Saturday, February 25, 2012

Marriage goes the way of 'gay' and 'pride'


Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone has proclaimed that the Church does not 'own' marriage. And she castigates the Bride of Christ for 'polarising' the debate into one of gay rights versus religious liberty. "This is about the underlying principles of family, society and personal freedoms,” she declares: it is up to 'the people' how they define the term. And she insists the Government has a right to change the definition of marriage and so confront those who 'want to leave tradition alone'.

But the state does not 'own' marriage, either, Ms Featherstone. It is a union observed in all cultures and, according to Aristotle, exists by nature. The state cannot change nature: it can legislate to call the rain 'sunshine', but the rain is still the rain; it's neither good nor bad; it's just the rain. And it will still make you wet, whatever you call it.

Marriage is essential for the functioning of society: in Scripture, it is the model used to explain the mystery of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:25-32). The Church of England ‘affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better or worse, till death do them part, of one man with one woman’. This has its basis in the Old Testament, where YHWH says: ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’ (Gen 2:18). It continues: ‘for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh’ (v24). Although these verses do not purport to define marriage, they do describe its origin, and are therefore crucial for understanding the Bible’s teaching on marriage.

There are three principal purposes for marriage arising out of v24: (i) the procreation of children; (ii) companionship, and (iii) sexual union. Marriage is a covenant before YHWH, which Jesus confirms with the phrase ‘God has joined together’ (Mt 19:26); when a person ‘leaves’ and ‘cleaves’. It is the erosion of this foundation which has contributed to ‘Breakdown Britain’.

The thing is...

If, as Ms Featherstone says, 'it is the Government’s fundamental job to reflect society and to shape the future', why stop at a redefinition of marriage which includes homosexuals? If marriage is 'owned by the people', surely any redefinition must be subject to the democratic will, yet the British people have not been asked about this: proposals for 'gay marriage' were not included in any party's manifesto at the last general election, and there has been no referendum. So is Ms Featherstone saying that a minority group somehow has the right to impose its 'unnatural' redfinition on the majority? If so, why not permit Muslim men to marry four or five wives? If the state has the authority to eradicate the heterosexual imperative, who says 'equality' must be the new immutable foundation? Surely it is up to 'the people'? And if marriage may be polygamous, why not incestuous? If 'the people' wish to privatise the institution, there is no logical end to the varieties and expressions of 'family, society and personal freedoms' which will result. If, a decade hence, they want marriage to embrace consensual polygamy, incest and co-homeowners, who is Lynne Featherstone to stop them?

As the Roman Catholic adoption agencies discovered, and as those who administer school curricula are finding, the inexorable quest for equality does not deviate for any exemption: for equality to triumph, it must eradicate the religious space. There will be no equality until two men can marry in their local parish church, regardless of the theo-political misgivings of the vicar.

But 'language evolves', you say: marriage is being redefined to reflect the new societal norm. There was a time when 'gay' meant 'happy', Abba was cool, Kylie was a c-list soap star and rainbows were a symbol of God's covenant with every living thing (Gen 9:13). Over the decades, homosexuals have appropriated 'gay' and 'pride' and the world has not ended. But these meanings have evolved incrementally, even naturally (and are still doing so, for 'gay' in teen vernacular has come to mean 'crap'). But this was not the state decreeing change. The Government is proposing to redefine marriage forever, and it will use the full force of its bureacracy to inculcate the new reality: no longer will paperwork talk of husbands and wives, but of partners. No longer will we be male and female, but simply androgynous individuals. And if you resile from the new order, you exclude yourself from public office and from employment by the state. If you dare to speak out against it, you are criminalised. This is not organic change: it is societal revolution.

If 'gay marriage' is the conservative thing to do because, as the Prime Minister avers, it strengthens society, then why are 57% of Christians pepared to abandon the Conservative Party over the issue? Are they all wrong? Are they all homophobic 'backwoodsmen' and reactionary 'Turnip Taliban'? And let us not pretend the alliance against 'gay marriage' stops (or starts) at the Church: Lynn Featherstone is uniting the churches, synagogues, gurdwaras and mosques in a faith alliance against the Government. The religious conscience will not be cowed and bullied into submission in the name of 'equality', 'fairness' or 'tolerance'.

Coalition For Marriage is uniting people of all faiths and none against 'gay marriage'. So far, it has collected 39,000 signatures (how many have put their names to a petition in support of 'gay marriage'?). If the will of the people is sovereign, surely Ms Featherstone must heed it. If it be for 'the people' to decide the definition of marriage, and the majority opt for one based on the complementary natures of men and women, who is she to say otherwise?

188 Comments:

Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

"If the will of the people is sovereign, surely Ms Featherstone must heed it. If it be for 'the people' to decide the definition of marriage, and the majority opt for one based on the complementary natures of men and women, who is she to say otherwise?"

Absolutely reasonable and surely what a democratic society is based on. However, our secularist system is now about deemed slights and discrimination. If 55 million say no, 5 million are neutral but 6 million say yes to the idea that same sex 'marriage' it is passed, as the will or decision of the majority of people is irrelevant. Our law is therefore not based on democracy but Autocracy (Secularism as sole head. A unity of many. A many headed beast) which and whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control (except perhaps for the implicit threat of coup d'état or mass insurrection)..

Then the idea is based on a decision that the 55 million discriminate unfairly and this is discern (discrimated by the Government and Judiciary) and is irrelevant as democracy is trumped.

Let us all now bow our heads and pray to the great new god Seculario and give thanks.. or else!..For it's judgments are just for all and it has courts to prove it, should you think otherwise.

In the name of the 'call me Dave' and the 'all agree with Nick' and the unholy parliamentary Host.

Never thought this secularism would catch on but they have obviously been studying Hitler and Stalin, on how to get the best out of the system without having to be strung up from a lamp post or a bullet through the head once found out.

THEY WORK FOR YOU...*NO titters, guffaws or chortles, just a sorrowful sigh*.

Ernst

ps

Thanks to Dodo for allowing Ernst to comment first, else he had a hangover from last night and is still in the nest.

25 February 2012 at 10:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernst

Good to see youupand about so early and being so lucid too.

A short and too the point summary by our host of the agenda of those seeking to wreck the Christian foundations of British society in the name of 'equality'. Nothing to add - surprisingly.

One other word that the young have changed is 'bad'. Apparently it means 'good' nowadays! As for the redefinition of the meaning of words in 'gay rights movement', I'd interpret this as the 'miserable rights movement' because that what its leading us to.

25 February 2012 at 11:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Article: "It is a union observed in all cultures and, according to Aristotle, exists by nature."

Pair-bonding, basically.

25 February 2012 at 11:02  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

"This is about the underlying principles of family, society and personal freedoms,” she declares: it is up to 'the people' how they define the term.




I can pretty much guarantee you that if the people were asked, say in the form of a referendum, they would resoundingly reject 'Gay Marriage' but hey the bastards behind this aren't going to risk that are they?

25 February 2012 at 11:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Article: "so, why not permit Muslim men to marry four or five wives?"

For one thing, we don't have the type of housing in this country to support that type of family unit.

25 February 2012 at 11:04  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Article: "so, why not permit Muslim men to marry four or five wives?"

Sadly it is; provided the 'marriages' are conducted elsewhere than the UK. Why did the Christian Churches not object to this - the basics of argument should still be the same. When a Muslim man excerises his religious claim to have four wives in this Country - wives 2 to 4 are housed as single mothers with broods at the taxpayers expense. Breaking up the traditional concept of one man one woman marriage is not good for society or the exchequer.

BTW Nice fillet and fry job on dOdOdious on the Pure Manhood: how to become the politician God wants you to be post

25 February 2012 at 11:23  
Blogger Sam Vega said...

"It is a union observed in all cultures and, according to Aristotle, exists by nature."

Aristotle presumably also thought it was a precursor of the transmission of homunculi, so firm was his grasp of biological reality.

25 February 2012 at 11:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We are approaching the time when Christians should allow a pagan government to legislate for a pagan society. Unfortunately this would mean the dis-establishment of the Church of england.
So be it - we may find that it frees us up to be the Body of Christ and to preach His Gospel.
And to suffer persecution etc. etc.

25 February 2012 at 11:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dreadnaught: "Sadly it is; provided the 'marriages' are conducted elsewhere than the UK. Why did the Christian Churches not object to this - the basics of argument should still be the same."

Also, if Christian groups here are grounding their arguments religiously then why can't Muslim groups here do so too? Marriage is a social institution so the arguments need to follow from that, whilst taking account of the religious incarnations of it where sensible.

As we globalise further, we're going to have more quirks like the one about foreign polygamous marriage. I can see the dilemma for the government there, refugees claim the asylum we are morally obliged to give but they bring with them further obligations.

25 February 2012 at 11:50  
Blogger Roy said...

Sam Vega said...
"It is a union observed in all cultures and, according to Aristotle, exists by nature."

Aristotle presumably also thought it was a precursor of the transmission of homunculi, so firm was his grasp of biological reality.

What an utterly pathetic argument. If you understand more about biology than Aristotle the credit certainly does not belong to you!

Your grasp of logic is hardly any firmer than your common sense. For an advocate of gay marriage to talk about "biological reality" is absurd.

25 February 2012 at 11:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Incidently, Carey is really getting on my thruppennies these days. If he wants to play politican or pressure group irritant then he should be treated like one.

25 February 2012 at 11:55  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

39,000 isn't the will of the people. It amounts to bugger all, if you'll permit me.

25 February 2012 at 12:01  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

I've got a real pain in the fundement watching liberals twist the institution into knots for the sake of 'equality' and 'inclusivity'. Why do none of them have the guts (besides the fact that liberals don't do guts, that is) to just come on out of the closet and abolish the entire civil institution of marriage?

