Friday, November 25, 2011

Tory peers oppose civil partnerships in churches

His Grace is in favour of the Government’s plan to deregulate for civil partnerships to be held in religious buildings. It is absurd for the state to prohibit churches, synagogues, mandirs, gurdwaras and mosques from performing some kind of blessing upon homosexual unions if they wish.

The continuing prohibition on the use of pseudo-spiritual poems in civil ceremonies is really quite 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 this 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.

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 civil partnership, what business is that of the state? Is it not a fundamental religious liberty for the imam to adopt whatever liturgy he wishes? What business is it of the state to limit the use of religious buildings and thereby determine socio-religious orthodoxy? Having legislated for same-sex civil partnerships, it is bizarre to permit ceremonies to be performed in the Palace of Westminster while barring them from Finsbury Park Mosque. The state should have no interest other than in the licensing of partnership by which property rights may be determined in law.

However, this deregulation must be accompanied with adequate protection for the religious liberty of those who demur. Despite David Cameron’s best efforts to engineer a redefinition, civil partnerships are not marriages. The Church of England has no intention of bowing to political pressure to allow its buildings to be used to conduct same-sex civil partnerships: the Church holds a clear position that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Archbishop of Canterbury will undoubtedly be accused of ‘alienating homosexuals’ and rendering the Church ‘out of touch with society’. And no doubt Peter Tatchell will decry the injustice (while steering well clear of Finsbury Park Mosque). But it is not for politicians to coerce the Christian conscience or redefine two millennia of Christian orthodoxy. And neither is it for the Church of Jesus Christ to accommodate every passing fad and societal obsession.

Conservative peers are mindful of the inadequate protection in the regulations for churches or ministers who do not wish to register civil partnerships. As proposed, they cannot provide protection from equality legislation which is increasingly used against Christians. Further, it is local authorities which will administer the scheme, and these bodies now routinely coerce religious organisations (on pain of the withdrawal of funding) to comply with equality law, for they are themselves charged with the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. One must be sufficiently Christian to be recognisably so, but not so much so that a whiff of doctrinaire might determine one’s ethos.

The peers are led by Baroness O'Cathain, and the debate is scheduled to take place on 15th December (bizarrely, 10 days after the provision comes into effect). If the scheme is to be voluntary and consensual, the Government must ensure adequate legislative protection for those religious organisations to whom ‘gay marriage’ is inimical to their beliefs and who do not wish to accommodate religio-civil partnerships.

It is bizarre that a Conservative prime minister should seek to augment the freedom of the homosexual by curtailing the freedom of the religious. Sacred liturgy for the solemnisation of marriage is not mere words, and the institution is not merely a construct of the state. Ali and Jamal should be free to enter their mosque for the blessings of Allah to be prayed upon their happy union. But there should be no remote possibility of their dragging their recalcitrant imam into court for his refusal to do so.

209 Comments:

Blogger graham wood said...

"It is absurd for the state to prohibit churches, synagogues, mandirs, gurdwaras and mosques from performing some kind of blessing upon homosexual unions if they wish. "

Agree. Its not only absurd its also completely outside State or civil law as to what churches define as their policy on this,or any other doctrinal matter.
As Papal 'authority' was once famously reminded. 'It has no jurisdiction in this realm'

25 November 2011 at 10:47  
Blogger David B said...

Much to agree with in His Grace's post.

If there were no local authotity funding of churches, then there would be no danger of local authorities using the threat of its withdrawal to attempt to coerce churches to solemnise such unions against their will.

Why do local authorities provide such funding in the first place?

David B

25 November 2011 at 11:15  
Blogger Edward Spalton said...

Graham,

You have forgotten the dear old C of E which certainly does rely on state authority for its establishment and liturgy.

I remember years ago at a Prayer Book Society meeting, the rigorously logical intellect of the late Enoch Powell rufflling a few clerical feathers.

"We use the Book of Common Prayer" he said "because it is a schedule to an Act of Parliament".
Game, Set and Match.

25 November 2011 at 11:25  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Quite correct. If two gay men (or women) can find a cleric heretical enough to preside over their union, fine. If they cannot, it's no business of the state to coerce one into pronouncing the vows. Separation of church and state works both ways.

25 November 2011 at 11:31  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

David B ..."If there were no local authotity funding of churches there would be no danger of local authorities using the threat of its withdrawal"

You seem to be misunderstanding the reality of the situation. Local authorities do not fund religious services, however the Church (despite all the castigation it receives) is still second only to the government in it's provision of social services.

The small congregation I am a member of, for example, comprises of less than 20 adults. Yet we run 2 day care sessions for the elderly, a parent & toddler group and 2 youth clubs every week. These have received subsidies from grant making bodies & local government. We provide these services at a much cheaper rate than commercial organisations because they are not profit motivated but motivated out of love for Christ & love for the people in our community. Increasingly we are being told that we can not receive financial assistance if we continue to express the fact that our faith in Christ is what motivates us to serve people.

25 November 2011 at 12:33  
Blogger graham wood said...

Edward. I take your point about the C of E "as established" Of course we do not have separation of Church and State as in the USA.
Any discussion of church/state relationship of necessity is complex as you will know!

However, notwithstanding the implications of the good Enoch (ever severely logical in this as much else he pronounced on), I submit that no government has authority or power over the internal government or doctrine of the C of E.
It is interesting that were there to be a public dispute, as for example any compulsion for recognition of homosexuals in 'churches' etc, the church has the right to be completely free from State interference in such matters.
In any event it is not current government policy to attempt coercion in any form - YET!

It is also interesting that the 'son' of the 1215 Magna Carta, the the 1297 edition, clauses of which are still on the Statute book declare:

FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. ... for... Us and our Heirs for ever.

Thus, like the furious Prayer Book debate of the 1920s, any such interference by the State in the internal jurisdicaion of the church would, I assume, be subject to appeals to this Magna Carta clause. It pre-dates all subsequent ecclesiastical church/state Acts.

25 November 2011 at 12:33  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Bit naughty of you with the photoshop picture Mr ABC!

I'm sure the Vatican will forgive you. Perhaps tomorrow you might consider posting a similar picture with the Archbishop of Canterbury? Let's face it, given the Established nature of the Church of England, one can envisage such a sacrilege happening in the not too distant future.

"The Archbishop of Canterbury will undoubtedly be accused of ‘alienating homosexuals’ and rendering the Church ‘out of touch with society’."

I certainly hope so! If the Church cannot resist societal trends and refuse to accomodate sinful practices it might as well pack its bags.

However, from memory, didn't an earlier thread explain that the Church of England is obliged to respond positively to those requesting baptism or marriage from anyone in their parishes regardless of their state of sprituality or whether they are in communion with the church?

Will Canon Law be changed by a majority vote at future Synod? If so, and if homosexuals are granted the 'right' of marriage, what's to stop them demanding equal treatment?

25 November 2011 at 13:23  
Blogger Edward Spalton said...

Graham,

I think you are right but, faced with repeated acts of PC-ness from trendy bishops, I have sometimes wished for a sovereign who could address one of those hireling shepherds in the terms of the first Elizabeth -
"Proud prelate, I pray you remember what you were before I made you what you are.
If you do not comply in the matter in which I have commanded you then I will unfrock you, by God".

A retired vicar of the traditional sort told me that he always added the following mentally when saying the Litany
"From potty parsons, batty bishops and silly synods,
DELIVER US, GOOD LORD"

25 November 2011 at 13:24  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 November 2011 at 14:22  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Doddy 'a likkle spring cleaning' @25 November 2011 14:22

Doddy, your comment was very tattifilarious, why remove the fun for others.

Spoilsport!

Ernst

25 November 2011 at 15:31  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The state should have no interest other than in the licensing of partnership by which property rights may be determined in law.

The state has a much deeper interest in marriage than just property rights. Marriage provides the vehicle for sexual continence, stable family formation, and the successful civilization of the next generation. It is intended to tie the labor of men to the support of their children. It is intended to provide women with the support of the men who father their children. It is intended to provide children with a stable home in which to grow. It is not an infinitely malleable private institution intended to ratify the private relational preferences of adults. It is a covenant intended to constrain the relational preferences of adults, and that is why it comes under such attack from a modern individualist culture that has no moral lodestone beyond the preference of the individual. The state has an enormous vested interest in the structure and success of marriage because it is the fundamental basis of national power and prosperity.

The modern world is redefining marriage precisely to eliminate these constraints. It is creating a concept of marriage that privatizes all the structures that define it. A marriage may consist of any two (or perhaps more) adults. A marriage may be permanent of transient. A marriage may be 'open' or 'closed.' A marriage may produce children or be willfully sterile. Any organization becomes allowable. What matters is that the institution not impose an external structure on individuals. Rather individuals must impose private structure on the institution. Thus is it disconnected from the past and future and made to serve the desires of the present. Marriage cannot function as designed under these terms, and that is the whole point. The modern world says marraige may function under these terms if individuals so desire. But it must not compel individuals to submit to these terms unless they so desire.

Marriage is a necessary component of state power however, and the government is eventually going to figure that out. It will re-impose sexual order by force to re-create the conditions necessary to produce sufficiently civilized children. It must. The only other option is national dissolution in a fever of hedonistic self-absorption. But it won't be a Christian Gov't that will do this. Christianity is dying in the West. It will instead be whatever gov't emerges from the economic decline and social dislocation that results from generations too small and too ignorant and too uncivilized to compete in the modern world economy. And that gov't is not going to be overly burdened with Christian scruples.

carl

25 November 2011 at 16:06  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Very inclusive of you to rope in the Pope and the Imams but Catholicism and Islam are not pressing for homosexuality to be "normalised".

Specifically, the CofE has had the big debate about homosexuals and is now reaping the rewards.

Given that the CofE is happy to have openly gay clergy it seems only right that the CofE endorses gay marriage.

Don't get dragging other people into your car crash....

Isn't there something in the bible about reaping what you sow?

25 November 2011 at 16:10  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Ernsty
The Church in England in 1215 and 1297 was of course Roman(unreformed) Catholic.

You'll know the roots of the dispute with dear old King John being excommunicated in 1209 because of a dispute over the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury. He used this as an excuse to confiscate church property and sell it back to his Bishops at a profit. The swine!

The original clause in 1215 makes it clear the liberty granted the Church in England was over appointments and this had been permitted by Pope Innocent.

So, yes, if you find it amusing, I'll repeat my comment that it's a pity Henry VIII didn't honour the wording and spirit of Magna Carta. Instead, for selfish sexual and financial interests, he usurped his position and united Church and State in such an ungodly manner.

The inglorious revolution of 1688, treason against the legitimate King of England, Scotland and Ireland and the blatent breaking of sacred oaths by the Bishops, followed.

A sound foundation indeed for our State and for our Established Church - greed, lust, treason and oath breaking.

25 November 2011 at 17:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Co-Incidentally, both King John and Prince Arthur , Henry VIII’s elder brother, lie quite close to each other in Worcester cathedral, or at least they did when the Inspector was last there. (Don’t know whether Tony Robinson has dug them up – he’s like that, you know...)

25 November 2011 at 17:53  
Blogger David B said...

@ Rebel Saint who said

'The small congregation I am a member of, for example, comprises of less than 20 adults. Yet we run 2 day care sessions for the elderly, a parent & toddler group and 2 youth clubs every week. These have received subsidies from grant making bodies & local government. We provide these services at a much cheaper rate than commercial organisations because they are not profit motivated but motivated out of love for Christ & love for the people in our community. Increasingly we are being told that we can not receive financial assistance if we continue to express the fact that our faith in Christ is what motivates us to serve people.'

