Friday, August 02, 2013

Tony and Barrie Drewitt-Barlow sue the Church of England over gay marriage


Tony and Barrie Drewitt-Barlow are homosexual, and that is entirely their affair. They are and ought to remain free in their personal beliefs about sexuality, morality and the ordering of creation.

They are both practising Christians, and this is also a good thing. As Pope Francis recently said, "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?"

In 1999 they became the first British same-sex couple to be named on their children’s birth certificates, which was very nice for them.

They entered into a civil partnership in 2006, and this provision of the state is wholly right and proper. As the Archbishop of Canterbury observed, some same-sex couples have loving and monogamous relationships of 'stunning quality'. This one has lasted 26 years: it is exemplary.

They then adopted more children - currently five - which is a laudable undertaking: the rearing of children is the most onerous responsibility on earth. It is better by far that orphans be reared in loving homes rather than barren and loveless state institutions. Moreover, these children are being raised in the Christian faith: they have all been baptised and the family worships at their local parish church in Danbury.

The Drewitt-Barlows are also very wealthy - millionaires, indeed - which is a wonderful blessing for them all. They have manifestly been given very much, so from them much might be expected.

But it transpires they are not entirely happy. “I am still not getting what I want,” cried Barrie, stamping his foot on the plush purple shagpile. And so they are now suing their local parish church - the fellowship where they worship; where their children were baptised; and which supported Tony through the trauma of throat cancer a few years ago - because they can't get married there.

Quite why they think this is the fault of their parish church is unknown, but on this matter they seem to have more money than sense. The Church of England is bound by the law of the land, and it is Parliament which has emphatically prohibited the state church in England (and Wales) from performing same-sex marriages.

But Tony and Barrie are intent on forcing the matter, and so the Church of England will be embroiled in lengthy (and very expensive) litigation. “It is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognise us,” said Barrie.

Sod Scripture (1Cor 6:5-7).

He added: “It upsets me because I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works, I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away."

Now, this doesn't strike His Grace as a good example to set the children. Throwing a hissy fit because "I am still not getting what I want” is a little childish, to say the least. We all want things very much, Barrie, but we're not all so loaded that we're accustomed to getting them.

Take religious liberty, Barrie.

Why should a free church - or, indeed, any religious institution in a liberal democracy - be subject to the coercion of the wealthy and powerful? Surely the Christian way - since you say you are both practising Christians - is to engage in constructive dialogue and gentle persuasion - with both church and state; not piss everybody off - including some of your co-sexualists - with haughty threats, aggressive lawsuits and interfering demands.

The Church of England is protected in law by a 'quadruple lock', Barrie. Has your (expensive) barrister not told you that? We have been assured by the Secretary of State no less that this is inviolable; that the Gates of Equality and Human Rights shall not prevail against it.

But Barrie isn't getting what he wants.

And neither is Tony.

So His Grace wishes them well in their lawsuit.

He is only sorry that the Drewitt-Barlows are not suing their local mosque.

233 Comments:

Blogger bluedog said...

It didn't take long, did it, Your Grace? Meaning, of course, a high profile challenge to the quadruple lock. Remorselessly the homosexual lobby lays siege to, and reduces, every obstacle in its path to utter gender neutrality and equality, as it may define from time to time at its absolute discretion.

Expect that if the laws of England do not yield and give the desired result, appeals to ever more exalted jurisdictions will be made. It goes without saying that the European Court of Human Rights will become involved, and that's the point, isn't it?

Whether or not the happy couple will succeed in the court of public opinion, or indeed before the Almighty on Judgement Day, is an entirely different matter.

2 August 2013 at 10:06  
Blogger GrahamBC said...

It is exactly what many people warned about when the bill was progressing through parliament

2 August 2013 at 10:08  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Very restrained!

2 August 2013 at 10:10  
Blogger Roy said...

The action of those two men tells you everything you need to know about the attitude of the gay lobby to religious freedom - not that our esteemed prime minister would care.

2 August 2013 at 10:13  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

If they should be undertaking this as a matter of principle to test the new law the could do what the Government has done and offer to meet the Church's legal costs in upholding what the Legislature says it intended.

Alternatively the Government could agree to underwrite those costs to demonstrate its good faith in trying to protect the Church from harassment litigation of this kind.

2 August 2013 at 10:19  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Didn't take long did it? There is no money to defend these vexatious activist cases. SSM has always been about forcing disestablishment.Most likely it will succeed.

2 August 2013 at 10:19  
Blogger Derek said...

'But we don't want to force anyone into marrying us...'

HAHAHA!

2 August 2013 at 10:38  
Blogger Preacher said...

Very sad to see the inevitable happen.
How many attendees are still steeped in their sin?. In this instance it's the hot subject of SSM, forced on the Church by the ideas of a Prime Minister trying to make a name for himself & others jumping on the bandwagon.
If you proclaim Christ as Saviour, He must also be Lord & His will must be paramount, "THY Will Be Done". Not "MY Will Be Done". We would do well to remember that the middle letter in sin is "I", "I want", "I'm not happy", "I Deserve" "I demand" & so on.

2 August 2013 at 10:49  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

I don't think it is a good thing to say you are a Christian and then behave in a manner that is anti-Christian. I do not think it laudable that these people were allowed to adopt. Children should not be pawns in the game of homosexual prestige. Civil partnerships if they are allowed should be only for things like inheritance rights and never for the bringing up of children. These guys are traitors to Christ and they should seriously consider their position if they believe in life after death. Our Lord said it is not those who say "Lord, Lord" who will enter the Kingdom of Heaven and I think these two are in serious danger of eternal damnation. Christians have got to stop trying to be nice to eveyone - we should proclaim the authority Christ and all that his Church teaches.

2 August 2013 at 10:52  
Blogger Flossie said...

Oh good. This is great news! I hope they thcweam and thcweam until they embarrass Cameron and the whole shower who pushed through gay marriage.

If gay marriage is to be morally equivalent to real marriage, why has it been prohibited in the Church of England?

They will have to make up their minds - is it morally equivalent or not? Are our children to be taught that buggery, rimming, fisting, and other such behaviours are morally equivalent or not?

Let them show the grown-up world just what a ludicrous sham this whole thing is.

2 August 2013 at 10:56  
Blogger JimS said...

“It upsets me because I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works, I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away."

Surely all marriage ceremonies in a parish church are performed by the minister in front of the congregation according to the book of common prayer.
Any 'lavishness' will be external to the church ceremony. Didn't they do the full gay performance when they established their civil partnership, (something denied to normal couples, so much for 'equality')?

2 August 2013 at 10:57  
Blogger LEN said...

It not often that I agree with the Pope.. but...The Pope said "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" Which is fair comment.

But if one states that one 'IS 'a Christian that puts a different aspect on things.God welcomes ALL into His Church but doesn`t expect them to stay in the same sinful condition in which they entered the Church.All Christians will sin but they have a mediator Jesus Christ who covers there sins with His Blood when we repent..But no Christian has a 'licence' to sin 'For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,' as Paul points out quite clearly (Hebrews 10:26).Those who call themselves ' Christians' should definitely not try to convert God`s Church to accommodate their sinful ways.

This attempt to corrupt the Church is quite blatant and shows a cynical disrespect for any Christian values or morality.

Carried to its logical conclusion 'the World' will construct a Church and a' god 'to suit its own moral values and this church will be a true harlot who has sold herself and any last shreds of decency.


2 August 2013 at 11:14  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

We have been constructing the new churches already. Instead of preaching the unadulterated truth we try to be all things to all men. Jesus said "You cannot serve two masters". It's either God or mammon. Christianity is in a mess because of cowardly leaders. Yet another sign of the times and the imminence of the second coming of Jesus to judge.

2 August 2013 at 11:20  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

This is not the Christlike way to settle disputes between believers.
 Selfishness is certainly not one of the fruits of the Spirit but we all fail to live up to “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

But “I am still not getting what I want,”  is so blatantly selfish that I wonder if there is more to this litigation than meets the eye. Are their noses really out of joint? Or is this all “playing to the gallery,” a faux dispute, a deliberate test case in a proxy war by men within the LGBT community wealthy enough to pursue this all the way to Strasbourg where the ECHR is just itching to show our foresighted PM how easy it is for them to pick a quadruple lock?

