Sunday, March 25, 2012

Gay marriage: have religions ever been so united?

With the news that the Coalition 4 Marriage petition has passed the 300,000 mark (while the Coalition 4 Equal Marriage petition has reached 35,000), it is worth considering that the campaign against 'gay marriage' appears to have become the most successful vehicle of inter-faith union and ecumenism in British history, easily surpassing 'aggressive secularism' and even the 'pro-life' union against abortion. The issue of same-sex marriage is not only uniting Christians across the fractious denominations, but bringing together all the main religions across mutually-exclusive doctrines of God. Who would have thought that Ut Unum Sint could have been furthered by a religio-political campaign, or, indeed, extended to embrace people of all religions and none?

The Archbishop of Canterbury says of same-sex marriage: "What this brings into focus is the anxiety that law is being used proactively to change culture." The Church of England has said it is 'committed to the traditional understanding of the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, said the plans were a 'grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right'. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, says same-sex marriage is a 'profoundly radical step' that would threaten the true meaning of matrimony.

The Evangelical Alliance, representing many (though by no means all) of the Evangelical Free Churches in the UK, says that while legal injustices could be addressed, 'marriage is solely between a man and woman and is a major contributor to society, which should be protected and not redefined'.

Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet of the Mill Hill Synagogue in north London and adviser to the Chief Rabbi, described the proposals as 'pure politics' and an assault on 'traditional values', adding it was hypocritical to impose such a far-reaching 'secular' change when religious leaders would be condemned for imposing their values on others. He said: “The hallmark of Judaism is the family. The traditional family – a husband, a wife and children."

Farooq Murad, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain said on behalf of its members (again, by no means all British Muslims): “Whilst we remain opposed to all forms of discrimination, including homophobia, redefining the meaning of marriage is in our opinion unnecessary and unhelpful." He said that gay marriage is 'an assault on religion' and that 'such unions will not be blessed as marriage by the Islamic institutions'.

Lord Singh, head of the Network of Sikh Organisations, said the proposed reforms represented 'a sideways assault on religion'. He said: “It is an attempt by a vocal, secular minority to attack religion... Sikhs believed in marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that changing the definition was an attack on the English language... We have total respect for gays and lesbians and we are delighted that there is a Civil Partnership Act. We believe that this gives gays and lesbians everything they need.”

So, let us work together to defend the traditional view of marriage. United we stand...

113 Comments:

Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

Your Grace may be bolstered by the illusion that Christians are being unified under a single issue, for the very first time ever, however I would urge you not to be premature with any celebrations over this apparent situation.

For the architects of this particular piece of 'liberation' theory are very patient, and so think LONG TERM. Please be so kind as to read my comments on the previous thread if you are in any doubt as to whom is ultimately behind this most profound form of social destruction.

Many of you will remember various similar seemingly pointless insanities which were then first propagated by what seemed to be the more radical, and often younger products of our higher universities during the 60's 70's and 80's.

These may have appeared to be the mindless ravings of hopelessly sick individuals hell bent on undermining the very foundations of our traditionally cohesive society at the time, but they have all now come to pass, set into legislation, institutionalized, and worse become culturally main stream.

Indeed many in our society seem convinced that these acts of national sabotage now constitute the best reasons to go to war with others, Nick Cohen to name just one example.

Worse still, all of the very bad things we were warned would happen, if these things came to pass, have also happened, and no one seems to care, or be able to do sod all about it even when they claim, and have the apparent power to do so, David Cameron to name just one example.

25 March 2012 at 13:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Given that there's group membership and weekly group attendence I think the 300K is actually really poor. After all the publicity too, including the appeal read out in Catholic churches. I hadn't even heard of the alternative petition until yesterday and that was through facebook. Not that the alternative one makes much difference anyway as this is a government initiative rather than a gay one. I still think actually changing the law will require a Labour government.

25 March 2012 at 14:07  
Blogger Carlill said...

What I don't understand is how this is an attack on religion.

There is no suggestion that there will be any sense of forcing religious bodies to marry same sex couples, which would be a gross and indecent assault on their rights.

Instead the intention is to open up a valued and valuable institution to people currently unable to access it. Surely supporters of marriage should applaud its expansion?

I also think the bigger threat to marriage as an institution comes from linking it too closely to fading religious observance, rather than in allowing more people to get involved.

25 March 2012 at 14:16  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

Your Tweet below
"Archbishop Cranmer ‏ @His_Grace

@iainmartin1 @AndrewLilico Err... he offered dinner in the Camerons' private flat, and mentioned influence over policy @TimMontgomerie
"

The tweeters really do not get the brilliance of your pithy remark that sums it all up.

Ernst has £50 spare but do you think the offer of giving this into donors coffers will allow for Mr & Mrs B to settle down for a private dinner with Dave and Sam, eating sunday roast in the private rooms at Number 10.

CCHQ really do not get it, do they?
Your pithy remark is not lost on old Ernst.

E S Blofeld

25 March 2012 at 15:04  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Long may it last and yes, 300,000 could be considered a low number for a multi faith initiative. I guess that like an American Presidential candidate, you need tons of money.

Speaking about money, I see that the Conservatives were offering access to the PM for £250,000.
The Liberals would have said for £250,000 you can be the PM.

25 March 2012 at 15:11  
Blogger dfordoom said...

Never ever believe a cultural marxist who seems to be prepared to compromise. They take your compromise, and then go straight back on the attack again for more. If you give them civil unions they'll take that, and then push for more. If you give them gay marriage but accept their assurances that churches won't be forced to conduct such marriages they'll take that, and then start pushing for churches to be compelled to perform such marriages.

You're dealing with fanatics. In the long term they will accept nothing short of complete unconditional surrender to their agenda, which is the destruction of our civilisation.

And Atlas Shrugged is right - they take a very long term view. Each battle is just one more battle in their relentless war against civilisation. Each battle leads inevitably to the next battle.

That's why it's a mistake to go on the defensive. You have to force them onto the defensive. You have to start attacking the gains they've already made. That might seem hopeless, but the task of cultural marxism seemed hopeless 80 years ago. Now they're within sight of final victory. Every retreat we make from this point on brings them closer to that final victory.

25 March 2012 at 15:12  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

dfordoom said,
that’s why it's a mistake to go on the defensive. You have to force them onto the defensive. You have to start attacking the gains they've already made.
Dead right, you never win by being defensive, but how to achieve?

