Tuesday, June 04, 2013

Archbishop of Canterbury nails Same Sex Marriage Bill

His (present) Grace gave the following speech yesterday during the Peers' debate on government proposals to allow same sex marriages. Before the Telegraph puts its tediously predictable anti-Anglican spin on it, His (former) Grace would like to fisk it affirmatively:
My Lords, this Bill has arrived in your Lordship's House at great speed.
You can say that again – from nowhere in the Conservative Party Manifesto to fully-fledged Bill faster than Your Grace's ascent to Lambeth.
The initial Proposals, when published at the end of the autumn, have needed much work to get them into today's form.
Not to mention a hell of a lot of manipulation.
Much of that work has been done through detailed legal effort and discussion,
And as sham consultation.
and I am deeply grateful to the DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) teams – and especially to the Secretary of State for the thoughtful way in which she has listened and the degree to which she has been willing to make changes in order to arrive at the stage we’ve reached today.
Listened? Maria Miller listened? No, Your Grace, her ears inclined to hear but were swiftly closed to all reason and entreaty. She has evaded and obfuscated ever since.
We all know, and it’s been said, that this is a divisive issue.
In general the majority of faith groups remain very strongly against the Bill, and have expressed that view in a large number of public statements.
The House of Bishops of the Church of England has also expressed a very clear majority view – although not unanimous, as has been seen by the strong and welcome contribution by the Bishop of Salisbury.
Strong and welcome? Did we read the same statement? His Grace welcomes debate and diverse expressions of opinion (it is why he blogs), but the Bishop of Salisbury’s contribution was weak, and for its theological and historical inadequacy it was most unwelcome as it contributed so little.
The so-called Quadruple Lock may have some chance of withstanding legal scrutiny in Europe, and we are grateful for it, although other faith groups and Christian denominations who’ve written to me remain very hesitant.
There have been useful discussions about the position of schools with a religious character and issues of freedom of conscience. And I’ve noted the undertaking of the Noble Baroness the Minister on those subjects, and I’m grateful for what she has said. The Noble Baroness the Minister has also put forward all her views today with great courtesy and persuasive effect, and I join in the remarks of the Noble Baroness, Baroness Royall, in appreciation of that.
It’s nice to be pleasant and polite: it is the Christian thing to be. But these ‘useful discussions’ about freedom of religion and issues of freedom of conscience were guillotined in the House of Commons. That was disgraceful and disreputable. It does no harm occasionally to call people ‘whited sepulchres’. In love, of course.
And I have to say that personally I regret the necessity of having to deal with the possibility of a division at this stage, on a bill passed by a free vote in the other place.
Notwithstanding that this ‘free vote’ was whipped, if not by the party machinery, by the ‘remorseless prism of equality’ and the natural fear that arises from unorthodox utterances against the zeitgeist. It is the constitutional function of the House of Lords to scrutinise legislation. It is entirely the Government’s fault that a division has to be dealt with at this stage.
I was particularly grateful to hear the speech of the Noble Baroness, Baroness Royall, and agreed with the proud record that was established by the last government during the years in which it held office in this area. I also, if I may, will pass on her comments with gratitude to my colleague the Most Revd Prelate the Archbishop of York.
Proud record? Of equality? Presumably Your Grace means the introduction of civil partnerships rather than the forced closure of Roman Catholic adoption agencies; or the prosecution of Christian hoteliers and B&B owners; or the compulsion upon Christian printers to propagate gay pornography. By the way, do please pass on His Grace's best wishes to the Archbishop of York following his surgery.  
It is clearly essential that stable and faithful same sex relationships should, where those involved want it, be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect as marriage.
No problem at all with that: dignity is intrinsic to love; legal effects are the purview of the state.
Although the majority of Bishops who voted during the whole passage of the Civil Partnerships Act through your Lordships' House were in favour of civil partnerships a few years ago, it is also absolutely true that the church has often not served the LGBT communities in the way it should.
Quite so.
I must express my sadness and sorrow for that considerable failure. There have been notable exceptions, such as my predecessor Archbishop Ramsey who vigorously supported decriminalisation in the 1960s.
And was variously reviled and pilloried for doing so: it seems to be the vocation of all archbishops of Canterbury to be suspended somewhere between the religio-political extremes. 
It is also necessary to express, as has been done already, total rejection of homophobic language, which is wrong – and more than that, sickening.
Quite so.
However, I and many of my colleagues remain with considerable hesitations about this Bill. My predecessor Lord Williams of Oystermouth showed clearly last summer, in evidence during the consultation period, that it has within it a series of category errors.
It confuses marriage and weddings.
It assumes that the rightful desire for equality – to which I’ve referred supportively – must mean uniformity, failing to understand that two things may be equal but different.
And as a result it does not do what it sets out to do, my Lords.
Schedule 4 distinguishes clearly between same gender and opposite gender marriage, thus not achieving true equality.
The result is confusion.
Which rather nullifies your earlier assertion that the Secretary of State listened to any degree.
Marriage is abolished, redefined and recreated, being different and unequal for different categories.
Quite so.
The new marriage of the Bill is an awkward shape with same gender and different gender categories scrunched into it, neither fitting well.
Indeed: it ceases to be dimorphic and becomes essentially genderless.
The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost.
Indeed, it abolishes the only institution which sustains gender complementarity for the primary purpose of procreation (Mt 19:4f). Marriage is the attraction of two adults of the opposite-sex and of different parents, followed by the setting up of a home distinct from the parental home, and the uniting of their lives in a shared life which forms a pattern of fulfilment which serves the wider end of enabling procreation to occur in a context of affection and loyalty.
The idea of marriage as covenant is diminished.
Quite so. God told Hosea (3:1): “Go, love a woman”; not “Go, love a partner.” Faithlessness to the marriage covenant and faithlessness to the covenant with God are bracketed together by Malachi (2:10-12). One reflects and symbolises the other. Marriage is being reduced to a state contract of convenience; it ceases to be a sacrament; it is voided of holy matrimony, for two no longer need to become one flesh.
The family in its normal sense, predating the state and as our base community of society – as we’ve already heard – is weakened.
Normal? That is brave, Your Grace. So often now, to talk of ‘normal’ or ‘natural’ is to invite allegations of bigotry and discrimination. But this ‘normal’ is heterosexual and procreative: it predates any social contract for it seen to exist in nature.
These points will be expanded on by others in the debate, I’m sure, including those from these benches.
Or not.
For these and many other reasons, those of us in the churches and faith groups who are extremely hesitant about the Bill in many cases hold that view because we think that traditional marriage is a corner stone of society, and rather than adding a new and valued institution alongside it for same gender relationships, which I would personally strongly support to strengthen us all, this Bill weakens what exists and replaces it with a less good option that is neither equal nor effective.
Hear, hear. Marriage is a gift of creation, common to all humanity irrespective of belief.
This is not a faith issue, although we are grateful for the attention that government and the other place have paid to issues of religious freedom – deeply grateful. But it is not, at heart, a faith issue; it is about the general social good.
Of course it isn’t a faith issue, and it is absurd of Christians to argue with His (present) Grace or His (former) Grace on this point to insist that it is. According to Scripture, faith is ‘the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen’ (Heb 11:1). It is imagined and eschatological, while marriage is immanent, seen and known. It is natural law and present reality; not a future hope, but the Creator’s design for this world. Marriage is not at heart a faith issue, but about the realisation of the common good for the ordering of society.
And so with much regret but entire conviction, I cannot support the Bill as it stands.
Well done, Your Grace. There will some of your colleagues on the Episcopal Bench who will despair. Some have already blogged and tweeted that you are deluded, misguided or mistaken. Others will nit-pick over minutiae which they know nothing about; still others will cast you to the Gadarene Swine. But you have spoken clearly for the Church of England on this matter, and also for other Christian denominations and those of other faiths. When the Church contributes to public debate on matters of concern to secular society at large, it should address society on terms common to all participants. The attempt to be distinctly Christian belongs only to the pursuit of internal discipline among the faithful. Christians must distinguish between those dictates of the law of nature which are apparent to all men of good will and those which seem clear to themselves but not to others. Marriage is natural law. It is appropriate for the ‘hard heart’ of Parliament to be sceptical of metaphysics. It is not for Parliament to redefine the integrity of the created order.


Blogger Mark Wadsworth said...

THat was one of the worst fiskings I've ever read.

No interesting facts or counter-arguments, no funny jokes, just "listen to me I'm great" type wailing.


4 June 2013 at 07:39  
Blogger Martin said...

I'm afraid the AB of C was weak and mistaken in his arguments.

The concept that marriage should be available to any who are 'in love' is a silly modern fiction which bears no relationship to Scriptural teaching.

Indeed the question of homosexuals being 'in love' and desiring to marry ignores the fact that it is not love that causes another to sin.

The whole concept of love has been cheapened in our society by terms such as 'love child' to describe the result of an adulterous relationship - which once again is not loving.

Perhaps Justin should look the Bible and the holy men of God of the past for his moral guidance in future.


4 June 2013 at 08:12  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

Good speech, and good to have your views on it. I think it was the Bp of Exeter later who gave another good speech, as did Baroness Berridge, but I still haven't heard both parts of the argument expressed, although it's been hinted at by various speakers.

Frankly though, hinting isn't good enough. Why does ABC have to hobble himself by blurring the line between non-sexual same-sex relationships (not sin) and sexual ones, and professing support for them? No wonder Ed Thornton tweeted:

@Edthornton: Welby said "stable & faithful same sex relationships should be recognised & supported" - so why opposition to blessing them in churches?

There is an issue of sin at the bottom of this. We have the strong natural position, the existing dictionary noun that describes a relationship between xy and xx chromosomed people - that's the 'is' and it's uneasy but logically stable and as neutral a position as a politician could hope for.

Then we have the 'oughts' of the various parties, and this is where the legal cases come, as clearly hoped by a certain Baroness last night (didn't catch name). Christians say one man and one woman, for life, and exclusive, and that what God has joined together let no man put asunder. That's based on the Bible. Atheists, or those of the cult of Apollo, reject this authority and will not have it reign over them. Understandable, but they've crossed a line which begins to enforce their faith on others. They have no ideology to replace it, but create the vacuum that sucks in polygamy. They want their 'ought' to displace mine, to the extent that Nick ruddy Holtam became the new theological Balaam of their 'Christian' confusion.

What happens when sin is next mentioned? It wasn't yesterday, and would have sharpened the debate.

In all our weakness, the CofE tried as hard as perhaps the situation would allow, and there will be more said no doubt.

I should pray more, and will as I ride into work.

4 June 2013 at 08:20  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Thank you Your Grace for your commentary.
He has an almost impossible job to do but even so I am a disappointed Anglican. I would have preferred something a little plainer, less gracious and just stronger whilst remaining polite and using language that the whole nation, not just the Christian section, could follow. When will the C of E rediscover or rather reuse the "sin" word, or at least say something like "forbidden". Otherwise where is the support for Christian brothers and sisters who may struggle with SS attraction but successfully resist it, perhaps for the sake of the family and children? Why not mention God's clear instructions?

