Thursday, June 07, 2012

Peter Tatchell gets privileged access to equal marriage consultation



For the past few weeks His Grace has been hosting the ‘Speak now or forever hold your peace’ advertisement on behalf of the Coalition for Marriage. So far, he has received no complaints from his readers and no aggressive demands from the ASA to justify the veracity of the statement. After all, an unsubstantiated assertion that the failure to speak in the present necessarily imposes an eternity of silence upon the timid is a manifest falsehood. It might even be considered offensive, especially by certain minorities of diverse ‘protected characteristics’, for whom there appears to be no limitation on self-expression, least of all in chronology..

The advertisement exhorts people to respond to the Government’s consultation on redefining marriage. It may do no good at all, of course, not least because by this consultation the Government seeks not so much to redefine marriage as change the definition of the term ‘consultation’. It is concerned exclusively with the staggeringly narrow but politically expedient ‘how’, rather than the socially responsible and morally imperative ‘if’. We have heard for months that the decision has already been taken: the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Equalities Minister and sundry other senior political figures are all in favour of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, and have made their views known. A consultation which does not consult is nothing but a façade – a bit like democracy in the European Union: what the oligarchs decree, shall be.

Should the Government achieve its objective, marriage will cease to be simply marriage: instead, we shall have ‘civil marriage’ for the enlightened progressives, and ‘religious marriage’ for the recalcitrant bigots. ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ will become ‘Spouse 1’ and ‘Spouse 2’; ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’ will become ‘Parent A’ and ‘Parent B’. Those who seek marriage equality view it as a moral imperative in accordance with human rights. Those who seek to sustain the current definition view it as a moral imperative in accordance with natural law.

Both sides are engaged in a final push to get people to make submissions to the Government. This is the final week: the non-consultation ends on 14th June. You are urged to make your opinions known HERE.

But His Grace is puzzled, for it appears that a gay-friendly mole in Government has been leaking sensitive information to the leaders of the Campaign for Equal Marriage.

Comments from Peter Tatchell and Ben Summerskill suggest that they know the current number of responses on each side and do not like them. In an appeal for more lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people (and their straight friends) to register support for marriage equality on the Government website, Mr Tatchell said: “So far, we are outnumbered by opponents of same-sex marriage. This is disastrous. We’ve only got two weeks to reverse this imbalance.”

Since homosexuals have always been outnumbered by heterosexuals, and (presumably) Peter Tatchell knows this, he can only be referring to the relative number of respondents to the consultation. Who has passed to him this privileged information?

143 Comments:

Blogger Edward Spalton said...

This reminds me a little of the "consultation" over the proposal for an elected regional assembly in the North East. The responses were overwhelmingly negative, so John Prescott's Department of the Regions listed both the majority "anti" opinions and the minority "pro" opinions as all "showing interest" in elected regional government.

Didn't Mr Cameron say that he wanted to be "the heir to Blair"?

7 June 2012 at 09:30  
Blogger David B said...

Than you for posting your link to where I can make my views known.

I have done so.

David B

7 June 2012 at 09:37  
Blogger Roy said...

Can't some MP table a question for the "Equalities" Minister asking who has been told about the balance of responses and why they were told?

7 June 2012 at 09:46  
Blogger ted said...

But the consultation already cleary states that the number of responses is irrelevant. The whole survey is anonymous. Simply getting people on either side to post replies in their tousands isn't the point of the survey. It's the content of the responses only. The govt have made it clear it's about how equal civil marriage is to take place and not whether and to back that up they've said in the survey that the number of responses isn't important.

Get a grip everyone and read what the govt has said!

7 June 2012 at 10:22  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

If it comes to pass, it comes to pass and shame on the nation for permitting such an obscenity.

'Marriage' will no longer be marriage; it will be a civil partnership where 'equal' people pledge their lives to one another to do whatever they will with one another until someone else catches their eye.

So be it.

If, or more like when, this happens marriage proper will return to being a religious sacrament where the vows made, the union and its full purposes will be sanctified by God. That may be a good thing. People will have a clear choice to make.

As Christians, let's remember too that a civil 'marriage', even between a man and a woman, outside of the religious ceremony and sanctification, is unacceptable too. It is not a marriage in the eyes of God.

7 June 2012 at 10:38  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

True, Dodo. So why can't I remarry in The Catholic Church if my first marriage was a civil union?In the eyes of the Church my marriage was not valid but they still regard it valid enough not to marry me.

7 June 2012 at 10:45  
Blogger Preacher said...

I wonder when our REPRESENTATIVES who were duly elected by the MAJORITY of the population will learn to listen to that majority who EMPLOY them & pay their wages. At present it's rather like being a passenger on a plane, with a blind homicidal maniac with a death wish as the sole pilot, who keeps repeating over the tannoy, "Trust me, I'm qualified!".
I'm afraid Westminster is learning from Brussels that if you don't get the result you want, you fiddle the books (And we have more fiddlers in Parliament than most Orchestras can muster) or you apply pressure & just ignore the no's until they cave in & agree, or simply give up voting in disgust.

Maranatha. Preacher.

7 June 2012 at 10:46  
Blogger William said...

"If it comes to pass, it comes to pass and shame on the nation for permitting such an obscenity."

The nation has no say in the matter. The government believes it has the right to redefine marriage without asking the people or even putting it in a manifesto. This whole autocratic procedure is an utter disgrace.

7 June 2012 at 10:52  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

cresside de nova

I'm not a canon lawyer but if what you say is true there is no impediment to you marrying in a Catholic Church or an Anglican Church - obviously the former is preferable although the Catholic Church does permit the latter with permission. I believe your first civil marriage is not regarded as a marriage by the Church.

I myself was 'excommunicated' for marrying in an Anglican Church without proper permission. The marriage was regarded as illicit and I had to marry in the Church after being 'un-excommunicated' by a Bishop and receiving proper dispensation to marry an unbaptised woman. My daughter was the bridesmaid and my son the bestman. A wonderful day and a wonderful service.

Who advised you of this?

Are we all to be invited to the wedding once the canon law is sorted?

7 June 2012 at 11:06  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

William

The nation has every say in the matter!

Remember the Poll Tax? Demonstrations and public pressure resulted in its repeal. What are we - a bunch of passive wimps? Look how the homosexual agenda has advanced by aminority making a noise and pulling the levers of power.

If this happens it will be because the nation silently acquiesces.

7 June 2012 at 11:11  
Blogger William said...

Dodo

The nation has no say as to whether to enact or not because the government has decreed it thus. Pressure for repeal would be another matter. There were no "poll tax" riots before the "poll tax" bill was passed.

7 June 2012 at 11:30  
Blogger Roy said...

ted said...

The govt have made it clear it's about how equal civil marriage is to take place and not whether ...

Get a grip everyone and read what the govt has said!


I want the government to read what I and people like me say! This country is still supposed to be a democracy. We elect a government to do what we tell them, not for them to tell us what to do or to think.

7 June 2012 at 11:35  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

William
From memory, there were Poll Tax demonstrations in Scotland prior to its introduction.

Roy
Agreed - are we actually telling them or just letting the 'equality' machine roll on?

