Monday, May 20, 2013

Gay marriage brings gay supremacy; not equality


It is with considerable weariness, not to say reluctance, that Brother Ivo briefly returns to the issue of Gay 'Marriage'.

Contemplating stable long-term gay relationships, he regularly reverts to the words 'it is what it is', and quite simply does not believe that 'that' is a marriage which, for well-rehearsed reasons, has been culturally, religiously, historically and universally defined and understood as between a man and a woman.

From the outset of the discussion, he warned about 'meaningless arguments over equivalence'. He wishes that had been heeded. 'It is what it is'; no more, no less.

The only new contribution he can now offer is the following short observation identifying an overlooked absurdity:

If the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is passed, we will have Gay Marriages, and Gay Civil Partnerships. The only difference will be at the point the relationship is created. Thereafter, the rights and obligations will be identical, as will be the procedures for ending the relationship.

As Nadine Dorris has correctly identified, sex is a major component within the marital status; there is a full body of jurisprudence to support this, developed from the days of ecclesiastical legal jurisdiction. This has been entirely ignored - or, rather, deliberately excluded - from the legislating framework for these new institutions. So, in brief, we shall have a position where gay men who are 'married' will have more in common with gay civil partners who are not married, than with heterosexual couples who are.

How can this be logically described with any integrity as 'equalisation'?

(Posted by Brother Ivo)

172 Comments:

Blogger Naomi King said...


How can homosexuals say that so called equal "marriage" has nothing to do with sex when homosexual perversion is ALL about sex ?

20 May 2013 at 09:23  
Blogger Naomi King said...



Nigel Farage makes a big pitch for Tory votes

"Mr Farage uses an advertisement in Monday's Telegraph to urge Conservative voters to back Ukip, which does not agree with the perverted marriage, amongst other issues. The “loons” description, he says, is “'the ultimate insult' from a party leadership that has betrayed the trust of its own supporters. ... He writes in the advertisement: 'Only an administration run by a bunch of college kids, none of whom have ever had a proper job in their lives, could so arrogantly write off their own supporters.'" - Daily Telegraph

20 May 2013 at 09:28  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

Once this evil -- unheard of as recently as 5 years ago -- is institutionalised, watch the witch-hunt against anyone who speaks other than warmly of it. Watch ordinary people being sacked for not being obedient quickly enough.

20 May 2013 at 09:30  
Blogger Naomi King said...


And there's more bad news for Mr Cameron: he now faces defeat in gay marriage vote

"David Cameron is facing a Commons defeat tonight on gay marriage that could cost the Exchequer £4billion. ... At least 100 Tory MPs are expected to join forces with Labour and the Lib Dems to back an amendment allowing heterosexual couples to have civil partnerships too. ... Sources say the Prime Minister is ‘very concerned’ about losing the vote, which he believes would undermine the institution of marriage." - Daily Mail

It's a bit late now, Mr Cameron, to be worrying about undermining the institution of marriage, you have done that well enough already !

"At least two cabinet ministers – the environment secretary Owen Paterson and the Wales secretary David Jones – are prepared to vote for a series of amendments that would grant exemptions to teachers and registrars. ... Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, and John Hayes, the prime minister's unofficial envoy to the Tory right, may also side with opponents of the bill during a series of votes..." - Guardian

20 May 2013 at 09:42  
Blogger graham wood said...

Naomi: "which does not agree with the perverted marriage."

That is a very good, in fact the ONLY proper description of the proposal and Bill.
Let us hope, and more important pray, that we will never have cause to use it if this Bill meets with the fate it deserves at the hands of the Lord.

Read the first few verses of Luke 18 !
Graham

20 May 2013 at 10:18  
Blogger genghis said...

When I married my wife, some forty-six years ago, we married in Church. We married by exchanging vows before the symbols of God. Over our heads was an invisible sign which stated “Be still, and know that I am God”. We promised to love and honour each other all the days of our lives, until ‘Death do us part’. Implicit in this ceremony was to acknowledge the fact that we would be having a family, because marriage and the conception of children have been inextricably linked, both in and out of religious belief, for almost three millennia; from the earliest days of what has become to be known as civilized society. I do not look upon the past nearly half-century as anything other than a testament to my own good fortune, in meeting, courting and finally persuading my wife that we should marry. I knew, approximately ten seconds after we first met, that she was the one for me; and the delay in our marriage of nearly two years was mainly due to the fact that I left England to join my last ship for a thirteen-month trip some four weeks after we first met. We have seen great happiness, and also great sadness in the long years together, but my view is simple; we made a promise together, and I would be a poor imitation of a man if I ever broke that promise.

So don’t ever let a set of mealy-mouthed politicians, who have joined with another, and larger set of scheming liberals and socialists equate the joy, the wonder, the sadness, the happiness and the hope of my marriage, along with millions of similar marriages; to the ‘union’ between two mincing queers as the same thing: because it is not, will not, and cannot be anything but a pale imitation of our promise that day, in that church; some forty-six years ago

20 May 2013 at 10:42  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 May 2013 at 11:38  
Blogger John Thomas said...

"two mincing queers" - Genghis, can you see that this kind of language plays exactly into the hands of the gay "rights" (=power) crowd? They like to believe that they're hated and abused (particularly by Christians) and this "hatred" "discrimination" etc. has enabled them to establish themselves, and their awful agenda. Can't you see that your sentiments, and their expression, are precisely what got us to the ghastly position we're in now?

20 May 2013 at 11:45  
Blogger Jonathan James | Associate Solicitor said...

I do not see that any argument is improved by descending to personalised abuse of one's opponents. Let any disagreement be voiced in courtesy, restraint and above all dignity. The fact that this may not be reciprocated should not cause one to lower one's standards. Why change into a lesser person at your opponents' behest?

20 May 2013 at 12:03  
Blogger Nick said...

"Can't you see that your sentiments, and their expression, are precisely what got us to the ghastly position we're in now?"

Sorry John, but on this point I couldn't agree less. True, it is not the job Chrisitians to spread hate, but this ghastly situation has come about not because of us, but because of the moral bankruptcy of some politicians and a bunch of gay activists. The vindictiveness shown by members of the gay community is some of the worst I've ever seen. They can be truly Nazi in style and attitude.

Gays are not just out for special priviliges, but to completely unravel our culture and replace it with their own perverted dystopia. Don’t underestimate the gravity of what is happening

20 May 2013 at 12:05  
Blogger Albert said...

Well said, Brother Ivo. It's not equal and it's not marriage.

The amendment to allow heterosexuals couples the chance of a Civil Partnership exposes the hypocrisy of those in favour. They claim they want equality, but by opposing this they are plainly opposing equality.

It's an incredible intellectual and moral mess.

20 May 2013 at 12:29  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

This is not about equality. That's plain to see. Never has been. Never will be.

It's about destroying the family. They can't have it, so they want to destroy it. Satan hates the family - Father, mother, child ... the earthly trinity.

The marxists and other totalitarians hate the family, for exactly the same reason they hate religion: the family & religion both create bonds of allegiance that are stronger than the bond of allegiance to the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent state.

There is ZERO rationale behind gay "marriage".

20 May 2013 at 12:40  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

'Queers', 'gays as Nazis'. Wow, what a convincing argument against SSM. Hmm. I think people can do better than that kind of argument.

20 May 2013 at 12:44  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Brother Ivo you coin a great phrase, perverted sexual relationships "are what they are". Men buggering other men because they haven't worked out what their own genitals are for.

Filthy and disgusting really, as my 13 year old son says, "Very icky !" Indeed.

20 May 2013 at 13:08  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@Hannah Kavanagh ...

The arguments have been well and truly rehearsed 100's of times on this blog and countless other places. What's more, the argument has been won, and won convincingly, overwhelmingly, crushingly - there is NO rational case for SSM. But this is not a debate about principle or injustice or equality.

Ask people in favour of SSM what marriage actually is and they have no idea. They basically end up describing an employment contract!

20 May 2013 at 13:09  
Blogger Naomi King said...


PRAISE GOD

Straight from the homosexual horse's mouth 17 minutes ago !

"Downing Street may withdraw equal marriage bill if straight civil partnership amendment passes"

Why is it that we have to get all news about this from Pink News ?

20 May 2013 at 13:11  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Rebel Saint,

That is true. However, if the argument is so overwhelmingly against ssm, why do people have to revert to crude attacks?

PS- I'm against SSM. But I dislike the name calling and the hysteria (on both sides of the fence).

20 May 2013 at 13:12  
Blogger Naomi King said...


A Downing Street source has told +PinkNews that it would not rule out withdrawing the Marriage (same-sex couples) Bill, if an amendment to allow straight civil partnership amendment passes.

PRAISE THE LORD

20 May 2013 at 13:12  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Naomi,

If the SSM bill is defeated, you'll have to think about what you'll be doing with all that spare time you'll have on your hands, as you will have finished campaigning against it. What cause will you take up now?

20 May 2013 at 13:23  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Hannah

I will be delighted, I can't wait.

This is what Pink News is saying ...

"I don’t doubt the prime minister’s personal commitment to delivering equal marriage. My concern is that David Cameron is in danger of being buffeted by the storms raging within his disunited party. Let’s be clear, Cameron’s party is at war – the Compassionate Conservatives versus the Toxic Tories. They seem unable to agree a narrative in response to the threat, as they see it, from the rise of UKIP and the “swivel-eyed-loons” inside and outside the ranks of Conservative MPs are pushing for an ever more right-wing agenda – like the ditching of equal marriage and an immediate referendum on membership of the EU."

It looks to me like Call me Dave is looking for a way out.

PRAISE the LORD

20 May 2013 at 13:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

John Thomas, it's certainly an own goal because there are three main groups that are talking like that and I think the general public have noticed: vocal Christians, vocal Muslims, and people from the far right. In polite society, it's the equivalent of calling a black person a nigger. If I were a Christian then I'd think it pretty unedifying that my "brothers and sisters in Christ" were behaving like that yet it's almost relished down here in the comments. But hey.

20 May 2013 at 13:38  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

'If I were a Christian then I'd think it pretty unedifying that my "brothers and sisters in Christ" were behaving like that yet it's almost relished down here in the comments.'

