Friday, October 19, 2012

Is it 'homophobic' to oppose gay weddings in churches?

Yesterday, housing manager Adrian Smith was in court trying to recover his lost earnings because his employer demoted him and slashed his salary by 40 per cent - all because he said on Facebook that gay weddings in churches would be 'an equality too far'.

For this, Mr Smith was judged to be 'homophobic', despite it being the stated position of the Government. For His Grace, he is perfectly content for gay unions to take place in religious buildings, and has said so. If Imran and Sadiq wish to get married in their local mosque, it really ought to be no business of the state to prevent them: 'religion' is not established. This must mean that His Grace is not 'homophobic'. Hallelujah.  

Mr Smith made his comment on his personal Facebook page, outside of work time. His page was not visible to the general public. Only his chosen friends, and their friends, could see it. That included some of his work colleagues.

His bosses at Trafford Housing Trust in Manchester charged him with gross misconduct. The only reason he didn’t get fired was that he had been such a good employee over many years.

The press later found out that Trafford Housing Trust took action against Mr Smith because it was, in part, worried that it might lose a gay rights charter award if it didn’t take a tough line.

He has spent a great deal of time trying to reason with his bosses, but he has exhausted the internal appeals procedure and they have refused to see sense. Now a County Court judge will have to decide whether the Trust acted unlawfully.

Even Peter Tatchell, one of the chief activists pushing for marriage to be redefined, says Mr Smith has been harshly treated and should be reinstated.

Mr Smith’s case is precisely the kind of injustice which will become increasingly frequent should the Government goes ahead and redefine marriage - the Attorney General has made this very clear. Supporters of traditional marriage will be punished in the workplace, particularly in the public sector. It’s wrong for someone’s career to be damaged just because they voice support for traditional marriage.

And the serious implications for civil liberty don’t end there. The widespread impact has been outlined in a legal opinion, written by a top human rights lawyer Aidan O’Neill QC. You can download and read a one-page summary of it here.

All of this shows that the Government’s plans to rewrite marriage are divisive, illiberal, far-reaching and should be dropped. Even gay Conservative MPs 'marvel at why (they're) bringing this forward'.


Blogger FrankFisher said...

Seen the Nick griffin story? He said he'd organise a demo outside the 'gay B&B' couple's home to put the opposing view, the, as he reckons, Christian view - and the police are investigating his tweets - DESPITE the couple involved saying they don't feel threatened,and it's a 'damp squib' - so why are police involved?

You can bet, your grace, you can bet 100%, that if this law goes through anyone who disputes the legitimacy of subsequent marriages WILL have their collar felt. This is going to create as many arrests, court cases and prisoners as the poll tax.

19 October 2012 at 10:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Griffin made an online threat to the couple stating that "A British Justice team will come up to [their Huntington address] & give you [the couple, Michael Black and John Morgan] a … bit of drama."

That is an offence under the communications act 2003.

But no doubt you good christians are into mob rule.

Then the BNP supports you, you are in trouble.

19 October 2012 at 10:32  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Then the BNP supports you, you are in trouble."

Is that a bit like when Peter Tatchell comes down on your side too, even though he has his own agenda and is a chief architect of the said policy change..Perish the thought?


19 October 2012 at 10:37  
Blogger graham wood said...

Clearly this is a gross injustice, and an attempt to gag a privately expressed opinion.
It is no business of Mr Smith's employers to presume to comment on Mr Smith's remarks or opinions on Facebook. Their arrogance as self-appointed censors of other people's business is appalling.

Homophobic? This is doublespeak for dissenting from someone else's opinion, and the "gross misconduct" is clearly that of the Trafford Housing Trust.
Those MPs who advocate that same sex marriages should be "allowed in churches", for example, Mr Milliband amongst others, must explain which churches they mean.

So far Mr Milliband has been unable to elucidate. Does he mean Christian churches, mosques, temples of other faiths & etc?.

Is Mr Milliband saying that he wishes to IMPOSE SSM marriage ceremonies on Christian churches, or does he wish to hide behind the vague reference to "churches" as a further vote grubbing exercise to please the "gay" community?
As you say, these plans by government are divisive, illiberal and should be dropped.

19 October 2012 at 10:51  
Blogger Roy said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 October 2012 at 10:52  
Blogger Marcus Foxall said...

