Saturday, May 11, 2013

MyGayZine - the vindictive pursuit of sexual uniformity



Here we go again.

A Christian printer by the name of Nick Williamson, 28, from Portadown in Northern Ireland, is about to be hauled off to court by another horde of militant homosexualists. Honestly, this is getting beyond a joke. There was a time when a Christian printer could politely decline to print gay porn, and the nice, understanding, empathetic homosexual completely understood, shook hands, and trundled off to find a printer who wasn’t remotely bothered by explicit images of gay men doing what gay men do. It was an era of live and let live; of liberty, tolerance, and the mutual accommodation of difference.

But now we must all be assimilated. Or, rather, the Christians must: the homosexualists haven’t got the balls to find some mosque-based printing outfit in Minaret Tower Hamlets and demand that they help propagate images of men mounting men. No, of course not: the throne of Allah would shake. When the ahadith discuss liwat (sexual intercourse between men), the general consensus is that both should be flung off the nearest cliff.

So it’s easier to bully Christians.

MyGayZine is an online magazine for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Northern Ireland. They asked Mr Williamson of Blufire Media in County Armagh for a design quotation. But Mr Williamson had a problem with the content of this site. He could have said he was far too busy to accept the job, or he could have provided some outrageously prohibitive estimate of costs. But this would have been lying. And why should Mr Williamson lie? Is he ashamed of his faith? Must he hide Christ under an AppleMac for fear of being insulted and harassed?

No, he pointed out calmly and politely to the magazine’s editor, one Danny Toner, that the MyGayZine website contained explicit sexual images, and that he did ‘not feel comfortable’ taking the job on because it ‘would be in contradiction to my own faith’. Mr Williamson explained succinctly: ‘Unfortunately due to the nature of the magazine we are unable to give a quote.’ He wasn’t prepared to print that kind of material whether homosexual or heterosexual.

So, how is this anti-gay discrimination, exactly?

If a man won’t print pornography of any genre – because it is all perversion – by what moral or legal right does the homosexualist insist that his particular genre of the perversion ought to be privileged?

Ah, but Mr Toner was ‘shocked’ and ‘annoyed’ by Mr Williamson’s rejection of his harmless rainbow website. And let us add ‘hurt’, ‘outraged’ and ‘offended’, for good measure. So the case has been referred to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.

It beggars belief that Danny Toner believes that Nick Williamson should be required by law to print material of a nature that could reasonably be considered to be in direct conflict with the core elements of his religious beliefs. Would he force a Muslim to design and print material that offended his creed? Should the Muslim printer be obliged by statute to assist an anti-Muslim horde in the denigration of Mohammed or the cursing of Allah?

We have become aware over the years that it appears to have become a crime to believe that homosexuality is a sin, and to permit that religious orthodoxy to determine one’s actions in the public square (or your B&B or your hotel [from which His Grace demurs]). We have become used to streaming allegations of homophobia from screaming gayers who insist that their innate sexual preferences should trump millennia of cultural mores and normative religious orthodoxy. But this must be the first case of pornophobia: the first time a homosexualist is hurt and offended because the Christian doesn’t print porn of any description.

No doubt this case will turn on the relative definitions or increments of gay porn – not least because Mr Toner is adamant that MyGayZone has no adult content. In which case we can argue about the definition of ‘adult content’, for many parents might be concerned if their child were visiting this particular site, not least because they tend to promote a certain lifestyle or inculcate certain beliefs and attitudes toward sexual morality which might offend many Christians, Jews and Muslims (not to mention Sikhs, one or two Hindus, and the vast majority of Mormons and Scientologists). Mr Toner will insist that his website talks harmlessly about gay life, travel and culture, with the odd recipe for carrot and ginger soup. But others will find therein the exaltation of a lifestyle to which they strongly object.

And then we’ll get the spinning of the written correspondence, which has already been made public by Mr Toner, no doubt adduced as evidence for Mr Williamson’s bigotry, intolerance, hatred and homophobia. His first response was straightforward: ‘Unfortunately due to the nature of the magazine we are unable to give a quote.’

Difficult to see how that might ‘hurt’, ‘offend’, ‘confuse’ or ‘embarrass’ the recipient. But, sensing a marketing opportunity to boost the profile of his website, Mr Toner sought clarification, to which Mr Williamson apparently responded: ‘To work alongside (even printing for) the LGBT would be in contradiction to my own faith and so I will have to let this quote slide.’

And there you have it. Blatant homophobic discrimination.

In this corner of the United Kingdom, refusing to offer goods or services on the grounds of sexual orientation contravenes the The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006. This determines that a person (“A”) discriminates against another person (“B”) if –
(a) on grounds of sexual orientation, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons; or
(b) A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same sexual orientation as B; but –
  (i) which puts or would put persons of the same sexual orientation as B at a particular disadvantage when compared with other persons;
  (ii) which puts B at a disadvantage; and
  (iii) which A cannot show to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim; or
(c) A applies to B a requirement or condition which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same sexual orientation as B; but –
  (i) which is such that the proportion of persons of the same sexual orientation as B who can comply with it is considerably smaller than the proportion of persons not of that sexual orientation who can comply with it; and
  (ii) which he cannot show to be justifiable irrespective of the sexual orientation of the person to whom it is applied; and
  (iii) which is to the detriment of B because he cannot comply with it.
(2) A comparison of B’s case with that of another person under paragraph (1) must be such that the relevant circumstances in the one case are the same, or not materially different, in the other.
(3) A person (“A”) subjects another person (“B”) to harassment in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision referred to in these Regulations where, on the ground of sexual orientation, A engages in unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of –
  (a) violating B’s dignity; or
  (b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
So the degraded and humiliated homosexual Danny Toner is taking the hostile and intimidating Christian Nick Williamson to court in order ‘to fight homophobia and to bring it to people's attention’ (and get a few extra hits for his website). It is nothing but malicious, vindictive, anti-Christian bullying. Why is it that homosexuals, who have endured decades and centuries of sometimes appalling persecution, cannot see the hypocrisy of their militant pogrom?

143 Comments:

Blogger Peter D said...

Brilliant!

Good to see you back to yourself, Archbishop.

11 May 2013 at 11:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

So, does the magazine contain gay pornography or not? The online version I just looked at is like one of those naff celebrity magazines women tend to buy and the only cock in it seems to be in the chicken noodle soup recipe in this version.

11 May 2013 at 11:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

If this does end up in court then it should be an interesting case. I'd have thought he could win this one despite the Christian Institute getting involved again and potentially giving it the kiss of death. For me, he has an immediate defence because he says he's not making a distinction between straight and gay 'porn' or perhaps 'vaguely sexualised content' in his refusal. As far as a conscientious defence is concerned, I'd say he has a one because the service is direct involvement in promoting the content to others, unlike the case where the services are merely hotel rooms or the supply of flowers to a civil partnership ceremony.

11 May 2013 at 12:38  
Blogger Nick said...

I think this story speaks more about the mindset of the homosexual than anything else. They easily get on their high horse if someone dares to challenge them or disagree with them. Thanks to modern "Liberalism" they have sensed blood when dealing with anyone who stands in their way. They are not democratic, they are not interested in equality either. They are set on vengeance.

It is the politics of the playground. If you don't do what I want, I'll beat you up. Most of us have thankfully grown up and and don't respond with litigation each time we don't get what we want.

Mr Williamson is one of the growing list of prisoners of conscience who are becoming victims of heterophobic hate by the gay community. My heart goes out to him, and I thank God for his honesty, resolve, and pray that his persecutors will eventually wallow in the shame they so richly deserve.

11 May 2013 at 13:28  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

"the throne of Allah would shake"

These gays must be really going at it! The best me and the missus can do orgasmo-seismically is to rattle the ornaments on the mantlepiece.

11 May 2013 at 14:18  
Blogger JAMES STEWART said...

'We' are not a 'they'. Please don't belittle me by 1. lumping me in with others I happen to share a sexuality with, (I don't write off all heterosexuals because of the hatred I endured at school) and 2. calling us homosexualists , which implies it's about what we do not who we are. Some Anglican acceptance and balance , please?

11 May 2013 at 14:28  
Blogger JAMES STEWART said...

What I'm saying is , I'm homosexual but I absolutely defend the printer from the idiot editors of that magazine.

11 May 2013 at 14:29  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

JAMES STEWART,

Do read the article, again, very calmly and reflectively, and you may just see that His Grace distinguishes very clearly between the homosexual and the Homosexualist. For the sake of clarity, the former tend to be respectful of religious liberty, tolerance, and the mutual accommodation of difference; the latter are invariably militant, intent on forcing an agenda of moral uniformity upon everyone under the cloak of 'equality'.

There is nothing in this article which any reasoned or reasonable homosexual ought to find offensive.

11 May 2013 at 14:38  
Blogger Albert said...

Well said James Stewart @ 1438.

Why do some homosexuals feel the need to force other people to do things they think are wrong? If I run a Christian paper and the local Muslim or gay printer decides he does not wish to print it, that's up to them. If I kicked up a stink about that, people of my own faith would tell me my behaviour was unacceptable and intolerant. Even if there was a daft law permitting me to kick up a stink, I still wouldn't - I believe in people's freedom to choose.

If enough gay people don't speak up against this kind of intolerance, they - as a group - will find themselves losing public support. The whole pro-gay position rests on tolerance after all!

11 May 2013 at 15:00  
Blogger Albert said...

Sorry, I meant James at 1429.

11 May 2013 at 15:00  
Blogger Sam Vega said...

"It beggars belief that Danny Toner believes that Nick Williamson should be required by law to print material of a nature that could reasonably be considered to be in direct conflict with the core elements of his religious beliefs."

No, it doesn't. It used to, but not any more.

11 May 2013 at 15:18  
Blogger Dr.D said...

The in-your-face queers will soon stir up enough resentment that they will all be forced back into the shadows again. Is this really what they want? This is not live and let live, but rather it is a demand for social dominance. This needs to be slapped down HARD!

11 May 2013 at 15:39  
Blogger David B said...

As far as I understand the situation, I agree with DanJo.