There are just 57 Liberal MP's at present. If all the genuine Christian MP's crossed the floor to a new party with Political Integrity, there would probably be as many as the Liberals, taking into account that the other parties numbers would go down. On that basis they would form the coalition with the Tories and get strong support from other Tory Back Benchers.

25 March 2012 at 15:25  
Blogger uk Fred said...

Carlill said...25 March 2012 14:16,

"There is no suggestion that there will be any sense of forcing religious bodies to marry same sex couples, which would be a gross and indecent assault on their rights.",

and to some extent he is right. If the religious bodies do not marry any heterosexual couples there will be no requirement on them to marry same sex couples. But under existing equal opportunitties legislation, if they marry heterosexual couples then they must be prepared to extend that service to couples who want same sex marriages. Think back to the Roman Catholic adoption agencies quarrel with equal opportunities legislation.

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

Your Grace. The Inspector is truly amazed at the number of Christian types prepared to cut the Conservatives out of their lives completely, and go over to UKIP. You see, he thought it would just be him, a few others and the old Colonel who turns up at the ‘Mouse and Wheel’. Inspector humbled you know. Not used to that feeling, what !

25 March 2012 at 17:54  
Blogger non mouse said...

In Dickens' Oliver Twist, Mr. Bumble responds to an assumption that marriage laws subjugated wives to husbands: “If the law supposes that,” […] “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.” Of course, Mr. Bumble was insulting the dear donkeys even then.

Legislation has deteriorated further, however. What passes (for) 'law' nowadays bears comparison with a colony of bacteria. We need to take control of the antibiotics.

25 March 2012 at 18:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. This succinct truth by dfordoom...

Never ever believe a cultural marxist who seems to be prepared to compromise. They take your compromise, and then go straight back on the attack again for more.

...should be given house room amongst your honours and citations. AND it should be on the national curriculum. The Inspector commends it so....

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

There can be no equivalence between marriage between a man and a woman and between homosexuals. To do will legitimise this lifestyle choice and require equality in delivering education to the young.

The Churches with properly compiled Canon covering the sacrament need have few concerns. They just need to ensure consistency in application. However, the legal obligation on the Church of England to marry anyone asking who is not legally forbidden may cause a problem.

25 March 2012 at 18:43  
Blogger Roy said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 March 2012 at 20:15  
Blogger Roy said...

There never has been a ban on gays marrying. They are perfectly free to do so but choose not to because they are not normally attracted to anyone who is eligible. Of course some gays, like Chris Huhne's girlfriend, can change.

However gay activists, in order to try and enforce a legal pretence that homosexuality is as important as heterosexuality, want to utterly change the definition of marriage so that it means something that is has never ever meant since before the dawn of history.

If they get their way they will do great damage to an institution that is far, far older than the state, or any nation, legal system, language, culture, or any of the great religions.

Such cultural vandalism cannot be allowed.

25 March 2012 at 20:23  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

What makes homosexuals think that they are the same as heterosexuals when they clearly are NOT?
I would think that those who are born homosexual would be insulted at this. The gay union in the civil ceremony is tailored to suit their need to be protected just as marriage is tailored to suit the heterosexuals'. They are both part of societies rich tapestry.

25 March 2012 at 20:58  
Blogger Stig said...

How dare Cameron presume to override an institution ordained by God. Does he think he is greater than God?
And I suppose he expects us to alter the words of the service too. After all "one man and one woman for life" would sound a bit odd if they were both men or women.

25 March 2012 at 21:41  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Inspector @ 17.54
The Inspector is truly amazed at the number of Christian types prepared to cut the Conservatives out of their lives completely, and go over to UKIP
I think the obverse is true. It is the Conservatives that have cut the moral middle England out of their government policies in their unholy alliance with the Lib Dems. As to UKIP, they are seen as the only alternative. But wait, what is that I see on the horizon. Yes, it's the new coalition of all people concerned about the state of the nation.

25 March 2012 at 21:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "What makes homosexuals think that they are the same as heterosexuals when they clearly are NOT?"

We don't ... otherwise we'd be called heterosexuals.

25 March 2012 at 21:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Roy: "There never has been a ban on gays marrying. They are perfectly free to do so but choose not to because they are not normally attracted to anyone who is eligible."

When the law is changed, you will be perfectly free to marry someone of a different sex just as you are now. For you, marriage is not going to change.

25 March 2012 at 21:59  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
I thought that the Evangelical Alliance put it quite succinctly.
They said that the Government were confusing 'Different' with 'equality'.
Marriage of a male and a female is quite different to the coupling of two people of the same sex. Equality does not enter the equation.
It was suggested to me to look up Lynne Featherstone’s life on Wikipedia. Quite illuminating.

25 March 2012 at 22:10  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, it seems increasingly unlikely that Dave's passionate belief in SSM is anything other than a ticket to electoral oblivion.

25 March 2012 at 22:11  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
So you agree that you are different.
Why then do you want to hi-jack the heterosexual marriage and change it to suit your needs when you already have a something ideal for you and equal to that of heterosexuals?

25 March 2012 at 22:18  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

dfordoom said...

Good to see someone can see the writing on the wall, while at it, perhaps it is well past high time we all started paying some attention to THE WALL itself.

That is, the ever more impenetrable barrier around our minds, and more importantly WHO is so very busy building it?

For these things do not create themselves, neither mankind nor the invisible walls to his invisible prison cell are any kind of accident.

Socialist agendas unlike the virtually valueless paper money that finances them all, do NOT magically spring from thin air.

You can be perfectly assured that socialism destroys with a Common Purpose in mind. Of course the majority of socialists do not understand the ultimate agenda because firstly no one tells them what it is, and secondly because they are themselves "doing very well, thank you very much," out of it, and so pay very little attention, least of all to anyone claiming themselves to be a conservative, or non socialist.

Pushing socialist agendas is an expensive business, A VERY EXPENSIVE and VERY BIG BUSINESS indeed.

So expensive that not even the greatest national government, international charitable or fund raising organization could possible afford to pay the bill, this most especially as the big pay off could be 50-100 years down the line.

However the pay off is vast, so gigantically vast that no kind of price tag could possibly be put on it. Our masters do not need any more cash they need absolute power so they can keep that which they long since had. For the pay off is the total control of your mind, body, and spirit.

