Monday, March 12, 2012

Gay marriage will be Cameron’s Poll Tax

All prime ministers leave a lasting impression in history beyond the marble bust or bronze statue; a residue in the popular consciousness which forges the myth of their ‘legacy’. Quite unfairly, more often than not, it is a shadow of strife or a taste of something bad. As Shakespeare put it: ‘The evil that men do lives after them; / The good is oft interred with their bones.’ For Heath, this is undoubtedly accession to the EEC; for Wilson it is industrial strife with beer and sandwiches at Number 10; for Callaghan it is the devaluation of Sterling and unemployment; for Thatcher it is miners' strikes and the ‘Poll Tax’; for Major it is ‘Back to basics’ and ‘sleaze’; for Blair it is ‘spin’ and Iraq; for Brown it is economic meltdown while boasting of the end of ‘boom and bust’.

It is all mono-dimensional politics, of course. But these events are enduringly inescapable; inseparable from the personages and characters by which they are defined. As is the creation ex nihilo of ‘gay marriage’.

It may be a social innovation ‘whose time has come’; it might even be ‘just’, ‘equitable’ and a ‘good idea’. But it is catastrophically bad politics for both David Cameron personally and the Conservative Party generally. Contra Francis Maude, same-sex marriage is not a progressive decontamination of the Tory brand; it is a contentious recontamination, destined to alienate thousands of traditional supporters and revive incessant murmurs of division and ‘Tory splits’. Personally, David Cameron needs to be seen to be concerned, focused and associated with macro policy and the wholly necessary crucial reforms to build a better Britain – we’re talking about the economy, education and welfare. Politically, the Conservative Party needs to be focusing on winning a majority in 2015 (or even sooner) in order to complete the task – we’re talking about winning the Pakistani Muslim vote in Luton; the Indian Sikh vote in Southall, the African-Caribbean Pentecostal vote in Lewisham, and the Roman Catholic vote throughout the North-West. These groups tend to have strongly conservative views on moral issues such as homosexuality, and ‘gay marriage’ is quite simply a step too far.

But it isn’t only bigoted and backward fundamentalist Evangelicals and staunch Roman Catholics living in the ‘Dark Ages’ who oppose same-sex marriage; it’s liberal Anglicans as well.

It isn’t only arch-Tory Telegraph journalists or whiggish Daily Mail reactionaries; it is socialist Guardian ones as well.

And let’s not forget those hundreds of thousands of homosexuals and lesbians who are by no means crusading for gay marriage, but are perfectly and quietly content with the equality provisions afforded by civil partnership.

There is, quite literally, a rainbow coalition of all socio-political colours ranged against the Coalition on this matter, and these groups represent millions of votes. Unfortunately for David Cameron, he won’t be able to U-turn from this policy whilst blaming the Liberal Democrats for the confusion and lack of clarity: he nailed his red, purple and pink very firmly to the mast; he is intent on creating gay marriage, he says, ‘because I am a Conservative’.

While political commentators have been thrashing and flailing around trying to find Cameron’s ultra-modernising ‘Clause IV’ moment by which the Tory modernisation project might be completed, his Poll Tax has crept upon them. Gay marriage isn’t likely to bring out the hordes to riot in Trafalgar Square, and he has no constitutional right to impose it first upon the people of Scotland. But it is now a policy out of all proportion to its political significance: it is eclipsing the economy and reforms to welfare and education; it is upstaging foreign policy initiatives and visits to the White House. It is dividing his party and the whole country. For this Prime Minister, the utterly peripheral and third-order issue of gay marriage is likely to be trumped only by the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Is this really to be David Cameron’s legacy?


Blogger robertatforsythe said...

"Gay marriage will be Cameron’s Poll Tax "

What an excitable load of bigoted baloony. The poll tax was something universally hated that affected everyone. My reading of the polls suggests that the majority of the UK populace could not care less about the issue of gay marriage and since it is very much a minority matter it is of no importance to them. So your comparison is very misleading. Usually I admire what you write but sometimes and this is not the first time I wonder if you are tempted to indulge in nastiness?

12 March 2012 at 09:52  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

There are a lot of areas where the "activists" pressing for something are well out of touch with those on whose behalf they claim to be acting. In the case of gays, those that I have met at various times would just prefer to be left alone to live their lives in their own way without a lot of fuss. They ask for no special privileges and feel that the activists often make life worse for them.
I have heard basically the same from people of ethnic minorities with whom I worked - the constant claims of discrimination, etc., just make things worse, not better. Again they just want to live their lives in their own way.
The problem is the activists, who frequently aren't even members of the group concerned, but who seem to have this deep-rooted belief that everyone is equal and must be treated identically, and Cameron seems to have fallen for their propaganda. We are not all the same, and do not want to be the same.

12 March 2012 at 09:54  
Blogger graham wood said...

Cranmer. If I may say so - a most beautiful (if not ironic) portrayal of our Great Leader(s) in the artfully contrived photoshop you have given us.

Even better is your perceptive commentary. But I'm not so sure that it is altogether too late for Mr C to change on this - especially given the unmistakable signs of very solid opposition to SSM growing on all sides, including the somewhat formidable opposition of about 4 million potential RC voters - apart from others!

Will he be able to carry his party, particularly those rather "sensitive" Tory MPs who through unhappy circumstances are balanced delicately in marginal constituencies?
Jobs for out-of-work MPs have never been harder - he is not improving their prospects!

12 March 2012 at 09:55  
Blogger Ryanm29 said...

What a lot of complete and utter nonsense.

Perhaps from an intolerant religious persepective...

His equality approach will never be equated to an unfair tax. What would you have him do? Ban mixed religion marriages? Ban Blacks and Muslims from marrying?

Most people don't care.. What will happen if gay people can get married?? -will the world fall apart? Will the communists invade? Will the stock markets crash? Will a meteor strike us?.. no. simply, gay people will get married.

What will be his poll tax? -the NHS. simple.

12 March 2012 at 09:56  
Blogger Anoneumouse said...

Isaiah 11:6

12 March 2012 at 10:18  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

As Rowan Williams warns in more subtle terms than Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the law cannot be used to push cultural change.

This type of thinking goes deep within traditional leftist and rightist libertarian, but has now become 'unfashionable,' to say the least.

I understand where the ABofC is coming from with this, but don't understand why he uses the word 'cannot' because it most certainly can be used to push cultural change, and has increasingly been used to do so, by Conservative as well as Labour governments.

The reasons why many believed in the past and still believe today, that the law should not be used for this type of purpose, are many, among the foremost of these are.

1. That it can often result in unforeseen by most, counter-productive, or other bad consequences.

2. That it ever more dangerously undermines the precious liberty protecting concept of individual property rights.

This is why IMO banning, or promoting anything by law, most especially within privately owned establishments, or homes, including churches should be resisted at all costs for a variety of important reasons.

12 March 2012 at 10:27  
Blogger robertatforsythe said...

G Wood said "including the somewhat formidable opposition of about 4 million potential RC voters ". I say this whole thing has to be kept in proportion. Are you assuming that the RC vote follows en bloc its leadership? The Tory Party certainly does not do that and nor do Roman Catholics. I know many Roman Catholics and not one of the ones I know has stood up to endorse their Archbishop's letter. However I do know a surprising number of conservatives (in my judgement) who have no problems over same sex marriage. This is not about endorsing promiscuity or what goes go in clubs. It is about whether we can see God blessing two people who pledge to stay together in life long union. It is not a big deal. There is theology in it and it is this: what comes first gender or the person? And I would suggest that what comes out of the Trinity is that person is more important than gender. Christianity has always taken time to work it all out. The Trinity was not a given in Jesus's life. Gay marriage is no different to realising that women were independent agents entitled to a vote. The She Wolves programme on BBC Four last night was a fascinating insight into how sectors of society given second class status had to fight for their status even when of royal blood.

12 March 2012 at 10:31  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

People keep deriding the socalled 'Poll Tax'; and cite it whenever some proposal is made for something they don't like. Well, at the time I couldn't see what was wrong with it and I still can't. If there's not taxation without representation, they why shouldn't there be no representation without taxation? And as I recall the only people who reacted, violently, were all the usual socialists who seen to be able to come onto the streets at the drop of a hat. Normal people don't behave that way, but of course because of that, their opinions don't count.
But on the subject of gay marriage - it's wrong, but when has that stopped socialists and opportunistic politicians from doing something.

12 March 2012 at 10:58  
Blogger bluedog said...

M/s Roberta @ 09.52 & 10.31 if one reads through the comments attaching to many of the press articles on same sex marriage, the balance of opinion appears to run strongly against SSM. This contrasts sharply with opinion polls by professional groups which at present tend to find a small majority in favour of SSM, albeit with a large 'don't know' cohort. What is undoubtedly true is that press articles on SSM draw extremely high rates of readership and comment. So to say that 'the majority of the UK populace could not care less about the issue of gay marriage and since it is very much a minority matter' is not borne out by the evidence.

Your comment 'sectors of society given second class status had to fight for their status even when of royal blood.' is hardly relevant to two incomparable situations, heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. If you are unable to see the difference between the two, your opening, and rather hyperbolic comment 'What an excitable load of bigoted baloony', is explained.

12 March 2012 at 11:09  
Blogger Botzarelli said...

Are hundreds of thousands going to take to the streets calling for the government to fall? Are there going to be scores of protestors refusing to marry and boycotting the administrative processes for registering marriages because they believe that the institution has been devalued so they would rather remain single (and presumably celibate so as not to oppose the sin of homosexuality by heterosexual fornication)?

The first certainly won't happen and the second would look to the vast majority of people like barely comprehensible eccentricity because most people don't care one way or the other about gay marriage. Perhaps it is not very Conservative to bring in legislation to change an institution that most think has nothing very much wrong with how it is but unless and until the majority start to agree that marriage is undermined by letting same sex couples enter into it that is an academic point. Most people will ask themselves, do I feel that my bond to my spouse or the relationships between any of my married friends will change in any way if gay couples may marry? Almost none will honestly be able to say yes to that. Perhaps they are wrong and that the right thing to do would be to ask about future marriages and whether they would have the same meaning they had when they themselves considered marriage. But even then, most will say, had gay couples been able to marry when I was growing up would I have thought heterosexual marriage something I might not want in the future? No.

Neither the Welfare Reform Act nor the Health and Social Care Bill are Cameron's Poll Tax and both will potentially change the actual lives of many more people rather than the theory that underpins the belief system that some of them have.

12 March 2012 at 11:23  
Blogger graham wood said...

robertatforsythe said...

"G Wood said "including the somewhat formidable opposition of about 4 million potential RC voters ". I say this whole thing has to be kept in proportion. Are you assuming that the RC vote follows en bloc its leadership?"

I said "potential". I do not assume the RC vote follows en bloc its leadership.

12 March 2012 at 11:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I was closely watching the Comments section of this story at the BBC News site yesterday. The Catholic Church was getting a hammering, and it flowed over to religion in general.

As for Cameron's poll tax moment, I don't think the general public cares that much about this issue. It's a specialist one. As someone has already said, it's the NHS and DLA that is polarising thought.

12 March 2012 at 11:34  
Blogger David B said...

I doubt that this issue will have the impact that HG and some others seem to think, on the basis that on this issue the bul of members of the congregations of various churches seem to be socially in advance of their leadership.

I would think that the more significant result of this furore will be more people feeling estranged from their church leadership, and some proportion of these making their attendance at church less regular or non-existent.

Perhaps this is just wishful thinking, perhaps not.

David B

12 March 2012 at 11:38  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

"Roman Catholics living in the Dark Ages", Cranmer? That would be today, I assume. Still, I suppose we should be grateful you distinguised us from "bigoted and backward fundamentalists".

As to prime minsterial legacies, I would disagree with you on one point: Thatcher's will not be the Poll Tax. In the long run, it will be the breakup of Britain. Before her, the Tories, while in something of a decline, still commanded a respectable share of the vote in Scotland; today, they couldn't get elected to a parish council. More than anyone, her contempt for One Nation Toryism destroyed any influence unionism had in Scotland, and I hope she lives long enough to see Salmond drive a stake through the heart of the UK.

12 March 2012 at 11:52  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...


Before apportioning a phrase to His Grace which is clearly surrounded by quotation marks, do google the term +Lynne Featherstone to discover its origin.

12 March 2012 at 11:58  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

The Archbishop said " it might even be ‘just’, ‘equitable’ and a ‘good idea’."

You forget the new buzz word - "fairness".

