Thursday, October 11, 2012

Attorney General hints at 'profound difficulties' ahead for religious public servants

The Attorney General is the Government's most senior lawyer: what he says has legal weight; when he warns they are bound to heed.

Dominic Grieve QC has said that 'gay marriage' will raise 'profound philosophical difficulties' for some religious workers in the public sector. Premier Radio has the story (with audio excerpt):
Speaking at the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General has suggested that the proposed introduction of equal marriage will create 'individual conscience' issues for workers who will have to obey the rule of law by carrying out their public duties, using their required presence at a civil partnership ceremony as an example.

Mr Grieve believes a serious debate is now needed on what parameters can be used by someone with a deep religious faith who works in the public sector, on the basis of them refusing to carry out an aspect of their job on the grounds of conscience.
Which is quite a timely interjection, really, in the context of a story developing over the pond. From The National Organization for Marriage:
We're not speculating when we say there will be terrible consequences if marriage is redefined in November. We're already seeing them. Let me explain.

Dr. Angela McCaskill has the distinction of being the first deaf black woman to receive a PhD from Gallaudet University, where she has served as their Chief Diversity Officer and has worked as a teacher, administrator and leader for twenty-three years.

Today she was summarily put on administrative leave while university officials "determine her future" at Gallaudet. Why? Because it was brought to their attention that she signed the petition to allow the people of Maryland to vote on same-sex marriage!

No one is safe when marriage is redefined. The architects of same-sex marriage are bent on silencing and firing those who oppose their agenda. The irony of a university putting its own chief diversity officer on leave—a woman who by all accounts has served the institution with distinction for over two decades—simply because she chose to exercise her rights as a citizen, cannot be ignored.

This is a wake up call to all of us. We all have a stake in marriage. If we want to remain a society where free speech, religious liberty and the right to participate in our democracy are respected, we need to stand for marriage.

...And please pray for Dr. McCaskill and every courageous person who abides by the simple proposition that we all have the right to have our say on marriage.

Protecting marriage means protecting citizens like Dr. McCaskill, a woman who Gallaudet University deemed was fit to uphold the ideal of diversity in their institution and who believed that diversity includes respecting all sides engaged in the debate over marriage...
You won't read about this in the MSM. Even Dominic Grieve's salient warning - as a Christian communicant of the Church of England - will not reach the BBC news editors or the pages of the tabliod press. The issue of victimisation needs to be highlighted, and the Attorney General is doing so as best he can. Here in the UK there is a host of Dr McCaskills, but we don't hear much about them.

The principal rteason for that is the increasingly ubiquitous self-censorship. There would be far more martyrs but for the fact that people are now routinely self-censoring in their public workplaces. It is too risky to ‘come out’, even when one uses carefully-framed, non-emotive language. The LGBT rights agenda now controls the heights in our public discourse, with very few exceptions.

Dominic Grieve has sounded the alarm. The Government is duty bound to heed the warning.

187 Comments:

Blogger FrankFisher said...

Your Grace, it is the knock on effects I'm most worried about. We see in France and Spain already the removal of terms mother and father from the legal system and legal documents, we will see also husband and wife, I dont' think anyone doubts this. To *widen* the illusion of 'equality' everything that perhaps stems from a gay marriage will need to be equalised, and to this end I think its likely we will see an end to any distinctions in law between natural, and adopted children - to some extent this is already happening in the divorce courts.

Soon - I'm not joking - the only 'relationship' to have any kind of binding status in law will be the relationship of the individual, to the State.

Gays are being used here. They're being made fools of.

Oh, and you can bet that if ths law passes, it will become a 'hate crime' to dispute the legitimacy of these 'marriages' - how are the 'liberals' going to feel once they have a few dozen, hundreds or even thousands of christians jailed for protesting outside registry offices? An easy martyrdom.

I'm not a christian, but I am a family man. This law is anti-democratic, anti-marriage, and anti-family. I'll vote for no party that supports it.

11 October 2012 at 10:09  
Blogger Naomi King said...

50% of the population work either directly or indirectly for the Government. This means that 50% of Christians could lose their jobs !

11 October 2012 at 10:16  
Blogger John Holme said...

Anyone who is familiar with the 1971 London Gay Liberation Front Manifesto http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/glf-london.asp (written by Peter Tatchell amongst others), will be aware that the overriding objective of the group which today is referred to as the LGBT Community is the complete destruction of the Judeo Christian foundations which have exalted Great Britain in former times.

Wars used to be fought with bullets and bombs; modern warfare relies on lobbying and legislation. The end result is the same - enslavery and ultimately death to the vanquished.

The notion that liberal democracy is predicated on the wishes of the majority having sway over the minority is nonsense. After all, who represents a middle-class white male heterosexual? I personally stood as an independent candidate in the 2005 General Election, my tagline stated "Representing the silent majority".

It is time for those who have a genuine interest in the future of this country to become as active in lobbying the legislators - their local Members of Parliament as do those whose interests run contrary to the values which Britain has espoused for centuries.

If you want to know how your Member of Parliament has voted then visit www.theyworkforyou.com, it's all there.

11 October 2012 at 10:27  
Blogger keithb said...

And so the only really clear answer to this is to fix the current mish-mash of civil and religious significance for "marriage".

If two people, any two people (for that matter, any number of people), want to have Government recognise, and to compel others to recognise, that they have commingled their lives together then let them have a Civil Partnership.

Meanwhile, anyone who also wants some mumbo-jumbo to "sanctify" their partnership should be free to go find a man in a dress who's prepared to do the deed. And if there are none such then hard luck.

It's an historical accident that the two concepts are coupled together, let's move on.

11 October 2012 at 10:50  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘And so the only really clear answer to this is to fix the current mish-mash of civil and religious significance for "marriage".’

Eh?

There is nothing to fix as there is no ‘mish-mash’.

Civil partnerships are clear and distinct from marriage.

11 October 2012 at 10:57  
Blogger BeeLZeeBub said...

Oh Dear.

The religious civil servants will have to stop discriminating.

How terrible for you all.

11 October 2012 at 11:00  
Blogger Naomi King said...



Just because David Cameron agrees with the homosexual community on this issue, doesn’t make him right. Marriage is a sacred institution established by God to create families. Two men or two women cannot procreate. It’s impossible. Thus the body of believers are taking a moral stand, a Christian stand and we will not be intimidated nor will we go away.

I am sure the homosexual community would love for us to disappear but this is a spiritual fight that they have started against the family and family life, against Christian, moral and cultural values and we will continue to engage in this spiritual war until the sacred institution of marriage is no longer under assault.

We need to save the family from being abducted and defiled.

Allowing homosexuals to use the term marriage and allowing their world view to become the new normal in this country will have overwhelming negative effects on our society.

The true message is children need both a mum and a dad.

Britain is sinning and to have a leadership which is encouraging and facilitating it is despicable.

The true and traditional definition of marriage is the union before God of one man and one woman, excessively and for life, for their mutual comfort and the procreation and nurture of children.

These are the radical imperatives of God.

Homosexuality is sin and by accepting a homosexual worldview we change our moral and sexual world view from God’s moral imperatives. This is highly dangerous and is why David Cameron has lost such respect in his party in the last 12 months.

The rank and file of the conservative party understand and preach the moral and traditional principles. This was clearly evidenced at the Coalition for Marriage Event at Finge on Tuesday.

Those in political leadership need to understand the consequence of promoting homosexual unions as same sex marriage.

Heed the warning. The population in this country are moved for righteousness; to the sound of the moral voice.

Our world view is not that of the homosexual and our goal is not to demonise homosexuals but to seek humane solutions to their needs. However, we are resolved to encounter those who seek to change forever the very nature of the marriage union from a man and woman to various homosexual distortions.

That may mean leaving the conservative party and joining Ukip with whom we find we have a real and true relationship if Mr Cameron insists of this blind journey of self destruction he seems intent on undertaking.

11 October 2012 at 11:06  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

The current Pope has in the past opined that Europe has effectively returned to the Dark Ages, and that Catholics (and I suppose we could include all Christians) need to think about themselves recreating islands of civilization - like the monasteries - and wait out the barbarians. I think he has a point. We're the ones who built civilization; if we take ourselves out of what passes for "civilization" these days, let the Thatchells and the keithbs and the BeeLZeeBubs see if they can work this repulsive sow of a society which won't reproduce, doesn't know who lives next door to it, and is only interested in its own immediate personal pleasure, then let's see how they get on.

After it's collapsed, we'll be on hand to start rebuilding. Yet again.

11 October 2012 at 11:38  
Blogger Preacher said...

Nice to see you back Mr Singh, welcome.
Naomi, Cameron doesn't agree with the homosexual community, it's all an attempt to portray himself as a modern liberal thinker. Basically it's acting, or to use an old fashioned word, hypocrisy & it's backfiring badly. Many people, both homosexual & heterosexual have seen through the deception & want nothing to do with it.
No wonder so many actors in the States find it easy to make the transition from thespian to politicians.
With the EEC auditions raking in so many failed politicos, it seems that we have just got it the other way around.

11 October 2012 at 11:48  
Blogger Flossie said...

His Grace is one of the very few people left who will publicise these affronts to liberty. This poor woman wasn't signing some anti-gay propaganda petition, but a civil liberty one - to allow the people of Maryland the right to vote on gay marriage!

There is a huge conspiracy of silence over gay marriage in order to push it through. How many people know, for instance, that the number of young gay men contracting HIV has doubled in the last decade? State approval of certain types of behaviour are, unsurprisingly, just increasing incidences of that behaviour. How loving is this?

The annual cost of providing HIV treatment and care in the UK could be as high as £758 million by 2013, investigators suggest in the online journal PLoS One. When the researchers included social care into their calculations, the 2013 cost was estimated to be well over £1000 million. Can we afford this, or should we be issuing Government Health Warnings on homosexual behaviour?

Stonewall estimated that introducing gay marriage will cost £5 billion. How many people know that? Has it been plastered all over the newspapers, and on the BBC? Of course it will eventually cost much, much more, and not just in monetary terms.

I am thinking of compiling a dossier of people who have been put out of work, or have suffered in some way, because of their objections to this proposed legislation.

11 October 2012 at 11:53  
Blogger William said...

BeeLZeeBub

"Oh Dear.

The religious civil servants will have to stop discriminating.

How terrible for you all."


Quite. A human being who does not discriminate is amoral. A terrible situation indeed.

11 October 2012 at 12:18  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Preacher said...

Couldn't agree with you more my fine fellow and Ernst is reminded of what Charles Kennedy once asked before taking stage at a political rally/debate, "What side of the argument am I on?". Says it all about modern politicians and their 'moral' stand.

The cabinet are rich liberals masquerading as right wing conservatives who only quote Maggie when it suits them but ignore her achievements when it doesn't go hand in hand with their current policy as IDS did when quoting Tory leaders up to Churchill about the welfare state but ignored Maggie, naturally, as she delivered Disability Rights and awards to the suffering, lost within the faceless masses back in the nineties when she made a difference for disabled people in our country that he is attacking most successfully from what I hear. I know who I believe was much more of Christian that you, IDS!!!

Maggie introduced the Disability Living Allowance in the early nineties believing that those with genuine impediments may just require extra financial support for everyday requirements, such as heating and adapted equipment and was to her great credit. She showed more compassion and understanding with the plight of normal people than those pretend Christians, sometimes hot sometimes cold wasn't it?, within the cabinet.

The association of his disabled dad and son in his speech stuck in the gullet of the listener who has links to the disabled treated as cheating, burdensome scum. Those affected by indiscriminate disability cuts who come to ernst church where the majority are 90% elderly and/or disabled are not multimillionaires who can weather the deficit/debt storm and we yhen had to endure whilst he waxed hypocritically lyrical about his proudest moment of presenting a gold medal to Ellie Simmons the GB swimmer whilst kicking the elderly disabled and vulnerable in the teeth.

Charlatans the lot of them.

Blofeld

11 October 2012 at 12:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I suppose it'd be pretty radical to separate the issue of freedom speech in this instance (if that's what actually happened beyond the news story details) from the general issue of same-sex marriage itself. Too radical, maybe.

11 October 2012 at 12:51  
Blogger Jon said...

Isn't this about the point in the discussion where the Inspector mocks the idea of a "Chief Diversity Officer"? Where is he now that one is being used by his side?!

Come on Inspector - show yourself!

11 October 2012 at 13:07  
Blogger Jon said...

It's interesting to me, that a number of people on this blog would be the first in the queue to condemn a vicar for saying that they supported gay marriage, would castigate them and call into question their faith, and then suggest that they were in the wrong job and should either leave or be sacked.

When the tables are turned though, it's an assault on your right to free speech and you complain how you're all "victims" and demand the support of the state to protect your privilege (thereby proclaiming yourselves far from the libertarians some of you pretend).

Which can only suggest that what you really don't like is your loss of preferential access to the corridors of power. What a bunch of cry babies!

11 October 2012 at 13:13  
Blogger Naomi King said...


By Wednesday morning of Conference the "party line" message coming down from MP's to us humble party members in Birmingham was, "The world isn't going to come to an end if we just give these homosexuals what they want, so why don't you just accept it and be quiet".

