Wednesday, March 21, 2012

ECtHR: Churches WILL be forced to conduct same-sex marriages

As the Government launch their not-a-consultation on 'gay marriage', it transpires that even the fons et origo of the equality industry are washing their hands of the proposal. Judges in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg have said: "The European Convention on Human Rights does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage."

BUT they warn (as everyone really knows and His Grace has been warning for years) that if same-sex unions became lawful, any church (and synagogue, mosque and gurdwara) that refuses to marry gay couples could be charged under existing anti-discrimination legislation, irrespective of any statutory exemptions. The judges said: "Where national legislation recognises registered partnerships between same sex, member states should aim to ensure that their legal status and their rights and obligations are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples in a similar situation."

Otherwise, of course, there is discrimination in the state, which is illegal. Ergo, the Coalition’s assurance that no religion will be compelled to conduct the weddings is worthless: Parliament will be forced to amend its legislation to conform to the judgement of the courts to which it is subject. We all know and fully understand that European law (that which emanates from both Strasbourg and Brussels) overrides any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly enforceable rule of European or EU law.

The European Court of Human Rights is not an institution of the European Union. It is a creation of the Council of Europe (again, not an EU body: it has 47 member states) and rules on disputes arising from the European Convention on Human Rights which was incorporated into UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998. In this sense, Strasbourg has nothing to do with Brussels. But the only remedy to the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty is to revisit both the European Communities Act 1972 and the Human Rights Act 1998. By the former was the sovereignty of Parliament fatally compromised, and by the latter was it made unlawful for any public body to act in a way which is incompatible with the ECHR. UK judges are now obliged to take account of the superior judgements of the Strasbourg court, even where they conflict with the Common Law, and to interpret UK legislation in a way which is compatible with the Convention.

So, perhaps the Prime Minister or Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone might care to clarify this point for us? Parliament insists that 'gay marriage' will not be imposed upon the religious; the European Court of Human Rights says that it will. Who is right? Who is telling the truth? Which opinion of law prevails?

Of course, we already know the answer to this question. The Coalition for Marriage (C4M - advertising above) are uniting Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and people of no faith to make it known that marriage - consisting of one man and one woman - is a respected institution, a sacred one, indeed, a sacrament, and its definition must be preserved. The consequences for religious liberty in the introduction of same-sex marriage are profoundly worrying and deeply dangerous.


Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace


21 March 2012 at 09:25  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace. Brilliant.
I was amused when I glanced at this in the Mail this morning and thought, Is this Topsey Turvey Land or what? The lovers and major supporters of ECHR, the Lib Dems, have had their comeuppance on this. Gay Marriage is NOT a right the court said.
How will the coalition now spin their way round this? Sorry, Spin was a mark of New Labour.
Well done the French, cough cough. They are one up on us. No adoption for Gay Couples. Could a measure of compassion and deep Spirituality seeped into their staunch Catholic country?

21 March 2012 at 10:16  
Blogger Richard Gadsden said...

Your Grace, there is an alternative approach that would leave religions free to act as they choose, but still equalise the right to marry.

Withdraw the state from religious marriages entirely, as they do in France and Portugal (and, I'm sure, other countries). If the religious marriage is a sacrament of a private institution (the church) then they have the undisputed right (freedom of association as well as freedom of religion) to offer that to whomever they choose.

[Yes, that means that a church refusing to conduct interracial marriages would be allowed: it's called freedom of religion]

That would mean that people wishing to have a religious marriage would have a separate civil ceremony for the legal aspect.

Having seen the small-town French marriage tradition, I think it's an excellent approach.

For those who haven't been to one, the tradition is that the couple with a wedding party go to the town hall and are married in law by the mayor of the town. Then they process across the town from town hall to the church; the citizens who weren't invited come out to line the streets as the wedding procession passes. Then there is a nuptial mass in the church, as the religious sacrament is performed.

I don't know how that works in larger towns and cities - I can't imagine closing the Champs Elysées for a wedding procession!

The law can only intervene because the person conducting the marriage is an officer of the state (either a parish priest or an "authorised person" under clause 43 of the Marriage Act 1949). If they aren't acting on behalf of the state, then they're a private institution - they're not public accomodations (like the B&B case) because the event is only available to communicants of the relevant church.

21 March 2012 at 10:21  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Congratulations on surviving incognito for 456 years today since they burnt an effigy of yourself in Oxford. That would make you now 523 years young and still going strong.

21 March 2012 at 10:27  
Blogger non mouse said...

Congratulations on your 'Day,' Your Grace.

Actually, I want to know why anybody in this country respects anything that comes from the euSSR as 'Law.' They have no business expecting us to do as they say. We have no business doing as they say.

If our so-called representatives are incapable of making laws, then we don't have any new ones. The old ones stand.

All we have to do is refuse to comply.

21 March 2012 at 10:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

If same-sex couples can insist on being married under religious procedures, despite contrary religious doctrine, then why not divorcees? Have the various churches got away with this so far simply because divorcees haven't realised they could force the issue?

21 March 2012 at 10:37  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Richard, as far as civil and religious weddings go, my sister got married in Paris and the basic way it works is you have 2 wedding days, 1 for civil and 1 for religious. My guess is that in areas where it is not feasible to do it on the same day that will be how it works.

A far is govt reacts to this, I doubt they will care, go ahead anyway and then the gay lobby will bring ECHR into it.

But, at the end of the day, we will still have the insanity of gay sexual unions being made legally equivalent to heterosexual sexual unions despite the clear evidence that they are different (hetero and homo, you'd think that would have been the thing to wake people up!) when it makes no difference to their legal entitlements!

I don't want my future wife to be told that in law she is no different from a gay man or a lesbian. I don't wish to be told that either! Yet that is what the law will be saying!!! And this whole insanity will be forced upon religions because those in the government, for the most part, don't give a crap about their beliefs and are longing for the gay lobby to complain so that they vacant bring religion to heel. You don't believe me? Just look at how Blair has tried (both as PM and in his current role) to mould religion in his own image. And the "heir to Blair" is carrying that forward, completely clueless of what his claimed faith of choice is actually about!

21 March 2012 at 11:01  
Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

"I don't want my future wife to be told that in law she is no different from a gay man or a lesbian"

Why. Are the a lesser species. Inferior. Not worthy.

How dare you judge anyone.

21 March 2012 at 11:16  
Blogger Caral said...

Excellent blogpost!

The UK ruling that was in place for the protection of women from forced marriages was overturned in Strasbourg.

Surely that should have been a wake up call to Dave the Iconoclast and his red tories, as to who is really running things?

21 March 2012 at 11:19  
Blogger bluedog said...

Congratulations on your survival, Your Grace. Your memorial is in every church of the Anglican Communion, an extraordinary achievement.

The only answer to the point that you make is to leave the EU.

21 March 2012 at 11:28  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

The Gay Marriage consultation states that the ‘ability of religious organisations to preach and teach their beliefs on the definition of marriage’ will not be affected by the proposed law.

This of course leaves people of faith at risk of repressive measures by the State.

For example, teachers who dare to tell the truth about marriage ‘in a time of universal deceit’ risk being sacked and appearing before the courts (reminds one of the Khmer Rouge).

This should remind us all how intolerant the homosexual lobby is (for example, race hate mail to the Archbishop of York and death threats to David Burrowes MP).

21 March 2012 at 11:33  
Blogger Pétrus said...

@Derek T Northcote

It isn't about being lesser - just different.

I am different to my wife - does that make on of us inferior in some way?

21 March 2012 at 11:34  
Blogger Roy said...

Far too much credence is paid to the opinions of the undemocratic and anti-democratic European Court of Human Rights.

The leaders of the Christian churches, and also Jewish, Moslem, Hindu, Sikh etc. leaders should simply state categorically that they WILL NOT conduct weddings between same-sex couples whatever the ECHR says.

As Martin Luther said:

Here I stand! I can do no other.

Even Catholics and adherents on non-Christian religions should have no problem in echoing Luther's defiance of the thought police of his day. Alternatively, instead of Luther's words, Christians, Jews and Moslems could restate the words of Joshua,

Choose ye this day whom ye will serve...but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. (Joshua 24:15).

If Hindus and Sikhs etc. want to choose a rallying cry from their own scriptures they are of course free to do so.

21 March 2012 at 11:38  
Blogger Derek T Northcote said...


The quote was as follows.

"I don't want my future wife to be told that in law she is no different from a gay man or a lesbian"

Not implying difference. The implication is superiority.

21 March 2012 at 11:42  
Blogger graham wood said...

"We know that ECHR law overrides any rule of national law found to be in conflict with any directly enforceable rule of European or EU law."

Quoted as applicable to churches in the UK being obliged eventually to cater for SSM in religious ceremonies if legalised.

Not so. The church is not, and never has been, obliged to submit its doctrines and practices to that of ANY secular law, court, or parliamentary authority - let alone a foreign court such as the ECHR.

Its sole Head and ruler is Jesus Christ, and therefore submits only to him through the authoritative Scriptures.
Thus the church is obliged to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are Gods's.
Homosexual marriage rites in any shape or form are not therefore obligatory for churches.
The State;s writ does not, and must not run in churches.