With the addendum that if people in this printer's position are to be told by the law that they must print what they find offensive, then Muslim, Jewish, Hindu...printers should be subject to similar constraints.

However I ask myself if a metaphysical naturalist of principle like myself were a printer asked to print a magazine which treated garbage like homeopathy, Reiki, astrology....as fact, and contained ads which offered services in such fields making claims that I would consider false, should such a printer have the right, or, indeed, the obligation, to decline the commission?

Hmm. I think I must, for the sake of consistency, find myself defending the Christian in this situation. And, by extension, defending the hypothetical Muslims who might decline to print a Pork recipe book, as well.

David

11 May 2013 at 16:08  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Have a look at this to see how HORRIBLE this sprit of homosexuality really is

Homosexuals at the Folsom Street Fairs, (so often dressed up like Nazis). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVd-ytb13Kc

11 May 2013 at 16:14  
Blogger michael north said...


Mrs Thatcher spoke of how the ratchet of socialism stayed in place, however one tried to undo it. For decades there has been a conflation of "public service" and "private business". Anyone going to Mr Williamson is entering on a private contract with him. In a free society Mr Williamson should be able to refuse to do business if he chooses; it is his business and he has no need to justify himself.

I think the rot started with the Race Relations Act in the 1970s, when white guilt became one of the drivers of public policy, in this country as in the USA. The rights of ordinary people to deal (or not) with others, as they chose, were sacrificed to give liberals the chance to feel good about themselves.

Martin Luther King said that he did not look to the law to make white bigots love him; he expected it to stop him being lynched. That is all law can achieve in a society without thought police.

There has been a particularly absurd case in Canada, recently, though I don't know if it has come to anything. A bull dyke is bringing an action against a Muslim barbershop which refused to cut her hair. The Muslims are claiming it is against their religion to have that sort of contact with a female who is not a relative. You couldn't make it up.

11 May 2013 at 16:16  
Blogger Naomi King said...


If you want to understand how we got here watch

http://www.lamblion.com/television/programs_conference7.php

There is now so called "equality" for all except Christians.

11 May 2013 at 16:24  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Stand against the whiles of the devil ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6bDXCWkhV8&feature=player_embedded

and have a laugh.

11 May 2013 at 16:41  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Dr D

"The in-your-face queers will soon stir up enough resentment that they will all be forced back into the shadows again"

I used to think this would be the case but the evidence is that laws become the norm for society and so eventually it is customary to believe it is unacceptable to think the opposite. Think for example littering, racial abuse, or smacking etc etc.

Most of the population do not have a moral code outside of what the State decides. Christians are different and measure whether a law is just against the Bible, which is increasingly setting up areas of conflict with the State.

The problem is that the majority don't care enough about the conscience of the printer and so eventually it will become the "norm" to agree with the State's morality as defined by the law.

Look at countries such as Sweden and you can see where we are headed. My guess is that around 90% or more of Swedes would consider that the printer was acting unreasonably.

Phil

11 May 2013 at 17:53  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Surely it's also Mr Williamson's business reputation at stake here as well. What sort of a printer is he? What sort of clientèle does he wish to attract? There are many printers out there some more specialist than others, and there are specialists who would be better suited to printing magazines like Mygayzine which Mr Toner should be using. A printer should have the right to decline anything he does not feel comfortable doing or he feels is not in-keeping with his business values and ethos.
As he no doubt displays his company logo on all his work would then a big corporate seeking a printer for their serious literature use a printer who knocks out trivial LGBT trashy magazines?

11 May 2013 at 18:04  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 May 2013 at 18:06  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Dr D

There are exceptions of course during times of severe economic downturn and/or civil unrest when the leaders are looking for a minority to blame or deflect attention or to kick and many laws do not work or are ignored with impunity.

If I were gay in Greece, Spain or Italy I would be more than a bit worried at the moment. If I had a civil partnership or gay wedding ceremony and so were on a database as gay, I would be especially worried.

Phil

11 May 2013 at 18:08  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Marie

"A printer should have the right to decline anything he does not feel comfortable doing or he feels is not in-keeping with his business values and ethos"

This is of course rubbish Marie. Think of other examples. e.g. he may consider that he has a young athletic image and not wish to take work from a charity that helped people overcome a weight problem. He might consider that he was not interested in taking work for black people, or a particular political party.

Remove the word printer from your sentence and see where the problem lies.

Phil

11 May 2013 at 18:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's recent immigrants who tend to get it first, I think, and Jews however long they've lived in a country.

11 May 2013 at 18:26  
Blogger michael north said...


Phil Roberts @ 18.18

I don't see any problem. Mr Williamson is not an employee of a state body. He is the boss of a business he set up himself and is entitled to sell his sevices to anyone or no one, as he sees fit. His reasons are his own affair, whether they pass the PC test or not. He has the right to turn up the chance to make money, if he feels there is something more important in life.

It is a measure of how low we have sunk that this should even need saying.

11 May 2013 at 18:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

He'll come unstuck in court if he's found to have printed any equivalently risqué stuff of a heterosexual nature in the past. It's crucial that he's refusing on the basis of sexual content rather than homosexual content, I think, given what the law says.

On the positive side, if he needs funds to mount a defence then Attitude magazine would probaby pay to do a feature with a good-looking man that that, provided he's pictured with his sleeves rolled up, most of his buttons undone, and a flushed look next to his printing machine.

11 May 2013 at 18:43  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Phil
Depends what sort of image he wants to cultivate. Clearly he doesn't want to be known for literature with sexual content now this could apply to anyone running a business Christian or not.

There are companies will different rules. Builders of retirement apartments clearly state nobody with dementia or the onset of can live in their flats and occupants have to be over 60.

11 May 2013 at 18:50  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Mr Williamson might want to change the name of his company from “Blufire media” as it could possibly be misconstrued and attract those from the porn industry. Blu movies and all that ….

11 May 2013 at 18:59  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Michael/Marie

"He has the right to turn up the chance to make money, if he feels there is something more important in life."

"Builders of retirement apartments clearly state nobody with dementia or the onset of can live in their flats and occupants have to be over 60. "

But what if I say that I will not let black people use my private hospital?

Now because there has been a law about this for a long time it is now both socially unaccpable as well as against the law to act in this way. going back to my earier point, the law has forced a norm on society.

As Christians we look to the bible and find that this does not allow discrimination on the basis of race, my example above, but we should not be involved in printing this sort of literature. The State says that we should not discriminate based on my reasonable senanario involving race and so we are forced to accommodate the State's wishes. sooner or later it becomes the norm that it is unthinable to discriminate in this way. The Church often follows the state's lead, e.g. Women Bishops / clergy etc.

Phil

11 May 2013 at 19:02  
Blogger Albert said...

Phil,

You have a point. However, there is assumption in your thinking that history always moves in a single straight and predictable line. I don't think history does work like that. Societies change, and modern society changes quickly - often changing trajectory in the process. It's hard to believe that the West will look as it does 100 years time. There'll be a change of direction somewhere - for better or worse. I doubt that "Equal marriage" will exist then.

The Church often follows the state's lead, e.g. Women Bishops / clergy etc.

The Church of England does, but that's not the Church - it doesn't even claim to be.

11 May 2013 at 19:25  
Blogger Peter D said...

"Once he [Williamson] came back and was open about the reasons for refusing, I was shocked about how blatant he was. I felt hurt and annoyed and confused. Why? How could anybody refuse a service just for that one reason? It was embarrassing too – it's shaming."

Poor, poor sensitive Mr Toner. How terrible for him.

"If we can take the printer to court, we will. Part of the reason we started this magazine in the first place was in order to fight homophobia and to bring it to people's attention. Things have improved for gay people in Northern Ireland in the last five or six years but there's still a long way to go."

But wait. He soon recovered. Not feeling so hurt, confused or annoyed now, is he? As for shame ... well forget that.

Instead of respecting Mr Williamson's conscience, Mr Toner flew into a vindictive rage. Or did he? One wonders if he knew the editor was a well known Christian.

The problem is that in Britain the so-called Equality Act makes it an offence to refuse to offer goods or services on the grounds of 'sexual orientation'. The law is being used by homosexualists to bully every other sector of society. Judges have taken it as a reason to compel some people to abet, condone, promote or participate in activities against their moral conscience and beliefs. Religious freedom means very little.

Mr Williamson was not discriminating on the grounds of the customer’s sexual orientation. If a heterosexual person had asked him to publish the same magazine, he would have refused. If a homosexual had asked him to publish a magazine on another topic he would have consented. The customer’s sexual orientation was not the issue - the promotion of a lifestyle he opposed, was the issue.

11 May 2013 at 19:39  
Blogger Peter D said...

"The Church often follows the state's lead, e.g. Women Bishops / clergy etc"

That's not a good thing, Phil! Abortion, divorce, contraception ....

11 May 2013 at 19:42  
Blogger Nick said...

As an aside, my daughter works in a womens fashion shop as a sales assistant. There is a middle-aged tranny who comes in regularly to buy dresses. Its normal for the assistants to help the women try on clothes in the changing rooms. This guy also asked the girls to help him put on some dresses. The girls were horrified and refused of course. He took the matter no further but it is probably a matter of time before one of these people tries to exercise their "rights" and takes the shop to court on grounds of discrimination.

This is where this LGBT insanity is leading us - a kind of gender dystopia where we are obliged to pander to these people, however offensive and degrading it might be.

11 May 2013 at 20:35  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Albert

"The Church often follows the state's lead, e.g. Women Bishops / clergy etc"

I wasn't necessarily saying that this was a good thing, but it seems to be the reality and through history the Catholic Chuch has been as guilty as the Anglican Chuch is now.

I also just don't think that states can run on opt outs on the basis of 101 religious objections, as everyone will draw the line at differnt points in the sand.

The instruction of "giving to Caesar" comes to mind.

Peter

"compel some people to abet, condone, promote or participate in activities against their moral conscience and beliefs"

This "compelling" happens all the time (Only recently perhaps by homosexuals) and always has done.

Christians have always drawn our own (usually) different lines in the sand and suffered or not for that. Is God really impressed by our suffering? If so for what in this case? for justice? morality perhaps? Being a Pharisee?