It reminds me of a kid who said to my teacher "Snot fair..", to which the teacher said "Yes, and neither is a black man's bum, get used to it".

Politics is now all about "fairness" - the infantilisation of public discourse and the population is almost complete.

What a miserable future we have before us.

12 March 2012 at 12:14  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


What will happen if gay people can get married?? -will the world fall apart? Will the communists invade? Will the stock markets crash? Will a meteor strike us?.. no. simply, gay people will get married.

The fundamental structure of marriage will be altered. It will no longer be associated with gender but only with coupling. It will thus no longer have any necessary connection to children. It therefore tends to disconnect a man from his offspring. In the absence of children, the requirement for monogamy is attentuated. Instead you have an "at will" relationship that is designed solely for the convenience of the couple. The fact that most people 'don't care' simply indicates that most don't have a clue what the purpose of marriage is or how it functions. They think things will go along just as before. They won't. This isn't Gay Marriage. It's gender neutral marriage, and it constitutes a revolutionary re-casting of the institution at the center of every civilization known to man - the only institution that has been shown to successfully civilize children.

That is what is at stake.


12 March 2012 at 12:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

‘As is the creation ex nihilo of ‘gay marriage’.’


Once, as Nietzsche predicted, they kill God in their hearts: they have nothing left except themselves.

‘Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars -- and yet they have done it themselves.’

The Parable of the Madman (1882)

12 March 2012 at 13:05  
Blogger Flossie said...

Serves Cameron right! He should have tried being a Conservative.

12 March 2012 at 13:29  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

I'm with those on here who think any reference to the poll tax in connection with gay marriage is very wide of the mark. Those of us who think the law is OK as it stands should not be so shrill and excitable. By all means highlight the reasons for opposing a change in the marriage laws, but in a measured way.

By the bye, someone has mentioned elsewhere about the legal aspect of consummation. An unconsummated marriage is void and can be nullified. What of a gay marriage? Is sodomy going to be written into the law as a pre-requisite? Quite a turn of events if it is.

12 March 2012 at 13:33  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace;
DanJ0 said; I don't think the general public cares that much about this issue.
This is a typical retort from someone who fears their campaign in losing ground. They make out that it's not a big thing and that nobody is bothered about it.

The moral but silent majority is genuinely against the re-defining of marriage. They are not bothered about Gays or what they get up to but they do not want their way of life turned upside down by a few militants. Just so they can say they are married rather than Civil Coupling.

Cameron and his cohorts must be getting desperate, despite saying it will be a vote of conscience, Tory leaders are being put under pressure. Eric Pickles who only the other week protected the right to pray in council meetings, has now come out saying he has (had his mind changed for him) sorry, changed his mind.

I would like to see hundreds of thousands of people march on Parliament, not quite like Watt Tyler, but as a march of freedom against involuntary change.

12 March 2012 at 13:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

It is reasonably and logically predictable that once SSM is introduced then the case for polygamy and polyandry will be irresistible.

In reality ‘SSM’ (civil partnerships) have already introduced, in reality (if not yet in law), polygamy and polyandry. For SS couples to have children they must cooperate with at least one additional partner – and in that sense their relationships look like plural ‘marriages’.

How will the State now desist from introducing polygamy?

12 March 2012 at 13:36  
Blogger Flossie said...

Next time somebody does a poll on gay marriage, how about framing it something like this? ...

How would you like the Government to implement a policy which is going to cost you £5 billion quid (Stonewall's estimate) and probably considerably more once the inevitable fallout is assessed; something which hardly anybody actually wants and which will benefit them not one jot; something which will encourage our children to experiment with dangerous sexual practices once these are given moral equivalence to normal reproductive practices in sex education classes; something which will criminalise teachers and parents if they refuse to submit to this new sex ed curriculum; something which could lead to children being taken away from their parents by the state as has happened in other countries; something which puts the definition of marriage at the whim of the state which can be altered at any time in the future to include who knows what ...

12 March 2012 at 13:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

Flossie makes an interesting point; how much will it all cost?

The Nordic example where SSM has been introduced for some years tells us that the way it has affected the heterosexual community is that many would get married after their first child was born; now many don’t get married after their second child is born and partners are frequently rotated – having negative affects on millions of children.

What is clear is this: the heterosexual community and its ‘fatherless’ children need colossal amounts of money from the state.

In other words the welfare state (and taxation levels) will need to grow until people say – we can’t afford them (I suppose). If that situation is arrived at – what becomes of the children?

12 March 2012 at 14:03  
Blogger Owl said...

YG, I do believe that Dave referred to himself as the heir to Blair.

At least he wasn't lying at that point in time.

He doesn't mention Conservatism very often and I don't think he considers himself conservative.

Much as our stonewallian colleagues may dislike it, it seems to me more of a "bridge too far" than a "poll tax" situation.

The major problem is how do real conservatives regain control of the party that is supposed to represent them but currently doesn't.

12 March 2012 at 15:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

God has apparently changed his mind about marriage in the past - after all, you don't see the Church advocating that hard for rape victims to be forced to marry their attackers (Deut 22:28-29) - only if they're discovered, mind. Or the reinstatement of polygamy (as enjoyed by David and other OT types - a man after God's own heart he was!) Why is that, Your Grace? Was God wrong before? Perhaps He was just misquoted? Maybe the Church is still pro these things, but the press release got lost in the mail...

More examples -

As for this being Cameron's poll tax, I don't think so. It will happen and then people will move on once they realise that the world will still turn.

The Church has itself in a tizzy because it thinks it's finally found a power struggle with modernity that it can win. In attempting to do so, it will confirm its irrelevance to the majority of the youth, and re-affirm its fixation with sex in the eyes of a public still sceptical of clerics in this regard.

Once the battle is lost, perhaps the Church should reflect on its mission and realise that its relentless agitation to control gay people's lives (about whom Jesus spoke not one word) has deflected attention from the many good things it does to help the poor and advocate for the defenceless - causes to which Jesus made specific and repeated reference.

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

DanJo @ 11:34 :

You are right, the media does seem to favour the proposition; but they would, wouldn't they?

As for ordinary people out in the sticks, right again; they cannot understand why, when there are so many other issues, why Cameron has opened this particular can of worms.

However, don't read that as meaning that they 'don't care' - they do, and very much so too.

They see it as yet another erosion of life as they once knew it, and which they desperately wish to preserve.

From my experience of recent 'localised' public opinion, most people just shake their heads in bewilderment and inchoate frustration.

Cameron, rather than helping homosexuals, has embroiled them in the general, and underlying disaffection that pervades Britain today. He has added to the sense of hopelessness and simmering anger that ordinary folk have so far endured.

Most people see the fairness of 'civil partnerships' but refute the notion of tinkering further with the very fabric of our history and society.

There again, most people wondered at the likelihood of a push beyond 'civil partnership' - understanding that certain homosexuals would want all.

As they further understand that, on the occasion of SOME clergy willing to officiate at homosexual marriage, would herald the signal to pick-off and harass those individual priests/churches who chose not to officiate.

In your heart of hearts, DanJo, you know this to be so; you are not, as you have often stated, a slavish adherent of 'Stonewall' policies, but you do know, or at least suspect, their intent.

12 March 2012 at 15:24  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

I agree with "robertatforsythe:
"What an excitable load of bigoted baloony. The poll tax was something universally hated that affected everyone. My reading of the polls suggests that the majority of the UK populace could not care less about the issue of gay marriage and since it is very much a minority matter it is of no importance to them."

What WILL be Camoron's Poll Tax is his COMPLETELY INSANE "reform" of the NHS
Which WILL affect everyone - for the worse.

12 March 2012 at 15:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Mr I: "This is a typical retort from someone who fears their campaign in losing ground."

I realise that I'm the Gay Everyman, Atheist Everyman, and Secularist Everyman here but it does get tiresome at times being ascribed whatever attributes someone wants to kick. It may be a typical retort but I'm part of no campaign to legislate for same-sex marriage, I simply have an opinion which I write here and in the comments areas of some news sites. I don't support Stonewall either. This is a proposal from David Cameron, heterosexual, prime minister, and member of the Conservative Party. As it happens, I think this drive by a religious political coalition is likely to backfire and reduce tolerance in the general population for religious demands. I also think same-sex marriage is inevitable in the UK, though not as a result of this particular proposal. Finally, I think the opinion polls show a majority in favour of same-sex marriage in principle though I doubt most people care as it simply won't affect them personally. I find the whole thing very exciting too, actually. Proper politics.

12 March 2012 at 15:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You usually write a load of baloney, Mr Cranmer, but this time you are right! Will you marry me?

12 March 2012 at 15:58  
Blogger IanCad said...

I believe that Magaret Thatcher was right on the Poll Tax and I also support Cameron's stance on homosexual marriage. Goodness Knows! I have never posted a good word for him on this blog.
There is no threat to the conventional institute of marriage as ordained hy God in The Creation. All who wish may be married in the church of their choice; or otherwise, as they so choose. I see no threat to religious liberty in this. Indeed, it supports that cause.
History shows the sorry record of persecution and cruelty when the church calls on the power of the state to enforce its edicts.
Leave this alone!

12 March 2012 at 16:26  
Blogger Flossie said...

Your Grace, the person calling himself David Ould is an impostor.

12 March 2012 at 16:52  
Blogger Oswin said...

Flossie : does that mean that he isn't the tw*t he appears to be? ;O)

12 March 2012 at 17:09  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


The Church has itself in a tizzy because it thinks it's finally found a power struggle with modernity that it can win.

It's not a matter of winning or losing. It's a matter of objective truth. People are free to listen or not as they see fit. What they cannot do is change the consequences of their behavior. The modern western world might be compared to the scion of a very rich man. He is spending his inheritance on prostitutes and parties without giving thought to any other concern in life. He isn't paying attention to it, but his bank account is getting low. Disastrously low.

The sexual libertinism that sustains the homosexual rights movement is itself the source of the problem. It is why birth rates are through the floor and have been for two generations. It is why many of the children conceived are growing up without fathers. How do you expect those few children to compete in the coming world? Who will have raised them and disciplined them and formed their character such that they will be capable of carrying the country forward? Are they educated? Can they defer gratification? Are they diligent and honest and faithful to the task? Those traits are not inborn into men. They are taught. Who is going to teach them?

There is one and only one institution that has ever been capable of answering those questions. It is the two-parent nuclear family, and it is precisely that norm that is under attack. The nuclear family channels men into marriage so that they commit to a woman, accept the obligation to procreate the next generation, and take responsibility for raising the resulting children. The sexual liberation movement was designed to break all those constraints. In the process it carried along the homosexual rights movement. But that movement can only continue to flourish so long as modern attitudes about sex are maintained. Unfortunately modern attitudes about sex are exactly what is undermining the future of the country.

Something is going to give. A nation cannot long endure this contradiction. And what will give is economic prosperity as the next generation finds itself incapable of meeting its public responsibilites. To put it bluntly, there won't be enough people to sustain the ecomony and many of those people won't be fit to act in that ecomony. It is a very dangerous prospect. Sexual discipline must be restored, or it will be restored the hard way. By a very lethal and malignant government. And trust me on this. That gov't won't be very respecting of homosexual rights.


12 March 2012 at 17:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Cranmer: The woman calling herself Flossie is a man!

12 March 2012 at 17:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. So very illuminating. A true conservative will not vote for anyone else save UKIP, but will withhold their vote. In his own constituency, the Inspector can inform that for 40 years, the seat has gone to the party that forms the government, and is indeed, conservative right now. That makes the Inspector’s vote ‘more equal than others’. He is still smarting about being denied his ‘cast iron’ promise of a vote on the EU, so let’s say gay marriage is the icing on the damned cake.

While Cameron is still in charge, the Inspector’s ‘cast iron’ vote at the next general election could be ‘rested’…

12 March 2012 at 17:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

John in Cheshire, and anyone else who thought the Maggie’s grand plan was a good idea...

While the poll tax was being considered, in Liverpool, 10,000 people ‘disappeared’ from the electoral roll…

12 March 2012 at 17:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0 at 12 March 2012 15:55

Now that’s proof that you just don’t care, do you. You Sir, are a wrecker. It doesn’t matter what damage occurs, it alright because it’s ‘for the cause’.

Met your type in the 1970s. Socialist activists who pulled the men out on strike to teach the bosses a lesson. One wonders what they are doing now, not working in manufacturing you can wager, the larger firms having closed since then. You and your fellow gang of militant queers are trying to do to society what Socialist Worker did to the economy...

