Sunday, June 10, 2012

Liam Fox accuses 'metropolitan elite' of gay marriage social engineering



(From PoliticsHome) Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox this morning attacked the Government's plans to introduce gay civil marriage, saying it was not a priority for the public. Speaking on the Murnaghan programme on Sky News, Dr Fox said: "It is a contentious issue. I have to say I'm much more in favour of social mobility than social engineering." The presenter asked him whether he meant that gay civil marriage was social engineering. Dr Fox replied: "I think that the vast majority of the public have a totally different set of priorities from what I would call the metropolitan elite and I think that they'll be looking for those economic and social issues to be dealt with first."

So, there you have it. According to a very senior former Cabinet minister, David Cameron is part of a 'metropolitan elite' intent on a subversive programme of 'social engineering'. This is quite antithetical to conservatism, and utterly offensive to many Conservatives. His Grace is increasingly sure that 'gay marriage' is about to be kicked squarely into the very long grass.

266 Comments:

Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Let us hope and pray that homosexual marriage is kicked into a sewer where it rightly belongs. The long grass is not good enough!

10 June 2012 at 11:09  
Blogger David B said...

I don't think, as a general rule, that the government should avoid issues that aren't priorities to the public. Indeed they might well often be remiss in failing to do so.

David B

10 June 2012 at 11:10  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

What Dodo said

10 June 2012 at 11:13  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

What Dodo said

10 June 2012 at 11:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Article: "His Grace is increasingly sure that 'gay marriage' is about to be kicked squarely into the very long grass."

Well, until the next Labour government gets in anyway.

10 June 2012 at 11:32  
Blogger bluedog said...

DanJO @ 11.32 says, 'Well, until the next Labour government gets in anyway.'

Mighty quiet on the Labour party front. Remind us, just when is the TUC march in support of SSM?

10 June 2012 at 11:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It was mighty quiet regarding civil partnerships too as I remember. ;)

10 June 2012 at 11:42  
Blogger Flossie said...

One is compelled to ask - if the general public don't want gay marriage, and most gays don't want gay marriage - why is Cameron so set on it?

10 June 2012 at 11:48  
Blogger Orlando Braga said...

The argument of “priority” socks — pardon my French, Your Eminence!

If gay “marriage” is not considered a priority now, implicitly it would be considered a priority any time in the future.

Is there any means to teach Conservative politicians some Logic?

If gay marriage is reduced to a matter of “timing”, then its implementation in time and in the law is reduced to a subjective judgment, and metaphysics is blasted away.

10 June 2012 at 11:52  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

It should be kicked into the long grass as why should a tiny Gay minority have such a large influence over the majority that I'm sure don't want anything to do with 'Gay Marriage'. In fact I would hazard a bet that most of us find the idea sick.

10 June 2012 at 11:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

They now know the general public, at least according to most surveys, are reasonably supportive of same-sex marriage. So, they're reduced to trying to hold it off for as long as possible in the hope something will happen in the meantime. The second coming of Christ, perhaps. Or the twelfth imam and Isa, if they're profoundly wrong about god.

10 June 2012 at 11:59  
Blogger bluedog said...

Flossie @ 11.48. On Thursday, Cameron faces the Leveson enquiry. One can imagine that there will be furious war-gaming and rehearsal of potential questions in anticipation of a coordinated attack from Leveson and Jay.

If Cameron goes down in flames, and here's hoping, the SSM push is dead. If Cameron emerges smelling of roses, he will become risk averse. Why? Because Murdoch is anti-SSM and if Leveson doen't take Cameron's scalp, Murdoch will. So Cameron will need to cut back on areas of potential vulnerability.

10 June 2012 at 12:00  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Well said Mr Home

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, same sex marriage is coming to a church near you, be afraid, be very afraid.

10 June 2012 at 12:05  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Flossie said...
"One is compelled to ask - if the general public don't want gay marriage, and most gays don't want gay marriage - why is Cameron so set on it?"

He's hoping it will give the Conservative Party a new 'sexy' image. A party of progress and equality. He wants to capture the votes of the young who are being corrupted into accepting homosexuality as "natural".

What a tw-t the man is! Instead he should be defending heterosexuality and riding us of this homosexual plaque!

10 June 2012 at 12:13  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Your Grace

Interesting you should say that 'gay marriage' is about to be kicked squarely into the very long grass because this is exactly what Desmond Swayne MP, the PM's PPS, said to me personally on the 8th February before all this fiasco of a "public consultation" began. His very words were to me were, "This will be kicked into the long grass" and this despite Desmond's own personal support of the proposals, (see Desmond's Utube Out4Marriage video).

10 June 2012 at 12:25  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

It'll just lie, fester and smell in the long grass until someone else picks it up.

10 June 2012 at 12:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The Inspector has been giving thought to exactly what is God’s plan for his homosexual creations. It’s all hierarchical of course. Most of His humans were designed to continue society through reproducing themselves. A few were created as sterile workers to help in that quest. Of course, these sterile workers were never intended to change society for their own benefit. If we allow them to, then we are countermanding God’s intent.

We also see hierarchy at work in race. Some races were favoured through co-operation of the individual human constituents to achieve great things in culture, technology, understanding and such. Others were less favoured, and instead of co-operating with each other, robbed and killed his fellow. To live very low lives, almost stone age...

And it's empirical you know. Just cast off your binding of political correctness and observe the truth in action...

10 June 2012 at 13:00  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"The argument of “priority” socks — pardon my French"
What does that mean? What are priority socks and what is the argument about them?

10 June 2012 at 13:00  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

Flossie at 11.48 has hit the nail on the head. Why indeed?

10 June 2012 at 13:00  
Blogger Orlando Braga said...

@ Little Red Sambo:

[quote]
"Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox this morning attacked the Government's plans to introduce gay civil marriage, saying it was not a priority for the public."
[unquote]

10 June 2012 at 13:13  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Dodo the Dude said...
It'll just lie, fester and smell in the long grass until someone else picks it up.

Thats why this particular child needs to be killed before birth. Nothing wrong with that of course, in this abortion loving Nation we live in. 6 million dead babies to date since HM The Queen gave her Royal Assent to David Steele's Private Members Bill.

10 June 2012 at 13:23  
Blogger Lang Spoon said...

The policies of the ironically-named Conservative party are largely an exercise in displacement.

They lack the courage to tackle the country's real problems. Our debts & unfunded liabilities, our relations with the EU, mass non-western immigration and the terminal decline of our industries.

But they must be seen to be doing something - politically correct social engineering helps to fill the void.

10 June 2012 at 13:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hmmm. Six million dead babies, and yet Steele still alive. Shame it’s not the other way around...

10 June 2012 at 13:42  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Many of the above comments seem to have got to the Nub of the matter. Why do politicians feel they have to be defensive when criticising SSM? Instead of just saying it was wrong, he says it is not a priority right now. Does that mean it could be right at a later stage or he was just being polite and not wanting to offend? Or was he just trying to avoid being trashed by the media for the anti on SSM? Much of the media is presumptuous towards SSM and will attack anyone who speaks against it.
Being kicked in to the long grass is just not good enough and Cameron must be punished for supporting it. We have to have a Conservative Party and Government that is traditional style and in tune with what is right and good or we must replace them.

10 June 2012 at 13:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr Integrity. Sly Mr Fox doesn't want a monkey on his back. It might not be political suicide to condemn SSM outright, but the organised gays will mount a vicious hate campaign against him. They are ruthless in that way...

10 June 2012 at 13:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Gay marriage isn't so much social engineering as it is political calculation. It means that leadership has decided there is greater marginal political benefit than cost in pushing it. This is not a good sign if you are a Christian btw. It means the gov't has decided you don't count for much. You are the marginal cost that was traded off against the marginal gain. Most people won't care enough one way or the other to act. But homosexual marriage fits sufficiently within their present understanding of autonomy, and so they will passively accept it without much difficulty. The arguments we mount against homosexual marriage cut across the grain of this understanding of autonomy. Thus the political calculation. A small group wants it vehemently. A small group opposes it vehemently. The broad population doesn't want to be "told how to live" - especially in matters of sex.

Thus our dilemma. You can't defend marriage with inchoate cultural inertia. It's like trying to save a building from collapse once the foundation has been compromised. The effort is doomed to failure. The public by and large has lost the means with which to defend traditional marriage. It has some residual incoherent attachment to the concept but it has already rejected the limitations that marriage was designed to place upon life.

1. Sexual gatekeeper. It's the relationship that sanctifies sex and provides public permission to engage in it.

2. Children. It's the relationship that provides a stable environment for the children that naturally proceed from sex..

3. Father/Mother. It establishes the unique and essential role of both mother and father in the life of children and establishes the obligation to receive children as a consequence of living a sexual life.

These are almost totalitarian concepts to the post-sexual-revolutionary mind. The primary purpose of sex is today considered self-gratification. All else is optional. Modern western understanding sees no legitimate sexual gatekeeper. It sees no necessary relationship between marriage and children. It sees no essential role for mother and father. And it especially sees no obligation to receive children. The general public has internalized the privatization of sex. That's why it doesn't see the danger in something,like gay marriage. It sees only a simple restructuring of the relationship to agree with modern understandings about the place of sex and children in life. It simply makes du jure what is already de facto.

Nothing is going to fix this but pain. And pain is coming. You can't repeal the law of gravity, and you can't change human nature. Sexual anarchy leads to civilizational decline. But you can't tell people that. They have to experience it for themselves.

carl

10 June 2012 at 13:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 June 2012 at 14:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The first paragraph of Mr Jacob's there is absolutely spot on, to my mind, and the last sentence of that paragraph is particularly pertinent. That's why this will go through in the end, unless something very dramatic happens.

10 June 2012 at 14:04  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Yes but before you get too excited, do read the rest of carl's argument.

10 June 2012 at 14:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Yes but before you get too excited, do read the rest of carl's argument."

I did read it, of course. It has the hint of being too black and white but it's essentially true too. No doubt, he'd step into some sort of god-given morality next whereas I would ask whether that's just the price for the freedom and autonomy most of us enjoy, given that there is almost certainly no god of that type around.

10 June 2012 at 14:19  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Carl wrote; Thus our dilemma. You can't defend marriage with inchoate cultural inertia. It's like trying to save a building from collapse once the foundation has been compromised.
Carl may be an engineer but obviously not a structural engineer. If you have ancient monument or building, it is on the liberal society that would say, let’s get rid of it.
Those who appreciate and value tradition and the goods things from the past will say how do we save it.
If the foundations are poor and the building is in a state of collapse then it must be underpinned. And that is what needs to happen to both the Church and society. By underpinning the church by both revival and renewal, new support is added and will ensure the safety and longevity of the body of the Church.

10 June 2012 at 14:23  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0 wrote:

given that there is almost certainly no god of that type around.

Thus sayeth the man born blind: "Where is this 'light' of which you speak? I do not see it."

carl

10 June 2012 at 15:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Thus sayeth the man born blind: "Where is this 'light' of which you speak? I do not see it.""

No doubt you say it about Lord Krishna, you blind man. Or about Allah.

10 June 2012 at 15:36  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...
Of carl's comment ...

"Sexual anarchy leads to civilizational decline. But you can't tell people that. They have to experience it for themselves."

"I did read it, of course. It has the hint of being too black and white but it's essentially true too."

If you believe this then why do you persist in supporting sexual anarchy? Surely by your own 'liberal' standards this is harm?