Well I am afraid to say Mr Cameron et al, you haven't heard anything yet. Just wait until you bring forward draft legislation, if you are foolish enough to do so, it will truly be "woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees and that write greviousness they have prescribed ... behold the Lord, the Lord of hosts, shall lop the bough with terror: and the high ones of stature shall be hewn down, and the haughty shall be humbled.

And remember all you MP's "fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell". You have been warned, this is spiritual warfare !

11 October 2012 at 13:14  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

It must be repeated: An employee cannot qualify his duties. If the employer requires some legal act that the employee considers immoral, then the employee can request an exemption. He cannot demand an exemption. If the exemption is denied, then he has no recourse of conscience other than to leave. We have no God-given right to be protected from the consequences of standing up for the truth.

Now, having said that, it is interesting that conscientious objection from military service would seem to be the exception to the rule. Perhaps that is because conscientious objection has a long history on the Left. No matter. Their inconsistency is not license for our inconsistency.

carl

11 October 2012 at 13:27  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Jon:

You've made the most pertinent comment here.

A vicar is one of those "ideological" posts, where an essential and inextricable part of their vocation is their belief. One could judge a vicar on their ability to deliver sermons, correctly remember liturgy, and even on their ability to communicate key points of doctrine. However, if they don't believe in God, and in the doctrines of their church, they are no vicar. The law recognises this by allowing for discrimination on the grounds of belief for the appointment to such roles.

It is becoming increasingly clear - and indeed clear in this example - that Diversity (I don't think we can avoid capitalising it any more) constitutes a similar form of belief. One might ask, has the Diversity Officer done her job: has she worked to ensure no prejudice has been made to employees at the university, has she facillitated good working conditions, and has she effectively represented the concerns of the varying and often competing identities that emerge on campus (Postmodernists, Positivists, Hegelians, Marxists - the list goes on... oh not those sort? - ethnic and sexual minorities etc. then)?

Unless the univeristy has expanded its portfolio considerably, it is unlikely that McCaskill will ever be in a position where her views on SSM will have a material effect on someone's ability to have their relationship confirmed in law. No, what her signature of the petition reveals, much as a vicar's membership of Sea of Faith might, is that she doesn't fully believe in Diversity.

The question of her fitness to the job is now only incidentally associated with her ability to meet specific targets and requirements of her contract. Above that, is her belief in the Cause.

I wonder how long it will be before universities and other institutions request the same kind of legal exemption from discrimination on the basis of belief that religious groups currently employ.

11 October 2012 at 13:28  
Blogger Jon said...

AIB - I am quite flattered - though I assure you it was accidental! ;-)

11 October 2012 at 13:35  
Blogger John Thomas said...

We all know that Cameron and the others have been used. They have wrecked the Tory Party, and will be summarily dismissed before long - but they will be there long enough to do the damage, to end the family once and for all (any totalitarian state has one thing standing in its way: the family). Corrigan 1 is right, we have to make some kind of enclave of civilisation, and sit it out.

11 October 2012 at 13:42  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

Naomi - well said. I'd like to see at least on party make a commitment to repeal any changes to the law regarding the definition of marriage, should they be elected after any such legislation is enacted.

11 October 2012 at 13:46  
Blogger David B said...

Is it not a strange sort of Newspeak when an organisation calling itself the national organisation for marriage campaigns against the ability of some people to marry?

I understand that the Catholic Church, for example, does not recognise marriages of divorcees, or those of other cults, as being proper marriages. Is this not the case?

Assuming that it is, then why should officiating at a SSM be any different to a catholic than officiating at any other marriage not recognised by the RCC?

Are religious people in any danger of being forced into SSMs?

I think not, and unless they are, then why can't they just get on with their jobs like anyone else? Or quit, or get fired without compensation?

I see in other news that some Muslims are being accused of breaking Sharia law because the football club that employs them has a usury company as a sponsor.

Should they wear sponsors logos or not? If not, would they be in breach of contract? If they have a conscientious objection, could they not just leave without pay or compensation?

On another note, many thanks for all the good wishes I've received here during my recent illness. It is good to see basic humanity taking precedence over political and metaphysical differences, and the expressions of good will have been much appreciated.

David B





11 October 2012 at 13:50  
Blogger Naomi King said...


I was at the prayer breakfast where the Attorney General, I believe, first raised this issue and he reminded us both of military conscientious objection and also conscience being an allowable excuse for nursing and medical staff to refuse to take part in abortion procedures. These individuals were provided, by statute, with a legitimate defence against being forced to be involved in such activities. The Attorney General went on to say that this recognition of religious and or moral conscience was regrettably not extended to equality legislation and hate crime legislation.

Maybe this is why equality and hate crime legislation is so universally despised. Power not only proceeds downward it requires some consent from those governed. As Lord Carey so eloquently exposed in the Coalition for Marriage Meeting at Conference, calling names was the beginning steps of the persecution and then eradication of the jews in Germany and latterly all of Eastern Europe. Here is the report from the BBC no less.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19871284

Make sure it doesn't come to a Church near you !

11 October 2012 at 13:58  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Here is Ann Widdecombe's speech:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIZ3WnE7U1I&feature=youtu.be

of which the BBC said

"David Cameron could only dream of this sort of fervour when he delivers his big conference speech on Wednesday."

By Brian Wheeler
Political reporter, BBC News in Birmingham

Tory conference: Activist anger over gay marriage

Ann Widdecombe voiced the feelings of many at the meeting.

Conservative conference 2012

11 October 2012 at 14:09  
Blogger William said...

David B

"Is it not a strange sort of Newspeak when an organisation calling itself the national organisation for marriage campaigns against the ability of some people to marry?"

How ironic! If there ever was an example of Newspeak it is to say that two people of the same sex have the ability to marry each other.

11 October 2012 at 14:13  
Blogger Naomi King said...


We're not speculating when we say there will be terrible consequences if marriage is redefined.

Dr. Angela McCaskill yesterday was summarily put on administrative leave while university officials "determine her future" at Gallaudet University, simply because she wanted to exercise her democratic right to vote on an issue important to her.

No one is safe if marriage is redefined.

As His Grace has said if we want to remain a society where free speech, religious liberty and the right to participate in our democracy are respected, we need to stand for marriage. This is a wake up call to all of us. We all have an urgent stake in the protection of marriage.

We know that the architects of homosexual so called "marriage" are bent on silencing and firing those who oppose their agenda. As pointed out so well by John Holme @ 10 :27 This was all intended by Peter Tatchell and his friends back in 1971 when they stated their overriding objective is the destruction of the Judeo Christian Framework and foundation of this Nation and nothing has changed in their view.

1971 London Gay Liberation Front Manifesto http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/glf-london.asp

11 October 2012 at 14:51  
Blogger Anglican said...

'Legal' marriage is what the State says it is. If SSM becomes legal, I suggest that all churches abandon the right to conduct
'legal' marriages. All couples would register their marriage in a Registry Office, in order to be legally married. Then immediately afterwards Christian couples would have a church marriage (arranged beforehand) which they, and the church, would regard as being their true marriage before God.

11 October 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Naomi:

" This was all intended by Peter Tatchell and his friends back in 1971"

Whilst I am sure that Peter Tatchell views the increasing strength with which the theology of Diversity has gripped our culture with approval, it must be said that linking Tatchell with attempts to close down freedom of speech or belief is more than a little unfair. He has gone out of his way to defend the rights of people like yourself to hold views about homosexuality without fear of prosecution, even though he is explicitly opposed to those views himself.

11 October 2012 at 15:47  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Romans chapter 1 '...therefore God gave them over....'

Shariah law is coming after the wes't impending collapse. I hope the Tatchellites live long enough to see that when you drive good religion out you don't get no religion, you get bad religion. Perhaps then they will see.

11 October 2012 at 16:16  
Blogger Naomi King said...

AiB ... Surely the Advertising Standards Agency's treatment of His Grace is evidence enough that the LGBT militants of which Peter Tatchell is a leading light are not wedded (excuse the pun) to freedom of speech or tolerance.

And just for those who missed it some days ago ...

I saw members of the conservative party wearing badges at Conference reading:-

CAMERON OUT - WE NEED A CONSERVATIVE LEADER

Note both a Conservative and a Leader required.

Cameron comes across as weak, insubstantial and rather lost. A callow youth. Rather like he knows the words to say but doesn't really know what they mean. All he has to fall back on is his Eton bullying style when the going gets tough.

Grass roots anger at homosexual marriage was very much in evidence in Birmingham.

Just how much Cameron is pushed about by the homosexual lobby is demonstrated in this youtube interview by Gaydor. It is painful to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBlDfp85gP8

11 October 2012 at 16:35  
Blogger David B said...

@ Anglican 14.26

Something like the present status quo in France, is it not?

I agree, except that I see same sex marriage as rather a red herring.

Same applies for marriages of divorcees, for marriages between different sects.

A secular legal marriage for everyone who wants it seems the best way to go for me, followed by whatever sort of religious, humanist, do it yourself, or any other or no service as agreed by the participants and their respective religions/sects/philosophies or whatever to follow the secular ceremony.

David B

11 October 2012 at 16:49  
Blogger David B said...

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue, where opinions differ, I do think Tatchell, DanJo, and various people who argue against SSM are united on the issue of freedom of speech. As am I, of course.

People have to have the right to be wrong, and to express unpopular opinions, though not the right to impose them on others.

But then, as I said above, no-one civilised is suggesting that any marriage, SS or otherwise, be forced upon people.

That sort of thing seems, in this day and age, to be confined to those who practise arranged marriage of children.

David B

11 October 2012 at 16:59  
Blogger Owl said...

The manipulators are the Fabian society itself.

Most of the founding members had had sexual and/or family problems.

George Berhard Shaw hated his own family (father was a drunkard).

They have lots of fingers in a lot of pies.

Wolf in sheep's clothing was how GBS put it.

11 October 2012 at 17:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

A quick google around reveals the following:

"Josh Levin, campaign manager for Marylanders for Marriage Equality, released a statement Wednesday evening expressing opposition to Gallaudet’s decision to place Dr. Angela McCaskill, a Maryland resident and the school’s Associate Provost of Diversity and Inclusion, on paid administrative leave.

“We strongly disagree with the decision to put the chief diversity officer on leave and hope she is reinstated immediately,” Levin said in his statement. “Everyone is entitled to free speech and to their own opinion about Question 6, which is about treating everyone fairly and equally under the law.”"

*sigh*

11 October 2012 at 17:20  
Blogger Jon said...

David B - I agree. And I hadn't realised you were unwell - I wish you well for a speedy recovery.

Best regards,

Jon.

AiB - I think it frazzles Naomi's brain to think that someone disagrees with her vehemently but defends her right to hold her views at the same time. It must get very warm under the tin foil hat.

11 October 2012 at 17:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Naomi King: "We know that the architects of homosexual so called "marriage" are bent on silencing and firing those who oppose their agenda."

Well, apart from the campaign manager for the group defending same-sex marriage, campaigning in the same area as the woman put on administrative leave by the look of it. Lol.

11 October 2012 at 17:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Very best wishes, David B, from me too.

11 October 2012 at 17:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good Lord !

The historically oppressed gays out to sack a historically oppressed black member of a historically oppressed gender !

Well, I never…


11 October 2012 at 17:33  
Blogger FrankFisher said...

" it must be said that linking Tatchell with attempts to close down freedom of speech or belief is more than a little unfair"

I quite agree. Peter Tatchell is a brave and principled man - I disagree with him here, and do on many issues, but I admire him nonetheless. His commitment to free speech is more than skin deep as he has shown many times.

11 October 2012 at 17:35  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

The Lawyer may understand we are concerned with the Masks of Misrule

11 October 2012 at 17:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



hmmm. Read the article in full, and it seems we are being prepared to be persecuted. (...”How would you like to be cooked Christian, flipped or sunny side up. Oh look, the lions have arrived”...)

By golly, that’s it ! One does believe we have a runner ! If we can utilize the ‘P’ word in every other sentence, like everyone else who’s dissatisfied with their lot, the world is ours !

Of course, we really ARE being persecuted. The other malcontents are only imagining it. Though having said that, God did send them AIDS, but one tends to think that if our creator is putting on the pressure, there’s not much any of us can do about it.







11 October 2012 at 17:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Good Lord !

The historically oppressed gays out to sack a historically oppressed black member of a historically oppressed gender !

Well, I never…"

It must put you in a bit of a dilemma: Queers vs The Lesser Races? Which do you support in the apparently fake contest here?

11 October 2012 at 17:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Jon.…where the Inspector mocks the idea of a "Chief Diversity Officer"?

Not at all, dear boy. Far be it for the Inspector to criticize how a university spends it’s budget.

Of course, when this fellow was on the receiving end of education, we didn’t need anyone like that around. You see, we didn’t have ‘issues’ then, or if we did, we were not aware of them. You had middling days and some good days, but you also had bad days. They happen and we didn’t need anyone like that to go running to.

