Thursday, April 26, 2012

The Witney-Tatton Question

A few days ago, Nadine Dorries launched a broadside against the leadership of the Conservative Party. In a damning assessment, clearly designed to inflict personal damage on the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, she said: “I think that not only are Cameron and Osborne two posh boys who don’t know the price of milk, but they are two arrogant posh boys who show no remorse, no contrition, and no passion to want to understand the lives of others – and that is their real crime.”

Setting aside the hyperbole and allegations of inverted snobbery, the reality is that David Cameron and George Osborne are indeed ‘posh’ (by virtue of being élite; Eton, Oxbridge, descendants of kings and baronets, well-connected, heirs to fortunes). They may both know the price of milk, but there is an undeniable perception of loftiness and arrogance, no matter how many times ‘Call me Dave’ tries to get down with the people. When Margaret Thatcher walked into Marks & Spencer's, you sensed a genuine familiarity. When John Major stood on his soapbox in the marketplace, there was authenticity. Under Cameron and Osborne, no matter how personally sincere either may be, the impression is one of façade; a condescension in order to attain a calculated end.

According to the YouGov data, 12 per cent of those who voted Conservative in 2010 voters now say they support UKIP. One or two Tory MPs understand the significance of this, but even their plea to the Party hierarchy has echoes of the indifference and aloofness of CCHQ: the monkeys are trained to take their stage directions from the organ grinder. And so, while many traditional Conservative voters abandon their familiar allegiance, the ‘out-of-touch’ Cameron and Osborne (ably assisted by Maude) continue with their process of ‘decontamination’ to eradicate all that is ‘nasty’ (presently defined as Eurosceptic, tax-cutting, anti-immigration, heterosexual-marriage-supporting ‘right-wingers’). The problem is that this is how the vast majority of Conservative Party members would identify themselves. Yet no matter how many of these leave the Party, the process of modernisation continues: sacrificing the Tory right is a price worth paying for attracting the Guardianistas of Notting Hill.

And now the Party is ‘seeking to hire a high-powered business figure to sell the party to the black and minority ethnic minority voters’. There is nothing, of course, intrinsically wrong with this: the vast majority of Asian Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and African-Caribbean Christians would hold fast to great swathes of conservative philosophy, especially those precepts concerning tradition, morality, the family and society. But for some reason Cameron and Osborne are unable to see that ‘gay marriage’ is utterly antithetical to what the overwhelming majority of BME voters would identify as conservative, and that single issue is drowning out a plethora of other policies.

 And so we return to Nadine Dorries’ most serious allegation, which is she calls ‘the real crime’; that Cameron and Osborne have ‘no passion to want to understand the lives of others’. It would be a strange democratic politician indeed which had no passion to want to understand the lives of his or her constituents; they are, after all, dependent on votes for the positions of power. But politics is about seeming: the facts are immaterial when confronted by perceptions; reality is of no consequence when faced with an overpowering alternative narrative; truth is smothered beneath a duvet of lies. And in this present climate of austerity, the fact, reality, and truth is that millions are finding it hard to make ends meet. As the cost of petrol, gas and electricity soars inexorably; the price of the weekly food-shop rises month on month; mortgage rates creep up, despite the Bank of England's historically-low base rate; and the fear of unemployment hangs over thousands of families, the cry of ‘We’re all in this together’ rings hollow. Because we're not. Of course, as the Prime Minister says, you cannot solve a debt crisis by adding more debt. But that is precisely what he is doing: while the deficit may be decreasing, the debt goes up and up. And so we come to the Witney-Tatton Question:
For how long will ordinary people tolerate privileged Honourable Members from the rural Tory heartlands and leafy suburbs imposing punitive levels of taxation on the ‘squeezed middle’ while they themselves are completely unaffected and their personal fortunes secure?

183 Comments:

Blogger Belsay Bugle said...

But the Labour or Lib-Dem posh boys are no different. They are mostly public school/privately educated Oxbridge, "out of touch", and unlikely to know the price of milk.

It's a good question, perhaps the crucial question de nos jours, just how long will the mass of people put up with being taxed to death?

I don't have an answer, but I suspect we are nearly at a watershed. Either a quiet rebellion will emerge from within the younger taxed classes (the older ones are too well-off and well-satisfied to do anything) or we will slide further into servitude and the elite will tighten its grip to choke off any possibility of revolt.

I wouldn't like to put my money on either. And of course, rebelling won't make the debts go away or anybody any richer.

26 April 2012 at 11:10  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

One slight problem.
Nadine is as mad as the whole of Luton (or wherever they make hats now)
She may have hit the nail on the head this time, but "Normal" is not a word I'd associate with her.
Um

26 April 2012 at 11:39  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

I think I agree with the main thrust of your article, Cranny. Possibly you overstate the case when you say, ' It would be a strange democratic politician indeed which [sic] had no passion to want to understand the lives of his or her constituents; they are, after all, dependent on votes for the positions of power.'

The sad reality is that most elections are governed by tribalism, in which it is the case that "If that party put up a pig, its supporters would vote for it." And tribalism is at its most potent in so-called 'safe seats'. I wonder how safe are the seats of the arrogant posh boys Cameron and Osborne, and how greatly their empathy with the lot of their constituents affects their support.

26 April 2012 at 11:48  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

I'm sure that Cameron and Osborne, and Clegg, Miliband and Balls too come to that, are all sincere, but then I'm equally sure that Hitler was sincere.

Belsay Bugle has hit the nail on the head. We are now being governed by a political class which has little or no experience of life as most of us lead it.

Where have the working-class Labour MPs gone? Were are the Tories with significant business experience? They're being replaced by privately educated former "consultants" and PR men and women.

26 April 2012 at 11:57  
Blogger Berserker said...

Mr Tripehound you say -

I'm sure that Cameron and Osborne, and Clegg, Miliband and Balls too come to that, are all sincere, but then I'm equally sure that Hitler was sincere.

Can one include Lenin who probably never saw the inside of a factory or Aristide Briand (7 times French PM) who was sincere in his belief in Anarchism but later changed spots and was one of the early proposers of the EU.

Most true lefties are from the bourgeoisie - look at the lawyers who formed the core of the French Revolution.

As a matter of fact I don't know the price of milk but Dave's belief that is just under 50p a pint means that he doesn't get a doorstep delivery. Is this not noble, braving the hoi poloi of Tesco's etc

Who says the man is not 'one of us'?

26 April 2012 at 12:26  
Blogger bluedog said...

Astute comment, Your Grace. Dave won power on a knife-edge but had the oppotunity of building support to cement his position both within the Conservative Party and within the electorate. As it happens, Dave's personal support has eroded rather than increased, and this is the defining characteristic of his premiership as much as it is an insoluable problem for him. It is frankly impossible to imagine Dave ever achieving the national popularity of a seriously posh PM such as Winston Churchill. But then Churchill was a man of prodigious accomplishment before entering politics. There was no suggestion that Churchill was in politics for personal gain. Somehow Dave is unable to appear altuistic.

26 April 2012 at 13:13  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Your Grace, I received a letter from the Prime Minister''s Office yesterday. In it he said inter alia "We recognise that the commitment made by same-sex couples in a civil partnership is the same as the commitment made by opposite-sex couples in a civil marriage - it therefore makes no sense to ban same-sex couples from getting married through a civil ceremony, if that is something they wish to do. As such, the Government has launched a formal consultation on how to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage". You can draw your own conclusions. To my mind the man is talking complete nonsense and would be well advised to stop listening to Liberals such as Danny Finkelstein ("close friend" and Executive Editor and Chief Feature writer for The Times) Andrew Cooper (Director of Strategy at No 10 also a "close friend") and Lynne Featherstone and start listening to his own Conservative party. Oh, and by the way the PM has completed confused the 'ceremony' of marriage with the 'institution' of marriage. I call upon him to repent.

Mrs King

26 April 2012 at 13:36  
Blogger Nicodemus said...

Mrs King: the government said, "We recognise that the commitment made by same-sex couples in a civil partnership is the same as the commitment made by opposite-sex couples in a civil marriage."

Which is precisely the problem, they don't understand that marriage is different because it has always been understood first for the procreation of children. Marriage is more than a commitment. Homosexuals can, of course, make a commitment, but they can't procreate, or even consummate their so-called marriage. Their relationship is in a different category. Therefore "civil partnership" is an appropriate term. Why can't the government see this?

26 April 2012 at 13:50  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

"We recognise that the commitment made by same-sex couples ..." etc

This seems to assume that "commitment" is necessarily of itself a good thing, which is clearly not true.

Above I commented that Hitler was sincere in his beliefs. I'm equally sure that he was strongly "committed" to exterminating Jews, which didn't make that a good or desirable objective.

On the subject of same-sex marriage, I came across the following comment in the April 2012 edition of Standpoint.

"Only a minority of people are homosexual; of those only a minority choose to live in civil partnerships; and of those, only a minority are actively demanding that their unions be recognised as "marriages": a minority of a minority of a minority."


Quite. Why is Cameron so determined to alienate his core support over this matter when he's got far more important issues to concentrate on?

26 April 2012 at 13:59  
Blogger Oswin said...

They're just not up to the job, is all. I don't know who is, these days; we are surrounded by incompetents and, by systems that no longer work as they ought.

Add to that, all the usual accusations, and we have what we've got now, a bloody mess!

We can no longer collect taxes efficiently, or ensure that our voting system is free from abuse.

As someone said recently, we now live in a ''banana republic'' but without the benefit of bananas, apparently!

26 April 2012 at 14:39  
Blogger Sam Vega said...

"For how long will ordinary people tolerate privileged Honourable Members from the rural Tory heartlands and leafy suburbs imposing punitive levels of taxation on the ‘squeezed middle’ while they themselves are completely unaffected and their personal fortunes secure?"

Excellent question. There is another related question which is relevant because whether people tolerate leaders or not is only loosely linked to how long those leaders stay in power.

"How long can the economy survive in a recognisable form if the "squeezed middle" continue to suffer such punitive rates of taxation?"

26 April 2012 at 14:43  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Your Grace, the problem for Mr Cameron and Mr Osbourne is that UKIP do not support homosexual "marriage" and neither do the black africans for the most part and nor do the Muslims. He hasn't done his sums.
Mrs King

26 April 2012 at 16:20  
Blogger Marcus Foxall said...

How long will people tolerate ANYTHING imposed by the Government?
The answer , of course , is for a very long time indeed. It is simply not in the nature of most stoical , reserved Britons to rise up - at least , not with revolutionary zeal and not when the imposition is from within their own borders.

Does voting for another party change anything ? Not according to writings attributed to Tony Benn :" Parliamentary democracy is, in truth, little more than a means of securing a periodical change in the management team, which is then allowed to preside over a system that remains in essence intact."

As I predicted,Cameron has proven to be a poor PM - he just does not have "the right stuff" to be a proper Tory leader.
Bless His Grace for continually drawing attention to this little man's failings.
And bless Nadine Dorrie , too !

26 April 2012 at 17:46  
Blogger Hereward said...

With the economy stalling, the temptation will be to print money. If they overdo it and trigger hyperinflation no one will know the price of milk.

26 April 2012 at 17:56  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

What is the price of milk? Mrs Dodo does the shopping in our nest.

26 April 2012 at 18:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. A chap’s background has nothing to do with it. Churchill’s people were the Dukes of Marlborough. The leader of the Labour party is from Jewish Marxist stock. Now, a man must answer for who he is and where he is now, not from where he came from. The REAL complaint about these two is that they know nothing outside of politics. They’ve never done an ‘honest’ days work in their lives…

Some years ago in a different town, the Inspector on finding himself in the high street, would pop into a hostelry for a pint, a smoke and a read of the paper. One day they ‘modernised’ the place. Out went the comfy seats, the wooden tables, the oak bar with footrest, the pictures of race horses and steam engines. In came glass tables, tubular chairs, modern art and a granite serving counter. Tory grandees, reading this are you ? You know where this story is heading…

A last word on the increased cost of living. All part of the marvellous benefits of being in the EU. This socialist experiment is now coming to its end game. We’re ALL going to have the same standard of living as the southern Europeans have with their handful of goats. But without the sunshine and their relaxed way of life. Doesn’t seem fair really, but it’s for the best, as our rulers will tell us…

26 April 2012 at 18:16  
Blogger Gnostic said...

It's not the poshness of iDave and Georgie Boy that bothers me, Your Grace. It's their crass stupidity, their insistence that the ever expanding Nanny State knows best (despite their promise to dismantle Labour's rampant nanny statism) and the reckless haste in the way they continue to sell us out to the EU at every available opportunity.

Nadine Dorries is right to criticise but she cocked it up. She's attacked the men and not the devastation they are wreaking upon both the Conservative party and the country. Calling people names is not helpful and doesn't give me much faith in Nadine's political ability. She's part of the problem.

Vote Conservative, get Blue Labour.