Think about it. No state recognition of marriage means all unions of any kind are automatically equal in the eyes of the state (and I know how much 'equality' means to liberals) and everyone is 'included' inasmuch as nobody is included in anything; there IS nothing to include anyone in. We're ALL equalized down to outsiders.

If you want to get married, go to a church or a mosque or whatever, but it's got nothing to do with the state. If you liberals actually had the moral backbone to do something so radical, instead of your perpetual gnawing and digging at the founations of a society which you so obviously despise, I might even get over the visceral disgust you engender in me.

25 February 2012 at 12:11  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Corrigan1: boo hoo

25 February 2012 at 12:16  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@DanJ0: If he wants to play politican or pressure group irritant then he should be treated like one.

Get a judge to make his concerns law? Give him state funding? Invite him to the House of Lor... hang on a minute.

25 February 2012 at 12:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. Truly the Libdems are the politicians of degeneration. But then, that’s what you’d expect from a party that sold it’s soul for the scraps from the table...

25 February 2012 at 12:51  
Blogger len said...

'The Church does not own Marriage'(says Lynne Featherstone)

Marriage is a covenant relationship between a man and woman ordained by God.This union is blessed by God.This is a fact.

There are those(elite`s and vocal minorities) who wish to destroy our Society and rebuild it in THEIR image.The' tool' they are using to accomplish this is 'Human Right' the 'Rights of the individual'and of course the PC agenda accomplishes this for them quite nicely.(whoever invented PC certainly knew what they were doing, possibly using George Orwell`s '1984' as a blueprint?)
All this is backed up by the Judicial system who are doing whatever their masters demand.

'Gay Marriage of course is directly opposed to Christian principles and this agenda will be pushed by those (unwittingly or not)wish to displace Christianity.

All this will be done in the name of 'rights of the individual' 'Human rights 'etc.

The sad fact is these' vocal minorities' can only exist in Christian Democracies who' tolerate' them when they attach themselves to their host.Their is a point when one must stand up and be counted otherwise these minorities will 'ride roughshod' over those who are too timid or too 'Politically Correct' to make their voices heard.

25 February 2012 at 12:52  
Blogger Sam Vega said...

Roy said:

"What an utterly pathetic argument. If you understand more about biology than Aristotle the credit certainly does not belong to you!

Your grasp of logic is hardly any firmer than your common sense. For an advocate of gay marriage to talk about "biological reality" is absurd."

Don't distress yourself without reason, Roy. I don't claim much credit for understanding more biology than Aristotle, but my understanding is certainly better.

I'm not an advocate of gay marriage. I was merely pointing out that Aristotle has extremely limited credentials in this biology business. Mentioning him is naught but solemn hand-waving.

25 February 2012 at 13:00  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Bishop Tartaglia

"Marriage is an institution which does not owe its existence or rationale to governments or legislatures.

"Governments do not have the authority to say what marriage is or to change its nature or to decree that people of the same sex can marry.

"A government which favours and allows for same-sex marriage does wrong.

"It fails in its duty to society. It undermines the common good. It commits an act of cultural vandalism.

"Such a government does not deserve the trust which the nation, and including many in the Catholic community, has shown in it."

Christians of all persuasions should reflect on the implications of this statement by the Bishop of Glasgow.

25 February 2012 at 13:13  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

"Boo hoo", Lark's Tongues? That's it? No attempt to pick up the gauntlet? No answer? No "gee, Corrigan, that's a great idea, and the logical development of liberal thought on this matter"? Just "boo hoo"?

You're an undergraduate, right? I mean, with liberals it's difficult to tell because they're all stuck in 1968, but even by their standard, you have to be still an undergraduate. I mean, you seriously want to keep on twisting the institution until it has lost the last scintilla of meaning just so as to have somebody - in this instance, the state - validate any union of any pair, and all in the name of "inclusivity" and "equality"?

Anything at all to add besides "boo hoo"?

25 February 2012 at 14:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Corrigan1: "Why do none of them have the guts (besides the fact that liberals don't do guts, that is) to just come on out of the closet and abolish the entire civil institution of marriage?"

Why on earth would we want to abolish it? Weird.

25 February 2012 at 14:05  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

You'd abolish it, DanJ0, because then we'd all be 'equal' and 'included', or in this case, equally excluded, which is what I said in my original post, and because it's the logical outcome of "progressive" thought on the matter, which is what I said in my second post. See how that works?

25 February 2012 at 14:10  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

Pair-bonding, basically.

Yes, that is the modern vision, except that the 'pair' exists at the will of and only for the benefit of the pair itself. It completely severs the idea of procreation from marriage. Instead we have units who couple and de-couple at will according to the desires of their heart. The public nature of marriage is subsumed into the private. There is no inherent responsibility to past or future generations. There is no concept of 'generation' at all. There is only the imperatives of the 'me' and the 'now.'

If marriage is only about pair-bonding, then where exactly do children fit in? What natural relationship exists in which they may be conceived and nurtured and civilized? The organic connection has been broken. The responsibility of caring for children is no longer dependent upon the nature of the relationship into which they will be introduced. Any collection of one or more adults in any semi-permanent relationship becomes acceptable.

Now you will say (and with justification) "Physician, heal yourself. Why do you bleat about homosexual marriage when the state of heterosexual marriage is so bad?" It is true. I understand quite well that the legitimization of homosexuality is a derivative effect of the establishment of autonomy as the loadstone of sexual morality. But homosexual marriage would irreversibly establish two facts of law:

1. That there is no natural ordering to human sexuality beyond desire.

2. That there is no necessary connection between marriage and procreation.

That threat must be stopped. The boundaries must be defended and held before the situation can be reversed. To drive the Afrika Korps back to Tunisia, you must first hold the line at Tobruk.

carl

25 February 2012 at 14:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Corrigan1, there seems to be a flaw in your thinking ... I definitely don't want it abolished and I have never met or read about a liberal who does. I'm thinking one of your premises is duff but, well, who knows.

25 February 2012 at 14:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

In these austere times, one wonders how much the Ministry of Equality costs to run. If it exists merely to allow a woman to mouth her PC preferences, it’s hardly doing a worth while job. So, for the sake of economy wind it up, close it down, and send our woman to the back benches out of harms way. Alternatively, if spending money wastefully at the the top is no object, change it’s remit to that of ‘Ministry of Cats and Dogs’, much more useful to society...

25 February 2012 at 14:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Yes, that is the modern vision, except that the 'pair' exists at the will of and only for the benefit of the pair itself."

No. Well, at least not in the UK anyway. Having bonded pairs provides social units of finanical, emotional, and day-to-day support. On top of that, it joins two extended families together which usually strengths those things. I'd say that benefits wider society as it has always done, and in more modern times potentially removes some obligations from the State.

"If marriage is only about pair-bonding, then where exactly do children fit in?"

It isn't only about pair-bonding. If couples have children, as most do, then the unit provides initial socialisation and ongoing support. But as we know, one doesn't need to want, or be able, to have children to get married. Most people are very comfortable with that fact. Indeed, some people would be outraged if they felt then had to contract to have children in order to get married. Rightly so, I'd say.

25 February 2012 at 14:32  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

If the will of the people is sovereign.......

Now come on Your Grace, you surely don't need to speculate on this matter, for the reality of our situation is clear.

The will of the people is not sovereign, indeed such a thing counts not for a small hill of beans. At least it will remain so until controlling the mob becomes important again for whatever reason.

It is of course sometimes important for the powers that be to have the people apparently on side. However as a general rule most especially these days, our owners don't give a damn for what the public wants, or more importantly does not want.

Gone are the days when the proverbial they needed hundreds of thousands of young patriotic cannon fodder to fight and die for their imperialist ambitions.

The march of Imperial Corporatist Communism is seemingly unstoppable, the powers behind it far too rich, powerful, incredibly well established, and above all clever.

A certain mid 20th century German propaganda minister learnt all of his 'best' tricks from The BBC.

What the people are supposed to think on matters is not decided by popular consensus, elections or even opinion polls, it is decided upon by our equally mind controlled mass media and ultimately our Ministry of Information ( The Tavistock Institute, Chatham House ) as represented by The BBC.

Minority rules OK; while the smallest minority of all, secretly rules the most.

I suggest no answers to our individual or collective problems, for likely none actually exist. However if you don't know who your enemy is, how powerful it is, where it is, or what its plans are, then you don't have a chance of even slowing it down, least of all defeating it.

25 February 2012 at 14:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also, one clearly doesn't need to be married in the eyes of the State to have children. In the UK, we don't have common law marriage which bestows legal benefits but people can commit between themselves to a long-term or life-long relationship with or without the expectation of children from the relationship. Who's to say they're not married in some natural sense?

25 February 2012 at 14:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. If we were all truly equal, the Inspector would be able to use the Ladies at the ‘Mouse and Wheel’. (...That’s the toilets mind, not the opposite sex drinking there, no matter how attractive they are...). Do we want a society where men can urinate where they choose instead of where they should go ? And why bother with toilets at all, there were plenty of shop windows to go up against on the way home. And as for the idea of two people of the same sex ‘marrying’, well, there you go. There is no end of madness in theory when you tear up the rules, for this illusive equality...

Featherstone, if you’re reading this, take note of it. You can’t fault a man’s logic you know, unlike yours. What !

25 February 2012 at 14:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "If we were all truly equal, the Inspector would be able to use the Ladies at the ‘Mouse and Wheel’."

Like a depressing number of religious right-wingers, you don't seem to understand, or you equivocate over, the notion of equality.

25 February 2012 at 14:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Forgot to mention. Have you ever had a testosterone count. Your ‘condition’ may be nothing more than gonad failure. We can treat that, you know...

Incidentally, Martin Bormann’s son came home from school and told his father they’d been discussing Nazism in class. The teacher had a question for Bormann, exactly what in his opinion was Nazism. Bormann told his son “Nazism is whatever Adolph Hitler says it is”.

