Sunday, April 11, 2010

The Conservative plan to erase criminal records for convicted homosexuals

There was a thread yesterday on ConservativeHome which was closed down.

It dealt with David Cameron’s ‘heart and soul’ commitment to gay equality. Cranmer received two requests from communicants to contribute, but he passively demurred. Tim Montgomerie perceived that the thread was being used to attack the Conservative Party, and (this being a sensitive time) he decided to limit that damage.

It is not Cranmer’s intention to offer succour to Labour trolls, or to damage the Conservative Party. But there are one or two things which require a little examination in the never-ending quest for ‘gay equality’. And the Conservative Party is still a ‘broad church’, even in an age in which it is becoming shameful for people in public life to admit that they are a member of any church.

It would be invidious, indeed, despotic, to legislate and then seek to apply statutory provisions retrospectively, thereby criminalising those who were obeying the law at the time. If you were driving along a road at 50 miles an hour quite legally, but the limit were made 30 the following day, you would hardly expect to receive a speeding ticket (this has been the principal defence of many MPs who have been forced to pay back £1000s of expenses which were legitimate and perfectly legal when they were claimed).

Equally so, The Conservative proposal to amend criminal records for gays retrospectively – the state thereby permitting what it once prohibited – is of a questionable moral provenance.

This is not a matter of sexuality, and neither should the comment thread be overly concerned with the matter: the more important issue is using contemporary permission to negate historic prohibition.

Where does that end?

If Parliament today disestablished the Church of England, does it simultaneously pardon Sir Thomas More?

If Parliament today once again permitted the people to own handguns (or, in the words of the Bill of Rights 1689, ‘that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law’), should those who have been criminalised since 1997 be pardoned and no longer have disclose a firearms offence?

If Parliament acknowledges today that a tax was unjust (which may be implied even by its repeal), are convicted tax evaders to be purged of their criminal records? How many were incarcerated for non-payment of the ‘Poll Tax’?

Perhaps more apposite in the context of Mr Cameron’s proposals, what if the age of consent were subsequently lowered to 14 by Act of Parliament for both heterosexual and homosexual sex?

Doubtless, at some point, it will be ‘harmonised’ across the ‘single legal area’ of the European Union, and it is hardly likely to be standardised upwards. The age of consent varies considerably across Europe: in Spain is just 13; in the Vatican State it is 12 (being Wikipedia, this is perhaps a 'joke' entry, though it would explain one or two things [or is it 3000?]). In Malta, the age of consent is set at 18.

This means there is no EU definition of what constitutes pederasty.

Mr Cameron has specified that he would allow men with convictions for consensual gay sex to have them omitted from their Criminal Records Bureau certificate. The move would only apply to convictions that are no longer illegal – so it would not apply to convictions for sex with somebody aged under 16.

But why not? If the age of consent is so variable - set, it appears, contrary to God and nature at the whim of a national parliament - why should the quashing of convictions (for that is what it amounts to) cease at the arbitrary threshold of 16?

If the age of consent were to be lowered at some point in the future (as it most assuredly will be), why then should those with a conviction for pederasty not also then justly demand the retrospective application of the new law, thus eradicating their criminal record and life-long shame of having to declare that they were convicted of under-age sex?

The Conservatives propose to amend the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 in order that people convicted of consensual gay sex with over-16s would not need to disclose this when applying for jobs.

But the age of consensual gay sex has not always been 16. It was, initially, illegal at any age. Then it was 21, then 18, and (under EU anti-discrimination provision), ‘harmonised’ with the age of consensual heterosexual sex at 16.

If the Conservatives seek now to consensualise that which the law said could not be consensual at the time of the act, there is no logical end to the erasing of criminal records.

Rape, by definition, is never consensual. Under-age sex is, by definition, rape, since the victim was not of an age to grant consent. Are we not in danger of retrospectively pardoning rapists?

The bizarre thing is that this is being done to permit these men to obtain clean CRB checks.

Surely, if they were prepared to break the law in order to indulge in what the law then defined as a sexual perversion, we learn something not only of their private morality but of their contempt for the public law.

What it that makes these people suddenly fit to work with children?

90 Comments:

Anonymous Stuart said...

Gosh this is concerning...

11 April 2010 at 10:56  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

As I think I have pointed out before, Blue Labour/New labour, no real changes in social policy. No party has the courage to make correct moral judgements.

11 April 2010 at 11:02  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Surely His Grace can understand that the key word here is 'Consensual'.

If it now seen to be, that that law was broken but the stigma and repercussions remain, to continue to discriminate against the individual is equally and morally unjust.

The churches have a dreadful record of inflicting atrocious acts against the person that they now no longer regard with the same enthusiasm.

The Christian Church's obsession with sex, sexuality and sexual activity is frighteningly juvenile and its about time they grew out of it.

11 April 2010 at 11:07  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Cranmer said.....
Rape, by definition, is never consensual. Under-age sex is, by definition, rape, since the victim was not of an age to grant consent. Are we not in danger of retrospectively pardoning rapists?

The bizarre thing is that this is being done to permit these men to obtain clean CRB checks.

Surely, if they were prepared to break the law in order to indulge in what the law then defined as a sexual perversion, we learn something not only of their private morality but of their contempt for the public law. What it that makes these people suddenly fit to work with children?

This really is the most ignorant comment. To assume that the majority of homosexuals prey on the under aged betrays your bigotry. Gays are no more likely than straight men to find children irresistibly attractive.

Of course they should have their CRB record deleted if they have not contravened a current law. The obsession with homosexuality that is manifest in so many posts here is deeply worrying.

11 April 2010 at 11:35  
Blogger Dominic Mary said...

I'm not quite sure where you get the information that the age of consent in the Vatican City State is 12.

There are, of course, no minors who are citizens of the Vatican City State; and as sexual activity can only take place within marriage, one would expect the 'age of consent' to be that set out in Canon 1083 for marriage : 16 for men, and 14 for women.

If you have authority for any other figure, please cite it; otherwise, please correct your assertion.

11 April 2010 at 11:36  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"Surely His Grace can understand that the key word here is 'Consensual'."

Mr Dreadnaught,

Indeed he can. It is for that reason that he deployed the word no fewer than 12 times in the article.