26 April 2012 at 18:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Back to the Inspector’s tale of his hostelry…

Now, here’s the twist in the tale. After ‘modernisation’, the place was a roaring success, and still is, last time he walked past. Sadly a few ‘permanent’ changes. Gone are the roast dinners and gravy hasn’t been made there for years. The microwave menu is popular though. Pastie and chips, Jumbo sausage roll and chips, or just chips. On a busy day, you can eat with peoples unruly children running and shouting. And the freezing cold ‘lager’ has to be tasted to be believed. In fact, it’s now no different to the rest of the places nearby, all vying for your custom. All catering for average to below average expectations - nothing special, and not what a discerning type wants at all.

Now can you see why us old dependables have abandoned the Conservatives. The place just isn’t what it stood for at one time; it’s gone mass market and the product has been replaced by the lowest common denominator. Good Lord, did the Inspector say the Conservatives ? He meant the hostelry of course…

26 April 2012 at 18:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Just seen that armed drug dealer Duggan lying dead on the pavement having been gunned down by our brave lads in blue. Makes one proud to be British, what ! {SNIFF}

26 April 2012 at 18:44  
Blogger len said...

Cameron and Osborne are the face of 'the establishment'.Some might say the unacceptable face?
The represent their masters and do their bidding.
People are going to suffer hardship during the coming months and years and these two are going to make sure it isn`t them or' their class' who do the suffering.
Far from being the' Big Society' we in the UK are a' broken Society' as the gulf between the haves(and are keeping it ) and the have not`s ( and are losing the little that they have)

Unless of course..... the British people finally have enough of being ruled over by 'posh boys'?

26 April 2012 at 19:02  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

As I see it, this problem has 2 major issues that have arisen over the lt couple of decades.

The first is that people in general have fallen to the Gordon Gecko mentality of "greed is good" and are now mainly focused on themselves and what they can get out of life before anyone else. This can be seen by the huge lack of philanthropists at a time when so many charitable organisations doing excellent work find themselves struggling to keep going.

The second issue is that it has become increasingly hard (if not impossible) to become an MP for a constituency unless you are a member of one of the main political parties. This is mainly due to the ridiculous cost that goes into campaigns and the fact that national parties can get into our living rooms through TV advertising, whereas the local independent is lucky if they can leaflet the whole constituency!

Both these issues have led to the political class existing and mean that it is both self-sustaining and killing off people rising up from their local area and representing it. Long gone are the days of the orator, such as Gladstone, who would stand on an issue, book a hall and speak about it to an enthralled audience anKd be seen as a legitimate candidate for parliament. No longer are the Labour Party represented by miners and various other trade union members who truly represent the working class, now they are all former special advisers and politics graduates! And it's not like the new parties that are potentially emerging (Greens, UKIP etc) are that much different.

The whole system is broken, and not just broken in the way that people claim parliamentary democracy is in general, the system has gone and broken itself from working as it was supposed to!

26 April 2012 at 19:07  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

As a slight aside (though I mention it because you bring it up in your comments), I've been wondering whether the Church pulling out of the legal side of marriage (assuming the change that they say will happen actually does) might be the way forward. Personally, I would be more than happy to get married in a religious service that did not include the register signing, so that I am not becoming a part of a legal institution that is a twisting of God's sacred creation. That way religious marriage would still be able to lay claim to being God's will without the baggage that Dave seems to think it is right to add to it.

Just a thought.

26 April 2012 at 19:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Inspector’s nephew getting married this year. Despite both working, unable to afford deposit for their own place just yet. Rather the government did something for young potential home owners rather than young promiscuous marriage demanding homos...

26 April 2012 at 19:16  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Your Grace,

Watch this Utube clip from the Coalition4"Equal" Marriage which they call a "commercial for gay marriage" and tell me if you are not sickened and confirm that this is what you want for your children and your grandchildren. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a54UBWFXsF4&feature=player_embedded

This is what Mr Cameron is focusing his attention and resources on at this time while we have an economic depression in the UK and Europe of frightening proportions.

Where is the man's sense of priorities ?

Mrs King

26 April 2012 at 20:13  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

I am sorry to admit that in common with most men, I don't have much more then a rough clue as to what milk costs. This in spite of the fact that I often buy the stuff myself.

When one really needs something knowing the price is of little importance. The price is of course important, but knowing what precisely it is, changes not a lot.

The running joke with this Posh Boy issue is that they are ALL posh boys and girls, as far as myself and the majority of the public are concerned.

An average university education may be as devalued as it has ever been; but the kind of education almost all of our politicians have received, has never been more valuable.

After all, being able to sell ones own country, its people, and their democratic constitution down the establishments river, while still smiling, sleeping well at night, and being able to look at ones own children in the face without crying, takes at least up to 3 degrees of serious training.

26 April 2012 at 20:15  
Blogger Marcus Foxall said...

Ooohh - must send this to Nadine Dorries :

First day ar Eton.
Headmaster writes three words on the board and instructs the boys to copy them.
The words are AIR , HAIR and LAIR.

"All done , boys? Good! Now say the words ite loud !"

They chorus " Air-Hair-Lair".

And the Head replies :
"Air, hair lair - welcome to Eton!"

26 April 2012 at 22:11  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I've just read Call me Dave now hiring Australian Ladette to look after their children so he doesn't look too posh! What's wrong with a nice English nanny? He just doesn't get it at all. It's not about being posh or not but it's all about ability, vision and intelligence. He lacks the ability to put himself in others' shoes in order to understand where they are coming from. He's just not a leader.

The conservatives need to work on getting a new leader, someone with vision it doesn't matter if they are posh or not it's all about ability and intelligence, and who supports Christian morals and values, who's not afraid of dealing with immigration, can stand up to the militant homosexuals and will get us out of the stranglehold of the EU.

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

Indeed Marie. The most disturbing thing here is that he hopes it will impress, for God’s sake. That nice chap Haig would make a good leader, don’t you think ?

26 April 2012 at 22:29  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace, A brilliant post and a very brave Nadine Dorries. She clearly has no aspiration towards office under this administration.

Inspector; you said; a man must answer for who he is and where he is now, not from where he came from. The trouble with Cameron and Osborne is that where they are now is where they came from. They have never moved on from being nannied and having their nappies changed by anyone but their mother. Their upbringing has kept them in the playpen as the picture in the Post shows. Their jobs are a great lark.

26 April 2012 at 22:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

You have it Integrity and in one ! It used to be Eton then the Guards. Those two should be risking their hides in Afghanistan, not giving us the benefit of their inexperience in government. They’ve changed the rules you know. They should be retiring to politics in their early fifties after a post army career in commerce. Don’t those two thickoes know the unwritten rules ?

26 April 2012 at 22:46  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Inspector I don't see Haig in the leadership position either, don't forget he's already shown us his abilities there some time ago.

Time the rich living here who are piling their cash under the mattress got their cheque books out. We are all in this together, if everyone else has to endure unpleasant times then so do the rich.

The country needs a quite a few things to prosper ( energy harnessing projects, some new schools, hospitals, high speed rail infrastructure, new airport, and entrepreneurial funding for those with great ideas to get off the ground) so I'd draw up a list and distribute it to those on more than £150k a year for them to choose what they are going to invest in. That includes Call me Dave's and Osborne's families too. There will no doubt be those who flee the country, well we will know where their loyalties lie, not with the UK so they needn't bother coming back.

26 April 2012 at 22:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Marie, don’t fall for the socialist nonsense that it’s all the rich' fault and that they should be put on a guilt trip for their wealth. These types tend to be supportive of money making ventures – it’s the banks who are the problem. That list you provide of what the country ‘needs’ - We’d all be better of with the “make do and mend”, attitude - It’s character building. There’s too much of this “I want it, and I want it now” sentiment. We should spend as we can afford. Thatcher compared the needs of the country to the ability of a family to afford improvements. No great fan of hers, but she has a point...

26 April 2012 at 23:15  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Marie said ...
"I've just read Call me Dave now hiring Australian Ladette to look after their children so he doesn't look too posh!"

An Aussie! Good God, has he no standards at all?

“In America, only the successful writer is important, in France all writers are important, in England no writer is important, and in Australia you have to explain what a writer is”
(Geoffrey Cottrell)

26 April 2012 at 23:23  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Inspector, I think you misunderstand me, of course it's not the fault of the rich. Apportioning blame all the time doesn't actually solve anything in the end. Speculate to accumulate the saying goes, and the Rich cannot take it with them. After family and the pile has been taken care off what better way to leave your mark with your spare cash would be say to build a series of academies in areas that need them. Or help fund Boris Island Airport. The country needs to keep up with others to stay competitive and grow. Make do and mend is good and is what we are doing now, but we must lay plans for the future and start projects now for success. We have not done this much that's why there are so many of the young generation out of work.

26 April 2012 at 23:39  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Next leader of the Conservatives SHOULD be Douglas Carswell. He's got a lot of sense in him, thinks things through well and is not afraid to tackle things head on (he was the first to stand up to the previous Speaker in the Commons). However I don't think he is likely to want it as he also seems to like being a backbencher.

27 April 2012 at 01:55  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Youthpasta, I like Douglas Carswell he talks sense. He says families have to contain their sending to within their income and so should the Government (and not the other way round) well said.

Going back to homosexuality for a moment (you knew I would) this crazy schismatic and dangerous hare that Mr Cameron has let out of the trap for us all to chase. He might be interested to know, if he had any understanding and sympathy for his own party and his own Tory MP's, that David Burrowes MP, John Glen MP and now Karl McCartney MP (and probably others) are all being hounded, harassed and persecuted by Pink News because they dared to state a Godly opinion on marriage and its sacred nature and its vital importance to the common wellbeing. I thought we were having a public consultation but obviously only the homosexuals are entitled to have an opinion whereas the 'right thinking man on the clapham omnibus' is not. Heaven help up. Philip Dawson, the Tory homosexual treasurer from Ealing (together with his boyfriend who happens to be Mr Burrowes agent) is doing much of this attacking, says he is "intolerant of intolerance" so that makes it OK to try and destroy his own MP and others from his own party does it ?

This all brings me back to Mr Cameron (and Mr Osborne's) judgement or frightening lack of it. Cameron said in his King James speech on 16th December 2011 to the Queen et al that this is a Christian Country and we should be proud of it and value and protect it, well come on Dave lets see some Christian values and Christian policies from you then… God help us all. Your Grace, I still call on him to repent.
Mrs King

27 April 2012 at 06:30  
Blogger len said...

The point about our Government forcing all and sundry to accept homosexuality is a valid point.And even our young are being taught homosexuality is 'natural' as part of their 'education'.
I am not against' homosexual people' but against' homosexuality' itself.
(The difference may not be apparent to some)
Homosexuality seems to be linked to Idolatry and wherever people practice idolatry homosexuality is present.(Idolatry is anything which involves worshipping the creation rather than the Creator)

The great danger for us all is where we(the general Public) endorse and accept Homosexuality as 'natural'then we are in grave danger of God 'giving us over 'to it.

Once' given over'(this is God saying if that what you want then have it!)all sorts of evils will then descend upon Society and the way to God and God`s Truth will be closed.If God sends deception to those who deny His Truth then deceived indeed(without hope ) they will be.
Even to speak about this matter one will be accused of 'hate speech'and people who have preached in public on Romans1 one have been arrested.

It is not' hate' to point out the very dangerous path our government is forcing...yes forcing people to take regarding ignoring God`s Truth and superimposing the will of man over it!.

27 April 2012 at 07:58  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Naomi, don't you just love it when the "tolerant" define themselves as "intolerant of intolerance"! It's like they are saying that they will love all people, but if you show just a whiff of dissension over acceptance of everything then they will beat the crap out of you!

And this is just another sign of the political class being brain-dead, as they seek to foist this mentality on the country and see us all in one voice proclaiming "Yes, we are all individuals" whilst bowing down to the golden calf of political correctness. They do not think to allow difference because their experience is that of the system, a system which is broken but that they keep pedalling in the hope that it will "self-right" in the end.

27 April 2012 at 09:20  
Blogger Preacher said...

I hope that the two 'Posh Boys' are reading this Blog. If they are it would be wise for both of them to alter course before before they have a catastrophe of Titanic proportions on their hands.
A walk down any High Street to see the empty shops should be sufficient to show the eventual outcome of the policies of this administration.
These two are fiddling while the country burns & like Nero they'll probably look for a suitable group to blame after the inferno.
Last years riots were IMO not just a bunch of thugs out to destroy but a warning of a populace on the edge of anarchy & rebellion. A look at some of the people involved will confirm that teachers & others were involved, because of greed, yes, but also frustration at the "Let them eat cake" attitude of the current government, who despite being given the opportunity of Ten years of the Last shambles, could only manage a draw that led to the present state of a shaky coalition.
The populace showed its distrust at the election & an astute leader would know that he had to prove his ability & integrity to the watching electorate. This David Cameron has failed to do.
Nadine Dorres has had the courage to say what needed to be said, but what many of her more ambitious colleagues refrained from saying. Whatever her shortcomings, fear is not one of them. I understand that she has also spoken out against the NHS suggestion to give 13 year old girls the pill, no question asked in a forlorn attempt to avoid any unwanted pregnancies. But with no mention of the possible side effects of the pill, or the STD's that come from unprotected sexual intercourse.