As HG rightly points out the passage in 1 Corinthians 6 is the blueprint for settling disputes between believers. Its worth reading beyond verse 7 and you might like to pause after verse 9 for quiet reflection. If Tony & Barrie were charged with being Christians I am inclined to think there would be insufficient evidence to convict them.

2 August 2013 at 11:26  
Blogger Lazarus said...

'It is better by far that orphans be reared in loving homes rather than barren and loveless state institutions.'

Perhaps -but the Drewitt-Barlow children are all the products of surrogate mothers: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/17/gay-fathers-drewitt-barlow

2 August 2013 at 11:28  
Blogger gentlemind said...

If they do sue (which they ought to, given current man-made law), and if they do win (which they ought to, given current man-made law), it will largely be because of the sentiments outlined in the first five paragraphs of this article.

2 August 2013 at 11:34  
Blogger David Anderson said...

Cranmer quotes 1 Corinthians 6:5-7, which teaches that Christians should not take one another to court.

But a few lines later, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, states that homosexual practitioners are not Christians.

The two men involved presumably figure that since the Church of England is happy to dispense utterly with one of those. Cranmer is ready to lavish praise on them despite their whole self-chosen identity being taken up in what the Word of God says is a dreadful vice. Cranmer thinks it's good and right and proper for the C of E and the state to recognise as good what God calls evil. So why shouldn't they expect that, having given up the major part of the ground, the movement towards consistency will eventually hand over the lesser too in due time? Why should they expect that it has to stop here?

2 August 2013 at 11:39  
Blogger Nick said...

Now we are seeing what this SSM thing is really all about.

I think your Grace hsa been very generous and over-polite in your opening description of these two "men".
You say they are Christians. Really? I recognise little of Christ in their behaviour.

It is sad, but inevitable, that this was going to happen. Sad because the CofE has been so feeble on this issue it will probably lose thte case.

Bad days for this country

2 August 2013 at 11:48  
Blogger Corrigan said...

"If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?"

I'm sure this has been hammered home ad nauseum, but let's say it again for the benefit of the slow learners: this has always been the Catholic position. One's orientation is one's orientation, and no moral judgement attaches. How one reacts to one's orientation is what matters in the Catholic Church, and the only appropriate reaction to a homosexual orientation, by Catholic lights, is celebacy. The Pope said nothing to change this, regardless of how he has been presented in the media.

As to the issue in Cranmer's comment, he'll be pleasantly surprised to feel a grudging pat on the back from this "robust Catholic", despite his previous invitation to me to bugger off. (I know he didn't really mean it)

2 August 2013 at 11:51  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David Anderson (11: 39)/ Nick (11:48):

In view of the line taken by Cranmer in previous posts, might there not be some irony on his part in this one?

2 August 2013 at 12:11  
Blogger Owl said...

I feel extremely sorry for the poor children!

They are going to have a hard time of growing up, money notwithstanding.

Peer presure/brutality is, unfortunately, a matter of "of course" if you are different from the rest i.e. fat, very small, have a deformity etc.

Think of the future of the "my Mummy is a man" and "my Daddy is a woman" children.

Nobody seems to consider the psychological "good" of the children anymore.

Only the "I want" of the abnormal parent(s) is important.

2 August 2013 at 12:17  
Blogger Owl said...

sigh, "presure" should read "pressure".

2 August 2013 at 12:20  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

So basically, the CofE is going to have to waste the inevitably vast sums of money required for legal costs, to defend itself against a proposition that has only increasing support amongst its clergy and bishops, and which will very probably end up supporting within the next 50 years anyway, so riddled with abject heresy is its hierarchy.

Why don't they just stop messing around, send Giles Fraser down to officiate the unholy thing, and invite the Guardian to come and take photos for their special pull-out souvenir edition?

2 August 2013 at 12:50  
Blogger Martin said...

As has already been said, if they are practicing homosexuals they are practicing (or any other sort of) Christians.

Indeed, whereas Paul encourages us to boast in Christ they appear to boast in their sins.

And yes, it is their children and all the other children that will now be taught that homosexuality is 'normal' and not sinful I feel sorry for.

2 August 2013 at 12:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The CoE could diffuse this bomb by the simple expedient of refusing to perform any marriage for the state. Which it ought to do anyway as a testimony against the new law. If the church doesn't act as an agent of the state then the case becomes moot. Well ... at least until the state decides to compel free churches as well.

carl

2 August 2013 at 12:53  
Blogger bradypus said...

Why did anyone think it wasn't going to happen? After all when the Govt bropught in Sunday trading it was stated that Christians would not be forced to work on Sundays ! Hah! If at an interview, you say you don't want to work sundays you don't get the job!

It was certainly going to happen sooner or latter with this. I hope all denominations have taken out insurance on this but bet mine hasn't!

2 August 2013 at 12:56  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

AiB

The CoE hasn't got fifty years remaining. It will collapse into full-throated liberalism long before five decades have elapsed. The dynamic of conservative departure is already in place. In addition, the nation won't be able to sustain this be such another fifty years. It's not competitive. It produces too few children and insufficiently forms the character of those few it manages to conceive. In short, the money that sustains this libertine rampage is running out. When it's gone it won't be a good time to be a homosexual. Or a Christian for that matter. There might still be something called the West. But it won't be Western civilization any more.

carl

2 August 2013 at 13:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

"be such" should be "debauch"

2 August 2013 at 13:24  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

So,the slippery slope is now in full view,already the paedophiles are murmering,and getting organised,will we still be here complaining when "kiddie-fiddling"is also "legalised"or might courage of your convictions magically re-appearand frighten us all to death?

2 August 2013 at 13:28  
Blogger Nick said...

I think the CofE (Church of Equality) is probably going to cave in on this, though I too would like to see them refuse to perform any state weddings as a way of showing it still has some teeth.

It is only a matter of time now before the other groups of sexually disoriented people start clamouring and squealing for thris bit of equality. You'll be allowed to marry pretty well anybody or anything (mothers, fathers, siblings, pets, favourite toys,...) provided you "love" them/it.

Well done Mr. Cameron. In a matter of months you have set this nation on a downhill course with no sign of anything good at the end.

2 August 2013 at 14:19  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

The quadruple lock will be inviolable until the courts apply the European Convention on Human Rights to it. In every case of homosexuality vs faith—nature vs nurture as the élites would see it—faith has been ordered to defer to homosexuality. UKIP opposes SSM and would withdraw Britain from the EU and, concomitantly, the ECHR. Time to switch allegiance, Your Grace.

2 August 2013 at 14:26  
Blogger Roy said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2 August 2013 at 15:02  
Blogger Roy said...

carl jacobs said...

The CoE could diffuse this bomb by the simple expedient of refusing to perform any marriage for the state. Which it ought to do anyway as a testimony against the new law.

No, it should certainly not do that. What it should do is state that it has absolutely no intention of marrying two men or two women ever - regardless of the outcome of legal challenges.

Haven't you ever heard of civil disobedience and people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King?

Civil disobedience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience

2 August 2013 at 15:04  
Blogger Peter D said...

"They then adopted more children - currently five - which is a laudable undertaking"

No they didn't Archbishop!

They mixed their sperm and hired surrogate wombs in America. The children do not know who their biological father's are as the couple are keeping this from them.

Cost them £1m too. They then sold the company they formed to organise this for £4m - so a nice little earner there. But hey, they are millionaires and recently donated £500k to help lobby for homosexual marriage.

dealings.

"It is better by far that orphans be reared in loving homes rather than barren and loveless state institutions."

True but this isn't the case here and children these days tend to be fostered or adopted.

"Moreover, these children are being raised in the Christian faith: they have all been baptised and the family worships at their local parish church in Danbury."

Really? By 'Christians' who are directly contravening God's law and setting this as an example of family? A leased woman's womb, the mixing of sperm, demanding *marriage* for selfish reasons?

