Monday, February 14, 2011

Gay marriage in church?

It has been reported all over the media that the Government is intent on permitting ‘gay marriage’ to be performed in churches.

This is untrue.

Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone is preparing a Bill to allow all religious venues – churches, synagogues, mandirs, gurdwaras and mosques to perform homosexual unions if they wish, and to permit sacred scriptures and religious paraphernalia to be used in civil partnership ceremonies. There is no compulsion or coercion of anyone, and the state is not redefining marriage, for it cannot.

His Grace will now horrify and disappoint the vast majority of his readers and communicants and declare that he fully endorses this development.

The prohibition on the use of pseudo-spiritual poems in civil ceremonies is absurd: it amounts to state censorship and an enforced division between the private realm of spiritual belief and the public realm of political policy. If consenting adults wish to read the Bible, the Qur’an, the Gita, the Upinishads or a divine piece of Shakespeare as they make their vows, that should be a matter for them. We do not have a tradition of laïcité in the country, and the fundamentalist secularisation of society amounts to the systematic elimination of all religion from public life. Conservatives should see such a violation of conscience and property rights as utterly abhorrent.

And if two consenting adult Muslims wish to trundle off to their local mosque to get their gay-friendly imam to pray Allah’s blessing upon their happy union whilst facing towards Mecca and declaring the greatness of God and the eternal prophethood of Mohammed, that really ought to be a matter for the contracting parties and the president of the ceremony. In the pantheon of gods amidst the plethora of religious manifestations, the state does not define what is religiously permissible and what is prohibited, unless it transgress the law of the land. Having legalised civil partnership, it is bizarre to permit ceremonies to be performed in the Palace of Westminster whilst barring them from Finsbury Park Mosque. The state should have no interest other than in the licence of partnership by which property rights may be determined in law.

This is not simply a matter for the Church: although, as the established faith of the nation, with 26 bishops sitting in the Upper House, it is overwhelmingly so. Yet the Labour peer, Waheed Alli, who is a gay Muslim, has been more vocal on this matter than most of the lord-bishops. His proposal to permit the introduction of religious texts and language into same-sex civil partnerships should be welcomed, for it is no business of the state to sanctify what many may consider profane: it is a matter of religious liberty.

But His Grace would like to make a few things clear:

There is perhaps a justifiable concern that this development will lead to demands by militant homosexuals – the homosexualists, who are intent on terrorising Christians and the destruction of the traditional family – to get ‘married’ in a church (perceived to be the weakest religious institution and so the most vulnerable to legal challenge). Such a request will be rejected by a local vicar with the support of his bishop, and the church will be embroiled in a plethora of anti-discrimination lawsuits.

The homosexualists will not, of course, take on their local mosque.

And they are also likely to leave the Roman Catholic Church well and truly alone.

It is the Established Church they are out to destroy, and so will be encouraged in their quest by the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association, whose aims and objectives happen to coincide with the homosexualist agenda. Parliament must address this head-on, and place an assurance in the Statute Book that the exercising of the religious conscience cannot be a violation of equality legislation. In short, Parliament must assert freedom of religion, not simply sustain freedom of worship.

Secondly, marriage cannot be redefined by a mere Act of Parliament, for it is God’s ordinance and not man’s. As Anglican Mainstream observe:
‘Civil partnerships are not marriage. The legal protections available to civil partnerships should not be confused with marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman is God's provision for human flourishing. Research has shown that it offers the best environment for the care and nurture of children and family stability which our society needs today.’
It is Parliament which has approved and licensed His Grace’s Prayer Book for common usage and this contains the marriage liturgy which clearly defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Unless Parliament is intent on foisting a whole new liturgy of marriage on the Church and redefining what has been orthodox Christian belief for millennia, there can be no move to reclassify civil partnership as marriage.

Thirdly, there are the unintended consequences of tampering with the traditional definition of marriage. Some of them may be known unknowns, like state-approved polygamy or heterosexual divorce versus civil partnership ‘dissolution’. In cases of non-consummation, a heterosexual couple may legitimately divorce. But civil partners do not consummate their union. If they are to become ‘married’, may they divorce on all terms equal with heterosexuals? If so, may non-consummation become an indisputable reason in the courts? The unknown unknowns will be even more interesting, and will undoubtedly give rise to insurmountable hurdles and unresolvable conflicts.

Johann Hari gives an glimpse into the future, of a time when consenting incestuous behaviour is no business of the state.

His Grace notes that his successor in the See of Canterbury has been decidedly trappist on this dog’s breakfast, leaving it to the Archbishop of York to articulate the Church’s view. He told BBC One’s Andrew Marr show: “I live in a liberal democracy and I want equality for everybody. I cannot say the Quakers shouldn’t do it. Nor do I want somebody to tell me the Church of England must do it or the Roman Catholic Church must do it because actually that is not what equality is about.”

Quite.

130 Comments:

Blogger Graham Davis said...

As straight atheist I didn’t marry in a church but it seems there are Gay Christians who would like to. As an outsider I will give you some advice; if you want your dwindling congregations to revive then don’t reject those who wish to celebrate their union under your roof. And before you tell me that the Bible rejects homosexuality let me remind you that you have already ditched many of those really nasty bits in the Old Testament (if you want reminding I will provide some verses).

The truth is that many who post here are homophobic male reactionaries who prefer always to look back rather than forward. What you dress up as principle is often simply prejudice and you display little of the Christian charity and kindness that you so often espouse.

14 February 2011 at 11:25  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

Cranmer. I think you fail to address or answer some of the bigger questions which arise.
Why should the State interfere with what are purely private ceremonies by homosexuals?
Why should it be thought necessary for the State to interfere with church's own internal jurisdiction in these matters?

If same sex partnerships are not "real" marriages as you yourself would concede, what relevance has a "church" ceremony, the reading of scriptures or "religious paraphernalia, to the occasion?
These only have significance to explain and interpret the essence of real (Christian) marriage not a substitute. They are therefore superfluous for same sex unions.

In any event, on the basis of the Big Society, Cameron should logically remove such matters from State intervention and leave them to those who have a direct interest.

14 February 2011 at 11:28  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

As a matter of domestic policy your endorsement, from a Judaeo-Christian point of view, is morally wrong.

We Judaeo-Christians are meant to be the salt of society – its preservative – not a conduit for poison.

If this type of State-sanctioned union is permitted then why not polygamy? Why stop at polygamy; why not union between human beings and beasts?

And where are these friendly Imams? This opens the door to polygamy? Will the government provide social housing for a man, his four wives and 13 children?

I take it that we are all happy for the State to collect more taxes to facilitate?

You state: ‘… the state does not define what is religiously permissible and what is prohibited, unless it transgresses the law of the land’. (The ‘law of the land’ you have taken from Magna Carta – a document based upon Judaeo-Christian values).

That is a statement that supports the abolition of Christian adoption agencies.

The ‘law of the land’ notion was rooted in Judaeo-Christian values – not as today in left-liberal ‘anything goes towards the destruction of society’ values.

Do you really believe that the Con-Dems will legislate to protect the Judaeo-Christian conscience?

The left-liberals know that there is only one faith that stands against their agendum:

Our glorious historic faith.

Its destruction assures their victory and the eventual destruction of this once great nation-state.

Under Section 149 Equality Act 2010 will not local government units have the discretion to withhold marriage registration services from those churches that deny such services?

You wrote: ‘… there can be no move to reclassify civil partnership as marriage’.

Get real.

The State will redefine it as ‘Marriage in Law’.

14 February 2011 at 11:32  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Graham Davis,

You have clearly neither read nor understood anything His Grace has written on this matter.

Mr Graham Wood,

His Grace apologises for his manifest deficiencies and shortcomings.

14 February 2011 at 11:33  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Your Grace, it is imperative that assurances of freedom of religion are set in stone. Until they are, churches will have the right to say yes but if they refuse they'll be hauled before the local beak on the grounds of discrimination. After all, we already know that gay rights trump Christian rights when it comes to things like B&B accommodation.