21 March 2012 at 11:43  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Derek @ 11.16, are you being deliberately obtuse?

There is no suggestion that a homosexual is an inferior being, the issue relates to the institution of marriage. Mr Youthpasta rightly regards a marriage between a man and a woman as different to a marriage between two men or two women. He presumably expects that if he marries a woman, together they will have children. The creation of new life ensures continuity of homo sapiens. A union of two men or two women can not produce children, you learn that sort of thing in biology at school. If therefore you regard the continuity of the species as important, which union is of greater importance? The answer is obvious, the union between a man and a woman. That's a simple biological fact and not a political statement, which is how you seem to define marriage.

21 March 2012 at 11:43  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Well, if nothing else it will finally knock on the head the nonsense we hear about transnational bodies like the EU and the European Court being fronts for Rome. The ice will be six foot think across the floor of hell before the Catholic Church marries a gay couple before one of its altars, and they'll see their assets seized, their clergy imprisoned and their services back out in the fields and the sides of hills before they'll - ahem - bend over on this one.

21 March 2012 at 11:49  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Whatever it's called, there can never be a "marriage" between a homosexual couple.

The Catholic Church routinely breaches people's 'human rights' in that it will refuse to marry couples under a variety of circumstances.

Whilst increasing priests are more accomodating, some will not marry cohabiting couples; some will refuse if the couple are not regular church attendees; marrying a non-Catholic requires certain promises about the faith of children; there has to be a clear commitment to having children; etc. Similar conditions apply to infant Baptism.

Isn't part of the problem that the Churches down the years have conceeded so much ground on the fundamentals of the sacrament of marriage that defending it as a life long union between a man and a woman for the purposes of raising children, is becoming increasingly difficult to defend?

Maybe this attack from atheists, secularists and their homosexal bed fellows/gals will make us reflect more seriously on the reasons for marriage and take the institution more seriously. It is worth defending!

21 March 2012 at 12:16  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

The Gay Marriage consultation states that the ‘ability of religious organisations to preach and teach their beliefs on the definition of marriage’ will not be affected by the proposed law.

This of course leaves people of faith at risk of repressive measures by the State.

For example, teachers who dare to tell the truth about marriage ‘in a time of universal deceit’ risk being sacked and appearing before the courts (reminds one of the Khmer Rouge).

This should remind us all how intolerant the homosexual lobby is (for example, race hate mail to the Archbishop of York and death threats to David Burrowes MP).

21 March 2012 at 12:38  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Derek T Northcote: “"I don't want my future wife to be told that in law she is no different from a gay man or a lesbian"
Why. Are they a lesser species. Inferior. Not worthy.
How dare you judge anyone.”
21 March 2012 11:16

No Mr Northcote I don't think he is judging, it's just that homosexuals ARE different to heterosexuals.

If homosexuals are also God's children as we see with cases of identical twins with the same father when one is homosexual and the other heterosexual. So classing heterosexuals and homosexuals as the same is an insult to each of them really.

Society has to accommodate for both and it has done. Homosexuals have their Union certificate and heterosexuals the marriage certificate.
Homosexuals get united or unified, heterosexuals get married. They both have same rights in law, economically and socially. Getting unified or united in a civil ceremony is as special as getting married in a marriage ceremony.

21 March 2012 at 12:50  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Cameron is stuck, stuck, stuck like a fly on a piece of fly paper.

If he introduces SS ’Marriage’ – the churches will ban all marriages on their premises (to avoid being sued for discrimination); and, the Conservative Party will be toast.

If he now refuses to introduce SS’M’ – the Conservative Party will be seen as the ‘nasty party’.

We are about to witness high drama in British politics.

21 March 2012 at 13:22  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Cameron is stuck, stuck, stuck like a fly on a piece of fly paper.

If he introduces SS ’Marriage’ – the churches will ban all marriages on their premises (to avoid being sued for discrimination); and, the Conservative Party will be toast.

If he now refuses to introduce SS’M’ – the Conservative Party will be seen as the ‘nasty party’.

We are about to witness high drama in British politics.

21 March 2012 at 13:22  
Blogger Flossie said...

It's not often that the ECHR rules against the promotion of homosexuality - let us be thankful for this ruling against the two lesbians who brought this vexatious case.

I wonder how this will stack up against Peter Tatchell's case before the ECHR (which Nigel Farage thinks is the reason for Cameron's support of gay marriage).

21 March 2012 at 13:23  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Love and marriage
Love and marriage
Go together
like a horse and carriage
For a Dodo and Doris
Not a Boris and Horace

21 March 2012 at 13:35  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Wht no picture of the Archbishop of Canterbury marrying two gays?

You are, after all, an Anglican 'bish.

And, of course, it is the totally useless Established Church, that has allowed national moral decay to create an environment where this will happen.

21 March 2012 at 14:28  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

PS "Ergo, the Coalition’s assurance that no religion will be compelled to conduct the weddings is worthless"

No, lets be plain, it's a LIE.

Just as it was a LIE when we were told that all this would end with the granting of Civil Partnerships.

Whatever I may think about the European Court of Human Rights it is plain that this is being driven by the British Government and British courts will fall over themselves to remove the exemption from churches.

21 March 2012 at 14:34  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Richard Gadsden.

You say " If the religious marriage is a sacrament of a private institution (the church) then they have the undisputed right (freedom of association as well as freedom of religion) to offer that to whomever they choose."

How is this different from a private business offering B&B to only married heterosexuals?

I am afraid it will fail the test. If they offer marriage to heterosexuals then they cannot refuse it to gays.

Some people say it is like not obliging a womens clothing retailer to provide mens clothes. The premise is wrong - they can offer only womens clothes but cannot refuse me, a man, from buying them.

Therefore, if a church offers legal marriages and it is legal for gays to marry, they cannot refuse those gays a church marriage.

21 March 2012 at 14:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

From the Human Rights Law Blog – run by barristers

‘[T]he European Court of Human Rights ruled in November 2010 that it would not force states to allow same-sex couples to marry. This was hardly a surprise; the Council of Europe includes strongly Catholic states such as Italy which would not have countenanced Strasbourg telling them to legalise gay marriage (the court caused enough controversy be nearly banning Christian crosses in Italian schools) and therefore this issue has been left within the ambit of the court’s “margin of appreciation” doctrine.’

Cameron is stuck, stuck, stuck.

21 March 2012 at 14:47  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

There was once a close symmetry between the church and the state on the matter of marriage. In effect, the state deferred to the understanding that marriage was an estate beyond its purview. It instantiated that understanding into law, and allowed ministers of the church to act as agents of the state for purposes of legally establishing the covenant. Thus the spiritual nature of marriage was mirrored in the legal nature of marriage. The latter became a visible representation of the former. Church and state united because the state deferred to church in order to present a coherent view of the institution. But alas we are well past the age of Blackstone and into the age of legal positivists.

The state has now decided that it no longer wants to defer to the church's understanding of marriage. It is deliberately creating a new institution with the intent of changing its place in society. It wants marriage to teach a different pedagogical lesson. It is content to allow religious people to adorn the ceremony with whatever cosmetics they so choose. But those adornments have no reality in law. If ministers wish to continue to act as agents of the state, they must obey the law of the state and conform to this understanding. If gender neutral marriage is inevitable, churches should voluntarily withdraw as agents of the state as a testimony against this new institution. They shouldn't wait until they are forced. They should stop performing legal marriages now.

The church is going to have to work out how to adapt to this new reality. It's part of learning how to live in opposition to the culture. How do we establish norms of Christian marriage in a culture that deliberately rejects the norms of Christian marriage? How do we defend the institution without the easy answer of appealing to state law? These are the questions we will soon have to face.


21 March 2012 at 15:00  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Carl Jacobs

Both Rome and Canterbury have made it clear that if SS 'M' became law - no marriages will take place on their church premises.

21 March 2012 at 15:08  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Do you know how many genuine Christian MP's there are? I have searched the web and no numbers are given as to the membership of the Westminster Christian Groups. MP's only if possible.
Many thanks.

21 March 2012 at 15:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr I

The Christian Institute website.

21 March 2012 at 15:31  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Carl Jacobs

Both Rome and Canterbury have made it clear that if SS 'M' became law - no marriages will take place on their church premises.

21 March 2012 at 15:40  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

I wonder whether it would be cheeky to discuss in the 'consultation' what the Church will be able to do to wed people. Obviously given that the Churches will either be forced to 'marry' those of the same sex in church or stop marriage services, the majority will go for the latter. So how will Churches be allowed to get round this?

Maybe allow religious people a different ceremony and call it matrimony, whilst the heathens can have marriage? Otherwise by the time I marry I can assure you that it will not be legally recognised. Even better it will distinguish true marriage/matrimony from the fake legal contract that the majority of the faithless hold to. Make it a rights issue and maybe even Lynne Featherstone will support it! Only joking, human rights don't apply to Christians.

We can play with this 'consultation' to make fools of the Government. Jesus preached about defeating oppression through intelligence rather than force; what better than to use the 'consultation' to allow the Government to humiliate itself?

21 March 2012 at 16:35  
Blogger David B said...

Richard Gadston in the third post is right, I think, and it reiterates my often expressed point that secularism, including having legal marriages done by a secular authority, is the best guardian of freedom of religion.