It can be inferred,by the nature of his questions to the Trust representatives,that the presiding judge sympathises with Mr.Smith.
That is pleasing.

19 October 2012 at 10:52  
Blogger Roy said...

ISince when has it been legal to slash a person's salary because you think that intimidating him into not utilising his right to free speech will give your organisation a better chance of keeping an award from some external pressure group? I wonder if Adrian Smith is a member of any trade union and if so what that union is doing about it?

The BBC, which can't get enough of the gay couple who were turned away from a b&b establishment, seems to have avoided mentioning the Adrian Smith case even though having your salary slashed by 40 per cent is somewhat more serious than having to find alternative accommodation on a short break.

As far as I know politicians have been remarkably silent about this case too.

Finally, shouldn't the bosses at the Trafford Housing Trust have their salaries slashed by 40% as a punishment for their outrageous attack on fundamental freedoms?

19 October 2012 at 10:54  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@BeeLZeeBub Which do you think is worse: someone who makes a "threat" to "create a bit of drama", or someone who ACTUALLY does make explicit death threats, physically & verbally harasses people, libels & slanders people, sacks people, demotes people, intimidates people, vandalises their property ...?

I think you'll find that pretty much the whole of the comments section of pinknews "is an offence under the communications act 2003".

19 October 2012 at 10:55  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

The true tragedy is that people who said with the said laws of the land as right and proper can be called bigot even though the idea of marriage spouted if tried by a gay couple would be unlawful and impossible to accomplish currently.

Its like calling someone a criminal because they have stolen another s property, which is against the law but you are a bigot for calling the perpetrator a criminal. It is against the law to steal!

A possible hypothetical case would be that only the poor who have less than 100 quid a week to live on and who steal (for necessity sake?) cannot be criminals but all others can as their status shows inequality to have a right to live to a reasonable standard like others who have more than 100 quid per week to get by on that they are denied. Lets change the law as they are not really criminals but gaining equality of sorts by their actions.

I would have thought you could only be homophobic once the law has been changed whereas currently you would be viewed as a law abiding upholder of our statutes for standing by the marriage ceremony and what it means to society, as this is how it currently is. It's not like they can marry each other civilly anyway, can they? ;-O

If children can travel on public transport for free why not all of us. where's the equality in society or has society established certain rules for it to run smooth.
Would Ernst be a bigot for saying let the little blighters pay like the rest of us or is it just an opinion or have I broken a hate law.


19 October 2012 at 10:56  
Blogger Preacher said...

It seems obvious to me that it's a question of "Love of money is the root of all evil".
The Trafford housing trust have responded in knee jerk fashion to a complaint. They haven't the courage to investigate the matter & draw an unbiased verdict as they fear losing a grant.
Are we then to deduce that all the members of the said board are in agreement regarding SSM?.
This cowardly crew then realised that if they dismissed Mr Smith, they could face having to pay him compensation, & have to reinstate him to his original position.
Having painted themselves into a corner the have tried to force him into resigning by bringing him into a financial crisis by slashing his wages by 40%.
I pray that they are hoist on their own petard, That they are forced to pay him a substantial amount for the stress & hardship they've caused him, plus he must be offered his original position back, should he wish to accept it!.
Now that WOULD be justice!.

19 October 2012 at 11:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

On the face of it, it does look very harsh. That said, I'd recommend keeping work and private life quite separate as far as 'social media' is concerned. Putting work colleagues on Facebook and Twitter is pretty risky if you're inclined to post political or religious or 'off-beat' opinions unless you trust them very well. The law is playing catchup in this area and looks pretty illiberal and wide-ranging at the moment. As far as Griffin is concerned, perhaps any news is good news for him but if anything happens to that couple's house, or property, or person as a result of mob violence, I reckon he'll face charges of incitement.

19 October 2012 at 12:31  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

O’Neill says that churches, in general, would be better protected from hostile litigation if they stopped holding weddings altogether

Not going to happen in the Catholic Church, and, as I've said before, the ice will be six feet think across the floor of Hell before a gay couple is "married" before one of our altars, so expect fun an games from the Tims.

BTW, are there any Christians, of any denomination, still at large who don't understand that we are, as our forefathers, once again living in the Roman Empire?

