Friday, March 16, 2012

The consummation of gay marriage

His Grace apologises for this post, but it is as unavoidable as the decline and fall of the Coalition. What two grown men or two grown women get up behind closed doors in the privacy of their own homes is not, of course, a matter for the Conservatively-inclined. But, thanks to the Government’s intention to legislate for same-sex marriage, it will, at some point very soon, be a very public matter for the courts to consider and the media to pore over in salacious detail. His Grace is merely prematurely jumping on a future bandwagon hereby foreseen and foretold with 100 per cent certainty.

Historically, a marriage has not been considered a binding contract until and unless it has been consummated. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 defines the grounds for nullity and annulment of a marriage. The distinction is crucial, especially as far as the Established Church is concerned, for by Act of Parliament it is decreed that ‘so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful’. And God’s Word doth say not an awful lot about same-sex unions. Indeed, it celebrates only complementarity throughout its pages: the Song of Songs of Solomon is an explicit celebration of maleness and femaleness, of courtship and consummation, of husband and wife becoming one flesh. And it is devoid of all religion and any mention of God; only allegorically becoming analogous to God’s relationship with Israel or that of Christ with the Church. It is a cosmic song of secular eroticism, in which the sexual man and woman are united in ecstasy, and this Song is the superlative song of marriage union.

Ah, but the Government is not proposing to interfere with ‘religious marriage’, you say. And all this Bible mumbo-jumbo is archaic and otiose: we need to move on. But even as we try, we hit not only a can of worms but a knot of vipers in the consideration of same-sex ‘civil marriage’.

If a marriage be null and void, no valid marriage ever existed; if a marriage be voidable and annulled, it is valid and recognised at law until such time as it is ended by decree. The relevant clauses of the 1973 Matrimonial Causes Act are:
11 Grounds on which the marriage is void
...
(c) that the parties are not respectively male and female;

12 Grounds on which the marriage is voidable
...
(a) that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the incapacity of either party to consummate it;
Throughout ecclesial and secular history and hitherto in law, both spiritual and temporal, consummation has required sexual intercourse which is ‘ordinary and complete’; that is, the penetration of a vagina by a penis.

Recognising a slight problem here in regard to same-sex marriage, the Government has explained in its ‘consultation’ document:
Dissolution, divorce and annulment:

2.16 Specifically, non-consummation and adultery are currently concepts that are defined in case law and apply only to marriage law, not civil partnership law. However, with the removal of the ban on same-sex couples having a civil marriage, these concepts will apply equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples and case law may need to develop, over time, a definition as to what constitutes same-sex consummation and same-sex adultery.
Don’t you just love ‘Case law may need to develop’? May need?

Which appendages into which orifices will henceforth constitute consummation? Presumably, a ‘wet willy’ will be exempt. But what of ‘French kissing’ or tongues in each others’ mouths? For the avoidance of confusion and the mitigation of ambiguity, His Grace exhorts his communicants to be clear, forthright and explicit in their responses to this crucial question. This will aid our judges as they ‘develop’ case law.

Further, as lawyers and judges sitting in their courts (both civil and religious) get their heads around what might constitute homosexual and lesbian consummation, for the sake of equality, this new consummation case law will also have to apply to heterosexual union. For, surely, if we are concerned with matters of equality and justice, if a finger or tongue in the vagina, or a penis in the anus or the mouth, henceforth constitutes consummation for homosexuals and lesbians, then a fortiori must this constitute consummation for heterosexuals, or the standards by which consummation might be judged will not be equal, and the Government will have created a manifest inequality between hetero and homo marriage.

And what, then, of celibate gay Anglican clergy (not to mention the un-celibate gay Roman Catholic clergy)? The Church of England permits vicars to enter into a civil partnership provided that they remain celibate. But what constitutes consummation in such relationships? Is penetrative sex about to become mandatory in order for civil partnerships to be commuted to marriage? Indeed, what constitutes consummation in any same-sex relationship which does not involve penetrative sex, insofar as penetrative sex is ‘ordinary’? Or is the definition of ‘ordinary’ about to be re-written to embrace the extraordinary? If mutual masturbation may become ‘ordinary’ consummation, does that not rather discriminate against the individual in their marriage status? Is a man about to be able to consummate a marriage with himself?

All of this will soon be a matter for the courts to decide, because the Government clearly doesn’t have a clue. We could throw these questions into the ‘consultation’, but they will meet with no ministerial response: such contentions will instead be firmly and securely kicked into the long grass. Henceforth, in the consideration of same-sex adultery, it will be for the judges of England and Wales to define what is meant by same-sex consummation.

His Grace can hardly wait.

233 Comments:

Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

The whole concept of a marriage being invalid without sexual consummation is dark ages nonsense and should be confined to history.

16 March 2012 at 09:36  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Brilliantly argued!

Bravo!

16 March 2012 at 09:39  
Blogger Lallands Peat Worrier said...

A little jurisprudential curio. As I recall my Scots law, non-consummation doesn't furnish a legal ground for divorce north of the Tweed. Make what you will of that...

16 March 2012 at 09:41  
Blogger graham wood said...

The sheer complexity of the questions raised here illustrate the absurdity of the whole SSM debate, generating as it does moral, social and spiritual division and chaos.

The law of unintended consequences will most certainly apply, and it is often random and vicious in its effects. So be it for SSM.
That law is what Paul hints at when he describes the values and thinking of our latter day atheistic secularists with their rejection of God - namely a "reprobate mind".
Step forward David Cameron, Lynn Featherstone and Teresa May.

Cranmer, you rightly refer to the "unavoidable rise and fall of the Coalition". SSM will hasten its inevitability.

16 March 2012 at 09:51  
Blogger Daddy said...

What a mess! Your Grace, you know exactly what you are doing here, and I think you're spot on. This is all beyond polite conversation - and yet the hot topic of the moment is to put it into the courts instead!

I get the feeling that Christians should now approach this from the perspective of trying to inhibit the upbringing of children by these people.

Loretta can have the right to have babies, but not having a womb (which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans) ought to at least see to it that we never see his/her offspring.

As a nonconformist, I am less troubled by the church/state link, because I've never felt I enjoy any benefit as a result of it. There is scriptural precedent for God's people becoming a minority and having to do their own thing. One of the greatest errors every generation makes is to think that man's nature has changed since all those which preceded theirs.

16 March 2012 at 09:53  
Blogger bluedog said...

Pioneering stuff, Your Grace.

It would seem that in the case of two married gentlemen, both would be required to penetrate the other anally with the penis if the current methodology for determining consummation is to be upheld. Quite what two ladies will be required to do to consummate is an open question.

Indeed, when buggery was criminalised in the Victorian era, lesbian sex was ommitted. Nobody could bring themselves to explain to Her Late Majesty exactly how two ladies could have 'sex' with each other.

Your communicant notes that the offensive terms mother, father, wife, husband are to deleted from the statute book. Your Grace's communicant Derek T Northcote will no doubt applaud the end of these pre-historic and gender-specific terms.

16 March 2012 at 10:04  
Blogger Katie said...

If the Duchess of Doolittle and Big Willy have a girl and she wishes to marry another woman will we then have two Queens? What about a gay monarch marrying another man. Would he be a co-King or a Queen? Just think of all the tasty constitutional implications. If gay marriage goes through then if a peer married to another man has surrogate son from his husband and a woman who will inherit? End of monarchy and end of primogeniture.

16 March 2012 at 10:07  
Blogger David B said...

To my mind the latest J&M sums things up nicely.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2012/03/14/cafe/

David B

16 March 2012 at 10:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oh dear, I shudder to think what Les Enfants Terribles are going to do with this thread later. In terms of the article, this sort of stuff must have already been tackled by the other countries who have enacted similar legislation. As for what goes on behind closed doors not being the business of others, it's only about 40 years since decriminalisation. If we listened to militant religionists and the socially conservative then we'd still be looking people up, setting people up for blackmail, destroying careers, forcing gay people into marriages or into the clergy for respectability, and other such iniquities.

16 March 2012 at 10:37  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Since this is all extremely obviously aimed at the disestablishment OR utter liberalisation of the Church of England, why not jump before pushed?

The early church under Roman persecution couldn't stop the sexual filthiness and adultery of the pagan state it lived in, but was not of. We should perhaps loook to them rather Queen Victoria or inder Henry VIII.Perhaps what we need to do rather than fight a losing rearguard action against the new paganism with its grip on the BBC etc is instead to boldly embrace the paradigm shift and COME OUT FROM THEM AND BE SEPARATE. This might wake up a few pseudochristians.

16 March 2012 at 10:59  
Blogger Anglican said...

Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that Cameron is seeking to replace Clegg as leader of the Lib Dems? Perhaps he has a death wish.

16 March 2012 at 11:05  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

How about a caption competition for the photograph at the top of this article?

My entry:
Misuses of Superglue -- number 27

16 March 2012 at 11:22  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Or:
Siamese twins; joined at the tongue

16 March 2012 at 11:26  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The logical outcome will not be to define homosexual consummation but to abolish consummation from the law. Marriage and sex are being legally separated. Marriage is being transformed so that it refers only to a private contract that formalizes the relationship of a couple. One can already hear the arguments. "We don't say that celibate couples aren't married, do we?" It's the parallel of the argument that "Marriage isn't about children because people who can't have children are still considered married."

So the development of case law won't involve the definition of homosexual consummation. It will involve the legal obliteration of the formal relationship between marriage and sex.

carl

16 March 2012 at 11:27  
Blogger Daddy said...

I am disappointed to, but am warming to Rambling Steve's proposal @1037 - only trouble is that would force the church to have a view on all sorts of things that they conveniently stay silent about at the moment.

We recently had the first review of family law in 22 years, and a parliamentary answer revealed that no Christian organisation whatsoever responded to the consultation...

16 March 2012 at 11:29  
Blogger Kinderling said...

Vietnamese aged 14 Gay child brides coming here soon.