We no longer have Hitler laying down the law, but we do have liberal fascism and small politician Hitlers instead, and their supporters. Catch the Inspector’s drift ???

25 February 2012 at 15:01  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 February 2012 at 15:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Have you ever had a testosterone count."

I have a hairy chest. But don't feel intimidated by that, I'm sure you're manly enough even if the ladies don't seem to be attracted
to you.

25 February 2012 at 15:10  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Corrigan1: I could spare another hoo.

25 February 2012 at 15:11  
Blogger perigrino said...

@DanJo
"Who's to say they're not married in some natural sense?"

The Bible would have no problem with that!
One man + one woman = sex for life!

The "one flesh" of the Bible means quite simply that a man and a woman coming together in the sex act become "one flesh". They should not then be separated because they are "one". Children are a natural outcome of this.
The church has been remiss in not teaching this simple fact down the ages. We prevaricate as to when "divorce" is permissable or possible and get into all kinds of knots. The separation of "one flesh" falls short of God's will for His world and is always sinful. NOT an unforgivable sin, simply not in alignment with God's will.
I realise that many (or most) reading this will not be "christian". However the good Archbishop Cranmer is (or was!) so maybe he will wish to comment further

25 February 2012 at 15:14  
Blogger Manfarang said...

corrigan1
"If you want to get married, go to a church or a mosque or whatever, but it's got nothing to do with the state."
Len
"Marriage is a covenant relationship between a man and woman ordained by God.This union is blessed by God.This is a fact"
Not really. I got married in a Register Office. The register office is part of the state.

25 February 2012 at 15:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Perigrino: "We prevaricate as to when "divorce" is permissable or possible and get into all kinds of knots."

I'd have more respect for the religious opposition to extending marriage if it was as vocal about the laws about heterosexual divorce. Have you seen the divorce statistics in the UK? If there was ever a threat to heterosexual marriage then it's divorce. But, of course, that would involve chossing off a fair chunk of the mainstream population who want that option available and that just wouldn't do.

25 February 2012 at 15:25  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

@Larks Tongues in Aspic -
"Corrigan1: I could spare another hoo."

Yeah, that'd be my guess too.

25 February 2012 at 15:31  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

The threat to marriage (it can only ever be hetrosexual) is the hedonistic cult of sex promoted by those who seek to seperate morality from sexual union.

The secular and anti-theistic world view removes life-long commitment, unitive love and the transmission of life from sex. It replaces it with self-indulgance and self satisfaction.

Adultury, prostitution, divorce, contraception, abortion, promisuity and homosexual, bisexual and hetrosexual promiscuity all follow logically from this.

25 February 2012 at 15:45  
Blogger perigrino said...

@DanJo
"I'd have more respect for the religious opposition to extending marriage if it was as vocal about the laws about heterosexual divorce."

Some of us are!

25 February 2012 at 15:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I wonder why it seems to be mainly the religious who are against this if it is such a threat to the very foundations of our society?

When you look at who the agitators are behind this Coalition For Marriage pressure group, it looks like all the usual suspects i.e. people from: Christian Concern, Christian Institute, 'far-right' CARE, Christian Fellowship, Christian Legal Centre, and so on.

Their website seems rather jammed at the moment. Perhaps it's inundated with church people signing the petition, or being hit with a DDOS attack by disgruntled Stonewallers.

25 February 2012 at 15:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Perigrino: "Some of us are!"

Good! I'm struggling to find any mention of divorce on that C4M website though. Curious, huh?

According to Wikipedia: "Carey is tolerant of divorce and divorced people and the remarriage of divorced people. One of his sons is divorced and he also supported the remarriage of the Prince of Wales to Camilla Parker-Bowles, whose first husband is living."

Perhaps Carey is even more of a politician than I thought in that case.

25 February 2012 at 15:59  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Dodo. Come off it boy. Those things have all been around since the year dot. And its hetErosexual .

25 February 2012 at 16:36  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Larks

True, man nature is damaged and inclined toward sin.

Can you identify a time in modern history when these things were held up as accceptable and even promoted as 'human rights'?

Christianity pulled Europe out of paganism and one of its principle achievements was redefining human relationships and in particular the relationship between men and women.

The modern 'pornification' of society and human sexual relationships has resulted in increasing divorces and abortions. Promiscuity with whom ever and what ever is no longer taboo or seen as sinful.

25 February 2012 at 16:55  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

For all secularist here..

"According to Wikipedia: "Carey is tolerant of divorce and divorced people and the remarriage of divorced people. One of his sons is divorced and he also supported the remarriage of the Prince of Wales to Camilla Parker-Bowles, whose first husband is living."

Perhaps Carey is even more of a politician than I thought in that case."

Why marriage is important and divorce is regarded as only by deep regret and under certain circumstances and not to be used as an excuse for a lifestyle choice to play musical chairs with others.

1.Marriage was the first institution established by God in the book of Genesis, chapter 2. It is a holy covenant that symbolizes the relationship between Christ and his Bride, or the Body of Christ. Most Bible-based Christian faiths teach that divorce is to be seen only as a last resort after every possible effort toward reconciliation has failed. Just as the Bible teaches us to enter into marriage carefully and reverently, divorce is to be avoided at all costs. Honoring and upholding the marriage vows brings honor and glory to God.

Genesis 2:21-25

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his WIFE: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Must we christians only be able to look forward to the Civil Partnership supper of the Lamb.

Ps

Carey is a christian, unlike your secularist self/selves or must it be 'You' that defines 'US'

Probaly won't be long until they rewrite Holy Bible and it will be the civil partnership of Adam and Everhard?? uuuuugggghhhhhhhh.

E S Blofeld.

25 February 2012 at 17:00  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernsty said ...

"Probaly won't be long until they rewrite Holy Bible and it will be the civil partnership of Adam and Everhard??

Eveready might be better as it permits all forms of hedonistic indulgence and is therefore more 'equal' and 'diverse'.

25 February 2012 at 17:13  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

The Way of the Dodo said...

"Eveready might be better as it permits all forms of hedonistic indulgence and is therefore more 'equal' and 'diverse'."

Indeed young man, it is almost a foregone conclusion and Ernst waits with dread.

Ernsty, me boy.

ps

Ernst's poor ole eyes say 'Thank You Your Grace', for getting the smudges removed from the encryption password process and making it possible for me to look forward to commenting, rather than fearing trying to. ;-)

25 February 2012 at 17:23  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles,

You're welcome (though it hasn't been easy). His Grace may now revert to the banning of anonymice and unregistered Google-users, since it would appear that someone has been trolling in polinomial mode on multiple IDs, again.

25 February 2012 at 17:30  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

The problem with telling the truth, as anyone who knows it and tells it will soon notice that telling the truth pleases virtually no one.

Telling people that they are effectively being mind controlled by following either a left right or middle type of political, religious, economic or social dogma, is not an effective way of either making friends or influencing people.

This is why the likes of myself make rubbish politicians, and sooner rather then later come to the understanding that they are ever more painfully banging their heads against an immovably solid wall.

Therefore unless they are set to make a few bob selling books, or doing lecture tours on the subject, they soon enough give up the hiding to nothing.

Only very special people can teach the blind to see, or the mindless to think for themselves.

I assume that you have a copy of the guide book, such a pity that most of your have either never read it, or are incapable of properly understanding it the little little that you have read.

Please be reminded.

There is none more blind then he who refuses to see, none so profoundly deaf, as he who refuses to hear, none so mindless, as he who refuses to think, as there is none so enslaved as he who refuses to acknowledge that he has always been so.

25 February 2012 at 17:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We have equality now. Essentially any man and any woman can get married.

In the same way all men and women have the right to enjoy a 'family life' but for some strange reason it is very hard for a celibate man to have children. Can I demand that that 'inequality' be but right?

25 February 2012 at 17:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Marriage is taken much more seriously in the Irish republic, as so it should be when the expected children’s interest are taken into consideration. Don’t know the situation now but you could not get divorce there at one time. The best you could have got was a legal situation, a road an aunt of the Inspector’s had to take many years ago, when her sailor husband became a violent alcoholic. It was duly granted to her, though the husband resisted and did not accept the situation. He kept turning up at the house. It took three of the Inspector’s uncles to show him the error of his ways and convince him of the healthy option. Apparently, he would not go down and stay there, and the gardai (police) turned up. A quick talk from the Inspector’s uncles and they drove off, allowing the job to be finished. There’s policing for you, forty years ago. Of course, back then, everybody knew everyone else’s business, the women saw to that, bless them...

25 February 2012 at 17:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Apols. for ‘legal situation’, read ‘legal separation’

25 February 2012 at 18:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blofeld: "Why marriage is important and divorce is regarded as only by deep regret and under certain circumstances and not to be used as an excuse for a lifestyle choice to play musical chairs with others."

I think you'll find that divorce is rather more available than that.

25 February 2012 at 18:05  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Inspector, the rule in Ireland now is that divorce is available, but only after five years of separation (which need not be five continuous years, so as not to discourage attempts at reconciliation).

25 February 2012 at 18:19  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

His Grace made Ernst smile and wince simultaneously'

"His Grace may now revert to the banning of anonymice and unregistered Google-users, since it would appear that someone has been trolling in polinomial mode on multiple IDs, again."

OOh no, you mentioned the..you know who.

Like the vultures in The Jungle Book say... 'Don't start that again'!

The fella simply exists to receive public chastisement from your good self.

He will now be UNBEARABLE on here, showing the whelks on his polinomial derriere and launch into feigned offence etc, which in turn will start DanJo off.

You really are your own worst enemy, Your Grace!;-)

Ernst

25 February 2012 at 18:35  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Dodo me old mucker. Let me know if you need reminding of the recent and historical iniquities of the catholic church.