7 June 2012 at 11:41  
Blogger Naomi King said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 June 2012 at 11:42  
Blogger Naomi King said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 June 2012 at 11:43  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Queen 'not gay-friendly' says Tatchell. Mr Peter Tatchell has criticised the Queen, on the weekend of her Diamond Jubilee, for not being ‘gay-friendly’ enough.

In 1967 HMQ gave her royal assent to the Sexual Offences Act, which decriminalised sodomy and gross indecency between men in private. The Act, brought in because a few homosexual civil servants had been caught with their shirts lifted, spawned the entire homosexual industry. The first ‘gay rights’ march was held in 1972. Bars, shops and magazines catering to the ‘pink market’ quickly followed. Sex education could now mention and even promote homosexuality. Britain was already slouching towards Gomorrah just fifteen years into the Queen’s reign.

There was a bit of a blip in 1988 when HM allowed Section 28 of the Local Government Act to outlaw teaching that homosexual relationships were normal, but Her Majesty went some distance to making amends in 1994, when her Criminal Justice and Public Order Act reduced the minimum age for sodomy to 18, legalised it upon women as well and redefined enforced sodomy as ‘rape’ to equate sodomy with sexual intercourse.

In the late 1980′s, Her Majesty’s Government spent millions trying to convince everyone that AIDS was not a homosexual disease, and spent further millions on ‘health education’ and free condoms for homosexuals and anyone who wanted one. She may not have visited AIDS victims as often as the late Diana Princess of Wales, but Her Majesty’s Government fund their Highly-Active Anti-Retoviral Treatments to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds.

In her armed forces, which are very dear to Her Majesty’s heart, homosexual men and women became able openly to serve from 1999. By 2008, all three services were marching in uniform in the London Gay Pride march. As Peter Tatchell admits, her majesty’s homosexual staff can bring their homosexual partners right into Buckingham Palace for the annual Christmas ball.

Her Majesty gave homosexual men legal access to sodomise 16-year-old boys in 2000 with the Sexual Offences Amendment Act. Two years later, Her Majesty decided that homosexual men and women could legally adopt children.

To be continued...

7 June 2012 at 11:47  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Continued from previous post...

With the Sexual Offences Act 2003, Her Majesty removed the offences of gross indecency and sodomy altogether. Section 28 (that 1988 blip) was removed in the same year, giving homosexual teachers and their allies full rein to promote homosexuality to both secondary and primary school children. In what was a bit of a boom year, she also gave her gracious assent to the idea that people committing criminal offences should receive heavier sentences if the victim was homosexual.

Then in 2004, Her Majesty hit a new peak by giving Royal Assent to the Gender Recognition Act, which allowed transsexuals to go back and falsify their original birth certificates, and the Civil Partnership Act, which gave pairs of homosexuals the same legal rights as married couples.

In 2003, the Sexual Orientation Employment Regulations had opened up all jobs, even those working with children and young people, to homosexuals.

Following that, Her Majesty gave her consent to the Equality Act 2006. That empowered the Queen’s ministers to bring in in the Sexual Orientation Regulations to force Christian hoteliers to let rooms to homosexuals in Northern Ireland. Great Britain followed with identical regulations in 2007.

2008 saw the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, which brought in a homosexual incitement hate crime law and abolished the ancient offence of blasphemy, to the delight of secularist homosexuals including Peter Tatchell, who tried to read the lewd Gay News poem in public some years before. In the same year, she removed the need for a father or a mother in laws governing assisted reproduction in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, paving the way for lesbians and homosexual men to acquire children using donors and surrogates.

The Equality Act 2010, to which Her Majesty gave her gracious consent, placed a duty on local authorities to promote transsexualism and homosexuality as two of the ‘protected groups’ to be favoured by government and public authorities – including schools – throughout England and Wales.
Her Majesty’s Government is now working out ways to introduce ‘gay marriage’. If that is enacted, which Goid forbid, Her Majesty will easily give it her royal assent, just as she has given her royal assent to every previous bit of ‘gay rights’ legislation.

Contrary to what Peter Tatchell asserts, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has undoubtedly been the most ‘gay-friendly’ monarch in British history.

7 June 2012 at 11:50  
Blogger Galant said...

With regards to the C4M petition and government enquiry, perhaps it would be useful to create a collection of the best quotes/statements making the argument for traditional marriage/against the change? The ones of the site itself aren't the best.

It might also prove useful as a good summary of the argument. There are many great articles but often they are quite involved. The lay person needs to know, in simple terms and beyond rhetoric, why this matters and to know what is the truth of the argument.

7 June 2012 at 11:59  
Blogger bluedog said...

Brilliant, Naomi.

7 June 2012 at 12:06  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Yes, and don't forget, Her Majesty legalized the murder of young children so long as it was signed off by two doctors. At present the toll is more than 100,000 every year.

7 June 2012 at 12:07  
Blogger Naomi King said...

MAY I RECOMMEND THAT A LOOK AT STANDPOINT PAYS OFF IN BOTH THE DEBATES AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS AND ALSO THE DEBATES AGAINST SECULAR HUMANISTS. AN EXCELLENT AND INTELLEGENT MAGAZINE. HERE IS THE WEB LINK TO SUBSCRIBE.

HTTP://WWW.STANDPOINTMAG.CO.UK/

7 June 2012 at 12:10  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

As Christians, let's remember too that a civil 'marriage', even between a man and a woman, outside of the religious ceremony and sanctification, is unacceptable too. It is not a marriage in the eyes of God.

That is utter theological nonsense, Dodo. Marriage is a creation ordinance. It is therefore intrinsic in creation and predates the church. You don't need the church to be married. Men make the covenant before God whether they recognize God or not. He holds men to account whether they like it or not. Which might be why (say) the Canaanites were judged for their sexual immorality. It might also explain why Joseph refused to sleep with Potiphar's wife. Against whom did Joseph say he would sin? Against God. And what would have been his sin? Sleeping with another man's wife. Note that designation of 'wife' there. Which church married Potiphar to his wife?

Now, I realize that Rome has invented an entire sacrament (OK, five actually) and it needs to defend its presumption. I understand that Rome has softened a bit, and probably now considers my Protestant marriage licit even though it isn't by strict reading of Canon law. Just admit that Rome's position has no foundation in Scripture and we can agree to amicably disagree.

carl

7 June 2012 at 13:22  
Blogger Flossie said...

Further to Naomi's post, here is what Peter Tatchell had to say about the Queen and her 'homophobia':

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/01/queen-gay-community-homophobe

Her Majesty has apparently not bent the knee sufficiently to the Great God Gay and has thus become a target.

Perhaps Tatchell gets an idea of how the nation is not doing his bidding from the signatures on the C4M petition - presently 546,822, compared to a paltry 58,837 rustled up by C4EM. They are also keeping tabs on which MPs are coming up to the mark, presumably so they can 'get at' those who are not.

http://www.c4em.org.uk/support-for-equal-marriage/

7 June 2012 at 13:43  
Blogger ted said...

I don't know what all the fuss is all about. Denmark has just announced it's new laws on gay marriage. It didn't take them long to do, churches are allowed to perform them etc etc. The UK is supposed to be the lead on LGBT rights and here were are still fannying around whether gay people should be allowed equal rights

7 June 2012 at 14:31  
Blogger William said...

ted

"The UK is supposed to be the lead on LGBT rights and here were are still fannying around whether gay people should be allowed equal rights"

Gay's have the same rights to marriage as heterosexuals. There is no stipulation that people who get married have to be heterosexual (although I imagine that consummation could be rather tortuous).

