and a woman, and the same number (72%) believe “marriage is more about love between two people than it is about rearing children”.

9 June 2012 22:24  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 suggested a question for heterosexuals ...

"Marriage is more about love between two people than it is about rearing and raising children".

Months and months of debate and you really don't get it, do you?

9 June 2012 22:28  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

And of course homosexuals would answer the way they did!

9 June 2012 22:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Months and months of debate and you really don't get it, do you?"

Get it? Dodo, you are inadequate both as a normal person and for the task of changing opinions, other than in a negative way. Moreover, you don't debate anyway. You try to troll and trash sites, using multiple fake IDs and childish pranks. Go to hell. So to speak.

9 June 2012 22:36  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Ooooohhh ... tsk, tsk!

Now that was a flounce - hands on hips and full pout!

9 June 2012 22:41  
Blogger Owl said...

Davib B.

You are strange?

9 June 2012 22:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Looking at the ONS data, a little over two thirds of marriages in 2009 were civil ceremonies. Also, there were about 8500 Roman Catholic weddings in England and Wales in 2010, and about 5800 civil partnerships.

9 June 2012 23:01  
Blogger Owl said...

Would Dodo and the curious Inspector just shut up and let a normal discusssion preceed.

As an Catholic , but not so Roman, I am fed up of them just destroying the discussion(s).

9 June 2012 23:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, you don't understand what an internet flounce actually is. You're not even adequate at that sort of stuff either.

9 June 2012 23:03  
Blogger bluedog said...

DanJo, your comment @ 22.16 'Finally, it's a pity they didn't ask how many self-identifying heterosexuals thought that "Marriage is more about love between two people than it is about rearing and raising children" displays a profound misunderstanding about heterosexual marriage and family life.

There is great joy and love in creating a family, and raising children is the most satisfying activity known to mankind in the view of this communicant. If you have never had the privilege of raising a family, for what ever reason, you will sadly never quite understand the point being made.

Those of us who have married and raised families will never accept that homosexual marriage is the same or equal to our own. It is like watching children going to the dressing-up box and playing a game.

Forgive them Lord, they really have no idea what they do.

Any government which forces the charade of homosexual marriage on the electorate deserves to be treated with utter contempt.

9 June 2012 23:07  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

bluedog

Well said!

DanJ0

Like a give a flying f-rt! Be it an internet flounce or not, I could picture you strutting around your little flat, hands on hips, lips pursed, with homosexual outrage.

As bluedog so eloquently said, you are incapable of insight into marriage proper and want to drag it down to a perverted parody in the mistaken view it will somehow enhance your lifestyle.

9 June 2012 23:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

bluedog: "[...] displays a profound misunderstanding about heterosexual marriage and family life."

It may come as a great surprise to you but I have first-hand experience as I was produced and raised by heterosexual parents and I had the sort of family life people call normal these days: a mother and father and sibling, and later, a mother and step-father and step-siblings. We're not delivered fully grown by aliens, you know, or raised by wolves in a wilderness somewhere and suddenly burst onto the streets of Soho as semi-naked adults wearing leather loincloths.

Moreover, I don't live in one of those isolated homosexual 'communities' some people seem to like to talk about, where we wear matching woolly jumpers, have the same politics, and all think the same thoughts. No, I have more straight friends than gay and most of them have had children now. I have not been excluded from the social aspects of that because I'm gay nor do people suddenly stop talking about how wonderful their birthing experiences were because I'm around. I even have nieces and nephews, imagine that.

9 June 2012 23:20  
Blogger David B said...

@ Owl, who said

"You are strange?"

Unusually clear sighted is a term I'd prefer, something that is by definition strange, else it wouldn't be unusual.

But if that is a prissy way of asking about my sexual orientation, I am as far as I can tell neither homosexual nor bisexual.

I'm attracted to women, and I don't see any choice about it.

Some people, it seems, are bisexual, and others pretty much attracted to their own sex, and I don't see any choice about that, either.

So I figure that if such people want to be able to designate a next of kin, which marriage does to heterosexuals, and want to call such an arrangement a marriage, which it in at least some crucial parts is, then I don't have any good reason to deny them that.

And nor, as far as I can see, do you.

David B

9 June 2012 23:22  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Owl

That would be proceed, dear boy, not preceed. I trust you know your Nicene Creed. A true Catholic would never make such an error.

9 June 2012 23:25  
Blogger David B said...

Sorry, git ahead of myself

'which it in at least some crucial parts is, then I don't have any good reason to deny them that.

Should have read

'which it, in at least some crucial parts, is, then I don't have any good reason to deny them that.'

David B

9 June 2012 23:28  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJo
It's not quite the same as feeling parental love and responsibility. Vicarious parenting falls way short, trust me.

Btw, you forgot to mention you are a Godparent twice over, both Catholic and Anglican. Have you forgotten your sacred vows?

9 June 2012 23:31  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

David B

Even with moving the punctuation it remains a cr-p statement.

9 June 2012 23:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Be it an internet flounce or not, I could picture you strutting around your little flat, hands on hips, lips pursed, with homosexual outrage."

Dodo, for the most part I laugh at you and take the piss and wash you with sarcasm. The "Go to hell" thing was a reference with a touch of wit to Oswin's earlier disgust. I think you're strange and childish and very deluded and have no perceptable self-awareness. You're also pretty useful in showing just how morally bankrupt and personally unpleasant some religious people are. Your contribution there is not to be underestimated with the general public who as a single group are not religious in any meaningful way. You're the sort of person others tend to remember when they think of the religious, and quietly despise and avoid and roll their eyes at when you pass by. We atheists and liberals might be in trouble if the religious were overwhelmingly as Matthew 5-14 would have it, you know. People might actually take notice and wonder.

9 June 2012 23:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also, bluedog, my question was really to highlight what people think is the nature of marriage these days. I'd bet that the majority of white heterosexual Brits would say that their primary reason for getting married was because of love. Almost all of the straight friends I referred to earlier had at least their first child as unmarried co-habitees. I'd be surprised if any of them would have answered "in order to have children" when asked. Fo sure, children are usually a natural and mostly welcome part of a man and a woman living together in the way gay couples do. For sure, it usually binds them together too ... at least for a while.

9 June 2012 23:44  
Blogger bluedog said...

His Grace asks per-twitter, where will the EU find 100 billion Euros to bail out Spain? The answer is in the European Financial Stability Fund, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Financial_Stability_Facility

As with so much of the EU and the Eurozone, as yet the EFSF is as just an idea without the practicality of funding. Remember how Sarko flew to China with a begging bowl and returned without a sou?

The real question for the global financial system and the global economy is simply put: who stands behind the European Central Bank? If confidence in the ECB evaporates, and you will know when Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the DT announces that ECB credit default swaps (CDS) have sky-rocketed to record levels, it's sauve qui peut!