Not only this but the people in charge know that failure is not an option, the will of their God in most surely on their side, and that success is assured as long as it is achieved with Fabian patience and Jesuitical cunning.

Our slave owners understood many full moons ago that slavery by an ever tinier minority, over an ever greater majority could not be sustained unless the slaves could no longer either see the plantation walls, the plantation owners richest of rich spoils, or even the plantation owners themselves, so they went underground, in some cases quite literally subterranean.

At the same time infiltrated and or subverted every important controlling institution known to mankind, they they did not already own or control, without exception, then went on to invent a few more where any gaps were observed to exist, Common Purpose, NAFTA, NATO, The RIIA, CFR, Pilgrim Society, RF, IMF, IB, BIS, EU, and UN being notable examples of these later add ons.

Around 100 years ago they set about their plan of enslaving the entire planet in relative earnest.

What followed can be accounted for within our most usually extremely bloody authorized history books.

The question is not, IS there a massive conspiracy to more overtly enslave the still breathing population of the entire known universe?

As I would have thought that this is now a clearly established fact of life.

The questions are, who precisely are the co-conspirators, which are the most powerful, determined, and clever among them, and on a more selfish note, how many of us will be alive to see the day they achieve there most inevitable victory?

For victorious they will undoubtedly be. As I have said before all we can hope to do is slow them down somewhat. However our collective ignorance and state of collective denial dictates that the end may come quicker then even I expect.

The trick is not confusing ones natural sense of paranoia with the reality of well proven and documented facts. The former is due to human beings inherent spirituality, the later is the truth whether you like it or not.

25 March 2012 at 23:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr Integrity. The Conservatives have always depended on a closing of ranks come general elections. That was their strength. What Cameron is doing on social policy is quite dis-believable, but there he is, doing it. As far as the Inspector is concerned, the grey suits tolerate him while Clegg is sweet. Expect a stiffening of Lib-Dem resolve and re-assertion of it being an independent political entity as the next general election nears. That is when Cameron is finished, not before...

26 March 2012 at 00:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Atlas bores us with his conspiracy theories yet again. Still, we are rather grateful he’s moved on from grassy knolls and JFK. Why don’t you do your own thinking, you clown, instead of slavishly lapping up the lies of those who write the numerous and nefarious anti catholic sites...

26 March 2012 at 00:11  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

How rude of you! I quite enjoy the thoughts of Atlas. Preferable to the .

To be fair this time he hasn't accussed the Catholic Church, merely made a reference to Fabian patience and Jesuitical cunning.

I'm finding his analysis more entaining than 'The Matrix' and am desperate tofind out just who is behind our enslavement. I also wonder whether he should be working up a screen play.

26 March 2012 at 00:49  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Preferable to the weasel.

26 March 2012 at 00:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "So you agree that you are different."

I see we need to go back to first principles. This is really about 'equality of access' rather than 'sameness'. It's a different sort of equality. Of course we're different. The question is, should that difference be relevant to whatever social goods are distributed.

"Why then do you want to hi-jack the heterosexual marriage and change it to suit your needs when you already have a something ideal for you and equal to that of heterosexuals?"

Personally, I wasn't all that bothered about a change in the law all that long ago. However, the religious (or rather the fringe conservative-Christian organisations in the first instance) have made such a fuss about it that it's now become an issue of whether we let religionists oppress us or not.

With my atheist and secularist hat on, I feel the same way about other issues. The Christian Institute is essentially radicalising me and highlighting the need to put religion into a secular box. You have that specific organisation to thank there.

However, in theoretical terms, I think there's a fairly solid argument for opening up the social institution of civil marriage on the basis of social justice. It will also clarify things with antediluvian B&B owners and the supply of goods and services where the equalness of civil partnerships and civil marriage seems not to have got through.

26 March 2012 at 06:57  
Blogger Jocelyn Knockersbury said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

26 March 2012 at 07:56  
Blogger Jocelyn Knockersbury said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

26 March 2012 at 07:57  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"...this is a government initiative rather than a gay one."
Disingenuous. The government is currying favour with a little group who don't need to push very hard because the tide of metropolitan fashion is going their way.

26 March 2012 at 09:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

No, it is not curryng favour. Rather, it is using us to lay claim to having moved on from The Nasty Party image under Norman Tebbit etc. That image still exists and the tag is still used. Before I was thrown off the Nobody Likes A Tory group for posting inconvenient facts, I saw it being used all the time there. Cameron, in my opinion, is trying to rebrand it as a modern party, where modern seems to mean gay-friendly, woman-friendly, one-nation, etc. In this case, I'm happy to be used.

26 March 2012 at 12:30  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Given that the majority of UK weddings are now civil rather than religous it is quite legitimate for society as a whole to reclaim the concept of what is and what isn't an acceptable marriage from organised religion. It should also be noted that organised religion hasn't been a particularly good custodian of the concept, given the untold misery that it has caused in the past through the narrow and rigid definitions it has used by allowing arranged marriages and stopping marriages by divorcees and by races.

And there isn't even unity among the various Christian sects - the Quakers accept gay marriages in their churches even before they are accepted by the State.

26 March 2012 at 12:34  
Blogger Jon said...

Dan said - "The Christian Institute is essentially radicalising me and highlighting the need to put religion into a secular box. You have that specific organisation to thank there."

Me too.

I also think it's funny that historically, and now currently, the inter-faith dialogue only really gets anywhere when it's about continuing the repression of another group (gays, black people, women etc). When you're all asked to agree on fundamental tenets of faith, you can't because you don't! So why does it matter to the CoE what an Imam or a Catholic priest says - you don't recognise their faith as valid anyway? Why recognise any value in their reasoning based on their faith? More and more - you're like ancient, handsy drunks propping one another up at the last chance saloon and spouting views that the rest of the pub finds pitifully outdated.

26 March 2012 at 12:37  
Blogger Peter Ferguson said...

First of all marriage is not a Christian institution. You do not own marriage, the people do, so stop trying to dictate who can and can't get married.

Secondly, if you are so worried about churches and the religious being forced to perform gay marriage then why not focus your protestations on making sure the government has strict legislation to insure that they are not, instead of gay marriage as a whole. In countries where gay marriage is legal, no churches have been forced to do so, only those who that have done so voluntarily.