Another approach would be to print the leaflets and attend the gay functions / events as a Christian / as a visable witness. DanJo said he is a pretty boy, I am sure they would let him in.

Which approach is right? (wobbly)"moral high ground"? or if you feel God is telling you to act, friendship and direct witness.

Which one would Jesus chose?

To me the most important point. Which one would influence you for Christ if you were gay?

Phil

11 May 2013 at 20:46  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Nick

This fantastic looking young fit guy also asked the girls to help him put on some dresses for a pantomime he was rehearsing for

A different response perhaps?

Lines in the sand Nick

Phil

11 May 2013 at 20:53  
Blogger graham wood said...

As I understand this case, there is no obligation for Williamson to agree to print material for anybody else, unless he wishes to.
It is as straightforward as that, and complies with centuries of Common Law. In effect then he is not a threat to any third party by exercising his own freedom of choice.
Williamson entered into no contract with Toner.
The law of contract appears to be fairly clear:
A contract is an agreement having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them. The elements of a contract are "offer" and "acceptance" by "competent persons" having legal capacity who exchange "consideration" to create "mutuality of obligation.

No contract then, no obligation.
Furthermore he does not have to give an explanation, but the one he gave is entirely consistent with a policy that he has every right to dictate for his own company.

11 May 2013 at 21:02  
Blogger Peter D said...

Phil

If I were homosexual, I pray I would have sufficient Grace to remain celibate and to explain my reasons to other homosexuals.

Would I attend any event endorsing the active expression or promotion of homosexuality - absolutely not.

What would Jesus do? He would speak with the sinner, offer His saving Grace and invite repentance.

What should members and leaders of His Church do?

Welcome everyone with love and respect but with clear expectations revealed by God in the Bible, through His Son, Jesus, instilled in the human heart, and taught by His Church.

The sacred duty of the Church and Christians is to invite people to know Christ and challenge people to live by His message and teachings.

11 May 2013 at 21:40  
Blogger Peter D said...

"This fantastic looking young fit guy also asked the girls to help him put on some dresses for a pantomime he was rehearsing for

A different response perhaps?"


Free will and choice, Phil.

11 May 2013 at 21:43  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

So Peter

"The sacred duty of the Church and Christians is to invite people to know Christ and challenge people to live by His message and teachings."

Exactly how does this happen in your clean world?

Morals or love comes first?

Phil


11 May 2013 at 21:59  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Danjo,

Not sure what Jews are supposed to 'get', but in answer to your question we were quite happy here till 1290, when we all got chucked out, by some horrid King who didn't like Jews much. Then Oliver Cromwell let us back in 1658. And then a Roman Catholic called Daniel O'Connell campaigned for full Jewish (and Roman Catholic) civil liberties about 170 years later.

Strange how G-d can work with both a Protestant Calvinist and a traditional Roman Catholic Christian. Ironically, a bit like Carl Jacobs and Peter D, perhaps.

Hope this helps?

11 May 2013 at 22:06  
Blogger Albert said...

Phil,

I wasn't necessarily saying that this was a good thing, but it seems to be the reality and through history the Catholic Chuch has been as guilty as the Anglican Chuch is now.

In some ways yes. But there are differences. Every Church has sinners in it. But women's ordination is on a different level, it is structural or institutional act of infidelity. It's fundamentally rooted in denying Christ's authority over his own Church - that's quite different from the personal sin of individual members. The ordination of women is the Trojan Horse. All the principles necessary for liberalisation on homosexuality etc. are already found in the ordination of women, but because it seems so reasonable, people accepted it. And then they are trapped. Their position has already been vanquished, they have already assumed because they are modern they know better than Jesus himself.

11 May 2013 at 22:08  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Exactly Graham it's just like if Mr Toner had asked a plumber for a quote to clean his drains and being told the company doesn't do sewers.

11 May 2013 at 22:09  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Oh, I don't know why everyone is being so ghastly to poor old Phil Roberts. His Christianity reminds me of my uncle's and his relatives.

11 May 2013 at 22:20  
Blogger Albert said...

Phil,

I also just don't think that states can run on opt outs on the basis of 101 religious objections, as everyone will draw the line at differnt points in the sand.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. As far as women's ordination is concerned, it's an 'internal' thing. Of course in Sweden the state just forced the Church of Sweden to do it, but surely you're not supporting that, are you?

11 May 2013 at 22:23  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

As for the topic, to me this is simply a matter of business. If the Christian doesn't want to publish anything to do with gayness, then that is up to him. If he wants to loose a contract and or money due to his beliefs then so be it. I am sure that the gay guy who is complaining really has better things to do (like running a biz, paying his wages etc) than get on some kind of hobby horse here.

You know if I were a printer and some-one asked me to print the 'shakespearean' work written by an Austrian painter circa 1920, I think would tell them to shove off. But I am sure that there would be other publishers willing to publish. It is the same in this case

[not that I am a totalitarian when it comes to books written by said Austrian Painter. Unlike him, I was brought up to read books, be critical and use my own mental capacity to agree or disagree with the text. The Fascist solution of burning books goes against everything I stand for].

11 May 2013 at 22:25  
Blogger Peter D said...

Phil

I wouldn't say my world is any cleaner than anyone else's!

We start with love, kindest and an invitation. However, as I've said, we cannot accept sinful behaviours or endorse them as legitimate. This would be inverting love. We truely love someone by being truthful.

Let's not forget we are facing the consequences of some churches and clergy having encouraged secularisation by the systematic neglect of teaching basic Christian truths.

"And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town."

11 May 2013 at 22:34  
Blogger Albert said...

Peter,

However, as I've said, we cannot accept sinful behaviours or endorse them as legitimate. This would be inverting love.

Exactly. Sin is self-harm.

11 May 2013 at 22:38  
Blogger Masrek Rollin said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 May 2013 at 22:40  
Blogger Masrek Rollin said...

NB Michael North is quite wrong to allude here to the Race Relations Act. Don't insult black people by comparing them to perverts. Black is something you are by birth and descent. It is only a matter of appearance, that raises no moral issues. Homosexuality is a form behaviour that you choose to engage in. There are good reasons for regarding it as immoral and unhealthy. Therefore it should never be imposed on other people. Black people don't want to behave any differently from whites. Homosexuals do, yet they get angry when treated differently. Nasty buggers aren't they.

11 May 2013 at 22:49  
Blogger Masrek Rollin said...

@ Nick. You are right.

11 May 2013 at 22:50  
Blogger RetiredPaul said...

There are some other possibilities here:-
1) This will be tried in Northern Ireland - the judges may take a different view of the relative 'weight' of rights.
2) The printer could counter-sue for religious discrimination, since there is no evidence that the gays approached Muslims or other faiths: he appears to have been singled out as a Christian.

11 May 2013 at 23:04  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 May 2013 at 23:16  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Masreck ,

"Nasty buggers aren't they"

How Christian and generous of you... except this Lesbian likes to think of herself as quite a descent person, actually.

"Bit subtle for a queer's mind to grasp"

This Lesbian probably has more degrees than you have brain cells.

"Christians should never feel we have to cringe or ingratiate ourselves with this unsavoury lot who hang around public toilets waiting to do stuff with strangers."

Sounds like you know all about that. Something you want to get off your chest about blokes in public loos?

"Don't insult black people by comparing them to perverts"

What if you are black and gay then? Hmmm. Would burning a few crosses outside of the 'perverts' home do then?!

In short shoot ya mouth off all you want, but get facts straight before making sweeping generalisations about people.

11 May 2013 at 23:18  
Blogger cashkom said...

The sacred duty of the Church and Christians is to bring others to know Christ and live an holy life.
But what do have this days is men/women who called themselves Christians involved in promoting immorality in the name of freedom/right. God hate sin no matter how beautiful you color it.i'm Oj@ www.NaijaBizCom.Com

11 May 2013 at 23:57  
Blogger city said...

thanks for share..

12 May 2013 at 04:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Hannah: "Not sure what Jews are supposed to 'get',"

Clearly.

Phil said, as he has before, that gay people are likely to be persecuted during times of civil unrest such as in austerity times and, as people who have entered civil partnerships and who enter marriage when it becomes available will be on a list, they will be more easily identified.

"[...] but in answer to your question [...]"

I didn't ask a question.

12 May 2013 at 06:08  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Absolutely spot on Masrek Rollin.

12 May 2013 at 10:22  
Blogger len said...

I concur with Albert that the issue here is the 'legalisation' of sin. This has many aspects within our Society.
There is an' elite group' who wish to overturn the value systems which are the 'cement' which has held our Society together for Centuries. This attack on the foundations of our Civilisation is for the gain of the minority and the cost will to the detriment of the majority.

This 'elite group'who manipulate the media who bombards the public
with what can only be described as constant propaganda advocating 'alternative lifestyles' which are detrimental to the integrity of the family unit.

'Sin' must be defined as such and sinful man cannot be allowed to write his own definitions of what sin is!.
Only God can define 'sin' because God remains untainted by sin and can look upon it without being contaminated by sin.

12 May 2013 at 10:41  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Danjo,

Yes I see that now, I thought you were asking how long Jews had been in the UK, rather than talking about scapegoats in economic times. Tired eyes last night...

12 May 2013 at 11:11  
Blogger michael north said...


Phil Roberts @ 19.02 yesterday

I was about to reply immediately, but something came up.

If someone refused to admit black people to his private hospital I would think he had a flawed business plan, but I would still maintain it was not the business of the state. The key word is "private".

You have recounted how you experienced pressure to have a disabled child aborted, but seem to see nothing wrong with people being compelled to submit to similar state social engineering goals in
their commercial lives.

Masrek Rollin @ 22.49

You misrepresent me. My reference to the Race Relations Act 1968 had nothing to do with black people. It was cited as the earliest example in this country (to my knowledge) of high-minded invasion of the private realm in pursuit of social goals.

It is a perfect example of the confusion of the liberal mind. In 1967, private homosexual activity was decriminalised, while in 1968, private discrimination was made an offence.