12 March 2012 at 17:52  
Blogger davvers said...

Getting back to the original issue ........Marriage is known throughout the world as a union of man and woman who intend to live together and ( apart from a miniscule number) have children to create a family. That involves two people. Gay and lesbian couples will always require a third person in order to have a child. Ergo marriage is not for them. Simple really....I don't know what all the fuss is about.

12 March 2012 at 18:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Carl, I notice you didn't address my points about the Church (deliberately?) ignoring Biblical precedent on marriage and arguing for it's newly idealised societal rather than biblical norms. How weird is that? The Church, deviating from scripture to avoid making itself even less popular?!

As for your belief that "sexual libertines" are the reason for falling birth rates - I think you'll find a strong correlation between falling birth rates and higher rates of education and GDP per capita. Singapore has a low birth rate (lower than replacement at 1.07), and I'd hardly call it a hot bed of sexual deviance. Japan is at 1.23 too.

So, strip away the moralising about lack of fathers and basically, what you're saying is "Ignore the Bible because God made some boo boos in the Old testament, you should do what the Church tells you the Bible should have said otherwise western society may fall to a totalitarianism which will be less tolerant of gays than we are".

In which case, stripped of even your supposed supernatural guide book, what value does the Church's view add to this debate? A self interested desire to avoid rephrasing your (non- biblically- based) wedding spell book? Jealousy that drag queens have better dresses than the clergy do? What is it?

Maybe, all that's left is your personal view, backed by some other people who lean on the Bible when it suits their pre-established prejudices.

12 March 2012 at 18:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


"Marriage is known throughout the world as a union of man and woman"

Except in the Old testament... And many cultures which permit polygamy, and a growing number of countries which permit gay marriage.

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

Jon. Shouldn’t you be doing the housework for your man ? Leave the thinking to the masculine types, what !

12 March 2012 at 18:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "You and your fellow gang of militant queers are trying to do to society what Socialist Worker did to the economy..."

I've met anachronistic, racist, homophobes like you before too. Always felt like needing a good shower afterwards.

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

DanJ0. We both know that gay marriage opens so many doors when it comes to the Gay Agenda. If you think the Inspector and others of his ilk are going to stand around idly while your crowd dictates society’s future direction, THINK AGAIN !

12 March 2012 at 19:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

At least it's all out in the open now, Inspector, you must be relieved you're no longer living a lie. :)

12 March 2012 at 19:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. I've met anachronistic, racist, homophobes like you before

You’ve hurt the Inspector. Wounded him, no less...

Anachronistic. What ! We are not all degenerates.

Racist. You say that after the Inspector patiently explained that he loves black people. He just wants to know why some are dangerously anti social and violent. You see, he just wants to HELP them.

Homophobe. You know that the Inspector has gay friends. But they are decent types, not at all like you...

12 March 2012 at 19:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...


You're already damned by your own words. What more can I add.

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

I'm learning to be 'diverse' in my outlook, having completed day one of my 5 day indoctrination programme.

I can't help notice you have very sterotypical views about sexual and gender roles.

Did your comment to Jon reflect a sexist attitude?

Do homosexual - oops, sorry 'gay' - relationships have divisions of tasks and responsibilities along masculine and feminine lines? Afterall, neither can impregnate the other or give birth, so I don't suppose they do. One or other could theoretically make the tea or do the thinking.

Now, we must not project our values and beliefs about lifestyles onto others. There is no right or wrong, just difference and it should be celebrated!

12 March 2012 at 19:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

One sees the real you coming through. Quite a nasty, spiteful chap.

Or is it the time of the month?

12 March 2012 at 19:48  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

The cornerstone of human society is not marriage, it's the family. The family exists in various forms in different societies (monogamous, polygynous, rarely polyandrous), but essentially it is the arrangement within which men and women procreate and rear their offspring.

"Marriages" are the methods by which various societies recognise, legitimise, sanction, legalise, whatever, the family arrangement.

It seems to me that discussion about what the Pope says, what the CofE says, what the Bible says, is largely irrelevant. What matters is the family, and as by definition homosexuals cannot procreate and thus create a family, talk of "gay marriage" is meaningless.

If Cameron does force through legislation to legalise the farce of gay marriage all he will have achieved is the undermining of the family. I wonder if that is what he wants?

The discussions on this matter that I've followed in many threads have tended to get bogged down on Christian denominational issues when it is wider than that; it affects people of any religion or of none, society as a whole.

And before someone chips in and quotes Margaret Thatcher as saying there's no such thing as society I suggest they take the trouble to check the context in which she uttered those words, which is relevant to this issue.

12 March 2012 at 20:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah, there you are Dodo. Inspector busy putting the quare fella in his place. a bit easier tonight; perhaps he’s been ‘satisfied’, if you catch the Inspector’s drift. Interesting thought that, do effeminate gay men like Jon suffer a form of faux PMT. Worth looking into. Must ask him, once he’s finished the dusting and comes back...

12 March 2012 at 20:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"If Cameron does force through legislation to legalise the farce of gay marriage all he will have achieved is the undermining of the family."

What exactly will happen?

12 March 2012 at 20:12  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

The old Clause IV did not mention nationalisation, although it certainly allowed for it; it had been framed so that people who already had nationalisation in mind could read that presupposition into it, even though no one could have read that presupposition out of it.

But Tony Blair and his fan club thought that it was about nothing else. So, in repudiating it, they repudiated public ownership in order to repudiate everything that public ownership delivered and safeguarded, notably national sovereignty, the Union, and the economic basis of paternal authority.

Likewise, in repudiating trade unionism, they repudiated controlled immigration, and the moderating influence of the wider electorate in the affairs of the Labour Party. Mercifully, that latter, at least, reasserted itself in the victory of Ed Miliband over the Blairite candidate.

But it still needs to be reasserted that requiring the production of a union card is no different from requiring the production of a British passport or a work permit, while the closed shop was as important for that as it was for giving the Tory 45 per cent of the industrial working class a moderating influence in the selection of Labour candidates for the safe Labour seats in which they lived.

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

DanJ0. The gay uprising is almost over. In a few weeks time, we’ll be dragging the last of them into the courtyard to be shot. And do you know what, it won’t even be accorded a paragraph in history...

12 March 2012 at 20:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't quite see the issue here myself; there are some species of the galaxy that have 5 genders!

12 March 2012 at 21:03  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Anyone who thinks homosexuals can't have children isn't thinking very hard. And I don't see why they couldn't make a decent fist of parenting. And I can't see what harm gay marriage will do. Honestly. You lot are hysterical, in more ways than one.

12 March 2012 at 21:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

No the resolution of the gay question will not be David Cameron's legacy;no his future lies elsewhere.

But let us say that in two hundred and eighty eight of your years hence, he is known as a leader, who held (what will become) the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland and Mars through her greatest time of trial... 'Cameronism' is an ethitapt to the Anglo-Martian character and pluck.

[And I never realised how tiny this island is, I will never understand why an island no bigger than one of our refuse collection stations managed to create a world language and a 'space empire upon which the stars never set'].

Although Anglo-Martians beware- make war upon alpha draconis and forever be smoten by our wrath!

12 March 2012 at 21:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eh? The Office of Inspector General is advocating that we round up every gay in this country and shot them? Blazes man; this isn't savage land you know!

12 March 2012 at 21:39  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Garce;
People pontificate here about the re-defining of marriage, but whilst it is important for us to do our part in objecting, in the end;

God will have his way.

12 March 2012 at 21:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yg I find your image of David Cameron quite disturbing....but not as disturbing as his attempt to destroy the Marriage Covenant between a man and a woman as ordained by God.

But David Cameron may have unwittingly achieved the near impossible and be the cause of uniting the fragmented Christian Denominations against a common enemy ...namely the advance of aggressive Humanists who wish to destroy the foundations of our Society and rebuilt it in their image.

12 March 2012 at 21:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hardly Lavendon. Only the diehard gays, and even then twas only a figure of speech. Meanwhile, Cameron squats over the the NHS. Can’t be a good outcome there...

12 March 2012 at 21:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, your Grace, whilst I've been away I have to confess you've got quite a readership nowadays- and quite a diverse one too- you will tick all the diversity boxes should the office of inspector Political Correctness wish to bash down your door and three in the morning demanding you have at least one minority face -as part of the diversity and blogging Act -on the comments forum(I think little black sambo still comments here so that's a tick!)- but still an impressive list- Catholics, methodists, gays, Anglicans, atheists trolls, Tories, Liberals, Nationalists, socialists, Germans, Spainards, Bible belt believers and calvanists- dodo's, Danjo's, No-nos, Banjo's, Ernst and Tiddles, Len, D Singh,Office of Inspector General, tounges in larks arse, Carl Jacobs and even an ET!

Jolly good show! I suggest that you do a Times and start charging for chaps and chapesses to read this blog of erudite comment and exposition.

Please keep up the good work!

12 March 2012 at 21:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, my good fellow inspector, thank you for clearing up that issue. This is a squalid mess; too much too soon! Of course it Would never have happened if the House of Lords were still made up of real Lords- we would have voted it down- every man jack of us!

Hip hip, God save the Queen!

12 March 2012 at 21:52  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Jon @ 18.29, this communicant has given much thought to the issues raised by your comment 'As for your belief that "sexual libertines" are the reason for falling birth rates - I think you'll find a strong correlation between falling birth rates and higher rates of education and GDP per capita. Singapore has a low birth rate (lower than replacement at 1.07), and I'd hardly call it a hot bed of sexual deviance. Japan is at 1.23 too.'

Taking as a starting premise the necessity for any mammalian population to achieve a surplus of live births over deaths in order to survive, as we have, there seem to be two pro-creational models available in the widest sense. It is a given that almost all mammalian populations will reproduce on the basis of 104 males for each 100 females.

For convenience, let us call one model Muslim and the other Judeo-Christian. The Muslim model works on the basis of approx 25 females to each male, that being about the number of females that a single sire can service, although up to 33 females may be possible. It is a model that creates a large number of males surplus to breeding requirements, available as workers or warriors in the service of the alpha-male or Sultan. It also creates as situation where the alpha male suffers repeated challenges, which has possibly lead to the prevalence of eunuchs as guardians of the hareem and in government, all in the service of the Sultan. This social model leads naturally to large war-bands and an economy based on plunder, and as an economic model, thrived in semi-arid rangelands. The raising of children becomes a collective activity of the hareem.

At the opposite extreme is the Judeo-Christian model of one man-one woman, which is the ideal unit for working a small farm or business. In this model the complementary attributes of man and woman are most efficiently used and parenting is naturally more intense than in the nursery model offered by Muslim society as described above. The Judeo-Christian model seems to work best in a more fertile environment enabling closer settlement, necessary to assist with mutual defence against predatory war-bands.

To the extent that man has created God, competing narratives have grown up supporting the two models.

Empirical evidence suggests that the Judeo-Christian model is infinitely superior in terms of delivering human happiness, social harmony and prosperity. However this system breaks down when for complex reasons the birthrate falls below replacement, as has happened almost without exception across the West in the last fifty years. It is no exaggeration to say that the West faces extinction and western populations are being replaced by, Muslims. This outcome seems counter-intuitive given the manifest failings of the Muslim social model, so there must be another factor at work.

Something keeps the Muslims breeding. As you point out, highly educated women tend not to breed above replacement, with exception of some of my relations. but not enough to singlehandly reverse the slide.

The missing link is religion, as the brilliant US thinker David P Goldman, who channels as Spengler, points out. Goldman has written a number of books such as 'It's not he end of the world, just the end of you' and articles, all of which tend to prove this point. See

So when an atheist homosexual writes in a fit of heterophobia to denounce His Grace and his like minded communicants, it is essentially an exercise in dancing on his own grave.

Enjoy it while you can.

12 March 2012 at 22:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good man Lavendon. You’re a chap to be trusted. You see, we’ve had a bit of a ‘pervert rebellion’ on this site, but it’s been suppressed. Inspector busy clearing up now. You would have thought they “don’t like it up em”, but this lot do...

All for God, Queen and Empire, as you know...

12 March 2012 at 22:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'Cameron squats over the NHS'- indeed. I have to say that is more likely to be the 'poll tax' of Cameron's Premiership. The people love the NHS and tampering with it is a dangerous idea. It was not in the coalition agreement and will do the conservative party damage. That and the toadying to the train wreck of the EU is too much!