The children have had to be removed from local schools because of hostility towards them. Is this likely to help?

God help their 5 children and God help a society that permits such an outrage.

2 August 2013 at 15:25  
Blogger David B said...

Carl Jacobs said -

"The CoE could diffuse this bomb by the simple expedient of refusing to perform any marriage for the state."

I agree, but would go further, and say that a new marriage law should follow French lines, and have no marriages recognised by the state conducted by anyone other than registrars, who should do their job consistent with the law.

Following such a marriage the happy couple could have a religious wedding, given that since the state is not involved in the marriage then the conducting of such a ceremony would be voluntary. Or for that matter a Pagan wedding, a humanist wedding, just a massive party, or nothing at all.

Problem solved.

Given that we don't live under the law I propose, and do live under a legal system that should ensure that they do not win their case, I do think the couple are acting like petulant kids, and share His Grace's regrets that they are not suing a Mosque, or, for that matter, an Orthodox Synagogue.

David

2 August 2013 at 15:39  
Blogger Tom C said...

I'm gay, atheist, very much for equal legal marriage, and I'm upset about this. I don't support forcing any church to do something against its beliefs. These people are just publicity junkies. If they bring this case to court, they will lose.

In the unimaginable event they didn't, I'd be out there protesting with the Christians, because this is an issue of basic religious freedom. I promise to you I'd out there alongside the Christians carrying a sign saying

"GAY, ATHEIST, AND I SUPPORT YOUR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM".

Gay people do NOT support these attention seeking twats. Why would any normal person want to be married in an organization that doesn't want you? Read 200 comments from gay people who think this is vile:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/08/01/gay-essex-dads-to-sue-church-over-gay-wedding-ban/

The Drewitt Barlows have form here. They are huge publicity whores, sharp dealers and can't stand being out of the news for long. DON'T PIN THIS ON US REGULAR GAYS.

2 August 2013 at 15:48  
Blogger Nick said...

Tom C said:

"I promise to you I'd out there alongside the Christians carrying a sign saying"

Those are brave words Tom, but do you realise the level of hostility you would get from gay activists?

BTW, we pin the blame for all this firmly on Cameron, Clegg, and the likes of Peter Tatchell and other activists; not on regular gays.

2 August 2013 at 15:59  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Whilst homosexuals are no lesser people, what they do is sinful and against what the Bible says, therefore, how can the Church condone sin by allowing homosexuals and lesbians to marry in their premises and be conducted by clergy who have taken vows to uphold and teach what the Bible says? It is there to represent and promote the lifestyle advocated by God not appease these militant homosexuals. People have to compromise, we can't all have what we want in life.

Homosexual sex is not the same as heterosexual sex in anybody's language. It is different and for their needs there is the Civil Partnership which holds the same Platinum status as the heterosexual Marriage. Homosexuals can still have a lavish ceremony, just not in a Church. I think it extremely spiteful of these two vicious homosexuals to sue a Church.

2 August 2013 at 16:08  
Blogger Martin said...

Above

"As has already been said, if they are practicing homosexuals they are practicing (or any other sort of) Christians."

Should have read:

"As has already been said, if they are practising homosexuals they are NOT practising (or any other sort of) Christians."

As to homosexuals getting married in CoE churches, I've no doubt they could find an incumbent to provide them with that service.

2 August 2013 at 16:34  
Blogger gasbilly said...

They are BOTH on the birth cert?! Is this the first child to be born with no mother?

2 August 2013 at 16:46  
Blogger Peter D said...

gasbilly
You couldn't make this one up!

They may be hated by the homosexual lobby but only because they are demonstrating the direction of travel we're taking. And I bet their £500k donation towards lobbying for homosexual *marriage* wasn't refused.

Besides, they claim to be Christian so how should their local church respond? If they do attend Sunday service, albeit Anglican, should this be refused the Eucharist? Does Canon Law permit this? Would that be 'discriminatory too? One can't refuse entrance to a church but surely one can protect the sacraments?

They 'purchased' an egg from a donor; mixed their sperm and fertilised said egg; then rented another woman's womb for the pregnancy. I believe it cost £1m for the 5 children. Set up a company in America to do all this which they then sold for £4m.

They are both registered as 'father' on the birth certificates and although they know the paternity of each child, refuse to inform the children. Took that one to court too.

2 August 2013 at 17:07  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Carl Jacobs often stresses, including on this particular thread, the shortage of children. It's an excellent point.

The Victorians imprisoned Wilde for homosexual acts. If you had asked the Victorians why SSM was wrong, they would have said, as a primary reason, because it cannot produce children. Yet this couple have five, courtesy of in vitro.

Interesting how scientific developments are undermining a morality based on purely prudential (this world) criteria. I'm thinking also of Transhumanism, and of the timebomb of an ageing population.

2 August 2013 at 17:34  
Blogger Flossie said...

Mention has been made of mosques and the muslim attitude to gay marriage, but what about the Roman Catholic church? Would this pair be threatening lawsuits if they were Roman Catholics?

Of course they wouldn't, because they know they wouldn't stand a chance. They are going for the C of E because of its soft underbelly, its weak leadership, the weak government, in thrall to the homosexual lobby, to whom the church is now in turn in thrall (or very soon will be).

Now, will we as a church eventually cave in? Or will we disestablish? This will sort out the sheep from the goats in the C of E, won't it?

This is what comes of allowing the priests of Baal to wreak their handiwork in the C of E for decades. If they had stood shoulder to shoulder against Civil Partnerships, from which it is but one step to gay marriage, (this was obvious to me at the time, so why wasn't it obvious to them?} and if Their Graces had all bothered to turn up for the crucial vote in the Lords more recently, we may not be in this mess.

O what a tangled web ...

2 August 2013 at 17:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Well, I guess this is one hopeless case that Mr Diamond won't be taking on.

2 August 2013 at 17:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin: "As has already been said, if they are practising homosexuals they are NOT practising (or any other sort of) Christians."

I used to get told off by various people for saying stuff like that here.

2 August 2013 at 18:02  
Blogger John Wrake said...

Do not blame these two misguided men. it would appear that their claim to be Christian is more related to Church membership and attendance at Services, rather than the change of allegiance to follow Christ which is the mark of true Christian discipleship.

Should their discipleship be real in their eyes, they are truly bound by Satan and deserve sympathy and rebuke.

Reserve your contempt for those Church Leaders, at every level, who are in as great error as these two, but have broken their oaths of Office, strayed from the Word of God and encourage their flock to follow them.

John Wrake.

2 August 2013 at 18:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Now there’s a thing, Archbishop. Has the church ever been persecuted by its own before ? (…That would be since Henry VIII and all that murderous reformation business of course {AHEM}…)

And allowing the calendar to click over to August, and not announce litigation in the same month as royal assent does nothing to dissuade the casual observer that this persecution was planned from day one.

Interestingly, those commentators serving life with no parole on Pink News are also alarmed by this development. And so they should be – the whole campaign for SSM in this country was relatively free from vindictiveness, and one is sure they are most grateful for that. But that all important image is set to unravel now. Church bashing is going to weaken their cause greatly. For Church bashers they will now be…

Bring it on, as our American type cousins would say, what !

Tally ho !



2 August 2013 at 18:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The Inspector has caught sight of ENGLISHMAN’s comment at 13:28

It may appear hyperbole to suggest paedophilia will be de-legalised, but he’s in the right area, so to speak.

For those of us in the know, a predilection to paedophilia is as much the gay man’s lot as it is to sodomise some man you’ve never met before and to pretend he is your wife for the duration. On Pink News, whenever this awful truth is even alluded to, a barrage of indignation and denial will blast up at you from your screen. On occasion though, a distinction is made there between pre pubescent sexual desiring there of, and post pubescent. There are words to describe each condition but to be frank, why use psychiatrist speak when plain words give you all you want to know.

Being a gay man, and (…this is important for we do not wish to tar decent homosexuals with this…), being FULL of abandon is a young man’s pleasure. It starts when you are young. You have the best times when you are young, and you find yourself physically rejecting what will be the repulsive attentions of men who are not so young any more. Gay is young. Let no one tell you it isn’t.