12 May 2013 at 12:15  
Blogger Masrek Rollin said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 May 2013 at 12:28  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Masrek

You don't like "Shaky arguments, pseudo-logic ..."

Which one of us has used the following then :

1)"typical of the queers."

2)"Boasting about your degrees just makes you sound pathetic. The tired old clichés about if-you-disagree-you-must-be-gay are for morons".

3)"Nasty buggers aren't they"

4)"Bit subtle for a queer's mind to grasp"



12 May 2013 at 12:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I have to say that I never really considered Heat magazine to be pornography but I suppose if MyGayZine is the standard then it must be. Anyone know who's Torso of the Week in the latest edition?

12 May 2013 at 13:54  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

OK Guys I think you completely missed my point which is a useful learning thing for me

I will try again

Jesus spoke the parable of the Good Samaritan. In this blog possibly the parable of “the good gay” might be more appropriate. My point is that the message that the printer gave out to the gay community is far worse than any brownie points he might lose with God. My other point is that he has no Brownie points to lose with God so he should have used the opportunity to witness to them. Witnessing is loving and only when they have accepted Jesus as their saviour we can talk about morals, not the other way around. (I am glad we agree on something Peter).

One more point you will not go to hell just because you are Gay. However, it is worth remembering also that you will not go to Heaven just because you are heterosexual.

Phil


12 May 2013 at 13:55  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Phil

Are you sure about the last paragraph? I thought, having read this blog for a year now, that the unforgivable sin was being gay? Or have Christians got it wrong there?

12 May 2013 at 14:10  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Hi Hannah

The last line is almost a direct quote from Dr Timothy Keller, Senior pastor Redeemer Presbyterian Church New York.

Keller is described by the New York Times as the New CS Lewis. His Church has grown from 50 to many thousands and many cities worldwide.

All of is books are very readable and very challenging. I found the best is the Prodigal God.

(You will find many characters Keller speaks about on this blog.

The first Chapter is free

Here..

http://timothykeller.com/books/the_prodigal_god/

To answer your question. Yes I am sure.

Phil



12 May 2013 at 14:34  
Blogger Brian West said...

Hannah 14:10

The unforgivable sin is a tricky subject. Much clearer, from the Christian scriptures, is that we are all equally sinners and therefore all equally need to be saved, and that salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone. Homosexual practice among men is strongly condemned in the scripture, but I am only too aware what a sinner I am, and I therefore avoid referring to gays as ‘sinners’ in case it implies that I think I am not a sinner.

This has nothing to do with whether we are ‘decent people’, which it is good and right to be in the human community, but cuts no ice, I suggest, with God.

I decline to comment on lesbians.

Brian

12 May 2013 at 16:12  
Blogger Peter D said...

Phil
I completely disagree that it would be an acceptable witness of Christ to assist in the publishing of a magazine that promotes homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.

It's the equivalent of offering an alcoholic a bottle of whiskey whilst attempting to persuade him about the harm he is inflicting upon himself.

Let's walk through your post:

"Jesus spoke the parable of the Good Samaritan. In this blog possibly the parable of “the good gay” might be more appropriate."

Of course homosexuals are our neighbours and we're called to love them.

"My point is that the message that the printer gave out to the gay community is far worse than any brownie points he might lose with God."

How so? He stated his faith, simply without any indication of homophobia or criticism. Publishing the magazine, to him, would be tantamount to approving an active homosexual lifestyle. Remember, this magazine'e mission is that homosexual acts are normal and healthy and to build up a community in Belfast around this. As a Christian, you know this wrong - or should do.

"My other point is that he has no Brownie points to lose with God so he should have used the opportunity to witness to them."

He did witness to them. He stated the Christian Truth without compromise, politely and with respect. What would you have him do?

"Witnessing is loving and only when they have accepted Jesus as their saviour we can talk about morals, not the other way around. (I am glad we agree on something Peter)."

And if they refuse to be open to the Christian Gospel? This magazine in fundamentally anti-christian. We love the person - not condone or encourage behaviour that we believe results in a seperation from Christ - now and eternally. Loving them is explaining this.

That's what Jesus did.

"One more point you will not go to hell just because you are Gay. However, it is worth remembering also that you will not go to Heaven just because you are heterosexual."

We can agree on this!

The determining factor is whether we accept Christ into our hearts and live according to His message - and this entails living according to the moral code imprinted on our hearts by our Creator.

We start with love, kindest and an invitation - sure. We cannot - and must never - accept sinful behaviours or endorse them as legitimate. This is not love.

Hannah
There is no "unforgiveable sin". And same sex attraction, in itself, is not sinful - it's what one chooses to do about it. A heterosexual can be as sinful sexually as a homosexual - or as pure.

12 May 2013 at 16:32  
Blogger non mouse said...

Well done Mr. Williamson, for taking standing against the pornographic tide. Personally, I've thrown away all the marxist/deconstructionist filth some academics rubbed my face in. I won't have it in my house. Furthermore, I've stopped reading non-academic print products for the same reason. Same goes for TV and film. The msm seem to be locked in a time-warp with their idol Siggie (Freud).

On freedom of choice as to literary content: The more things change... Publishing's always had its problems. Back in the 17th century, printers who chose to produce work not approved by the ptb got their presses smashed and their premises trashed; and that was for starters.

Of course, the major point of contention back then was Protestant/RCC -ism. Now, round here, that one's certainly resurging with vengeance.

Oh well. Back to Alice Through the Looking Glass."

12 May 2013 at 16:36  
Blogger Naomi King said...


3)"Nasty buggers aren't they" seems to sum up Mr Toner's behaviour quite well I would say. Thanks for the links Masrek, which are new to me.

Here are a few that you might find interesting and useful ...

New Zealand has recently passed gay marriage. This politician

http://news.sky.com/story/1079776/new-zealand-mps-gay-marriage-speech-goes-viral

jokes about the unnaturalness of a celibacy for Catholic priests, yet, thinking he is making a further joke, unwittingly highlights (but does not dare to elaborate) the unnaturalness of homosexual paedophilia. What he is saying is that there is no gene for heterosexuality therefore, along with purity, chastity, self –restraint and modesty, it is abnormal and unnatural. Conversely he assumes there is a gay gene, therefore sodomy, dogging, cottaging, incest, bestiality and paedophilia are normal and natural.

Kwabena Peat, a christian teacher was suspended from a senior post for complaining that a staff training day was used to promote homosexual rights. He left a compulsory training session with several other Christian colleagues at the north London school after the speaker, Sue Sanders, invited by the School headteacher, openly questioned why people thought heterosexuality was natural. Mr Peat says that Ms Sanders, who openly describes herself as a lesbian, told him and his colleagues that those who did not accept that being homosexual was "normal" had "issues" they must deal with. He said: “I expected the training session to help us by providing good information on how to handle bullying but she had another agenda. She started promoting homosexual lifestyles and suggesting those who had objections should sort out their prejudices. She clearly asked us ‘what makes you all think that to be heterosexual is natural?’”

http://www.christianconcern.com/press-release/teacher-suspended-christian-beliefs

Four legs good, two legs bad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nebuchadnezzar.jpg

Notice how, in the New Zealand Parliament, even though over 40% voted against gay marriage, no one dared to remain seated when the national anthem was highjacked to perform the coup de grace.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/04/18/watch-new-zealand-parliament-passes-gay-marriage-bill-breaks-into-song/

In the days of soviet oppression, they used to say that there were three “autos”: the automobile that would collect you in the middle of the night; the
autobiography you would write by way of confession at the police station and the autopsy sent to your family.

This is what is coming for Christians make no mistake about it.

12 May 2013 at 16:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Thanks Naomi for reminding about the New Zealand thing. I posted this Youtube clip of when the bill was passed. Watch at least until 0:55 to see what happens and even your stony black heart might lift. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9pOJ8Bc_-g

12 May 2013 at 17:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chaps, there is a legal device to frustrate these intollerants. ALL homosexual actions in the courts to be declared "vexatious litigaton". Hence, no proceding possible unless allowed by a judicial panel.

Give the blighters something to think about, what !

12 May 2013 at 18:02  
Blogger A.K.A. Damo Mackerel said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 May 2013 at 18:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

More hithero unpublished thought from the Inspector. All those who persecute Christians should be aware of this. Christians under persecution are allowed to kill their persecutors. It's damn true, but not often considered in these modern times, but then we haven't had organised pooftery to this intensity before.

We killed the NAZIs when they tried to take us over. So pillow biters, you could be next !

12 May 2013 at 18:12  
Blogger A.K.A. Damo Mackerel said...

Homosexualists who kick up like this, feel terribly insecure about their sexuality.

12 May 2013 at 18:12  
Blogger Nick said...

Just looked at those links Masrek. They should be compulsory reading for all politicians. Who said fascism is dead? The situation is made worse by the fact that our politicians behave like the Vichy government when it comes to matters of homosexuality. Spineless sycophants they are.

12 May 2013 at 18:28  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Masrek Rollin (11 May 22:49)

You draw a distinction between one's race and one's behaviour. This was true once. I'm not sure it still is, given biological determinism, the Darwinist imperative etc.

Take a white rapist. Can he avoid being white? No. Can he avoid being a rapist? That is now a seriously-asked question.

The abolition of sin leads to the abolition of moral responsibility, leads to determinism: you are doomed to behave according to your genes. (I'm painting with broad brush strokes here to illustrate a general point.)

By this line of reasoning, those who do harm are not morally bad; they are ill. You can lock them up to avoid their harming others: provided that the motive for imprisonment is curative, not punitive. (Why punish people for what they cannot help?)

But break the PC code, and all this seems to go out of the window.

Break the code, and you're not ill. You're bad: in the old moral sense.

12 May 2013 at 18:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Damo: "Homosexualists who kick up like this, feel terribly insecure about their sexuality."

Perhaps. I'm more inclined to think that they feel insecure about their rights given how long they've been around. Laws need to be tested and used, and rights exercised, otherwise why bother having them?

12 May 2013 at 18:57  
Blogger LEN ALLEN said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 May 2013 at 21:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One wonders if Danny boy is NI based. It will come as no surprise to Irish news followers that the former paramilitaries, if that is the way to describe these shadowy organisations, still do a certain amount of 'policing'.