25 February 2012 at 18:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The Inspector is obliged to you Corrigan. Glad to see it hasn’t been made the off the shelf product we see in the UK.

More thoughts on marriage failure. The English are probably singular throughout Europe in not taking marriage seriously. The non intellectual part of the tribe is astonishingly shallow in it’s attitude to responsibility. Self interest and satisfaction are today’s driving force, and that excludes EVERYONE but themselves. To be able to quit a marriage and walk out of the other partner’s and children’s lives should be rare, but not so. For some, the only true loyalty they seem to have are reserved for their damn football team. Must be a racial trait...

The Inspector now appreciates why he has remained a bachelor; though by being single he’s the same as many of his friends and acquaintances. He just didn’t do the divorce bit in between...

25 February 2012 at 18:42  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Also, if Christian groups here are grounding their arguments religiously then why can't Muslim groups here do so too?

They do so already if you haven't noticed (well in Leicester you probably wouldn't) for precisely that reason! [sarc of course]

25 February 2012 at 18:44  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

We may see priests in prison again. The state gets in a huff from time to time. They did it to priests using candles and incense. Or more accurately over contempt of court. If they ever do force priests to conduct such a charade and they end up in court for refusal, it will be a pretty mean affair.

David Cameron is an odd sort of Conservative, but that's another matter.

25 February 2012 at 18:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Lord of Hosts says:

"Do not think that I come to bring peace upon the earth. I do not come to bring peace, but a sword."

25 February 2012 at 18:51  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ernst

I'm sure if Mr Cranmer was referring to me he would have said so. Don't you think?

By the way, isn't it spelt polynomial?

25 February 2012 at 19:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blo: "He will now be UNBEARABLE on here, showing the whelks on his polinomial derriere and launch into feigned offence etc, which in turn will start DanJo off."

I can almost hear the swish of raised petticoats already.

25 February 2012 at 19:13  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

I confess to having posted anonymicely, but only because I struggled to read those dratted things. A lesser sin than advertising pay day loans if his Grace will forgive me for so saying.

25 February 2012 at 19:20  
Blogger Roy said...

I posted the comments below on the previous thread by mistake!

The phoney "equality" minister, Ms. Featherstone accuses the churches of "polarising" the debate about marriage. What debate? It is not Christians who have been trying to change the definition so "marriage" does not mean what people have understood by that concept since probably long before the dawn of civilisation.

Furthermore the phoney equality minister knows perfectly well that the beliefs of Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists etc. are also in conflict with her views and that she probably won't get all that much enthusiastic support from agnostics and atheists either.

Of course the Church does not claim to "own" marriage even though it teaches that the institution is ordained by God. (Ms. Feartherstone obviously thinks she knows better than God). But it is the height of arrogance for a here today, gone tomorrow minister to think that she can change the definition of an institution that is far older than any state, that exists in all cultures and has existed at all times.

The sheer phoniness of much of what is done in present-day Britain is shown by the fact that our "equality" minister has not got the slightest interest in what people from ethnic minorities think on this subject and is not interested in what adherents of any of the different religions in this country think.

Of course the Equalities Commission (or whatever it calls itself nowadays) will back the proposals, but those members of it who are from ethnic minorities are there under false pretences because they know that their opinions are not at all representative of ethnic minorities in Britain. In fact they probably know that their opinions are totally contrary to the values of the people that they claim to represent, but that won't stop them any more than it will stop our useless MPs.

25 February 2012 at 19:35  
Blogger blondpidge said...

And look what happens to those who dare to expound beliefs such as His Grace has outlined above in the public square...

There are those still continuing to receive rape & death threats from the tolerant un-bigoted gay community. "Let's hunt her down and fill her **** with cement like God intended". "Hateful bigot". Those who have been told in no uncertain terms they are now unemployable.

His Grace is fortunate to be beyond the temporal realm.

25 February 2012 at 19:36  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I can almost hear the swish of raised petticoats already.

HaHaHa-Whoop-HeHehe - pause to wipe away tears of laughter - On a roll DJ -On a ro-o-o-o-ollll!

25 February 2012 at 19:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I don’t think anyone could begrudge the Archbishop for making a few shillings on the side, so long as he doesn’t allow the advertising of the ‘Sun on Sunday’...

25 February 2012 at 19:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

By the way, the password setup has been disabled !!!

25 February 2012 at 19:40  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Yes inspector it has now. Joyous day.

But payday loans. Really?

25 February 2012 at 19:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blondpidge. Never turn your back on these gentle people...

25 February 2012 at 19:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. If you’re feeling a bit unwanted right now after your severe and prolonged battering lately, don’t despair. You tackle much if not all of the muck posted on this Christian site. On would hope that the Archbishop is secretly appreciative, in his own quiet way, possibly, perhaps, on a good day, maybe...

25 February 2012 at 20:00  
Blogger raggedclown said...

Here's a prediction: Marriage equality will soon pass into law, the sun will come up in the morning, no one will suffer any harm, and the Church will move on to another issue. Heck, it might even forgot its obsession with other people's sex lives and remember its calling, though that would of course require a miracle.

25 February 2012 at 20:02  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
For the moment the internet censor must have gone to sleep as I have been able to log on here in Dubai.
A problem has been reported in the US that transgender folk have been causing a furore by using the ladies changing rooms in clothes shops. Do they also use the ladies loos? I am sure that this situation will surface in the UK.
Equality? How is our erstwhile Minister going to feel with males in her changing room and restrooms?

25 February 2012 at 20:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr Integrity. The logical conclusion of the equality campaign is to abolish separate sex toilets. A hangover from times past, so it is. heh heh

Can you drink in Dubai, or do you risk having the skin flayed off your back ?

25 February 2012 at 20:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say Clown, that’s sodomite talk, don’t you know, what !

25 February 2012 at 20:19  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

You tackle much if not all of the muck posted on this Christian site

Not showing much respect here Iggy for HG's almost superhuman efforts in posting such original works, let alone in displaying ultimate tolerance in upholding the principle of free speech by very, very rarely excercising his Blog Owners prerogative.

25 February 2012 at 20:23  
Blogger non mouse said...

Well, Your Grace --- one or two of your new communicants may not know that The Declaration of Christian Conscience (Westminster 2010) is still collecting signatures. The present number is 67,841.

25 February 2012 at 20:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

67,841 - in two years - pathetic.

25 February 2012 at 20:30  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

This folly to extend marriage to include homosexuals proves call me Dave is a clueless liability who is so easily swayed by minority bullies and an over concern with trying to remake the Tory party comply with an image of something they are not in order to try and appeal to what he thinks the majority of voters want is totally deluded and will cost the Tories many votes in the end.
It also proves yet again he is not a leader just a simple follower with no guts or backbone whatsoever.

God bless Lord Carey and all who are against trying to redefine marriage into something it is not and never will be anything other than between a man and a woman. Lesbians and homosexuals can unite together in their love union.

25 February 2012 at 20:36  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Much improved posting today without all that gobbledygook security.

25 February 2012 at 20:40  
Blogger non mouse said...

One prefers not to engage with anonymice, however that snide comment on the Westminster signatories makes a fair point.

The number also raises a question as to the reason for the seeming apathy. Causes might include the possibility that some form of coercion or intimidation is at work - could people lose jobs, property etc for presuming to oppose the power-mongers? Or is it just that the website's profile is low? Or is it that people know they'll be ignored or villified anyway, so why should they bother?


Well, I've shown that the means for protest is still there. We may all be turned off the topic, sick to death of it, in fact, but we'll be a whole lot sicker if we don't renew our respect for Christian consciences.

25 February 2012 at 20:58  
Blogger Roy said...

raggedclown said...

Here's a prediction: Marriage equality will soon pass into law, the sun will come up in the morning, ...

Unfortunately people become acclimatised to evil very easily. If someone had predicted just a few years ago that police and firemen would stand by and watch a man floating in a 3ft deep pond because they had not been trained to enter water greater than ankle depth, the person making that prediction would have been regarded as round the bend. If, moreover, he/she added that it would not be an isolated incident but just one of several, then nobody would have paid the slightest attention to that person.

Such things have happened recently and the sun still comes up in the morning, the Guardian's journalists are not outraged, and neither does the BBC think the story deserves all that much in the way of coverage. There is no sense of outrage from the politically correct left.

The people responsible have all kept their jobs, none have been disciplined. Everyone involved should have been sacked, even those who volunteered to go into the water because they should have ignored their orders - the excuse "only obeying orders" was rejected at the Nuremberg trials.

This is what happens when people ignore their conscience and obey obviously idiotic instructions rather than doing what they know to be right. It is what happens when duty is scorned and self-sacrifice is not respected. It is what happens when people think that they will not have to account for their actions to a Higher Power that is far above all managers, judges and politicians.

Now I am sure that there are advocates of gay marriage who are appalled by the dereliction of duty by the emergency services but the fact remains that this situation has been created by our Parliament, judicial system and bien-piensant media - the same sort of people who want to change the definition of marriage.

The Parliament of David Cameroon, Nick Clegg and Ed Milliband is a House built on Sand. Such people are completely unworthy of the generations that have gone before them.

25 February 2012 at 21:01  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, it seems important to remind communicants that David Cameron is a politician who has previously declared his support for same-sex marriage.

'Previously' is the operative word.

Dave has highly sensitive political antennae, and the emergence of a Lib-Dumb nonentity making fatuous statements in support of same-sex marriage implies that:

1) Dave has decided that his own support for same-sex marriage guarantees electoral oblivion.
2) He is setting up the Lib-Dumbs to take the rap.

Dave's dilemma is that he can't airbrush his previous statements from the record. But by lying doggo and letting the Lib-Dumbs run with the issue he can create a massive diversion that will supercede his own error of judgement.

In short, relax, it's not going to happen.

25 February 2012 at 21:24  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector said ...
"On would hope that the Archbishop is secretly appreciative, in his own quiet way, possibly, perhaps, on a good day, maybe..."