Finally, the experiment of church rule has been tested and failed. It was called the dark ages, with contained, inquisitions, witch hunts, crusades, and sexual discrimination on a grand scale. And as the church began losing power man has achieved the enlightenment, renaissance, gender equality, end to slavery, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, scientific revolution etc.. And the church fought these at almost every step. And sexual orientation is once again another equality battle the church is on the wrong side of.

If you want to see what Europe looked like at the height of religious power, have a look at the Islamic states and think is that what you want to go back to?

26 March 2012 at 13:12  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0:” It's a different sort of equality. Of course we're different. The question is, should that difference be relevant to whatever social goods are distributed.”

Yes, as it's based on needs. You could say then that as a female I am discriminated against because I can't wear men's or children's clothing because they don't fit. Just like marriage does not fit homosexuals. One size doesn't fit all you know.

What social justice (make you fell smug and pleased with yourself until you got hold of the next cause for more social justice, coz it wont stop) would you feel that you are getting by gatecrashing something that is not suitable for you and forcing it to fit your needs when you already what is perfect for you in civil partnership?

Homosexuals are no lesser people, their brain power contributes to society like anyone else's but their needs are different. As you told me on another thread you need another man to be able to perform and not a woman.

In the B&B case that was why the judge ruled against the couple. He was right. BUT saying that, they as a religious couple and running a very small B&B business that is also their home should be allowed to stipulate who can and cannot stay. Do religious people not have a right to run a B&B that is classed as speciality. If not then what happens to other speciality small businesses? Those that are are for adults only or don't allow animals or only allow families and not singles? The whole idea of a small business is that they can provide something unique and a different experience.

26 March 2012 at 15:58  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

@ Peter Ferguson
Norway were forced into accepting “gay marriage” and their Lutheran Church has been taken into deep decline. It also highlights the decline of other scandinavian countries since allowing SSM. You should read this article that D. Singh posted on another recent thread here.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp?page=3

26 March 2012 at 16:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Do religious people not have a right to run a B&B that is classed as speciality."

Yes. However, a 'speciality business' that says we supply goods and services to everyone but (say) black people because they're black is illegal.

The problem with that antediluvian couple is that they did not accept civil partnerships are the equivalent of marriage in law as you yourself claim they are.

They could have got away with not supplying rooms to all of the general public who were not in a marriage or a civil partnership.

26 March 2012 at 17:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "What social justice [...] would you feel that you are getting by gatecrashing something that is not suitable for you and forcing it to fit your needs when you already what is perfect for you in civil partnership?"

But it is suitable. Women 'gatecrashed' the right to vote held by men even though they were not initially included because they ought not to have been excluded from the right to vote. They forced the mechanism by which we choose our government to be changed to accommodate themselves on the basis that they ought to have the social good of being able to vote.

26 March 2012 at 17:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

What our gays don’t want you to know...

To all who believe that SSM will keep our gay brethren quiet for the next 100 years, be aware of this…

Tis only the start. Stand by for promotion of homosexuality at schools, using education and entertainment. Gay Studies will be a compulsory part of the National Curriculum. And there’ll be a new world wide hate crime, homophobia. Who is a homophobic ? Anyone who dares criticise homosexuals or their behaviour of course. This blog for example. Religions are going to receive the rough end of it. They will be invited to tow the line, or face having their church or mosque demolished. Children will be encouraged to ‘shop’ their parents regarding anti homosexual remarks. The NAZIs used that with great success in defeating their opponents in the 1930s.

You won’t be able to teach unless you are rated ‘gay friendly’. Lose that ticket, and you won’t teach again. Children will be invited to register as gay as early as 7 or 8 years of age. Those that do will receive a superb education. Masses of resources will be thrown at them. One to one tutoring to enable them to be as ‘equal’ as everybody else. Indeed, unscrupulous and unprincipled parents will be demanding of their children to sign up.

Admittedly, these extracts are what is going to happen in America, but don’t for one moment think the UK is safe from the Gay Agenda

26 March 2012 at 17:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

On the positive side, everyone will have wonderful soft furnishings and elegant flower arrangements around the house when we finally take over the world. Mwuahahahahaha.

26 March 2012 at 18:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oh god, I've just realised. He was actually being serious there. :O

26 March 2012 at 18:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Lets hope cases of kiddie fiddling don’t go through the roof. One suspects that in future, it will be a lesser crime than possessing cannabis.

26 March 2012 at 18:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Well, now the Catholic Church has had the spotlight pointed at it I suppose it will stop putting its reputation first and deal with its priests and nuns as one might expect of a so-called moral arbiter. That should sort out some of it anyway.

26 March 2012 at 18:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Not just homosexual Catholic priests, but ALL homosexual men. But of course, you don’t talk of that do you. Best keep quiet about it, what !

26 March 2012 at 18:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Next, they ought to start looking in their congregations too. Possibly focusing on strangely unmarried older men who can't seem to maintain adult relationships.

26 March 2012 at 18:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Then there’s health. Another likely burden on the NHS. Google ‘Gay Bowel’. Shocking report...

26 March 2012 at 18:53  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0:”Yes. However, a 'speciality business' that says we supply goods and services to everyone but (say) black people because they're black is illegal”

No a religious B&B should be able to stipulate according to the Bible. The activity of homosexuality is a sin so even though the gay couple had been united in a civil ceremony and had the same status as a married hetero couple, they would not have qualified to stay in a religious B&B on the basis that they would be indulging in sin and contravening the B&B owners' rules that were set according to the Bible.

You can't just exclude someone for being black or a woman as that in itself is not an activity.
But saying that some places exclude singles, and what about gay clubs that exclude heterosexuals?

“They could have got away with not supplying rooms to all of the general public who were not in a marriage or a civil partnership.”

So they could exclude unmarried couples on the grounds of sin but not homosexuals on the same grounds?

26 March 2012 at 18:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

You’ll have to wait for a reply Marie, he’s just coming to terms with ‘gay bowel’.

The bowel for what it has to do, is a remarkably delicate instrument. The end of it works as a valve. Abuse that valve at your peril. It’s the blood, you see, that’s the warning sign. Indeed ,red for danger. Once the tear of tissue occurs, you have mixing of bodily fluids, and another AIDS victim limps away...