One wonders further if Danny's present predicament of which printer to choose is, will, in the future, be the very least of his priorities.

Such is life, what !

12 May 2013 at 21:16  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Peter

"I completely disagree that it would be an acceptable witness of Christ to assist in the publishing of a magazine that promotes homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.

It's the equivalent of offering an alcoholic a bottle of whiskey whilst attempting to persuade him about the harm he is inflicting upon himself.

Did Jesus drink with sinners or not?

"How so? He stated his faith, simply without any indication of homophobia or criticism. Publishing the magazine, to him, would be tantamount to approving an active homosexual lifestyle"

Remember Jesus saw the Pharisees as a huge block to salvation. They kept the law really well though!

"And if they refuse to be open to the Christian Gospel?"

They won't be Peter if you just preach morals at them. Be their friend and when they need it which they will, give them your cloak etc. They might still reject you and your love. Friends can give advice, strangers cannot.

"Remember, this magazine'e mission is that homosexual acts are normal and healthy and to build up a community in Belfast around this. As a Christian, you know this wrong - or should do."

Homosexual acts are a sin. Agreed. My big sins are overeating and selfishness. What are yours Peter?

"We start with love, kindest and an invitation - sure. We cannot - and must never - accept sinful behaviours or endorse them as legitimate. This is not love."

Part way there Peter. We can be a friend to someone without endorsing their behaviour as legitimate. Go back to your alcoholic example. We can share a drink with them but never get drunk. At some point they may ask for help for their alcoholism, but I doubt it. More likely at some point they will reach rock bottom and there is the chance for Jesus to enter their hearts.

The point in all of this is. If you were not a friend with the alcoholic you would not be there for them when they reached the point at they needed Jesus. To be their friend you may have to buy them a drink occasionally.

Christians in my view find it difficult enough to be friends with each other, never mind being a friend to those that have never heard the message of the Gospel.

Phil





12 May 2013 at 21:25  
Blogger Naomi King said...


2 hours ago ...

Nearly 150 Tory rebels demand referendum on gay marriage and threaten to wreck Coalition plans if they don't get their way

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323444/Nearly-150-Tory-rebels-demand-referendum-gay-marriage-threaten-wreck-Coalition-plans-dont-way.html#ixzz2T71A8XDe

Tory rebels are demanding a referendum on gay marriage - and have threatened to wreck Coalition attempts to push through a change in the law if they don’t get their way.

Up to 150 MPs are said to support the call for a national vote on whether same-sex marriage should be legalised, to ensure that such a historic change only goes ahead with the support of the public.
Conservative opponents of gay equality are preparing to torpedo the government’s bill to legitimise same-sex weddings by putting down a raft of amendments, including measures to protect churches, schools and registrars with conscientious objections.

12 May 2013 at 21:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

We live in defining times, Mrs King !

One wonders how many MPs who supported SSM realise the number of 'reassuring' letters they are going to have to send to constituents regarding the teaching of homosexual practices to their children and grand children !

After all, a buggarious lifestyle is soon be made legal !

12 May 2013 at 22:14  
Blogger Peter D said...

Phil

I agree with your sentiments - just not their application.

"Did Jesus drink with sinners or not?"

He loved all men and women and met them where they were at; agreed. However, He never participated in sin or condoned it. Did He have anything approaching a sexual encounter with Mary Magdelene? Did He tell the woman caught in adultury to carry on in her sin?

Christ’s first recorded words in his public ministry were:

“The time has come ... The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”
(Mark 1:15)

"From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”
(Mathew 4:17)

Throughout the whole of Scripture the idea of reform is closely linked to repentance and conversion – that is, converting one’s life and thinking according to the mind and will of God – as well as to nonconformity to the ways, beliefs and values of the world.

I do agree with you we need personal reform as Christians. Pope Benedict XVI stated in his book, 'God and the World', one will
"never reach the point of not needing to be forgiven". Archbishop Chaput of Denver wrote:
"It's always easier to talk about reform when the target of the reform is "out there," rather than in here." Chesterton response to the question: “What’s wrong with the world?”, replied in two words: “I am.”

You say:

"Go back to your alcoholic example. We can share a drink with them but never get drunk. At some point they may ask for help for their alcoholism, but I doubt it. More likely at some point they will reach rock bottom and there is the chance for Jesus to enter their hearts."

Again, I disagree. Befriending the alcholic means not participating in their weakness and temptation. Sure, wait until they are open to change and then assist.

"If you were not a friend with the alcoholic you would not be there for them when they reached the point at they needed Jesus. To be their friend you may have to buy them a drink occasionally."

No, I disagree. Would befriending a homosexual mean participating in their sexual acts? Befriending a prostitute paying her for sex - or asking for a 'freebie'? No. Befriending them is being there to help when and if they ask.

Remember these words:

“The people…and the priests…have not separated themselves from the peoples of the land
with their abominations .... Furthermore, the leaders and rulers have taken a leading part in this apostasy!”

(Ezra 9:1-2)

Christian outreach is critical; going to those in need with the Gospel, not participating in sin. And certainly not publishing material that will lower the resistance of others facing the temptation of sexual sin and draw them into a world where sin is reinforced and normalised.

12 May 2013 at 22:46  
Blogger Naomi King said...


They certainly are buggering up marriage Inspector.

12 May 2013 at 23:04  
Blogger Naomi King said...


What about lay preachers of the gospel will they be protected from prosecution ?

12 May 2013 at 23:08  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Good post Peter 22:46

Hard to believe any Christian could disagree with this one.

Perversion and immorality has been reinforced and normalised for so long by the mainstream media, Hollywood moguls and academic institutions that I fear it is too late to change things.The campaign has been insidious clever and seemingly invincible.If the planet survives the conflict will beat the 100 years war. It will be Catholics agin the rest. The Protestants caved in ages ago, except for the few on here who do not reflect the policies of their religious party(Church)


13 May 2013 at 02:36  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Peter

I think we are getting closer to an agreement but I would still value your advice.

A couple of years ago one of my ventures was buying and selling cars. The company website stated that we were a Christian Company in three languages.

Now lets assume that I had not sold the company and today a gay couple wanted to buy a car from me. Do I say no because that they might have sex in the car? If the answer is yes I should sell to them, would I refuse to sell them a camper van on the same basis? What if an attractive single lady with a short skirt etc came into the shop wanting an oldish camper but with a large front screen. Do I say no because she might be a prostitute?

Advice please on the above scenarios

These are real examples except in real life the lady told me openly what she wanted the van for.

After I hear your advice I will then tell you what I did and you can then tell me If I was/am a sinner or saint.

Phil

13 May 2013 at 08:01  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Cressida

I have news for you perhaps?

Most Protestant Churches and the vast majority of protestants worldwide outside of the CofE/TEC are not liberal.

I'm not sure what you are proposing here Cressida. Civil unrest? A war perhaps? Catholics against the rest? The last option has been tried before.

Phil

13 May 2013 at 08:13  
Blogger Naomi King said...

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/05/09/former-police-chief-lord-dear-same-sex-marriage-will-provoke-backlash-against-gays/

This one is very interesting, and yes maybe it will be physical war soon. It already is war in the heavenlies and has been for some time.

Cressida there are many born again Protestants who have not compromised their immortal soul on this one, groups like Lord Cary and C4M, Anglican Mainstream, the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG) and many, many others.

13 May 2013 at 08:50  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Hi Hannah

Your question (12May 14:10) re the unforgivable sin. Don't want to text hop, but I assume you're referring to something like Matthew 12?

Traditionally, it's believed to relate to pride. Anyone worried about having committed it won't have.

It's those who know they couldn't be guilty of it who are in danger.

(Sorry to be so out of sync with response: we've got friends staying.)

Regards

13 May 2013 at 08:57  
Blogger Naomi King said...


What Lord Dear has said above is absolutely true. Look at the night of the long knives when the homosexual Ernst Rohm and his gay thugs who had founded the Storm Trooper brown shirts, having done their job were violently eliminated.


I believe Matthew Paris sensed there would be a backlash with this article where even he does not like the way gays have gone from being victims to swaggering in- your- face champions.

http://kenningtonnews.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/stonewall-riots-what-have-we-learnt-40.html

“What has replaced it? With the self-respect and freedom of the young, 21st-century gay man, has come a strutting self-regard, a materialistic consumerism, a vanity and a f***-off selfishness that I do not like. Spot the money, in a culture awash with disposable cash, where everybody’s earning and few are caring for kids or families. Watch the leisure and retail industry chasing the new gay spenders.

Walk down Old Compton Street and look at the boys looking at each other, or at themselves in shop windows. Or the peacockery of the Shadow Lounge in Soho. Note the sad arrival into the gay world of notions of celebrity, and lists, and coolness, and class distinction.

I’m glad about civil partnerships; glad about legalisation; glad we don’t have to hide any more; yet sorry that a new oppression has arrived in the form of face and body FASCISM, AND THE PURSUIT OF PLEASURE.

Forty years after Stonewall, a young, confident, metropolitan gay man has almost everything my queer generation could only dream of. Everything, that is, except this: warmth, fellow-feeling, individuality and the opportunity for courage.”


13 May 2013 at 09:01  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Here is an interesting list of people, all nominated for the Independent on Sunday "Pink List" for "Outstanding Effort for the Cause"


Michael Salter- Broadcast adviser to PM

The judges singled Michael Salter out for pushing gay issues inside Downing Street. Some may say Nick Boles MP (see below) has had more influence on David Cameron over the years, yet Salter's current position at the heart of government must be recognised.

Simon Hughes MP - Deputy leader, Lib Dems

Outside government, but influential as Nick Clegg's deputy and the "conscience" of his party. Kept his sexuality private for years until he was outed by The Sun. Argued that civil partnerships should have the same status as marriage long before David Cameron.

Nick Herbert MP - Policing minister

The most senior gay Tory is now the Prime Minister's go-to guy when he risks falling out with allies on equality issues. Maintains that gay rights are completely compatible with Conservatism. Attended Warsaw's EuroPride rally to persuade the Polish Law and Justice party to moderate its hard-line stance.