4 June 2013 at 09:20  
Blogger Gary said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 June 2013 at 09:23  
Blogger Gary said...

More lukewarm comments from the latest lukewarm leader of our lukewarm church (a lukewarm church that is dying in the UK). Why do these people never stand for Christ? Why do these people never stand for his word? No wonder God has turned his back on us!

Fact: Homosexuality is contrary to the order of creation. It is a perversion born of the fall. It is a sign of rebellion against God. There can be no homosexual marriage ever because marriage is a covenant born of love, and THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HOMOSEXUAL LOVE! Why is this so hard for so-called Christians to understand?

4 June 2013 at 09:23  
Blogger Flossie said...

I too was rather underwhelmed by this speech. Why does he have to grease up to Maria Miller, for heaven's sake? Why should we be 'grateful' to her? I think the silly woman is way out of her depth and by far JW's intellectual inferior, so the need to grovel to her escapes me.

Not one of the speeches I heard yesterday contained any reference to homosexuality itself. Even opponents of the Bill took the 'gay is good' line. Nobody seems able to tell the truth, that it is a disordered lifestyle, usually unhappy, unhealthy and short. Afraid of gay activists, we are self-censoring.

4 June 2013 at 09:47  
Blogger Flossie said...

The trouble with trying to please everybody, which I feel JW was trying to do, is that you end up pleasing nobody. I have just read Changing Attitude's opinion on the speech, and Colin Coward too is underwhelmed!


This is a difficult line for JW, made more difficult by the waffling and prevarication of his predecessor. It really is much easier just to tell the truth - as Lord Carey was prone to do when he was AbC - yes, some people will hate you, but at least those to whom you matter will be happy.

There was nothing in JW's speech that inspired me with confidence.

4 June 2013 at 09:59  
Blogger Flossie said...

Oops, wrong link. The correct one is


4 June 2013 at 10:00  
Blogger graham wood said...

Flossie. Very good points, and agree that Mrs Miller Minister and MP is painfully inadequate intellectually and morally.
Her Bill is a disgraceful dog's dinner and was exposed as such in the H of L by several speakers.

Agree also that conspicuous by its absence in either Houses was any attempt to explain or justify the practice of homosexuality itself.
A serious omission.

One of the best speeches in the Lords was by Lord MacWhinney who did at least quote words from the Lord Jesus Christ himself on this issue.
MacWhinney's frank, and robust speech, as that of Lord Dannart,
maximised opposition arguments against the Bill with economy of words.
Both were a rebuke to the army of windy sentimentalists in the H of L with their empty rhetoric: "If they love each other then that's all right" nonsense.

4 June 2013 at 10:08  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 June 2013 at 10:12  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 June 2013 at 10:15  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

HI Gary ,

"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HOMOSEXUAL LOVE! Why is this so hard for so-called Christians to understand?"

It seems when so-called christians start foaming at the mouth here against homosexuals and what we can and cannot be capable of, then to the rest of us non christians,it is so hard to understand this jesus of love you go on about.

4 June 2013 at 10:16  
Blogger Nick said...

I was underwhelmed. There was too much graciousness towards people who have shown contempt for the CofE and the wider Christian community. while politics may require a different language to that used in the pulpit, there was almost a sense of apology about the speech. what for?

4 June 2013 at 10:17  
Blogger graham wood said...

I stand open to correction but afaik only Bishop Nazir-Ali has drawn attention to perhaps the most
important element in this whole debate.
That is, if the Bill goes through both Houses, then HMQ would be caused to break her solemn Coronation Oath "to maintain the law of God, and to preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England”.

This would put her in an impossible position and would or should create a constitutional crisis.

Yes, she has to accept the advice of her Ministers, especially that of the PM, but they are NOT permitted to offer her unconstitutional advice which would cause her to deny that Oath of office made before God and the people.

Same sex marriage is a direct and arrogant challenge to the truth about marriage clearly set out in the Word of God, the Bible.
No 'ifs or buts' it is clear, unambiguous, and not to be tampered with.

4 June 2013 at 10:17  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 June 2013 at 10:20  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

To wit, as I noted in the thread below, there are plenty of problems and sins that hetrosexual couples get up to (not being or even getting married & having children outside of the christian ideal for a start), but that is constantly overlooked by some commentators here and makes me think 'hypocritical stance'.

Despite many Christians denying it, there is clearly a list of sins which are worse than others, with homosexuality being at the top... all the anguish, fear and loathing has to be heaped upon gays. Isn't Jesus supposed to be bigger than those insecurities?

4 June 2013 at 10:21  
Blogger Peter D said...

Some comments that bothered me:

"It is clearly essential that stable and faithful same sex relationships should, where those involved want it, be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect as marriage."

Why is it clearly essential that homosexual relationships be recognised and supported when their very acceptance and normalisation undermines the common good?

" ... the church has often not served the LGBT communities in the way it should."

Indeed; of late it is not being clear that engaging in sexual perversity is against our Creator's Will.

"It is also necessary to express, as has been done already, total rejection of homophobic language, which is wrong – and more than that, sickening."

Be helpful to be a bit more specific here. Is calling homosexual men engaging in sodomy "sodomites", homophobic? Is calling homosexuality "unnatural",
"disordered", or "sinful", homophobic?

"It assumes that the rightful desire for equality – to which I’ve referred supportively – must mean uniformity, failing to understand that two things may be equal but different."

Should a Christian Church leader be endorsing the demand for "equality"?

4 June 2013 at 10:29  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

I have to say that I am warming to Rabbi Rev Welby as the Archbishop of Canterbury. He seems quite balanced and thoughtful in his argument. Very C of E and very English.

4 June 2013 at 10:35  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Gay marriage is this generation's equivalent of the French Repulican Calendar - trying to overturn God's creation ordinances with man's own arrogant constructs. It is a folly as ill-fated as the tower of Babel or the aforementioned calendar.

No doubt the leaders at the Bilderberg gathering will laugh & joke and congratulate each other on how clever they all are, and marvel at the brave, new, Godless world they are creating in their own image. Yet it would be better for them if they had a mill-stone tied around their neck and were escorted to the nearest river.

[Incidentally, I couldn't help notice that the 'Dark Lord' himself, Peter Mandelson, is in on the Bilderberg guest list ... someone who I strongly suspect of being at the root of this collective madness]

4 June 2013 at 10:46  
Blogger Preacher said...

As I see it the problem is not about the Government trying to redefine marriage to accommodate a small but vociferous group of people. But about a political group (All parties are participants) attempting to redefine sin.
The Bible is clear that there is a real judgement of mankind to come & the penalty for all sin is death & Hell.
Whether that sin is murder, adultery, stealing, child sex abuse, sodomy or any other thing that God has warned against.
Without repentance & the acceptance of God's Mercy through accepting the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, all will be found guilty on that day & duly sentenced.
How hard is it for educated people to understand?. It's not for us to judge. But we have a commission to warn. If we fail to love mankind to the point that we fail to deliver the warning because of fear, or for any other reason we are guilty of not loving those that Christ died to save. The Gospel is so simple that a child can understand it. In One word - Choose! Life or death, Heaven or Hell.
All the polite talk & P.C just creates a smokescreen that hides the real issue. In the name of God, Church leaders, be Men.

4 June 2013 at 11:43  
Blogger Gary said...

In reply to Hannah.

God's love isn't lukewarm, even if the love of Christian men and women often is. God is love. He created it, and love is only ever defined by him.

God loves men and women enough to bless us with the gift of love, and warns us that wallowing in perversions of love will condemn us to hell. In Romans 1, God tells us that homosexuality is one of the clearest expressions of perversion. Jesus tells us to repent of such sins.

For Christians and the church to be silent on these matters at a time when members of Parliament are openly calling evil good and good evil would be hugely irresponsible. For my own part, I love people enough to risk offending them with the truth. The truth, after all, is what sets men and women free.

4 June 2013 at 12:12  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

Hannah - the ability to stuff up our relationships by our own sin is common to everyone. It's not hypocricsy to have a model of behaviour outside ourselves which we admit we fail to attain.

While there may be allowances made for failure, as Jesus said 'because of your hard hearts Moses allowed this', to argue from failure to the way things ought to be is a bit limited isn't it?

What do you think?

4 June 2013 at 12:13  
Blogger bluedog said...

Congratulations, Your Grace on your two most recent posts as the SSM Bill grinds through the Lords.

Just when one thinks a debate has been done to death you have managed to inject a little freshness into proceedings. No doubt the better informed peers will have enjoyed your posts and will have drawn moral support from your arguments. Even the thicker hereditaries like the splendidly incoherent Viscount Astor of Hever may learn something from Your Grace's posts.

It is of course very easy to berate ++Welby, who by virtue of his office is charged with making responsible and constructive criticism. One suspects that in private his views may be somewhat stronger. Certainly ++Welby's point about the confused state of marriage that this Bill potentially creates is entirely relevant, and in this, Welby gets to the crux of the matter.

Quite how the homosexual lobby can support this Bill is a mystery to your communicant. After its passage, and God help the United Kingdom if it is enacted, homosexuals will still find themselves in a different state to that of the heterosexual majority.

In short, the homosexuals stand to gain absolutely nothing except the enduring emnity and contempt of the heterosexual majority as a consequence of their determination to wreck the traditional form of marriage. One can only conclude that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is an extraordinary miscalculation by Cameron and his homosexual friends.

Perhaps those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make gay.

4 June 2013 at 12:19  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Preacher,

I can see that you should be able to declare and share you beliefs - which is what you are referring to about heaven and hell/Jesus/repentance etc.

In same way that Islam should be free to call for Sharia law in this country .

But you are presumably aware that the government has (via your definitions) already 'redefined' sin,or least sexual sin, by not prosecuting hetrosexual adults who have sex outside of marriage, children outside of marriage as well as homosexual adults who have sex outside of marriage. Then there is abortion, contraception, divorce, adultery etc.

4 June 2013 at 12:28  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

Also, pretty simple distinctions between the types of 'love' are being smudged by people whose paid job is to know, understand and teach them. New Testament Greek uses three words for our one.

Agape and Phileo can be, and are used in same-sex contexts, as Christ to Peter 'lovest thou me?' 'Jesus loved Lazarus, and Mary and Martha'. Phileo corresponds more with affection and brotherly love. Agape is more an effort of will even where not reciprocated (Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you; God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son)

Eros - associated with sexual desire, while not wrong in some contexts, is taught to be wrong in others. Again, this distinction might have helped the Lords, but was denied them.

The ABC's rather inexact language seemed to deny the teaching of the Bible and lean towards the recognition and blessing of same-sex sexual relationships, which is naive, isn't it? Maybe that's not what he meant.