I'm not quite clear about this.

You do charge for these sevices? Are they fundraisers at all.

You are cheaper because you do it out of Christian Duty? You undercut people trying to make a living because you are subsidised? You undercut people because you don't pay commercial local taxes, or indeed any local taxes?

You provide these services with no attempt to proselytise?

David B

25 November 2011 at 18:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. Congratulations. That must be the most mean spirited post for months ! Are all you atheists cold hearted swine...

25 November 2011 at 18:21  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Avi's Deep Thoughts on the Contentious Issue of Gay Marriage Condensed and Inscribed While Cheerfully and Only with Little Impatience Waiting for a Haircut (as Sternly Ordered by Loving Wife) with Two Sullen Young Punks Still in Line Before Him

What an utter mess of a situation, Your Grace!

You make excellent points, as is your habit and I concur with many of them. Alas, I have a somewhat different take on this issue which you may find curious and perhaps worth even a few thoughts over an evening's brandy and cigar, if nothing else.

As I recebntly opined, over a bit of wine to an apparent relative at an otherwise calm soire, we can take a two pronged approach: 1)affirmation of traditional marriage in secular law and 2)established and rigorous defense of Gay rights, as well as rights of all people to form voluntary personal arrangements and unions and to have the right to have them recognized by willing parties. Or, hick-up, shomeshing like zhat. Thus I opined with exuberance, my more than usual stridency and in a mood for showing off my sharp wit, intellectual prowess and Solomonic judgment, something a couple of glasses of red can easily induce in a person accustomed mainly to Single Malts (may they be distilled 'til the end of days).

To wit, Your Grace, in order to ensure fairness in a country where a remnant of conservative balues might hide here and there, and to build and maintain strong commitments to just and important human rights, the institution of traditional marriage, in that nation's laws, should mean a formally recognized voluntary union between one man and one woman of an age of majority. Furthermore, there should be no impediment for religious institutions to perform ceremonies they may wish to call "marriages," "blood-brotherhoods," "best-friend-forevers" or whatever, as long as neither the state, nor institutions, businesses or individuals are compelled to honour them.

....but wait, there is more

25 November 2011 at 18:30  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

....aaand Another Thing...

As a corollarial example of the problems with the above, Your Grace, allow me to drag out my poor country, "progressive" Canada, which has had Gay "marriage" recognized for over a decade in the "harmless" civil realm. We can now all see the sad trajectory, like the proverbial train crash from car Number 7 (as someone here quipped) which you folks will be coping with fairly soon.

Examples abound, Your Grace. Teachers here will face disciplinary action from both enmployer and unions if they do not positively recognize...er, "celebrate"... Gay "marriages" and arbitrarily self-declared genders of unwell and confused folks. Small and large printers can no longer reject a job whose content offends them religiously, a precedent reaching far and wide while spreading legal chills even further. A Toronto TV reporter who refused to refer to the male partner of one of our male mayoral candidates as "husband," is facing pressure and his career may be effectively over. If the case goes to our Human Rights Council cangaroo courts, he may be heavily fined and financially ruined. And on and on.

On another related front, there are serious challenges to our already rickety polygamy laws and, sure enough, the shining example of gay marriage is coming up. The only thing keeping things cool is that the law is challenged by a off-the-wall minority Christian sect whose members are somewhat mysogynic, but the moment Muslim civil right groups, with support of Gay groups intriduce a test case with a telegenic group of loving and responsible folks, the game to kill the monogamy requirement will be afoot. Already there are challenges to age restrictions on constitutional grounds and audible and shameless discussions about redefining pedophilia and accepting "voluntary" relations between a precotious child and a loving adult who just has a little thing for the younger crowd. Given the customs in Islamic countries, the evident popularity of pedophillia on the 'Net and the huge numbers of jailed and practically branded "innocent victims" from all walks of life, how long before "marriage" a la Mohammed and 8-year old Aisha becomes the norm? And all this because a "progressive" public and certifiable bureaucratic nitwits in government and under judges' robes thought it would so cool and cute to marry off two sexy lesbians back in the early nineties.

'Nuff said on that, Your Grace. Impossible not to listen to one of the Young Punk's fascinating weekend plans, plans seemingly involving various liquors and chemicals and, oddly enough, sexily dressed and very loose (perhaps in violation of safety codes and standards) garden implements in the form of "hoes."

A good weekend to you and all!

25 November 2011 at 18:31  
Blogger Anglican said...

Carl Jacobs - I totally agree. I understand that both the Jacobins in France, after the French Revolution, and the Bolsheviks in Russia, at first tried to abolish traditional marriage. The consequences were so catastrophic that the policy was reversed. Do our present government (apart from a few ministers) have any knowledge of history?

David B - Are you suggesting that all voluntary work throughout the country should cease because work is being taken away from paid workers? And I suggest that this Christmas you spend a lot of your time helping the Salvation Army in their care for the homeless to see if they are proselytising - Oh, I forgot, that would be taking work away from paid workers.

25 November 2011 at 18:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

His Grace: "Despite David Cameron’s best efforts to engineer a redefinition, civil partnerships are not religious marriages."

Fixed that for you.

I agree with almost all the rest but if I didn't even I as a gay man am so bored with the outrage of religionists about it now that it hardly seems worth the effort arguing.

25 November 2011 at 19:02  
Blogger David B said...

@Inspector

When I see ad hominems instead of answers to question, then I can't help wondering if it is because the answers might be uncomfortable.

David B

25 November 2011 at 19:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. “Arrogant, brash, stupid, thoughtless, ignorant." Do let the Inspector know if he’s missed anything out – there’s a good chap...

25 November 2011 at 19:14  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

Your Grace, perhaps the answer to Mr Cameron's attemot to resolve this issue is to take the same line as Germany, Austria and several other European nations. Marriage here is, by law, required to be a civil ceremony which is remarkably legalistic and utterly devoid of any religious overtones. Those who wish may then celebrate their marriage in a religious ceremony and a remarkable number do.

This avoids, for those for whom a religious ceremony would be unacceptable, the whole question.

25 November 2011 at 19:23  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Mr David B, with hair clippings falling on my screen and alarm churing in my head, I say the following, the statement That must be the most mean spirited post for months !" is technically not an ad hominem. It's an opinion, one with which you understandably disagree. Now, if someone were to say, "you are the human equivalent of small type on the back of a union form," you'd be absolutely right. As would the uttering party be, btw. Should I now worry about the waived partially subsidized by the City daycare fees for poorer congregants in our synagogue also a social crime to be corrected by stern-faced activists? Goodness, what's this crazy world coming to? Sign off for real now, in disgust.

25 November 2011 at 19:34  
Blogger English Viking said...

David B,

I am Christian and I agree with you.

The business of the Church is the spreading of the Gospel, not the nannying of children, especially when taxpayer dosh is subsidising the affair.

The question is not why the Council offer such monies (obvious; gives them say-so on policy in the organisation subsidised) but rather why would a body of believers wish to sully themselves with stolen money available only if they are willing to bow to the whim and fancy of the Council PC brigade?

Not from from a thread to a shoe latchet. That was Abraham's opinion on such matters. Mine too.

25 November 2011 at 19:46  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

It is not important whether a marriage is performed in a religious or non-religious context. Truly, no Christian should care whether churches have the legal right to establish a legally binding marriage. What matters is the legal structure that attends the relationship. I don't care who performs the ceremony. I don't care what words are spoken during the ceremony. I care about the structure that is imposed on those who would enter therein. I care about the legally enforceable obligations that attend. I care about the social purposes that marriage is supposed to fulfill. It is in this sense that there is no such thing as a religious marriage. In fact, this whole idea of 'religious marriage' really means 'one particular instantiation of an at-will relationship which people are free to choose if they so desire.'

It used to be that vows were imposed on a couple. The vows represented the standard to which they would be held accountable. They did not define the standard. They submitted to the standard. Today, people write their own marriage vows. In so doing, they assume the right to mark out the limit and extent of their obligations. They define their own standard according to their own individual preferences. Is adultery wrong? Only if the private parties in the relationship have agreed that adultery is wrong. Is a willingness to accept the responsibility of children mandatory? Only if the private parties in the relationship agree to accept the responsibility of children. Private individuals seek to organize the relationship in order to serve their own self interest. Except marriage as originally constructed was intended to submerge self-interest for the sake of others. That submergence of self-interest is what makes it work. That's why the modern conception of marriage is so incredibly dangerous.

carl

And, yes, I know that the RCC says that marriage is a sacrament, and that people aren't really married unless they have been married by a priest. Rome is wrong about so many things. I'm not concerned about Roman errors in this matter.

25 November 2011 at 19:56  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Inspector, did you see this post from homosexual atheist Mr Jon @ 13.57 on 24rh November?

'As a woman, you are more likely to live a longer life than I do (at massive expense to the NHS in your final years) and also infinitely more likely to give birth than I am (also at great expense to the NHS). Your kids will require education, clothes, food etc. You're also more likely to claim benefits, and to flip around one of the problems with an unequal society, more likely to pay a lot less tax than I do over the course of your life simply because you earn less, in part because you're a woman.'

For pure misanthropy and misogyny this vile outburst takes the cake. How any man that is born of woman can be so hateful and contemptuous of women is hard to believe.

And these people want 'marriage' so their own unions are 'equal' to the love between man and woman that creates new life!

And they wonder why we 'breeders' object!

No to homosexual 'marriage', a thousand times, no.

25 November 2011 at 20:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"No to homosexual 'marriage', a thousand times, no."

You could always move to another country where your religious opinions are better suited. :)

25 November 2011 at 20:08  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Viking
I tend to agree with some of your views. I do not agree with David B.

It is our Christian duty to express the Gospel in tangible expressions of love. Education, hospitals, homes for the poor and elderly, all started out of Christian love. Where would Europe be without the ground breaking work of the monastries?

However, the Church must avoid contamination by delivering services in accord with Christian values, not the State's secular objectives.

Today the expression for the contribution of charities is the 'Third Sector'. How gross! Applying for grants means having equality and diversity policies and having plans in line with local authority, lottery commission or central government criteria.

Have nothing to do with this, is my opinion.

25 November 2011 at 20:10  
Blogger English Viking said...

Danj0,

So could you.

Rome, Greece, Egypt.

Pants - forgot. All those empires are now lost, due in no small part to their sexual decadence.

The British Empire is next - whatever sad, sick shadow is left of the once glorious beacon of hope and haven of truth.

Not out clubbing tonight?

25 November 2011 at 20:14  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr DanJO @ 20.08, if you had taken the trouble to read them, you would see that my comments were purely secular.

25 November 2011 at 20:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Viking: "So could you."

Oh no, I'm very happy with the way things are going. I'm staying put. :)

25 November 2011 at 20:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blimey Bluedog, is this the type of people were are producing nowadays, godless beings with no empathy with their fellow man. Reminds the Inspector of the NAZIs, and that ended in tears...

25 November 2011 at 20:18  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

DanJ0 says:

"No to homosexual 'marriage', a thousand times, no."

You could always move to another country where your religious opinions are better suited. :)

How about YOU,DanJ0, leaving the country - you obviously are in a sick minority.

25 November 2011 at 20:19  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

We differ as to the definition of a church, therefore we differ as to its purpose.