And the Gay Agenda – where does it stand. Well, the present age of consent is 16. It doesn’t expect it to be reduced in the west. But this is where the clever starts. Expect campaigns like it can be 15, when all parties agree, including parents. What Big Gay won’t do is to let the issue lie. It will be chipping away at this in the same way it’s been chipping away at the rest of society for years. Why not, the results so far have been astounding….





2 August 2013 at 18:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Tom C. In the unimaginable event they didn't,…

Nothing unimaginable about it at all, old chum. If there was, then one suspects this thread would not have been posted today. But it is rather gratifying that you would be out with us protesting about Christian rights. (…Now there’s a thing, why is it when a fellow thinks or hears of ‘rights’ these days, all he can associate them with are murderers, traitors, terrorists and gays. Though not necessarily in the same person, one might add…)

What Tom C, who has provided a link to follow on Pink News hasn’t told you is that although the overwhelming opinion on that site is anti this litigation, there are a fair few in favour of it. The idea being gay folk should not live their lives like Uriah Heap, and should stand up and testify. “We shall overcome”. That kind of thing. Unfortunately, these keyboard Che Guevara types are the driving force of Big Gay – and that is without doubt. We know this because Stonewall initially advised against a gay uprising over SSM, but the LGBT bully boys carried the day, and indeed, looking back, it is easy to imagine that if it wasn’t for these internet thugs, the true feelings of LGBT would have been published, and that includes the substantial number who DIDN’T want SSM and just want to live their lives out in peace.

As a result of this thuggery, the bill was forced through parliament in the shameful way it was, rather in the fear that if it wasn’t, decency and common sense would have prevailed and the thing rightly thrown out. And yet all that they have achieved is still not enough for the extremists – and it won’t be until they forcibly sodomise Christ’s church with the willing assistance of the ECHR !!







2 August 2013 at 18:05  
Blogger LEN said...

I think the Drewitt- Barlows and their demands underline the direction that our society has been heading for some time.

To illustrate; in my youth(some time ago) when a car was brought into a garage for repair the customer was given a time when the car would be ready for collection.The customer accepted this time without question and arranger their own transport during that time.When their car was returned to them the were often full of gratitude.

Now... a customer brings their car into the Garage demands a courtesy car (of the 'right type' to go with their status)and also wants the car to be filled with fuel at the Garages expense.And if the car is not repaired to their expectations they are straight onto the Insurance company demanding compensation and that the firm that repaired their car is put out of business.

We are living in a cult of 'self.'

People are battered and knifed because they have 'disrespected' someone (real or imagined.)

If someone feels they have been wronged in any way they demand that someone pays for that.There is a compensation culture which is a rapidly growing industry.

Christian principles such as 'forgiveness' and 'turning the other cheek' which can only function in a predominately Christian Society are rapidly vanishing into the Society which deifies self.
When man rejects God then man will 'deify' himself we see this with film stars, football stars,in fact anyone who can gain enough public adulation 'climbs the pedestal' so that they can be worshiped.This is Idolatry and a symptom of a degenerating Society

When Society turns it back on God it has sealed its own fate.

2 August 2013 at 18:13  
Blogger Peter D said...

Flossie
"Would this pair be threatening lawsuits if they were Roman Catholics?"

They'd loose if they did - no problem.

Catholic Canon Law is clear about marriage being between a man and a woman - as is Anglican Canon Law. In addition, the Catholic Church restricts. access to its sacraments. It isn't offering a 'public service' to all comers.

Given this pairs actively sinful lifestyle, unrepentant state and openly heretical opinion, if Catholic they'd be in a formal state of excommunication ('latae sententiae') and thus refused access to any and all sacraments.

2 August 2013 at 18:14  
Blogger non mouse said...

Absolutley right, Mr. bluedog: Expect that if the laws of England do not yield and give the desired result, appeals to ever more exalted jurisdictions will be made. It goes without saying that the European Court of Human Rights will become involved, and that's the point, isn't it? Thank you!

It's about who dominates whom, by hook and crook and any means available to [wo]men. What a vile, vicious business S**ual Harassment is, in all its forms!

2 August 2013 at 18:40  
Blogger non mouse said...

PS: There's a thought. Maybe the COE, and even the British People, should take it to the Global Government on the basis of such Harassment!!!

2 August 2013 at 18:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Roy

Haven't you ever heard of civil disobedience and people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King?

You would be demanding the privilege to act as an agent of the state while qualifying the terms of your agency. Where exactly does an agent get to set his own terms? This not quite the same thing as refusing to sit in the back of the bus. You can't just say "I demand to act as an agent under the assumption that what I think should be illegal is in fact illegal." Like it or not, the state has the authority to set its own definition of legally-enforcable marriage. It also has the authority to demand its agents act in accordance with that definition. You could ask for an exemption, but you cannot demand an exemption. Or you could reject the whole sordid enterprise and refuse to participate in it.

Besides which, civil disobedience won't work in this case. To be effective, civil disobedience requires that the consequences imposed by the law conflict with the sense of justice in the broad population. Unfortunately, that broad population is going to be against you. They would be cheering your suppression - and for exactly the reasons I listed above. You aren't living in a Christian culture anymore. You are living in a land reverting to paganism. Tney will protect your religious sensibilities only so long as those sensibilities are cloistered and hermetically sealed off from the public square.

carl

2 August 2013 at 18:43  
Blogger Peter D said...

Archbishop
Will you correct the inaccuracies in your article?

Whilst an excellent account, especially enjoyed the "Sod Scripture aside, it does give a misleading impression of a couple devoted to providing care to adopted children.

In point of fact, they 'purchased' an egg from a donor; mixed their sperm and fertilised said egg; then rented another woman's womb for the various pregnancies. I believe it cost them in the region of £1m for the 5 children. So they are philanthropists of a sort, I guess. To facilitate all this, they set up a company in America which they then sold for £4m. A good return on their investment and clearly a clever pair of capitalist entrepreneurs.

Not much altruism there then. Indeed, a "nice little earner" as they say in Essex.

They are both registered as 'father' on the birth certificates because they went to court in 1999 to drive this through. Although they know the paternity of each child, they are refusing at present to inform the children.

Again, not much thought for the children.

All in all, I say they are just a pair of cupid stunts.
(Phew, got the spelling right there on the second go.)

2 August 2013 at 18:49  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

btw ...

If I was cynical, I might suspect that the parish is a not-so-unwilling participant in this lawsuit. Perhaps it is a willing vehicle through which to impose change by legal fiat.

carl

2 August 2013 at 18:53  
Blogger Anne Thrope said...

It makes me sick to see how you start this article by grovelling and kowtowing to the queer fanatics so obsequiously. I was recommended to read this blog but I think it is very over-rated - nearly as gutless as the Church of England itself. And I was disgusted to hear that Pope Francis was also trying to sound trendy, asking such a ridiculous question "Who am I to judge?" He's the blinking Pope, he should give a moral lead. that's what he's there for.
You describe these men as "Christian" - I certainly would not. They are utterly selfish, grossly exhibitionist and lacking in any reverence for any moral standards. they are all about "Us and what we WANT". Notice how they look so like each other - their so-called love is just self-love. Disgusting. I feel very very sorry for the children bought by them as pets and trophies, and ashamed to hear anyone defend such blatant human trafficking.

2 August 2013 at 18:54  
Blogger Anne Thrope said...

Johnny Rottenborough tells us all to join UKIP because he says it opposes SSM and the EU is behind it anyway.
Wrong on both counts. Farage has issued a statement that UKIp "accepts" SSM, will not be making it an issue and basically he just said what he did at the time to try to poach a few Tory MPs. It failed. UKIP is just the same as any other political party, it has chucked out a lot of members even sitting councillors for offending the queerocracy.
Secondly, europe is not to blame. The European Court of Human Rights has rejected two cases in the past decade by pairs of nasty litigious buggers claiming they had a "right to get married". Not many people know this as neither case was reported in the mainstream media. That's because there controlled by a pack of hardline queer extremists.