10 June 2012 at 15:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, I excluded the last paragraph as that's just Carl's normal bleak, depressing, slit-my-wrists-now, Calvinist spiel. However, I think the second main paragraph is largely true. Sex is primarily about intimacy between two people now that we have contraception. I'm not advocating sexual anarchy though. I think this is where you lose your grip on things when I say sex is inherently amoral. That doesn't mean that individual sex acts are amoral. I'm taking a largely consequentialist-morality view.

10 June 2012 at 16:03  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0, then you have read but clearly not understood what was written The views advanced are not 'Calvinist' but orthodox Christian, and there is ample evidence to support them.

10 June 2012 at 16:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, the last paragraph is a personal opinion. Sheesh, Christians have been claiming the end is nigh in various forms since that poor man was nailed to a tree. You'd think that, like the Jehovah Witnesses, they'd clue up a bit about making predictions by now.

10 June 2012 at 16:17  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

It's not a "the end is nigh" prophesy al la little pope len and other soothsayers. It's a forth telling of the inevitable direction events will take based on an understanding of moral and natural law, supported by history.

10 June 2012 at 16:26  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

I excluded the last paragraph ...

I wondered about that. What then did you mean when you wrote:

I would ask whether that's just the price for the freedom and autonomy most of us enjoy,

What is the price to which you referred?

... that's just Carl's normal bleak, depressing, slit-my-wrists-now, Calvinist spiel.

Quite the opposite. My confidence in Providence is why I care stare without flinching at the cold hard truth. There are two essential tasks that any civilization must perform to perpetuate itself. It must:

1. Produce the next generation.

2. Civilize the next generation.

Our present libertine sexual attitudes attack both of those essential functions. We aren't producing sufficient children. We aren't properly forming the character of those we actually do produce. We are sacrificing the future in order to indulge ourselves the present. The cumulative sum of private decisions is eating at our foundations like acid.

There is a blithe assumption in the western world that development and prosperity once achieved cannot be undone. That is a foolish self-deception. Especially in a world with a growing glut of excess labor. That which we possess can dissolve in a generation. That which we take for granted as our patrimony can disappear like the morning mist. And it will unless we do something to change the cultural trajectory upon which we have placed ourselves.

carl

10 June 2012 at 16:32  
Blogger gentlemind said...

In general, when mankind tries to tell nature that nature is wrong, mankind winds up on the wrong side of justice.

The redefinition of marriage is far more than political calculation. It represents the world's first top-down "civil rights" movement ie the state imposing a right on its citizens. Redefining marriage necessarily means redefining parenthood. Cui bono?

10 June 2012 at 16:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Gentlemind, exactly, but try telling ‘the only poof in the village’ that !

10 June 2012 at 17:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "What is the price to which you referred?"

The loss of the means to defend so-called traditional marriage. The social structures, rituals, interactions, and so on that traditional marriage carried with it. A loosening up of some of our social cohesion. The alleged 'danger' of same-sex marriage. Wherever that takes us, I suppose. I'm just being chatty with Dodo as I don't really take him seriously.

You see, Dodo tried to create a link between my agreeing with a slightly less black and white version of the bulk of your comments, and the notion of sexual anarchy at the end. I don't see it as sexual anarchy to view sex as primarily an intimacy between two individuals.

That is, I excluded the last paragraph from my general acceptance of the bulk of your argument. Your usual style is to create a false dichotomy somewhere along the line so that the momentum of the argument carries people into it. It was looking a bit like that, it has to be said.

Even if what you imagine in the last paragraph has some truth to it then we're not necessarily going to end up there by going through a period of automony and freedom of the individual. We're just jumping on stepping stones and it's not clear where we will jump next as the layout of the stones doesn't become clear until we've made the next jump.

If you want to get a bit 'Albert' about what you wrote and my response to it then we'd better number sentences/paragraphs and work through them carefully sentence by sentence, I think, and I'll ignore Dodo's noise. I notice that I've misnumbered the paragraphs already for Dodo in my informality.

10 June 2012 at 17:19  
Blogger Oswin said...

Oh for the days of suppressed emotions and, a good firm handshake; a half-embarrassed tap on the shoulder, when things got really tough. When a stiff upper-lip, together with a conditioned, dry eye, were enough for us to function without recourse to hysterics, unseemly displays and cheek-kissing (God forbid!) - the latter excepting, an elderly Aunt, when 'hedgehog' bristles reinforced the wisdom of of the handshake!

Oh for the days when personal proclivities were subsumed within a sense of 'duty' and, the British eschewed 'sex' for hot water bottles. Sighs...we ruled the world, the weather was better, and no one stole one's 'trainers'...

10 June 2012 at 17:22  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Oh for the days of suppressed emotions and, a good firm handshake; a half-embarrassed tap on the shoulder, when things got really tough

Careful Oswin, you're morphing into part of the cast of the final episode of Blackadder Goes Forth.

Blackadder: Well, for God's sake, George, how long have you been in the army?
George: Oh, me? Oh, I joined up straight away, sir! August the 4th, 1914. God, what a day that was! Myself and the rest of the fellows, leapfrogging down to the Cambridge recruiting office and then, playing tiddlywinks in the queue. We'd hammered Oxford's tiddlywinkers only the week before and there we were, off to hammer the Boche! Crushingly superb bunch of blokes. Fine, clean-limbed… even their acne had a strange nobility about it.
Blackadder: Yes, and how are all the boys now?
George: Oh, uh, well… Jacko and the Badger bought it at the first Ypres, unfortunately. What a shock, there. I remember Bumfluff's house-master wrote and told me that Sticky'd been out for a duck, and the Gubber had snitched a parcel sausage-end and gone goose-over-stump frogside.
Blackadder: Meaning?
George: I don't know, sir, but I read in the Times that they'd both been killed.


Nah - I for one don't want those days back at all.

10 June 2012 at 17:56  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 offered ...

"If you want to get a bit 'Albert' about what you wrote and my response to it then we'd better number sentences/paragraphs and work through them carefully sentence by sentence..."

Oh goodness me, NO!

10 June 2012 at 18:00  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin, the British never had sex with hot water bottles!

10 June 2012 at 18:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

I dunno, Dodo. That seems quintessentially British to me. :D

Bad American! Bad, Bad, Bad! I should feel guilty about that.

In the meantime, I have discovered Euro2012 on ESPN. Who ma I supposed to root for? Italy or Spain?

carl

10 June 2012 at 18:13  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

carl

Gotta be Spain - The EU's just pumped 100Bn in to them so there should be a little over to fix the Ref.

10 June 2012 at 18:31  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo : haha :o) - but if they had; at least they might have kept it unto themselves?

Carl: I was refering to stone-ware hot water bottles and, copper bed-warmers. The louche, rubber-job-thingy was, I believe, an American invention?

Further: far be it for me to advise a Calvinist to 'tough it up' a bit; but I'm afraid you can have no real conception of your faith, unless you have a dozen or so Scottish winters under your belt; or Scottish summers, for that matter! :o)

Er, ''those days'' as you put it, were my childhood and early youth; if not beyond! We've only had 'central-heating' since 2007...

10 June 2012 at 18:55  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Oswin

I'm afraid you can have no real conception of your faith, unless you have a dozen or so Scottish winters under your belt

Heh. I spent four years at Minot North Dakota which sits in the middle of the upper edge of the Great Plains. To the north are the great flat plains of Canada that offer no resistance to the arctic air masses that sweep down into the United States each winter. In January the average temperature was .. converting to the archaic European Centigrade system ... -25C with typical wind chills of -40C. I have stood outside in wind chills of -75C just so I could say I have done it.

As we said in Minot: "Only the tough come north."

There is however a strong tradition of sound Presbyterian theology from Scotland to which all believers owe a great debt.

carl

10 June 2012 at 19:32  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Danjo’s point that “Sex is primarily about intimacy between two people now that we have contraception” is inescapable. As a nation we cannot have it both ways and Almighty God does not allow His name to be smeared by His followers. We have been told for more than half a century now that artificial contraception is sinful and that sexual relations that eliminate the possibility of a child being conceived are immoral. It would appear that the majority of so called Christians in this country have accepted the lie that sex can legitimately be separated from procreation. In doing so, they deny God’s logic and besmirch God’s law. Christians do not have authority to make up the rules to suit themselves but that is what Christians in this country and elsewhere have done and it is why Christianity is so weak in Western society. In the Book of Revelation, chapter 3, St John writes a comment for the Church in Laodicea “15 I know about your activities: how you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were one or the other, 16 but since you are neither hot nor cold, but only lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth.” We have become like the Church in Laodicea and unless we get back to Orthodox belief God will abandon our nation. Look around at the World we are creating as we marginalise God’s laws in our nation. With all our so called democracy and tolerance of diversity we have financial disaster occurring and financial collapse imminent because we have organized our financial success around a gambling lottery called the Stock Market. We have countries being destabilized in order to maximize the profits from arms trading. We have politicians who have legalized slaughter in our hospital wards paid for by our taxes. These same politicians send hundreds of millions of our taxes against our will to countries which kill people for expressing an opinion and sending terrorists over here to kill us. I disagree with Danjo’s stance but his logic is true.

10 June 2012 at 21:03  
Blogger TLF+ said...

And here across the pond, new reviews and research show that sweeping claims about the equality of gay & lesbian parenting with traditional parenting rest on junk science. Hand picked couples, no variables for culture, no heterosexual control group, and worst of all no follow up on the children into young adulthood. http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/28943

10 June 2012 at 21:17  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Gentlemen is it time for a puritan backlash ?

10 June 2012 at 21:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Shacklefree. Too much emphasis is put on heterosexual sex in the married environment. A joint primary reason is as well as procreation, it also serves as a bonding tool. That which keeps the marriage together. Before modern contraception was available, all kinds of ingenious methods were used. Insertion of sour milk into the female comes to mind (...DON’T try this at home...) and Japanese men used hot poultices on the gonads. Let’s give the married couple some freedoms in their special unit, before they both turn to dust. When contraception fails, as it will do at sometime, then what must NOT be available is abortion...

10 June 2012 at 21:21  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Naomi, I'm not sure a Puritan backlash is in order. The Puritans in the past, when they got into power were more intolerant than those they criticized.

Inspector, God doesn't negotiate. Yes we sometimes fall by the wayside but choosing to fall short in one area and requiring God to recognize our good actions to offset our deliberate transgressions is being hot and cold. Jesus says "Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect". I'm sure he will forgive but only when a decent effort has been made. Trying to bargain with God is a bit risky.

10 June 2012 at 21:31  
Blogger Philip said...

YG, it’s nice you’re sure ‘gay marriage’ will be kicked into the “very long grass”. But no.10 has repeatedly said Mr Cameron is still committed to it, indeed it is the thing he wants his government defined by. Mr Cameron certainly won’t take any notice of Dr Fox, because the latter is a conservative. Lynne Featherstone, who Mr Cameron is much more likely to heed, has said they definitely will legislate by 2015. So, perhaps kicking it into the long grass means until 2014-15. Only a complete and permanent cancellation of all plans to redefine marriage will do.

10 June 2012 at 21:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Shacklefree. We assume that if Jesus didn’t say it, then Jewish law as it was is the standing. Now, as Christians, gentiles, we are not expected to uphold said law. Jesus did not say that every sperm is sacred, neither did he require of women to wear black while an unused egg was being disposed of. Furthermore, there is no basis for the threesome in the sex act: The man, the woman and God. A thoroughly appalling idea if ever there was. Just really can’t see the negotiation you mention...