You, however, appear to be oblivious to the deeper issue.

11 April 2010 at 11:36  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

*sigh*

Dominic Mary,

The source is hyper-linked.

It is, however, Wikipedia, and may be something of a vandalised 'joke' entry. It does not, however, negate the main point.

11 April 2010 at 11:38  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr/Miss/Miss/Ms Dominic Mary,

His Grace has clarifed this in the text of his post.

But the fact that you cite an unequal age of consent according to Canon Law corroborates His Grace's point in any case.

11 April 2010 at 11:47  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Your Grace, I do indeed see the 'deeper issue' but not with the jaundiced eyes of religious bigotry.

11 April 2010 at 11:53  
Blogger Ronald said...

If it was decided that a tax had been unfair could we get our money back?

11 April 2010 at 12:07  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Good point well made Cranny. Though what are we to say of those executed for cowardice in the Great War; those who were not cowards, but were suffering from shell-shock?

'The Christian Church's obsession with sex, sexuality and sexual activity is frighteningly juvenile and its about time they grew out of it.'

Dreadnaught you should know that sex and sexuality have only ever been considered part of a wider view on morality. Your mistaken assertion is down to the constant questioning of it by various homosexual and 'sexual liberation' groups. If the Church keeps having to answer questions on its opinion, then of course it'll start sounding like it's obsessed (even though it's the pressure groups themselves who are obsessed).

Here's a question for you. Do you believe that the current laws and current morality are absolute? Therefore do you believe that all Britons throughout history should be condemned or pardoned based on the current law?

For Y.G. should we judge people throughout history based on the law of the time, even if that law was antithetical to Christian morality? If so, then would you not agree that your execution and that of St. Thomas More was just?

Surely, as Christians, we should judge history from an objective and absolute moral point of view, and not through the eyes of man-made law.

As a believer in relative morality, Dreadnaught, I have no idea how you could possibly pick and choose which laws throughout history are just and which aren't.

11 April 2010 at 12:21  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dreadnaught,

Could you please explain to His Grace (and, indeed, to his other readers and comminicants) how your assertion that religious belief is 'jaundiced' does not itself constitute bigotry.

The word is a cheap ad hominem jibe, invariably deployed by those who cannot engage with the deeper issue, which, it is to be noted, you still have not done.

11 April 2010 at 12:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

You wrote:

'The bizarre thing is that this is being done to permit these men to obtain clean CRB checks.'

This is also the next step in facilitating 'Man-boy sex' as the homosexuals desire. This is why they are suing the Boy Scout movement in America on the ground of discrimination. They want access to our children.

Cameron is behaving like New Labour - not interested in thinking through where his government's actions are going to lead.

Sodom and Gomorrah.

Judgment.

11 April 2010 at 12:42  
Anonymous len said...

When man rejected God and decided to make up his own version of what man considered to be moral(everyone doing what was right in his own eyes) we started on a downhill slide.
With no absolutes to guide him man (who inherited a fallen nature)made his ' moral law' to line up more and more with his fallen nature.
Mankind is trapped in his fallen nature unable to escape from it the only way out is for Jesus Christ redeemer our redeemer to rescue him.
Merely to sit back and say "this is me, this is my condition, I must accept it and get others to accept it" is to either reject or to be totally unaware of Gods offer of spiritual re-birth .


Those who are born once will die twice, those who born twice will only die once. Christ offers the new birth to all, so no one will have to die spiritually, nor physically permanently. He offers a rebirth in Spirit for restoring our broken relationship with God because of sin and he offers a new body at the resurrection.

11 April 2010 at 12:58  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Sexual deviants can alter their birth certificates too.

All predicted by Mr Orwell, but he was out by about 20 years. Thought crimes, newspeak and now the "rectifiers" from the "ministry of truth". 1984 should really be canonised.

I wonder if the hetrosexual gentleman I know who I had to refuse as a volunteer because he had consensual relationships with a member of the opposite sex when she was aged 17 (he later married her!) will also be able to have his record "rectified". No, I doubt it too.

Retrobate minds.

11 April 2010 at 13:17  
Anonymous Stewart Cowan said...

Your Grace,

I think I may have been the main spanner in the works. But a Labour troll? Certainly not: http://www.thelabourparty.org/ (my old attack blog).

I tried to help them see that the country doesn't need Cameron's wet lettuce liberal 'values'.

Many of my comments were removed, without even the courtesy of it being recognised more than once.

One comment which was removed was my reply to being asked who I would vote for. I said I would probably spoil my ballot paper and that "I would not be voting BNP, sorry!" (another cheap-shot accusation).

I guess Mr Montgomerie perhaps wanted the others to think I was BNP? Surely not?

11 April 2010 at 13:19  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Your Grace, I used the word 'jaundiced' in the metaphorical medical context where a useful organ backed up with toxants and failing due to processing the unwelcome matter.

The unwelcome matter in the sense of my use of such, being the persistent, dogmatic ambivalence of religionists to force their opinions, through a warped undemocratic logic into the private matters of individuals.

Retrospective amendment to the indefinite repercussions of an outdated and revised law is surely a welcome move. Subsequent to a more enlightened approach of freedom of the individual, and in particular, in the matter of age of consent, is the need for fairness and consistency.

Your Grace comments:-
...there is no logical end to the erasing of criminal records...

Of course there is. We no longer perpetually demonise the Russsian German or Japanese nations as hate figures as we once did or ban their citizens from our shores. We have moved on.

Were the Suffragettes truly guilty when they broke the law to highlight the injustice that denied women voting rights? - As I said before and around which you skirted - the Church no longer burns dissenters at the stake - How do you feel about your own treatment by the law of your time - Saint or Sinner? Do you prefer we return to that period because at one time it was 'legal' do do so. This is temporal law. We are not nor ever will be a Theocracy. If retribution is due, then according to your doctrine it shall be not in this earthly life, so why not leave it at that?

Who was it that said 'the Law Sir, is an Ass'.

Failing to reject bad law is far worse than simply making bad law.

11 April 2010 at 13:32  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

The bible says...
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
Leviticus 20:13

Silly me! As an atheist I forgot that you have an invaluable moral authority to guide you.