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

Incidentally Lavendon. The Inspector is himself a peer of the realm, though it be little known. He is, in fact, the current Lord Haw Haw, no less...

12 March 2012 at 22:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm also thinking that to save the Church of Christ in this country us Anglicans must give serious consideration of a re-union with Rome as soon as possible; the Church of England is becoming too liberal and self -absorbed with women Bishops, liberalism and socialist tosh spills from the pulpits of our Church.

If it is one thing I have learned from this blog is at least the Roman Catholics have the conviction of their view and stick to it- unlike the Anglican leadership they know what they stand for and fight for what the believe!

[I accept that their are a few exceptions to this - who with irony herald from the Empire-Carl Jacobs and D Singh]

12 March 2012 at 22:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, I wonder what has befallen the bloggers 'rebel saint' and 'anabaptist'; I always found their comments illuminating.

Another brandy squire!

Inspector- surely not a reflection of the current standing of your house!

12 March 2012 at 22:33  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

The Office of Inspector general reveals himself as the descendant of a traitor to this realm.So he is following in the footsteps of his ancestors of being a racist, homophobe, facist traitor...

12 March 2012 at 22:39  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

What's wrong with gay marriage? It is an important milestone in fulfilling equality and diversity in this country; I don't go along with a lot of the gay militant stuff, but I think our Lord Jesus loves us gays, just like he does straight people. It is only mindless bigots that hate gay people. We just want to be accepted for what we are.

12 March 2012 at 22:43  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

The misogyny demonstrated (references to pmt and dusting) by some supposedly heterosexual male communicants on this site is

The spiteful remarks are downright queeny.Women and gays are separate.Gays are not women.I am surprised I need to point this out to such rambo types.(I'm having my doubts)

12 March 2012 at 22:50  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Office of Inspector General said...

"DanJ0. The gay uprising is almost over. In a few weeks time, we’ll be dragging the last of them into the courtyard to be shot. And do you know what, it won’t even be accorded a paragraph in history..."

Goodness, thought that the masque had fallen and we had been conversing with that chappie Jeremy Clarkson.
"He wrote on his blog: “I cannot remember how the subject of homosexuality came up, but I said at one point that he wasn’t very sound on gay rights … Oh yes I am, he said, adding, to more laughter from the largely adoring crowd ‘I demand the right not to be bummed’.”

Stonewall chief executive Ben Summerskill told the Daily Star: “Surely the reason Jeremy Clarkson doesn’t want to get bummed is that he needs somewhere to speak out of.”

Hasn't stopped that fella DanJo, he's actually able to speak, write and drink water at the same time !

However, when he has gurgled "gottle o' gear" on the blog, we thought he said 'Throttle a Queer" or was it just an evangelical kneejerk reaction. A evangelical Knee directed at a jerk?

Clarkson was given Stonewall’s Bigot of the Year award in 2007, so you appear to have a high bar to jump over. Top Form that man..or should that be Top Gear?



Mrs B Senior was an amateur ventriloquist touring the comedy halls of the north east and she was always throwing her voice around the house. For 15 years I thought that Shep was telling me to kill me old Pater. Naughty Mater! * Guffaws massively*
Mr B Senior lives to tell the tale!

12 March 2012 at 22:56  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...


You are quite right, there is too much male ramboism going on here. If every Catholic was like you, then I'd be a Catholic!

12 March 2012 at 23:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lavendon... [Splutter and and Ernsty and Tibbles gwaff]

My life at your command!

PS- apologises if I told Carl Jacobs where he could stick battle cruiser and for my ...inappropriate remarks to Dodo!!

12 March 2012 at 23:06  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

"But we preach Christ Crucified, a scandal to the Jews and a folly to the Greeks."

It is vitally important to emphasise how utterly transformed are all three of the Old Israel, Hellenism and the Roman Empire in their recapitulation in Jesus Christ and His Church.

A crucified Messiah remains anathema to Judaism, one of the two great Semitic reactions against that recapitulation. In its unfulfilled Messianic hope and expectation, together with its denial of Original Sin, Judaism is the root of all manner of coercive utopianism based on the theory of human nature as perfectible by its own efforts alone and in this life alone. Islam, the other such reaction, holds that Jesus was virgin-born, blowing out of the water the lazy assertion that that is a Hellenistic interpolation. But Islam has always denied outright that the Crucifixion ever occurred.

Meanwhile, those who would look to some sort of Classical tradition ostensibly unsullied by the Christianity that in fact saved all trace of the Classical world from the forces of barbarism, continue to dismiss Christ Crucified as ridiculous. In so doing, they have consistently left themselves open to the catastrophic expressions of Judaism's unfulfilled Messianic hope and of its failure to recognise the depravity of fallen human nature. They may yet prove to be leaving themselves open to Islam, too. At the very least, they are undeniably leaving open to Islam the wider culture and society in which they exercise such influence.

For example, if the parties to marriage need no longer be of opposite sexes, then why need they be precisely two in number? Why not permit reversion to either or both of unrecapitulated Semitic polygamy (never formally abolished in Judaism) and unrecapitulated Hellenistic pederasty?

After all, neither was ever a product of Original Sin, of the Fall from the original and pristine order that required to be restored in and as the Redemption in and by Christ Crucified. Was it?

12 March 2012 at 23:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Anna Anglican. It is written in the bible. Do not visit the fathers sins upon the son. Incidentally, fascist has two ‘s’ s if you are going to throw that terrible word around.

Don’t give up on men. You just haven’t found the right one yet. However, would the Inspector be right in supposing that he might need to have a liking for a woman with a hairy body...

12 March 2012 at 23:08  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 March 2012 at 23:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, so we have finally found one of the 21st centuries greatest masterminds of crime activity, Ernest Bloefeld and his Tiddles in the,erm, 21st Century!

Come without any fuss and there shall be no show trial, just a one way ticket to Alpha Centuari...

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


I was referring to the full moon, well known to influence mental stability. Hence the expression 'luna(r)tic'.

12 March 2012 at 23:10  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Re gay marriage.

A prerequisite for marriage is heterosexual sex,otherwise the marriage can be annuled.What will the grounds be for annulment of a homosexual marriage?Refusal to have anal sex?
What about lesbians? What type of consummation will be required?It will be necessary to legislate differently from heterosexual marriage. Marriage as it stands can only legally occur heterosexually.

The whole idea of ssm is totally ridiculous.It is like advocating that blind people should be allowed to perform surgery.

If most of the population agree with same sex marriage then I most willingly commit the sin of despair.

12 March 2012 at 23:11  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Your grace,

Is it me or has this thread descended into a bit of a farce? There seems to be a few funny characters posting here.

12 March 2012 at 23:11  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Ah, Dodo is online, some-one half sane- hopefully Damnjo will pop up and we'll get back the normal matters of this blog. I never thought I'd say this , but thank God we've got the old bird back! But weere is the old Queen?

12 March 2012 at 23:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blofeld. You kid not, the Stonewall chief executive is called Ben Summerskill ! An anagram devotees dream, what !

12 March 2012 at 23:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What? I'm now being schmoozed by an Extra-Terrestrial called Alpha Draconis? What the Devil is going on? Have our gay friends had too much of the moonshine?

12 March 2012 at 23:17  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Anna, because of a few human rights issues I will never be in communion with the Catholic Church. However I may consider taking out a subscription to becoming a cultural Catholic.

12 March 2012 at 23:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Cressida de Nova. You madam, are what we used to call a ‘silly cow’. Misogyny indeed ! You might like to know that the Inspector has studied your posts, and can’t decide if you are a female or the ‘new male’ as the queers want us to be....

12 March 2012 at 23:23  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"You are quite right, there is too much male ramboism going on here."

Ah First Blood (Erste Blud), one of Ernst's favs!

Teasle: Whatever possessed God in heaven to make a man like OoiG?
Benedict XVI : God didn't make OoiG. I made him, Ja!

Teasle: Are you telling me that 200 of your best gay men and woman against your boy is a no-win situation for us?
Benedict XVI: You send that many, don't forget one thing.
Teasle: What?
Benedict XVI: A good supply of violet, lavender, and turquoise body bags.

Cressida: Let's do some huntin'!
Anglican Annie: Hunting? We ain't huntin' him, he's huntin' us!

Teasle: They found Rambo's body. As a matter of fact, it stole an army truck. Blew up a gas station the other side of town.
Benedict XVI: Ze ol boy is resiliant, ja.

Benedict XVI: I came to get my boy.
Teasle: *Your* boy?
Benedict XVI: I recruited him. I trained him. I commanded him for three years in the University of Tübingen,. I'd say zat makes him mine, danke schoen.

Ernst 'they don't make em like that anymore' Blofeld

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

Larks said ...
"Anyone who thinks homosexuals can't have children isn't thinking very hard."

Not without some form of third party assistance, dear chap.

Your in an assertive mood this evening. Looks like we have the buggers on the run. And extra help too from that Lord L.

God Bless, you naughty man!

A cultural Catholic is a good first step.

12 March 2012 at 23:27  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...


So your not a catholic- then what's your excuse for homophobia then?

12 March 2012 at 23:30  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 March 2012 at 23:30  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

Inspector, no I don't fancy hairy women. Why would I? I'm a five foot five, athletic, olive skinned, brown eyed,33 year old female, with long, soft, curvy brown hair; I've run several marathons, can defend myself in arm to arm fighting and am a decent fencer . I also have a PhD in astro-physics.

Sorry if I piss in your pond, but your sterotypes are at least 50 years out of date- this is the 21st century... old bean.

12 March 2012 at 23:42  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 March 2012 at 23:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Anna said ...

"... I think our Lord Jesus loves us gays, just like he does straight people. It is only mindless bigots that hate gay people. We just want to be accepted for what we are."

Being serious, you have conflated a number of issues in this statement.

Of course Jesus loves you, regardless of sexual tendency. It does not follow that He would approve of homosexual behaviour.

Seeing homosexual inclinations as being in contradiction to God's ordinences is neither hateful nor bigoted.

Most Christian theologists see active homosexual unions as sinful - in rebellion to God's purposes. Are we not entitled to say this?

12 March 2012 at 23:47  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I have not studied your posts Commander of the Latrines because you are unintelligent bigoted and boring. Unlike you I do not have any confusion about my sexuality. I am a real woman.

Anna ,not all people who opposes ssm are homophobic. This is an unintelligent response.I have always been a supporter of anti discrimination. SSm does not fit this category.

In the past the discrimination against gays particularly in job promotions etc was appalling. One had to be a family man to get ahead. I am happy to say that in the past( and it was necessary then) to have assisted gay friends in being a fiancee, girlfriend, wife at social functions to spare them embarrassment and to avoid discrimination.None of my gay friends want to marry anyone. A civil union with afforded rigths is obviously the sane conclusion

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


Is Anna is flirting with you or threatening you?

12 March 2012 at 23:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I a lad? Why in your terms I am at least 1079 years of age! I guess I am a spring chicken. Gwarph!

I shall save your gwarfing and whit for the Vermin Lords of the Rifton X system- you've done more to upset them than our empire, unless the British Space Empire decides to rescue you- consider yourself in the custody of the rat men of rifton X!

12 March 2012 at 23:52  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Well for what it's worth, I'm convinced as Anna Anglican says that Jesus loves gay people as much as He does straight. He also loves child molesters as much as He loves me. He loves Kony, Robert Mugabe, and He loved Hitler. He loves every one of you posting here.

His love extends to all of us, no matter how foul and depraved we are. But not for an instant does Jesus love our sin. When He embraced my sin He destroyed it utterly, and without exception, upon the Cross. Without God's unrelenting hatred of my sin, and without His endless Grace, I would not be saved but would be condemned in my sin.

God's love for us demands a high price - the highest in fact. It is free to us only because He paid that price in full. If we accept it, we accept the destruction of our sins, and accept that we will be transformed from our present sinful state into a state of perfection, as images of Christ. In no way is God's love "tolerance".

12 March 2012 at 23:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo - my computer is suggesting Anna Anglican swings both ways ... oh noble and rich O'dod...

Ps- Could you spare some change for met'er- Fusion fuel has reach over $20 galactic standard dollars a gallon!

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

Anna Anglican. Why would I? I'm a five foot five, athletic, olive skinned, brown eyed,33 year old female, with long, soft, curvy brown hair; I've run several marathons, can defend myself in arm to arm fighting and am a decent fencer . I also have a PhD in astro-physics.

I say, you’ve got a chap hot around the collar, don’t you know. Don’t worry about the lesbian, that will be poked out of you, be sure of that...