10 June 2012 at 21:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Sir Patrick Moore: There are plenty of interesting objects out there you can see with just a naked eye.

Sir Benny Hill: And a few more with just a naked woman !

10 June 2012 at 22:38  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Well said indeed! An apt and accurate summary of God's law concerning sexual relationships as understood by Catholics. The Imspector is correct to point out the equally important aspect of unitive love too.

Inspector, we have discussed this before and disagreed. The sex act is sacred because it is God's way of transmitting life through a man and a women He joins in matrimony. That's why life long marriage is so critical in our faith and sexual morality has a crucial part to play. It is where the natural meets the divine.

Every act of sexual love has to be as God intends or it is an abuse of the gift of sexuality. It's why masturbation, premarital sex and adultery are grevious sin and why homosexual acts are disordered and perverted. And that's why contraception is deemed to be an act of rebellion.

That's the clear and consistent Catholic teaching. To be a Catholic means accepting Church teaching - or, at least, not actively and openly defying it.

10 June 2012 at 22:48  
Blogger David B said...

There was a big furore about the end of Don't Ask Don't Tell in the US forces, where there are now a lot of out gay American service people.

Did the sky fall, as the nay sayers predicted?

No it didn't, any more than giving the vote to women and black people did.

Did the sky fall when homosexuality was legalised?

No it didn't.

I hope and trust that gay people will be allowed to marry should they wish to, and in a decade or so people will wonder what the fuss was about, as they have with so much else that the various churches have been dragged into, kicking and screaming.

Sports events on Sundays, Sunday opening of pubs, being able to shop?

All fought against by the religious lobby.

Did the sky fall?

My bottom line is that people can adopt any religion they like, as long as its don't impinge on other people's lives.

Including impinging on whether two adults who so chose wish to change the status of their next of kin, and term that a marriage if they so wish.

What is wrong with that?

I still think something like the Frech model is the way to go.

Marriages are civil according to law, and if people want a religious or any other ceremony apart from and beyond that, then that is their business, if they find a willing officiant.

David B

10 June 2012 at 22:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Happy to agree, but let’s not keep the bedroom door open for God to peer into as the married couple gets it together. One important issue that has not been covered in this blog before. Until fairly recently, there was no police force. One can thus imagine that what Rome dictated about this kind of thing was for the benefit of priests in cases of disputes. Thankfully now, if a man sexually abuses his wife, then the civil authority is involved. With this in mind, in the Western world at least, we might revise some of the strictures...

10 June 2012 at 22:58  
Blogger Owl said...

Danj0,
I was not caught lying, you were. Keep the record straight.

I had no need to know your true identity but you went to whatever lenghts neccessary to find out my identity and promptly stated it in one of your more obnoxious posts.

I still don't understand what youz hoped to achive as I am quite open about my identity. My name is John Concannon. Big deal.

I asume that your work for Stonewall is your driving force.

I now have a problem with my children (16, 14 and 11 - all boys) who have had the luxury of a socialist education. They were told that homosexuality is OK and good.

I had to stop their open beligerence against homosexuals!

Prior to their education, they were totally tolerant!

When will the idiots understand that children rebel when you try to force something on them.

SSM is now in deep trouble.

Please send Tachell back to Australia. Oh, he can take Summerskill with him.

I don't have a problem with homosexuals but I do have a problem with Stonewall and the socialist manipulators (of which DC is a full paid up member, plus yourself, of course).

10 June 2012 at 23:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. Rather afraid the paedophiles will be searching you out. You see, they have a ‘cast iron’ argument regarding their hoped for access to young people. And you being a soft touch...

10 June 2012 at 23:07  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Is that true what Owl has claimed regarding his identity? Do you seek out the personal identities of bloggers? And use this information?

Now, if true, explain that and compare it to my occassional use of more than one ID. Something you constantly winge about in your vindictive, bitchy, homosexual way.

10 June 2012 at 23:11  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Rome 'dictated' nothing. It explained the law of God to its followers and to their shephards.

The physical and sexual abuse of women is an entirely different subject and the Church's views have developed in line with a better understanding of this.

The basic 'law', implanted by God in us all, concerning sexual morality has not changed.

10 June 2012 at 23:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Owl. That’s a good Irish name you have there, John. A descendant of the Irish who came over no doubt, as the Inspector is himself. Now, we both both share an interesting trait. we are both no nonsense people and we can sniff bullshit before we can see it. As the English succumb to degeneration, it’s types like us that will lead the backlash. And that will come soon, hopefully before the homosexuals are showing our children x-ray images of sodomy in action...

10 June 2012 at 23:18  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

David B said ..

"Marriages are civil according to law, and if people want a religious or any other ceremony apart from and beyond that, then that is their business, if they find a willing officiant."

Don't be so daft.

Marriage has nothing to do with the laws of man and cannot be changed by government. Marriage is a man and a woman, living together for the purposes of friendship and sexual union, having and then raising children.

It is not two homosexuals parading around in a parody of this institution claiming equality because they have dressed up, had confetti thrown over them, made 'vows' to saty together and been given the titles of Mr and Mr or Mrs and Mrs.

10 June 2012 at 23:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Let’s leave the charge sheet aside, old friend. There are important battles to be won, here and now. And blood to be spilled...

10 June 2012 at 23:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

In case anyone gives him the benefit of the doubt, it is almost certain that DanJ0 is Stonewalls placeman on this site. It has to be, he ‘lives’ here ! No doubt as a caring homosexual, he volunteered his services to them and was eagerly accepted. He is very clever and very intelligent. So intelligent, that he avoids sodomy, as he no doubts wishes to live to a ripe old age along with the rest of us. Be wary of him, but do NOT fear him.

10 June 2012 at 23:30  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Not a 'charge sheet' at all. More a gentle reminder. Before you set off on your battles you do need to understand why your faith opposes homosexuality. Otherwise, how can you possibly expect to defeat the enemy?

DanJ0

Well?

10 June 2012 at 23:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. The Inspector is well clear on the subject of homosexuality. Now, where’s that Stonewall agent got to ?

10 June 2012 at 23:43  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector, yes, I know you are. However, you have to be equally clear on the do's and don't's heterosexuality.

DanJ0, has some questions to answer. He'll lay low for a while in the hope we forget. If what Ow says is true then he is a real nasty piece of work.

10 June 2012 at 23:54  
Blogger Owl said...

Dodo,

Do not quick expect an answer from Dan.

He will have to confer with his superiors first and as he cannot deny my accusation, he has a problem.

Truth will out.....

John

10 June 2012 at 23:58  
Blogger bluedog said...

Dodo @ 23.38

Precisely.

10 June 2012 at 23:59  
Blogger Oswin said...

Carl @ 19:32 : ah, I see you fall for the popular misconception that 'weather' is the same as climate. I wouldn't want to spend much time at the North Pole, but at least I would know what to expect.

I'll stick with my original assertion.

11 June 2012 at 00:12  
Blogger Owl said...

One more thing:

"So, there you have it. According to a very senior former Cabinet minister, David Cameron is part of a 'metropolitan elite' intent on a subversive programme of 'social engineering'."

Er, yes, I do beleive that some of your communicants have been trying to say this since before the last election.

You concetrated on Brown but we saw the elephant in the room.

Thank God you have seen the light.

OK, we may not have your brilliance with the written word so we are reliant on you.

The elite system has to be brought down. For anyone not who does not understand, this is Fabianism.

G. B. Shaw is an insult to Irishmen.

11 June 2012 at 00:17  
Blogger David B said...

Dodo marriage has a lot to do with the laws of man.

Inheritance in the case of someone being intestate, being designated to arrange funeral arrangements, lots of things of that ilk.

David B

11 June 2012 at 00:18  
Blogger Owl said...

Shit, the arthritis, please forgive my typos.

11 June 2012 at 00:20  
Blogger Owl said...

DavidB,

What a stupid statement.

I am boonbazzled by your abstraction.

John

11 June 2012 at 00:23  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

David B

The property rights of men and women who live together do not constitute marriage. Otherwise, why would homosexuals want more than civil partnerships?

11 June 2012 at 00:35  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace - I'm among those who wonder why the pretend government is pushing the homosexual agenda at all. Doubtless, the method and philosophy are Deconstructionist. The questions remain, however: Who will pick up the pieces? What (if anything) will they construct from them? Everyone seems to have forgotten Sodom and Gomorrah.

Based on Lutheran defections by the Danish, RC-ism seems to be a short-term beneficiary. Perhaps they harbour delusions of accomplishing greater grandeur than old Charlie-Boy ever did. One remembers, though, that would have been quite different without Alcuin; and Ol' Rumpy is no Alcuin.

Other possibilities include an indirect form of population control- if not genocide.

Ah well. Even though one would have expected Camer-cloggs to show respect for at least their own wives and families, puppets are not inclined to either consistency or logic.
______________

PS - Oswin :) for all posts this thread!

11 June 2012 at 00:46  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

non mouse

Are you a visitor from the mid-1700's? If Danish Lutherans are putting the Gospel message before centuries old sectarian division then surely Christianity is the beneficiary?

And, for the record, all Prince Charles wanted was rightful possession of his throne.

11 June 2012 at 01:08  
Blogger non mouse said...

PPS: Alcuin (735-804) -- Charlie whom the frogs deem "great" (742-814).

11 June 2012 at 01:51  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Inspector, You didn't address the logic of Danjo's position. Dodo is right - if it is acceptable to use artificial contraception and make the sexual act sterile then how can you logically disagree with homosexual sex. If you justify it by emphasising how sex improves the bonding between men and women the same argument can be used for homosexual bonding. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are free to love people of the same sex - indeed we are told to love all people. However the sexual act while enjoyable does not prove that love exists between the participants. If it were we might subsidise brothels in order to combat sexual abuse of women.

11 June 2012 at 04:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl: "I had no need to know your true identity but you went to whatever lenghts neccessary to find out my identity and promptly stated it in one of your more obnoxious posts."

You posted it here yourself, you incompetent berk. You forgot to switch blogger IDs, and posted here under your son's ID and profile.

Like others, I sometimes click on the blogger profile link of a post when someone apparently new makes one, and I did for that. As I recall, you then switched IDs and said that was actually me, Owl, back there.

I'm blessed, or cursed, with a fairly good memory and your family name is distinct. Though, as it happens, I'd lost the memory link between you and it until you just mentioned it.

No, I'm not interested in the real-life IDs of anyone here. In fact, as a general rule, I'd really rather not know since there are potential real-world consequences there.

As for lying, you deliberately made some stuff up when I did what a lot of people do here by deleting their own comment and reposting it shortly after with a significant spelling mistake fixed. You obviously know I know that, and I got the true measure of your moral character that night. Lack of, that is.

11 June 2012 at 05:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Regarding Pink News, I have never posted there myself and I don't expect to either. Not my kind of place as I consider it the equivalent of the Christian Institute site for news, which is not a good comparison. I occasional end up reading a story there as I have a rather illiberal, left-wing gay man on my facebook who posts links.

Regarding Stonewall, I am not a member and I don't follow what they're up to. There are so-called Christians here, the homophobic obsessives, who know much, much more about Stonewall than I do. I'm not much of a fan of Peter Tatchell either as it goes, though I grudgingly admire his tenacity. I find it quite indicative that the more morally-degenerate here try to make a link to me out of absolutely nothing to serve their own obsessive ends.