Friend, there's hope and then there's fantasy! Still, all things are possible with God.

DanJ0
You may flounce, I don't. Is it a homosexual thing? It certainly appealed to Dreadnaught and seems to have given him a thrill. A big improvement on the picture of the prepubescant boy you were drooling over recently.

Do you have a secret desire to wear a pretty skirt? Well go for it. One day you might even find a good woman who'll share her wardbrobe with you. Please don't leave it too long though, sixty year old men and skirts - yuk!

I bet you're disappointed 'Blo' didn't respond to your approach. We all know you prefer older men. Somehow I don't think you're his type. Such a shame.

25 February 2012 at 21:48  
Blogger Serpents and Doves (aka Dodo) said...

... it would appear that someone has been trolling in polinomial mode on multiple IDs, again."

Not me.

25 February 2012 at 21:58  
Blogger Man with No Name (aka Dodo) said...

"... it would appear that someone has been trolling in polinomial mode on multiple IDs, again."

Nor me.

25 February 2012 at 22:00  
Blogger The Worker (aka Dodo) said...

"... it would appear that someone has been trolling in polinomial mode on multiple IDs, again."

Certainly not me.

25 February 2012 at 22:02  
Blogger Celtic Viking (aka Dodo) said...

"... it would appear that someone has been trolling in polinomial mode on multiple IDs, again."

Don't be looking at me, now.

25 February 2012 at 22:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Now see what you've gone and done!

"Dissociative identity disorder (also known as multiple personality disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis whose essential feature, "...is the presence of two or more distinct identities or personality states...that recurrently take control of behavior."

The diagnosis requires that at least two personalities (one may be the host) routinely take control of the individual's behavior with an associated memory loss that goes beyond normal forgetfulness. Memory loss will occur when an alternate part of the personality becomes dominant."
(Wiki)

What can I do?

25 February 2012 at 22:10  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Non mouse, another possibility is that the people who actually care about the Westminster whatsit number approximately 67841.

25 February 2012 at 22:50  
Blogger Phil said...

Are we to stand by then and let evil have its way in this proposal?

If the answer is yes, then are we going to stand by and let our Churches be forced to act against what they believe and marry homosexuals?

If the answer is yes, then are we going to stand by and let our Children be taken away from us because we as Christian parents say it is wrong?

If the answer is yes, then are we going to stand by and let our Churches be closed for preaching the Gospel and congregations imprisoned?

If the answer is yes, then are are not worthy to stand before him and say that we knew you.

Stand up for God and be counted, if the 1930's told us anything it is the longer we leave it, the more we do nothing, the more we appease, the longer we put personal safety and security before righteousness.......you know the rest.

If we act now we have a chance of drawing the line peacefully. Otherwise it is going to get messy, Christians will leave the UK if they can, the others will eventually be forced into a corner where they will have very few options.

A very dangerous situation for everyone.

What would be very useful is a discussion on what will come after homosexual marriage.

Just a footnote. In a nearby town in Germany a Christian home school parents were imprisoned for failing to ensure that their children attended sex ed classes in the local school. (Compulsory no opt out) They chose prison, (3 months) and their children were "educated" anyway.

The last I heard they now has asylum in the US.

Hey Carl you got enough room for all of us?

25 February 2012 at 23:00  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

What would be very useful is a discussion on what will come after homosexual marriage.

Probably homosexual divorce.

25 February 2012 at 23:16  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I guess the gay union could be dissolved, would assets be divided as in a heterosexual divorce I wonder?

Dodo
Danj0 in a frock, well nothing surprises me with homosexuals. I can picture him in that petticoat lol. That's something I didn't experience with the online dating thank goodness. Men who do this must be hormonally challenged in some way.

25 February 2012 at 23:28  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

What would be very useful is a discussion on what will come after homosexual marriage.

Mandatory, detailed education in homosexual 'practices' in school to overcome 'prejudice', desensitise and familiarise the young.

Surrogate pregnancy as a 'right' on the NHS.

Preferential adoptions as positive discrimination, with quotas to ensure compliance for a minority group.

An increase in 'bisexuality' and 'trisexuality' as the message sinks in that sex is simply about pleasure and discovering one's 'preference' requires a 'no-holes-barred' approach to experimentation.

25 February 2012 at 23:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Lest their demands tear society apart, wouldn’t it be better for LGBTQ types to once again fall in to their allocated spot in society. Towards the back; we reserve the front for those bringing up the next generation. Remember, forty years of tolerance is at stake...

25 February 2012 at 23:32  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Your Grace, it would seem that Mr Cameron is still trying to "detoxify" the Conservative party by any means possible and that even means redefining what the core values of the party are and then doing the same to the country. The fact that they are wanting to redefine something for a small minority without even asking if people want it to be changed simply shows that my hopes that we might actually have a government that actually cared about the people, rather than one that curried favour with minorities in the vain hope of appeasing political correctness.

Lynn Featherstone has also shown that she is clueless with her attack on the church as she attempts to claim that the government has power that, as Your Grace points out, it clearly doesn't have.

However I would suggest that Your Grace probably should have ignored the theological aspects of this argument as it really boils down to who has the power to redefine social structures such as marriage.
Marriage is a word that relates to something that is known across the world. By redefining it you are thus going to either confuse or infuriate many countries. After all, if marriage is redefined then the French equivalent, "marriage", will no longer directly translate as it will still mean the joining of 1 man and 1 woman. So we will be in the ironic position of having to use a French word to describe a proper marriage which is spelled the same and sounds more or less the same but not quite.
This issue, far more than the theological ones, must surely be used to try and make the coalition see sense. Otherwise we simply have to dispair at the quickest fall from intelligence to insanity in the history of the world as we can rightly say that we no longer recognise the country we live in.

25 February 2012 at 23:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Marie said ...
Danj0 in a frock, well nothing surprises me with homosexuals. I can picture him in that petticoat lol.

Yes, so can I.

Hairy legs, a pot belly, clumsily strutting in high heels with lashings of make-up. Flouncing and pouting about the place being a proper little princess desperately seeking the attention of older men.

Not a good image.

25 February 2012 at 23:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said Phil. There is a right of resistance to tyranny, if led by a lesser magistrate, ...

26 February 2012 at 00:08  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Dodo
Danj0 a bit of a prima donna then? Well it figures. *Big Chuckle*
If he's sixty how old are the men he likes 80's 90's are we taking care home here? OMG.

Older men usually prefer young boys (tight bottoms you see that's the real reason Peter Tatchell is campaigning for the age of homosexual consent to be lowered to 14, poor little lads)

26 February 2012 at 00:13  
Blogger David B said...

I don't really have a horse in this race, though I am sympathetic to the idea of gay marriage.

In earlier threads I've argued that I became convinced that some sort of legal representation should be given to homosexuals in loving relationships because of practical things like who makes the funeral arrangements, and who has the right to a de facto joint home and things of that ilk.

But I suppose that a civil partnership satisfies that sort of thing.

But the bottom line is that if some people want to be called married, then who am I, or anyone else, to stop them?

I see some commenters here going on about some idealised marriage as a Christian thing, where sex for procreation is a holy act, and once married then that is it, for life.

But hasn't that ideal, as something to be inscribed in law, already become a busted flush by the acceptance of divorce laws?

Maybe the French model is best, where, if I understand correctly, all marriages are civil marriages, and if someone wants some sort of religious ceremony afterwards - or humanist ceremony come to that - the that is fine, but the civil marriage is what counts in law.

What is wrong with that?

David B

26 February 2012 at 00:15  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

David B said ...
But the bottom line is that if some people want to be called married, then who am I, or anyone else, to stop them?

Isee some commenters here going on about some idealised marriage ... hasn't that ideal, as something to be inscribed in law, already become a busted flush by the acceptance of divorce laws?


Homosexuals already mistakenly call themselves 'married' to their 'partners'.

The issue is whether this should receive the recognition and endorsement of society through a change in the law and all that implies.

Holding-up life long marriage between a man and a woman as the ideal is important. Do we lower standards and expectations simply because people fall short of it? No! We try to understand what is undermining it and seek to put proper supports in place to put it right.

26 February 2012 at 00:33  
Blogger non mouse said...

So what if the law makes less sense than a donkey!

The rule of law is all that matters, you all tell me. Which means we must think, say, and do as the euSSR tells us: because it sez so.

Why ever would anybody mind?

Even if they made parturition illegal there'd be no point in having babies to put into their world. Though I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they aren't already selecting eggs for Brave New World's in vitro labs and 'nurseries.'

26 February 2012 at 00:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Marie

Isn't that the problem when you donfuse sexual hedonism with a true union based on an ordered, life long relationship between a man and a woman? Love is replaced by hormones.

Celibacy is surely preferable to a thirst can that never be quenched.

26 February 2012 at 00:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 February 2012 at 01:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

non mouse said ...
Even if they made parturition illegal there'd be no point in having babies to put into their world.

But partuition is becoming 'unfashionable' already.

The delivery of newborn infants from a woman's uterus is with increasing frequency being replaced by caesarean section. A surgical incision in the abdomen is so much more convenient and pain-free.

Expensive and fully funded in Britain on the NHS. One can anticipate it being a readily avilable option regardless of medical need.

In the U.S. and Canada it represents 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 of all childbirths, respectively.

26 February 2012 at 01:30  
Blogger non mouse said...

At the end of the day I see Your Grace's Coalition for Marriage petition has amassed several thousand more signatures, quite quickly; it's now at 44,884.

Even the Westminster 2010 site has attracted some new action, and it's now reached 67,872.