I would not say that if, under direction from the Holy Spirit, a local assembly of believers thought a physical need could be met in community by providing child-care, WITHOUT the need for money-grubbing from the world or the need to compromise on the reason for the provision in the first place; an expression of God's love through His people in a tangible way, in order to better express the Gospel, I'm happy to change nappies with the best of them.

But it's not, is it?

It's PC do-gooding at taxpayer's expense.

25 November 2011 at 20:20  
Blogger English Viking said...

OoIG,

Godwin.

Stop it.

25 November 2011 at 20:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, missing you already...

25 November 2011 at 20:22  
Blogger English Viking said...

Hey DanJ0,

I notice George Michael has got *ahem* pneumonia.

A secondary complication?

25 November 2011 at 20:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nowhere man: "How about YOU,DanJ0, leaving the country - you obviously are in a sick minority."

Oh I'm happy here, I've no complaints about how things are going on this front. Perhaps we ought to start doing man-on-man kiss-ins outside churches next.

25 November 2011 at 20:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Viking: "I notice George Michael has got *ahem* pneumonia. A secondary complication?"

I thought that too, actually. Did you have one of those, erm, confusing, youthful crushes on him in his Wham! days when he wore those white cotton pants? I bet you did, you little tinker! Do you still have his poster over your bed?

25 November 2011 at 20:32  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well said, Mr EV @ 20.14.

Of course, Mr DanJO does not refute Mr Jon's unpleasant little bromide, thereby implying that he may agree with what Mr Jon has said.

How can any society survive and thrive if attitudes such as those of these homosexuals are allowed to dominate?

25 November 2011 at 20:33  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Viking
That was a long winded way of saying if someone needs help give it to them out of love!

The comment about Mr Michael was unnecessary and ungracious, Sir! No Christian delights in the suffering of another person.

If you want to 'offend' DanJ0 then just remind him he suffers from objectively disordered inclinations and is given over to perverted sexual acts. In short, he's a sexual pervert. It's true and keeps him going for hours.

25 November 2011 at 20:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "If you want to 'offend' DanJ0 then just remind him he suffers from objectively disordered inclinations and is given over to perverted sexual acts. In short, he's a sexual pervert. It's true and keeps him going for hours."

Dodo, I'm pleased you're admitting to doing that as it's been apparent to me for weeks ... since about the time you started reading the Catechism online to help you troll the Anglicans I think. It's satisfying for me, as you can probably imagine, to show someone using their alleged religion, and by extension their alleged god, as a weapon to play forum games. It shows the true regard in which you hold it. Thanks matey. Though I doubt it actually surprises anyone.

25 November 2011 at 20:56  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

I wish Mr Panayiotou no harm, merely pointing out the perils of being a homo. He may well have a mere chest infection. This time.

It would be a jolly good thing if the man were to repent and be saved. I know just such a man, and he is now happily married, a good father and a friend of mine. Welcome to dinner, all that jazz. So would Giorgios be, should he repent, though in the words of Uriah Heep, 'I am ever so 'umble for the likes of 'im'.

DanJ0,

Bit old for him, and if I had ever tried to put up a poster in my bedroom, my mother would have thrashed me for making marks on the wallpaper.

He can sing though, I'll give him that.

25 November 2011 at 21:05  
Blogger English Viking said...

Hey Dodo,

My old friend Mr Glen Moray says 'Hello'.

So much better a chap than Mr Daniels.

25 November 2011 at 21:10  
Blogger English Viking said...

DanJ0,

I Rather fancied Skeeter Davis.

Hand in hand with Jesus. Youtube it.

25 November 2011 at 21:16  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Viking
Don't over do it, friend. You know what happens when you do!

I'm a Connemara or Tyrconnell man myself. Far superior to Scotch, though I'll grant you Mr Moray is a pleasant companion on a cold windy night.

25 November 2011 at 21:22  
Blogger English Viking said...

Give me death is another classic by her.

I actually have an album (you know, those large, black, circular, plastic thingies, and on the cover there is a picture of said wench with the inimitable words ' Give me death ... and other favourites'.

Ahh, the old days.

25 November 2011 at 21:22  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

DanJ0
If only you'd been around to witness Pan's People in full flow and Emma Peel's karate kicks, maybe, just maybe, you wouldn't have fallen for the boy-girl.

25 November 2011 at 21:24  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Your wallet is bigger than mine.

As regards overdoing it, the night is young and full of possibilities.

25 November 2011 at 21:24  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

PS 'Cold, windy night'.

Ahh, I'm OK then. There is a hurricane warning (really) and it has just started snowing.

You're very good health sir.

25 November 2011 at 21:29  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Viking
Remember the 'End of the World'?

She was a bit 'safe' and 'prime and proper' for my taste.

Now Marianne Faithful and the 'Evening of the Day' ..... just sublime 'til that raschal Jagger moved in.

25 November 2011 at 21:30  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your, not You're.

You see, it's working already.

25 November 2011 at 21:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Somebody mentioned Emma Peel. The Inspector would crawl over broken glass just to ____ in her shadow....

25 November 2011 at 21:32  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

I'VE GOT THE MOVES LIKE JAGGER!!!

25 November 2011 at 21:32  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Viking
Catholic family, mate. There are advantages other than spiritual.

Three children, lots of brothers, sisters, cousins, nephews and neices and they all know what my preferred present is!

No alimony either!

25 November 2011 at 21:34  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Viking
Well for all our sakes put your axe down before strutting your stuff.

Inspector
You'd have to get by me first!

25 November 2011 at 21:37  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

David B ...

You do charge for these sevices? Are they fundraisers at all.

£6.00 to attend the day care session - includes door-to-door transport, a hot 2 course lunch, entertainment, exercise etc. 2 PT salaried staff, 4 volunteers. Also employs 2 PT cleaners to bring premises up to Social Service spec.

£1 per family to attend the mothers & toddlers session. Refreshments & crafts included. All volunteer lead.

Free to attend the youth groups + subsidised tuck-shop. 1 PT staff (aged 18) + 10 volunteers (1/2 of whom are 18 or under)

Non are profit making ventures. They are subsidised by the generous voluntary giving of the congregation & by the CofE.


You are cheaper because you do it out of Christian Duty?

No duty involved except the duty of love.

You undercut people trying to make a living because you are subsidised? You undercut people because you don't pay commercial local taxes, or indeed any local taxes?

These services didn't exist. Now they do. If we cease to provide them they will cease to exist. There's no money to be made. And even if they were, you despise people doing something good voluntarily?

You provide these services with no attempt to proselytise?

(a) This matters because...?
(b) No-one is under any volition to attend any of the groups/services offered.
(b) The events take place on Christian premises, funded to a large degree by Christian's voluntary giving, and staffed by people giving freely of their time motivated by their Christian faith ... you have a problem with people sharing that?
(d) Once a month, the vicar offers a communion service at the day care
centre (which people are free to choose to participate in).
The youth groups finish by asking the the young people if there is any good news/bad news they would like us to give thanks for/pray for.
The parent & toddler group contains a "See & know" session - a bible story & 'Christianised' nursery rhymes. The craft is related to the Bible story.
I'll let you decide if you consider that to be proselytising.
(e) You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Christian faith. It is a 'missionary' faith. My faith & my deeds are inextricably linked. Our hope is that everything we do will be an expression of our faith & make Christ known to others - through word & deed.
(f) Do you have a problem with secular proselytising or only religious proselytising? I only ask coz my wife got rather fed up with the patronising 'diversity' & 'hate-crimes' messages at the local authority groups & SureStart centre.

Hope that answers your questions sufficiently.

David B

25 November 2011 at 22:00  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Rebel Saint
Well answered.

"Let him stick that in his pipe and smoke it", as my dear mother would say.

25 November 2011 at 22:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well done Rebel Saint. You “sat on his face” so to speak...

25 November 2011 at 22:16  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

OK, I'll lose the axe, for now, but the lock knife stays.

Never, ever, leave yourself without a get-out.

You've no trouble with me, other than trying to get me home after 12.

BTW You are 100% correct on the big family thing. We (the English) used to do it, now we don't, and now we're fecked.

The Micks still manage it, and it makes life so much easier.

That's why it makes it very difficult to see my own family (what remains of it) fight like apes over a banana, when I KNOW if they would only fight together, well:

TOP OF THE WORLD, MA!

25 November 2011 at 22:26  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Viking
Don't go the way of Codey or his father.

One of my favourite lines:

Verna Jarrett:
I'd look good in a mink coat, honey.
Cody Jarrett:
You'd look good in a shower curtain

25 November 2011 at 22:41  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Never strike an unarmed man without a very, very good reason.

Mr Jarrett I'm not.

Mr William Bonney, well, there's a very different matter.

"You so much as open your eyes at me, I'll make you famous."


Ye Hah!

25 November 2011 at 23:24  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

I told you a personal thing, earlier this week. You did not respond.

Did you think I said it for mere effect, do you not care, or do you not believe me?

PS Mr Ledaig has made a welcome appearance. Mr Moray is all gone.

Mmm. Smokey. Very, very good.

25 November 2011 at 23:31  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

It appears to me that you have the moves like Thatcher?

25 November 2011 at 23:33  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Viking
I did see it, believed it and do care. Remember we got into a dispute about Mary? No one should offend the woman who the bible tells us all generations will call Blessed.

What can I say? Being on one's can be a punishment or a reward, it all depends. As for the circumstances, well, I suspect, Mr Moray may have been present. Not a terribly reliable companion and one who wields considerable influence. Maybe you should consider whether he is a friend.

Here's a line for you:

Cody Jarrett:
[while eating a chicken leg, Jarrett speaks to Parker in the trunk of the sedan]
"How ya doin', Parker?"
Roy Parker:
It's stuffy in here, I need some air.
Cody Jarrett:
Oh, stuffy, huh? I'll give ya a litte air.
[pulls a gun from his pants and shoots four times into the trunk]

26 November 2011 at 00:31  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Ps
Mr Ledaig is a fine peaty chappie but like his pal Mr Moray needs to be treated with respect.

Moves like Thatcher????

26 November 2011 at 00:36  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

I think a word is missing from one of your posts, possibly 'own'.

I was not referring to the nasty business in which I was forced to do what I do. That is commonplace to man like me. Guards, rules, punishments, orders - it's all the same.

I was talking about poor little Petal.

Do you think that God killed my little cat because I said bad things about Mary?

26 November 2011 at 00:48  
Blogger English Viking said...

What lesson can be learned from that?

I already know that life is temporary. I already know that tomorrow may never come.

What had she done? Poor little thing.

She really was a beauty, more like a dog than a cat, in that she would follow me everywhere, sleep with me, walk with me, etc.

She even liked Tchaicovsky.

26 November 2011 at 00:55  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

William H. Bonney
"Dear Governor Axtell. I've heard that you will give 200 dollars for my head. Perhaps we should meet and talk. I am at the Juarez village at the border. Send 3 men, and instruct them not to shoot, as I am unarmed. In short, Sir; I surrender. Your obedient servant William H. Bonney. PS: I changed my mind. Kiss my ass."

26 November 2011 at 01:01  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Viking
I did miss that about Petal and I apologise. And no, I doubt God would take an innocent cat to punish you.

I am sorry. Animals are a source of comfort and offer companionship.

What happened to her?

26 November 2011 at 01:05  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Mr Bonney is just the kind of guy I like; you've got to kill him to stop him.

You know I've got a cat thing?

The first couple of times it happened, I prayed more fervently for their protection. Then the ones I really, really loved started dying. Then my favourites.