11 June 2012 at 05:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "DanJ0, has some questions to answer. He'll lay low for a while in the hope we forget. If what Ow says is true then he is a real nasty piece of work."

Lying low in the intervening time between his last night post and my early morning one is what most people might call a 'sleep period'. No doubt you've struggled to sleep yourself during that time with the excitement of perhaps having someone else crawling down in the gutter with you. Well, no such luck for you there.

11 June 2012 at 05:56  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Danjo..If a civil partnership offers the same legal rights as a marriage why would homosexuals want to marry?

Shacklefree ...you say
that sexual bonding is no proof of love.According to you love is presumably proven only with unprotected sex in the married state.Your peculiar view of love suggests one who has only read accounting manuals and no literature of any significance.

Dodo, most Christians in your Catholic view would be 'mutual masturbators'indulging themselves in unholy sex as most now control the number of children they can afford to support. If the Church insists on encouraging large families and I am not aware of anything to support this stance in scripture it seems only just that after two children the Church should offer all subsequent children free education in a Catholic school and subsidise the families (subject to means testing ) for the cost of raising the extra children.

11 June 2012 at 07:56  
Blogger William said...

Cressida de Nova

"Danjo..If a civil partnership offers the same legal rights as a marriage why would homosexuals want to marry?"

DanJ0 has already stated that the basis of his support for same sex marriage is his opposition to "aggressive" religion. Indeed many homosexuals seem uncommitted to same sex marriage per se, but see it rather as an important block against anyone who objects to the normalisation of homosexuality. The fact that marriage extols the vital role of loving, stable heterosexual relationships in raising children is of secondary, or little, inportance to them. In fact, it's a rather inconvenient truth in the process of homosexual equalisation.

Given how far homosexuals are from the process of procreation, it's not surprising that future generations can be sacrificed to the cause. Apparently Parent A and Parent B will be adequate substitutes for a mother and father.

11 June 2012 at 10:00  
Blogger gentlemind said...

Too true William. Future generations will curse us for what we are doing. We are dictating to those yet to be born that they have no right to know who they are. This is the way of totalitarianism. Promote a lie. Seek to remake reality. Enforce the lie (because, unlike the truth, lies do not support themselves). Punish those who dare speak the truth.

There is such a thing as equality, but it certainly does not live in our physical bodies. It lives in our hearts and minds.

11 June 2012 at 11:32  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Thank you William for your lucid explanation.Homosexuality is an aberration.So is being a child prodigy. I do not understand this compulsion to conform to the norm.
Is it so wonderful? Such a disappointingly unimaginative approach to life.If I were a homosexual I would campaign against this deadly lot letting the side down and destroying its former creative artistic image.

11 June 2012 at 12:39  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

cressida de nova

Now, Shaclefree didn't say:
" ... sexual bonding is no proof of love. According to you love is presumably proven only with unprotected sex in the married state.", did he?

There are natural and licit means of controlling the numbers of children and parents should exercise responsibilty with regard to this. The Church does not insist on large families but does expect married couples to be open to the possibility of parenthood.

The Catholic view is that any form of artificial contraception or practice that makes the sexual act sterile is contrary to God's intentions and law. That's the basis for the Church's moral objections to disordered homosexual and heterosexual sex acts. Whilst some may find all sorts of behaviour enjoyable and unitive, sex has a higher purpose - that's what makes marriage sacred.

In my opinion, Christians who argue against homosexuality without this deeper theological underpinning are on shaky ground. If sexual activity is good in itself simply as an expression of love and it brings people closer, then why can't homosexuals pleasure one another? Or, why can't heterosexuals perform the same types of acts on one another? Why can't those on their own purchase blow-up 'dolls' or other masturbatory devices and enjoy themselves?

I didn't write the write the rules and Shacklefree is correct, one has to understand and live within God's intentions and purposes. One either holds to the Catholic view or one does not. What Catholics actually do in practice is between them, God and their confessors.

11 June 2012 at 12:50  
Blogger William said...

Dodo

You seem to be saying that a husband and wife who control their fertility through the rhythm method can criticise homosexual practises, whereas a husband and wife who control their fertility with condoms cannot. Is that right?

11 June 2012 at 13:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

There are natural and licit means of controlling the numbers of children and parents should exercise responsibilty with regard to this.

I am a rather unusual Protestant. I have been trained by the RCC on NFP. There is no moral difference between a condom and NFP. One uses a barrier of latex. The other uses a barrier of time. The later is in fact a much more efficient barrier. In fact, time is such an efficient barrier that our instruction included the guidance that NFP could be used immorally.

So what's the difference between using NFP morally and using NFP immorally? When does NFP cross over the line into contraception? Yes, that question wasn't addressed with any specificity. At all. I wonder why?

carl

11 June 2012 at 13:45  
Blogger William said...

Cressida de Nova

"If I were a homosexual I would campaign against this deadly lot ..."

Quite. I'd be telling them to b*gg*r off. But perhaps the craving for acceptance is too strong. After all we all need it. Particularly from God.

11 June 2012 at 13:50  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

William

Whether people criticise anyone else is entirely up to them. What I'm saying is that the Catholic Church has a consistent and comprehensive framework for sexual morality and before questioning the parctices of others one should first understand this.

The natural rhythm method is deemed acceptable within Catholic teaching; all artificial methods are not. Some Catholic theologians question this and argue that so long as children are planned within the course of a marriage then artificial methods that are not abortive are acceptable. This view has been over ruled by Humanae Vitea and by subsequent Papal statements. Nevertheless, theologians, priests and Church members continue to question this and many would still prefer a more 'liberal' and 'modern' approach.

11 June 2012 at 13:51  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

carl

NFP becomes immoral when it is persistent and intended to permanently prevent conception. When sex becomes the end in itself. I'm surprised this was not explained to you.

11 June 2012 at 13:56  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

cressida de nova

And if I were a homosexual I would live a quiet live of chastity surrounded by like people - heterosexual or homosexual.

11 June 2012 at 13:58  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

NFP becomes immoral when it is persistent and intended to permanently prevent conception.

Yes, I said they included that concept in the instruction. That's not what I am asking. I want to know specifics. How many children? At what spacing? The instructors were curiously reluctant to address those questions. But those are the very questions that must be addressed to determine whether NFP has become "persistent and intended to permanently prevent conception." Eventually the couple will decide they have completed their family. Is that decision even allowed? What if another pregnancy becomes dangerous to the wife? Does the couple deny the marriage covenant and become celibate? It's easy to throw out general principles. The hard part is instantiating those principles in the real lives of real people.

Guidance, please.

carl

11 June 2012 at 14:29  
Blogger William said...

Dodo @13:51

I see. There is obviously some debate over this within your denomination. Let us hope a middle way can be found that is in line with God's teachings.

11 June 2012 at 14:32  
Blogger Jon said...

William, I'm in favour of gay marriage for a number of reasons, and have already stated as such. I don't regard Ben Bradshaw as the sole authority on what gay people think - I doubt many younger people have even heard of him. Having said that, on balance I would probably have settled for civil partnership at some point.

Seeing the opposition we now face, I feel more galvanised and having seen some friends enter civil partnership when one of them isn't from the EU and seeing the citizenship problems (which don't exist for married couples) it brings to light the differences (of which there are several).

Even if those were corrected in law to give civil partnership exactly the same legal weight as marriage, there would still be the issue of the name.

Saying that you're "civil partnered" isn't the same. It's an immediate declaration of your homosexuality when you're not always sure you can trust someone with that information. It also sets people apart and is, by definition, different (and not in a superior way!)

For all these reasons, I'm in favour of it.

Naomi, surely a Puritan backlash would have to be preceded by some kind of religious revival. You just don't have the numbers for it these days, I'm afraid. I remember during my days in Church we used to pray for revival. These days, i quietly breathe a sigh of relief that my prayers (on that and on so much else) were never answered. The fact that yours haven't either should give you some pause for thought.

By all means found your own political party though. The fact the Inspector hasn't yet is pretty clear evidence to me that he actually is self aware enough to know that he's a vacuous old windbag.

Gentlemind said - "Too true William. Future generations will curse us for what we are doing. We are dictating to those yet to be born that they have no right to know who they are. " What are you talking about?! Do you even know? How does allowing some people to marry one another remotely affect the self- knowledge of those who will never enter into a gay marriage?

11 June 2012 at 14:44  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

carl asked ...

"That's not what I am asking. I want to know specifics. How many children? At what spacing? The instructors were curiously reluctant to address those questions."

It isn't a military campaign we're discussing here! God I bet you were a challenge on this course.

Of course one has to apply the principles. That's what a Christian life is about.

Thespecifics will be determined by the exercise of conscience in circumstances. So, for example, the number of children can properly factor in economic circumstances. Deferring parenthood simply to advance one's career, achieve a bigger and better house, to be able to afford luxury holidays or get a new fitted kitchen, might not be seen as moral.

I'm not a priest but deciding a certain number of children is sufficient seems acceptable to me within the general principles that marriage is for the purposes of transmitting life. And, of course, NFP can be used where there is a threat to life.

It might surprise you to learn that the Catholic Church does not have a 12 volume manual that specifies all these specifics!

11 June 2012 at 15:03  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

William

Yes, it is a source of contention within the Church. However, the Catholic Church does not do the middle way. No scope for a via media based on modernisation or liberalisation is on the cards! Three successive Popes have made that pretty clear since the 1960's.

As Shacklefree pointed out, God, as understood by Catholics, does not do negotiation to accomodate the wishes of man.

11 June 2012 at 15:08  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Jon said ...

He's in favour of homosexual 'marriage' because:

"Saying that you're "civil partnered" isn't the same. It's an immediate declaration of your homosexuality when you're not always sure you can trust someone with that information. It also sets people apart and is, by definition, different (and not in a superior way!)"

But you are different! Homosexuality is recognised in law as a minority interest and afforded protection as a result.

And do you really think a couple of men living together going by the names of Mr and Mr Templeton-Jones, or a couple of women with the names Mrs and Mrs Forsyth-Saga will secure anonymity?!

Heavens above homosexuals want 'marriage' so they can proudly proclaim their difference - different but equal; isn't that it? The problem you face is that marriage proper is just not something the civil realm can determine and impose on society.

11 June 2012 at 15:17  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Forgot topick you up on this carl ...

"There is no moral difference between a condom and NFP.

From your Calvinist perspective, maybe not. As I've said on here a number of times, Catholic teaching is that sexual acts, to be moral, must conclude with penile penetration of the vagina and the emission of sperm there. That's the way God intends it and, in so doing there is no artificial barrier to the possibility of future life. Clearly depositing sperm in a rubber does not satisfy this condition.

11 June 2012 at 15:27  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 01:08 :

''Prince Charles'' ? You weren't perchance one of the co-authors of ''1066 and All That''?

11 June 2012 at 15:34  
Blogger William said...

Jon

"For all these reasons, I'm in favour of it."

You seem not to understand (or deliberately ignore) the fact that the proposed changes remove from marriage the unique child-bearing and rearing attributes of the stable, loving heterosexual relationship. By diluting the definition to "two people who love each other" you are instantly downgrading the vital importance of stable, heterosexual families that has been recognised by societies throughout history and across cultures (through marriage). By renaming the parents to Parent A and Parent B you are reducing the unique role played by the natural mother and father to an irrelevance.

I humbly suggest that the snagging problems that you mention can and should be remedied some other way.