I agree with Danjo with that.

20 May 2013 at 13:42  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

Funny I thought that it was the other side flooding the world with hatred, abuse, nasty language and acrimony?
I got the impression THAT was how they furthered their agenda...
if you want to see abuse you should see some of the hate-mail I still get from homo=extremists ...and the sewage language they use to "review" my books which they have not even read.
Heterosexuals don't need civil partnerships because we can get married.
http://juliagasper.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/barking-mad.h

20 May 2013 at 13:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm finding it quite exciting what's happening in Parliament this week. It's like politics actually matters again I almost want Cameron to fail just to see what happens to the Tories. It feels like they're done for either way and probably for 10 to 15 years again. And for what? New Labour will probably legislate for it anyway when they're in power though they're perhaps make a tidier job of it next time around.

20 May 2013 at 13:44  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

DanJ0 and Hannah Kavanagh,

For what it's worth, His Grace agrees with you both.

20 May 2013 at 13:45  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@DanJ0

I agree with you about unedifying way some who profess to be my brothers & sisters in Christ speak of homosexuals.

Where I disagree with you is that it is not "relished" in the comments. There are a number of people who use derogatory terms, but not many and they are not "relished".

I also think you may be wearing your rose-coloured glasses if you think it is only "vocal Christians, vocal Muslims, and people from the far right" who use speech. I would invite you to come and walk around some of the housing estates where I work, or follow some of the football "banter" on twitter/forums/pubs ... it would make even a hardened soul such as yours blush!

I would also never use this as a defense for some of the abusive language used in these comments (2 wrongs do not make a right etc) ... but have you ever read the comments on Pink News?!!!!

20 May 2013 at 13:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Julia, you've made yourself notorious with your extreme views and as a celebrity you need to learn to rise above it rather than stress yourself over it. On the positive side, you must have a very committed fan because there's someone who challenges every article about you in the same writing style either anonymously or using different names. It's very sweet of them.

20 May 2013 at 13:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 May 2013 at 14:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Rebel, some of the comments on Pink News make me cringe and I'm hardly noted for being a shrinking violet when provoked. The difference is that gay people don't claim to share some mystical and godly union. Don't get me wrong, I'm not outraged or offended by the stuff down here. It's only words on a screen when all is said and done. In some ways I'd rather it was all in the open anyway.

20 May 2013 at 14:08  
Blogger Albert said...

For what it's worth, His Grace agrees with you both.

And so does Albert, but please keep it quiet, because if news gets out, Dave may try to amend marriage to include the five of us - after all, we're all equal.

20 May 2013 at 14:16  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Labour tries to save gay marriage bill with new amendment. Yvette Cooper says Labour will put forward its own amendment after issue of civil partnerships threatens to derail bill.

20 May 2013 at 14:33  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

There you go Danjo. HG has given the unfortunates his seal of approval..He can marry you to your boyfriend and Albert and Hannah can be your bridesmaids.The Inspector will sing"O Perfect Love" and Dodo and I will be in charge of throwing molotov cocktail shaped confetti!

20 May 2013 at 14:47  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Your Grace,

That is very kind of you.

20 May 2013 at 15:03  
Blogger David Hussell said...

The real debate is about the nature and purpose of marriage and that is a debate that the country has not been allowed to have. The proposals before Parliament are flawed philosophically, theologically, morally and politically. Only a chamber that no longer truly thinks, but operates on the basis of sound bites, slogans and badges could entertain such destructive nonsense. It is very likely that this Bill is designed and timed to accord with EU requirements.
Vote Ukip !

20 May 2013 at 15:13  
Blogger Peter D said...

Princess Pavlova .... Lol!

I agree some terms are unnecessarily abusive e.g. "mincing queers". However, I see no good reason not to use terms such as: "sexual perversion", "unnatural acts", "sodomy" and "homosexual" when discussing this subject.

Homosexuality is what it is - an objective disorder; an intrinsically disordered inclination

The Church teaches that each male should accept his sexual identity as a man, and each female her sexual identity as a woman; and that means accepting that one is different from and complementary to, and equal in dignity with, persons of the opposite sex.

The Church also observes that "the number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible," and that some homosexual persons may be "definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable."

The Church is aware of people who "conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, insofar as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life." But the Church, today as always, rejects that way of arguing from “nature”.

The Christian teaching from the outset, has been that no homosexual acts are ever justified, even the acts of someone whose inclination to engage in them is "innate" and, in one sense of the word, "natural." Accordingly, the Church reaffirms that every such inclination, whether innate or pathological, incurable or curable, permanent or transitory, is an objective disorder, an intrinsically disordered inclination.

20 May 2013 at 15:19  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 May 2013 at 15:21  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

"throwing molotov cocktail shaped confetti!"

Or if it were done in traditional Jewish style, a week before the wedding, the groom gets pelted with raisins,almonds and sweets, with shouts of Mazel Tov!

20 May 2013 at 15:21  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Labour has launched a bid to protect the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, amid fears that a “wrecking amendment” extending civil partnerships to heterosexual couples could stall the legislation.

The party has put forward its own amendment, which would spark an immediate consultation on civil partnerships for straight couples.

Labour MP Chris Bryant told PinkNews.co.uk: “We don’t want to do anything to put the bill at risk,” and his party was “not in the business of wrecking the bill at all.” Mr Bryant added that he hoped the proposed consultation would be “swift”.

Ministers warn that straight civil partnerships would introduce significant delays to the introduction of same-sex marriage and impose additional costs of as much as £4bn.

20 May 2013 at 15:23  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I have been to a lot of Jewish weddings and never witnessed the dried fruit pelting ceremony...only the pelting of the prenuptial agreement on the solicitor's desk!

20 May 2013 at 15:30  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Cressida,

It's not at the wedding itself, but a week before in a ceremony called 'The Aufruf'.

20 May 2013 at 15:36  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Or if you are more into Sephardi Jewish tradition, then it is called 'Shabbat Hatan' and takes place a week AFTER the wedding.

20 May 2013 at 15:40  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Hmm.

I think the pelting bit is an optional tradition rather than a religious requirement... bit like confetti, I think.

20 May 2013 at 16:09  
Blogger Jon said...

Brother Ivo - I think the crucial thing here has been raised several times previously (I think mostly by David B (hope he's well) and Danj0).

For a long time, sexual fidelity (as specifically defined for procreative purposes) was crucial to marital fidelity because DNA testing wasn't available to establish parentage (and anyway, nice families wanted kids with other nice families, without the lesser genes of the household staff becoming intermingled!)

On a previous thread, DanJ0 made the point that, in most people's eyes there's days, sexual fidelity, rather than avoidance of a specific act of adultery would be more important in a monogamous relationship. After all, most men wouldn't welcome their wives entering into non- procreative sexual congress with another man, and wouldn't be denied their objections just because the legal definition of adultery wasn't fit for purpose!

As such, your established bodies of jurisprudence are probably rendered irrelevant thanks to the good Drs Watson and Crick.

After all, we haven't relied on ordeal by water to establish witchcraft for a while. Why should a particular type of sex be solely indicative of adultery?

This objection seems to me to among the weakest of objections to equal marriage, and that's saying something!

20 May 2013 at 16:51  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Jon,

I think that 'grumpy' Mr David B said he was OK and that he was free of the cancer, a couple of posts back...

But I am confused over some of your post above. When you write about 'sexual fidelity', does that mean that in a marriage (for you) that one does not have to have sexual fidelity or not?

I think the whole matter of adultery is somewhat confused because I think Jesus said if you look at someone and you fancy them that's adultery (guilty as charged for me), whereas I'd say it is some kind of 'physical' sexual act that constitutes for adultery.

For example you fancy or think Mr X is good looking, but he's already spoken for. To Christians that is adultery, but to me it would mean adultery if you had intercourse with Mr X behind the back of his other half.

20 May 2013 at 17:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Hannah; "To Christians that is adultery, but to me it would mean adultery if you had intercourse with Mr X behind the back of his other half."

At the risk of upsetting some prudes, what would you call it if Mr X was caught in a double fellatio situation with Miss Y behind Mrs X's back? Not adultery?

20 May 2013 at 17:27  
Blogger Albert said...

Jon,

I think the point about consummation and adultery is to point out that the present Bill is not promoting equality - there are different (higher) legal standards for heterosexuals in it than for homosexuals. And by the definition of marriage as it currently stands, gay 'marriage' wouldn't be marriage anyway - you're being sold a fraud.

Now you can come along and say we need to redefine marriage so that it does not include the sexual element - but that's a different argument from defending the present Bill on the spurious grounds of equality.

In effect what you would be saying is that marriage should be reduced to Civil Partnership (since it does not require proper (legal) sex). Very likely, that is what will happen anyway, once the equality fanatics notice the inequality. But I think if that is going to happen, that's the discussion we should have on it's own terms, not just end up there by accident. So, as far as I can see, your argument is still an argument against the current Bill.

20 May 2013 at 17:31  
Blogger Albert said...

He can marry you to your boyfriend and Albert and Hannah can be your bridesmaids.

I think wires may have been crossed there (or at least a good attempt a wind up).

20 May 2013 at 17:32  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Albert,

I think it was humour. Such is the 'banter' that flies around here.

20 May 2013 at 17:36  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Danjo,

"At the risk of upsetting some prudes, what would you call it if Mr X was caught in a double fellatio situation with Miss Y behind Mrs X's back? Not adultery?"

I didn't envisage Mr X as a bisexual. I was thinking along the lines of Mr X being in a relationship with Mr Y. Jon (for example) fancies Mr X. or at least appreciates his attributes/personality.

To a Christian that's adultery, as per the words of Jesus (From Matthew chapter something) :

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into hell. If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into hell".

...But to me it would require an action on Mr X's or Jon's part,of some sort to make that into adultery. I guess your example would constitute that.

Incidentally,'The Jeremy Kyle show 'has 2 options on the 'lie detector' test- outright sexual intercourse and 'anything from a passionate kiss to intercourse'. Or something like that.

What do you think?

20 May 2013 at 17:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Actually, I was thinking of a fellatio/cunnilungus pairing but I expect I'll have one or two people clutching their pearls now by saying that. What do I think? I'd have thought that any genital action with someone who is not one's spouse is essentially adultery. Afterall, there can be no mistake what's going on. Kissing is more open to question.