11 April 2010 at 13:33  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr/Miss/Miss/Ms Dominic Mary,

A further thought on this is that you appear to be conflating the Holy See with the Vatican City: they are not synonymous.

His Grace will, however, leave his amended wording since Wikipedia cannot be taken as authoritative.

11 April 2010 at 13:34  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mr Lakestar

...Do you believe that the current laws and current morality are absolute...

No. But, some laws must by their intrinsic and contextual nature be absolute, if a society is to maintain its self as a civilised body of opinion and responsibility.

11 April 2010 at 13:40  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dreadnaught,

Are you being purposely obtuse?

Was a law passed by Act of Parliament 'demonising' the Germans or Japanese?

What law needs to be revoked?

Of course the suffragettes were 'truly guilty' of 'disturbing the peace' or illegal protest or whatever else they were found to be guilty of. This 'truly guilty' does not, however, diminish any higher moral purpose they had.

By your own logic, the preacher who has just been fined £1000 and earned a criminal record for saying homosexuality is a sin is entitled to have that conviction quashed if a subsequent government decides to amend the law to criminalise homosexual activity or to once again permit such freedom of expression.

As much as His Grace is sympathetic to the plight of the preacher, he would not at all agree with the retrospective application of such a law: the conviction should remain.

Similarly, those B&B owners who discriminated against a gay couple by refusing them accommodation broke the law. If a Conservative government were to amend that (unjust) law, His Grace is in no way persuaded that a conviction should be erased.

His Grace is entirely consistent in this: he is not remotely 'jaundiced' by your bigoted understanding of what you believe he believes.

11 April 2010 at 13:49  
Blogger English Viking said...

This is a very dangerous road to go down. Will those convicted of previous acts of deviancy, subsequently exonerated, be entitled to compensation, for lost earnings, libel, etc?

Would you not like to know if your kid's new PE teacher had a penchant for 16 year old boys?

11 April 2010 at 13:57  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Cranmer....

Imagine a law that made membership of the Conservative Party was illegal and that those found guilty of it were placed on a Political Offenders Register and that each time they applied for a job their offence was used to deny it to them.

Later a more enlightened administration decided that joining together of consensual Conservatives should not be regarded as a crime and repealed the law.

I assume then that you really think that those past offences should remain on your CRB file and continue to affect your employment prospects?

11 April 2010 at 14:15  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

For a post you was avoiding doing, its a damned good one and I could not agree more.

Love the bones of you, cinders and all.

Equality means the law is an ass to everyone, without exception. Let the homos get in touch with their sapien side and join the rest of mankind.


Signed: Neanderthal

11 April 2010 at 14:18  
Anonymous Stewart Cowan said...

Graham Davis,

Some people are already allowed to discriminate along lines of political affiliations. (The kind of people who shout loudest about 'dsicrimination,' funnily enough.)

The LGBT Equality Council do not accept members of the BNP, The National Front, Trafalgar Club, Solidarity – The Union for British Workers, The Christian Council of Britain, English Defence League, Scottish Defence League, Welsh Defence League or any other organisation which holds views which are incompatible with our aims. Any Councillor found to be a member of any of the above organisations will have their membership of the Council terminated.

11 April 2010 at 14:33  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Your Grace, please! Now who is being obtuse?

Was a law passed by Act of Parliament 'demonising' the Germans or Japanese

There were of course the Internment Acts during the course of the conflict if that is what you mean.

As for the preacher being fined for for saying what he did - I would say that this is indeed unjust and I hope he wins on appeal.

This I suggest is the fallacy of pandering to the religious for hurting the feelings of not only the individual but the religion itself. Totally crazy and illogical. So why doesn't the Divine Dave take on board that the majority of people in this country have had a basin full of political correctness. The simple answer is he doesn't want to upset Muslims.

Religion of a different colour that is not only tolerated by the Christian Movement but encouraged! Your not telling me the CoE could not have done more to stem the creeping Islamisation of Europe.

But there again, maybe like the Muslims you would have homosexuals and adulterers publicly stoned to death. I'm sure you would find some supportive text in the Bible if you looked hard enough.

You and some of you communicants are not so far apart from them as you would like to appear.

BTW I am neither homo or Marxist just apolitical, atheist.

11 April 2010 at 14:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Ms Dreadnaught wrote:

'The unwelcome matter in the sense of my use of such, being the persistent, dogmatic ambivalence of religionists to force their opinions, through a warped undemocratic logic into the private matters of individuals.'

It is clear she lacks moral principle and the effects of that lack.

Well let's just delete those who have been gulity of rape in the past, after all why should their careers be harmed? After all the left-liberals are fond of telling us that 70% of rape defendants are not convicted. Perhaps that suggests juries believe that the complainant was gaga for it?

Why stop there? Let's just decriminalise the laws on rape so that those undergoing the process can be deposited on white marble slabs and, hopefully, both parties can enjopy the experience.

Think of the money saved in the preparation and prosecution of criminal law trials?

I anticipate her support for such a liberating measure.

11 April 2010 at 14:59  
Blogger Gnostic said...

If these people broke the law and were subsequently convicted they are no less guilty now the law has changed.

It's not rocket science.

If Cameron is claiming he'll pre-emptively reverse lawful judgements in order to win votes then he is clearly unfit to lead any party let alone the country. Anyone with a shred of decency and/or common sense should think hard before voting for this opportunistic invertebrate.

11 April 2010 at 15:07  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mr G Davies

..The bible says...

That's just it for you isn't it. I don't regard the bible or your right to use it as a prop as some kind of superior holier than thou resource that some how trumps all other arguments. Same goes for the Torah, Koran or flaming Kama Sutra.

They are all largely dubious 'books' of fiction (apart perhaps from the last facetious example), amended through the ages; structured to contradict themselves to such complexity where only a mystical priesthood can 'explain' contextual meaning and thereby suppress humanity and favour the few.

Religious texts can be made to condone or condemn absolutely anything in or outside natural law.
It beats me I admit as to how you give credibility to one without affording the same to the rest.
I am thin king specifically to the period of the Crusades or the historical ingrained animosity towards Jews.

The was good reason for the clergy to insist on the use Latin and to with-hold a broadening of literacy in the masses in the Middle Ages.