9 June 2012 23:46  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

I've been meaning to ask you something since you often say the gay agenda is to "Look fabulous." Could you explain that suit in the picture? Vertical blue stripes with a yellow shirt and a yellow tie? My idea of high fashion may be a black suit with a white shirt and dark red tie, but even I know that suit is hideous.

Please comment lest my understanding of the Gay agenda be shattered.

carl

9 June 2012 23:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Would Dodo and the curious Inspector just shut up and let a normal discusssion preceed.

I say Owl, just the ticket. Inspector not wasting his time on here and actually getting through. “Deep Joy” old son, as his hero Stanley Unwin would put it.

DanJ0. We know all about surveys, phone surveys. They usually start with “can we have ten to fifteen minutes of your time”. Now, any chap worth his testosterone would say politely, “would you mind pissing off”, especially as the most important questions are left until last. Meanwhile, you have to face enquires like “Are you satisfied with your washing powder” and
“Do you buy your bra at Marks and Spencer”. Of course, the ladies just love the telephone, and as we are all the same today, despite our differing genitalia, a survey with 85% female and 15% male participation is thus valid. And naturally, women are generally more understanding and forgiving of gays, bless their nurturing hearts....

Now, you dare to put your worthless gay surveys across to the Archbishop’s discerning communicants, you trickster !

9 June 2012 23:55  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr DanJO @ 23.44, this communicant fully understands the need of all men and women of any sexual orientation to find love and companionship. What cannot be denied is that only a man and a woman can create new life. So the love of a man and woman, within or without the institution of marriage, creates a family in the form of a baby. That is a different result to a homosexual union. I fail to understand how you and other homosexuals do not admit to the difference in outcome. It's there in flesh and blood!

Homosexuals who deny the difference are practicing self-deception, yourself included. Be honest with yourself.

9 June 2012 23:58  
Blogger Owl said...

Dodo,
apologies for the typo.
Fact remains you are a prat. As one RC to another.
Dan0 is just a Stonewall front so we can't expect any sense.

9 June 2012 23:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Could you explain that suit in the picture?"

Yes, I think they're Danish.

Also, it's a wedding so it's almost de rigueur to look a bit outlandish. Just look at what two of the Royal Family wore to the last Royal one when money was no object.

Finally, it's to Be Fabulous really. We're just naturally stylish and have great soft furnishings.

10 June 2012 00:01  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I'm trying to think of the real reason Call me Dave is so in favour of SSM. The wedding industry might fare a little better and certainly the divorce industry (lawyers) but as we already have civil partnership I guess those who are in one don't need to spend unnecessarily on a wedding and honeymoon. How much extra would the government make on new licenses? How much would the hotels, restaurants, florists, clothing and other connected industries make? I don't think it's going to be billions somehow?

Looking at it from an economic point of view I don't think the numbers rushing into it will boost the economy to the extent it makes any significant difference to be that economically viable for the country. In fact it's going to cost the country more to implement than it is going to receive in revenue return. So WHY bother?

10 June 2012 00:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl: "Dan0 is just a Stonewall front so we can't expect any sense."

Ah, of course. I take Naomi's propaganda cut&paste apart using the primary data and some pretty reasonable points and you need to think of some specious reason to avoid that. Gotcha.

10 June 2012 00:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

For new communicants to this site, you will have noticed DanJ0 standing proud as a defiant homosexual man, confident in his position and ready to fight his homosexual cause, because after all, it’s the right way to proceed.

What new communicants to this site will not be aware of is this fraud was asked, last year, if he had ‘come out’ at work. The answer was a surprising NO, with the rider that if he did, it probably wouldn’t come as much of a surprise to anybody, as he shuns women’s company.

Behold – this internet hero !

10 June 2012 00:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Now, you dare to put your worthless gay surveys across to the Archbishop’s discerning communicants, you trickster !"

That'll be the latest ComRes survey commissioned by Catholic Voices that you're talking about. The survey initially referred to by Naomi, I might add. Sometimes, it's a wonder you can tie you own shoelaces in the morning. Or perhaps you can't.

10 June 2012 00:13  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Owl

You do know what a prat is? You'll get the homosexuals going using such terms.

10 June 2012 00:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The Inspector can tie his own shoe laces, and without the fear some queer is going to take him from behind. Can you ? :->

10 June 2012 00:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

bluedog: "I fail to understand how you and other homosexuals do not admit to the difference in outcome."

I think you actually fail to understand the argument in favour of same-sex marriage. I suggest you start there and your confusion might clear itself up. Hope this helps.

10 June 2012 00:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

No attempt at an apology or a sense of shame then, Inspector? What a surprise. You ought to become a Catholic bishop with a character like that.

10 June 2012 00:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Look smartarse, you are fooling no one. You are exactly what it says on the packet. ‘Contents, one queer’.

10 June 2012 00:23  
Blogger Owl said...

Dan,
Ah, of course. I take Naomi's propaganda cut&paste apart using the primary data and some pretty reasonable points and you need to think of some specious reason to avoid that. Gotcha.

what te f**k are are talking about?

You are wrong and you ar e destroying your arguAh, of course. I take Naomi's propaganda cut&paste apart using the primary data and some pretty reasonable points and you need to think of some specious reason to avoid that. Gotcha.

10 June 2012 00:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lol. This is far too easy. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

10 June 2012 00:25  
Blogger Owl said...

Dan0j,
Shut up. You are an embarrasment to your cursAh, of course. I take Naomi's propaganda cut&paste apart using the primary data and some pretty reasonable points and you need to think of some specious reason to avoid that. Gotcha.

10 June 2012 00:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lol

10 June 2012 00:28  
Blogger Owl said...

What the hell is going on with this site. My post was annihalted.

10 June 2012 00:30  
Blogger Owl said...

Dan0.
Twat.

10 June 2012 00:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The polite phrase 'user error' springs to mind. ;)

10 June 2012 00:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oh dear god, lol, if tonight was an event in the Olympics then I'd be on the podium holding a gold medal by now. Dressed in tight, predominantly blue, lycra, of course.

10 June 2012 00:37  
Blogger Owl said...

Dan0,
You are a liar.
Tell the Stonewall masters that you failed.

10 June 2012 00:55  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

What the f-ck is going on here tonight? Even I'm getting lost!

DanJ0, I trust you're not 'shooting' at anything!

Owl, exercise more care before clicking the publish button!

Inspector, Buddha say: "When uncertain, best to sit down whilst tying one's shoe laces."

10 June 2012 01:00  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

The Royal Family doesn't count. And anyways my wife tells me the "Human Monstrance" hat was supposed to be auctioned off for charity or something. But now that you mention it, I see your point about choosing deliberately ... loud? ... clothes for the occasion. It fits with my rather limited observations.

And what is Lycra anyways? It sounds like an Island off of Greece.

carl

10 June 2012 01:14  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Officer Crabtree:
"God Moaning. The resist-once have accqo-aired a bum. They are going to ex-plod the whaleway brodge."