Then, one day, somebody with issues told everyone else they had issues too. But the good news is they could be fixed by employing someone with a sociology degree, which they just happened to have. (…Having undertaken the course to find out about what’s wrong themselves, naturally…). And here we are.

These non jobs are rather like the Political Officer from the former USSR, who used to put his feet up at every workplace, don’t you think. Well, they are no longer about. Times move on. So here’s hoping…

11 October 2012 at 17:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

Of course, we really ARE being persecuted.

Well, no. Being shot in the street is persecution. This is called "Being told to do your job." If you find the responsibility morally onerous, then you leave the job. A man doesn't have a right to employment under his own terms.

And, one might add, the idea of carving out religious exemptions from law is dangerous is applied consistently. Do you remember the little crisis sparked by Rowan Williams when he suggested incorporating some aspects of Sharia into British law? At the time, the response was "One law for one people." How then is this circumstance different?

carl

11 October 2012 at 17:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0

Wrong question, smartarse. The Inspector is delighted to see members of the black race occupying positions in academia, albeit in a non job, but you have to start somewhere.

It’s the Victorian principle of self improvement, don’t you know. An excellent approach to life, and superior to our lowest common denominator one size fits all dumbing down we clever people have to witness...

11 October 2012 at 17:59  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David B

But then, as I said above, no-one civilised is suggesting that any marriage, SS or otherwise, be forced upon people.

Marriage serves a specific social function. To change the definition of marriage is to change the social function it serves. This is not a private act. Marriage is structured to regulate sexual behavior, and sexual behavior is a private act with profound public consequences. I cannot, for example, act in my private life to escape the undertow caused by catastrophically low birth rates. It must cause economic decline and I will be caught in that economic decline. I cannot, for example, act in my private life to escape the uncivilized children produced in an atmosphere of sexual chaos. They will be there outside my door looking for violent ways to meet their desires.

It is not just a matter of "You live your life and I will live mine." How you live your life affects my ability to live my life.

carl

11 October 2012 at 18:09  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Naomi:

Peter Tatchell possesses and articulates views that Christians might well take umbrage at - whilst I don't think he is out there just to "troll" Christians by being deliberately "offensive" for the sake of it, he does put his views stridently, and sometimes that means some pretty strong criticism of religious groups, leaders, and beliefs.

However, he does not grant to himself, or expect, a special kind of right to speech that he denies to others - including those who take views that he finds offensive.

DanJ0's given another example in this comment thread of someone campaigning for SSM who disagrees with the suspension as well.

It is important to distinguish between people who are genuinely trying to clamp down on free speech - because there is certainly that threat hanging over the McCaskill case - but it is not aided by tarring the opposition with the same brush, especially after the accusations are demonstrated to be untrue.

11 October 2012 at 18:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

That'll primarily be the individual who complained, and the university who has seemingly over-reacted because of it.

11 October 2012 at 18:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl “White Flag” Jacobs

We’re not beat yet old fellow. That is precisely why we don’t want 1.5% of the population changing society for THEIR benefit at the loss to good men and women of this still Christian orientated country. Don’t you see, ssm causes far more problems than it’s given credit for. It’s so damn selfish of the campaigners for it...


11 October 2012 at 19:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"It’s so damn selfish of the campaigners for it..."

Like those damned selfish women who campaigned for the female vote. Why couldn't they just carry on as before instead of rocking the boat? Etc.

11 October 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Well I am sure that Mr Ttachell and his friends are very cuddly and benign.

However things are hotting up, Labour MP Chris Bryant is bringing forward a Ten Minute Rule Bill on Tuesday 30 October with be a mini-debate in the House of Commons on redefining marriage.and we expect him to push for a vote to test the water.

This is the first opportunity for MPs to stand up for marriage, or betray it, in the House of Commons.




11 October 2012 at 19:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I suppose a "Feck, I really messed up on that freedom of speech thing" was way too much to expect.

11 October 2012 at 20:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, dear fruit. Do illuminate the connection between women campaigning for the vote and two persons of the same sex wishing to seal their sterile partnership. The Inspector has a good friend from the ‘Mouse and Wheel’. Wouldn’t want to marry the fellow mind, that would be silly. Besides, he hasn’t proposed...

11 October 2012 at 20:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, are you absolutely sure you don't want to marry your friend from the 'Gerbil and Tube' in your heart of hearts?

I'd have thought the connection between the female vote and same sex marriage would have been obvious.

11 October 2012 at 20:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


DanJ0, One's cousin informs him there is a gay bar in Dublin. The locals refer to it as ‘Sodom and Begorrah;

11 October 2012 at 20:44  
Blogger Owl said...

DanJ0 wrote:
"I'd have thought the connection between the female vote and same sex marriage would have been obvious."

There is no connection!

You are comparing apples and oranges. You will have to do better than that.

11 October 2012 at 23:00  
Blogger William said...

Danj0

"I'd have thought the connection between the female vote and same sex marriage would have been obvious."

Why? No one is saying that homosexuals cannot get married. Marriage is open to all and sundry. If a woman wants to vote; she can. If a homosexual wants to get married; ditto. Although the former sounds a lot more sensible than the latter.

There is no rights issue here. Even the ECHR has confirmed this. Marriage is open to everyone.

11 October 2012 at 23:36  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

An Irish man is sitting a a bar drinking. A flamboyantly homosexual man (wearing goldlame hotpants) comes up to him and asks, "Can I give you a blow job?"

The Irishman stands up and punches the man. The bar tender comes over and asks, "Why did you hit that guy?"

The Irish man replied, "He said somethin about me gettin a job."

11 October 2012 at 23:59  
Blogger John Magee said...


It will be interesting to see the sparks fly when Muslims are the party "offended" by equal marriage demands in a job situation and see how the civil authorities react. Since liberals are bent on always pleasing both Muslims and Gays it will be fascinating to see future Gay "marriage" vs Islam legal and eventually violent conflicts.



12 October 2012 at 00:36  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

"white flag"

You misunderstand. There is a difference between resisting the introduction of SSM and reacting to the fact of SSM as law. You shouldn't immediately demand an exemption from the law on the basis of religious conscience. The law doesn't care about your conscience. Law as a matter of principle shouldn't care about your conscience. It exists to compel your behavior despite your conscience. So if the law is wrong, then react by resisting it. Don't seek accommodations that aid you in avoiding the consequences. Walk straight towards the consequences. Shadrach didn't react to the law of the Golden Idol by demanding to be freed from the requirement. He simply defied it. We should do likewise.

But we should pick our battles wisely. Issuing a marriage license to a homosexual couple isn't much of a compromise in my judgment. If the law recognizes the relationship, then issuing the license is no different than issuing a fishing license. The clerk doesn't affirm the relationship by issuing the license. Again, a police officer would be required to respond to an act of domestic abuse regardless of the ontological nature of the domestic relationship. He does not affirm the morality of the relationship by seeking to protect. A marriage counselor on the other hand would not be able to counsel a homosexual couple without aiding and furthering the immoral relationship. The former examples require a different response than the last. Of course this means the impact will fall disproportionately on certain people in certain professions. No one said life is fair. It should require the Church to help absorb the impact to those affected.

carl

12 October 2012 at 00:55  
Blogger Graham Combs said...

By some reports gay adoptions are infrequent compared to other demographics. Will gay marriage be the same? In the US we've already had gay divorces. Part of the Church's argument is that marriage as defined by civil rightsism is not marriage as the Church believes it to be -- a sacrament and the foundation of family and society. Secular marriage is no longer a serious institution for the most part. Just as Al Quaeda learned that to destroy the only middle-eastern democracy you must neutralize the US. So to neutralize the Church you must trivialize marriage. The latter also has the consequence of enabling state intrusion everywhere and destroying the family. And only the family and the Church now stand between human freedom and the State. It's about power and doing what you want with anything you want. Fifty years of minimizing marriage in movies, song, novels, and feminist tracts is proof that the current civil rights movement is serious, just not about marriage.

See Stephen Fry's YouTube rant against the Church. He begins with a quiet five minute paen to Love and that Love is what he is all about. Then he launches into ten minutes of absolute shrieking hatred for anything Catholic. He misrepresents the abuse scandal (not about homosexuality one bit of course), and mischaracterizes recent popes among other Catholic figures and beliefs. There's not a moment of love in his hysterial screed. When he stops he's like some manic possessed demogogue at the end of a secular rally looking around as if he doesn't know where he is. Sweaty and bewildered. It's creepy and frightening. He is a troubled man and shouldn't be given a respectable public platform anywhere. That's the 21st century civil rights movement today.

Love is the other target that's been cheapened and trivialized. Otherwise promiscuity begins to appear for what it is and what it is not. Nihilism. And yet we seem unable to stop it and of course can not even question it.

12 October 2012 at 03:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "Marriage is open to all and sundry. If a woman wants to vote; she can."

She can now because the definition of the franchise was changed to include them in the institution. It was changed with strong opposition from social conservatives, and no doubt there were some who thought the sky would fall in because of it. Possibly even that it was a slippery slope leading to dogs getting the vote next. Now of course we just get on with it without particularly thinking about it, recognising in retrospect that the opposition was a load of hysterical bollocks. Hope that helps.

12 October 2012 at 06:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Combs:"Part of the Church's
argument is that marriage as defined by civil rightsism is not
marriage as the Church believes it to be -- a sacrament and
the foundation of family and society."

Who cares other the relatively small minority involved in the church? We're not a theocracy here. Or a religious society. The church is essentially no more than a golf club in the scheme of things, operating in the private sphere for the interests and benefit of its members.

12 October 2012 at 07:01  
Blogger William said...

DanJ0 @06:47

Then all you are saying here is that the suffragettes campaigned for a change to the voting system and that SSM advocates are campaigning for a change to the marriage system and therefore the two comparable. Well, you could just as easily compare them to (say) CND which campaigns for a change to Britain's defense system.

12 October 2012 at 08:04  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Have a look at

http://www.marriageelection.com

Its a new US website to educate voters on how marriage fits into the national debate over who will be their next president.

This is what the two candidates are saying

Mitt Romney says
“Like the vast majority of Americans, I've opposed same-sex marriage, but I've also opposed unjust discrimination against anyone.... [This] is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage and it is a debate about activist judges who make up the law rather than interpret the law.”

Obama says
“At a certain point, I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

12 October 2012 at 10:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William, the initial relation between them was for the Inspector who thinks campaigners are damned selfish for wanting the change. Something very similar could obviously be said for the female campaigners for votes for women.

You jumped in with a different point which I was happy to address despite it being as much a rerun a series of Friends on Channel 4. Of course there's more to it than just that but if we're doing reruns then we need to follow the script across multiple episodes.

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

William: "How ironic! If there ever was an example of Newspeak it is to say that two people of the same sex have the ability to marry each other."

Have you ever actually read the book? I'd say not if that's how you think Newspeak is supposed to work.

12 October 2012 at 10:25  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Interesting that it is now the moral majority who don't want sodomy sanctified because it 's addictive nature which destroys lives, health, family and ultimately society as a whole.

Where Mitt Romney says he is opposed unjust discrimination against anyone, it is now not the homosexuals who are persecuted who already have civil partnerships recognised by law, but Christian's who are now persecuted and potentially lose their jobs because, in the case of Dr McCaskill, all she was asking for in signing this petition, was the right to exercise her democratic rights in voting on an issue important to her.

12 October 2012 at 11:33  
Blogger William said...

DanJ0

"Have you ever actually read the book? I'd say not if that's how you think Newspeak is supposed to work."

Yes I have read the book. Newspeak is an attempt by the state to control the populace by (re)defining the meaning of words. This is exactly what is happening with the definition of marriage. Hence we have "What's in a name?" from Policy Exchange.

"William, the initial relation between them was for the Inspector who thinks campaigners are damned selfish for wanting the change. Something very similar could obviously be said for the female campaigners for votes for women."

No. The Inspector thinks that SSM campaigners are damned selfish for wanting the change - not campaigners per se. Hence he asked you to explain the link with SSM campaigners and the suffragettes. Your reply was "it's obvious". I then reminded you (because you have been down this road before) that the suffragettes were campaigning for equal rights where as the SSM campaigners are not because they already have the same rights to marriage as everyone else.

12 October 2012 at 11:36  
Blogger John Chater said...

It really is not just about marriage, which is only one issue of many. This is about a leftist elite, with its roots deep within a fantasy of socialism (usually learnt by rote at indulgent universities) which seeks to eradicate from the national picture much of our history and tradition. Christianity is its foremost target.

As another example, last night I watched an hour long BBC4 programme on the Big Bang theory and was surprised that not once was the scientist Georges Lemaître even mentioned; surprising because it was he who first proposed the theory, which he called the 'primeval atom'.

In the programme the Big Bang theory was instead attributed to Hubble, though it was first proposed by Lemaître in 1931. Hubble had observed (using the Mt. Wilson telescope in California) that distant galaxies were receding, which confirmed Lemaître's earlier findings.