11 April 2010 at 15:11  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Ms Dreadnaught

You do not understand the meaning of the phrase 'natural law'. So why use it?

Nerves?

Go and study its context.

11 April 2010 at 15:18  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

MrD.Singh

Why stop there? Let's just decriminalise the laws on rape so that those undergoing the process can be deposited on white marble slabs and, hopefully, both parties can enjopy the experience.

Your comment is as revolting as it is stupid - go scourge yourself Fool.

11 April 2010 at 15:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Ms Dreadnaught

Analysis if you please and your supporting rationale.

Ad hominem attacks will not do.

You'afraid of where your logic leads.

11 April 2010 at 15:20  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Thankyou Len

Your grace does not fight shy on this matter , homosexual rape perhaps has as many difficulties as heterosexual rape , were the clothes too suggestive , did he/she really mean just a coffee , were the drugs i was offered not what I was told.

The gay lobby is keen to show , civil partnerships can move the acceptenace of gay lifestyles forward and normal , I can see that the conservative party may not have a problem with that .

But then there are those areas of gay lifestyles which sometimes show there movement in a different light. They may indeed not want reserved prudes condeming there lifestyle choice , yet simoultainiously wanting rights and protection via the law , yet not acknowledging that they have no unwrtten code for behaviour .

It is also true that some gay people have made great contributions to society not just in the arts .

But the pinch point as ever is how much of beohemia can a society bare before it looses its common understanding and sensabilities .The gay lobby as yet to make any coherent case that it can not only come out of the closet , but not carry on with the closet as well , which is where some of the more lurid storys come from . But iam no doubt accused of my ignorance and imposing my values .

I still think gay adoption has been a leap in the dark , yet I am told I am cutting across progress and condemming .

Tim is perhaps wary of some of his posters and was right to consider how the thread was developing , the few conservative gay speakers are intelligent people , yet it puzzles me why the left seems to corner and hot house the reactionary gay militants.

Educating any partys manfesto to entertain new thinking is a difficult task , one only has to look how the EU belief has unravelled . The conservatives no longer shun/condem gay lifestyles and accept they can play a role in politics and society.

Tolerance and embarssment are closely links feelings at the moment the oppresed have the platform , but it would be foolish not to understand that there are limits as to how much bohemia has value .

11 April 2010 at 15:21  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Rebel Saint at 13.17

Welcome home. The aircraft carrier, Her Majesty's Ship Cranmer, was wondering where one of our ace fighter-pilots was.

Say, Ms Dreadnaught, were you expecting to find us Judaeo-Christians wearing Jesus sandals and hitting tambourines?

We're the new type. Like St Paul, we fight like gladiators in the amphitheatre at Ephesus.

We aim to entertain.

11 April 2010 at 15:59  
Anonymous Simon Too said...

Homosexuality is not the point in issue. The only point is whether a criminal record should be erased if the law is later changed so that what was criminal conduct at the time of the conviction is no longer criminal.

It would be open to the Act of Parliament that changes the law to decriminalise the act in question retrospectively. Retrospective decriminalisation is less objectionable than retrospective criminalisation.

The problem remains that a crime involves both an unlawful act and a criminal intention. Whilst the earlier and the subsequent acts may be the same, committing the crime when it was still a crime, no matter how unjust the law might have been, involved a willingness to break the law. On the other hand, performing the same act after it was decriminalised does not embrace the breaking of the law. Should a proven willingness to break the law be removed from the criminal record?

It does remain open to those convicted under an unjust law which is later repealed to seek a royal pardon. Were that granted, it would be wholly improper for the conviction to stand on the record.

As a last thought, would not the best course of action be to get rid of the whole bloated, oppressive, expensive, corrosive (vamp ad lib) and ineffective CRB checking system?

For those who feel I may be perched firmly on the fence, I believe
1) that CRB checks should be abolished;
2) if they are not abolished, they should show convictions. If the conviction is for something that is no longer a crime, then it can easily be pointed out to whoever is looking at the CRB check that the offence is no longer a crime. If the person looking at the CRB check cannot understand that it was but is no longer a crime, see 1) above.

11 April 2010 at 16:46  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

The bizarre thing is that this is being done to permit these men to obtain clean CRB checks.

IMO This is not a serious issue as far as homosexuality is concerned any more then any other form of sexuality.

What is however is the need for a CRB check in the first place, and whole extremely nasty authoritarian system that goes with it.

For the problem with them are many as far as civil-liberties are concerned, but the most important one is the affect this has on our natural ability to trust or otherwise others within our communities.

It is a truism that there is far more criminals not in prison then in prison. However it is just as much a truism that there are far more criminals who have never been caught then there are who have.

Also that the biggest criminals always find a way round any system, and so become more proficient at successfully and profitably propagating their crimes.

Gangsters, Banksters, top politicians, and others massively involved with organised crime, being prime examples.

This is especially true when it comes to child abusers. It could be argued that every family has at least one they could mention. Child sex abusers less so, but the point remains.

CRB checks simply lower are natural guard, and sense of personal responsibility. Which in my opinion is exactly what they are designed to do.

You can almost hear the carers or guardians defence.

"Oh of course she/he gave all the obvious signs of being a child abusing sexual pervert, but she/he had been CRB checked, so I assumed they would be OK."

11 April 2010 at 16:48  
Anonymous Simon Too said...

Your Grace, I am concerned that some of your communicants may have difficulty understanding "Homosexuality is not the point in issue".

As I recall, although my dates may be imprecise, before Sir Robert Peel's reforms of 1824 it was a hanging offence to personate a Chelsea Pensioner. No doubt your Grace has encountered a few who were.

If they seek a CRB check so that they can work with children, etc., should their convictions for personating a Chelsea Pensioner appear on that CRB check?

11 April 2010 at 16:56  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mr Simon Too

...no longer a crime, then it can easily be pointed out to whoever is looking at the CRB check...

Be that as it may, and in a fair and unbiased world that would be ok; but surely a persons right to privacy should be universal unless of course there is a direct link to a potential danger to a third party.

Is it right that a person's career or lively-hood should be compromised if a researcher applies personal judgement and bias on the basis that they simply won't engage a person on the basis of his/her sexual orientation.