4 June 2013 at 12:40  
Blogger Peter D said...

blue dog said ...

"It is of course very easy to berate ++Welby, who by virtue of his office is charged with making responsible and constructive criticism."

Really? And there's me thinking his 'job', first and foremost, was to lead people to Christ and represent the Gospel in the House of Lords! Instead he goes all politically correct and lets the Christians of this nation down.

"One suspects that in private his views may be somewhat stronger."

On what? He's on record as feeling "challenged" (or was it "seriosly challenged"?) over the issue of long-term, stable homosexual relationships. You know, some of his best friends .... and all that.

Seriously, how can an Archbishop of Canterbury be "challenged" over such a clear cut issue? Surely he should be condemning the sin of homosexual behaviour and condemning public acceptance of it and any arrangements that give it legitimacy.

4 June 2013 at 12:40  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Gary,

Firstly,I disagree with your assertion that gay people cannot 'love' others.

Secondly reading Romans Chapter 1, Paul does talk about 'shameful lusts' and then sexual acts between gay people, but I can't see how he is suggesting this is worse than what he continues to write in the same chapter :

'29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful'

4 June 2013 at 12:43  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Rasher,

The feeling of hypocrisy stems from when I re-read the Christian New Testament. e.g. Gary gay Romans Chapter 1 as a 'clear' example of gay sin or whatever.

Yet as I've just quoted, Paul, the author of Romans, goes on (as he does elsewhere) to list a lot of other types of sinful people. I just get the impression that gays are a particular magnet for the sin brigade to focus on.

Easier than having a go at single mums I guess.

4 June 2013 at 12:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Gary: "There can be no homosexual marriage ever because marriage is a covenant born of love, and THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HOMOSEXUAL LOVE! Why is this so hard for so-called Christians to understand?"

You'll be trying to claim the Earth stays still and the Sun moves across the sky next.

4 June 2013 at 13:07  
Blogger Peter D said...

Let's not get 'love' and 'lust' confused or fail to appreciate the proper purposes of these human emotions.

4 June 2013 at 13:11  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


You said :

'Jesus tells us to repent of such sins'

OK, hands up here, I've only recently re-read the New Testament, in order to understand these dialogues with people. I did come across passages that talk about taking sinful eyes and hands out of the way.

So Jesus didn't mean what he said about amputating our body parts?

For example in Mark 9, 43:

'If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It's better to enter eternal life with only one hand than to go into the unquenchable fires of hell with two hands.'

4 June 2013 at 13:12  
Blogger Peter D said...

"You'll be trying to claim the Earth stays still ..."

No, the earth does move - frequently - ask my wife she'll confirm this!!!

4 June 2013 at 13:13  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

I continue to be amused by the convoluted logic that civil partnerships are acceptable... but not SSM. Why? How?

The moment the former was accepted, introduced as a grandiose display of urbane toletance and enshrined in law, the latter became inevitable and all but impossible to argue against. Promises were made then that it all stops with the civil partnerships, promises which were made by the politicos...until their position flash-evolved while were daydreaming. Now promises are made, cross my heart and hope to die and all that, that SSM will not affect religious institutions and private conscience. Until the next evolutionary leap, of course. The game is over, get used to it, kids.

4 June 2013 at 13:22  
Blogger Preacher said...

Hi Hannah.
All manner of sins have been allowed, without prosecution for generations. That does not make them more acceptable to God & those that choose to commit them are still answerable for them. Until recently homosexuals were prosecuted by law, this has quite recently been rescinded.
IMO there is no graduation of sin in the eyes of the Lord. A bit like being a little bit dead or a lot dead if you catch my drift.

All sin is personal, like every crime is attributed to the one who commits it. If people choose to sin & cause others to willingly join them they are both guilty before God.
For any government to approve of sin & seek to alter the written law of the Creator & impose their will on those who disagree with them. makes them as guilty as those that are committing that sin. Furthermore they are seeking to legally force others to accept a law which they find morally wrong, almost intellectual & moral rape.

4 June 2013 at 13:34  
Blogger Gary said...

To Hannah.

As I said before, Hannah, love and marriage is defined by God, and God regards homosexuality as an abomination. Homosexuals cannot love because God defines what love is. The pseudo-feelings and ever-fickle opinions of men are irrelevant in all of this. This year the government will redefine marriage to include homosexuals. In twenty years they may redefine it to include paedophiles. It's all the stuff of anti-Christ.

Regarding Romans 1, try working through it from verse 17. This section of scripture is basically explaining that God will give men over to their sins if they reject him. Homosexuality is, therefore, symptomatic of rebellion against God. Note especially the important "For this reason" that begins verse 26 (the reason being the rejection of God). Only the grace of God can save us from ourselves, and repentance is an initial sign of that loving grace. If people aren't repenting and are content to wallow in their sins then people aren't saved.

None of that is to say that homosexuality is the worst sin of all (divorce, adultery, abortion, etc. are all evil in God's sight). It is merely the most conspicuous sin in societies that are dying.

4 June 2013 at 13:36  
Blogger non mouse said...

And so with much regret but entire conviction, I cannot support the Bill as it stands
For this, and for Your Graces: Deo Gratias.

4 June 2013 at 13:37  
Blogger William said...

Thank you Your Graces. One can but tell the truth and shame the devil it seems.


"I continue to be amused by the convoluted logic that civil partnerships are acceptable... but not SSM. Why? How?"

Civil partnerships give tax and other advantages to same sex couples. SSM abolishes real marriage.

The former adds to the liberal pantheon. The latter is a blatant attack at the heart of society, the religious, the will of the people and the democratic process.

4 June 2013 at 13:51  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This is nothing more than adults organizing the world as if they have to take no cognizance of children. What sort of relationships must adults make prior to having children? None. Any relationship will suffice. Children no longer can assert a reasonable expectation of having a mother and father. Adults have the option to provide those relationships, but they have no obligation. At the root of all of this is a denial of obligation for the sake of autonomy.

It is tempting to assert that this is all about homosexuals arrogating normalcy at the expense of children and certainly that is true for the homosexual. But heterosexuals are driving this change. They are making de jure what is already de facto. They are obliterating the boundaries that limit behavior and homosexuals are the grateful beneficiaries. And all on the assumption that the kids will be fine. Or not. After all, adults take precedence.


4 June 2013 at 13:52  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 June 2013 at 13:59  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Preacher,

I can see what you are getting at. In my belief there are 613 commandments, well those that we can still undertake without the Temple, which in G-d's eyes are important as each other.

So for me the commandment not to pork is the same as not having gay sex. Although of course,I think as human beings we do create our own bubble of what is more important...

4 June 2013 at 14:00  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Carl,

I'd add that the deeper problem is that hetrosexuals have turned marriage into one option of lifestyle choice, rather than 'the norm'- and the church/religions have 'allowed' this to happen over 30 years. Which is why the man on the street shrugs their shoulders about the issue (outside of the two camps which agree or not very strongly on this issue).

4 June 2013 at 14:03  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


You are correct. The legitimization of homosexuality is derivative. It is a consequence of establishing consent as the governing factor of sexual morality. Now you stand at the precipice of abolishing the entire concept of marriage in order to replace it with contract law. There isn't any going back from that decision.


4 June 2013 at 14:11  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Gary,

You can have your own clear view on 'anti-christs' and the letter of Romans, sin and homosexuals.

But I cannot see where you get this idea, gay people cannot love.

I am a human being, not a robot. I think I can love my family and friends, without needing Mr Data's emotion chip! I also think I can have strong feelings of companionship and sexual feelings for someone, in the same way that a hetrosexual person does.

So yes I do have the capacity for Ahavah & Chesed.

4 June 2013 at 14:12  
Blogger The Stigler said...

The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost.

So, when are the bishops going to speak out against post-menopausal marriages?

4 June 2013 at 14:13  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...


I'd also say that one of our great Rabbis, Maimonides, said that it should only be out of love for G-d, rather than fear of punishment or hope for reward, that we should obey the law of the Torah.

4 June 2013 at 14:17  
Blogger Gary said...

Feelings are fickle, Hannah. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:19).

4 June 2013 at 14:20  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

'Feelings are fickle'.

Including hetrosexual's feelings, I guess.

4 June 2013 at 14:40  
Blogger William said...


"So, when are the bishops going to speak out against post-menopausal marriages?"

Never. Just because some women cannot conceive doesn't mean that heterosexual marriages are not the normative place for procreation.

4 June 2013 at 14:41  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

This year the government will redefine marriage to include homosexuals. In twenty years they may redefine it to include paedophiles. It's all the stuff of anti-Christ. (Gary)

You're such a pessimist, Gary. I bet on 5 to 10 years....perhaps not in the UK, but in one of the more progressive countries in the EU. The UK is such a lagger.  You forget that the process, the shell game, has already been developed and finetuned by activists, lawyers, judges and governments,  so things should move a little faster now.

So, here's how I sees it. First, bigamy will be enshrined with the help of every argument used for SSM, but with the addition of actual historical precedent and pressing multicultural and human rights imperatives.  Try to make a consistent argument as to why marriage should be freedom from gender discrimination, but limited to only two bodies. Then, we'll see child marriage slide in under the guise of removing the already established principle of progressive removal of age discrimination. The supporting cast of the ever helpful psychiatrist associations will churn out a flood of peer reviewed, scientifically unassailable studies and miraculous revelations that 6 year olds are no less capable  of providing informed consent  than 16 year olds...not an entirely unreasonable argument in some ways, seeing what immature morons teens can be nowadays.  From the human rights sector we already have floaters relating to objections to authoritarian parental rights which seem violate a child's freedom of association...or a loving adult's right of social access to said child...  along with the inalienable right of all biological beings to a loving relationship. That one may seem at first like something they'll never get away with, until the comparison of tyrannical parental ownership of their offspring with slavery comes out and the notion is reframed as an issue of equality for which, surprise, surprise, we will soon have precedent. This is one of those rare "easier done than said" cases.

4 June 2013 at 14:44  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Hannah, you might find this interesting


It's a talk entitled “But the Bible says...”? A Catholic reading of Romans 1 - given for Mount Saint Agnes Theological Center for Women, Baltimore, 12 January 2004.

Without stating which parts of it I personally may agree or disagree with, it certainly takes to task some of the texts used frequently to beat others over the head with...

4 June 2013 at 14:54  
Blogger Flossie said...

Graham Wood@10.17 Sadly the Queen has already broken her coronation oath - she gave her assent to the abortion bill, the sunday trading bill, also (one assumes) to the Canadian gay marriage bill (someone correct me if I am wrong on that).

The bishops need to man up. I am very fearful that they will abstain. I am reminded of C S Lewis's Abolition of Man: “In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

Where are the 'men with chests'?

4 June 2013 at 15:07  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


How far are you along that road in Canada?