Why should Georges Lemaître, one of the leading scientists of the twentieth century, the author of the theory of the Big Bang and a man whom Einstein acknowledged as a genius, not even get a mention in a television programme about his theory? Nothing to do with him also being a Catholic priest I suppose (which of course contradicts the fictional narrative that science has supplanted religion).

This kind of cultural censorship, half the time carried out by people who are not even aware they are doing it, is almost pervasive. All we can do is keep pointing it out and keep resisting it. Most important of all, we need to not be afraid to stand up and speak up, and never mind the consequences.

12 October 2012 at 11:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "No. The Inspector thinks that SSM campaigners are damned selfish for wanting the change - not campaigners per se."

Yes. I wasn't arguing otherwise, as the context really ought to show you.

They're nominally as selfish as female campaigners were for campaigning for an extension to the franchise. Yet we don't think that was a bad thing in retrospect despite what their opposition thought at the tume. That is, being selfish by demanding your own rights is fundamentally fine in itself.

"I then reminded you (because you have been down this road before) that the suffragettes were campaigning for equal rights where as the SSM campaigners are not because they already have the same rights to marriage as everyone
else."

Is this series 1 episode 2 we're following now? Of course, campaigners are demanding equal rights to the social institution as you well know. If you think your twee little construction has any real weight then good luck. You can stand outside a gay wedding when the legislation is passed and wonder where it all went wrong for you.

"Newspeak is an attempt by the state
to control the populace by (re)defining the meaning of words. This is exactly what is happening with the definition of
marriage. Hence we have "What's in a name?" from Policy Exchange."

It's about the reduction of the language itself to stop people thinking dissenting thoughts. I suggest you reread the book again as you've missed something very core there when you last read it. Let me know if you do and we can do one of the book club things together where we review the meanings of passages. I'm sure I can help you there.

12 October 2012 at 13:41  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Thank you John Charter for your point @ 11:43. "this kind of cultural censorship is pervasive".

It is like the BBC doesn't report that both Houses of the Australian Parliament and now Northern Ireland have all defeated attempts to redefine aka destroy marriage but no heralding of this is the UK press.

12 October 2012 at 14:00  
Blogger William said...

"Is this series 1 episode 2 we're following now? Of course, campaigners are demanding equal rights to the social institution as you well know. If you think your twee little construction has any real weight then good luck. You can stand outside a gay wedding when the legislation is passed and wonder where it all went wrong for you."

If campaigners are demanding equal rights to the social institution then someone needs to tell them that they already have them (ask the ECHR). What I think you'll find is that campaigners are actually demanding to CHANGE the institution into something DIFFERENT. I hope that's not too twee for you. By the way I already know where it's gone wrong.

"It's about the reduction of the language itself to stop people thinking dissenting thoughts. I suggest you reread the book again as you've missed something very core there when you last read it. Let me know if you do and we can do one of the book club things together where we review the meanings of passages. I'm sure I can help you there."

Thanks for the book review (and offer of further study), but I really didn't reply to the comment about Newspeak in order to discuss the "very core" of 1984, but to emphasise how pertinent the manipulation of semantics by the state is to the campaign for SSM.

12 October 2012 at 14:11  
Blogger Naomi King said...



The reflection has just come to me - for "politically correct censorship" read "political censorship". Obvious really.

12 October 2012 at 14:23  
Blogger Naomi King said...



Archbishop Sentamu is who we need to lead the Church of England. The Rt Revd Michael Nazir-Ali answered at the Conservative Party Conference, when asked what we should pray regarding the appointment of the new Archbishop, "Britain needs a spiritual leader who will call the Nation to cleave again to the Rock of Christ and who will accomplish moral and spiritual renewal."

Wise words indeed.

As our LORD calls us to pray and fast to drive out evil spirits, I guess that Holy Bible believing Christians should be doing just that, fasting and seeking God's face in prayer to drive out the evil in this land with Jesus's power and authority. It is vital to the spiritual, moral and cultural health of this Nation.

By the way, Bishop Nazir-Ali gave an excellent talk on "Is there a Moral Future for Britain ?". At the Cornerstone Finge event on Tuesday afternoon at Fringe in Birmingham (Conservative Party Conference 2012). Does anyone know whether it was recorded and how to get a copy ?

The Private Members Bill being promoted by Chris Bryant MP on the proposal to redefine the meaning of marriage to extend to same sex couples is to be debated in the House of Commons on October 30th.

Remember this is how we got abortion, by a Private Members Bill brought by David Steel back in 1967.

A material factor will be if the Bill is given Government support by being afforded parliamentary time.

12 October 2012 at 15:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "What I think you'll find is that campaigners are actually demanding to CHANGE the institution into something DIFFERENT."

Was it series 1 episode 3 that we got past the twee constructions
to the core issue in contention: that the social institution is essentially the same now and so the legal aspects probably ought to follow from that?

The changes to the franchise has followed a broadly similar path, reflecting the change from a tiny landowning male minority, through a broadening of that as a result of changes to social structure, to including women as a result of other social changes, and with changes to the age of majority. For sure, people get to vote at the end of the day but the franchise is a very different beasty.

"Thanks for the book review (and offer of further study), but I
really didn't reply to the comment about Newspeak in order to
discuss the "very core" of 1984, but to emphasise how pertinent the manipulation of semantics by the state is to thecampaign for SSM."

Well, it's a pity you don't understand what Newspeak actually is in the book where it originated as that rather affects the quality of your point. Instead of the sort of oppressive Big Brother emphasis you want, you're just referring to changes to the natural language in use that happen all the time.

12 October 2012 at 15:41  
Blogger William Lewis said...

"Was it series 1 episode 3 that we got past the twee constructions
to the core issue in contention: that the social institution is essentially the same now and so the legal aspects probably ought to follow from that?"


No we never got that far (you must really love Friends), because homosexuals still can't provide the ideal environment to produce and raise the next generation as nature/God (take your pick) intended. Hence the need for marriage as currently defined.

"Well, it's a pity you don't understand what Newspeak actually is in the book where it originated as that rather affects the quality of your point."

It's a pity you don't understand that it's possible to take a theme from a book and apply it to a real life situation. I doubt your book club study would be of much use to me after all.

"Instead of the sort of oppressive Big Brother emphasis you want, you're just referring to changes to the natural language in use that happen all the time."

No. I was referring to the "What's in a name?" initiative by Policy Exchange - an attempt by the state to reduce the meaning of the word "marriage" to a more general, politically expedient form. There is nothing linguistically natural about that. It is pure Newspeak. I am surprised that a man of your (admittedly self confessed) textual analytical skills cannot see this.

12 October 2012 at 16:36  
Blogger Owl said...

Sory DanJ0,

Changes to natural language in use start at the bottom and work their way up as has been the case for millenia.

We have been observing for some time a top down change, er, manipulation.

It's not the same.

12 October 2012 at 16:47  
Blogger William said...

That was me at 16:36 by the way. Looks like I used the wrong gmail account. I should probably start using my real name anyway. Or perhaps come up with another username. Something like Willj0 or some kind of bird seem to be popular.

12 October 2012 at 17:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



DanJ0.

This comparison between women getting the vote and gay marriage only exists in YOUR mind. Everybody else sees it as giving women something they didn’t have. As has been pointed out, nothing to stop gay people getting married. Even Elton John married a woman. What about the rights of people who want to get married, but their other halves don’t ? One suspects that because gayness doesn’t come into it, you wouldn’t want to know about their ‘rights’, what !

And another thing. Granted that a comparatively small number of ‘activists’ are involved in the church, the overall orientation of the people of this country is Christian. All too evident sadly, when a tragedy occurs and the locals pile into a church…

They don’t congregate in a blasted gay bar, that’s for sure !

By the way, enjoying seeing William putting you right, though of course you are well aware of the rights and wrongs of it yourself, but for the cause one keeps quiet about small details like legitimacy of argument, doesn’t one…







12 October 2012 at 17:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

“Excuse me sir. I’m conducting a survey on behalf of a gay organisation. Are you for or against same sex marriage”

I’m for it

“And can I ask if you yourself are gay”

I’ll say ! And I have a medical history to go with it, full of grief and unpleasantry

“Oh good. We can use you in the results then. We don’t use all responses you know. Depends on who commissions us really, but I expect you already guessed that”

Too right. Did you know I had over 100 different sexual partners last year !

“Er, thank you sir, but I didn’t need to know that”

Look, I’m actually on my way to the pox clinic to have my rectal abscess drained. Why don’t you come with me. We can do a spot of lunch afterwards and I’m free in the afternoon

“Ah, Er, Oh go on then, it’s a date. My names Sandy”

And I’m Julian

12 October 2012 at 17:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "No we never got that far (you must really love Friends), because homosexuals still can't provide the ideal environment to produce and raise the next generation as nature/God (take your pick) intended. Hence the need for marriage as currently defined."

Luckily, we don't need to adhere to your chosen definition and criteria to take part. It's a social institution afterall, and many gay and straight marriages will tick all the same boxes as each other. That's enough I think. If you're not happy with that then straight men, to make a twee construction like yours, can simply marry a woman rather than a man. Simple.

"It's a pity you don't understand that it's possible to take a theme from a book and apply it to a real life situation."

Blimey. It could be said that you're taking an existing, well-understood idea and making it into something very different which you choose to define yourself, Alice In Wonderland style. There's something ironic there, given the context. ;)

"No. I was referring to the "What's in a name?" initiative by Policy Exchange - an attempt by the state to reduce the meaning of the word "marriage" to a more general, politically expedient form. There is nothing linguistically natural about that. It is pure Newspeak. I am surprised that a man of your (admittedly self confessed) textual analytical skills cannot see this."

It doesn't look much reduced to me. It's extending the benefits to same sex couples.

If there is any attempt to reduce it down then it looks like that's the standard religionist one, not recognising that marriage has changed many times, including to include a non-religious form now that the country is mostly secular.

No, religionists still talk about sacraments, divine-purpose, and other stuff and nonsense like that which has no relevance and meaning to a large number of people here. They want to try to own the social institution, in the typical oppression way of that sort of religion.

Still, I suppose I should be pleased that you've now recognised the 'reduction' aspect of Newspeak even if you haven't quite grasped that it needs to apply to the language as a whole to work as the book describes and to fulfill its purpose.

12 October 2012 at 18:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "By the way, enjoying seeing William putting you right, though of course you are well aware of the rights and wrongs of it yourself, but for the cause one keeps quiet about small details like legitimacy of argument, doesn’t one…"

Lol, you're getting as bad as that berk you used to troll with here and on that gay website, saying stuff like that as though it somehow swings the argument to the partisan one you want. Listen up, arguments stand on their own merits not because some racist, homophobic, unmarried, repressed-homosexual, half-baked Catholic unable to sustain adult sexual and romantic relationships, says otherwise. Hope that helps. ;)

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

DanJ0. Throwing in a few personal slights are you. What sport !

Regular observers of His Grace’s site will remember when that happens, the fruit has been bruised, so to speak...

12 October 2012 at 19:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oh I expect they'll know that you're merely a scratching post to be used or not on a whim. Nothing serious. No doubt you'll be off to the 'Gerbil and Tube' shortly to lick your latest wounds. Or perhaps another man's armpit in the gents. Then you'll be back here to work through your Ted Haggard angst again.

12 October 2012 at 19:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Scratching post ?

Most bizarre.

Do try and spare us the less salubrious details of a young homosexual man’s lifestyle as there are decent people who view this site...



12 October 2012 at 19:30  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

I see our little forum chess playing troll and social engineer is following his standard tactic when his argument falls.

12 October 2012 at 20:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Here's what Alan Craig posted:

"There is a war going on at the heart of the nation. The political establishment, having fragmented our strong rich and cohesive Christianised culture by promoting corrosive relativism and silo multiculturalism, is now planning to fracture the bedrock social ideal of marriage as a life-long union of a man and a woman.

‘Gay marriage’ is not a human rights or equalities issue as civil partnerships fulfil those requirements. Rather it’s a deep cultural and ideological – even civilisational – war over a word, a war declared unilaterally by the power-hungry intolerant and insatiable Stonewall Gaystapo et al.

Conventional marriage was “ordained for the procreation of children” and is easily the most stable, healthy and committed domestic environment in which to bring up the next generation, our future. On the other hand and by definition, gay marriage cannot be about procreation – nor about nurturing the next generation.

Rather gay relationships are a sexual and generational dead-end which of course people should be free to choose if they wish. But they should not be used to redefine and undermine society’s time-tested fundamental institution of marriage.

Furthermore, once gay marriage is conceded to the miniscule minority who will actually tie the gay knot, there is logically no argument against the legalisation of Islamic polygamous marriage for which there is already significant demand in the UK. Then, logically, what’s to stop group marriage and even marriage to other mammals? All bets and brakes are off.

Women’s rights campaigners never argued that women should have the right to be called ‘men’. But gay campaigners insist on the right to be called ‘married’. They are clearly not on about claiming equal rights. They are campaigning to capture someone else’s word and idea. It’s an ideological battle pure and simple. And it’s at the heart of our national culture and a vital key to our future."


He really has summed it all up.