2 August 2013 at 19:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Anne Thorpe. I say old girl, you obviously don’t realise how Cranmer works. He brings the offering and throws it to us in sanitised packaging. We devour it, and rip it to pieces, until our faces are covered in blood and we’ve had our fill. Then we wait patiently until the morrow for the next days sustenance.

Such grand sport, you know...

2 August 2013 at 19:08  
Blogger Anne Thrope said...

Oh really well it sounded to me just like anyone else grovelling to PC "liberal" values.

2 August 2013 at 19:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Not at all dear thing. You are only at the finest blog on this earth...

2 August 2013 at 19:11  
Blogger Dr.D said...

I was sorry to see Cranmer wish them well in their law suit. This is one priest who DOES NOT WISH THEM WELL. May they fail miserably and at great expense to themselves, both financial and in terms of reputations.

My two dogs will more likely get into heaven than this pair, and one of mine is a real bitch (the other is a male).

They are way, way too full of "What I want," and seem to have totally forgotten "Thy will be done." St. Paul specifically tells us not to sue other Christians, but this seems to have slipped by them as well. Or does it apply at all, the part about Christians, that is?

Fr. D+
Anglican Priest

2 August 2013 at 19:14  
Blogger non mouse said...

A Thrope -- Understanding and interpretation of IRONY is the key.

2 August 2013 at 19:15  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2 August 2013 at 19:15  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Are we moving in the direction of having to go underground like the Church in China. The time is coming when we will be forced when we will have to choose and I think that many of us may have to go underground. Unfortunately many priest will follow the example of those in the time of Henry VIII and capitulate.

2 August 2013 at 19:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good lord !

Seems to be a general irony failure in the air, what !


2 August 2013 at 19:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Anne Thorpe. I say old girl, you obviously don’t realise how Cranmer works."

Miss Anne Thrope, meet the Inspector. :)

2 August 2013 at 19:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


DanJ0. One sincerely hopes Anne Thorpe resides here long enough to meet the site's beloved tame homosexual...

2 August 2013 at 19:34  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Anne Thrope,

Welcome to His Grace's blog of (attempted) intelligent and erudite comment upon matters religio-political.

You're not perchance related to Misan, are you?

2 August 2013 at 19:36  
Blogger Peter D said...

Indeed >Inspector. To be fair, this blog does take a little getting used to.

Dr D, do you think this pair might perhaps have a chance of purgatory if they repent now? Blessed John Paul has indicated, though non-infallibly, that cats might make it to heaven. Not so sure about dogs as he didn't mention them. Maybe Pope Francis will put your mind at rest on this one day soon.

2 August 2013 at 19:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I have to say this amused me a few days ago:

http://thecrustycurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/do-dogs-go-to-heaven-church-sign-debate-is-it-real/

The series of pictures, I mean, rather than the debunking.

2 August 2013 at 20:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Back to the article, I'm with Tom back there. It's up to Christians how they deal with their own in church as far as marriage goes. The State and courts shouldn't have jurisdiction there.

2 August 2013 at 20:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

do-dogs-go-to-heaven-

No, but it is well known dead cats souls return to Satan...

2 August 2013 at 20:44  
Blogger Preacher said...

We would do well to remember that the 'Church' is made up of the believers, who follow the teaching & example of their leader Jesus Christ.
Not a religious club who meet once a week to have a pious knees up.
If we follow Christ we must expect opposition & persecution, that's what He told us many times. We march to the beat of a different drum to the World we inhabit & will continue to do so.
We must expect to find tares among the wheat as well as false prophets & ravenous Wolves in Sheep's clothing.
But among all of this we will find the true Brethren who will live, die & face imprisonment rather than deny the One they follow.
On the day of judgement, there will be no excuses or alibis for the laity or ordained. Each individual will be judged on their own merits or failures & rejection of the One they professed to follow.
If all the ministers follow Dr D's lead & simply refuse to conduct the profanity of SSM, we will clearly be able to sort the wheat from the chaff. "When you have done all you can - Stand".

2 August 2013 at 20:53  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0
"It's up to Christians how they deal with their own in church as far as marriage goes. The State and courts shouldn't have jurisdiction there."

Just over marriage? What about all the nasty "indoctrination" that takes place and limits a child's life choices and instils a sense of guilt?

Aren't these chaps heroes challenging 'oppression'? Today homosexual 'marriage' - tomorrow 'baptism' for their designer dogs!

2 August 2013 at 21:06  
Blogger Nick said...

Welcome Anne Thrope to the blog. I can assure you there is nothing "gutless" about the debates here. If you read previous entries on the subject of SSM, you'll find His Grace is as firmly opposed to pervo-marriage as nearly all the commemtators here.

I too was surprised by the tone of this piece, which seemed over-gracious to me, knowing the tone of previous posts. I suspect HG was trying to wind us up a little to get a debate going.

However, you should not jump to conclusions. This is still one of the places we can speak freely on the issue without receiving a knock on the door from the Thought Police. Your comments are welcome here and I think most of us share your digust at what is happening in the world of homosexuality.

2 August 2013 at 21:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, confession first for you I think before you start up again. Off you go.

2 August 2013 at 21:23  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0

You must stop fretting about the state of my soul, old boy. First Saturday of the month tomorrow, so another marathon session ahead.

Meantime, a few of your choicest posts on an earlier thread. (You know, the one where you called circumcision "dubious" and "mutilation").

Hope I've got the editing correct:

"The freedom of parents to pass on their religious beliefs to the children through processes of socialisation exists because it is not explicitly prohibited."

"That such children may grow up with a restricted internal freedom ... (is a) form of child abuse ..."

"I want people to have access to alternative ideas and alternative lifestyles so they can choose more freely ... I still worry that people are disadvantaged by their early socialisation, especially by religion which is a powerful thing as ideas go."

2 August 2013 at 21:45  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I was just wondering how those selfish homosexuals would be explaining if at all, when the children ask about their mother or are we so far gone that they really will think they come from two fathers?

They have got to loose their case because the Church has the right to be free to preach from the Bible and not to conform and endorse sinful, Frankenstein lifestyles.

2 August 2013 at 21:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Marie, if the church loses this one, and if it does, then probably at the ECHR stage, there will be riots in Europe. Gay protesters may well be killed in them. The Inspector will join in, of course, and wave his umbrella at the hapless police...

2 August 2013 at 22:01  
Blogger bluedog said...

Thank you Mr DanJO @ 20.07. Vale atque vale Ralph, the blue dog; 11th August 1998 - 26th July 2013. Best friend, protector and devoted companion of his loving family.

2 August 2013 at 22:04  
Blogger Brian West said...

It's interesting that on this thread most respondents seem to think the Drewett-Barlows will eventually win their case, but on the Pink News discussion thread that Tom C pointed us to the general assumption is that they will lose. What, I wonder, should we make of that?

Brian

2 August 2013 at 22:09  
Blogger Nick said...

The media seem strangely quite on this bit of news. I would have thought the beeb in particular, would relish the prospect of a bit of church-bashing

2 August 2013 at 22:15  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Brian West,

"It's interesting that on this thread most respondents seem to think the Drewett-Barlows will eventually win their case, but on the Pink News discussion thread that Tom C pointed us to the general assumption is that they will lose. What, I wonder, should we make of that?"

That no one really knows which way it'll go - not even, if he were to be honest, David Cameron - which goes to show how reassuring the quadruple lock is.

Personally, I suspect they'll lose, but I also suspect their lawyers won't be working on a no-win no-fee basis, so it won't be in their interests not to take it as far as possible even if they believe that too.

2 August 2013 at 22:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

IF the case is lost, and IF the judgement is extended to ALL Christian denominations, including the RCC, one can see a resurgence of the IRA in dear old Ireland. Wouldn’t want to be a tapper there even now, I can tell you...

2 August 2013 at 22:22  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

Brian@22:09

An epidemic of Pessimism has spread from Cranmer to Pink News. The Inspector is the likely culprit. He moonlights as a missionary to the objectively disordered. Judging by the decline in their morale his ministry appears to be bearing fruit.