My next door neighbour 'accidentally' ran Petal over, when I was away, then refused to take her to the vet, then refused to take her to my home.

He is massive; I mean huge. A real muscle-man.

He has never met a man like me. You know, a fairly small one, not much hair, nothing to look at.

He is making an enormous mistake.

26 November 2011 at 01:17  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Either my theology is wrong, else my behaviour has provoked God's wrath, as OoIG warned me it would, but I have now been forced to adopt a fatalistic approach to the Lord God.

He will do what He wants, when He wants, and any amount of my pathetic ramblings will not stop it.

I shall restrict myself to thanksgiving and repentance.

My supplications are worthless.

26 November 2011 at 01:23  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Viking
Let it go. Anger and revenge serve no useful purpose.

I recall you saying Jackie is calling and then a reference to poor little Petal. It was all in the middle of our dispute.

Stop playing on the "I'm a tough man" theme. You know you're really gentle at your centre. You'll do what needs to be done. Accept it, that war is over. Enjoy the peace and use it. You've a bigger battle in front of you than the one outside your door and you know it.

Take care of yourself and your loved ones.

I'm off to bed now. Big day tomorrow. My wife returns home after a week away with our dog, a cocker spaniel (mad, but loyal and trusting) - so I've been 'home alone'.

26 November 2011 at 01:32  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

My reply slipped into the ether.

Tough, me? Nah. Those days are long gone.

Gutted.

Imagine God took your little dog?

Where's Petal?

God took her. Because I'm shit.

26 November 2011 at 02:07  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 November 2011 at 02:35  
Blogger non mouse said...

Mr. EV: The Lord Giveth and the Lord Taketh away.

He took my little angel-dog a while ago; but I'd always said she was only here on loan and as a messenger from Him --- animals can show us so much about goodness.

So He takes them back to their natural Home: and are they not better there? Away from all the suffering and the vicious human world?

Perhaps you'll sometimes feel that your Petal is with you in spirit and, if so, that is a blessing and a comfort. Might you even imagine that she can act as an advocate for you? That is until, as "We'll Meet Again" - or "Lead Kindly Light" suggest:

So long Thy Power hath blessed me, sure it still will lead me on.
O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till the night is gone,
And with the morn those angel faces smile,
which I have loved long since, and lost awhile!

(YouTube have a lovely version by Wells Cathedral Choir..)



In sympathy...

26 November 2011 at 02:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

bluedog: "Of course, Mr DanJO does not refute Mr Jon's unpleasant little bromide, thereby implying that he may agree with what Mr Jon has said."

I feel no obligation to defend the words of other people here and I have no obligation either. It is your inferring, rather than an implication. In fact, seeing Dodo's variously gorge-rising and laughable sycophantic exchanges and his Hinge and Bracket maurading, I'm minded to avoid taking up the cause of other people as a general rule.

However, I will make an exception for you here. It seems to me that Jon was using an argument of the same sort of form as homophobic (in all senses of the word) Marie to counter her comment. It needs to be read in its context, I think.

I do something similar now and again with Marie and others like her regarding the emancipation and suffrage of women. As a counter argument against social conservatism and tradition, I sometimes ask whether it would be better if women knew their place (as understood at the turn of the last century) and got back to simply maintaining the home and leaving men to choose how the country is run. Of course, she has no argument back, and the point is made. Yet I fully support the modern emancipation and suffrage of women.

Hope that helps.

26 November 2011 at 07:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Viking, I'm very, very sorry to hear about your cat. It sounds like she was much loved and had the best of the life she had. That's all we can do and hope for, I think. Some people think we're mad but I feel as fierce a grief for my lost pets as I do for people, and that's not to diminish it for the people.

26 November 2011 at 07:13  
Blogger len said...

Sorry about you cat Viking, as one who is owned by seven cats (some rescue cats) I sympathise with your loss.
...........
If the Church becomes merely a 'social organisation' it indicates that it has either lost its purpose or has become corrupted(possibly both)

For Cameron to tell the Church what it should be doing illustrates my point that' State Church should be answerable only to God not to self serving Politicians.

26 November 2011 at 08:00  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Now this is why this atheist finds this blog interesting.

I am wholly in agreement with HG's first three papragraphs.

It's spot on.

26 November 2011 at 08:26  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Tingey
The first three paragraphs are a summation of what we've lost in a hithertoo Christian nation. There was a time when the laws of this country were build on Christian foundations. And, yes, I know, heresies and 'unorthodox' behaviours were repressed with savagery and brutality.

Sadly, yet inevitably, protestantism, individualism, the 'rights of man', religious freedom of expression, 'enlightenment' and secularisation have eroded this Christian hegemony.

The good thing is this has eliminated despotism. The dismantling of the Christian State structures also undermined the cultural glue influencing thinking and action. Give people "choice", permit "freedom" and, it seems, they turn away from God's ordinances. Yet choice they have to have - that's the way God planned it.

As you gloat, just remember those men and women who died to allow you your freedoms today. You would also do well to reflect on the consequences, for individuals and communities, of removing God from society, ignoring the moral imperatives and drowning out the soft voice of our consciences.

26 November 2011 at 10:16  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr DanJO @ 07.04, what a difference a day makes! Only hours ago I was being encouraged to emigrate, now its sweet reason.

I have re-read Marie 1797's post @ 18.14 on 23rd November and 'I feel no obligation to defend the words of other people here and I have no obligation either'. 'However, I will make an exception for you here'.

I fail to see any possible justification for Mr Jon's suggestions. Certainly one can argue that Marie's comment about homosexuals in society is harsh. But Mr Jon's expression of resentment at women's relative longevity and the costs of childbirth are frankly bizarre. Bear in mind that childbirth is a potentially fatal experience for both mother and child. Is there any compensation for this risk or the risk of a Caesarian? No, none at all. But its how our species survives and continues. To mock the whole exercise as Mr Jon appears to do is utterly contemptible.

But then neither Mr Jon nor you have ever seen your own child born and probably never will.

Your loss.

I see Marie's comments in that context, she's a fellow parent, which confers a perspective that you clearly do not understand.

26 November 2011 at 10:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "You would also do well to reflect on the consequences, for individuals and communities, of removing God from society, ignoring the moral imperatives and drowning out the soft voice of our consciences."

I have an active, finely-honed conscience, Dodo. You're extrapolating from your own experiences I think. I don't need a god hypothesis or promise of rewards, divine or otherwise, to impel me towards benevolence either, having just sorted out a couple of DIY jobs for an elderly neighbour. I'm hardly unusual in this.

26 November 2011 at 10:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

bluedog: "Mr DanJO @ 07.04, what a difference a day makes! Only hours ago I was being encouraged to emigrate, now its sweet reason."

It's a lovely day to emigrate, bluedog, especially if the destination is in the southern hemisphere. I just snorted at your misplaced outrage about it last night and decided it would wait until morning.

"I fail to see any possible justification for Mr Jon's suggestions."

Well, that must make it unjustifiable I suppose. Sort of like by special authority or something.

"I see Marie's comments in that context, she's a fellow parent, which confers a perspective that you clearly do not understand."

Is she? It doesn't seem that long ago that she was trawling online dating sites trying the men out and finding them wanting. Well done her for finding one and doing her wifely duty.

26 November 2011 at 10:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

bluedog: "Certainly one can argue that Marie's comment about homosexuals in society is harsh."

The comment she made was a reference to a previous thread, it has its own context. I don't think it was harsh, it was just mild sparring and not really worth a reply. But what do I know.

26 November 2011 at 11:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Viking. I too regret the loss of your cat. Your words about her were quite moving. But the spirit of love in which you two communicated will never go. A spirit the atheists will tell us we ‘evolved’ – how wrong they are...

26 November 2011 at 11:47  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo. DanJ0, Non Moose, OoIG, Len,

Thanks.

26 November 2011 at 12:10  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

DanJ0
You may well have a good conscience, I don't doubt it. You were raised during the 1970's, I believe. Before the explosion of hedonism that took first took root in the West during the 1960's. Roll things forward a couple of generations and consider where we might be heading. Can you say we are a healthy, stable and happy society? "Peace and love" clearly don't come from chemicals (legal' illegal or prescribed), dropping out or doing one's own thing.

It's not at all about future reward or punishments. It is about empathy, compassion and proper conduct. It's about having a conception of an absolute morality that transcends individual wants and drives. An awareness of the Divine and the path to genuine peace and self-fulfilment through love of God and others.

I know you reject this, so no need to open up your usual materialist critque.

26 November 2011 at 12:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "I know you reject this, so no need to open up your usual materialist critque."

It's not just me who is rejecting your desired religious hegemony, Dodo, it's most people in the UK by the look of it. Especially when it's the Catholic version. Be a Catholic as you wish, we're a nominally liberal society, but expect to have your religious pollution shoved back down your throats if you try to impose it on us.

26 November 2011 at 12:45  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

DanJ0
Of course, that's the very point I was making.

Christianity is a 'pilgrim' church and as the world darkens those holding to their faith will be more noticeable and deemed more 'militant'.

Being harsh, I will add, that you have no need to be concerned about your children or your children's children and the world they will be born into. So live your live, grab whatever fleeting 'pleasure' you are driven to, but know it will never be sufficient to fill that void in your soul - whatever you might say or actually think. You know no different. God help you.

26 November 2011 at 13:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Being harsh, I will add, that you have no need to be concerned about your children or your children's children and the world they will be born into."

You're making caricatures for your own pleasure. I care about the wider world beyond my own existence. I'd be surprised if many people don't. I care about my friends' children and their future. I care about the natural world whether or not humans live in it. I care about collective strangers. I mean proper caring too, not the Whore of Babylon type.

"So live your live, grab whatever fleeting 'pleasure' you are driven to, but know it will never be sufficient to fill that void in your soul - whatever you might say or actually think. You know no different. God help you."

Wooooo, silly, spooky nonsense about souls and stuff. But Allah help you too, if you've chosen badly. Perhaps he will as you probably know no different really. Or just simply waste your life being a foot soldier for a bunch of self-serving, power-hungry cardinals and their frock-wearing figurehead if you like. That's if you're a practising Christian at all, over which I have my doubts.

26 November 2011 at 14:33  
Blogger len said...

I think the mistake a lot of 'religionists' make is assuming that fallen man is all bad.Well obviously he is not.Fallen man can quite obviously do 'good as well. But their in lies the problem, the ability to do good is the opposite side of the coin so to speak of the ability to do 'bad'..The two are linked together.
When Adam ate from the 'tree of good and evil' he knew good and evil by direct experience,because they both dwelt within him.And this is the battle fought out within the human soul until/ or unless/ the Holy Spirit is allowed to resume His rightful position.

26 November 2011 at 15:22  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

len
What 'religionists' are you referring to? It's more of a protestant and puritan belief that more mainstream Christian professions.

And what are your practical solutions to the struggle within man? Is it influenced by one's culture, friends, parents? Can this affect receptiveness to the promptings of the Holy Spirit and capacity to respond? Or, is it entirely up to the grace of God to determine who are saved with no role for the recipient?

I'd be interested to learn more about your social perspectives on Christianity and how it assists or contrains human responses.

26 November 2011 at 15:59  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, There is only one solution for the struggle within man.
Firstly one has to realise the nature of the struggle, the causes and the 'remedy'.