For all my agnosticism even I have a serious problem with the administering of unequal "rights" when it comes to Anglicans adhering to their faith. They lose out every time and that can't be right. Clearly the Law has become a tyrannical ass thanks to the ECHR. iDave said he'd roll back some of the crap legislation brought in by the last government. All I'm seeing is the State growing ever larger, ever more controlling. But then, since he's a champion liar, it's hardly surprising.

Time for it to stop don't you think?

14 February 2011 at 11:33  
Blogger raggedclown said...

I agreed with all of this down to the bit when you started fantasising about "militant homosexuals" and "homosexualists." No one wants to get married in a church that doesn't want them. Peter Tatchell, whom you may choose to describedas a "militant homosexual," has repeatedly rejected such a notion.

What gays and lesbians do want is to be offered the same range of non-religious services as straights, e.g. when they turn up at a bed and breakfast. Churches, mosques, etc., on the other hand, are perfectly free to carry on discriminating, scapegoating minorities, and preaching prejudice in the name of their special friend, just as they always have done.

14 February 2011 at 11:35  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Cranmer said

You have clearly neither read nor understood anything His Grace has written on this matter.

So which of my comments misrepresent your position?

14 February 2011 at 11:46  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"What gays and lesbians do want is to be offered the same range of non-religious services as straights, e.g. when they turn up at a bed and breakfast. Churches, mosques, etc., on the other hand, are perfectly free to carry on discriminating, scapegoating minorities, and preaching prejudice in the name of their special friend, just as they always have done."

*claps*

14 February 2011 at 11:49  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Thank you Your Grace for setting out a reasoned argument on this topic, and especially for not using a picture of Elton John and his partner. :)

14 February 2011 at 12:03  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

YG, agree or not with the first half of your blog, the second half where you say that the state must support freedom of Religion is pie in the sky. We all know what is coming and we all know which way the state will jump. The precedent has been set so often.

Gay marriage should have been opposed outright as there can be no compromise with the secularists,atheists and suchlike. Give an inch.....

14 February 2011 at 12:04  
Blogger raggedclown said...

Actually, I slightly withdraw my somewhat tongue-in-cheek anti-religious remarks above. Not all branches of all faiths are discriminatory, and, as His Grace rightly points out, this change in the law is aimed at allowing those denominations who welcome gays and lesbians and would like to be able to marry them to do so. At the moment, Quakers, Unitarians, and Liberal Jews, who would like to offer same-sex couples the opportunity to marry on their premises, are not allowed to do so by law. The change in the law is just and equitable, as His Grace says. No one will be *obliged* to change.

The most interesting part of His Grace's piece is the paragraph beginning "The prohibition on the use of pseudo-spiritual poems in civil ceremonies is absurd: it amounts to state censorship and an enforced division between the private realm of spiritual belief and the public realm of political policy."

I agree with the premise (I'm against the aggressive secularism
of France and even, to some extent, the USA), not sure about the explanation.

14 February 2011 at 12:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The reason religious references are strictly forbidden in registry office marriages is because the Church of Englnad insisted on it.

Their reasoning was, if (straight)people want a religious ceremony they should have it in church. (There may be a fiscal element to their objections, too)

14 February 2011 at 12:38  
Anonymous Russell Sprout said...

Is Cranmer attempting to get into Cameron's favour by toadying up to his liberal agenda of the big society?

14 February 2011 at 12:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pleased to note that Cranmer is in favour of gay marriage and (hopefully)gay priests as well.

14 February 2011 at 12:49  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Cranmer said

You have clearly neither read nor understood anything His Grace has written on this matter.

On further reflection you have a point. My comments were anticipating your communicants responses and as the first post I probably jumped the gun. You reserve a special status for Marriage but are happy to allow vicars to bless Civil Partnerships along with churches to be used for the ceremonies because in your view they are not “real” marriages. I am sure that will keep some people happy.

14 February 2011 at 13:03  
Blogger Kidz Klub said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 February 2011 at 13:08  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Russell Sprout and Anon@12.49

"...and the state is not redefining marriage, for it cannot... marriage cannot be redefined by a mere Act of Parliament, for it is God’s ordinance and not man’s... the marriage liturgy which clearly defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman..."

Could His Grace be any clearer?

Mr Graham Davis,

His Grace thanks you for reflecting and reconsidering. He is not responsible for the sometimes intolerant fulminations of some of his more robust communicants.

14 February 2011 at 13:08  
Anonymous Ichabod said...

I agree that the state should not be the ones responsible for prohibiting or sanctioning the religious content of ceremonies in places of worship.

However the leadership of the church can and should. Indeed, as you point out, the church of Rome will certainly say "not under our roof". The CofE will say, "...er, maybe under our roof, sometimes, under certain circumstances, we think, maybe ... let a judge decide". And they will get what they deserve.

Meanwhile it will be left ot individual Christians and B&B owners to attest for their faith. The CofE and the Conservatives - convictionless peas in a pod. Maybe they should consider a civil partnership?

14 February 2011 at 13:11  
Anonymous intolerant fulminations said...

I think it is wonderful that his grace supports gay marriage.It would be wonderful for gay couples to tie the not in church, just like everyone else. Hooray for this blog!

14 February 2011 at 13:44  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

… marriage cannot be redefined by a mere Act of Parliament, for it is God’s ordinance and not man’s.

In a secular state, ‘marriage’ means whatever Parliament says it means.

A good day to give this summary of the Frankfurt School another airing: ‘Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judæo-Christian legacy.’

14 February 2011 at 14:08  
Anonymous Dodahday said...

Thing is, the Lord Almighty would not recognise a marriage between a same sex couple. The gays forget this.

You can have what you want in a secularist society, but not in the Lord's eyes and not with His blessing.

14 February 2011 at 14:47  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

Graham Davies said >> you have already ditched many of those really nasty bits in the Old Testament<<.

Actually it was Jesus Christ who clarified the message of the Old Testament rather than people ditching them but fundamentalists and critics like to hark back to make a point.

My objection to liberal stealth is that it undermines the basics of beliefs leaving believers such as Anglican traditionalists marginalised. I had my say on the current subject here:
http://ancientbritonpetros.blogspot.com/2011/02/oh-what-gay-day.html

14 February 2011 at 14:50  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

"It is the Established Church they [gay activists] are out to destroy" I'm sure it is; but they have allies. C of E leaders, the church itself; and by homosexualists' actions or "liberal" C of E leaders' actions, the deeed looks as though it will soon be done ...

14 February 2011 at 14:51  
Blogger English Viking said...

...'His Grace will now horrify and disappoint the vast majority of his readers and communicants and declare that he fully endorses this development.'...

Yup, It had the desired effect on me.

Yet more social engineering from left-wing lunatics. If the Gov had any moral fibre at all, it would lead the way in reversing the ridiculous trend of normalising perversity and criminalising those who object.

A Church (in the architectural sense) is supposed to be holy, set aside for God. To allow those who have not the faintest regard for His will and His ways to deceive themselves and the congregation into thinking that God has blessed the proceedings, on a Saturday, and then expect the Holy Spirit to move and inspire, on a Sunday, is patently absurd.

14 February 2011 at 16:00  
Anonymous Bede said...

YG said marriage cannot be redefined by the state. Perhaps, but the state, in effect, redefined the order of priesthood (according to your Prayer Book) in the early 1990s. The state will do whatever it wants to do. It, and the ruling liberal establishment, has an absolutist creed, despite affecting to believe in post-modernist relativism.

14 February 2011 at 16:03  
Anonymous francis said...

"It would be wonderful for gay couples to tie the not in church …" [intolerant fulminations, 13:44]

You got it right with the last three words.

14 February 2011 at 16:07  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

The whole system is irrelevant, as all these different factions clammer for rights within the framework of the State and religious institutions thinking they are seeing victories and barriers falling, others are genuine about lawful rebellion and are seeking ways to disengage with a system of registering for anything that involves vows between yourselves and your maker.

Therefore I can understand why the tradition of handfasting is on the rise and the traditions of the establishment are clamering for homosexuals to fill the gap.

I will embrace the homosexuals and give them a full on snog to prove I have no phobias when they join the rest of us in waking up to the fact we need no State sanctioning of our affairs.

