Monday, October 15, 2012

Gay marriage, Nazis and Fascism


This issue really is becoming tiresome: each day brings with it some tedious development in the inexorable quest for 'marriage equality' that the mind is pestered and plagued with the pricks of riposte. No matter what human tragedy is suffered, what poverty endured or global revolution witnessed, we come back to David Cameron's intention to redefine marriage 'because he is a Conservative'.

Last week, Lord Carey raised the spectre of the Nazis and the Holocaust. It didn't matter what he actually said; the mere juxtaposition was sufficient to have him condemned as a raving loon and bigoted homophobe. And yesterday, Gordon Wilson, former leader of the SNP, warned that gay marriage would lead to ‘state fascism’. The only good thing to come of that interjection was that it rendered Chris Bryant MP speechless.

Ah, Chris Bryant, who is about to bring a Private Members Bill on the proposal to redefine the meaning of marriage to extend to same-sex couples. The debate is scheduled to take place in the House of Commons on October 30th. And doubtless he'll opine about the bigots, Nazis and fascists ranged against his moderate, enlightened and utterly reasonable Bill. It is precisely because the debate is being conducted on such emotive and inflammatory terms that the reality of the consequences of gay marriage may be completely ignored:
“You are summoned to a tribunal where you cannot have a defense lawyer and you cannot record the proceedings nor have a witness present. The people judging and prosecuting you have no legal qualifications. The accusation is ambiguous, having to do with ideas the state does not like. The penalties could include fines equal to several thousands of dollars, public recanting, and rehabilitation classes. You are a bishop. This is not China. This is Canada. The offense: explaining why homosexual relations are a sin.”
So began the address of Terrence Prendergast, Archbishop of Ottawa, to St Thomas University Law School a week ago. He simply set out - calmly and rationally - 'the alarming consequences of same-sex “marriage” from the Canadian experience'.

The Archbishop was recounting the true experiences of Calgary Bishop Fred Henry, who received complaints for preaching the Church’s traditional and historic teachings on homosexuality. The complaint was subsequently dropped by the plaintiff, who admitted that he only filed it to get media attention.

How many Christians will be targeted and harassed by aggressive homosexuals - the homosexualists - simply in order 'to get media attention'? And don't think it's only the Christians: these homosexualists are ferociously unforgiving in condemnation of their dissenting co-sexualists (see here, here and here).

Yes, to the rabid, intolerant homosexualist, a gay person who doesn't support gay marriage is 'like the token Asian guy who wants to be in the BNP'. Nice, huh?

We will doubtless be seeing an awful lot more of this: the Attorney General has warned of the 'profound difficulties' ahead for those who dissent from the state's redefinition of marriage. We will surely see Christian ministers and schoolteachers dragged before commissions and inquisitions, at the end of which they will be found 'guilty'. Their crime will simply have been that of preaching a sermon or delivering a lesson expressing some concern about the gay agenda or casting some doubt upon the validity of gay marriage. They will be arrested, prosecuted, fined or imprisoned. The only means of avoiding this will be self-censorship: the mere discussion of homosexuality will become taboo.

Canada has gone before us. Archbishop Prendergast tells us that gay marriage has resulted in the Bible being called 'hate literature'. Like the Roman Catholic adoption agencies here, there is 'growing pressure for the Church to comply or to be shut down'. Indeed, we've already heard the threats.

The Archbishop enumerates the consequences of same-sex marriages as including 'restrictions on freedoms; forced sex education; sexually confused children; sexual experimentation among children; and muzzling and debilitating the Church'.

“By reassigning financial benefits to same-sex marriage, what was once an incentive to fruitful, traditional families has become an incentive to sterile, destructive social arrangements,” he said.

But Chris Bryant MP will doubtless march on regardless, persuaded that those who oppose him are the real bigots, Nazis and fascists. But do not mistake his agenda merely for that of enlightened equality: he truly desires the disestablishment of the Church of England. And in David Cameron he has found a willing accomplice.

210 Comments:

Blogger Nino said...

Maria Miller gave a speech as Equalities Minister in favour of Gay Marriage at the Tory party conference.

But, she is also Culture Secretary i.e. responsible for the BBC.

She didn't mention the child rape scandal now engulfing the BBC.

Shows the priorities of our governing 'elite', doesn't it?

15 October 2012 at 10:51  
Blogger David B said...

Is there a case for keeping the CoE as the established church in England?

We in Wales do well enough without an established church, bar the fact that some old men in frocks, in a reverse case of the West Lothian question, have an impact on laws affecting us Welsh, usually, IMO, for ill.

If there is any good case for keeping the CoE established I'd very much like to see it, as to date I find such a case conspicuous by its absence.

David B

15 October 2012 at 11:18  
Blogger Preacher said...

Look, it's quite simple. The captain of the Conservative ship has gone mad. The first mate is as daft as a brush. Some of the crew still think he is progressive.
To the rest of the passengers & crew it's obvious that he needs to be sectioned & a sane alternative found, before we hit the reef & sink.
As we ALL will suffer loss if he stays at the helm, will a good sane skipper please stand up & gently do what is necessary to rectify this situation before the good ship Brittania goes belly up & sinks without trace.

Message Ends.

15 October 2012 at 11:21  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Well, good to see us Catholics are back in good odour with Cranmer today, after the curious case of Jimmy Savile and the French Muslim gang-rape. And yes, he's right - homosexualists are scumbags.

15 October 2012 at 11:31  
Blogger graham wood said...

Preacher is right. In a sane world Cameron and his naive acolytes in the NOT THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY, would be sectioned.
At the very least they are mentally unbalanced, ideologically disturbed, and having a very odd 'kink in their think', making them the most obvious political cranks of the age.

More seriously, the Canadaian experience is a warning to us in the UK. Homosexual "marriage" endorsed by the State is the thin end of a very big wedge indeed and Apb Prendergast is correct in his view - "restrictions on freedoms....." & etc as above.

How deeply ironic then that the Bible, or those parts of it quoted from time to time, may qualify for the distorted description of being "hate literature" - A book that uniquely reveals Divine and human love incomparably great.
Strange too for a book which continues to be the greatest best-seller of all time world-wide.

15 October 2012 at 11:47  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Lies, Lies and more Lies.
The more they poor out their poisen, the more likely people will believe them.
I have just suffered at the hands of virolent Lib Dem local councillors over a planning issue. Despite the Planners recomending approval, they dominated the meeting with their lies and spin on the facts and caused confusion where yhere was no confusion.
No Integrity there.

15 October 2012 at 12:14  
Blogger Roy said...

So, the bill to allow same sex marriage is to be introduced by Chris Bryant. Those who don't know much about him might find the article in Wikipedia of interest.

Chris Bryant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Bryant

There are two things in particular that stand out. The first is Chris Bryant's religious background and early political career.

"From 1986 he served as a Curate at the Church of All Saints, High Wycombe and from 1989, as a Youth Chaplain in Peterborough, as well as travelling in Latin America.[2]"

"In 1991 Bryant left the ordained ministry, after deciding that being gay and being a priest were incompatible. Statements made by Richard Harries, the then-Bishop of Oxford also influenced his decision.[2]"

"From 1993 he was Local Government officer for the Labour Party; he lived in Hackney and was elected to Hackney Borough Council in 1993, serving until 1998. He became Chairman of the Christian Socialist Movement.[2] He is also a member of the Labour Friends of Israel group as well as the Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East.[4] From 1994 to 1996 he was London manager of the charity Common Purpose.[5]"

The second point of interest is his role in the expenses scandal.

"Chris Bryant claimed over £92,000 in expenses over the five years leading up to the 2009 scandal over MPs' expenses. During that time he flipped his second-home expenses twice, claimed mortgage interest expenses that started at £7,800 per year before rising (after flipping) to £12,000 per year. He also claimed £6,400 in stamp duty and other fees on his most recent purchase, and £6,000 per year in service charges. A claim that he made for £58,493.26, almost three times the annual maximum, in 2004, was disallowed.[9]"

It seems that self-interest in sexual and financial affairs goes together.

15 October 2012 at 13:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David B

If there is any good case for keeping the CoE established I'd very much like to see it, as to date I find such a case conspicuous by its absence.

I agree. The best thing that could happen to the Church in England is the collapse of the Church of England. But the monarchy would probably collapse as well.

carl

15 October 2012 at 13:18  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

I wouldn't worry so much about these enlightened secularists trying to recast society in the image of their secular god. They aren't the problem. Their success is sustained by an epistemological despair that is propped up only by prosperity. It doesn't have the staying power to last.

The problem is what comes after them. When economic decline and hardship collide with a population inculcated in that despair, that population is going to get angry. It is going to look for some version of truth to explain what happened. It is going to look for leaders to make things right. Then you will get real fascists in the street again. They won't bother with courts.

carl

15 October 2012 at 13:26  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Graham Wood said..."More seriously, the Canadaian experience is a warning to us in the UK. Homosexual "marriage" endorsed by the State is the thin end of a very big wedge indeed"

It is not the thin end of the wedge, it is the dirty, great big thick end. The thin end was no-fault divorce, followed by wedding ceremonies in any trivial setting, followed by civil partnerships.

The slippery-slope argument is very well established. We are at the bottom of the slope and about to fall into the crevasse.

I've heard some argue that should we introduce gay-marriage then we shall come under God's judgement. They are incorrect. What we are witnessing is God's judgement.

15 October 2012 at 13:28  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"We in Wales do well enough without an established church..."
That depends on what you mean by "well".

15 October 2012 at 14:12  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Hang on...if the Bible can be howled down as 'hate literature' what about the Koran? Why is Christian opposition to gay marriage vilified and derided and Moslem opposition passed over without comment? Where are the protesters in favour of gay marriage standing outside the Finsbury Park Mosque...I seem to have missed them?

15 October 2012 at 14:21  
Blogger graham wood said...

Rebel: "It is not the thin end of the wedge, it is the dirty, great big thick end.

We can argue about the degree of harm that SSM will bring, but I contend with others better qualified than I that the full implications SSM are only now being worked out more fully:

It would quickly bring in its train any number of 'inintended consequences', not least of which will be an extension of the suppression of religious liberty, increased persecution of Christian objectors; an entrenchment of State 'direction' of marriage and family life in the future, the potential of State sponsored homosexual sex education in schools, the potential for bigamy, polyamory, and other deviant couplings.... so we could go on.
(leaving aside the almost certain loss of any legal protection for churches under ECHR not to engage in homosexual marriages)

For a thoroughly sound analysis of the implications of SSM, Christian Concern have produced an excellent comprehensive booklet - good for giving to mentally retarded MPs:
"The Truth About Same-Sex Marriage"
www.christianconcern.com

15 October 2012 at 14:24  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Mrs Proudie:

There are people who are critical of both, though barring a couple of noteworth exceptions, the level of bile tends to be vastly toned down in the public arena when it is aimed at Muslims.

Half of the problem is that coverage is pretty low: centrist and lefty media outlets tend to avoid anti-Islamic protests that are likely to be seen as potentially inflammatory whilst right-wing media tends to avoid giving such protest high profile because it doesn't fit the narrative of "we don't criticise Muslims do we?"

There is a serious problem with threats to published criticism of Islam from the usual angry suspects - as the various riots across the world and the Jyllens-Posten affair demonstrate - but I suspect that on a day-to-day basis where criticism is likely to be less provocative this is probably less of an issue than we think it is.

I've been unable to find any coverage of SSM campaigns outside Finsbury Park Mosque - not that that means there haven't been any. But on the other hand, have there been any blockades of churches on Sunday morning? Perhaps with your extensive links at Barchester you can find out?

15 October 2012 at 14:51  
Blogger BeeLZeeBub said...

I think you will find that the Nazis gassed homosexuals in their ovens as well as Jews and the disabled.

Absolutely disgusting comments from so called "christians"

15 October 2012 at 14:55  
Blogger gentlemind said...

Totalitarianism is the promotion of a lie and the supression a truth. The truth then becomes a "lie". Redefining the legal institution of marriage gives a false legal definition of parenthood ie one that does not correspond with physical reality. The institution becomes a tyrant's wet dream: the family becomes a state invention.

15 October 2012 at 15:01  
Blogger Jon said...

To add to what BeeLZeeBub (correctly and righteously) said, let's not forget the disgraceful treatment meted out to gay people in this country (not under the Nazis) but when the "morality" of the Church held uncontested sway.

As just one example, where was the Church's compassion for Alan Turing - a man whose contribution to British society is unquestionable? Let's not pretend your bishops are getting chemically castrated! Hell, they're only being told what most people now regard as the truth. You've been ramming that down people's throats since lightning was a sign that God was angry!