Man inherits a fallen nature from his ancestor Adam.This is a spirit of rebellion(against God)evidences of this are everywhere around the World and even on this blog!.
When man has a revelation as to his pitiful condition AND desires change then God will effect this change in him.There is nothing man can do to effect this change.It is not the individual sins that condemn a man but the fact that he has a sin nature which drives him towards sin. Only God can remove this hardened heart full of of rebellion and replace it with a heart full of love toward man and God.
It is the indwelling Holy Spirit within the believer which is the Power which overcomes the propensity towards sin.(not the sin nature, if one is born again this has been replaced)

So as Paul calls out with despair 'So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?
(Then he continues with the solution)
Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!


Paul has found the answer,the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ in the Believer delivers him from the struggle within.'For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,'(Romans 8:13)

The Book of Romans in the Bible sets out the problem with humanity and God`s solution for all who accept it.

26 November 2011 at 18:46  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

To Danj0 07:42
“I do something similar now and again with Marie and others like her regarding the emancipation and suffrage of women. As a counter argument against social conservatism and tradition, I sometimes ask whether it would be better if women knew their place (as understood at the turn of the last century) and got back to simply maintaining the home and leaving men to choose how the country is run. Of course, she has no argument back, and the point is made. Yet I fully support the modern emancipation and suffrage of women.”

I think you'll find more than a few women will be quite happy for men to look after them in the old fashioned way, I have some girlfriends who are home makers and very happy if it were not for the fact that households need two incomes these days I think there would be more home-making and the children would have more quality time with mum. My friends' husbands take into account their wives views and opinions when making decisions for the family.

Society needs both genders to vote to be balanced and taking a back seat is not for every woman. but looking at some of the women in parliament these days it does make me wonder if we wouldn't be better off with just the men as our representatives?

You cannot compare the emancipation and suffrage of women with the gay cause at all. What do gays give society apart from an Arse Injected Death Sentence?

26 November 2011 at 22:36  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 10:49
“Is she? It doesn't seem that long ago that she was trawling online dating sites trying the men out and finding them wanting. Well done her for finding one and doing her wifely duty”

No Danj0 I've taken up a hobby instead! Sadly I don't have children.
I was just wondering why is it call Gay Pride? What do you do that you have to be so proud of?

26 November 2011 at 23:27  
Blogger English Viking said...

Marie,

You are correct; one of the greatest reasons for the breakdown of society is the NEED for 2 incomes, just to survive.

Women thought they were emancipated from the kitchen sink. To what? The factory.

BTW Gays do give us one thing, at least; a need for medical research.

26 November 2011 at 23:31  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Viking
Don't call homosexuals 'gay' - they're not. It's a queer use of the word. There's nothing gay about perversion.

26 November 2011 at 23:45  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

EV
Well there are plenty of other diseases to research rather than cures for AIDS which comes from promiscuous homosexual behaviour.

Sorry to hear about your pet cat, maybe there will be another little one that needs a good home you can take in. It's surprising the amount of people that abandon pets when times get hard. I spotted a lovely but bedraggled pure white one rummaging and eating stuff out of bins across from where I live. Should I catch him/her and send to you? :-)

27 November 2011 at 00:02  
Blogger English Viking said...

Marie,

Do just that for me, won't you?

A replacement is just not possible. There will never be another Petal.

BTW I was being obtuse; disease needs to be investigated, no matter the cause.

There is no point banning gayness, because the ban cannot be enforced.

If it could, I would.

PS B + W's are usually male. 3 or more colours are always female. Ginger (totally, not just mostly)is always male.

Where's Petal?

27 November 2011 at 01:10  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

EV
It's funny that AIDS appeared in the eighties not long after homosexuality had been made legal? It seems AIDS was not around when homosexuality was a crime.
I didn't say anything about banning Queers but they need keeping under control.

PS what are all whites then?

27 November 2011 at 01:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "You cannot compare the emancipation and suffrage of women with the gay cause at all. What do gays give society apart from an Arse Injected Death Sentence?"

Oh I can on the basis of social justice, I don't need to resort to a basis of utility. Also, I know you're having recurring trouble recognising an argument about social conservatism and tradition but that's what it is: social change is often necessary and for very good reasons at times. I very much resent the oppression of gay people as a class in the past, and its residue now.

This gay man has been a fairly large net contributer to the communal finances for all of his adult life. As it happens, I was also involved in the development of the principles and technology in the Internet. Moreover, I'm healthy and I don't have HIV or any other STD. I have lots of other great attributes too other than just being attracted to members of the same sex. Feel free to take the benefits of all of that. You don't even need to thank me.

27 November 2011 at 06:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie1797: "No Danj0 I've taken up a hobby instead! Sadly I don't have children."

You loss, apparently. At least your hobby won't get you up in the middle of the night ... unless of course it's stealing underwear left out overnight on washing lines. On the positive side, you have the perspective bluedog has assigned to you and blessed anyway without all the associated effort, and that presumably opens the door for me too. Oh boy, I bet poor bluedog is kicking himself now, bless his little, cotton, union flag, socks.

27 November 2011 at 06:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Viking: "You are correct; one of the greatest reasons for the breakdown of society is the NEED for 2 incomes, just to survive."

Hey, that's one of my past arguments! It's true though, isn't it? It's a natural product of the market that Thatcherites like, too. We can blame those damned in-yer-face un-womanly women 50 to 100 years ago for that. Well, if we were so inclined anyway.

27 November 2011 at 06:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "I think you'll find more than a few women will be quite happy for men to look after them in the old fashioned way, I have some girlfriends who are home makers and very happy if it were not for the fact that households need two incomes these days I think there would be more home-making and the children would have more quality time with mum."

Ah, they're unwomanly women from the past 50 to 0 years ago. It must be difficult being a woman, not knowing at any given point and in the face of social injustice whether to burn your bras or flash them to get a promotion.

27 November 2011 at 07:03  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

DanJ0
So now you're a 'feminist'? What a corrupted view of human relationships and family life you have.

Women driven through economic necessity into working, not through any sense of injustice. Children handed over to 'childminders' and the State to receive a godless, diverse and secular 'education'. Marriage no longer a permanent union blessed by God between a man and a woman for life-long companionship and the transmission of life but for sexual hedonism.

How very modern you are! Apart, that is, from your decision to give up on veganism despite having 'ethical' objections to eating meat.

27 November 2011 at 10:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "What a corrupted view of human relationships and family life you have." and "How very modern you are!"

Well, you say that but of course your Daily Mail idea of marriage is actually quite modern in the scheme of things too. You need to read up on the history of marriage and family structures. The 'tradition' of marriage and family life has changed throughout history as society has changed.

"Apart, that is, from your decision to give up on veganism despite having 'ethical' objections to eating meat."

Lol. You have no idea yet you still blather on regardless. I remain in constant wonder how you wake up without instantly blushing with shame at your outlook and behaviour.

27 November 2011 at 11:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah, Marie1797. Noticed you have had difficulty with dating, finding the men somewhat lacking. Did the Inspector mention that as a bachelor, he’s had the same problem with women. Can’t find one with any sense ! Perhaps the Archbishop might pass on the Inspector’s email address to you. We should talk. Incidentally, your man has a full head of hair and own teeth, is in employment, and doesn’t have a gay bone in his body. And thinks of England a lot...

27 November 2011 at 13:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "We should talk. Incidentally, your man has a full head of hair and own teeth, is in employment, and doesn’t have a gay bone in his body. And thinks of England a lot..."

:)

I'd check what the hobby is first though. Could be indicative.

27 November 2011 at 13:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Rather touching of you to be concerned. Hopefully it’s not ‘doing men in’...

27 November 2011 at 13:49  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 6:45
“This gay man has been a fairly large net contributor to the communal finances for all of his adult life.”
So have all the single people like me!

“As it happens, I was also involved in the development of the principles and technology in the Internet”
That's great, but do you have to be homosexual to do that? What I can't get my head round is the fact that society has not been any more enriched by unleashing the homosexuals in the name of social justice, whereas by excluding women from things that's more or less excluding half the population and the female point of view.

Glad you're healthy and well.

27 November 2011 at 15:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"That's great, but do you have to be homosexual to do that?"

No. I'm gay and you asked what gays give to society and I gave you some examples. That's actually one of the points. Being gay living life as normal is, and ought to be, incidental to being a good engineer or a useful tax payer. Just like being a woman. You could subject us to workplace discrimination, deny us our promotions, put us in prison for having a harmless sex life like straight people, be abusive in the street, and so on, just like in the recent past, but you potentially reduce our valuable contributions to society as a result. It's unjust, unnecessary, unproductive, and wrong, isn't it?

27 November 2011 at 15:40  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
No, it's not doing men in or stealing of any kind Danj0, what an imagination you have.
Inspector
How nice of you to want to communicate, yes why not, that is if the Archbishop doesn't mind and can spare a minute to pass on your email.

27 November 2011 at 16:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Can we rule out taxidermy too, just so that I can sleep soundly tonight?

27 November 2011 at 16:41  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
I can assure you the local animal population is safe from being stuffed & mounted upon any of my walls.

27 November 2011 at 17:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well done Marie. I’ve only written to the Archbishop once, to extol the virtues of artificial daylight during these dark days, so he does have my address.

27 November 2011 at 17:21  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 15:40
“No. I'm gay and you asked what gays give to society and I gave you some examples. That's actually one of the points. Being gay living life as normal is, and ought to be, incidental to being a good engineer or a useful tax payer. Just like being a woman. You could subject us to workplace discrimination, deny us our promotions, put us in prison for having a harmless sex life like straight people, be abusive in the street, and so on, just like in the recent past, but you potentially reduce our valuable contributions to society as a result. It's unjust, unnecessary, unproductive, and wrong, isn't it?”

Yes OK being flung into clink for being homosexual is a bit harsh and wont get the best out of a person, neither will taunting in the workplace, and beating anyone up for any reason is wrong. But, things are swinging in the other direction now, flaunting “Out and Proud” & “Gay Pride” dancing in the streets in tight underwear adopting homosexual poses and virtually doing what you do in the bedroom in public to promote it your sexuality, then wanting to mark you territory with street signs, and even redefine marriage along with other loud public pronouncements of the homosexual lifestyle is pushing things too far. You've got a decent life, why can't your LGBT organisations redirect your brain power into doing something less selfish and more constructive like advanced technology to promote ans sell abroad so that the country can recover?

27 November 2011 at 17:31  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Only the once Inspector?! I would have thought a man like yourself who takes a keen interest in his environment and the political affairs of his country would have sent off many a letter extolling the virtues of common sense to the Archbishop on many a topic. Let's hope he can find it.

27 November 2011 at 18:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Marie, when it comes to common sense, the Inspector lets the Archbishop handle it. But if ever anything of note comes to light, he will pass it on as an offering. Incidentally, have you noticed how the phrase ‘common sense’ has declined in use as PC grips the nation. Not compatible together you see. Will therefore be using ‘cs’ more often...

(Think the single email went out when the clocks went back, entitled ‘Message from the Inspector General’)

27 November 2011 at 18:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "You've got a decent life, why can't your LGBT organisations redirect your brain power into doing something less selfish and more constructive like advanced technology to promote ans sell abroad so that the country can recover?"

I think this is where you are going wrong. I have never attended a Gay Pride march, I don't wear tight underwear in the street or in the privacy of my own home, I don't support any LGBT organisations, and I don't advocate gay street signage or have territory I want to mark with them. We're not all the same you know, there are probably 3 million of us in the UK. We're primarily individuals.

Wouldn't you be better spending your time complaining about the women wearing tight underwear or short skirts in public, flaunting their sexuality in public, dancing in the street, getting pissed and lying in the gutter, appearing on billboards, and not caring a hoot what the religious thinking.