10 June 2012 01:20  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Officer DanJo:
"My lips are soiled."

Boom, boom and good night!

10 June 2012 01:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl: "You are a liar."

Blimey Owl. Firstly, out of the two of us, you and I both know who has a history of lying like a cheap watch here, and *cough* it isn't me. Secondly, it's quite funny that you're reduced to unattached insults now as you flounder around.

10 June 2012 06:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "But now that you mention it, I see your point about choosing deliberately ... loud? ... clothes for the occasion. It fits with my rather limited observations."

Well, if you're anything like the middle-aged and elderly Merkin tourists who seemed to cluster around Victoria Station in London when I used to commute through there then you'll be intimately familiar with terms like 'very loud' and 'fashion crime'. It was a curious cultural phenomenon, as though the men had just come from the golf course and the woman from the set of The Golden Girls; and they were all hard of hearing by the sound of it.

10 June 2012 06:54  
Blogger len said...

See the thread has deteriorated into the usual' bar room brawl'.

Name calling, jibes, threats,huge amounts of hot air, lots of heat, very little[no]light in fact business as usual?

A little provocation seems to flush out the religious and their [very]predictable reactions.

Anyone else find this boring?.

10 June 2012 09:18  
Blogger Naomi King said...

But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake. And it shall turn to you for a testimony. I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist. And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. But there shall not an hair of your head perish. In your patience possess ye your souls. For these be the days of vengeance.

10 June 2012 09:29  
Blogger William said...

Len

I do.

10 June 2012 09:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

And so, to the floating cut&pastes of the Bible again.

10 June 2012 09:34  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Yawn - what? who? zzzzzzzzzz

10 June 2012 09:40  
Blogger len said...

(Sigh)

10 June 2012 09:41  
Blogger Naomi King said...

My dear friends if you do not turn to the love of God and purify your hearts you will see Hell, for out of the desires of your heart proceed all the issues of your lives.

10 June 2012 09:51  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr DanJo @ 00.17 said, ‘I think you actually fail to understand the argument in favour of same-sex marriage.’

Huh? I fully understand the pretensions of the idea behind SSM and dismiss them as based on both a lie (that a homosexual union is the same as a heterosexual union) and a misconception (that marriage can be ‘same-sex’).

Mr DanJo continued @ 00.17: ‘I suggest you start there and your confusion might clear itself up.’ No confusion here, I know marriage from the inside.

Whereas @ 23.20 you said; ‘It may come as a great surprise to you but I have first-hand experience as I was produced and raised by heterosexual parents and I had the sort of family life people call normal these days: a mother and father and sibling, and later, a mother and step-father and step-siblings’

Wow, big deal, you have seen marriage from the perspective of a child, as a sibling and the clincher, as friend of a married couple.

Two experiences are missing.

Firstly you are out and proud as a sexual predator of younger males (scarcely a paternal activity) rather than being a partner in a long term relationship. Perhaps you have problems with loyalty and commitment and prefer the thrill-kill sensation of seduction. In any event, you clearly have no experience of living in a stable relationship such as a civil partnership.

Secondly you have no experience of marriage as a parent.

It is therefore remarkable that you can seriously infer I fail to understand marriage, wherein the parental role and its responsibilities are paramount.

Can you not see that your comment represents the arrogance, conceit, ignorance and complete misunderstanding of so many of your cohort? Quite where your assumptions of superiority come from is hard to imagine.

As yet you have failed to convince a single communicant of the merits of your cause. And yet you are prepared to tell Mr Dodo that he lacks skills of salesmanship and persuasion.

You risk being seen as not only profoundly mistaken but hyprocritical.

10 June 2012 10:14  
Blogger John Holme said...

Once again we see demonstrated in this victory for evil the patience and determination of the spirit that worketh in the ‘Children of Disobedience’.

The 1971 London Gay Liberation Front Manifesto (of which Peter Tatchell wrote the 2nd preface), made clear what the long term objectives of the homosexual activists were and a reading of it will demonstrate that they have achieved many of them.

My point in this comment, is that the architects of perverse social change are not short-term minded in their objectives as so often politicians are.

As the Lord Jesus Christ taught, The children of this generation are often wiser than the Children of the Kingdom.

The Danish situation demonstrates another great victory for the antichrist.

Consider this, though no Lutheran priest is compelled to carry out so called ‘same sex marriage’ ceremonies, if I understand the legislation correctly, the diocesan bishop is required by law to make provision for the ‘happy couple’. No bishop with a Godly conscience will be able to perform such a duty and therefore in time there will only be liberals occupying these seats of ecclesiastical office.

By now there must be many of the reformers turning in their graves: Wesley and Whitefield in Britain and Luther in Germany.

Church of England beware, Mene Mene Tekel Uparsin -same sex marriage is coming to a church near you, be afraid, be very afraid.

10 June 2012 10:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

bluedog: "No confusion here, I know marriage from the inside."

So do people with civil partnerships and, in fact, same-sex couples and different-sex couples who co-habit as married people in all but legal name.

bluedog: "Firstly you are out and proud as a sexual predator of younger males (scarcely a paternal activity) rather than being a partner in a long term relationship."

That's lazy slander and lies, of course, and typical of a racist, morally-degenerate lowlife like yourself. If we're to imagine sexual lifestyles for each other then who's to say whether you didn't sexually abuse your children when they were younger and perhaps tamper even now with any grandchildren you have? Afterall, most child sexual abuse happens in the family home, and usually by people within the family or their close friends.

"Quite where your assumptions of superiority come from is hard to imagine."

From interacting with people like yourself, I'd say. It's hard not to assume that.

10 June 2012 10:46  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Let's be frank about this, the Protestant Reformation, initiated by many good intentions and men seeking spiritual truth, was the father of the spiritual darkness now descending across the 'civilised' world. Put a bible in the hands of the ungodly or unwise, tell them it is for them to interpret, and anarchy inevitably rules.

So called Christian Church leaders have made concessions in contraception, abortion, divorce and homosexuality. The bible's message have been turned on its head. Shame and guilt are 'politically incorrect' in these times of 'liberation' and absence of 'condemnation'. People are to be made to 'feel good' and experience 'love'.

"For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind."

10 June 2012 10:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

bluedog: "As yet you have failed to convince a single communicant of the merits of your cause."

You misunderstand completely. I try out arguments here for my own benefit and to show their efficacy for the silent reader. Much of the stuff from people like Dodo and Naomi is just passive-aggressive bollocks anyway, there will never be any actual understanding there as there is no open-mindedness. However, when things like surveys and other very arguable stuff come up, I just run rings around you guys. You and Owl and the Inspector are reduced to mere assertion in the hope that what you say might, even in the fact of contradictory evidence, just be true anyway. Typical of the more stupid of the online-religious, of course. What might be otherwise called Flat-Earthers, that is.

10 June 2012 11:01  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJo
Statistically, of course, its more likely that children will be abused by the sexually disordered than by normal heterosexual men. Indeed, some sexual predators seek out women with children for this very reason.