19 October 2012 at 12:40  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

Beel ze bub

I have no time for Griffin but we do not know that he has committed an offence until a court says he has.

So he has not.

The treatment of Smith is inhumane.This is the intolerance of liberalism and there is a lot more to come.

19 October 2012 at 13:02  
Blogger Roy said...

DanJ0 said...

Putting work colleagues on Facebook and Twitter is pretty risky if you're inclined to post political or religious or 'off-beat' opinions unless you trust them very well.

Why on earth should it be risky to say or imply that the definition of marriage is that it is a union between a man and a woman?

19 October 2012 at 14:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Roy, why on earth are you asking me?
I'm a liberal.

19 October 2012 at 15:21  
Blogger Timjam68 said...

It's all quite ridiculous. By the Trafford Housing Trust's reckoning I, as a gay man, must also be 'homophobic' as well as Connor Burns MP, Alan Duncan Mp etc. because we do not support or want SSM.

As I say, it's all quite ridiculous.

19 October 2012 at 15:30  
Blogger William said...


Well said Mr TimJam. Have a cyber-kiss from me.

Great year by the way.

19 October 2012 at 15:42  
Blogger re_mute said...

@Corrigan1 said...
"BTW, are there any Christians, of any denomination, still at large who don't understand that we are, as our forefathers, once again living in the Roman Empire?"

There are plenty, thank goodness, who don't hold that opinion - and who welcome this opportunity for the Church to distinguish itself, by welcoming gay marriage, from Islam and it's backwards views on gays and women.

19 October 2012 at 15:54  
Blogger Nicodemus said...


on what basis do you define "backward" and from where do you draw your moral code?

just wondering.

19 October 2012 at 16:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did someone mention Mob Rule we are opposed to the Mob Ruling us from Parlaiment

I also despise organisations that use the word Trust when they are not worthy of our trust

19 October 2012 at 16:32  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

William 15:42

'Take oh take those lips away
That so sweetly were foresworn'

19 October 2012 at 17:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hetrophobia and it’s civil partner Christophobia are growing phenomena. We are witnessing unbridled intolerance of society as it was. We are exchanging stable society for unknown territory, as we did with massive alien immigration. We don’t learn do we…

Congratulations Trafford Housing Trust, on being awarded a gay rights charter award, to wit, the Gay Iron Cross, 1st Class. Keep up the good work fellows. Other corporate awards handed out by gay fascists to aim for are…

Gay Knight's Cross
Gay Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves
Gay Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves and Swords
Gay Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds
Gay Knight's Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds

Word of warning though. Should you ever get to the last one, you’ll be feeding Christians to the lions by then on a daily basis, you rotters…

Sieg heil !

Inspector General KBO

19 October 2012 at 17:22  
Blogger William said...


Have a broken a promise?

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

Corrigan.Not going to happen in the Catholic Church, and, as I've said before, the ice will be six feet think across the floor of Hell before a gay couple is "married" before one of our altars, so expect fun and games from the Tims.

Indeed. One can even imagine a secret organisation being set up to fight the tyranny of a state that makes no secret of its loathing for you. The Catholic Liberation Army, perhaps. Staffed by enthusiastic taigs who would rather not see their culture destroyed and just stand around watching it happen. Of course, once freedom to worship has been re-gained, the organisation would stand down. You could say it would only have a ‘provisional’ existence, if you will…

19 October 2012 at 17:24  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Dunno..just an excuse to quote some Shakespeare:)

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


Phew. I thought I'd betrayed you and was going to give you this as a parting gift. :)

19 October 2012 at 18:01  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 October 2012 at 18:04  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 October 2012 at 18:08  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Interesting to hear Nick Griffin's interview by the BBC. Interesting to compare the interviewing style for NG (Hostile I thought) with the style adopted for the "gay couple". My thoughts were that it was not the BBC's job or role to make these sort of value judgements. Interesting dig at the Anglican Church.

I think If I were gay I would be worried, not by NG as such, but perhaps a more articulate leader, I feel that the homosexual community is setting themselves up as anti hetro, which presumably is not a good idea if you are just 1.5% of the population. I do wonder if the net result of all this tolerance will be less tolerance for the very minorities the tolerance was aim at.

Got me thinking, I'm not a NG fan but I think we neeed to allow the NGs of this world say their piece. to my surprise, not all of what NG said I disagreed with.