What about straight people co-habiting? Straight people divorcing? Straight people having sex outside of marriage? Straight people commiting adultery? Straight people kissing in public? Straight people holding hands in public? The use of straight couples to promote sensual goods? Surely you have more than enough to keep you busy there?

Or that the issue? We're a minority and easily targetted by homophobes and religious bigots but they aren't and they not only won't accept your criticisms in all likelihood but will tell you to mind you own business and push your faces in the dirt if you try too hard to interfere?

27 November 2011 at 18:27  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

DanJ0
Why do homosexuals corrupt the word 'gay'? It's an adjective indicating a merry, happy disposition. Why confuse it with the noun homosexual person?

I suppose you could be a gay homosexual - just as you could be a miserable homosexual.

It's such a queer use of the English language.

27 November 2011 at 18:28  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Ps
The majority are not 'straight' by the way; we're heterosexual and very gay about it too!

27 November 2011 at 18:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "You've got a decent life, why can't [...]"

I want and expect full equality, myself. That's the underlying message of Gay Pride too you know. It's a reactive thing: not ashamed or cowed, won't keep quiet and accept what's merely gifted.

27 November 2011 at 18:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, please tell me you were lying that you have fathered children. Given that apples don't fall far from the tree, I feel very sorry for those poor feckers getting a chunk of your DNA and an upbringing from you.

27 November 2011 at 18:37  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
“Wouldn't you be better spending your time complaining about the women wearing tight underwear or short skirts in public, flaunting their sexuality in public, dancing in the street, getting pissed and lying in the gutter, appearing on billboards, and not caring a hoot what the religious thinking.“

I do complain to the local council about the binge drinkers and vomit strewn pavements, as do many people but until the price of alcohol goes up so that people drink less the situation isn't going to improve all that much.

I think people are getting rather bored with celebrities and in turn the local teenagers copying them flaunting their wares in public. But it takes a long time for the tide to turn to a level of decency again when we seem to be heading in the opposite direction in that the more shocking and degrading the better.


Inspector
Then the Archbishop should have no trouble seeing it in amongst the hundreds of others.

27 November 2011 at 19:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie, how about lobbying Parliament to overturn the divorce law, or at least removed some of the grounds, on the basis that marriage is claimed to be ordained by god etc?

27 November 2011 at 19:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. The Inspector has always suspected the word comes from the phrase ‘bachelor gay’. You are right. There’s nothing remotely merry or happy about a prolapsed rectum. Read about Kenneth Williams some years ago. He had to go through life, at least the latter part of it, with a tear in the abdominal wall. There’s a medical name for that which escapes just now. His penchant was muscular lorry drivers; no telling him, you see.

27 November 2011 at 19:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Marie. Hopefully if the Archbishop is willing, he’ll find me on a search. Would rather he does that than rely on something emailed to him now by a mischief maker pretending to be me.

Hard to believe DanJ0 is ‘non scene’, but there you go...

27 November 2011 at 19:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Would rather he does that than rely on something emailed to him now by a mischief maker pretending to be me."

I'd like to say Dodo wouldn't do that but, well, he has a history of adopting multiple identities to make mischief here as we all now know.

"Hard to believe DanJ0 is ‘non scene’, but there you go..."

I've said it a number of times over the months in various contexts. I suppose it's quite hard to set aside cherished prejudices and the like.

27 November 2011 at 19:41  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Inspector,
Oh! no can't have that now can we tee hee! :-)

It is unusual for a young homosexual who I believe is single again not to be doing the clubs, maybe he's been reading up about prolapsed rectums and has decided the taste of bromide is infinitely better?

27 November 2011 at 19:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, you could always send her a message directly through her youtube channel if you're serious and then confirm it here.

Marie, I've never done the clubs as you call it. If I were straight then I wouldn't be doing the straight clubs either. They're all meat markets really ... but you probably know that already yourself.

27 November 2011 at 19:48  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
You could, yes that's an option. Channel name is the same.

I'm not a fan of night clubs or rowdy pubs, leave that to my friends' children in their 20's Jaeger Bomb isn't my kind of drink either.

27 November 2011 at 20:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Nothing wrong in prejudices you know, like coffee in the morning, tea in the afternoon. The Inspector would not even consider his good friend Dodo would do anything like what you are inferring. Thanks for the Youtube tip, but am fairly new to this blog thing, so will have to be led by the nose to do that...

27 November 2011 at 20:07  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Inspector
Thank you for defending my reputation, Sir. That DanJ0's a queer little chappie suggesting I'd interfere with your friendship. Besides, Mr ABC can trace your email address and ISP if he so wishes.

DanJ0
I'm pleased to report my three off-springs are all healthy, gay hetrosexuals with not a homosexual inclination in sight.

27 November 2011 at 22:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

But do they have any integrity or dignity or ethics, Dodo? Let's hope their mother managed to offset your crap character influences there.

28 November 2011 at 07:26  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

DanJ0
Pleased to say there're all fine, upstanding young people - straight as the day is long. As it the way with the younger geneation they did acquire one or two rather unsavoury ideas about 'diversity' and 'equality' but happily they are back on the straight and narrow now.

28 November 2011 at 08:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Perhaps they just take after their father, adopting whatever identities and attitudes they see fit at any given time? They're probably cruising gay bars and dressing like members of YMCA when they're out of your sight. ;)

28 November 2011 at 11:05  
Blogger Jon said...

DanJ0 - thank you for your defence whilst I was away. You can take over street- signage painting duties and the running of the military-industrial-media complex this weekend - I'm off to dance down a street in my pants.

Bluedog - I think you know that your quotation was a thoroughly disreputable piece of editing, and what's more, I notice that no one has, as yet, successfully explained why noticing a parallel between the causes of the emancipation of women, and the progression of rights for gay people is wrong (aside from Marie's latest attempt to assign gay people no economic value, and Dodo's attempted appropriation of the word 'gay'). You all got your knickers in a twist there for nothing.

Just so you know, you won't find many gay misogynists in my experience (least of all me!). I don't need to point out that most 'gay icons' are women but I suspect that it's also to do with the tendency for most women to have sympathy for gay men because a. they know what it's like to be born a way that some others decide makes you somehow inferior, and b. because they know how bloody useless most blokes are!

28 November 2011 at 14:16  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Jon

"I notice that no one has, as yet, successfully explained why noticing a parallel between the causes of the emancipation of women, and the progression of rights for gay people is wrong."

Because they are of a diffeent order of rights and have very different outcomes.

Social justice for women in terms of access to employment, equal pay, the vote, education etc. has changed society but has not changed its basic unit - a man marrying a woman to raise a family - merely the way it has had to adapt to changing economic circumstances. Not all positive in my experience but there you go.

Having homosexual 'rights' constantly shoved down our throats for a small sexually deviant minority, in my opinion, undermines society. Not because they shouldn't be afforded equal rights in terms of employment, pay, the vote etc. but because they want to take it too far. Who really cares if you are a homosexual?

However, to try to promote homosexual practices as 'normal' and 'acceptable' and to want to teach all children about homosexual 'love' is corrosive and toxic. It may protect a few from from the trauma of 'coming out', though this has yet to be proven, but in the process it changes our understandings of sexual love as part of a permanent relationship and family life. Why have your marches, why campaign for 'marriage', why try to normalise the disordered?

28 November 2011 at 18:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

6/10 Dodo. You got the deviant and disordered thing in but no outdated queer or gay usage this time. You'll be thrown out of the Forum Troll Association if you don't keep up the standards, you know.

28 November 2011 at 18:58  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

DanJo
I stand by every word I've written above in response to Jon. Its strange that you think it's written to 'troll'. It just goes to show how deep you've gotten into the peculiar lifestyle you've chosen for yourself.

28 November 2011 at 20:14  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Ps
What's outdated by the words "queer" and "gay"? They are still in the English dictionary with both their legitimate meaning and the new speak versions.

When was it decided and by whom tochange the meaning?

28 November 2011 at 20:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, you tosspot, you basically admitted you were doing it the other day. Have you forgotten already? Do you troll other forums or something too and get your various identities and themes mixed up?

28 November 2011 at 20:31  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

DanJo

Tosspot! How civilised!

NO you put that construction on my comment that it was easy to push your buttons. If you get riled by my truth that is YOUR problem, not me being a troll.

You really are the sort of guy who ends up being stabbed in a shoot out!

28 November 2011 at 21:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, I don't get riled by it. I have a mild contempt for Catholicism so I simply dismiss its philosophy just like I do with that of Islam. That you try to use it as a trivial forum weapon just adds to that as I not only dismiss the philosophy but laugh quietly at you for treating it with your own contempt.

If any randoms are reading this and are wondering what is being referred to then it's this statement, clearly rather absent of the grace and love of the Holy Spirit the Catholic Church also talks about in its philosophy:

"If you want to 'offend' DanJ0 then just remind him he suffers from objectively disordered inclinations and is given over to perverted sexual acts. In short, he's a sexual pervert. It's true and keeps him going for hours."

It's a thing of beauty, isn't it? :)

29 November 2011 at 03:03  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

DanJ0
True. The problem is that the truth as I see it is objectionable to you and why must I dress it up in 'new speak'? How is it love to pretend otherwise and reassure you what you are doing - not who you are - is harmful for you and for society?

As I see it, you choose to do what you do and choose to reinforce rather than resist the tendencies your experience.

For one who claims to dismiss these views you want to discuss an awful lot.

29 November 2011 at 13:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, if you mean objectionable in the emotional sense then I don't find it so at all. You waste your time trying to be offensive, I think. Don't stop though as it gives me lots of opportunities down here to put the case forward for gay rights and associated religious restriction. It also makes you look like a religious crank and a homophobic bigot to boot, which is all to the good I reckon. Finally, I'm an atheist so it hardly takes a genius to realise that I think your alleged religious belief system is a pile of crap with no more validity than Islam. Hope this helps.

29 November 2011 at 14:35  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

DanJ0
Tantrum time?

And I never realised you were an atheist. How surprising. For all your platitudes about equal rights you come out with a statement like:

"I think your alleged religious belief system is a pile of crap with no more validity than Islam.

Do you share this opinion with your work colleagues, I wonder? You say my views, expressed in non-offensive language but just recognised English langauge make me:

" ...look like a religious crank and a homophobic bigot ..."

That neatly sums up what the agenda of the homosexual lobby is about. Fine as individuals your lifestyle should not be subject to discrimination. However, it hasn't stopped there.

Change the perceptions of children and adults about ordered, healthy human realtionships by a mixture of bullying, shouting and redefining words. Then attempt to change the insitutions on which a successful society is built by seeking to pervert and undermine marriage.

If arguing against this makes me appear to be a bigoted homophile then in return I say you appear to be a bigoted Christophile - or even an anti-Christ.

29 November 2011 at 17:47  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

DanJ0

"They're (my children) probably cruising gay bars and dressing like members of YMCA when they're out of your sight."

Now do not judge others by your own adolescent standards. My children are honest, open and unashamed of who they are and what they do.

29 November 2011 at 17:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo Do you share this opinion with your work colleagues

The Inspector suspects that our DanJ0 is somewhat staid at work. He only “queers away”, so to speak, and this site is ideal for the chap. Wouldn’t want it any other way mind; who would we argue with and triumphantly defeat on issues like homosexual marriage...

29 November 2011 at 18:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Do you share this opinion with your work colleagues, I wonder?"