7 June 2012 at 15:03  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Dodo
Why would the Catholic Church permit a Catholic to marry in an Anglican Church when the Catholic Church considers Anglican priests and Bishops as imposters of the true religion without power to forgive sins or to transubstantiate the host. Surely an Anglican ceremony equates to a civil service as it is conducted by persons who have not received the sacrament of Holy Orders .If not, why not?

7 June 2012 at 15:06  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 June 2012 at 15:06  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 June 2012 at 15:06  
Blogger William said...

RE my previous post

That should be "Gays" rather than "Gay's" - not sure how that apostrophe got there.

7 June 2012 at 15:16  
Blogger Owl said...

ted,

by definition every man is allowed to marry a women and every woman is allowed to marry a man.

We already have equal rights.

The aggresive LGBT brigade wants to change the definition of marriage and this is something very different. It has nothing to do with equal rights.

It is an open attack on family life in general and the traditional family life in particular.

We are neither blind, deaf or dumb to what is going on.

The people obviously do not support the likes of Tatchell and the goverment is just as obviously not representing the people.

Got it?

7 June 2012 at 15:19  
Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

"traditional family life"

According to your bible, polygamy is the "traditonal family life".

7 June 2012 at 15:37  
Blogger William said...

"According to your bible, polygamy is the "traditonal family life"."

Good point Derek T

If we give in to the demands of homosexuals to redefine marriage for their relationships, then there will be the religious types demanding that their polygamist setups be called marriages also.

And why not two sisters who decide to setup house together? Who's to say that sibling love is any less valid than homosexual love in terms of what defines a marriage?

7 June 2012 at 16:01  
Blogger Owl said...

Derek TN,

I don't no enough words of one sylable to make it easier for you but I will try:

I inferred, of course, traditional family life in the UK. I wasn't making any reference to the bible at all.

Got it.

I do not belong to the evangelical, take the bible literally etc. forms of Christianity.

I prefer the common sense form so you point, if it was one, is totally wasted.

7 June 2012 at 16:05  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

cressida
The Catholic Church does with dispension permit Catholics to marry in Anglican Churches with or without a Catholic priest present. It also recognises Anglican weddings should people convert. This is because the sacrament is effected by the man and the woman and not by the priest. In that respect, marriage is a unique sacrament.

7 June 2012 at 16:12  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

carl
Rather touchy about this aren't you? I did preface my comment with "As Christians".

Are you seriously saying living together or a civil ceremony is the same as a marriage conducted in a Church? That God has no public or visible place in the exchanging of vows?

And the Catholic Church has always recognised it it the bride and groom who effect the marriage sacrament, not the priest. That's why they accept the marriages of other Christian faiths should people convert.

7 June 2012 at 16:19  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

If I ever get married in a Church I promise you Doddles..you will be there:)

7 June 2012 at 16:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

ssssschh. Dodo. Inspector lying low. You see, he inadvertently upset the Archbishop and was doing penitence for it. It’s a Catholic thing, as you know. Sin is sin, whether you realise you are committing it or not.

7 June 2012 at 17:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Willy: "And why not two sisters who decide to setup house together? Who's to say that sibling love is any less valid than homosexual love in terms of what defines a marriage?"

Me.

7 June 2012 at 18:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Gah. You lot need to give it up. At last that nun, Sister Margaret Farley, has seen the light. :)

7 June 2012 at 18:25  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Are you seriously saying living together...

I said nothing about shacking up at all.

... or a civil ceremony is the same as a marriage conducted in a Church?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. There is no spiritual, legal, or moral difference. That's why married couples with no attachhment to the church cannot consent to adultery. They don't get to re-define the terms of the covenant to suit their desires. It is God who establishes marriage. It is God who joins the couple. It is God who ultimately upholds that covenant. If this wasn't true, then there would be no possibility of sexual sin outside of the church. We have after all been proclaiming the indissoluble connection between marriage and licit sex for months now. Do you really not see the problem in saying that all marriage outside the church is invalid?

So, then, tell me. Would Joseph have committed adultery if he had slept with Potiphar's wife?

carl

7 June 2012 at 18:41  
Blogger William said...

Danny: "Me"

Obviously, for now we just need to ask you DanJ0, but you won't be around for ever. Who do we turn to for guidance when you are pushing up the daisies?

7 June 2012 at 18:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This is absolutely intolerable ! How can a fellow sit quietly drinking his whisky and doing his penance, when that shameless deviant Tatchell is about influencing due process.

Now lets get something cleared up about LGBT types. Having directly engaged them, hand to hand combat as it turned out, they do NOT know their own minds. Not at all. In fact the younger ones have yet to come to terms with their condition. Any suggestion that they may be mistaken about themselves results in a tirade of abuse - Homophobe, bigot, hateful, fascist, NAZI, evil Christian, Neanderthal, a mere sample. Furthermore, as soon as you come out as straight, they gang together and as one, become extremely defensive and heterophobic, as well as savagely anti-religious. Hardly a stance brimming with their confidence !

They even suggested the Inspector derives great pleasure from pulling the wings off flies ! Hurtful doesn’t cover it. How could that comment be justified ?

They are against everyone and everything. I tell you this, fellow communicants, as I have mentioned before, it was like being in Dante’s Inferno, walking down the dark room with the moans and suffering of the tormented coming at you from all sides. And when he left the room, the wretches turned on each other and their agonies continued.

And what will ‘marriage’ offer them. ‘Equality’ in their blind eyes, yet they still reserve the right to live the gay lifestyle. Multiple partners and urgent cries for more research into their rampant diseases. I tell you all this, there has never been a worse time to shunt round the back, not since they were dropping dead all over the place in the 1980s and 90s.

Madness all of it, {SHAKES HEAD} and they actually expect society’s encouragement, for God’s sake !

7 June 2012 at 18:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Will.i.am: "Obviously, for now we just need to ask you DanJ0, but you won't be around for ever. Who do we turn to for guidance when you are pushing up the daisies?"

I shall leave a book with instructions, and everything. :)

7 June 2012 at 18:58  
Blogger len said...

Seems like the Inspector has peered into the abyss and become traumatised by what he has seen?.

Welcome back anyway.... have you seen Albert on your travels?.

7 June 2012 at 18:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good Lord, kind words from Len ! A ‘dear diary’ event if ever there were.

Would love to update Inferno you know. The Inspector’s version would scare the sinners sh_tless, that’s for sure, and yes, that includes same sex marriage advocates. Yes, Sir, Madam, the Inspector is addressing YOU. You WILL suffer for your stance !

7 June 2012 at 19:09  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

WELCOME BACK!

I feared our host may have dealt with you harshly following one or two of your more colourful comments. Good to know he gave you the opportunity to reform. Tread carefully now.