2 August 2013 at 22:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Rather !

2 August 2013 at 22:38  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Christopher Booker, writing in May of this year:

‘As I recounted here on February 9, the drive to get same-sex marriage into law was masterminded from 2010 onwards by an alliance between Theresa May, the Conservative Home Secretary, Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dem equalities minister, and gay pressure groups, led by one called Equal Love. They pushed the issue forward, not in Westminster, but through the Council of Europe, culminating in March last year with a day-long ‘secret conference’ chaired by Miss Featherstone in Strasbourg. With the public excluded for the first time in the Council’s history, it was here that—with the active support of Sir Nicolas Bratza, the British president of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)—a deadline was set for their planned coup of June 2013. If, by this date, ‘several countries’ had managed to put gay marriage into law, Sir Nicolas pledged that his court would then declare same-sex marriage to be a Europe-wide human right. Hence the recent rush for several countries to oblige, including France, where gay marriage has brought thousands of protesters out on to the streets.’—Sunday Telegraph

His more detailed February article is here.

2 August 2013 at 22:51  
Blogger Brian West said...

I have just read right through the Pink News thread, and was sorely tempted to post on it saying that I thought the whole thing quite hilarious.

But I didn't for fear of being misunderstood: it's a very very serious topic, but the way the Drewett-Barlow case has had them at each other's throats is a sight for sore eyes.

Brian

2 August 2013 at 22:54  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
In a recent discourse with the 'Ugly Vicar' I commented on the term 'Gay Christian'.
To me the two words do not sit comfortably together. There are Christian Sinners, but not Gay Christians. Gays are sinners 9Although they would deny it). Sinners like us are not proud of our sin and when convicted, endeavour to refrain from the sin. Gays however revel in their sin and are proud of it.
Just what was the Vicar of their church preaching?

2 August 2013 at 23:27  
Blogger Peter D said...

Brian

It's one of the saddest threads I've read in many a long year!

Here's a cracker. Those opposing these men apparently: "exhibit profound internalised homophobia"!

Lol

2 August 2013 at 23:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2 August 2013 at 23:38  
Blogger Peter D said...

Miss Anne Thrope Inspector. For a man with a superior IQ you being somewhat slow this evening!

Unfortunate name really - "hater of mankind".

2 August 2013 at 23:46  
Blogger non mouse said...

Mr. bluedog @ 22:04- Vale atque vale Ralph, the blue dog; 11th August 1998 - 26th July 2013. Best friend, protector and devoted companion of his loving family.

Hope you will accept condolences and deepest sympathy.

Truly, no earthly power can convince me other than this, though: not only do they go to Heaven -- they merely return whence they came. I say God sends them to us in the first place, as His Guardian-Angel-Messengers!

3 August 2013 at 01:18  
Blogger plishman said...

In being a party to the wholesale destruction of the moral concepts our civilization has rested upon for the last two thousand years, in a matter of some fifteen years, Mr Cameron is being either very brave, or very foolish. Were I given to gambling, I know where my money would be.

He is trifling with forces far more powerful than he imagines. Consider: is it not in the interests of the apex predators in the universe to convince us, their prey, that they don't exist?

Who does Cameron think is protecting humanity from them? Does he think at all?

Has he not noticed the coincidences yet, the things that seem to suggest others know things about himself that he has never shared?

Does he not realize that the prayers of a leader echo in history, to the end of time, and into heaven itself, AMD that contumacy against God can end only one way - in death, not just of him, but of everything he loves also?

Please think, Prime Minister, and consider all the achievements of our forbears who loved God, and then consider the state of our own Godless age.

"All things betray thee,who batrayest me"

3 August 2013 at 02:51  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Although the children from this unions presumably will be cared for well in the material sense I think at some stage these children will be severely traumatised by this unnatural situation.They do not have any hope of an untroubled childhood at school or elsewhere.
Even one of the fathers who is a social worker said he hoped the children would grow up to be heterosexual because it was too difficult a life to be young and gay.If this is case why expose innocent children to the very likely possibility of becoming gay or bisexual.Two guys and five cocker spaniels is OK.Two guys and five babies is not.

Exposure to perversion will be the experience of the childrens' formative years.You do not even have to be religious to find this absolutely appalling.

I hope the gay couple wins the case against the C of E.It is the explosive that is needed to blow up this pastiche Christian establishment.

The survivors will need to regroup, rethink and create a C of E based on Christian ethics where all the wishy washy wavering eager to please everyone becomes a thing of the past and a sorry reminder of the consequences of previously adopting this position.I have no idea how this is to be done Those of you who who do not want to go elsewhere will have to come up with a solution sooner rather than later.

3 August 2013 at 03:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bluedog: "Thank you Mr DanJO @ 20.07. Vale atque vale Ralph, the blue dog; 11th August 1998 - 26th July 2013."

I'm very sorry to hear that. It seems grief is the price of love at times, to those who outlive them anyway.

3 August 2013 at 08:14  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Cressida/DanJ0:

Great to be able to agree totally with both of you.

3 August 2013 at 08:29  
Blogger The Explorer said...

non mouse @ 01:18

C S Lewis speculated, very cautiously, that animals might achieve resurrectiojn through us: for having been part of our earthly experience. (He conceded that this did not cover the question of wild animals, or pets that had been mistreated).

3 August 2013 at 08:43  
Blogger chris r said...

"that is their affair"

"sod scripture"

Very funny.

3 August 2013 at 09:40  
Blogger bluedog said...

Thank you dear non-mouse @ 01.18, for your kind remarks, much appreciated as always.

Thank you too, Mr DanJo @ 08.14, for your wise and generous sentiments.

There seems little doubt that man and dog are co-evolved in a working partnership that provides great benefits for both species.

3 August 2013 at 09:40  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Well, well Your Grace I'm surprised it took them 3 weeks !

The Church of England deserves everything it gets on this one. It has singularly failed to stand up for the Holy Scriptures, righteousness or holiness in this land and it is now going down with it's own sin. It was truly disgraceful that the Bishops were not whipped to ATTEND and VOTE against this iniquity in the Lords but rather they were ENCOURAGED by senior church members to stay away and not debate and vote. How shameful is this !

I have been at New Wine the (effectively) CofE annual summer camp for evangelicals, well not a word about homosexuality and the wickedness the Church has lead this Nation into. Plenty of talk about 'diversity' and 'gender identity' not being defined in the Holy Bible thought ! I don't know which Holy Bible these people read but it is not the one that I am familiar with !

If the Bishops had had ANY moral courage they would have advised Her Majesty to REFUSE to give royal assent to this legislation but as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Monarch of this Nation they have failed God, their Queen and her subjects. So don't start crying now.

3 August 2013 at 10:02  
Blogger Naomi King said...


I am SO GLAD that I left the Anglican Church 18 months ago, after 40 years as a member, when Bishop Nicholas of Salisbury first declared his colours on the front page of The Times. I am so glad that I have not been associated with the Church of England as it fell into this total apostasy and I can't even say "Rest in Peace".

3 August 2013 at 10:08  
Blogger Nick said...

Naomi

At every turn in this whole SSM fiasco, it seems the devil has won hands down. Such is his power of deception. This includes corrupting the church through its leaders. As sincere Christians, this leaves us betrayed, and in a lot of cases, churchless. That is true in my own case too.

However, I am certainly not in despair over it. I see it more in terms of a shaking-down and re-grouping within the Christian community. Unlike politicians, we don't need a party in order to operate and continue our beliefs. We don't even need a church as such.

It is wrong for us to put our faith in any human leader. I am even beginning to question whether UKIP are really so tough. They have said nothing about repealing the SSM bill.

3 August 2013 at 11:55  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Dear Nick

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Xray's reveal a major erosion of the spine. The condition is commonly known as spinelessness. The pictures also reveal serious fractures of the head, causing loss of headship. The brain also shows signs of damage in the region where truth and deception are divided. X rays of the heart reveal a serious state of hardness which has weakened the emotions, especially towards children the next generation. The intestines (guts) have been found to be completely missing, resulting in an ability to stand up and be counted.