Of course not. I understand that I am in a role at work.

"My children are honest, open and unashamed of who they are and what they do."

As they should continue to be if it turns out at some point that they're batting for the opposite team.

29 November 2011 at 18:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "The Inspector suspects that our DanJ0 is somewhat staid at work. He only “queers away”, so to speak, and this site is ideal for the chap."

You should see my facebook page. :)

For all Dodo's imagination about old queens, I'm not in the least bit camp in real life. You wouldn't know I was gay, and I don't suppose my father knew either. Perhaps Dodo's poor, disadvantaged, Catholic-burdened offspring are giving it to other men up their poo chutes and he simply doesn't know. Furthermore, we only have Dodo's word that he isn't, ahem, over-compensating with all this homophobia stuff too, and we all know how much Dodo's word is worth around here. He does seem rather taken with dear Albert.

"Wouldn’t want it any other way mind; who would we argue with and triumphantly defeat on issues like homosexual marriage..."

Ha. By pretending to be Hinge and Bracket to try to protect each other? Oh I really don't think so. Nice try though.

29 November 2011 at 18:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Facebook page !! – details please...

The Inspector is rather pleased you blog on this site. You must appreciate that for every individual that bangs the table and shouts “Yes” on seeing your offerings, there are nineteen who don’t. So there.

Hinge and Bracket comparison again ? Well, neither Dodo or the Inspector are ‘old women’ and I’m sure you’ll agree the Inspector is his own man, with his own distinctive style.

Be seeing you...

29 November 2011 at 19:15  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

DanJO
Your really are an emotionally stunted little man as evidenced by your use of colorful, childish imagery and pathetic personal innuendo. You should show greater maturity.

Is your world really occupied by such queer fantasies of perverted anal sex, repressed suppositions about disordered homosexuality and confusion about the differences between respect and friendship between people with sexual desire?

I'm not surprised you stay silent at work. No little pink ribbon or rainbow on your lapel? I wear a cross on mine. How can your seperate who you are as a person from your work 'role'? No friends at work? And, again, I'm not surprised to learn you kept your inclinations secret from your father.

What a horrible, dark world you must live in. Not gay at all. The rainbow is a symbol of hope and promise. Again, not terribly appropriate.

29 November 2011 at 19:58  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Oh! pray do tell us your facebook page details, I'd love to see what pearls of wisdom you impart to all your LGBT chums. I suppose you've been keenly watching “My Transgender Summer” on Ch 4. as well?

29 November 2011 at 20:37  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Jon @ 14.16 28/11, I did consider the possibility that my post misconstrued your position but concluded, on balance, that it did not. I doubted that you would take the risk of expressing such provocative thoughts on a purely speculative basis. It seemed more likely that you had floated the ideas deliberately.

Mr DanJO @ 06.54 27/11 said, ‘On the positive side, you have the perspective bluedog has assigned to you and blessed anyway without all the associated effort, and that presumably opens the door for me too. Oh boy, I bet poor bluedog is kicking himself now, bless his little, cotton, union flag, socks.’

It appears I incorrectly assumed from her earlier posts that Marie 1797 is a parent. The more is the pity that she is not. Marie’s intelligent posts are always a breath of fresh air, and she has values that could be usefully perpetuated through her own offspring as well as through His Grace’s most Christian blog.

I note that you claim to have worked in the development of the internet.

Your post above suggests you may have some way to go in perfecting the on-line flounce.

29 November 2011 at 21:25  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Inspector and Marie1797,

This is so exciting!!! If you are unable to connect, would you contact a friend of mine, a bonded, senior email and network administrator with IBM Toronto? I can ask him if it's ok with him, and if so, would post his IBM or Rogers Canada work email here and when he's contacted both of you in confidence, he'll blow away your addresses. You get to contact one another, I won't have your emails, and I'll benefit by performing one of the most important good deeds!

29 November 2011 at 23:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi. You are a hero. The Archbishop has yet to act, but I suspect he only reads a thread’s entirety when he comes to archive it. Could be days away yet. But as for your suggestion, I ’m game. Must get some shut eye now, be seeing you...

29 November 2011 at 23:34  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ok, watch this blog post, bbl.

29 November 2011 at 23:48  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 November 2011 at 00:06  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

PS: Inspector, let me know when you've contacted Vic, so I can call and remind him to check, as that's his systems test email for the ball team and he may not check its in-box for days.

30 November 2011 at 01:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "I'm not surprised you stay silent at work. No little pink ribbon or rainbow on your lapel? I wear a cross on mine. How can your seperate who you are as a person from your work 'role'?"

No, of course not. What's the point and why would they be relevant at work? As for your point about separation, you're extrapolating from being an individual to wearing a pink ribbon or cross as though one naturally follows from the other. That's rubbish. As it happens, we have one man at work who wearing a small stylised fish symbol on his lapel. I find that curious for its intent but I never comment on it.

Let's imagine I come into work and in reply to a question about what I did at the weekend I said that my boyfriend and I had been to the Birmingham Christmas Fair. Imagine that a Christian colleague pipes up that she considers homosexual relationships to be a sin and that I would go to hell as a result. My company would consider that she was acting inappropriately at work. You can see why? You can see that they're not favouring homosexuals there? I hope so.

30 November 2011 at 05:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

bluedog: "Your post above suggests you may have some way to go in perfecting the on-line flounce."

You clearly have no idea what a flounce is as far as forums are concerned.

30 November 2011 at 05:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Oh! pray do tell us your facebook page details, I'd love to see what pearls of wisdom you impart to all your LGBT chums. I suppose you've been keenly watching “My Transgender Summer” on Ch 4. as well?"

No I haven't been watching as it's not my thing. Most of my facebook friends are straight women but they love gay men camping it up for a laugh. You'd be ripped apart by them, I think, not least because of your Daily Mail leanings.

30 November 2011 at 05:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "What a horrible, dark world you must live in."

I usually get that comment simply for being an atheist. It's how religionists make themselves feel better I reckon; I suppose it's an occupational hazard from reading all the imagery in their bibles. It's such a perversion of the truth, the image as well as the bible, that it surely has to be a technique in the style of neuro-linguistic programming.

30 November 2011 at 05:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

bluedog:"Marie’s intelligent posts are always a breath of fresh air, and she has values that could be usefully perpetuated through her own offspring as well as through His Grace’s most Christian blog."

I recall her position on abortion and its place in society didn't go down too well with the Catholics. :)

30 November 2011 at 05:46  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Bluedog, thank you for your kind words.

Avi, well if the Inspector's game then so am I. You're very sweet.

30 November 2011 at 11:46  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - just because words are in the dictionary doesn't mean that one uses them in polite society.

As a Catholic Scot, you know there are all sorts of words which the ignorant use to discuss Catholics which I, and I'm sure you, would consider offensive, and which I wouldn't consider it appropriate to post on a forum, let alone one ostensibly discussing the role of religion in politics and vice versa!

How can't you see that there's no difference between that, and the way that you deliberately use words to rile others in the absence of logical points to be made?

As regards your idea that gay rights and women's rights are different because women are useful in the fundamental building block of your idealised vision of society, I don't accept that at all. Either PEOPLE are equal, or they aren't. To attempt to allocate equality to your favoured groups is no kind of equality at all and deserves nothing but contempt as it's the logic of slavery, to which you have no biblically- based objection.

30 November 2011 at 11:49  
Blogger Jon said...

Sorry Dodo - I've just seen on another comment that you're not Scottish (I can't think where I picked that up?!)

In any case, you'll understand my point.

30 November 2011 at 11:53  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Marie,

Let the games begin, then. Just remember, young lady: 10:30 (PM!) curfew, top-up the petrol tank, and don't believe the Inspector when he says he's got some amazing intaglio prints you just gotta see at his pad!

30 November 2011 at 12:15  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Jon
So tell me why it is inappropriate to use the terms like homosexual and queer (in the correct sense of the terms) in "polite society"? Or why "gay" should not be used in the correct sense of the term too?

I can think of no equivalent correctly used words assigned to Catholics in Scotland (I live here).

People are equal, yes, and should not be discriminated against on the grounds of gender, race, creed, disability or sexual preference. However, why should one minority group set about attempting to change society to legitimise their behaviour in ways which some consider harmful.

I do not want my children or the wider public exposed to the increasing 'normalisation' of tendencies I consider disordered and which I believe should not be acted upon, seeing them as perversions of the their true purpose and toxic to society.

Have I no right to express these views without being labelled a bigot or homophile? As I said, I could consider this bigotted and charge you with being a Christophile.

30 November 2011 at 12:28  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo blurted out, "Have I no right to express these views without being labelled a bigot or homophile?"

Perhaps you mean homophobe ? Your online moniker and gaily-hued avatar are getting to you, methinks.

30 November 2011 at 12:38  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - it's curious to me that you revel in your position as the "moral majority". This wasn't what you were called to be though, was it? What's more, Christians didn't start off that way so why lean on it?

It's because you need your position in the "majority" because that enables you to use the word "normal" which is actually your shorthand for "goes against the tenets of my religion" isn't it? It's fine for you to say that, but then that opens you to the perfectly reasonable point that DanJ0 often makes which is that, as people who don't subscribe to your religion, we see no reason to be bound by it.

So in future, when you talk about the "normalisation" of tendencies, you should be aware that we know that you're making the assumption that your tendencies are normal, and ours aren't. And this presumption of normality comes from a book which guides your views, the adherence to which encourages you to believe that you are normal. I find it rather circular and don't accept your premise.

When Christianity was imported into Rome and taken around the Roman empire, it encountered practices which it deemed abnormal, but it had to do so against a background of being very much in the minority. You were therefore called to witness to the effectiveness of your beliefs by being living proof of the promise Christ fulfilled - to demonstrate the superiority of Christian love to the Pagan- rooted culture around you, were you not?

Therefore, I suggest that your use of terms which others find offensive (whether you agree that they are offensive or not) when there are perfectly acceptable alternatives, of which you are aware, suggests that you have decided to be offensive for its own sake.

Well, by your fruits shall ye be known. The message you send when you use terms you know to be considered perjorative is that your "fruit" is rotten to the core. So, when you lean on your "majority" rather than being able to point to the objective superiority of the love you were called to be a witness to, do you not think that you have already lost your own argument?

I do.

30 November 2011 at 16:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi. Message sent at 17:17 GMT Wednesday 30th Nov.

30 November 2011 at 17:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Jon. Although the Inspector can’t answer for Dodo, he doesn’t believe the bird is out to offend per se. When taking into context his no punches pulled eternal scrapping with DanJ0, you can see how heated he gets, and understandably...

30 November 2011 at 17:36  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Avi
Ahhhh .... I'm not changing. Thank you for the warning. Homophobic, homophobic, homophobic ... not,not, not!

Jon
So how would you define "normal"?
The usual definition usage indicates in accordance with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle; or something that occurs naturally; or of relating to, or characterized by an average.

You'd probably want to redefine this understanding too.

Language, as you know, is a powerful tool for changing one's perceptions and outlook.

I cannot see how the term homosexual is offensive. The proper use of terms such as gay and queer are also inoffensive. And, yes, I accept I do consider homosexuality to be an objective disorder that results in harmful tendencies that can and should be resisted and overcome. There is no scientific evidence to the contrary although some erroneously claim people are born with homosexual tendencies.

So lock me up. I will continue to use language as I see fit and do not consider it "love" to allow the toxic nature of the homosexual agenda to progress without challenge.

Its not bigotry or homophobia to use the Queen's English. Am I allowed to say that?