20 May 2013 at 17:54  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Danjo,

I think (a tentative think) that we basically agree then (Quelle Surprise, kill the fat calf etc). I am not sure if this means you'll come out with some kind of 'rabbit out of a hat' argument which crushes a religious view point. But it is mine. Don't ask me for the 'party line' Orthodox Jewish view... Avi or David can tell you that.

20 May 2013 at 18:07  
Blogger Jon said...

Hi Hannah, no, I'm not saying that marriage doesn't have to include fidelity, I'm saying that most people would consider fidelity (i.e. not doing anything dodgy with someone else) more important than avoiding adultery (sticking one's wotsits in someone else's lady garden). Hope that's clear ;-)

Albert, if you're troubled by the higher standards you're being held to, I'll join your campaign to have them made more relevant (as I've pointed out previously, and in this post, were I married to a woman, I would hold her to higher standards than Brother Ivo's jurisprudence would imply, so I wouldn't say that we're proposing a lowering of the standards).



However, if you're after the next frontier of marriage equality, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Support gay marriage, and I'll support your push for adultery to be widened to include a more generous (or parsimonious, depending on your point of view!) interpretation of adultery.

20 May 2013 at 18:08  
Blogger Jon said...

If Naomi et al are swivel- eyed, does this make us tunnel-visioned, Danj0 and Hannah?

#logicproblems.

20 May 2013 at 18:10  
Blogger Peter D said...

Albert

Ironic humour from an opponent of the sham that is homosexual 'marriage'.
Can you imagine the Inspector singing "O Perfect Love" at such a farce?!!!

20 May 2013 at 18:13  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - yes, I can. His rendition of "I am what I am" is soulful indeed.

20 May 2013 at 18:20  
Blogger Peter D said...

Hannah

Let's clear this one up.

Jesus was referring to something more than finding someone attractive or "fancying" them. He meant looking lustfully - a more active encouragement of sexual desire and holding onto it - a craving desire and covetousness.

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

20 May 2013 at 18:22  
Blogger Peter D said...

Jon

Er ... not that pagan hymn to 'self realisation'!

Here are the correct lyrics:

"O perfect Love, all human thought transcending,
Lowly we kneel in prayer before Thy throne,
That theirs may be the love which knows no ending,
Whom Thou forevermore dost join in one.

O perfect Life, be Thou their full assurance,
Of tender charity and steadfast faith,
Of patient hope and quiet, brave endurance,
With childlike trust that fears nor pain nor death.

Grant them the joy which brightens earthly sorrow;
Grant them the peace which calms all earthly strife,
And to life’s day the glorious unknown morrow
That dawns upon eternal love and life.

Hear us, O Father, gracious and forgiving,
Through Jesus Christ, Thy coeternal Word,
Who, with the Holy Ghost, by all things living
Now and to endless ages art adored."


Well worth reflecting on.

20 May 2013 at 18:27  
Blogger Jon said...

I think it's a song about self- reliance. It addresses your constant refrain that gays are mired in self- pity/ loathing/ spiteful lust for vengeance against persecuting straights/ religious types/ parents*

*delete as applicable to ranter.

I am what I am,
I don't want praise I don't want pity,
I bang my own drum,
Some think it's noise I think it's pretty,
And so what if I love each sparkle and each bangle,
Why not try to see things from a different angle?
Your life is a sham,
Till you can shout out,
I am what I am

I am what I am,
And what I am needs no excuses,
I deal my own deck sometimes the ace sometimes the deuces,
It's one life and there's no return and no deposit,
One life so it's time to open up your closet (N.B. Inspector)
Life's not worth a damn till you can shout out -
I am what I am!

20 May 2013 at 18:34  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Hannah,

That quote. The bit about loosing one's 'member' to the fires of hell and cutting off sinful hands etc has me freaked out (although I guess this is just a parable device to emphasize a point, rather than being a literal commandment,which means not to take every word of a holy book literally?).

And INSPECTOR claims that the Jesus of the New Testament is better and more loving deity than the 'Jew Book'?

Confusing or what?

Has he read his own holy book?

PS- yes, yes, I know the New Testament is better discussed by Christians, not by people who don't believe in it.

But, I trust I can still ask the question?Should Christians chop off their own hands if it causes them to sin? Or is this poetic license?

20 May 2013 at 18:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Don’t think the Inspector hasn’t been following this thread, you scoundrels...

He does not sing outside of the shower, and he has never referred to the OT as the ‘Jew Book’

And yes, he reads the NT and the OT, and importantly, relies on a third text to explain what he has read.

{SNORT}

20 May 2013 at 18:45  
Blogger Albert said...

Jon,

I don't think I altogether understand the points you're making. But it seems to me that even if we waive the issue of marriage requiring a man and a woman, gay 'marriage' is still not marriage. Marriage requires more than just two people making a commitment to each other - and yet, for gays, that is all this Bill requires.

Secondly, that position is a lesser requirement than that required of heterosexual couples. I am not for moment worried about the higher standard required for heterosexual couples (the fact that there is a higher standard for straights simply exposes the intellectual confusion of those who argue for so-called "Equal marriage"), I think that higher standard is the very nature of marriage. I simply observe that the Bill as it stands is not equal and that the practical effect of this is likely to be the reduction of proper marriage down to the level of gay 'marriage'.

I've pointed out previously, and in this post, were I married to a woman, I would hold her to higher standards than Brother Ivo's jurisprudence would imply, so I wouldn't say that we're proposing a lowering of the standards

But what you want isn't really the point, it's what you can say in law and what the laws says that matters. There, this Bill clearly lowers the bar so that gays can over it. As you want a higher bar, logically, you should be opposed to this Bill.

Support gay marriage, and I'll support your push for adultery to be widened to include a more generous (or parsimonious, depending on your point of view!) interpretation of adultery.

I just wonder what would count as adultery in your view - legally, I mean? After all, if the Government could have come up with a coherent definition,they would have done. So what do you have in mind?

20 May 2013 at 18:47  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

It amazes me (or perhaps it doesn't) the extent to which this debate has been framed in terms of the convenience of adults at the expense of children. But that is the spirit of the age. People demand freedom from obligation - privilege without responsibility. And they will not be disuaded.

With the flick of a pen, the connection between marriage and children wil be erased. Children will become incidental to marriage and not essential. What then is the natural relationship into which children should be brought? Well, there won't be one. The institution of marriage will no longer instruct those who enter it of their obligation to produce and care for children. Any relationship will thus be a fit environment for children. One parent. Two parents. Whatever. Adults will fit chidlren into their lives if and when they see fit. The freedom of the adult must be maintained.

And if marriage no longer holds children as essential, then what unique essential qualities attach to mother and father except in the strictest biological sense? Does a father contribute anything unique and essential to his children? Is he not simply an alternate caregiver in this new world? Adults are free to produce children in any relationship because children no longer have any reasonable expectation of mother and father and family. There are now only caregivers in any multiple of alternate family situations - each of which is equally viable.

Ah, but we have DNA. As if it matters. What attaches a father to his children in this new world? We already see men fathering multiple chldren by multiple women. If he has no essential role beyond caregiver, then why should he feel the obligation to help? He is simply providing one more pair of hands. Surely he has better things to do than pick up an obligation when the whole world is now structured to allow him to avoid that very obligation.

In this chaos we expect to raise children who will be able to compete in tomorrow's world economy. We expect to raise children who will have the moral focus to sit and learn and concentrate. Meanwhile the Chinese are producing PhD after PhD after PhD. They aren't much possessed of all these liberal ideas. But they understand power - both military and economic. And they are relentlessly pursuing both.

20 May 2013 at 18:49  
Blogger Luther said...

Brother Ivo complains at the lack of logic in the bill - but why only now? The whole thing has lacked logic from the start!

20 May 2013 at 19:02  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Carl

" If he has no essential role beyond caregiver, then why should he feel the obligation to help? He is simply providing one more pair of hands. Surely he has better things to do than pick up an obligation when the whole world is now structured to allow him to avoid that very obligation"

The nub of things as always. Why should males behave as fathers in the Biblical sense when the world undermines you at every turn.

The problem that the feminists have found is that whatever the world says, women want men. Not partners, not fathers, but real men.

The problem is that there are very few Dads who are raising their sons to be men.

Here I think is a role for the Church, show the boys how to be men, women need this help for their sons.

Phil

20 May 2013 at 19:11  
Blogger Owl said...

Marriage is between a man and a women. No more, no less.

Anything else is not a marriage.

You can call it whatever you like, just not a marriage, because it isn't.

Discussion over.

20 May 2013 at 19:15  
Blogger michael north said...


As usual, I understand less than half of the banter on this site.

The whole "equal marriage" issue is founded on a lie. Heterosexual marriage i.e. marriage,for the overwhelming majority of the human race for the overwhelming majority of history,is based on sex. What that involves is implicit in biology, and needs no casuistry to define it.

Homosexual "marriage" is based on masturbation. Today's progressives are too prudish and intellectually dishonest to admit that, so they babble about "love".

20 May 2013 at 19:20  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

This is why I wonder if in fact gay 'marriage' can last. It is part of a very selfish ideology which will not withstand the impoverishment of the West (if it comes). One also wonders what the children who have grown up in this context will think. If they recognise that they have been given a raw deal, that they have been treated as a means to someone else's end, if (as seems possible - at least on the evidence of the Catholic Church) children adopted by gay parents are abused at a higher rate than those adopted by straight couples, then surely all this will collapse. If in the meantime, these laws have resulted in people being persecuted (in the weak sense) for their beliefs (losing jobs etc.) then the backlash will surely come.

To my knowledge, no civilised society has ever survived without privileging the relationship that brings children into the world. It's not just gay 'marriage' but whole selfish attitude to sexuality in general. (Of course, we all know that the real cause of all this is artificial contraception.)

20 May 2013 at 19:23  
Blogger Albert said...

Homosexual "marriage" is based on masturbation.

I fear that may not be entirely true...