12 October 2012 at 20:08  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I'd be up for the social-reality = justification in change in law if two things could be demonstrated:

1. Evidence that that's the case. It can be academic, or better yet, a referendum on the issue. But at the minute there's a lot of suppositions about what "everyone" thinks (on all sides) without much corresponding evidence. It's not enough to simply cite opinion polls on individual questions, when the premise is the social-institution.

2. That we actually change the law instead of doing what Equality demands, which is a straight extension of the law to SSM. Cranmer has posted before on the difficulties of determining consumation - and I've written before about the relationship between the law on marriage and procreation. If (1) establishes that procreation is no longer a major part of the modern social institution, or that sexual fidelity is less importantly insisted, surely now's the time to separate those aspects in law. If (1) is demonstrated to accord with the SSM lobby's most common model, what we should have in law is a recognition of a sexual relationship between consenting adults, leaving the rest out of "marriage" and in the realm of "personal and familial lifestyle choices". Presumptions of parenthood, annulments on the basis of non-consumption etc. are surely as anachronistic as insisting on the genders (or perhaps number) in marriage.

12 October 2012 at 20:57  
Blogger William said...

DanJ0

"Luckily, we don't need to adhere to your chosen definition and criteria to take part. It's a social institution afterall, and many gay and straight marriages will tick all the same boxes as each other. That's enough I think. If you're not happy with that then straight men, to make a twee construction like yours, can simply marry a woman rather than a man. Simple."

Yes DanJ0, but there are many boxes that same sex couples cannot tick and thus the definition of marriage will be reduced to accomodate these deficiencies. For instance the following will be removed from the definition:

- The complementarity of the sexes.

- The sexual nature of marriage. Marriage is a sexual relationship, extolling the advantages of lifelong sexual intercourse with one partner to the exclusion of all others.

- The ideal environment in which to produce and raise children (so crucial for the continuation of a healthy society).

"Still, I suppose I should be pleased that you've now recognised the 'reduction' aspect of Newspeak even if you haven't quite grasped that it needs to apply to the language as a whole to work as the book describes and to fulfill its purpose."

This is a little pathetic I'm afraid. I was giving an example of a Newspeak-type reduction in meaning of the word "marriage", just was David B was giving a supposed example in his original comment. It was not necessary for either of us to describe a whole language.

12 October 2012 at 21:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

William

When you allow him to annoy you he will use this as a distraction. Do what AIB and ignore or reframe the personal comments. When you return in kind, it justs feeds his persona as the liberal voice of reason, the faux vamp in a tutu and allows him to manipulate the direction of the discussion.

He's on the ropes ....

12 October 2012 at 22:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "Yes DanJ0, but there are many boxes that same sex couples cannot tick and thus the definition of marriage will be reduced to accomodate these deficiencies."

Oh c'mon, you're leaning over so hard trying to reach for a 'reduction' now after my pointing out the 1984 thing that you'll fall over in a minute. You'd be much better just conceding that your Newspeak claim was a load of bollocks surely?

"This is a little pathetic I'm afraid. I was giving an example of a Newspeak-type reduction in meaning of the word "marriage", just was David B was giving a supposed example in his original comment. It was not necessary for either of us to describe a whole language."

William, I shouldn't have been so condescending about the book but it's one of those pet hates of mine when Newspeak gets misused like that. It's the kind of thing people say when they've heard the word but haven't actually read the book. I'm sure if you go back and reprise it you'll realise where you've gone wrong there.

12 October 2012 at 23:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Orwell: "His sexual life, for example, was entirely regulated by the two Newspeak words sexcrime (sexual immorality) and goodsex (chastity). Sexcrime covered all sexual misdeeds whatever. It covered fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and other perversions, and, in addition, normal intercourse practised for its own sake. There was no need to enumerate them separately, since they were all equally culpable, and, in principle, all punishable by death. In the C vocabulary, which consisted of scientific and technical words, it might be necessary to give specialized names to certain sexual aberrations, but the ordinary citizen had no need of them. He knew what was meant by goodsex — that is to say, normal intercourse between man and wife, for the sole purpose of begetting children, and without physical pleasure on the part of the woman: all else was sexcrime. In Newspeak it was seldom possible to follow a heretical thought further than the perception that it was heretical: beyond that point the necessary words were nonexistent."

Blimey, no wonder poor Dodo is getting a bit antsy. Orwell could almost have been writing about him when he gets a bit Thomas Aquinas about sex here.

12 October 2012 at 23:24  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I've always said Brave New World is a much better literary take (and in many ways far more prescient than 1984).

12 October 2012 at 23:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

... and you think you know what you're talking about? You really cannot detect a difference between Orwell and Aquinas?

Oh, forgive me, its just another chess move. Not to be taken seriously. Silly me.

Nineteen Eighty-Four is a tale of grim despair, sadistic and nihilistic in tone. Very appropriate for our faux vamp in gold lame hotpants.

12 October 2012 at 23:56  
Blogger William said...

Danj0

Your pedantic insistence on the correct use of Newspeak has highIighted that a reduction in the meaning of the word is a very good description of what will happen to the definition of marriage. The larger set of heterosexual marriage attributes will be reduced to a smaller intersection of heterosexual/homosexual relationship attributes.

13 October 2012 at 00:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 October 2012 at 00:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Aww, bless. Was there a whoosh when it went by, Dodo?

13 October 2012 at 00:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "Your pedantic insistence on the correct use of Newspeak has highIighted that a reduction in the meaning of the word is a very good description of what will happen to the definition of marriage."

Is the inclusion of same sex couples not doubleplusgood in that case because it actually extends the meaning?

13 October 2012 at 00:07  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
“It doesn't look much reduced to me. It's extending the benefits to same sex couples.”

So what are the benefits then that same sex couples would have that they don't already have now with a civil union/partnership?

By using newspeak gobbledygook to redefine the meaning of marriage in people's minds is not going to fool all of the people all of the time. There will always be those that really know the true meaning of marriage is and will do their damnedest to ensure it is passed on to the next generation.
Unless of course you erase memory.

William is right all the attributes of traditional marriage and those of the same sex union will be reduced and condensed down to only include those that apply to both situations thereby reducing the overall importance of both marriage and civil union to something like a contract for love with another named person who can inherit etc... If the homoslesbians wanted children then the contract would have to include a third person.

13 October 2012 at 00:42  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Here are some details about Chris Bryant (who is bringing in this Private Members Bill for homosexual "marriage" on Tuesday 30th October, taken from Dods people, it’s not pretty.


The first ordained Anglican priest to sit in the House of Commons for 200 years, and the first person to solemnise a same-sex union there, Chris Bryant has experienced a number of conversions.

A public school-educated Conservative in his student days, he became an earnest and committed Blairite, though he describes himself as a socialist. A former priest, he is openly homosexual and highly critical of the Church of England. And a former BBC executive, he is a frequent critic of the corporation.

Once a super-loyalist, he was even named on theNew Statesman’s list of Blairites to be voted out by disgruntled Labour supporters in 2005.

But the following year, after being repeatedly passed over for significant promotion, he had two more damascene moments. After being Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton for a year, he received no promotion in Tony Blair’s next reshuffle, and resigned in June 2006, saying he wanted the freedom to campaign for an elected House of Lords.

Three months later he turned on Blair and initiated a letter from seventeen MPs of the 2001 intake, mostly former loyalists, calling on him to clarify his departure date.

But like many of the so-called September rebels, he bounced back under Gordon Brown. He was appointed PPS to the Deputy Leader Harriet Harman in 2007, and fifteen months later received his first major promotion to become her junior Minister. In 2009 he moved to become Junior Minister at the Foreign Office.

But he had his eye on higher things. He supported David Miliband in the leadership contest and stood in the elections to the Shadow Cabinet, coming only twenty-ninth with seventy-seven votes. But he still got a promotion as Shadow Justice Minister with a brief close to his heart: political and constitutional reform.

A year later Ed Miliband moved him to be Shadow Immigration Minister, number two to Yvette Cooper in the team shadowing the Home Office.

But others had been shadowing him. In 2012 he accepted £30,000 damages from News International after they admitted that the News of the World had hacked into his mobile phone. He said the most important thing was to hear the company own up.

He was an untypical choice to succeed Allan Rogers in the South Wales Valleys in 2001. He suffered a dent of nearly 9,000 in Rogers's massive 1997 majority in Rhonda, with a big drop in turnout and a 7 per cent swing to Plaid Cymru. He improved his majority in 2005 but it swung back again in 2010.

In a brilliant maiden speech he called for action against poverty and for further reform of Parliament. He advocated the disestablishment of the Church of England and representation of other faiths in the House of Lords, and served for eight years on the Joint Committee on Lords Reform.

But he still wants Parliament to legislate over Church of England affairs. In 2006 he introduced a Private Member's Bill to allow women priests to be consecrated bishops.

He was seen as one of the brightest of the 2001 intake. Andrew Pierce of The Times lauded his “puckish sense of humour” and suggested he would soon enter the Government and could become Britain’s first openly gay Prime Minister.

cont ...

13 October 2012 at 07:13  
Blogger Naomi King said...


cont from above ...

It was a prediction that now seems a little wide of the mark. He caused a stir in 2003 when several newspapers published a photograph of him in underwear after he emailed it with explicit messages through a gay dating website. He was said to blame this for his lack of promotion under Tony Blair.

But after his rehabilitation by Gordon Brown, he made history by becoming the first person to solemnise a civil partnership in the Palace of Westminster.

He and his partner Jared Cranney, a company secretary, said: “We never thought this day would come... We are delighted that everyone in the UK can now share a privilege that used to be available just to straight MPs”.

He later complained that many heterosexual couples were discriminated against by not being allowed to have the anthem Jerusalem sung at their weddings – barred by some churches and at civil ceremonies.

Born into a Conservative family in Cardiff in 1962, he went to the independent Cheltenham College and on to Mansfield College, Oxford, where he was an active member of the university Conservative Association alongside William Hague.

He took degrees in English and theology, but underwent a conversion to Labour while at theological college and became head of European affairs for the Church of England.

He was ordained a priest in 1987. But after serving as a curate and chaplain in High Wycombe and Peterborough he decided his priesthood was incompatible with his homosexuality. He renounced his orders under the Clerical Disabilities Act 1870 in order to stand for election to Parliament.

He contested Wycombe in the 1997 general election, and reduced the Tory majority to 2,370 on a 14 per cent swing.

He became agent to Frank Dobson in Holborn, and worked as the Labour Party's local government development officer, then London manager of Common Purpose. He wrote some well-reviewed books, including biographies of the late Labour leader John Smith, Stafford Cripps and Glenda Jackson, and for two years was head of European affairs for the BBC.

An enthusiastic pro-European, he chaired of the Labour Movement for Europe for five years and is now vice-chairman. He is a supporter of electoral reform.

He headed the Christian Socialist Movement for five years, and remains a member. He was a Hackney councillor, serving as Labour Chief Whip. He is also involved with the National Youth Theatre. He is a member of the Unite union.

He brought charges against a constituent, Paul Rees, for harassing him for four years over his views on fox hunting, and disrupting his surgeries. Rees was subsequently banned from going near the MP.

In 2009 he had to repay £4,439 of his expenses claims for his second home, after allegations that he had “flipped” its designation twice in two years to take advantage of the allowances system. He denied the reports, saying he had moved house after a series of attacks on his home, and his claims were “within the spirit of the rules.”

In 2011 he called for the Duke of York, Prince Andrew to be sacked as an unpaid UK trade ambassador because of his links with Col Gaddafi’s son Saif and a Libyan arms smuggler. It was pointed out the he was a Foreign Office Minister at the time when the Labour Government was fostering better relations with the Gaddafi regime.


13 October 2012 at 07:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "So what are the benefits then that same sex couples would have that they don't already have now with a civil union/partnership?"

The benefits in terms of legal rights are pretty much the same between civil partnerships and civil marriages. However, the actual context of what you've quoted is about allegedly reducing the meaning of marriage. I retorted that it's extending the benefits of marriage to same sex couples. That is, it's lumping together relevantly like with alike. Of course, we differ on what relevantly like is there.

You know, the wonderful Matthew Parris has an article in the Times about same sex marriage, religion and the Party Conference at the moment. In it he wrote: "Up for debate was the proposal for “gay marriage”, of which I’m now a mild supporter who wouldn’t have gone to the barricades until I saw recently who was massing on the other side." I know exactly what he means there. Militant religionists have raised the stakes and we must have same sex marriage now.

"By using newspeak gobbledygook to redefine the meaning of marriage in people's minds is not going to fool all of the people all of the time. There will always be those that really know the true meaning of marriage is and will do their damnedest to ensure it is passed on to the next generation.
Unless of course you erase memory."

If we're to do an Alice In Wonderland on "Newspeak" to become "newspeak" to make it mean something along the lines of "creating politically charged words or phrases" then I think you and others are doing the same with "traditional marriage". What you actually mean really is "traditional Christian marriage" because traditional marriage has not been a fixed thing over time or place.