19 October 2012 at 18:08  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Thank you William but I would have preferred Dowland's ' My Lady Hunsdon's Puffe' on the lute:)

19 October 2012 at 18:14  
Blogger John Magee said...

The left could care less about Gays or Gay "marriage". Where was their concern about homosexuals before the radical movements of the late 60's and 70's? It didn't exist.

Until recently Gays were scum of the earth in Communist countries. Che Guevara launched a pogrom against homosexuals in Cuba in the early 1960's by having them rounded up and thrown in labor camps to be worked to death. Too bad the clever young university young students or punks who wear T shirts with his mug on them don't realize the fact their "hero" Che was also a mass murderer. Former East Germany kept the same anti homosexual laws in their legal code the Nazi's used.

The radical Left's relentless objective is to demorlize and destroy all the traditional institutions of Western Civilization especially anyting to do with religion and morals. Advancing "Gay" marriage in Western Societies is the first chance the radical left has ever had to legally undermine the concept of marriage and redefine the concept of the traditional family which has been universially accepted by all civilizations and major religions since the beginning of human history.

Legalized Gay "marriage" eventually will give the Left the legal means to file law suits against any church, synagogue, or mosque that refuses to marry people of the same sex.

This is coming to the country you live in sooner than you think so fasten your seat belts and fight this outrage and war on the traditional family by suppoting organizations where you live who dare to stand up to this war on the traditional family.

It can't be a surprise to conservatives that this was the objective of the far Left since they adopted Gays as a new victim class to be exploited for their causes 40 years ago.

19 October 2012 at 18:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

How the hell did Trafford Housing Trust end up under the jackboot of militant pooftery ?

And why don’t they fight it ?

Can’t work that those out at all...

19 October 2012 at 19:47  
Blogger Roy said...

DanJ0 said...

Roy, why on earth are you asking me?
I'm a liberal.

Sorry if I gave the impression that I was implying that you are not. Although I quoted you my question was rhetorical rather than directed at you personally.

19 October 2012 at 19:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Supporters of traditional marriage will be punished in the workplace, particularly in the public sector.”

I’ve worked in the public sector almost all working my life (that’s a 30 year working life) and have never come across the situation where someone is disciplined for holding a particular private view that might (or might not) be PC. Oddly enough I have worked for three local authorities that all had Christian staff groups who used to met on council property for lunch time prayer meetings – so I have never really come across militant anti-Christian sentiment or practice either (except in the fantasy sex-obsessed or sexually related matters blogs like Anglicanmainstream and the like) . I now work for the NHS in palliative/end of life care and although there seems a paucity of people with conservative religious belief in the teams of doctors and nurses I work with, nevertheless upholding a patient’s faith and culture is seen as paramount in the dying process. Certainly a great deal of pressure is put on family, friends, nursing homes etc. to ensure a person has access to their chosen spiritual beliefs up until the end (tho’ of course these are not necessarily Christian).

I must confess to never quite believing the story of Adrian Smith, simply because, as a I worked as a manager in both the public and voluntary sector, it was REALLY hard to sack anyone – and disciplining staff wasn’t easy! Believe me, I tried to sack several staff and failed. I just can’t believe anyone would sack or attempt to sack a person for a personal comment on a Facebook. I’m in a same-sex relationship and I’m not a fan of gay marriage – and certainly would support any move to oppose places of worship to be forced to conduct same-sex marriages (providing there wasn’t any homophobia associated with that protest) if the minister/priest and/or the congregation did not want SSMs to take place in the church (temple, mosque, synagogue etc.) – and I have expressed this view in the work place... I’d better beware...

19 October 2012 at 20:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The BBC Trust cannot be trusted with our children, let alone with interviewing Griffin

I am sure the married gays are looking forwards to your children being snatched by the state and handed over to them

Where are the voices of the gays opposed to marriage, they are out there but get no look in

19 October 2012 at 20:10  
Blogger John Magee said...

I resent the fact gays usurped the word "gay". Gay used to mean happily excited, exuberant, high spirits and carefree. Now if you are old enough, as I am, and make a slip of the tongue and tell your football mates you feel "gay" ( intending the use of the old definition of that word) after the home team wins a match you have some fast explaining to do.