David B

21 March 2012 at 17:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. Man’s traditional response to repressive government is rebellion. Force of arms. Fortunately, today we have referenda. The ECHR too has proved time after time it’s ready for the guillotine. It manages to turn wrong into right and right into wrong, all done without a smirk. Satan’s agent indeed, what !

When we finally leave the EU, we must also leave this organisation behind as well.

21 March 2012 at 18:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 March 2012 at 18:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Both the Catholic Church and the Church of England have canon law governing licit marriage. Rather than 'withdraw their labour', I think they should have the 'balls' to use these canons.

21 March 2012 at 18:14  
Blogger David B said...


Could they not just decide to withdraw from solemnising marriages from the legal point of view, while continuing to do so from their own point of view?

David B

21 March 2012 at 19:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

They could but this would simply corrupt the institution and devalue reationships between men and women. There can never be equivalence between hereosexuality and homosexuality and the State should not attempt to impose this.



Not a DanJ0 and a Lennie
Nor a Oswin and an Ernsty

But I fear we are we too late?

21 March 2012 at 19:35  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Rather than 'withdraw their labour', I think they should have the 'balls' to use these canons.

A minister of the church does not have an inherent right to act as an agent of the state in this matter. It is rather the state the has the right to determine the qualifications of its agents. You are demanding the right to act as an agent of the state, but only in accordance with how you think the law should be written. That is an inherently contradictory opinion.

If the state creates a new institution to replace marriage (leave aside the co-option of the name) then the church is not bound to respect that institution. Indeed, it should not cover that new institution with its legitimacy. It should seek to de-legitimize it by refusing to take countenance of it. So then how does the church instill norms of behavior in marriage when those norms are no longer backed up by law? That is the challenge we face. We are Christians living in a world reverting to paganism. We must learn to adapt without compromise.

note that there is no 'u' in labor.

21 March 2012 at 20:19  
Blogger Roy said...

Nowhere man said...

How is this different from a private business offering B&B to only married heterosexuals?

I am afraid it will fail the test. If they offer marriage to heterosexuals then they cannot refuse it to gays.

Churches do NOT refuse marriage to gays. A minister does not ask a man "are you sexually attracted to this woman?", nor does a minister ask a woman "are you sexually attracted to this man?"

Anybody can get married provided they fulfil the necessary criteria, i.e. they should be of the opposite sex, not be very close relations, such as brothers and sisters, and not already be married. In societies run by Shariah law the criterion governing already married people would be that a man should not already have 4 or more wives.

Homosexuals and lesbians are as free to marry as a single heterosexual man who has not found any woman who is eligible and who also wants to marry him. The difference is that gays are not attracted to anyone who is eligible, unless they are really bisexual.

21 March 2012 at 21:51  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

I agree with the essential point you've made. However, I doubt the government would go this far at this time, although a separation between the legal contract and the vows before God may come later.

Unless and until the two are separated, and I hope they never are, those Church's with canon governing licit Christian marriages must not compromise. Let the State take the initiative and 'sack' them.

Behaviour has a 'u' too. This is an English blog and we tolerate your colonial ways as best we can.

21 March 2012 at 21:53  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...


Please do not presume to correct Mr Carl Jacobs' spelling. This is a catholic blog, and His Grace is as tolerant of American English as he is of schizophrenic communicants with multiple personalities and diverse expressions of identity.

21 March 2012 at 22:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

There’s telling you Dodo. Wonder if Carl would appreciate a copy of the new ‘dictionary’ just brought out by Dr Johnson...

21 March 2012 at 22:41  
Blogger David B said...

I hope His Grace will forgive me for going off topic for a moment.

I'm watching a rather distressing TV programme at the moment - a programme I find distressing anyway.

I won't run the risk of being accused of spamming by posting a link to the thread I started on my discussion board on this, but I copy paste my post there, to see the reaction of the Christians here who may well think that the people I write about are a heretical cult, and perhaps hell-bound in consequence.

Under the title of 'Interesting Discovery Channel prog on people who have left the Amish' copy paste follows.

'People who still think they are going to hell, because if you are not Amish who are going to hell.

People who think they can worship the biblical god better outside.

People who are deprived of the paper work they need to get a driving licence, and have to work like buggery to get it.

A community of people who have left.

Some who go back, because there are elements of being in the cult that they miss.

I can relate to that - there was a lot I missed about my cult.

Particularly - and I can't relate to this personally, but have enough empathy to sympathise - people who are being shunned by their families and miss them.

People who have been abused, and accounts of people being shunned because they make a fuss about it,

I don't want to say that all children brought up in a religious household are abused children, though I would go as far as to say that people who are genitally mutilated for religious reasons are abused, and people brought up to believe that they are doomed to hell if they demur are abused, and that people who are abused are abused, and people who are shunned for complaining of abuse are doubly abused.

The prog sort of reinforces my judgement that those who say we should just STFU about religion, on the basis that there are some religious views which are not obviously out of touch with reality (taking evolution on board and stuff), are not harmful and can provide comfort, have not really thought through the implications of that view.

There is some really nasty stuff in religion, and the Amish leavers prog just reinforces that.

As an ex cultist myself, I've read, and been politicised by, not only web sites about fellow ex cultists from my own ex cult, but ex Mormons, ex JWs, ex-Muslims, ex-Scientologists - the list goes on.

I don't think we should STFU, but that we should be vocal about the damage that religion can and sometimes does do, and the lack of credible evidence in favour of any of it.

The Amish look cute and quaint, but for the kids brought up within that milieu it is really bad news.


Perhaps this will at least give some of the Catholics ( who I imagine will view the Amish as heretical and probably hell-bound) and other religious people here an idea of where I am coming from.

David B

21 March 2012 at 22:50  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Dr Johnson? Was he a student of Noah Webster?


Reminding everyone that Cricket is a bug.

21 March 2012 at 22:57  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

So much for just letting Quakers, Unitarians, Reform Jews and some Anglicans, Methodists and members of the URC get on with it, because no one was ever going to force it on Catholic churches (or on the Catholic Church, as such), on most Anglican churches (or on the Church of England and the Church in Wales, as such), on many or most Methodist or URC chapels, on Baptist chapels, on churches attended by the growing number of black Pentecostals or by the one sixth of the world's Greek Cypriots that lives in Britain, on Orthodox synagogues, on mosques.

Oh, yes, they are.

The only way to stop them is to retain the legal definition of marriage as only ever the union of one man and one woman.

To abolish the specific and distinct categories of husband and wife, with different rights and different responsibilities directly related to the differences between the two sexes, would be to redefine every marriage. If, unlike me, you are a married person, then that means your marriage, redefined without any reference to you and to your husband or wife.

21 March 2012 at 23:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B. You are confusing closed cults with open Christian worship, where you can take it or leave it. Easy mistake made by campaigning atheists like yourself. You can do better you know (...sure that’s not the first time the Inspector has encouraged you to do better...).

21 March 2012 at 23:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David B

Now this is humorous. Heal yourself, Physician! Before you come yapping at people like me for 'damaging' our kids, perhaps you should go convince your fellow secular co-religionists to actually have some. As it stands, I couldn't care less about criticism of my parenting skills from a world view so selfish and self-absorbed and self-centered and self-obsessed that it cannot find it within itself to reproduce.


21 March 2012 at 23:34  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

I hope you, Derek, got the message. But just in case, you might want to read the bit BEFORE the section you quoted, which affirms what others have understood from my comments.

21 March 2012 at 23:35  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 March 2012 at 23:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Bless you Mr Cranmer. I agree you are tolerant and long suffering and I thank you for it.

In my defence - carl started it!

Just by way of clarification, do you have any "schizophrenic communicants with multiple personalities and diverse expressions of identity"?

There is a difference between schizophrenia and disociative identity disorder and, in my experience, the two are rarely combined.

The poor soul would be afforded some protection under the Equality Act!

21 March 2012 at 23:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Now come on, Sir! Surely you'll not let carl get away with this?

"Cricket is a bug."

There's toleration and there's capitulation.

21 March 2012 at 23:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

David B

Are you being genuine or justlooking to score some cheap points?

As you know, I'm a Catholic I would never presume any person or cult was destined for Hell. Indeed, my faith does not hold this unqualified view.

I raised three children and, first and foremost, always stressed the love of God. Children are naturally drawn to the Jesus of the Gospels. As they grew older one would be irresponsible not to properly and sensitively inform them of the purpose of our lives here and the consequences of seperating ourselves permanently from God. In my world view, Hell is a reality and the path there is an easy one.

Whatever your experience and whatever cult you were a member of, gives you no right to accuse parents who instruct their children in the Christian faith of child abuse. In my view, not to do so is an even greater form of child neglect and abuse with eternal consequences.

22 March 2012 at 00:11  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 23:48: petaining to His Grace's censure - yes, you might well be a schizophrenic son of bitch, but in this instance you were innocent.

Further, I agree with you, Mr. Jacob is beyond the pale with his gratuitous slight upon the noble game of cricket. One day he will discover that God is indeed an Englishman, and bounces a mean yorker!