16 March 2012 at 11:30  
Blogger Ron said...

Why ooh why are so many church people obsessed by sex. Surely you could find other things to preach about. We could start with the poor hungry and homeless but I won't hold my breath waiting

16 March 2012 at 11:32  
Blogger Ron said...

Why ooh why are so many church people obsessed by sex. Surely you could find other things to preach about. We could start with the poor hungry and homeless but I won't hold my breath waiting

16 March 2012 at 11:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

As homosexual unions will not constitute genuine marriages who really cares what bits they prefer to stick where and whether it constitutes consumation?

I suppose it will be consumated by an orgasm of party or another, achieved in what ever way they determine. For some this will be hanging upside from a ceiling, being whipped. For others licking their partners toes. For others watching porn together and touching.

For DanJ0 it will probably mean holding hands (and other bits of the body) and using mouths and tongues, as he's not into, well, being "into", another man or other men being, well, "into" him. Women will presumably apply similar conditions. And as for the hypothetical sheep and one's siblings, well who knows? And thresomes, will all have to climax, one or two of them?

As we enter the brave new world of "partnerhips" and spouses lose the time honoured titles of husband and wife, all the rules go out of the window.

"I now declare you partner and partner. Go forth, prode and probe one anothers bodies bringing one another to orgasm after orgasm."

16 March 2012 at 11:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. A job for the ‘Wedding’ photographer and video man perhaps. Their services to be retained overnight. The resulting images to displayed on a government website..

www/LGBT/depravity.co.uk

16 March 2012 at 11:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 March 2012 at 11:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

How on earth are we going to explain all this to the children. There’s going to be tears you know when they’ve dressed up as bridesmaids or page boys only to be confronted by the disgusting truth. Best ban all children from the vicinity, lest their honest minds be corrupted by the nefarious goings on before them...

16 March 2012 at 12:09  
Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

"Office of Inspector General"

If you are an example of a Christian I thank my luck stars I am athiest."

16 March 2012 at 12:15  
Blogger Lang Spoon said...

Katie asks whether if we have a homosexual monarch who "marries" someone of the same sex, we will have two Queens, or a King & Co-King, or what.

The answer, of course, is that same sex "marriage" is part of the Frankfurt-school Marxist agenda to destroy all the pre-existing institutions of western Judeo-Christian societies.

The progressives fully intend to destroy the monarchy too. If the absurdity of a homosexual monarch with a same sex consort helps to achieve that part of their agenda, they will just view that as a bonus.

16 March 2012 at 12:15  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Ron's right of course.

I see the advance party of the Grubby Mac brigade have already signed in and booked their seats early - the others must still be in the process of thumbing their copies of 'Vicar's Wives or Sheep-shagger Weekly' before working themselves up to a satisfying climax of faux-righteous disgust.

I'm wondering if Cranmer has not already sold out to Richard Desmond? - I'm out of here.

16 March 2012 at 12:15  
Blogger Roy said...

Ron said...

Why ooh why are so many church people obsessed by sex. Surely you could find other things to preach about. We could start with the poor hungry and homeless but I won't hold my breath waiting.

I have heard only a very few sermons on the subject of sex and those were concerned largely with heterosexuals. It is not Christians that keep bringing up the subject of homosexuality. It is the "Gay Rights" movement and the irreligious chattering class in the media, universities, and politics.

This blog is concerned with the interface between religion (specifically Christianity) and politics. As our many of our politicians have effectively declared war on Christian teaching it is natural to respond.

Haven't you ever heard of the sign allegedly displayed in a French zoo?

This animal is dangerous. When it is attacked it defends itself.

16 March 2012 at 12:16  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

PLEASE!

I'm about to have my lunch. The cottage cheese salad is a definate no-no. And that beef olive is turning my stomach! Think I might have the shephards pie - a good, complementary dish.

16 March 2012 at 12:20  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The next domino to fall btw will be adultery. Because marriage is being transformed such that it relates only incidentally to both sex and children, adultery loses much of its reason for existence. The relationship can be open or closed depending upon the couple's desire. Adultery thus will become a private matter that depends on nothing but the couple's prior agreement. It has no objective reality.

Marriage was once a public standard that was imposed on couples. Now it is becoming a private standard that is created by couples - symbolized by the horrible practice of allowing couples to write their own vows. And even that minimal standard can be repudiated at any moment by the will of only one party. All of this is intended to establish the primacy of the autonomous individual. He will carry only those obligation that he has chosen, and he will carry them only so long as he chooses to carry them. The worship of the self and its desires is the spirit of the age, and marriage is being made to conform to that idol.

carl

16 March 2012 at 12:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Derek T Northcote. Echoing Roy, it’s YOUR types that have brought us to this. It’s never enough is it, what society does to accommodate LGBTs who, individually, have little or no interest in raising the next generation. That’s what it’s all about, not pandering to a group who’s problems include needing to be at the centre of attention permanently. And yes, you are getting the Christian line.

The damnable truth is this. The Inspector considers gay marriage to be little better than a public act of buggery.

16 March 2012 at 12:30  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Why ooh why are so many church people obsessed by sex. Surely you could find other things to preach about. We could start with the poor hungry and homeless but I won't hold my breath waiting.

Why are so many people oblivious to the poverty and sickness and suffering that results from profligate private decisions about sex?

carl

16 March 2012 at 12:34  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Dreadnaught and Northcote

Go all puritanical and critical of explicit descriptions but this is the new age we are entering.

When "marriage" is destroyed and homosexual, sibling, group and potentially zoophiliac relationships are given equal status to heterosexual marriage, what do you think school education programs will become like?

Should homosexual unions be "blessed" by the State, why not all the deviant practices associated with it and other perverse forms of pleasure? (Deviant and perserve meant in their proper sense).

And children will surely have to instructed in these broader, now acceptable practices, or it will be discriminatory. To do otherwise gives preference to one form of sexual preference alone. As part of their indoctrination they will have to be advised and informed about the health risks attaching to these new forms of pleasure.

The days of "Just say No" are long gone in matters sexual as well as drug usage. Today it is all about providing knowledge so children can make "informed choices".

16 March 2012 at 12:36  
Blogger Mark said...

I think I agree with what Derek said, why should not consummating be grounds for annulment? If two people vow before witnesses to be married to each other, and can be married to each other, then I don't see why not consummating it should give them grounds to annul it.

Get rid of the consummation / annulment clause and be done with it entirely.

16 March 2012 at 12:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

To all the atheists and 'non-judgemental' Christians

"And there came one of the scribes that had heard them reasoning together, and seeing that he had answered them well, asked him which was the first commandment of all.
"And Jesus answered him: The first commandment of all is, Hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is one God. And you shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength. This is the first commandment."

This means discerning the Will of God and following Divine ordinances. Scripture clearly teaches what marriage is for and that it is the bedrock of our society. All other communities and structures flow from this and our sense of self worth and responsibility to one another.

"And the second is like to it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these."

Loving God and loving one's self, made in the image of God, and loving one's neighbour, all flow from understanding God's purposes and enacting it - soul, mind and strength.

And and Ernst, this is not about a wishy, washy, non-judgemental approach to societal norms. It's not about following "rules" but about understanding what God wants for our own good. One can love the sinner whilst condemning the sin. Even the scribe had the good sense to grasp Jesus' words.

"And the scribe said to him: Well, Master, you have said in truth that there is one God and there is no other besides him. And that he should be loved with the whole heart and with the whole understanding and with the whole soul and with the whole strength. And to love one's neighbour as one's self is a greater thing than all holocausts and sacrifices.

"And Jesus seeing that he had answered wisely, said to him: You are not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that dared ask him any question."

16 March 2012 at 12:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len
The above was intended for you too. Union with Christ, being "saved", is about receiving the Holy Spirit to enable one to live according to God's intentions. Following the 'law' and 'religion' will not achieve this, granted. However, it most certainly does not mean discerning the Divine laws and abandoning them or simply staying silent in the face of rebellion against them.

16 March 2012 at 13:02  
Blogger tangentreality said...

Well thought out, Your Grace, but to me, the obvious answer seems to be to take the idea of consummation out of the question altogether. Just because a marriage has not been consummated does not automatically render it completely invalid.

16 March 2012 at 13:28  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

Christian Love in full flow!

Isn't it interesting how crazy right wing conservatives never apologize for their beliefs but liberal minded folk, full of respect for everyone, always seem to need to ask permission to say the what most people with a brain and sense of true love for humanity think?

Why do some of the Christians here have to be so hateful? They are so intolerant and quickly developing a nasty reputation as the judgemental ones - ironically what Atheists has been accused of over the last fifty years.

The Anglican Church stands for peace, love, forgiveness, reconciliation, non-condemnation and a message of a God of love.

16 March 2012 at 13:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Mark

I don't see why not consummating it should give them grounds to annul it.

Because marriage was presumed to be the inherently sexual relationship. A celibate marriage was presumed to be an inherent contradiction. There was thus a reasonable expectation of sex and children as a result of binding oneself in the covenant. If one party enters the marriage under the expectation that the marriage will never be consummated, then the other party has been defrauded. Requiring divorce at that point is a rather extreme remedy.

Now in the modern world where the commitment required for sex is "Hey, Sheila ... er ... Sherry ..um .. Susan? Sharon! What are you doing for the next 45 minutes?" this argument is going to lose some force.

carl

16 March 2012 at 13:35  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
The Gospel of mark makes it clear that consummation completes the union of marriage.
At the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
From the begging of creation the sexual union is all to do with procreation and so any attempt to create an alternative for SSM is quite futile.
Where is the quality though, heterosexual marriage is a million miles from an SSM and nigh the twain can mix.
Judging by recent history in Governments, can we believe that the religious marriage will not be amended? Despite the assurance, I don't think so.

16 March 2012 at 13:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Anna
The Anglican Church stands for peace, love, forgiveness, reconciliation, non-condemnation and a message of a God of love.