I feel that the present leadership should look to their laurels, the last PM that both Blair & Cameron admire was Margeret Thatcher & she took over from the Failed, weak, Ted Heath after he proved his lack of ability as a leader.
Fact!, some of the ladies are better at the job of running a country than their male counterparts.

Nadine, are you listening?.

27 April 2012 at 10:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Preacher Last years riots were IMO not just a bunch of thugs out to destroy but a warning of a populace on the edge of anarchy & rebellion.

Have to disagree with you there, my man. Last year’s riots were the result of a dreadful immigration policy allowing in anti social and violent members of Caribbean stock. Instead of sending them home in the early years when they first messed up big time, we allowed them to interbreed with our indigenous white trash to produce the wretched people who on meeting you in a quiet street, would have no hesitation relieving you of your wallet. Seriously injuring or killing you would not bother them in the slightest.

None so blind as those who will not see, don’t you agree padre ? Let’s not make the above truth an exception, eh.

There is a way forward, you know. Form a Royal Commission to examine policing tactics used by Jamaica. An interesting country. With their population types, they should be one of the world’s basket cases, but they are not. We could learn a lot from them....

27 April 2012 at 11:53  
Blogger Jon said...

Youthpasta - your solution of a separation of legal and religious marriage has been proposed previously by a number of people, not least David B in the comments here and is done in France, and seems like a sensible compromise. I'm not sure the CoE would agree, though, as it would represent change, and all change is bad.

Inspector - the government can do more than one thing at once. Allowing gays to marry and helping first time buyers onto the ladder can be accomplished simultaneously. However, the latter will be rather expensive, or would result in taxing old codgers like yourself out of your bull-market inflated properties and into somewhere smaller. Your choice, old boy, I don't mind which.

Naomi King - I agree that Cameron's timing and choice of battleground is obscure, but perhaps he has taken the view that permanent occupancy of the centre is where you win elections and so he needs to cement his reputation there, rather than fight a foe in UKIP, which, when push comes to shove, not many Tories will support if it risks Labour taking government. Mid- term opinion polls and votes in ballot booths are different things.

27 April 2012 at 13:52  
Blogger Jon said...

Preacher, I rather hope that the PM and Chancellor aren't reading these comments. And Gideon, if you are, get back to work - you've got an economy to get out of the way of.

27 April 2012 at 13:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Jon. Consider this. A young gay man is walking down the street. He’s just got ‘married’ to his partner of 3 years and he thinks to himself “What have I done. I’ve made a commitment to one individual for life and I’m only 21. The ‘Marriage’ can’t develop because we can’t have children. What’s more, my brain and body tell me there are hundreds of gay men out there still to meet and to do the business with”

Far from answering a gay need, homosexual marriage will be a cage to many. It will become such a dilemma in gay circles that gay command will issue yet another demand. Polygamous marriage where 4 or 5 can all join in and make commitments to the group. It’s inevitable. Don’t think the Inspector is exaggerating. We know about gay infidelity through the way disease spreads through that group...

You types really shouldn’t constrain yourselves like that.

27 April 2012 at 17:19  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Well isn't this conversation getting interesting your Grace.

In 2010 (the last year for which statistics are available) there were 6,500 homosexual civil partnerships registered. There were 280,000 new heterosexual marriages registered. Of the 6,500 civil partnerships how many would have preferred homosexual so called "marriage" if it were available ? A minority ? So the whole Country is to be turned upside down for the sake of a minority of a minority, shall we say 1,500 + or -. couples. Yet how much are these proposals going to cost ? Rewriting 800 years of legislation (not to mention the cost of reprinting all those millions and millions of forms) and the Government time and costs of all this consultation and legal drafting etc, not to mention the parliamentary time and angst given over to it and for what ?

Civil Partnerships already provide all the legal rights of marriage under another name. What is this argument really all about then ? Is it about homosexuals demanding that their lifestyle choice be "sanctified", which of course it never can be ?

It is written "If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" and it is also written "gave then up unto vile affections..the men, leaving aside the natural use of the woman, burning in their lust one to another; men working with men that which is unseemly...without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful...knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but have pleasure in them."

How can the homosexual ever believe that God will sanctify his homosexual activities; it is not in the script.

Mr Cameron exposes his huge lack of spiritual or even moral depth by wanting to create such an UnGodly creature as homosexual "marriage" against the will of most people (it could never be a true marriage of course). For it is written "It is not good that man should be alone. I will make him a help meet...the LORD God made he woman, and brought her unto the man...Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

The union of a man and a woman would appear to be the marriage, God does not imply that the "vile affections" of the homosexual are anything but an "abomination" to him. How can you sanctify, Mr Cameron, what God does not sanctify ?

27 April 2012 at 21:57  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Naomi

What do you say to the homosexual who has no belief in a God or His ordinances? Is there a secular criticism of same sex marriage that can be advanced?

27 April 2012 at 22:27  
Blogger anna anglican said...

So, according to some on this thread, the whole critique of the Cameron government is not regarding the issue of cuts/economy/europe/crime/well-being, but whether or not they vote for gay marriage?

27 April 2012 at 22:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Game to Mrs King

27 April 2012 at 23:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

New balls please...

27 April 2012 at 23:05  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Anna

Good evening. Are you talking to me again yet?

27 April 2012 at 23:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Goodbye-ee, goodbye-ee,
Wipe the tear, baby dear, from your eye-ee,
Tho' it's hard to part I know,
I'll be tickled to death to go.
Don't cry-ee, dont sigh-ee,
there's a silver lining in the sky-ee,
Bonsoir, old thing, cheer-i-o, chin, chin,
Nah-poo, toodle-oo, Goodbye-ee.

heh heh

27 April 2012 at 23:30  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Been on the 'good stuff'?

28 April 2012 at 00:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

hic, only the finest single malt dear chap. Anna is lost to us, and she particularly loathes the Inspector...

28 April 2012 at 00:12  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Jon, I am simply suggesting a course of action in the event of the ludicrous idea coming to pass. The change is legally unnecessary and the claim for equality is based on the idea that marriage is about a love match, not a pairing of members of opposing genders for the primary purpose (though not only one). This idea is a flawed attempt to twist things to the way of the pink agenda with no valid basis for it's existence.
With that in mind, if the government decide to bastardise the legal aspect of marriage I am suggesting Christians consider withdrawing from it while still going through with the sacrament.

28 April 2012 at 00:15  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 April 2012 at 00:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Youthpasta. It really doesn’t look good. If this gay marriage malarkey is bounced through, then Christian churches must refuse to co-operate on the civil side of registration. Just don’t trust these gay types at all. They’ll no doubt insist churches can’t do that. They want to rub our noses in their private parts, so to speak, to punish Christianity’s stance on their bizarre behaviour...

28 April 2012 at 00:25  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

You give up too easily, my man. With a bit of understanding, Anna will appreciate your rather unique style of delivery and see you mean no harm. She is a tad judgemental though, I'll grant you that and certainly holds a grudge against us.

Still, who cares? "Keep Buggering On" as the good man used to say, what!

28 April 2012 at 02:06  
Blogger len said...

Anna
The whole point is one of priorities.The Cameron/Clegg Government could have done a great deal to have reversed the disastrous policies of former Governments regarding moral issues.
They however have reinforced and gone further with detrimental moral/and fiscal policies which have further devalued our Society.
Our Society is moving ever further away from God and this is opening the floodgates to all sorts of destructive forces which are ever gaining power.
In short our Government is pursuing a course which can only end in disaster which could have been reversed with a few Godly men in Government.

28 April 2012 at 07:14  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Well done Anna

As you know the homosexuals said that if they got civil partnerships they wouldn't ask for marriage, well how long did that one last ? 5 years ? As the Good Book says (New Testament even) they are "without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful". So speaking for myself I am not expecting a great deal of integrity from that quarter. Remember Philip Dawson and David Burrowes MP (a few posts back) ?

As for the moral and spiritual development of our leadership, you may be startled to know that Gay History Month is held every year in our schools throughout the month of February. So our children are being actively converted into this lifestyle in our State run and funded schools. Oh and by the way because it is taught arose the curriculum, in history, geography, english etc, families who don't want their children exposed to this type of thing are unable to withdraw them from these sessions as they are not within the limited to the 'religious' op out.

I raise the battle cry "Thus far and no further" to our homosexual brethren. Oh, and on a serious note (sorry to do this to you on a Saturday morning) but I know Ministers of Religion who are willing to go to prison over this issue. They love God more than man.

Mr Cameron might find civil disobedience from an unexpected quarter if he insists on going ahead in this madness.

28 April 2012 at 08:41  
Blogger bluedog said...

Of corse, Your Grace, as the Leveson inquiry rolls on with bombshell after bombshell being dropped, all eyes are on the past.

But what of the future?

Dave has successfully created a situation where the Murdoch press is his sworn enemy. As the Murdoch press was a critical factor in Dave's limited success in 2010, this is a strategic error of catastrophic dimension, for Dave.

So where will Murdoch pledge his support in future? Not to the Conservatives. Not to Labour.

But what about UKIP?

Now that really would be a coup de main.

And bearing in mind that the Murdochs hail from Cruden in Scotland, maybe the SNP will receive their support north of the Border. After all, Rupert is frank in his admiration of the Wee Eck.

In short, Dave's folly in mishandling his press relations in general and those with the Murdochs in particular could lead to a radical defeat for the Conservatives and Dave's agenda. The SNP may become absolutely dominant in Scotland leading to the success of the separatist cause. In England and Wales, UKIP may become the dominant political force, leading to the withdrawal of rump UK from the EU.

Bravo, Dave.

28 April 2012 at 08:46  
Blogger Preacher said...

Bluedog.
"In England & Wales, UKIP may become the dominant political force, leading to the withdrawal of rump UK from the EU".

Now THAT'S worth a prayer.

JON.
I wrote it in the hope that the "Two little boys" would read it, also Nadine Dorres. Perhaps then they might get out of the playpen & smell the coffee, before there is a backbench revolt followed by a state of anarchy & civil unrest in the country. Moral: Don't play with matches when your're sitting on a keg of gunpowder!.

OIG.
Sorry but I don't agree. Check it out.

28 April 2012 at 10:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "What do you say to the homosexual who has no belief in a God or His ordinances? Is there a secular criticism of same sex marriage that can be advanced?"

Does anyone really care, other than the religious? The whole same-sex marriage thing is essentially an issue of the future of religious hegemony. That's why there's such a fuss by politically active Christians. Any secular criticism will be widely recognised as the mere sugar coating of religious whining.

28 April 2012 at 11:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Preacher. Sorry but I don't agree. Check it out.

Either you are right, and British society is the closest it’s been to ‘anarchy and rebellion’ since the Gordon riots, or the Inspector is right: It’s only confined to criminal opportunist degenerates. Worth some serious contemplation from you, don’t you think.

The flock is not all pure. Never has been...

28 April 2012 at 14:49  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Dear Dodo - My apologies for not getting back to this point sooner.

Yes there are secular criticisms that can be advanced against homosexual sexual practices - they don't create babies ! And why does that matter to our Island Nation ? It does because the birth rate is now well below replacement level in all but the Islam communities. Muslins represented 2% of our population in 2001 and they now represent 5% and by 2020 they are expected to represent 20%. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

It is such a tragedy that intelligent men and women are behaving so unintelligently when it comes to homosexuality. What would happen to the human race if we all became homosexual? Previous civilisations that embraced this practise in the past have gone off the scene despite their technological prowess. Western civilization is a vanishing phenomenon and it will take a complete U-turn to save it and this will need leadership from our moral and political leaders. Unless the Conservatives, particularly the silent majority and the indifferent minority amongst Conservatives, continue in rising up to challenge and wield all their political, social and spiritual muscle, the acute moral and social decline which the Prime Minster spoke about so clearly in this address on the King James Bible on the 16th Decemeber 2011, will continue to escalate.

He said 'The values we draw as Christians from the Holy Bible go to the very heart of family life and the health of our society. The future of our country is now at a pivotal moment. Christianity, belief, religion, the Church and the Holy Bible are all inherently involved in politics because so many political questions are moral questions. We've got to stand up for our values if we are to confront the slow motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations. To be confident in saying something is wrong is not a sign of weakness, its a strength. Put simply, for too long we have been unwilling to distinguish right from wrong. The absence of any real accountability, or moral code, the almost fearful passive tolerance, has allowed behaviour in ways that run completely counter to our values. Shying away from speaking the truth about behaviour, about morality, has actually helped to cause some of the social problems that lie at the heart of lawlessness and a broken society. Moral neutrality or passive tolerance just isn't going to cut it anymore. And we should not be afraid to acknowledge that. None of us should be frightened of recognising this.'