20 May 2013 at 19:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Used to be about tolerance, you know. That’s what the homosexuals said in the 1960s. Where’s the tolerance now ? Registrars and soon teachers obliged to sing the praises of a relationship based around two men worshipping each others penis. Why is there no tolerance for THEIR standing ?

20 May 2013 at 19:33  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

It is Danjo who is the one with extremist views here. Also with filthy language, cheap personal shots, and shabby efforts at humour.
Predictably he resorts to the comparison of homosexuals to black people, which is a fallacy. They are not the same sort of category at all. In fact, this is Number 2 on the official list of Gay Myths now circulating on Facebook.
(Number 1 is the notion that people are born gay etc etc)

20 May 2013 at 19:35  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

@ Nick, Roger and Albert: Well said.

20 May 2013 at 19:37  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 May 2013 at 19:37  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Inspector,

OK, I apologise for winding you up.. did you know I am also left handed and therefore 'up there' with bealezebub as well?

20 May 2013 at 19:38  
Blogger LEN said...

The tragedy of the re- writing of moral laws which have stood for Centuries is that boundaries have become blurred( which I am sure is the intention of those whose interests are bound up with the licence to do whatever one wants without restriction.)
There are a Generation growing up today who will find it very difficult to define 'sin' as right become wrong and vice versa.

However God is never surprised or outflanked by the schemes of men.

Psalm 21; Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, “Let us break their chains and throw off their shackles.” The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. He rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying, “I have installed my king on Zion, my holy mountain.” I will proclaim the Lord’s decree:He said to me, “You are my son; today I have become your father. Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will break them with a rod of iron; you will dash them to pieces like pottery.” Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and celebrate his rule with trembling. Kiss his son, or he will be angry and your way will lead to your destruction,for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
.............
As things progress, as man pushes the boundaries ever further,we will start to see God`s judgements fall.


20 May 2013 at 19:42  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

Well said, Owl and Michael as well.

20 May 2013 at 19:45  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Thank you Julia, you are absolutely right.

20 May 2013 at 19:47  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Julia Gasper,

To be fair and there has been clashes with Danjo in the past between me and also my sister, but I can't see that Danjo is any more rude/crude/polemical than any other of the people with robust views here.

20 May 2013 at 19:49  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Carl,

Apart from the chaotic Rousseau-like world that children will be brought up in, what about their absence altogether? Fifty million abortions in America, added to those never existing in the first place, have ensured reliance on immigration, and immigrant fecundity, for an ageing indigenous population.

SSM is a symptom of this wider problem in the West: the child-free pleasure principle that has led to dramatic indigenous population implosions.

The demographics of the future will be interesting: whether the immigrant populations absorb the values of the West and stop breeding, or ignore those values and supplant them. On this, I imagine, the future of SSM depends.

20 May 2013 at 19:50  
Blogger William said...

Jon

"This objection seems to me to among the weakest of objections to equal marriage, and that's saying something!"

So what was amongst the strongest of the objections to "equal" marriage in your opinion?

20 May 2013 at 19:58  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Carl

Your argument was going well, until the last paragraph.

In respect to your last paragraph. As a point of order, I think China's 'one child' policy is hardly an example of Christian virtue. Especially as after child 1, child 2 is aborted (by orders of the state). If child 1 is a girl, then she could get aborted by the parents, as there is a cultural preference for boys. Which is why :

1. China is going to face a demographic shock worse than Europe in 20 years.

2. There is a massive male/female ratio imbalance.

I guess the difference between Europe and China (at present at least) is that China can decide on a compulsory 'breeding' statue.

20 May 2013 at 20:05  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

HI Inspector,

You are such a silly billy sometimes you know.

As a 'confession',I'm left handed as well. Must run in the family... ow how sinful and deformed we are for being left handed....

20 May 2013 at 20:06  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Jon,

Funnily enough, there was a tv show on last night about logic problems with the Irish presenter,Dara O'Briain...

20 May 2013 at 20:09  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Julia Gasper,

I think your take on 'myth number 2' is your own myth actually.

20 May 2013 at 20:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Inspector not really in a joking mood tonight. For our very society’s parameters are about to be changed. And no consideration for types likes registrars who want nothing to do with it due to their convictions. Though no doubt if the registrar was of the muslim faith, one is confident that their career will not be over. You don’t want to upset those fellows, what !

Now, do refresh this man on the startling similarities between todays militant homosexuality and the 1930s NAZI movement...


20 May 2013 at 20:19  
Blogger Preacher said...

To set the record straight. Anyone who personally chooses to reject God's provision for salvation through the sacrifice of the Saviour Jesus Christ, is free to choose to do so & are responsible for their own fate.
But any ruling body be it elected or hereditary, who choose to over rule God's laws, are declaring themselves superior to God. They are rebels & will one day face judgement for their pride & defiance.
History repeatedly tells of many Kings & Kingdoms that are no more, because they challenged God & lost.

20 May 2013 at 20:23  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Comparing SSM and Nazi Germany is well out of order, actually. I oppose SSM, but would think twice before making that comparison.

To answer your statement "the startling similarities between todays militant homosexuality and the 1930s NAZI movement..."

OK, TELL ME :

1.Where are the people cutting grass with their teeth?

2.Where are the Synagogues/Churches/Mosques/Temples being burnt to the ground?

3.Where are the medical experimentation camps?

4.Where are the concentration camps?

5.Where are the gas chambers?

6.Where is the cult of personality?

7.Where is the desire of gays to conquer the world and engulf it in a horrendous 6 years of slaughter?

8.Where are the arrests for Jews,Christians, Muslims JW's, Gays, atheists, socialists etc?

9.Where are the laws forbidding non- gays to own property, run a business or practice professions?

10.Where is the state sanctioned 'boycott' of non-gay business?

11.Where is the enabling act?

12.Where is the denial of free assembly and election of Christians/Jews/ Religious people to Parliament?

Can you answer these, or is it that you don't have a clue about the topic on which you speak?

20 May 2013 at 20:33  
Blogger The Explorer said...

My comment of 19:50 was an over-simplification.

Anyone remember Paul Ehrlich's 'The Population Bomb' (1968)? He said in 1969 it was even money England would not exist by the year 2000: wiped out through famine brought on by the global population explosion.

This prediction probably caused many to think that not having children would be a selfless thing to do. So in a way his prediction came true (think what Britain's population would be without immigration and immigrant breeding) but for the wrong reasons.

20 May 2013 at 20:37  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Hannah

I am NOT saying I agree with this.

But it is an alternative viewpoint.

Some of it at least seems to make sense of the oddly brutal things they did, after all there was no sense in what the Nazis did.

http://www.thepinkswastika.com/6901/index.html

Phil

PS Don't tell Carl he goes ballistic about this book

20 May 2013 at 20:49  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Hannah,

I think Inspector is indeed in one of his joking moods. How else to explain his SSM = Third Reich 1933-1945 meme. If he were serious, well I don't think I could cope for one.

20 May 2013 at 20:58  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 May 2013 at 20:59  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Phil Roberts,

Reading the 'Talmud Unmasked' by Justinas Pranaitis is an 'alternative viewpoint'. But does that make it a valid one?

20 May 2013 at 21:03  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Phil Roberts said...

I do think we need to get things into proportion here.

I read today about a girl called Sharma. She was 7 years old when her family sold her into slavery in SE Asia for £200. He mother had died.

Her job was to sit on the floor and roll 2000 cigarettes a day.

If could not she was beaten. She was a slave.

She could be just as easily have been making my shirt or your socks.

There are big injustices in this world.

SSM is just one of them. I think we need some perspective on this blog sometimes.

Perhaps we need to have equal passion for injustice in all forms.

And Sharma?

She was rescued by this Christian organisation when she was 10 years old, she is now in school.

http://www.ijm.org/

SSM is important.

But many people do not think that God is love, and/or that God cares.

That is after all the whole point of our existence. Did the Gays by the lakeside miss out on Bread and fish? Did the adulterers, the thieves ......or even the fatties?

Phil

20 May 2013 at 21:08  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Brother Luther,

Brother Ivo raised the illogicality of the proposal on jurisprudential grounds before the bill was passed -hence a degree of weariness.

The proponents understand " gay" but neither "marriage",
" institution" nor " " privilege".

The institution of marriage was established as a privilege because within it future generations were best nurtured. Certain advantages social and economic were thus conferred. This is why the present chaos is so foolish. If everyone can have it, it is no longer a special, no longer a " privileged status".

A further interesting anomaly arose from Maria Miller, today. She is anxious to have the Act on the Statute partly so that other countries with whom we have mutual recognitions will have to recognise the status we have enacted.

Would not our Marxist friends and progressive fellow travellers like Mr Cameron have once considered this " cultural imperialism"?

20 May 2013 at 21:14  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi David,

I agree. If Mr Inspector really thought that I'd be gutted and I would loose my soft spot for that right wing, sexist, homophobic and racist guy we all know and love as Mr Inspector...

20 May 2013 at 21:15  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Phil Roberts,

Thank you for the link. I also took the opportunity to look at the alternative of the alternative (Wiki is my friend) :

'Jonathan Zimmerman, an historian at New York University, wrote the claim that gay people helped bring Nazism to Germany "is a flat-out lie."

Zimmerman, points out that "Between 1933 and 1945, the Nazis arrested roughly 100,000 men as homosexuals. Most convicted gays were sent to prison; between 5,000 and 15,000 were interned in concentration camps, where they wore pink triangles to signify their supposed crime.

He further notes, "To win their release from the camps, some gays were forced to undergo castration. Others were mutilated or murdered in so-called medical experiments by Nazi doctors, who insisted that homosexuality was a disease that could be 'cured'." In addition, "Hitler authorized an edict in 1941 prescribing the death penalty for SS and police members found guilty of gay activity."'

20 May 2013 at 21:17  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Phil Roberts,

Indeed I agree there needs to be a sense of proportion.

Which is why comparing SSM to the Nazi regime of Hitler and as a logical consequence the Shoah is just something I'll never buy into and will happily refute.

See my comments above about how the sides on this debate are raising the polemical stakes and are just waving insults and comments around that they just shouldn't.