Honestly, the howls of persecution you people emit would be all the more convincing if your ideological forbears weren't such intolerant arseholes (and if more of you had evolved somewhat since). It's remarkable that the very small dose of what you used to give out doesn't fill the rest of us with unrestrainable schadenfreude!

15 October 2012 at 15:26  
Blogger Roy said...

@ Jon,

You are right about Alan Turing. That doesn't mean everything else you say is correct, however. As for lightning being a sign that God is angry you have the wrong god. There are not many worshippers of Thor among readers of this blog.

15 October 2012 at 15:41  
Blogger Ivan said...


Mr Devil, I think you'll find that homosexuals were well represented in Nazi ranks, starting from dear old Ernst Roehm. And who but "butch" homosexuals go around dressed in Nazi paraphernalia today? I agree that effeminate homosexuals had it bad in Nazi Germany but that is largely because they were victimised by the hypermale Nazi thugs. Read for example "The Pink Swastika". For now, homosexuals are the privileged minority of the media, but I predict that in less than ten years we would be hearing horror stories of child abuse among them, just as it has taken this long to acknowledge the rank abuses of the child custodial services in the UK.

Ivan

15 October 2012 at 15:42  
Blogger Flossie said...

BeelZeeBub and John, I think you need to read Johann Hari's article 'The Strange, Strange Story of the Gay Fascists' before you start throwing stones.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-strange-strange-story_b_136697.html

15 October 2012 at 15:44  
Blogger Ivan said...


The Colossus machine at Bletchley worked because of the engineering genius of Tommy Flowers. But nobody remembers him in the same breath as Turing as he was a regular bloke who went home to his wife and kids. Hardly anyone recalls Charles Parsons of Turbinia fame or Oliver Heaviside the cranky electrical genius, or John Snow who stopped cholera or any number of British geniuses from the last centuries, but I expect that English schoolchildren will have it drilled in them that Turing was a homosexual.

Ivan

15 October 2012 at 15:59  
Blogger Tony B said...

'restrictions on freedoms; forced sex education; sexually confused children; sexual experimentation among children; and muzzling and debilitating the Church'.
He missed out terrorist attacks, bubonic plague, marmite-eating and yet another series of strictly come dancing.

15 October 2012 at 16:13  
Blogger Jon said...

No, you're right, Flossie. The fact that some gay people may have been Nazis (in preference, say, to being gassed) totally excuses the institutionalised treatment by the Church of gay people down the centuries. Silly me. It probably also excuses the Catholic Church for its deliberate eye- closing where Nazis were concerned. After all, it's not like the Church asserts that it's better than everyone else.

I also forgot that verse in Ephesians 4, "One colossal wrong and a few pillocks definitely makes a right."

Roy - I'm hardly ever right about everything! (Although I'm fairly sure that the Church sold indulgences across Europe, and we were still encouraged to pray for good weather for harvest when I was a nipper, so paganism isn't dead in the CoE! Was poor weather a sign that God didn't want me to donate my cans of sweetcorn to the poor? I never figured it out.) However, I leave claims of never having been wrong to the German in Rome wearing a dress and a funny hat. After all, he's never been a Nazi or anything. Yeesh!

None of this takes away from the fact that the analogy of people seeing equal marriage to people invading Poland and seeking a "final solution" to the "Jewish problem" takes Godwin's law and laughs at its inadequacy. You people need a new word for hyperbole, your self righteous inflation of your own suffering (as opposed to the genuine suffering some Christians experience elsewhere in the world, and the suffering your Church has meted out in the past) has bankrupted the term. Congrats.

15 October 2012 at 16:16  
Blogger David B said...

@LBS

We in Wales do well enough that I have never heard of one person suggesting that life would be better if we had an established church.

I don't see anyone in this comment thread coming up with any sort of rationale for maintaining an established church in England.

David B

15 October 2012 at 16:19  
Blogger Jon said...

Ivan, I was taught about Turing in Computer Science lessons because of his gifts in that area, rather than as a codebreaker. We were never told he was gay. But then, I grew up when that Conservative and Christian gift to the populace, Section 28, was in force, so no one was allowed to mention gay people, except our history teacher who used to say that crucifixion was too good for them.

He was a good Christian man though, so I guess it was ok. I'm not bitter - I just think he was a tit, but let's not pretend you're having a tough time of it, eh?

Tony B - LOL!

15 October 2012 at 16:19  
Blogger Ivan said...


Jon, take it easy man, this stuff with Turing happened what about sixty years ago and you are still hanging on the cross for it? Its all right to come down now.

15 October 2012 at 16:28  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

About those pricks of ripost, we are all getting tired of the pricks

You are not alone

15 October 2012 at 16:33  
Blogger Jon said...

Ivan - I'm not hanging on a cross for anyone (least of all my history teacher! LOL).

I used Turing as an example, but he was by no means the only one, or the most recent. And I think you know this, as well as being cognisant of the many gay people who died in the Holocaust. As well as being aware of the many gay people around the world who are really persecuted - killed or beaten or forced into sex change operations because of other people's religion.

My main point is that Christians were warned to expect persecution, were they not? Yes. You were.

And is the "persecution" you are currently receiving in the UK anything like as bad as it is in many countries? Or indeed anything like as bad as the persecution the church has meted out in the past? No, it is not.

In fact, could it really be that you're not being persecuted at all?
Is it really just that your political power is waning here? Perhaps it is also time to recognise that what you are suffering is no more than disagreement with your opinion by people who don't share the belief in the scriptural basis from which you draw it.

It is therefore far, very far indeed, from the persecution Christians have experienced elsewhere and in the past here, and would be a soft gig indeed if this is all you ever get hit with before Revelation should come to pass (if you believe that sort of thing).

As such, whatever moral authority the Church still commands is ill served by drawing comparisons between those with whom it disagrees, and Nazis.

15 October 2012 at 16:49  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

You know, I don't always understand Cranmer's stuff immediately, but I do find that reading the links he provides is immensely helpful for doing so:

This one in particular really should be read by anyone who wants to comment on persecution and the Nazis.

15 October 2012 at 16:54  
Blogger Jon said...

AiB, it does make more sense now, and rather makes my last point in my last post look loony (except in the further context of some comments above, to which I should know better than to respond, admittedly). Ah well, not the first time! Sorry, Your Grace!

Having said that, the second half of His Grace's post goes on to point out how gay marriage restricts the freedoms of Bishops, which doesn't invalidate my main point about the Church seeing "persecution" at the heart of every disagreement with modernity. When will the Church accept that not every disagreement is lions in the Coliseum, sometimes, the Church is just wrong.

15 October 2012 at 17:01  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Well Bishops, perhaps, but Cranmer is mainly concerned with ministers, and schoolteachers. I suspect the former is probably not likely to occur - so long as said ministers "behave" and don't have any public presence (another debate for another day) - but the latter seems to be quite probable going on what I know of our education system.

"When will the Church accept that not every disagreement is lions in the Coliseum, sometimes, the Church is just wrong."

I'd certainly agree that not every disagreement in the public sphere is a return to being thrown to the lions, but as to the Church being "just wrong", I suspect we would have very different criteria as to how we might go about determining that. Personally, I regard the Church (of England, or any other) as being "just wrong" when it departs from sound doctrine not for any great reason motivated by a desire to serve God, but to better emulate the world around it.

15 October 2012 at 17:10  
Blogger Anglican said...

With the urge for total 'equality' in everything, how long before we have 'paedophile pride' marches? Don't laugh - it could well happen.

15 October 2012 at 17:21  
Blogger BeeLZeeBub said...

"With the urge for total 'equality' in everything, how long before we have 'paedophile pride' marches? Don't laugh - it could well happen."

And the churches know all about that.

Don't they.

15 October 2012 at 17:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This country has significant form when it comes to appeasing fascism. So it should come as no surprise that the old magic is still there.

One wonders how many advocates or non objectors, to be more accurate, of gay marriage which our current British Union of Gay Fascists are using to subvert society are holding their position only in the hope that after they get it, the uprising will come to an end.

Well it won’t. Here’s why. It’s just the start. Not a small start, an impressive one, but it is the start all the same.

The day same sex marriage is made legal is the day homosexuality goes mainstream in this country. The late Mr T Higgins' gang of buggers awaits the off.

And what, in no particular order, comes next…

First. Demands that ‘homosexual education’ in this country is firmly fixed to the curriculum. Your child will know more about sodomy than you do.

Second. Demands that teachers must submit to a ‘gay positive’ licence. Lose the licence and you no longer teach. That will be an annual appraisal.

Third. Demands that each school has a full time ‘opportunities officer’. To counsel the enormous number of children who are really gay as well as policing the above.

Fourth. Demands that gay school children receive an ‘enhanced’ education to prepare them for a career in a gay positive society. No point changing society to the benefit of homosexuals unless the up and coming gay generations don’t keep it going.

Fifth. Demands of gay representation EVERYWHERE. Similar to ‘positive’ discrimination for the half the population who are female, but here’s the daft bit…

Estimated homosexual population in the UK, 1.5% (Not 25%, Not 15%, just 1.5%). 1.5% are attempting to hi-jack 98.5%. Think it can’t happen. Too far fetched you believe. Well, it’s happening now, and if you don’t like it, you are a “hateful bigot and a wicked Christian”

Damned remarkable !

(The Inspector, in his research, wishes to acknowledge the many www articles written by distinguished types, gay and not, which both alarmed and stupefied him)

15 October 2012 at 18:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

There are at least two contributors here who quite fancy criminalising homosexual acts again. Bear that in mind.

15 October 2012 at 18:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



DanJ0. This man isn’t one of them, but you can understand fellows being so ‘gayed out’ by the constant strife you people cause that a ‘lasting and final solution’ must seem extremely attractive to them.





15 October 2012 at 19:13  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

David B

"We in Wales do well enough without an established church"

David my experience of the Welsh Church (Church in Wales) in the Carmarthen area is that it is almost completely dead. (Yes I do attend a Church in Wales in my local village. )

With a very small number of exceptions (The growing churches I know about are all conservative evangelical) this seems to be the case throughout Wales.

The Welsh Church is an advert for decline and in the main how not to run a Church. It saddens me that the AOW is selecting the new AOC. Barry Morgan is on record as wanting to appoint a Homosexual Bishop and introduce other pagan practices that have done so much to revitalise and reverse the decline of TEC.

My local vicar (growing Church but the only one growing for miles) states privately that most of his colleagues do not believe the Gospel message, in fact (like Cameron?) they do not seem to believe in anything!

Phil

15 October 2012 at 20:05  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

David B

"We in Wales do well enough without an established church"

David my experience of the Welsh Church (Church in Wales) in the Carmarthen area is that it is almost completely dead. (Yes I do attend a Church in Wales in my local village. )

With a very small number of exceptions (The growing churches I know about are all conservative evangelical) this seems to be the case throughout Wales.

The Welsh Church is an advert for decline and in the main how not to run a Church. It saddens me that the AOW is selecting the new AOC. Barry Morgan is on record as wanting to appoint a Homosexual Bishop and introduce other pagan practices that have done so much to revitalise and reverse the decline of TEC.

My local vicar (growing Church but the only one growing for miles) states privately that most of his colleagues do not believe the Gospel message, in fact (like Cameron?) they do not seem to believe in anything!

Phil

15 October 2012 at 20:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Phil. Mother church awaits you. All you have to do is walk and bring the faithful with you...



15 October 2012 at 20:27  
Blogger John Magee said...

Nothing new here. Anyone who knows history is aware that the goal of the radical left is to destroy the moral fiber of Western Christian Civilization. This has been true since the time of the Russian Revolution and before that the French Revolution. What better way to do it than redefine marriage. Their dream of dreams comes true which has always been to wreck the concept of the traditional family and do it with the help of the government and they managed to do it over the issue of gay "marriage". Now they can set about reinventing morality and create a new world for us because they know what's best.

And we better like it or else!

However there is that pesky problem of Islam the left will have to deal sooner or later when Muslims become sizable minorities or the majority... Then the sparks will fly.

15 October 2012 at 22:01  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Yes Danj0 a spell in Her Majesty's accommodation might cool the ardour of you homosexual militants. You might not be quite so keen on pursuing your destructive and degrading agendas for our society once you realise how good you've currently got things.

15 October 2012 at 23:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Homosexual Facists? Surely not!

"The twisted truth is that gay men have been at the heart of every major fascist movement that ever was - including the gay-gassing, homo-cidal Third Reich. With the exception of Jean-Marie Le Pen, all the most high-profile fascists in Europe in the past thirty years have been gay. It's time to admit something. Fascism isn't something that happens out there, a nasty habit acquired by the straight boys. It is - in part, at least - a gay thing, and it's time for non-fascist gay people to wake up and face the marching music."