Falling birth rates lead to falling economic activity and falling incomes. This becomes compounded when the peak of the population passes 48 years old, as our Baby Boomers did in 2007 coincidentally. As we pass 48 years our economic activity falls as does our expenditure. QED declining economy which brings us back nicely to the Witney-Tatton question. It is of course politically expedient to support the Homosexual Lobby in a secular and largely atheist country if Conservatives in the UK continue to treat this as a non-issue. But if Conservatives truly rise and wield their socio-political power on this matter of homosexual "marriage", it will die a natural death.

However, David Cameron and his Government would then be out of sync with Europe and the Americas. The Conservatives may not be able to live with that socially and economically unless they were able to gain inner moral and political strength. That would enable our Conservative Leaders to weather the storm that will be generated by a stand against these demands. They would then have the courage to take what is none other than a common-sense approach.

However there is a question we could legitimately ask ourselves, are Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne really Conservatives or are they Liberals in disguise ?

28 April 2012 at 19:45  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Naomi
I think there are much stronger secular arguments to be made other than non-reproduction.

Far from bringing stability as claimed by Cameron homosexual 'marriage' will strike a fatal blow at family life and the value and stability of heterosexual marriage. Our children, already accustomed to divorce, abortion and contraception, will now be exposed to perverted means of carnal pleasure and this must generate confusion at a time their own sexuality is emerging and embed the idea sex is for recreation and not for generating new life.

The thing that always impresses me is that God in His Wisdom has revealed a way to live that benefits us as individuals and as communal groups.

28 April 2012 at 20:26  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Dodo,

Of course we are speaking to each other; arn't you the nice,kind gentleman, who helped me out a few days ago when we had a chat at the East Cheam Waitrose Deli counter?

28 April 2012 at 20:48  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Actually, it was a Sainsbury's !

28 April 2012 at 20:51  
Blogger anna anglican said...

@Naomi, no-one is suggesting that 'everyone' becomes gay! Get real.

28 April 2012 at 20:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Naomi: "What would happen to the human race if we all became homosexual?"

Blimey.

On the positive side, we're apparently just a tiny minority ... at least when the argument needs to be made that our interests are insignificant and irrelevant. So, I wouldn't worry about our effect on birth rates.

If you're really worried about that then perhaps you should be lobbying for the criminalisation of birth control. Or encouraging non-Muslim breeders to shag each other whenever they get the opportunity.

28 April 2012 at 20:53  
Blogger anna anglican said...

Is it me or are the right-wing christians here obsessed with sexuality than everyone else? If these zelots don't like it then they are free to form their own political party and see how well the bigot-homophobe party does at election time!

28 April 2012 at 20:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "The thing that always impresses me is that God in His Wisdom has revealed a way to live that benefits us as individuals and as communal groups."

You're not talking about Sharia Law, I suppose. The justification is much the same, it has its own large cohort of committed and fervent believers, and it claims an absolute authority too.

28 April 2012 at 21:01  
Blogger len said...

So Christians are' bigot homophobes' now?.

Well if the World 'loved us' I would be worried!.

A Friend of the World is no friend of God!.'The World' being the corrupt system of man.So can a Christian have one foot in the World, and one foot in Christianity Can a Christian love two masters?.

28 April 2012 at 21:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well there’s a thing. Len objecting to sacred homosexual thought as laid down on this site. You were non committal the other month, you shameless fraud...

AND, it’s a bit rich gay types whining about interest in their sex lives. If you lot kept your big mouths shut, and just got on with it, we wouldn’t even know you existed...

28 April 2012 at 21:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Anna.Is it me or are the right-wing christians here obsessed with sexuality than everyone else?

Easy one that – it’s you !

28 April 2012 at 21:55  
Blogger anna anglican said...

oooooh, thank goodness for that inspector! I was beginning to think that you people didn't like Cameron 'cause of his 'support' for gay marriage- above and beyond all the other stuff where his government have gone wrong! PHEW!

Also don't forget 'kymbya' Len will do anything to have a dig at you Catholics- I rather reckon that if yousaid the world was round, it'd be flat..

28 April 2012 at 22:38  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Anna
And I thought we agreed not to share details of our recent meeting in case people got the wrong idea!

And the world is flat isn't it len??

DanJ0
Have you no other approach?

Christianity and Islam are based upon very different theologies. One permits free will and believes in regeneration through transforming grace; the other insists on submission and absolute obedience to a theocracy.

28 April 2012 at 22:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Have you no other approach?"

I have an arsenal of stuff. That one just seemed most appropriate as no doubt staunch Muslims also argue that everything fits together wonderfully according to Allah's plan, and that the world would be a much better place if everyone fell into line and lived by the rules that Allah has set out in its very own words. I'm also quite conscious that you said you'd rather my free will and my sexuality be curtailed by law, which rather chimes with historical experience when your particular religion had much more power than it has now.

29 April 2012 at 06:12  
Blogger len said...

Danjo, Is there no difference between 'Christianity' and Islam then, as you see it?.

I think you might have a valid point there Danjo.

'Biblical Christianity' differs greatly from the various sects which go under the name' Christian'.
Catholicism has ruled by suppression,control and domination literally executing all who opposed it.The same with Islam.

So it all depends on how you define 'Christianity'.
I think you can define a religion by not what it says but what it does.

Look at the history of religions and different 'Christian sects' (which is quite illuminating.)
But don`t lump 'Biblical Christianity'(which is only held by a minority) with all the excesses of its big 'brother(in name only.)

I believe in the not to distant future an 'alliance' will be struck between the apostate Church (which will include Protestant Churches many of which are well down the road to apostasy)and Islam.

29 April 2012 at 09:19  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Anna, go read Leviticus (not to mention Paul's letters) and then tell me that we are wrong to say that homosexuality is not in God's favour. Oh, and don't forget that Jesus said that the Law was not to be abolished so no arguing that it diesn't count anymore.

29 April 2012 at 09:42  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len
I suppose you're one of the few genuine Christians then, are you?
One of the special chosen minority of Biblical Christians?

Still banging on about the Church uniting with Islam in a dastadly plot to rule the world, I see.

It's Sunday, do go to Church and mix with some sensible Christians, for God's sake. I know you like to avoid communal worship. Oh, I nearly forgot, you don't accept Sunday is the Lord's Day - it's still Saturday isn't it? This being in the Bible and all.

29 April 2012 at 10:18  
Blogger len said...

The only' genuine Christian' is Christ Himself.

He however wishes to share that with all who accept Him as Lord and Saviour.

29 April 2012 at 10:37  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Your Grace, May I return to the question is there any secular reason to stand against the idea that homosexuals can "get married" ?

If you are born homosexual why would you be a liberal ? Homosexuals as a demographic group which are one of the highest income groups in the Nation, they are victims of crimes, the Muslims don't think to highly of them, so basically the entire Tory platform is fighting the same causes any sane homosexual should care about. While the liberals are sucking up to women who want abortions and I guess abortion is not at the top of the homosexual person's list. Oh and by the way, as soon as liberals find a homosexual gene, guess who is going to get aborted ? So I think all homosexuals who are born homosexual are overwhelmingly conservative, or maybe apolitical.

While all those angry homosexuals causing trouble for everybody, I don't even think they were born homosexual, I just think they are angry at their fathers.

Homosexuals who are born homosexual don't care about marriage. Homosexuals talk about "homosexual marriage" because they think it will prove we like them. We like you, we just don't like homosexual "marriage".

Marriage is the lynchpin of civilisation, it has nothing to do with homosexuals, it has to do with yes giving special benefits to mummy and daddy getting married and staying married before becoming mummy and daddy and every possible incentive should go into that. Instead you have every possible incentive operating the other way, subsidies for women to have children out of wedlock and oh, so many celebrations of the single mother and "the girls do it on their own now", well no they don't, we are paying for these single mothers.

I do sort of feel sorry for the homosexuals to be coming to the sexual liberation window 30 years late, saying can we have our piece too and the world explodes. But speaking as a Conservative we didn't like that other stuff either.

So yes it seems like we are finally exploding on this one issue but it doesn't have anything to do with being anti homosexual it has to do with being very pro marriage "classic" shall we call it.

Oh and PS I do Church on Sunday evening, it is possible you know.

29 April 2012 at 11:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Danjo, Is there no difference between 'Christianity' and Islam then, as you see it?."

Oh, there are lots of differences in content. However, the overall form is pretty similar. They both claim an authority which is external to our reality and from which a moral absolutism derives. They both have large numbers of followers who have been socialised into the religion. The both have lots of believers who have religious certainty. Islam and at least some of the sects within Christianity want a measure of political control over the lives of others based on their sectarian religious beliefs. They both claim their religious texts are divinely inspired and/or created. And so on.

29 April 2012 at 14:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Naomi: "While all those angry homosexuals causing trouble for everybody, I don't even think they were born homosexual, I just think they are angry at their fathers."

Lol.

"Homosexuals who are born homosexual don't care about marriage. Homosexuals talk about "homosexual marriage" because they think it will prove we like them. We like you, we just don't like homosexual "marriage"."

This homosexual would have been fairly content with civil partnerships, at least for a while. However, I'm staunchly in favour of same sex marriage now given the nature of the religious opposition to it. I want the whole thing rammed down your damned throats at every opportunity.

29 April 2012 at 14:16  
Blogger len said...

Danjo, there are many 'spin off`s' from Christianity and all purport to use the Scriptures as the basis of' their authority'.

Mohammed got hold of some corrupt 'Christian' teachings and wove them into the Koran.Catholics (under Constantine) added Paganism to 'Christianity',also Mormons and JW`s have taken Christianity and moulded it into 'their own image' .

So fallen men have got hold of Christianity and when it' passed through their hands' they corrupted it.

The Word of God remains uncorrupted (perhaps that is why the' universal church did' all in its power to keep the Word of God hidden from the eyes of men?)

The uncorrupted Church still exists probably mostly has left the 'church buildings' but is growing in 'house groups'and similar settings.The true Church is rising in former communist Countries and even Islamic Countries and despite huge amounts of persecution is growing rapidly!.

29 April 2012 at 14:25  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len
Do stop misrepresenting the Church's history! You are storing up so much trouble for yourself.

Why are you so desperate to undermine the all organised Christian Churches - Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican? Are you so lacking in confidence in your own rather unique beliefs? I think so.

You're acting a little mini pope making it up as you go along. Christ did not give you the right to speak on His behalf and to authoritatively interpret scripture for other people. His placed this responsibility with the Apostles and with Peter as their leader.

29 April 2012 at 17:12  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0: “This homosexual would have been fairly content with civil partnerships, at least for a while. However, I'm staunchly in favour of same sex marriage now given the nature of the religious opposition to it. I want the whole thing rammed down your damned throats at every opportunity.”

Now Danj0 that just shows you up as the spiteful bitchy gay that does nothing to show you in any sane light. Mrs King was being quite rational and pleasant. You homosexuals are just going to make yourselves hated by ramming your lifestyle down mainstream's throats. My initial reaction on reading that was to tell you I hoped you would drop off the planet and get swallowed up by a black whole.

29 April 2012 at 17:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Now Danj0 that just shows you up as the spiteful bitchy gay that does nothing to show you in any sane light. Mrs King was being quite rational and pleasant."

You can't really see beyond the end of your nose.

"You homosexuals are just going to make yourselves hated by ramming your lifestyle down mainstream's throats."

Oh I really don't think so. You're an anachronism. A dinosaur. It's people like you who will be hated for trying to stifle and judge everyone else.

People don't want your 1950s, Daily Mail-esque, Little Britain culture. The times they are a'changin', and you're being left behind.

29 April 2012 at 17:55  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Sorry Danj0 I didn't realise you were talking dirty!

29 April 2012 at 19:05  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.
Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: He shall enter into peace: they shall rest in their beds, each one walking in his uprightness.

29 April 2012 at 22:00  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

You will most certainly not be ramming anything down my throat.

You do a nasty, intolerant, bitchy streak hiding behind that faux liberal philosopher persona you like to pose as.

29 April 2012 at 22:22  
Blogger anna anglican said...

@Youth Pasta

I read Leviticus. As you state that all those laws are still in force, ergo, you believe that gay men-no mention of females- should be put to death(Leviticus 20 vs 13) and that regualations about mildew still apply to Christians (Leviticus 13 vs 47-59)?, not to mention the fact that you'd have to stone Danjo twice as he is also an atheist as well as a gay (Leviticus 24: 10-23).

Just wondering...

29 April 2012 at 22:32  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Anna

You do know our good Bish' considers Levitcus still applicable? Or perhaps he thinks it only applies to marrying one's brother's widow. Then again, he may have changed his mind what with the passing of time and circumstances having changed.

29 April 2012 at 23:29  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0”People don't want your 1950s, Daily Mail-esque, Little Britain culture. The times they are a'changin', and you're being left behind.”

Oh! but I think they do. Read the Daily Mail article and comments.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137070/At-A-judge-fights-marriage-Senior-family-court-judge-campaigns-break-Britains-divorce-addiction.html

And good luck to the Marriage Foundation team who are promoting some solid values at last.

30 April 2012 at 00:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "You do a nasty, intolerant, bitchy streak hiding behind that faux liberal philosopher persona you like to pose as."