19 October 2012 at 21:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter Denshaw.I’m in a same-sex relationship and I’m not a fan of gay marriage

You are of society. You have this man’s respect for that. Conflicts bring out the worst in men. Let us hope the status quo remains and we can end the unpleasantries.

19 October 2012 at 21:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Phil Roberts. Interesting to hear Nick Griffin's interview by the BBC. Interesting to compare the interviewing style for NG (Hostile I thought) with the style adopted for the "gay couple". ,

Ah yes, that would be the Nicky Campbell interview on Radio 5. The fellow was straining on the end of his metal chain with teeth bared, or so it seemed. But the other way with a couple of gentle queens, one of whom is clearly narcissist with his extensive ‘body art’ which also suggests personality disorder / below average IQ

19 October 2012 at 21:57  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...


There are plenty, thank goodness, who don't hold that opinion - and who welcome this opportunity for the Church to distinguish itself, by welcoming gay marriage, from Islam and it's backwards views on gays and women.

Perhaps we should distinguish ourselves by welcoming incest too. Seemed to work for Caligula...

19 October 2012 at 22:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Caligula !

Wonderful man. He exterminated his male relations with just about the sole exception of Claudius, who, using his unpleasant natural tics, managed to convince your man he was a half wit, when of course he was not. The praetorian guard knew this and made him emperor, having finished off pervert.

Incidentally, it was Caligula continuing piss take of the guard leader, who had a genital injury from battle, suggesting he was now queer, which sealed his fate.

Jolly good show, what !

19 October 2012 at 22:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The marriage between a man and a woman is' the bedrock' of our Society.

So why is our government so eager to destroy the bedrock of our society?.

They(The Government) are either unwitting fools [which is quite possible].....Or they are pursuing a policy(knowingly or not) that is aiming to destroy our Society so they can rebuild Society in their 'own image'.

IF those with the intentions of re- -constructing our Society succeed they will have re- defined man and his moral framework.There will no longer be 'sinners' in need of salvation there will merely be those who chose an 'alternative lifestyle'. There are many today who see no need or relevance to Jesus Christ.To explain the Gospel today one has to go right back to basics because many today are loosing all concept of sin and how to define it.
I believe the sole intention of this' brave New World' being created in Europe is to totally displace God and to make Jesus Christ irrelevant.

Man once no longer being able to define sin and the need to be saved from his hopeless condition would accept this fallen state as 'natural'and be resigned to it.

It is the duty of every Christ to stick to the truth of God and not to be compliant with this present World system.

'You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God'.(James 4:4)

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


The average suburban home today with a computer and connected to the internet has the possibility of access to infinately more depraved sexual material than even the debauched Caligula or depraved Nero could have ever dreamed of seeing or doing.

We have tens of millions of little Calgula's and Nero's in their dark bedrooms with the bluish glow of the desk top on their faces with their tongues hanging out watching stuff that would make the real Caligula and Nero probably blush.

That's the state of Western Civilization in 2012.

19 October 2012 at 23:32  
Blogger John Magee said...


It's the Leftist's who hate Western Civilization and Christiasny who curse us with garbage like Gay "marriage" and abortion on demand.

19 October 2012 at 23:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is time for Christians to speak out Biblical Truth because it is the only to define the problems with Humanity and the Solution ...which is Jesus Christ.

IF the 'way of man' was working things would be getting better but 'things' quite obviously are getting considerably worse.
How bad will things have to get before man wakes up from his trance and sees the reality of the situation and exactly how far he has fallen?

19 October 2012 at 23:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Quite John. Our young are subject to all manner of internet temptations. Society is going to get a lot worse, that’s for sure. And on top of this, we have nefarious brown hattery doing it’s bit to corrupt youth. One is glad he has a full head of hair, and has resisted the urge to pull much of it out.

19 October 2012 at 23:46  
Blogger John Magee said...


My sentiments exactly.

19 October 2012 at 23:53  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Dodo's Tale

When I worked in Lambeth back in the 1970's I was thretened with disciplinary action for referring to "coffee without milk" as "black coffee". Apparently, the latter term denoted an absence of something valuable i.e milk. No to me! I have an allegy to dairy products!

This was in the days of Janet or Janice Boateng; can't remember which. Yes, the dear wife of Paul Boateng. God, remember his speech on being elected?! Now he's a Baron. Hasn't the boy done well? A Methodist too.