The saying living over the brush comes from the fact we sed to have a tradition of placing a broom on the ground and skipping over it to sanction a marriage.

Come on gays, lets skip tgether!

14 February 2011 at 16:38  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

'And they are also likely to leave the Roman Catholic Church well and truly alone.'

Bahahahaha, I doubt it. If there's anything homosexuals hate more than Anglicanism it's Catholicism. If they start with the Anglicans, it will only be because they are a soft touch. While the Anglicanism has been subverted and subdued on several fronts, it would seem a bullying manoeuvre to try and eliminate it from the public sphere. Catholics, on the other hand, are very unpopular in this country; demonising them is easy because they do not move on morality, making them seem backward. This makes them fair game for Liberals.

I suggest we do not build our Maginot Line in front of the Anglican Church, hoping the invasion doesn't come through the Catholic Ardennes. We must prepare for battle on both fronts Your Grace; if one of the major denominations falls then the cause is lost.

14 February 2011 at 16:40  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Re' your specific concerns, Your Grace: yes, those personages and individual churches who 'do not wish' will, in time, be picked-off and barracked by militant homosexuals. Or, any random homosexuals who fancy a bit of public attention, will endeavour to nail themselves to the cross of their cause.

14 February 2011 at 16:55  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"Bahahahaha, I doubt it. If there's anything homosexuals hate more than Anglicanism it's Catholicism."

Not just gay people, atheists too. Though hate is far too strong a word. Of course, the feeling is entirely mutual.

14 February 2011 at 17:28  
Anonymous Gay rights for gays said...

excellent news. Good. Cranmer, I once thought you to be a bigoted little englander of the daily mail variety. But your endorsement of gay marriage and equality confirms that you are in fact a secret liberal at heart, rather than being like the madman commentator D Singh. Pleased to read you are going in the correct direction.

14 February 2011 at 17:39  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Graham: "The truth is that many who post here are homophobic male reactionaries who prefer always to look back rather than forward. What you dress up as principle is often simply prejudice and you display little of the Christian charity and kindness that you so often espouse."

Well, quite.

Homophobia is quite a poor word for what goes on but there's something I've noticed about a sub-section of people who object.

When I meet a straight couple, they're just a couple in a relationship to me. It doesn't cross my mind how they perform their particular sexual acts together, unless they are unusually mismatched in height or they are hugely overweight, and that's just my slightly puerile marvelling at it.

The homophobes (for want of a better word) immediately focus on the sex act between gay people. It consumes them. It's buggery this, and shirt-lifting that. It gives them away. It's a visceral thing. An overwhelmingly emotional response. The intellectualising of it happens afterwards.

I see it time and again and I think: heyho, homophobe alert, someone's not comfortable with their or our sexuality.

14 February 2011 at 17:42  
Blogger English Viking said...

DanJ0,

...'and I think: heyho'...

I'm sure you do.

14 February 2011 at 18:01  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Gay rights for gays (17:39)—His Grace has never made any secret of his liberalism. For instance, he knows perfectly well that Islam will supplant Christianity in this country but he refuses to contemplate any measures to defend his faith from extinction. What better illustration of self-destructive liberalism could you wish for? Magnificent!

14 February 2011 at 18:11  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

'Of course, the feeling is entirely mutual.'

Sorry mate, you're just another sinner; no more, no less. Homosexuals only get more press time in speeches because they so stridently demand that they are morally justified. If there was a group who demanded the same for unmarried heterosexuals it would garner the same response.

I always find it amusing how people will mistake or misrepresent something as hate, and then use it as justification to hate back. There is no Christian campaign to make homosexuality illegal; nor to limit their basic freedoms. Yet the Gaytheist community seem so intent on eliminating Christianity from this country that I have to wonder whether or not they should be considered hate groups.

14 February 2011 at 18:15  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

For those on this blog that think it is wonderful the gays can get married in church, aren't you missing the point. I stand to be corrected but It is my understanding that God does not condone same sex relationships and definitely not Gay marriage. Bearing this in mind, wouldn't it be wrong to allow such a ceremony in a house of God whilst going against his will.

14 February 2011 at 18:40  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"Sorry mate, you're just another sinner; no more, no less. Homosexuals only get more press time in speeches because they so stridently demand that they are morally justified"

C'mon, there's a whole bunch of Christians who are obsessed with sex, and especially gay sex. You're indulging yourself with a bit of wishful thinking there I think.

14 February 2011 at 18:41  
Anonymous male reactionary said...

Danjo, Graham Davies.

Look I do not have a phobia of gay people; I just find the thought of men putting their cocks into places they should not disgusting, re the gay marriage. Given that the gays can now have their own children and bring them up, what's the point in moaning about it? We abandoned our God when we allowed the homosexual to bring up children and soon God's judgement will be upon this land!

14 February 2011 at 18:42  
Anonymous Billy, Evangelical Preacher said...

DanJo- yep your just a sinner like everyone else and you need to be saved by Jesus like everyone else. Even Graham Davies needs the love and power of Jesus Christ in his life, or he shall loose it upon his death!

14 February 2011 at 18:44  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

male reactionary said: "I just find the thought of men putting their cocks into places they should not disgusting, re the gay marriage."

Well, that's fine. I find the thought of all sorts of people having sex quite disgusting. Afterall, it's a pretty messy business and there are lots of profoundly unattractive people around who indulge in it. Post a link to your picture and I'll let you know whether I approve of you having sex.

14 February 2011 at 18:52  
Blogger Tony_E said...

The problem is that what starts initially with 'permission to use holy ground' will soon not be able to be refused.

If the law allows it, it will soon become illegal to deny it - that is the route that equality takes, no matter whose rights or belief that stamps on.

14 February 2011 at 19:03  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

The real problem is that homosexuals fight for rights and not liberties, if they tried reading treatises on Government such as John Locks, which are biblical christian based they would see just how important our forebears felt it was to keep both Divine rights and Government at bay

Let freedom hold sway, stop registering your children today, so Gay couples cannot get the State to take them away

14 February 2011 at 19:07  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

I have a copy of the Second Treatise of Government in front of me right now. What do you think of Locke's State of Nature compared to, say, that of Thomas Hobbes?

14 February 2011 at 19:42  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Your Grace.

It is a huge dog's dinner. I look up to the sky and shrug at whatever might be there, somewhere.

I feel this presence, this overwhelming sense of God, but I find no sense in any of it. Can a man with a white collar really bestow God's blessing upon anything? I don't think so. The miracle and the blessing is the universe and the human mind, and what it can perceive of beauty, and how it can creatively reflect and express.

It is no expression of love, but simple arrogance and deception for any man to assume he or she has the power or influence to channel divine blessings upon other people's love for each other.

It is equally desperate to seek this kind of blessing from priestly charlatans.

14 February 2011 at 19:55  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

The CofE needs to grow a pair testicles and then perhaps some of this madness will cease.

14 February 2011 at 20:01  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

What if you discover that the priest who married you was a practising child abuser at the very time he bestowed God's blessing upon your union? Would the blessing still count? Would he have still been able to channel God's, whatever?

What if you discover that the priest is an atheist? How does that work?

Can you begin to feel the bullshit?

14 February 2011 at 20:02  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

DanJ0,

I don't speak for the hateful 'evangelists' that infest some of the free churches. Besides I was talking about Catholicism specifically.

14 February 2011 at 21:03  
Blogger Nightwatchstate said...

"gay-friendly imam"

I laughed. Wickedly.

14 February 2011 at 21:09  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

DanJ0 said...
I have a copy of the Second Treatise of Government in front of me right now. What do you think of Locke's State of Nature compared to, say, that of Thomas Hobbes?

First you tell me Danjo is it God or State that wants innocent new borns registered to their debts.

A baby is not born believing in God or State but atleast it has a choice about God, the State is forced upon it.

14 February 2011 at 21:13  
Blogger MFH said...

Gays enjoy it while it lasts
When this is the islamic republic you will long for christian values.

14 February 2011 at 21:20  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Our alien masters require us to stop being what we are. And so, because the success of their campaign depends on destruction of our Church, I agree with Your Grace: It is the Established Church they are out to destroy... .