We should be doing the opposite of the proposal for same sex marriage, which is to support and promote the unique characteristics of heterosexual marriage for the good of society.

11 June 2012 at 15:52  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Awa, Whigs awa!
Ye're but a pack o'lazy louns;
Ye'll do nae guid ava!

11 June 2012 at 15:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "DanJ0 has already stated that the basis of his support for same sex marriage is his opposition to "aggressive" religion."

Yes. The fringe Christian organisations have raised the stakes so high that we simply have to win this now. And we will win. I'm tempted to be a bit grandiose and say that we owe it to the non-religious majority to make sure we win. If we don't then religious agitators of various sorts will be emboldened to try to gain other lost ground in their mission to organise and regulate the private lives of other people against their wishes.

Of course, whether I have switched from being a bit apathetic about the issue to being much more vocal is neither here nor there as far as justifications are concerned. Society has changed enough now that same-sex marriage has effectively become a matter of social justice. There's a marriage apartheid, for want of a better phrase, in existence now and it's been lit in neon by these fringe religious organisations.

11 June 2012 at 17:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Well?"

Exactly, Dodo. Well? I'm waiting.

11 June 2012 at 17:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Shacklefree. The Inspector has no problem with homosexual sex, in the right context. Which is out of sight, out of mind, and out of hearing. What they get up to in their privacy is their business. His gripe with the homosexual community is their attempt to make their vile activities socially acceptable via state legislation.

As for including homosexuality as a point of debate about contraception, that is bizarre. Completely unacceptable. Absolutely not on.

11 June 2012 at 17:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. In my opinion, Christians who argue against homosexuality without this deeper theological underpinning are on shaky ground.

You don’t need to involve contraception in the argument against homosexuality at all. The diseases they pass to each other, and the physical damage they do to vital organs requiring corrective surgery is more than enough. You could sum it up as the cost of each HIV case which is 48 K.

The Catholic view is that any form of artificial contraception or practice that makes the sexual act sterile is contrary to God's intentions and law.

Rather think that a heart by-pass is also thwarting God’s intentions in that case. But of course, the two cannot be considered together, can they ? Also, the rhythm method is permitted, so we have ‘expected sterility’ and the crossing of fingers.

I didn't write the write the rules

And now we have the crux of it. Somebody did, and it wasn’t Christ. Man’s hand behind all of this, not God’s, and please, no ‘under guidance by the Holy Spirit’. A few hundred years ago, ‘the rules’ insisted the sun went round the earth…

Remember reading that it was only around the time of the invading muslims at the gates of Vienna that the church started taking an interest in their parishioners sex lives. (Understandably really, not wanting to get involved in an activity with a high child mortality rate and possible death of the mother during childbirth). And that was obviously the numbers game to defend Europe. Have an idea it’s been stuck in that mode ever since…

11 June 2012 at 17:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Jon. Saying that you're "civil partnered" isn't the same. It's an immediate declaration of your homosexuality when you're not always sure you can trust someone with that information. It also sets people apart and is, by definition, different (and not in a superior way!)

Your second sentence is what this SSM is all about. The longed for acceptance of the gay condition by society as a whole. Well you already have it, and as much tolerance as you are ever likely to get thrown in. It’s not going to get any better, and walking around on just your hind legs is merely counter-productive. Drawing attention to yourselves in a negative way.

But the threat you pose to the church - tolerance is a two way thing is it not ?

11 June 2012 at 17:56  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Blimey Inspector - the most considered comments I think I have read from you to date.

11 June 2012 at 18:05  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Just read in the Daily Mail that a couple of homosexuals have had a civil ceremony in a Church in Liverpool.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2157588/Gay-couple-Britain-hold-civil-partnership-ceremony-church.html

11 June 2012 at 18:42  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

And one of them looks a bit like I imagine Danj0 to be.
Shame on the Church for condoning sinful behaviour.

11 June 2012 at 18:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dreadnaught. Inspector on his high horse again. Will soon fall off though...

Marie. Would that be balding and tubby then :->

11 June 2012 at 19:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "And one of them looks a bit like I imagine Danj0 to be."

I bet you think about me quite a lot, Marie. It's that fascination some people have with naughty, forbidden things, I expect.

If you're still checking out gay men on Gaydar using your profile there then I'd be happy to do that fag hag giggling thing with you if you like.

11 June 2012 at 19:05  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Dreadnaught said...
"Blimey Inspector - the most considered comments I think I have read from you to date."

Considered maybe; certainly not Catholic.

Inspector

Reduce your disapproval of homosexuality to a loathing of their behaviour or arguments about health costs and you've shifted the debate away from sexual ethics and morality.

Should smokers and alcoholics be treated on the National Health? What about the obese? And some might find heterosexual activities repulsive.

And shame on you as a professed Catholic to publically mock Matthew 16.

11 June 2012 at 19:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Are you lying low, Dodo, and hoping I'll forget?

11 June 2012 at 19:33  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Not all DanJ0 - watching a game of football. Thank you for asking earlier if I was well. I am.

I see you have posted a denial about disclosing Owl's identity. Ummm ... let's wait and see what he has to say. And you have admitted an interest, on more than one occasion, in searching people's monikers via Google. A touch of the internet equivalent of 'curtain twitching' I'd say. Why such an interest?

11 June 2012 at 19:40  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

And why do you use different monikers on different blogs? You do,don't you?

11 June 2012 at 19:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "I see you have posted a denial about disclosing Owl's identity. Ummm ... let's wait and see what he has to say."

I expect I'll be waiting a long time for an apology from him, knowing his lack of integrity, even though he really ought to offer one. He'll probably just disappear for a while, I expect.

As for you, you've shot your bolt way, way too early and you look like a complete berk ... yet again. That's even before I post the link to the evidence.

I ought to point out I've actually taken the precaution of a screenshot since I've had experience of Owl's look-you-in-the-eye lying before and I think he's quite capable of deleting his comment and claiming something different.

11 June 2012 at 19:49  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

AHa! - the answer to why some are predisposed to being Gay has already been sussed out by none other than old Nutty Mo himself - way back in time in old Arabee (if this source is to be accepted).

Muhammad explained the reason behind cutting away the clitoris: a woman may ejaculate before the man!! Why is this a problem? Because it will lead her to conceive a boy with female traits.14

btw
There's much more, but not I suggest for those of a more sensitive disposition.

http://myspear.org/quran_stoning_women.html

'Just gimme that old time religion, gimme that old time religion'

What is it with the religions and their obsession with sex and intimacy, which succeeds in binding all of them together in persecuting people on behalf of their gods?

11 June 2012 at 19:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "And why do you use different monikers on different blogs? You do,don't you?"

You know I do because I have said I write on a number of different blogs and you haven't found examples when you've been googling my moniker.

Like any sensible computer-literate person, I layer and segment my online life in various ways to prevent people like you intruding too much.

11 June 2012 at 19:54  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0, I never shot my bolt prematurely, dear boy.

Soo let's see this "evidence" -screen shots no less! And why do you take such an interest in tracking people's monikers? And use different ones on different sites yourself? All sounds very dodggy tome.

11 June 2012 at 19:56  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...

"I layer and segment my online life."

My goodness! How sophisticated. It's actually an act of deception, in other words.

11 June 2012 at 19:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "It's actually an act of deception, in other words."

Dodo, when you've dug yourself a hole and climbed in, you really shouldn't start crapping it in as you'll end up with it all over you. If you really think there's something morally wrong with my maintaining anonymity, especially on a blog run by a nominally anonymous writer under a pseudonym, then post your full name and address here instead of using "Dodo" and the many fake IDs you've used concurrently in the past here.

11 June 2012 at 20:04  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin, but when I post elsewhere I use my moniker 'Dodo'. Why wouldn't I? You recall advising the Inspector and I not to do this on 'Pink News'? What are you hiding?

And the evidence?

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

Dodo. Next time you are at mass, have a look around. how many families do you see in the Von Trapp style of at least six children. Could it be that Catholics are actually having sex with the intent NOT to have children ? Yet, it has never been easier and healthier to knock them out at one every eighteen months.

By the way. Inspector wonders if there are any Vatican rules on how to piss. One can imagine the most minimum eye contact necessary with the offending member...

11 June 2012 at 20:11  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Ooops ... sorry Oswin! I meant DanJ0, of course.

11 June 2012 at 20:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Your full name and address please, Peter. What are you hiding?

11 June 2012 at 20:14  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector, no there are no rules on urinating though you could do with some advice on this.

If you claim to be Catholic at least attempt to understand Catholic teaching even if you disagree with it.

What moral objection, if any, do you have to a married hetrosexual couple engaging in oral sex, mutual masterbation or, indeed, anal sex -to "completion"? Is it because the acts repulse you? Are they hazardous? Or is it just homosexuals who should not engage in them?

11 June 2012 at 20:16  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

You little toad, DanJo! Have youno shame at all?

11 June 2012 at 20:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, I have a real-life facebook account but I make sure potential employers and clients can't look at it in case anything on there compromises my work role. I post on a hobby forum where my sexual orientation is a completely irrelevant detail. I separate my core family life from my social life online because some of my friends use recreational drugs and talk about it whereas my brother is really against their use. I fake my birthday, including the year, on things like facebook and forums and newspaper comments areas so that potential scammers can't use the information to try for bank security questions. And so on. Surely all sensible people do this? It's not deception. I know what appropriate ethics are in all this: my separating roles like this when they have no necessary connection is not unethical, your using multiple concurrent IDs to fool people here is very unethical. Honestly, you make a really, really crap religious person.

11 June 2012 at 20:31  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Ooops ... sorry Oswin! I meant DanJ0, of course.

So whats new? - Monks, Popes, Nuns etc, all adopt pesudonomic names and engage in an unhealthy preoccupation with dictating other peoples sex lives - the case he makes just shows how fucked up multiDoDo's slavish brain is.

11 June 2012 at 20:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. None of those acts are appealing to this man. But wait, what have we here about marriage. “The two are joined and become the one”, Let’s leave the ‘one’ alone to work it out with itself.

If there is one thing that really riles, it’s the notion of guilt of the innocent. And, MOST especially, the man made guilt of just being human and alive. “The bullshit just doesn't wash”, never did and never will. And don’t worry, I won’t be dragged to hell, but if I was, those words will be ringing out, loud and clear...

11 June 2012 at 20:36  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

You're basically protecting yourself against scum like yourself. Very wise.

Don't talk to me about 'ethics'. How much time do you spend nosing around on the internet collecting information?

And I'm inclined to believe Owl now. So I posted with a few fake ID's. Big deal. Get over it. What you do is beneath contempt.

11 June 2012 at 20:48  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

If the acts are not immoral - just not appealing - between a man and a woman, then why between a man and a man or between two women? And for some they are appealing.

It's no good lambasting homosexuals for unnatural acts unless you fully understand why it is they are seen as going against nature.

What's to say objections to homosexuality isn't just man made bull shit guilt?

11 June 2012 at 20:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The Peter thing was just my handing out some rope and inviting you to hang yourself again, but I don't particularly want to alarm you about your anonymity. When you were demanding evidence for all your fake ID usage some time ago, I came across you in one of your guises 'coming clean' and saying your name was Peter, amongst other things, and the curse of my good memory has struck again. That's the extent of it. It's called a 'social engineering' attack in unethical hands, but luckily my hands are ethical, you should clue yourself up you know.