30 November 2011 at 18:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Although the Inspector can’t answer for Dodo, he doesn’t believe the bird is out to offend per se."

It doesn't offend me in the least, but I'm sure as I can possibly be here that he's trying to goad. He's essentially admitted it as I quoted earlier and you can see it clearly over time if you watch. It's his character. He's tried to do it with the blog owner numerous times. He's tried to do it with the Anglians. He's tried to do it with the Evangelicals. Anyone, really. The guy just enjoys provoking and scrapping for it's own sake I think. Anyone who frequents forums knows the type I think.

What I don't understand is that he thinks it bothers me, using words like tantrum when I all I do is quietly laugh and take the piss all the time. To me it's just a standard Catholic position, albeit delivered with malicious intent. I care as much about Catholic theology, and respect it about as much, as I expect most people here do about Islam. On top of that it's just Dodo who, let's face it, hardly qualifies for anyone's nemesis, bless him.

30 November 2011 at 18:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if his wearing a cross on his lapel started when the Christian Institute started championing court cases, hoping to provoke someone at work. He's the Catholic equivalent of Daffyd from Little Britain with all this at the moment and it makes me laugh. :)

30 November 2011 at 18:43  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ok, Inspector, your dilligence is duly noted and I'll be deleting the email post presently and will remind Vic when I hear from Marie. My free-of-charge avancular advice for you, young man, would be to behave around the parents by cutting down on the what! business, to pretend you're really not all that interested in that bottle of golden-hued scotch on the mantlepiece, and to feign interest in the general conversation, rather than locking eyeballs on the hypnotising sheen of Marie's nylons, what!

30 November 2011 at 18:50  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Avi: OK alles klar.
Thank you

30 November 2011 at 18:53  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Sehr gut, Fraulein Marie, Ich will telefoniert mein Freund, doch. Viel glueck.

30 November 2011 at 19:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi. Well done that man, and thanks for the advice. Should be able to confirm to it for 5, maybe 10 minutes. Marie now has an email from me...

30 November 2011 at 19:18  
Blogger Dodo's Gray Way said...

DanJ0

Just for you, I'm going to have a politically correct evening. Hope youlike my new name and picture.

What a happy evening liea ahead.

30 November 2011 at 19:43  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Jolly!

Note to diary: And so, after some bravado, the Inspector and Marie's posts became less and less verbose and uncharecteristically serious as the moment for the First Contact came nearer and nearer. Giggling and chortling over the whole matter, we imagined a pair of dry mouths and two sets of shaky hands poised over two sets of keyboards, two minds moving towards a nexus point from which myriads of possibilities shoot out in all directions. Whatever the future may bring, for them or for any of us, this moment of the First Contact between a man and a woman is a jolt, a tear in space-time...a brush with divinity. We thank the Almighty for the chance to play a small role and we treat it with humility, respect and awe. Anon, let us all now withdraw on tip-toes from the stage, raise a glass to the moment, and comment on their matter no more.

30 November 2011 at 19:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo - Lol. Very good.

30 November 2011 at 20:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi. You’ll have a chap trembling you know, what !

30 November 2011 at 22:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo Your faux pas with ‘homophile’ was a scream. Just as well you monochromed the fish and changed your name – you were showing signs of being on the turn !

30 November 2011 at 22:18  
Blogger Dodo's Gray Way said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 November 2011 at 23:26  
Blogger Dodo's Gray Way said...

Inspector

I'm feeling a deep sense of shame. It just shows how easily entangled one can become in 'alternative' lifestyles.

Thankfully Avi put me back on the straight and narrow. I'm in a reflective mood and fasting to strengthen my resolve..

Normal service should resume tomorrow!

30 November 2011 at 23:40  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - I don't consider the word homosexual to be offensive either, but that's not the only word that you use. As for your dictionary definition of normal - don't you see that you've made my point for me?

"The usual definition usage indicates in accordance with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle; or something that occurs naturally; or of relating to, or characterized by an average."

Prior to voting reform, it was not "normal" for women to vote. Prior to the interventions of certain brave individuals, it was not normal to make political objection to slavery. Did the abnormality of these things in any way detract from the righteousness of their causes? Of course it didn't! Was there a rule or principle standing in the way? Yes, there was existing legislation. Was the rule or principle abandoned in the face of logic and compassion? Yes.

Which leaves you with "deviating from an average". In this case, "normality" is an essentially relativistic statistical concept, which in the context of homosexuality has deviated substantially from where you'd like it to be, to the point where we're allowed to own property and make TV programmes, and hold hands in public, and everything!

Since you know that you can't bind us with your objective appeals to a biblical standard we don't feel the need to hold, you sling around terms which you hope will inflame passions and cause DanJ0 or myself to lash out at you, and enable you to claim your hard- sought victimhood.

Stick to your objective standards. I promise I'll try to respect you for holding them, but don't complain if I don't subscribe to them, nor if society drifts away from your definition of "normality" where homosexuality is concerned. After all, you're accepting the usefulness of the relativistic idea of normality, so you can't complain if it's ever used against you and your views.

1 December 2011 at 13:35  
Blogger Dodo's Gray Way said...

Jon, fair points.

However, isn't the debate about the pushing of 'normal' boundaries what socialchange is about? An informed, considered discussion about what people view as acceptable and non-acceptable?Language is critical in this and (re)conditioning perceptions.

Homosexuality is widely accepted as a practice consenting adults may engage in without discrimination. But, as I said and will continue to say, stop being so bloody militant about it all and attempting to redefine what are, to me and other Christians and non-Christians, disordered behaviours as 'normal'. They are not and never will be. Stop trying to mimic marriage. Stop trying to 'educate' children, under the cover of diversity and equality, into accepting the practices as acceptable.

There are already indications from some quarters that adult sexual relations with children should be reconsidered. The age of 16 years for 'informed consent' is ridiculous in a permissive, sex obsessed culture. Some want it reduced to 14 years.

No. I'll do all I can to stop society drifting further towards the social chaos that is and will continue to result from departures to objective moral standards. And, in the process, I will provoke and will offend and will use politically incorrect words.

That's Dodo's Way!

1 December 2011 at 19:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "But, as I said and will continue to say, stop being so bloody militant about it all and attempting to redefine what are, to me and other Christians and non-Christians, disordered behaviours as 'normal'. They are not and never will be. Stop trying to mimic marriage. Stop trying to 'educate' children, under the cover of diversity and equality, into accepting the practices as acceptable."

That applies pretty much the same in the opposite direction regarding the Catholic Church. Luckily, lots of us are pretty liberal and make space for your perversions, distortions, fantasies, proselytising of kids, political shenanigans, attempted fascist impositions, moral bastardisations etc, but it's not right in the scheme of things, not right at all. You should be very grateful we all put up with you lot to be honest.

1 December 2011 at 20:45  
Blogger Dodo's Gray Way said...

DanJ0 said ...

" ... lots of us are pretty liberal and make space for your perversions, distortions, fantasies, proselytising of kids, political shenanigans, attempted fascist impositions, moral bastardisations etc,"

Hetrosexuality is a perversion? It's a distortion to be attracted to the opposite sex? A fantasy for a man to be attracted to a woman? Educating children about love, marriage and parenthood is proselytising? Trying to prevent the ever increasing sexualisation of society is fascism?

What corrupt and distorted thinking!

1 December 2011 at 22:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "What corrupt and distorted thinking!"

Perhaps if you read it properly it wouldn't seem so. I was talking about the Catholic Church, as I helpfully explained in the first sentence: "That applies pretty much the same in the opposite direction regarding the Catholic Church". If you need help reading anything else then just let me know.

2 December 2011 at 08:15  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - you tend to reheat old arguments which have been defeated already!

The age of consent stuff and the old Peter Tatchell quote don't find any support from me, nor from DanJ0 as I remember. Neither is it something which I'm aware of being prominent in the push for equal rights. There's just no point bringing it up - it's a non issue.

I absolutely support your right to use offensive words (and do so frequently myself) - I just don't think that they help your case as they undermine your claim to objective moral superiority. If your case were strong enough, it could be made without them. Your frequent use of the word "queer" is interesting to me, as it was of course originally an insult which has been appropriated by the gay community. Just as the 'n' word originally was. Or the word "Christian", as I understand it.

As for the other stuff - I've stated my feelings about marriage before. I don't see why gay marriage should be called something else. As you say, language is important, and to me, civil partnership sounds second class citizen-y. What churches choose to do is up to them, but I don't see why they should have to do something they don't want to if they're not taking the state's money.

In addition, I don't support your thesis that kids objectively see a problem with same- sex partnerships. I doubt it would even be an issue, a priori, unless people around them tell them it is. Parents can impart whatever views they want to their kids, but I think schools have a responsibility to reflect their community. As I've said before, it's why Asian names started cropping up in maths problems years ago. It's not a case of brainwashing - it's a case of acknowledging that some families are different, and supporting kids regardless of their background.

2 December 2011 at 12:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Jon: "The age of consent stuff and the old Peter Tatchell quote don't find any support from me, nor from DanJ0 as I remember."

I'm entirely happy with the age of consent being 16 and equal for straight and gay people. It's a necessarily arbitrary figure given that some 16yos are very mature and some are not but I think it's about right. I'm also comfortable with the 16-18 thing regarding people in positions of responsibility provided it's not draconian in its enforcement and sentencing. In fact, I think the Sexual Offences Acts is pretty good in the scheme of things with its distinguising between pre-pubescent offences and post-pubescent ones where a child (i.e. below consent age) is involved.

2 December 2011 at 12:21  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Jon & DanJ0

No, we wont cover old ground.

So I'm clear, what is going on with "Gay Rights" is a pernicious and toxic undermining of the basic sexual and marital values that bind our society together.

A 'civil partnership' can never be a marriage between a homosexual couple. So you "feel" like a second class citizen! Big bloody deal! The idea is simply ludicrous and redefines the meaning of the word. Look how prevelent the use of the term partner has become. No longer 'husband' and 'wife', people are 'partners'. Why? Courting couples use the term now.

As for exposing children at school to the concept of homosexual practices. No way. Curious minds wanting to know what they do to one another. It's hard enough explaining about normal sexual activity without going into all the abnormal deviations. And by the way, look just how mainstream the perverted acts and practices (and accompany paraphenalia and chemicals), once associated with homosexuality, have become.

The age of consent at 16 years in a society that now virually worships sex? You're telling me a 16 year old is capable of withstanding the predatory and manipulative advances of a man of 50? Oh yeah, tell that to any parent and listen to what they will say.

Language is important and I use the terms "queer" and "gay" at every available opportunity. I also use the words "husband" and "wife". Yep, occasionally this gets me in tricky situations but, to date, no employer has had the the courage to take disciplinary action.

To you, this will no doubt be received as bigotry and prejudice. To me, it's plain old common sense.

2 December 2011 at 13:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "You're telling me a 16 year old is capable of withstanding the predatory and manipulative advances of a man of 50?"

Yes. Just like 16yo girls I should imagine. I expect a typical retort goes along the lines of: "With a crusty old fecker like you with a wrinkly willy? Dream on!" Unless, of course, the 50yo man is a Catholic priest protected by his church hierarchy and in a community with undue deference to the Church. A little more difficult then I bet.

2 December 2011 at 16:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Language is important and I use the terms "queer" and "gay" at every available opportunity."

I think we can see when you started doing that by looking back through the articles a few weeks ago. ;)

2 December 2011 at 16:51  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older