26 February 2012 at 01:52  
Blogger Manfarang said...

David B
"Maybe the French model is best, where, if I understand correctly, all marriages are civil marriages, and if someone wants some sort of religious ceremony afterwards ... but the civil marriage is what counts in law."
In Thailand a man used to be able to have more than one wife. In modern times only one marriage can be registered at the amphur(government office) however some men still have minor wives.
A religious ceremony is normally held before the marriage is registered.

26 February 2012 at 02:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "If he's sixty how old are the men he likes 80's 90's are we taking care home here? OMG."

You think I'm sixty? :O

26 February 2012 at 06:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm quite liking the cartoons at the moment with all this going on.

26 February 2012 at 07:05  
Blogger len said...

As I said earlier the Marriage Covenant was ordained by God(between a man and a woman).These are two complimentary' halves'joined together physically and spiritually.This Union is blessed by God.This is the Biblical family unit.This is the basis for a stable Society one for bringing Children into the World.(Not always perfect as we live in a fallen World but has this is the God ordained order.)

You may call the pairing of two same sex individuals a 'marriage'but it is quite obvious to me) that this is at best a 'counterfeit' of the real thing.

The pressures on the Biblical family unit are enormous and this proposal to put 'gay marriage'on an equal footing will 'ratchet up' the pressure even more and devalue the family unit further.

The pressures to devalue the foundations of our Society are increasing and I believe SOME in the Government are beginning to see the outworking of this in the increasing social disorder and moral disorder from the outrageous behaviour of those who award themselves obscene bonus`s to rioting on the streets.

This I believe is the deliberate actions of a 'select few'who are re-arranging Society to align with their 'own agendas'.

To quote a phrase"When the prison door slams shut it will be too late!"

Of course to the uninitiated the moves for 'gay rights'or rights for any individual or minority group will be seen as a 'good thing' by many but the hidden motive behind these actions are anything but a 'good thing'.

26 February 2012 at 08:10  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

She is correct
Because there is more than one chirch, and more than one religion, and those with no religion.
All those people may want to get married.
Therefore, no one church or any other institution "owns" marriage.

LOGIC FAIL

26 February 2012 at 08:20  
Blogger len said...

Tingey.

Who Instituted marriage ?.

You claim logic but make illogical statements.

26 February 2012 at 08:31  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

G Tingey "%#$@^&*( or I think they look like words of some sort, hung together.

As God is my witness to all that frequent this blog forum, you WILL learn to write articulately and with eloquence!

Ernst

26 February 2012 at 08:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If marriage is based on the will of the people, then, of course, Gay marriage - whatever that means - must happen because the Cameron coalition controls the will of the people.
So what next?
There are lots of Muslims in our country. Allow me to mention that the Prophet himself (pbuh) married Aisha who was certainly not of the marriageable age laid down by statute in the UK. Also, of course, he insisted on polygamy and concubinage too. Muslims faithfully follow his example.
And yet both these are illegal at the moment.

Why?

26 February 2012 at 09:40  
Anonymous Diax said...

I can't for the life of me think what this is all about, since civil partnership accords the same rights as a married couple. Civil marriage only has as a difference the public making of vows, whereas a civil partnership can be done privately.The argument seems to be over the word "marriage" and the religious component.

26 February 2012 at 09:40  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Bunglawala the bloody handed apologist for Islam at work again?

26 February 2012 at 09:58  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

"The will of the people is sovereign"so sovereign in fact that "the people" are denied any right to decide anything.The majority of the English people do not wish to be part of the eussr,yet we are so "equal"that one man decides wether we are allowed to express our preference,because his "equal mind" is superiour to our "equal minds".With every advance of "equality"there is a consequent loss of personal freedom,yet this "equality"is only for those who will advance the marxist agenda,which is the total destruction of the nation state,and the reduction of its people to subservient slaves,who will have no rights ,let alone "equality",yet every five years we all trot of to the polls to "elect"more of the same,so when the administration declares that the insane are "equal" to the sane,that we can freely bugger our children,you will all still be here typing,arguing over what the marxist want you to argue over,and meekly accepting whatever the placemen care to throw down to you,willfully ignoring that the administration does not represent you,that it represents a foreign power,whos idiology is totally against your interests,and every day its grip on your existence tightens,when will you draw the line upon what is non-negotiable?

26 February 2012 at 10:27  
Blogger Zombie Neighbours said...

@E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles

Personally, I would rather not live in the england you so clearly want. That of the tyranny of the masses.

We have a system of rights to protect minorities from the imposition of the majority.

If our democracy worked as you say you desire it would be possible for a sufficiently large power block to say, vote to take the property of all Christians, expel all the Muslims, kill all the Jews, or what ever other monstrous act they so desire, and do so legally. The systems of Rights, such as equality under the law and right to fair trial, is there to prevent such actions.

Tell me, exactly would your rights be impinged, or would you be harmed, if 1in10 men and 1 in 25, or their abouts, had the same rights to marriage as you?

26 February 2012 at 10:30  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Non mouse. As a percentage of the population that is ???

26 February 2012 at 10:40  
Anonymous Geoff said...

Today we live in a representative democracy. http://bit.ly/zaJw4V

That means that we vote people in but they are under no obligation whatsoever to do what their electorate want.

Add that to the fact that the main party's are in the stranglehold of special interest groups/lobby's - gay, Muslim, business, race, feminist, Scottish, Welsh, EU etc - we have a situation wherein the wishes of the majority cannot only be overridden but actually ignored.

We, therefore, no longer live in a democracy by any stretch of the imagination.

The only way out of this is civil disobedience on a massive scale.

Perhaps an English spring?

26 February 2012 at 10:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Geoff: "Perhaps an English spring?"

We'll be too busy de-heading the daffodils to bother with all that nonsense. Besides, with what would we replace a representative democracy?

26 February 2012 at 11:16  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

I'm in favour of benevolent dictatorship by machine intelligences, but we're not there yet. Maybe I read too much science fiction though.

26 February 2012 at 11:23  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
Sixtyfour. What is age but a mere number. Fifty is the new forty. I guess you're as old as the boy you're chasing.

26 February 2012 at 13:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie, I'm deliberately fuzzy about my exact age on the Internet as all security-conscious people should be. In fact, I put out decoys now and again over social facts to see who is googling around trying to get into people's private lives unnecessarily. I don't expect personal moral structure from homophobic far-right-wingers like yourself, you see.

26 February 2012 at 14:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Marie. The Inspector puts DanJ0 around late twenties, early thirties. Too old for gay clubs, where youth is prized, but not yet settled down. He said in the past he doesn’t do sodomy, but it’s hard to see how a homosexual can find the love of his life without partaking. The Inspector is however generous enough to wish him well in his quest...

26 February 2012 at 14:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

As it is, I'm not even middle-aged yet though that's a subjective thing I suppose. How old are the boys that you're chasing, Marie? Are you what some people politely call a 'cougar' when dating online and in nightclubs? Or 'mutton' by another name.

26 February 2012 at 14:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Too old for gay clubs, where youth is prized, but not yet settled down."

Was it you claiming earlier that youth was prized for 'tightness' reasons? It sounds like your kind of homophobic over-attention to physical detail anyway. Being serious for a moment, I'm inclined to think there's something in it: the idealising of youth, rather than 'tightness', I mean.

I do think youth is prized in male gay culture, such that gay culture exists anyway. Youth in this case meaning 20s upto about 30. There will be bell curves going on here of course but I think men in general are inclined to youth. I think the promiscuity people attach to homosexuality is also related to men in general I think.

26 February 2012 at 14:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. It was Marie who mentioned tightness, and no, the Inspector is not a homophobe. Is there a word for those wishing LGBT to re-join society and to get on with their lives quietly.

From what the Inspector has read about homosexuality in ancient Greece, youth was indeed everything. Men with a gay bent would indulge in homosexuality as young men, but eventually leave it behind and become mainstream by marrying and raising a family. Most likely, it was like that in England too until Oscar Wilde drew attention to it all. It all makes sense when you consider marriage was as much to do with personal advancement, property rights, and indeed survival, in a very different world...

26 February 2012 at 14:41  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 February 2012 at 14:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

The problem when you replace a union based on an ordered, life long relationship between a man and a woman with sexual hedonism, is that agape is replaced by eros and is solely driven by biology. Bio-psychology takes precedence and men in general are driven by nature towards youth.

Celibacy for a wrinkly, ageing homosexual is surely preferable to a thirst can that never be quenched - unless of course you are drawn to older men like someone on here is. The problem then is that they don't value your body.

26 February 2012 at 14:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

I do think youth is prized in male gay culture, such that gay culture exists anyway. Youth in this case meaning 20s upto about 30.

Not if you're Peter Thatchell it doesn't! For him it starts at 9 years of age.

26 February 2012 at 14:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "It was Marie who mentioned tightness, and no, the Inspector is not a homophobe."

So it was. You understand that I don't think all religious people who are against homosexual behaviour are homophobes at all. However, a very good indicator for me of homophobia is over-attention to the physical details when homosexuality comes up. I find it's almost 100% accurate.

Have you ever been to Morocco or possibly other countries with a similar culture? Female virginity is still highly prized there as far as marriage is concerned. Does that mean that men are virgins too? No. Do they all go to prostitutes? No. It's quite a problem for young, handsome gay men there, I think.

26 February 2012 at 14:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. However, a very good indicator for me of homophobia is over-attention to the physical details when homosexuality comes up. I find it's almost 100% accurate.

A curious statement. You would be right of course in a face to face meeting - it would be downright rude. But for a blog site, I don’t think so...

26 February 2012 at 15:51  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Listen you paranoid old queen nobody is interested in your sex life or who you chase we are fed up of listening to the demands of you homosexuals.

Society does not revolve around a minority of queers, odd-bods and freaks!

26 February 2012 at 16:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

{INSPECTOR’S JAW DROPS!}

26 February 2012 at 17:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lol. Touched nerve, I think. Probably the mutton bit. I nearly said spinster too! Phew.