We allow divorce despite the vows people usually take because marriage is in essence a contract between individuals or families. There's even no fault divorce now too. We allow other religions to enter into non-Christian marriage with their own religious rites. We allow marriage to be explicitly and necessarily non-religious. Moreover, how people got married varied across time and location too. There was actually a so-called common law marriage of sorts until it was stopped for various reasons. There were even deliberately transient marriages in places. In short, "traditional marriage" is a construction for the purposes of argument; an example of newspeak in this new, modified way of using it.

Of course, it's no wonder social conservatives want to advance the notion of a "traditional marriage" to give it a sense of historical weight. It appears harder and more significant to change in that case. You know, I'm coming more and more around the notion that we do away with religious legal marriage altogether as some people here have suggested and remove the rights of religious figures to solemnise them. It would kill a number of birds with one stone: protecting religious organisations from equality legislation creep, putting religion in a more relevant place within society, and making the change in law for same sex marriage easier.

13 October 2012 at 08:51  
Blogger William said...

Danj0

"Is the inclusion of same sex couples not doubleplusgood in that case because it actually extends the meaning?"

No, because marriage is more than two people deciding to spend their life together. But this all we will be left with if marriage is redefined to include same sex couples. Hence the meaning will not be extended but truncated.

"You know, the wonderful Matthew Parris has an article in the Times about same sex marriage, religion and the Party Conference at the moment. In it he wrote: "Up for debate was the proposal for “gay marriage”, of which I’m now a mild supporter who wouldn’t have gone to the barricades until I saw recently who was massing on the other side." I know exactly what he means there. Militant religionists have raised the stakes and we must have same sex marriage now."

Eh? How does that work? The government decides to push through an unmandated change to an ancient institution. Religious leaders lead a campaign to preserve the status quo. A status quo that has been established for centuries. Danj0 accuses these religious leaders of raising the stakes and therefore the proposed changes must go through.

13 October 2012 at 10:57  
Blogger William said...

DanJ0

You know, I'm coming more and more around the notion that we do away with religious legal marriage altogether as some people here have suggested and remove the rights of religious figures to solemnise them

Would this be another example of your liberalism?

13 October 2012 at 11:53  
Blogger William said...

Here's a thought

Why don't we let the people decide what marriage is or is not? Seeing as marriage pre-dates most of the religions of the religious leaders who wish to preserve the current definition and it certainly pre-dates this government who think they have a right to change the definition, it seems that no one really owns the definition of marriage, but the people.

This would also stop people trying to push through the change on the basis that religious leaders oppose the change.

13 October 2012 at 12:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "Would this be another example of your liberalism?"

Oh grow up. It's nought to do with that.

13 October 2012 at 12:20  
Blogger William said...

DanJ0

Yes you are right. It was a silly comment. I regret posting it.

13 October 2012 at 12:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "No, because marriage is more than two people deciding to spend their life together. But this all we will be left with if marriage is redefined to include same sex couples. Hence the meaning will not be extended but truncated."

Marriage is a social institution and in a society like ours it formalises a relationship on which all sorts of social things are attached. For example, the notion of a private home tends to be built on it. There are social goods which it suits the State to promote on our behalf. None of that is damaged by including same-sex couples in the institution formally.

"Eh? How does that work? The government decides to push through an unmandated change to an ancient institution. Religious leaders lead a campaign to preserve the status quo. A status quo that has been established for centuries. Danj0 accuses these religious leaders of raising the stakes and therefore the proposed changes must go through."

The change to the franchise to give women the vote fundamentally changed the way our society worked. The state of their not having a vote was established for centuries and it had significant opposition from social conservatives at the time.

Militant religionists are operating according to their own agenda on this. As far as these people are concerned, I don't think this is really about formalising in law what is already going on anyway. It's ultimately about the relevance of Christianity to the UK, now that we're more secular, more diverse, and more liberal.

Christianity has lost its place and militant religionists really don't like it, especially as Islam is competing with it now as another minority religion. They've chosen to set the battle ground over homosexuality, rather than (say) divorce, because they think they can use us because we're a minority.

Heterosexuals would push the faces of militant religionists into the ground if they sought to reverse the liberalism heterosexuals current enjoy. It would be the death of the Church, and they know it very well. They want to reassert religiosity first.

13 October 2012 at 12:36  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

" because traditional marriage has not been a fixed thing over time or place."

This is true, of course, and lends credence to the currently small lobby groups asking for polygamy. However, there haven't been same-sex marriages - even in cultures where homosexuality was encouraged. That's simply because, historically, marriage as a legal institution has tended to primarily be concerned with procreation and the distribution of inheritance. The closest you get is singular examples where a same-sex relationship is afforded a similar degree of respect to marriage.

I realise you're not arguing from history, but rather from an argument that SSM is compatible with the modern social institution - an argument from history would generally have greater support for Civil Partnerships than absolute parity.

13 October 2012 at 13:29  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

William:

"
Why don't we let the people decide what marriage is or is not? Seeing as marriage pre-dates most of the religions of the religious leaders who wish to preserve the current definition and it certainly pre-dates this government who think they have a right to change the definition, it seems that no one really owns the definition of marriage, but the people."

That's what I've been arguing for for a long time.

It also has the advantage that unlike making laws on the basis of pleas to equal rights, which could backfire if other interested groups with claims on marriage were able to stake a claim, it roots the basis for change in popular opinion.

Actually, I think SSM would pass, but as I've said before, the danger to our political masters is not that they wouldn't get their way, it's that a sizeable minority of the population would suddenly be "out" in the open as opposed to the idea.

13 October 2012 at 13:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

AIB: "I realise you're not arguing from history, but rather from an argument that SSM is compatible with the modern social institution - an argument from history would generally have greater support for Civil Partnerships than absolute parity."

In many ways, I'd have been happy for civil partnerships to address the legal inequalities and left marriage equality alone. I was actually caught a bit on the hop, as I think the religious were, when Blair introduced them. However, the spate of religious challenges to social change (the B&B case in particular) together with the strength of religious opposition to Cameron's political ploy [1], has convinced me that we shouldn't consider ourselves safe from legacy religious hegemony, with its anti-homosexuality stance, until we're fully integrated.

[1] Which is where this has come from, not the so-called homosexual lobby, despite Naomi King's assertions.

13 October 2012 at 13:47  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"[1] Which is where this has come from, not the so-called homosexual lobby, despite Naomi King's assertions."

No, I quite agree with you there.

Bit of a chicken-and-egg situation from my perspective: I find a lot of the invective surrounding the issue deeply unhelpful, and not exactly covered in glory, but its difficult to see how Cameron's move could not have invoked the ire of religious groups. It makes me wonder how much of it was a Lynne Featherstone et al. concoction and how much was CCHQ on maneuvres. Unfortunately, it seems to be that there have always been individuals both itching for conflict and willing to provide it - almost to the point that I wonder if SSM/homosexuality is to some extent irrelevant, and merely a possible site for a fight.

13 October 2012 at 14:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


I say, your dog is behaving strangely. Seems to like sniffing other male dogs and jumping on them

Yes, I’ve noticed that. Had to change his name

What do you call him now ?

Well, in polite company, it’s ‘Bandit’





13 October 2012 at 17:00  
Blogger William said...

"Marriage is a social institution and in a society like ours it formalises a relationship on which all sorts of social things are attached. For example, the notion of a private home tends to be built on it. There are social goods which it suits the State to promote on our behalf. None of that is damaged by including same-sex couples in the institution formally."

No, but civil partnerships were supposed to endow same-sex couples with the same social goods as marriage, but without destroying the key aspects of long term heterosexual relationships as extolled by the current definition of marriage. There is no reason that long term heterosexual and homosexual relationships need to be housed in the same institution, particularly given what will be lost in the merger.

"Militant religionists are operating according to their own agenda on this. As far as these people are concerned, I don't think this is really about formalising in law what is already going on anyway. It's ultimately about the relevance of Christianity to the UK, now that we're more secular, more diverse, and more liberal.

Christianity has lost its place and militant religionists really don't like it, especially as Islam is competing with it now as another minority religion. They've chosen to set the battle ground over homosexuality, rather than (say) divorce, because they think they can use us because we're a minority."


This is basically an out and out attack on the religious with SSM being used as a weapon rather than actually being the cause you are fighting for. You may have your reasons, but you should be aware that there are many religious and non-religious who only see this as an attack on a vital part (indeed the heart) of society and, in particular, an attack on the best way in which we nurture and raise our children. You should therefore not be too surprised if people see you and your cause as a direct attack on the most vulnerable and indeed future health of our society.

As to the religious choosing this battle because homosexuals are a minority, I don't believe that they chose this at all, but would echo AIBs comment @ 14:33. You may not have chosen this but neither did I.

13 October 2012 at 17:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Homosexual militancy has already seen an end to Catholic Adoption agencies. The losers there being the hard to place children who will remain in institutions until they are turned out at eighteen. Any regrets over that ? Don’t worry, the Inspector didn’t expect you to have any. After that damn outrage, how safe is organised Christian religion with these activists around ?

Of course, you yourself say religion is alright in it’s place in your liberal world, but you are not a homosexual leader, are you. So homosexuals can’t get married, so what ? This man doesn’t want his taxes going to fund Terence Higgins, so what ? You and people like you were born with a strong attraction to the opposite sex, so what ?

Do you catch the drift ? Put up with with and shut up, because believe this, the 1967 act talked about tolerating homosexuality, not accepting it. There is now a serious chance that homosexuals will now face active RESENTMENT, where there was none before. How does that grab you ?



13 October 2012 at 18:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

blast, "same sex" somewhere in there...

13 October 2012 at 18:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "No, but civil partnerships were supposed to endow same-sex couples with the same social goods as marriage, but without destroying the key aspects of long term heterosexual relationships as extolled by the current definition of marriage."

Civil partnerships provide much the same legal rights and responsibilities as civil marriages to the couples involved. There's more to it than that though, the social goods also relate to society itself. Arguably, civil partnerships go some way to providing those too but not all they way.

"This is basically an out and out attack on the religious with SSM being used as a weapon rather than actually being the cause you are fighting for."

I'm a liberal and I advocate a secular State. I think it should provide and protect religious space in society. However, the religious don't own the social institution of marriage and ought not to have special privilege when it comes to the State arbitrating between conflicting interests.

Not that there's much conflicting interest. No-one's trying to force religious men to marry other men, or religious women to marry other women, or indeed force anyone to marry anyone else. If you're a man and you want to marry a woman then feel free.

You'll get the same married rights, incur the same marriage responsibilities, and your marriage will look exactly the same to you. Moreover, the social institution of marriage wil reflect the reality of relationships today. No marriage apartheid either.

"You should therefore not be too surprised if people see you and your cause as a direct attack on the most vulnerable and indeed future health of our society."

A large proportion of the general public, according to a number of surveys from a number of sources, support the move. I dare say a fair chunk of them think that the religious are anti-gay and bigotted too. Cardinal O'Brien bears some responsibility for that, bless him.

I dare say they also see the anti-gay extremism in parts of Africa and the Christian involvement in that. Perhaps we don't play that card often enough, I think. We ought to highlight the calls for the death penalty for gay people in various places and suggest that there, for the grace of no-god, goes our society if we're not careful if the religious get too much power again.

13 October 2012 at 18:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Homosexual militancy has already seen an end to Catholic Adoption agencies. The losers there being the hard to place children who will remain in institutions until they are turned out at eighteen. Any regrets over that ?"

The agencies closed themselves down. Any regrets there about the kids they sacrificed by being doctrinaire about it? No, I doubt there are. Also, it probably wasn't homosexual militancy there either, it was straight politicians like Harriet Harperson and now-Catholic Tony Blair I expect.

13 October 2012 at 18:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Do you catch the drift ? Put up with with and shut up, because believe this, the 1967 act talked about tolerating homosexuality, not accepting it. There is now a serious chance that homosexuals will now face active RESENTMENT, where there was none before. How does that grab you ?"

Why on earth would we put up and shut up simply because some racist half-baked Catholic with sexuality issues tells us to? As for serious resentment, that's nought to the public distaste and resentment the church you rather loosely affliate with has generated through its own actions. Even Catholics are disgusted with it. Moreover, I think we have the public with us for the most part. It's religion that is losing ground, and fast.

13 October 2012 at 18:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. The agencies closed themselves down

The Inspector is obliged to you. You see, up to now he was under the impression they could no longer function due to government intervention after pressure from homosexual activists.

I think we have the public with us for the most part.

You really ought to get out more and talk to people. You might then be surprised to find that the public are as enthusiastic about homosexual ‘uber-rights’ as they are in their toddler tripping on the pavement and landing head first in dog shit...

13 October 2012 at 19:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "You really ought to get out more and talk to people."

I doubt you and I hang around in the same social circles so our experiences will differ I'm sure. I expect your fellow racists would want me strung up simply because they're uncomfortable with the idea of gayness. No wonder you're so repressed. Don't they at least wonder why you're still unmarried at your age? Not that there's anything wrong with that of course, each to their own, but, well, your Ted Haggard ranty thing rather suggests a reason for you.

13 October 2012 at 19:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Gold Lame Hotpants said ...

"Marriage is a social institution and in a society like ours it formalises a relationship on which all sorts of social things are attached."