One of the lesser known objectives of the homosexual agenda is to decriminalise sexual relations between adults and children. No normal man would want such a thing.

10 June 2012 11:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Statistically, of course, its more likely that children will be abused by the sexually disordered than by normal heterosexual men."

Dodo, normal heterosexual men don't abuse children at all. Normal men of any sexual orientation don't sexually abuse children. I really think you need to readjust your idea of 'normal' there. Perhaps it's a consequence of your Roman Catholic upbringing but that's not really much of an excuse, matey.

10 June 2012 11:08  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Well, that shows just how little you really know about sexual deviants, DanJ0.

I was of course making a comparison between homosexual and heterosexual men and it's the former who are significantly likely to abuse children.

10 June 2012 11:13  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr DanJO @ 10.46 said 'That's lazy slander and lies, of course, and typical of a racist, morally-degenerate lowlife like yourself'

Nope, merely a recollection of two earlier quotes of your own.

Firstly your tasteless boasting of the conquest of a Muslim youth over a bottle of red. Secondly your smirking claim to go on holiday in 'exotic locations'.

Nudge, Nudge.

Where these boasts merely lies and made to impress? If so it may it explain your response @ 10.46.

Remember you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time. We have seen what may be termed phase one of Lincoln's aphorism. A gullible minority, coerced by threats of homophobia and crimes against equality, have fallen for homosexual propaganda in regard to SSM. But the majority of the electorate, and we are 98.5% against your 1.5%, will have none of your nonsense and will not destroy a cherished institution to submit to your lies and false comparisons.

This communicant reacalls the words of another American of the 1860's, the Confederate cavalry leader Colonel JEB Stuart. When asked for the secret of his success, he replied, 'Get there fustest with the mostest'.

So it will be in defense of marriage.

10 June 2012 11:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Well, that shows just how little you really know about sexual deviants, DanJ0."

Yet, according to you, I am one. Lol. Dodo, you're inadequate in almost all respects. Heck, I bet even that recent nauseating description of your sexual game of doctors and nurses originally started out with your partner giving you a small blue pill.

10 June 2012 11:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

bluedog: "Nudge, Nudge."

And there we have it. The extent of your position.

10 June 2012 11:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

bluedog: "But the majority of the electorate, and we are 98.5% against your 1.5% [..]"

I draw your attention to the figures in the survey carried out by Catholic Voices and published a day or two ago. Interesting, huh? Well, if you took your head out of the sand anyway.

10 June 2012 11:27  
Blogger bluedog said...

Danjo @ 11.01 said, 'You misunderstand completely. I try out arguments here for my own benefit and to show their efficacy for the silent reader.'

Once again, Nope.

You try out arguments with a view to achieving a knockout blow. When you don't succeed you retreat to the excuse above.

You can't even be honest with yourself.

But this kind of to & fro is essentially futile. The electorate will decide, irrespective of what is posted here.

10 June 2012 11:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

bluedog: "You try out arguments with a view to achieving a knockout blow."

As it happens, I understand very well that there will be no knockout blow to the issue of same-sex marriage and that's because of the nature of the thing. It's not a logic problem, you see, even if the truth of certain aspects of it are easy for me to demonstrate. Moreover, most of the people against it here are simply sugar-coating their religious beliefs even when they're attempting a social argument. There are no knockout blows to do with religion either, we can't argue on from the core premises unless people like you admit your beliefs are essentially built on nothing other than rapidly diminishing levels of social conditioning. Hope that helps. You need some mental clarity there, I think.

10 June 2012 11:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

bluedog: "But this kind of to & fro is essentially futile."

No. I don't find it futile for the reasons I've posted earlier. It achieves in the wider sense.

10 June 2012 11:41  
Blogger len said...

Let be frank Dodo..... the Catholic religion was the worst thing that happened to Christianity(ever)

Instead of Christianising the Pagans.... Constantine' Paganised' Christianity!.
THAT was the start of the 'Dark ages'.

It was only through the heroism of (formerly Catholic) Priests who had their eyes opened by the Holy Spirit and were appalled by the total hypocrisy of Catholicism that the reformation was born!.

10 June 2012 11:45  
Blogger len said...

I am not saying the Reformers got everything right but their crowning glory was the departure from the shackles of Rome and man oriented(engineered) religion.

It is said that Catholicism actually 'gave birth' to Islam because Mohammed saw through all the contradictions in Catholicism and rejected Catholicism as based on error.

All sorts of ism`s have been created by the doctrinal errors of Catholicism.If Biblical Truth had been strictly observed we probably would not be in the mess we are today with hundreds of denominations and religions.
I lay the blame directly at the door of those who distort scripture for their own purposes!.


And no I am not a Muslim.

10 June 2012 11:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dick Van Dyke! No, that's not an attempt to be smutty or coarse, it's what I was trying to think that striped jacket reminded me of. Though now when I google it's in rather bolder colours on Dick.

10 June 2012 11:53  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

See, normal heterosexual sex just freaks you out, doesn't it? You can't imagine two normal people being physically intimate without trying to cheapen it with your sick ideas.

Something has clearly happened to you to distort and pervert your perceptions and your sexuality. Even the words "penile vaginal penetration" trouble you.

Get some help - quick.

10 June 2012 11:54  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

little pope len said ...

"It is said that Catholicism actually 'gave birth' to Islam because Mohammed saw through all the contradictions in Catholicism and rejected Catholicism as based on error."

Oh yeah, so who said that then? Have you been surfing those anti-Catholic websites again?

Mohammed was a mentally ill, deluded, power crazed obsessive.

What's your excuse?

10 June 2012 12:00  
Blogger len said...

Dodo you seem to be foaming at the mouth.

Not a good look!.

10 June 2012 12:01  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"Mohammed was a mentally ill, deluded, power crazed obsessive."

Dodo (if that is your chosen moniker today), what would you say of a non-Roman Catholic who said such things of the Pope? It seems awfully intemperate, not to say 'bigoted' (as you might say), to insult millions of Muslims with such hyperbole.

10 June 2012 12:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "See, normal heterosexual sex just freaks you out, doesn't it?"

No, not at all. In fact, most of my friends and all of my family are doing it pretty regularly. It's normal, natural, and inherently amoral at its core. Heck, I wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for my parents have a go at it. You're just building a straw man to attack to cover up your inadequacy.

That said, dogs rogering each other in the street is normal and natural too. Yet, I don't particularly want to see it, or imagine it in my mind's eye. It's the same with heterosexual sex. I can handle seeing two beautiful people doing it in the prime of their lives, but the idea of a disturbed old man like you 'getting fruity' really turns my stomach.

But that's the thing, you see. I don't make the leap between my just having a visceral personal reaction to particular images, and trying to suppress the natural sexual urges of free individuals in society or claim some sort of moral position about it. Stick your wrinkly, grey-thatched bits in your partner as you will, I have no wish to criminalise it as you have with homosexuality when you experience your homophobia.