11 June 2012 at 20:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Rectal prolapse, anal fissure, fistula, colostomy bag, ‘gay’ bowel, HIV, AIDS, gonorrhoea, syphilis, Hepatitis A B and C, genital herpes, mouth herpes, and God knows what else.

Take your pick

Mother nature, or as this man likes to call it, dynamic God, corrects a wrong. Don’t you worry about that...

11 June 2012 at 21:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Almost forgot. Each homosexual must live their own life – it’s their God given right. Actually support them in that, would you believe. The principle gripe with them is ‘going global’...

11 June 2012 at 21:08  
Blogger William said...

So the case for same sex marriage is:

- To stop religious people doing their religious thing.
- To break "marriage apartheid", whatever that is.
- So Jon's friend can bring in his friend from outside the EU.
- To protect the "non-religious majority" from some things that religious people might do if they get away with preserving traditional marriage. Scary.
- It's the Conservative thing to do.
- Someone can say that they have made some kind of formal commitment to someone else, but not let on that the someone else is the same sex. (partner?)

It's not very convincing really. Mind you the marriage apartheid thing could be a clincher. Sounds like we should be imposing sanctions against married couples. Perhaps we should boycott wedding receptions or refuse to dance at the discos.

At least DanJ0 has come clean that his motivation for same sex marriage is his hatred of Christianity.

11 June 2012 at 21:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "At least DanJ0 has come clean that his motivation for same sex marriage is his hatred of Christianity."

Blimey, you're scraping the barrel tonight coming up with that. Your problem I reckon is that you know the likely outcome of this thing and you're pissy and looking to get it off your chest. Lol.

11 June 2012 at 21:21  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Inspector, says “The Inspector has no problem with homosexual sex, in the right context.” I’m astounded. You are right of course to point out the severe medical problems that are synonymous with homosexuality and it is I think proper that homosexuality should not be criminalized. It is a private difficulty and we would hope that people with these tendencies make efforts to refrain entirely and not merely to do it in private. Similarly we would hope that heterosexuals would refrain from masturbation or having mistresses. However, the clear teaching of Christianity is that homosexual acts ( not people) are intrinsically disordered and believing that such acts are good in themselves risks your eternal salvation. Many if not most people in this country reject this but it all hinges on the fundamental question of whether there is a God. If there is a God then there is a Heaven and a hell and the place we go to depends not so much on whether we have been perfect but whether we have made the effort. Almighty God recognises the difficulties involved and judges accordingly. Jesus said that tax collectors and sinners would get into Heaven before the religious leaders of his time because they made up the rules to suit themselves and laid a burden on the people. However, he also said that the people must follow the teachings of the Scribes and Pharisees because they occupied the Chair of Moses. He also specified who would supersede the authority of the Scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 16 and he did say that the Holy Spirit would guide his Church. It has been politically incorrect to say that for the last 500 years but the teaching has not changed even though people have bent to the spirit of the times. We are not at liberty to pick and choose what we want. If something is wrong globally as you say it must also be wrong intrinsically and if it is not intrinsically wrong then it should be allowed globally.

11 June 2012 at 21:22  
Blogger William said...

Oh yes. It's funny, is it not, that no one mentions a reason for same sex marriage being that partners of the same sex really want to get married. Perhaps it's because civil partnerships are equivalent to getting married anyway. They just don't mention the having children bit, or the consummation bit. But that's because people of the same sex can't have children or consummate their relationships.

11 June 2012 at 21:26  
Blogger William said...

DanJ0

Really? Not pissy at all. Have I misrepresented you? Would "dislike" have been a better word?

11 June 2012 at 21:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "Really? Not pissy at all. Have I misrepresented you? Would "dislike" have been a better word?"

You'll note that I mentioned fringe Christian organisations and religious agitators up there rather than Christianity itself. Christianity is just a religious belief system. One of many. And man-made as far as I am concerned. The problem, as I'm sure Jesus knows if he actually exists, is some of his followers. I don't even hate Islam, you know.

11 June 2012 at 21:32  
Blogger William said...

DanJ0

Presumably by fringe Christian organisations and religious agitators you mean any Christian who proclaims that sex outside marriage is a sin and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman? Which in my book (pun intended) constitutes Christianity. Otherwise, using same sex marriage against these people just looks like revenge with a blunt instrument.

11 June 2012 at 21:44  
Blogger anna anglican said...

@william, quite a few gay couples have children and are good parents.

11 June 2012 at 21:45  
Blogger William said...

anna anglican

I don't doubt it, but it is not the ideal. We should always aim for the ideal, should we not? Indeed we are called to be perfect.

Marriage enshrines the ideal for satisfying heterosexual relationships AND for raising children. I can find no compelling reason to change this definition. Can you?

11 June 2012 at 21:58  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Anna are they? Are there any now grown up that can prove being brought up with gay parents has been a resounding success? That they are healthy, normal, rounded, individuals?


Danj0 I don't think about gay men at all, I find the thought of what they do repulsive.
As I've previously stated to you, I've completed all my research on Gaydar thank you. But feel free to enjoy yourself there.

11 June 2012 at 22:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Shacklefree. Man is born of God’s image, is he not, to have the free reign of his life. Now, form the Inspector’s point of view, this ‘homosexuality’ lark is man made and is a club. If you are that way inclined, then join it. Club rules insist that at all times you must make yourself prominent. You must ‘fight the cause’ and all the usual bullshit we now expect from these people. There is nothing to say that anyone needs embrace Christianity or any other religion where they might find salvation for their souls.

As Christians, we can only encourage them to see it as we do. The Inspector does not wish to force anybody to conform. If they come with us, they are saved, if not, then hell awaits. Can’t really see that an eternity of grief awaits them courtesy of a loving God, perhaps they are just quietly terminated, as you would with a sick dog. That’s how it is. Freedom of choice. God’s intent, no less...

11 June 2012 at 22:14  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector?

"Rectal prolapse, anal fissure, fistula, colostomy bag, ‘gay’ bowel, HIV, AIDS, gonorrhoea, syphilis, Hepatitis A B and C, genital herpes, mouth herpes, and God knows what else."

And all conditions and diseases suffered by heterosexuals too. They carry risk too. It's associated with promiscuity and less usual forms of sexual pleasure not exclusively with homosexuality. There are all sorts of kinks and perversions 'out there'.

Of course every individual is entitled to make their own choices. As a communicant member, the Church expects you to make choices with an informed conscience and to take account of Her teachings. The eternal consequences are then your responsibility.

I see you've introduced another unorthodox idea. The notion that Hell does not consist of eternal suffering but is simply extinction. Again, this is not Catholic teaching but is put forward by some protestant cults.

11 June 2012 at 22:36  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Shacklefree

Once again, well said.

11 June 2012 at 22:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. The details of an afterlife never made it to public view. Who knows. Rather hope ‘hell’ is being consigned back to Earth again, what a laugh that would be. And no, the Inspector would not voluntarily come back. Why should he. He’s lived alone for a couple and a half of decades, so wow, same again please !

Still it’s been an experience, and it’s made him the hard and ruthless bastard you have here before you...

Goodnight

11 June 2012 at 22:49  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Neither hard nor ruthless, I'd quess. And certainly not a bastard.

Cheer up - tomorrow awaits! It could be far worse. Think, you could have the perverse and bitter mind of a weasel. What a trial that would be.

11 June 2012 at 22:54  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

Shacklefree.

IMO it is not a matter of whether one believes that there is a God or not. What matters is, is there a God, or is there not?

All that is biblical text, as well as established or otherwise religion is founded on there being a personal creator God.

For if there is not, then everything that is religious is utterly false, and therefore completely without meaning or value of any kind.

Having faith or belief is therefore profoundly irrelevant to whether we are created by a supreme intelligence or not.

The question therefore is

DOES GOD EXIST?

A simple question, but not simple enough, as well as a question the vast majority of Christians do not even attempt to find an answer, and this is why.

Belief systems, be they Atheist, Theist, or Socialist in nature, for example, are not designed to make a human being think, they are designed to persuade the sheeplike victim to do as little thinking as possible.

Our education system has much in common with all other forms of established indoctrination, very much including religious kinds.

So to make things simple for ever more simple minds, the question of Gods existence should be made as simple as possible.

Do you seriously believe that your forefathers and mothers where pieces of incredibly lucky inorganic ROCK particles?

I am sure that virtually everyone including virtually all of those who currently believe themselves to be Atheists will reply with a resounding "NO."

At which point I usually say something like, " Then you better start THINKING for yourself as soon as possible, because you may not have much time left."

IMO, hell is not some kind of mythological hot place, it is being sent back here for the purposes of possibly gaining a real education.

I can assure you that when I go I pray not to be sent back again, to what I regard as a mental asylum designed for the criminally insane. Pleasing to the eye, and fun sometimes, but a madhouse run by criminal psychopaths all the same.

Which is why, when people like our infamous Inspector accuse myself of being mad, little else fills my heart with more joy.

For one clearly would have to be 100% crazy, not to be able to see the murderous insanity that utterly surounds us all.

God is good, but Satan rules this particular domain, and has done so for a very long time indeed.

11 June 2012 at 23:48  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Atlas

Just to increase to your joy - you are totally crazy!

(Don't you just love it when you can brighten somebody's day?)

12 June 2012 at 00:03  
Blogger David B said...

@Dodo, who said

"
The property rights of men and women who live together do not constitute marriage. Otherwise, why would homosexuals want more than civil partnerships?"

Property right, as well as other next of kin rights, are a substantial part of marriage, which I don't think should be denied to homosexual men and women.

Civil partnerships which allow for this are, I think, a major step forward.

I don't know why some, though not all, homosexuals want civil partnerships which allow for that sort of thing demand that it should be termed marriage, though I can surmise that it might be something to do with not wanting to be treated as less than equal. If so, fair enough in my view.

If people want to call themselves married, then that is fine with me.

I sort of see this discussion about what constitutes a marriage as similar to the question of what constitutes a Christian.

Some biblical literalists think those who see Genesis as allegorical as not real Christians, and some Catholics see those out of communion with the Catholic Church as not true Christians, and lots of protestants see Catholics as not true Christians.

For myself, if someone wants to self describe as Christian then they are Christian as far as I'm concerned.

Similarly, if people want to self describe as married, then that is good enough for me, too.

I further think the state should be sympathetic to those who want to be married, independently of their sexuality.

I don't expect that, say, the Catholic church should regard such marriages as legitimate Christian marriages any more or less than they should regard Hindu marriages as legitimate, but I do think they should be regarded as such in law.

Which is why I commend the French system of all marriages being civil, and if people want a religious marriages as well, and find a shaman/priest/guru prepared to perform such a ceremony to legitimise their marriage religiously as well as civilly, then that is a matter for them.

David

12 June 2012 at 00:05  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

I think it only fair that I should present at least a small bit of evidence for my assertions, even though a sane person does not need anymore.

I give as evidence GORDON BROWN at todays Leverson Enquiry.

A 'man' who is most evidently as criminally insane as several truck loads of extremely pissed off homicidally inclined frogs, who you would not trust with your own children for more then a fraction of a second, yet he succeeded in becoming Prime Minister of this once great nation.

I close my case.

12 June 2012 at 00:13  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

Ok, I could not resist it.

Some more evidence.

The Leverson enquiry itself.

An enquiry which resembles arguing for months about the precise shade of the bathroom curtains at great expense, while the entire house is burning down.

One could not make this up.