4 June 2013 at 15:08  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

PS: Forgot to add historical precedent for the upcoming challenge to lowering age of consent. Up until less than a hundred years ago, the age of consent, even in the Christian West, hovered around the ages of 7 and 8.

4 June 2013 at 15:11  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

My major problem with the whole issue was very well summarised by His Grace back in February.


Basically there's two things I don't want. British law imposed by unelected efforts in Brussels, and British law imposed by any - note I say any - religious lobby, because down that road leads theocracy, and it is a very dangerous precedent.

So you can see that whatever happened with this particular rushed through, unconstitutional, ill thought out piece of legislation, I was never going to be happy.

Such is life.

4 June 2013 at 15:19  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Well, SSM has been enshrined by law. Denial of services, such as by printers and bed and breakfast owners have been already deemed unlawful. Teachers have a theoretical right of conscience, but that's all but useless as the courts uphold the right of boards of education to require teaching equity, which includes positive acceptance and promotion of SSM and all forms sexual and gender identity in an ever-expanding alphabet soup acronym. State funded Catholic schools are required to allow formation of and funding for Gay clubs, and school bullying is being redifined as any disapproval of or failure to celebrate alternate sex preferences and gender identities. For now, religious institutions can avoid SSM services, but efforts are underway to challenge this.

4 June 2013 at 15:24  
Blogger Peter D said...

"You ought to feel shame in your hearts, you great gruff asses' heads."
(Martin Luther)

4 June 2013 at 15:33  
Blogger Peter D said...

"Basically there's two things I don't want. British law imposed by unelected efforts in Brussels, and British law imposed by any - note I say any - religious lobby, because down that road leads theocracy, and it is a very dangerous precedent."

Well yes, but it would be good if said "religious lobby" (is that all Christianity is nowadays?) was actually listened to and that those in positions of authority, especially within the Christian Churches, actually followed and preached their faith.

Properly followed Catholic teaching would be opposed to a theocracy too although there would be a close relationship between State and Church.

4 June 2013 at 15:46  
Blogger Manfarang said...

I don't think there will be any change regarding bigamy.I heard of someone who remarried before his divorce was finalised. Wow the fuss.

4 June 2013 at 15:49  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 June 2013 at 15:55  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Sister Tiberius,

Big thanks for the link, I did read it through. Very interesting (and refreshing) for some one to explain the New Testament without what I'd call 'the bible bashing' element and somewhat restored my faith in Christians.

Interesting comments re the chapter and verse structures, the nature of pagan temples and sexual practices &how this is different to a 'modern' view of the passage as given by Gary.

4 June 2013 at 16:02  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


Where are the 'men with chests'?

I don't think that CS Lewis was alone in that view at that time.

Many people despaired at Britain's decline morally and as a consequence economically. They did not know what to do about it.

Now they talk about "bringing back Grammar schools" as if that will achieve anything.

This sort of decline seems to be symptomatic of the end of civilisations (or as the liberals put it ----- times of change)

The state gets in a mess, the economy, the morals, no one has a solution. We either get invasion because the country is weak or people put their faith in a new order. Fascism is the obvious example but we can all think of others from further back in history.

Where are the 'men with chests'? ....... Gone for now at least.

Honour seems to be associated with simpler societies where loyalty and honour is rewarded. Our leaders appear to laugh at the concept of honour and consider it at best optional.

The problem as I see it is for the last 40 or more years, we have tried to make men into women and say that there is nothing special in being a man and so men continue to be boys taking responsibility for nothing often for their whole lives.

The Church is complicit in this and today you have churches almost entirely run by women and men are seen by the boys that attend (if they attend) as redundant.

I think it is a dangerous combination for society, men are looking for self worth and justification, young men today are bored, often unemployed and laughed at for being men.

I have often wondered what would I do if I was 20 and in this situation? The EDL looks fun, a bit tame perhaps, but interesting none the less to see what they are up to and more importantly if they affirm me as a man. The police of course would be the enemy, because for one thing at least, they would try to stop me taking what I need to enjoy myself.

Would I be a nasty person? Perhaps, but one with some pride, a role, honour and respect amongst peers at least. A man in other words.

Ask any woman which type of man she finds exciting.


4 June 2013 at 16:05  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Oops, meant to write "polygamy."

4 June 2013 at 16:06  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Avi,

If it makes you feel any better the same SSM liberals say in ten years time, we'll all be heading to Everest as the ice caps will have melted and mother earth/Gia will finally have died thanks to the machinations of the 'climate denier' lobby... Perhaps that's why they doing this ?

4 June 2013 at 16:07  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 June 2013 at 16:11  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Sorry, I meant Tiberia. Why was thinking of Tiberius? Perhaps it was Flossie's (and now) Phil's talk of the 'men with chests'-I think Captain Kirk's middle name was Tiberius...So we need a Captain Kirk esq figure to help us

4 June 2013 at 16:12  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Anyway as it is a nice summer's day, I think I'll be in on the balcony all evening, enjoying the sun.

4 June 2013 at 16:13  
Blogger Flossie said...

Phil Roberts, I think you are spot on there. It will get worse when we have women bishops. A feminised church is not attractive to anybody.

How many bishops now dare to say this?

4 June 2013 at 16:15  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Can't argue against that one. It's the age-old bacchanalia before universal perdition response. Romans excelled in that with their creativity, medieval Europeans with their zeal and we are now learning that the modern era version is a combination of the two.

4 June 2013 at 16:20  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 June 2013 at 16:22  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


"A feminised church is not attractive to anybody."

A number of male vicars have told me that they fear exactly this

Privately of course --- well out of earshot of everyone else!

Men with Chests?

Not in the Church.



One told me this(and that he did not agree with homosexuality in the church) 200 miles from his parish on a remote walk, but only after looking both ways to check that we were really alone on the path.

Obviously you cannot be too careful !

Men with Chests?

I inwardly laughed and despaired at the same time.

4 June 2013 at 16:27  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Good point, Phil. Fascism involves the process of a suppressed man getting his balls back by over-compensating. The blame for this dysfunctional reflex, I think, should be on us men...after all, we somehow collectively abrogated our responsibility to at least attempt to act as the brave and tough shock troops of the human species.

4 June 2013 at 16:28  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

PS. If my wife reads this, I'm dead meat.

4 June 2013 at 16:35  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


Sorry I did not get your "men with Chests" jibe at first

You do have a dirty mind


4 June 2013 at 16:36  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Men with Chests

Also in the village is a young guy.

Unemployed and every summer you realise that his breasts are getting bigger amd actually wobbled up and down as he walked.

One day I remarked "you have a great pair of knockers Huw".

He now says he goes to the gym.

So my comment may have had an effect on him for the good.

Or was I bullying!


4 June 2013 at 16:44  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


"PS. If my wife reads this, I'm dead meat. "

We are all scared of our wives, It is natural as they are part of us.

If we are scared of other men's wives we need to worry!


4 June 2013 at 16:46  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


"after all, we somehow collectively abrogated our responsibility to at least attempt to act as the brave and tough shock troops of the human species"

No, I don't agree.

The sin the bible tells us that we let women rule over us.

We are too lazy for our own (men and women's) good in other words.

All of us are starting to pay the price for this (men and women)

Note I said starting.....We have seen nothing yet!


4 June 2013 at 16:54  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Phil,

At the risk of sounding silly, it wasn't a jibe! Have I done a gag without realising it?

4 June 2013 at 16:56  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Phil,

Just in case you think all lesbians are butch and fat, I do actually go to the gym, swim and do marathons (when I'm not posting here!). I am actually slim (size 8) and weigh about 8 stone. Not bad for some one who is about five foot six....

4 June 2013 at 17:01  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Avi,

I am sure that Mrs B, is actually more forgiving than you think. Anyway, we can't have you chopped up like chopped tomatoes, as you wouldn't be able to contribute to this blog and we'd miss your wit, humour, intelligence and Torah insights.

4 June 2013 at 17:04  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Phil,

'The sin the bible tells us that we let women rule over us.'

Better not mention Judge Debs then! Or for that matter Queens Mary, Elizabeth I, Anne, Victoria or Elizabeth II...

4 June 2013 at 17:08  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


Or Boadicea, Mrs Thatcher or my first boss


4 June 2013 at 17:24  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


I don't believe that all lesbians are butch and fat.

Just the ones I've met


4 June 2013 at 17:26  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi phil, then let me be an educational lesson for you! And my girl friend isnt fat either.... And is more athletic than me ;)

4 June 2013 at 17:33  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


I also do not know what butch / fat or not... has anything to do with what I was posting ?

Totally random?


4 June 2013 at 17:34  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...


I've been called Tiberius by several people here - starting to think that my pseudonym was a Really Bad Idea :) Originally it was simply to denote that I was a woman, and that I stood on the opposite bank of the Tiber from His Grace.

Somebody did call me Sister Tibs the other day on this blog which I found quite sweet - had an affectionate feel to it, even if it brought back memories of my grandmother's tabby cat... :)

4 June 2013 at 17:37  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


I have said this before but it is worth saying again that I do get amused when large fat people sound off about the sin of homosexuality

Now, is there any cake left?


4 June 2013 at 17:47  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

HI Phil Roberts,

'Totally Random'

Yes that's HK for you! (:

But I did detect a while back that you could potentially be a 'fatist' ;which of course, is unacceptable and discriminatory in our brave new world... it is fataphobia.. except that the fascist 'fat police' are another of those regulators who want to stop you from eating and drinking all the good stuff in life... (:

PS- an attempt at mild humour there!

And I hope answers Peter D's questions about "homophobia" earlier. I don't care what you call us, being a Jew and a gay, I just shrug things off. You can call me a 'smoking fag' for all I care!

I do smoke and I am a 'fag' in the American use of the word- I know 'fag' is slightly different in English usage. Afterall, some of our best Prime Ministers have been fags at Eton, Oxford and Cambridge... (:

4 June 2013 at 17:49  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Phil,

It depends upon what cake is left- Chocolate or Carrot cake?

Anyways, me and my sister have since Christmas been overseeing a Kosher diet, weight loss and fitness regime for our lovely 'meatloaf' esq type gentile flatmate and he is looking better already. Still big, (big 'all over' as my sister says) but 'rugby player' rather than 'homer simpson'...

4 June 2013 at 17:53  
Blogger Preacher said...

You sound like someone from the Bloomsbury group, (Virginia Woolf etcetera).

4 June 2013 at 17:58  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Sister Tiberia,

Oh I didn't realise that was to do with the banks of Rome.... I think Sister Tibs is much easier to write or perhaps the name in the rough Hebrew - אחות טבריה? - Even if that is the name of your grand mother's tabby cat (but then Indiana Jones , took his name from his father's pet as well).

4 June 2013 at 18:00  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Sister Tibs is fine by me :)

I also chose it deliberately because I didn't think there was any saint with that name (given my decidedly unsaintly opinions on a lot of things) - then someone actually turned up a 3rd century Saint Tiberia. So my namesake probably is turning in her grave somewhere :)

4 June 2013 at 18:02  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Preacher,

Please keep judging me, which is totally in line with your religion!