10 June 2012 12:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

bluedog: "Firstly you are out and proud as a sexual predator of younger males (scarcely a paternal activity) rather than being a partner in a long term relationship."

DanJ0. Now, that is about the truth of it. Merely insert the word “potential” and you have everything you need to know about EVERY homosexual man. Don’t you see, it’s been like that since the days of Ancient Greece. Corrupters of youth, no less. You can’t change that and you can’t airbrush history.

The Inspector has absolutely no hesitation in suggesting that if we were living in a society with radically altered values, as the Gay Agenda would have it, you yourself would consider keeping a sexually confused young lad for your own ‘entertainment’. A catamite.

It’s the unspoken truth, you know, the elephant in the room. Parents just do not trust people like you. you have ‘strange ways’.

10 June 2012 12:18  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Mr Cranmr said ...

"Dodo (if that is your chosen moniker today)"

(Hello 'Bish,long time since I've heard from you.)

Being in possession of my ISP address, Sir, you're in the best position to know. As I've explained, dissociative disorder renders sufferers unaware of their various identities and their manifestation.

As for Muhammed, there is a body of evidence supporting the position I advanced. So far as I am aware, no such claims have been made against Pope Benedict. If they were, naturally, I would consider the evidence before responding.

Have a nice day.

10 June 2012 12:23  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Editorial Amendment:

little pope len said ...

"It is said that Catholicism actually 'gave birth' to Islam because Mohammed saw through all the contradictions in Catholicism and rejected Catholicism as based on error."

Oh yeah, so who said that then? Have you been surfing those anti-Catholic websites again?

There is some evidence suggesting Mohammed may have been was a mentally ill, deluded, power crazed obsessive.

What's your excuse?

10 June 2012 12:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "[...] you yourself would consider keeping a sexually confused young lad for your own ‘entertainment’."

Who knows? I'd like to think not. In the same hypothetical environment, you might have kept a female slave who you raped regularly as part of your local concept of the ownership of human beings. That is, if you're not a closet homosexual, very conflicted and in denial as I genuinely suspect.

You know, I'm very fond of animals (in the non-Dodo sense). Recently, some regularly-visiting doves raised chicks in a hanging basket outside my window and I watched them grow from egg to fledgling and eventually tentatively fly.

I had to encourage one off the grass as we have local cats, and a visiting fox. The following morning there were a pile of feathers, and I cried and was pretty upset for the weekend. Luckily for me, it turned out to be a pile of pigeon feathers when I checked one online after not being able to sleep. I'm very sentimental, you see.

Now, I've travelled to many exotic locations as I have sometimes said ... and most definitely not for the reason bluedog likes to imagine when on his backfoot. No, I actually climb mountains: Kilimanjaro, Everest (sans-summit), Toubkal, the Annapurnas, that sort of thing, and the people in these sometimes remote regions live rather simple lives.

In my travels, I've noticed time and again that animals are not generally treated very well, although they're not abused as such. The people have little room for sentimentality like that, it seems. I think there's something similar to do with morals and ethics: that is, I realise that I have the luxury of them.

Now, I'm sure morality, emotion, sentimentality, guilt, conscience, etc are part of the human condition. However, I think they can be encouraged to grow or encouraged to shrink, or can even be suppressed. The direction, drive, level of that comes from the society in which people live, I reckon.

I used to work with a non-Jewish German man of my age who was a pretty decent man it has to be said. We were in Germany once and he took me to a Holocaust museum. I got a little emotional, as I always do, about the plight of the people involved and was bewildered, as I always am, that others can do such things. He looked me in the eye and said: "You know, if I lived back then I can't say that I wouldn't have done the same thing. How do we really know unless we've lived their lives as they did?"

So, no doubt that will pass you completely by and no doubt some of it will serve as ammunition for the likes of so-called Christians such as Dodo. But it's for the silent reader, really. A bit of thought for a Sunday.

10 June 2012 12:47  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

An interesting and revealing insight and I most certainly wouldn't use such personal testimony as "ammunition".

However, the cultural milieux in the West to which you allude was built on the foundations of Christianity. Central to it is proper and ordered relationships between men and women and a Christian sexual morality and ethic.

Take God away and the social mores upon which social stability rests still remain critical. See, that's the thing with God's law. It is necessary with or without a belief in Him.

10 June 2012 12:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Take God away and the social mores upon which social stability rests still remain critical. See, that's the thing with God's law. It is necessary with or without a belief in Him."

Different social mores, different gods in different parts of the world, same human condition underpining it all.

I've spent a lot of time over the years in Nepal and watched the country change as it modernises. Their newspapers contain letters and opinion pieces from elder social conservatives bemoaning the latest youth of today, and the allegedly downward social trends, and predicting social disintegration.

Places like Kathmandu are covered in Hindu temples and Buddhist stupas. People walk around wearing religious symbols. There are dozens of religious festivals, celebrating various Hindu gods and occasions. They probably still have the Kumari Devi and no doubt the social conservatives want to preserve it too against the demons who think it is outdated and a little sinister and rather harmful.

What you think is so obvious over here regarding your god hypothesis and the related views of our shared reality is matched over there with a completely different set of deities and another view of our shared reality. Moreover, the people there really believe in it all too. It's all very different but, essentially, much the same.

This is one of the reasons I am n atheist and why I often can't take the religious certainties people express here very seriously. They're just cultural artefacts like anywhere else, only you don't seem to realise it. I've heard it all before, just with different content.

10 June 2012 13:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. That is, if you're not a closet homosexual, very conflicted and in denial as I genuinely suspect.

As you might have guessed, the Inspector delights when he finds correlation in his investigations. Do you know, the Inspector, when he first visited the “Pink Backsides” site, was within a few minutes accused of exactly the same by the herd ! Apparently, when you criticise the concept of homosexuality, even if it is just merely relaying facts, like the incidence of disease they spread, this is the standard retort. It MUST be a gay man in denial. Now, this is very telling. The problem is, the Inspector has yet to work out exactly WHAT it’s telling him. Communicants, any ideas ?

Getting back to your point of what would we do if we were in different circumstances, then yes, agreed.The Inspector may well have had a female slave for comfort. As we know, marriage at one time until quite late in human history around here was in main a property contract. The love issue being ignored.

So, you can see why hard line right wingers like this man doesn’t want the present setup changed. Never want to face the question posed. And not wanting the present setup changed includes not wanting SSM. Slippery slope and all that. We need to role back anti-social legislation like abortion, not continue in the same downward spiral.

Early last winter, a pied wagtail could be observed from Inspector Towers. Clever little opportunist birds they are. Abandoning temporarily the frozen fields denying them a worm or two to scavenge for human tit bits we provide. Alas, after a couple of weeks, a pile of black and white feathers. Sparrow hawk had him. One hopes the hawk chicks thrived from devouring ‘Eric’...