(www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-strange-strange-story_b_136697.html)

16 October 2012 at 01:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

The leaders of the Third Reich were guilty of many things, but I have never seen any credible historical evidence of homosexuality against anyone but Ernst Röhm. Nazi ideology was explicitly pronatalist. Read this to see what I mean. This was a booklet given to German students at the end of their formal education.

You and Your People

Historical accuracy is important. To accuse the leaders of the Third Reich of homosexuality, you need evidence. There isn't any. Someone would have chronicled it by now. Someone would have chronicled it then. It would have been an easy way to impeach Hitler and his whole movement.

carl

16 October 2012 at 03:04  
Blogger Ivan said...


There you go again Dodo, confounding people with facts. Mr Devil already knows this but his sidekicks appear confused.

16 October 2012 at 03:12  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

dodo

There are of course many alternative viewpoints

http://www.amazon.com/Pink-Swastika-1998-publication/dp/0964760932

The above being just one, which suggests that macho homosexuality was rife in the Nazi Party and that senior members were homosexual.

The argument that is suggested in many places is that "Macho and feminine gays" are at opposite ends of the gay spectrum and consequently hate each other. Thus accounting for the hatred of the Nazis to a certain type of homosexual, whilst being in the main homosexual themselves.

Sounds reasonable to me, but I have never understood the Nazis or why the Germans fought and supported the war for so long even when it was hopeless.

Phil





16 October 2012 at 03:13  
Blogger Ivan said...


carl maybe you ought to read the Pink Swastika for starters.
Nazi ideology was Janus faced, for ordinary Germans it was Kinder, Kuche, Kirche, at least until Hitler could deliver the coup de grace to the churches. For the elites, they pretty much made the rules as they went along, for who could rule the Superman? These days any frat clubs where boys will be gays feature Nazi schlock, perhaps they know something you don't?

16 October 2012 at 03:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Ivan

I have read the Pink Swastika. It's available online, and it's quite frankly execrable history. "Somebody once heard someone say that Hitler shared a room with another man." There wasn't a primary source insight.

carl

16 October 2012 at 03:34  
Blogger Ivan said...


Carl, as explained in the same book or (perhaps elsewhere as I cannot now recall) the primary sources, being records of an institute of sexuality were destroyed and its director killed or sent to the camps. In any case, homosexuality being a particularly shameful condition in that era was not productive of a paper trail. This is similar to British Empire types who weep over the Bible on Sundays and go whoring over the week, there is no paper trail there either. Hitler was not the only Nazi and all biographies agree that in general he did not interfere in the personal life of the top Nazis. The thesis that homosexuals were accepted among the Nazis does not stand or fall on his behaviour.

I accept that you asked for specific evidence about the leading Nazis and this does not exist in a documented form. However for our purposes, specifically to stymie the incessant efforts of the homosexual lobbies to as it were obtain the indulgences of the Holocaust, it is sufficient to show that certain types of homosexuals were welcome in the Nazi Party and that the perverse among made full use of the apparatus of the camps, prisons, and other instruments of oppression to engage in horrific abuse of the weak and dispossessed.

Ivan

16 October 2012 at 04:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Ivan.

it is sufficient to show that certain types of homosexuals were welcome in the Nazi Party

You admit that there is no primary source to sustain the charge. Then you assert that it is sufficient to show that homosexuals were welcome in the Nazi party. If there is no primary documentation, then how can you show it? How do you know that all the primary documentation was destroyed if you can't proove the basic facts of the case to begin with? How do you know it ever existed?

The Nazis sent homosexuals to the camps. You can't just assert 'self-loathing homosexuals' and consider the case closed.

carl

16 October 2012 at 05:13  
Blogger John Magee said...

Himmler and his SS feared the nearly 3 million SA members as competition to become Hitler's private army and wipe out the SS. During the so called "Night of the Long Knives" June30/July 1 1934 Ernst Rohm was arrested at a hotel at Bad Wiessee on Lake Tegernsee in the Bavarian Alps along with his gay pals at the hotel and also innocent people Hitler wanted rid of all over Germany and were executed that night too.

Rohm was found in bed, by Hitler and SS men, with his boyfriend and later shot probably by Hitler. The Hotel Hanselbauer that night was full of SA men with their boyfriends. A Nazi "gay" weekend was planned for the SA boys with nude bathing in the Tegernsee and other debauchery planned for their evening fun and games. In fact the SA leadership was infested with Nazi Gay men. Rohm's chauffeur was also his male lover. From everything I have read Hitler never had any prejudices against Gays until Himmler came along. Rumors have it that while in Vienna as a young man while living in flop houses trying to sell his amateur water colors during the day to tourists Hitler sometimes, when he was broke, was a male prostitute at night. That's a revolting concept. Hitler the young male whore.

During WW I his mates in the German trenches of the Western Front thought he was weird, a prude, and a monumental bore who never drank or told dirty jokes as most soldiers do.

The irony of history is that neither Rohm nor the SA leaders had any particular hatred of Jews and thought the anti Semite Himmler with his master race and worship of Nordic gods obsessions was a crack pot. It would have been interesting had the SA had destroyed the SS in 1934 because there is a good chance they would have "softened" Hitler's anti Semitism. We'll never know because all that changed on the night of June 30, 1934.

If anyone looks at Nazi art from the period... carl jacobs be forewarned and cover your eyes if you ever happen to have the opportunity to see any... it is homoerotic and glorifies the nude male body, muscle bound semi nude men at work on Nazi public works projects of all kinds and of course soldiers in and out of uniform showing their perfect Germanic physiques. Nazi art also glorified female nude bodies but they all looked like men with large boobies (later in the 1960s these types of the ideal German female used to be seen on the East German Olympic teams) as well as all those boring romantic German landscapes and the ant hill that was Nazi Germany in the 1930s: rallies, parades, military acivities of all types.

I am positive Hitler never had sex with any woman and definately not with his long time pet Eva Braun. This sweet Bavarian Catholic girl, who was atcually very pretty as anyone can see in her color home movies and photo albums, was born with the extremely rare condition called Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser Syndrome meaning she was born without a vagina or a uterus. I read about this possibility years ago and it has been confirmed by recent discoveries of her gynecological records in the medical files of her Munich gynecologist who performed operations in the 1930s to give her an artifical vagina.

16 October 2012 at 05:20  
Blogger Ivan said...


Carl, I accept that the evidence presented does not meet your standards, it is sufficient for my purposes. Note that the aforementioned "Pink Swastika" has first hand testimony from those who were abused

John,
Hitler wished to be seen as a Jesus Christ figure, just as all Catholics are part of Jesus' Body and all nuns share a spiritual marriage to Christ, the creep Hitler wanted a marriage with all German women, thus he didn't regularise his relationship to Eva Braun. The creep had vaulting ambition.
Eva

16 October 2012 at 06:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie, there's a certain irony given the context of the thread and some of the comments that you can say stuff like that and none of the Christians say a word.

16 October 2012 at 08:19  
Blogger len said...

John Magee , agree with your comment (15 October 2012 22:01)

The enemy of mankind (Satan) has opposed God throughout History.
Whatever he cannot kill he corrupts.

There is a definite attempt to destroy our Christian foundations.The 'shock troops' being used to accomplish this are aggressive atheists,homosexuals,and those who(with the best of intentions) are the advocates of 'Human Rights' the Rights of Man etc, 'woolly minded 'liberals.

We battle not against 'flesh and blood' but against Powers and Principalities evil spirits in high places', and those mentioned above are willing 'tools'in this satanic mission.

It is rather ironic that Satan uses atheists and those in 'godless religions' to bring about his purposes(I expect this amuses him )

Most of those who oppose Christianity do it with their 'self' in mind and Satan is the master of all those who promote 'self' over God. It was so in the beginning and has remained so ever since.

16 October 2012 at 08:24  
Blogger William said...

Marie - Throwing militant homosexualists in prison would probably stem their attacks on the family, but it would be wrong. All we can do, I think, is to highlight the destruction to marriage that SSM will bring. And, of course, continue to highlight the tyranical behaviour of the government in pushing for this.

John Magee @22:01 - good comment.

16 October 2012 at 09:43  
Blogger gentlemind said...

Thanks Len.

The opposer is opposing nature/god. The father of the lie is lying about our very bodies. A man and a woman can marry each other whilst all alone on a beach at night. No witness needed, just the bodies of a man and a woman. No other combination of bodies can do this. Only one force has the power to invent another type of marriage: politics. And politics is in the hands of the slanderer.

16 October 2012 at 09:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William, it's not just 'militant homosexuals' she quite fancies throwing in prison, she thinks homosexuality should be made illegal. I presume she means homosexual acts there but, well, who knows? From past conversations, Dodo has similar inclinations too. I mean illiberal, not homosexual. He has quite a 'collectivist' streak in him, presumably from his understanding of Roman Catholicism.

16 October 2012 at 10:18  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

It's perfectly clear that the assault on marriage is part of a wider agenda which includes the disestablishment of the Church of England, which will indicentally (and not at all co-incidentally) take down or utterly degrade the Monarchy.

Her Majesty is no doubt aware of this, and that the call for disestablishment and abolition is mainly waiting for her passing. She4 also knows that many Christians (as well as Diana worshippers) will not endure her adulterous, spiritually vague heir Charles as head of the established church. That's presumably why the dutiful and well loved lady is 'Titoing on'. Apres moi le deluge indeed.

However, there may be some positive outcomes from disestablishment. It would involve the plain recognition that England is now a pagan country. Which it is. It would mean that the likes of Giles Fraser, Rowan Atkinson (sorry, Williams) and various others of their ilk could stop pretending to believe the Bible and 39 articles. And it would also mean that people who falsely believe they are Christians because they were sprinkled as babies would be disabused. Yes its true that our national descent would be accelerated, but so what? If teh ship were more visibly sinking people might be more anxiouos to make for the lifeboat, which is Christ, not the Anglican church.

If I can be forgiven for using this cliche, disestablishment would be a 'wake up call' for believers who are currently slumbering when they should be girding up their loins to resist the enemies of Christ whose forces are gathering, preparing and organising for the coming storm.

Faithful Anglicans might look better if they embraced disestablishment now rather than have it forced on us later. It would certainly be a more honourable alternative to being forced to accept God-mocking pretended marriages of homosexuals in church.

16 October 2012 at 10:33  
Blogger William said...

gentlemind

What an elegant mind you have.

16 October 2012 at 10:34  
Blogger John Magee said...

Ivan

For an interesting insight into the Muslim pals Hitler had during WW II please look up Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini the former Muslim Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Haj Muhammed al-Husseini spent most of WW II in Berlin in close contact with Heinrich Himmler and other Nazi cultists and leaders. He and often met with Hitler to discuss the "Jewish problem" and discuss Islam and the Koran which Hitler admired as a hard religion that admired war (Jihad) verses a weak and effeminate Christianity Hitler loathed. Al- Husseini also broadcast pro Nazi propanganda to the Arab world on the Arab version of Deutschlandsender (Germany's long wave radio service) and was known to have visited Auschwitz on a VIP "tour" on at least one occasion and was impressed. I bet he was considering he agreed with the Nazi "final solution"! Haj Amin al -Husseini managed to escape Nazi Germany in 1945 and fled to Egypt to avoid being tried as a war criminal at Nuremberg and later became friends with Anwar Sadat, Nassar, and Yasser Arafat and he kept in touch with the Muslim Brotherhood until he died in 1974.

Most importantly the Muslim Brotherhood worked with the Nazi’s during World War II, as Hassan al Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928)was fond of Hitler. Under the guidance of Muslim Brotherhood Haj Amin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti (senior Islamic Jurist) of Jerusalem, the Muslim Brotherhood created an all Muslim SS Division within the Nazi’s Third Reich in the Balkans.

The Muslim Brotherhood created an all Muslim Nazi SS Division in Boznia and Kosovar in 1943 and helped the Nazi SS to kill over 900,000 Serbian Orthodox Christians and 20,000 Serbian Jews.

Why isn't the Muslim Brotherhood's Nazi SS connections mentioned today? I guess because bringing this unpleasant to the attention of the Western public today would spoil the "Arab Spring" movement yet look how it's turned out since last year. The Muslim Brotherhood is dominating it in Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere.

The MB had sympathy and even cooperated with Nazi Germany during WW II and people are surprised it was behind 911, 7/7, Madrid, etc and now we see the MB take over of the so called "Arab spring" and people are surprised?

Those of us who knew all about the Muslim Brotherhood Nazi connections aren't.