*Even though I responded kindly to your posts*

Haven't you got more important things to do, like preach the gospel of salvation & damnation (especially gays, who'll roast in a special section of hell) and try and save people from the roasts of the fire, than comment on moi?

4 June 2013 at 18:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The Inspector has received a mountain of correspondence on the issue of Gay Marriage. Here are your letters answered…

Will SSM devalue my own marriage to my wife
Yes it will. Most definitely. And she’s not your wife anymore, she’s now partner 2. You don’t want to upset the newly married queer people, now do you ?

I have two sons at school. How will SSM affect them
Terence Higgins will probably want to go into your sons’ school and claim them for the Gay

I’m a bachelor and sit next to a gay man at work. Do you foresee any problems
Yes, he will now want to marry you. Don’t sit too close to him, or you might become gay yourself.

I’m going to be invited to a SSM next year. Any ideas for a suitable present
Carbolic. Disinfectant. Stain Remover. Mouth wash. Carpet cleaner. Bite proof pillow. Soap.

I’m gay and a smartarse with it. I’m really glad about SSM
That’s you DanJ0, isn’t it

Will God punish us for SSM
Yes. He’s bringing forward Armageddon. In the meantime, watch out for his new anti-biotic resistant gonorrhoea

I just wanted to let you know I’m gay AND Jewish
Thank you Hannah, we were aware…

You are a hurtful, hateful, homophobic bigot
Bugger – how did that one get in there.

4 June 2013 at 18:07  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,


4 June 2013 at 18:17  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


Still big, (big 'all over' as my sister says)

Presumably she would know which rules out the genetic predisposition?


4 June 2013 at 18:20  
Blogger Preacher said...

No offence intended, just meant as a light hearted aside.
Some of us still have a sense of humour you know.
I do like a Sunday roast at times, but never tried sinners, (too tough & bitter, Speaking from past personal experience).

4 June 2013 at 18:21  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Ah, Inspector, but you're *our* " hurtful, hateful, homophobic bigot" and we love you anyway :)

4 June 2013 at 18:21  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

'Boudicca' :

'Gonna cause a stink,
Won’t be the first to blink
Being Lesbian is not what you
Don’t mess with me I’m…

4 June 2013 at 18:25  
Blogger grumpyoldcl said...

Someone said that this stuff is EU driven and member states need to "comply" by 2013 .... Why isn't Germany discussing SSM then?

4 June 2013 at 18:26  
Blogger Brian West said...

The House of Lords has finished debating and is dividing now.

4 June 2013 at 18:30  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


A feminised church is not attractive to anybody.

Well, that's not entirely true. It is an extremely attractive option to those who wish to earn an decent salary (plus benefits) as a social activist. There are boatloads of people who desire to be leaders in such a church. The problem is finding a large enough cohort of laity to pay for that salary & benefits.


4 June 2013 at 18:30  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Preacher,

LOL! Oh I NEVER get really upset by the posters here! I've had a LOT worse thrown at me.

Why what would this blog be without Inspector to give us his wit and humour for example!

No I am not offended. As you were (As Mr I would say)...

4 June 2013 at 18:34  
Blogger Flossie said...

Well, we lost, by quite a large margin.

4 June 2013 at 18:50  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Sister Tibs,

I've also read that article/link you gave. Interestingly enough, I'd say that is also where my Baptist friend and Anglican family come from when reading religious texts, so perhaps Peter D and the rest will brand you alongside Darter Noster and Albert as a 'convert heretic'?

It was interesting that the author was trying to get to get to grips with the Jewishness of 'Rabbi (s/p)aul'. Apparently Paul was also a student of Rabban Gamaliel ? I'm not quite sure how he went from Orthodox to Christianity or a to z, but I did appreciate the article none the less.

4 June 2013 at 18:51  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

grumpyoldcl said...

Why isn't Germany discussing SSM then?

Germany does not do anything that is not in Germany's interst.

That is why in Germany there are still things called weekends. Sundays where nobody works or even mows the lawn

Where families go for walks after church and take meals together.

Where there are clubs and societies in most towns, Where there are cycle paths, where the unemployed work for their money, where the youth unemployment is less than 5%

Where you can drive as fast as you want. Where the police come when called, where the hospitals are first class.

Where the kids get a very good education (but are only in school in the morning) and have free time during the day to be involved in sport etc.

where people are proud of their job and proud of their community.

Like Britain in some ways 30 years ago

Yes we have a house there and a house by the sea in Wales. Best of both worlds


4 June 2013 at 18:51  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Phil, it's still our fault. Contrary to what lifestyle gurus go on about, leadership is the result of a vacuum, rather than a specific quality. In a roomful of abject cowards, the cautious guy will be the hero. Ditto for Flossie's observation about feminised churches ... and liberal synagogues, I should add. The process is observable; as men begin to slack off on their commitment, women move in to fill in. They are trying to save institutions in which they intuitively believe in and with no men around, they can hardly be blamed for not surrendering authority to absentee males.

4 June 2013 at 18:52  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


I think you'd have to go a long way to really offend me or my sister.... Although I am bitterly disappointed that Inspector hasn't included me in his latest quip... sob. sob.

4 June 2013 at 18:53  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin

4 June 2013 at 18:53  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

I think I hear my wife at the door. Bbl....

4 June 2013 at 18:55  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Phil Roberts,

In respect of Germany, I was waiting for you to quote us the 'the pink Reich' or whatever academic book you suggested a couple of threads back....

Dam! Lost a fiver there with Mrs K...

4 June 2013 at 18:56  
Blogger Flossie said...

The Lords have voted. By 390 votes to 148, a majority of 242, the House of Lords allowed the passage of the bill to committee stage.

4 June 2013 at 18:58  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

'the pink Reich' or whatever academic book

The 'Pink Swastika.' But it's no more academic than holocaust denial.


4 June 2013 at 18:58  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Cheers for the clarification. We are not all academic intellectual types here... And I more or less agree with you analysis of the situation as you have stated above.

4 June 2013 at 19:03  
Blogger Lady Anne said...

Psalm 2
Why do the nations conspire,
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the Lord and his anointed, saying,
3 “Let us burst their bonds asunder,
and cast their cords from us.”

4 He who sits in the heavens laughs;
the Lord has them in derision.
5 Then he will speak to them in his wrath,
and terrify them in his fury, saying,
6 “I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill.”

4 June 2013 at 19:05  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


The writing is well indeed on the wall...

4 June 2013 at 19:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Does any gay couple want the Inspector to appear at their dogshit wedding dressed as chief mourner.

Bookings being taken now...

4 June 2013 at 19:08  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin (Carl)

Hahahaha! It figures that a SAC officer would find comradeship with Daniel, perhaps the first recorded cryptogtaphic analyst to decode a message with a letter substitution key.

4 June 2013 at 19:18  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Inspector :

'Bookings being taken now...'

And I thought I was a diehard capitalist...

4 June 2013 at 19:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well David, if there’s money to be made, why stand on principle already. My boy...

4 June 2013 at 19:23  
Blogger Nick Prideaux said...

Restrained and fair critique of ABC's speech from His Grace.

I am pleased ABC Welby opposed but feel an enormous sense of disappointment at his lack of a directness and a seeming desire to be overly accommodating to false and dangerous people and arguments.

Sometime a leader has to stand and be counted in a forthright and courageous way.

4 June 2013 at 19:30  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Quite. Which is why my picture is now a version of Shylock (wouldn't want to dampen own stereotypes).

PS- having polled a few lady friends who are about 40 something, apparently, they consider you to be 'dishy' and about a third liked your dry wit (the one of you with the broad 'tash was preferred to the oik we get with the monicle). So time to take Hannah's advice and try out a few dating agencies...

4 June 2013 at 19:35  
Blogger Saints and Sceptics said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 June 2013 at 19:36  
Blogger Mr Veale said...

Well said, well argued, your Grace!

4 June 2013 at 19:40  
Blogger Peter D said...

Sister Tiberia

Please ... not James Alison ... the openly homosexual priest (celibate?)
who does not believe that every homosexual person is called to celibacy. And of all things giving a lecture to a group of feminists who regard the Holy Bible as a product of patriarchal cultures written by men who failed to 'understand' so much.

He wants a 'Christian interpretation' of human sexuality that allows the Church to recognize the non-pathological nature of homosexuality and acknowledge the value of committed homosexual relationships.

As a Catholic what's not to agree with?!

4 June 2013 at 19:47  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

Carl - that thought occurred some time ago, hence this cartoon, which I thought a bit harsh at the time. Now I'm not so sure. http://bit.ly/12rkoP3. Idea being that the secular power was allowing God's vessels to be used in corruption.

4 June 2013 at 19:50  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Lol! It seems that bro and inspector have finally found each others humour wave length:)

4 June 2013 at 20:12  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi peter d, well i approached that paper without knowing the writers back ground, and i still think it an interesting take, which offers more 'meat' and is more intelligeble to me than gary's 'gays will burn in hell, fire, damnation and brimstone' view,

4 June 2013 at 20:17  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

David K

"the pink Reich" is the story about Britain and it is not finished yet!


4 June 2013 at 20:18  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Ah well won't be long now before we can marry an animal. Karl Lagerfield wants to marry his cat I see.
The slippery slope it is then.

4 June 2013 at 20:18  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Lords debating equality. If they're serious, why stop at sex: why don't they de-title themselves?

On the subject of titles, I imagine the literature of the past will in due course have to be purged of its politically-incorrect associations.

'Merry Partners of Windsor', anyone? Partner of Bath's Tale? Or should that be 'Partner 2'?

4 June 2013 at 20:25  
Blogger Peter D said...


Yes he's a bright cookie and has an interesting take on the subject. I do agree with him about the need to take care when reading Scripture. However, not so sure about mixing truth and error .... isn't that what the serpent did to Eve?

4 June 2013 at 20:34  
Blogger Peter D said...


Just noticed this:
"Sister Tibs ... perhaps Peter D and the rest will brand you alongside Darter Noster and Albert as a 'convert heretic'?"

Now, now ... stop stirring.

I will say that 'Tibs' appears to be flirting with unorthodox teachings concerning Catholic sexual ethics and morals. She's just letting her heart rule her head .... its what women do and is the reason men (but not the effiminate types) need to take charge. It's the way God planned it - just like heterosexuality.

That said, she hasn't said she agrees with the article in total so I wont label her a heretic just yet - just misguided.

4 June 2013 at 20:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say David K, do you really think the over forties fillies would be interested in the Inspector. Well, they should appear on Cranmer and make themselves known.

Meanwhile, here’s some info for the gals. The Inspectors favourite pastime is having a pint of Guinness. His second favourite pastime is having a second pint of Guinness.