10 June 2012 13:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: " you know, the Inspector, when he first visited the “Pink Backsides” site, was within a few minutes accused of exactly the same by the herd !"

There's evidence of the phenomenon, you see, and not only involving Ted Haggard. In your particular case, it's your marital/co-habitational status that really does you in. You're the 'confirmed bachelor' people used to talk about, and nod knowingly, by the look of it.

10 June 2012 13:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "As we know, marriage at one time until quite late in human history around here was in main a property contract. The love issue being ignored."

Well, quite. Marriage has meant many things over the years, mostly to do with property right, family alliances, and the division of labour with its associated economic advantages. Of course, children fit into all of that in various ways. The whole thing is a social institution, and the society on which it is resting has changed significantly. It's not just homosexual rights that have had influence, it's the ability to choose when to have children and how many. It's the choice straight people have about sex because of contraception, and the lack of disapproval about co-habitation and sex outside of marriage. It's the level of geographic mobility people have now, and how that has affected the extended family. It's the type of labour people do, and what type of wealth and property people have. It's the labour-saving devices around the home. It's gender equality. It's the change in things like dowries and chattels. Same-sex marriage is just travelling on the back of all those changes because the nature of marriage has changed and same-sex couple qualify as their relationships are essentially no different now and the advantages to society make it worthwhile to recognise it.

10 June 2012 13:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

You're the 'confirmed bachelor' people used to talk about, and nod knowingly,

It was the poor quality of the women that were available to him. There is a saying, ‘never accept anything less than second best’. Even that’s not good enough for the Inspector....

10 June 2012 13:57  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

You really see no differences between the social environments of the West and Asia? The cultural consequences of Hinduism and Buddhism are very different to Christianity.

Of course society has changed. Most of the developments you cite are recent phenomenon, many came in with the influenecs of Estern culture in the sicxties, and are most certainly not advances. All driven by hedonism and selfishness, yet covered in a veil of self fulfillment. And homosexuals must not be allowed to climb on the back of these and push them on.

10 June 2012 14:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "It was the poor quality of the women that were available to him."

I used to use that line when I was younger, especially when asked by elderly family members! "I just haven't met the right woman yet.", "Too busy working/travelling", etc. You may find it useful to look a little sad now at your age and say "I don't think I ever will find anyone now, and besides, I'd be a devil to live with as I'm set in my ways after all this time". That's what I say to people who I don't want to explain my sexual orientation to. Good luck. Hope this helps.

10 June 2012 14:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

P.S. Never claim to be dating a nurse who no-one ever meets and whose details are a little vague. Well known tactic that, and not very plausible.

10 June 2012 14:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "You really see no differences between the social environments of the West and Asia?"

Ah, Dodo. *sigh* You miss the point of it again.

10 June 2012 14:10  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Danjo, I do not know if your background is religious or non religious. As an atheist I think the problem you have is the lack of understanding of how ssm is viewed by those of Christian persuasion and how utterly objectionable it is.

If you call yourself Christian you can never ever accept ssm. Hindus Moslems Jews and Christians can only ever accept 'marriage' between a man and a woman . Any other concept is an anathema. .I suppose you could compare it to your reaction if it was mandatory that all gays should be castrated...That is how Christians
feel about ssm. ..An abomination!
So no amount of informative surveys etc is going to change the thinking;if half a million Danes are prepared to leave the Lutheran Church that should be of some indication how seriously this proposal of ssm is viewed.

I can see the benefits of a civil partnership for homosexual couples.
I think it is unreasonable to expect homosexuals to live a celibate eunuch's life or a profligate promiscuous life. Even worse ,force them into a deceitful damaging sexual relationships with women.Rent boys soliciting Dad is not conducive to ongoing family unity and causes enormous damage to children.

Civil partnership gives each party property rights ,the same as marrieds which encourages fidelity and less promiscuity because the termination of a partnership results in property division which is very expensive .

Gays have a reputation for being promiscuous.This might not be an ideal reason for keeping homosexual couples together but in the real world it is definitely a consideration that keeps (even married people: ) together.

Homosexuals,insisting on ssm when a civil Partnership is offered, can only be seen as offensive and a hostile attack on Christian ethics.

10 June 2012 14:11  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Me thinks you're revealing more about yourself and projecting this onto the Inspector.

It's sad to think of you as a wrinkly old homosexual, all alone, not even part of the 'scene', hoping one day it will be permissible to enjoy the company of young boys.

Meantime:

Climb every mountain,
Search high and low,
Follow every highway,
Every path you know.

Climb every mountain,
Ford every stream,
Follow every rainbow,
'Till you find your dream.

A dream that will need
All the love you can give,
Every day of your life
For as long as you live.

10 June 2012 14:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0 P.S. Never claim to be dating a nurse who no-one ever meets and whose details are a little vague. Well known tactic that, and not very plausible.

Really must find out who that delightful woman was, who the Inspector ate out with last night. Suffering Italian food, not his first, or even fourth choice come to that, not getting back until late :->

10 June 2012 14:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

IndeedDodo, and of course our man rules out sodomy, so he’s not exactly making things easy for himself. If he went onto the “Pink Bums” and stated that, they would tear him apart :-<

10 June 2012 14:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "It's sad to think of you as a wrinkly old homosexual, all alone, not even part of the 'scene', hoping one day it will be permissible to enjoy the company of young boys."

You make assumptions about my current relationship status, undoubtedly on the basis of my writing "single" elsewhere in some of the stuff you've poured over through google in the hope of finding something to use to try to restore your credibility by attacking mine. Well, for me "single" has always meant "never married" rather than "in a relationship". I noticed that when I was searching through the ONS data last night that they define single as "never married" too. Also, I expect to never want to enjoy the company of young boys, if you mean what I think. Spring-boarding on from all this a little, I have in fact co-habited and been very much in love over the years. Short of having my own children, I know what marriage is all about from the inside despite what bluedog claims. Of course, one has to understand the nature of the claim about legal marriage i.e. that it is a solemnisation, and that it sits above the concept of a certain type of relationship, one which I claim same-sex couples enjoy just as much as different-sex ones.

10 June 2012 14:43  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Just ignore his comments about your sexuality. He knows its false and its intended to rile you.

A theme in DanJ0's writing and, indeed, in much of homosexuality, is a preoccupation with the 'body beautiful'. He just can't imagine older normal people people engaging in intimate, natural sexual intercourse.

Homosexuals have hemorrhoids to content with and enlarged protates. Also, I'm not sure just how attractive a 'hand job' or 'blow job' from eighty year old unattached male with weak wrists and false teeth would really be.

His future is bleak indeed unless he comes to terms with his situation and abstains rather than continue to chase an erotic fantasy - beautiful boys in lycra waiting for him atop Mount Kilimanjaro.

10 June 2012 14:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Really must find out who that delightful woman was, who the Inspector ate out with last night."