26 February 2012 at 17:30  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Who woke Nora Batty up?

26 February 2012 at 17:34  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Marie you left Christians out of that list.

26 February 2012 at 18:49  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Listen you paranoid old queen ...

*Rolling on the floor in stitches*

DanJ0 said ...
a very good indicator for me of homophobia is over-attention to the physical details ..."

By that standard he's a heterophobe! It's this grubby man who 'informs' us about homosexual activiities and bandies them about as insults.

I also recall him asking recently if the 'wheel-barrow' was a sexual position permitted by the Church.

26 February 2012 at 19:01  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Dodo I'm disappointed. I thought you at least had a soh. That's quite a mean spirited of you.

26 February 2012 at 19:16  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Larks

Oh I do, believe me and that was funny!

- paranoid old queen

LOL

26 February 2012 at 19:26  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Ha ha. Mr Lark not very funny.
It's Christian culture that has brought us to where we are today. And it's those people on the fringes of society that have been given space that are now trying to bring it down and destroy it with their unrealistic demands.

If homosexuality is still illegal in 70 countries how can we redefine the meaning of marriage to include those who break the law? The word marriage being a universal term used world wide and having been institutionalised by Christianity.

Why was homosexuality made illegal in the first instance? It must have been pretty damaging to a society for it to have been outlawed.
So for gays to be united in love in a civil ceremony and treated the same in law as heterosexual couples is where your demands should end. We can't just redefine marriage which is a universal institution and term to mean the joining of a male and female for the greater benefit, merely on the whim of a minority who ARE different.

26 February 2012 at 19:45  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Dodo I went to my local Catholic Church yesterday. I had it in mind to go to confession but bottled it. "Bless me Father for I have sinned. It's been 30 years since my last confession" lol

26 February 2012 at 19:47  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Marie. Why not?

26 February 2012 at 19:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You see, this is what happens when women become emancipated. They start getting ideas, and everything. It was never like this when men were in charge and women knew their proper place. ;)

26 February 2012 at 19:53  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Larks

If you're serious about yesterday, then there's no need for fear. Choose a good Church with an understanding priest and trust in God. The Sacament of Reconciliation is wonderfully liberating.

I terms of why marriage should not be redefined, all the arguments have been repeated ad infinitum on here.

This is a good summary:

Bishop Tartaglia

"Marriage is an institution which does not owe its existence or rationale to governments or legislatures.

"Governments do not have the authority to say what marriage is or to change its nature or to decree that people of the same sex can marry.

"A government which favours and allows for same-sex marriage does wrong.

"It fails in its duty to society. It undermines the common good. It commits an act of cultural vandalism.

"Such a government does not deserve the trust which the nation, and including many in the Catholic community, has shown in it."

26 February 2012 at 20:08  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...
"Marie, I'm deliberately fuzzy about my exact age on the Internet ... As it is, I'm not even middle-aged yet though that's a subjective thing I suppose."

Oh, yeah. Tell us another one. There's being 'fuzzy' and sending out 'decoys' and there's telling porkies!

The Oxford English Dictionary defines middle as: "The period of life between young adulthood and old age, now usually regarded as between about forty-five and sixty."

If, as you've said, you were fearful in your teens of homosexual cohabitation then you're getting on a bit.

26 February 2012 at 20:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phew.

*does a youthful dance*

26 February 2012 at 20:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

So, how old are you then Dodo? I'm thinking you're at least late 50s physically, and mid-teens in emotional maturity.

26 February 2012 at 20:33  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

How would I know a good church and understanding priest I wonder? Before choosing them, I mean?

Am I serious. I don't know. Maybe it's just a bit of misplaced nostalgia.

26 February 2012 at 20:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Larks

Honestly?

If you live near a Cathedral, I'd recommend going there and if there is a Monsignor available, pick him. They are specially chosen by the Pope and are in my experience sympathetic and also wordly wise.

If you're not sure - just tell the Confessor. Even better, you could make an appointment to discuss your ambivelence with him outside the confines of the confessional.

The other thing to bear in mind after such a long gap is that you can make a 'general confession' without having to go into detail about everything. Your confessor will take you through it all.

Give it a go. The Prodigal Son has a special place in God's heart.

26 February 2012 at 21:08  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Given your prediliction for the older man, I'm exercising my right of silence. It's you and not me who has a 'thang' about age.

And by the way, you never insult a lady - never.

26 February 2012 at 21:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Larks. You could do worse than pick a church with a social club attached (...that’s the Irish contribution to English Catholicism...). Tell the priest you’ll buy him a pint afterwards, he’ll open up to you over a beer...(and yes, the Inspector has been there...).

26 February 2012 at 21:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "And by the way, you never insult a lady - never."

Firstly, a 'lady' would never speak like that. Secondly, I'm a modern man and I treat women as equals except where there's a good reason not to do so. It must be your advanced age that makes you so old-fashioned and slightly patronising to women.

27 February 2012 at 05:40  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

Yield to all,and very soon you will have nothing to yield.

27 February 2012 at 07:36  
Anonymous Geoff said...

Wasn't Featherstone the "dizzy airhead" who called 999 when her boiler broke down?

http://tgr.ph/zDNEJd

27 February 2012 at 10:06  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

>The other thing to bear in mind after such a long gap is that you can make a 'general confession' without having to go into detail about everything.

That's good, in the interests of saving time..

My nearest Cathedral of the Catholic persuasion would be Arundel, nevertheless it's some distance away.

27 February 2012 at 10:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Arundel- a lovely place with a great history and you could always make it a day out.

27 February 2012 at 11:45  
Blogger Jon said...

Dan - I disagree. I'm in my 30s now and there are plenty of clubs for gentlemen who prefer gentlemen my age and older!

I like interesting people with something to say - which mostly means that I prefer the company of older people. I suspect I'd have an interesting conversation with the Inspector if we ever met. I bet I could turn him with a flash of ankle too... (Sorry Inspector, couldn't resist. I know you've got broad enough shoulders to take it. I would have said Dodo, but it rather depends which of his personalities is in control of the keyboard today!)

Your Grace - I thought we talked about your rather casual use of the 57% statistic before (07/11/2011 at 14.20) Bad Bishop!

27 February 2012 at 13:42  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
You can go to Two8six at 286 Lewisham High Street. London. It's got good reviews. Very discrete and I used to see many older members going in. I think it could be private members club as not open doors. It's on rhs as you head towards Catford. Good luck!

27 February 2012 at 14:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie, I am not looking for change at the moment. Also, I live in the Midlands so it doesn't sound very convenient. With your registering with Gaydar and now hanging around gay venues like a fag hag, I'm beginning to wonder whether you're conflicted in some way or other.

27 February 2012 at 15:19  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 you make me laugh, No not a fag hag, lol. I used to work round the corner from the club in Lewisham. Don't you work in London then?

27 February 2012 at 15:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Indeed Jon. A finely turned ankle, on a woman, that is, is part of nature’s beauty to appreciate. The Inspector’s are merely functional. There to attach his feet to his leg, that sort of thing.

On the subject of Gay clubs, they’re discreet in Gloucestershire. They must be around but really couldn’t tell you where. Just as well, those that would use them will find them, and you don’t want to draw attention to yourself. The conduct of the younger drinker is now no better than other parts of the country, and there are gangs of drunken arses roaming around at night attracting trouble.

When the Inspector worked in Cheltenham, he used to pass a pub, the ‘Leckhampton’, on the Shurdington road. It changed hands one day, and the new man ran up the rainbow flag from just below the pub sign. Within weeks the pub had closed for ever. Presumably, he lost what regulars he had, but of course all out of town pubs are suffering trade loss, so it would be unfair to put his failure entirely down to his ill advised signage, but it wouldn’t have helped matters. He used to drive a gloss white VW Beetle; never met him, but expect he was a bit of a show-off.

27 February 2012 at 18:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Jon: "Dan - I disagree. I'm in my 30s now and there are plenty of clubs for gentlemen who prefer gentlemen my age and older!"

Oh for sure, there's something for everyone. We're just like heterosexual people afterall. What I mean is that there's a general theme going on at some level. I think it's the same for men in general and it's probably biological in origin.

I think we're inclined at some basic level to seek out partners of child-bearing age. Ironic, I know, for gay men. I also think it inclines us to promiscuity. All this can be readily overridden of course in a species like ours.

I think something quite different is going on with women at this level. Almost the opposite, really. Again, biologically-based. For mammals like us, having children is a huge investment over time. Partners need to be able to produce healthy offspring and provide during maturation.

If what I've said has some truth in it then it has some impact on the arguments here. If promiscuity is seen as a Bad Thing in society then same-sex marriage of men probably ought to be encouraged by everyone.

If arguments against homosexuality in society are focused on spreading disease and promiscuity then at the very least female same-sex bonding ought to escape that as they're probably more stable than different-sex bonding and STIs are almost unknown there.

28 February 2012 at 07:08  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

No Danj0 you homosexuals already have legalisation and legitimisation of your partnerships with the civil ceremony which can encourage and promote monogamy just as much as anything else.

Extending heterosexual marriage to include lesbians and homosexuals is not going any further to reduce promiscuity in the gay community. Changing the definition of marriage in law, and church liturgy as well as using their premises is not going to make homosexuals any less or more promiscuous than they already are, in fact it will just encourage heterosexuals to be more open and promiscuous as the boundaries of marriage will have changed. It's almost the anything goes culture so what is to say in a few years time people can't apply to marry their loved and cherished pet? I mean there was a ludicrous article recently airing the idea we should give human rights to animals?

Shame on those weak and insipid Bishops who are supporting this breakdown of an ordered and functional society. The Church might as well just shut up shop then as nobody will be able to take them seriously anymore they are just losing all credibility. Who cares anymore about anything.