22 March 2012 at 01:51  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


We applied good old-fashioned American ingenuity, and substantially improved on the game. Among other things, we removed the five-day time limit, and the pre-planned breaks for tea.

C'mon now. Five days?


22 March 2012 at 02:56  
Blogger Paul Powers said...

It may be that my French is rusty, but I didn't see any mention of religious marriages in the judgment, which concerned a French law that prevented one woman in a civil union not being able to adopt her partner's biological child.

It would have been strange for the court to address the issue of religious marriages when from a legal point of view, there's no such animal in France.

22 March 2012 at 04:09  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Cameron is beyond parody. The country is going to the Eurodogs and all he can do is fanny around grubbing votes on issues that are worthless to all but a tiny minority.

He should be declared a national disaster. I hope the tribalist commentariat over at ConservativeHome, who were spouting all their hopey-changey, keeping his real policies close to his chest, you'll see BS prior to June 2010 are hanging their heads in shame. Probably not.

22 March 2012 at 07:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin: I am certainly not a schizophrenic son of a bitch and that is a slight on my dear mother.

Occassionally, my persona 'Dodo', the cantankerous and offensive Raphus Cucullatus who posts on here, has succumbed to "alter" personalities who controlled his behaviour. These "alters" occurred spontaneously and involuntarily, and functioned more or less independently of each other.

This dissociative identity disorder is now under control. If our host has knowledge that this is not so I would invite him to disclose this so that proper measures can be taken.

Carl Jacob is an American and it is unlikely he understands the 'game of games'. It is just not suited to the temperament of those seeking quick results in sport. They just cannot grasp that after 5 days a draw can be a 'win-win' situation as they prefer, as in all things, clear winners and losers. Furthermore, how any nation can have a national tourment and label it a 'World Series' is beyond me!

22 March 2012 at 09:20  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Carl, I would point out that you never did anything to cricket. You changed rounders, a game taught at school in the UK, but rather than being able to hit a ball with a small 1-handed bat, you Americans decided that you wanted to have a bigger bat. More like an admittance of failure than an improvement.

And don't get me started on those wimps who play what you call football. You took the great game of rugby, decided your poor bodies couldn't take the hits and so started wearing armour and then decided that only throwing backwards was too hard, so you started throwing it forwards instead!

And let's not get started on NASCAR, who follow the same race track style that F1 left decades ago!

But this is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of what the thread is about, so I wish you much brotherly love across the pond and insult your sports no more :-p

22 March 2012 at 09:42  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Dodo - World series was sponsored by The World Newspaper, hence the name. Agreed, though, that it is still highly ostentatious to call it such given that said periodical no longer exists.

22 March 2012 at 09:45  
Blogger Jason Barker said...

Quite simply, we were all pro-created from the union of a male and female. Only hetrosexuals can produce pro-creation, this being the only precedent, so therefore homosexuals have no claim to marriage or child adoption etc. Guest places and a christian registrar has every right to refuse accomodating them. Same-sex marriage runs contrary to law of nature and above all, it is in direct rebellion to God's wonderful work of creation, male and female created he them.

22 March 2012 at 10:52  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Dodo, I am curious about your other identities, Ernst? Corrigan?As long as it is not the Inspector I can cope.

As for sport. I ditched the hockey sticks a long time ago and took up 'crash tackling' instead..a more useful tool for surviving the modern world:)

Why are we discussing sport? We could be discussing pornography and its devasting influence on the young who access it with ease as part of their self sex education.

I agree it is much nicer to think of cricket in summer on a village green with cool drinks.

22 March 2012 at 12:47  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

CdN - Dodo, I don't think, posts under any other name as you suggest, but has changed his secondary name on more than a few occasions. He has always been Dodo, just not necessarily a dude!

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

cressida asked ...
"Dodo, I am curious about your other identities, Ernst? Corrigan?As long as it is not the Inspector I can cope."

My dear, do you really believe I could possibly be Ernst? You have wounded me!

This was all part of my shady, sinful past when several months ago my 'DID' was not under control. Happily, I am fully recovered (I think).

I'm sure DanJ0 and len will gladly tell you all about it but don't believe everything they say. They still think I might have a series of false identities - anyone who may have Catholic leanings and showing signs of intelligence comes under immediate suspicion. I'll leave you to decide if this rules the Inspector in or out, what!

You're not really me, are you? No, your being a fan of Oswin most probably rules you out.

It's far too glorious a day to be thinking about and discussing pornography. And a good game of cricket is so much more enjoyable and character forming too.

That's how we Catholic boys dealt with the teenage temptations of the flesh - rugby, football, hockey, cricket and the occasional long distnace run.

22 March 2012 at 13:40  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said... apologies Dodo..I've credited you with too much theatrical talent. Thought you were role playing a number of different characters...a sort of Catholic Peter Sellers/ Dr. Strangelove:)

22 March 2012 at 13:50  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 09:20 : do forgive me, I meant no disrespect to your mother; rather, please put it down to adverse transatlantic influences.

Carl @ 02:56 : naturally, we are gratified that you Americans adopted the game of 'rounders' - ah, such fond memories of watching my three elder sisters, and their schoolgirl friends, hurtling around 'summer bonnet' and 'cardi' bases. :o)

Cressida @ 12:47 : shush now, I'm trying to divert Dodo from such thoughts, with memories of more healthy pursuits. He doesn't get enough sun on his back you know.

22 March 2012 at 13:51  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Even though I am an Oswin fan,It is not impossible that I could be a nicer version of you .
I have a few Catholic leanings (forwards and backwards)

I have never known Catholic boys
so I cannot comment on their physical prowess(sporting or otherwise)

22 March 2012 at 14:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


I had my 'day in the theatrical sun', then our host dobbed me in.

Ah, your life is less fulfilled than it might otherwise have been if you had chosen a Catholic lover. To think of the time you have wasted.

Any good cricketer has an awareness of the playing field and green, patience, control, a delicate touch, concentration, hand-eye coordination, strength and determination when needed, and excels at both tactics and strategy.

The devil could never play such a game. It takes a gentleman and a scholar.

22 March 2012 at 14:22  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Don't ever underestimate the devil,Dodo.He can come in the guise of a gentleman and is almost always a brilliant scholar.

Conversely you may be less cantankerous if you had chosen a
lovely uninhibited Protestant girl.

22 March 2012 at 14:39  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Archbishop Cranmer said... @21 March 2012 22:06


Please do not presume to correct Mr Carl Jacobs' spelling. This is a catholic blog, and His Grace is as tolerant of American English as he is of schizophrenic communicants with multiple personalities and diverse expressions of identity.

Blast and Sussafrussarassafrassarickarackets.

Ernst is always away from the blog when His Grace is delivering an e3cclesiastical spanking.

As the cartoon said "Stop That Dodo"!)

Ernsty Mutley you snickering floppy
eared hound
when courage is needed, you're
neer around.
Those medals you wear on
your moth-eaten chest
should be there for sniggering
at which you are best.

So stop the Dodo!


nab him
jab him
tab him
grab him
stop that Dodo now!

You, silly, stop sneaking it's not
worth the chance
for you'll be returned to the care home by the seat of your pants
and Len, you invent me a
that catches that Dodo or
I lose my Blog!

Ernsty: "yeah yeah yeah yeah",

Ernst 'Wheezing laughter heeeheeeheeeheeheee!' Blofeld

22 March 2012 at 14:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Would you be surprised to learn that my wife is not a Catholic? In fact, she is not even a Baptised Christian!

Our good host was being mischievious, keeping this particular flame burning and yesterday of all days; schizophrenic communicants with multiple personalities and diverse expressions of identity.,indeed!

22 March 2012 at 15:17  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: er no, I don't think he was joking.

22 March 2012 at 16:37  
Blogger Oswin said...

Cressida @ 14:05 : oh, you are a sweety! I would not be at all surprised if you were a ''nicer version'' of moi; indeed I truly hope that you are!

As for R.C. boys, don't let Dodo colour your judgement, he's not at all typical.

As you say, the Devil is frequently a gentleman: he seldom goes where he has not first been invited. Mind you, I'll not be inviting Doddo anywhere soon; so there's hope for him yet, by that measure.

Dodo @ 15:17 : your wife is not a Romam Catholic? Does this go some way to explain your presence here? Does she have you incarcerated in the garden shed; tidily tucked away perhaps?

My sincere regards to Mrs. Dodo.

22 March 2012 at 17:05  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Oswin explained, in plain english to said bird, what a ABC yellow card is!

"Dodo: er no, I don't think he was joking."

*Huge Titters*

Ernst believes the bird sees it as a commendation and the swinging ecclesiastical cane a mere conductors baton, with His Grace demanding more from said reckless bird, molto fortissimo .

Dodo, sweet clueless dickie, Ermm, When His Grace is giving out an ACBO (Archbishop o' Canterbury Behavioural Order) this does not come with 3 gold stars, a smiley face sticker and a few mini sweeties stuck in your likkle school bag, to take home to show mommy!

Bottom of the class for you dickie and wearing a mitre with D (daft, dunce, dopey.. you choose) on it too.