Of individuals who struggle with sin and try to "come to their senses" or to those who justify sinful behaviour?

All very 1960's!

What you've stated is one part of the the Christian mission. Left incomplete, how does it differ from New Age adherents, Budhists, Hindus and an assorted array of theists?

What makes Christianity distinct?

16 March 2012 at 13:42  
Blogger Katie said...

Sorry if my previous post about the Duchess of Doolittle et al. was flippant, but I simply don't understand how conservatives can be so unaware of the fragility of the English constitutional settlement. If Cameron and Co. want to undo English institutions, why not start from the beginning with the Monarchy and the Established Church. Why deconstruction through the means of gay marriage???? Didn't Cameron read PPE? Was he drunk all the time?

16 March 2012 at 13:43  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

I’ve already said this before elsewhere, but I’ll say it again here. I think that problems of this kind arise from trying to express homosexuality in heterosexual terms. We can’t do it successfully, and I can’t see any reason why we should want to. A gay relationship is perfectly good and fine precisely for what it is: it neither can be nor needs to be “validated” by trying to make it into a caricature of a heterosexual one. I know that some gay activists sneer at the concept of “equal but different”, but I consider that a very mistaken attitude: it seems to imply that your right to equality depends on not being different from the majority, which I would certainly repudiate. The fact remains that a gay relationship is different from a straight one, and vice versa, and to say this is not a denigration of either, so to try to manufacture exact correspondences between the one and the other that don’t really exist is, in my view, a rather silly and pointless exercise. It’s for that reason that I am 100% in favour of gay civil partnerships but think that the idea of gay marriage is best abandoned. If people want to refer to civil partnerships as marriages in common parlance, that’s up to them.

16 March 2012 at 13:50  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Anna

"And you shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength."

Was Jesus a "crazy right wing conservative" He never apologised for instructing us to discern the Will of His Father and commit with all our strength to it - heart, soul, body and mind.

Was St Paul? He was pretty clear on what this meant?

16 March 2012 at 13:52  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

What a ludicrous situation when a civil union could afford exactly the same rights. The only thing that is being kept from the original concept of marriage is the couple syndrome..ie only two people(at the moment) can form this union.

However SSM discriminates against the opposite sex so strictly speaking they should all be menage a trois to be considered inclusive. Sexual roles could be complicated in this situation but it would fit the politically correct criterion.

SCM (same colour marriage ) could also be interpreted as racist and xenophobic.

MWC (marriage with children)
MWP( marriage with pets) could compete for equal rights with regard to maintenance in a divorce.

I am not aware of the statistics in other countries. But will there be a significant number of homosexual couples marrying to warrant all of this turmoil?

16 March 2012 at 13:59  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

What a ludicrous situation when a civil union could afford exactly the same rights. The only thing that is being kept from the original concept of marriage is the couple syndrome..ie only two people(at the moment) can form this union.

However SSM discriminates against the opposite sex so strictly speaking they should all be menage a trois to be considered inclusive. Sexual roles could be complicated in this situation but it would fit the politically correct criterion.

SCM (same colour marriage ) could also be interpreted as racist and xenophobic.

MWC (marriage with children)
MWP( marriage with pets) could compete for equal rights with regard to maintenance in a divorce.

I am not aware of the statistics in other countries. But will there be a significant number of homosexual couples marrying to warrant all of this turmoil?

16 March 2012 at 13:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Anna. A Christian is someone who follows the teaching of Christ. Do you really think He’d be an advocate of this gay marriage ?

16 March 2012 at 14:03  
Blogger Oswin said...

... and Rowan Williams jumps ship.

16 March 2012 at 14:21  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

The only thing "gay" about homosexual relationships is gay and reckless abandonment.

16 March 2012 at 14:24  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Just a simple coincidence, Oswin?

16 March 2012 at 14:27  
Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

So wishing to enter into a stable relationship is reckless abandonment.

I think not. Indeed the opposite is true.

16 March 2012 at 14:34  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: as it is with your popes, some are better than others. If only Williams HAD been an Arch Druid!

16 March 2012 at 14:37  
Blogger MrTinkles said...

"Why ooh why are so many church people obsessed by sex"
Heh, you've obviously never been anywhere near a "gay pride" march...I've seen more obsession with sex in one afternoon at Brighton pride than in a lifetime of sermons.
That aside...the concept of Christian marriage is a million miles away from what is being proposed. The idea of "leaving and cleaving" and becoming "one flesh" as well as its role in procreation (surely why consummation has been thought to be an essential part of it) is obviously incompatible with "gay marriage". But then it is hardly compatible with many people's idea of heterosexual marriage either.

16 March 2012 at 14:49  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

Rowan Williams is a prophetic voice for our age .Many of his books are superb--on religion and other topics such as Dostoevsky. Read any of his books to learn the complexity and depth involved in religion. Anyone who has read him, religious or not, knows they are dealing with a deeply engaging and serious mind. I enjoyed his discussions with Richard Dawkins, which showed that religious debate can take place in a sensible way; I think Magdalen has a very able new Master. First class mind and a deep thinker - a rare thing in Britain today.

16 March 2012 at 15:05  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

So the thrust of the fundamentalist christians is that I, and millions of decent, compassionate, inclusive, liberal, progressive believing people don't have values because I am gay and therefore I have no morals and can't be married? That's not only deeply offensive, it's dumb.

16 March 2012 at 15:07  
Blogger David Ould said...

Penetrating thoughts, Mr Cranmer. It is not beyond the wit of a fundamentalist like myself to resort to the use of sex toys in the practical difficulties you envisage. I am sure that uppermost in any couple's mind, when they contemplate Holy Matrimony, is the purchase of a dildo.

16 March 2012 at 15:21  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

I can’t see any cases coming to the divorce courts on the ground of non-consummation of a SS‘M’ – as a SS‘M’ cannot be consummated.

Carl Jacobs seems right that the next concept to fall is adultery.

The Canadian courts have now altered the definition of adultery to include SSM.

One Canadian lawyer has this to say about the trend:

‘Marriage may now be viewed as primarily a social institution by which people express commitment and receive public recognition and support, leaving adultery as a form of ill-defined ‘breach of contract’ with consequences that seem to depend on the parties engaged. This would appear to lead to elimination, or at least erosion (as evidenced by current media), of the concept of adultery as a basis for divorce or other legal consequences. Among those practicing family law it is viewed that apart from the ability to obtain a divorce sooner, adultery is irrelevant to issues such as spousal support, division of assets, child custody, access or other consequences to the marital breakdown resulting from it. In effect, the “morality” of adultery is largely illusory.’

16 March 2012 at 15:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Anna. Bit soon to condemn yourself to a sterile life of Lesbianism isn’t it ? You said yourself you like women AND men. Why deny yourself the chance of marriage and a family ?
It’s partly for you people as yourself who sit on the fence that the Inspector is so vociferous on this subject. Homosexuality should be treated with compassion and sympathy, not promotion. A green light for gay marriage is promotion and not good for society as a whole.

Any other group that only represents 5% of the population would accept that. What is so special about LGBT people ?

16 March 2012 at 15:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Inspector hopes that your PC training was like water off a ducks back, and has not injured you in any way...

16 March 2012 at 15:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Anna
You can be decent, compassionate, inclusive, liberal, progressive (and) believing and have values whilst being homosexual.

Is it really deeply offensive (and) dumb to suggest you may just have got this wrong and you're chosing to follow your own path rather than God's?

" ... and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil."

Use the Bible as the basis for your position, not emotion!

16 March 2012 at 15:57  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

The act of penetrating an anus is not the same as an act of penetrating a vagina. Has the anus got the same status as the vagina or the mouth? NO. Only the vagina can produce a baby.
Sodomy and sexual intercourse are two different acts. Therefore, how can they be classed as being the same and called a marriage?
Gays/lesbians have union and heterosexuals have marriage. Both have same economic social and lawful rights but the people in them are different. You can't erase the fact that we have male and female genders and to try to do this is really stripping people of their identity, of who they are. It's a dangerous path to go along.

16 March 2012 at 16:01  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

Hello? No one is suggesting that the Church must marry gay people. The proposal is only for legal marriage.

What each church or religion accepts remains its own business. Am I being thick? Or are the churches mistaking themselves for the British government?

That clergy must perform same-sex marriages under the coalition's proposal is a falsehood, and shame on clergy for spreading it. The government backs a purely secular, legal, civic recognition of same-sex marriage-full stop.

From Argentina to Canada, South Africa to Massachusetts, where non-religious same-sex marriage is legalised no negative consequences whatever have followed. None.

My understanding of Jesus was that he was a ground-breaking, forward looking guy who sought to challenge the stuffy status quo at every opportunity. He'd be FOR gay marriage.

Time for priests in their dresses to show some compassion rather than arrogant dogmatism , they're just delaying the inevitable.

Sooner or later social progression will reach a point where the fundamentalists will be alienating their own followers, who were brought up in a society of tolerance.

People will see the church as bigoted if they keep denying people their rights over sexuality.
The Church have no right to try and take over how and what people do and think, if gay people want to marry that is our decision .

It is awful that The Church want to impose there particular beliefs on us by trying to enforce laws that should have been gone years ago. They seem to forget that we do not live in Medieval times anymore!

16 March 2012 at 16:04  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace.
Adultery in SSM's is par for the course. One of the key characteristics of Gay lifestyles is the participation in multiple sexual relationships. Gays that I know have multiple partners and work a rotation. Public Toilets or Hampstead Heath are the regular haunt of predatory gays.
I think a pre-nup might be required to eliminate infidelity from reasons for a divorce.

16 March 2012 at 16:08  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector
I am a reformed a man! Everybody is equal and everybody can live together happily provided we respect differences and embrace diversity. There's no 'right' nor 'wrong', just perspectives based upon acquired values.

We had to do this exercise yesterday - what fun. Seven people in a lifeboat and only enougth food and water for six. One had to leave.