26 March 2012 at 19:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

It’s not all bad news, you know. Living with AIDS is no longer the death sentence it used to be, at least in the West. Some victims are living for as long as 15 years after initial infection. Of course, medical science is advancing. It’s now possible to hold all your daily pills in the palm of one hand, if you are careful...

26 March 2012 at 19:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "You can't just exclude someone for being black or a woman as that in itself is not an activity."

Two things. Firstly, who on earth has sex in a B&B house-conversion anyway? Lordy. They just rented a hotel room as a couple like any other couple. An equivalently married couple, according to you. Who said they necessarily wanted to have sex there, other than religionists obsessed with the sex lives of others? Secondly, this is sexual orientation we're talking about. It pretty much implies a sex life. If anything is odd here then it's religionists expecting gay people to be celibate in circumstances where straight people wouldn't be simply to make religionists comfortable. It's bizarre.

There's something in what you're saying that it's okay to be black as long as you behave like a white person in the UK but if you're black and have elements of one of the various black subcultures in your behaviour then it's an activity rather than an attribute. As an activity, racists can therefore turn them away in this way of thinking. One can of course choose to take part in homosexual activity or not but being homosexual, like being heterosexual, pretty much implies other stuff such as pair-bonding, mutual support, and a sex life. It's a natural part of being human for heaven's sake.

26 March 2012 at 19:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bless the Inspector, he's trying his hardest. Now there's someone who really doesn't like being ridiculed when in homophobic flow. Speaking of hard, I'd put money on the result of penile plethysmograph showing something strange about him when shown certain, ahem, types of pictures. The signs are there. I'm thinking American TV preacher stuff here. ;)

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

Perhaps B&B owners should have the right to turn away mixed-race married couples on the basis of the religious beliefs, still held rather recently in the States, that god didn't intend races to mix like that. What do you think about that, Inspector? I know you have, ahem, very strong views on race.

26 March 2012 at 19:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector
So graphic earlyin the evening.

The 'peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum most certainly carries a range of dangers. Aristophanes once observed in ancient Greece: "Most citizens are europroktoi (wide-arsed) now." Let's hope this doesn't come true in our times, what!

26 March 2012 at 19:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It must be a particularly bad period of low self-esteem at the moment, I think.

26 March 2012 at 19:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Inspector in a sardonic mood tonight. Watch out for transmission of syphilis via ‘giving head’ which he understands to be your way. Ah, the joy of oddball sex, what !

Still, you might make the medical publications, perhaps with caption “Advanced case of homosexuality”, and “Face will now look like a ‘prostitutes welcome mat’ until he dies”

26 March 2012 at 19:37  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Inspector
It does make me think that homosexuals must be self destructive individuals with the activity they partake in. That Peter Tachell looks thin and unhealthily ravaged.

26 March 2012 at 19:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...

"One can of course choose to take part in homosexual activity or not but being homosexual, like being heterosexual, pretty much implies other stuff such as pair-bonding, mutual support, and a sex life. It's a natural part of being human for heaven's sake."

Er, no, the homosexual tendency is intrinsically disordered and such acts must be subject to restraint. Just exercise self control and get into theraphy.

(Is that a homophobic comment?)

26 March 2012 at 19:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

No Dodo, it's a statement of religious faith. Not applicable to normal people.

26 March 2012 at 19:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Indeed Marie, but the Inspector suspects he’s on a strict diet to maintain that ‘starved rodent’ look. You see, nobody loves a fat poof. It’s the homosexual way, don’t you know...

26 March 2012 at 20:04  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0:”There's something in what you're saying that it's okay to be black as long as you behave like a white person in the UK but if you're black and have elements of one of the various black subcultures in your behaviour then it's an activity rather than an attribute. As an activity, racists can therefore turn them away in this way of thinking. One can of course choose to take part in homosexual activity or not but being homosexual, like being heterosexual, pretty much implies other stuff such as pair-bonding, mutual support, and a sex life. It's a natural part of being human for heaven's sake.”

I did not say that at all Danj0. What I said was it's OK to be any skin colour but if you are homosexual don't go and book a room in a religious B&B and expect them to let you stay there. They have a right to run their establishment according to what the Bible says. That's all.
Racists could not turn them away only genuine religious establishments and I doubt that there are many like the archaic couple left these days, shame.

And in a normal sex life couples would have sex anywhere, B&B house conversion or not as part of their loving relationship. In fact the homosexuals might have got an extra thrill of doing something forbidden in such an establishment!

26 March 2012 at 20:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, on the subject of race, did you see the national news tonight. Those three negroes who were convicted. From a amateur anthropologists point of view, it was primitive African behaviour on the streets of London. Those young bloods visiting another tribe (gang) and their area to kill one of the opposition and become men in the eyes of their limited mentality. Truly sickening. Inspector’s heart goes out to the little Asian girl who was crippled in the cross fire. Inspector realises hanging them won’t put a stop to it, but would make him feel better; obtain closure, as they say. Still, one day, God willing...

26 March 2012 at 20:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "They have a right to run their establishment according to what the Bible says."

Clearly not. That's the nature of running a business, it's regulated by various laws.

It's interesting that they consider renting a room out as part of a business to a legally-partnered couple means they should take an interest in their private sex life. If it's a sin then surely it is the couple who are responsible for their own sin? It's not as though the B&B owners are taking part. This has a flavour of a Muslim refusing to pass a bottle of alcohol over a barcode reader in a supermarket because he is encouraging others to drink by doing so.

I see the rest of the argument seems to have gone over your head. Just as well, I suppose.

26 March 2012 at 20:35  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

GanJ0 said ...

"No Dodo, it's a statement of religious faith. Not applicable to normal people."

But religious people come in all mental states ranging from normal through to those with mental health problems. Their particular faith is not a definable condition.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is against nature, it's just unnatural, as well as, from a religious point of view, being morally disordered.

26 March 2012 at 20:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Well, you may believe whatever you wish, whether it's that the sun rotates around the world, or that pixies live at the bottom of your garden, or that your particular god exists and is best described by your church. There's room for all sorts of oddballs in society, provided you behave yourselves of course.

26 March 2012 at 20:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

The question is whether homosexuals will behave and keep your behaviours and beliefs behind closed doors. You are harming our society by spreading your ideas and demanding their acceptance as 'normal'.