Was it your mother? Or what we tend to call a 'beard'? Thinking of you, I recall an episode of a comedy called "Dear John" from years ago where one of the socially-inadequate cast had a framed photo of a woman on his mantelpiece. The visitor asked "oh, who's this lovely woman? Your girlfriend?", only to get the reply "No idea, the frame came with that already in it".

10 June 2012 14:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "He just can't imagine older normal people people engaging in intimate, natural sexual intercourse."

You ought to mean: I don't want to imagine. Expect you don't because you want to try to hold up your risible strawman.

10 June 2012 14:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cressida: "As an atheist I think the problem you have is the lack of understanding of how ssm is viewed by those of Christian persuasion and how utterly objectionable it is."

Erm, I read it almost every day here on this forum. In reverse, the Christian view of sexual ethics is objectionable to me too. I think it's at best wrongly moral and at worst positively evil.

"Homosexuals,insisting on ssm when a civil Partnership is offered, can only be seen as offensive and a hostile attack on Christian ethics."

Well, hard luck for those who think that. They should grow a pair, to coin a phrase. Christian ethics are just one of many views of the world, why should the rest of us really care one way or the other? Christians don't own marriage. If people want to live by their own religious ethics then good luck to them, provided it does no significant harm to others. However, I'm happy to live a different ethical life and I want to do so in peace.

10 June 2012 15:00  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Doddles..have you been hitting the turps again? All this poetry and bursting out into songs from B grade musicals of late is not in character.LOL

Oh and incidentally your theory that the wide practice of contraception has caused the demand for ssm and the reason for secularism in society is (how can I put this nicely to you sweetie)irrational!

There will always be those who push the envelope.This is not a reason to petrify all change into stone. There also must be boundaries that are never ever crossed and they are those that used to be understood by a Christian based society.

I hate to say this but I feel a bit sorry for your friend the Inspector. It is always assumed that a guy who does not live with a woman and has never been married must be gay. I suppose it is an unusual situation but also somewhat possible to be heterosexual . I would have thought a person of this persuasion would be a perfect candidate for the priesthood. Just think Inspector could have been a very colourful outspoken Prince of the Church by now if he had started out early enough and not wasted his time in the quest for that perfect woman.

10 June 2012 15:00  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Inspector it's telling you that they feel a deep sense of guilt and shame for what they do. They have not got the will to stop themselves from doing it you see. Anyone criticising them is according to them in denial or then goes on to become anti gay, a troll and the enemy. How sad they all are. But you said they did seem to be young homosexuals on that site.

10 June 2012 15:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oh lordy, you're not drawn to Pink News too Marie? First you register yourself with Gaydar so you can 'view profiles', then most of your family, friends, work colleagues, and hairdresser turn out to be gay for 'fashion reasons', and now this. Have you considered that you might be a little, well, obsessed? Unhealthily so? Well, you might like Naomi here who seems like a kindred spirit.

10 June 2012 15:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. When you discuss homosexuality, then it’s inevitable that it’s devotees will bring everything up like vomit to defend their position. Thus, a normal type like the Inspector admits this to you - He feels tainted by his contact with it, through his investigations, he hastens to add, not indulgence ! He fully understands it’s corrupting nature as a result. He’s a strong man so will survive. Those who are less resistant will be swallowed by it, damaged even. Homosexuality is an abomination all right, it has no place in society, but like dog shit, there it is. Both are tolerated but both are equally vile.

Hope this helps old fruit...

Marie. Would say the average age there is something-teen. One poster said she was 21, very much the elder stateswoman !

10 June 2012 15:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Marie. That could well be it. “We roll in the mire, and you deserve to do so too”

10 June 2012 15:15  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Danjo..it is not just Christian ethic. It is also Hindu Jewish and Islamic that share the view on the intrinsic nature of marriage.So in your opinion that makes the larger number of the world population morally wrong and evil. If this is the case why would you want to embrace the institution of marriage which is intrinsically understood to be a union between a man and a woman by the four major world religions.

If you are so contemptuous of Christianity and the other major religions who share the same view of marriage...why would you want to embrace it. It does belong to those religions.

As a minority societal member you should be rejecting the concept of marriage which is religious in its essence...You also still live in a Christian based society whether you like it or not.Move to an Islamic country for a while and you will realise how you have unconsciously already embraced much of Christian ethics.

10 June 2012 15:25  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

cressida de nova

Thank you very much!
Thank you very much!
That's the nicest thing that anyone's ever done for me.
It sounds a bit bizarre,
But things the way they are,
I feel as if another life's begun for me.

Thank you very, very, very much!
Thank you very much!
Thank you very much!
That's the nicest thing that anyone's ever done for me.
It isn't everyday
Good fortune comes my way.
I never thought the future would be fun for me.
And if I had a bugle I would blow it,
To add a sort of 'ow's-your-father touch.
But since I left my bugle at home
I'll simply have to say
Thank you very, very, very much!


And you're wrong about contraception. Break the link with the transmission of life and sex is merely a self-centred pleasure, a form of mutual masturbation to be indulged in. Abortion inevitably follows. So does divorce as greater pleasure can be found elsewhere.

10 June 2012 15:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Thus, a normal type like the Inspector admits this to you - He feels tainted by his contact with it, through his investigations, he hastens to add, not indulgence !"

Have you tried self-flagellation while you work out your internal conflicts?? Popular amongst certain of your ranks, I believe, when they're beset by what they see as their base desires.

10 June 2012 15:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cressida: "If you are so contemptuous of Christianity and the other major religions who share the same view of marriage...why would you want to embrace it. It does belong to those religions."

Ah, I see that basic logic is not your forte. Perhaps you could write it out as simple syllogism so that it becomes clear to you where you are going wrong in your thinking about the relationships between religion, non-religion, and the institution of marriage.

10 June 2012 15:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cressida: "As a minority societal member you should be rejecting the concept of marriage which is religious in its essence...You also still live in a Christian based society whether you like it or not."

Well, I'll stick with civil marriage which is not allowed to have religious content under our law. You might like to look that up as you don't seem to be aware of it. Also, I live in a post-Enlightenment society, one where Christianity is a minority religion and liberalism is our core value system. You do too, whether you like it or not. There's always Rome if you'd prefer something a little more, well, popish in style.

10 June 2012 15:48  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

A good hot shower to metaphorically wash the scum out of one's hair is far better, Inspector.

10 June 2012 15:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Queer rule number one:

If the straights are winning the argument, accuse them of latent homosexuality. It will drive them mad !

10 June 2012 15:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Queer rule number two:

If the straights don’t back down, then they are trolls. DON’T FEED THE TROLLS. It will drive them mad !

10 June 2012 15:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Queer rule number three:

If the straights are still there, then they are HATEFUL and HOMOPHOBIC and NAZIs and FASCISTS and scream it at them. It will drive them mad !

10 June 2012 15:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "If the straights are winning the argument, accuse them of latent homosexuality."