Anyway, back then, no black child could be placed with a white family and social workers who thought young runaways (12 years), known to be exploited as homosexual rent-boys, needed close supervision were viewed as "repressive". Black families could not be understood by white social workers who undermined them.

I left Lambeth.

Today, I speak my mind, publically and privately, as I see fit to whomever and whenever I consider it necessary as dictated by my conscience.

I doubt I would survive homosexual marriage as a public servant who is expected to represent the State in its dealings with citizens. The gulf between God and State widens by the day.

I've barely survived openly disapproving of homosexual fostering and adoption and refusing to become professionally involved in homosexual relationships. My views on abortion are also 'tolerated'.

I thank God for sparing me this test of my faith and the trials it would bring into my life. I am 60 years of age very soon and anytime thereafter I choose to leave I can with due notice.

I pray for those who will have to shoulder this burden in the name of their faith.

20 October 2012 at 01:46  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace asks: Is it 'homophobic' to oppose gay weddings in churches? I agree with those communicants who have recognised that, if so, opponents of traditional marriage are being heterophobic. Said communicants of course assume that the heterophobes have somewhat twisted the etymological indication that "gay" probably stems from the Old Germanic wahi = pretty (Chambers).

Some of us, especially women, would indeed prefer that our menfolk did not try to be 'pretty' -- particularly if that meaning were to extend to OE's more 'ambisextrous' praettig = tricky, sly, cunning, wily (see Chambers and Clark Hall ). In truth, the ssm business is ugly -- even in the ON sense of uggligr/uggr which = fear and rather returns us to square one.

Why should we not "fear"? It is surely natural for members of the heterosexual majority to respond to homosexual advances with fear, apprehension, and anxiety---the natural corollary being a disgusted rejection of the aggressor (fight or flight). It seems consistent, therefore, to suggest that those of us who are wired towards reproduction of the species should retain the right to defend ourselves and our children against practices that we innately perceive as being against the interests of nature.

However, marxists now seek to eradicate that same right along with the Judaeo-Christianity that protects it. Fear of their ploys and toys is therefore a natural, sensible reaction: it serves to inform the policy of defending ourselves and of reinstating a strong, healthy society.

Personal experience supports my claim at an individual level. I apparently have an unusually expressive face; this means that I unwittingly reveal nausea when faced with lesbian/homosexual harrassment or with descriptions of homosexual practices. My spontaneity has often elicited remonstration from authoritative homosexuals who do not believe that anyone should feel differently from them, or that we should say "NO." The last time one of them trivialised my inevitable negative, I needed to stay in that place rather than walk out, so I sought legal advice. While learning how to resolve the situation, I also received reassurance that, like rape and its cousin murder, such harrassment is about assertion of power.

I suggest, therefore, that the ssm guff similarly requires us to deal with powerplay: but at the governmental/social level. Under cover of "human rights" the deconstructionists slyly seek to deprive heterosexuals of not only our most personal and private rights, but also of our familial, national, and racial liberties.

Thank you, Your Grace, for consistently airing the issue. You consequently afford others the opportunity to identify and analyse the tangle of its consequences.

20 October 2012 at 04:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My sentiments entirely non mouse(20 October 2012 04:37)

The foundations of our Society are Christian and there are those who would smash those foundations for their own selfish intents and purposes.

The first thing that happens when people turn away from God is Idolatry.This seems to be a 'natural' progression and is seen throughout History.Homosexuality and Idolatry seem to go hand in hand of course other things proceed from Idolatry which speed up the breakdown of Society.

'According to the psalmist and the prophet Isaiah, those who worship inanimate idols will be like them, that is, unseeing, unfeeling, unable to hear the truth that God would communicate to them. Paul the Apostle identifies the worship of created things (rather than the Creator) as the cause of the disintegration of sexual and social morality in his letter to the Romans.'(from Wiki)

20 October 2012 at 08:01  
Blogger bluedog said...

An excellent post, non mouse @ 0437, thank you. And so the fight against SSM grinds on.

The US Presidential races will be an important test of the electoral impact of SSM. With Obama backing SSM (which may dispel the persistant belief that he is Muslim) and Romney favouring the marital status quo, it seems likely that the Christian vote will gravitate to Romney. The positioning of the Latino vote will be especially significant for the Republicans.