Myself, I can't see how, or why, couples who lack the paraphernalia for procreation wish to 'equate' themselves with genders they discriminate against. Similarly I cannot empathise with those whom God has endowed with one gender, but who choose to ape another. I only assume they're somehow admitting to their lack of 'diversity'!

Still, I can be glad when homosexuals attend church if, in so doing, they turn some way to the One Almighty God, who alone is Judge. On the other hand, nothing will drag me back to the church where, in a crowded aisle, I've seen lezzos er, get aggressive... They never give up: not in schools, universities, or churches; and I think we've seen that's also true about some males of their species.

And so I will never go to a church that betrays its own doctrine and encourages them further by following fork-tongued governmental directives. Sadly, I think that's probably the reaction intended by His Master's Voice, aided by the forces YG outlines.

My hope, then, is that we'll all carry on trying to be the best Christians we can: as I think we did before the euSSR promoted this homosexual lather. Under such covers, after all, they are also closing down our immigration controls, giving away our armed forces, selling off all kinds of resources ... and enabling 'genetico'-social engineering.

Geese and Golden Eggs do spring to mind.

14 February 2011 at 21:22  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Wheels turn and what is becomes what was. The end of an era is nigh and the reductio ad absurdam of so-called liberal democracy is reaching its zenith.

The world that has existed since 1945 in what is prpclaimed to be "The West" is reaching its end and the future will be very different.

14 February 2011 at 21:28  
Anonymous Gay Anglican said...

Lakester91 said "I don't speak for the hateful 'evangelists' that infest some of the free churches. Besides I was talking about Catholicism specifically.
".

Thanks for that clarification, so your speaking for hateful catholics rather than hateful protestants. My, my arn't you thoughful.

14 February 2011 at 21:29  
Anonymous male reactionary said...

Danjo said "Post a link to your picture and I'll let you know whether I approve of you having sex".Sorry chap, you'd get too turned on and would probably start to stalk me. I remember when you homos had to do your dirty acts in the gents loos!

14 February 2011 at 21:31  
Anonymous Jimmy Nail said...

Jared Gaites asked "What if you discover that the priest who married you was a practising child abuser at the very time he bestowed God's blessing upon your union? Would the blessing still count? Would he have still been able to channel God's, whatever?"

Ask Lakester91, who is the self appointed spokesperson for the "non hateful" Church of Rome.

14 February 2011 at 21:33  
Anonymous Gay Anglican said...

Is Male reactionary a 'closet' gay??

14 February 2011 at 21:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lakester91, isn't the word 'infest' a bit of a hateful way of describing your fellow Christians?

Would you like the following:

'The Roman Catholic Church infests the planet earth with its out of date doctrines and practices,even to the point of killing someone who proved that the sun did not revolve around the earth and agreeing that he was right 500 years later?'

You really are a bigot arn't you?

14 February 2011 at 21:37  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Anonymous and all the others who have decided to misunderstand my point (presumably so they can be righteously indignant),

A bit presumptuous of you all to think I was referring to the free churches as a whole isn't it? Perhaps if you had taken a moment and calmed down a bit and read the previous posts you might have realised that I was actually making out that these people give the Church (both protestant and Catholic denominations) a bad name, not that the free churches were the problem (despite your ridiculous reflex actions I still don't). Then I suppose it was a great excuse for a bit of hatred of Catholicism. Quite interesting really, considering my original post mentioned how easily people will misinterpret things as hate and use it as an excuse to hate back.

Anonymous,

Killed whom? Your history is atrocious; Galileo was put under cushy house arrest because he broke his word on not publishing, took the piss out of the Pope, and made some powerful enemies in the scientific community; he was condemned by the inquisition, which was state, not church, jurisdiction and the only reason he was not immediately buried with honours (after he died of natural causes) was because of his 'suspicion of heresy' tag; something rectified 95 years later. On a further note; he did not 'prove' that the Sun did not revolve around the Earth. His evidence suggested it, but his telescope wasn't good enough to prove it. Besides, his theory was not that the Sun didn't revolve around the Earth, but that the Sun was the centre of the Universe and that the Earth revolved around it; both of which have been shown to be untrue.

Out of date doctrines and practices? Holding true to Christian values and morality is backward to some I suppose...

14 February 2011 at 22:05  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

It's all insecure nonsense to me, and as much as I hate the game of Golf, I would not expect to join a golf club and demand to play five-a-side football on the ninth tee. I would have thought the same etiquette should apply when you join a religious club, like the church of Rome for example, that has club rules about gay marriage.

With all due respects to Islam and its insane and dysfunctional aspects, it has club rules and its uniqueness lies in its ability to terrorise, subdue, and even hypnotise what would be normally self respecting people into accepting it as a serious and intelligent entity. But it has to be said that it is noble and true to the Old Testament monster that calls himself God, and Islam is less hypocritical in its approach to indoctrinating and capturing souls than any of the others in the same genre. Islam, above any of the others, seems to have captured the true nature of its God and does not shy away in embarrassment when it comes to adhering to the monstrous whims written down in its divine book of hellishness. But we accept that it is part of a culture just the same, and club rules are club rules.

14 February 2011 at 23:00  
Blogger English Viking said...

Lakester91,

Hate to be picky, but when was it proven false that the Earth revolves around the Sun?

I think you'll find it does; once every 365 days.

14 February 2011 at 23:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D Singh said 14 February 2011 11:32

Sir, I fully concur with your statement, especially;

'The ‘law of the land’ notion was rooted in Judaeo-Christian values – not as today in left-liberal ‘anything goes towards the destruction of society’ values.

Do you really believe that the Con-Dems will legislate to protect the Judaeo-Christian conscience?

The left-liberals know that there is only one faith that stands against their agendum:

Our glorious historic faith.'

If you had been watching The Daily Politics with Andrew Neil yesterday, you would have heard him present the ridiculous situation in Wales that has a Lab/Plaid in coalition and Lib/Cons opposing. Yet what alternative is there to the 4 parties, as one coalition is operating in England and another in Wales..Who do you vote for to get change?

All parties in essence are exactly the same, as they know the UK is ruled from the EU and to make promises that cannot be delivered would be spotted immediately.

Our parliament and assemblies are just chameleons, who become whatever the voters perceive them to be at that moment in time when they are spinning a particular rhetorical policy. Vote them in and it all changes to 'Governmental', so that the more things appear to change, the more it all remains the same.

The Man Who Never Was.

Ps.

Some bloggers on here, pretending to be more than one person, keep making basic spelling mistakes in their 'monikers' comments.
A word of advice. Please try to use spell checker if you want to keep up the pretense!

15 February 2011 at 01:48  
Blogger LeucipottomySpoon82 said...

365.25

15 February 2011 at 01:56  
Anonymous Paul said...

Whatever happened to right and wrong Your Grace?

15 February 2011 at 02:36  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

"What ever happened to right and wrong."

Ah yes, indeed. The human mind, as somebody has already mentioned, has the innate capacity to distinguish between right and wrong without having to engage in imaginary conversations with God.

Consider the story of Abraham and Isaac. This is a story from the Old Testament and it's obviously about the primitive mind and emotions of very primitive humans. Abraham feels the presence of God in his world. He feels it so strong that he can't understand why God does not appreciate him more than he imagines he should. Abraham's world is basic and full of mystery and suffering and he has not the capacity to solve some of the riddles that life seems to be throwing at him. He has all kinds of personal issues and conflicts going on around him and he can't understand why God does not reciprocate his love. So Abraham imagines he has this conversation with God that he should sacrifice his son in order to prove himself.

It's a story about emotions and the expression of the numinous in the primitive mind. When it comes to the crunch, and he has moments to do the dastardly deed, he suddenly realises that he can't do this thing. He suddenly feels the love for his son, which maybe he had never given any real intelligent consideration to before. So he decides that this weird feeling, or mixed emotions must come from God, it's the best he can do. When in reality there was no such God-given suggestion of sacrifice in the first place. And, in all reality, this is not actually a story of any one particular person but a generalised story of what came to be felt and understood by the more intelligent of ancient times.