12 March 2012 at 23:59  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

However, would the Inspector be right in supposing that he might need to have a liking for a woman with a hairy body...

Take it then you are NOT a subscriber to Nuns monthly? uugh..sorry!

Which reminds Ernst;

Three nuns were talking. The first nun said, "The other day, I was cleaning Father McInty's room and I found pornographic magazines under his bed!"

The second nun said, "I can top that. Yesterday I was cleaning Father McInty's room and I found some condoms!"

The other nuns asked, "What did you do with them?"

The second nun said, "I poked holes in them."

The third nun fainted.

Bad habits die hard and are terrible to clean at 40c even with Bold 3 in 1 with acti-lift (ad placement..bit tight for cash, awaiting pension giro, Your Grace)


ps Alpha Draconis

"unless the British Space Empire decides to rescue you- consider yourself in the custody of the rat men of rifton X!"
Ernst refuses to let them scumbags supply gas or electric to his crater, seriously doubt they would rescue him. Do have a lot of nectar points building up and a trip to rifton X may just help getting a gazillion nectar points, towards purchasing a new Trigotron hydron bosun microwave gun from the ARGON Catalogue. Eat your heart out, Bond!

Ernst, that alien chappie.

13 March 2012 at 00:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon in Belfast-re you sky god's hatred of sin and his unending grace - is this not a paradox?

13 March 2012 at 00:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Cressida de Nova. Don’t worry girl, we’ll find a man for you too, though you will have to learn to keep your big complaining mouth shut...

13 March 2012 at 00:04  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Yes. Perfect justice requires and is fulfilled by perfect mercy.

It's the same as the paradox that Christ was both fully God and fully man. Or that the Trinity is One God.

13 March 2012 at 00:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AnonymousInBelfast.(12 March 2012 23:55)

Total agreement...Some cannot accept love for the sinner without loving the sin in the sinner.

Jesus was often accused of being a 'friend of sinners' by the self righteous whereas Jesus being the only person qualified to judge sinners...didn`t.(apart from the self righteous Pharisees)

13 March 2012 at 00:06  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Bit manic on here tonight!

You are showing signs of batle fatique.

Most ungentlemanly calling Cressida a "silly cow". You should apologise. She is, in my estimation, a sensitive person, a writer of prose (but I'm better as mine rhyme) and a seeker after truth. A person on the right 'side of the line' on many issues. Heck, she even called one of Ernst's comments "very immature", showing great insight!

If you are willing to zap a few odd balls down here I'll gladly fund your parking fees.

You did offend me. Two things I will not treat jest - the Eucharist and Our Blessed Lady. Anything else and I don't mind a bit of banter.

Well said, Sir.

13 March 2012 at 00:09  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

To elaborate: the penalty for sin (that which is against God's Law) is death and eternal separation from Him. When He died upon the cross, Jesus - God the Son - took the full penalty for that sin upon Himself. God's justice was thus fully satisfied - there is no "tolerance" of evil, but its utter destruction. But by taking that sin upon Himself, God spared us the consequences of our evil, providing we accept His freely offered Grace.

The cross is accordingly the meeting point, indeed, the crux, of both God's infinite justice, in destroying all sin, and also His infinite love in saving us from it.

And before you get all "paradoxes are impossible" - this assumes God. You know, the omnipotent, omnipresent, sole Creator (don't take that as an indicator of my holding to Creationism, incidentally). It's nothing short of divine. Which is kind of the point really.

13 March 2012 at 00:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Manners maketh the man. Or perhaps you have missed your medication today?.

13 March 2012 at 00:14  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Can't help yourself?

13 March 2012 at 00:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I have no desire to cause a diplomatic row between our two races; I would say by the 22nd century our two peoples are not just allies, but true friends.

In that frame of mind I do, on behalf of the Imperial Court due do apologise and want to reassure you that no offence was intended.

The question regarding the Eucarist, which I rather insultingly asked, needed to be asked because the Cosmos Intelligence Agency [CIA] and the Vatican Intelligence Security Agency [VISA]is aware of a race who is attempting to pretend to spread a heretical dogma amongst Extra -Terrestrial Catholics [Indeed by my time there are some 6 billion non -human Catholics and 20 billion human Catholics in 2299 AD] of Vampiric qualities and are suggesting blood sacrifce are cannibalism is acceptable- this being a ploy to create a Holy War of galactic proprtions.

Indeed Her Holiness Pope Emma II asked my people to be vigilant against this and so we are.

In respect of the Holy Virgin, we Draconians understand this concept from our own religious beliefs, although I do not recall having said anything in that regard before.

In respect of my other theological questions, I find it of benefit to me to compare and contrast the answers given in this century to that of my own... It is illuminating...

Oh and the way, we Draconians do have laser weapons, although I am of noble birth, so our weapon is the D'rhagi blade (similar to your Katana, but longer and double edged and it is made of Regantanium- ever so harder than diamond and stronger than tungsten steel).

13 March 2012 at 00:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also- I don't have any parking fees (despite what the Jovian Magistrates court says!). No, my problem is that my space ship's fuel is a type of nuclear fusion- harvested from gas giants (like jupiter) and I'm running low on gas. I guess I shall have to make a round trip back to Jupiter, fuel up and come back-a few days ride!

13 March 2012 at 00:37  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 March 2012 at 00:50  
Blogger David B said...


I leave the comments thread for a few hours, due to work, looking at my discussion board and online poker, and on my return I find the most bizarre thread I've ever seen here.

David B

13 March 2012 at 00:52  
Blogger Anna Anglican said...

Dodo, Inspector, well , boys, what's wrong with a little bit of flirtation?

I'm not really into feathered birds and an ex-army officer- who is sort of sweet in his own culturally confined an xenophobic way..

I like men, I like women, but I'm actually celibate at present.

13 March 2012 at 00:53  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...


Thank you for your kind words in my defence.However I cannot agree with you about my prose. Free verse is the order of the day.It has nothing to do with 'free love' so a good Catholic boy like yourself can participate in this form without trepidation.Rhyming is outmoded now.


st.dodo and len
such militant combatants
yet both nice kind men

13 March 2012 at 00:56  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace tweeted

"His Grace is fasting from @bbcquestiontime for Lent (it's hard) and can't watch @Will_Young31 But people interpret his comment diversely...

Loved this from the perceptive intellectual giant that is Will Young;

Will Young ‏ @will_young31

"The man with the bow tie in audience on question time has come up to me after the show thinking I am a politician!"
Any fool (well, except you Will) could see he is receiving help via Domiciled Care in the Community and is a thatcherite with PTSD issues from the after effects of the coalition. That he kept calling you 'Harriet' does not appear to have set the alarm bells ringing does it?
That you studied politics at the University of Exeter gaining Second class honours, lower division (2:2, generally the lowest level of degree with which a graduate can go on to postgraduate programmes..Not exactly blazing a trail, were you?) before moving to London to be a female sounding monotoned canteuse.

You, Will [Batteries not included!],therefore have an intellect rivaled only by garden tools and it is obvious you have to take turns for the reality show celebrity brain-cell on loan in your noggin with Chico, who gets more sense out of it than you!.

Only that poor cell could truly say what loneliness feels like, if it thought you would not declare it homophobic by saying it!

You Mr Young, are a monosynaptic cretin (Don't understand it? 'nuff said' by Old Ernst)

I'm now packing me stuff, ready to be be imprisoned! Mind you, there is even more of them in their than out here. At least at my age, Ernst won't be fighting off the attentions of the 'ladies' in there..was never exactly Sean Connery, then or now. Let's hope they ARE fussy!
More like Eugenia Doubtfire's older brother.

Don't think that bowtie wearing psychiatric patient he will be the last left damaged by the coalition or QuestionTime either!


13 March 2012 at 01:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Cressida, irony or satire? And it rhymed - sort of!

Cressida, a lady of mystery
Caring and charming
With an interesting history

13 March 2012 at 01:10  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


If the feathers are an issue, I'll let you pluck me!

13 March 2012 at 01:13  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Her Holiness Pope Emma II!

The rapture must have taken place and you are in the midst of the time of tribulation.

13 March 2012 at 01:16  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 March 2012 at 01:18  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oh well, time for bed.

A hard day ahead tomorrow with day two of my Diversity Awareness Training.

It's been a gay, fun filled evening, with plenty of queer comments and odd exchanges.

Good night and God Bless.

13 March 2012 at 01:28  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 March 2012 at 01:34  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...


If you allow Anna
to interfere with
your feathers

my belief in you
will be shattered
ripped into tethers

no need for
a catholic plump duck
to get a big head
chasing skirt
running a muck

think of st jerome
sit quietly
and write a
nice little pome

13 March 2012 at 01:35  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Cressida ma homie 13 March 2012 01:35

Need da beatbox massa that is Ernst dasassa

If you allow Anna *puh uh uh*
to interfere with *Ah Ah uh uh uh*
your feathers *tssss uh uh*

my belief in you *puh uh uh*
will be shattered *Ah Ah puh puh*
ripped into tethers *pff puh uh uh*

no need for *puh uh uh*
a catholic plump duck *Ah Ah puh puh*
to get a big head *tssss uh uh*
chasing skirt *puh uh uh*
running a muck *pff puh uh uh*

think of st jerome *puh uh uh*
sit quietly *ssh Ah puh puh*
and write a *Ah Ah puh puh*
nice little pome *tssss uh uh*


Ernst "Chish.Knew" Blofeld

13 March 2012 at 01:52  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

His_Grace @Heresy_Corner His Grace will address the matter imminently (or tomorrow). It's nothing profound, but no-one is mentioning it @andrewlilico

Don't mention the WARsi, I mentioned it and so did Fawlty but we think we got away with it.

Careful what you say old boy, as old scary chops (Heresiarch) will at you like a dog worrying a bone! ;o)


13 March 2012 at 02:13  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 March 2012 at 02:29  
Blogger Marlon said...

Please watch this horrific video: an Arab Muslim beating a Christian girl in Lebanon

Why is the world silent?

13 March 2012 at 03:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oswin: "In your heart of hearts, DanJo, you know this to be so; you are not, as you have often stated, a slavish adherent of 'Stonewall' policies, but you do know, or at least suspect, their intent."

I don't know much about Stonewall at all. Anything I find out about them is through the newspapers and Christians here. I've been to their website once I think, and that was to check up on a reference posted here. What I do know is that they're a single issue lobby group and I know how those sort of groups behave. In that, they're the equivalent of the Christian Institute, to my mind.

13 March 2012 at 05:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I see The Times has come out in favour of same-sex marriage in it's leader today. Paywalled, obviously. I love The Times and its proper, libertarian-oriented-liberal, slightly right-wing politics.

"The State has no business prescribing the content of Christian doctrine; but it has an obligation to enact the social contract, of equality under the law, that binds its citizens. That principle implies full homosexual equality for the same reason that it led in earlier generations to the rights of women to own property and to vote."


13 March 2012 at 06:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Doh! Apostrophe failings there. :(

13 March 2012 at 06:21  
Blogger ted said...

Same sex marriage is going to happen. It's unevitable. There is absolutely no way that it won't. Even if Cameron backs down, it's clear all the major parties support it and afterall we all voted for one or the other.

Perhaps someone on here wants to start up a Christian party, but we all know it would go down like a lead ballon.

We don't vote Christian party in the UK. Doesn't that tell you something?

13 March 2012 at 06:40  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Perhaps the solution is to say that marriage is a religious term for the union of to man & woman in a religious union.

Non-religious people and gays can have a secular Civil Partnership.

Job done.

13 March 2012 at 06:48  
Blogger IanCad said...

DanJO @06:10

Thanks for that quote from The Times.
It is a statement that all Christians should embrace.

Is the "a" tag fixed for you?
I can't get it to work.

13 March 2012 at 07:06  
Blogger Stone Wall said...

I read all the comments on this blog and i learn so many things from this blog and its comments. I really love this blog. I have one website which is also support gay rights. will provides you so many information on gay liberation movement.

13 March 2012 at 07:23  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

This issue is just one of the many incremental steps towards our societies destruction that we have had to suffer in the past sixty years,you will all rage,get angry,forget,until presented with the next vital issue the communists want you to stress about,never noticing the big picture ,while all of the time the totalitarians tighten thier grip upon your minds ,existences and futures,like deer caught in a cars headlights you stand fixated ,never seeing where we have come from,nor where we are being pushed,one should be asking what is the long term agenda here,with the unceasing erosion of your individual rights,why is our population declining,when feotus`s are being murdered by the millions,why does the administration actively seek the destruction of its indigenous people,and why are all countries in the western world rigidly controlled by an identical dogma,that is executed without the slightest variation from country to country,why would australia want its children to consent to voluntary lobotomy?