Intolerant? I more than tolerate the religious practicing their religion, I actually advocate protection for multiple and different religions on a level playing field in our public space. What about you? You'd prefer to criminalise my consensual and inherently harmless sexual relationships. I think it's very clear which of us is actually intolerant here.

30 April 2012 at 07:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie, goodness knows what you expect that link to achieve. It's hardly radical to promote marriage and encourage family stability, afterall that's what is being done with the same-sex marriage proposals. Moreover, if anachronistic Christian busy-bodies want to reduce gay sex then surely gay marriage is the answer as I'm sure anyone who has been married for a while would agree.

30 April 2012 at 07:10  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Marie 1789 - "Marriage Foundation team who are promoting some solid values at last." Hallaluya

Thank you Marie1797 for pointing me to the article in Sunday's Daily Mail entitled "At last! A judge who fights for marriage: Senior family court judge campaigns to break Britain's 'divorce addiction". How encouraging. Sir Paul Coleridge says 'We have watched it get worse and worse and worse [divorce and family breakdowns]. The time for sucking our teeth is over. Waiting for government or others to take action is merely an excuse for moaning and inactivity.' Sir Paul's campaign is expected to be supported by the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu and the Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, while patrons of the campaign include former chief family law judge Baroness Butler-Sloss and family lawyer Baroness Deech and and academic Baroness Shackletony.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137070/At-A-judge-fights-marriage-Senior-family-court-judge-campaigns-break-Britains-divorce-addiction.html#ixzz1tVCGWyCR http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137070/At-A-judge-fights-marriage-Senior-family-court-judge-campaigns-break-Britains-divorce-addiction.html

My friends we have listened to the Liberals for far, far too long we have been fooled and taken in by their lies (demonic lies) about sex, procreation, family and the rearing of children.

30 April 2012 at 09:29  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Naomi King - "So yes it seems like we are finally exploding on this one issue [homosexual "marriage"] but it doesn't have anything to do with being anti homosexual it has to do with being very pro marriage "classic" shall we call it."

Now for some hard facts on the success of marriage classic, as we shall call it, at rearing and nurturing of children and the failure of all the alternatives.

The statistics are that if a woman gets pregnant out of wedlock (and the statistics are overwhelming both from the left and the right on this) that if she wants to do the best for her child she should give the child up for adoption. About 70% of juvenile delinquents, teenage runaways, teenage drug addicts, pregnancies out of wedlock are committed by the children of single mothers. If you were a child in the womb right now and you could choose rich, poor, black, white the one thing you would choose is that my parents are married.

I am responding to the culture of Hollywood, the Courts, the elite media which is promoting single motherhood and homosexuality. No one is celebrating dead beat dads or promoting single fatherhood.

What works is the nuclear family. Sometimes that isn't going to happen but I am talking about single mothers, a woman who gets pregnant out of wedlock and for narcissistic reasons decides I am going to keep this child for myself because if she cares what's best for the child she will give the child up for adoption.

At the end of the spectrum the statistics still are, of who ends up in prison, who ends up a murderer, who ends up getting pregnant out of wedlock herself, who ends up a teenage runaway, who ends up a rapist, who ends up a drug addict, about 70% are going to be the children of all these single mothers, that is simply a fact. Now imagine a Britain with 70% fewer teenage drug addicts, fewer teenage murderers, fewer teenage runaways, fewer teenage pregnancies, fewer prison inmates that's what single mothers have created.

Like I say, if you are pregnant out of wedlock and you want what is best for your child either give the child up for adoption or marry the father. Shotgun marriages used to work just fine. The child will turn out a lot better and they are given every advantage in life. We have got rid of the stigma of a woman having a child out of wedlock. Stigmas are good things, we have a stigma against smokers because smoking is bad for you. Smoking is not as bad for you as being raised by a single mother. Yes we do have stigmas and they are good things. I have just cited the statistics, maybe when you are 70 years old as a smoker you have an increased chance of getting lung cancer, single motherhood destroys a child's life forever.

We are talking about what happens to children when they are not raised with a mother and a father, basically every woman's magazine is talking about 'single motherhood by choice', women go and get artificially inseminated because they say my clock is ticking I want to have a baby and I don't know if I can find a man in time. It is narcissistic, it is selfish and it is not taking the interests of the child at heart, at all. I am the counterweight citing the facts on single motherhood, no one is saying this anywhere yet but they will be; sometimes pregnancy happens, I wish them the best in their particular circumstance. But for everyone to keep their lips zipped, thats why you end up with an illegitimacy rate that has gone through the roof and is harming children and is creating two separate classes in the UK.

Remember the riots ... Why feed the fire ?

Marriage classic works, sin doesn't (maybe that has something to do with the first being ordained by God and the second not). The Church, C4M and rational Conservatives are all very pro "marriage classic" why are our "College Boy" Leaders not ? It is more than about time that they were.

30 April 2012 at 09:33  
Blogger Jon said...

Inspector, you said "You types really shouldn’t constrain yourselves like that."

It's nice of you to worry about me, but I'd like the same choice to be monogamous as you would have if Mary Whitehouse were still alive. ;-).

Yes - there's loads of opportunity for random sexual encounters, but as we both know, they're ultimately less fun than if they're given meaning as part of the growth of a loving relationship.

What's more, I have a number of friends who are "civil partnered" and I really don't see why I or they should be obliged to accept anything less than the full state of civil marriage.

Increasingly, the Church is outing itself as a monopoly defending its rent- seeking behaviour. The Competition Commission would recognise the reactionary lobbying it is engaged in, but even if you win this fight, your war is lost because demography has moved against you. The young agree with Boris - we should be intolerant of intolerance.

Increasingly, I'm doubtful of His Grace's conservative commitment to the free market. Seeking to prop up an ailing monopolist at the expense of a thriving market. The CoE will be seeking a bail out next. Oh, wait, it already has with it's VAT shenanigans!

30 April 2012 at 13:37  
Blogger Jon said...

Naomi - "Shotgun marriages used to work just fine". Really? Can you show us any statistics on domestic violence or abuse?

You're harking back to a fairy story and seeking to re-establish a state of religious uniformity in order to achieve your social utopia. If your message was more persuasive, wouldn't you be having more success with straight evangelism (which would obviously lead to a perfect society - after all, there was no crime at all in the 1950's...) rather than trying to legislate your way to religious hegemony?

Yes, people with two parents tend to do better across the board. But then people with two parents also tend to have richer parents. Since I doubt you've run the regression necessary to control for the one to measure the other, I wonder if you'd point us to a study that has?

Your problem really ought to be with poverty and dealing with the entrenched causes of that. (Incidentally, wasn't that Jesus's message too? Why pay any attention to him though...) No, you would rather stop gay marriage because it leads to... riots. Really?

Homosexuality is not a cause of poverty. Since most gay couples don't have kids, it isn't a cause of single parent families, either. Heterosexuals have created these problems, and you can't pin them on us!

Trying to conflate two things you dislike (social breakdown and homosexuality) simply by including them in a paragraph of stuff you wish didn't exist doesn't make them linked, I'm afraid.

30 April 2012 at 13:48  
Blogger Jon said...

Anna - the TV programme you're looking for is the West Wing. President Bartlet demolishes YouthPasta's argument here

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

30 April 2012 at 13:54  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
As I've said you have your civil ceremony appropriate for you which unites you in gay union. This also supports monogamy and stability does it not? It isn't and never can be a marriage. Why can't you be more like that nice gay mp Ben Bradshaw and many others who are quietly happy in union.
Most people have accepted gays and have moved on it's you who is the Dinosaur!

Society has more pressing problems to deal with now, namely the breakdown of families that as I see it are sliding into communes producing a lot of confused, damaged and disturbed offspring. I've seen this happening in England where women have been empowered through many media’s to go it alone, single motherhood being elevated. Of course the daily reality is very different. A life on single parent benefit, children growing up in this atmosphere are palmed off to different fathers and family members and friends living in the vicinity so that mother can go out to pubs and clubs and meet men, gets pregnant again and again and leads a very poverty stricken slutty lifestyle.

Well said Mrs King.

30 April 2012 at 16:44  
Blogger Jon said...

Marie, as I've pointed out, it's your lot that cause single parent families. Don't try to pin the problems that your sexual orientation's failure to address your sexual taboos has caused on us!

The Church's opposition to Gay Marriage has hardened a lot of people's views in favour, including Danj0 and myself. Ben Bradshaw doesn't speak for all gays, any more than pro- gay clergy speak for all Christians.

You've got your crumbling buildings which unite you in the damp, this supports your socialisation. Why can't you be more like that nice vicar, Giles Fraser? Most people happily ignore Christians and have moved on.

30 April 2012 at 17:35  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Thank you Marie 1797.

30 April 2012 at 17:50  
Blogger Naomi King said...

GAY MARRIAGE BACKING WILL COST YOU SEATS, PRIME MINISTER TOLD


Prime Minister David Cameron

Monday April 30,2012
By Daily Express reporter
DAVID Cameron was warned yesterday against ignoring the views of his party’s traditional backers.
The warning came after a poll suggested his support for gay marriage could cost the Tories between eight and 30 seats in a general election.

30 April 2012 at 17:59  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Jon
No I'm not Jon I had finished discussing homosexuals, the family breakdown is not all your fault. I would say the feminists had a greater influence in it. Although there were many divorces caused by men and women initially coming out when homosexuality was legalised and taking up with same sex partners causing family breakdown but not in the volume that the feminist single parent “we don't need men” agenda has created. Or the easy divorce brigade. How come our grandparents and parents could stay in long lasting marriages and yet those from our generation not? Easy divorce of course all part of the throwaway society. People don't try hard enough.

Christians aren't asking for anything or trying to bully others to redefine marriage and the breakdown of society, they are defending it and asking that people cherish what we have had as proven to be successful. Some things you don't change.

30 April 2012 at 18:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Jon: "Marie, as I've pointed out, it's your lot that cause single parent families. Don't try to pin the problems that your sexual orientation's failure to address your sexual taboos has caused on us!"

Not only that but they keep having gay offspring too! :O

30 April 2012 at 18:33  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Mon, 30 Apr 2012

The Sun
Published: Today at 00:12

MINISTERS are braced for a pounding in Thursday’s local elections as voters give the Coalition the bloody nose it so richly deserves.

Tories know this is a price they must pay for the catalogue of crass Budget bungles and unforced Downing Street fiascos.

... David Cameron has given Labour a boost by raising two fingers to his traditional Tory faithful.

The result is one of the biggest slumps in the polls in recent times, to just 29 per cent, with Mr Cameron’s personal rating not much higher.

Supporters were prepared to tighten their belts and endure higher taxes and living costs to cut Labour’s debt mountain.

But they are deserting in droves over his irrelevant campaign for gay marriage...

30 April 2012 at 18:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "As I've said you have your civil ceremony appropriate for you which unites you in gay union. This also supports monogamy and stability does it not? It isn't and never can be a marriage."

Well, when same-sex marriage is legalised you're going to be a bit bewildered I expect. We'll decide what's appropriate for us, not a bunch of cultural-Christians like you. We'll have our equality and you can go to hell, so to speak.

"Most people have accepted gays and have moved on it's you who is the Dinosaur!"

A mere 45 years ago, we were put in prison for our sexuality. A mere 18 years ago, the age of consent was lowered for gay people, but not equalised. A mere 12 years ago, the age of consent was finally equalised. A mere 8 years ago, civil partnerships were introduced giving similar rights and benefits. Pretty much all of that was bitterly resisted by the god squad. We're at the cutting edge of justice, you're the luddites trying to hold back the trailing edge. And you know what? You're still wasting your time. Be grateful we're just after equality and no more given that we're on a roll.

30 April 2012 at 18:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Naomi: "MINISTERS are braced for a pounding in Thursday’s local elections as voters give the Coalition the bloody nose it so richly deserves."

I trust you'll bear in mind that we're much more likely to get our equality when a Labour government is in power. Be careful what you wish for. :)

30 April 2012 at 18:47  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
Ask yourself why homosexuality became illegal in the first instance? It was a danger to mainstream society. Carry on rolling by all means but you will in ten or so years find yourselves back in jail as your demands become too much.

It's only the nasty militant minority that are pushing the Churches into a dire and compromising position. I'm fed up to the back teeth of the gay agenda now.

I told you Labour and Ed Millipede will come from behind and win if the conservatives keep on this destructive path of laissez faire obliviousness. I wonder if it isn't al part of Common Purpose.
The leaders have all no doubt completed this sinister course on how to breakdown and remould society.

30 April 2012 at 19:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Ask yourself why homosexuality became illegal in the first instance? It was a danger to mainstream society."

It was introduced during the time of the religious wars when Christians were murdering each other vying for temporal power and position. Ironically, it was religion that was actually a danger to society back then, causing, as it did, considerable social upheaval and much fear and misery. I guess history is not your strong point.

30 April 2012 at 20:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "It's only the nasty militant minority that are pushing the Churches into a dire and compromising position. I'm fed up to the back teeth of the gay agenda now."