20 May 2013 at 21:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Hannah, dear thing. The similarity is thus. Bully boy tactics from an aggrieved section of society who will accept no dissent. Now, ask yourself this, does this description match the NAZI movement in the 1930s or militant homosexuality today, or both. The string of situations you so describe came AFTER all opposition was neutered. Who’s to say what will happen to dissenters such as this man, and ironically you, when it becomes ‘uncomfortable’ to criticise the gay lifestyle....

20 May 2013 at 21:25  
Blogger Albert said...

Just listening to the debate in Parliament. Suddenly, all the most unlikely people think marriage is a really good thing. How odd.

20 May 2013 at 21:26  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

Hannah Kavanagh asks:-
Q. Where is the desire of gays to conquer the world?
A. Look around you dear and take off that bandage from your eyes.

Q.Where are the arrests for Jews,Christians, Muslims JW's, Gays, atheists, socialists etc?
A. Many Christians have already been sacked from their jobs or kicked out of entire professions for resisting homo-supremacy. Let's start with Kwabena Peat and Robert Hare - then go over to Christian Voice to find lists of others.

Q. Where are the laws forbidding non-gays to own property, run a business or practice professions?
A. Wherever there are compulsory codes of gay supremacy e.g. you can't run a printing business unless you will print MyGayZine. And wherever teachers, registrars or anybody else is sacked for reasons of conscience viz. here.

Q.Where is the state sanctioned 'boycott' of non-gay business?
A. Let's start with Chick-fil-A shall we? When the LGBT activists picketted and boycotted it, it was told it could not even build an outlet in some cities during 2012. One of its executives died of a heart attack under the stress of public bullying. One of a growing number of examples.

Q.Where is the enabling act?
A. In the ironically-named "Equality" Act 2010 and various other bits of legislation.

Q.Where is the denial of free assembly and election of Christians/Jews/ Religious people to Parliament?
A. Right here in London and in Paris and all over the EU. In London last year members of the Law Society were told that they could not hold a meeting even to discuss redefining marriage, as that was against "diversity" policy. Several online petitions to the UK government, signed by thousands of people, have been deleted and rejected unread because the office handling them said that the subject matter was not in line with its pro-gay policy. In Paris repeated rallies against same-sex marriage have been suppressed with immense brutality, contrary to the laws of free assembly and free speech. Members of all political parties are now told they cannot remain as MPs or candidates unless they subscribe to homo-fascism. Hundreds of thousands of protestors have been gassed by police while many others have been beaten or stabbed by gay hooligans. All this is on photograph and video.

And there is much, much more...

20 May 2013 at 21:39  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

There is zero comparison with this country and Weminar cum Nazi Germany. We are a solid liberal democratic country, whereas the situation you describe was in a context of a defeated and humiliated nation, after 4 years of bloody war, whose economy was in tatters and went over a cliff after the wall street crash. The Nazi party was able, in these circumstances to provide 'evidence' for their narrative of a world wide Jewish conspiracy which stabbed Germany in the back etc.

And as for your question on the 'dissenter', well I'd be there advocating for the right of freedom of speech and for its abuse.

I am prepared to dissent for my religion and take the consequences- Jews have been doing that for 4,000 years. To me arguing against SSM is the same as arguing for Kosher and for male circumcision. I'm prepared to stand by my faith come what may.

Are you?

20 May 2013 at 21:41  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

NB I am sure that HG is far too intelligent to believe that I have any "extreme views". Note that those who make the allegation cannot provide any evidence for it.

20 May 2013 at 22:01  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Julia Gasper,

You haven't quite joined the dots there though. Still no sign of the waffen SS sending people to be gassed... or indeed the arrest of all political opponents. Farage and UKIP aren't all in Gaol and labour camps eh?

Not quite sure if I can be bothered to refute the other points you've made.

20 May 2013 at 22:02  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

What the heck :

1. So ALL gays are hell bent on declaring war on every country, on every continent to achieve a political ideology of a 'master race' and as a consequence slaughter the non-master races?

2. These people are in prison/concentration camps?

3.Oh I can see then. The 1-10% of gays, with government support, are going to bring the economy of the majority to its knees, leading to a reverse Kristallnacht...

4. You do know what the 'enabling act' was in Nazi Germany don't you??!

5. UKIP did well in the local elections and now sit on councils throughout the land (they as a matter of political calculation came out against ssm to attract the old conservative vote). But where are they denied the chance to stand for election? Where are the thugs beating up the UKIP supporters? The electoral fraud? etc etc.

I don't care what your view are on SSM. But please don't compare this issue to Nazi Germany.

20 May 2013 at 22:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Hannah, The comparison between militant homosexuality and the early NAZI movement is based on the same extremism they share. Both are ‘bully boy’, both don’t do compromise, don’t you think ?



20 May 2013 at 22:26  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

HI Inspector,

As said above (in several posts). No, I cannot agree the comparison.

But as we are now in Alice in Wonderland territory, by your definition, isn't the Roman Catholic Church akin to the Nazi party ? Accordingly, both boast and glory in a desire to bully everyone else to their world view and won't compromise ever...

20 May 2013 at 22:37  
Blogger Flossie said...

Tweet from Andrew Neil: Survation poll may be flash in pan or aberration but putting Tories on 24% is a crisis for Cameron -- especially with UKIP on 22%.

20 May 2013 at 22:39  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 May 2013 at 22:44  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

'Atheist on a bike', to use a well known saying. Just finished watching the last episode of Dr Who. Now to me the real mystery of the fields of Transilor, is not the identity of Dr Who, but why oh, why does the arch- socially conservative Jewish DK and family suddenly feel like San Fran beardy weirdy lib dem type liberals on the comments section of the Cranmer blog?

I have to admit as a conservative I do sometimes either want to crawl into a corner with some of the comments here or pull my beard, wobble my big nose and put a curler to my Payot!

Ahhhhhh!!!!!!!!

20 May 2013 at 22:53  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Hannah,

I was going to answer that with a quip, but as I'm trying to be ecumenical/inter faith, respectful et al, I won't.

20 May 2013 at 22:58  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Gaystapo is very apt a name for the militant homosexuals I think. I mean they do even dress up as Nazis a lot as well.

21 May 2013 at 00:18  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 May 2013 at 00:20  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Marie

OK. Well if you did live in a Nazi style regime then you, Julia, Inspector (who would doubtless claim to be a neutral and bugger off back to Ireland and argue how a small country shouldn't fight against such a tyranny) wouldn't be alive to moan about 'gaystapo's'.

I am surprised that so many right wing 'patriots' are prepared to bring SSM and /or the UK down to her possible worst ever foe for the sake of political argument.

Getit yet?

21 May 2013 at 00:25  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi David,

Well who knows. I don't.

On other matters it seems like a big tornado is about to hit Oklahoma. I think that's where Carl Jacobs lives. I pray that his family and Neighbour's will get through OK.

21 May 2013 at 00:26  
Blogger Peter D said...

A dark day.

Not only Common's approval for homosexual 'marriage' but the Church of Scotland's General Assembly has voted to allow actively homosexual men and women to become ministers!

Assembly commissioners voted in favour of allowing 'liberal parishes' (heretical) to opt out of the church's policy (not doctrinal teaching) on homosexuality.

How shameful.

Is this Protestantism and its 'sola' creed and lack of authoritative leadership at its best or at its worst?

21 May 2013 at 00:41  
Blogger Irene's Daughter said...

1Corinthians 6:9 (NIV) Do you not know that the wicked WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This issue is not about what happens between men (or women)in this life - it is about the future destination of their souls. Don't we care that these men and women are doomed to an eternity in hell.

Jesus cares - but He has never offered carte blanche forgiveness. Repentance is a requirement. That means it is necessary for them to stop and seek forgiveness before it is too late.

21 May 2013 at 01:46  
Blogger Hugh Sorrill said...

You religious types apparently think that the only 'proper' sex that can take place is male-female vaginal intercourse within the confines of marriage sanctioned by gods via churches. And you're entitled to your opinions of course but please have a look at another perspective.

Sexual acts between people take place - have always taken place - with or without the benefit of marriage. You can't say that the purpose of marriage is to enable people to have sex. The most you can say in this respect is that it is to enable people to have sex in a way you and those of like mind approve of. (As far as you know, of course. Straight married people have sex in all kinds of ways, I'm led to understand.)

So is the purpose of marriage procreation? Well given the preceding, clearly not. Procreation (being the result of fertile sperm reaching fertile egg, mainly but not always following heterosexual vaginal intercourse) happens with or without a priest's blessing. It just does.

So is the purpose of marriage to provide a stable family within which to bring up children? Yes, partly, but only of course if children are present. In the same way that some children are brought into the world by parents who are not married, some married people don't produce children. Some children are adopted; others arrive through the help of medical science.

But the key phrase here is 'stable family'. Marriage is a relationship sanctioned not only and certainly not exclusively by religions through their churches but also by society through the state. Indeed its legality (rather than its morality) is an object of the state, whether the marriage is religious or civil. The legal and social framework of marriage gives support to couples helping to keep them together, helping define responsibilities to each other, property, inheritance etc and also providing a public recognition of the relationship. And whether children are involved or not, that's a good thing, which is why marriage is special and should be open to all regardless of the gender of participants.

The family is the foundation of the state, they say. I tend to agree. But a family is started, legally, when two people form one. Their family is expanded, not started, when and if children come along.

(Of course families are also started by children arriving to unmarried parents, but the legal family relationship is between the parent and child, rather than between the parents.)

So what out of that sets gay people apart? Absolutely nothing except prejudice/opinion that an intimate relationship between two people of the same sex is somehow worth less than one between people of a different sex. You may hold that opinion from your religious views. I find it irrational and offensive, and all the more offensive because it is so irrational.

(Continued…)

21 May 2013 at 06:12  
Blogger Hugh Sorrill said...

(Continued…)

So what of this adultery question? Legally, adultery is only sexual intercourse - penetrative sexual intercourse - with a person of the opposite gender who isn't your spouse. Difficult to prove as grounds for divorce unless guilty party admits it. Other forms of sexual encounter only count as 'unreasonable behaviour' I understand. (cf Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".) And it's probably some way further along the adultery scale than gazing lustfully on a woman. Unreasonable behaviour is grounds for divorce under the same sex marriage bill.