Like the raising of children and their moral and social development.

"For example, the notion of a private home tends to be built on it."

Not a great example as you don't need to be married to own a home.

"There are social goods which it suits the State to promote on our behalf."

Like fidelity and stability in sexual relationships; the raising of children by men and women; the bonds of familial relationships; and social cohesion and stability.

"None of that is damaged by including same-sex couples in the institution formally."

Who says? This is the very point being made by opponents, religious and non-religious, homosexual *marriage* will undermine a range of social goods for the sake of a few who want to feel 'accepted'.

13 October 2012 at 20:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


DanJ0. One wonders if your almost complete self delusion of all matters non gay is but itself typical of the overall gay man’s approach to life. After all, from the lifestyle that brought us ‘fisting’ (...Jesus Christ, do people REALLY do that to each other...) anything is possible...

This is where you strip down to your gold lame underpants and give us “I am what I am, what I am”, that all important message you people like to inform an uninterested world with.


13 October 2012 at 20:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Immoral, degenerate, Catholic feckwit: "Like the raising of children and their moral and social development."

Not a great example as you don't have to be married to do that, or to do it well.

"Not a great example as you don't need to be married to own a home."

You seem to be talking more about houses there. I'm not saying that you do need to be married to own a house, or construct a home around a physical property. That's the type of argument some of the religious try. No, I'm simply saying that society is at least partly based around private individuals, private familes, and private spaces. Tying couples together in units around a sexual relationship promotes stability, mutual emotional support, mutual financial support, and so on. I'm just talking about tendencies and themes. It's the religious who insist on (say) procreation being core to marriage (because that's the best exclusion they can think of for gay couples) yet who sit back while people marry without the ability or the intention to have children, and marry when they're unable to provide the ideal environment in which to raise children..

"Like fidelity and stability in sexual relationships; the raising of children by men and women; the bonds of familial relationships; and social cohesion and stability."

Yes, all of those things. Same sex marriage is essentially just buying into the existing arrangement.

"Who says? This is the very point being made by opponents, religious and non-religious, homosexual *marriage* will undermine a range of social goods for the sake of a few who want to feel 'accepted'."

It actually promotes acceptance too, as they huge shifts in public attitudes over the last 40 years or so has shown as we've got our rights.

13 October 2012 at 20:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "One wonders if your almost complete self delusion of all matters non gay is but itself typical of the overall gay man’s approach to life."

My sexual orientation is pretty much incidental in real life, I am the sum of many different parts. It's the religious, or rather the particularly dim ones, who imagine us all as a gay community, or as all living in a gated gay estate divorced from other people, or as the sort of people who attend Gay Pride in London. The really, really dim ones prefer to ignore jokes about gold lamé hotpants, obvious to almost everyone else I'm sure, and imagine the joke to be reality, bless them. The perfect fodder for an oppressive political organisation like the Catholic Church if it can get them as kids early enough and fill their heads with crap that they'll never truly shake off even when they break away from its vicious and miserable grip.

13 October 2012 at 20:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

But anyway, it's Saturday night and I have things to do. Even if I didn't, I can't be bothered hanging around while you two drink your whisky alone and do your weekend trolling, trying to use me as your bounce board.

13 October 2012 at 20:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Oh no !

The Inspector has gone too far and seriously annoyed the boy !

Greetings bird, a fine night is it not sir. Chars !


13 October 2012 at 20:51  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Well, he's shown his true colours, what? No answer to the secular opposition to homosexual marriage, just abuse.

He'll be watching X Facctor now, of course, and, no doubt, voting for the rather odd lad from Essex. Wonder if he wears those gold lame hotpants whilst he gawps in wonder.

14 October 2012 at 01:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I haven't seen a secular argument to same-sex marriage from you. You've asserted that things will go awry but I can assert something different, and I probably have a few times. Of course, we already have civil partnerships and the sky hasn't fallen it so any arguments need to take that into account.

Same-sex marriage is already instantiated in other places too so we have some comparisons available. I'd expect in the long term that same-sex marriage will be as aspirational as different-sex marriage but there's not been anything like enough time for that to flow through.

I don't for a moment think that married people will suddenly question whether their marriage is null and void simply because some gay couples can marry rather than form civil partnerships. I don't think people will stop having kids either. Nor do I think people will suddenly decide not to get married because a couple of women down the road have had a civil marriage ceremony.

Polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages, man and horse marriages (which I know you'd love to titillate yourself with in a debate), and other forms have their own justifications and oppositions irrespective of same-sex marriage. They don't naturally follow. A mere change is not enough to automatically open the door to them, as it wasn't when all the other changes to the marriage laws were made.

It's good that religionists are trying to argue using secular reasoning but I don't think one can completely dismiss the fact that it is sugar-coating of religious motives even if arguments themselves nominally stand on their own merits. The bulk of the opposition to the same-sex marriage proposal is from religionists and I think other people ought to ask whether they feel comfortable going along with that.

14 October 2012 at 07:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

According to the ONS, in 2009 there were 8426 Roman Catholic marriage ceremonies in England and Wales. There were 5687 civil partnerships formed.

There were 155950 civil ceremonies (67.1%) out of a total of 232443, and 76493 religious ones. 81051 (34.9%) of the total were remarriages.

14 October 2012 at 08:16  
Blogger Hugh Oxford said...

How can the unions of pairs of men or women perform the functions for which human society has evolved marriage?

14 October 2012 at 12:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


DanJ0. My sexual orientation is pretty much incidental in real life, I am the sum of many different parts. It's the religious, or rather the particularly dim ones, who imagine us all as a gay community,

Oddly, the Inspector awoke today with those words ringing in his head. You are so right. You are not an organised community. The trouble is that gays are beginning to SEEM to be one. And worse than that. To be selfish corrupters of society, to scheme for nefarious ends, to brook no compromise or opposition. To ram their peculiar outlook on the world down the throats of others. All this of course added to your historic and ever present threat to the nations male young. Whether in a priests habit or in a Manchester department store’s toilets.

So you see. There is always a price to pay. Cast your memory back to the mid 80s with the AIDS crisis. You people were seen as spreaders of a horribly fatal disease, but interestingly the public did have some sympathy for you. We were too generous to you then, far too generous. After all, this is how you repay our then concern.

It won’t happen again, this man will remind everybody. Don’t you worry about that !


14 October 2012 at 14:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "To be selfish corrupters of society, to scheme for nefarious ends, to brook no compromise or opposition. To ram their peculiar outlook on the world down the throats of others. All this of course added to your historic and ever present threat to the nations male young."

You're not talking about the Roman Catholic Church there, though you very easily could be.

"It won’t happen again, this man will remind everybody. Don’t you worry about that !"

Carry on, please. The more homophobic bigots wearing a religious badge, the better at the moment. Stand on the rooftops and shout. Do a Cardinal O'Brien. Spread your evil. It can't really do us any harm but I don't think that can be said about religion, and the Roman Catholic one in particular.

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

My sexual orientation is pretty much incidental in real life, I am the sum of many different parts. It's the religious, or rather the particularly dim ones, who imagine us all as a gay community,

It can't really do us (Gays) any harm

That’s our final submission M’lud. The case for the prosecution rests...

14 October 2012 at 15:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"The case for the prosecution rests..."

What a berk.

14 October 2012 at 17:06  
Blogger William said...

Danj0

"However, the religious don't own the social institution of marriage and ought not to have special privilege when it comes to the State arbitrating between conflicting interests."

No ones is asking for special privilege and most religious leaders have been careful to point out that marriage actually pre-dates their religions (this makes it rather difficult to claim to own the institution)

"I think it (the secular state) should provide and protect religious space in society"

Does this protection include the right to put the case for traditional marriage without being accused of "raising the stakes"?

"Not that there's much conflicting interest. No-one's trying to force religious men to marry other men, or religious women to marry other women, or indeed force anyone to marry anyone else."

I'm not aware of anyone who is worried about religious men being forced to marry other men - other than, of course, vicars being forced to marry gay couples.

If you're a man and you want to marry a woman then feel free."

Thanks. I did.

"You'll get the same married rights, incur the same marriage responsibilities, and your marriage will look exactly the same to you."

Excluding references to sexual fidelity and raising children will certainly affect the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

"Moreover, the social institution of marriage will reflect the reality of relationships today."

Why does marriage need to reflect the reality of relationships today? It is perfectly possible to have a myriad of different kinds of reletionships without getting married. The point of enshrining certain relationships in marriage, surely, is to promote and extol those relationships because they are deemed to be valuable to society both now and in the future.

"A large proportion of the general public, according to a number of surveys from a number of sources, support the move. I dare say a fair chunk of them think that the religious are anti-gay and bigotted too."

I dare say that a fair chunk of them have no idea that the plan is to redefine marriage and have been hoodwinked into believing the lie that this is just an extension of the definition.

"I dare say they also see the anti-gay extremism in parts of Africa and the Christian involvement in that. Perhaps we don't play that card often enough, I think. We ought to highlight the calls for the death penalty for gay people in various places and suggest that there, for the grace of no-god, goes our society if we're not careful if the religious get too much power again."

Yes, because we religious are such a homogenous bunch, just like all you gays who sit around in gold lame pants - that is when your not parading on Gay Pride marches.

14 October 2012 at 18:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Powerful post William, reasoned and graceful...

14 October 2012 at 19:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "No ones is asking for special privilege and most religious leaders have been careful to point out that marriage actually pre-dates their religions (this makes it rather difficult to claim to own the institution)"

Yes, no-one is asking because it's expected already. Also, own not invent.

"Does this protection include the right to put the case for traditional marriage without being accused of "raising the stakes"?"

No, of course not.

"Excluding references to sexual fidelity and raising children will certainly affect the rights and responsibilities of marriage. "

I see no reason to exclude references to sexual fidelity myself, and gay people can, and do, and will raise children too.

"Why does marriage need to reflect the reality of relationships today? [...] The point of enshrining certain relationships in marriage, surely, is to promote and extol those relationships because they are deemed to be valuable to society both now and in the future."

It doesn't need to reflect but it makes sense to reflect since they're marriages in all but name. [...] They're valauble to society and to the couples themselves. You're not arguing with me there unless you want to treat each supporting column as independent.

"I dare say that a fair chunk of them have no idea that the plan is to redefine marriage and have been hoodwinked into believing the lie that this is just an extension of the definition."

It's marriage, only with same-sex couples too.

"Yes, because we religious are such a homogenous bunch, just like all you gays who sit around in gold lame pants - that is when your not parading on Gay Pride marches."

Which is almost as much bollocks in interpretation there as that feckwit the Inspector's one.

So, now that we're down to picking little bits and pieces of paragraphs, with the inevitable loss of argument narrative as the result, where do you want to go from here? Or would you prefer to pass over to one of the other tag team?

14 October 2012 at 19:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Powerful post William, reasoned and graceful..."

Isn't doing the Greek Chorus thing Dodo's usual schtick? You seem to have taken that on board now, even using "we" and "us" at times as though you're speaking for everyone. You'll end up like an old married couple soon, finishing each other's sentences.

14 October 2012 at 19:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The Inspector is becoming a real thorn in your side these days :->

14 October 2012 at 19:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


For ‘we’ and ‘us’ read ‘Society’. The ordinary man in the street, if you will...

14 October 2012 at 19:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "The Inspector is becoming a real thorn in your side these days :->"

Hardly. You're mostly just a risible, grandiloquent berk and, I should imagine, an embarrassment to the other religionists here for the most part given your unchristian behaviour. But hey, carry on if it gives you meaning to try to be an online thorn in my side. Heaven knows, it must be pretty drab at your end and trolling here is probably better than drinking whisky on your own.

14 October 2012 at 20:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Excellent, down to name calling are we. Inspector charges glass. The toast, ‘the quare fella’

14 October 2012 at 20:23  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
The words traditional and marriage have been used together and used a lot recently. This is splitting marriage into traditional (heterosexual) and gay varieties it goes a way toward getting people to accept “gay marriage” when it does not exist in reality. Marriage is and should always remain between one man and one woman for the benefit of children. It should not be adulterated with gayness whether it be religious or civil marriage.

And I'm realising that the worst thing for society was to legalise homosexuality. I'm coming round to the notion that we should make it illegal again.

Cameron has done a U turn on most other pledges and promises one on SSM won't make any difference to his standing, in fact it might just improve it.

14 October 2012 at 20:45  
Blogger William said...

"I see no reason to exclude references to sexual fidelity myself, "

Really? This all sounds a bit half-baked to me.

"and gay people can, and do, and will raise children too."

Yes, but it's better to leave it to the parents don't you think? Better for the children I mean. Remember them? You see children tend to like knowing their mother and father.

"It's marriage, only with same-sex couples too."

except that same-sex couples can't have sexual intercourse or produce their own children.

"Which is almost as much bollocks in interpretation there as that feckwit the Inspector's one."

You got me there. I have no come back from your reasoned argument. You do realise, I take it, that your comments are littered with references to "The Religious". Just sayin.