One hopes the ladies aren’t porkers. Not that the Inspector minds, he’s happy for what he can get. It’s the ‘auld fella’, you see. Likes ‘em thin, so he does...

Pip Pip in desperate anticipation old man...

4 June 2013 at 20:50  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David K (19:35)

Re the Inspector's current logo. Wasn't it a ventriloquist's dummy? Lord something or other - while we're on the subject of lords - I seem to remember seeing it on TV.

(Not that the Inspector is any sense a ventriloquist's dummy himself: very much his own person, with his own distinctive voice.)

4 June 2013 at 20:51  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

Got home this evening after feeding on this grot all day, and thought I should reach for my Bible. Spent some time reading the account of the crowd shouting for Jesus to be killed and Barabbas to be released.

Now feel very peaceful about it all - we're heading back to Christianity as it was before the pesky politics, and you delightful rabble might be coming too!

Hannah - I did outline the different meanings of love above - you may have greater linguistic gifts than me, but it's the way I've understood a particularly English language problem, and might be of interest to Danjo?

4 June 2013 at 20:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Explorer. Ray Allen is sadly no longer with us, but Lord Charles is very much alive. And he’s acting Inspector General. Have to go now, he’ll be back in a minute having taken a wooden piss...

4 June 2013 at 21:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Yes, we chaps have all been there...

4 June 2013 at 21:08  
Blogger William said...

Looks like instead of men with chests we're getting men with moobs. How we have fallen.

4 June 2013 at 21:10  
Blogger MFH said...

Am I the only one whose sees the great ironic sadness of today? This morning the nation praised God in the abbey, and this evening rejected His word in the parliament. The buildings are but a few hundred yards apart, but the gulf was enormous.
"this people draw near to me with thier lips but thier heart is far from me"
Now who is on teh Lords side?

4 June 2013 at 21:16  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...


"perhaps Peter D and the rest will brand you alongside Darter Noster and Albert as a 'convert heretic'?"

Make that a cradle heretic :) But one brought up in the post Vatican II years, which does alter a few things in one's cradle perceptions of Holy Mother Church.

Also one who makes no judgements on half the facts (blame the science lecturers at university) which means that there are huge areas of my faith where I have to be content to live with uncertainty. At least it does cultivate the virtue of patience :)

4 June 2013 at 21:25  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

I feel that the vote requires an operatic song.... so-

David "CHE" Kavanagh:

'Oh what a circus! Oh what a show!
Britain has gone to town
Over the issue of a 'right' called
Gay Marriage,
We've all gone crazy
Debating all day and debating all night
Falling over ourselves to get all of the gay right,
But for G-d given marriage;what an exit! That's how to go!
When they're ringing your curtain down
Demand to be buried like G-d given Marriage,
It's quite a sunset
And good for the country in a roundabout way
We've made the front page of all the world's papers today!

But what is this gay rights?
Why all this howling hysterical polemics?
What kind of Conservatism has lived among us?
How did we ever cope without Cameroonism ?

The Conservative party had her moments--she had some style;

The best show in town was the crowd
Outside the Houses of Parliament crying, "traditional marriage"
But that's all gone now
As soon as the smoke from the House of Lords votes clears
We're all going to see how the Conservative did nothing but let down her voters for years!


Salve regina mater misericordiae
Vita dulcedo et spes nostra
Salve salve regina
Ad te clamamus exules filii marige
Ad te suspiramus gementes et flentes
O clemens o pia

David "CHE" Kavanagh :

You let down your people Conservative Party
You were supposed to have been
That's all we wanted
Not much to ask for
But in the end you could not deliver
Sing you fools! But you got it wrong
Enjoy your prayers because you haven't got long
Your Conservative party is dead, your king is through
She's not coming back to you
Thatcher kept us all alive
Since 31 May 1979,
But the star has gone, the glamour's worn thin
That's a pretty bad state for a state to be in
Instead of government we had a stage
Instead of ideas a prima donna's rage
Instead of help we were given a crowd
Cameron didn't say much but he said it loud!

And who am I who dares to keep
His head held high while the vote goes through?

Why the exception to the rule?
Opportunist? Traitor? Fool?
Or just a man who grew and saw
From twenty ten to twenty thirteen,
His country bled, crucified?
Consrvativsm is not the only one who's died!
Sing you fools? But you got it wrong
Enjoy your prayers because you haven't got long
Your conservative party is dead, your king is through
She's not coming back to you

Salve regina mater misericordiae
Vita dulcedo et spes nostra
Salve salve regina Peron
Ad te clamamus exules filii Conservative Party
Ad te suspiramus gementes et flentes
O clemens o pia

David "CHE" Kavanagh:

It's our funeral too!

4 June 2013 at 21:36  
Blogger Tony B said...

back luck, homophobes!

4 June 2013 at 21:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

...And the Conservatives never did form a government again. Why vote for them if they are only going to deliver what everyone else will....

4 June 2013 at 21:39  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Well I'm only going by what has been said before viz Darter N- Sister Tibs, is more in tune with my Anglo-Catholic Anglican family, than your own Orthodox Catholicism...But frankly I'd have no idea as to what is what Orthodox in Christianity.

4 June 2013 at 21:47  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Sister Tibs,

I have to admit that I'm also a 'cradle Jew' (if that means a Jew by birth and brought up in the Orthodox faith) and like yourself I see that faith should and does challenge us. More of an effort than simply being a mindless Borg or Cyberman... 'resistance is futile'... 'you will be upgraded'...

4 June 2013 at 21:49  
Blogger Tony B said...

Inspector that's true of all the parties, surely?

4 June 2013 at 21:50  
Blogger Boltonlad said...

Never in this history of this nation has one man done so much, with so little conviction to divide this nation so unnecesarily; all in the name of being seen as a trendy progressive.

4 June 2013 at 21:51  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Well back in the mists of time, Inspector had a different picture- not the fascist one , but the pic of the victorian gentleman with the wide handlebar 'tash.

4 June 2013 at 21:52  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


I am sure you will find the right woman there for you, somewhere. And hopefully a good Catholic-Irish girl as well.

4 June 2013 at 21:52  
Blogger Boltonlad said...

The Anglican bishops went AWOL in the SOR debate in January 2007: so no surprise if some of them did it again...running scared as usual, for which they will answer to God.

4 June 2013 at 21:58  
Blogger Boltonlad said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 June 2013 at 22:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tony B. Inspector that's true of all the parties, surely

There was a time...What the hell, it’s all ancient history now. To think that Cameron can now go to his bender mates in the wine bar and say “You asked it of me, and I’ve given it to you, whatever the cost”

Surely Cameron is the worst PM we’ve ever seen. Worse than Heath !

4 June 2013 at 22:05  
Blogger bluedog said...

So true, OIG @ 18.07

The Stigler @ 14.13, your point is frequently and erroneously made. A marriage between a mature couple wherein the woman may be infertile as a result of being post-menopausal is still a marriage between a man and a woman. After all, in the majority of cases a post-menopausal woman will be a grand-mother, and obviously not a potential mother. Thus her re-marriage continues to support her family through the institution of marriage.

The same could not be said of a union between post-menopausal lesbians.

4 June 2013 at 22:26  
Blogger Boltonlad said...

'I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative' .... Q 4 Dave Cameron are you sure you didn't mean because you are a liberal Dave?

4 June 2013 at 22:35  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well, Your Grace, as your communicant frequently recommends, it is time to replace the House of Lords with an elected senate rather than perpetuating this unelected sheltered workshop for the superannuated cronies of previous governments.

The contempt held by the British people for their political class will now reach crisis levels.

4 June 2013 at 22:37  
Blogger Tony B said...

Bolton lad, what the heck are you talking about?

4 June 2013 at 22:37  
Blogger Boltonlad said...

4 June 2013 at 22:53  
Blogger Boltonlad said...

No wonder UKIP are striking a chord with voters from the three mail liberal parties!

4 June 2013 at 22:54  
Blogger Boltonlad said...

No wonder UKIP are striking a chord with voters from the three main liberal parties

4 June 2013 at 22:54  
Blogger Peter D said...

""Sister Tibs, is more in tune with my Anglo-Catholic Anglican family, than your own Orthodox Catholicism..."

That isn't a positive comment from where I'm standing. It's the V II mentality; way too protestant, modernist and revisionist.

"But frankly I'd have no idea as to what is what Orthodox in Christianity."

Well no; why would you?

Sister Tiberia
"Make that a cradle heretic :) But one brought up in the post Vatican II years, which does alter a few things in one's cradle perceptions of Holy Mother Church."

So true!

"Also one who makes no judgements on half the facts (blame the science lecturers at university) which means that there are huge areas of my faith where I have to be content to live with uncertainty. At least it does cultivate the virtue of patience :)"

Faith really isn't about 'facts' - its a gift from God - and as a Catholic one trusts you don't rely entirely on 'personal judgement'. As for 'uncertainty', it wouldn't be faith if we were certain.

"Now, faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not ..."

4 June 2013 at 23:04  
Blogger Walpurgis said...

I've always been a staunch defender of the place in our constitution of such a seeming anachronism as the HoL.

Unhappily, the place has now been so messed around by incoherent, unprincipled "reforms" and party-political interference that it now seems incapable of fulfilling the rôle which justified its continued existence.

If a Bill which is both devoid of electoral mandate and disastrously poorly drafted is not going to be sent back to the Commons by the "revising chamber", what exactly are the Lords there for?

4 June 2013 at 23:17  
Blogger bluedog said...

Indeed, Boltonlad, well said.

If there is a silver lining in the Lords failure to protect British society it is that the UKIP vote will possibly add a further ten basis points taking it well clear of the Tories.

Furthermore, if UKIP were to adopt Lods Reform as a manifesto committment, one anticipates further gains.

Quite how the unrepresentative swill of the Lords justify their stipends is not clear to this communicant.

4 June 2013 at 23:17  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi David,

LOL! I dread to think what you'd have done to the "rainbow tour" of the same play...

4 June 2013 at 23:22  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Phil Roberts,


Flatmate is like shrek, but with bigger ears, who despite his 'skin head' and broad shouldered physique is a lovely gentle giant and looks after me and my sister loads. So you can jibe about 'butch' lesbians etc, but not our big flatmate!

4 June 2013 at 23:26  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Peter D,

As I said, I didn't read the post with prior assumptions, but tried to take the paper at face value. It seemed quite a balanced article to me. But then, I am not a theologian.

4 June 2013 at 23:28  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Peter D,

I would except nothing less from you!

5 June 2013 at 00:10  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Well let's hear it for the [gay] rainbow tour, as sung by our Prime Minister and myself :

People of Europe, I send you the Rainbow message of Britain!