As the Wolfedon Report said:

"The law's function is to preserve public order and decency, to protect the citizen from what is offensive or injurious, and to provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and corruption of others ... It is not, in our view, the function of the law to intervene in the private life of citizens, or to seek to enforce any particular pattern of behaviour."

A nice liberal statement that I'm sure your hero JS Mills would endorse. But do keep it private!

I prefer Devlin's minority position that popular morality should be allowed to influence lawmaking, and that even private acts should be subject to legal sanction if they were held to be morally unacceptable by the "reasonable man", in order to preserve the moral fabric of society.

A society's existence depends on the maintenance of shared political and moral values. Violation of the shared morality loosens the bonds that hold a society together, and thereby threatens it with disintegration. There is a public morality that overrides matters of personal or private judgment.

As an attack on “society’s constitutive morality” threatens society with disintegration, such acts could not be free from public scrutiny and sanction on the basis that they were purely private acts. Homosexual acts are a threat to society’s morality and legal intervention is essential to ensure both individual and collective survival, and to prevent social disintegration due to a loss of social cohesion.

If ordinary person reache a certain intensity of "intolerance, indignation and disgust" and genuinely feel homosexuality is "a vice so abominable that its mere presence is an offence", then, according to Devlin, society may eradicate it.

So, you see, you have toleration. Be careful not topush it too far or society may just turn against you.

Your liberal argument is weak. How could you argue against bestiality from its basis. Devlin's position is really the only one that applies. It's the same with incest.

26 March 2012 at 21:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good point Dodo. Toleration is indeed a entity that does not live on solid ground. What is tolerated today cannot be assured of toleration tomorrow...

26 March 2012 at 21:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "The question is whether homosexuals will behave and keep your behaviours and beliefs behind closed doors. You are harming our society by spreading your ideas and demanding their acceptance as 'normal'."

Actually, the same could just as easily be said about your religious beliefs. Afterall, they have a long, long history of causing significant misery and strife.

You may find that your extrapolation of your personal views, informed as they are by your foreign religion, to the reasonable person to be problematic in reality.

What if the reasonable person sees sexuality in more liberal terms, as they seem to do these days? What if the reasonable person considers the Catholic Church to be a source of social evil instead?

Of course you favour the paternalistic view rather than the liberal one in the report. You would be very happy, I think, to oppress people in the name of your god hypothesis. As I said, you Catholics have previous form.

Tell me, would the paternalistic view also support the Taleban in Afghanistan given what you've written up there? As you know, many Muslim societies take a religiously moral view of public and private space.

26 March 2012 at 21:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also, just to note, the Wolfenden Report contains two distinct themes with historic and more modern proponents of each. The themes are as relevant today as back then. However, the report is necessarily a product of its time. The detail and tone need to read accordingly.

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

Danj0:”It's interesting that they consider renting a room out as part of a business to a legally-partnered couple means they should take an interest in their private sex life. If it's a sin then surely it is the couple who are responsible for their own sin? It's not as though the B&B owners are taking part. This has a flavour of a Muslim refusing to pass a bottle of alcohol over a barcode reader in a supermarket because he is encouraging others to drink by doing so.

I see the rest of the argument seems to have gone over your head. Just as well, I suppose”


So what you're telling me is that nobody can run a B&B based on Christian values in a Christian country? That leaves a gap in the market. So I can now hear you ask what's stopping a muslim opening a specialist B&B based on Islam? Well They should not be able to as we are not an Islamic state.
Christianity has to take precedence.
A muslim refusing to sell alcohol in a supper market means he's in the wrong job. He should get one that does not entail selling alcohol or go live in a muslim country. In the case of B&B couple they will still be allowing sin to take place on their premises if they allow even legally-partnered couples to stay.

I agree with some of what you say Dan.

26 March 2012 at 21:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. What you are offering is a choice between acceptance of homosexuality and religious belief. Somewhat stark, but these are your terms. We wonder who will win through. heh heh

26 March 2012 at 21:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "So what you're telling me is that nobody can run a B&B based on Christian values in a Christian country?"

No. I'm just saying I think it's bizarre and unnecessarily intrusive. They can run their B&B according to Christian values as long as they follow the law. In this case, they can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

As you say, the couple are in the legal equivalent of marriage yet the couple refuse to accept that. They can legally deny unmarried couples, or the legal equivalents, rooms with double beds. Bizarre though that is.

"In the case of B&B couple they will still be allowing sin to take place on their premises if they allow even legally-partnered couples to stay."

So what? They're business premises and subject to the law. Do you think that denying the couple a room is going to stop them having sex? They're married, or the legal equivalent as you claim yourself, for goodness'sake.

26 March 2012 at 21:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "What you are offering is a choice between acceptance of homosexuality and religious belief. Somewhat stark, but these are your terms. We wonder who will win through. heh heh"

Too stark. I think most religious people know where their religious boundaries lie. That is, approximately equi-distant between any two people in almost all situations. In the same-sex marriage situation, the rational solution is clear: if you don't agree with same sex marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex. In the B&B case, if you're obsessed and uncomfortable about the private sex lives of other people then you would be better running a business which focuses rather less heavily on beds for the night. Simples.

26 March 2012 at 22:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "We wonder who will win through. heh heh"

Cool. No need for you to worry about any of this stuff afterall. You have it in the bag, etc. :)

26 March 2012 at 22:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 March 2012 at 22:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 March 2012 at 22:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Now, no tears when when this ridiculous idea is dropped, promise.. (Damn link)

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

Inspector, I have said many times that I think it will take a Labour government to put the legislation in place.

26 March 2012 at 22:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Not uncomfortable about anyone's sex life at all. Do what you must do, no one is stopping you. Inspector just feels that ‘keep it dark’ is the best way forward. It’s best for society, it’s been that way for years. Why overturn it now ??

26 March 2012 at 22:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0
More confused contributions from you with the now familiar abuse of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.

I doubt the hypothetical "reasonable person" feels homosexuality is anything but a minority sport that should be engaged in behind closed doors. And s/he most certainly would not want their children exposed to the detail of the behaviours of its participants or schooled in their practices. People have come to accepy homosexuals as equal people in society. This is not the same thing as accepting the 'normalisation' of your sexuality. There is a difference.

Hello! The Taliban are not representatives of the Afghan people. According to Devlin's argument, if people in Muslim societies are disgusted by homosexuality it would be legitimate for them to seek to eradicate it. Of course, any right minded person who supports the sanctity of life would not agree with their methods.