Julian Glover - PM's speech-writer

Exited The Guardian to become David Cameron's speech-writer, leaving the paper without a right-wing voice. Also known as Matthew Parris's other half (they entered a civil partnership in 2006), he is just as influential, credited with steering The Guardian away from Labour at the 2010 election.

Nick Boles MP

A rising Conservative moderniser and strong supporter of David Cameron. Having failed to win election as an openly gay candidate in Hove in 2005, he succeeded in safe Tory Grantham last year. Briefly Boris Johnson's chief of staff in 2008, he ran the Policy Exchange think-tank.

Evan Davis - Radio 4 Today presenter

As well as playing good cop to Today's John Humphrys, with his soft grilling technique, the 49-year-old former economics editor also appears on TV, hosting Dragons' Den and a three-part investigation of the economy, Made in Britain. Gossip columns are obsessed with his body piercings.

Scott Mills - Radio and TV presenter

Thanks to his sharp-wittedness and deceptively light touch, the award-winning drive-time DJ remains one of Radio 1's biggest draws. More than just a cheery voice, he showed courage in confronting Uganda's endemic homophobia for a recent BBC 3 documentary The World's Worst Place to be Gay?

Guy Black (Lord) - Peer and Director, Telegraph Group

The first openly gay Tory peer, Lord Black made his maiden speech about the role of older women in society. He is a former director of communications for the Conservatives, and has been in a civil partnership, since 2006, with Prince Charles's former deputy private secretary, Mark Bolland.

Alan Duncan MP - Development Minister

Rich and outspoken MP who became a minister under the coalition. Although the left is suspicious of someone who made his money in the oil industry, he earns admiration for hard work and a sharp mind. First openly gay Conservative MP, coming out in 2002.

Richard Barnes - Deputy Mayor of London

Elected to public office for the first time in 1982 and a key player in Boris Johnson's London mayoral team. Appointed Deputy Mayor in May 2008 and is responsible for communities, cohesion and sustainability, as well as health and procurement. Barnes is also active in Aids and HIV charities.

Nigel Evans MP - Deputy Speaker H of C

One of three deputy Speakers of the House of Commons, came out in December saying that he was tired of "living a lie". That meant living down his vote against an equal age of consent for gay men in 1998.

Lynne Featherstone MP - Equalities Minister

The Liberal Democrat has worked hard on her equality brief, pressing for gay marriage and the end of the ban on gay men donating blood.

Hugh Montgomery - Judge of the IoS (Independent on Sunday) Pink List

Founder and Contributor to Conservative Home, the highly influential Conservative Party website

13 May 2013 at 09:39  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 May 2013 at 10:12  
Blogger Naomi King said...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwBg9PVZZMQ

Winner of the Independent on Sunday 2011 PINK LIST for work for the cause

Elly Barnes

Music teacher, trainer, diversity officer

"We asked you to nominate the unsung heroes and heroines who make a real difference to life for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) people in Britain. And nominate you did. Dozens of people emailed The IoS to tell us about Elly Barnes, the teacher who claims the exceptional achievement of eradicating homophobia in her school, and is now helping others to do the same. Some of those who nominated Barnes had worked with her on her "Educate and Celebrate" course for teachers, PGCE students and psychologists, run under the auspices of Ofsted; others are students, past and present. One former pupil said this woman changed her life. Since 2005, she has been running LGBT History Month at Stoke Newington School, north London, every February. She says: "I've had pupils say, 'Miss, are you trying to turn us gay?' and I ask them, 'Do you turn black during Black History Month or Turkish during Turkish month?'." Barnes "came out" on Teachers' TV, and says: "It's ignorance that causes homophobia – once educated, attitudes change. Sometimes it's a deep-rooted hatred which takes a long time to change. The best way is to show positive role models." We think she is one."

Elly on You Tube ... "so that we have happy LBGT teachers and happy LBGT children"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwBg9PVZZMQ


More of Elly Barnes and her School's Diversity Centre and LGBT History Month every February in state schools

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjS9PdNeIeg

Teaching LGBT lessons

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5Q96cQ0UB4

Doing a Mini Gay Pride in schools

How she did it ... taking over state education for LGBT community.


The Article from the Independent listing highly influential homosexuals

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/the-ios-pink-list-2011-2374595.html

13 May 2013 at 10:15  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Explorer,

I have to admit that the question was rhetorical, as I wasn't aware of that passage specifically discussing 'unforgiveable sins' (I shall, go and see if I can get that chapter off the internet to read).

The question I posed was because of the way in which Christians seem to think that homosexuality is the be all and end all of sin and it isn't just a condemnation of the sexual act itself, but of the orientation and therefore of gays/homosexuals themselves. I never quite get this because the bits of the NT I've read talk about a lot more than that and more than just sexuality- money, justice, the kingdom of heaven etc.

When it comes to sexual 'ethics', I am surprised Christians here aren't more concerned about the drop in hetrosexual religious marriage, the rise of the single parent family, cohabitation and the demise of the traditionally family unit generally.

So Naomi King if anyone is 'buggering up' marriage, it is the people who get or rather don't get married at the moment, who clearly are going off it, be it a civil or religious affair, i.e. hetrosexuals.

We have a lot of talk about gay marriage bringing the end of world civilisation (I oppose it myself, btw), but there is a distinct lack of desire to deal with the above issues, which need to be tackled as well.

I wonder why that is?

13 May 2013 at 10:17  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Phil/Peter,

Thanks for those remarks to me. They make more sense that some of the obsessed people around here!

13 May 2013 at 10:18  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Hi Hannah

I'll give you a short cut: Matt 12: 31-2. (Was trying not to be text specific re our agreement). A lot in the chapter about the forgiveness of ignorance, which I find encouraging. Those who grieve the Spirit are those who do so deliberately.

I couldn't agree more re heterosexual marriage (or the lack of it). I suppose the nature of the comments is partly determined by the nature of the threads. We need threads about the issues you've raised.

My own comments, I find, tend not to be about the threads themselves. They're nearly all in relation to someone else's post. I suppose I stray from the main subject at issue, but some of the points people raise are really interesting and worth pursuing. (Yours are a good example.

Regards.

13 May 2013 at 10:42  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Hi Hannah

The reason that homosexuality is often condemned is that it is the only sin that we heteros have not thought about committing or are committing.

So we can condemn it with a completely clear conscience.

It is like condemning the poor for scrounging if you have always been rich or condemning the rich for greed if you have always been poor.

Easy sins, far enough out of range to be an easy target.

Try going to Church and condemning Christians for being fat (greed). You will get a reaction....!

Phil

13 May 2013 at 10:43  
Blogger Naomi King said...


"So Naomi King if anyone is 'buggering up' marriage, it is the people who get or rather don't get married at the moment, who clearly are going off it, be it a civil or religious affair, i.e. hetrosexuals.

We have a lot of talk about gay marriage bringing the end of world civilisation (I oppose it myself, btw), but there is a distinct lack of desire to deal with the above issues, which need to be tackled as well."

Absolutely Hannah and much of that is because "THE STATE" has taken over the roles of the family in so many ways

support of the elderly
care of the young
education
social security payments
etc, etc

In fact the State has in the last 100 plus years sought to make the family as an institution unnecessary and we have all fallen into this trap.

The idea of 'independence' and 'independent living' is a lie which we have all bought, on the fallacy that we can all be selfish and selfishly indulgent instead. Such is the seduction of the lie.

If the family were relevant again in the areas highlighted above, the government would be smaller (over half the workforce is paid by the State) and people would be more connected with each other and therefore happier.

The country wouldn't also be bankrupt as well.

Let the family do what is was designed to do, nurture and care for the young and the elderly, educate the children and look after its own members in times of need and hardship such as unemployment and disability.

The State's role should be limited to defence and international relations, support of the spiritual life and morals of the country and internal law enforcement.

13 May 2013 at 11:10  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds. Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand; To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD.

13 May 2013 at 11:13  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Hannah/Naomi

Blame it all on Rousseau!

Rousseau dumps his five kids on the steps of the orphanage, and then has the gall to write 'Emile' on how to bring up children.

Questioned about it, Rousseau justifies himself by saying that the State is our real parent. We're living now with the consequences.

13 May 2013 at 11:34  
Blogger Peter D said...

Phil

Why wouldn't I sell a car or a van to a homosexual or a prostitute? What they do in it once they own it is their business. Would I lend it to them for purposes I consider immoral? No.

Now, if you'd asked me about renting a property to a homosexual couple I might have struggled more with explaining my answer.

And I don't criticise homosexuality because I'm heterosexual. I simply oppose those who attempt to present it as something moral, healthy and normal. I'd say the same about any of the cardinal sins - including greed.

By the way, obese people are now a protected group under Equality legislation and the term "fat" is considered "offensive".

What a crazy, crazy mixed up world we live in.

13 May 2013 at 11:45  
Blogger Albert said...

Phil,

There's a clear and basic difference between selling my property someone and letting my property be used by someone. This isn't to do with homosexuality or prostitution. It's to do with what words mean.

So in answer to your question, I would sell such a vehicle to such persons, but I wouldn't let them have sex in it, while I owned it.

13 May 2013 at 13:56  
Blogger Naomi King said...


The queer tidal wave is just enormous ...

Here is Nadine Dorries from Pink News

"Nadine Dorriestweeted on Saturday:

“If gay marriage bill takes sex out of marriage could a sister marry a sister to avoid inheritance tax?”

“If David Cameron wants Conservative Party to lose as many as fifty seats at next election he must push forward with the gay marriage bill”.

“If sex is removed from the legal definition of gay marriage, if it can’t take place in a church, what is gay marriage? What defines it?”

“If the answer is love, if legally is only link between gay/straight + marriage is being redefined to accommodate, why do we need marriage?”

“Legal definition of marriage is the basis of the law itself at present it’s based on definition of consummation.”

“Legally, marriage is wholly about sex.”"

and from the moderator of the Church of Scotland also from Pink News

"The moderator of the Church of Scotland has revealed that she is “terrified” of an upcoming debate on the ordination of gay ministers, which has the potential to cause the largest schism within the church since the 19th century.