In any case, I think it gives unreasonable weight to the legal importance of heterosexual vaginal intercourse, unless, Naomi King, heterosexual marriages are ALL about sex.

Gay relationships (AKA "Homosexual perversion" apparently) are not all about sex: you should educate yourself and meet more gay people. It's about who you naturally - I use the word with purpose - are attracted to emotionally and, yes, physically in exactly the same way as straight people.

Most people understand that (not here obviously, with very honourable exceptions) and that is why marriage between people of the same sex, equal in name and responsibilities will happen and sooner rather than later. All marriages, regardless of the gender of those in them, are about trust, about mutual intimate and financial support all within the context of legally recognised relationship.

21 May 2013 at 06:13  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Well said Julia @21:39 and Inspector at @21:25. Hannah you are being understandably very sensitive about the Nazi's.

It felt like waiting for an execution last night. What a dark day for this country. However we are called upon to pray not faint and to be strong in the LORD.

Hannah you are right in your view

"I am prepared to dissent for my religion and take the consequences- Jews have been doing that for 4,000 years. To me arguing against SSM is the same as arguing for Kosher and for male circumcision. I'm prepared to stand by my faith come what may. Are you?"

We are witnessing Satan's attempt to destroy the Judeo-Christian foundations of this land. The marxist/secular/humanist/islamist world view will now seek to do the things that you list.

God is now separating the sheep from the goats. Do we trust Him or the earthly powers (the prince of the earth) ?

The Lords can delay this for 12 months and Cameron's government can fall. Failing which Cameron will use the Parliament Act of 1911 to bring in this legislation, as it has been used to bring in much other promoting homosexual lifestyle legislation in the past.





21 May 2013 at 07:42  
Blogger LEN said...

There are two Kingdoms the Kingdom of God which is Light..and the kingdom of Darkness which is satans.

Both are advancing towards the ultimate collision course.

As the darkness advances the light will shine brighter because the darkness cannot put it out.

We Christians are told to be' salt' and 'light' and not to hide our light but to hold it high that all might see it.

I have read 'The Book 'and despite whatever we go through we (through the Lord Jesus Christ)have the ultimate victory.

“Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord rises upon you. See, darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples,but the Lord rises upon you and his glory appears over you. Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn(Isaiah 60)

21 May 2013 at 08:09  
Blogger Nick said...

The spectacle of DC having his gay "marriage" bill rescued from his own backbenchers by the Labour party spoke volumes to me. He has mangaed to:

(1) alienate Tory voters
(2) alienate supporters of conventional marriage
(3) Insult his own party workers
(4) Expedite the grownth of a rival party
(4) Waste a lot of Parliamentary time on an irrelevant policy instead of fixing the economy
(5) Despite "not doing deals" he's just done one with his arch-enemy


The real queation is "How can there be so much idiocy in one human being?"

Never mind, when the inevitable happens, he'll get a warm welcome in the Labour party - they love a sucker or a traitor

21 May 2013 at 08:12  
Blogger William said...

Len

Amen

21 May 2013 at 08:14  
Blogger Nick said...

Thanks Len for your post just now

we need a bit of context and sanity amongst all this chaos and madness

21 May 2013 at 08:16  
Blogger Naomi King said...



And he said, Hearken ye, all Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem, and thou king Jehoshaphat, Thus saith the LORD unto you, Be not afraid nor dismayed by reason of this great multitude; for the battle is not yours, but God's.

To morrow go ye down against them: behold, they come up by the cliff of Ziz; and ye shall find them at the end of the brook, before the wilderness of Jeruel.

Ye shall not need to fight in this battle: set yourselves, stand ye still, and see the salvation of the LORD with you, O Judah and Jerusalem: fear not, nor be dismayed; to morrow go out against them: for the LORD will be with you.

21 May 2013 at 08:41  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

21 May 2013 at 08:43  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Are we ready for martyrdom friends ? Will we sacrifice ALL for Christ ?

21 May 2013 at 08:44  
Blogger Naomi King said...


The perversion of marriage bill has been imposed on the Tory Party with such absolutism and is the cause of a bitter culture war now. Many people especially see the measure as a deliberate assault on their values: the bill might thus almost have been designed as a recruiting-sergeant for UKIP. For this reason alone, Tory MPs should vote against the bill this evening in good heart. They will certainly grasp that Ministers haven't a clue what the courts will do when they get to work on Equality Act challenges, and that the bill is consequently a threat to religious freedom.

The same-sex marriage bill. bad when it started. Just as bad now. It should be opposed today.

21 May 2013 at 08:50  
Blogger non mouse said...

The shame. The horror.

To think how great Britain has been; and now this.

Meanwhile the traitor slithers on, behind his bullet-proof glass and armour plating - that we pay for - and nobody does a thing about it all.

21 May 2013 at 08:56  
Blogger Albert said...

Hugh,

You religious types apparently think that the only 'proper' sex that can take place is male-female vaginal intercourse within the confines of marriage sanctioned by gods via churches.

No, it follows from natural law and is what the secular law actually says. You don't need to believe in God to see that.

So is the purpose of marriage procreation? Well given the preceding, clearly not.

Again, you don't seem to be understanding the argument you claim to be answering.

So is the purpose of marriage procreation? Well given the preceding, clearly not. Procreation (being the result of fertile sperm reaching fertile egg, mainly but not always following heterosexual vaginal intercourse) happens with or without a priest's blessing. It just does.

You seriously think we don't realise that. That is the very reason we support marriage.

For what it's worth, I'm not going to bother reading any more of your post, since you have thus far just attacked straw men. And this, of course, is indicative of the gay 'marriage' lobby - by failing to answer the arguments against you, you irrationally convince yourselves and others that there is no case to answer.

21 May 2013 at 09:17  
Blogger Nick said...

Albert

This is more than an attack on marriage, it is an attack on many widely-established values of all kinds and on a way of life. it is the beginning of a cultural war

As a nation we are partly to blame for being so polite and passive. We allowed gay adoption (aka state-sponsored child abuse) through with hardly a whisper of dissent.

We are inevitably losing some of our civil liberties as a result of our own passiveness

I am optimistic though, as a "religious type" my faith and hope is in God. My confidence in our Government is zero

21 May 2013 at 09:36  
Blogger Jon said...

Wow - and they call us drama queens!

Unless Naomi and Julia are going to attribute the tornado in Oklahoma to the passage of this bill (which would be to doubt God's aim, in my view!) the sky hasn't yet fallen in.

William, since you ask so nicely, my view is that the best objection to gay marriage as it is currently framed is the possible over-riding of conscientious objection of registrars, with which I am uncomfortable. However, set against the wider liberty that the bill affords, I think this is a smaller thing.

21 May 2013 at 10:10  
Blogger Hugh Sorrill said...

Albert,

I was trying not to be vague but I see it is too easy to misunderstand some of the terms I used. Wilfully?

By 'proper' I mean 'correct/acceptable'. By 'sex' I mean 'sexual acts'. Heterosexual vaginal intercourse is one sexual act. It is by no means the only one: I don't think it stretches the definition too far to include, à la Church of England, other genital acts as sex.

And you're right heterosexual vaginal intercourse is defined in 'secular law' in such matters as consummation. Like DanJ0, I think the concept of consummation is probably outdated now but I'd be interested in why, other than 'tradition', we should keep it.

But natural law? Sexual acts of all kinds are part of human nature; it is all natural. Society, through its secular law, deems a range of sexual acts (such as with those who do not or cannot give consent) unacceptable. The rest, including but not limited to anal sex within or without a marriage, is nothing to do with the law or, with respect, you. No-one wants you to do anything sexually you don't want to do.

These are not straw men. Do you seriously think I don't support marriage? I do. Wholeheartedly. I think it's a great institution that will benefit the same sex couples who enter it as much as it has benefited opposite sex couples over the years. I wish you would read the rest of my post: it explains why.

If from your religion, you think gay people are sinners and their relationships less worthy, etc etc, certainly enough to prevent them from sharing in the institution of marriage, that's fine. But you are so sure in your answer that you're unwilling to devote any serious thought to alternatives. That is a failure of rationality. I'd love to see a really tight argument that doesn't depend on prejudice - including an unshared regard for religious scripture - for its authority.


21 May 2013 at 10:15  
Blogger Naomi King said...


One MP said it was difficult to see how Cameron could turn around his fortunes after a series of setbacks, not helped when he appointed two more Etonians to his inner circle. "What is Cameron going to do? Rescind the Etonian hirings, say I am not a snob? Of course not. This feels terminal. I can't predict how it will happen but it feels like we are nearing the end."

21 May 2013 at 10:19  
Blogger Albert said...

Hugh,

In brief (I'm about to go out), you begin by saying suggesting I have wilfully misunderstood you. But then you actually agree that I was right about secular law. But that means you are now disagreeing as much as me with your original comment. You are therefore seeing that you were wrong to think it all rests on what you had originally characterised as "sanctioned by god". Finally, you conclude that my argument rests on prejudice.

As for your comment about other valid types of sex, I have already addressed that point above, when I said to someone else:

Now you can come along and say we need to redefine marriage so that it does not include the sexual element - but that's a different argument from defending the present Bill on the spurious grounds of equality.

In effect what you would be saying is that marriage should be reduced to Civil Partnership (since it does not require proper (legal) sex). Very likely, that is what will happen anyway, once the equality fanatics notice the inequality. But I think if that is going to happen, that's the discussion we should have on it's own terms, not just end up there by accident.

21 May 2013 at 10:26  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Tories say the atmosphere in the parliamentary party has changed over the past week.

21 May 2013 at 10:30  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Wedding mess
— Tories give PM a kicking on gay marriage
— He's forced into vote deal with Ed Miliband
HUMILIATED David Cameron suffered a kicking from true blue Tories over gay marriage last night.
The PM was forced to grab a lifeline from Ed Miliband to make sure the move was not booted into the long grass.
In return he had to accept Labour’s demand for an immediate review of civil partnerships — rather than in five years as he had planned.

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4935979/tories-gay-marriage-bill-revolt.html#ixzz2Tuz30rD4

21 May 2013 at 10:34  
Blogger Nick said...

Naomi

As I said, how could one human being display so much stupidity!

