Monday, November 08, 2010

Gay sperm donor fights lesbian mother over access to children


Isn't that just a fantastic headline?

It belongs to Tim Ross, the new Social and Religious Affairs Editor at The Daily Telegraph, and what a subtle injection of socio-levity and theo-creativity he is turning out to be.

It encapsulates perfectly the postmodern reductio ad absurdum inherent in the abandonment of divine knowledge and acquiescence to the dictatorship of relativism.

It won't be long before we see:

Gay Muslim sperm donor in civil partnership fights divorced Sikh lesbian mother over access to children being fostered by married, bigoted Christians who have a Bible in their house and pray.

And it will be for the Courts to sort out who gets custody.

And we all know who will lose.

God help us.

His Grace is sure that his communicants can come up with better examples of headlines of the not-too-distant future.

27 Comments:

Anonymous adirtymartini said...

We live in a selfish age of egos. And a weird one of identity politics played out in full.

Not to mention one where hate has been fully channeled and legitimised by one side that likes the sound of the word bigot.

I discovered when volunteering to be a London Ambassador at the Olympics recently that the simple question of are you male or female has been distorted to the following:

"Is your gender identity the same as the one you were assigned at birth?"

8 November 2010 at 23:41  
Anonymous Michal said...

What a terrible world we live in where gay and lesbian people are acknowledged by the society.

What we need is a bit more restrictive society, you know, one that can only see white men and women living joyfully in a marriage sanctioned by Church of England and having two kids.

Everyone else would be a non-citizen.

That could really simplify things, no? Then there would be no more annoying complicated headlines.

8 November 2010 at 23:42  
Anonymous Will Jones said...

"Is your gender identity the same as the one you were assigned at birth?"

Assigned at birth? Is that a sign of what the future holds where a lab-coated individual ticks off sex allocation on the clip board (I refuse to use gender, as I very rarely talk about grammer).

It's amazing how precient Life of Brian's Lorreta actually was.

9 November 2010 at 00:22  
Blogger OldSouth said...

'Happily Married Presbyterian Couple Have Adopted Two-Year-Old Son Taken From Them Because A Meth-head Relative Living In A Double-Wide In Mississippi Demands To Have His Kin With Him'

OS wishes he were making it up, but it really happened.

The Meth-head's attorney dropped dead suddenly of a heart attack shortly before Christmas a couple of years later, waiting in a queue for a cashier.

OS danced and sang for days upon hearing the news. The attorney's lawyer colleagues were ashen-faced at the funeral, as they contemplated his fate, and possibly theirs.

OS assumes the lawyer is now just beginning to turn crispy, assigned to a particularly appropriate circle of eternal punishment, awaiting the arrival of the meth-head and the judge.

9 November 2010 at 01:18  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Gay sperm donor head of church makes casual remark that athiesm is more fun and offers to consecrate brothel and pot smoking coffe shop to show the church is right on and right up to date with its congregation.

9 November 2010 at 01:25  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Here's a headline I'd find amusing:

Westminster Palace closed due to infestation of bloodsucking parasites. Leechbusters awaiting new delivery of piano wire.

9 November 2010 at 07:32  
Anonymous Trencherbone said...

Childburgers - a threat to community cohesion?

9 November 2010 at 08:07  
Anonymous adirtymartini said...

Will Jones

It is a Monty Pythonesque scenario. Sadly it is also a reality if you are applying to be a volunteer Ambassador to London in the Olympics. I'm still wondering who is supposed to have "assigned" a person a gender. My mother, doctor, a lab coated technician?

9 November 2010 at 08:40  
Anonymous gladiolys said...

"Old Farts Disappear Up Own Backsides In Clouds Of Irrelevance But Nobody Notices"?

9 November 2010 at 08:41  
Anonymous Flossie said...

I always understood that it was a sub-editor who wrote the headlines, not the actual writer of the article.

Can't think of anything witty or clever, though.

9 November 2010 at 09:43  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Oh dear another forlorn attack on relativism. The problem with you lot is that you don’t want to think.

Relying on “divine knowledge” is a moral cop-out. The world is complex, moral dilemmas cannot be solved by sticking your head in the sand; they can only be fairly addressed by an unbiased examination of the issues involved. That means hard work!

Simply relying on your prejudice dressed up as some form of religious authority is intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt.

Your particular beliefs deserve no more credence than any other but still you bang on like a bunch of spoilt children who didn’t get their way. Totalitarianism is bad, unhealthy and yet this is what you want. An unthinking society subject to the tyranny of an un-provable fantasy, where individual moral judgements are outlawed and where one set of “values” dominates.

Give me relativism any day, where each one of us is personally morally responsible. Presumably you are afraid that in this tapestry of values that those absolutes that you so cherish will cease to be relevant. We good riddance to them, let us value humanity and the planet on which we depend and not the clapped out superstitions of a bygone age.

9 November 2010 at 10:39  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 November 2010 at 13:00  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

TEENAGE POP-SINGER PRIEST IN SEX-CHANGE MERCY DASH TO PALACE.

9 November 2010 at 13:02  
Anonymous Sibyl said...

Your Grace,

Here's one that tops your post:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/nov/10110901.html

Sir, PLEASE take care what you predict. Christopher S. Johnson has learned the jokes and predictions he makes about the apostates and heretics today come true tomorrow.

9 November 2010 at 14:49  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Graham Davis.

Bravo.