16 October 2012 at 10:35  
Blogger William said...

Steve

Can we have more ramblings from you please. That was first class.

16 October 2012 at 10:47  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

The Church has never instituted anti-sodomy laws in civic law in the UK. It was (and is) part of canon law - like adultery in fact - and thus was always "illegal" for Christians, with breaches resulting in everything up to the harshest punishment of Excommunication, but almost always requiring lengthy sentences of penance from one's confessor (also just like adultery).

In that sense, Christendom was far less harsh than the Roman Empire - which made it a public offense, punishable in civic courts with sentences up to death. That's because, unlike the Pagan Romans, the Church's primary concern was the salvation of the soul and the restitution of the individual to the Body of Christ.

The first civic clamp down on sodomy (I use that term by the way because that was the crime: the concept of homosexuality not existing as we understand it) was by Henry VIII, and did indeed include the death penalty in 1533. However, as I'm often saying, when the State/Crown got involved in morality it was often for highly political reasons. No change there, I suppose.

The majority of those early convictions under the 1533 and successive acts were... monks, nuns, priests, and recusant Catholics. Unsurprisngly, this is the period where there is a sudden flurry of allegations about immoral conduct of the clergy, which handily coincided with stripping them of their power and property, with pretty much all of it defaulting to the State/Crown. And why might that be? Well, because in a "capital crime" a convicted person defaulted their property to the Crown, even if they were spared the death penalty. Indeed, the law emphasises the distraining aspects of any sentence, rather than the death penalty.

Europe had, as it usually did, much harsher laws than in England - not least because most countries inherited their law rather more directly than the Anglo-Saxons did from Rome, with many of the revisions in the 13th Century deliberately invoking Roman precedent to tackle perceived softness in the law. Even then, its implementations was infrequent, and more often than not coincided conveniently with political machinations (i.e. for when a group needed to be had on "trumped up" charges). The fact that there seems to have been quite a fair degree of unpunished sodomy amongst Europe's elite suggests that punishment had more to do with falling out of favour - a situation quite reminiscent of Hari's take on Facist Gays linked by Flossie above.

That doesn't of course refute the fact that both here and on the Continent, for much of our history, sodomy has been illegal, nor is it untrue to say that people have been executed under those charges. But it's a good deal more complicated than the idea that the Church went around hunting down gays, or that the legislation was primarily implemented to deal with homosexuality. Rather like the relative paucity of charges brought against certain groups under Equality Legislation, there were more than a few groups, cliques, and cabals who not only got away with sodomy but were open about it, because they enjoyed a privileged status (even if it often coincided with being feared/loathed by others). And as with most laws, the ordinary man on the street didn't much come into it unless his neighbour or his Lord brought him to court.

16 October 2012 at 11:44  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Rambling Steve:

"Faithful Anglicans might look better if they embraced disestablishment now rather than have it forced on us later. It would certainly be a more honourable alternative to being forced to accept God-mocking pretended marriages of homosexuals in church."

If I thought the CofE had the cojones to disestablish itself in protest against a worldly government, I'd be singing in the street.

It's actually a little unfair of me though: the power to do so primarily resides with the Bishops, and would require that most unlikely of events: an agreement between the Houses of Clergy and Laity. Even some of the more sound Bishops would baulk, I think, at doing so for fear that they were acting out of personal affront rather than in the good of the Church. When disestablishment inevitably comes, what will be really interesting is to see who stays, and who abandons for directorships and columns in the Guardian. My guess is, take away the allure of the establishment, and most of the political hangers-on will just switch to mainstream politics.

16 October 2012 at 11:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One remembers reading in the 1970s that the British National Front was being run by a crowd of benders. Foremost being an individual named Tyndal

16 October 2012 at 16:30  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

A possible insight into the link between homosexuality and facism:

"Gay pornographer and film-maker Bruce LaBruce has one explanation. He claims that:

' ... all gay porn today is implictly fascist. Fascism is in our bones, because it's all about glorifying white male supremacy and fetishizing domination, cruelty, power and monstrous authority figures.'"

(Johann Hari)

Of course, those wearing gold lame hotpants and saying "Lordy!" would not fit into this category.

DanJ0

Just for the record, I would like to see the promotion of homosexuality, especially to children and teenagers, made illegal. Also, I would not permit homosexual adoption and, frankly, question the merits of civil partnerships given that it gives public respectability to something I see as harmful to the greater good.

As for homosexual acts, I accept these must be tolerated (not respected or given equivalence toheterosexual acts) as private acts between individuals - preferably in their own homes and not the homes of Christians who run bed and breakfast establishments or hotels.

16 October 2012 at 17:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah Dodo. You’re a Section 28 man. How marvellous, so is the Inspector !

16 October 2012 at 17:37  
Blogger John Magee said...

Belfast

Coming from the Episcopal (Anglican) tradition it makes me sad to have to write the following things.

Only 50 years ago the concept of priestesses in the C of E would have been unthinkable and to say back then within our lifetime we would seriously discuss giving homosexuals the "right" to be "married" by a priestess would have made the average man or woman on the street laugh. Or, if they saw the theological storms coming, weep. No one could in 1962 could have imagined the Episcopal Church (Anglican)in the USA ordaining openly gay priests and consecrating an openly Gay bishop. This has already happened.

A Church that claims it's all things to all people will gradually fulfill that claim and weaken itself into extinction.

The C of E is Catholic with a small c as defined in the dictionary:

catholic - broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.

The RC's is Catholic with a capital C:

Catholic - often capitalized: of, relating to, or forming the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it.

We are witnessing a great Protestant Christian Church commit churchacide.

As an observer of this C of E self inflicted tragedy it makes me very sad because it's part of my heritage I see slowly dying during my lifetime.

Thank God the Rock of Rome will be there as always to withstand the gathering storms that will only get worse. This great Church has weathered every possible catastrophe since Pentecost and will continue to endure them until Christ returns.

@ Inspector

Too bad religious orders have age limits. I am at that stage in life where I would gladly give up all I have and ask the Carmelites to let me into their cloister even if I could wash dishes for them. It's a thought.

Back to reality. I have tons of golden sugar maple leaves to rake into the street. We used to be allowed to burn autumn leaves. How wonderful the smell was on a cold day. Can't do that anymore. Now a nasty noisy truck with a gigantic vacuum cleaner sucks the leaves up.

I assume it's full blown autumn in the Cotswold too.

Chilly autumn weather here means hunting season for most men and boys. Deer, pheasant, and grouse.

16 October 2012 at 17:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Age limit, ? new one on me John

This man lives a few miles from Prinknash (pronounced ‘prinnish’ ) Abbey. Benedictine set in wonderful landscape. Spent a retreat there in the 1990. Plenty of monks in their 70s and 80s. at the time. The prior told me that many were ex WWII men, who went into the order straight after the war. Didn’t have any lines on their face ! The bald ones looked like giant babies.

Send the abbot an email and check it out. Of course, one would expect they wouldn’t be interested if you spent most of the day sat on the commode like Blofeld, but if you were able bodied they could use you. They even have honorary monks. Can’t remember the actual name, but comes from the Latin for friend, I think I recall. Being married is no bar to that either.



16 October 2012 at 18:00  
Blogger William said...

Dodo

"Of course, those wearing gold lame hotpants and saying "Lordy!" would not fit into this category."

I have a confession to make. This made my laugh out loud. Mea culpa.

16 October 2012 at 18:12  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Gentlemen,

It could be worse- a Gold lame mankini

16 October 2012 at 18:33  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Well, I for one would oppose the view that simply as a result of being gay, you should be put into prison, for that is the tone of the third reich. And I'd put put into gaol.

I don't agree with SSM, but am fully supportive of those who wish to have civil partnerships (hetro and gay), although I wouldn't do that myself being a gay- but religious -Jew.

16 October 2012 at 18:52  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

"a Gold lame mankini" LOL...I think Danjo has better taste than that!

16 October 2012 at 18:53  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oh no he hasn't .... !

16 October 2012 at 19:00  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

William

Not a grevious sin; three Our Father's and a Hail Mary should just about cover it.

16 October 2012 at 19:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "As for homosexual acts, I accept these must be tolerated (not respected or given equivalence toheterosexual acts) as private acts between individuals - preferably in their own homes and not the homes of Christians who run bed and breakfast establishments or hotels."

At one time, you were siding with Lord Devlin. A dangerous position, perhaps, since something similar could be used against Catholicism.

16 October 2012 at 19:11  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

As a Jew, I do not agree that some one should be locked up for simply being homosexual. I think there are issues being confused here- those who wish to have a legitimate debate surrounding ssm and the people who just don't like homosexual people full stop and will jump upon any bangwagon to prove the point.

16 October 2012 at 19:31  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"A dangerous position, perhaps, since something similar could be used against Catholicism."

Yep, that pretty much nails the issue on its head, as that's more or less what the origins of the legislation are.

16 October 2012 at 19:49  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

david

"As a Jew, I do not agree that some one should be locked up for simply being homosexual. I think there are issues being confused here- those who wish to have a legitimate debate surrounding ssm and the people who just don't like homosexual people full stop..."

There are no homosexual people, just people who choose to indulge in homosexual acts.

Phil

16 October 2012 at 19:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

AIB: "Yep, that pretty much nails the issue on its head, as that's more or less what the origins of the legislation are."

Huh?

16 October 2012 at 19:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "There are no homosexual people, just people who choose to indulge in homosexual acts."

Flat earther alert!

16 October 2012 at 19:58  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Phil,

Tell that to my sister- you are rather justifying my previous comments.

16 October 2012 at 20:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Devlin's argument that a society depends on the maintenance of shared moral values seems sound.

We're witnessing the effects of loosening the Christian bonds that have provided the social glue of our society.

In principle, an enforced morality that, in certain situations, overrides personal or private judgment, isn't wholly unreasonable.

I would not go so far as Devlin in arguing for the eradication of homosexuality.

16 October 2012 at 20:05  
Blogger John Magee said...

Inspector

Thank you for mentioning Prinknash Abbey. I've heard of it and will look it up on the internet and read it's history and view photos.

On two visits to Britain since the 1980's we visited Pluscarden Benedictine Abbey near Elgin in Scotland. My father's mother was a Scot and I still have distant relatives there. Later, during visit to the West Country in England, not far from where you live, we visited Downside Abbey and boys school south of Bath and a place that really impressed me. Buckfast Abbey near Plymouth.

Not far from where I live in Pennsylvania is St Vincent's Archabbey the oldest Benedictine Abbey in the USA founded by German Benedictine Monks from from the 7th century Benedictine Monastery at Metten in Bavaria. The monks run a conservative Catholic college and have had no problem with vocations.

Please look it up on your search as well as photos:

St Vincent's Archabbey Latrobe

I am not sure but I think Rome has age requirements for admittance to religious orders. Do you know about this?

Just read Prinknash was founded by former Anglican monks. Interesting. Also, the monks often celebrate "Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite". What does that mean? The Latin Mass? There are lots of beautiful photos of Prinknash Abbey to view Inspector.

Thank you for a new addition to my list of monasteries I am so fond of discovering... and how to pronounce it's name correctly too.

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

DanJ0:

Anti-sodomy laws introduced to target Catholics in order to strip them of property for Henry VIII. In other words: not just what might happen, but historically what did happen.

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

Dodo: "In principle, an enforced morality that, in certain situations, overrides personal or private judgment, isn't wholly unreasonable."

Well, Henry VIII would probably agree with you.

"I would not go so far as Devlin in arguing for the eradication of homosexuality."

Or wear pink triangles on the outside of our clothes, you said, presumably alluding to yellow stars. Thanks for that.

16 October 2012 at 20:13  
Blogger John Magee said...

David

Before you lecture Christians about homosexual behavior read what the Torah says about homosexuals and their sexual activities:

KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Jesus Christ never condoned nor did he condemn homosexuality.

Which Bible is more tolerant?

16 October 2012 at 20:14  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

John,

We've been over this before & have explain it to you before, so you won't find any chance to point score on that issue I'm afraid.

16 October 2012 at 20:16  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

John,

Forgot to add.

You said :

"Jesus Christ never condoned nor did he condemn homosexuality."

I do not know what Jesus did or did not say on the matter, although I am surprised that so many Christians are pouring such, ahem, scorn on homosexuality on this blog if he sit on the fence on this issue.

Indeed perhaps your post was addressing your fellow Christians, such as Phil Roberts, Marie, Inspector etc.

16 October 2012 at 20:20  
Blogger William said...

David Kavanagh

"I think there are issues being confused here- those who wish to have a legitimate debate surrounding ssm and the people who just don't like homosexual people full stop and will jump upon any bangwagon to prove the point."