Yes, it was indeed an adventure being on foreign soil. And I concur with your assessment of the inhabitants there. A strange and weird experience and after many showers I am beginning to feel better.

carl

Why turn this into an inter-Christian dispute?

Joseph would have sinned because he would have had sex with a women to whom he was not married. Same as any person having sex outside the life long union of marriage.

And I hold to the position that the sacrament of marriage can only be properly effected by a man and a woman before God in a church with a priest or minister presiding.

7 June 2012 at 19:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah, Brigadier Dodo le Dude no less. You survived, brother in arms ! For your bravery above and beyond as they say, the next time the Inspector is down at the cat pound, where his dearly beloved obtained her one pound four ounces of mad thing, he is going to put your name forward for an animal bravery award. And yes, the Inspector feels he is still here by the skin of his teeth. We can be grateful the Protestants adopted the Lord’s prayer. After all, they threw so much good out. Oh particular significance is the line “forgive us Lord as we forgive those who trespass against us”

7 June 2012 at 19:46  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector
We've certainly been through it 'over there'. And now all sign of us has been eliminated; all trace of our valiant efforts removed, as if we never existed.

Our 'Finest Hour' was surely being numbers 1 and 2 in the posting chart, what! And how they scattered before us in confusion, weeping, wailing and knashing their teeth. All one had to do was disagree and they spat such poison back.

7 June 2012 at 20:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Brigadier, did you see Eric Idle on the ‘One Show’ tonight ? As it happens, boys and girls, the Inspector was already involved in ‘work in progress’ in the great man’s style. Here is the Inspector’s tribute. It would be extraordinary if he saw it and agreed to record it, as only he could...


You’ll find it is a fact
When you shunt around the back
That madness takes you firmly by the soul
Self loathing isn’t brief
Nor is bitterness and grief.
And nature might have mercy on your hole

If you want to keep it tight
Then tapping isn’t right
The pain is such you’ll want to cry and scream
He’ll grab you by the hair
He’ll hit you then and there
The price you pay for being in the scene

A nappy wearing gay
Is visiting today
To educate you all in homo ways
He’ll try and get it by
That there is no risk you’ll die
Just pop a pill like all the other gays

And after years of suffering pox
They’ll stick you in a box
The consequence of years of sucking seed
And now we have the time
To bury you in lime
Your tragic life been wasted for a creed

7 June 2012 at 20:09  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Ps

And as for the weasel, don't trust a word he says. Just flick through the threads below to see the conspiracy theory he was constructing with DanJ0 and Oswin in an attempt to undermine our positions here. He would like to see the backs of us - as would DanJ0, for a different reason!

7 June 2012 at 20:10  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector, thin ice, dear boy, thin ice. Do take care. Nudge, nudge; wink, wink; say no more; say no more.

7 June 2012 at 20:13  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Don't be so ridiculous...silly Catholic boys. Everyone would be bored rigid if both of you were ditched.

7 June 2012 at 20:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Brigadier, The Inspector has his eye on the “Children’s Laureate” position. Certainly no less...

7 June 2012 at 20:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dear Cressida, there was a time when the Inspector doubted your gender. With that behind us now, he hopes you will find humour in this...

At the Psychiatrists…

Doctor, I feel I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body.

Don’t worry old chap, there’s a lot of that kind of thing about. Take my 4 year old. She has an imaginary friend called Lucy, who she talks to. Makes pretend cups of tea for her, so she does. The wife and I even have to set a place for her at the table. I ask you, how mad is that ?

heh heh

7 June 2012 at 20:36  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Oh that's OK Inspector. You are just not accustomed to dealing with confident intelligent women who are not Dolly Parton look alikes.

Not everything is behind us.It is going to take more than a shrink joke
to get me on side.

7 June 2012 at 20:58  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well done Inspector, you really are on cracking form and in the 'pink' of health, dare one say.

7 June 2012 at 21:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

God bless you Blue Hound, the Inspector had nearly 200 posts, let’s just call them messages of condolence, erased from that particular site. Would you join him in a ‘howl’ ?

7 June 2012 at 21:32  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

cressida de nova said ...
"If I ever get married in a Church I promise you Doddles..you will be there:)"

And I would make every effort to attend too. Do invite the Inspector and his nurse. We promise to behave appropriately.

Inspector
You are showing distinct signs of PTSD. Try to put all these thoughts of homosexuals and their perversions out of your mind. You have been brushed by the wing of Satan and need to meditate on nobler things.

Your reward will be great, thou good and faithful servant.

7 June 2012 at 21:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo, don’t underestimate the Inspector. He’s rock hard...

7 June 2012 at 22:01  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector, good man.

7 June 2012 at 22:02  
Blogger Man in a Shed said...

Can the whole biased consultation be challenged in court ?

7 June 2012 at 22:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Actually, this same-sex marriage thing might have serious consequences for the UK's energy security. Obviously, the sky will fall in and Society will collapse at some point soon after same-sex marriage becomes legal, as we're all regularly told. Now that Denmark has just joined the ranks of those where it is legal, those interconnector links built or proposed with the Scandanavian countries will surely become useless in the very near future. We need to get building more nuclear power stations as quick as possible before same-sex marriage takes its toll over there. We need to keep the lights on! :O

7 June 2012 at 22:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Dodo, don’t underestimate the Inspector. He’s rock hard..."

Yes, I'm sure. It must have been very, erm, liberating.

7 June 2012 at 22:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, once again you miss the point, smartarse. If we are to survive as a great nation, you sexual degenerates need to be faced down, and kept where you are. Sorry princess, but the Inspector is unable to break it any more gently to you...

7 June 2012 at 22:15  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0
That sounds like something one might read on a 'pink' site posted by a chap who's name escapes me for the moment.

7 June 2012 at 22:17  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

This is a troll free site.
Trolls will be ignored.
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS PLEASE

7 June 2012 at 22:22  
Blogger David B said...

It's off topic, but I have always opposed actual persecution of Christians for their private beliefs, even if I think that they should do their jobs.

I hope the religious people, and especially the catholics, will lend their support in the case of an Indian Rationalist in fear of arrest for pointing out that the that the “blood” oozing from a statue of Christ at the Catholic Church of Our Lady of Velan kanni in Vile Parle, Mumbai was in fact water from a leaky pipe.

Apparently pointing out empirical truth in some parts of India is found offensive.

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/we-call-on-the-catholic-archdiocese-of-bombay-to-withdraw-their-complaint-against-indian-rationalist-sanal-edamaruku#

I know that many of the Catholics ib this site are better than that, and I urge you to use what influence you can to intervene in this case.

David B

7 June 2012 at 22:24  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
It has been said that we could have protests like the Poll Tax riots. Those were surely organised by socialist zealots and had more to do with bringing down the Government than protesting over Poll Tax.

By the way the 'Christian' camp above have been at each other’s throats, there is no way I can see that we could achieve any form of cooperation between the Christian groups to support any such rally. Without wanting to sound negative, I do hope that it could be done if we have to.

It has been decades since the great revival marches of the NFOL in 1981-83. Just trying to get people to write to their MP is hard enough. Somehow the Church of this country has to be motivated into action to save the precious freedoms that we have. Sadly many of them are too busy fighting over women Bishops. That is clearly more important to them than fighting to keep the church safe in these perilous times.