12 June 2012 at 00:22  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

David B

I'd have hated to have been raised by you. Anything goes, everything's cool, just live your life; do your own thing; its all in your head.

Were you, are you, a hippy throw back? You lack a moral compass and have no sense of correct standards. I know, you're a stoner liberal.

There is such a thing as objective reality - it's not all social or subjective construction.

12 June 2012 at 00:39  
Blogger len said...

This fixation with all things relating to' gay activities' is a real give away dodo and friend.

You both seem to know a little TOO much about it?.

12 June 2012 at 00:47  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Crawled out of your snake pit, have you little pope len? And such a valuable contribution to the debate too. Spirit filled, is it?

12 June 2012 at 00:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "As I've previously stated to you, I've completed all my research on Gaydar thank you. But feel free to enjoy yourself there."

The old 'just doing research' defence; it never quite works, does it? I don't doubt you were googling my moniker all the way back then to find out stuff about me given the justification you claimed. I'm about 90% convinced you registered with Gaydar at the same time to look for a profile there under the same moniker. I expect you were hoping for the MP-in-his-underpants type revelation, or perhaps a Midlands-man-looking-hot-steamy-casual-unprotected-sex advert. But you found nothing because I don't have a profile there to look for casual sex or even for dating. I expect this was a bit surprising to you, given your own experience with dating sites advertising yourself looking for men, and finding most of the ones you tried to be unsatisfactory.

12 June 2012 at 05:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "Presumably by fringe Christian organisations and religious agitators you mean any Christian who proclaims that sex outside marriage is a sin and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman?"

No. I mean the ones who try to extend their personal religious beliefs to cover the rest of Society. That is, political activists and agitators. There's nothing particularly wrong with that in a democracy of course, just like there's nothing wrong with the BNP trying to define Britishness in a certain way for political ends. Of course, once people are in the political arena like that then they become a fair target. Though at least some of these religious people seem to expect special dispensation from criticism.

As far as I am concerned, if religious people consider sex outside of marriage, and same-sex marriage, a sin then they obviously have the solution to hand: don't have sex outside of marriage, and don't marry someone of the same sex. If they just did that then everyone should be happy, I reckon.

Of course, targetting the same-sex marriage but not divorce, or sex outside of marriage, or co-habitation is much easier for these agitators because we're a minority. Targetting the majority man or woman in the street in the same way for their sexual and lifestyle choices would be political suicide. As few tut-tuts seem to suffice there to tick the religious box ... at least for the moment.

"Otherwise, using same sex marriage against these people just looks like revenge with a blunt instrument."

As I have said, we have to win this because these agitators have raised the stakes so high now. What these people really want, and some of them having been pushing for over time, is to get a religious case before the Supreme Court and to get a ruling establishing special privilege for religious belief in general, and for Christianity in particular. At that point, the man or woman in the street ought to be worried because these people will be emboldened enough to try to undue some of the laws made in our more liberal times, using the special privilege they have won.

12 June 2012 at 05:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 June 2012 at 05:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I notice Owl hasn't made an appearance yet, apology in hand or not. Just thought I'd mention that. I'm not expecting him any time soon, of course. Not because he's conferring with imaginary political masters, but because he's shot himself in the foot and he'd rather avoid the shame of it for now.

12 June 2012 at 05:50  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 June 2012 at 06:10  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

If they just did that then everyone should be happy, I reckon.

I reckon we could do that if private sexual behaviors didn't have very public consequences.

carl

12 June 2012 at 06:11  
Blogger David B said...

Dodo, your tendency of resorting to ad hominem rather than addressing points made is not your most endearing feature.

David B

12 June 2012 at 08:24  
Blogger IanCad said...

Going over the post counts on HG's past threads, it does seem to me that an extraordinary number of responses are posted when subjects of a sexual nature are discussed.
Perhaps Len is right.

12 June 2012 at 08:27  
Blogger Naomi King said...

IanCad perhaps we should be going back to the basics with a Word for the Christian Church today.

I have known a man who has tried to let some of his heart run into the world and another part he allowed to drip into the Church and the effect has been this—when he came into the Church he was suspected of hypocrisy. “Why,” they said, “if he were truly with us, could he have done yesterday what he did and then come and profess so much today?” The Church looks upon him as a suspicious one. Or if he deceives them, they feel he is not of much use to them because they have not got all his heart. What is the effect of his conduct in the world? Why, his religion is a fetter to him! The world will not have him and the Church will not have him! He wants to go between the two and both despise him. I never saw anybody try to walk on both sides of the street but a drunken man. He tried it and it was very awkward work, indeed. But I have seen many people from a moral point of view try to walk on both sides of the street and I thought there was some kind of intoxication in them—or else they would have given it up as a very foolish thing indeed.

Now, if I thought this world and the pleasures thereof worth my seeking, I would just seek them and go after them and I would not pretend to be religious. But if Christ is Christ and if God is God, let us give our whole hearts to Him and not go shares with the world! Many a church member manages to walk on both sides of the street in the following manner. His sun is very low indeed—it has not much light, not much heat and is come almost to its setting. Now sinking suns cast long shadows and this man stands on the world’s side of the street and casts a long shadow right across the road—to the opposite side of the wall just across the pavement! Yes, it is all Jesus gets with many of you, you come and you take the sacramental bread and wine. You are baptized. You join the Church and what He gets is just your shadow. There is your substance on the other side of the street, after all! What is the good of the empty chrysalis of a man? And yet many of our church members are little better. They just do as the snake does that leaves its skin behind. They give Jesus their skin, the chrysalis case in which life once was and then they go themselves here and there after their own wanton wills. They give Him the outward and then give the world the inward. O how foolish this is, Christian! Your Master gave Himself wholly for you. Give yourself unreservedly to Him! Keep not back part of the price. Make a full surrender of every motion of your heart—labor to have but one objective and one aim - HIM.

12 June 2012 at 08:43  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Christian, this should teach you to keep your heart full of rich things. Never, never neglect the Word of God that will make your heart rich with precept, rich with understanding! And then your conversation, when it flows from your month, will be like your heart—rich and savory. Make your heart full of rich, generous love and then the stream that flows from your hands will be just as rich and generous as your heart. Above all, get Jesus to live in your heart and then out of your belly shall flow rivers of living water—more rich, more satisfying than the water of the well of Sychar of which Jacob drank. Oh, go, Christian, to the great mine of riches and cry unto the Holy Spirit to make your heart rich unto salvation! So shall your life and conversation be a gift to your fellows. And when they see you, your face shall be as the angel of God.

You have sometimes said, “I wish my words were as full, as sweet, as mellow and as unctuous as the words of Jesus! Oh, I wish my actions were just as rich; had as deep a color and as pure a taste. So some of your hearts are not worth keeping ? The sooner you get rid of them the better! They are hearts of stone. Do you feel today that you have a stony heart? Go home and I pray the Lord hears my desire that your polluted heart may be removed. Cry unto God and say, “Take away my heart of stone and give me a heart of flesh.” A stony heart is an impure heart, a divided heart, a warring heart. It is a heart that is poor and poverty-stricken, a heart that is void of all goodness! And you can neither bless yourself nor others if your heart is such.

12 June 2012 at 08:59  
Blogger William said...

DanJ0

"Of course, targetting the same-sex marriage but not divorce, or sex outside of marriage, or co-habitation is much easier for these agitators because we're a minority. Targetting the majority man or woman in the street in the same way for their sexual and lifestyle choices would be political suicide. As few tut-tuts seem to suffice there to tick the religious box ... at least for the moment."

It's not a question of targeting same sex marriage, it's a question of preserving the definition of an institution that upholds the unique ideal of lifelong, heterosexual, child-rearing relationships, because they are so vital to the health of our society.

The ideal of marriage is life-long. Were there a proposal to bring in temporary marriage contracts then I would also be campaigning against that because again it would be attacking the ideal. Yes divorce exists and is permitted by some churches, but the assumption at the outset is that a marriage is life-long.

"As I have said, we have to win this because these agitators have raised the stakes so high now. What these people really want, and some of them having been pushing for over time, is to get a religious case before the Supreme Court and to get a ruling establishing special privilege for religious belief in general, and for Christianity in particular. At that point, the man or woman in the street ought to be worried because these people will be emboldened enough to try to undue some of the laws made in our more liberal times, using the special privilege they have won."

Well, you have been clear that your motivation is to stop these religious agitators that you speak of. I can only reiterate that your weapon of choice (same sex marriage) will be to the detriment of us all.

12 June 2012 at 09:00  
Blogger William said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 June 2012 at 09:15  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...
"The ***** thing was just my handing out some rope and inviting you to hang yourself again, but I don't particularly want to alarm you about your anonymity."

Oh I'd trust you and just about as far as I might be able to throw you.

You show an unhealthy interest in the private identities of those blogging on here and appear quite ready to use personal information when it suits your purposes.

You had no justifiable reason to publish my Christian name other than to cause alarm - or was it to to display your 'cleverness' in peacock fashion? You chose to do so and this speaks volumes about you. And how much time did you spend trawling through those earlier posts with my my original identity on this site to find it.

Yes, I am an inexperienced blogger and you have given me a lesson into the hazards of internet use. Whilst I thank you for this, I find your conduct reprehensible.

12 June 2012 at 12:53  
Blogger Jon said...

William - all your arguments about pro-creation and child rearing have been utterly destroyed before. And once again as IanCad has also now noticed, a blog ostensibly about Christianity and politics is overrun with old codgers wibbling on about other people's sex lives. Jealous much?

Just out of interest, Inspector. Since you're too old to have kids, you won't be ever getting married, will you, since the main purpose of marriage is procreation? No sex for you then, old chap. No wonder you get so het up...

All the headlines this morning scream of one thing to me - a Church which knows it is in terminal decline desperately clinging onto its vested privilege. Anglican bishops in the legislature are the best argument for Lords reform there is! Disestablishment is surely inevitable. As I've pointed out before, this will surely lead to a livelier time for churches and an easier time for the majority of Brits who just want to go about their lives without religious dogma being thrust at them every which way.

12 June 2012 at 15:26  
Blogger gentlemind said...

Jon said Gentlemind said - "Too true William. Future generations will curse us for what we are doing. We are dictating to those yet to be born that they have no right to know who they are. " What are you talking about?! Do you even know? How does allowing some people to marry one another remotely affect the self- knowledge of those who will never enter into a gay marriage?

Yes, i know what i'm talking about. Hence me talking about it. In international law marriage is the right to "marry and found a family". This makes sense, because marriage excludes all relationships other than the one that creates a child: one man and one woman. How can we give that right to a relationship that lacks the relevant physical ability (not through infertility or age, but through design)? How do same-sex couples "found a family?". "Gender neutral marriage" is the enshrining in law of surrogacy (the creation of a child with the deliberate intention of separating that child from one or both of that child's parents). Marriage is, among other things, our only legal mechanism for attaching parents to children. Redefining marriage stops that, and simultaneously enshrines for the exact opposite to occur.

12 June 2012 at 15:48  
Blogger Oswin said...

IanCad @ 08:27 : you noticed too eh?

Atlas shrugged @ 00:13 : one does so enjoy a good 'frog' analogy. :o)

12 June 2012 at 16:18  
Blogger William said...

Jon

"William - all your arguments about pro-creation and child rearing have been utterly destroyed before."

Utterly destroyed? Goodness me, I must have missed that. If only you had told me earlier I wouldn't have wasted your and my time.