21 May 2013 at 10:36  
Blogger William said...

Marriage still describes the best way to have and raise children (for both parents and children). Hence, it is a sexual (as in sexual intercourse) relationship. Hence, it has consummation and adultery. Hence, Equal marriage does not describe the best way to have and raise children. Hence, we are losing something very important in this redefining bill.

That is my main objection. It has nothing to do with homosexuality.

21 May 2013 at 10:47  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Hannah @ 00:25 21st May 13

Oh! I get it, but you don't or wont. Can't you see Hannah that by ramming through parliament at break neck speed the SSM Bill is not only disregarding and trampling on God's words and stomping on most religions, it shows that homosexuals have little regard for anyone else but themselves. There hasn't been any time to discuss what sort of a society we want to live in and the dangers of totally changing society into a Brave New World driven by science. We are only now just seeing the results of children brought up in single parent families and it doesn't look too good. His Grace tweeted this really interesting link which makes thoughtful reading.

http://www.marriageresourcesforclergy.com/site/Articles/articles025.htm

What makes us think we can just overthrow the natural order of things on a whim?

I'm not lowering SSM/UK down to Nazi dictator level, militant homosexuals are doing this themselves. Go join the gay pride marches and see for yourself.
And it's funny how people like you label anyone with common-sense values that are contrary to your own as right-wing, patriots and other such labels that are associated with extreme views.

21 May 2013 at 11:23  
Blogger Hugh Sorrill said...

Ah Albert,

Do not take agreement on one point of fact to mean that I accept your line of argument.

However, regardless of what the law actually says, in practice the validation of a marriage only by whether heterosexual vaginal intercourse has taken place is problematic. I wonder how much weight it has in courts these days. Many women have sex before they marry (oh the horror!) so a ruptured hymen in such cases constitutes no kind of proof if one party swears before the law that intercourse has taken place and another swears it hasn't. Can the family of a man who marries on his deathbed have the marriage automatically annulled for non-consummation and grab the inheritance from the new wife? If one or both partners are disabled such that sex is an impossibility, is their marriage not valid?

You're right (an agreement again, but be warned it's only on a small issue) that it is a separate (if related) matter to clarify the law on consummation. It would just one more way in which over the years the definition of marriage has changed (in addition to permanency, kinship and authority). But it still does not militate against the substantive point. Marriage, as I wrote in my earlier post, is about much more than one sexual act. To reduce it to such is to fail to understand marriage in all its glorious complexity. My point was and remains that what makes a marriage a marriage is available to everyone no matter the sex of their partner, and as such is worthy of societal support, encouragement and recognition.



21 May 2013 at 11:42  
Blogger Hugh Sorrill said...

William,

Not all marriages result in children. Hence the rest of the argument falls.

Whether those families with children (however they arrive) should have married parents is a separate question. It's probably the case at a general level, although I can think of plenty of examples of happy, well-adjusted children being brought in up families that are differently constituted.

21 May 2013 at 11:48  
Blogger William said...

Hugh

"Not all marriages result in children. Hence the rest of the argument falls."

Not all democracies end with good government, yet one can still say that democracy is the best way to get good government. My argument stands. You have not followed it.

Real marriage describes the best way to have and raise children. SSM does not. SSM is another way to raise children, but it is not the best and it cannot produce them.

We are losing something precious in this merger of inequivalences.

21 May 2013 at 12:24  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Marie,

Re-read the thread and you will note that several times I have stated I am against SSM. If you also re-read the thread, you will see I am objecting to the comparison of gay people to the Nazis regime, which to me is an inappropriate and false comparison as I've outlined above.

21 May 2013 at 12:27  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Hugh

The best reason for marriage as a Christian is that traditional marriage mirrors the connection between God and his people. He created men and women for this purpose.

Same sex relationships are condemned in the Bible and Jesus reemphasized traditional marriage between one man and one woman as God's plan for us.

Any other relationship, Poly/gay/open etc is essentially a selfish one where the participants pleasure takes precedence over God.

Just because man finds something pleasurable does not make it good.

Phil

21 May 2013 at 12:43  
Blogger Nick said...

Hannah

I think you'll find that the comparison was made between the more militant gay activists and the Nazis.

What did the Nazis stand for? Amongst other things, they stood for suppression of free speech, the imposition of their own values on everybody with no question of tolerance, persecution of non-compliants (redundancy, pay cuts, loss of rights), and the brainwashing of the population.

I think with many gay activists (aided and abetted by government, both national and local) the comparison stands

21 May 2013 at 12:45  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Nick,

No, sorry , it does not stand. The Nazi party in Germany 1933 to 1945 did far worse things than the list you've rattled off there.

21 May 2013 at 13:04  
Blogger John Thomas said...

"Gay marriage brings gay supremacy; not equality" - Yes, of course, obviously ... Do you mean to tell us that anyone really thought it was only ever about just "equality"? No organisation, group, race, religion, etc., etc. that has been supressed or persecuted is ever satisfied with just getting toleration, equality, etc. (Just look at the history of the Christian Church ...)

21 May 2013 at 14:30  
Blogger Albert said...

Hugh,

Do not take agreement on one point of fact to mean that I accept your line of argument.

I never said that you did. You said:

You religious types apparently think that the only 'proper' sex that can take place is male-female vaginal intercourse within the confines of marriage sanctioned by gods via churches.

I observed that this was demonstrably false. I did so by appealing to the law, and you subsequently agreed with me. Therefore, your original claim was false, that is all. But as your position started with a false premise, it is ironic that you ended up accusing supporters of proper marriage of prejudice. In my experience, the idea that religious people only think moral goodness rest son the commands of God is itself a prejudice, held very often by secularists, who, in making this mistake fail to hear the argument that is actually being made.

Had I more time I could have added that your point about natural law is also changing the subject. For the issue is not whether you think natural law works but whether someone else (who does not believe in God, say) does. Personally, I don't think utilitarianism works, but that does not entitle me to impugn the sincerity of someone who appeals to such theories to develop their moral view point. Moreover, someone who follows natural law theory, is unlikely to be troubled by your arguments. Therefore, again, you were wrong to claim proper marriage requires sanction of a deity. Someone a theists or not, could quite easily be opposed to gay 'marriage' on the grounds of natural law.

As for the legal issues you've raised, I don't know the answer in detail. I know that consummation is part of the law for a reason and I know that, contrary to what you imply, this part of the law is applied to this day, exactly as it says. I know of examples of people who have appealed to that element of the law (the composer John Tavener, for example). A local Anglican clergyman told me he has come across two cases of marriages which were annulled in state law on those grounds. So again, we need to have these matters clarified in the light of equality legislation before we allow this Bill to pass. This should be discussed first.

Marriage, as I wrote in my earlier post, is about much more than one sexual act.

Surely, you don't think anyone here disagrees with that, do you? I am married, of course I know that marriage is more than one sexual act. But I also know that it is not less than that either.

21 May 2013 at 14:39  
Blogger Hugh Sorrill said...

William,

I’m sorry, I disagree with your reasoning in both posts. Your ‘hences’ are non sequiturs.

Marriage, as I acknowledged, may well tend to be the ‘best way to have and raise children’, although there are some caveats to that. But that statement does not entail that marriage is FOR having and raising children. Marriage is FOR mutual, emotional, intimate and financial support between two adults, in a relationship recognised by the state, which then (if they come along, however they come along) helps in the raising of children. Sex, where this is possible, exclusively with each other is an understood part of the deal. Going elsewhere for the intimate support is a no-no.

You’re right; it has nothing to do with homosexuality. There is not enough information to suggest that children raised by same-sex parents in a stable loving relationship are any different, suffer any disadvantage, compared to those raised by opposite-sex parents in a stable loving relationship.

There is certainly a mass of evidence of harm to children from broken or otherwise dysfunctional families. But here are those caveats: sometimes, in an abusive household, or one being twisted by alcoholism say, ‘real marriage’ as you would have it is not the best way to have or raise children. Some married people can’t have children: does adoption make their marriage less real? Some don’t want children: is their marriage less real? Real is what this world is, and it never has and never will never live up to the notion of the ‘ideal’, whatever that may be.

PS Not all good governments result from democracy. Not that ‘real’ democracy exists anywhere anyway…

21 May 2013 at 16:03  
Blogger Hugh Sorrill said...

Phil

I respect your position. I really do. You are drawing your argument from your religious beliefs, and that’s fine. However I don’t share your beliefs and I do not accept your argument. The general thrust of this site notwithstanding, most people don’t.

Weight of numbers should not, of course, outmatch weight of argument. Good arguments win out: that is the position that we in the gay mafia/gaystapo/depraved depths/enlightened uplands (delete as appropriate) have been working towards these many years, fighting for our voices to be heard, our lives and loves to be respected, acknowledged and soon, at last, to have equality under the law.

You won’t see it from the same point of view of course; all I would say is that equal marriage in no way prevents you or others enjoying a marriage in which duty to your god supersedes your pleasure in it. As you see fit.

21 May 2013 at 16:32  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Hannah
The violent atrocity elements haven't surfaced yet but they will given enough time and space.
And how long before Christian teachers get flung in jail for voicing their opinions on traditional marriage to their pupils?

21 May 2013 at 17:06  
Blogger Gaystapo Jew said...

Marie,

Indeed ya! Veee Hav veys of making u talk! This begins the Gaystapo Reich! Vee wilt imprison the bigots, shoot the traitors and anihalate the hetroxeuals!

Or when we are not in wonderland....

21 May 2013 at 17:15  
Blogger William said...

Hugh

Goodness.

"Marriage, as I acknowledged, may well tend to be the ‘best way to have and raise children’"

Excellent!

"... although there are some caveats to that. But that statement does not entail that marriage is FOR having and raising children."

I did not say, nor do I think that I implied, that marriage is only FOR having and raising children.

"There is not enough information to suggest that children raised by same-sex parents in a stable loving relationship are any different, suffer any disadvantage, compared to those raised by opposite-sex parents in a stable loving relationship."

If you really believe that, then let's try a thought experiment. Imagine you had to place a child with a couple and you had a choice of three married couples. Each couple being in a stable, loving relationship. Which couple would you choose?