This story informs us of many things. It may in fact be a divinely inspired story (inspiration from the soul), an attempt to highlight something, but the message has been completely lost, and even we continue to see it in primitive terms. It tells me that we have been the same for a long time, that we have feelings and perceptions of God, and that sometimes we get carried away with our imagination in desperate attempts to project God into our daily lives, when in reality God is is our daily lives and the very universe we find ourselves in.

Abraham felt love for his son, a very special emotion and came to the conclusion that such an emotion is divine in origin. And I have to agree that love is a 'thing' that has to be a divine signature. These are the messages that we should look for in the stories of the what we think of as sacred books. Not just narratives about how God spoke directly to ancient and primitive people, but how they made a hash of interpreting the God that was their universe.

15 February 2011 at 06:26  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Yes, Anonymous, there's clearly been a sudden influx of IDs writing from a gay and atheist perspective and poking the unreconstructed with a sharp stick.

There's normally something of the playground about simply reversing an observation, when it makes almost no sense to do so, but you have used it with devastating effect. Well done you.

15 February 2011 at 07:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DanJo said 15 February 2011 07:29

Yes, Anonymous, there's clearly been a sudden influx of IDs writing from a gay and atheist perspective (Not me guv, never stated this) and poking the unreconstructed with a sharp stick.(**ouch, he shouts**).

There's normally something of the playground about simply reversing an observation (Oops, a sensitive nerve from our school days perhaps?) when it makes almost no sense to do so, but you have used it with devastating effect. Well done you.(Not my intention you, merely an observation).

The Man Who Never Was??

15 February 2011 at 07:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DanJo said 15 February 2011 07:29

You miss the point about multiple monikers on a comments section or do you. The real question, is it not, is

Which ONE is the REAL me?

Who shall I present to discuss the problems commented on here with the 'real' me?

An old pensioner from north wales perhaps?
Why not a young lad from the north east, who left school with no quals and works as a labourer on a building site for minimum wages.
A retired theology professor from oxford who likes to educate the unreconstructed also.
Maybe a single mum from anywhere in the uk with problems bringing up 3 kids from 2 different fathers who are not there anymore.
Or better still, a jamaican bouncer and part time drug dealer, who knows a few things about life, 'my man, in da 'Real World'

Hmmn, who to be, who to be?

Which one is the real me or have I not listed him/her yet?

Get the drift?

The Man Who Never Was??

15 February 2011 at 08:00  
Anonymous len said...

I have visions of his Grace sitting bound and gagged in his chair whilst some imposter sits furiously banging out articles on his P C .

Hope you manage to free yourself Y G !

15 February 2011 at 08:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DanJo said 14 February 2011 19:42

'I have a copy of the Second Treatise of Government in front of me right now. What do you think of Locke's State of Nature compared to, say, that of Thomas Hobbes?'

'Middle shelf, third book in from the right, beside Geoffrey Chaucer's 2nd edition of Troilus and Cressida perhaps?

Ho Ha He..Hilarious!!*sound of thigh slapping*

See what I mean, playground does not even come into it?

The Man Who Never Was??

15 February 2011 at 08:12  
Anonymous len said...

I also have a vision of a huge tide of evil waiting- to flood the land.
It starts by a trickle,but it keeps pushing harder and harder,becomes a stream, then a mighty river,then eventually a tsunami which sweeps all before it.

15 February 2011 at 08:16  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Gay rights for gays

You cannot make that which is crooked straight.

15 February 2011 at 08:33  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

'Lakester91,

Hate to be picky, but when was it proven false that the Earth revolves around the Sun?

I think you'll find it does; once every 365 days.'

Perhaps this may seem a little pedantic, but as a point of physics, Newton showed that they both revolve around a common centre of mass. This is ultimately not the centre of the mass of the Sun, though it's probably quite close. To say that the Earth revolves around the Sun is an oversimplification.

15 February 2011 at 09:01  
Anonymous Ichabod said...

@Jared Gaites

Wow ... aren't we lucky that some 4,000 years after the events you actually know what was really going on.

Of course, you realise that there is another even more plausible explanation that yours, i.e. the one given at the time.

15 February 2011 at 09:31  
Blogger English Viking said...

Lakester91,

Twaddle.

15 February 2011 at 09:53  
Anonymous Tacitus said...

All the gay and lesbian community want is parity with the heterosexual one - if that requires legislation to achieve it, then so be it.

The Church has (of late) a poor track record in promoting equality when left to its own devices - women bishops, gay bishops etc.

If it requires Parliament to push the Church into the 21st Century, it will do it no harm ... and who knows, it may actually grow to like it

15 February 2011 at 10:07  
Blogger D. Singh said...

They want to push us into their 21st Century Jerusalem on Earth and we are leading the Church back to the 1st Century.

Soon, our worlds must collide.

15 February 2011 at 10:30  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Mr Singh said

we are leading the Church back to the 1st Century

I thought you would be pleased, it sounds almost authentic.

15 February 2011 at 11:01  
Blogger D. Singh said...

So they want parity.

But that assumes that the heterosexual norm: is the norm. (No one would want parity with that which was inferior.)

It means that they assume they are not the real – only the pretend – and that before the El Roi.

Tell me, that if they partake of the Bread and the Wine will they eat and drink damnation?

15 February 2011 at 11:08  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Cranmer

In the even colder light of another day I want to apologise again for my first post, it was very poorly worded and did indeed misrepresent your comments, it should have been aimed solely at some of your communicants who (as anticipated) continue to demonstrate a very hostile attitude towards homosexuality.

15 February 2011 at 11:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Graham Davis said 15 February 2011 11:15

'it should have been aimed solely at some of your communicants who (as anticipated) continue to demonstrate (here read 'a very different attitude towards homosexuality than my own, therefore I condemn them'?) a very hostile attitude towards homosexuality.

We have a homosexual saying that others only view them as such because of the sexual act and He/She and other homosexuals or lesbians do not participate in relationship for this but have a relationship based on something else?
WOW, they are free from all the normal sexual urges the rest of us have..Never knew that! Well, we live and learn, do we not.

This could be similarly related therefore to heterosexuals who do not participate in the sexual act in a marriage either but is commonly known as a 'breakdown of a relationship', by and large.YES?? It is NEVER something heterosexuals go into as the basis of a relationship/marriage.
I severely doubt homosexuals or lesbians do either!
Perhaps, me thinks, the commentator is being insincere to win an argument!

We, as christians, do not condemn individuals, just the act..How is this difference of opinion not acceptable compared to your own 'Hostile comments about Christ and Christianity' or are you and other atheists on here the only ones allowed to have an alternative opinion based on your arbitrary ( Atheists ) morals.

The Man Who Never Was??

15 February 2011 at 11:47  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr Graham Davis wrote:
'...your communicants who (as anticipated) continue to demonstrate a very hostile attitude towards homosexuality.'

This, my first contribution to this thread, may confirm Mr Davis's worst fears.

I think, Graham, you should distingush between three linked but separate factors:

1. There are homosexual men, that is men who have a natural attraction to those of their own sex. This, like many other regrettable things, is a fact of nature and cannot be denied. It would be foolish to take a hostile attitude towards such people. I consider them to be unfortunate. I would hope that, like other people who have regrettable aspects to their natures (i.e. all of us), they will be enabled to suppress their desires.

2. There are homosexual acts. These acts are condemned in the Bible (not only the Old Testament) as unnatural and as signs of God's judgement. I am aware that you don't believe in God and that you accord the Bible no authority, but you should be equally aware that some people differ from you. They have a different starting point. Agreement between us and you is impossible. I do take a hostile stance towards homosexual acts, though maybe not in the way you seem to expect. I don't think such things should be illegal. I consider them immoral, but I don't believe it is any part of the state's proper function to legislate on moral matters. Because of this, I support the rights of homosexuals to behave as they do, even though I abhor their behaviour.

3. There is homosexual propaganda and a homosexual agenda which goes far beyond the tolerance I referred to above. It seeks to foist upon us the idea that homosexual nature and homosexual acts are a form of normality. It actively recruits young men to commit homosexual acts and adopt a homosexual lifestyle. I am particularly antagonistic towards that agenda and its promoters.