"And once again as IanCad has also now noticed, a blog ostensibly about Christianity and politics is overrun with old codgers wibbling on about other people's sex lives. Jealous much?"

Oh no. Please don't tell me that my opposition to same sex marriage just shows that I'm a jealous, closet gay!

By the way, less of the "wibbling old codger" cheek from you my lad. I'm in the prime of my life.

Feel free to "utterly destroy" my comments in this thread. If you think you can without awakening my vicarious homosexuality.

12 June 2012 at 17:45  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 So “Bigtool4you” and “Dan9+” weren't you then? ;-) LOL
I registered with Gaydar long before I came across you on here. I'd seen a documentary about homosexual lifestyles. It featured a policeman from London who used Gaydar to pre book sexual encounters, as many as he could get per day and night, for the two weeks of his holiday that he was going to spend in Spain. I couldn't believe the level of promiscuity that went on and I was curious to see for myself what it was all about. That curiosity has been satisfied now and I've run off in shock. It's all a bit sordid unlike my internet dating in which I was looking for a kindred spirit for love and friendship but ended up on dates with men that turned out to have drink problems, financial problems, housing problems or drug problems.

12 June 2012 at 17:55  
Blogger Oswin said...

William: I think it's more a question of balance. We're a tad over-loaded on the 'personal' anti/pro-homo front, one feels; as opposed to the theopolitical implications alone.

The more 'rabid' manifestations hereabouts, on both sides, serves little purpose beyond the alienation of all concerned.

12 June 2012 at 18:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "You show an unhealthy interest in the private identities of those blogging on here and appear quite ready to use personal information when it suits your purposes."

Actually, I have no interest at all in the private identities of those blogging here. I honestly don't want to know and I would rather everyone remains anonymous. A major drawback of debating, or hurling insults back and forth as often happens, with people who publish their real names ought to be obvious, I'd have thought. But perhaps you haven't thought it through that far yet.

You know and I know that you've been googling around away from the forum looking for information about me over a number of weeks. I actually think I can demonstrate that too. As I have said, I am pretty certain Marie did the same thing many months ago given what she posted back then about my moniker. In response, I just returned the favour by looking through her Daily Mail newspaper comments and, you know, I think she's come off far, far worse there. I remain happy with what I've published under my moniker.

"And how much time did you spend trawling through those earlier posts with my my original identity on this site to find it."

I deliberately let you ask over and over again to provide evidence for my claims that you were using multiple IDs unethically here. You invited me to look, you may recall. Demanded I look, I think it is fair to say. Once the blog owner blew the gaff on your behaviour, I went and looked to see what he was talking about so I already had numerous examples by that time. You will eventually learn the hard way but I don't blag over this sort of stuff.

"Whilst I thank you for this, I find your conduct reprehensible."

Lol. Dodo, you have no high ground. You don't even have the low ground. In fact, you're in a bloody mineshaft as far as ethical behaviour is concerned. All I have done is given you rope and you have taken it, tied a noose around your neck, and hoisted yourself up. You do it regularly, but don't seem to learn from it. You're just a rather poor joke, really; a prolific producer of verbal diahorrea which fills the space here.

12 June 2012 at 18:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Jon at 15:26 Inspector. Since you're too old to have kids, you won't be ever getting married, will you, since the main purpose of marriage is procreation? No sex for you then, old chap. No wonder you get so het up...

Blasted cheek !

Aside from that, here is an example of a chap’s principals. You see the principle of leaving marriage as it is, is so important that even though he may never get to undertake it himself, the Inspector fights for it tooth and nail.

Now, contrast that with the apparent attitude of the queer types on this site. “I am gay, therefore the world must revolve around me, and I will pick and choose my principles and morals accordingly. I shall give no consideration at all to heterosexual hegemony because I’m not one. Indeed, I am a ‘live now, for tomorrow I will be gone’ sort so what do I care if it all comes crashing down in a hundred years time.”

You lot are an absolute selfish shower. You don’t even deserve the vote, let alone plastic marriage.

12 June 2012 at 18:42  
Blogger Jon said...

Gentlemind and William - try googling it. The idea that marriage exists only for the purposes of procreation has been demolished here and isn't supported by the Church. If it were, they wouldn't allow people over childbearing age to marry, which they do. This objection is moot.

William and Gentlemind.

Does the Church deny the right to marry to couples too old to reproduce? No. It doesn't.

Does the Church test people's fertility before allowing them to marry? No, it doesn't.

Both of your points are therefore irrelevant.

Same sex couples can found a family by sperm donation (in the case of lesbians) or by surrogacy or adoption in the case of both gay and lesbian couples. They can therefore fulfil the requirements as well as any infertile couple can.

William - I'm not calling you gay, although I do wonder why you care so much about something which won't affect you at all. You're just not fabulous enough to make the grade though, I'm afraid.

Marie, you'll be relieved to hear that I know of a number of couples who first met on Gaydar. Dating website are what you make of them - even yours.

Oswin - hit the nail on the head.

12 June 2012 at 18:46  
Blogger Jon said...

Inspector "I shall give no consideration at all to heterosexual hegemony because I’m not one."

First of all - I don't think you get to complain about others being cheeky. You're hardly a model of restraint! And my comment was tongue in cheek as I'm sure you realised.

Second, I don't think there should be a heterosexual hegemony, any more than there should be a homosexual hegemony. Sexuality should be irrelevant. That it isn't is largely because of the discrimination experienced in large parts of the world by gay people, and the desire of gay people in more tolerant countries like the UK to show to the rest of the world that we have evolved, and the world hasn't fallen apart. Also it's a nice opportunity to see good looking boys in pants! ;-)

12 June 2012 at 18:51  
Blogger William said...

Oswin

"I think it's more a question of balance. We're a tad over-loaded on the 'personal' anti/pro-homo front, one feels; as opposed to the theopolitical implications alone."

I agree and I hope I have not become personal in my comments.

"The more 'rabid' manifestations hereabouts, on both sides, serves little purpose beyond the alienation of all concerned."

True, but the topic of same sex marriage keeps being raised by His Grace, so do we let the 'rabid' elements have free reign and hope they get bored or do we try to put forward slightly less foam-flecked arguments?

or maybe it's me who's foaming at the mouth?

12 June 2012 at 18:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Jon: "All the headlines this morning scream of one thing to me - a Church which knows it is in terminal decline desperately clinging onto its vested privilege."

Yes.

I see Giles Fraser has published a piece in the Guardian today which is quite interesting. One or two good turns of phrase that made me laugh too.

12 June 2012 at 19:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "I can only reiterate that your weapon of choice (same sex marriage) will be to the detriment of us all."

I feel the same about the Christian Institute and friends who are trying to force a pro-religious result at the Supreme Court. The last thing we need in our ethically and religiously diverse country is a pro-religious bent on resolving rights conflicts. Jeez. What could possibly go wrong there?

12 June 2012 at 19:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

/ethically/ethnically

12 June 2012 at 19:04  
Blogger len said...

Politicians seem to assume that' the Church' is a servant of the state and must do whatever the State demands.
This is the inherent danger of the uniting of State and religion.
Christians must be free to follow the commandments of God and the dictates of their conscience.In a conflict between the desires of the state and the conscience of the Christian the Christian is duty bound to place Christian principles above the State when the State contradicts Gods Social and Moral Order.
It would seem a relatively small minority is taking Our Government 'by the ear' and forcing them to change our entire Social structure to conform to their demands.
This small 'elite' who are overturning our Society are doing this in such an insidious way that the' general public are'are being herded like sheep into an acceptance of their agendas.There seem to be little resistance to this incoming tide of secularism and the Media is quite plainly biased towards Christians and their beliefs (moral and Social)

It is sad but when Societies withdraw from Godly principles and God`s Moral Order the disintegration rapidly accelerates unless there are Godly men in positions of power and authority to redress the downward spiral.

12 June 2012 at 19:15  
Blogger gentlemind said...

Jon said Gentlemind and William - try googling it. The idea that marriage exists only for the purposes of procreation has been demolished here and isn't supported by the Church. If it were, they wouldn't allow people over childbearing age to marry, which they do. This objection is moot.

William and Gentlemind.

Does the Church deny the right to marry to couples too old to reproduce? No. It doesn't.

Does the Church test people's fertility before allowing them to marry? No, it doesn't.

Both of your points are therefore irrelevant.

Same sex couples can found a family by sperm donation (in the case of lesbians) or by surrogacy or adoption in the case of both gay and lesbian couples. They can therefore fulfil the requirements as well as any infertile couple can.

A misunderstanding of a principle is not the same as the demolition of an idea based on that principle. Marriage is designed around the principle of procreation - the principle that every child has one male parent and one female parent. Hence marriage excluding all relationships other than that between one man and one woman. Neither infertility nor old age change the principle of procreatiion. Homosexuality does (and it does so regardless of fertility or age). Without the possibility - in principle - of procreation, there would have been no need for the institution of marriage to have existed.

Same-sex couples can pick up the pieces of other broken families, but they cannot found their own. A simple experiment would be to lock two women in a room and ask them to emerge only once they have founded a family.

12 June 2012 at 19:21  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJo said ...
"You know and I know that you've been googling around away from the forum looking for information about me over a number of weeks. I actually think I can demonstrate that too."

You are a self obsessed, self-absorbed man! Now why on earth would I want to acquire information on you? Demonstrate away.

You are the one with stalker tendencies. I bet you have folders on your computer where you store little pieces of information on fellow bloggers. What an empty and barren life.

12 June 2012 at 19:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Jon. Also it's a nice opportunity to see good looking boys in pants! ;-)

By all means pass it off as joke, but lusting after fresh youth and with an eye for anal sex is never too far away from the male gay mind. So, when will this ‘marriage’ take place then. Before, during or after the orgy that is so many gay men’s lives, and who have a long list of, let’s just call them health complaints, to prove it...

12 June 2012 at 19:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "You are a self obsessed, self-absorbed man! Now why on earth would I want to acquire information on you?"

Because you are horribly humiliated and you want to find something unflattering in order to make yourself feel better. Your comments show that you're quite desperate for it. I can't be the only one who thinks you're really scrabbling around now for something to throw back after your gaffe the other night, and to offset the unethical nature of your past behaviour here which you hate me rubbing your nose in periodically when you get too mouthy. You were like the Black Knight from Monty Python And The Holy Grail last time I so publically took you apart, still refusing to acknowledge your pitiful state and threatening to bite my ankles given half a chance. Lol.

12 June 2012 at 20:01  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0, and what an ego to go with the self-obession and self-absorbtion! All the attributes of a narcissistic personaility which makes you someone to avoid.

Horribly humiliated? Unethical behaviour? Having my nose rubbed in it? Took me apart publically? Goodness me, what is Planet DanJ0 like?

You've yet to produce evidence substantiating your version of events in respect of Owl. Neither have you provided any evidence I'm Googling you in attempt to get information. As if. I already know all I need to know about you.

Spiteful, vindictive and bitchy behaviour discredits you, not me.

12 June 2012 at 20:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, when you wrote the last bit of this: "I could picture you strutting around your little flat", can you refresh my memory as I can't remember mentioning my accomodation here. I remember writing something off this site, of course. Hey, perhaps I did here too at some point.

12 June 2012 at 20:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I would have pointed out the thing about Owl before now but he seems to have disappeared for some reason.

So, "14 June 2011 23:20"

12 June 2012 at 20:31  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older