Interesting passagers too. A crotchety old guy with dementia (Ernst came to mind). A doctor who was also a serial adulteress and marriage wrecker (DanJ0 in drag). A successful Christian businessman with many employees depending upon him. A man with terminal cancer and only months to live. A Muslim woman and her husband. A member of the BNP.

How to decide who left and how to implement that decision. There was only one way forward really.

16 March 2012 at 16:09  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@Anna, I don't imagine you to be any more or less moral than myself. I'm not holding you, or any other gay person, up to a standard I perceive in myself when I consider same-sex marriage in Christianity - I'm holding us both up to what Scripture teaches. And when you think about it, that's precisely the value of Scripture: it is the public embodiment of the Word of God, given to us that we might be able to further and deepen our relationship with God, rather than any individual spirits which may impart revelations to us.

I have yet to discover an argument in favour of Christian gay marriage that doesn't ultimately rely on writing off some part of Scripture as either irrelevant to our age, or non-authoritative in its origin. I know many decent, kind-hearted people who do this. It just seems to me entirely pointless. Why is the argument that Jesus would be in favour of gay marriage any the more compelling than the argument that he was just a man, and that his resurrection is symbolic? If you accept the miraculous and supernatural nature of the Gospel, you are necessarily accepting the supernatural oversight of the transmission of the Bible. Undermining the latter to pursue a doctrine with no Scriptural basis, largely because the issue is a dominant one for our post-religious age, inevitably undermines the basis of the former.

I might have misread you, but I don't think you're a "cultural Christian". You talk about the love of God, and I have no reason to doubt that that love is the same quality as He imparts to me. But if we are willing to move away from Scripture on a path which is ostensibly of our own making, the same texts that reveal the Good News warn us that we're in danger of departing from God's Will.

We all do that, and He pulls us back to the path whether we fall to the right or the left. But it is His path, not ours.

16 March 2012 at 16:11  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Anna said ...

"My understanding of Jesus was that he was a ground-breaking, forward looking guy who sought to challenge the stuffy status quo at every opportunity. He'd be FOR gay marriage."

Jesus was the Son of God; the Godhead made incarnate - not some socialist leaning, hippy-happy guy in sandals spreading a message of free love and peace.

He didn't die on the Cross to justify sin but to free man from the punishment due to sin.

"People will see the church as bigoted if they keep denying people their rights over sexuality."

So the Church must conform to the world so people don't think it bigoted?

"The Church have no right to try and take over how and what people do and think, if gay people want to marry that is our decision,"

The Church has a duty to uphold Christian Truth - to follow ther revealed Word of God.

"It is awful that The Church want to impose there particular beliefs on us by trying to enforce laws that should have been gone years ago.

Enforce what laws? Homosexulaity is now legal. There is anti-discrimination laws in place. Civil partnerships are here. Is there no end to your demands?

16 March 2012 at 16:19  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Anna - Saw your comment (16:04) after I posted. Agree on the provision of legal rights to long-term cohabiting couples. I actually think there's a strong argument for Civil Partnerships being opened up more widely precisely because there are many situations in real life (siblings, friends etc.) where having some legal recognition would seem to be entirely appropriate.

I also have friends who are Christian and gay. Whether they are celibate or not, I do not inquire, any more than I inquire about heterosexual couples' sex lives. So long as that remains the case, I can see no reason to break fellowship with them, or (hopefully) they with me. If they (or anyone else) wishes to make it part of the teaching of the church that same-sex sexual relationships are acceptable in the eyes of God, I will react in precisely the same way as I would if they taught that pre-marital sex was acceptable, or that lustful thoughts about another man's wife were ok with God: rebuke. I expect and occasionally receive the same when I publically state something which is contradictory to the Word of God.

((However, I really must take issue with the "not living in Medieval times". It's a convenient metaphor that gets used far too often (without any basis), and has its cultural value in a historiography that separates the Medieval "Age of Faith" with a Modern "Age of Reason". Whenever we say "we're not medieval", we're slagging off our own faith as being without value or place in modernity. - Sorry, one of my pet peeves!))

16 March 2012 at 16:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. There's no 'right' nor 'wrong', . Indeed, there go two words heading for extinction. Even criminals are ‘victims’ now, of society, of derangement, of the ‘artificial’ concepts of right or wrong. The real victim can go to hell. You see, nobody employs psychologists etc to help the victim out...

Was the answer short straws, or perhaps an inverted points system. The most ‘disadvantaged by society’ getting all the points and staying. Bad news for the Christian then !

16 March 2012 at 16:21  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"Sooner or later social progression will reach a point where the fundamentalists will be alienating their own followers, who were brought up in a society of tolerance. "

A little bit like the Early Church in Greece then.

With all these things in mind, dear brothers and sisters, stand firm and keep a strong grip on the teaching we passed on to you both in person and by letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

16 March 2012 at 16:25  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inpector
All these options were considerd and much heat the generated too.

Remember I'm a Catholic who subscribes to the moral, natural law. For me there was only one answer.

16 March 2012 at 16:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

"Enter in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leads to life: and few there are that find it!"

16 March 2012 at 16:28  
Blogger Kinderling said...

@ Anna AnglicanSo the thrust of the fundamentalist christians is that I, and millions of decent, compassionate, inclusive, liberal, progressive believing people don't have values because I am gay and therefore I have no morals and can't be married? That's not only deeply offensive, it's dumb.

No, the fundamental thrust was your childhood awakening to a 'little bit of mummy' and has nothing to do with marriage. Men and women need no lust or premeditation to what comes natural in reproduction. Five minutes and it's over. They are not 'hetro-sexuals' consuming and getting into each other for an identity. They once grew up bemused by the opposite sex and married a friend with no carnal knowledge. Sex before marriage is always a mistake because the female animal raised to serve the male beast now becomes the king maker, a bad psychological foundation that creates a marrage of subs and doms rather than equals. Look at David Cameron and Tony Blair. Weak men.

The difference is... you are identified with sex, attached to a gender or any gender that will have you. That is not love. That is like marrying a person for their skin color. This is medically termed a 'disociation of affection'. Like an alcoholic will puke in his 568ml of beer and still drink it. Normal men and women are not so fixated. They do not walk around thinking about sex every 10 minutes no matter what sexologists tell us. That is why the Marxists deliberately educate children to separate from affection thru "sex eduation" as pornography. The shock to their system and poor self-esteem allows their bodies to be abused at a younger age and affects them through adulthood and parenting.

You are just looking for love in all the wrong places, and seeking a pride of justification. And since 1972 all the psychologists have turn their back on you. Except NARTH http://narth.com/2012/03/2263/ who are having a hard time being allowed to help people who ask. I guess in this Socialist kingdom, (as in Mohammad's PBUH), apostacy, that removal of hypnosis, is punishable by death or imprisonment.

If you want to get out of it you can pray to an imaginary God, talk to a blank wall, or confront your abuser. You just have to admit to yourself you are a slave to your comforter. The truth sets you free. Nothing else.

16 March 2012 at 16:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The question of what Jesus would have thought about gay marriage is thus. If His teachings didn’t cover a subject, He was very keen that Jewish tradition be upheld. As Christians are not Jews, we don’t have their ways to fall back on, but the Inspector suspects that everyone who is a Christian knows in their hearts what his view would be...

16 March 2012 at 16:30  
Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

Claiming to know Jesus's thoughts now.

Keep taking the pills.

16 March 2012 at 16:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. It was to be yourself who would leave the boat. The Inspector is not sure what his decision would be, rather depends how far the dementia had progressed.

16 March 2012 at 16:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. New answer, some atheist smart arse would be out of the boat. Even with plentiful supplies...

16 March 2012 at 16:37  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Anna @ 16:04
So the Church must conform to the world You are so far off the way it is unbelievable. Christians and the Church are to follow God, not the other round.

Dodo and Belfast, Very good retorts to this poor deluded lady.

You know what; I wish I could make up my own belief system. I could have a riot of a time.

16 March 2012 at 16:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lordy, I'll be glad when same-sex marriage finally passes in law so militant religionists can find something else to be militant about.

16 March 2012 at 16:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr Integrity. I wish I could make up my own belief system.

Some paedophile arab did just that. No happy ending though...

16 March 2012 at 17:00  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 March 2012 at 17:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Because marriage was presumed to be the inherently sexual relationship. A celibate marriage was presumed to be an inherent contradiction."

Marriage has historically been about legitimising heirs, tying separate families togethers for mutual advantage, binding two people together to distribute work and share home, creating children to help with the work, and so on. It was most certainly a contractual thing. Not being able to produce children was to be damaged goods in the contract as far as the wider family expectations were concerned. This is the essence of historical marriage to me. However, we're not bound to that sort of social and financial and political arrangement any more. Marriage as a social institution has changed in people's minds because the social context has changed.

16 March 2012 at 17:09  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 March 2012 at 17:10  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

Looks like I hit a few raw nerves.

16 March 2012 at 17:10  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Kinderling said ...
"Men and women need no lust or premeditation to what comes natural in reproduction. Five minutes and it's over."

No quite taken from the Song of Songs that view of passionate love! And all very well for the man. Is that why some Muslims go in for female genital mutilation? To keep it simple and functional?

16 March 2012 at 17:12  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

So, His Wonderfulness, Archbishop Williams is running for the hills.

No surprise there. In fact I would have been surprised if he had stayed for the fight - I read on the BBC that he had a permanent note excusing him from sports.

Maybe he has one excusing him from Christianity.

Why am I not surprised. This is the man who visited Pakistan and did not stand up for the persecuted Christian community

He will not be missed.

There is now an opportunity for the CofE to promote someone with a spine.

Lets see if they can find an Englishman or whether they have to cast around for a foreigner to rescue the Church of ENGLAND.