Good summary, although there is another group that occasionally manifests itself - if you substitute "homosexual people" with "religious people" you will find it.

16 October 2012 at 20:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

John for Roman rite, read Tridentine. Have just sent a message to the abbot...


Dear Father Abbot

I have just informed a fellow blogger, John Magee of the USA, about your abbey. I thought it would be good form to look up your website
to see what he’ll be viewing. I am absolutely delighted to find the Tridentine Mass is said there, particularly the first Sunday of the month
service. I haven’t attended the Tridentine for twenty years. It was frowned on then officially and I went to Prestbury Hall, Prestbury,
Cheltenham to hear it. Being 53, I am fortunate to be of an age to remember it before the ‘new’ rite.

Would you kindly confirm the next first Sunday.

Incidentally, I went on retreat to Prinknash for a few days in July 1990, staying at the 1972 abbey. I think I remember the prior at that time
being a Father Francis. Possibly the same man I am now addressing ?

Now, I know that responding to emails takes much of a busy man’s time so all I would need is the date asked for. I truly mean that.

Sincerely

16 October 2012 at 20:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

AIB: "Anti-sodomy laws introduced to target Catholics in order to strip them of property for Henry VIII. In other words: not just what might happen, but historically what did happen."

Oh I see what you're talking about now.

I was thinking about Devlin's stance which has a 'collectivist' feel to it, favouring majority rule over individual autonomy and freedom.

If the majority (or its paternalistic leader) decides that (say) Catholicism is immoral or socially divisive then it's reasonable to eradicate it. We've seen that to some extent too.

16 October 2012 at 20:34  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

William

An interesting view- that SSM is basically the proxy war between atheists/secularists and the Christian/Religious faiths. Perhaps this is true, especially given the loathing on each side of the other.

(Just in case you are interested, I disagree with SSM, but I dislike the tone of the debate- in much the same way as Lord Carey said recently, although he got misquoted and therefore vilified).

16 October 2012 at 20:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

David: "An interesting view- that SSM is basically the proxy war between atheists/secularists and the Christian/Religious faiths"

I don't think it's as clear as that. I think militant religionists are using the issue of same-sex marriage as a rallying point to try to reassert religion in a largely apathetic society, and that the Christian version are hoping that Christianity will be the dominant religion afterwards in our mixed religious society. I reckon it's a last ditch effort and likely to fail. If it does succeed then I think that dominance is not assured either.

16 October 2012 at 20:44  
Blogger William said...

David

"An interesting view- that SSM is basically the proxy war between atheists/secularists and the Christian/Religious faiths. Perhaps this is true, especially given the loathing on each side of the other."

Well given that there was virtually no pressure to introduce SSM before our beloved leader told us that it was the conservative thing to do, I think that has indeed become a proxy for many people.

16 October 2012 at 20:46  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

David

"I do not know what Jesus did or did not say on the matter, although I am surprised that so many Christians are pouring such, ahem, scorn on homosexuality on this blog if he sit on the fence on this issue."

Jesus did not sit on the fence on this issue, and most Christians like me are glad that it is one sin that they do need to ask forgiveness for.

Doesn't make the choice to practice homosexual behavior acceptable to God, it is still a sin. Like all sins, if requested, forgivable and the sinner made clean.

If you choose the other road you reject God and salvation. Simple! Hope the "pleasure" now is worth it!

Phil

16 October 2012 at 21:05  
Blogger William said...

DanJ0

"I think militant religionists are using the issue of same-sex marriage as a rallying point to try to reassert religion in a largely apathetic society"

I know you have a very low opinion of "religious people", but at least credit them with a hint of strategic nouse, because this supposed plan is utterly bonkers.

Here's an alternative hypothesis: religious people think that marriage is important and that SSM will dilute critical aspects of it to the detriment of us all. By the way, I know of at least one religious person who thinks this.

16 October 2012 at 21:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William, I note you've swapped 'militant religionists' for 'religious people' there.

16 October 2012 at 21:08  
Blogger William said...

DanJ0

Swap it back if you like.

16 October 2012 at 21:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'll just go with my original and point out that you're sliding the meaning for your own ends, thanks.

16 October 2012 at 21:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I try to be consistent though I no doubt fail over time on a colloquial medium like this. It gets tedious forever qualifying "religious" with "some", though I try to do it regularly to make up. By "the religious", I mean something broader, though not every religious person. By "religionist" I usually mean people who are politically active in pushing religion, and quite likely to be zealots. By "militant religionist" I mean aggressive or particularly strident versions of a "religionist".

16 October 2012 at 21:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

As for the plan, I think it's part of a larger agenda by fringe 'right-wing' Christians in particular and militant religionists in general. They're pushing a narrative that Christians are being persecuted in the UK and trying to get cases before the Supreme Court. Watching the Christian Institute website over time shows this quite well, I think. Also, the plethora of fringe organisations linking together to give the appearance of breadth and cohesion is quite interesting. It's quite incestuous when you try to track down where the funding comes from, who maintains the websites, who the directors are, and so on. It gets a bit like Windrush Ventures when you get into it.

16 October 2012 at 21:28  
Blogger gentlemind said...

Phil, you are right to say that homosexuality only exists at the level of the act, not the actor. The act represents a schism between mind and body. All bodies are heterosexual. Their logic is revealed in relation to the opposite sex, and denied in relation to the same sex - as evidenced by the fact that, when two women try to relate sexually, they may as well both have the bodies of girls, or boys, or men.
It is important to remember that moral evaluations do not change physical reality. A marriage can only ever be achieved by one man and one woman, regardless of our personal moral take on homosexual acts. The nature of homosexuality is an issue separate from the issue of the nature of marriage.

16 October 2012 at 21:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

gentlemind: "Phil, you are right to say that homosexuality only exists at the level of the act, not the actor. The act represents a schism between mind and body. All bodies are heterosexual."

Where you fall flat on your face is that people are a composite of mind and body, and sexual attraction falls into the realms of the mind. Hence: homosexual and heterosexual people. I'm 100% homosexual in that I have no sexual attraction to women and never have had despite desperate attempts in my mid-teens to conform.

16 October 2012 at 21:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Just for you DanJ0 I'd drop the requirement to wear a pink triangle, just so long as you keep the gold lame hotpants.

16 October 2012 at 21:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm thinking of meeting you halfway, Dodo. What about these given you seem thrilled with my pisstake now? Inspector, don't click the link whatever you do as you'll end up having those troublesome dreams again.

16 October 2012 at 22:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Homosexuality as a disability anyone ?

16 October 2012 at 22:03  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 October 2012 at 22:37  
Blogger gentlemind said...

DanJo: if by "composite" you mean that mind and body are united then you are (to a great extent) right. The body can inform the mind, but cannot change the free nature of that mind. The mind can inform the body, but cannot change the fixed nature of that body. You cannot will your body to be anything other than its fixed heterosexual nature. The difficulty comes from the fact that you view heterosexuality and homosexuality as states of mind (which is your prerogative) but do not seem to recognise that the body itself is heterosexual. This leaves you in a position in which, essentially, you are arguing that your mind knows your body is wrong.
No corpse has a mind. Every corpse has a heterosexual body.

16 October 2012 at 22:41  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi David,

I think that Phil Roberts thinks you are gay.

16 October 2012 at 22:45  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 October 2012 at 23:02  
Blogger William said...

Danj0

"I'll just go with my original and point out that you're sliding the meaning for your own ends, thanks."

It was unintentional, but since you have specified what you mean by militant religionist I will be more careful next time.

If some "militant religionists" are agitating over SSM the same can certainly be said for militant homosexualists and "anti-religionists", especially given that there was very little interest in SSM prior to the government's consultation. It really wasn't at the top of anyone's list to be honest, including yours as far as I can tell.

Also, you appear to be complaining about Christians trying to organise themselves and create a cohesive unit, but isn't that what homosexuals and many other groups have done?

16 October 2012 at 23:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

But you've probably got a fat arse DanJ0 with spotty legs. Still, no harm dreaming that one day your Prince might come.

Inspector

The Church views the tendency as "objectively disordered". The homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions are distinct. The actions are "intrinsically disordered".

The Church also believes and teaches that special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition.

17 October 2012 at 00:25  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

William and Danj0
“Marie - Throwing militant homosexualists in prison would probably stem their attacks on the family, but it would be wrong. All we can do, I think, is to highlight the destruction to marriage that SSM will bring. And, of course, continue to highlight the tyranical behaviour of the government in pushing for this.”

I do agree with you William but some of them don't realise how it used to be before 1967, and a short sharp reminder might bring them to their senses to make them grateful that they are now part of society and really do have it sooo good.

They don't have to hang out in public toilets and risk being caught and beaten up. They don't have to live a lie. They can walk the streets wearing their gold lame pants whilst holding hands and kissing their gay lovers, they wont get arrested and anyone bashing them gets slung in clink and rightly so.

They can run specialist gay clubs, bars, hotels. They are employed in all walks of life and now have gay union. They can prance around half naked in the streets and march through cities with the Gay Pride. Their gay dating is advertised more than anything else every evening on mainstream TV even.

They are accepted. But like everything in life there is a boundary. A limit to what they can do before it becomes too much and spills over into tyranny.

And once that happens and society has had enough the law can just as easily be changed back.
Chris Bryant can do well to remember this on the 30th October when he pushes his gay "marriage" agenda forward.

17 October 2012 at 01:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Gentlemind, I can bring my partner to the heights of delight using parts of my body amd parts of his. There is no mind-body schism there. The form of our bodies has
evolved so that there are two sexes for procreation but a male glans is more sensitive to a tongue than a vagina, and sex is much more than just proceation. Well, except to people with an Aquinas frame of mind anyway. Perhaps you're one of those, explaining your rather odd view about all this?

17 October 2012 at 02:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: " They are accepted. But like everything in life there is a boundary. A limit to what they can do before it becomes too much and spills over into tyranny."

Luckily, I just want equality so it's all good. If you're inclined to throw us in prison then it clearly matters that we accept nothing less and that we seek to fully normalise sexual orientation as soon as possible. Make hay when the sun shines, and all that, and
the sun is certainly shining at the moment with the general public. If anything then fringe 'right-wingers' like yourself are outside the standard deviation and perhaps ought to worry about public tolerance.

17 October 2012 at 02:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Still, no harm dreaming that one
day your Prince might come."

It's all good on that front. However, given that you and your sidekick spent Christmas Eve online here well into the evening one might wonder whether your Princess has been and gone, if she ever came, as well as wonder just how comitted you are to your alleged religion. What Catholic wife would put up with her husband spending Christmas on the computer trying to insult a gay man? Or indeed most Friday and Saturday nights into the early hours? With your long history of deception here, you could just as easily be still living with your mother and, knowing your personality and your trolling, quite probably are. It would fit the facts very well.

17 October 2012 at 02:45  
Blogger John Magee said...

Inspector

Thank you.

Think of me when you visit Prinknash Abbey.

I am familar with the Tridentine Latin Mass. Our Bishop has designated four churches to celebrate the Latin Mass every Sunday in our Diocese. I attended Mass at one of them several times with my wife years ago but after moving to the country distance became a problem.

As you know my mother was a RC. Because she marrried outside the RC Church in 1946 when the Church took this concept very seriously she agreed to have me baptized in my father's Episcopal Church. Even so, she needed the comfort of the Church of her youth and culture, and took me with her too a RC Mass several times a year. As a result I am vaguely familar with the pre Vatican II Latin Mass. Especially a High Mass sung by a choir. The memories of the beauty of the liturgy and the music are still with me. My mother died in 1961 when I was almost 14 so that was the last year I ever attended a Latin Mass.

One memory I have of the pre Vatican II Latin Mass is that it was beautiful when the priest spoke the Latin words at a moderate "speed" or slowly when I tried I followed what he was saying while reading the Latin in my mother's missal. If a priest rushed through the Latin Mass it lost it's beauty. The result of his rushing through the Latin Mass was a yammering sound.

The Latin Mass was definately a different church going experience from my father's parents Episcopal Church I attend when I stayed with them during part of my summer holidays.

I have fond memories of both.

17 October 2012 at 04:56  
Blogger gentlemind said...

DanJO: Cars exist to travel. There is "more to" a car than travel, yet an object that does not exist to travel cannot be a car. Sex exists for procreation. There is more to sex than procreation, yet any act that does not exist for procreation cannot be sex. There is no such thing as homosexual sex. It is a contradiction in terms, as per same-sex marriage.
Without meaning to be too graphic, or to state the bleedin' obvious...Men ejaculate semen, containing sperm (through which their bodies can live on). If a man walks into a room and ejaculates in the presence of woman's body, her body makes sense of his. If he then walks into the room next door and ejaculates in the asbence of a woman's body, he may as well ejaculate strawberry milkshake (adjust flavour to prefered taste lol).
Our bodies do not change from one room to the next.