I don't want to repeat myself over SSM but there is clearly skulduggery going on there.

7 June 2012 at 22:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Not the troll business again ! As we have experienced in our campaign on another site, a troll is an unwelcome poster who doesn’t happen to agree with the herd mentality. DanJ0 is welcome here as far as this man is concerned. Though he does come with a hollow voice; that’s what you get when you are on your own shouting from an empty room...

7 June 2012 at 22:41  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

A troll is " ... someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community ... with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
(Wiki)

DanJ0, as pointed out by carl some time ago, seeks to provoke ungracious responses to discredit others.

So:

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO HETEROPHOBIC POSTS.

Best to try to ignore trolls, as attention encourages their obsessive behaviour. When they are ignored, their posting can become increasingly desperate and silly.

Their posts reflect their own “stuff”: abusive parents, troubled consciences, guilt, feelings of social inadequacy, loneliness, human neglect, sexual resentment, repressed heterosexuality, or who knows what.

Any one of us could have ended up as unfortunate as they are. They are damaged. People normally don’t feel ok about others when they don’t feel ok about themselves.

(Sound familiar?)

7 June 2012 at 23:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Brigadier Dodo le Dude, you are giving that sexually deranged fruit too much credence !

7 June 2012 at 23:06  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

True! Let him have his little fantasies, eh?

7 June 2012 at 23:08  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

DanJ0, as pointed out by carl some time ago, seeks to provoke ungracious responses to discredit others.

That's a bit strong. DanJ0 was giving OIG the opportunity to expound upon his ... unique ... racial ideas. It's hardly 'trolling' to get someone to state his opinion. Nor is it unfair to facilitate the silent reader inferring a connection between opinion A and opinion B. Hell, I would do it myself. And I doubt that OIG would consider his responses ungracious. DanJ0 simply laid down the trail. OIG followed on all on his own.

carl

8 June 2012 at 00:34  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

carl

I can't recall the detail and to be honest can't be bothered looking back for it. I remember you cautioning the Inspector about being wary of being provoked into making outlandish comments and to be more considered in his responses.

The comments from DanJ0 of late have all been of a distasteful sexual nature and, in my opinion, designed to provoke a strong response. This kind of 'sniping' is something to be mindful of.

8 June 2012 at 00:52  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Chilling

Note the title says the right to marry in church. Actually they have the right to get married in any evangelical lutheran church they want, essentially forcing the established church to allow this to happen. How long before the Catholic Church is forced as well?

Things that will happen if gay marriage is put on the statute books

1. Gays will get 'married'
2. Churches will be forced to 'marry' them

Insidious devious underhanded liars. How dare they mock people for worrying about what will happen when they know fully well what they plan.

8 June 2012 at 01:03  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Lakester91

Trust me, hell will freeze over before the Catholic Church 'marries' a homosexual couple.

You are correct. There is a small minority driving this agenda and they have influence with our political elites and media opinion formers.

Any true Christian would leave a Church that corrupts the Holy estate of marriage.

8 June 2012 at 01:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lakester: "Insidious devious underhanded liars. How dare they mock people for worrying about what will happen when they know fully well what they plan."

Just a reminder here that I have said many times that I advocate civil marriage and that religious organisations ought to have the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to marry using their marriage constructs which overload the civil foundation. In fact, as I have said, I will happily protest against any coercion there by the State. Of course, if gay Christians want to pressure their own organisations into it then that's up to them.

Also, this is a proposal put forward by the current Executive and the Conservative part of that is, I believe, doing it for its own ends in order to detoxify its brand. Of course, some lobby groups want it to happen but the main push for this is mostly from heterosexual politicians as far as I can tell. I know gay people who are largely indifferent to the proposals, all the way through to people who are very strong advocates.

8 June 2012 at 06:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Has anyone read this yet?

Just Love, a Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics by Sister Margaret Farley, who is described as a professor emeritus of Christian ethics at Yale University.

I tempted to have a punt on it.

8 June 2012 at 06:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Lakeestar91 is right as the lawyer Neil Addison points out:

http://religionlaw.blogspot.co.uk/

8 June 2012 at 07:58  
Blogger Preacher said...

Danjo.
Don't waste your money. Many people search for teachers who agree with their point of view in an attempt to somehow validate it.
Just because an author or lecturer holds similar beliefs to oneself, simply means that you both have an equal chance of being right or wrong.
My advice is keep your cash in your pocket. Order it from the library & read it without bias.

Blessings. Preacher.

8 June 2012 at 10:14  
Blogger graham wood said...

"Homosexual couples in Denmark have won the right to get married in any church they choose, even though nearly one third of the country's priests have said they will refuse to carry out the ceremonies. "

For those who think the Danish decision means the eventual inevitability of SSM 'marriages' by UK churches should understand the real issue at stake. It is that of the headship of Christ over his church, as opposed to the claim of any secular authority via, in this case, SSM legislation.
For CHRISTIAN churches therefore, the possibility of endorsing SSM "in churches" cannot even be contemplated.
If the choice has to be made between following Christ and his mandatory teaching, submission to the State, then the answer is clear. Christ wins.
Thus the C of E rightly expressed the principle in 1928 (over the Prayer Book controvesry.)

"It is a fundamental principle that the Church - that is the Bishops, together with the clergy and laity - must in the last resort, when its mind has been fully ascertained, retain its inalienable right, in loyalty to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to formulate its faith in Him, and to arrange the expression of that holy faith in its forms of worship"

The church then is NOT an arm of the State, and in this matter not subject to the secular authority. Amen!

8 June 2012 at 10:15  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo said - "Best to try to ignore trolls, as attention encourages their obsessive behaviour. When they are ignored, their posting can become increasingly desperate and silly."

I fell about laughing when I read this. Your lack of awareness of how you and your sidekick, the Inspector, come across is pitiful!

Inspector - I don't think they'd let anyone with your take on race, sexual behaviour, or life in general anywhere near the position of children's laureate. The insurance alone would be too expensive! And as to hand to hand combat? As my Granny would say, you couldn't blow the skin off a rice pudding!

8 June 2012 at 11:21  
Blogger David B said...

Jon I suspect that Dodo is well aware of his own trollish tendencies.

David B

8 June 2012 at 15:02  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danjo said
“Just a reminder here that I have said many times that I advocate civil marriage and that religious organisations ought to have the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to marry using their marriage constructs which overload the civil foundation. In fact, as I have said, I will happily protest against any coercion there by the State. Of course, if gay Christians want to pressure their own organisations into it then that's up to them.”

Danj0 you know fine well that once the doors have been opened with the redefinition of marriage those militant homosexuals (not necessarily yourself yet, although I think eventually you would side with them too) will be out campaigning, bullying and insisting in the name of equality that they be allowed to marry in a Church, any Church. They'll be whining on to all that will listen that it's not fair they can't get married in a Church or one of their choice if a few capitulate and marry gays.
The Church will be vilified by them and all that's horrid until they eventually give in. They will not necessarily start their moaning straight away but believe me they will.