[David "Che" Kav:]
Spain has fallen to the charms of
Gay Marriage
But in Spain they can do what they like, it doesn't matter much

[Cameron's Aide #1:]
This is our scheme of the Britannia with a golden touch

[Cameron's Aide #2:]
A Gay marriage rally filled a bull-ring, forty-five thousand seater

[David "Che" Kav:]
But if you're more popular than Prime Minister Rajoy, that's not hard

[Cameron Aide #1:]
Rajoy's reign in Spain should see out the naughites
So you've just acquired an ally who
Looks as secure in his job as you...

[Cameron's Aide #2:]
But more important current political thought is
Endorsing gay marriage is a phenomenal asset, your trump card!

[Cameron and Aides:]
Let's hear it for the Rainbow Tour
It's been an incredible success
We weren't quite sure, we had a few doubts

[Cameron:] Will gay marriage win through?
[Aides:] But the answer is yes

There you are, I told you so
Makes no difference where it goes
The whole world over just the same
Just listen to them call for gay marriage.And who would underestimate stonewall now?

[David "Che" Kav:]
Now I don't like to spoil a wonderful story
But the news from Rome isn't quite as good
Gay marriage hasn't gone down like they thought it would
Catholicism is unconvinced by
Gay rights
They equate the Equality agenda with Mussolini, can't think why

[Gay Rights:]
Did you hear that? They called me a Sodomite!
They actually called me a Sodmoite!

[Italian admiral:]
But Signora same sex marriage it's an easy mistake,I'm still called an admiral.Yet I gave up the sea long ago

[Cameron Aide #2:]
More bad news from Rome; gay marriage has come against the Pope
It doesn't even get a rosary, a kindly word

[David "Che" Kav:]
I wouldn't say the Holy Father gave it the bird.But papal decorations, never a hope

[Cameron Aide #1:]
Gay rights still got a rally and looked the part at St. Peter's, caught the eye


[Cameron:] Will same sex marriage win through?
[Cameron Aides:] But the answer is ...
[David "Che" Kav:] A qualified
[Cameron Aides:] Yes

Gay marriage didn't start well, no question, in France
Shining like a sun through the recession haze
A less than beautiful reminder of the socialist days
Gay marriage nearly captured the French, it sure had the chance
But the French, suddenly seemed to lose interest, gay marriage looked tired

[David "Che" Kav:]
Face the facts, the Rainbow's starting to fade
I don't think the agenda will make it back to England anyhow

[Cameron Aide #1:]
That could stop our schedule now

[David "Che" Kav:]
You'd better get out the flags and fix a parade
Some kind of coming home in triumph is required


[Cameron Aide #2:] Would Gay marriage win through?
[Cameron Aide #1:] And the answer is
[Cameron Aide #2:] Yes
[David "Che" kav:] And no
[Cameron Aides:] And yes
[David "Che" Kav:] And no
[Cameron Aides:] And yes
[David "Che" Kav:] No"

5 June 2013 at 00:12  
Blogger OldJim said...

As is so often the case on these kinds of matters, Carl is the one who has it bang on.

In a culture of no-fault divorce, contraception, and abortion, the definition of marriage as a "lifelong partnership of a man and a woman for the procreation of children" sounds like a joke in terrible taste.

Is it any wonder, having lived with this growing status quo for the last 40 years, that when that definition is deployed to secular average Joe on the street, it sounds like a figleaf for mere atavistic hatred of gay people?

And of course, he's aided in that analysis by the fact that in a substantial minority of cases it is hideously clear that is precisely what it is.

The battle is really one between two visions of heterosexual marriage, and it should have been fought that way and long ago.

Now it's too late, the argument rings hollow, and the battle for the soul of heterosexual marriage having been won, the victory is to be made concrete by a full-on cultural redefining of heterosexual marriage through its extension to homosexual relationships.

Before this year you were a fuddy-duddy whose values might be a little mean on single mothers, women whose first husbands had mistreated them; who might be accused of "sexism" for holding a conservative view on abortion; who might be accused of mere snobbery in looking down upon remarried divorcees; of "sexual repression" or some other dubious pathology for failing to make sufficiently enthusiastic noises about sex outside of marriage. But essentially it was possible to be a slightly dubious, eccentric but nonetheless acceptable figure in your community.

Now you are a bigoted homophobe, and because the battle was not addressed earlier, there is very little that can be done to turn back the tide before a great deal of harm is done.

But really everything was given up many years ago. If you've allowed a definition of marriage which consists of "a man and a woman who have joined together for however or however short a period they choose, who may or may not have children at their own discretion" -- and just been grateful that anyone was marrying at all --, you really oughtn't to be surprised at being labelled a homophobe - your seemingly newfound objection rings hollow. We should have been tougher on this one whilst it was about heterosexuals, because really, in the main, it still is -- but good luck getting secular Joe to see that any longer!

5 June 2013 at 00:55  
Blogger OldJim said...

To put it another way, if the coalition for marriage wanted to be taken seriously, they should equally have been campaigning for legal changes to the definition of marriage - a reversal or at least revision of the legislation enacted by private members' bills during the 1960s would have been a good start.

This would have alienated a broad swathe of the heterosexual public with more liberal mores on those issues, but it would have given the movement a visible and tangible philosophical consistency. "We really believe that marriage should look like this. And if it looked like this, you can see why it absolutely could not include gay people"

Instead, this opposition has entered a devil's coalition with people who have liberal mores on what marriage is but who simply wish to exclude gay people from this abridged and corrupted institution - people who unsurprisingly therefore seem to be mere homophobes. How else can we describe people who would admit people to the institution with no intention of procreating, who would allow them admitted with different partners indefinitely, who would furnish them with multiple means of avoiding dreaded children and would look down on any family having more than two - but who suddenly draw the line at gay people with an impromptu "lifelong partnership for the purposes of procreation"?!

In the short run, the present strategy means losing the battle - and we are losing - by a smaller margin, because more people come on side.

But its long run effects will be tragic, because leaving the permissive society's norms intact and objecting only to homosexual marriage smacks of opportunistic bigotry. We have been done the disservice of our views being made to look like figleaves, and we will reap what we have sown.

5 June 2013 at 01:28  
Blogger Peter D said...

Astute Old Jim; clear and simple too.

To think, all this harm and social upheaval has been supported, in even initiated, by a "reasoned" revision of basic Christian morality in the name of "tolerance", being "non-judgemental" and "compassion".

5 June 2013 at 01:38  
Blogger Manfarang said...

David Kavanagh 19:33
As I said I could find the Inspector a nice Japanese lady one that's a Catholic who would not mind his boozing.

5 June 2013 at 03:03  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Old Jim

I think that we are only just waking up to the societal change that we are now well and truly committed to, whether we like it or not.

CS Lewis and others saw it coming many years ago. You are right, we will get nowhere by just carrying on objecting to SSM and to focus on this to the exclusion of other moral issues fatally weakens our position.

The only way forward that I can see is for Christians to argue consistently for a Biblical perspective on all issues. Call me a fattie-phobia if you like, but the truth is we often seem to be condemning homosexuality as a sin, whilst still having huge logs in our own eyes.

The passing of the bill should not be a cause for despair but a huge wake up call to Christians.

Unless we get our own house in order, being forced to condone SSM will be the very least of our problems.

We need to start taking small steps to change things. Not constantly blaming and moaning at the leadership of the Church and doling nothing, but taking small steps and like my example with the homophobic fat person, start by putting our own house in order.


5 June 2013 at 04:22  
Blogger non mouse said...

For the first time in my life, I am ashamed to be British.

Until today, for me, we have represented the world's main hope in the fight against tyranny, lies, and corruption. And now -- we just cave in and let them steamroller over us.

This whole acceptance of the euSSR, its requirements, and its henchmen is utterly despicable. Anything and everything I can do to undermine the hegemony ... I will do. The pronouncements of the vile oppressors are not God's Law.

5 June 2013 at 05:16  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Old Jim

It's not that I disagree with what you have written. I just don't think it would have made any difference. Sure, the hypocrisy that you highlight offered our opponents a tactical advantage. But that is all it was - a tactic. It was nothing but a means to an end. It's not unlike the argument of 'faithful, stable, and loving.' That argument will disappear now. It never had any significant tangible reality. It was simply a tactical deployment to suggest that homosexual marriage could in theory mirror its heterosexual counterpart. There has never been any great commitment to any of those concepts in the gay community. And so now marriage will be conformed to the new image of relationship for mutual benefit that exist only so long as the benefits exist. It is now 'for better, for good, in health.'

What happened I think was a profound religious shift from belief to unbelief. Men stopped seeing themselves as creatures who existed within boundaries, and started seeing themselves as randomly evolved beings who defined boundaries. They no longer received purpose. Now they defined purpose (such as they could). Concepts like 'natural' and 'unnatural' became arbitrary and subject to the will of the man. Does a man desire to have sex with another man? Then he defines himself according to his sovereignty over his own life. The desire becomes natural for him because only he is can define his nature. He is the little sovereign on the throne. He has become the little god. And gods don't have obligations.

Nothing is going to fix this now but pain. The only way to reverse the trend has been destroyed. Men have demanded the right to define their own lives and they have been handed their desire filled to overflowing. Now they will drink every drop. The consequences will be extraordinary. The birth rate will continue to fall. Social conflict will grow as immigrants from foreign cultures gain relative power. Father absence and illegitimacy will rise. The character of the children produced will as a consequence fall - resulting in economic non-competitiveness. The economy will decline from lack of quality workers. The cacophony of unstable family structures - single parents, cohabiting couples, broken families formed and reformed according to adult whims - will make modeling of successful child rearing increasingly difficult. This is will make the character formation of the subsequent generations that much more difficult. All of this will lead to a vicious cycle of poverty, violence, crime and victimization. And it will all happen in an atomized environment where the mitigating institutions of family and religion have been pulverized. The proud men of the West who have dominated the world for 400 years will become the pitiful servants of those they once dominated.

Judgment has come and pain is coming. Extraordinary pain. Liberty and freedom and prosperity will all be sacrificed for the renewed chance at prosperity and security. In a way men are reverting to form. They are given freedom and turn it into license. Thus they destroy their own civilization. So they receive instead a king who will make them behave as they ought. But it won't be a Christian king. Those days are long gone. It will be a malignant and fearsome succession. The yoke will once again be placed upon the backs of men, and it will be neither easy nor light.

The mockers laughed at the Ark until the rains came. Then they beat on its walls with futile fists and pleaded for salvation. But there was no one to hear their cry.


5 June 2013 at 05:20  
Blogger The Explorer said...


On the subject of unbelief.

Anyone could have seen this coming who listened to Cameron's Easter speech.

5 June 2013 at 06:29  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Peter D

"as a Catholic one trusts you don't rely entirely on 'personal judgement"

Of course not - any more than that I think you rely entirely for your critical thinking on the latest pronouncements from Rome :)

But in the areas where one believes that Rome in all good will is working on only half the facts (and no, I'm not telling you what areas of my faith that includes, it's entirely between me, my confessor and God) then one has to be prepared to live in patience for God to sort all. In His own time, not ours.