The Church of Scotland is due to decide whether it will continue to allow the ordination of lesbian and gay ministers on the condition that they remain celibate. A lot rests on the decision, which will take place following a debate on Monday 20 May.

50 congregations have intimated that they may leave the church over the issue. It will mark the largest split since the Disruption of 1843."

Such are the sacrifices at the altar of sodomy.

13 May 2013 at 15:30  
Blogger Albert said...

Naomi,

“If gay marriage bill takes sex out of marriage could a sister marry a sister to avoid inheritance tax?”

This is a good point - however the injustice already exists, insofar as the marital right to avoid inheritance tax is already granted to gay couples through Civil Partnership. What does that relationship have that two sisters do no have? If this really were about equality, we would be fixing that inequality before looking gay 'marriage'.

13 May 2013 at 17:44  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Naomi

The reason that the state got involved in the first place was that there was so much need and so much injustice meted out by the rich on the poor and to a lesser extent the poor on each other.

As Christians we should of course be concerned with injustice in the Biblical sense which I would define as an abuse of power.


Solomon and Bathsheba is the big example of injustice in the Bible. It is interesting that the Jewish law prevented the sort of injustice meted out by say the mill owners or the 18C Slavers

We lost the will to fight injustice so eventually the state did it for us.

The solution is not less state as your seem to propose, as this would lead us back to the cotton mills.

Family life was no so great then either.

Phil

13 May 2013 at 19:20  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Albert/Peter

I don't agree that the selling as distincy from renting gets you off the moral dilemma if you know what the good will be used for.

You have are responsibility in both cases

Think guns and murder rather than gays and campers.

Phil

13 May 2013 at 19:55  
Blogger Albert said...

Phil,

I'm sorry, there just is a difference between selling and renting. When I rent something out, it remains mine - I take responsibility for it. If I rent out a car, I remain responsible for its tax etc. If I sell it then I don't.

It's no good a new owner of my old car saying it is my fault that the tax hasn't been paid, since it would be my fault if I sold a gun to a murderer. So clearly, your examples are confused.

One difference of course, is that in the murderer case, the murderer is going to use the gun to harm others. In that case, I should not let him borrow or buy the gun. So the distinction simply does not work in this case - both are wrong. But that does not apply to the room/camper van.

13 May 2013 at 21:06  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Phil I do not accept your analysis of the cause of the poverty in the 19th century. It was largely brought about by the enclosure acts of the 18th century which turned people off the land, which they had worked for centuries and gave these people no alternative but to move to large cities where there was not the social cohesion (they were often single young men) and they could only sell their labour rather than their products. In fact there was much righteousness during the 19th century arising from the work of Mueller and Spurgeon and Moody and others which brought millions back to a saving knowledge of the LORD and a sense of responsibility and care for others. Praise God for them.

13 May 2013 at 21:21  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Naomi

The point is that the state had to intervene to stop appalling injustice by mostly the rich. This required larger public spending.

In Asia or Africa today what is your chance of getting justice or the even use the law to help you?

In many countries from 70 to 85% of the prison population have never been to court, no charges have been filed against them.

They all have laws about slavery but slavery (of all sorts) is relatively common. Most spend less than 50p a year per person on policing and the judicial system. Look at your rates bill to see the difference.

Small states do not affect the rich, they have their own police and security. Small states bring injustice to the poor. Why? because they make it easier for the rich to abuse their power.

The rich call for a smaller state because they will be able to carry on much easier serving injustice to the poor.

I am rich/comfortably off Naomi and yes I hate paying my taxes. However, if you have been to a poor country and worked with poor people, then you will see that small state is not justice.

Phil



13 May 2013 at 21:48  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Albert

We are splitting hairs.

Phil

13 May 2013 at 21:51  
Blogger Albert said...

Not in the slightest Phil. There is a clear distinction between the cases, and as such the murderer and gun example is irrelevant. How can it be splitting hairs when the two cases are so utterly different? Surely, murder is different from homosexual acts?!

13 May 2013 at 21:53  
Blogger Peter D said...

Phil

You never did say whether you sold or rented the car/camper to a homosexual couple and/or a prostitute. Well?

And of course the cases are different. The sale of guns in Britain is controlled, based on an assessment of the propective purchaser, and any seller has to comply with regulations intended to remove the threat of harm to others. No one is free to loan or rent a gun to another. Stay within this legal framework and there is no moral problem. Clearly if someone informed you they were going to use a gun to commit murder you would have both a legal and moral duty to act.

13 May 2013 at 22:05  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Can a sister marry a sister in a civil ceremony or is it classified as incest? If a stepfather can marry his step daughter and have children ( Woody Allen case) I do not see why not.

This 'sister' concept really highlights the horror of ssm in our brave new world of state sanctioned perversion.

14 May 2013 at 02:14  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Guys

I do believe you are missing my point on purpose

Anyway here is the really simple version. (Without guns or gays in it!)

You own a store that sells and rents products. A person comes in who is going to use your product to commit sin A (whatever that may be) you happen to know this for whatever reason.

It does not matter whether you rent or sell your moral obligation is the same in both cases.

Phil

14 May 2013 at 06:45  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 May 2013 at 07:06  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 May 2013 at 07:27  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Naomi

Before you go on about the EU and my last post. Yes Germany does have more clout than anyone else and yes Brussels does not upset Germany.

They are not stupid in Brussels. Britain leaving is one thing. Germany leaving is the end of the EU.

Phil

14 May 2013 at 07:35  
Blogger Albert said...

Phil,

I do believe you are missing my point on purpose

Please don't presume to think you know what is going on in my mind - what is it about people on the internet, that they think they can do this? I have not missed your point on purpose - I have answered all your points, it is only now that you have expressed your point so generally that I can see what it is.

You own a store that sells and rents products. A person comes in who is going to use your product to commit sin A (whatever that may be) you happen to know this for whatever reason.

If I owned such a store, I would not sell condoms because the normal use of them is sinful. If someone came in to buy a knife and I knew they were going to use it to attack someone, I wouldn't sell it. If an alcoholic came in to buy wine to feed his habit, I wouldn't sell it. Nor would I sell pornography. Again, if a prostitute wants to buy my camper van so she can be a peripatetic prostitute, I wouldn't sell it.

So it does not seem to me that you have shown my position is inconsistent. On the contrary, in some of the cases I have cited, refusal to sell the item would be required by law. In the end, if something is mine, I am responsible for it. Your only response to this I think, is to go back to making a distinction between selling and renting, but that's where we were before and I don't think you managed to get your argument on target there.

In the end, it seems to me that you don't properly recognise property rights, but support the intervention of the state to compel me, to act against my conscience in how I dispose of my property. I think you need a massive argument to defend that kind of illiberal violence, and I don't think you've come up with such an argument.

14 May 2013 at 09:19  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Albert

Good thank you for the clarification.

I now see that we agree that there is no moral difference between selling and renting if the information that you have given to you is the same.

The problem we are back to is where we draw the line as Christians. You draw it in a different place to me and this is difficult for the world outside of the church to accept.

I can see that you would sell/rent the camper van to the gay couple (to have sex in?) but not the prostitute.

This comes across as arbitrary and unloving and the inconsistency indicates to them that you refuse just because you do not like them as a person.

Phil

14 May 2013 at 10:02  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Peter

I sold the vehicles in all cases.I must admit I had some qualms about the lady purchaser.

However, it is interesting. I have often wondered why I feel not at all uneasy with my teenage daughters walking around in the evening in a city in Germany but not most cities in Britain. Has this got something to do with the fact that there are a great number of prostitutes available and it is legal? Or is it the fact that in Germany people do get involved if someone is in trouble and once called, the police always come quickly, the perpetrators are often found and once convicted they are not let out again. Indeed for sex crimes against children, to the EUs disgust, they often never let them out again. (The EU recently tried to stop this practice of life for serious offenses. The German response to the EU on this issue roughly translates as "F..k off and stop interfering". As far as I can tell, the EU did)

Going back to the printer thing, I am assuming that the printer was taking God's law above that of the State in some way.

Now lets turn this on its head. If you own a pub and someone wanted to buy an alcoholic drink for their child, (The state says that this should not happen) but because God does not have a view on children drinking alcohol (?) we should go ahead and serve them?

Otherwise we are picking and choosing who is boss. The state when we feel is right on some things, God on others, like printing leaflets.

14 May 2013 at 10:18  
Blogger Albert said...

Phil,

Sorry if I was grumpy!

I now see that we agree that there is no moral difference between selling and renting if the information that you have given to you is the same.

I think though that the key thing is what something is going to be used for. If a prostitute wants to by my camper van because she needs a vehicle to go on holiday for example, I would sell it. If a gay couple want to buy my car for the same reason, I would sell it, but if either wishes to buy it for the purposes of sex, then I would say no. Of course, I don't know if the homosexual couple are going to have sex in my B&B, but the same could be said for someone wanting to rent a double bed with a child. I don't know that the adult is going to abuse the child, but that does not alter the outcome.

This comes across as arbitrary and unloving and the inconsistency indicates to them that you refuse just because you do not like them as a person.

It is not arbitrary because it is consistent. If it appears unloving that is because the world is in darkness. A problem the world has is that it fails to distinguish between a person and his actions. Every person is equally made in the image and likeness of God. But that does not mean that all actions or relationships are equal.

I'm not overly interested in adapting my actions to suit the mores of the world. In the history of the Church our worst moments have been when we have followed the world; our greatest moment - the cross - is when we (or rather HE) stood against it. We should follow him, not them:

that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.

14 May 2013 at 10:19  
Blogger Albert said...

Anyway, Phil, I expect there will be a social correction over the current homophilia, and then people will wonder why the Church didn't speak out more.

14 May 2013 at 10:21  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 May 2013 at 11:02  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

All these hypothetical questions! Personally I would not have a problem with selling or renting vehicle to a gay couple- it's business and they question is are they good for their money?

I cannot control what they do and do not do in said vehicle and I don't really feel it is my place to give customers the inquisition about what they tend to do with it.The same would go for an umarried couple.