Thanks to Dave, this is certainly the first US Presidential election that this communicant can recall in which the social policies of the Conservative Party have been represented by the Democrats, rather than by the Republicans. We can safely say that the Republicans represent true conservative values and that communicants should pray for Obama's defeat.

Obama is an arbiter of cool, and in view of his support for SSM, our shallow, gullible and celebrity obsessed politicians (includes Boris Johnson, sadly), will hopefully be taught a lesson in the electoral consequences of policies that undermine society.

20 October 2012 at 08:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When men strutted around in their codpeice I am sure they had gay days

As they did in France around the time of the revolution when men wore wigs beauty spots and make up

I can easily picture Larry Grayson living in those times

20 October 2012 at 08:30  
Blogger Gary said...

The real bigots in all this are the members of the Trafford Housing Trust and the judge who ruled in their favour. Christophobes all!

20 October 2012 at 08:52  
Blogger William said...

Thank you non mouse. A most incisive analysis.

20 October 2012 at 09:18  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...


Has the judge ruled in their favour? I thought the case was still ongoing.

20 October 2012 at 09:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The judgement is here.

20 October 2012 at 10:30  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@danJ0 ... You are getting your cases of lawfare muddled. That is the case against the christian B&B owners. We're talking about the case of the christian manager at Trafford Housing Trust.

There was an initial case in which it was judged that THT had not breached his human rights. But there is now a case against his unfair demotion.

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

Doh! So I am. Thanks.

20 October 2012 at 10:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Too keen to talk about section 78 onwards in it, and not paying enough attention this morning.

20 October 2012 at 10:52  
Blogger JohnPD said...

Congratulations non mouse, & thanks Your Grace.
I believe that the fanatically pro-homosexual, & pro abortion lobby can be best understood in the context of UN Agenda 21.
This is a blueprint for our world's future.
It's aims include lowering world population drastically,(hence the above lobby pressure),the abolition of the family & private property.
All property will be state owned, & children will be raised in state creches.
There is much more to this. I invite you to google it.
Signed by George Bush senior 1992 & ratified by Bill Clinton 1993, with no reference to Congress, this project is far down the road.
We live in interesting times.

20 October 2012 at 13:48  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 October 2012 at 20:09  
Blogger dxt said...

He was probably over paid anyway.

20 October 2012 at 21:39  
Blogger bluedog said...

Thanks, John Magee.

Mr JohnPD 13.48, you may be on the right track. South of the Mason-Dixon Line in Alabama they've taken a sharp turn against Agenda 21, but maybe you know that already.

21 October 2012 at 12:17  
Blogger JohnPD said...

@bluedog 12:17,no I didn't know about
Alabama. I've just learned about Agenda 21, & frankly it's frightening. Thanks for letting me know, I'll google it up.

21 October 2012 at 17:38  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 October 2012 at 18:15  
Blogger JohnPD said...

Hi, & thanks for your tip re Alabama.
I have learned so much. :)

@ YourGrace.
Is Your Grace aware of UN Agenda 21?
You certainly should be.
I refer you to my comment above @13:48. & bluedogs reply re Alabama.
May I suggest Your Grace considers contacting the RC competition & many others?
It's taken Alabama 20 years to wake up & smell the coffee, but now many other states are following suit.
As many as possible need to learn of this diabolical plot, & as soon as possible.

21 October 2012 at 21:33  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


"The foundations of our Society are Christian and there are those who would smash those foundations for their own selfish intents and purposes.
" Well spoken as per.

Those foundations do not save anyone as the Mosaic covenant was to Israel but as a Shadow of Who it was that Saved them from out of Egypt as We ourselves were saved from darkness and brought into Light.
It pointed to Who was responsible for that Salvation and what we needed to do to obey Him and was THE key foundation of our Nation from the Reformation forwards.

It appears we are fast losing our Memorial of and to this fact!


24 October 2012 at 12:12  
Blogger John Magee said...


I like and respect you. But you can't neglect or forget the historical fact England was Roman Catholic for almost exacly 1,000 years before Henry VIII"s national church was created in the 1530's.

It was the Church IN England during that 1,000 year time frame.

26 October 2012 at 04:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

IF Catholic theologians had stuck to the scriptures then the Reformation would have been unnecessary.

28 October 2012 at 20:30  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older