16 March 2012 at 17:20  
Blogger Trisagion said...

Your Grace is onto something here. Picking up Carl's point, if adultery is grounds for divorce, then which sexual acts will constitute adultery within the context of this new legal fiction? And lest anybody suggests removing adultery as grounds for divorce, what happens to the wife of a serial adulterer who wants to divorce when such grounds have been abolished.

16 March 2012 at 17:29  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

If a marriage does not require consummation then I can marry my mother, my dad, my sister, my dog.

I can marry a dead person, a child, two or more people etc etc.

This will be so much fun.

And now Peter Tatchel is saying that heterosexuals are being discriminated against because they cannot have a Civil Partnership.

The little minx.

16 March 2012 at 17:35  
Blogger Kinderling said...

@Dodo "No quite taken from the Song of Songs that view of passionate love!"

Of all the points I made in such a short precis: from childhood intimidation to imprint-of-gender to escape into sex; that point to not treat another person as a candy bar to intoxicate yourself with - or they'll come right back at abuse you another way... and you quote this pussybrained Solomon whose "wives turned his heart after other gods" as your fine example of Christian manhood.

My case rests on many levels.

16 March 2012 at 17:47  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Kinderling

Not a terribly sound Muslim position about King Solomon. More a Christian and Jewish position.

The Hebrew Bible credits Solomon as the builder of the First Temple in Jerusalem, and portrays him as great in wisdom, wealth, and power, but ultimately as a king whose sin, including idolatry and turning away from Yahweh leads to the kingdom being torn in two.

King Solomon sinned by acquiring too many wives and horses because he thought the Biblical prohibitions did not apply to him.

In contrast, Islam denies Solomon ever turned away from Allah in any way prior to his death and views him as famed throughout the lands for his wisdom and fair judgments.
King Solomon is seen a prophet and a messenger from Allah.

And any comment on female genital mutilation? It's considered "preferable" within Islam, an essential part of raising a girl properly. Girls are regarded as having been cleansed by the removal of "male" body parts. It ensures pre-marital virginity and inhibits extra-marital sex, because it reduces women's libido. Women fear the pain of re-opening the vagina, and are afraid of being discovered if it is opened illicitly.

"By allowing your genitals to be removed [it is perceived that] you are heightened to another level of pure motherhood—a motherhood not tainted by sexuality and that is why the woman gives it away to become the matron, respected by everyone. By taking on this practice, which is a woman's domain, it actually empowers them. It is much more difficult to convince the women to give it up, than to convince the men."
(Nahid Toubia)

Guess this will protect men from evil women.

16 March 2012 at 18:17  
Blogger Jocelyn Knockersbury said...

+Rowan will be missed, despite being a bloody Welshman. I agree the next Archbishop should be English, preferably of Upper Middle Class stock, went to Eton and Cambridge, Conservative, conservative, speak with the right accent, and be stoutly heterosexual. Please not that dreadful black feller.

16 March 2012 at 18:44  
Blogger Kinderling said...

@Dodo,

Do you now see the difference between conscious people and people of A Book? The latter memorize, regurgitate and cannot hear simple wisdom.

I wrote about marriage and the two people who sign up to it are making a contract that they will last until their dying days, even if it kills them. And it will. Then they will stop sucking of each other and work as a team. I've said 'try before you buy' makes the female the king-maker who rules the roost because the male is no longer credible in her eyes; degenerating into a sexual-power relationship of pusher and fixer until the man is an empty box,eaten from the inside like the PMs I mentioned. I've described to Ann Anglican that her homoerotic identity with her gender is not biological, (like she was a man trapped in a woman's body and should be gender reassigned), but a psycho-socio behavior that makes standard passive-aggression tame in comparison. She is, in all intents and purposes a Muslim veiled from men as a bulimic child shrinks from maturing under her father's greedy gaze.

But no, the meaning of life and understanding why we behave the way we do is not important to you. You've got a dead Miracle Man you can wave his hand and the sick be healed and the poor be fed.

OK, man-carrying-dead-body, I'll answer your question: any male or female gental mutilation is for health reasons, the same for Ann, no other reasons. Not for God, not to belong to a superior tribe, not to improve or remove sexual pleasure, not for any other reason than health.

You want to circumise your body or mind sure, go ahead, but don't make me pay for it with Diversity, and don't force upon or 'educate' the children about your deprevity as noble and good.

The law once protected childen, now it is used against them. Guaranteeing a house full of resentments where charlitans can simply knock on the door and be let in.

16 March 2012 at 19:08  
Blogger len said...

Abraham Lincoln once asked some people the question " If we call the tail on a dog 'a leg' how many legs has a the dog got?.
The people answered "five".

"No" said Lincoln " calling a tail 'a leg' doesn`t make it so..... the dog still has four legs.

Calling same sex 'marriages' a 'marriage'in the true sense of the word doesn`t make it so!.

Society( aided by those pushing their own agendas)are trying to re write what is' morally good' and 'morally bad'in our Society the thought behind this being that if you tell a lie often enough you can convince people that it is 'the truth'.

16 March 2012 at 19:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Kinderling. Makes a chap sick thinking what you people do to your women...

16 March 2012 at 19:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Kinderling said ...
Jesus is "a dead Miracle Man"

I say Mohammad, whose name you praised earlier, was a crazed, immoral, war monger and sexual predator.

Would you agree?

Your views on sexuality, relationships between the genders and the development of psycho-sexual identity are highly unusual.

16 March 2012 at 19:33  
Blogger Jocelyn Knockersbury said...

Jesus was a brick. Went to Eton and Cambridge you know. Father was a banker. Married into the aristocracy. Lively girl but between you and me, thick as a plank.

16 March 2012 at 19:42  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

Your Grace,

Forgot to say thankyou for posting a picture of two 'attractive' lesbians- I don't think that Inspector will be very happy though- no a hairy girl in sght!

Although I've noticed that the tounge seems to be a bit big- not an analogy for something more penatratve is it?

16 March 2012 at 19:43  
Blogger uk Fred said...

Reading through the posts here, I have noted that no-one seems to have noted

1/ That in ideal Christian living, grace and truth are two equal pillars. In our fallen world, we often need to emphasise one more than the other.

2/ That marriage is a covenant and not a contract. We need to understand that Hosea is not only an allegory for God's relationship with Israel.

3/ That the one distinguishing feature of marriage is that it is the only relationship in which sexual activity is properly a part, and as such it is between two persons exclusively.

16 March 2012 at 19:46  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

can some one explain what kinderling is trying to argue? I am lost by the ramblings ...

16 March 2012 at 19:47  
Blogger Jocelyn Knockersbury said...

Covenant. Hosea. Good stuff.

16 March 2012 at 19:49  
Blogger Jocelyn Knockersbury said...

Anna..most of comments on here..witterings of lunatics. Lunatics I say!

16 March 2012 at 19:53  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Anna
Read his website. It explains a lot and I now regret being so harsh on him.

And you are a shameless hussy, young woman. The picture suggests a union of two tongues,not penetration by a long one, and how do you know they are lesbians. They could be effeminate men or even 'metrosexuals'.

16 March 2012 at 19:54  
Blogger Jocelyn Knockersbury said...

Thought a metrosexual was a chap who likes having sex with trains, what?

16 March 2012 at 20:00  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Or a woman - no sexism now, please!

16 March 2012 at 20:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Anna. Indeed, those two young ladies should keep it private. By the way, no response from you regarding the Inspector’s linking of academia with lesbianism. Have you a view ?

16 March 2012 at 20:14  
Blogger Kinderling said...

Don't worry Ann, my brief outline could only be heard by people who had not already bartered themselves for a new identity.

16 March 2012 at 20:16  
Blogger Jocelyn Knockersbury said...

I have a view Inspector. You're an arse.

16 March 2012 at 20:21  
Blogger Jocelyn Knockersbury said...

And an impostor to boot.

16 March 2012 at 20:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

What’s this Kinderling, a muslim in Delhi of all places ? You do realise a rise in anti Pakistan sentiment could leave you a dead man. Such is life...

16 March 2012 at 20:40  
Blogger Jocelyn Knockersbury said...

Damn it Inspector you're a handsome fella. Care to share a bottle of New Zealand sauvignon blanc with me?

16 March 2012 at 20:58  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, your communicants have rewarded you with some suberb commentary, as well as some that is beyond foolish.

One can be confident that none of the arguments put forward by AIB, the Dodo or Carl will have been part of Dave's thinking before his passionate embrace of gay marriage. It is to be hoped that some individuals within the political elite will now synthesise the arguments against gay marriage and apply the logic necessary to defeat the emotional pleading in favour of SSM.

Your communicant also hopes that Dave will appoint John Sentamu as ABC. Having been flattered by a black president of the US, Dave is sufficient shallow to appoint a black ABC by way of demonstrating his own street cred and returning the favour. Sentamu is of course, no shrinking violet, and passionately rejects gay marriage.

It would be wonderful indeed to witness Dave and his Wet backing group being dissed by the power of Sentamu's intellect in the House of Lords.

16 March 2012 at 21:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Done Knockersbury. You’re a chess man then. Can’t think of a better way to spend an afternoon than chess and a good wine. Be seeing you...

16 March 2012 at 21:07  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector
Sorry, dear chap. Now that I am more aware of streotypical and discriminatory thinking, I cannot agree with your linking of lesbianism and acedAmia. And my own experience tells me there are some damn fine heterosexual women in this field too.

Joc the Knoc
Why are you going by the name of a girl?

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

i.e academia

16 March 2012 at 21:14  
Blogger Jocelyn Knockersbury said...

Because, Dodo, his grace keeps deleting my posts, the blackguard. I used to be Larks Tongues in Aspic.

16 March 2012 at 21:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. It’s well known that the brain can develop. Is it not considered a muscle in some quarters. Now, females are not renowned for their intellectual ability, but for their multitasking. But if a female was to load her brain with masses of learning, could it be the brain takes on a more masculine attribute. Asking Anna is quite serious. If, as a young girl, she played with dolls and liked pink things and hearts, she would be cut out for a feminine destiny. Also, from natures point of view, a sterile lesbian is a waste of nurture and resources. Not natures way at all...