The state of the Established and many other churches and the men within them today.

My question is why are men not affronted and outraged at this selfish perversion which is selling itself as manhood ?

3 August 2013 at 12:33  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Very good question Naomi!What has happened to men? Our fathers would have been outraged and would never have tolerated this without a fight.

3 August 2013 at 12:51  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

My experiences over the last 30 years have left no doubt whatever about the large intersection between the gay and the paedophile community. Of course not all gay men are dangerous with the underaged. On the whole it is the older ones who are the worst, trying to recapture their "Yoof" whilst the younger ones are least likely. My sample is unfortunately large.

For what it's worth I have learnt to be suspicious of those who claim and underline things in common, agree with you on everything, and of gays who proudly proclaim that the one thing that shocks them is paedos, and that they would never do that, in a way that expects a badge for it. Most normal people just take that as a norm not worth speaking about. Also they tend to resent the Jimmy Saville scandal for making things harder, and to jump to the defense of various public figures accused but not yet found guilty of abuse. One guy who ended up running a boy brothel in another country had a hopelessly idealised picture of women floating 20 feet above the real world, and didn't engage with the real version. Quite a few of these are extreme Marians.

3 August 2013 at 13:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

There are still a few of us real men left, ladies – but unfortunately, we don’t seem to go down very well in polite company these days,..

3 August 2013 at 13:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lucy: "On the whole it is the older ones who are the worst, trying to recapture their "Yoof" whilst the younger ones are least likely."

How does fiddling with or rogering kids recapture one's youth? What a bizarre thing to say.

3 August 2013 at 13:30  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Bring on the REAL men of God, who are willing to declare God's truth in the public square whatever the consequences !

Not too many of them in the Church of England though I fear if last week at New Wine was anything to go by.

The four no go areas in the church today

1 The sin of homosexuality
2 God's chosen people Israel in the Land
3 Women as the "helpmeet" of their husbands being in Godly submission to them and their leadership
4 God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply, and bring up our children in the fear and nurture of the LORD by not placing them in the atheistic world view of State Education

3 August 2013 at 13:37  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Are we as Godly men and women ready to live in this sacrificial way for Him ?

3 August 2013 at 13:40  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@Danjo. Read " Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad and you will understand. The "unspeakable rites" refer to cannibalistic rites (Roger Casement etc.) but are transferable. The idea was that the Chief, when in failing health, would regain strength and vigour through the victimised "young person" whose strength was accrued. This is very primitive and dark, and the dark side still persists in some tribal religious (sometimes sub-Christian) Congolese ritual today that we read in the papers from time to time. Sex, power animus stuff. Conrad being a civilised man shied away from mentioning it, hence "unspeakable".

Primitive, superstitious, yes, but it remains. In fact the phrase "you are as young as the xyz you feel" partially buys in to this.

It's a sign of civilisation that you didn't immediately get it. Oh, and not having read "Heart of Darkness"!

3 August 2013 at 14:19  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Lucy I thought your comments on pedophiles @13:04 very instructive, thank you.

3 August 2013 at 14:31  
Blogger Naomi King said...


We have to question, "Is it God's Church or just the organisation of Man ?"

3 August 2013 at 14:55  
Blogger Elby the Beserk said...

"their children"

Really? I don't think so.

3 August 2013 at 15:07  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0
"fiddling with or rogering kids"

Such casual, dismissive language for heinous crimes!

You mean the sexual assault, rape and sodomising of babies, children and adolescents by the sexually perverted.

Lucy
"Quite a few of these are extreme Marians."

Please don't confuse a fear of sexual intimacy with woman and devotion to Our Blessed Lady! That homosexuals loath and are frightened of giving themselves to real females is an indication of their degeneracy.

3 August 2013 at 15:07  
Blogger Dr.D said...

The real men, the real Anglicans, have left the CoE and continue to worship and believe as they always have. They are now in the Continuing Anglican Church, no longer connected to the Abp. of Canterbury, but remaining fully connected to Jesus Christ, our Lord.

The Anglican faith is far better than its current leadership, in the UK, in America, in Canada, etc. By devious means, men (and women) of low character have wormed their way into the hierarchy, perverting and destroying the personal faith of millions. Many millstones are being prepared for the necks of these people.

Do not afraid or reluctant to seek out the Continuing Anglican Church wherever you are. They are small, close-knit, and often meet in meager chapels, but they are the real Anglicans of today. The CoE, ECUSA, ACoC, etc. have lead the way into apostasy, but the Anglican faith continues, unchanged, in the Continuing Anglican Church. Look for it,

Fr. D+
Continuing Anglican Priest

3 August 2013 at 15:50  
Blogger John said...

Hmm, the Church of England was kind of founded on the basis of Henry VIII throwing a hissy fit about not getting what he wants, marriage-wise. So maybe there's a bit of delayed karma involved here.

3 August 2013 at 15:55  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Peter. I would question your words about "an indication of their degeneracy", as some of these people are really hurt. I know of one deaf lady who, abused by her stepfather (these folk esp. target those who cannot communicate well) changed her orientation to lesbian. I am free to say that, without her name, as was involved only on the sidelines and the case went through court. Now I think she made a wrong decision, based on a fear that all men were to some extent like that, but I really wouldn't want to make a bad situation worse by blaming s.o. struggling to cope with being a victim and having her trust betrayed. I just feel really sorry for her. Sometimes people need help to see a better way, rather than having the rule book lobbed hard at them.

As for the Marian stuff that is just observation. Our Anglican lot who dress up in lacy cottas and waltz off to Walsingham are constituted as they are, and many are ferociously anti-women doing really pretty much anything. But very Marian. They don't perceive any contradiction! I am not of that party but am striving to be accurate. Maybe your lot are different. No idea!

3 August 2013 at 16:34  
Blogger Naomi King said...


What a shame that we don't have any vision of patriarchy in our nation any more where the hearts of the fathers are turned to the children in love and recognition of the father's role to lead and direct his offspring in the Way of the Lord.

3 August 2013 at 16:42  
Blogger Peter D said...

Lucy
"My lot", as you well know, are no different.

Sadly, there are many homosexual, predatory perverts within the Catholic Church. There does seem to be something in the ritual and theatre of Catholicism, sound as it is liturgically, that attracts homosexual men. Is it a need to dress up and attack attention? This is why I believe Benedict XVI was so right when he excluded those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies from entry to the Priesthood - and why I believe Francis I is mistaken when he says he has no right to judge such men. He is the leader of the Church and it is his duty to make judgements about the risks posed, both to these men who are placed in situations of temptation, and to the vulnerable they have access to.

As for people declining in moral qualities (degenerate), some of course will have been victims of past terrible abuse and their personal culpability will be lessened as a result. However, whatever past hurt they may have suffered, no one is free from personal responsibility if they rob others of their innocence.

3 August 2013 at 16:55  
Blogger Dr.D said...

John, that’s not quite true. You need to study the history of Anglicanism a bit more. While it may well be that Henry’s need for a legitimate heir (and his wandering eye) were the final cause for the break with Rome, it was the final provocation in a long series of such.

Over the years, the Pope had meddled extensively in the affairs of England, such as the appointment of Wolsey as both Cardinal and Lord Chancellor of England (can you say, “conflict of interest?). The Pope regularly appointed his Roman friends to high positions in the English Church, such as bishoprics, cathedral deans, etc., who in turn stayed in Rome to enjoy the high life while their duties in England were either totally neglected, or in the hands of ignorant, underpaid, ill-prepared vicars. For a period, the Pope was extracting more money from Britain than the King was receiving annually. It was time to break the temporal power of the Pope.

What really matters, however, is what Anglicanism became under such leaders as Cranmer, Hooker, Andrewes, etc. It is a faith that looks back to the undivided Church of the first millenium, that is based solidly on the teaching of the ancient Fathers and the early Councils. While the structure of Anglicanism has proved to be a weakness, lacking a central magisterium, it is far closer to the form of the Early Christian Church.