I am referring here exclusively to and an assumed (for discussion purposes) act between consenting participants. Crimes of rape and pederasty are a wholly different issue and obviously need to be maintained as recorded in perpetuity.

11 April 2010 at 17:18  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Simon Too,

You put it better than His Grace.

Mr Dreadnaught,

You really are making hard work of this.

"I am referring here exclusively to and an assumed (for discussion purposes) act between consenting participants."

Do you simply refuse to acknowledge that retrospective decriminalisation ignores completely any concept of an 'age of consent'? Prior to 2000, it was a criminal act for an adult to have homosexual sex with a 16-year-old. That is to say, the 16-year-old was a minor and therefore could not give consent. Ergo, the 16-year-old was raped.

The issue is really quite straightforward. If the age of consent in the UK were to be reduced to that of Spain (13), are you then advocating retrospective eradication of the criminal records of those who have been convicted and imprisoned for acts of pederasty?

11 April 2010 at 17:29  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Your Grace, this could go on for ever. I suppose the one word missing is 'knowing'

Pax

11 April 2010 at 17:44  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dreadnaught,

His Grace is perfectly open to having his mind changed on this matter: it is the purpose of reasoned discussion.

What is your response to His Grace's last question?

Where would you insert the missing word 'knowing'?

11 April 2010 at 17:52  
Anonymous len said...

If you want to live a degenerate life, God is your mortal enemy. He represents a lethal danger to your selfishness, greed, lechery and hatred. It is in your interest to despise Him and do whatever you can to rid the universe of His presence. So there are powerful attractions to life in a God-free world. In such a world we can all model our lives on one of the junior devils in Milton’s Paradise Lost, Belial, who was “to vice industrious, but to nobler deeds timorous and slothful.” If God does not exist, the seven deadly sins are not terrors to be overcome but temptations to be enjoyed. Death, previously the justification for morality, now becomes a justification for immorality.

The philosopher who best understood this “liberation” was Nietzsche. Contrary to modern atheists who assure us that the death of God need not mean an end to morality, Nietzsche insisted that it did. As God is the source of the moral law, His death means that the ground has been swept out from under us. We have become, in a sense, ethically groundless, and there is no more refuge to be taken in appeals to dignity and equality and compassion and all the rest. What confronts us, if we are honest, is the abyss.

11 April 2010 at 17:55  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Yeah Ms Silly Dreadnaught

Where would you insert the word?

You can't handle the big league! Can ya?

11 April 2010 at 18:12  
Blogger Preacher said...

Your Grace.
I believe that the benchmark of man made laws are the laws that God has set in place in the Bible. Mans laws can only exist to guide in matters of morality,legallity & justice,at best they will always fall short of Gods perfect law, but then He is the ultimate judge, creator & giver of law & in this His judgement is faultless, that's why there is no appeal court in Heaven.
Our laws exist to protect & guide us, especially in cases where the defenceless, weak & helpless are in danger. Human laws can be altered to suit current fads or trends, but God will Never grow accustomed to sin & wrongdoing, He will not tolerate, excuse or overlook sin. His standards are absolute & He is not open to change or negotiation.
When faced with our wickedness He had several options to choose from, He chose the hardest most painful one for Himself to give us a free choice of salvation, so we have no excuse on the day of judgement for failing to meet His standards. Let those who presume to make or change the legal system think & preferably pray hard before changes are made, the responsibility lies heavy on their shoulders.

11 April 2010 at 18:13  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Interesting: I know very little about what CRB checks actually entail. I do know they are a fag to do, as I've had a ridiculous amount of forms to fill in, and once I graduate it will get a whole lot worse.

If the CRB file comes back to the employer with the list of criminal convictions and whether such convictions are still illegal, or are judged differently (e.g. dealing a drug that has since changed classification); what the punishment was; and the date of the conviction, then I would agree that this removing criminal convictions would be unnecessary. I think this was Simon Too's second point on CRBs. Otherwise his first point is FAR more appealing to me. For some reason I have to be CRB'd just to become an extraordinary Eucharistic minister and I think that shows just how ridiculous the system has become.

All this whitewashing of history seems a bit too 1984 to me. If I were convicted of being a Christian, and the law subsequently exonerated me, I would be proud to show that I stood up to injustice, and went to jail for my God. I wouldn't seek a retrospective pardon, for that would just allow the country to forget what they did and pretend it never happened.

11 April 2010 at 18:18  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

'then I would agree that this removing criminal convictions would be unnecessary'

I think there probably shouldn't be a 'this' there.

11 April 2010 at 18:22  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Oh! bugger the law!
That's what erasing all previous consensual gay convictions over the age of 16 is saying.

Do we really need to know who has had consensual sex with a minor in the past? I would say NO, Not unless they were applying for a job with children. But if someone has, and been convicted then the conviction should remain on their records. I do not agree with all these CRB checks for every little thing though.

I think Dave is being naïve, I know he is keen to appease the pink voters but at the expense of upsetting the majority who are not gay. He hasn't thought this through he's also giving the message that the law then was not worth the paper it was written on and opening the doors for compensation claims and other past laws that have changed or been upgraded to be granted the same status.
He should also get himself on sites like Gaydar he'll soon get a feel for what the gay scene is like I'm not saying all gays use sites like these, but..........

The age of consent for either gay or heterosexuals should not be lowered to 14 at all. In fact due to the nature of the deed it should be increased for gay sex to 21 again as that is when the human body is fully grown.

11 April 2010 at 18:22  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Ok Your Grace,

By using the word 'knowing' I infer that one or the other or both are aware that someone is in breach of the law. But, and there is a big But.

There are a complexity of issues taken into consideration before the offence of rape is established. It does not specifically apply that sex with a minor is automatically judged to be one of rape.(there are precidential references to this effect, but not at hand for me to pass on right now)

Take the ages of the parties concerned for instance, both then under the age of consent, would that be rape? which one should be branded for life as a sex offender? An 18 yo with a consenting 17 yo (as was) rape without qualification?

Making a hard and fast statement as you did is just too simplistic.

As a slight aside - Why should the lowering of the age of consent for same sex couples be treated any differently than that of a for a 16yo hetro couple.









The law takes into consideration the mental states, the relative ages

11 April 2010 at 18:55  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dreadnaught,

The law is the law.