“Also, this is a proposal put forward by the current Executive and the Conservative part of that is, I believe, doing it for its own ends in order to detoxify its brand. Of course, some lobby groups want it to happen but the main push for this is mostly from heterosexual politicians as far as I can tell. I know gay people who are largely indifferent to the proposals, all the way through to people who are very strong advocates.”
That might well be, but it's the wrong way to go about trying to attract more voters. The conservatives don't need detoxifying just their true common sense values promoting. And of course a lot of it is the heterosexual leaders listening to the militant loud gays and thinking it's what all gays want and that they'll be more popular if they go along with all this non-conservative redefining of marriage lark. When in fact this is not the case.

8 June 2012 at 15:10  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo@ 20:10: ''...an attempt to undermine our positions here.''

Oh come now, you do a pretty good job yourself, without any assistance from me.

8 June 2012 at 17:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Danj0 you know fine well that once the doors have been opened with the redefinition of marriage those militant homosexuals (not necessarily yourself yet, although I think eventually you would side with them too) will be out campaigning, bullying and insisting in the name of equality that they be allowed to marry in a Church, any Church."

Undoubtedly there will be some, just as there are some Christians who would like to see homosexuality re-criminalised. I don't expect to be ever one of them though.

I think religious marriage is a different thing to civil marriage. It's a superset of the core social institution of marriage. The extra stuff is not in the realm of the State as far as I am concerned.

I think therein lies the main defence. A minister who marries someone in a religious ceremony is doing more than a registrar. He or she is officiating in a religious service which exists solely in the realm of the religion, as well as being a registrar.

The problem to solve will be that some gay Christians will demand equality of access within their own organisation and expect the State to arbitrate. But of course a similar issue exists there already regarding gender equality.

8 June 2012 at 17:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Preacher: "Don't waste your money. Many people search for teachers who agree with their point of view in an attempt to somehow validate it. Just because an author or lecturer holds similar beliefs to oneself, simply means that you both have an equal chance of being right or wrong."

Ah, I believe the author is arguing about Christian ethics and so I doubt she and I will ever agree, short of my experiencing a Road-To-Damascus conversion. Also, I don't need someone to validate my views on sexuality. I'm what is sometimes called 'sorted' on that score. No, I'm interested in the book because it appears to present an alternative to the traditional and/or patriarchical view of the Catholic Church. In fact, it looks like the Vatican is getting quite stroppy about it.

8 June 2012 at 17:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The Inspector has absolutely no doubt what will happen should this gay marriage malarchy go through. Within the first month, a pair of homosexuals will be at the High Court DEMANDING they be married in a Catholic church. The argument will reach the ECHR. Now, this nefarious body of legal scoundrels already has form for wicked decisions. No doubt, with deep regret or some other insincere bullshit statement, they will uphold the complaint.

As Dodo rightly points out, no Catholic priest will ever marry two same sex, so the church(es) concerned will have injunctions on them. Mass will be heard out in the street, as an act of defiance. Escalation will follow. The ‘Christian-lite’ churches will bend to the law, but the Catholics and the more traditional Anglicans by individual parish will resist.

Marches will take place, “We will overcome” will ring out everywhere. Cameron will be dismissed, having been allocated 100% of the blame, and his replacement will announce immediate repeal of the legislation binding the UK to the ECHR. For the sake of national unity, if nothing else.

And thus the UK begins the process that would cut us free from the EU, just in the time, as the socialist enterprise splits between Germanic and Non-Germanic influenced states. The fan has already been switched on.

8 June 2012 at 17:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Of course, we might even see the rise of a Catholic Liberation Army (C.L.A.). Suppression of Catholics in the British Isles in recent years has not been a successful policy, no doubt about that whatsoever…

8 June 2012 at 17:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Jon Your lack of awareness of how you and your sidekick, the Inspector, come across is pitiful!

Now see here. If you must adhere to a hard line right wing Christian site, you are inevitably going to get views that upset liberals, hon

Have you ever considered transferring your affections to a certain gay site ? No discourse there as such, but rather thinks you could wail with the best of them. Continual complaining, self pity, ability to snarl, and a never ending fruitless search for acceptance of what is frankly bizarre sexual and moral behaviour being the minimum entry requirements…

8 June 2012 at 17:58  
Blogger gilesrowe said...

What I don't understand is why Cameron thinks he can get away with lying. He personally lied to me when in 2004 he said the Sexual Orientation Regulations would not impact the Catholic Adoption Agencies. He is now lying in claiming the implementation of Same Sex Marriage as per the 'consultation' will not affect religious marriage when he knows a) its implementation will make other changes to the law which WILL affect religious marriage possible, and b) he has other measures already lined up such as redrafting legislation to remove 'mother ' and 'father' from English law, and c) he has admitted to people who visited him in his capacity as a constituency MP that it will be nigh impossible to stop religious marriage being affected. The man is dishonest and changing the definition of marriage in the way he is doing is nothing to do with equality, everything to do with pandering to a predatory pressure group. The heterosexual family is the best environment for bringing up a child, and if the law is changed it will be a crime to say so. It is easy to see who this will benefit, and it ain't the children.

8 June 2012 at 18:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

People have been held in the Tower for less..

8 June 2012 at 18:37  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

It isn't likely (yet) that churches would be compelled to do anything. That would amount to legal suppression. It's far more likely that churches will be allowed to perform civil marriages only if they perform gender neutral marriage. So if you want to be married in a church and you don't want to visit a magistrate first, you will have to choose "The First Church of Progressively Post-Modern Angst & Doubt." The rest will provide only religious ritual. That is what I think is coming. Suppression will come later - after the hollow shell of liberalism collapses into fascism.

carl

8 June 2012 at 18:49  
Blogger Preacher said...

Danjo.
Just trying to save you a few bob.
For what it's worth, there are more flavours of Christian ethics out here than flavours of ice cream in the States. From Post Modern to Puritan & everything in between, they all write books that sell millions,many have new ideas or revelations, but most have forgotten the gospel.
Damascus Road experiences are very hard to live with at first, lots of tough & difficult changes. But as the old saying goes "The end justifies the means!".

Blessings. Preacher.

8 June 2012 at 19:46  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Reading this book by Farley may be a step in the right direction for you as it does start from the premise that there is a God. That's about it though!

Farley is a member of a liberal minded, feminist group. Her book does not reflect Catholic teaching and is seriously flawed.

From her position, masturbation raises no moral problems. Catholic teaching is that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.

Farley believes homosexual people as well as their activities should be respected. Catholic teaching holds that homosexuals should be respected, but that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.

On homosexual marriage, Farley said legal recognition will help transform the stigma of homosexuality. The Church maintains that homosexual marriage would not only signal approval of deviant behavior, but would obscure the value of traditional marriage between a man and woman.

Do not present this book as reflecting Catholic teaching or doctrine. It most certainly does not!

8 June 2012 at 20:42  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 said
" ... I don't need someone to validate my views on sexuality. I'm what is sometimes called 'sorted' on that score."

Now, how does that song verse go? Ah yes ....

"Oh ho ho ho ho ho ho.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Oh ho ho ho ho ho ho.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha."

8 June 2012 at 20:48  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Jon said ...
"Your lack of awareness of how you and your sidekick, the Inspector, come across is pitiful!"