Islam is a religion of hate and oppression. Do stop comparing it to Christianity. It doesn't advance your argument.

And zoology and incest? Surely, they remain illegal because of public disgust. How is this right according to liberalism if they do no apparent harm?

26 March 2012 at 22:34  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0:"So what? They're business premises and subject to the law. Do you think that denying the couple a room is going to stop them having sex? They're married, or the legal equivalent as you claim yourself, for goodness'sake."

No of course not. Nobody is stopping homosexuals from having sex just not in a Christian B&B.
I do wonder though if they would have been allowed to stay at any muslim B&B's - there are a few. The Brighton Marina House B&B or the Bel Air in Margate?

27 March 2012 at 01:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "More confused contributions from you with the now familiar abuse of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular."

After your scratty contributions about Devlin, you have the gall to try to spin mine as confused? Blimey.

I see you lifted your text about Devlin's position straight from Wikipedia in your usual fashion and presented it as your own. Shameless.

"I doubt the hypothetical "reasonable person" feels homosexuality is anything but a minority sport that should be engaged in behind closed doors."

Of course you doubt it. Alternative views, beliefs, and lifestyles are intolerable to you so you try to project your own views onto the reasonable person.

It's hard to see whether you realise where your Devlin comments have taken you. You seem to want the positives for your position but pretend the negatives are not there.

I see you have tried to introduce values in by the side door too in order to bolster your position. A sort of deus ex machina, so to speak.

27 March 2012 at 05:35  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

No one has sex in a B & B. The owners are cracked. I am going to open a B&B banning military personnel whose anti social behaviour indicates sex crazed dementia and obsessive latent homosexuality.

27 March 2012 at 08:04  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Did the church redefine the ultimate marriage?

Did we lose the battle in the theological and spiritual spheres before we lost the battle in the tempral sphere?

As CS Lewis pointed out: '

Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like God and begins by saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to "Our Mother which art in heaven" as to "Our Father". Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does.

"Now it is surely the case", Lewis concludes, "that if all these supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a different religion. Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity."

27 March 2012 at 08:19  
Blogger Jon said...

Marie, I wonder how you would feel about a Christian Couple being precluded from praying in a muslim- run B&B in this country? After all - prayer is just an "activity". One can be a Christian without praying. And how would the Muslim owners police it? Best to stop you staying entirely in case you sully their house with your godliness? You're alright with that though?

Also - gay bars don't stop straight people coming in. They turn away large hen or stag parties (as do plenty of straight bars) but to routinely deny entry to straight people would be unacceptable. More often than not, the door staff will confirm on your way in that you know it's a gay bar.

And Inspector - I see your back on your old hobby horse about all the diseases you can get from being gay. What about all the complications that come from child birth? Or smoking? And, whisper it quietly, but straight people have oral sex too - not you and Dodo obviously.

Also - you should probably know that people in the west don't have to get AIDS any more. HIV is liveable, and people are routinely living 25 to 30 years following infection (and probably even more if they're starting meds now). Since you generally take one pill a day, it's actually a much easier disease to live with than diabetes.

27 March 2012 at 09:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I can confirm that people have sex in Premier Inns and it's occasionally audible in the next room. This is not what their Good Night Guarantee is all about, by the way. At least the rooms are purpose built with solid walls, concrete floors, fixed head boards, and decent mattresses. One would have to be an exhibitionist, or particularly thick-skinned, or randy as hell to do it in a B&B with stud-walls, wooden floorboards, and a lack of anonymity. Lordy, imagine the glares over the Full English or an individual box of Coco-pops the following morning.

27 March 2012 at 09:43  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

That's why nobody talks at breakfast Danj0 ;)

27 March 2012 at 15:20  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Jon
Prayer is not a sinful activity.
I doubt whether Christians would want to stay in a muslim B&B as praying to anyone other than allah is classed by them as sinful. I doubt very much that they would even be allowed to stay there unless they agreed to convert!

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

Jon. Inspector thanks you for the update of treatment for HIV / AIDS. Down to one pill is quite impressive. Can’t say the treatment side has been in the news much since the great and the good were all dropping like flies, and that must be twenty years ago now.

Oral sex not to the Inspectors’ taste, let’s just say. But for you, it might be an idea to wash down the offending articles afterwards with carbolic…

27 March 2012 at 18:08  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said ...
Alternative views, beliefs, and lifestyles are intolerable to you so you try to project your own views onto the reasonable person.

Not at all. It's an improvement on the label 'homophobic' but still wrong. I'm a tolerant person, especially after my Diversity Awareness Training. However, tolerance is not the same as acceptance or endorsement.

I don't find homosexuality "intolerable" - I see as disordered and unnatural and not something that should be promoted. Even without my religious objections I would believe this.

As a phenomena it exists and has since time began. I wouldn't lock you up - too expensive as it would have to be single cells; nor would I make you wear a pink triangle.

This discussion is about how far a minority group, under the banner of 'human rights/equality', are entitled to have their lifestyles enforced as equivalent in law. How far they are permitted to overturn the customary mores of a society through 'equality' law in the face of resistance from the majority.

Whilst maybe I wouldn't go quite so far as Devlin his basic point about social cohesion and the right of the majority not to accept behaviours abhorent to it and seek to curtail them, is to me worthy of consideration. Indeed, Wolfedon anticipated homosexuality taking place in private and urged discretion on the part of those men and women engaging in such practices.

Is it 'intolerant' to reject your sexual behaviour as something that should remain private and should not be seen as equal to heterosexuality with all that this entails?

And, by the way, zoophilia and incest goes on. There is no liberal argument based on 'harm' that I can think of to make this illegal. And yet, the principle that "over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign" breaks down when you think of the impact on society of legitimising these practices. It's the same with suicide and euthanasia.

The morality of this culture needs defending for all our good. The individual is not an island and what s/he does impacts on others. We see the evidence of the harm inherent in breaking the link between sex, life long marriage and the transmission of life in divorce rates and abortion rates. This also compounds the undermining of personal responsibilty in the general devaluing of life going on and the focus of hedonism, consumerism and live for the moment.

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

Jon
"And, whisper it quietly, but straight people have oral sex too - not you and Dodo obviously."