I hope you will see that none of this implies any lack of love towards homosexual people. I am heartily sick of all the rhetoric of 'hate' this and 'phobia' that which bedevils conversations of this sort. It serves only to obfuscate the real issues and to distract from genuine debate. Perhaps that is why some people deploy it.

15 February 2011 at 11:50  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"1. There are homosexual men, that is men who have a natural attraction to those of their own sex. This, like many other regrettable things, is a fact of nature and cannot be denied. It would be foolish to take a hostile attitude towards such people. I consider them to be unfortunate. I would hope that, like other people who have regrettable aspects to their natures (i.e. all of us), they will be enabled to suppress their desires"

I'm sure we're all very grateful for your tolerance. Of course, your comment hinges on the thing being regrettable in some way. Heterosexuality is not regrettable, it's just, well, heterosexuality. Likewise with homosexuality.

One would probably try to suppress regrettable things if they were inherently harmful to others or oneself. But they aren't. What you're suggesting is trying to stay physically and mentally celebate from adolescence to the day one dies. And for what? To make the religious feel more comfortable? The idea is outrageous, really.

15 February 2011 at 12:33  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr DanJ0 I don't expect you to be grateful for my tolerance. I hope, rather that you read what I have written and try to understand it. There is no point in your expressions of sarcasm or outrage.

And, yes, of course my comment hinges on the thing being regrettable. I have a point of view, as do you, and from my point of view, the thing is regrettable. My point of view is informed by my beliefs, as is yours.

I regard homosexual tendencies as an aberration from normality. You seem to regard them as normal. I, though, am not offering you any insult on account of your views. We differ, and, as I wrote to Graham Davis, there is no possibility of our agreeing.

I have nowhere said that I expect people to behave in a way that suits my religious views. In fact I have said the opposite, which you would have noticed were you to apply reason rather than irrational emotion to what I wrote.

15 February 2011 at 12:45  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Anabaptist

Yes we have locked horns before and although I always respect your thoughtful comments I simply cannot understand them.

As regards your point 2 it seems to me that you are limiting your view of what is moral or immoral to a single authority, the Bible. You reject a more charitable idea of morality whereby human beings are judged by the good or harm that they do to each other. In that view we judge each other and form a collective view of right and wrong. Living without an external authority and an ultimate judgement of our behaviour many like me still strive to behave morally.

The problem with a religiously based morality is that it can so easily become corrupted as is the case with Islam as it cannot accept the judgement of humanity, only God. Who is to say which religion is right and why should you trust what is driven by a belief? So even if God existed I would argue that to accept a binding morality based on his teachings would be inferior to those based on a biological/humanistic based morality.

I think you overstate point 3, when minorities are oppressed they push hard to achieve their inalienable rights, blacks did it and so did women. I don’t think that you can recruit homosexuals, you know early on if you are Gay or not, it is not a lifestyle choice.

15 February 2011 at 12:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"One would probably try to suppress regrettable things if they were inherently harmful to others or oneself. But they aren't."

Diseases associated with anal sex:
Anal cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis,
Cryptosporidium,
Giardia lamblia,
Herpes simplex virus,
HIV,
Human papilloma virus,
Isospora belli,
Microsporidia,
Gonorrhoea,
Syphilis,
Hepatitis B and C

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/feb/05021709.html

The Government has an obligation to disinsentivize harmful lifestyles.

15 February 2011 at 12:58  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Anabaptist: "I have nowhere said that I expect people to behave in a way that suits my religious views."

And I have not said that you expect it. I said: "What you're suggesting is trying [...]" when you said: "I would hope that, like other people who have regrettable aspects to their natures (i.e. all of us), they will be enabled to suppress their desires." Hoping that we'd be ashamed enough to self-police ourselves for the rest of our lives is hardly an expression of love.

15 February 2011 at 13:07  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Anonymous: "Diseases associated with anal sex"

I know you struggle with this but that is not a requirement to be, or to act as, a homosexual. Lots of gay men have active sex lives without that.

Also, the list is a set of STIs for the most part. Most or perhaps all of which, I might add, affect straight people too. Having sex with someone without any of those does not magically cause infection.

15 February 2011 at 13:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DanJ0 said...
"I know you struggle with this but that is not a requirement to be, or to act as, a homosexual."

First of all I was not just referring to homosexual men. Secondly, these diseases really are very much more common among gays. Promiscuity and unnatural behaviour both have an enormous economic cost with which we are all struggling. Such behaviour should not be incentivized.

AID's infection rates in the US are running at 1000% higher for homosexuals than for none homosexuals. The apparatus of the state should not be used to force citizens to "celebrate" and "incentivize" bevaviour which is harmful to the individual and to the society?

15 February 2011 at 13:47  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Well luckily society is finally moving towards normalising homosexuality. In doing so, the sort of furtive encounters that have come to symbolise homosexuality in the past will almost certainly reduce. Teenagers will openly seek sex education and discuss issues. Marriage will almost certainly result in less promiscuity and more commitment in relationships. In short, it will be much like heterosexuality. Hurrah! In light of these social goods, will we be seeing you on a float riding around Soho celebrating any time soon? :)

15 February 2011 at 14:13  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'Well luckily society is finally moving towards normalising homosexuality'.

It's not society at all. It's the law that has been changed to penalise Christians in their homes, their work places and on the street.

Because yopu have been unable to persuade by argument the people - you have resorted to using the same intruments as the Nazis did when they enacted the Nuremberg laws, for example.

15 February 2011 at 14:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DanJo said 15 February 2011 14:13

'In doing so, the sort of furtive encounters that have come to symbolise homosexuality in the past will almost certainly reduce.'
On what basis do you make this claim for a lifestyle choice epitomised by it's rampant promiscuity?

'Marriage will almost certainly result in less promiscuity and more commitment in relationships.'
If civil partnerships therefore cannot produce this, how will a 'religious ceremony' achieve this miracle in the hedonist homosexual and lesbian community?

'In short, it will be much like heterosexuality.' I doubt it greatly and the modern 'designer ideal' of 'just get a child somehow' will not solve the inherent problem with same sex, that it is intrinsically unnatural!

'In light of these social goods, will we be seeing you on a float riding around Soho celebrating any time soon? :)'
Or you getting wed in an old fashioned church in a sequined stetson, leather waistcoat and matching chapps? ;-)

The Man Who Never Was??

ps

Other anonymous is not me!

15 February 2011 at 14:27  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

D.Singh: "Because yopu have been unable to persuade by argument the people - you have resorted to using the same intruments as the Nazis did when they enacted the Nuremberg laws, for example."

Oh look, a comparison with Nazis. Instant fail.

15 February 2011 at 14:33  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Well, Graham, I hope we are not locking horns. I wrote with you in mind because had referred to: 'a very hostile attitude towards homosexuality.'

I merely wished to clarify discussion around this pejoratively expressed idea so that less heat and more light might be generated. I attempted to delineate where the 'hostility' actually lies, and where it does not, namely in a repugnance for homosexual acts, not for homosexual people. I am not altogether sure I have succeeded in my aim.

Regarding the source of our understanding of what consitutes morality and immorality, I am certainly not limiting this to a single source. I cited the Bible because I wanted you to be aware that Christians have a frame of reference for their opinions which is inevitably set by scripture.

Since the Bible sets out what I believe God has revealed to people, including God's judgements concerning human behaviour, it would be strange if I did not refer to it. I wished to stress that both the Old Teastament and the New testament speak with one voice on this matter. I don't expect you to take any notice of that; simply that you should understand its vital place in the way Christians think.

In past conversations I have said that I regard your understanding of morality to be a baseless figment, and that a consistent atheist would be a nihilist. I am very happy to note that you are inconsistent, as the world would quickly become intolerable if atheists followed the logic of their (non) beliefs.

I agree that a religiously based morality can be corrupted, and would cite not only Islam but also a great deal of what has historically passed for Christianity (which is why Anabaptists have always disavowed the authority of Christendom-based churches).

That's all for now.

15 February 2011 at 14:39  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Give it time, Anonymous, give it time. It took a while for people to catch up with the idea of women having the vote. Perhaps there was a rhetorical equivalent of the Nuremberg Laws which the unreconstructed used back then too.