16 March 2012 at 21:22  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well said, Mr Dodo @ 21.13.

The Inspector's s**t stirring commentary (23.54 15/3) on the intellectual weakness of women in general and lesbians in particular was the best explanation yet for his solitary state.

One can envisage no change to his isolation.

Good grief, he's done it again @ 21.22!

16 March 2012 at 21:29  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

Inspector

I think that the blue dog responded to me on the other thread, but I agree with his sentiments.

In any case you should be happy- you've got yourself a date with Jocelyn !

Dodo- you confirm the Catholic line against academia- look what happened to Gallieo.

16 March 2012 at 21:30  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

Inspector if humans are only ever good for reproduction and ergo lesbians are a waste of nurture and resources then arn't you a waste as well being single and all ?

16 March 2012 at 21:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

bluedog
I agree with you about John Sentamu. He's more than capable of standing his ground against the luvie-dovies in the Anglican community and the Government. He spoke his mind against Idi Ami and by comparison, the British establishment is a bunch of muppets.

More to the point, will the Church of England survive a man who will not play politics with God's word?

16 March 2012 at 21:35  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

@blue dog... or Cameron could appoint Gene Robinson or John Jeffries, thus courting the 'pink' vote. Not that I would support that decision, but he might try.

16 March 2012 at 21:35  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Inspector @ 21.22, if you think women are inherently intellectually inferior, how do you explain Margaret Thatcher, who commanded the House of Commons and dominated her Cabinet?

16 March 2012 at 21:37  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Office of Inspector General said...12:30

Derek T Northcote. Echoing Roy, it’s YOUR types that have brought us to this. It’s never enough is it, what society does to accommodate LGBTs who, individually, have little or no interest in raising the next generation. That’s what it’s all about, not pandering to a group who’s problems include needing to be at the centre of attention permanently. And yes, you are getting the Christian line.

The damnable truth is this. The Inspector considers gay marriage to be little better than a public act of buggery.


That pretty much sums it up for me too.

16 March 2012 at 21:43  
Blogger Berserker said...

When one gal gives a bit of rabbit to another gal is that a consummation Devoutly to be wished?

Now I don't know whether James 1 was gay but his relationship with Villiers (later Duke of Buckingham) was pretty chummy - 'my sweet child and wife' was one heartfelt endearment. So you could argue that in fantasy land there were two gays on the throne. When Anne of Denmark married James it was originally by proxy in Denmark and James's representative had to sit on the marriage bed! If james's courtier had consummated the marriage would that have invalidated James's marriage to Anne?

Could say two ten year olds bring human rights legislation to their cause if they wanted to get married and that was now possible because consummation has been abolished by law?

16 March 2012 at 21:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

bluedog
Sir, do not turn on the good Inspector. He is trying to make sense of a situation where a woman, seemingly an attractive one from her 'date me' profile, decides to have sex with another woman.

Anna
There is no Catholic dogma on academia.

Now, your unkind words to the Inspector were very unbecoming and contradict your early words about peace and love. He's reaching out to you after your outrageous flirtation with him. Are you playing him lass? And don't you swing both ways, anyway? Celibacy is a gift and takes great courage and fortitude.

Inspector
Hang in there man. Whilst I cannot agree with all your comments I appreciate your attempts to fathom the mystery of lesbianism - especially when said women are not hairy and fat.

16 March 2012 at 21:47  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Dodo @ 21.35, the Anglican Communion is running out of compromises and Sentamu will need all his gifts to avoid schism. However it is often the case that an outsider can say and do things that are impossible from within. Sentamu therefore has the potential to be a truly great ABC.

And no, Anna, I don't think Dave will stick his neck out further in courting the pink vote. The furore surrounding SSM is the best recruiting sargent yet for UKIP, who lacked a domestic issue of substance. Not that they have articulated a cogent anti-SSM position, they're just Anti. Which is all that is needed in the circumstances.

16 March 2012 at 21:52  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

Dodo,

If I were a hetrosexual I wouldn't want to get into anything near a relationship with Inspector. He is a, sexist, racist, homophobic idiot, who at best brings out the emotion of pity and at worst that of anger.

16 March 2012 at 21:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Joc the Knoc
You must be posting some very naughty comments to have them deleted!

Our host and I do not always get along but, to date, he has only deleted two or three of my posts. Very unreasonably too. He's nearly kicked me off the blog a couple of time, mind!

I think you should now call yourself 'Larks in the Dark'.

16 March 2012 at 21:57  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

@Blue dog, perhaps Dave's more likely to appoint some one from the banking sector - a Goldman Partner perhaps? Didn't the CEO of Golman once say they did 'God's work'?

16 March 2012 at 21:57  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

Maturecheese, how does gay marriage constitute ' PUBLIC buggery'?

16 March 2012 at 22:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

That Bluedog, what a harsh hound you can be. One should take advantage of the Archbishop’s site to explore ideas that our PC world have designated heresy. Who knows, great truths may be revealed. You might want to re-read the Inspector’s offerings. He did not say that lesbians were intellectually weak. Far from it. The possibility exists that their devotion to study has somehow made honest women into lesbians. The people should know the truth, what !

Anna, Without boring you with the Inspectors history, he did not intend to be single at his time in life. Indeed, he’s old enough to be your daddy.

Well done Tasty Cheese. It’s heartening to count on your support...

Carry on chaps...

16 March 2012 at 22:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

bluedog
Being a Dominatrix does not require intellectual superiority, merely submissives willing to serve.

Anna
Come on gal, get all the poison out of your system.

16 March 2012 at 22:04  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

@Dodo, well you did tell Anna Anglican that Jesus wasn't a 1960s hippy- perhaps she's taken onboard the comments?

16 March 2012 at 22:05  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Dodo @ 21,47 said, 'Sir, do not turn on the good Inspector. He is trying to make sense of a situation where a woman, seemingly an attractive one from her 'date me' profile, decides to have sex with another woman.'

Fair point. But the Inspector grossly mishandled the situation, IMHO. This communicant spent some time drafting advice to the Inspector, suggesting a reply to Anna's outrageous flirtation.

Posted herewith:

'Mr Inspector @ 23.54, your correspondent is in despair, nay, shell-shocked.

Consider the earlier reply from Anna Anglican @ 23.10 ‘Fat Chance. I’m too busy reading a paper about Lagrange points’. Who the, what the?

Click on Wikipedia to check out Lagrange, a physicist who theorized on the proximate orbital characteristics of heavenly bodies! Couldn’t get a better intro than that, could you?

Time to break in to a manly baritone (astronomical-themed) with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCW9Hey6IVY

Or in bass with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnbiRDNaDeo

But no, you launch into your own theory about the intellectual inferiority of women in general and lesbians in particular. Aaaarghh! What would your mother say? What has Anna done to deserve these insults?

Undeterred, you ask Anna, ‘Now, what do you say to that?’ Are you winding us all up?

If not, here’s your correspondent’s answer to your question – it’s totally flipping catastrophic.

Is it too late to swop places with Mr Dodo on his course?

All the best, old chap.'

So not so much turning on the Inspector, but offering brotherly advice.

16 March 2012 at 22:07  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

Dodo- wht posion? I am perfectly fine. I thing Inspector and yourself need to look at the great plank in your own eyes before looking at others specs of grit.

Don't forget JESUS LOVES YOU!

16 March 2012 at 22:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Anna. The Inspector...is a, sexist, racist, homophobic idiot

You can rely on a woman to criticise a chap without mentioning what she likes about him !

16 March 2012 at 22:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

bluedog
Honestly now, is there really such a thing as an 'Anglican Communion'?
And schism will be in the hands of God and the Holy Spirit, not one Archbishop.

16 March 2012 at 22:10  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

Je-zus! You THINK that was flirting? Good lord do you all live in the retirement home for catholic gentlefolk? That was me being my normal confident female self! Apologises for any confusion caused!

16 March 2012 at 22:12  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Anna Anglican certainly seems like a babe to me- she has managed to take on all the -male- 'big beasts' of this blog reasonably well.

16 March 2012 at 22:16  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

@Dodo, indeed. Just as the overall Church doesn't need to be led by a Pope in Rome! Excellent point made by the bird.

16 March 2012 at 22:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Bluedog. Inspector realises your heart’s in the right place. As a reward, and if it was in his power, he would have you covering bitches until you finally expire...

16 March 2012 at 22:19  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Inspector,it is misogynists like you,filled with rancour,cruelty and bitterness who are responsible for women turning to lesbianism. There is little difference bewtween the muslim men you criticise and yourself.

No one could ever accuse you of intellectualism. Your hatred and disrespect of women is palpable and offensive.Your obsession with
'bumcraft' as you so nicely put it can only lead me to believe that you are a latent homosexual,desperate to hide the fact by displaying violent verbal assaults on them along with women. I hope you stay in the closet,they should not have to suffer you either.

You call yourself a Catholic. What would Jesus think of someone like you? I do hope you are celibate and not inflicting a life of misery on any poor woman .

16 March 2012 at 22:20  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 March 2012 at 22:20  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Dodo @ 22.10, of course there is an Anglican Communion, this communicant likes to think he is part of it, making a modest contribution. Your question reeks of Roman assumptions of primacy.

16 March 2012 at 22:24  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Why does every male here think Anna was flirting with them? She was giving a description of herself, in response to Inspector's cheap gag about lesbian women being ugly and fat - a no better stero type that suggesting Irish are think and stupid- aka the 'irish joke'.

I knew what a lagrange point was and couldn't see the 'flirt' - perhaps I have missed out on other female-human relationships as a result?!

16 March 2012 at 22:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Anna
" ... whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, You fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Paul
Maybe I was being too subtle. The Catholic Church, instituted by Christ, has a Pope because Christ appointed a leader,habded him the Keys to theKingdom and Apostolic succession, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has ensured its continuance.