13 March 2012 at 08:54  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Started reading the comments, then decided not to as I was either in agreement or hitting my desk with my head due to the idiocy.

In case people still didn't get it, saying it could be DC's "poll tax" is nothing to do with what the poll tax was. It is to do with the fact that it is what Thatcher is remembered for. Thatcher did many things in her 11 years as PM, but ask a group of people about her time in office and a majority will mention the poll tax.
Gay marriage will be a similar thing for Cameron and will only be replaced as the memory of his tenure if, as has been said, the UK breaks up.

As to the suggestions of bigotry, given that there are no legal differences between civil partnerships and marriage it is no longer about equality so it cannot be said that being against it is being against homosexuals having legal status as couples.
However, given that there are, very clearly, differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships surely it is both reasonable and logical for there to be a linguistic difference between such partnerships.
In addition, surely the bigotry is now on the other foot. Look at what Will Young said in Question Time about people speaking what they believe and we see YET AGAIN that people are happy to trample all over Christianity's traditional teaching and all those who support it.

Cameron should now be praying for Scotland to vote to break from the UK, for if they don't then this fight will shamefully hang around his head for the rest of his life!

13 March 2012 at 09:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the main issues that Cameron needs to explain on the forthcoming consultation is why SSM is morally equivalent to conjugal marriage – for it to attain the same status as conjugal marriage.

On the other hand, is Cameron about to argue that SSM has a special status of its own?

The American courts have recently tried to grapple with this question.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said that the essence of marriage is not conjugality but stable relationships – but without explaining why it thought so.

The California Supreme Court thought marriage is about self-fulfilment.

The Connecticut high court said marriage is about individual interest in having a family – but asserted this without explanation.

Nevertheless all three courts came to the conclusion that SS intimacy is the equivalent of conjugal marriage.

13 March 2012 at 11:01  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

His Grace tweeted;

His_Grace @langtry_girl You need to re-read that article very, very carefully, and remember who Sanderson is.

Perhaps Your grace can explain to old Ernsty what the difference is between a cross and a rainbow ribbon.

One, whose cause and life is Christ, is asked to be removed or hidden yet another is brazenly worn by adherents to a cause and movement by some people in the workplace with a 'I Dare You' attitude, which if mentioned as inappropriate, would be a mandatory discrimination case, would it not.

When Christianity speaks it must be softly and behind closed doors, never in public where 'others' might be and feign offense.

Our secularist masters mindset is that religious freedom/belief is only for private worship and behind closed doors!

Is that really religious freedom, as any closet believers in communist or islamic states can hide behind closed doors with other believers, cross worn under shirt/blouse, reading the Bible and praying to Christ in whispers but freedom to worship in 'private' is not true freedom and NOT part of our historic culture.
This is the UK is it not, not China, Burma, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Somalia!

Freedom of Religion is from God as is Marriage and no minister or Government has the right to take it or define it away!
Distinctions are always critical as is the desire to diminish freedom of religion and elevate gayness to a level of an inalienable human right.

The Tolerant many must now bow down on bended knee to the whimsy of the Homophile few? The offended minority rule.!

The Judeo-Christian tradition and history of our land is under relentless attack and it's foundations are tottering under this onslaught.

Thought we were supposedly governed by statute law under a constitutional Monarchy/Parliament by the people, for the people.

Feelings versus Truth. Which will stand?


13 March 2012 at 11:14  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I don't care it they do legalise SSM but I am relishing the apoplexy it will generate amongst the crazies here when they get to hear of the first case of a citizenship linked 'marriage of convenience' - Bring it On!

13 March 2012 at 11:21  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Additional interest on this matter was created on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday, when Archbisop Sentamu said that marriage is defined through canon law. As such, that surely would mean that Cameron has overreached himself and that we will have to have a Church vs State argument first and then deal with the fallout before gay marriage can happen.

Would Your Grace care to look into this aspect for your communicats ti help clarification on the matter?

13 March 2012 at 11:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting. No one has yet managed to refute the Biblical definitions of marriage I've offered. Ah well, looks like many of the Christians and Catholics here have abandoned the Bible in favour of adherence to the rules of their Tribe. Dodo - if the Pope told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it? I hear he's getting doddery, so perhaps he could be persuaded.... I would like to see if you're really a flightless bird!

@Ted 06.40 - you're absolutely right. Where is the Christian political party? Surely given the *undoubted* moral majority in this country, they'd win any election, hands down?! Come on Inspector - do something useful! Start your own party! Of course, overseas political donations will be illegal, so that would rule out donations from Catholicism SpA. but I'm sure the huge swell of local support would see you the richest political party in no time!

As for trying to goad me on being a "feminine" type - I wouldn't mind if I were - I would still be made in the image of God, after all, would I not? But you'll be relieved to hear that we have a cleaner!

13 March 2012 at 12:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm still wondering what the actual effect this alleged undermining of marriage will have in the real world. Marriage has been in decline for a while irrespective of anything to do with gay rights. There's a lot of idealising about marriage, usually along the lines of relatively recent views in Western Europe about the role of love. In places like India, it's essentialy about sex in the first instance. Access to sex for men, actually. There's the link with procreation. Families basically lock up their daughters and men must marry to get access to regular, socially-acceptable sex. I expect the decline in marriage here is more related to that. That is, we can have sex first and marry for love later. Hence, these militant religionists will need to roll that back to actually bolster marriage and there's no way the majority will accept that intrusion. This gay rights thing is about something rather different.

13 March 2012 at 12:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dreadnaught - you've changed your position. Previously I thought you'd said that you thought it was a step too far?

Could you be that rare thing - someone on a blog who has changed their mind?!

13 March 2012 at 12:26  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Jon stated quite categorically;

"God has apparently changed his mind about marriage in the past - after all, you don't see the Church advocating that hard for rape victims to be forced to marry their attackers (Deut 22:28-29) - only if they're discovered, mind."
Or the reinstatement of polygamy (as enjoyed by David and other OT types - a man after God's own heart he was!) Why is that, Your Grace? Was God wrong before? Perhaps He was just misquoted?

Part 1

In full..Deuteronomy 22:25-29 NKJV
"But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes (taphas) her and lies (shakab) with her, and THEY ARE found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days." Deuteronomy 22:25-29 NKJV

Although vv. 25-27 refers to a woman that is betrothed, the point is still clear. By screaming, the woman indicates that she is being forced to have sex without her consent. Hence, when the woman does not scream this indicates that she willfully chose to engage in the sexual act with the man. This is further seen from vv. 28-29 where both the man and the woman are held accountable, i.e. "and THEY ARE found out." This is unlike the woman of vv. 25-27 who is said to be not guilty.

The author could have simply used chazaq, or even laqach (Hebrew words for rape), he did NOT!

The Bible tells us the truth about the lives of people such as Moses, Abraham, David and Solomon.
If you look at documents from the same period the Bible was written, about 1400BC through 98AD, you'll find that leaders are only glorified. Their faults are not recorded--except by their enemies. The Bible is the only document does not do this. It records the good and bad--the right and the wrong behavior of leaders such as Moses, David and Solomon. The Bible gives us the truth, not a whitewashed version of the truth.
Wives could be used as a means of peace with othr tribes but concubines... These women were not there for political reasons, but for Solomon's and other people's pleasure.
Why does God allow us go unpunished for all wrongdoings?
It's the same reason God let's you "get away" with disobeying Him when you exceed the speed limit every day as you drive to work or for pleasure on the weekends.
God is full of mercy and love, and He keeps giving us another chance to get it right in this world.
"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." (NASB)

This is very clear. It says "wife" not wives. It says ONE man and ONE woman. That is the Biblical definition of marriage.

13 March 2012 at 13:09  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

part 2

You quote sinners in the OT but All men (and women also) are fallen. We are sinners. We disobey God. Even Moses disobeyed God. So holding up the behavior of a sinner as an example to follow is not a valid approach.

However, there are examples in the Old Testament we can follow. There are righteous men, whom the Bible calls "blameless". Since these are people in whom God finds nothing wrong (they are blameless), they are examples we can take as role models. Who are these men:

Noah: "These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God." (Genesis 6:9 NASB)

Noah is described as having one wife. See Genesis 6:18, 7:7 and 7:13.

For example Genesis 6:18 says: "But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark--you and your sons and your wife, and your sons' wives with you." (NASB)

Job: "There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God andturning away from evil." - (Job 1:1 NASB)

How many wives did Job have? One. In Job 31:9-10 we read:

"If my heart has been enticed by a woman, or I have lurked at my neighbor's dooorway, may my wife grind for another, and let others kneel down over her." (NASB)

Not only do these verses say "wife" (singular) and not wives, but what Job is sayng is that he has never looked at another woman--he has not even had desires in his heart for another woman. Job is a one woman, one wife, man.

Please use examples of men God calls blameless. In every case you'll see the example of marriage is ONE man and ONE woman.

"Wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord." - Ephesians 5:22 NASB

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her," - Ephesians 5:25 NASB

Notice that in verse 23 his message becomes more personal:

"For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body." - Ephesians 5:23 NASB

When Paul speaks to individuals, it is husband and wife. ONE man and ONE woman. That is marriage. But there is something even more important here. The relationship of husband and wife in marrige is the same as the relationship between Christ and His church.

"Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride [the church] has made herself ready." - Revelation 19:7 NASB

Marriage is a reflecttion of Christ's relationship with the church--one groom (Christ) and one bride (the church).

Not two Christs marrying (two homosexual men).

Not two churchs marrying (two homosexual women).

Not Christ and many churches (polygamy).

Marriage is ONE man and ONE woman.

Sorry I missed it first time.thanks for memory kog. Trust this helps? :-)


Remember marrying sisters and brothers was acceptable until they started lusting after each other, when non direct family members were available!

13 March 2012 at 13:13  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Never so much a step too far Jon, more of a step too soon for true full public acceptability I think - just an unstoppable move now the pollies have scented a bit of a vote winner - I would hate to see it all unravel.

13 March 2012 at 14:20  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Jon @13 March 2012 12:04

Don't say ta then!


13 March 2012 at 14:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Jon said...
"Interesting. No one has yet managed to refute the Biblical definitions of marriage I've offered. Ah well, looks like many of the Christians and Catholics here have abandoned the Bible in favour of adherence to the rules of their Tribe."

Not really, it was such a foolish question from one who claims to have been a Christian in the past.

I take it the sect you were a member of didn't instruct you in Biblical reading and the differences between Mosaic and Levitcal law or the timeless ordinances of God?

See, that the problem letting the unschooled loose on scripture and advising them the Holy Spirit will grant them understanding. Lets to all sorts of false ideas.

"Dodo - if the Pope told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?"
I'm under no oath of loyalty to the Pope, so I would want to hear his reasons in full before making a decision. Satisfying your curiosity or testing God, would not be sufficient reason.

13 March 2012 at 15:01  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

I’m sorry but I cannot see why the Christian Church can justify its continuing stewardship of the concept of what constitutes marriage given that its record over the past 1000+ years is hardly one of which it can be proud and even now it has failed to reach a consensus among its many sects as to what does and doesn’t constitute marriage. Some sects e.g. the Quakers already accept gay marriages, some allow divorcees to remarry etc.etc.. And let us not forget the untold misery that has been created by various branches of the Church in their interpretation of what does and doesn’t constitutes marriage – what about the forced/arranged marriages that it has endorsed, the mixed race marriages that it hasn’t allowed or the divorcees/priests(with children) who haven’t been allowed to marry – where is the humility and seeking forgiveness from the various churches concerned on these matters?

I’m sorry but the Church has been an awful steward of the concept of marriage, and now is the time for democratic society to be given charge of the concept. And in the spirit of liberty, I see nothing wrong in letting churches define what they see as marriages for their own purposes – a liberty I note that they are not willing to grant to those who do not subscribe to their rather badly drawn and inconsistent doctrines.

13 March 2012 at 15:56  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Not quite so dumb as you like to pretend. Well said to Jon! Now, if only you could discern the New Testament with such lucidy.