15 February 2011 at 14:42  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

DanJ0, you wrote, 'I said: "What you're suggesting is trying [...]" when you said: "I would hope that, like other people who have regrettable aspects to their natures (i.e. all of us), they will be enabled to suppress their desires." Hoping that we'd be ashamed enough to self-police ourselves for the rest of our lives is hardly an expression of love.'

There is a large gap between expectation and hope. If I said that I expect people to live in a certain way, that would be rather headmasterly. In fact, my hopes and my expectations in this matter are rather a long way apart.

I didn't mention shame: you did. And if I regard an activity as dangerous, harmful to others and contrary to God's will, why should I be characterised as unloving for hoping people will not indulge in it?

15 February 2011 at 14:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DanJ0:

."Well luckily society is finally moving towards normalising homosexuality."

The word "luckily" hardly applies when the lifespan of homsexuals is greatly reduced by the disease burden caused by gay sex. Gay sex is not normal (See the NARTH) website).

You conjecture: "The sort of furtive encounters that have come to symbolise homosexuality in the past will almost certainly reduce. "

There is not the slightest indication that this is happening. even in so called gay friendly countries. If anything the reverse is true. Some research shows that 75-95 per cent of non-monogamy in long-term gay relationships. One study of so called "monogamous" gay relationships in San Francisco found that 47 per cent of such couples had “sex agreements” that specifically allowed sexual activity with others.

15 February 2011 at 14:48  
Blogger D. Singh said...

DanJ0

By their fruits ye shall know them: when arguments fail the adhominem attack is launched.

What did you expect here? Beards and Jesus sandals?

15 February 2011 at 14:51  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr D Singh, I have a beard. I have had one for 45 years.

15 February 2011 at 14:58  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Well Mr Anabaptist that picture of yours sports no beard. All I am suggesting is that people seem to believe that Christians don't think. A prejudice that needs correction.

15 February 2011 at 15:04  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

It's my avatar, not my picture. It is (as I've said before) Conrad Grebel. I notice that picture of yours sports few clothes and a decidely juvenile air...

Sadly, the 'unthinking Christian' idea is not always based on prejudice. The notion might be borne out by some of the comments that appear on this blog from time to time.

15 February 2011 at 15:10  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

English Viking,

'Twaddle.'

How? It's been accepted scientific fact for 300 years. Gravity works both ways. F=GMm/r^2

15 February 2011 at 15:31  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

F=GMm/r^2

I agree with Lakester91 on this one.

15 February 2011 at 15:43  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

D. Singh: "By their fruits ye shall know them: when arguments fail the adhominem attack is launched."

Well, quite. You're talking about the Reductio ad Hitlerum failing, right?

15 February 2011 at 15:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DanJo said 15 February 2011 14:42

'Perhaps there was a rhetorical equivalent of the Nuremberg Laws which the unreconstructed used back then too.'
Sorry, you lost me with this argument as Nuremberg Laws are not my speciality subject and D Singh has not amplified this for me, however;

'Unreconstructed - Not reconciled to social, political, or economic change; maintaining outdated attitudes, beliefs, and practices.'

As Christianity is widely practiced, influences attitudes of goodwill towards others, even if in moral disagreement (I find nowhere in the New Testament where it states 'Kill the same-sex individual wherever you find them?'but plenty of places where it is stated as condemned in thought, word and deed like other sins!), and believed in around the world, how is this outdated.
As homosexuality/lesbianism is a very small percentage of the population in this country, despite the government and Gay lobby's attempt to suggest the percentage was nearer 10%, even your argument of unreconstructed would fail under this term. It was never outdated as it is as old as prostitution but was practiced underground until laws were implemented addressing the issue by stealth bit by bit, in a very similar way to the abortion law.

The Man Who Never Was??

15 February 2011 at 16:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DanJo said 15 February 2011 14:42

My meaning therefore?

The much bandied, and usually wrongly applied term on this blog.

AD HOMINEM!

The Man Who Never Was??

15 February 2011 at 16:05  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

DanJ0,

Godwin's Law isn't like the cry of 'homophobia' that you can use to trump any questioning of homosexuality; it has a very specific purpose. If Mr Singh made a comparison between the laws silencing critics of homosexuality and the Nuremberg Laws then, whether you agree with the comparison or not, it does not invoke Godwin's Law.

Godwin's Law's clause on losing the argument comes when an irrelevant comparison is made. i.e. A comparison is made to something that Nazi Germany did that was not evil, in order to associate the point with the more atrocious acts of the regime. An example would be Mr Hitler's advocating of vegetarianism and stance against animal cruelty. Were I to say, 'Do you know who else believed in animal rights? HITLER!' Then that would invoke the clause; as far as I know, amongst the many crimes against man and God that he committed, reducing animal cruelty is not listed. However, Mr Singh's comparison was to the Nuremberg Laws, something that was definitely part of why the Nazis were known as 'evil'. I doubt you disagree. In this case, it is probably better to argue the point rather than dismiss it.

15 February 2011 at 16:09  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Lakester91, D. Singh tried to link the Nuremberg Laws to the various laws being used to normalise homosexuality. A quick read of the Nuremberg Laws shows that attempt for what it is. It's a sordid attempt to smear by association with the Nazis. Essentially, reduction ad hitlerum is an ad hominem in that doing so lumps supporters in with the Nazis for effect instead of making the argument.

The equality laws are not inexorably going to lead to the use of gas chambers, and if they looked like they were then the argument should be made explicitly.

I have refused to entertain your own use of Nazi examples for a slightly different reason. By observation over a long period of time on newsgroups, forums and so on, it's almost impossible to have a sensible debate when someone does that. Points can almost always be made in a different way, as they would had that regime never happened/

15 February 2011 at 17:11  
Anonymous Halvin Pikavippi said...

Theres something about this issue that it just gets my blood pressure rising every time..

15 February 2011 at 17:21  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

I have made no references to the Nazis at all. I don't understand why you keep insisting that I have.

Mr Singh's comparison may be wrong, but it is not a reductio ad hitlerum. I've explained why not. The Nuremberg Laws were evil in their own right, even without any association with the holocaust. A comparison to something the Nazis did that was immoral may be wrong, but it is not Godwinesque.

I think he was comparing the laws that silence critics of homosexuality with Nuremberg. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree either; but I also don't agree with your method of dismissal.

15 February 2011 at 17:26  
Blogger English Viking said...

Lakester91,

It's twaddle to claim that Earth does not revolve around the Sun. That its orbit is not perfectly circular is irrelevant.

The Earth revolves around the Sun: I cannot and I will not recant.

15 February 2011 at 17:30  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

I retract that after re-reading; he was comparing the methodology to that used to enact the Nuremberg Laws. If he explains it sufficiently, then he might have a point, I don't know.

15 February 2011 at 17:30  
Blogger English Viking said...

Lakester91,

What do you retract?

That the Earth does not revolve around the Sun?

If so, jolly good. You were beginning to look daft.

15 February 2011 at 18:11  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Perhaps I'm too far out of it but I'm not aware that gay people in general have been instrumental in the various laws being put in place during New Labour's tenure anyway.

From the outside, it looked to me like it was Harriet Harperson and the like pursuing an equality agenda as part of a wider drive towards social justice.

Similarly with David Cameron now although perhaps it's more with him to bolster his party's niceness credentials away from the legacy of Norman Tebbit and Spitting Image.

15 February 2011 at 18:14  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

'What do you retract?

That the Earth does not revolve around the Sun?

If so, jolly good. You were beginning to look daft.'

'fraid not Mr Viking, they revolve around a common centre of mass. The force exerted on the Sun by Earth is the same as the force on the Earth by the Sun. This is barely A-level physics here.

15 February 2011 at 18:22  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

I'll add that this is why we can identify planets in distant solar systems; the mutual rotation causes the star to appear to wobble.

15 February 2011 at 18:24  
Blogger English Viking said...

Lakester91,

If you are going to resort to smarmy, high-handed put downs; I am perfectly well informed on the Doppler Effect and Red-Shift theory, thank you very much, and neither have the slightest thing to do with whether or not the Earth is in fact rotating around the Sun.