17 October 2012 at 08:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's hard to know what to say when presnted with something like that, both on its own terms and on how it relates to homosexual people. Back in the real world, I'm pleased to say that I rather enjoy my sex life even if it doesn't really exist in this other sort of world.

17 October 2012 at 13:15  
Blogger Jon said...

This thread has moved from odd, through interesting into bizarre!

DanJ0 - I wonder if Gentlemind has been watching Kelis videos?!

17 October 2012 at 13:51  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

No you don't want equality Danj0 you homosexuals are intent on breaking down the natural order of things, why do you think not even the ancient Greeks legalised homosexuality even though they encouraged it as an experience and tolerated it as part of their humanism philosophy.
Public opinion is very fickle, the clouds can gather at anytime.

Do stop trying to compartmentalise me as a fringe right winger, wrong tick box!

17 October 2012 at 16:36  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Oh! How would you know the male glans is more sensitive to a tongue than a vagina if you are unable to try a vagina taking from what you have previously told us in discussions?

17 October 2012 at 17:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "How would you know the male glans is more sensitive to a tongue than a vagina if you are unable to try a vagina taking from what you have previously told us in discussions?"

Have you ever wondered why heterosexual men like blowjobs?

17 October 2012 at 18:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Jon: "This thread has moved from odd, through interesting into bizarre!"

If gentlemind can convince the courts that he's on the money by defining that sort of stuff away then there could be quite a few challenges to convictions under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

This is the sort of stuff I tend to file under Religious Bollocks, because it has a teleological flavour about it.

I think most people would think "yep, that's sex" when talking about oral sex between men, in a similar way to thinking "yep, that's marriage" for same-sex couples in a marriage-type relationship.

Perhaps I've been a bit unfair to Phil back there, calling him a Flat Earther. I assumed he was running an argument that we have a choice over our sexual orientation, not trying to define sexuality away in that quirky sort of way.

17 October 2012 at 18:12  
Blogger William said...

"I think most people would think "yep, that's sex" when talking about oral sex between men, in a similar way to thinking "yep, that's marriage" for same-sex couples in a marriage-type relationship."

That wouldn't be begging the question by any chance would it Danj0?

17 October 2012 at 18:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Christ, William, are you still at it?

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

DanJ0."I think most people would think "yep, that's sex" when talking about oral sex between men

Do you know something, 53 years on this planet and not once has that particular topic been talked about by this man. And one wonders if that applies to all men who don’t live in queer street.

17 October 2012 at 19:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Well, a virgin experience for you coming up then, Inspector. If a man gives another man a blowjob then is that sex going on there, would you say?

17 October 2012 at 19:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Really depends on where it’s taking place. If it’s inside a primary school playground during break, then it’s downright criminal and something we must come to accept as the norm should ssm go through, one expects :- >



17 October 2012 at 19:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Presumably that's a yes then when the fluff is removed. By the way, Inspector, you're probably not the best person to ask given that it's a black man, in a gay pose, wearing pink hotpants but ... what do you think of these? I'm think of setting up my avatar.

17 October 2012 at 20:02  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Danjo

An apology ! Thank you

However to clarify, homosexuals do not have a choice over their desires but do have a choice over their actions. Probably easier said than done admittedly.

As Christians we are pretty clear that the actions are damaging to relationships with God, society and the individual's happiness in that order.

It is very difficult to see this from the outside, but a full relationship with God is better than a million blowjobs. (Yes I know, I have not tried a male one, sure, it must be marvelous, all that "pleasure" that I am missing out on)

What bothers me most is that even an innocuous statement like this will soon be outlawed. My children tell me that they are already banned from speaking in RE “lessons” in school as their polite but resolute defence of the Gospel is deemed inappropriate. My son (age 15) was asked to voluntarily drop RE lessons, which he has.

In the lower school, another very millitant atheist RE teacher used to scream in my daughter’s face that she did not /could not know that God exists. I thought it was great and I thanked God many times for subjecting my children to a true atheist. She tested my children’s faith every week and made them stronger Christians than any Christian RE teacher could ever hoped to have done....

My wife was not so forgiving and wanted to go in and..... the b...hes head off. (Would have made a good Cranmer article if she had)


Phil

PS perhaps this also illustrates that male headship of the family has some benefits as the RE teacher's head is still on her shoulders!


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

The Inspector has a point. I think that most people would prefer not to think of two men having oral sex and if they did then I think that "yep, that's disgusting" would give "yep, that's sex" a pretty good run for it's money. Personally, I think it's mutual masturbation.

17 October 2012 at 20:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Oh, you poofs and your pictures of fit men. There’s no stopping you, what !

By the way, one notices that your alimentary partner Jon rarely posts in the evening now. One shudders at the thought of him ‘on the nest’ so to speak. If you see him before the Inspector does, do inform him that early evening anal is not the best time or indeed a suitable method to conceive. But he is a headstrong boy, and probably won’t heed this kind advice, don’t you think ?

17 October 2012 at 20:21  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I'd probably put it down as a form of mutual masturbation as well if push came to shove. Not heard it discussed either - though I did once watch a documentary where an American Evangelical was railing against people who had oral sex and described themselves as "technical virgins", so perhaps he would have agreed with DanJ0.

This is rapidly becoming like one of those women's magazines with the endless sex surveys. Anyone want to volunteer what "Mostly Cs" means?

17 October 2012 at 21:32  
Blogger gentlemind said...

DanJo: my last word on the nature of homosexuality. I am much more interested in talking about the nature of marriage, which naturally excludes homosexuality.
Witness the (intentionally) destructive irony of redefining the legal institution of marriage: the inclusion of a specific relationship - described by its sexual behaviour - renders the entire institution...not specifically sexual. The very same as Civil Partnerships. In short, there is nothing that can be done by two women in a sexual relationship that cannot be done by any other combination of people in a non-sexual relationship. Homosexuality takes the sex out of marriage. Such is the disconnect between homosexuality and sex.
Yours with a gentle voice, and a

gentlemind

17 October 2012 at 21:35  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

gentlemind,

You're not by any chance a compatriot of that old chestnut Kinderling are you?

17 October 2012 at 21:53  
Blogger William said...

Inspector

There is indeed an irony here. Danj0's claim that homosexuals can have sexual marriages and should therefore be included in the institution of marriage would result in marriage being redefined from a sexual union to an "asexual" one.

17 October 2012 at 22:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Me thinks Gold Lame Hotpants Man is finally unravelling afore our eyes!

He fantasises and speculates about the sex lives of heterosexuals. He brags about his own sordid and limited experiences. We know from his past posts his homosexuality is hidden from his colleagues and his *playmates* are few and far between.

How on earth would he know about the joy and physical intimacy of vaginal love making and its complimentarity to begin to compare it to foreplay?

There's a word for him. It has six letters, starts with a 'W' and end with a 'R'.

17 October 2012 at 23:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

William. Ones acknowledgement of ‘sex’ is the traditional one. To wit, short for sexual intercourse, which to this man infers the gametes business. (Knew what a gamete was as a schoolboy, so should really find the time to refresh ones memory). Thinking back to when this man dissected frogs in biology (...have always had a fascination for women's thighs and legs, you know. Probably from the frogs legs, which are remarkable similar).

Ah, completely forgot the point of this response. Single malt mercifully kicked in. Thank God, wouldn’t want to go through life sober...

Toodle whatever...

17 October 2012 at 23:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

hic

17 October 2012 at 23:10  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

... cup

17 October 2012 at 23:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

How exciting. Dodo and the Inspector have found a new friend.

18 October 2012 at 02:08  
Blogger William said...

The call for marriage equality follows a familiar pattern. Whenever there is a call for Equality and the two entities are not equal, the only thing left open is to redefine what it means to be equal. Hence, marriage must be redefined. Or you could just bend space and time and say that it's the conservative thing to do.

18 October 2012 at 08:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Note the slewing in terms there. For instance, a man and a woman are not the same type and so, in one sense, they are not equal. However, they are usually sufficiently alike to give each type equality of access or opportunity as far as somethng else is concerned. Of course, some religionists might argue that the differences require men and women in society to be treated differently in most things as a matter of course.

Another example is the difference between those with disabilities and those without as far as employment is concerned. A physical disability requiring a wheelchair to move around ought not to be a bar for desk-based work as far as I am concerned. If building regulations need to be changed a bit to accomodate wheelchair access for new buildings then so be it if we want equality of access, in both senses of the word, to employment for both types of people.

18 October 2012 at 09:57  
Blogger William said...

Danj0

Men and women are indeed equal in some ways, but not in others. For instance, in the area of bearing children, women stand head and shoulders above men. Also my breast-feeding is pretty pants I'm afraid. There are other generalisations where women tend to be better than men and vice versa, but obviously we are not supposed to talk about them. As human beings, and before God, we are all equal.

Note the slewing of terms here. Danj0 talks of "equality of access or opportunity", citing the disabled having access to work, but it's not the work that's being redefined here but the building where the work takes place. The only way of granting homosexuals "equality of access" to marriage is to change the definition of marriage itself.

Perhaps a better analogy would be to say that the blind should have access to the job of aircraft pilot and then saying that the role of an aircraft pilot is just to talk to air-traffic control.

18 October 2012 at 10:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The building provides the structure where the work takes place. If the work is essentially the same then changing aspects of the building to provide equality of access is fine. Obviously the building is a metaphor for the legal and practical stuff around marriage and the work is a metaphor for the underlying relationships in the real world.

18 October 2012 at 12:20  
Blogger Jon said...

Inspector, I'm flattered that you are watching my posting patterns. But, if you look back, you'll find that I didn't ever post very often in the evenings. I have what's known in most circles as "a life". This means that I see friends, go for dinner, catch a film, or see family in the evening. I am also involved in several businesses which take my time up. I'm kept pretty busy paying Dodo's wages...

Unlike your good self and Dodo, I don't commit my evenings and my Christmas Eves to scribbling papish nonsense on the good Archbishop's blog.

I do think it's interesting that your language suggests you're much older than 53. I can't think of any 53 year olds who end sentences with "what".

Perhaps your online persona hides a rather weak, timid man unwilling to confront his demons who hides behind a pseudo- military manner to express opinions which contradict his own unconfessed nature? Just sayin.

18 October 2012 at 14:22  
Blogger Jon said...

Danj0 - A while ago I think there was a lawsuit between McVities and HMRC because the latter wanted to add VAT to the price of Jaffa Cakes (which as cakes were then exempt). They contended that they were eaten as biscuits and therefore should be treated as such. McVities defended the case by arguing that the jaffa cake mixture is more cake like and therefore should be treated as such.

What needs to be decided by society at large is whether the current means of making a church marriage (a man and a woman) is the definition of marriage or whether it's essentially a commitment ceremony in a pretty building and some words to which few people attach any metaphysical meaning.

The trouble for Church types is that many of them have already conceded that Civil Partnerships are equivalent to marriage - and therefore that the mixture required to make a partnership is irrelevant to the viability or recognition due to that partnership. If that is the case, then the defensibility of exclusion of gay people from marriage altogether seems very weak indeed. If civil partnerships are basically the same as marriage, then the distinction is meaningless, so let's eradicate it.

My guess is that most people, if confronted with the question of whether gay sex constitutes sex (and therefore whether gay marriage can be consummated - as the Inspector would insist on asking), would probably say "I haven't given it much thought before, but I don't see why not". On this basis, an equivocal position on civil partnership begins to look untenable.

The trouble for the unequivocal Dodo/ Inspector types is that they look unsympathetic in most people's eyes, and downright backward in the eyes of almost anyone under 40. They are also fighting for the repeal of a law which would have the effect of de-recognising thousands of relationships, and opening the state, no doubt, to massive legal challenge.

Either way - I don't envy the Christians' position!

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

"Obviously the building is a metaphor for the legal and practical stuff around marriage and the work is a metaphor for the underlying relationships in the real world."

You've lost me there. Why would you need to change the "legal and practical stuff around marriage" in order to access to the "underlying relationships in the real world"?

18 October 2012 at 14:53  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

So Danj0 what you're saying is that the definition of consummation should be reduced down to the act of performing oral sex on each other?
And with this now redefined homosexuals can get married. NO Danj0.