First, you need to win an argument and, let's face it, you've never done that here. In fact, you're a laughing-stock even amongst religionists by the look of it. Even Owl was wishing last night that you'd STFU and leave people to debate without your and Dodo's nonsense. Add to that your unsavoury racism and misogynism and you're a lost cause. A loser. A waste of space.

10 June 2012 15:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Queer rule number four:

If the straights keep on, then it’s a HATE CRIME. Report them to the police. Demand the police take immediate action. It will drive them mad !

10 June 2012 15:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0 at 15:53

That’s it son, let it all pour out. The bile and vindictiveness that has been building up for years. The sheer frustration of it all. It’s good for the soul. Drink some salt water too. Purge your system, rid that body of it’s demons...

10 June 2012 15:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

He asks himself couldn’t it have been any other way. Of all the things, to be attracted to the same sex. It’s the worst emotion of all, hardest to deal with - Self loathing...

10 June 2012 16:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Jeez, the self-awareness thing you and Dodo lack completely. You really need to get it sorted out.

10 June 2012 16:09  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

And, mustn't forget,
Queer rule number four:

Should all else fail, remove evidence of their opinions and prevent them from expressing these further.

10 June 2012 16:11  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

*number five*

10 June 2012 16:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Queer rule number five:

Never EVER admit to being the degenerate you are. it will drive YOU mad !

10 June 2012 16:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

There is no rule number six, but we do have...

Queer rule number seven:

Rubber up, unless you love the guy :->

10 June 2012 16:18  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 June 2012 16:22  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
Danj0 I read “Pink bums” in conjunction with the comments on this site and was curious as to why the Inspector had been pushed out of the playground. I'm not obsessed just concerned about the redefinition of marriage to society.

Homosexuality has been in and out of fashion throughout the centuries, outlawed by one lot and legalised by another, it is still currently outlawed in70 countries don't forget. You the great traveller Danj0 should of course know this. That tells me a lot and also the fall of the Greek empire tells us redefining the meaning of marriage is not a healthy thing to be doing. Why don't those in command of our country now listen to reason and the majority of the population. Take note of history and leave things as they are with the civil partnership in place. The economy is far more important, no point getting married if you're being made redundant and can't pay for it.

Naomi is right in a lot of what she says here.

10 June 2012 16:28  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

That last comment of mine is way too rude for a Sunday. It will have to be removed!

10 June 2012 16:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say straights, a good afternoon’s work, don’t you think ?

Points well presented and counter arguments, those that were, utterly demolished !

heh heh

10 June 2012 16:38  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

The UK is predominantly Christian
followed by Islam Judaism and Hinduism. These religions are against ssm. That comprises a lot of citizens.You say you live in a society where Christianity is a minority religion.Where?

I love Rome but I'm not big on red shoes.

10 June 2012 17:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cressida: "You say you live in a society where Christianity is a minority religion.Where?"

The UK. Why, where do you live?

10 June 2012 17:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Our ‘fallen creation’ is still rattling on ! Come on Stonewall, have a care, and call him off...

10 June 2012 17:54  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...

"I live in a post-Enlightenment society, one where Christianity is a minority religion and liberalism is our core value system."

Yeah, a fantasy world, DanJ0land, seventy miles north-west of Diddyland in the Atlantic ocean.

10 June 2012 18:07  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 18:55 : ''wishy-washy liberal views'' - moi??? I must print that out, and post it on my local pub's notice board! :o)


Your Grace @ 12:10 : apropos of Dodo's words: I cannot fault his assertions re' Mohammed; hardly ''hyperbole'' I would have thought?

10 June 2012 18:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 June 2012 18:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Yeah, a fantasy world, DanJ0land, seventy miles north-west of Diddyland in the Atlantic ocean."

Check out the church attendance statistics and trends, together with the surveys about religious belief. That shows the minority religion thing. Then consider that our statute book contains abortion, divorce, and civil partnership law, and the Human Rights Act. Then, check out the debates in the media about core liberal values about freedom of speech, right to liberty, and so on. I think you'll find that you're in fantasy land emulating trolls and the like, and I'm in the UK living in the real world.

10 June 2012 18:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One is not surprised your grandmother loathes you. Perhaps she wishes she could wall you up or keep you in the attic, as people used to do with types that weren’t quite right in the head. Demonic possession it was once called...

10 June 2012 18:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

In the Maternity Unit...

I’m sorry madam, your new born boy is gay.

Can we swop him for something else. Got anything you can’t get rid of

10 June 2012 18:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well, there’s this Eskimo baby. Been here a couple of weeks now. Not really sure where it came from..

Done ! Where do we sign ?

10 June 2012 18:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Good God, OIG. Do you even read what you write sometimes? An 'Eskimo baby?' What, did it just ride in on a random ice flow? Is it racially damaged goods? Do Eskimoes commonly leave their children at the hospital? Are they just one step up from an orangutan. A woman I work with just announced she is adopting a baby from Korea because she and her husband couldn't conceive. Do you think she sees adoption as taking whatever was remaindered on the shelf?

THINK before you write. It wasn't funny. Your words can hurt people.

carl

10 June 2012 19:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. It was a JOKE man ! It could have been a Red Indian baby with war paint, or an Australian aborigine child clutching a boomerang. It doesn’t really matter but it did seem humorous that there was a spare exotic child in an English maternity unit that nobody knew where it came from and further that they were prepared to swop it for an unwanted gay child...

Do lighten up, old fellow...

10 June 2012 19:11  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Carl, I object to your speaking of an orangutan in that derogatory manner. You obviously have never seen one.They are the sweetest most affectionate intelligent creatures who are at least three steps above you and poor Danjo who does not even know that Christianity is the predominant religion in his own country.

Your words can hurt orangutans . Their habitat is being destroyed and they face extinction .They don't need a smart arsed Calvinist making matters worse.

10 June 2012 19:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good girl, Cressida. One believes the colonial type has been put firmly in his place !

10 June 2012 19:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cressida: "[...]and poor Danjo who does not even know that Christianity is the predominant religion in his own country."

Ah, the misunderstanding between us becomes apparent. I agree Christianity is the main religion in the UK. However, its adherents are a minority in the UK population. A relatively small group, really.

10 June 2012 19:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Thought the bouncing baby ultimate disappointment was around here somewhere...

10 June 2012 19:33  
Blogger len said...

Who needs orangutans when we have the Inspector and his mate the doggy do do

10 June 2012 19:53  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG wrote:

It could have been a Red Indian baby with war paint, or an Australian aborigine child clutching a boomerang.

[Stares at that sentence in uncomprehending disbelief]

Yes, it could have been. But that isn't the point.

carl

10 June 2012 20:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. To avoid total disappointment in this life when you consider the actions of your fellow man, you need a sense of humour. In the Inspector’s case, it’s a bloody BIG sense of humour...

10 June 2012 20:25  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Now now boys and girls shall we get back to those homosexuals ? Slaves to their sins would you think ?

10 June 2012 21:39  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older