As my confessor said on my last visit "Wishing to throw bricks at certain stupider cardinals hardly needs to feature in confession given that we all feel like that" - but I did get the lecture on charity and restraint in online discussions. Again. He must be very tired of me having to tell him what I called the latest troll... :)

5 June 2013 at 07:55  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Many thanks for that superb summary of both what has happened and a prediction for the future.
To echo Non Mouse, yes today, I feel considerably less proud to be British. We are discarding our heritage, faith and reason in favour of disorder and rebellion. God will not be mocked and accelerating fragmentation will follow. It is the young people that I feel most for, as they will never have known a better way. It will be especially hard on the few, faithful Christian young.

5 June 2013 at 08:10  
Blogger Owl said...

The political party of LibLabCon has shown it's true face once again.

The HoL is just a reflection of this.

UKIP may be the only game left in town.

Maybe it's not too late!

5 June 2013 at 08:24  
Blogger Flossie said...

Carl@05.20 - what a brilliant post. I agree with every word. But if you had stood up in the House of Lords and said that yesterday, you would have been greeted with howls of derision. The atmosphere was almost palpable. They simply didn't want to hear the views of the opponents, or listen to warnings.

I feel utter despair at those who put themselves above God, who are blind, deaf and dumb, but who think themselves fit to rule us. The Lords, with all its imperfections, used to somehow 'work', but it appears to have been stuffed with sycophants, toadies and placemen; the bishops who are supposed to be moral guardians are for the most part weak, if not downright treacherous.

Not one person, not one, in the speeches I have read or heard, made any criticism of homosexual behaviour or its painful effects on its practitioners and society as a whole.

'To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.'- Voltaire

5 June 2013 at 08:38  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Somebody, I forget who, said the surest way to get rid of pacifism is to practise it. You will then be conquered by a martial power that forbids it.

The surest way to get rid of child-free marriage (of which SSM is but a sub-set) is to promote it. It will then be subsumed by other outlooks (from within the nation or outside it) that are still philoprogenitive.

5 June 2013 at 09:15  
Blogger bluedog said...

Correct, Flossie @ 08.38. It is time to abandon the misguided fools in the Lords and replace them with an elected senate within a federal constitution. Such a move would complete Tony Blair's botched devolution. Hopefully an elected senate with say, 25 senators per UK entity (may include a united Ireland) would be less prone to destructive group-think than the time-servers in HoL.

5 June 2013 at 09:21  
Blogger Matt A said...

I feel physically sick. This is very very bad.

5 June 2013 at 09:22  
Blogger The Explorer said...

C S Lewis said that ultimately there are two sorts of people. Those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "THY will be done."

And the result of the second is Hell.

5 June 2013 at 09:49  
Blogger David Hussell said...

The Explorer.
How apt !

5 June 2013 at 10:17  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Thank you, David.

Reading your own posts, I think we have a lot of views in common.

5 June 2013 at 10:29  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

So now it's all over bar the whimpering rearguard action to try to salvage some sorts of conscience clauses. No doubt the pink champagne is flowing in gay clubs and plans to demand so called gay weddings at every church in the land (but no mosques of course) as the disenfranchised of middle England look nervously over their shoulder wondering who is listening and if they dare to disagree.

On one level this vote represents a 'new low' and a Rubicon crossed. But on the other hand, as Peter Hitchens has written, the Marriage (destruction) Bill is merely a seamless progression of the sexual revolutionary agenda of the last half century. The widespread acceptance of sex outwith marriage, the smearing of traditional values as hate speech and hypocrisy, the State usurping the role of the family and church, abortion etc are all part of the same movement.

This movement is driven by a coalition of 'progressive' radicals who have penetrated all of our institutions and is fundamentally about the de-Christianisation of Britain. The only thing that surprises me is that so many people are surprised. Time to wake up.

Yesterday, in a discussion of the 60th anniversary of the coronation, journalist Simon Jenkins was brought on the radio 4 PM programme to further the de-Christianisation agenda, calling for Parliament to solemnise coronations as the Christian religion was now irrelevant. These people, for all their polite protests, CAN'T WAIT for her majesty queen Elizabeth to drop dead.

I read that bishops were told off the record by 'high ups' in the CofE to abstain in case voting against upset people and hastened disestablishment. This reminds me of when aged 8 or 9 I was savagely beaten up and left crying in the street by a sadistic bigger boy, who as he left, turned round and said 'don't call me any names or I'll come back and kick you again'. If this church claims to be Apostolic, how about behaving a bit more like Peter 'Save yourselves from this wicked generation!' (Acts 2:40) and Paul 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven.....' (Romans 1:18 et seq). This half hearted whimpering and simpering is only going to increase the number of ex-Anglicans flocking to join Christian Voice.

The real challenge for Justin Welby is to manage the transition to a disestablished Anglicanism in a pagan 'republic' that Britain will become in the course of it's own transition to a vassal state of the coming Caliphate. Best to jump before being pushed.

5 June 2013 at 10:59  
Blogger Peter D said...


Our Lady foretold all these developments in 1610 when she appeared to to Mother Mariana:

" ... I make it known to you that from the end of the 19th century and shortly after the middle of the 20th century ... the passions will erupt and there will be a total corruption of customs (morals) ...

"They will focus principally on the children in order to sustain this general corruption. Woe to the children of these times! It will be difficult to receive the Sacrament of Baptism, and also that of Confirmation…

"As for the Sacrament of Matrimony ... it will be attacked and deeply profaned... The Catholic spirit will rapidly decay; the precious light of the Faith will gradually be extinguished ... Added to this will be the effects of secular education, which will be one reason for the dearth of priestly and religious vocations.

"The Sacrament of Holy Orders will be ridiculed, oppressed, and despised… The Devil will try to persecute the ministers of the Lord in every possible way; he will labor with cruel and subtle astuteness to deviate them from the spirit of their vocation and will corrupt many of them. These depraved priests, who will scandalize the Christian people, will make the hatred of bad Catholics and the enemies of the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church fall upon all priests ...

"Further, in these unhappy times, there will be unbridled luxury, which will ensnare the rest into sin and conquer innumerable frivolous souls, who will be lost. Innocence will almost no longer be found in children, nor modesty in women. In this supreme moment of need of the Church, the one who should speak will fall silent."

Powerful stuff and terribly accurate. Yet Our Lady of Quito’s prophecies do not end with the utter catastrophe you predict. In a later apparition she foretold:

"In order to free men from bondage to these heresies, those whom the merciful love of My Most Holy Son will destine for that restoration will need great strength of will, constancy, valor and much confidence in God. To test this faith and confidence of the just, there will be occasions when everything will seem to be lost and paralyzed. This, then, will be the happy beginning of the complete restoration."

5 June 2013 at 11:10  
Blogger Peter D said...

Sister Tiberia

So who are the Cardinals you regard as more stupid? And who are those you see as more intelligent?

5 June 2013 at 11:14  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

As a poker player would say.

"Sorry. You didn't pay to see those cards"


5 June 2013 at 11:39  
Blogger Peter D said...

Ummmm ... a revealing answer, Sister Tiberia. I could hazard a few guesses. Is the 'game' over?

5 June 2013 at 13:01  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Not at all, Peter :)

But if you want two names which still tell you nothing about my personal views, take Cardinal Brady and Cardinal Pell. Not for any doctrinal reasons, just for appalling handling of the sex abuse crisis and the ensuing fallout. And on those grounds, there's plenty of others lining up for the virtual bricks :)

5 June 2013 at 13:15  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

And don't even get me started on the subject of Cardinal Bernard Law...

5 June 2013 at 13:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's quite nice to see a focus on other 'sins' here now as I've always targetting homosexuality and sane-sex marriage looked like going for low-hanging fruit (no pun intended) sinply because we are a minority. I'd like to see churches and Christians putting a similar amount of effort into trying to overturn divorce law and speaking out against heterosexuals couple cohabitting. Of coursr, it will make Christianity quite unpopular with the general public but at least it won't be hiding it's agenda under a bushel anymore and charges of hypocrisy will not be so loud.

5 June 2013 at 13:36  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Oh, and an example of one that doesn't involve the sex abuse scandals.

Dear old Cardinal Dolan.

Let me just give you the link to Rorate Coeli and let you judge for yourself how much of an idiot he looks - and people here will know that in general I have little sympathy for Rorate Coeli. But on this occasion...


Actually, Cardinal Dolan would be on my "brick" list for a lot of other reasons as well. :)

5 June 2013 at 14:07  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

DanJo, if you believe that legislators are out to help your minority, I've got an old jalopy on blocks in a shed up in Northern Ontario to sell to you. With seats of fine Corinthian leather, too. When a government and various establishments set out to back a numerically small and socially marginalized minority, the first question to ask is why. Take it from a member of another marginalized minority which learned that favours demand reciprocity and rapid or inexplicable changes in attitude portend trouble in the future.

I'm guessing you haven't really done this, because you seem to be satisfied by the pop explanations, the manifested reasons, the PR-speak along contemporary jingles about social equality and an oddly sort of a Manichean battle between the librating new and good secularist forces and the archaic bad old ways of the theists.

Consider that only a few short years ago the idea of SSM was a ludicrous absurdity, even among people in the Gay community. Do you think there's been a miraculous paradigm shift? If so, I admire the depth of your faith in spontaneous and radical acts of generosity. Me, I'd worry; I'd assume there'll be bill to pay the piper with and I'd worry about who that is and what I owe ....especially for a gift I didn't ask for and one that's of limited use to the few in my community who bother to take advantage of it. Jess sayin', ya know.

5 June 2013 at 17:34  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


There is a small chance it will be as you say a wake up call and an even smaller chance that people will listen

The alternative?

Carl @0520

Or do you have an alternative utopia that we seem to have missed


5 June 2013 at 17:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi, as I have acknowledged many times, I believe the reason Cameron has backed same-sex marriage is to detoxify his party image. However, I do indeed think there's been a paradigm shift in thinking in the general population, led by changes in the law championed by New Labour. As for paying pipers etc, feel free to try to identify them or I'll just assume you're going down the same route as the other swivel-eyed loons who think the world is about to end or god will rain down fire in a Sodom and Gomorrah stylee because some blokes or women can marry someone of the same sex.

5 June 2013 at 18:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

As for the limited few in my community bit ... we don't really have gay communities except perhaps in places like Brighton. Also, you'll note I quoted the figures for civil partnerships and Roman Catholic religious marriages recently. They're in the same ballpark if one assumes some reasonable totals to give percentages. Perhaps we should tell left-footers to feck off and get married in a register office rather than make special arrangements for them?

5 June 2013 at 18:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Definite feeling of the last days of Rome around these days. Yesterdays disgrace reminds one of when Caligula made his horse a senator. Similar kind of madness about it, what !

5 June 2013 at 18:36  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older