In respect of knives and guns and alcohol and tobacco ,for that matter, there are legal restrictions on the buying and selling of these products. But if I did sell a knife, what would be murderer would actually tell me he was going to do away with someone??

As for the 'prostitute', how other than a judgement on a person's apperance would I know that said person actually was a prostitute? (some of the women I've worked with had skirts up to their bums and high heels and makeup, but that didn't make them women of the night).

Of more interest to me - both ethically and legally would be the chosen method of payment. If large sums of cash were involved, I'd be weary about selling a car or whatever, because of the potential for fraud/money laundering.

In that case I'd either ask for proof of where the money had come from (bank account recepits)or say I've got a cash limit and ask they pay by a card,banker's draft etc.

In respect of the person who didn't want to publish a gay mag (and say he'd do the same with hetrosexual publications, which had nudes in them), I admire the moral stance. Would that mean he wouldn't go and admire the sistene chapel, which has painting of naked men and women in them? Or classic European art, which has people (sometimes religious themes- e.g. Adam an Eve) in the buff?

As I've mentioned before I have an interest in a lingere business. Is that immoral of me, selling sexy expensive underwear to adults? Or is it not if my customer base is 39to 60, married women and men, who want to 'spice up' their action in the bedroom?

14 May 2013 at 11:02  
Blogger Albert said...

David,

The purpose of the hypotheticals is to isolate the moral principle. It doesn't matter that they may never arise or that you wouldn't actually ask people what they are going to do in the car. For the sake of argument Phil arranged the world that we knew how they were going to behave.

As far as art is concerned, there are different ways in which the body is presented. Nudity in a medical journal is different from pornography - though the line may be hard to draw!

14 May 2013 at 12:30  
Blogger Peter D said...

Phil

Now you've lost me!

As I recollect, we started this discussion with you proposing this printer should have taken the order, printed the magazine, "befriended" the publisher and then gone along to "witness" to these homosexuals. Now you are saying selling a car to a homosexual who may have sex in it is wrong!

Have I misunderstood you?

14 May 2013 at 13:13  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Explorer,

Oh I'm not trying to pin blame on anyone. I was simply trying to observe that, to take the Christian or Jewish 'orthodox' view, ssm is a symptom, not a cause of the breakdown in the traditional morality or the family.

The reality is, when the 'new normal' is hetrosexual cohabitation, with families outside of marriage, single parentage, with hetrosexual traditional marriage seen as one of many "life style" choices, the debate on rallying mass support against ssm, was already lost before it began.

14 May 2013 at 19:39  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi David,

So if you had a publishing biz would you have agreed to publish? Very liberal of you, doesn't your Judaism make you think about what biz to invest in or not?

I think you are being deliberately mischievous about the comments on religious art and naked bodies?.

And doesn't Judaism discriminate in others ways, e.g. lending at interest to non Jews, but not to Jews. Isn't that going to fall foul of equality laws?

14 May 2013 at 19:44  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Hi Hannah

I blame Rousseau for everything. The bastard. Even for Hitler and Marx. 'We will force people to be free' is one of the most terrifying contradictions I've come across from anyone.

Let's close it down here, and continue on the newer strings. The abortion one is opening things up in the right direction of getting away from SSM.

See you around. (Nice logo, by the way).

14 May 2013 at 21:03  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 May 2013 at 21:18  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Explorer,

I have just finished Mill, so haven't stumbled upon Rousseau yet....But all this talk of philosophy reminds me of the philosopher's song as written by the Pythons... lol!:

"Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya'
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
SOCRATES, HIMSELF, WAS PERMANENTLY PISSED...

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away;
Half a crate of whiskey every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am"
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!"

14 May 2013 at 21:21  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Phil Roberts,

Thanks for that. I think the thing is, I couldn't be nasty to someone who was overweight (or underweight). I think that there are a lot of medical conditions which effect our weight- eating disorders such as Prader–Willi and Bulimia nervosa. I don't know, but to me I think we have to be compassionate, understanding and practical with these things.

In Judaism we say we are ALL created in the image of G-d- which is why life is really important in Judaism called. So much so, we call it Pikuach Nefesh, that is the obligation to break our Mitzvot in life is in danger (e.g. a doctor should heal or give medicine/surgery on Shabbat, if a life is in danger - ya'avor v'al ye'hareg-"transgress and do not be killed"-different to what is written in the NT, but hey, ho).

In fact there are only 3 of the 613 Mitzvot - called ye'hareg v'al ya'avor -"be killed but do not transgress"-which we are NOT allowed to break in order to save a life.

14 May 2013 at 21:26  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Ah, Albert,

My sister has correctly 'sniffed out' my somewhat clumsy attempt to discuss what constitutes pornography or not.

As you note medical textbooks, paintings- religious or not, are they in the same category as 'lad's mags', which might show a naked women (bits between thighs cleverly disguised by a plant pot), 'hard core' porn etc... how do we as a society draw the line and make a distinction between acceptable and dodgy?

14 May 2013 at 21:36  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Hannah,

I think your post at 21.26, needs a bit of clarification. The "be killed but do not transgress" or "ye'hareg v'al ya'avor" pertains more to what actions Jews should be prepared to be killed for, because we are not allowed to transgress them.

The 3 Mitzvot are idol worship, murder and sexual immorality. In each of those cases, Jews should accept death (either by being killed themselves or by their own hand) rather than do/ told/forced to do so.

(Avi can tell me off if I've got it wrong).

14 May 2013 at 21:49  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Hannah,

Liberal Moi?

In actual fact, I think if I were a publisher I'd have a great deal of difficulty in publishing a mag which actively promoted - be it a lad's mag or a gay mag- a direct sex as a commodity world view, rather than being what it really is (from my POV) a deeply spiritual G-d given act.

So my answer would be no actually. If that makes me a bigot, then 'guilty' as charged. But I would say, that this difficulty would pertain to both gay and straight.

Now to go back to the example of the hire car(or if I owned a hotel) & letting it to a gay couple; to me the difference is that I cannot control what people will do in a car(sex in car seems a bit tacky to me) or in a hotel bed. Providing nothing illegal goes on and the car or room isn't trashed, I don't have a problem.

In those circumstances I am providing either a vehicle (purpose of which is to get from a to b) or a room (a place to sleep, wash etc). In those circumstances I am not actively promoting sex of any kind.

As to my general view of biz, myself and my baptist business partner, agree the following a long time ago:

1. Is it legal in the UK?
2. What do our religions say about that type of business and how we should conduct ourselves?
3. Will it make money?
4. We will do this without a tax dodge.
5. Do we know enough about this sector to do our job properly?
6. Have fun and make money lawfully.

14 May 2013 at 22:08  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Hannah,

One other thing (to quote Columbo).

In respect of the interest. If I where a banker, I'd agree that there is a Mitzvot about charging interest to non-Jews and not charging interest to Jews on loans.

I can also agree that this does provide a good example of conflict with current UK law and equality legislation (in that some customers would be treated differently on grounds of religion/race or if it were open to Jewish only customers there could be some smart ass calling 'discrimination').

My answer to this apparent conflict would be to carry on as before and inject equity in companies, rather than loans and secondly to simply redefine loans (we can do it for marriage, apparently, so why not loans?).

If it we me, I'd take the hire car analogy. I would say, both Jew and non-Jew could 'hire (as Preisdent Calvin Coolidge once said) the money' from me (just like a rental car) and pay a fee of a percent of that money, to me for hiring of said money. This wouldn't be interest in the technical definition of the term and it wouldn't be compounded.

So the Mitzvot would be satisfied for Jews. In respect of non-Jews, interest could be added and then given back straight away as 'cash back' or something like that.

Hmmm,vague details, back of fag packet idea, but something worth working on methinks.

14 May 2013 at 22:24  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

One final thought, lest anyone think I am a bigot, for reasons beyond me, gay men have a particular Chutzpah and expertise when it comes to selling expensive ladies undergarments...

14 May 2013 at 22:33  
Blogger Albert said...

David,

how do we as a society draw the line and make a distinction between acceptable and dodgy?

I think it's very difficult. It's easy to say that it is wrong to sell porn, but in some cases it may be hard to draw the line (cf. your question about underwear). That's why I think the state should not get involved in these kinds of matters. It's one thing the state stopping people doing things that are harmful, it is quite another forcing someone to do something against his conscience. Our society is now so morally lazy that the scandal of these laws goes unnoticed.

14 May 2013 at 23:01  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi David,

Thanks for the clarification to my post and the other responses. Much to reflect and think about!

14 May 2013 at 23:37  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Sorry Peter

To clarify (hopefully)

My point which clearly did not work is that we all as Christians draw different lines in the sand. Hence the gay car, camper and mobile brothel examples.

To those outside the faith our scruples appear arbitrary and it comes across as a lack of love.

We are applying our (varying) standards to those outside the faith or with no faith and I do no think that it works.

I would propose that we stick with three areas that we can mostly all agree on and get our message across on these.

I would propose these three should be our priorities.

Freedom of worship, the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage.

Phil

15 May 2013 at 08:18  
Blogger Jon said...

Interesting quotes in the Guardian piece on the matter...

""There are some types of work I do not feel comfortable taking on and this is definitely one them," wrote printer Nick Williamson from Blufire Media in County Armagh, who had advertised his services on Gumtree.

"To work alongside (even printing for) the LGBT [community] would be in contradiction to my own faith and so I will have to let this quote slide."

"MyGayZine.co.uk does not contain any adult content. Recent issues carry features about homophobia, gay life, travel and culture, as well as crosswords and recipes for carrot and ginger soup."

Interesting that he advertises on Gumtree though. Showing scruples about what work he does, but not the kind of businesses advertising alongside him is rather odd!

Phil - thank you for the link. I've downloaded the first chapter and will have a read.

15 May 2013 at 13:26  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Jon

Keller writes really well.

Lets call what he writes an intelectually credible explanation of Christianity

The free sermons on the left of the page are excellent.

I am not a good listener and sermons are my pet hate.

These are the ONLY sermons I have ever have wanted to listen to over and over again

Good doesn't describe it

Phil



15 May 2013 at 15:51  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older