Ernst 'some mother hens really do 'ave em' Blofeld

22 March 2012 at 17:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say Cressida, put a chap down, why don’t you. The Inspector is somewhat disappointed he has come across to you in a way that irritates, but asks that you believe him that he is sincere. He’s rather attached to the old ways, when everyone knew their place and didn’t make of damn nuisance of themselves. Compare that to how we are today. There is some merit in his ideas, don’t you think…

It’s all for God, Queen and Empire, don’t you know…

22 March 2012 at 18:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oswin: "As for R.C. boys, don't let Dodo colour your judgement, he's not at all typical."

I really need to meet some more RCs as the duo/trio here are thoroughly radicalising me against the Catholic Church.

22 March 2012 at 18:35  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Cressida de Nova said...

" Dodo, I am curious about your other identities, Ernst? Corrigan?As long as it is not the Inspector I can cope."

Madam, how very dare you.

Ernst 'the most definitely NOT Roman Catholic'' Blofeld.

22 March 2012 at 19:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Now somebody appears to have misunderstood some of the earlier the comments.

Dodo to cressida: You're not really me, are you? No, your being a fan of Oswin most probably rules you out.

Cressida to Dodo: Even though I am an Oswin fan, It is not impossible that I could be a nicer version of you.

Oswin to cressida: oh, you are a sweety! I would not be at all surprised if you were a ''nicer version'' of moi; indeed I truly hope that you are!

You do realise Oswin you could be exchanging sweet talk with Dodo! Yuk!!!

Ernst and DanJ0
If that was a dressing down by Mr Cranmer then it was tame in comparison with his past corrections of me. I thought there was dry humour behind it - rather like an impatient Head Master addressing an unruly pupil.

He expressed tolerance towards
schizophrenic communicants with multiple personalities and diverse expressions of identity. Unlike others on here. I thought it very funny and a great improvement on my title as His Grace's the most tedious communicant.

The Polynominal Dude Rules!

22 March 2012 at 19:13  
Blogger len said...

I think 'the Dodo' is like that slightly unhinged man with the ventriloquists dummy(the Inspector) which Dodo works with his hand somewhere up the rear.

When under pressure and the 'heavy artillery( namely a huge howitzer named 'Albert')is not on the scene Dodo breaks out into 'other Catholics to give himself support.

Albert has left the scene of battle presumably searching for more 'ammo' and will return when his stocks are replenished.

22 March 2012 at 19:24  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Just to remind you of some earlier observation of cressida - "very immature" and "something wrong with him".

And just to drive the point home, she commented today when it pained me she might think I was you:

"Thought you were role playing a number of different characters...a sort of Catholic Peter Sellers/ Dr. Strangelove:)" and this was probably a refereence to you as a potential ID alter-ego.

So sleep easy, old chap. No one could mistake you for a Catholic.

22 March 2012 at 19:36  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


"You do realise Oswin you could be exchanging sweet talk with Dodo! Yuk!!!

It's like that shower scene from The Crying Game (game as in FOWL).!



"So sleep easy, old chap. No one could mistake you for a Catholic." or of Cressida being you ??? nattering away happily to yourself on the blog?

""very immature" and "something wrong with him"." A sub conscious 'Self Examination' perhap, rising to the surface through a pile of bird droppings???


22 March 2012 at 19:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

How's the speech to your local mosque coming on? I hope you're better versed in your new found religion than your former one.

Albert has given up blogging for Lent. Do pay attention. As for 'little Catholics' to lend support, well, they are completely unnecessary so far as you are concerned.

And please don't make homoerotic comments. You're just putting sinful thoughts in the mind of DanJ0 and encouraging any such predilection you have yourself!

22 March 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Just citing some objective comments from a recent visitor to the blog who was responding to your, let's say, more eccentric and peculiar posts.

22 March 2012 at 20:38  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Yes it does surprise me Dodo, that a person so consumed by Catholicism
would even consider not marrying a Catholic let alone someone non Christian.

You are indeed an interesting old Doddles with probably a more progressive tolerant side which you do not make visible on this blog.You know, if you cultivated a more Oswin like character you might get to sleep in the house more often:)
This site would be dull without your presence. I am sure His Grace would miss you even though he would probably never admit to this.

22 March 2012 at 22:14  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Why bless you.

Please don't weaken my image or predominant "alter", the fierce and unreasonable defender of the faith who takes no prisoners. These protestants need a good shaking and need to stop misrepresenting the Catholic Church!

As for our host, for me silence is wise course here. He nearly kicked me off a little while ago!

22 March 2012 at 22:40  
Blogger Oswin said...

Cor, you've gone and done it now Cressida, he'll be sharpening his stiletto and donning his cowl!

Bat-like he'll flit between the columns and pillars...sniffing-out the Boleyn girl!

22 March 2012 at 22:50  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Come now, you're supposed to be my role model!

22 March 2012 at 22:58  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

OK chaps,time to go..the testosterone is seeping through the text.See you tomorrow.

22 March 2012 at 23:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I see Dodo's homophobia is seeping through too.

23 March 2012 at 02:46  
Blogger Ivan said...

There is nothing abnormal about disgust over slobbering on a dick that has put in the anus. So basic hygiene is a phobia now?

23 March 2012 at 06:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

*ticks the box for focusing about the detail*

Yep, it's almost a guarantee. :)

23 March 2012 at 17:33  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

So who is Dodo married to- a gay? Muslim? Jew? Protestant? Atheist? I find it strange that a man who so happily - and with such a zelot spirit- and who swims in the Roman Catholic ocean is not married to a partner of the same... It makes no sense at all!

23 March 2012 at 21:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


I married a wonderful woman whom God intended me to marry. We exchanged our vows some 33 years ago before God, friends and a Catholic priest. You have no need of further information.

23 March 2012 at 21:44  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@Dodo "You have no need of further information".

Of course not! I couldn't care less what you married! However I am suprised given YOUR stance on your faith and Catholic Dogma- I would have thought that your wife- due to your own beliefs should be a Catholic ?? I understood that Catholics said that there is no salvation outside of your Church? So you believe, by your own doctrine, that this "wonderful woman" is destined not for heaven?

If not are you not a hypocrite and therefore justify everything LEN and DANJO say you ARE?

Please advise this confused ET?

23 March 2012 at 22:53  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

PS, if it helps, I confess, I'm married to a human (!). An American no less...

23 March 2012 at 23:06  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

My wife is really a time traveller from a distant galaxy.

The Catholic Church is not as rigid as protestants about the process of salvation; neither is it as dogmatic on it as they like to present us.

"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin."
(Pope Pius IX)

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation"
(Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16).

I don't impose my faith on my wife. All our children were raised as Catholics. She comes along to significant services. Who knows what God intends for her? She has moved from aethism to agnosism since we've been together.

Besides, I'm holding out for a 'Baptism of Desire' before she passes safely into God's Hands.

How can you be sure your American wife is a human?

24 March 2012 at 00:07  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...


Thank you for the clarity- It is nice to get a straight answer around here!

My ship had already confirmed that there may be fellow time travellers here on Earth- and this confirms it!

How do I know that my wife is American? Technically, I do not. However she is from the planet liberty; and ethnic- American world settled during the human dispora of the twenty first century. One of of a hundred wifes (and an additional 1200 concubines!).

24 March 2012 at 00:17  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

"Baptism of Desire"
A beautiful phrase that I will use.

God will surely give your wife a dress circle seat in the heavenly theatre for her fortitude and tolerance in being married to a strict Catholic for such a long period of time. She must really like you,either that, or you are very rich:)

I admire those few authentic people who do not convert for convenience and resist pressure from the family circle. So many women succumb, They have no real affinity to the faith (I am referring to Judaism also)

Strangely enough I wrote about this issue on my blog only a few days ago.
Hmmm...the little green men are at work again.

24 March 2012 at 01:26  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

the above comment is for Dodo

24 March 2012 at 01:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


She loves me! It was love at first sight too for both of us 35 years ago. Fate. "Whom God has joined together ..." I am a secret romantic - but keep that to yourself, please. It would ruin my image if it became public knowledge. As you cn imagine, she has enormous patience and tolerance.

What's your new picture? I see you've abandoned the black rose.

24 March 2012 at 01:40  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

My new avatar is a pic of Cressida attempting to restrain a crazed Dodo.

24 March 2012 at 02:51  
Blogger Ivan said...

Oh look the fairies are out. Sorry I am late my little friends. Where are Cloaca Maximus and Penile Implant?

24 March 2012 at 06:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


No need to restrain a crazed Dodo, for you, and just you, I'm just an old Doddles!

24 March 2012 at 11:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Given the number of wives and concubines you claim, I'm surprised you have the time or the energy for anything else, let alone work! What is the secret of this boundless energy - 5 portions of fruit and veg a day? A high protein diet?

24 March 2012 at 11:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...
I see Dodo's homophobia is seeping through too.

Let's deal with this constant attack. You really need to lighten up.

My wife eats yogurt in the morning. The smell and look of it physically repulses me. Am I a 'yogurtphobe' because of this? Do I hate my wife because of her eating habits? Certainly, I cannot kiss her until she has brushed her teeth.

From my professional knowledge, and it may shock some people, the more extreme acts regarded as exclusively homosexual are engaged in by some heterosexual couples.