I suppose you think the Earth is flat, too?

Why not just admit you have made a mistake, instead of attempting (extraordinarily badly) to defend the absurd?

15 February 2011 at 18:40  
Blogger English Viking said...

BTW,

Mutual gravitational forces accelerate the less massive body to a greater extent. This is we fall towards the Earth during a sky-dive rather than the Earth rising to meet us.

It is also why the Earth orbits the Sun, and the Sun is in an almost stationary orbit.

You do think that the Sun is more massive than the Earth, don't you?

15 February 2011 at 18:48  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

'This is [why] we fall towards the Earth during a sky-dive rather than the Earth rising to meet us.'

A sky diver whose parachute failed to open was plummeting towards the ground when he encountered another man coming upwards at speed.

'Do you know anything about parachutes?' he yelled in desperation. 'No,' the other one yelled back. 'Do you know anything about gas cookers?'

15 February 2011 at 19:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'its the established church they are out to destroy' mate its destroyed already, those on the inside have killed it, Ichabod is found written on its walls, its full of dead mens bones dressed as whitewashed sepulchures, clinging to the traditions of men and its druid archbishop. Its going back to rome which it has never really seperated from.

15 February 2011 at 19:56  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

'I am perfectly well informed on the Doppler Effect and Red-Shift theory, thank you very much, and neither have the slightest thing to do with whether or not the Earth is in fact rotating around the Sun.'

Ok... I don't really see how these theories affect the point other than that they are used to detect planets.

It is not that I don't think that the Earth to all intents and purposes, does not essentially orbit the Sun; but what I have been trying to say is that it is technically incorrect.

For example, people say that aspirin thins the blood; practically it is true, but in reality what it does is stop platelet aggregation (clotting). You see I'm not and haven't tried to say that it is not true on a simplistic level, but that it is technically incorrect; something you yourself have admitted.

'Mutual gravitational forces accelerate the less massive body to a greater extent. This is we fall towards the Earth during a sky-dive rather than the Earth rising to meet us.'

Yes, that's right; second law of motion and all that. But the Earth does rise to meet us as we meet it, just no one can notice it (its movement being so small). The problem with gravity is that people think that the larger object attracts the smaller; that one is static and the other motile.

In reality no object actually orbits another, and it is technically incorrect to say that they do. They orbit a common centre of gravity, even if that centre happens to be quite close to the centre of the larger object (e.g. our solar orbit).

'I suppose you think the Earth is flat, too?'

Obviously the logical conclusion of understanding Newton's universal law of gravitation. Do you think it's a sphere?

'Why not just admit you have made a mistake, instead of attempting (extraordinarily badly) to defend the absurd?'

I have made no mistake. I truly never thought I'd have to defend classical physics on this blog, this is extraordinary. I really don't understand why this is a big deal to you. You made a human error thinking that I had defended geocentrism, why didn't you just stop when you realised what I meant?

15 February 2011 at 23:03  
Blogger English Viking said...

Lakester91,

You did make a mistake when you said the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun had been proven false, which it has not. It does, in every reasonable sense of the word 'revolve'.

Newton's laws do not prove the Earth flat.

The Earth is ellipsoidal in shape, not flat.

The reason I didn't stop when I knew what you meant is because I didn't know what you meant when you kept affirming that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun. I was getting bored, but then you got snotty and my interest was re-ignited.

We can desist, if you choose.

15 February 2011 at 23:49  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

'Newton's laws do not prove the Earth flat.'

Congratulations, you get irony!

The Earth does not revolve around the Sun, it revolves around a moving point that represents the common centre of mass; that this happens to be inside the Sun is irrelevant. It is not the object it revolves around, but the moving point in space.

16 February 2011 at 14:11  
Blogger English Viking said...

Lakester91,

It isn't irony, it's inanity.

Let me get this straight: you believe that Earth revolves around the common centre of mass, inside the Sun, but that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun.

I knew one needed to be able to juggle a few paradoxes as a Catholic, but that one takes the biscuit.

Grow up.

16 February 2011 at 15:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

16 February 2011 14:11 & 16 February 2011 15:29

To Sybil from Dr Cornelia Wilbur

I come here not for the comment but the comedy..That rare, dissociative identity disorder take on life!

'Cause often times I feel like I'm all alone in this world and *I don't have no one* but me *me, myself & I* 'Cause often times I feel like I'm all alone in this world and *I don't have no one* but me *me, myself & I*.

Ha Ha Ha

Good to see you are ALL keeping well!

XXX

16 February 2011 at 19:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the wording, if they wish............

now if you own a bed and breakfast, if you wish is a joke, so the same under law must be, will be insisted, if you do not allow homosexual or lesbian weddings then you must be anti gay, therefore guilty of a hate crime.

it must be tough if you consider the biblical moral stance on perversion and such, you can not state openly that two men who enjoy anal sex are going to hell, sooner or later the good book will be blacklisted as full of hateful things.

either you stand up and say no, or you quietly close the churches and concentrate on bingo nights, bring and buy sales and coffee mornings to raise aids awareness.

welcome to daves big society.
full of people who are afraid to say anything about anything that might offend anyone.

1984, a brave new world.

17 February 2011 at 23:47  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"it must be tough if you consider the biblical moral stance on perversion and such, you can not state openly that two men who enjoy anal sex are going to hell, sooner or later the good book will be blacklisted as full of hateful things."

It depends on the context I suppose. If you god botherers don't mind the opposite happening i.e. people standing outside churches on Sunday mornings, chanting about scientific materialism, or people knocking on your doors dressed in suits clutching copies of the God Delusion wanting to save you from the error of your ways, then I suppose it will be all okay. I mean, it's not as though Christians et al mind Richard Dawkins appearing on TV arguing against all superstition, or Jerry Springer The Opera being broadcast, or the Life of Brian appearing in cinemas, or we agnostics and atheists having a great old secular knees up with friends and family at Christmas, exchanging material gifts and the like and not caring a hoot about the 'true meaning of Christmas'.

18 February 2011 at 05:45  
Anonymous len said...

Danjo,
Bring it on!
If you atheists would gather outside the churches (waving your God delusions) it would save us ( the evangelically minded) the trouble of seeking you out!.
We Christians have nothing to lose by debate in fact the only thing we ask is the opportunity to preach the Gospel.You have nothing to fear (from Christians that is)other than the Truth( which is not always welcome.)
If we are being fair minded about portraying people in the media how about a comedy version of the life of Mohammed, or portraying Charles Darwin as a bumbling old fool who got all his facts wrong, Dawkin`s as a Quixotic character, who`s only purpose in life was to turn people away from God, he saw this as his Quest, his mission, the possibilities are endless , and if we are being 'even handed ' surely should be done!.

19 February 2011 at 16:25  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"If we are being fair minded about portraying people in the media how about a comedy version of the life of Mohammed"

I'd be happy with that. I bought the Jerry Springer DVD simply because some people wanted it banned. I'd do the same if someone bought out a Mohammed one.

I can't see the Darwin or Dawkins ones being much of a success but I certainly wouldn't be bothered. Why would I be? Evolution by natural selection is effectively a scientific fact, and I'm sure Darwins can stand his own with anyone religious.

Look at the furore about the atheist bus thing. It put out a simple, bland message to make a statement about all those creepy little Bible snippets everywhere and what happened? Oh we know who tries to ban what.

19 February 2011 at 16:58  
Anonymous len said...

Danjo,
Evolution is a Theory, not a fact!.In fact some claim it to be a'faith based 'religion.
It certainly needs a lot of blind faith to follow the ''theory' but then again there is only one alternative isn`t there?

20 February 2011 at 21:31  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"Evolution is a Theory, not a fact!.In fact some claim it to be a'faith based 'religion."

Yes. A theory in this context is not a hypothesis or a vague idea. The Second Law of Thermodynamic is a part of a theory. The theory of evolution by natural selection pulls together evidence from many different fields of study to support it. To all intents and purposes, evolution by this method is a scientific fact.

9 March 2011 at 18:39  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older