I'm fed up with the higher echelons of the Christian religion trying to hold on to its hegemony when it's way past its sell-by date. Why can't they just STFU and mind their own business instead of trying to impose themselves on the largely unsympathetic majority? Really, no-one much cares what Christians do behind closed church doors, or even in the street amongst themselves, but it gets rather tedious when these weirdy beardy men in frocks get their megaphones out, thinking they're somehow relevant to the lives of normal people.

30 April 2012 at 20:06  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
Well the Bible is a survival guide for humanity and homosexuality harms society.
I know Henry VIII created the 1533 Buggery Act where they had homos hanged. Thank your lucky stars you didn't live in those days Danj0. But even the Romans outlawed it a lot earlier than this and that it is world wide tells us that it is not a good thing to encourage.
Trust the Russian Trotskyites to be the ones to start to overturn sodomy laws.

30 April 2012 at 22:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "I know Henry VIII created the 1533 Buggery Act where they had homos hanged. Thank your lucky stars you didn't live in those days Danj0."

Because you just googled it. Yes, I'm very glad that I wasn't alive back when Christianity held temporal power here and throughout Western Europe. I'm also glad that its hegemony is being reduced now and that its historic pollution is slowly being removed from our culture. A malign and unpleasant and oppressive influence, when all is said and done, masquerading as something moral tending towards the Common Good.

1 May 2012 at 04:50  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Romans 1

ROM 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

ROM 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

ROM 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

ROM 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

ROM 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

ROM 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

ROM 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

ROM 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

ROM 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

ROM 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

ROM 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

ROM 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

ROM 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

ROM 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

ROM 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

ROM 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

ROM 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

1 May 2012 at 09:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Matthew 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

1 May 2012 at 18:07  
Blogger Naomi King said...

The current debate is whether people’s unorthodox sexual relationships and appetites should be given the same respect and legal status as the singular most important societal relationship - marriage – which for millennia has been defined as the lifelong union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

1 May 2012 at 18:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

1 John 4:20 If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

1 May 2012 at 18:22  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Dan, noboby hates you.

1 May 2012 at 18:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

An apposite chuckle, I'd say. :)

1 May 2012 at 18:37  
Blogger Gill said...

Can't we just compromise here?

1 May 2012 at 20:14  
Blogger len said...

Compromising with the Word of God is something Christians cannot do. Can we compromise with the truth?'

Can we 'add a little'or take a little away from the truth and it still be the truth.?

Some times 'the truth' can be painful, sometimes the truth can seem harsh,but without the truth (as revealed in the Bible we have no way to assess our position and without the' GPS' of the Word of God we become lost in a' moral maze'.
Which is exactly the position of most of the Secular World and a good deal of the 'religious World today!.

1 May 2012 at 20:24  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

@ Len

The comment from Gill was actually from myself (Gill being my wife- with regret I managed to fire off a comment without realising she had been working on the internet!).

You say that the word of God cannot be changed or compromised. And yet the Word of God tells us that homosexual acts should mean God state execution? For if you disagree you are "compromising", if you agree you look like a lunatic nut.

Which is it? Do you agree with Marie 1797 that gays should be killed for "sodomy" (which we can discuss later)? Or do you agree with me that change, culture and context suggest a different narrative to our 21st century culture and history?

PS- Naomi says "no-body hates you Danjo". Now I am probably the guy that disagrees with Danjo on most views, but I would be happy to have a few drinks with him (and Dodo, Carl Jacobs- Tap water only-the Inspector, English Viking,Anna Anglican etc) in the local.

However given Naomi's rants across a few posts, if I WERE Danjo (or Jon or Anna) I would think that Jesus Christ hated gays. Not so! Did not Christ die and hang there for ALL sinnner!?

Politics is the art of compromise. I cannot see that the current proposal threatens Churches etc as it pertains to secular marriage. If and when Christian Marriage is on the agenda there must be a free fair and frank discussion- until then, let sleeping dogs lie.

I personallly believe that the state should not care less what the gay or hetro does in the bedroom. I am more worried about the economy, tax, enviroment, the poor, our planet in general than the gay between sheets! I say that as a " born again" Evangelical- chucked out of the C of E "too Conservative", "Bishop Alan does not agree with you" former Anglican- Christian!

Yours in Christ

Paul

1 May 2012 at 21:02  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 May 2012 at 21:06  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 May 2012 at 21:17  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Paul
You raise an interesting series of questions.

First, who has the authority to determine what parts of the Old Law to set aside, especially Leviticus and associated Jewish Laws in Numbers? This caused a bit of a storm back in the 16th century and some seem to believe Leviticus still applies. Similarly, the first three (or four) Commandments are seen by some as literally 'carved in stone' and by others as being, in part, specific to Jewish Law.

Then there is the issue of how to interpret and apply God's Law as expressed and understood in the Commandments (and some would add the Natural Law)? Or did Jesus set these aside too? How far should one compromise on divorce, abortion, assisted homicide, homosexuality and contraception?

I am one with len on this. You cannot compromise on the Truth. The difficult bit is who has the final say, if anybody, on what this is? A Pope; a King; a majority vote at Synod or Spirit filled individuals?

So far as politics is concerned, I agree too with Naomi, the two cannot be neatly seperated. No Christian can support actions contrary to God's Law and in a democratic state I believe has a positive duty to actively oppose such legislation.

The values and culture of a society and the behaviours they support, when out of harmony with God's ordinances, bring harm to individuals and communities - a clear message in the Bible. It will also cause an abandonment of God and apostasy, particularly amongst the next generations.

1 May 2012 at 21:49  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@ Paul Twigg,

You have started the Ball rolling and Dodo had catched it- It shall be an interesting discussion. As I am also at a loss to understand this Christian Faith. I thought I did, then I had to go on an Alpha Course.

But, why do some Christians not like difficult questions? I hope that the real intelligent people on this blog can answer these questions. I think of Dodo, Albert, Carl Jacobs, Danjo and the Blue Dog here!

(AND Inspector- when he hasn't had a wee too much Scotch!).

1 May 2012 at 22:25  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Paul, the question of punishment for sin is indeed an interesting one, however whilst the law of the Old Testament still stands (Jesus himself said so) we have to view it through "Jesus glasses". That is to say that if we believe Jesus to have died for all sins then to punish is no longer something we are called to do. As such it means that we must leave ultimate punishment to God. That doesn't mean that we are wrong to imprison people, this is a way of restricting further pain on the innocent. But punishment from which there is no return (I.e. death) is no longer allowed by God. We have shown that we cannot do God's will, even with a written description of how to do it, so God revokes His wrath from our capability to do so.

1 May 2012 at 22:52  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Alpha
If you really want to underrstand Christianity forget the Alpha Course! If you must go, be sure to attend the additional Roman Catholic sessions.

It's better to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church - start with the small one and then progress to the full text.

2 May 2012 at 00:20  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Paul Twigg:"Which is it? Do you agree with Marie 1797 that gays should be killed for "sodomy" (which we can discuss later)? Or do you agree with me that change, culture and context suggest a different narrative to our 21st century culture and history?

Well in this day and age maybe we should just castrate them all instead. Or at least give them the option to relieve themselves of their disorder.

“I personallly believe that the state should not care less what the gay or hetro does in the bedroom. I am more worried about the economy, tax, enviroment, the poor, our planet in general than the gay between sheets! I say that as a " born again" Evangelical- chucked out of the C of E "too Conservative", "Bishop Alan does not agree with you" former Anglican- Christian! “

The state does not care, it's the homosexuals that are dragging the state into their bedrooms with their increasingly outrageous demands for ever more rights. I see them demanding that the Churches change the word of God to make their sin acceptable. Well that is totally wrong it will never be acceptable for the Church. It is already now tolerated by mainstream society and those that partake are protected in law.
Let's just keep it under control and in it's place in the 21st century Britain since we no longer hang people. Gay marriage should not be even considered, they have gay union in their civil ceremony which is tailored to their needs. They don't need “gay marriage” it can never apply to homosezuals in anyone's language and we all know that really.

Most people, are like you, worried about the more important issues the state does so Cameron should quietly and swiftly move on.

2 May 2012 at 01:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Well in this day and age maybe we should just castrate them all instead. Or at least give them the option to relieve themselves of their disorder."

It doesn't take a great deal to reveal what's really underneath the skin of people like you. The Christianity thing is just a useful justification to give you some cover. I can spot people like you, Dodo, Naomi etc from 100 or more paces away. This is why we need to have our equal rights fully recognised while we can and not accept anything less.

2 May 2012 at 03:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Heh

2 May 2012 at 03:13  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Your Grace, the point is if one gets things right (i.e. righteous) in the spiritual realm then benefits and blessings will follow in the worldly realm.

Everything in the heavens and on earth is yours, O Lord, and this is your kingdom. We adore you as the one who is over all things. Wealth and honour come from you alone, for you rule over everything. Power and might are in your hand, and at your discretion people are made great and given strength. 1 Chronicles 29 : 11-12.

I think it is time to point our that Mr Cameron's woes have all coincided with his determination to sanctify (as if he could) what God abhors.

2 May 2012 at 07:31  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I was being sarcastic Danj0. Of course it wouldn't be appropriate anymore to order all gay men to undergo a castration chemical or otherwise, well only the dangerous ones that pester little boys. Do we allow castrations for those that want it for themselves?

2 May 2012 at 14:08  
Blogger William said...

Danj0 said

"... we need to have our equal rights fully recognised while we can and not accept anything less."

That's fine as long as you understand that same sex marriage is not a right.

2 May 2012 at 14:44  
Blogger William said...

Alpha

Don't listen to the Dodo. The Alpha Course is a very good introduction to Christianity, particularly for a being, such as yourself, from a different culture. It's got your name written all over it.

2 May 2012 at 14:54  
Blogger William said...

Paul

What is this secular marriage / Christian marriage that you speak of? Is the type of marriage you have dependent upon where you get married? Also, what makes you think that those who have so-called "secular marriages" want the definition of their marriages changed from one man and one woman?

2 May 2012 at 16:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Of course it wouldn't be appropriate anymore to order all gay men to undergo a castration chemical or otherwise, well only the dangerous ones that pester little boys."

The word you're looking for there is 'paedophiles', a condition in both heterosexual and homosexual orientations.

2 May 2012 at 17:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "That's fine as long as you understand that same sex marriage is not a right."

In that way of thinking, neither is heterosexual marriage. Of course, what we're actually talking about for same-sex marriage is a legal right, echoing a civil right which follows from its arguments.

This is similar in form to the right to vote held by women. A hundred or so years ago, strident arguments were made against the right on the basis that women were fundamentally different to men, and that significant social damage would result from their inclusion in the franchise.

It's an odd person who would argue that women shouldn't have the right to vote now. The argument was won, the right recognised, and the notion firmly embedded in our culture. So it will be with same-sex marriage, I expect.

2 May 2012 at 17:37  
Blogger Naomi King said...

The debate has moved to WEDNESDAY, MAY 02, 2012
post Anglican Lay Reader suspended for supporting Coalition for Marriage

2 May 2012 at 18:16  
Blogger William said...

"This is similar in form to the right to vote held by women."

I don't think so. Allowing women the vote did not change the definition of suffrage - being the right to vote through democratic process (only its scope). However, defining same sex marriage fundamentally changes the definition of marriage - being the union of one man and one woman. It will cease to be marriage.

2 May 2012 at 18:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "It will cease to be marriage."

You're clutching at straws, I think. If your marriage fundamentally depends on a legal definition to be a marriage then I'd say it's not actually worth bothering with. When same-sex marriage is legally recognised, what will actually change in your marriage? Nothing. The social institution is essentially the same.

2 May 2012 at 18:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Your point about the definition vs scope is a bit of a shift from what I meant by "similar in form" which was about legal rights codifying civil rights, which follow from their supporting arguments.

2 May 2012 at 18:57  
Blogger William said...

Danj0 "When same-sex marriage is legally recognised, what will actually change in your marriage?" The definition.

"The social institution is essentially the same."

No it isn't - it is redefined.

"Your point about the definition vs scope is a bit of a shift from what I meant by "similar in form" which was about legal rights codifying civil rights, which follow from their supporting arguments."

My point is that there is no civil right to same sex marriage because it does not exist. Similarly, I have no civil or legal right to call myself a woman. The only way I could legally call myself a woman would be to have the definition of woman changed to "woman or man" or human perhaps.

Also, you are wrong to say that marriage (as defined) is no more of a right than same sex marriage. There are are very good reasons why society defines marriage as between one man and one woman AND why this is recognised both as a civil and legal right. These reasons do not extend to same sex relationships.

2 May 2012 at 20:33  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 “This is similar in form to the right to vote held by women. A hundred or so years ago, strident arguments were made against the right on the basis that women were fundamentally different to men, and that significant social damage would result from their inclusion in the franchise.

Giving women the vote was not harmful to society., although saying that, the feminists have done harm and I suppose they led the way for the homosexuals, so on this reasoning it is best to learn from our mistakes and not to extend marriage to include homosexuals or anyone or anything else other than one man and one woman.