18 October 2012 at 15:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "You've lost me there."

It was typed on a phone so there was a certain imposed brevity. By that, I mean the work is a metaphor for what is actually going on in the world as far as home-making, families, mutual support, and so on. We could maintain a separate organisation solely for wheelchair users in which to do the same sort of work and house it in a special building with wider doors and pull-cord light switches in the bogs but why bother? With a few changes to the structure, we can have a single organisation staffed by a variety of people providing the same sorts of goods for the marketplace.

Look, before you try to find something or other to say about the coffee machines in the canteen there, it's just the same sort of stuff as ever. Some people will try to throw up all sorts of complaints about this detail or that but the real disagreement is what constitutes a marriage. Ultimately, you want something that mirrors your religious interpretations and I don't care a hoot about that if what is going on in the real world is handled equitably. We'll never agree and when same-sex marriage is eventually legalised you'll just have to get used to it.

18 October 2012 at 17:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie, what's the relevance of consummation in marriage? Obviously, the dib dob is important to the couple themselves but why is consummation as a criterion on which marriage is based important to society now? We don't check up on it provided there are no complaints from either party that it hasn't happened. Moreover, I expect most people apart from a few weirdy religious ones have tried it out beforehand to make sure the relevant bits work for each other. That'd be quite sensible, really. Imagine if you (say) married the Inspector and found out that he could only get it up in a dark room surrounded by used football kit, imagining a muscled black man in just a pink pair of hotpants? Obviously it'd be a bit tedious to have to divorce him but it's hardly as though you'd be regarded as shop-soiled goods to the next man these days, is it? Heck, the consummation thing could just as well be achieved by a transaction on a sale or return basis as anything else.

18 October 2012 at 18:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Jon: "They contended that they were eaten as biscuits and therefore should be treated as such. McVities defended the case by arguing that the jaffa cake mixture is more cake like and therefore should be treated as such."

Well, like everyone else I eat them as biscuits but if I leave them on a plate then they go dry like other cakes do. If they were tecnhically biscuits then they'd go soft like other bisuits do. VAT attracting or not, they appear just the same on a plate next to a teapot as some garibaldis, and serve much the same social purpose.

18 October 2012 at 18:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Speaking of court cases, I heard on Radio 4 that the latest Christian B&B case has come in and owners of the business lost. I'm slightly surprised there but hopefully the judgement will be available in full.

18 October 2012 at 18:11  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

So, in conclusion, Gold Lame Hot Pants and Jon the Spiff see themselves as a couple of Jaffa Cakes (are they cakes or biscuits?) who see mutual masterbation - or singular - as equivalent to love making between a man and a woman.

Well, that takes some swallowing, so to speak, what, what, what!

And Jon thanks for keeping me in lucrative employment protecting society from the disturbed and deranged. My office door is always open if you're ever in need of overcoming this patently deep rooted hostility towards heterosexual men.

And such stereotypes the pair of you hold about the noctural and sexual habits of heterosexuals. In my world, there's no need to wait until its dark and there are 24 hours in a day.

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

Heh. I've just posted something related to your "office door" in one of the threads below. Spooky coincidence. :)

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

DanJ0. The Inspector has found the most distressing news. Apparently, if ssm goes through, the partnership is not going to last as long as normal peoples.

Since 1996 the life expectancy of people living with HIV in the UK, on antiretroviral treatment, has increased by 15 years.8 Until recently, an average person living with HIV aged 20 years was expected to live an additional 30 years (they would live to be 50 years). However, a 2011 study indicates that an average person living with HIV aged 20 is now expected to live an additional 46 years (they would live to be 66 years). This is still about 13 years less than the general UK population.9 Improvements to antiretroviral treatment were cited as the main reason for the increase.

Chin up old fruit. That’s actually the good bit. Viruses mutate, which makes them jolly interesting, don’t you think….

In HIV treatment programs across the country, specialists are trying to outsmart HIV. Since the advent of protease inhibitors and other classes of HIV drugs, doctors have had the formidable task of finding the right combination of medicines that keep the virus at bay. But with every successful regimen, there are failures. In fact studies now show that while drug "cocktails" suppress HIV in 60 to 90 percent of cases, 30 to 60 percent of those patients end up being considered treatment failures eventually because of rebounding levels of the HIV.

hmmm. The word treatment is there, but alas, so is failure. And don’t think your beloved felatio will save you. It’s as feasible to contract HIV via the mouth as via the behind. One is sure, as Michael Caine might say, “not many people know that”. Enough to give a gay fellow the droop. Nature sorts it all out in the end, don’t you find…

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



Jon. If civil partnerships are basically the same as marriage, then the distinction is meaningless, so let's eradicate it.

No, you misunderstand. CP gives the recipients legal standing as a couple, in law. Most important regarding property rights. Quite a concession to gay types it was. Nothing similar for other set ups, eg brothers living together or sisters or even the old fashioned dowager and companion. Rather pisses on your ‘gays are always being discriminated against’ whine you and the quare fella indulge in, what !

One doesn’t do Christmas. Heartily sick of that time of year. It’s a minor festival in the church and was only put there to give you pagans something to celebrate other than the start of the Sun god’s new year…

18 October 2012 at 18:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, I have never had any sexually-transmitted disease or medical issue related to sex, unlike a number of my heterosexual friends who behave like most other heterosexuals when young. I don't think you ever did admit to either being a sexual virgin or a really crap Catholic when I pushed you up to those dilemma horns that time. If you admit to being a really crap Catholic, deliberately deciding to shag your way around outside of marriage, you may have HIV+ or a number of other sexually transmitted diseases which haven't presented yet. Perhaps you've even infected some other people. But then maybe you're a sexual virgin or really inexperienced, being single, and therefore of no or low risk. Though I mercilessly tease you, matching your homophobic output in both amplitude and frequency, I do honestly think you're a repressed, conflicted homosexual and so perhaps you are a virgin afterall. If not then have you considered having a test just in case? Poetic justice can be a bitch sometimes.

18 October 2012 at 19:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. What a dilemma you chaps have. Trying to justify your lifestyle as legitimate, and walking around the disease part, like so much vomit on the pavement. Take note of this man’s final sentence in his previous post. Nature and her clean up process is your real enemy. Not decent types who don’t want you sad people corrupting marriage. SSM is not going to allow any of you crowd to live any longer than nature has you down for, despite man’s best attempts...





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

Heh, I see you're hoping to just skip over the contents of my post there. :)

18 October 2012 at 19:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

See DanJ0 you're rather proving my hypothesis:

Oedipus complex repression (in reverse), with a desire to sexually possess your father and do away with your mother.

This salacious and obsessive quizing of other Catholic men, about the age of your father, over their sex lives is ... to coin a phrase ... indicative.

Did you feel abandoned as a child? Was your father a Catholic?

18 October 2012 at 19:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0 dear fruit. You are so predictable. The Inspector can read you like a book. You think you’re clever, but you fall into that which is a familiar pattern to this man. First you quite categorically deny you have a disease. Never said YOU did, but gay disease is, well there. And thanks to bi-sexuals, it also infects the less than moral heterosexual parts of the community. A community you’re keen to point out has it’s own problems, but one thinks you’d better bone up on HIV rates and which types are most at risk. Gays leave the straights behind on this.

The rest of your post is just crude sexual innuendo and immature posturing. When this man took an interest in those Pink Arseholes the other year, he had exactly the same response therer. If you enter the world of gayishness out of research, they immediately take you for a closet gay ! Sex is so important to you types, as the infection rates bear witness to.

If you have anything of interest to say in response, do share. If it isn’t, then shove it.

Kind Regards

Inspector General



18 October 2012 at 19:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Crap Catholic at risk of HIV+ etc, or sexually naive middle-aged man? Which?

18 October 2012 at 19:59  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
The relevance of consummation in marriage is to finalise the joining together of a male and female.
If this can't be done then the marriage is null and void. Marriage is for providing the continuation of the human race.

So if marriage is no longer important as we are seeing many children born out of wedlock why not scrap it altogether and have the civil ceremony for everyone?

In the days before DNA testing marriage proved that you had sex and that your offspring named on a birth cert are from you and your wife not you and someone else it is clarification when it comes to inheritance and financial dealings.

18 October 2012 at 20:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie:"The relevance of consummation in marriage is to finalise the joining together of a male and female. If this can't be done then the marriage is null and void."

None of that really says anything significant as far as the question goes.

"Marriage is for providing the continuation of the human race."

Procreative sex, or medical intervention, does that, I think you'll find. If we had no marriage at all then I'm pretty sure the human race would continue. The people who marry and do not have kids probably manage fine without feeling guilty about not helping continue the human race. It's marriage afterall, not a zoo program for nearly extinct mammals.

"So if marriage is no longer important as we are seeing many children born out of wedlock why not scrap it altogether and have the civil ceremony for everyone?"

You know you're in the middle of an argument about bringing in same-sex marriage, right?

"In the days before DNA testing marriage proved that you had sex and that your offspring named on a birth cert are from you and your wife not you and someone else it is clarification when it comes to inheritance and financial dealings."

Following on from the first point: nor that, really.

18 October 2012 at 20:29  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
Yes I know, I shouldn't have posted as was just mulling things over. Delete button not fully working.

18 October 2012 at 20:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

If you right click on the dustbin icon and open link in new window then the delete button is always visible in the new window. Assuming you're on a Windows PC etc.

18 October 2012 at 20:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. You freaks of nature are so damn lucky to be living in a civilised country. But remember this, the best society can offer you is toleration of your lifestyle. Never, ever, expect acceptance. Don’t forget that now...



18 October 2012 at 21:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You seem to be getting a tad annoyed now, Inspector. It's the question I've repeatedly asked you now, following your thing about STDs, that's bothering you, isn't it? No wonder. You look even more silly than usual after that.

18 October 2012 at 21:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Any women viewing this site would have pity for you. Any man, just revilement. Think about it...

18 October 2012 at 22:00  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

It's you who looks rather desperate and silly Gold Lame Hotpants. Off on another fantasy trip. Rather reminds one of the way you pursued Albert and myself when cornered.

And your response to my question is still awaited:

"This salacious and obsessive quizing of other Catholic men, about the age of your father, over their sex lives is ... to coin a phrase ... indicative.

Did you feel abandoned as a child? Was your father a Catholic?"

18 October 2012 at 22:02  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
Well I guess you have a valid point I can't argue with you. Consummation as a criterion is no longer important as most people are sexually active and dropping sprogs with or without marriage now anyway. What they need is a contract that will guard and protect their assets and prove that they are a legal couple with their offspring listed to ensure that inheritance and bloodline is provable, although DNA can do this and now that everyone's is or will be listed on a data base somewhere.
A Civil partnership gives this. I think maybe this is the route society will end up going down. I don't like it as it is pandering to the lowest common denominator, but it seems we are following Satan more than ever these days thanks to loose living, no fault divorce and militant homosexuals.

19 October 2012 at 01:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blimey, I feel like a bit like a fox in a chicken coop. Poor Dodo is clucking and flapping around like a mother hen trying to protect her brood in the face of a set of sharp teeth there. Inspector, if you gloat about the deaths of people like that, which is what you were basically doing, then ripping some of your feathers off like that seems fair enough to me. You and your sidekick are pretty morally degenerate even by your own alleged religion's standards. Why should anyone take your religion and associated views seriously when you can't even be bothered yourselves? Sheesh.

19 October 2012 at 04:05  
Blogger William said...

Danj0

"Some people will try to throw up all sorts of complaints about this detail or that but the real disagreement is what constitutes a marriage."

Correct. Your conception of marriage is nothing more than Civil Partnerships with heterosexuals. My conception of marriage is nothing more than marriage as defined for millennia. To get your conception of marriage we could either add heterosexuals to Civil Partnerships or we could destroy my conception of marriage. We all know which you prefer. We all know why.

19 October 2012 at 08:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William, it looks like you're quietly appealing to 'traditional marriage' there even though that has been neo-Newspeak-ed (tm) in the detail to suit you. Marriage basically formalised pair-bonding in a social setting if we're to take a millennial view of it. Same-sex marriage is consistent with that, though pair-bonding would normally have produced offspring. You just want our society to mirror your religious desires and worldview despite the fact that we live in a diverse and free society now. Obviously you can agitate for what you like and for whatever reasons but, by the same token, so can I, and I can point out the underlying religious philosophy and invite the non-religious to consider whether they want that to underpin parts of our secular society now.

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

So basically, after all that, we still have no evidence as to what the social institution *actually* looks like, nor detailed analysis of public attitudes to the role of procreation in marriage, except everyone's assertions.

I've been unable to find anything on this subject - despite it being of clear importance - apart from a couple of 2008 surveys and, of course the closed (or quasi-closed) public consultation.