You strange and silly man! Why wouldn't I have experienced oral sex? Clearly, within an ordered and healthy heterosexual relationship and obviously without 'sudden' endings on my part.

It sounds like you'd be surprised what fun men and women can have together and all as God intended too.

"Anything you do ..."

27 March 2012 at 22:47  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Too much information Doddles:)

28 March 2012 at 00:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

cressida

True but can't have him believing Catholics are sexually repressed or unimaginative!

It's Cathosexophobia! There should be a law against it.

28 March 2012 at 01:28  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Not Before the Watershed

And while I am providing so much detail, let's give some more. We've concentrated for too long on the acts of homosexuals.

Let's celebrate the joy of heterosexual sex. The satisfaction and sheer bliss of a man and a woman having made love the way nature intended and within a relationship ordained by God. The body parts fitting and complimenting, not resisting one other. The natural and pure act without the need for lubricants or toys. The fluids being exchanged without fear. The satisfaction of having expressed love and having given and received pleasure.

You know it makes sense!

28 March 2012 at 02:14  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

You will need personal testimonials from Protestants to counter the Cathosexophobia claims!

28 March 2012 at 04:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Whilst maybe I wouldn't go quite so far as Devlin his basic point about social cohesion and the right of the majority not to accept behaviours abhorent to it and seek to curtail them, is to me worthy of consideration."

Unfortunately for you, the overwhelming majority do not want homosexuals criminalised and significant numbers, perhaps even a majority, are happy for same-sex marriage to be legalised.

It looks like you've thought through some of the ramifications of Devlin's position now, which is good. Also, the other position in the debate does allow for 'public decency' concerns in law.

It doesn't surprise me that a religionist favours having the law available to back up his sectarian moral certainties. In truth, I find the idea rather scary given what I know about history and about some other contemporary cultures.

Perhaps you'll be less keen on Devlin's position and more keen on Hart's if, or when, alternative religious certainties which are less liberal about yours then we are become more powerful.

28 March 2012 at 07:06  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

cressida said ...
"You will need personal testimonials from Protestants to counter the Cathosexophobia claims!"

Oh well, anything for a good cause then! How many testamonials would be needed, do you think?

I'll endeavour to obtain Papal dispensation but this may prove difficult.

28 March 2012 at 16:21  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: believe me, your best bet IS the Pope; you'll never get said testimonial from any Protestant hereabouts. However, I could do you a nice watercolour 'still-life' - how about a bowl of pansies? :o)

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

Oswin: who says the Protestant has to be hereabouts? I'd be seeking a dispensation for 'market research'.

Is that how you think of sex - pansies? Marigolds and I'll give it more thought.

29 March 2012 at 23:03  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: ''sex''? Who mentioned sex? Is that you being a raging Cathosexomaniac again?

As for ''Marigolds'' - the thought of you wearing rubber gloves is a thought too far!

Boom boom! :o)

30 March 2012 at 02:59  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I have never seen the raunchy side of Oswin before.Quel suprise!

Heckle and Jeckle have scared off poor len, so that just leaves you and Mr Singh who has become very subdued, serious and sensible of late...was much more fun when he used to threaten to strangle people.

We need you to man the post painting still life or whatever it takes.I can't imagine what marigolds have to do with rubber gloves but sounds bad...please; do not give me an explanation.

30 March 2012 at 07:56  
Blogger Oswin said...

Cressida: one has one's moments.

I'll leave it to Dodo for any ''explanations'' - it's part and parcel of his 'keeking through keyholes' persona; besides, his 'domestic chores routine' better equips him for such an honour. :o)

30 March 2012 at 19:18  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin said...
"Cressida: one has one's moments."

Yes, we learned all about those protestant 'moments' a few threads ago.

30 March 2012 at 20:50  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: do you have soft hands; do you? For hands that do dishes...tra la...


'Protestant Moments'' - Chocolates for nice people?

I must mention that to Cadburys; might be worth a bob two eh?

Incidentally, one of my Father's Canadian cousins, Harold, invented the famed 'Crispy Crunch' during the 1920's. Never one of my favourites, to be honest.

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

I like 'Protestant Moments'..very poetic Oswin.

To be honest I have never thought of Dodo's soft hands in rubber ,apron wearing,singing the Mikado,doing the dishes. It doesn't do it for me.I can't speak for the Inspector.

31 March 2012 at 01:30  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin
Dirty dish?
My wife's dear wish
Before I die
Wash one I try
Always a grimace evinces!


I liked 'Crispy Crunch'. As for 'Protestant Moments'; a non-starter I'm afraid. There'd be a hugh copyright war over legal rights to the title!

31 March 2012 at 01:42  
Blogger len said...

Cressida,

Just been on a short break.Hope nobody``s missed me too much?.

See 'the Duck'is breaking loose from his' Catholic celibate' image and going on the rampage looking for females.

Must be a 'catholic thing all that repression........ like a steam cooker building up a 'head of steam 'ready to explode!.

To simply repress one 'true nature' simply does not work, one needs a new nature.The Catholic church hasn`t grasped this concept yet hence all the problems within the Catholic Church( and possibly Dodo?)

1 April 2012 at 09:07  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Welcome back len.I thought Daffy Duck and Mother Goose had scared you away.

I am determined I am going to humanise Doddles. I have recieved a letter from his parish priest stating that is not permitted to go searching for females.

He is undergoing therapy with me and the treatment is not going too well at the moment.

I am confident that in time he will develop those lovely, quiet gentle and civilised traits that Oswin and you possess and that he will be able to state a difference of opinion without doing a Genghis Khan impersonation.

Unfortunately it is far too late for the Inspector and those other intergalactic identities.

1 April 2012 at 13:20  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dear me, perhaps I need to re-think my image, else the regulars at the 'Ferret&Foulmartin' won't recognise me! :o)

1 April 2012 at 16:41  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

cressida

I would die the death of a thousand cuts before becoming a "born again" cat lover.

No Surrender!

2 April 2012 at 23:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ps

"Daffy Duck" and "Mother Goose"!!! This is causing a serious Genghis Khan Moment.

Do not trifle with me woman!

2 April 2012 at 23:45  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Oh, you love it when I trifle with you!

3 April 2012 at 08:20  
Blogger Oswin said...

Careful Dodo lad; if Mrs. Dodo should happen along to your shed!

4 April 2012 at 17:01  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older