God defines marriage not lawyers, politicians or homosexuals! God's word cannot be adulterated or supplanted with something alien and harmful just to include all and sundry so that they can feel better about themselves and what they do.

3 May 2012 at 01:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Giving women the vote was not harmful to society., "

Oh, I know that. It didn't stop people who were against the change arguing at the time that it would be though, did it? That's the point. They probably even believed they were right too.

"God defines marriage not lawyers, politicians or homosexuals!"

Which god? Allah? Brahman? It's not even remotely clear a god of the type even exists which might think to define an inter-relationship between members of one particular species of many on a small planet in a vast, vast universe. Your argument is risible. Parochial. Stupid, actually. How on earth do you imagine it will hold sway with an atheist? Lol.

3 May 2012 at 04:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "The definition."

And being reduced to just that, you basically accept that nothing essentially will change in your marriage at all. The internal nature of your marriage is unaffected by extending the definition to include same-sex couples with a relevantly similar relationship.

Vigorously tapping a piece of paper which defines the franchise as 'land-owning males over the age of 21 have the legal right to vote', or whatever it was, and crying "Look! Women can't vote! It's not included in The Definition!!1!" wouldn't have cut it back then either. I expect it would have got the same sort of response as it gets now from people like me.

Including women in the franchise wasn't the same as giving prisoners the right to vote now. Some of those against were arguing that women as a class weren't fit to vote by their very nature. Silly, emotional creatures, you see. Incapable of proper moral reasoning. Not full citizens because they were too weak to physically fight in wars, and many women didn't even aspire to vote either. And so on.

"Also, you are wrong to say that marriage (as defined) is no more of a right than same sex marriage. There are are very good reasons why society defines marriage as between one man and one woman AND why this is recognised both as a civil and legal right. These reasons do not extend to same sex relationships."

You're saying that the civil right follows from its arguments, by the look of it, which is what my initially answer about form was to your assertion that same-sex marriage is not a right. So, we fall back on the content of the supporting arguments and I have different arguments to you in light of recent social changes. Hence, I reject your initial assertion.

3 May 2012 at 04:31  
Blogger William said...

Danj0

"You're saying that the civil right follows from its arguments, by the look of it, which is what my initially answer about form was to your assertion that same-sex marriage is not a right. So, we fall back on the content of the supporting arguments and I have different arguments to you in light of recent social changes. Hence, I reject your initial assertion."

There is NO argument you can make that gives two men (or women) the right to get married because a marriage is defined as one man and one woman. The only argument you can make is to call for a change in the definition or marriage.

The only point as which rights come into play would be if a country changed the legal definition of marriage, at which point the legal rights of two homosexuals to get married in ANY institution that conducts heterosexual marriages will be enforced (as the ECHR has confirmed).

Furthermore the government has no mandate to change the definition of marriage unless it asks (at the very least) those who are currently married.

3 May 2012 at 09:38  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Absolutely William,

Mr Cameron, Andrew Cooper his director of strategy at No 10 and Danny Finkelstein executive editor of The Times and chief leader writer for The Times, both David Cameron's "close friends" have mistakenly confused the marriage CEREMONY for the marriage INSTITUTION.

Happy our Archbishop Rowan Williams (and therefore I imagine HM The Queen) are not similarly confused.

3 May 2012 at 13:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William, women were included in the franchise by changing the criteria and definition which excluded them. The inclusion of same-sex couples in the legal criteria for marriage essentially just extends the scope in a similar way. No doubt when the definition of the franchise was changed from land-owning men, to men, to men and women, to equalised age, and to younger people was initially greeted with dismay. You'll eventually get over the inclusion of same-sex couples too, I'm sure. In fact, I expect everyone will wonder what all the religious fuss was about in the not too distant future.

3 May 2012 at 14:19  
Blogger William said...

Danj0

This is not just a religious issue. There are many atheists who object to the re-definition of marriage and indeed some homosexuals too. Most people can see no reason for it (apart from Tory politicians keen on de-toxifying their brand). Most democrats can see no mandate for it. As for religious fuss; I expect that will really start when clergymen are carted off to the ECHR for refusing to marry gays. The fuss has only just begun. And that doesn't even touch on the effect of further erosion of stable, heterosexual relationships to the long term detriment of society. There are good reasons that stable, heterosexual relationships are enshrined in marriage - for the good of all. Those reasons preclude redefining marriage for homosexuals - that is what civil partnerships are for. However much you may talk about "equalising rights" in your quest (dare I say it?) to get even with religion (Christianity), I'm afraid that heterosexual and homosexual relationships can never be equal.

3 May 2012 at 15:46  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 Nature of course. You are going against nature, God created nature.
Voting (the activity of choosing whom you wish to represent you in councils and parliament is a different activity and a single choice that lasts for a maximum time limit four or five years or less.
Marriage is an institution for the rest of a persons life and to protect any offspring and for the general good of society.
Gays can't naturally have children nor do many of them want children. Therefore a civil union in a civil ceremony is the law's way of protecting their assets.

3 May 2012 at 16:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "This is not just a religious issue."

Oh c'mon, it's primarily a religious issue and I doubt it's even about marriage per se. It's about the perceived loss of ground formerly owned by religion, and the loss of influence in matters of morality as you see it. This is the ultimate battle line because homsexuals are a minority; the religious wouldn't dare take on the majority like this about divorce or pre-marital sex.

"And that doesn't even touch on the effect of further erosion of stable, heterosexual relationships to the long term detriment of society."

I'm not expecting young unmarried couples to be wandering around bewildered about their future happiness because some gay couples have married, or for married couples to contemplate divorcing because their marriage is suddenly not what it was after Elton John converts his partnership into a marriage. The idea is silly hyperbole.

"However much you may talk about "equalising rights" in your quest (dare I say it?) to get even with religion (Christianity), I'm afraid that heterosexual and homosexual relationships can never be equal."

So say you. I don't suppose Muslims think your religious beliefs are equal to theirs yet I doubt you lose sleep over a bunch of religious people holding a different opinion. We'll just get on with our lives, enjoying full equality and sticking metaphorical fingers up to disapproving religious busybodies.

3 May 2012 at 17:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Danj0 Nature of course. You are going against nature, God created nature."

When people have spinal issues which stop their legs working, they use wheelchairs and propel them with their arms. We have widened doors to allow wheelchair access, created disabled-access toilets, and dropped kerbstones. None of that is 'natural', not the issue nor the solution. The misuse of 'nature' and 'natural' to promote your agenda like that is a classic fallacy. Also, you're clearly just a cultural-Christian so spare me your sudden santimony and piety for goodness'sake.

"Therefore a civil union in a civil ceremony is the law's way of protecting their assets."

Oh I agree entirely. That's exactly what is being proposed afterall.

3 May 2012 at 17:47  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 “Oh I agree entirely. That's exactly what is being proposed afterall.”

But you've already got it just needs a name, not marriage but union or something. And you don't need to use a Church to get united/unified or whatever do you? You are different and your needs are different. You are equal already.

“When people have spinal issues which stop their legs working, they use wheelchairs and propel them with their arms. We have widened doors to allow wheelchair access, created disabled-access toilets, and dropped kerbstones. None of that is 'natural', not the issue nor the solution."

OK nature created disabled people and we build man made props to help and enable them to live a life. If nature also created gay people we have accommodated them too in the civil union, or whatever it needs to be called, preformed with the civil ceremony. It fits their needs.

If you are saying homosexuality is akin to having a disability that needs accommodating then how will being able to call your union or whatever a marriage and use a Church as well as the town hall enable you to live life more equally than you do now?
If you say that oh! well if it were not for this terrible disorder that I have I would normally choose a partner of the opposite sex and be heterosexual, therefore I should be able to get married and in a Church. That would too be rubbish.

3 May 2012 at 18:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "But you've already got it just needs a name, not marriage but union or something. And you don't need to use a Church to get united/unified or whatever do you? You are different and your needs are different. You are equal already."

You must have the memory of a goldfish if you still think I'm advocating the State trying to force same-sex marriage in churches. As for needs being different, I don't think they are at all. In fact, that's the core of the argument: same-sex marriage is tapping into the same sort of things as different-sex marriage and provides the same sort of social goods.

"If you are saying homosexuality is akin to having a disability that needs accommodating then how will being able to call your union or whatever a marriage and use a Church as well as the town hall enable you to live life more equally than you do now?"

Your goldfish memory aside, the disability thing is just a refutation of your fallacy. However, I can take it further and say that the drive for inclusion there is more than just about needs. It's about treating the disability simply as an attribute rather than as an identity-defining and fundamentally differentiating thing. Whilst my persona here is Gay Man and Atheist, I'm just a normal, everyday person and my sexuality is really just incidental. Well, except to some Christians and fringe right-wingers, of course.

3 May 2012 at 19:16  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

One thing that the Alpha Course does not discuss is the issue of non-human "souls". This is of course a subject of great schism in the Christian (and other faiths) theology of the twenty fourth century. Do non- humans have souls and did Christ die for them? To be fair the Catholic Church led the way on this issue :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8009299/Pope-Benedict-XVIs-astronomer-the-Catholic-Church-welcomes-aliens.html

3 May 2012 at 23:15  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 “You must have the memory of a goldfish if you still think I'm advocating the State trying to force same-sex marriage in churches. As for needs being different, I don't think they are at all. In fact, that's the core of the argument: same-sex marriage is tapping into the same sort of things as different-sex marriage and provides the same sort of social goods.”

My dodgy memory does remember you saying the other day to Mrs King on this thread:
“This homosexual would have been fairly content with civil partnerships, at least for a while. However, I'm staunchly in favour of same sex marriage now given the nature of the religious opposition to it. I want the whole thing rammed down your damned throats at every opportunity.”
29 April 2012 14:16

We don't trust the militant homosexual groups at all. And it's not marriage for same sexes.
There are overlapping things that are common to both groups imagine two overlapping circles with a common ground in the middle. Surely the overall area covered by the two circles together is more advantageous to society on the whole than just making everyone the same to fit the small area of common ground in the middle.

“The disability thing is just a refutation of your fallacy. However, I can take it further and say that the drive for inclusion there is more than just about needs. It's about treating the disability simply as an attribute rather than as an identity-defining and fundamentally differentiating thing. Whilst my persona here is Gay Man and Atheist, I'm just a normal, everyday person and my sexuality is really just incidental.”

But a disability IS an identity-defining and fundamentally differentiating thing like homosexuality.
is. Society is made up of differing people. WE are as yet not machines. So let us make the most of
it before the “Brave New World” types take over completely and start manufacturing humans or creating human robots according to a master plan schedule to complete various tasks that are pre programmed.

3 May 2012 at 23:17  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Alpha

Good link to a very interesting topic. The Catholic Church has always been forward thinking.

4 May 2012 at 00:20  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@Dodo,

But now we are enemies - We shall crush the humans and take our rightful place (along with our Dominion Allies) as supreme rulers of the galaxy!

4 May 2012 at 00:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

There's a more local issue than that: consciousness in non-human animals here on Earth. For me, minds and consciousness arise from our brains as evidenced from the changes to personality following brain trauma, disease, or the use of drugs. Those changes to personality can and often do affect our moral judgements and ability to choose.

4 May 2012 at 05:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "My dodgy memory does remember you saying the other day to Mrs King on this thread:"

It's a pity it can't extend back to any of the many times I've said I do not advocate the State trying to force same-sex marriage in religious situations. Or to the times I've said that I will be happy to man the protest lines along with Christians against the State if it tries to do that. I think there's clearly a private space for religious marriage allowing the overlay of religious procedure and philosophy over the public aspects of civil marriage. I'm simply advocating same-sex civil marriage which falls in the domain of the State and Society as a whole. You're repeatedly misrepresenting the issue.

4 May 2012 at 06:06  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 Yes I do remember and actually I took what you said with a pinch of salt at the time, because of course your interest lies not really with the Church at all, that you have strongly advocated on many occasions, and that you would wish for a secular state with total equality. You want religion out of the way so that the growing secularism can usurp it and rid society of it's differences. Well march on tiger.
The argument really hinges on what constitutes/does not constitute a marriage, and who can define that? It can only be Nature/God one man and one woman. You know you can't have same-sex civil marriage nor same-sex religious marriage. So no I don't think I'm misrepresenting the issue at all.

4 May 2012 at 18:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Yes I do remember and actually I took what you said with a pinch of salt at the time, because of course your interest lies not really with the Church at all [...]"

I'm no fan of Islam but I advocate space for it too. I advocate space for the BNP and EDL, despite thinking they're a bunch of feckwits. If you really took it with a pinch of salt then you really haven't understood at all what it means when I say I'm a liberal. I'd be very, very, very surprised if the Christian paradigm were true but its existence may act as a springboard to other important things. The Enlightenment, for example. That's why we liberals value freedom of speech and expression, and encourage acceptance of diverse lifestyles.