It matters not a jot if the sex be heterosexual or homosexual: we are concerned here with consent and the age at which one may grant it. You appear to be suggesting (you suggest; His Grace infers) that if a minor grants consent then the adult has neither raped nor is guilty of pederasty. Is that correct?

You have still not answered His Grace's perfectly reasonable question (which has nothing to do with two minors engaging in a sexual act). If the age of consent were harmonised next year to the EU lowest (13 or possibly 12), do you believe that all those 'paedophiles' convicted under a now-otiose law have the right (legal and moral) to have their convictions quashed and their criminal records expunged?

11 April 2010 at 19:07  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

YG said:-
The issue is really quite straightforward. If the age of consent in the UK were to be reduced to that of Spain (13), are you then advocating retrospective eradication of the criminal records of those who have been convicted and imprisoned for acts of pederasty?

I must have missed your earlier reference to imprisonment for under age sex - I apologise if this omission has skewed my responses.

I would have serious trouble in accepting 13 as a suitable age for consentual sex of any form. I am surprised that this is the case anywhere in Europe, but I don't doubt the truism of your information.

Islamic law provides for girls of 6 as suitable marriage partners, can't say I'm too particular on that either.

But of course, your leading question is one of retrospective reprieve I know, and yes I would have a bigger problem with that, than I would of an aware and mentally mature teenager.

11 April 2010 at 19:14  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

YG
Just a point worth contemplating and incidentally from a pre-Marxist era an unbefore realised by my humble self:-

“In the 1860s the age of consent was twelve years old. Some people such as Josephine Butler and Barbara Bodichon were concerned that young girls were being sold to brothels. They became involved in the campaign against the white slave trade and in 1875 the House of Commons agreed to raise the age of consent to thirteen.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/REage.htm

11 April 2010 at 19:47  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dreadnaught,

But Parliament is omnipotent.

If it once decreed that the age at which one may grant consent to sexual intercourse was 18, and this was subsequently reduced to 16, you appear to have no problem with retrospective decriminalisation of those who were once defined and incarcerated as 'paedophiles'.

Are you simply saying that Cameron is right because you yourself deem 16 to be the acceptable age of consent?

In which case, those pederasts who demur from your stated position (and advocate an age of consent of 12 or 13) would have an equal right to demand that their criminal records be erased.

You are hoist by your own petard.

Pax vobiscum.

11 April 2010 at 19:55  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

As Your Grace sees fit.

Pax vobiscu right back atcher

11 April 2010 at 20:30  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

I can't work out if Dreadnaught is being obtuse or just stupid. Which is it?

D. Singh - thank you for your kind welcome. It is good to be back aboard His Grace's illustrious ship. My Lenten fast of the erudite blog has been extended due to the preparation of my campaign to be elected to the ignoble House. This latter cause will prevent me from contributing as regularly in the forthcoming weeks.

11 April 2010 at 21:15  
Anonymous The Wilted Rose said...

It's ironic then that Greg Hands MP has written a post on ConHome's 'centre right' in praise of Tatchell.

It is Tatchell who advocates reducing the age of consent to 14.

That proposal, like this one, is despicable. I thought that the UK was trying to improve child protection. It must stand up to the EU and lowlife like Tatchell in their quest for so-called 'equality'.

For the sake of the children.

11 April 2010 at 22:26  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Oh dear,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8614235.stm

11 April 2010 at 23:02  
Blogger David said...

Your Grace, or is it Paul Goodman?
Retrospective legislation is never preferable. But bigotry and hatred, born of aversion, have driven many a child to suicide down the years for nothing other than their natural inclinations, often against their will and in the face of a real or imagined threat. One can hardly argue that this has not been fostered by the Church, intentionally or not.
Now then, when the male-male age of consent was 18, a 19 year old would have been criminalised for some form of consensual sexual liaison with a 17 year old, despite the fact that they might have been little more than a year apart. OK, it was illegal at that time, but should we care, or simply turn our gaze away as less sexually-frustrated and judgemental cultures do elsewhere. I mean, why this prurient fascination in the first place? Any form of non-consensual sex is wrong, but to what extent would it be accurate to say call it so in this example?
When finally taboo subjects are de-criminalised and slowly become accepted should we be surprised if those formerly oppressed become, perhaps unconsciously, the oppressors. This has begun to happen with the PC brigade and they should be careful they do not create a backlash towards them, even amongst tolerant people. I include in this category what I call the New Age quasi-fascists. Behind all the smiling and hugging there is a determinedly intolerant streak. The true test of democracy and freedom is not to uphold rights when we agree but to go to the wall on behalf of others with whom we disagree when not to do so would impinge upon their rights just as much and undermine democracy itself.
What of the traditional wing? I find it difficult to read pompous and self-righteous proselytising from the ‘religious’ corner when for all of history they have been quick to condemn others because of words purportedly spoken by that mild-mannered carpenter and written down several hundred years later. It’s a bit rich for them to complain about the bigotry and bias of others when they adhere to a religion which, rightly or wrongly, has been responsible for the murder of so many people down the ages.
I’ve just been reading the Bible. From my perspective, standing here today, those tribes in north Africa had positive attributes but bad ones too. Stoning people or setting fire to them, even if they are transgressors, suggests to me a people who were a long way from God. More worrying though is that it is this very God who insists upon such horrible murder as righteous retribution for offending him. And anyone who watched the news some months ago would be hard-pressed to recognise any divinity in the monks of various Christian denominations who fought each other in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Am I an atheist? No. Perhaps I am agnostic but I do see goodness, holiness even, in the Catholic church. I see it in individuals and in groups too. The thing is I also see evil in it sometimes and certainly in the past. The same goes for other denominations and other religions.
I think the main point is that the Catholic church, whilst not being alone in this, (the Tibetan lamaist religion had/has? the same predilection) should be less concerned with what other people decide they wish to do with their bodies consensually, and legally, in private and pay far more attention to itself and its own behaviour.
We now know, do we not, without any shadow of a doubt and despite all manner of official attempts to cover things up for decades, that paedophilia has apparently been, if not rampant, then certainly widespread amongst some Catholic clergy. I'm not talking about pederasty here, but paedophilia. But then perhaps this is not specifically banned in the Bible, although I'd be delighted for someone to quote chapter and verse if it is. And if this is indeed the case, well I guess it might be frowned on publicly but given the nod privately. Perhaps instead of constantly castigating others would it not be more appropriate for you and you brethren to put your own house in order?
Respectfully yours.