Anglicanism is a man made amalgam of diverse and contradictory movements and theologies. It may well be that God has predestined its demise at this time - just as He permitted its birth.

Appointing a man of Biblical conviction and undoubted courage at this juncture, may or may not bring it to its senses.

16 March 2012 at 22:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Anna said ..,
"Je-zus! You THINK that was flirting? Good lord do you all live in the retirement home for catholic gentlefolk?"

Irony, irony, where for art thou irony!

And do be more sensitive. Suggesting bluedog is a Catholic will not be well received!

16 March 2012 at 22:40  
Blogger bluedog said...

Anna @ 21.57, interesting question. Short answer - no way!

There is no doubt that the culture of GS changed radically following the exit of many former partners after incorporation and listing on the NYSE. Prior to that GS had a very understated, non-flashy, culture with an obsessive client focus. Truly God's work. Exquisitely intellectual. There's been a topical if not hypocritical, article in the NY Times on the subject of GS values by a former GS Executive MD. His comments may be close to the mark.

But as with all the US investment banks, the repeal of both Glass-Steagall Acts by Billy-bob Clinton in late 1999 opened the floodgates for a tidal wave of trading profit. In Harold MacMillan's phrase, they never had it so good. However, the re-incarnated Paul Volker is about to end all that.

16 March 2012 at 22:44  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

It was also a good job I didn't mention before that my study into lagrange points was in relation to the theoretical study of galactic wormholes and how we might enter them.

16 March 2012 at 22:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Cressida. Inspector,it is misogynists like you,filled with rancour,cruelty and bitterness who are responsible for women turning to lesbianism. There is little difference bewtween the muslim men you criticise and yourself.

Calm down woman, it’s only a blog site. Rather hysterical aren't we. Hysterical from the Greek word for womb. Those ancients certainly had you gals bang to rights. Do get everything into perspective. The Inspector loves women and tolerates gays. Surely, can’t ask more from a decent fellow, what !

16 March 2012 at 22:47  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

@Dodo, thought that would be your view. How long will it take before Len pops out of the woodwork to disagree with you? It's like groundhog day with the Pope-Catholic-Protestant thingy.

16 March 2012 at 22:49  
Blogger Jocelyn Knockersbury said...

Not that naughty Dodo. I suggested after six successive posts on gay marriage that his grace's was in danger of becoming a..I hardly dare say it for fear ..single issue blog. He clearly took umbrage.

16 March 2012 at 22:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Paul, indeed what else could I say? However, the Truth has to be spoken. Yes, the 'Beanies' have been rather silent tonight.

bluedog, being a bit flash aren't we?

Anna, I love it when you talk dirty!

Inspector, the word 'hysterical' is a no-no these days. Today, the correct term is either 'conversion disorder' or 'anxiety'.

A common treatment in the past was ... well ... I'll leave it with those interested to find out more.

16 March 2012 at 23:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Joc, not quite as serious as my accusations that he was displaying a consistently anti-Catholic bias. Actually, I was a bit more reckless and used the 'b' word.

16 March 2012 at 23:13  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ps
And to be fair, there are fewer issues more important than those concerned with sexuality, family life, raising children and discerning the proper order in these matters. The human sex act is where the animal and the spiritual meet in men and women.

Get it wrong and we're all well and truly f**ked, so to speak.

16 March 2012 at 23:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Cressida. ‘Bumcraft’ is a useful word to inform pre-pubescent boys of the danger of predatory homosexual men and youths, without using that nasty grown up word ‘sodomy’. Here it is in action..,

“Uncle Danny, mum says I’m not to be left alone with you. She says you practice bumcraft and cannot be trusted with young boys”

16 March 2012 at 23:23  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@Dodo- ask yourself this question :

"why would a non-catholic not show a consistently anti-catholic bias?"- or are you too wrapped up in the Catholic dogmas to think of life outside the life pod?

Ironically enough I'm going to have luncheon with Pope Emma II on Tuesday (as Cardinal Emma Wong, she was Papal Ambassador to the Draconis Imperial Court) - I wonder what she will make of your ernsty like gwarf when I said that by 2299 the Roman Catholic Church had more non human communicants than human ones and had been led by 3 female Popes (Emma I, Natalie and Emma II).

16 March 2012 at 23:26  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

..Although no gay Popes have thus far been elected. The Anglican Communion has had several openly gay Archbishops of Canerbury and All Mars.

16 March 2012 at 23:35  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Hang on, I though Alpha was going into battle in Northumberland yesterday ?

@Dodo, you are at least consistent in your world view.

16 March 2012 at 23:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Alpha
Why would I want to stepoutside of the 'life pod' that is the Catholic Church.

I can only think the Great Apostasy, foretold in Revelation and at Fatima, has taken place. Clearly, the infallible teaching of Blessed John Paul that women cannot enter the Priesthood, has been improperly set aside. I do not recognise what you call the Catholic Church in your time.

Tell that to Emma on Tuesday and to stick it in her pipe and smoke it!

16 March 2012 at 23:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Paul, time is fluid for our ET interloper.

And, yes, Catholicism, for its faults, is consistent. One could even say dogmatic. I am a child of the Catholic Church and pray will remain true to it until the day I die. It's what my mind, heart and soul tells me God wants.

16 March 2012 at 23:46  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@Dodo, I shall of course do so (but in more diplomatic language- we cannot upset a great spiritual leader like the Pontiff!).

Indeed I understand because so many things are -naturally- different in the future. It is no different for a man from the 1600s being transplanted into now. Would they recognise the world? I doubt it.

For example in this time frame you still have ice caps around the polar region; the British still live on the Earth and you still have rainforests; you don't have a massive space station which wraps around the planet or floating sky cities.

16 March 2012 at 23:48  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Dodo shows, for one brief spec in time, why the human race isn't such a bunch of backward savages. He firmly grasps the nettle that for me time is indeed fluid. I am sure the Alpha from yesterday will pop up sooner or later. (I am an Alpha from 50 years after the Alpha who posted yesterday; older, wiser, dying- well I had a good life!).

Cherry pip.

16 March 2012 at 23:53  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

And in any case, I have managed to 'time seal' this post, so my younger self will not 'see' what I have written, so no damage to the time line can happen.

16 March 2012 at 23:59  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Alpha, you old fraud, I see you're peddling your nonsense about your enlightened future again. Why you don't even know the meaning of the word - your grasp of astrochronometrics is as feeble as the poetic talents of a Judoon.

I have taken the liberty of reporting you to the nearest outpost of Time Agents, who even as we typed will have deposited you (if not soon, then a while ago) in an enclave of the Ice Warriors of Mars with nothing but your scaled underwear. I doubt you'll learn from the experience. You're the only multi-temporal being I know, who actually knew more when he was younger. You can lead a Grack of Ixos VII to a pool of plasmic discharge, but you can't make it biochemically reverse the polarity, as they say.

17 March 2012 at 00:38  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo flabberghasted Ernst with

"and Ernst, this is not about a wishy, washy, non-judgemental approach to societal norms. It's not about following "rules" but about understanding what God wants for our own good. One can love the sinner whilst condemning the sin. Even the scribe had the good sense to grasp Jesus' words."
and
"However, it most certainly does not mean discerning the Divine laws and abandoning them or simply staying silent in the face of rebellion against them."
What on earth, that bird?

Ernst is not silent for any reason other than spending the day with his beloved grandson. Don't want to miss out on any minute with him, as Old Ernst is, err, OLD.
Why would Ernst disagree with what you have stated. You are putting false words in my mouth or a disagreeing frown on my face when there is none!

Dear Bird, when Ernst jokes with you, HE JOKES WITH YOU. It is a rib poke.
He is NOT always against what you say!

Please get a sense of humour, young dickie?

Ernst

ps

How are you today?

17 March 2012 at 01:41  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Nonsense Dodo...Conversion disorder indeed. There was nothing in my post coveying hysteria or conversion disorder.

I would happily take the wooden spoon to both you and the inspector...except I would feel bad about beating up geriatrics in wheelchairs!

17 March 2012 at 02:39  
Blogger Jocelyn Knockersbury said...

Dodo. My view, good to have something to believe in, long as it doesn't harden your heart. I would've said same about Catholic church when 17 but walked away from. Stopped believing. Lesson : if I'd stuck with it might've made fewer mistakes. Can't turn clock back though, can you?

17 March 2012 at 07:15  
Blogger len said...

Dodo you seem to be well and truly stuck in your delusion.(you and the inspector even confess this yourselves)
The reason Satan still exists and is able to draw people away from God is that God allows people to be tested to see whether they have a love of the Truth and of God.
That is the reason for the continued existence of false religion (and the
Catholic Church)
Even the Lord Jesus Himself was tested to this end right up to the Crucifixion.
Catholicism does not align itself with the Word of God so is proved to be a false religion, in fact Catholicism is an amalgam of the religions of man.Its final heresy will be joining forces with Islam.
The only thing separating Catholicism from Islam is the divinity of Christ apart from that there are surprising similarities between Islam and Catholicism.

Catholicism was born out of compromise and exists by assimilating or destroying those that oppose it.

Dodo anticipating your 'usual protestations.......... Don`t believe this will ever happen?.

Although the Catholic Church states that it is only by God's grace that one can enter heaven, it becomes very clear that what is meant is that grace is required to enable one to do' the works' which qualify one for heaven. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, they "obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ" (par 1821) and they "can merit for themselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life" (par 2027). Pope John Paul II has often repeated these words: "It is now urgent that Christians and Muslims enter a new period of history, to recognize and develop the spiritual bonds that unite us." Truly, the gods of Catholicism and of Islam are compatible, but neither one is the God of the Bible!

17 March 2012 at 08:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Yet another thread standing as testament to the life-changing qualities of the Holy Spirit, I see.