"So, now that we're down to picking little bits and pieces of paragraphs, with the inevitable loss of argument narrative as the result, where do you want to go from here? Or would you prefer to pass over to one of the other tag team?"

What can I say? One man's narrative argument is another man's opportunity to fisk. Perhaps you need to come up with a better narrative argument?

Actually I think I should tag the Inspector. You appear to have reached his level.

14 October 2012 at 21:13  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

William
Excellent response to Gold Lame Hotpants!

Inspector
Name calling always follows the defeat of his argument. His ego permits no loss of face.

He called me an: "Immoral, degenerate, Catholic feckwit yesterday.

Me?!

14 October 2012 at 21:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie, it doesn't surprise me in the least that you want to criminalise it. As I said earlier, we won't be safe until we're fully integrated and you're a great example of why. You have Dodo for company there too. When you've put us in prison, whose freedom will you steal next?

14 October 2012 at 21:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

William.Actually I think I should tag the Inspector. You appear to have reached his level.

I say that chap, rather hurtful don’t you know. When a fellow is doing his best to stop society being driven off course by militant homosexuals, it is necessary to strip to the waist and get ones dukes up. Naturally, he will be associated with some unpleasantly...


14 October 2012 at 21:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "Really? This all sounds a bit half-baked to me."

You got me there. I have no come back from your reasoned argument. Etc.

"Yes, but it's better to leave it to the parents don't you think? Better for the children I mean. Remember them? You see children tend to like knowing their mother and father."

The context was the rights and responsibilities of marriage. This is what happens when someone thinks they're "fisking" when, well, it's not really that is it?

"except that same-sex couples can't have sexual intercourse or produce their own children."

This is about "consummation" now, right?

"What can I say? One man's narrative argument is another man's opportunity to fisk. Perhaps you need to come up with a better narrative argument?"

I'm happy with the current one, thanks. Your so-called "fisking" is really that you're left with trying to make bitty points now, launching off from sentences out of context, points that would normally be elaborated in due course, and so on. Fisking is normally associated with blogs, articles etc, not the to and fro stuff in the middle of a dialogue. But hey, you're still smarting from your Newspeak debacle I expect.

"Actually I think I should tag the Inspector. You appear to have reached his level."

You've always been down there. I should congratulate you, really. Historically, you were never to be seen until trouble started in the comments and then you'd rock up to try to land a kick or two before slinking off again. At least you were almost at the start this time. So well done, you.

14 October 2012 at 21:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Roll up, roll up, any more people enlivened and buzzing with the Holy Spirit wanting to rock up and try to land a kick while there's a gang around? It's much better than the normal sectarian-Christian strife that kicks off as soon as there's no non-Christians around to focus an inner demon on. I aim to please. ;)

14 October 2012 at 21:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

You occupying the moral high ground !

What a f_____g laugh...

14 October 2012 at 22:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "When a fellow is doing his best to stop society being driven off course by militant homosexuals, it is necessary to strip to the waist and get ones dukes up."

Good luck if you're hoping some gay men will be impressed with your abs. Any excuse, huh. You'd be much better talking to someone about your sexual feelings you know. 53 is not too late. Better late than never and by the time you've come to terms with it there'll be same-sex marriage available so you can have that dream wedding at last if you find someone suitable. Surely it's better that than staying single and repressed for your whole life? Open that closet door!

14 October 2012 at 22:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Btw, wasn't anyone impressed with "grandiloquent"? I can be quite sesquipedalian when I want to be.

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

You damned freaks of nature don’t know where to stop, do you ?

14 October 2012 at 22:37  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
"I can be quite sesquipedalian when I want to be."
Wouldn't that be rather painful?

14 October 2012 at 22:54  
Blogger William said...

Last one then it's bed.

"You got me there. I have no come back from your reasoned argument. Etc."

Of course it wasn't a reasoned argument; it was an invitation to elaborate on your idea of introducing sexual fidelity into SSM.

"The context was the rights and responsibilities of marriage. This is what happens when someone thinks they're "fisking" when, well, it's not really that is it?"

No, that was not the context. The context was that introducing SSM will be more than just an extension of the current definition. This is what happens when someone's narrative argument is so incoherent that they can't even remember the point that was being made. To be fair I don't blame you. It can't be easy trying to shoe-horn homosexual relationships into an institution designed exclusively for heterosexuals.

I'll leave the last word to you:

"You've always been down there. I should congratulate you, really. Historically, you were never to be seen until trouble started in the comments and then you'd rock up to try to land a kick or two before slinking off again. At least you were almost at the start this time. So well done, you."

Good night.

(oops that was me again).

14 October 2012 at 23:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Here we go.

Gold Lame Hotpants attempting to turn the discussion away from the issues and attract personal abuse.

Oh, the martyr in him!

All a ploy, of course, a chess move to manipulate the silent reader into believing he is up against a bunch of homophobe bigots. Shift the discussion into nasty snide remarks and then criticise Christians for responding in kind and forgetting their values.

Time to change tactics as this one is now way, way too obvious. Its an age old ploy used by the adversary.

15 October 2012 at 01:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

If that were actually my intention then it really doesn't take much for you to lose your alleged values. There something to think about there: if you don't take your own religion seriously when it comes down to it then why should anyone else?

15 October 2012 at 06:18  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, Danjo doesn`t have to' manipulate you' to make you appear a religious hypocrite...you do that unaided.(With a little help from your friend the Inspector at crucial moments admittedly)

15 October 2012 at 08:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0

Ah yes, but I've seen through your chess game. It was effective for a time and you are skilled at pushing the right buttons.Years of practice, no doubt, as a social engineer.

len

You really need to wake up and stop throwing your small minded, petty insults around.

I thought you were "born again"!

But then, one week you declared St Paul was inspired by Lucifer; then later you denied the Trinity; then you declared an interest in Greek Orthodoxy and an agreement with some aspects of Catholicism.

You're all over the place!

15 October 2012 at 23:50  
Blogger len said...

Dodo

The difference between you and me(one at least)is I question everything......... you question nothing that the Catholic religion feeds you)

Unless you drag EVERYTHING into the Light how do you know what is the Truth and what is error.

Some aspects of Catholicism are correct(when they stick to Biblical Truth) other aspects of Catholicism have pagan origins.This makes it a 'toxic mix' far more dangerous than Islam.

Unless you have' a love of the truth' and the courage to challenge your 'sacred cows' you will never arrive at the Truth.

Jesus says the holy Spirit will guide you into all Truth and will respond to your challenges with the Truth.
Try it if you have 'a love of the Truth'
and desire it above all else.

Much of what you call the truth(and dare not challenge)is error and directly opposed to the Word of god
yet you hold this as 'sacred'and this puts you firmly the hands of the enemy .

16 October 2012 at 08:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Every time you say that forum chess thing, it makes me quietly smile because it shows that your humiliation about being hung out to dry over your lying and other deceptions is still relentlessly eating away at you. Poor Dodo. All that frustration on top of your low self-esteem and the lack of power thing in the real world that trolls are usually compensating for. It must really bother you.

16 October 2012 at 08:07  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, BTW I am born again and it is the indwelling Spirit of God that guides me unless you wish to challenge that?.

You wouldn`t be the first.

16 October 2012 at 08:09  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,

I Thessalonians 5:21 instructs us to test all things," (which would include our' traditions'and 'theologies' which have been accepted without reference to scripture )and then "hold fast" to the good ones—the ones that pass the test, which line up with scripture. A mistake many make is to follow tenaciously the instruction of Revelation 3:11 to "hold fast to what we have" while completely ignoring the additional instructions of I Thessalonians 5:21 to test first.




16 October 2012 at 13:36  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0
Lordy! How old hat of you. Others have sussed you too and are aware of your manipulative games.

len
But of course you've been "born again", dear man, ... and again ... and again ...

16 October 2012 at 19:34  
Blogger len said...

Born twice die once...... born once die twice.

Dodo, you seem to be doing that 'projection thing' again with Danjo...such a give away.

16 October 2012 at 19:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Every time you rock up, trying to cause trouble from behind someone's back, I bet you think "This could be it! If I could land one good hit then I'll be alright again". It's a false hope, Dodo. You're like the recidivist gambler who lost his shirt, risking more and more for the One Big Win which will restore all his losses. You're practically bare of credibility, morality, honour, self-respect, and just about everything else of value as it is. Honestly, you'd be better just finding another non-Catholic or gay-oriented site to troll and start afresh.

16 October 2012 at 20:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len, and again ...and again ... and again.

DanJo, what? And leave you in peace to play your little games? No chance. I'm enjoying witnessing your demise too much.

16 October 2012 at 22:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You illustrate what I said at 08:07 particularly well there. It's clearly eating away at you. You know, I find it quite odd that an old man like you is unable to deal with what are essentially teenage self-esteem issues which most people grow out of pretty quickly.

16 October 2012 at 22:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Lordy DanJ0, surely you can do better?

The deceitful, dastardly, 'sock puppet' was a better line of attack. Mind you, it is ancient news now.

The old man routine is a bit thin. But then we know you have *issues* with older men.

The 'Oedipus Complex' generally denotes the repression of a child's desire to sexually possess his mother and kill his father. With you it seems to be the other way around. Hence the hostility towards those you perceive to be older men.

17 October 2012 at 00:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, you're in your 60s aren't you? Hence: old man.

17 October 2012 at 02:52  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

60 isn't that old. Methuselah managed 969.

17 October 2012 at 22:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Such ageism from a self-proclaimed liberal and advocate of non-discrimination and civil rights!

Actually, I will be celebrating the 'Big 60' in the not too distant future. A full 20 years younger than Moses when he was commanded by God to lead the Israelites out of slavery.

Anyway, you're no spring-chicken yourself - and it matters to you. Age is a distinct disadvantage in your sub-culture where physique is prized over the psyche. Where the need to look *fabulous* is the measure of your worth.

17 October 2012 at 23:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ps - was your father a Catholic by any chance? It is Catholic men you seem to relentlessly persue.

17 October 2012 at 23:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, you appear to have an almost comic misunderstanding of psychology, psychiatry, psychotherapy, and other similar words. I called your bluff a long time ago on that when you tried to claim to be some sort of "mental health professional" able to professionally psycho-analyse people here, and you fell flat on your face. Hence why I used to tease you about being a public sector worker who pushed trolleys past that sort of ward at your local hospital. It's not something you can learn by some sort of proximity osmosis, you know. What a nob.

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

Getting too close for comfort, eh?

Really, you are so transparent.

18 October 2012 at 18:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Perhaps you actually meant "mental, health-professional", where "health-professional" ranges from, well, hospital porters through to consultant surgeons. Important things, those commas.

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

I accept it must be uncomfortable for you my having gone public on all this. Ask and I'll delete it and it can stay confidential between just us.

18 October 2012 at 22:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Feel free to leave it there, why on earth should I care? It makes you look like a bit of a nutter on top of everything else.

19 October 2012 at 17:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Brazen it out, eh. That the approach? Very well then.

20 October 2012 at 00:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, this stuff you try to do just doesn't work other than to fill the place full of crap because you don't have any context or reality to work with. You know full well that I take no hits from it at all, you just write nonsense hoping something will eventually annoy me. In reverse, both you and I know full well that you have low self-esteem and have been completely humilated multiple times here. You go into meltdown afterwards each time, you see, completely revealing your underlying mental state. That you try to hit out all the time is tantamount to shouting "I took that blow full on and I can't handle it". I don't need to be a professional psycho-therapist to know that each hit leaves you with unresolved issues that you have no coping strategies to deal with despite your advanced age. This is presumably why you are an internet troll, in some twisted way it seems to help people like you.

20 October 2012 at 13:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

There's no charge for that assessment, by the way.

20 October 2012 at 13:07  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0

Yes, yes, I know its difficult for you now you and your game has been sussed. Do stop rewritING history and trying to spin a character for me. It just has no authenticity.

I do have an insight into you and should have picked up on it some time ago. You are clever and very well guarded, I'll grant you that.

Mwah ...

20 October 2012 at 22:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You know, it makes me smile when you imitate some of my past transactions with you and try to use them back at me on various threads. It shows just how successful they were and how much impact they had on you, you see. Of course, you fall flat on your face doing it because you don't actually have the context to do so and therefore they don't work the same way in reverse. You're like a child copying his parents, but in an inappropriate way. For instance, my releatedly asking the same pointed question over and over worked because it highlighted your twists and turns and evasions over a core point in the thread. By pulling a fairly random question out of nowhere and repeatedly asking it, it just makes you look like a dickhead because it doesn't show that I'm trying to evade anything by not answering it. You're actually a bit of a nutter when it comes down to it, I think. An emotional mess.

21 October 2012 at 07:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

As it's a Sunday it's also worth pointing out that you claim to be a practising Catholic too. What's your god doing while you're doing all of this and why isn't it having any apparent influence on you? What happened to the Faith and Works thing? You're not a Chritian at all really, are you? You wear Christianity like a coat when you go trolling, I think, but it doesn't actually cover your moral degeneracy.

21 October 2012 at 08:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Touched a nerve, didn't I DanJ0?

21 October 2012 at 22:42  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older