11 April 2010 at 23:08  
Anonymous Hugh said...

Your Grace,

I point this out as a pretty 'Talibgraph' sort of guy: in 2006 servicemen convicted for desertion during the First World War were granted a unilateral posthumous pardon. Habemus exemplum.

Since this article is not about homosexuality or the age of consent - but uses them as test cases to show the problems with such laws - this precedent is relevant.

The point is that parliament is sovereign 'enough' to do what Mr Cameron plans within its constitutional rights. Retrospective legislation may be a bad idea in principle but we are allowed to do it when we judge it to be a good idea in a given case, and do it with caution. Presumably this is what Cameron thinks he is doing. It's not constitutional vandalism, and it would be a mistake to do it often, but precedent allows it do be done sometimes. Maybe there is a slippery slope argument that you could make here, I don't know - but otherwise retrospective pardons are constitutionally acceptable.

Perhaps there are Whig principles - of how law ought to work - that you are applying, but these do not define how the law of England actually does work. Perhaps you ought to have complained about the posthumous pardon of shellshock victims/deserters in 2006.

12 April 2010 at 00:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm aware that this thread isn't supposed to be focussing on homosexuality, but by virtue of the fact that it is the former crime in question, it bears some relevance.

Obviously what is deemed criminal is clearly variable from society to society. But presumably (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) the law was to do with the Christian objection to do it on the basis of certain interpretations of the Bible.

In our society, it seems to be the case, rightly or wrongly, that it is not acceptable to make something illegal on the basis of some interpretations of Bible passages. This seems to be the case with regards to blasphemy laws, etc.

Homosexuals do no-one any harm by being with each other or engaging in sexual acts with one another, and it is difficult to see why this should be illegal. Therefore, it does not seem too unreasonable to remove convictions from an age when laws were perceived differently.

The hypothetical situations of other crimes "suddenly" becoming legal reduces the argument ad absurdum, in my humble opinion. I realise with respect that many people are trying to make the point on absolute level, and I appreciate this. But in this instance I do not feel that the particulars of the issue ought to be isolated from the bigger question.

I hope this is clear and that I've caused no offence or said anything which could be deemed to be ad hominem.

Happy debating,
G

12 April 2010 at 01:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Homosexuals do no-one any harm ...

Not true. Please see:

The Health Risks of Gay Sex
JOHN R. DIGGS, JR., M.D.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

12 April 2010 at 02:52  
Anonymous Tony B said...

catholiceducation.org eh? No likelihood of bias there, then.

While I haven't read through the entire article, it's interesting that it lists a variety of "damaging" sexual practices, under the heading "male homosexuality", that are also carried out in heterosexual relationships. Whether this is because of ignorance, deliberate distortion, or some other reason, I don't know.

There are a number of interesting aspects to this debate; someone has already noted the apparent obsession among Christian males with homosexuality. Another is the idea that certain passages in the Bible concerning homosexuality are stressed as absolute truth, whereas other similar rules, e.g. in Leviticus (perm any from hundreds of absurd rules), are ignored by the majority of Christians. I can't help feeling this reveals the true nature of the Christian side of the debate - prejudice, not theology.

12 April 2010 at 07:31  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

No mention then of those millions of people who have had thier fingerprints and dna taken and put on a database illegally,even though they have never committed a crime?just the poor old queer who wants to bugger our children,there seems to be nothing that the boy will not prostitute for another vote,more marxist corruption to hasten the destruction of our way of life.

12 April 2010 at 08:55  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Tony B

It is becoming tiresome reading of your ignorance day-in-and-day out. Why not take time out to study the scriptures?

The key question is: are Judaeo-Christians selecting those bits of the Old Testament (’the OT’) that confirm their apparent ‘pick ‘n’ mix’ attitude to what the OT demands?

For example, the OT states, ‘Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is detestable to you’ (Lev. 11:12).

In Galatians 3:10, St Paul writes, “All who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.’” Again in 5:2 he writes, “I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

The key point is next: the OT law was our teacher until the coming of Jesus. ‘The law was our guardian until Christ came’ (Gal 3:24). And when Christ came we fell ‘not under law but under grace’ (Rom 6:14). So when Christ, who came to fulfil the demands of the OT law, died under this law and was resurrected, and we Judaeo-Christians being in Christ, no longer live by that law.

We could not fulfil the demands of that law and because we could not, the law still demanded the penalty of death for failure to fulfil the demands of the law. The law demanded a perfect sacrifice. And Jesus was that perfect sacrifice; the Lamb without blemish. He was executed – so that you and I do not need to face ‘the firing squad’, as it were.

‘For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to EVERYONE WHO BELIVES’ (Rom 10:4). If you do not believe then, for you, the ‘firing squad’ awaits somewhere on your journey in life to that destination called Death. That ‘firing squad’ could be a great crisis in your life where you stand at the cross-roads of a life filled with bitterness or it could easily come as a car accident. Indeed, you may not have much time left.

That is why we do not need to watch our diet; or determine the fabric in our clothes – in other words there is no longer a requirement to comply with the rituality of the OT law.

However, that is not the end of the matter. You will recall that the OT prohibits murder and theft. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus prohibits anger (the OT prohibited murder); he forbids lust (the OT forbade adultery); the OT law permitted the making of oaths and retaliation (an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth) – but we are now denied these.

Jesus is clearly more radical than the OT law.

Thus when you suggest in your rantings that we should not eat shrimps or that we should stone people to remain consistent with what the Bible teaches – can’t you see that the Judaeo-Christians are laughing at your ignorance?

12 April 2010 at 09:50  
Blogger Love Scotland said...

Imagine a UK society where 40 years ago, it was illegal to be a Christian.

People were forced to worship in secret, bibles had to be smuggled into the country and the Ichthys was once again used as a secret symbol. If you were caught leading, or attending a Christian gathering you would be prosecuted, fined or even imprisoned.