17 March 2012 at 08:36  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@Danjo, which human sky god do you worship then? Are you one of these muslims len mentions?

17 March 2012 at 08:43  
Blogger HampsteadOwl said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 March 2012 at 08:43  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Judoon indeed- The race of catering staff and office temps! Ice Warriors? Huh! They are all gone from sector of the galaxy! Do you think humans live in a paradise? Depends on how much cash you have really. In that sense things never really change on this planet.

17 March 2012 at 08:45  
Blogger HampsteadOwl said...

According to the clause of the 1973 Matrimonial Causes Act quoted above, a "marriage" is in any case void if the partners are not of opposite sexes. The question of consummation is therefore rendered irrelevant by this prior consideration.

Presumably, if the Government wishes to legalise same-sex marriage, it must repeal this part of the 1973 Act. I suggest that, while it is in the vicinity, it repeals the consummation clause as well. Wouldn't that just be simplest?

Maybe the author of this post could have pointed this out, albeit it would have meant that there was then no need for his prurient meditations upon the nature of consummation. I am surprised that, on the day the real Archbishop of Canterbury resigned, "His Grace" couldn't find anything else to write except a few paragraphs of schoolboy smut.

17 March 2012 at 08:50  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

cressida said ...
"There was nothing in my post coveying hysteria or conversion disorder."

And did I say there was, my good woman? I was simply pointing out that the term 'hysteria' is no longer an acceptable term, being rooted in a false perception of women.

Hold that wooden spoon! It was my own mother's, God rest her soul, weapon of choice too!

Ernst
Apologies, sometimes I mix you and your fellow 'Beanie' up. Speaking of whom ...

len
As original and misinformed as ever, I see. You just don't get it, do you?

Joc
One never really stops believing, does one? Make that trip to Arundel.

17 March 2012 at 09:06  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Lá Fhéile Pádraig

17 March 2012 at 11:46  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Has anyone seen the cartoon gif of a stickman who first mashes his hands in his keyboard, then his arms, then his head? When I read Anna's comments and whoever it was that questioned knowing the mind of Jesus on the matter of SSM I felt like doing this!

First, as regards the mind of Christ on the matter, remember that He came to fulfil the law, not get rid of it. As such all the Levitical law holds true, only man no longer has the right to carry out the punishment. So clearly Jesus was not in favour of it as it is not God's gift to humanity.

As to Anna's comments, please read your Bible! It is very clear on what is and isn't permissible. It is also very clear that it is timeless in regards to particular issues (such as this).
And finally, as regards SSM, OF COURSE IT'S GOING TO IMPACT RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE!!! Remember when Labour brought in civil partnerships? Remember what they said about them nit being a forerunner to gay marriage? The claim that it won't be forced on religions means nothing. Drawing a line in the sand over an issue that has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with a false understanding of equivalence is a must for Christians. Failure to do so is to slap God in the face for His gift of marriage!

17 March 2012 at 11:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's a pity the change in the law couldn't actually be brought in this year so that the celebrations could coincide with the Jubilee and the Olympics. What a brilliant party that would be, and with the eyes of the world on us too!

17 March 2012 at 12:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Greetings to you Dodo on this St Patrick’s day. The Inspector won’t be posting tonight, but enjoying the Irish group ‘The Roving Crows’ and of course, the black stuff.

Let’s hope that Cressida and Anna have absorbed our wisdom overnight and are now new women.

Failing that, there is a way of pacifying angry small animals. Roll them onto their backs and rub their tummies. Would that the Inspector could gain access to their beds and put this therapy to work...

17 March 2012 at 12:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Lá Fhéile Pádraig

Inspector: you really must stop goading these two fine ladies! They just don't get your Edwardian take on life. What's the point of alienating them? Save your best for the likes of the reprobates 'Beanie the Weasel' and 'DanJ0 the Leatherette'.

Do enjoy this evening and as you do, remember to:
Dance as if no one were watching,
Sing as if no one were listening.


And my wish for you:
As you slide down the banister of life,
May the splinters never point in the wrong direction!


Go mbeannai Dia duit

17 March 2012 at 12:54  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

I spent yesterday retrieving my daughter from the airport. She was returning from two weeks in Europe via Heathrow - which airport she described as "hot, expensive, and annoying because they refuse to identify your gate until right before boarding." Take heart, though. No airport in the world could possibly be worse than the Private Fiefdom of the Mayor of the City of Chicago ... ummm ... Chicago O'Hare.

By way of explanation for why I didn't make this next post yesterday ...

carl

17 March 2012 at 13:05  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Faux David Ould (wherever you are)

You really aren't very good at it, you know. You're attempts at mockery by impersonation are ham-fisted and clumsy. There is no subtlety your efforts, and you don't know the voice at all. I had no trouble separating you from the real David Ould from your very first faux-post because you just don't sound like him. That's how you know you have some skill btw. If your allies think the post is serious and respond as if it is serious, then you have demonstrated some skill. But you are just a hack. Nothing more than a teenager setting up a false Facebook account to abuse another teenager.

The irony is that you think yourself a righteous warrior. You are a coward and an assassin, but worse you are a hack who wouldn't know good parody if it bit you on the backside. I exposed you at MCJ and got you bounced. I will expose you everywhere I see you post.

carl

17 March 2012 at 13:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl, well said!

He is a nasty piece of work and I never realised there was a genuine David Ould blog that this miscreant is seeking to pervert.

17 March 2012 at 13:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Perhaps the Archbishop can block this imposter...

17 March 2012 at 14:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I agree, it'd be much more pleasant around here if people prone to using fake IDs were blocked permanently.

17 March 2012 at 15:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0, what's up? Hate being ignored?

Well, just for you:

As you slide down the banister of life,
May the splinters always point in the wrong direction!

17 March 2012 at 15:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

A tangent, I know, but it's good to see that story of the Catholic nun stealing children in Spain is beginning to surface properly in the British media. Radio 4 did an item a couple of weeks ago to with some really horrible stories. Vile, evil, nasty witch. We must never, ever let the Catholic Church get a grip on our country and insert its pollution into our political and social structure.

17 March 2012 at 15:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 March 2012 at 15:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ9 the Leatherette

It is shocking, I agree. The Spanish Civil War and its aftershock created considerable confusion.

The story broke some months ago and, as I recall, you vented your moral outrage back then. You do so love whallowing around in scandal. Why is that?

Seems strange the story is resurfacing again now as the Church fights against the corruption and perversion of marriage. Still, coincidences happen, I quess.

And do try to remember you are a Catholic Godfather and took an oath before God and your family. Oh, I forgot, you were so young back in the early 1990's and it was before the internet.

17 March 2012 at 16:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

And, back to the topic, how will homosexuals consummate these 'marriages'?

17 March 2012 at 16:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

She's just been charged, that's why it has surfaced again. The first of many, I suspect. This is the result, no doubt, of the Catholic Church's cosying up to like-minded fascist regimes for its own political gain and the insertion of its people into the social services and health system in Spain. Gah. It makes me so mad, incandescent actually, that its filth could worm its way into communities and it could exert its power like that without proper scrutiny. No doubt too that all the usual justifications, side-steps, promises to do better, and so on will be trotted out by the Cardinals and, of course, the usual foot soldiers.

17 March 2012 at 16:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Interesting turn of phrase from our resident homosexual apologist - gripping and inserting pollution. Indicative of a frame of mind, don't you think? Try to avoid using such metaphors yourself.

17 March 2012 at 16:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Some people are suggesting there could be 300,000 cases over the period in question. 300,000. Jesus wept. Listening to some of the personal testimonies is enough to make one cry and feel quite sick.

17 March 2012 at 16:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. You are a heartless opportunist...

17 March 2012 at 16:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Here's a link to a radio 4 report if anyone is interested. This is the organisation that sets itself up as a moral arbiter over the rest of us. The fecking arrogance of it, if nothing else. It makes my blood boil.

17 March 2012 at 16:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Yes, and I'm sure if our host is so minded he will write a blog on it and invite contributions.

The practise started in the late 1930's and seemingly continued until the early 1980's. I think the number of complaints filed are given as "more than 100", with some experts thinking they may account for 15% of adoptions in a 30 year period.

One child and parent seperated in this way is one too many but let's wait and see what emerges before getting all hysterical about the evils of institutionalised Catholicism.

17 March 2012 at 16:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 March 2012 at 16:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

One of the motivating factors: "misplaced Catholics morals, taking babies away from mothers considered morally, or economically, deficient."

17 March 2012 at 16:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Me thinks the lady doth have other motives for protesting so much.

17 March 2012 at 16:31  
Blogger len said...

I see the Catholic 'bully boys' are stomping all over the blog.

Do you get paid by the Protestant Church for showing Catholicism in such a bad light?.

Well keep it up both of you you are doing a great Job..

17 March 2012 at 16:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Well, they try to bully anyway.

17 March 2012 at 16:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. Siding with the atheist eh, some Christian you are, treacherous Judas weasel ...

17 March 2012 at 17:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Beaney and Leatherette

United once more? What a pair of shameless opportunists you both are, driven not by a sense on justice but a hatred of Catholicism.

Are either of aware of the British government's programme of forcibly relocating poor British children to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the former Rhodesia and other parts of the Commonwealth of Nations often without their parents' knowledge?

Children were often told their parents had died, and parents were told their children had been placed for adoption elsewhere in the UK. It is estimated up to 150,000 children have been resettled under the scheme, some as young as three.

Saving money was one of the motives behind this policy. The children were allegedly deported because it was cheaper to care for them overseas. It cost an estimated £5 per day to keep a child on welfare in a British institution, but only 10% of that, ten shillings, in an Australian one.

And why not shed a tear for, or offer help to, the millions of children worldwide living and dying in poverty today. That would be "good works" would it len? Or the countless millions ripped from their mother's wombs. Again, speaking out is "judgemental" isn't it?

The pair of you make me want to throw up.

17 March 2012 at 17:20  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older