Anal sex, between both heterosexual partners, is a not new discovery and neither is the use of artificial aids and dildos. I regard these acts as disordered and unnatural, but I do not hate or fear the person engaging in them. What 'disgusts' me is human 'rutting' in general, not specific acts in particular, where sexual gratification is the objective. When people descend to this they are no better than animals in the fields.

Maybe I'm a 'sexophobe' because I disapprove of properly ordered intimate acts that take place outside of marriage for the purposes of expressing human love, both eros and agape, and for the transmission of life.

'Homophobe' - no!

24 March 2012 at 13:24  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Or as Siddhartha Gautam might have said:

This demon is your own creation. Search out when you first created him.

24 March 2012 at 13:27  
Blogger Oswin said...

Cressida @ 02:51 : Top find! I'd quite forgotten that old 'Alice' illustration. Dodo will be genuinely chuffed!

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

"Everybody has won and all must have prizes."

True in some matters, not in others!

24 March 2012 at 17:01  
Blogger Oswin said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 March 2012 at 17:31  
Blogger Oswin said...

Hm, an augmented 'Dodo bird verdict' eh?

24 March 2012 at 17:34  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Most certainly.

As you know, we Catholic's use reason to clarify obscure points lest they be misunderstood and misapplied!

24 March 2012 at 17:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "'Homophobe' - no!"

Yes, your behaviour here is riddled with it. However, as I have said many times, you have almost no self-awareness generally so I don't really expect you to recognise it. Lest you try to deflect this in your usual fashion, I am not saying that religious belief about homosexuality implies homophobia at all. I'm not saying that a visceral revulsion of the act is homophobia either, though technically I suppose it might be in one sense of the word. I experience that myself at times. I'm equating your homophobia to that of racism, in the popular usage of the word. Hope that's clear.

24 March 2012 at 18:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Right, let see if the Inspector has this right. The formula is

Anti Gay Marriage + non acceptance of the promotion of the validity of the homosexual lifestyle = Homophobic

square root of tolerance

24 March 2012 at 18:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

And you have evidence for this alleged homphobia? Or is it just the way you're made to feel?

Maybe I just don't like you and your constant whinging! Ever thought of that?

24 March 2012 at 19:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "And you have evidence for this alleged homphobia?"

Lol. "Oh where is the sea, the fish cried, as they swam the clearness through"

24 March 2012 at 20:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Maybe I just don't like you and your constant whinging! Ever thought of that?"

Me ... and any other gay people. Perhaps apart from the reference 'gay friend' your sort of person always has when called up on it.

24 March 2012 at 20:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

No evidence then. Just prejudice on your part.

Are you a closet heterophobe?

24 March 2012 at 20:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Where Is God?

" Oh, where is the sea? " the fishes cried,
As they swam the crystal clearness through;

" We've heard from of old of the ocean's tide,
And we long to look on the water's blue.

The wise ones speak of the infinite sea.
Oh, who can tell us if such there be? "

The lark flew up in the morning bright,
And sang and balanced on sunny wings;

And this was its song: " I see the light,
I look o'er a world of beautiful things;

But, flying and singing everywhere,
In vain I have searched to find the air."


24 March 2012 at 21:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "No evidence then. Just prejudice on your part."

The evidence is the bulk of your comments here involving homosexuality. Christ on a bike, you simply don't see it do you? Bizarre.

I hope you liked the stanza. I once quoted that to a vicar inclined to End Times rhetoric who couldn't see the beauty in the world anymore.

24 March 2012 at 22:31  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I'll not give in
Will continue my search
I know where God really is

In a fugue or a smile
In the corner of an eye
Hardly ever spotted in a Church

Doddles is looking all the time
but always in the wrong place
His eyes strained scanning
the clouds in the sky
It's not up there in space

There's an Oswin in that Dodo bird
Strapped in hard and tight
Cressida is going to drag him out
And hopefully not with a fight

24 March 2012 at 23:00  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

There's a time and a place for all things. Remember I'm a 'Dude' as well as a 'Dodo'.

The New Vainglory
Two men went up to pray; and one gave thanks,
Not with himself - aloud;
With proclamation, calling on the ranks
Of an attentive crowd.

"Thank God, I clap not my own humble breast,
But other ruffians' backs;
Imputing crime - such is my tolerant haste -
To any man that lacks.

"For I am tolerant, generous, keep no rules,
And the age honors me,
Thank God, I am not as these rigid fools,
Even as this Pharisee."
(Alice Meynell)

24 March 2012 at 23:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


The enduring and defining quality of a Dodo is that he does not change. He's not extinct, really, but he chooses not to adapt to the modern world. He believes he was created to live in a certain way and that's the way he will live.

A Dude has a 'rebel's shrug' to life. He takes the view that life is complicated and nobody knows what to do about it all, so decides not to do anything about it. He takes it easy and kicks back with his friends, does his best to be true to himself and others – he simply abides.

The key to handling the tension inherent in this combination is knowing when to express one's 'Dodoism' and one's 'Dudeism'.

So you see, you'll be fighting the 'Dodo' and all the time the 'Dude' will resist!

25 March 2012 at 00:26  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

'If the age honors thee
you are only of the herd
Popularity is perilous
to the truth and the light'

There is little understanding
of true generosity
Love delivered quietly without
the clanging of bells and trumpet voluntary

Tolerance is mistaken for insouciance
Rules are essential and on rare occasions should be made flexible
Not always iron rods to bludgeon
les miserables into submission

Christianity is not a wet rag
to be ministered by milk sops
blurring its edges to fit a canvas
of expediency

It is a warrior clear and defined
It is a warrior that does take prisoners,and sometimes by the scruff of a neck

Cressida does have a strong conservative component
but is not completely inflexible
harnessed by the chains of dogma

She is vain but not part of
The NewVain Glory team
of which I suspect you think she is a member

Au contraire
her opposition to it
has earned her many personal attacks on herself and her family
Her outspokeness against populist thought has proved threatening
and distubing to many
(mainly repressed American poets)
I am not biased.
(OK, maybe just a little bit!)

25 March 2012 at 02:30  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I like Dodo better than Dude
(if he were only just two shades lighter!)

25 March 2012 at 02:35  
Blogger Oswin said...

I say chaps, that a tad rich : ''there's an Oswin in that Dodo bird...'' - I mean, well really, perish the thought and all that. Larking aside, we can't have that sort of thing bandied about on the everlasting airways net thingy.

I hereby wholly disassociate myself from any, all, or assumed notions, of being Dodo's role-model. I don't want the job; really, I don't!

25 March 2012 at 15:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

That's the thing, two shades lighter and I'd be an Anglican and that just would not do - never!

I don't think you indifferent at all; and neither am I heartless when it comes to suffering in this life. The Catholicism I follow is not seeking social control of the poor or oppressed or trying to make their lives more difficult, though I do acknowledge it is they who suffer most because they take the Church's teachings to heart. And just where and how should 'flexibility' be applied? What "special circumstances" warrant compromise with God's will as understood by the Church?

I just cannot get past the foundation of Catholic moral reasoning - that an inherently evil or disordered act (defined as opposed to God's revealed will for us and our greater good) can ever be justified by the end it seeks to accomplish. And it is this that lies at the centre of the Church's position on the 'modern' controversies of abortion, divorce, contraception and homosexuality. The 'rules', it's teachings, simply reflect this.

Maybe I could be kinder and more patient in explaining this. However, this blog is not the place when faced with biblical fundamentalists who challenge the authority and integrity of the Church, and those atheist homosexuals and sexual libertines who deny Divine will and want to do as they please!

Ant the one thing to remember about the Catholic Church is that it understands the human situation and readily forgives and loving re-embraces those who succumb to temptation. What it will never do is permit compromise with sin and evil.

25 March 2012 at 16:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "However, this blog is not the place when faced with biblical fundamentalists who challenge the authority and integrity of the Church, and those atheist homosexuals and sexual libertines who deny Divine will and want to do as they please!"

If I am one or more of the last two then it's certainly not to do as I please. We live in a society and we are justifiably limited by the rights of others and by our duties as citizens.

I'm a liberal. We think the decisions about what is best for the individual ought to be made by individuals themselves as a matter of course.

This is why I dislike the Catholic Church so much. It infantilises the individual and puts the power in the hands of an organisation, run by fanatical men, which thinks it knows best.

The reason why liberals value diversity is because we are not arrogant enough to think we know the right answer for everything, now and for the future.

The Taleban thinks it knows best for society and individuals and thinks its interpretation of divine will is correct too. Of course both you and I think they're very, very wrong. By the same measure, I think your Church and you are wrong.

25 March 2012 at 17:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The difference between us is that as a liberal I am willing to make and defend space in our shared society so that you can follow your own beliefs as you wish, provided they don't significantly harm others. I don't think you would accord us the same thing, if you had the power to decide one way or the other.

25 March 2012 at 17:57  
Blogger Oswin said...

God forbid Dodo ever having the power to decide anything; else the fires would be burning again, throughout the land!

25 March 2012 at 19:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

The Catholic Church, far from infantilising people, asks the individual to act morally and to thoroughly consider the personal and community consequences of supposedly 'private' and 'unharmful' behaviour.