Given that it looks unlikely that this is going to change, I'm going to stick with my position that the only reasonable basis on which to proceed with a redefinition of the legal requirements of marriage is via a referendum.

19 October 2012 at 10:20  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Danj0

" and I can point out the underlying religious philosophy and invite the non-religious to consider whether they want that to underpin parts of our secular society now."

Certainly you can. Just as I can point out that there are many non-religious who support my view and many religious people who support yours.

19 October 2012 at 10:50  
Blogger John Magee said...

Inspector

What a bizarre world we live in today. Half of straight married couples want to get divorced at some period during their lives and Gays want to be married.

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

John. Marriage hit the rocks in this country thanks to the benefits system. So much easier to let your knickers down when the state will provide your single parent needs. What would have been the ‘good’ girls saw this and thought, to hell with it, I’m game. Why bother to make a relationship work when you or I can pay their way...

19 October 2012 at 21:24  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
“and I can point out the underlying religious philosophy and invite the non-religious to consider whether they want that to underpin parts of our secular society now.”

And I think that before the definition of marriage is changed on the whim of a few homosexuals, we need to establish what marriage is to most people in the 21st century by having a referendum as AIB has suggested.

Once this is established we can evaluate our society and a picture will emerge of how low we have sunk since the serious decline of the Church and Christianity here. We then need to also establish if we want our society to be based on the high principles and morals of the Bible which after all is a wonderful survival guide for a healthy nation or do we write new rules and if so what will they be based on? Secularism? This I think is responsible for moral decline, single parents with children from multiple partners and family breakdown in general.

19 October 2012 at 22:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie, it seems to have passed you by but it is David Cameron and Lynne Featherstone championing same-sex marriage. Both are heterosexual. It was Tony Blair Jacqui Smith who brought in Civil partnerships. Both are heterosexual. Moreover, Tony Blair is a Christian and a Catholic convert. On top of that, opinion polls show a large number of people in favour of same-sex marriage, between 43% and 65% depending on the poll as I recall, with a much smaller percentage opposing. Obviously those are just opinions about the issue rather than people championing it, but even so.

Regarding how far we have allegedly sunk since Christianity has become a minority interest, how do you intend to evaluate that? By what criteria? I think we're doing pretty well in general. For example, women nominally have equality in rights, jobs, and social position, much of the rigid class system has been removed, people are much freer and have greater affluence and travel much more. If you're not here then have you considered emigrating to somewhere like America where Christianity is much more widespread, at least in parts of it?

19 October 2012 at 23:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

^not happy here

19 October 2012 at 23:18  
Blogger John Magee said...

Marie

Well said as always.

@DanJO

You said to Marie: "If you're not here then have you considered emigrating to somewhere like America where Christianity is much more widespread, at least in parts of it?"

I'm wondering if that is a sneer, and insult, or a compliment?

My guess is that it's definately not a compliment.

Maybe you should you move to the USA, the home of the modern Gay rights movement which began in the mid 1960's, with it's capital in San Francisco.

Gays and the radical left ruined that beautiful city and turned it into a modern Sodom and Gomorrah.

Of course the real home of the modern homosexual movement was Weimar Germany before 1933 with Berlin as it's capital.

20 October 2012 at 00:03  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
It's not the fact that those politicians are gay or heterosexual themselves but the fact they think they might win more votes by doing what the gay lobby groups want of them. You have to ask who or what organisations are bending their ears? Also it would seem they also try to copy the trends of other countries who have implemented it but they fail to study all the effects (mostly negative) SSM has had in those countries that have had it implemented for some time. Our short sighted government think things will be different here.

Politicians are confusing general prosperity ( jobs for women with equal pay, etc..) with morals and linking it to a mad and damaging equality agenda. Equality can only go so far. It's like health and safety where do you stop?

People don't have to believe in God to follow the Bible which of course was written by men for mankind but those scholars were inspired by Jesus and ultimately God.

You can go a long way to evaluating the moral decline with a carefully worded 5 or 6 questionnaire delivered with the voting card before the next election to be given in when people vote.

I'm just watching the House of Lords debate with Lord Lester (an old lib dem) who are debating the Inheritance bill for cohabiting couples. So it would seem if this goes through what would be the point of marriage?
As of 2010 7.5 million living in cohabiting families representing 15 % of all fams. Co-habiting is widespread and increasing. This shows that people have become much more irresponsible, but yet are wishing to seek rights when it comes to inheriting from a partner who dies intestate. They obviously don't want to marry or make a will. So why are the governemnt so keen on having SSM?

20 October 2012 at 01:37  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

John Magee
“Of course the real home of the modern homosexual movement was Weimar Germany before 1933 with Berlin as it's capital.”
I'd agree with you there John. Anything goes in Berlin it has always been a city of anything goes extremes. Still is.

20 October 2012 at 01:57  
Blogger John Magee said...

Marie

I should have said that pre 1933 Berlin was the capital of German homosexual debauchery as well as child porn and child prostitution. English Gays like Auden and Isherwood found a refuge there to escape the severe anti homosexual laws in Britain at that time. When the Nazi's took over in 1033 these worms went to California which was tolerant of their sleazy lifestyle.

Pre 1933 Berlin was the "mecca" for gays.

20 October 2012 at 03:35  
Blogger John Magee said...

Typo: I meant 1933

20 October 2012 at 03:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie, politicians are almost certainly doing it, at least in part, so that their parties appear to be 'progressive'. I've no doubt that is why Cameron is doing it as I'd be surprised if he'll get significantly more votes from gay people because of it. Appearing progressive is a strategy aimed at the majority, not the minority.  It's very popular to talk about the 'homosexual lobby' as though there's somethng like the trades unions involved there with a power to wield. I'm often tempted to ask people to name names whenever it comes up. Who are these people? Other than Summerskill and Thatchell, i'd struggle to name any others. Any ideas?

20 October 2012 at 06:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

John, I picked American simply because it has a large number of Christians in certain States as far as I can. No sneer, insult, etc implied. That said, I don't hold America as a whole in high regard at all nor do I particularly wish to visit there. It might suit Marie though if she thinks the UK is in such a terrible state. I rather like the UK and I feel grateful for living here.

20 October 2012 at 07:03  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 you are probably right. But Cameron's even more of a fool if he thinks SSM is progressive and whoever are advising him surely should be fired for letting him think this. Lib Dems no doubt behind this destructiveness as well.

If Cameron really understands the meaning of being a progressive party then he would NOT be fiddling around with the homosexuals and the institution of marriage.
Progressive government is one with a broadsheet vision for improving the country by enabling people to prosper themselves through industry and good morals. Mrs Thatcher was progressive.
Most people don't give a toss about SSM as there is nothing positive in it for them. The majority are heterosexuals who worry about having enough money to take the children on holiday. Or who are concerned with the rising price of petrol and food, or if they are going to be made redundant this year or not? They see the money being wasted on the EU and in aid we give away to countries that don't need it and quietly fume.

PS I shan't be heading anywhere but back to England. But you certainly would be more suited to the lifestyle a certain city in Northern California, USA provides. Plenty of beech bums, why you can even admire the views from Nob Hill.

20 October 2012 at 19:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm happy here, Marie. I think things are pretty good really and heading in the right direction. It is you who doesn't seem to be happy.

I don't see why you would think I'd be more suited to a lifestyle in San Francisco unless you're trying to force a particular stereotype on me which doesn't fit at all.

The pink/gold lamé hotpants is a joke of mine specifically about that sort of thing, though you wouldn't think so in the hands of our forum troll and liar.

As far as progressive politics are concerned, I don't think you and I have the same idea of what that means, and I don't think you have a common understanding of it.

Of course, it's a broad idea rather than a specific meaning but it's about fairness, reform, and ultimately about progress regarding social goods.

20 October 2012 at 20:19  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
The last social unfairness was addressed by teflon Tony with the Civil Partnership. That was progressive. But,you said yourself “The benefits in terms of legal rights are pretty much the same between civil partnerships and civil marriages.”

Cameron would be better to concentrate on enabling SME's to be able to offer more flexible working in order to be able to employ more women in either job share or a full flexi time like the civil service has. And he can cut corporation tax for them,

Oh! and another example of progressiveness would be:
Sticking to ones cast iron guarantee of a referendum on the EU and following the majority answer.
Getting us untangled from the EU and back on our competitive feet again. I think there are some great minds on this case now. God Bless them.

20 October 2012 at 21:53  
Blogger John Magee said...

Marie

Have you seen the new EU "tolerance" poster? Above the caption "We can all share the same star Europe 4 all" is a large star on a black background containing the symbols of all the world's major religions and philosophies. Guess which symbol is at the top point of this star?

The Hammer and Cycle.

The very symbol that represents hatred of freedom and democracy, persecution of religion, and was on the flag of a country which killed tens of millions of people during the last century in Central and Eastern Europe is at the top point of this EU "tolerance" star poster.

I was surprised the Crescent Moon and Star of Islam wasn't on the top. I guess the people who approved this design had an easy choice to make the day they decided on the Communist Hammer and Cycle. Sort of shows where their hearts really are doesn't it?

20 October 2012 at 23:45  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

John
This really is not good. Time we took our exit. To even have the hammer and cycle included let alone on the top of the star is a crazy sick joke, so where is the swastika?

How can they possibly say the communist regime symbol was representative of tolerance and include it in the European flag when not only you were shot if you dissented but your whole family too in order that they could not cause trouble or shoot back on your behalf.


21 October 2012 at 00:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Where was the Swastika?

21 October 2012 at 00:57  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

The Russian revolution traces its history through too much of the political Left for it to be totally repudiated. The Hammer and Sickle has thus become a symbol of the Leftist Ideal. It is not considered the fault of Socialism and Leftist ideology per se that the Soviet Union so quickly devolved into butchery and bloodshed and starvation and privation and dictatorship. It was the Counter-Revolution. It was Lenin's stroke. It was Stalin. It was anything but the logical outworking of Leftist thought over the previous century. In this sense, the Hammer and Sickle can never be truly stained. There is an entire ideological army out there with a vested interest in protecting it.

There wouldn't be a Swastika in the poster for obvious reasons. First of all, its inclusion would strike against Europe's conceit in seeing itself as the center of civilization. As in "How could that have happened here?" In addition, the Left dominates the cultural high ground, and so it gets to act as gatekeeper on what is considered culturally legitimate. But mostly the Swastika is discredited for very a very practical reason. Tanks carved open the Third Reich for all to see. And they came with men carrying cameras. It was conquest that ultimately discredited Nazism. If tanks had opened up Stalin's Russia like Tanks opened up Hitler's Germany, then today we would think worse of Communism than we do of Nazism. But we had to make a deal with Satan to defeat the Dark Lord. Lots of Leftists are grateful for that historical tragedy.

What should interest you is that this poster implicitly sets off Communism as a religion. I am not sure what all the symbols represent. But I believe this is the only non-religious worldview represented. And that is fascinating.

carl

21 October 2012 at 01:18  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Carl
I think you'll find it was the weather that beat off Hitler's troops in Russia. He insisted on pressing ahead on the Russian front in minus 30 degrees with little supplies. Tanks were frozen and snowed up, soldiers froze and starved to death. God not the socialists saved the day.
Hitler was mad so of course he didn't pay any head to the experiences of an other mad man Napoleon who's army also experienced winter on the Russian front in 1812.

Of course the Germans feel ueber guilty about the wars so maybe it's there as a sign that socialism will be pushed because of this deep rooted guilt. Well I don't see how this can end happily ever after. Socialism is as bad.

21 October 2012 at 01:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 October 2012 at 02:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Marie

It was more than the winter. It was Hitler's arrogance and (ironically enough) his racial ideology. If he had treated the Ukraine and Byelorussia as Allies instead of slaves, I believe he would have won. After 10 years of Stalin, the Russians themselves would have risen up & fought for Hitler. Gladly. All Hitler had to do was act as the generous liberator.

But I did leave something unstated that I should had made clear. It would have had to have been British and American tanks opening up Stalin's Russia. Hitler's army didn't have the credibility to do it. Confer with the Katyn forest.

carl

21 October 2012 at 02:01  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dodo

To those of us who had relatives who were forced to live under Communism as my mother's family had to do in Czechoslovakia after 1948 until 1989 the hammer and cycle are as evil a symbol as the swastika they had to live under from 1939 to 1945 when Bohemia and Moravia were under Nazi SS occupation.

The Nazi Swasitka and he Soviet hammer and cycle or two sides of the same evil coin.

@Marie

I guess some here have no idea how evil a symbol that hammer and cycle was and is and what an insult to see it on that EU poster at the top of that star full of religious and philosophical symbols.

21 October 2012 at 05:19  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older