13 March 2012 at 16:13  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo must be confused coz;

"I take it the sect you were a member of didn't instruct you in Biblical reading and the differences between Mosaic and Levitcal law or the timeless ordinances of God?" Take it you are confusing Torah with Mishnah?
The Torah is the five books of Moses, includes Leviticus. It's what's written on the scroll that Jews read from in synagogue. ;-)
The Mishnah is supposedly the first recorded written oral Torah. The Talmud, on the other hand, are Rabbis discussing the Mishnah. All those traditions Jesus was criticising them for rather than The Law!
But the Tanach is something different, my boy!

See, that the problem letting the unschooled loose on scripture and advising them the Holy Spirit will grant them understanding. Lets to all sorts of false ideas. INDEED, Birdie, INDEED!

Ernst 'elohim yevarekh otkha' Blofeld

13 March 2012 at 16:21  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Last Sunday I paid another visit to the fundamentalist (but very welcoming) Evangelical New Frontiers church in the next village to mine instead of my usual C of E church. Once again, I was glad to hear a straight down the line Bible sermon rather than the opinions of women. I may well throw my lot in with them. If my bishop comes out behind Jeffrey John & Co on same gender 'marriage' that would tip the balance. Not my issue of choice, but its what's happening.

Does your Grace know of any group big enough and focussed enough to carry out a poll of intentions on this matter? It sounds like our bullying secular liberal government will get its way, given that there is no organised conservative opposition, and obviously the C of E will have to decide between more fudge and compromise or coming off the fence on one side or the other.

Since government policy seems to be down to focus groups and opinion polls, I would like to know the answer to this question.

How many Anglicans (A) will leave for Rome or the Free Evangelical churches (or declare independence from Canterbury) if our bishops support Cameron, versus how many (B) will leave for ultra-liberal churches if the bishops come out for tradition and scripture on homosexual 'marriage'? how much bigger would (A) have to be than (B) before it influenced the decision of the bishops?

I'm not saying we should decide on a vote, but it would be nice to know. I am one Anglican who is trying out a Bible church and finding it more to his preference. Any others?

I can tell you that New Frontiers are aware of the issue, one of their publications says 'we don't want to have to apologise for unregenerate bishops.'

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


I am aware of the distinction. You're surely not saying Christians are still bound by Levitical Law? Or, indeed, by the requirement to keep Holy the Sabbath - Saturday?

13 March 2012 at 16:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Just a little reminder of the Catholic position on the above that I shared with you a few days ago:

The Old Law — including the Ten Commandments — as far as it promulgates natural law and God's timeless ordances, is eternal. No possible circumstances can ever abrogate, for instance the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Commandments.

On the other hand, as far as it is positive law, the Old Law was once for all abrogated by the promulgation of the Gospel (Romans 8:1-2; Galatians 3:23-5, etc.; Acts 15:28-9).

Christians are not bound to circumcise, to abstain from levitically unclean food and so on - including all the various Judaic rules and regulations about marriage. The Third Commandment that ordered the Jews to keep Saturday holy is a typical case of a positive law abrogated and replaced by another by the Christian Church.

13 March 2012 at 17:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Well, that's it now, it's unstoppable. There's a new flavour of Ben and Jerry's ice cream just been released called Hubby Hubby in support of gay marriage. :)

13 March 2012 at 17:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. at 13 March 2012 12:07 More enlightening thought from you. So, in your opinion, marriage is all about access to sex. Well there you are. You must exist and operate on a very low level. (…A dreary situation resulting from your bumcraft ?...) Rather you didn’t try and drag the rest of us down with you…

Jon. A cleaner ! Absolute bliss. It’s so difficult finding reliable domestic help these days, short of marriage, that is. On the subject of a ‘Christian’ political party, he’s more than happy with the Conservatives. It’s you narrow issue people who would benefit most with starting up a LGBT party. Would split the Lib-Dem vote though !

Anna. You might know Professor Simon Morris of Durham. A school days contemporary of the

13 March 2012 at 17:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, spoken like a proper middle-aged virgin justifying his enforced celibate misery to himself. Bless.

13 March 2012 at 17:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Just been reading the blog profile of new spirit Stone Wall. You’d like him. He’s as gay as a positive HIV result...

13 March 2012 at 17:58  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dickie not getting it

"Now, if only you could discern the New Testament with such lucidy."

Then you go and say this to Len.

Once we're Baptised into Christ our journey of salvation begins and through grace and the assistance of God we will succeed. Along the way, we'll stumble and fall and sin but, as Paul says, with persistance we will reach our destination."

Confusing font water with the baptism of the Holy Spirit, Grace as some sort of self help course and the odd brush down from self inflicted squalor by the Almighty, confusing perseverance for a crown and a job well done with progressing along via earthly means "Akela, we'll do our best..DYB, DYB, DYB, DYB! We'll DOB, DOB, DOB, DOB!" to purgatory way.

*Everyone makes the Cub sign.*

If only you could discern the New Testament with such lucidy. Ditto, dickie, Ditto!

Ernst, that bird.

13 March 2012 at 18:02  
Blogger IanCad said...

Dodo @17:05,

"The Third Commandment that ordered the Jews to keep Saturday holy is a typical case of a positive law abrogated and replaced by another by the Christian Church."

That is exactly what Rome bases its authority on-- The changing of times and laws. There is absolutely no scriptural support for the supplanting of the Sabbath from the Seventh Day to the First.
At The 17th.session of The Council of Trent the Archbishop of Reggio declared that the changing of God's Commandment was evidence that tradition and Catholic teaching were superior to Holy Scripture.
The butchering by Rome of The Decalogue is an act that we should keep reminding ourselves of. Not content with substituting Sunday for Saturday, the Second Commandment was deleted. (Idol Worship) To round things out the Tenth Commandment was split into two, thus ending up with the full complement.

13 March 2012 at 18:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


So you've been circumcised too, h have you? And avoid pork and black pudding?

Just think about what Trent was actually saying. It was distinguishing between natural God's eternal ordances, the law implanted on our hearts and discernable by reason, and specific Old Law that was abrogated by the promulgation of the Gospel (Romans 8:1-2; Galatians 3:23; Acts 15:28).

And the Second Commandment was not deleted at all! There is no numerical division of the Commandments in the Books of Moses, but the injunctions are distinctly tenfold, and are found almost identical in both sources. The order, too, is the same except for the final prohibitions pronounced against concupiscence, that of Deuteronomy being adopted in preference to Exodus. A confusion, however, exists in the numbering, which is due to a difference of opinion concerning the initial precept on Divine worship.

The system of numeration found in Catholic Bibles, based on the Hebrew text, was made by St. Augustine (fifth century) in his book of "Questions of Exodus" ("Quæstionum in Heptateuchum libri VII", Bk. II, Question lxxi), and was adopted by the Council of Trent. It is followed also by the German Lutherans.

This makes the First Commandment relate to false worship and to the worship of false gods as to a single subject and a single class of sins to be guarded against — the reference to idols being regarded as mere application of the precept to adore but one God and the prohibition as directed against the particular offense of idolatry alone. According to this manner of reckoning, the injunction forbidding the use of the Lord's Name in vain comes second in order; and the decimal number is safeguarded by making a division of the final precept on concupiscence--the Ninth pointing to sins of the flesh and the Tenth to desires for unlawful possession of goods.

13 March 2012 at 18:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Pope (apparently) has the ability to contradict God!.

Can man change the Ten Commandments of God that define what sin is? (1 John 3:4) Not a chance! If God really allowed this, then man could abolish all the Ten Commandments and then we would have no need for a Saviour!(Which is what the Humanists are attempting at the moment) Despite this, many Roman Catholics are very quick to tell us that their Church does have the authority to change the law of God and so their change of the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday was allowed. Note the following blasphemous quote from the Catholic Church that makes God obsolete.

“The Pope is of great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws. The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth...” — Lucius Ferraris, in “Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica”, Volume V, article on “Papa, Article II”, titled “Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility”, #30, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.

13 March 2012 at 19:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. When Jesus left this world, he said “Whatever you consider bound on Earth will be considered bound in heaven”. How’s that for authority for a Pope....

13 March 2012 at 19:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@Ernsty,no Alpha Dranconians are NOT sciencetologists... in our cultures we have many Gods, in fact we have a God for everything. I think we even have a God for gays, but as we have at least 100,000 'authorised' Gods it is difficult to recall them all. We can even invent new Gods- subject to regulatory authority.

You see, religion is part of our culture and identity, which is why we did not abandon it. But we do not allow it to control our lives like other species do; you humans for example and even worse (I suspect Danjo's worst nightmare) is the Holy Chelonia Empire. Makes Iran look like a moderate secular state. Now that Empire is not very nice.

I remember the Orion Nebula incident, when the Chelonia attacked an Earth Union outpost and cruxified 10,000 human prisoners. You can imagine what happened next...

Now more of this Stella stuff...

13 March 2012 at 20:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@Dodo, you are so twenty first century! Yes there have been 3 female Popes and 1 'alien' Pope from 2012 to 2299.

The Catholic Church still survives in 2299 though, next to the Monarchy of the UK of Britain, Ireland and Mars, one of the oldest institutions of the human race. Cherish your culture; others won't be so respecting as us Draconians (see my comment above).

13 March 2012 at 20:09  
Blogger IanCad said...

There never was any conflation of The Sabbath and the Old Law at Trent.
“Is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.” James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers

Peter never was made Pope.
If Jesus had given Peter Apostolic succession the shameful scene at the Last Supper of the disciples bickering over who should be the greatest would have been moot.
It was not until the year 445 that the then pope Leo 1st. promulgated the fallacy of Petrine Inheritance. This was a time of great schism and rivalry among the bishops. Thus, Leo claimed for himself lineage from the Apostle.

13 March 2012 at 20:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Show me where Jesus hands all authority to the' Pope' in the Bible and I might take you a little more seriously.

13 March 2012 at 20:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. Matt 16:19, Matt 18:18

13 March 2012 at 20:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

So len I trust you've been circumcised and avoid eating pork or food that isn't kosher. And just how do you keep the Sabbeth Holy between Sundown and Sunrise on Friday/Saturday?

Do you actually understand the difference between God's eternal laws and time specific laws?

“The Pope is of great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws. The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth...”

Excellent quote! You will notice that it says "modify, declare, or interpret". That's the authority and responsibility passed to His Church by Christ.

The Church has the guidance of the Holy Spirit in responding to such issues as abortion, invetro fertilisation, modern contraception, etc, and in developing a fuller understanding of God and salvation history, through study of the Bible and discerning God's Divine Will.

That's how come we have a faith defended from so many doctrinal errors!

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

IanCad. I think we all secretly know what Jesus meant, don’t we. And the Inspector is not one to question the Lord of Hosts...

13 March 2012 at 21:28  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


have no fear
I'll keep my feathers
from Anna well clear

i trust your belief
in me is restored
there'll be no mischief

13 March 2012 at 22:21  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I think you like writing poetry.
There are some good poetry blogs
on the net where you can submit your work. Thoughts are much better crystallised in verse rather than in prose.

Keep those feathers to yourself and your webbed feet crossed:)

14 March 2012 at 01:35  
Blogger IanCad said...


Peter is not The Rock. (Matt. 16:18-19) Jesus Christ is. In the Old Testament Christ is identified as The Rock many times. Deut. 32:3-4, 1 Sam. 2:2, 2 Sam. 22:23-32, Isaiah 44:8 are just a few. Peter refers to Christ as The Rock three times; Acts 4:11-12, 1 Peter 2:3-6, 1 Peter 2:7-8. Paul states the same four times; 1 Cor. 10:4, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:19-20, Romans 9-33. Three times Our Lord declares the same; Luke 20:17-18, Matt. 21:42-44, Mark 12:10-11. Peter's tomb is, allegedly, in St. Peter's. Indeed it is the centre of worship. Peter is dead. He did not rise. As the gates of Hell (the grave) shall not prevail against Christ's Church this presents a problem for Rome. Christ has risen from the grave. His Church prevails.
Matt. 18:18 pertains to the governance of His Church. It was addressed to all of the disciples present.

P.S. To both you and Len.
Where the hungry are you will find a Catholic. The sick, the outcasts, those held as dross by others will likely be comforted by a priest, a nun or a lay catholic. You do not mind getting your hands dirty. So much to emulate; but what a vile history.

14 March 2012 at 08:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo, why do you think the Ten commandments were written in stone?.

Your Pope is an imposter who stands anti|(instead of) Christ.