Choose between the different faith systems rather than dismiss them all as fanatics. Liberalism has no foundation but the fleeting ideas and fashions of men.

Nah, think of the cost of the fuel and the carbon emmissions!

25 March 2012 at 19:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Liberalism has no foundation but the fleeting ideas and fashions of men."

Christianity has no foundation either, just like Islam or Hinduism. It's okay though, we liberals don't mind. You can even believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden if you like.

25 March 2012 at 22:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


I would say some 4000 years of Judaic and Christian writing and thinking, backed by Greek philosophy, is a pretty solid foundation. Especially when compared with a school of thought barely 150 years old and already looking like its run its course.

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


Finally you have admitted that middle class Catholics do not take their religion as seriously as do the uneducated poor.
"they suffer the most as they take the teachings to heart."This hypocrisy and dishonesty is very depressing and should be addressed .It is unfair.

The flexibility issue can never be addressed because The Church can never make a mistake on important issues. The Holy Spirit is supposed to have been present in the decision making.To backtrack on this would mean the whole Chuch would fall apart.

Sorry, but there are similarities between Islam and Catholicism in the hard line inflexible application of the religion.No one of intellect could ever think that any organisation with human involvement could never make a mistake on very important matters.
Using the Holy Spirit as guidance factor is too convenient to set everything in stone.It's all too glib.It makes it a pointless exercise to discuss or argue on these matters if you believe this.

The Church cannot readily forgive.
This is my favourite things about self delusion.If you do not have the resolute intention of not committing the same offense again you will never be forgiven e.g.
how can that mother of the nine year old and the doctors ever be reinstated and forgiven if they would do the same again if confronted with the same situation.
And they would.
Answer...They cannot.

Catholicism encourages (probably unintentionally)authentic behaviour
(people of high moral principle)
and probably loses its finest because of it.There are a lot of ex Catholics in prominent positions, particularly as supporters of human rights.

Now you are going to lump me in with all the Catholic haters on this blog. I am not. On a personal level, the Catholics I have met, and I only this find this out after a period of time (because I never am interested in a person's religion)do seem to have an extra gene of the intrinsic compassion component or something that sets them apart.

It is a pity that this original Christian institution has become a juggernaut of economic power with all the politics involved. It has become too big,unwieldy and I can only see Christ in it in 'the hands on' section.

It must be perplexing to be a practising catholic of intellect. I should imagine there is a lot of turmoil involved and not a lot of peace.For what it's worth I don't think the Protestant break provided an effective solution. The opportunity was there but it didn't work.

on the Outside
making observations

25 March 2012 at 22:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Wow – you really do want a ‘fight’!

I have never claimed all ‘Catholic’ live according to the teachings of the Church. I witness this in the declining numbers attending Mass on Sunday and in the numbers who attend but do not participate in the Eucharist. If people received Communion whilst knowingly in a state of grievous sin, this would most certainly be beyond hypocrisy. Similarly, those who said one thing in public and did another thing in private would be hypocrites - including priests, bishops and popes.

Those who faithfully follow the Church’s teachings may experience greater hardship in life. Is this "unfair"? I see it as following the path Christ has asked us to follow. His death on the Cross was “not fair”, yet He freely accepted the Chalice His Father placed before Him.

The “flexibility issue” comes down to whether the Church’s teachings are based on sound theology and the application of reason.

Have you ever read any of the Encyclicals explaining the Church’s teachings? They are humane and sympathetic documents and go to great lengths to explain their teachings. And the Church does believe it has the Holy Spirit guiding it but does not act recklessly because of th promise it received.

Plenty of fine intellects believe in the Holy Spirit! The Church makes mistakes – just look at its history! It has human failings but in matters of dogma and doctrine, necessary for leading people to God, I, and far greater minds than mine, believe it cannot err. If a discussion is aimed at changing my mind on this then, yes, it would be pointless unless you were also willing to be ready to change your mind.

The Church is always ready to forgive – where there is genuine remorse. A “firm purpose of amendment” is a commitment to detach oneself from sin, not a promise never to sin again if placed in a situation of temptation. It’s recognising one has offended God and a commitment to do one’s best to free oneself from future sin. You couldn’t go to Confession and ask to be forgiven for having a mistress and committing adultery if you intended to see her again that afternoon!

Can you really see into the hearts and minds of the people caught in the situation you have referred to? I am no priest but faced with remorse, asking for understanding and forgiveness, I doubt I would ask this mother if she would do the same thing again. The professionals involved would I think, be a different matter.

I most certainly do not see you as a Catholic hater; the very opposite in fact. A woman of compassion, integrity and intelligence struggling with the insanity, pain and suffering of this world and, for me, the false idea that such suffering could be alleviated if the Church put its principles to one side and was willing to countenance the odd exception to following what it understands to be the will of God.

And if I agreed with you that the Church should make the odd exception, what sort of Catholic would I be - really?

26 March 2012 at 00:38  
Blogger Oswin said...

I sometimes wish Dodo was a Trappist.

DanJo @ 22:02 :

''Christianity has no foundation either, just like Islam or Hinduism'' - tut tut. Dodo is right on that one, even moreso than he delineates.

I'm not terribly conversant re' the origins of Hinduism, but you are correct in saying that Islam has no provenance whatsoever, beyond the imagination of Mohammed and his scribe, that is.

26 March 2012 at 01:24  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...


No it's not the fight I want and it would be easier to play harder ball if I did not like you...I want clarity. And you have provided that.There are many questions about Catholicism for which I have wanted answers for years but knew no one to ask. The Catholics I know do not know as much as I do.I'm not telling them either. They are happy as they are in their ignorance.So again thank you for taking the time.

Just a couple of points..You have misunderstood me about the Holy Spirit. I am not saying the Holy Spirit does not exist.I am open minded to some things I do not understand. It is 'the cannot err'
concept that I cannot accept about dogma.Look, it is possible that most of it is correct but there is always that slip up.Only God cannot err.The Holy Spirit cannot err. But humans are fantastic at erring at everything.I know you can never change your view on this.And your whole life would be turned upside down if you were proven wrong, which would give me no pleasure.

I had a Russian student who grew up in the time of Stalin and she explained to me how devastating it was to them all when they found out the truth about him. I never forget her face (she was shattered)when relating the story and I have never thought of her since then, except for now,communicating with you.

I don't want you to agree with me..even though it would make you a fantastic, semi, almost, non Catholic.(You have to be 5 shades lighter to be an Anglican, not 2 silly!) We could always grab a few real Bishops and start again. I'll do all the dirty work and you can just pray:)
I have not read encyclicals.I'm only prepared to read them if they are written in verse:)

26 March 2012 at 02:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "I would say some 4000 years of Judaic and Christian writing and thinking, backed by Greek philosophy, is a pretty solid foundation."

No, it has no foundation whatsoever. Or rather, it has the same foundation that other theistic religions have: essentially the wishful thinking of men. What you have is a successful meme, to be crude about it. The foundation you claim is just some social history, like the now defunct 'divine right' of kings.

Liberalism is just a political theory. It's about social organisation and the relationship between individuals and the state, and between individuals themselves. Other than the values which allow the structure to stand, the content of beliefs is neither here nor there. The two things are not similar.

26 March 2012 at 07:11  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

If you really cannot detect a difference between the origins of Christianity compared to Islam and Hinduism, and the consequences on society of these faith systems, then you are a dullard.

A Trappist I will never be.

The origins of Hinduism are interesting and worth researching.

26 March 2012 at 18:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

If I became 5 shades lighter there would be nothing of me left!

There is a website I can recommend where quetions about Catholicism can be posted and will be answered. You can register, ask anything you want and will get a wide range of responses from people far better qualified I am to answer some of the tricky points you raise. Some are senior priests too and are really very good. Just Google 'Catholc Answers Forum' or follow this link -

I base what I say about the Holy Spirit on Scripture. Much disputed, I know with my protestant bretheran. If Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide the Church, then that's good enough for me. As for being "proven wrong", well, in matters of faith, what "proof" could you present? It would come down to a long and tortuous debate about the meaning of certain words in the Bible and a debate on the validity of 'sola scriptura' and you will know my views on this.

Bit cheeky of you comparing me to a Russian who realised she had been lied to by Stalinism!

If one day I am ever elected Pope, I'll appoint you as a special Vatican adviser and you can grill all future Bishops and Cardinals before they are appointed. You can also begin translating the Encylicals into prose. That will keep you busy and answer all your questions too!

26 March 2012 at 19:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "If you really cannot detect a difference between the origins of Christianity compared to Islam and Hinduism, and the consequences on society of these faith systems, then you are a dullard."

Dodo, if you can't follow the actual argument here like it appears then you're most definitely a dullard. I can think of a number of other words beginning with D too.

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

Falling back on abuse when all else fails?

You continually link all faiths as equally deficient. They are not. A brief comparison of their origins and intellectual deveopment will demonstrate this. And, notwithstanding the many historical faults of Christianity, no one can seriously question its positive effect on the world.

There is far more substance to it than your daft contention that it is founded on the "wishful thinking of men."