A) The child's mother and father.
B) An opposite-sex couple unrelated to the child.
C) A same-sex couple unrelated to the child.

I would choose couple A. That's what real marriage promotes too. I would also choose B over C, all things being equal, because I believe that men and women can bring different attributes to parenting, as well as providing examples of maleness and femaleness for the child.

"sometimes, in an abusive household, or one being twisted by alcoholism say, ‘real marriage’ as you would have it is not the best way to have or raise children."

Somtimes in a democracy you get crappy government. That doesn't change my argument. By the way, abuse is grounds for divorce in a 'real marriage'.

"Some married people can’t have children: does adoption make their marriage less real?" No, and that is a straw man.

"Some don’t want children: is their marriage less real?" No, and that is another straw man.

"Real is what this world is ..."

I use the term "real marriage" to distinguish, the now put upon noun, marriage from "equal marriage". It is also better than "traditional marriage" because that term just implies a tradition wheras "real marriage" points toward the sexual, biological, social, familial, spiritual and complementary attributes of marriage (as currently defined).

"... and it never has and never will never live up to the notion of the ‘ideal’, whatever that may be."

Here's an example of an ideal: Children conceived and raised by their mother and father in a stable, loving relationship. Can you think of a more ideal way to raise kids?

"PS Not all good governments result from democracy.

True, but that does NOT mean that what we used to call a benign dictatorship should now be called a democracy just because some dictator thinks that his equal rights are being violated !!!!

21 May 2013 at 17:34  
Blogger Gaystapo Jew said...

Wilhelm!

You wilt be silent! The gaystapo has spoken! The Gass chamber wilt await you tomrrow! Old Bean...

21 May 2013 at 17:35  
Blogger HK said...

ps- that was of course me, Hannah. Just getting you used to a fascist regime. Which we have apparently become in the past 24 hours....

21 May 2013 at 17:37  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Hugh

The basic problem many of us have with the "respect" shown so far to religious belief is that in reality there is anything but respect shown.

Tolerance of data submitted by Christians that oppose the current norms is repeatedly vilified and the mere presentation/reinterpretation of contrary data to current "wisdom" (Note data not just a point of view) is often sufficient to get the Christian removed from a position of influence or worse.

Christians see an Orwellian "Thought Police" reality developing rapidly in society. Increasingly, no respect is shown for Christians that oppose current orthodoxy. This would lead me to surmise that the actual position that is currently in vogue is weak and can only be sustained by stifling opposition and removing Christians that are positions of influence.

In short Hugh, I fail to see evidence of the sort of tolerance society emerging that we are constantly told is the end game in all of this.

The evidence is quite the reverse -- Alternative views are increasingly only tolerated as long as the basic premises that underpin what, you say the majority, believe are not challenged.

Phil







21 May 2013 at 17:40  
Blogger michael north said...


Hugh Sorrill @ 16.03

An institution we would recognise as marriage has existed since before anything we would call a state. It is based on the elemental fact of sexual difference and what results from that difference i.e. children, who need protection until they can play a useful part in society.

Two men can hump each other's arses till the the sun goes cold; neither will ever become pregnant. The vast majority of the human race have been more concerned with potentially fruitful use of human genitalia. That's how boring old sexist marriage came about.

Google Robert Oscar Lopez for first-hand evidence about "gay parenting".

21 May 2013 at 17:41  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Phil

he goes ballistic about this book

That is because 'Pink Swastika' is an execrable book. It's alleges itself to be history but in fact it's a bunch of heresay and innuendo and willful ignorance of Nazi party ideology. Stuff like "My cousin met a guy once who talked to a propreiter who said Hitler once shared a hotel room with anohther man. Ergo, Hitler was homosexual!" isn't history. It isn't argument. It's just dirt ignorant.

If you are going to say the Nzai party was a secret cabal of homosexuals, you might as well go all the way and say the Nazi patry was a secret cabal of Jews. It makes just as much sense.

carl

21 May 2013 at 17:56  
Blogger Hugh Sorrill said...

Albert,

I am willing to accept that not all religious types think about proper sex only in terms as I described; many have a more nuanced view, perhaps accepting civil marriages. There are plenty who do take the more fundamental position, however, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church, tons of protestants, not to mention significant sects within Islam and Judaism.

Hell, I’m willing to accept that not all religious types derive their sense of moral goodness exclusively from their scriptures or dogma – although appeals to biblical ‘authority’ are much in evidence in this thread. The thought that they might look to human experience for understanding of the human condition, rather than selective interpretations of fairy tales, is a cheering thought indeed.

Even with those concessions, the religious objections to homosexuality and therefore necessarily to same-sex marriage are still the principal ones being aired here and elsewhere. I have not yet heard an argument against same-sex marriage based on anything other than religiosity or some ill-defined sense of “ugh, that’s a bit icky, I wouldn’t want to do it”. None so far is good enough to win the argument, I’m glad to say.

In one of your responses to a point, you said that “it follows from natural law”, by which I take you to mean male-female vaginal intercourse? Well I can certainly agree it’s entirely natural for most people, the result of a whole range of psychological and hormonal urges. For some others, those urges direct them to people of the same sex, equally naturally.

The law bit, however, is entirely a human imposition. Marriages, even religious ones, are societal constructs. Society can and does change the structure of marriage to fit the prevailing sense of morality. We are undergoing such a change now.

21 May 2013 at 18:01  
Blogger Albert said...

Hugh,

My contention is, that from the first, your posts have been riddled with uninformed misunderstandings about the positions you are attacking.

It seems to me that admissions that your original post was wrong are flooding through faster than water through the Möhne dam. The fact that you are now trying to plug the gaps with (predictable) abuse, does nothing to improve your position. We would of course, expect nothing less from people who defend the kinds of views you do.

Perhaps under these circumstances, you should ask yourself if you really understand the nature of the discussion. Your understanding of "nature" in the sense of "natural law" is way out.

I have not yet heard an argument against same-sex marriage based on anything other than religiosity or some ill-defined sense of “ugh, that’s a bit icky, I wouldn’t want to do it”.

That is absolutely extraordinary. Look at William's posts to you. You can disagree with him of course, but you cannot truthfully characterise them in the way that you have. Moreover, thinking you have answered him just because you pick at exceptions is just confused. All laws have exceptions, that does not make them irrational. If you support gay 'marriage' you will have exceptions there two - only these are so obvious and so contrary to the stated aims of marriage (even the aims of those who support the innovation) that one wonders how anyone can support it.

None so far is good enough to win the argument, I’m glad to say.

And there you've given the game away. You don't want there to be a good argument against gay 'marriage'. For you, the matter is decided in advance of the argument. Of course, if that is the case, you can hardly claim to be coming at this in a dispassionate way to find the truth.

21 May 2013 at 18:14  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

HI Carl,

There are people who DO actually believe that the Nazis were a product of a secret cabal of Jews, as shown by multiple conspiracy theory websites.

21 May 2013 at 18:27  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! Imagine our consternation at Matins this morning when the West Door of Barchester Cathedral burst open and a gaggle of rainbow-bannered activists interrupted Dean Trefoil's sermon shouting, 'What do we want? Gay Marriage! When do we want it? Now!' It was only when I readjusted my pince-nez that I recognised the old gentlemen of Hiram's Hospital, led by Mr. Bunce. 'What is the meaning of this?' I demanded, looking Bunce straight in the eye. He repeated his demand, though having the good grace to blush. 'What on earth for?' I asked, 'None of you are posteriorly-inclined.' Bunce shuffled his feet. 'Indeed not Ma'am, but there's nothing much to do in the evenings at Hiram's, so we thought we'd take up a new hobby.' I was aghast. 'A new hobby? Sodomy is not the same as stamp collecting Bunce! Get a grip man for goodness sake!' Bunce drew himself up to his full height. 'No Ma'am, protesting is our new hobby - everyone is doing it these days if they're not trying to get onto reality television. That nice Mr. Slope gave us these pretty flags and said the Church of England would welcome us with open arms, so here we are.' Then I noticed a shadowy figure dart swiftly into the Chapel of St. Margaret of Grantham making a getaway: clearly I will have to deal with my Lord's Chaplain...

21 May 2013 at 18:28  
Blogger michael north said...


Albert @ 18.14

Beat the dust from your shoes.

21 May 2013 at 19:33  
Blogger Naomi King said...


MPs vote 400 to 175 to pass same-sex marriage bill at 7.15 pm tonight.

21 May 2013 at 19:43  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Apologies the numbers are MPs have voted 366 – 161 giving it a majority of 205.

21 May 2013 at 20:09  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

" Sodomy is not the same as stamp collecting Bunce!" It will be soon...something to wile away the time on a wet Sunday afternoon LOL

22 May 2013 at 01:42  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 May 2013 at 03:02  
Blogger non mouse said...

How lucky Barchester is --- to say nothing of Mr. Slope's good fortune. That Mrs. Proudie is so refreshing!

22 May 2013 at 03:02  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Mrs Proudie of Barchester

Brilliant!

Phil

23 May 2013 at 14:17  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 May 2013 at 13:39  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! Hoe kind, dear friends...forgive the tardy response but I have been visiting Mrs. Quiverfull in Hogglestock to put some vim and vigour into the local WI.

24 May 2013 at 19:45  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Of course that should read 'How kind...'

24 May 2013 at 19:46  
Blogger Tony Aster said...

After reading Carl's comments (above) on The Pink Swastika I went away and read the book to check what he was saying. His comments are rubbish, in fact I very much doubt if he has read the book he attacks so contemptuously.
Yes, the book does contain a chapter called "Was Hitler a Homosexual?" (note, this is a question). It then goes on to offer 24 pieces of evidence from independent sources, corroborating each other, over a period of about thirty years. Many of them are eye-witness accounts and they come from so many different sources that to ignore them would be stupid. None of the sources had any motive to lie. The rest of this book is based on a wide range of solid evidence.
It seems to me that the person who is "dirt ignorant" is Carl.
I also looked up Jonathan Zimmerman. It turns out that he is no expert on WW2 history. He has never written any books or articles on it. Not even a thesis. He brings no evidence to support his claims. Could he be just another mad queer spewing out fantasies?...

25 May 2013 at 10:59  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older