14 March 2012 at 08:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Inspector your religion is based (entirely) on the misinterpretation of one scripture(hardly a secure foundation as no doubt you will find out one day to your eternal detriment)

There is only 'One Rock' even Peter confesses that!.' Come to him(Christ) a living stone, though rejected by mortals yet chosen and precious in God's sight, and 5 like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in scripture: "See, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame." 7 To you then who believe, he is precious; but for those who do not believe, "The stone that the builders rejected has become the very head of the corner," 8 and "A stone that makes them stumble, and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.(I Peter 2 4-8)

And if you are still confused about who the 'rock' is................."For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).

14 March 2012 at 08:30  
Blogger IanCad said...


My PS should have been to you and Dodo.
Len needs no input from me.

14 March 2012 at 08:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len, and why do you think there two versions in the Bible? Strange isn't it?

IanCad, and your point is?

14 March 2012 at 09:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ernst, thank you for taking the time to make your lengthy response. You've really only addressed the issues of polygamy and rape here (and even then, I don't think in a way that many people would be entirely comfortable with - for example, your definition of rape is that the woman cries out - so if she's hit over the head or drugged and raped, it's not rape - that can't be right?)

However, you don't address the issue of soldiers being allowed to take women as property in spoils of war? Why is the Church not advocating this? If God's law is timeless, then why not? And if his law isn't timeless, then which ones still apply? Where is St Paul when you need him to make up a whole load of new rules, eh? It's just a shame we're not allowed to think for ourselves...

Dodo -

The thrust of your argument seems to be that some laws were meant to apply at one point in time, but the Church has decided that they don't apply now because Jesus came along. To be honest, I've long since given up trying to understand the different ways that the Church twists the Bible to suit itself - mosaic and levitical law? It's a law. A law is a law, it's in the Bible so God presumably meant it.

I remember specific reference to Jesus saying that you can eat shellfish, because it's not what you put in your body that causes sin, it's what comes out of it. I don't remember him bitchily commenting;

"I take it the sect you were a member of didn't instruct you in Biblical reading and the differences between Mosaic and Levitcal law or the timeless ordinances of God?"

Well, the sect I was in was the CoE. And when I read my Bible, there were a lot of parts that made me think "the God of love has clearly started taking valium towards the end of the OT!".

So, here's a question for you then Dodo and Ernst. If God is timeless, omniscient and omnipresent, why would he make laws that were only designed to apply at one time? What you're essentially saying was that he made some laws (which were written in stone as Len said and handed to Moses) and put in the Ark already knowing that he was going to render those laws obsolete later by giving the power to change those laws to the Church, and more specifically, a council of elderly men? So - he changed his mind, or put another way, knew in advance that he was going to have to change his mind or have his mind misrepresented by his church.

Or maybe, your Pope has picked from the laws that he thinks he can get away with enforcing and left the others alone?

Which is more likely I wonder? The Father of lights changing or the Church changing God's word to suit itself....

14 March 2012 at 13:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Inspector wrote:

"DanJ0. Just been reading the blog profile of new spirit Stone Wall. You’d like him. He’s as gay as a positive HIV result..."

Rejoice! The Holy Spirit has clearly worked wonders in your life inspector! What a great advertisement you are for the Christian life! I'd say "stay classy", but that ship has sailed, so I'll just say "by your fruits shall ye be known" and conclude that the only fruits the Spirit left you were sour grapes.

14 March 2012 at 13:28  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

So where in the 10 Commandments is there a reference to marrying raped women or captive women? Where does it say one must be circumcised etc?

The 10 Commandments require interpreting and application. Catholics see them generally as statements of moral, natural law - written in men's heart - and so unchangeable. There are a couple of exceptions. The Sabbath day being one. The one big disagreement with Catholicism from Protestants is the issue of the law relating to 'graven images'. I have discussed this previously and it's pointless doing so again.

The Church of England is a very broad Church and so I'm really not sure what evangelical influences you were schooled in. I do know it seems to have left you rather bitter.

14 March 2012 at 14:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Jon: "Rejoice! The Holy Spirit has clearly worked wonders in your life inspector! What a great advertisement you are for the Christian life!"

It's great, isn't it.

14 March 2012 at 17:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

IanCad, Blofeld and Len

You must forgive the Inspector for his intractability. You see, he was born into Roman Catholicism. As a soldier for Christ, he accepts the situation, and the teachings he was given, in good faith. As a loyal soldier, he does not question the inner workings of it all, merely acts in accordance with them. When Jesus said to his disciples “follow me”, he didn’t expect each one to analyse His teachings with a view to improvement or even understanding them. “Just do it” was the order of the day. So there you have it. Obedience. If you can do obedience you’ll make a really good Roman Catholic. If you can’t, you are going to labour hard to be one.

We Catholics see ourselves as the old guard. Reliable and constant. When you look at the way the protesting churches have sped apart, not just from Rome, but from each other, you ask yourself was it a good idea to throw everyone a bible and ask them to work it out for themselves…

As for tragedies associated with the RCC in the past, look upon it as the weakness of men, not the churches. Man is responsible for the evil on this planet, ALL of it.

Jon at 14 March 2012 13:28 He’s as gay as a positive HIV result...What a great advertisement you are for the Christian life!

Well it’s like this, young fruit. The Inspector is a keen user of tobacco. He’s well used to ‘concerned’ friends and relatives and the damn media constantly warning him of the ‘dangers’ of God’s greatest weed. However, it’s the smoking Inspector who visits THEM in hospital when they are having hip / knee replacements or ankle / foot operations. (…All resulting from their young reprobate years in contact sports…).

So, you chaps who practice bumcraft - don’t let it be said you yourselves were not warned about the dangers of YOUR lifestyle…

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

Translation: "I just hate gays and blacks much more than I love Jesus"

14 March 2012 at 18:20  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

I don't understand it all, all your political correctness, all the fancy theology, but I do know right from wrong, am loyal to my Church and will speak my mind.

14 March 2012 at 18:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Inspector you say were born into Catholicism (you make it sound like a straight jacket!)Do you mean you accept the doctrines of Catholicism without question because to question them would be to question the very foundations you stand upon?.

Perhaps questioning is the very thing one needs to do?.

'Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you--unless, of course, you fail the test?' (2Corinthians 13:5)

14 March 2012 at 18:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Translation: "Hate the sinner, hate the sin, bloody love the aggro of it all"

14 March 2012 at 18:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good evening Dodo, all this gay business is getting to a chap, don’t you know...

Take last night. The Inspector awoke in the early hours, and there in front of him was a vision of Gloria Gaynor singing the gay anthem “I will survive”.

You guessed it, “First the Inspector was afraid, then he was petrified” !!

14 March 2012 at 18:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len at last, you have it. You see, the Inspector doesn’t bother God on a daily basis, he just gets on with it. And God loves him for it (...probably...)...

14 March 2012 at 18:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

It is strange that you come under attack from a professing Christian as well as committed homosexuals. Now there's an alliance for you!

Not everyone spends their lives obsessing about scripture and trying to make sense of it and fit it into the myths and untruths they've heard.

As Paul concluded in the passage you quoted:

"For the rest, brethren, rejoice, be perfect, take exhortation, be of one mind, have peace. And the God of grace and of love shall be with you. Salute one another with a holy kiss. All the saints salute you. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity of God and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all. Amen"

I'll do what I can to wind-up heterosexuals and shove my chosen lifestyle in their faces. It gives me a real buzz.

14 March 2012 at 18:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Do you actually understand this passage from the Gospel?

And the scribes and Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst, and said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery.

Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what do you say? And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him.

But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said to them: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her". And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground. But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest.

And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst. Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: "Woman, where are they that accused you? Has no man condemned you?" Who said: "No man, Lord." And Jesus said: "Neither will I condemn you. Go, and now sin no more."

Jesus refused to condemn her to death by stoning under the Mosaic law. He also said she should sin no more.

What would Jesus have said if she had answered:
"Lord, it is my body to do with as I chose. Where's the harm in adultry?"

14 March 2012 at 19:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@Jon, I have to admit I am more comfortable with the sky god of the old testament than the new, as the god of the new testament seems to let it all go wrong, although that seems to be the point of it.

At it is the sky god, the one in the old testament knows how to deal with enemies, friends and foe! (especially the wrathful side!- a proper sky god!).

14 March 2012 at 19:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo(19:09) A hypothetical question lots of these were posed by the Pharisees, not surprised that you seek to use the same tactic.

The woman fully knew the penalty of the Mosaic Law which she was under.

Are we still under Mosaic Law?.

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

The Moral Maze on Radio Four tonight was just talking about gay marriage. Worth listening to, I'd say. First time I've heard Ben Summerskill speak, and he did quite well, other than the obvious cheap shot. Michael Portillo surprised me.

14 March 2012 at 20:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Was it like listening to Kenneth Williams ?

14 March 2012 at 22:12  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Is it hypothetical? It's what's going on in front of your eyes! And you're not Jesus; and I'm not a Pharisee who's trying to crucify you!

No, we are not under Mosaic law.

So what do you say to those wanting to jusify sin and in disagreement with the Gospel? You do recognise God's law in it, don't you?

14 March 2012 at 22:21  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Office of Inspector General said 14 March 2012 22:12

"DanJ0. Was it like listening to Kenneth Williams?"

At least Kenneth Williams was extremely funny, that he was gay is irrelevant. He was a sinner, like all are, except his sin was homosexuality.

Must I give up Tchaikovsky because he was queer? Mind you, never liked that Benjamin Britten fella..only because his music is sooo boring and lacks even one decent melody!
Must Ernst give up the glorious music of Giacomo Puccini because he was a serial heterosexual philanderer.

"People need to be peppered or even outraged occasionally. Our national comedy and drama is packed with earthy familiarity and honest vulgarity. Clean vulgarity can be very shocking and that, in my view, gives greater involvement. - Kenneth Williams"

or Dodo's favourite, as he constantly feels it reflects his opinions as challenged by we others here, is William's most famous quote, of course, as Julius Caesar, breathing life into a terrible pun and making it great: "Infamy, Infamy... they've all got it in for me!" ;O)

Ernst " E luce va le stelle" Blofeld

14 March 2012 at 23:04  
Blogger Oswin said...

Tee hee.

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

Given yourself the status of spokesman for "we others" or is that a Royal 'we'?

Either way, a somewhat exaggerated sense of one's own importance, I'd say.

15 March 2012 at 16:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Thank you too for your lengthy response. I'm not dancing on anyone's grave, rather I'm seeking to point out the inconsistency of position that those on the right take to a number of different rights. Daniel Hannan has written beautifully of the phenomenon here;

My point is this. If you assert your right to liberty, freedom of association, habeas corpus etc. on the one hand and then would deny rights to others with the other, you are a hypocrite. The Church here is trying to "own" the concept of marriage, which as others have pointed out, exists in some form in a number of other cultures - as such for the church to exercise ownership is utterly absurd, and yet many here continue to assert it.

As for your point about advocating the end of western civilization - that too is a misreading I'm afraid. I'm not suggesting that others shouldn't have kids - far from it. I'm was just responding to Carl who said

"The sexual libertinism that sustains the homosexual rights movement is itself the source of the problem. It is why birth rates are through the floor and have been for two generations."

by pointing out that lower birth rates don't have anything to do with sexual libertinism.

I love western civilization. It's probably the best place and time to be alive in history! And far from being bitter (as Dodo suggests) I'm relishing the rights that I fully expect Parliament to confer on me to get married, and intend to do so as soon as possible after I get them.

And Inspector - I don't need to found my own party - you'll notice that the leadership of all the major parties is with me on this issue. You are represented on this issue by literally no major parties at all (UKIP having no MPs). Hence, my point that maybe you should found your own. Certainly if Her Holiness Gloria Gaynor is appearing to you in dreams, truly you can expect electoral success!! May Kylie be with you, and also with you Dodo.

Dan - if Christ comes back to claim his bride, we can expect a reality show about the divorce some time soon after if this lot are remotely representative!

15 March 2012 at 17:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Jon said ...
"I'm relishing the rights that I fully expect Parliament to confer on me to get married, and intend to do so as soon as possible after I get them."

All sounds rather desperate, self indulgant and self justification to me.

This Government has no electoral mandate to introduce such a change in the legal definition of marriage. Was it in either the Conservative or Lib-Dem manifestos? Will there be a free vote allowed in Parliament?

As citizens Christians are more than entitled to have their wishes respected in this matter. By most reliable estimates, some 1% of the population is homosexual.

And you really want to change the law and distort the real meaning of marriage so that you can get married one day?

15 March 2012 at 19:57  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older