26 March 2012 at 21:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Falling back on abuse when all else fails?"

I see you're having one of those complete lack of self-awareness moments again. It's like you're absolved of anything you've written even if it's just minutes ago. Do you have an iPriest app which absolves you immediately when you tap the screen so that you can always move forward without a backwards or sideways glance? Who wrote 'dullard' first? Oh nevermind.

"You continually link all faiths as equally deficient. They are not."

They are all essentially groundless and unfounded. They rely on mere faith in the absence of compelling evidence. You accept an enormous inverted pyramid of detail and doctrine which rests on a mere point. And why? Because of where and to whom you were born. If you were born in Saudi Arabia then you'd almost certainly be a Muslim, a very judgemental one at that given your nature.

26 March 2012 at 22:21  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ah, but I wasn't born in Saudie Arabia. God could have chosen to place me there. He didn't. If He had, how do you know I wouldn't have been a Christian? A rebel against Islam.

You are confusing judgementalism with conviction.

Do you have a magic orb? One that enables you to see alternate realities?

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

There once was a man called Dodo
Whose faith some considered a ‘No no’
He knew they were wrong
That they sang the wrong song
Did any come around – let’s hope so.

26 March 2012 at 23:49  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

See, my theory DanJ0 is that God puts a person where He wants Him. His allows his character to form in the way He foresaw and allows him to do what he does.

Maybe I am judgemental. I think in some other place and time I might not be. Who knows?

I agree I am 'judgemental' about your lifestyle. And nasty too, I admit. Why? Let's face it, you can be a smug little twit at times. I believe your conscience has become so befuddled with all the liberal nonsense you've been exposed to. You're seeking affirmation of these ideas by inviting 'homophobic' criticism. The nastier the better because it proves you're right. It "radicalises" you.

Maybe I will be nice towards you from now on. Or,maybe not.

27 March 2012 at 00:25  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Cressida has a magic orb
sees Dodo has been fishin'
watch out for crabs o curious one
their claws are good for nippin'

I think you should be nice to Danjo
for the following reasons

1. He is marginalised through no fault of his own

2. He has the might of four major religions against him.

3.He is forced to become an atheist (understandably)

4. He can only become a Bishop if he joins the C of E

5.Men say disgusting things about him on this blog

If the larger community were more inclusive of homosexuality there would not be a need for this desperation on their part to try to belong by getting married and having children.A dear homosexual friend of mine who is now deceased said he found it alarming that the younger gays have become so insular and have set themselves apart from heterosexual society which was not the case in his day.
Why is that Danjo?

27 March 2012 at 00:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

O' wise and mysterious crabbed one, it's in my nature to fish. And the adventure is worth the risk of an occasional nip.
It's good to see a verse from you that rhymes too ;o)

I see you're back to the your Black Rose (it still looks like a cat).

Good points about DanJ0. Let me tell you, one or two of the women on here are pretty fierce towards him too.

The kindest person towards him has been Albert ('Father Christmas') who has given up blogging for Lent. What did he get in return? DanJ0 accussed him of stalking him!

27 March 2012 at 01:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "If He had, how do you know I wouldn't have been a Christian? A rebel against Islam."

Because you're a drone.

27 March 2012 at 05:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cressida: "Why is that Danjo?"

I have no idea. He was your friend, did you not think to ask him? It's a really strange view. The reality is that homosexuals lived in fear not that long ago. They faced prison, blackmail, the end of their careers, social disgrace, and so on if they acted on their natures and were caught. They had to be seen to adhere to social expectations, such as getting married, in order to hide. It was a disgusting situation. A social evil, even. Of course it still exists today in the UK in some subcultures. You may have heard speculations about the South Africa honeymoon murder case. I actually think the seedy side of some homosexual culture and the apartness has been produced by this sort of social attitude. However, I think it is changing ... and rapidly. A social good. Young people are growing up confident in their sexuality, no doubt helped by social media, the internet, TV storylines, and so on. And so they should.

27 March 2012 at 06:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cressida: "3.He is forced to become an atheist (understandably)"

No, I am naturally sceptical and deconstructionist. My atheism was probably inevitable. Some people are naturally gullible too. Their Catholicism in Ireland (or their Islamism if they come from other parts of the world) is probably inevitable too.

27 March 2012 at 06:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "The kindest person towards him has been Albert ('Father Christmas') who has given up blogging for Lent."

You really don't see what actually drives the man, do you? He gives me the bloody creeps. Even now, knowing my reactions to him and all the things I've said, he has 'conversations' with me in which I don't actually take part. Proper creepy. Alarm bells ringing stuff if you know anything about the subject. You seem to take a delight in making it worse, which is rather telling about you too, I think.

27 March 2012 at 06:32  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

My friend would be about 65 now so he probably was of that time but I think because he was in the Arts it was a little different. In those professions no one is bothered by homosexuality.It has always been part of the scene and I have never really been exposed to homosexuality( apart from my hairdresser,) on any other level.

K liked being part of heterosexual life joining in dinner parties, family celebrations,
etc being part of a family I suppose.He was wonderful company and our lives were enriched by his presence.I think he was saying that younger gays were not doing that.

Maybe Gays now do not need or like the company of straight people
and prefer their own company.Maybe they are shunned and not made to feel welcome...I don'know, but you might.

I can only speak based on my own personal experience and my friend K was a kind talented and civilised man.I find it laughable that some communicants on this site think that most homosexuals are sex crazed beasts up to fifty times a day.The only child molester I have personally known of was a married man with two children who went to Church every Sunday.

I hope you find God someday,not to commune with a religion necessarily but to give you comfort and strength in the future
during those times when you may find yourself alone.

You may need God one can't count on humans...they're very disappointing!:)

I know ,that you know, that there is a reason that certain people on this blog are being most offensive to you. If you think about it they are in an unbearable situation, constantly tormented by not being able to face the truth about themselves.

27 March 2012 at 09:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cressida, I'd rather we all discussed politics and religion nicely and politely but I'm not really bothered by the insults and wrestling. We're anonymous so it's divorced from real life where such things actually matter.

I seem to have a different experience from your friend but I'm what we call non-Scene. It's probably very different in London, Manchester, and Brighton which cater to the sub-culture but I'm completely integrated into the mainstream myself. I've no doubt some people realise I'm gay as I don't have any history of girlfriends but I'm not camp or overt about it.

The younger people I see around don't seem that bothered on the whole either by being openly gay or being around gay people in their peer group. Women in particular are very comfortable with it.

An online friend of mine started university last year in North Wales and is openly gay there. He seems to have a good circle of friends of both sexes and has a boyfriend he met there in freshers week. His sexuality is simply not remarkable, whch is as it should be.

27 March 2012 at 12:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


What a cheek calling me a "drone"! You really know very little about me, my experiences or how I come to be where I am today. Gullible I'm not and I'm most certainly not a conformist.

See, I've read the interchanges between you and Albert and never detected what you're suggesting. A patient and well mannered persistance is what I saw in the face of your intrangience.

27 March 2012 at 18:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "See, I've read the interchanges between you and Albert and never detected what you're suggesting."

Oh lordy.

27 March 2012 at 19:56  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Thought you said you were not camp? "Oh lordly"! Please.

27 March 2012 at 23:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Incidentally, if you think we have 'interpersonal difficulties' then you may like to recall when it actually started. I warned you off then and you choose to ignore everything I said in favour of teaming up unnecessarily with a fellow Catholic in a rather serious situation. The incident was when your 'Father Christmas' was giving me what can best be called skin-crawling heeby jeebies. Of course, it was only just becoming apparent to me what was really going on with him 'under the bonnet' at that point. In some sense, everything else with you is an unintended consequence of that. Funny how things turn out, etc.

28 March 2012 at 07:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

What thread was it and when? I still think you have misunderstood but am willing to conceded I may have done to.

28 March 2012 at 11:31  
Blogger Jordan said...


"let us be thankful for this ruling against the two lesbians who brought this vexatious case."

Actually, let's not.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the circumstances, but this case was brought in the best interests of a child. Succinctly: Mme Dubois has a girl of 11 years old whom she has been raising with Mme Gas, and whom Mme Gas wishes to adopt. In France, partners in a civil union are not allowed to adopt jointly—only married couples are permitted to adopt. In other words, if something were to happen to Mme Dubois, the girl's other mother will not be recognised as her parent.

I suspect that, were it not for this, Mmes Gas et Dubois would not have raised a fuss. Instead, they have been engaged in a protracted battle to safeguard their child since 2006. Anyone with an ounce of sympathy must be able to see in this thever human story here, the desperation of two parents acting in the best interests of their child.

Regardless of your position on the legitimacy of gay marriage, Mmes Dubois et Gas and their daughter are a family. I submit that I find it incomprehensible that anyone who respects family could be in any way pleased by the knowledge that a presumptively happy, loving family is legally insecure, and continues to be thanks to this ruling.

29 March 2012 at 14:23  
Blogger Anne Palmer said...

PM Cameron seems to want to allow same sex couples to be married-if they want- in churches.

Although the EU seems to (does agree) agree to same sex marriage, no where have I come across EU Legislation thus far re marrying in a church of any kind.

I am concerned because our Monarch is Head of the Church of England. Is this a way of watering it down? Have you any further information on this please?

8 December 2012 at 23:03  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older