Then, in 1967 the law was changed. People were then free to worship in any way they pleased. Churches were built, Christmas was celebrated and the Lord was praised openly in song.

Now imagine that in the lead up to the 2010 election, Mr Cameron proposed to erase the criminal records of those convicted of commiting a Christian act before 1967. People who have struggled to find good jobs, who have been subject to discrimination in all parts of their lives would no longer be obliged to declare their criminal conviction on application forms or anywhere else for that matter.

Now imagine that if this were the case, Archbishop Cranmer would write an article condemning Cameron's propsal. His Grace would no doubt highlight the danger of such retrospective legislation and the slippery slope it could take us on. If these Christians, who were in clear violation of the law at the time, are to be purged of their criminal records, then what's next? "If the age of consent were to be lowered at some point in the future (as it most assuredly will be), why then should those with a conviction for pederasty not also then justly demand the retrospective application of the new law, thus eradicating their criminal record and life-long shame of having to declare that they were convicted of under-age sex?"

Your Grace, the jump you make from those convicted of consensual homosexual acts before 1967 to pedophilia is as ridiculous as it is inflammatory. You maintain that this article is not about homophobia, but the argument you have constructed makes it impossible for you not to sound bigoted. Can you in good conscience, maintain that your position would remain unchanged if we were talking about forgiving Christians their criminal records rather than Homosexuals, whose only crimes were loving another person, even though the law at the time forbade it?

12 April 2010 at 10:53  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Mr Singh,

Thanks for enlightening me, but there's no call for rudeness.

I'm not suggesting that in order to be consistent you should not eat shrimps or whatever. If the OT law doesn't apply, you should simply not bang on about Leviticus at all.

As it happens I don't get an awful lot of spare time, but a proportion of the spare time I do have is spent in studying Christian Theology.

12 April 2010 at 10:56  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Tony B

I did not say that all of the OT law did not apply. It’s moral principles certainly do apply. That is why we bang on about those moral principles. For example, do not murder; do not steal; honour thy father and mother and do not practice homosexuality.

12 April 2010 at 11:10  
Anonymous Tony B said...

I take it you are a Biblical literalist then Mr Singh?

12 April 2010 at 11:40  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Tony B

I refer you to my last two posts.

12 April 2010 at 11:46  
Anonymous Tony B said...

>
I refer you to my last two posts.

Why?

12 April 2010 at 12:30  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Tony B

It is written: ‘A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.’

12 April 2010 at 12:38  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Mr Singh, you appear to have descended into impenetrable gibberish, not that I'm at all surprised.

12 April 2010 at 14:43  
Anonymous Colin said...

Well said, Cranmer!

12 April 2010 at 14:49  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Tony B

Have you considered that the fault may lie is:

1. Your comprehension of the English language;
2. your lack of wisdom; and (or)
3. your childish epistemological concerns (‘why?’)?

12 April 2010 at 15:27  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Rebel Saint said:-
I can't work out if Dreadnaught is being obtuse or just stupid. Which is it?

What? I may be right I may be wrong I am expressing an individual view point. Whereas you Can't think for yourself obviously, but that's no surprise judging by your fan base.

12 April 2010 at 17:00  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Ms Dreadnaught

You maybe obtuse or (and) just plain stupid.

12 April 2010 at 17:02  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

The fault may lie with your bad attitude.

12 April 2010 at 17:15  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Shut yer gob.

12 April 2010 at 17:16  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Like your last post for example you distasteful little man. Christian indeed.

12 April 2010 at 17:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Glovy

You're consistent; you write as a product of evolutionary theory: a chimp.

So, shut it.

12 April 2010 at 17:27  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Mr Singh, when you compose sentences like "Have you considered that the fault may lie is" is it any wonder I don't understand you?

Have you considered:

1. Expressing yourself in plain English
2...without insults?

12 April 2010 at 18:40  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Len : both postings spot-on!

12 April 2010 at 19:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Tony B

On article one of your last post; thank you for rebuking me.

12 April 2010 at 19:29  
OpenID scottspeig said...

Cranmer, I find this a difficult problem and see the merits on both sides (merits being from each perspective, not in morals)

While you could not criminalise retrospectively, you can pardon crimes.

While I think the homosexuals in question should have their convictions quashed, I do not think they should have a "clean" record. I do however think they should be allowed to use the rehabilitation of offenders act in future career aspirations.

While I may not like the repercussions later I will be consistent in your view that if age of consent is lowered to 12/14 I would hold the same view, that is they shoul be allowed to omit the crime but still have it on their record.

13 April 2010 at 12:38  
Blogger Gregory Williams said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

13 April 2010 at 19:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tony B said...
catholiceducation.org eh? No likelihood of bias there.

The reality, which many refuse to accept, is that AIDS (and other) infection rates in homosexual populations exceed the average by 5000%. You do no one a favour by implicitly suggesting that it is a product of Catholic bias. The point that anonymous seems to be making is that homosexual acts should not be deemed illegal for the reason that they are harmless to others. Since homosexual acts are extremely harmful, this argument is based on a false premise.

The Health Risks of Gay Sex
JOHN R. DIGGS, JR., M.D.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.htm

13 April 2010 at 23:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tony B said...
catholiceducation.org eh? No likelihood of bias there.

The reality, which many refuse to accept, is that AIDS (and other) infection rates are more than a thousand per cent above average for homosexual populations. You do no one a favour by concealing this fact, implicitly suggesting that it is mere catholic bias. The point that anonymous seems to be making is that homosexual acts should not be deemed illegal for the reason that they are harmless to others. Since homosexual acts can be extremely harmful, this argument is based on a false premise.


The Health Risks of Gay Sex
JOHN R. DIGGS, JR., M.D.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.htm

13 April 2010 at 23:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>"that the cause may be linked to predatory homosexuals."

really? and do bears shit in the woods?

14 April 2010 at 19:38  
Anonymous len said...

Not around here,perhaps you live a along way from civilization?

14 April 2010 at 20:40  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

really? and is the pope a catholic? and is he making the world a safe place for peadophiles?

15 April 2010 at 12:46  
Anonymous len said...

This is what I was questioning,and if records are erased what of the predatory Homosexuals in all aspects of society?
Is this not giving them licence?

15 April 2010 at 13:21  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older