9 November 2010 at 15:28  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

GD How do we teach each one of us to be personally morally responsible. I believe that is where Christianity has been active for centuries. Yes it's a form of indoctrination but as far as I know, that is the only way that works, ie the army does a similar thing to instil discipline. Where would it be if it's troops could just be individuals with their ideas of what discipline is. I don't mean to belittle your views as you are perfectly entitled to them, I just think they are wrong as no doubt mine are to you.

9 November 2010 at 16:21  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Maturecheese

Humankind knew self discipline long before it invented armies. The act of hunting required tremendous self discipline as did early agriculture and do you really think that the indigenous peoples that had existed for hundreds of thousands of years before Christianity was invented had no morality? In their arrogance and conceit that is what your Victorian predecessors thought.

9 November 2010 at 17:39  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Graham Davis @ 10.39

''The problem is that you lot don't want to think!''

I think, that a major point of this particular 'cameo' piece is: ''what ARE we to think?!'' (substitute question for exclamation, where it suits).

Yes, it does mean ''damned hard work'' ... but I don't think we shy from that; we shy from the belief that it is possible. We ask, where has it ever been possible to judge/balance EVERYTHING upon its own merit?

Life, the universe, and everything, is at best a compromise... and can only be explained, and then only occasionally, after the event.
Isn't that a form of relativism too?

9 November 2010 at 18:09  
Blogger William said...

GD

For a moral relativist, such as yourself, you can decide whether people before Christ had morals or not. If you decide that they did have morals then they did. If you decide that they didn't have morals then they didn't. The decision is yours. Whatever you decide, it will be the right answer. There is no basis from which you can be refuted.

9 November 2010 at 18:30  
Blogger oldmaid said...

Archbishop Rowan Williams lost any respect I may have had for him when he started pontificating that Sharia Law in the Uk is unavoidable.

Of course it is avoidable, it is only the 'hand-wringers', who are in a minority that want it to happen.

Though why, completely floors me

9 November 2010 at 18:50  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Oswin and William

Our knowledge of morality pre Christ may be hazy but that is not the case during the British colonial period which is well documented. All indigenous peoples have some form or moral blueprint that was invariably embedded in their own culture and belief system. It may differ from ours and was doubtless distorted by their shamans in the same way that current ones are. For example Catholics and Moslems loathing of homosexuality, which runs counter to any decent moral belief in that it denigrates a group whose sexuality is not of their choosing but is part of a complex human development over which they have no control.

For the first time in human history we can examine the way we think and understand the human operating system. We are on the cusp of even controlling our own evolution. We can develop a truly humanistic moral and ethical system based on the basic values that all of us share. These values can become distorted and corrupted by many things, including religion and politics, but in the end we should put our trust in our fellow human beings and not mythical beings and their trumped up theology.

9 November 2010 at 20:43  
Blogger William said...

GD

Your assertion that we all have an in-built moral blueprint is utter conjecture. Your pronouncement that morals based on religious convictions are actually distortions of this moral blueprint is actually an example of your own religious conviction; namely that man is inherently moral, religion is inherently immoral and therefore secularism the only true path. You state that we can establish a moral and ethical system based on the values that we all share and then state that these values are easily distorted. Your dream of Utopia that you evangelise with religious fervour is built on shifting sands. It is without even the foundation of logic, historical precedent or the word of God. It is doomed from the start.

9 November 2010 at 22:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Britain is a Muslim majority nation".

We will see that one in 25 years.
Or less.

10 November 2010 at 00:01  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

If humankind knew discipline before it invented armies, it was born of hunger and was a tribal discipline. As for morals, no doubt they came from some form of common belief within a village ,tribe or collection of tribes. Early forms of religion. I think my point is that collective morals and ethics have always been taught through the medium of some kind of Religion, and Christianity is and has been the dominant one here and I thank God for that.

Now if our centuries old code of morals and ethics tell us that Homosexuality is wrong, that is good enough for me, especially when as a free thinking individual I still feel grossly uncomfortable with the concept of two males indulging in sexual activity with each other. I'll bet I am not in a minority with that view.

10 November 2010 at 09:13  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

William and Maturecheese

As I have said before on these pages, human beings have a hard-wired moral sense not because it is “good” but because it is fundamental to the continuance of our genes. We don’t eat our babies or discard them as a nuisance, we nurture them for many years and during this time all aspects of what we call “morality” are played out. For example the concepts of fairness and justice are learned when siblings fight over a toy or parental attention.

Human life is without any purpose save the continuance of our genes. Darwin and those who followed him have explained the process of evolution by natural selection and our knowledge of genetics offers even greater understanding what we are.

To many here this offers an unacceptably bleak scenario but I and many like me are entirely comfortable with it and it makes no difference to my daily life. It is like a musical score, interesting for those who understand it, but for the rest of us we simply enjoy the music.

And Maturecheese that you are uncomfortable with homosexuality is not a good reason for regarding it as perverted or immoral. I have two gay friends now on their 60/70s who have been together for twenty years. They are monogamous and their sexuality is hardly noticed.

10 November 2010 at 09:51  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

How wonderful it must be to have no prejudices,or any human faults.

10 November 2010 at 10:34  
Anonymous Anna B. said...

This was posted above, but needs to be posted again.

The Brave New 'Anything I Feel and Like Doing Goes' World has produced this: A mother is carrying the child of her 'gay' son: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/nov/10110901.html

An abomination. Far worse will come before it is over unless the nations repent and return to God.

10 November 2010 at 16:08  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older