"The argument really hinges on what constitutes/does not constitute a marriage, and who can define that? It can only be Nature/God one man and one woman."

Well, you're fecked unless the god you've apparently borrowed announces itself properly. And, really, there's almost no chance of that is there? You're argument has no hold on anyone who doesn't actually believe in that particular god hypothesis. It's the same when someone waves the notion of Allah around and expects everyone to take the content of their beliefs as objective truth.

"You know you can't have same-sex civil marriage nor same-sex religious marriage."

As I have already said, I reckon you're going to be very bewildered when the legislation is passed and we have, well, same-sex civil marriage. Not that I think the Coalition will actually go ahead with the legislation but it will come soon enough. No doubt I'll have to remind you of all this in a day or two.

4 May 2012 at 18:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"You're argument"

Doh.

4 May 2012 at 18:31  
Blogger William said...

Danj0

"I'm no fan of Islam but I advocate space for it too. I advocate space for the BNP and EDL, despite thinking they're a bunch of feckwits. If you really took it with a pinch of salt then you really haven't understood at all what it means when I say I'm a liberal."

Nice idea. Here's one I've come up with. I "advocate space" for homosexuals to play at being married. They could have their own ceremonies, we could call them something catchy like civil partnerships and we could give them all the same rights as married couples. Then they wouldn't have to interfere with normal marriage. Simples! Where would we be without liberals "advocating space" for everyone?

What's good for the goose ...

4 May 2012 at 22:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "Where would we be without liberals "advocating space" for everyone?"

In a totalitarian theocracy, probably.

4 May 2012 at 22:33  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 “As I have already said, I reckon you're going to be very bewildered when the legislation is passed and we have, well, same-sex civil marriage. Not that I think the Coalition will actually go ahead with the legislation but it will come soon enough. No doubt I'll have to remind you of all this in a day or two.”

It would be sensible if they didn't proceed. Yes,I and many others are going to feel very confused and disappointed in the government for wasting resources and forcing this unnecessary legislation through if they do, I wont bother voting or will vote UKIP if they can be the real conservatives.

“That's why we liberals value freedom of speech and expression, and encourage acceptance of diverse lifestyles.”

You liberals aren't the only ones valuing freedom of speech and expression, most sane and intelligent people do. Where the ways part is at your misguided failure to recognise what is dangerous and damaging to society and what is healthy for survival, growth and prosperity.

5 May 2012 at 00:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "You liberals aren't the only ones valuing freedom of speech and expression, most sane and intelligent people do."

History lesson again, I'm afraid. During the religious wars when the religious held considerably more temporal power, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of belief, and freedom of conscience were ruthlessly suppressed. Moreover, the Catholic Church has been famous for involving itself in geopolitics and, on occasion, backing the massacre of many thousands of innocent men, women, and children to suppress what it saw as heresies. One might infer from your words that the upper echelons of institutional Christianity were neither intelligent nor sane as a result. For hundreds of years. Is that what you're saying?

"Where the ways part is at your misguided failure to recognise what is dangerous and damaging to society and what is healthy for survival, growth and prosperity."

Well, that's a core difference between liberals and the more paternalistic philosophies, such as Christianity or Islam operating through governments. Liberals recognise that there is partial truth to be found in many places, even in religion, and that trial and error to see what works and a diversity of lifestyles is the way forward in the long term. We're in an unprecedented period of globalisation too at the moment, the mono-culture and social control you hanker after, provided it's your version of culture of course, is unlikely to cut it in this situation.

5 May 2012 at 07:25  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Well Mr Cameron you got a great pasting at the local elections. You deserved to, you can't treat your "customers" with contempt and expect to get away with it. It ruined Ratner of Ratner Jewellers of course.

Time to dump your "moderniser" cronies (Andrew Cooper, Danny Finkelstein et al) because for moderniser read loser.

5 May 2012 at 08:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I rather agree with Matthew Parris in the Times about heartlands etc. The voting landscape has changed a lot in the last few decades.

5 May 2012 at 09:48  
Blogger William said...

William: "Where would we be without liberals "advocating space" for everyone?"

DanJ0 "In a totalitarian theocracy, probably."


I doubt it. Totalitarianism (religious or otherwise) has always been rejected by this country, usually on the basis of Biblical Christianity.

5 May 2012 at 10:35  
Blogger William said...

In fact, we currently have a good example of Christians fighting the totalitarian impulses of the government which is trying to impose its own definition of marriage on the populace.

5 May 2012 at 14:48  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0”One might infer from your words that the upper echelons of institutional Christianity were neither intelligent nor sane as a result. For hundreds of years. Is that what you're saying?”

Not at all Danj0 I was referring to people in the present day. We have learned the hard way from the battles of the past, or should have.

“Liberals recognise that there is partial truth to be found in many places, even in religion, and that trial and error to see what works and a diversity of lifestyles is the way forward in the long term.”

I think by now we should know what works through our trials and errors of our past. King Alfred the Great established many of these during his reign in from 871. He united England and saw off the Danes and Viking invaders. He didn't mess around with diversity, equality and liberalism.

“We're in an unprecedented period of globalisation too at the moment, the mono-culture and social control you hanker after, provided it's your version of culture of course, is unlikely to cut it in this situation.”

All the more reason to support our culture and a Christian mono-culture, not my version at all but one that unites and benefits the country. An excess of liberalism will eventually fragment, weaken and break down our established society ready for invaders to take over. I don't want a backward 7th century Islamic state here that in-fights with different branches of itself and all the other cultures that exist here.

5 May 2012 at 16:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "In fact, we currently have a good example of Christians fighting the totalitarian impulses of the government which is trying to impose its own definition of marriage on the populace."

That'll be the people who are trying to extend the definition to be inclusive, fought against by people who want their own restrictive religious beliefs to apply to everyone regardless of beliefs. Imposition? Right.

5 May 2012 at 17:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Not at all Danj0 I was referring to people in the present day. We have learned the hard way from the battles of the past, or should have."

Of course you were referring to people in the present day. That's because you didn't think it through properly. Sanity and intelligence are attributes which are essentially static things. What has changed over time are the arguments and their assumptions. You're actually a product of liberalism without realising it.

5 May 2012 at 17:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "I don't want a backward 7th century Islamic state here that in-fights with different branches of itself and all the other cultures that exist here."

But Marie, they have the creator of the Universe on their side! Their book is god's words dictated by an angel and recorded verbatim. Their morality is absolute and universally applicable. Moreover, you'll be judged by it when the time comes whether you like it or not and you'll be consigned to the eternal fire afterwards for your failure to recognise the one true god. Get on your knees, bow your head, and proclaim the shahada before it's too late! Or alternatively, if your response to all that religion is "Feck off with yer nonsense ya squinty-eyed nutter", at least nod to those of us have a similar response to Christianity too.

5 May 2012 at 17:54  
Blogger William said...

Danj0

To say something is inclusive doesn't make it good! In this case it is bad because it reduces the importance of stable, heterosexual relationships to society. A very stupid, short-sighted thing to do. The changes are being imposed because no one is being asked if they want their marriages redefined - even the consultation is a sham. In short there is no mandate for this. It is totalitarian and must be resisted - not least for democratic reasons.

5 May 2012 at 19:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "To say something is inclusive doesn't make it good! In this case it is bad because it reduces the importance of stable, heterosexual relationships to society."

It does nothing of the sort. It increases the importance of stable, homosexual relationships to society. A pretty sensible thing, I'd have thought.

"The changes are being imposed because no one is being asked if they want their marriages redefined - even the consultation is a sham."

You marriage isn't being redefined. It'll be exactly as it was. The law will be changed so that the social institution includes same-sex couples in the same sort of relationship.

"It is totalitarian and must be resisted - not least for democratic reasons."

It's a matter of social justice and should be implemented fairly shortly. The insistence by the religious that their special religious beliefs should be given special privilege needs to be resisted. In fact, the CofE needs to be disestablished and moved to its proper place in society i.e. on a level playing field along side Catholicism, Hinduism, Islam, and the other religions to which some of our citizens cleave, and below the level of a secular State whose job it is to arbitrate between interests and to minimise harm between citizens pursing their individual goals and interests.

5 May 2012 at 20:20  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0

So the secular state usurps Christianity and plays God. What right has it to do this? What makes you think secular liberalism is any better than what we have now?

I don't like some other religions because of their cruelty and barbarity and the fact they wish to take over this country and the rest of the world too if allowed, but you're just as bad.
Of course freedom to do what we like is good but it needs to be given form though natures/God's rules written in the Bible.

You say “ to include same-sex couples in the same sort of relationship” there Danj0 you say it yourself it is not the same, it is the same SORT of relationship.

You're shoving heterosexual marriage on the one circle and same-sex union/partnership in the other circle into the overlapping bit of common ground in the middle so you can say they are the same when they clearly are not and whether the people concerned like it or not. How dare you?

5 May 2012 at 21:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "So the secular state usurps Christianity and plays God. What right has it to do this? What makes you think secular liberalism is any better than what we have now?"

Secular liberalism? Let's be clear, I'm advocating a secular State but not a secular Society. You ask what right the State has? You mean what authority, I think. We're a liberal democracy, the authority nominally comes from the people. Why am I advocating a relatively small change to disestablish the CofE? We're a diverse, multi-cultural society now. Having a minority religion wrapped up with the State doesn't seem very appropriate any more and I think it will cause tension in the future when other religious groups of a similar size ask why they are not represented in the same way. What will be our answer? I suppose yours will be a variant of the Blood and Soil argument but I'd prefer something a bit more arguable myself.

5 May 2012 at 22:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "You say “ to include same-sex couples in the same sort of relationship” there Danj0 you say it yourself it is not the same, it is the same SORT of relationship."

Yes. The same sort, not the same. For example, a civilly married couple is in the same sort or form of relationship to a religiously married couple but the foundation of each is very different. I'm advocating extending civil marriage to include same-sex couples. I can't demand religious marriage for same-sex couples because that's premised on a notion of Holy Matrimony which now sits on top of the social institution which we recognise in civil marriage.

5 May 2012 at 22:10  
Blogger Naomi King said...

i

Begin forwarded message:

From: Naomi King
Subject: Proposed sanctification of homosexuality and the "Witney-Tatton Question"
Date: 4 May 2012 13:14:18 GMT+01:00
To: dcameron@no10.x.gsi.gov.uk

The Prime Minister

Mr Cameron

This letter is from a Conservative who voted for you at the last election, well I won't be again.

The issue of hypocrisy and the issue of the proposed sanctification of homosexuality (which by the way God abhors) will be the testing in the refiners fire for all the Church, in each and every flavour, because you cannot serve God and the flesh together. Whether the Church of England can hold together time will tell. As the Church of England is damaged so is the Monarchy but then you don't seem to care too much about that either. In fact it is proving very difficult to see what you do care about after all. Maybe we just go back to the point discussed at length in the Archbishop Cranmer "Witney-Tatton Question" Blog on the 26th April, http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/witney-tatton-question.html that you don't appear to have good judgement or maybe it is that you are such a fallen secularist that you are a frightening danger to us all.

Your proposed sanctification of homosexuality will divide the sheep from the goats because no-one can be equivocal. The battle lines are drawn and individuals will be on one side or the other. I thank God for Lord Carey and the brave members of the Coalition for Marriage. I thank God for Archbishop Sentanu, Cardinal Keith Michael Patrick O'Brien and other members of the Catholic Church. I thank God for David Burrowes MP and Peter Bone MP and others, and for Rowan Williams who have all publicly declared from their position from Public Office that this proposal is truly wrong, UnGodly and disastrous for the moral, spiritual and social health of this Land. They are now being persecuted for their faith in the Lord God Almighty and his Holy Scripture but what would you expect we are in the midst of a battle for the very heart and soul of this Nation.

Where does this leave the Church of England ? She will have to make her mind up. Thank God Rowan Williams has made his stand, in a very low key Rowan Williams sort of a way but there it is. Sadly the CofE is infiltrated by Fifth Columnists but there it is also, it is not a perfect world and never will be this side of Heaven. The future is in God's hands. This is his battle not ours although we all have our parts to play in it as his loving servants.

There are dangerous schismatics on the Church of England, such as the newly appointed Bishop of Salisbury Nicholas Holtam (see my post on http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/anglican-lay-reader-suspended-for.html on the Southwark Diocese Homosexual crisis @17.58) and I have written to him personally in strong terms on this point.

I am most unhappy about both your and Nicholas Holtam, Bishop of Salisbury's UnGodly approach to this issue. Both of your views are totally unbiblical and show minds turned away from Biblical truth. The propagation of this schismatic doctrine through the office of State and Church, and through the Front pages of The Times and Sunday Times, is wholly unacceptable. No doubt Bishop Nicholas is also a close friend of Danny Finkelstein, executive editor of these two newspapers, a self proclaimed ex SDP turned Tory party "moderniser".

Danny Finkelstein is I believe is also a close friend of yours. Mr Cameron you are a fool and as we all know, pride goes before a fall.


Yours sincerely
Naomi King

7 May 2012 at 08:02  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older