And as for your idea that lesbians are more or less free from disease well they are still subject to many of the same STD's that heterosexual and homosexuals are, just think about what they do.
I would say just as there is the “female” homosexual there is the “male” lesbian who although not as predatory as some males is still not averse to a bit on the side.

What might effect promiscuity for the better is raising the age of consent to 18, I would also advocate this for the heterosexual community as well, and more public knowledge of the pitfalls of homosexuality and lesbianism including illnesses.

28 February 2012 at 14:31  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Methinks Marie 1797 forgot the medication today.

28 February 2012 at 16:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "It's almost the anything goes culture so what is to say in a few years time people can't apply to marry their loved and cherished pet?"

Dubious slippery slope argument ahoy!

28 February 2012 at 18:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

If religionists win this argument then what's to stop them in future becoming like the Taleban, forcing more of their oppressive religious strictures on the rest of us? :O

28 February 2012 at 18:13  
Blogger len said...

Danjo you are talking of Islam, communism,or a secular Humanist Society where Christianity is not allowed or indeed Christians are executed, imprisoned, or had their rights and freedoms taken away?.

28 February 2012 at 18:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I don't really understand what you're talking about. I was mildly poking fun at slippery slope arguments there.

28 February 2012 at 18:51  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0: “ If religionists win this argument then what's to stop them in future becoming like the Taleban, forcing more of their oppressive religious strictures on the rest of us? :O”

What will stop us becoming Talibanised is our civilised British Culture which includes the Cof E and the Catholics, that is if the Church is allowed to keep it's status and standing in the country.

I think our gentle CofE religion here is very aware of the via media so there would be no “Taliban like forcing of it on society, although they do need to become more active and vocal and visual to survive and see off the real threat of other strange religions taking over. Then you would have a real Talibanisation of Britain. Then you would be forced to do things Danj0 and you moan now about not being equal, when of course you are as equal as you're ever going to be. Then Danj0 you would have no rights or equality at all. Your lifestyle would be set back hundreds of years and you would have to go into hiding. You would be on that window ledge again only this time you would jump.

Religionists have to win for the greater good and preservation of our society. People have to have a bit of order and something to try and aim for. And we have the Christian Church to preach from the Bible to us in order that we might try to be better people and increase our standards. If you dismiss all that under the guise of equality, diversity, multiculturalism “freedom” then division, chaos, decline and Islamisation will follow as day follows night.

28 February 2012 at 20:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

That's not how slippery slope arguments work! If religionists win this then they may be inspired to make other religious justifications. At this point we just sllllliiiiiiddddddde all the way to a Christian Taleban just like we sllllliiiiiiddddddde from same-sex marriage to someone marrying their horse. They're both pretty much inevitable, you see, in a slippery slope sort of way.

28 February 2012 at 21:11  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0: “That's not how slippery slope arguments work! If religionists win this then they may be inspired to make other religious justifications. At this point we just sllllliiiiiiddddddde all the way to a Christian Taleban just like we sllllliiiiiiddddddde from same-sex marriage to someone marrying their horse. They're both pretty much inevitable, you see, in a slippery slope sort of way.”

NO Danj0 if it's not in the Bible, Scriptures or Common Book of Prayer then you can't preach it or teach it. End of story. A priest or Bishop can't just make it up as he goes along to suit his tastes then force others to comply to his fantasy. He has to stick to what has been written in the religious documents surely otherwise why bother?

This is what the division now is all about “Gay marriage” does not really exist in any religious document but some are trying to fudge it to make it look like it is, to justify their desire to appease you gays, equality bullies, loony, liberal, lefty, atheist, humanist, politicians who have little or no respect for the Church and our culture whatsoever. To my mind if it's not in the Big Book, it's not happening.

28 February 2012 at 22:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'll give up on the teasing about slippery slope fallacies as it just whooshes over your head by the look of it. Hey ho.

29 February 2012 at 05:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

As for your priests, they seemed to manage in the past when kings and queens promoted particular religions as justification for their position. It was pretty much a Christian Taleban operating back then, selecting scripture to maintain its hegemony. The punishments for disagreeing were pretty grim too, as people like William Tyndale found out. No execution in a field using automatic weapons there. What's actually stopping us from going back to that?

29 February 2012 at 05:18  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0, what is stopping us from going back I would hope is that some of us have learned the lessons of history not to want to go back there. Henry VIII's change of heart to allow people to read the Bible sadly after the burning of William Tyndale contributed to our enlightenment. The mass printing and distribution of the Big Book helped to refine us to what we are today, but it is easy to slide back when new ideas are not thought through enough and are hastily implemented. Fear of course makes us value what we have and not want to slide backwards. I would hope it would also be common sense, and that we are able to discuss and debate things openly in a reasonable manner that would make people see folly.

In what way would opening up marriage to include two men or two women enhance our society now? What great step forward would it be for mankind? It wouldn't would it? It is good that the ABC has now spoken out in defence of the Church and against “gay marriage”

Oh! btw I would not class myself as a homophobic far-right winger who would give structure to any person.

29 February 2012 at 20:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Danj0, what is stopping us from going back I would hope is that some of us have learned the lessons of history not to want to go back there."

The answer you're reaching for is liberalism, I think.

"I would hope it would also be common sense, and that we are able to discuss and debate things openly in a reasonable manner that would make people see folly."

Well, quite. However, it's natural for social conservatives to try to stand in the way of any change. They did it when Tyndale challenged the prevailing religious hegemony, and they did it when women fought for the vote. They did it at the time of the 1964 Wolfenden Report too.

"In what way would opening up marriage to include two men or two women enhance our society now? What great step forward would it be for mankind?"

Social justice enhances our society. It's no great step forward for mankind, nor is it intended to be. It's a positive step for our culture though.

1 March 2012 at 01:42  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Isn't it supremely arrogant of organised religions to hijack the concept of marriage from society, where as Cranmer points out existed long before such organised religions came into existence, and then seek to define how that concept should develop and change over time with different views between different organised religions and sects within those religions (and no one can seriously argue that the concept of who is allowed to marry whom hasn't changed over time - remember divorcees and mixed race marriages were and are still banned in some religions)and then say that society as a whole, or those without religion, is permitted no say in how the concept of marriage should develop in the future?

1 March 2012 at 13:21  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

tory boy

God existed long before 'religion' and His revelation to people. He instituted marriage between one man and one woman for our own good and for His purposes.

1 March 2012 at 15:36  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

A figure appears at entrance, stage right;

Ernst opens door and pops head around comment corner.

'Ooops, sorry, my apologies'. he exclaims, after looking round and seeing the usual combatants.

Above Ernst's head, a thought bubble appears and inside is shown 'must avoid this one like Aids'

Door closes sharply, whilst the sound of giggles comes from beyond.

1 March 2012 at 16:55  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Dodo

And which of God's many revelations about what forms of marriage are acceptable should we now take as being the correct one - the Quakers, the Mormons, the old Afrikaner church, the CoE etc.etc.?

And for those of us who believe that marriage arose out of biological and social imperatives rather than being God given, why do we have to accept the defintion provided by organised religion, whichever one that may be, particularly when you are unable to demonstrate the source of that authority to our satisfaction? Are non believers and disbelievers to be allowed any say in such matters - or don't we count?

1 March 2012 at 17:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

tory boy

Why the Christian, orthodox one that has stood in place for 2000 years.

Have a look at our host's blog on 28th February.

And of course you have a say.

1 March 2012 at 19:32  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

"Why the Christian, orthodox one that has stood in place for 2000 years."

So that means arranged marriages with no consent on part of the wife, no inter-racial marriage, obedience of the wife, no divorce or separation - because that is pretty certainly what the Church would have expected 2000 years ago.

1 March 2012 at 22:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

tory boy

I was referring to one man, one woman, for life, to express unitive love and transmit life.

True it has not always been like that - that's people for you!

1 March 2012 at 23:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Well said, tory boys never grow up, at 1 March 2012 22:38. Discussions about marriage almost always assume a very modern, Western, liberal democratic view of it. Mostly it's love-based for child-rearing. The reality has usually been rather more utilitarian in a number of different ways.

2 March 2012 at 04:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Okay, a fuller answer.

The Christian sacrament of marriage does not depend on erotic or emotional love to be valid. It consists of a series of vows made to one another before God and witnesses. These vows must be freely given and given with full understanding. They commit each party, one man and one woman, to one another for live and to bearing children. That's the core of a Christian marriage.

An arranged marriages with no true consent on the side of one party or another would not be valid. If in their heart they did not intend commiting for life or not having children, then there would be no marriage.

Questions of inter-faith marriages and divorce/annulment have always been subject to Church law. The so-called "obedience" of the wife simply misses the point of St Paul's writings on this.

And 2000 years ago it is doubtful the early Church would have behaved in the way you have indicated.

2 March 2012 at 15:30  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Dodo

I can accept what you say about how your Church's view of marriage has evolved into the position you currently set out (much of which I can accept) - but arranged marriages most certainly were around 2000 years ago and were up until quite recently. It is just plain historically inaccurate to say that the Church's view of what are and are not acceptable marriages has not changed over time - or that there are wide inconsistencies in that view between different sects of the same Church.

2 March 2012 at 23:25  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

tory boy

My history isn't that strong on this and I am putting forward an ideal, but is it not the case that arranged marriages where undue pressure was applied were mostly concerned with elites for some political or financial advantage? Undue pressure to the point where the couple were not giving consent freely or did not mean the vows they were taking would be decidely unChristian.

That said, Judaism had and still has a tradition of 'match makers' who narrow down the field of choice. And why not if the final decision rests with the couple concerned? I suspect parents have always taken an interest in who their children were intending to marry - I know I did - it's just that in the modern age their influence is negligable.

Bottom-line is that custom and practice change but the essence of a true and valid marriage has not. Whether it has always been faithfully adherred to is a whole other story!

3 March 2012 at 00:01  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older