Do you realise how stupid this comment makes you look!

I concur with the Inspector about the 'pink place' (no, not there DanJ0) in that your mental capacity is better suited to a site a little less demanding on the intelligence.

8 June 2012 at 21:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Farley is a member of a liberal minded, feminist group."

Looking good already.

8 June 2012 at 21:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's now #1 in the religious studies list of bestsellers on Amazon in the US. :)

8 June 2012 at 21:20  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

It's now #1 in the religious studies list of bestsellers on Amazon in the US.

There was a time when 'Satanic Verses' was a best seller as well. Not that anyone ever read it. One wag called it the Best-Selling least-read book in history. A certain demographic will deliberately purchase a book for the sake of political principle. But who is actually going to read it? Few. Who is going to be influenced by it? Less.

carl

8 June 2012 at 21:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "A certain demographic will deliberately purchase a book for the sake of political principle. But who is actually going to read it? Few. Who is going to be influenced by it? Less."

Well, I guess. It's said that the Bible is a best-seller too. ;)

8 June 2012 at 21:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. It's far more likely that churches will be allowed to perform civil marriages only if they perform gender neutral marriage.

Now, my man, this is called suppression. What did you expect, the bulldozers on week one ? When Henry VIII closed the monasteries, he started with the ones that were beyond their best by date first, and merely worked his way up...

8 June 2012 at 22:30  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

What's a "gender neutral marriage?

Are we on to hermaphrodite relationships now?

8 June 2012 at 22:34  
Blogger Owl said...

There is no such thing as "homosexual marriage".

There may be parterships or any name you prefer but not "marriage".

Do not be sucked in by Dan's spinning the discussion into "civil" or "church" marriage.

It's all gradualism. Get people used to the idea of the term "homosexual marriage" and then move onto the next step. After changing civil marriage to a farce, church marriage will follow.

Just gradually.

It used to be known as "thin end of the wedge".

Remember Chris Smith's statement: "Good afternoon, I'm Chris Smith, I'm the Labour MP for Islington South and Finsbury. I'm gay, and so for that matter are about a hundred other members of the House of Commons, but they won't tell you openly."

The political class is top heavy with people of this persuasion which might explain a lot.

The general public has a much lower proportion of homosexuals and wants to keep marriage as it is.

Stonewall be warned, the tolerance level is falling sharply!

8 June 2012 at 23:04  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

The Noble Inspector

Half a league half a league,
Half a league onward,
Into the valley of weird types
Rode the Noble Inspector:
“Forward, the Inspector!
Charge the queer types”
he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the Inspector.

”Forward, the Inspector!”
Was he down hearted?
Not tho' the Inspector knew
He was on his own:
His not to make reply,
His not to reason why,
His but to do & die,
Into the valley of weird types
Rode the Noble Inspector.

Homosexuals to right of him,
Lesbians to left of him,
Transsexuals in front of him,
Volley'd & thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shriek and yell,
Boldly he rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the brave Inspector.

Flash'd his sabre bare,
Flash'd as he turn'd in air
Sabring the strange types there,
Charging an army while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line he broke;
Lesbian, homosexual, transsexual and bi-sexual
Reel'd from the sabre-stroke,
Shatter'd & sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the Noble Inspector.

Strange type to right of him,
Limp wrists to left of him,
Hairy ar_ed women behind him
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shriek and yell,
While enemy and weirdo fell,
He that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of Hell,
Victory his alone,
How valiant the Noble Inspector.

When can his glory ever fade?
O the wild charge that he made!
All the world wonder'd.
Honour that charge that he made!
Honour the Inspector,
Oh the Noble Inspector!

8 June 2012 at 23:15  
Blogger Oswin said...

Yet more drivel...

8 June 2012 at 23:43  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Such a shame you think so.

Why not write something interesting yourself? I'm sure you have it within you and we see so little of your talent.

Go on.

9 June 2012 at 00:00  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Dare you.

9 June 2012 at 00:00  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DOUBLE DARE YOU.

9 June 2012 at 00:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

Now, my man, this is called suppression.

We must be careful not to let hyperbole overtake the precise use of language. What the Russian Communists did to the church was suppression. It involved shooting some people and arresting others and blowing up churches. Saying a church can't perform a civil ceremony isn't in that category. Now it's true I fully expect the present soft marginalization to become active hard persecution, but we aren't there yet.

carl

9 June 2012 at 00:02  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

>carl, I think that's what the Inspector meant. The lesson of history is that suppression often starts with easy targets and progresses.

9 June 2012 at 00:16  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Before you start your journey into Christian sexual ethics, there's something you should know.

The basic Catholic principles are simple. The sexual urge is God given and directed at the transmission of life and the expression of unitive love between life time partners. This sexual drive which can be selfish needs to be directed towards selfless purposes. Nothing must be done against nature to pervert this purpose.

There is an inherent tension between natural sexuality and these higher purposes and moral principles are required. Sexual encounters between married, heterosexual couples must conclude with the penis in the vagina, with the semen being ejaculated there. Sexual ethics as to what can and cannot properly preceed this vary amongst theologians and conscience can properly be exercised, but established Church doctrine is clear on the the nature of the end-game.

That's why masterbation and homosexual acts are described as "disordered", "deviant" and and "perverted". There are because they are a distortion of nature and God's intended purpose. A perverted, disordered and deviant abuse of the gift of sexuality.

9 June 2012 at 01:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Before you start your journey into Christian sexual ethics, there's something you should know."

As though I haven't heard your primitive Catholic version a thousand times. It's based on contested premises and it feels unnatural and contrived too. It might suit you, chiming with your homophobia and encouraging your trolling as it does, but it's just a specialist and insular interpretation of our shared reality. One of many.

I've ordered the book now. Knowing what I do about the Magisterium's approach and view, I'm quite interested to find out how this theologian justifies the ethics she sets out given that it must be bounded by a Christian view. I expect it has some of the support it does in the USA because, if the blurb is true, its conclusions feel right for lots of run-of-the-mill Catholics.

9 June 2012 at 06:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl: "The general public has a much lower proportion of homosexuals and wants to keep marriage as it is. Stonewall be warned, the tolerance level is falling sharply!"

An assertion roundly contradicted by most opinion surveys and the survey trend over time. Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions though.

9 June 2012 at 06:16  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Danjo
A lot of the run of the mill Catholics are hypocrites who do not have the courage to leave the Church but want to change it like Sister Mary of the Masturbatory Fleurs. She knows her head is for the excommunicatory chopping block. Being an American will not save her.

9 June 2012 at 06:30  
Blogger Flossie said...

Guilty of not reading all the comments, but has no-one noticed that only a quarter of gay couples (between 1 and 2 per cent of the population) actually want gay marriage? (Yesterday's ComRes Poll).

9 June 2012 at 09:02  
Blogger Flossie said...

The 1% to 2% refers to the total gay population, not to the number wanting gay marriage. Doh!

9 June 2012 at 09:04  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Dodo @ 01.17 said, 'Sexual encounters between married, heterosexual couples must conclude with the penis in the vagina, with the semen being ejaculated there'.

Apologies for the pedantry, but the plural of couple suggests that the RCC is an enthusiatic supporter of Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice.

Swinging is not sinning, eh?

Where do we form an orderly queue?

9 June 2012 at 09:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

See also the Guardian writeup yesterday by James Ball.

9 June 2012 at 09:16  
Blogger len said...

'The sexual urge is God given'.Agreed.
However at the fall of man God given desires became corrupted and what God intended for good became turned and twisted from an outward expression of love into a inward demand for self gratification(at any cost)

The desire from God for relationship with like minded individuals(created in the image of God) has been twisted and turned into a religious ritual (which denies God the relationship with man which was the entire purpose of the Gospel)

So the Enemy of Mankind corrupts what God has intended for good and present it to man who claims(falsely) that this is 'good'.
Until ones eyes are opened we will continue with the illusion that we are walking in' the truth'.

9 June 2012 at 10:18  
Blogger William said...

I read the James Ball article and was struck by how many comments from homosexuals expressed that they really are not bothered with same sex marriage. Most of the blather about "equal rights" seems to come from bleeding-heart liberals. It reminds me of organisations banning references to Christmas so as not to offend religious minorities - most of whom couldn't care less.

I have informed Theresa May (my MP) that the Conservatives playing politics with marriage is totally unacceptable and that she will not have my vote if this goes through.

9 June 2012 at 10:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. Now it's true I fully expect the present soft marginalization to become active hard persecution, but we aren't there yet.

Now that is an understandable statement coming from a man whose military career was that of a ‘minuteman’ and turn key in the US M.A.D. room. What you are saying is don’t get all worked up until the enemy’s arrows are in the air.

The battle to prevent the suppression of the churches is being fought here and now. Are you familiar with the term “Not a minute on the day, not a penny off the pay” ?

It’s the onslaught of homosexual bolshevism we are up against right here today – and the activists loathe our religion. Be in no doubt about that !

9 June 2012 at 12:51  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Mr Bluedog

Thank you pointing out this most shocking error on my part! Goodness knows what the Vatican would make of it.

Here is the corrected version.

"Sexual encounters between a married, heterosexual couple must conclude with the penis in the vagina, with the semen being ejaculated there."

I do hope this clears the matter up.

9 June 2012 at 13:32  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

My last SIOP revision was 6G iirc. Every SIOP for which I was trained fell under the general category of Flexible Response, and not MAD.

Be in no doubt about that !

I don't doubt it. I am just asking you to label things properly. Being told you can't perform a legal marriage service does not even begin to compare with NKVD agents kicking in your door and shooting you in the head. The later is suppression. The former is within the legal purview of the state. A church after all has no inherent right to act as an agent of the state.

carl

9 June 2012 at 13:33  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Of course DanJ0 regards the above natural and good act as:

" ... based on contested premises and it feels unnatural and contrived too."

I'm guessing he suffered some form of childhood trauma to view the most natural of human acts in such a way.

9 June 2012 at 13:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl The OED. “Suppress” Meaning one, ‘end the activity or existence of...’. In this case, the civil marriage requirement part of a religious wedding service.

You really must invest in an OED, and consign your Websters to a more useful role as a door stop.

9 June 2012 at 13:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "I'm guessing he suffered some form of childhood trauma to view the most natural of human acts in such a way."

I was talking about your religion's sexual morals and ethics, you cretin. A man-made pile of shite, the lot of it, maintained by a bunch of oddballs, perverts, and chancers. No wonder you're attracted to that religious organisation.

9 June 2012 at 15:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Here we go again, the one trick pony is preforming. Shut the stable door, someone...

9 June 2012 at 16:10  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Yes, of course you were DanJ0, of course you were.

How you loath talk of natural sexual intercourse. You have an obvious version to the words vagina and penis and to the concept of vaginal penetration by a penis. Do get some help before its too late.

9 June 2012 at 16:20  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

*aversion*

9 June 2012 at 16:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. You are only on this site in a desperate attempt to gain credence for a way of life that is sex obsessed and combines contact of the genitals with the mouth and anus. You really have no idea how repellent that is to normal people, have you ? Normal people who don’t want their children anyway near you lot, lest they be corrupted. And what about nature, what’s her opinion...

Let the Inspector inform you. She has saved the most alarming diseases for you types, and even went so far as to actively attempt to kill you all off. They say nature has an answer for everything. Too bloody right she has !

9 June 2012 at 16:25  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 00:01: you ''double dare'' me? Ok, here goes: Dodo, you are a tedious, obnoxious and vile fart. Ok, I admit it isn't very interesting, but neither is the subject matter.

9 June 2012 at 16:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 June 2012 at 16:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

All I do is hold the coil of rope and pass it out as they tug. That's all. They do all the work themselves.

*contented sigh*

9 June 2012 at 16:50  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Now Oswin abuse is hardly an interesting comment. Admittedly, you've managed to string a couple of sentences together and used some big words. That's some progress. Is that really the best an Anglican education can muster? I do hope it wasn't a private school.

9 June 2012 at 16:56  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0, get off on the tugging do you? Nasty boy!

9 June 2012 at 16:58  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

The Troll is clearly getting a sexual thrill by using explicit anatomical references here - I bet he's wishing if he could only lick his willy in the manner of his avatar, his sex-life would be fulfilled.

10 June 2012 at 12:48  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo:

Was that it? What comes next; 'na nara nar na'?


Dreadnaught: don't give him ideas!
:o)

10 June 2012 at 18:17  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Dreadnaught

How imaginative; a real insight into how your sick little mind works, I'd say.

11 June 2012 at 00:44  
Blogger chorale said...

Please excuse a newbie butting in here - I am in the fortunate position of being neither theologian nor lawyer - posessed of no great intellect - and utterly baffled as to why anyone would want to engage in homosexual practises, except perhaps as a somewhat drawn-out means of obtaining ill-health and, an enhanced possibility of early death. 'Takes all sorts I suppose.
Anyway, to my point:
All the evidence to date tells us that Cameron,native cunning notwithstanding, is actually not all that bright, 'cos he seems to miss the flaw in his tilt at whipping-in the pink cross on the ballot. It is always possible at a given place, time or circumstance to assemble a large, noisy collection of alternative- sexuality adherents. And it can seem as if getting their votes would be a worthwhile project. What he misses is that when it comes to actually putting a cross on the ballot, that throng he witnessed now has to divide up into 650 constituencies (good luck in Newcastle by the way Dave), and a 650th of a typical vote count don't amount to much.
Pay me no heed, just thinking out loud, as it were.

11 June 2012 at 01:13  
Blogger Oswin said...

chorale: welcome! How's the weather down Durham way?

11 June 2012 at 23:56  
Blogger chorale said...

Hi Oswin,
Any answer to your query would need to be corrected a few minutes later !
Gonna spend next week fishing at Alnmouth and a few points north, so am expecting meteorological phenomena of truly biblical proportions - so you may want to pop out to the shed and knock up an ark or something...
Chris Baker

12 June 2012 at 01:05  
Blogger Oswin said...

Assay good luck to ye Chris marra, ar divin't reckon yer chances; best bide hame. We're drooned-oot in-bye. :o(

12 June 2012 at 17:45  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older