Sadly, some branches of the Anglican Church have in fact wandered into heresy, such as the CoE, ECUSA, ACoC, etc. That does not, however, negate the true Anglican faith, the faith that is closely based on the Holy Scriptures, the ancient Fathers, and the early Church. The true Anglican faith lives on in many places, in Africa, in Asia, and in the Western World in the Continuing Anglican Churches.

Fr. D+
Continuing Anglican Priest

3 August 2013 at 16:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lucy: "It's a sign of civilisation that you didn't immediately get it. Oh, and not having read "Heart of Darkness"!"

It's bad enough that you seem to have primitive beliefs yourself let alone try to push something similar onto homosexual older men for no good reason in order to link them to underage sex. Very weird.

3 August 2013 at 17:30  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Dodo “There does seem to be something in the ritual and theatre of Catholicism, sound as it is liturgically, that attracts homosexual men.”

Yeah, the lure of plenty of young fresh meat, and they can still hide behind the theatre of it all.
Unless new priests at interview stages get that test Danj0 was telling us about some time ago that measures arousal in men when shown various images along with other psychometric evaluations and discussion that I imagine them to have now, there sill will be many homosexuals let in.

3 August 2013 at 17:56  
Blogger Peter D said...

Dr D
"While the structure of Anglicanism has proved to be a weakness, lacking a central magisterium, it is far closer to the form of the Early Christian Church."

Are you being serious?

Anglicanism by its very nature denies the appropriateness of a Magisterium or have you abandoned the 'Five Solae'?

As for 'Continuing Anglicanism' just look at your own short history and the disputes and fractures. It sure is a continuation of Anglicanism!

You have 'high church', 'broad church', and 'low church' members. Some Continuing churches are 'Anglo-Catholic' with highly ceremonial liturgical practices. Others are Evangelical. Some support the Thirty-Nine Articles, and observe Morning Prayer more frequently than Holy Communion.

A Magisterium indeed - it'd be like trying to herd cats!

3 August 2013 at 18:45  
Blogger Preacher said...

It will take courage, but all it needs is for All ministers to refuse outright to conduct so called Same Sex Marriages. No matter what the courts (Be it our own or the ECHR) rule.
For a Christian Minister to conduct a ceremony that the Scriptures say is a Sin means that he has chosen through fear or for some other reason to ignore the clear teaching of the Bible & thus by endorsing a Sinful union & blessing it he has renounced his right to the title Clerk in Holy Orders & can no longer keep his status or position in the Christian Church as an apostate.
Those are the facts & the answer to resolving the situation.

It's time to choose who we serve & I pray that we choose the right path. The Narrow one that many avoid, not the Highway to Hell that our Prime Minister & his cronies here & in the EEC would lead us down.

3 August 2013 at 18:55  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Danjo. Don't think you understood. There is a difference between believing in primitive beliefs and recognising that other people believe in primitive beliefs.

It is a truth universally recognised amongst Mothers of attractive sons of a certain age that they very rarely have to protect them and be on the watch for older predatory women, but that they will have several disgraceful and disgusting episodes of predatory elder men snooping around. Now how could this possibly be, given that you reckon 10% of the population is gay, so for every 50 men you would say 5 ( I think that is far too many, but will take your figures, so let's say 50% women, 45% straight men and 5% gay men, but we experience something like 99% of the dodginess with the 5%.

Please explain why if paedophiles are spread evenly, that this occurs.

3 August 2013 at 20:34  
Blogger sidesaddle said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 August 2013 at 21:10  
Blogger Dr.D said...

@ Peter D
I am dead serious in every word that I wrote. If you read my comment carefully, I spoke of "... lacking a central magisterium....", not indicating that Anglicanism has, or ever had, such a thing.

You spoke of the fact that the Continuum has some who are High Church and others who are very Low Church. There is nothing un-Anglican about that. As for the fractures in the Continuum, I hate to disappoint you, but the Continuum is composed of ordinary, sinful human beings, just like you and me. They disagree, they have personality conflicts, etc., just like most other folks; some are even imperfect! (/sarc)

None of the things you have pointed out make the Continuum fail to be a true continuation of the Anglican faith, a faith strongly rooted in the Bible Holy Tradition, the early Fathers, and TRUTH.
Fr. D+

3 August 2013 at 21:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Lucy Mullen, one does believe it’s 10% of the prison population which is gay. Helps pass the time, apparently...

3 August 2013 at 22:00  
Blogger Peter D said...

Dr D
"I am dead serious in every word that I wrote. If you read my comment carefully, I spoke of "... lacking a central magisterium....", not indicating that Anglicanism has, or ever had, such a thing."

I did read your comment carefully. You identified the lack of a central magisterium as a weakness.

"While the structure of Anglicanism has proved to be a weakness, lacking a central magisterium, it is far closer to the form of the Early Christian Church."

I'd say the absence of an authority to define Truth is an unbiblical flaw. And why is being closer to the form of the early church seen as a strength? That's why Protestants split off into different sects every time a private judgement clashes with the prevailing orthodoxy.

"I hate to disappoint you, but the Continuum is composed of ordinary, sinful human beings, just like you and me. They disagree, they have personality conflicts, etc., just like most other folks; some are even imperfect! (/sarc)"

This doesn't disappoint me at all. Its precisely why you need a leadership guided by the Holy Spirit to define doctrine in the face of disagreement and human sinfulness.

"None of the things you have pointed out make the Continuum fail to be a true continuation of the Anglican faith, a faith strongly rooted in the Bible Holy Tradition, the early Fathers, and TRUTH."

I agree your movement is indeed a continuation of Anglicanism - its founded on all the same old weaknesses. I disagree it is rooted in the Bible. It directly contradicts Apostolic authority given by Christ.

3 August 2013 at 22:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lucy: "Please explain why if paedophiles are spread evenly, that this occurs."

So, you pull some percentages out of the air and then ask me to explain the basis of your prejudice?

3 August 2013 at 23:08  
Blogger Anne Thrope said...

@ Peter D
Where did you find out that this pair of horrible perverted men had given £500k to "lobby" for same-sex marriage?
Someone told me there were an incredible number of full-time homosexual lobbyists working in parliament - it was 130? 150? Takes a lot of money to keep them all being paid salaries. I don't call that democracy. I call it queerocracy. I won't be voting conservative and I won't be voting for any party that has any truck with these loony policies.
By the way LUCY - you are so right. I speak as a mother ,and I speak as someone whose friends have sons ....you know what I mean.

3 August 2013 at 23:36  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Peter I think it is ludicrous to hold the liturgy and rituals of the Church responsible for the homosexual enclave that has existed for a long time.A real heterosexual male is not going to turn because he has to wear a pair of red shoes for a ceremony. It is the all male priesthood and brotherhood that is attractive to homosexuals.I think this makes a good case for married priests . Jesus was able to maintain celibacy because he was not an ordinary man. Ordinary men cannot raise people from the dead or perform miracles.
Also any institution dealing with vulnerable people, the very young or the aged or an institution that is based on the absolute trust in priests is going to attract abusers.
The Church will be forced to be more vigilant in the future with the huge amounts of payouts in court actions and hopefully prison sentences for the paedophiles and all who were complicit in hiding them
I agree with Pope Benedict about his stance and disagree with the present Pope as well. We do not allow priests to take up residence in convents with nuns and young girls because we assume they are heterosexual. Why allow homosexual males to reside in an all male priesthood situation? The temptation is too great.
The ancient rituals of the Church are very aesthetic.I am opposed to the Protestant and secular influences that are now present in our Church services.All the dumb down and populist approach has not been a success.



4 August 2013 at 00:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 August 2013 at 00:09  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Miss Anne Thrope 2nd Aug 19:06

Where does Nigel Farage say he accepts SSM and that he only said it to poach Tory votes? I think you're making that up?
In this video part 2 the Q&A about 3 wks ago speaking at a Jewish school he seems to portray a different story? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57JhqvBcA_c


You want to watch both videos
Part one is the speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6Kgu3evEvU

4 August 2013 at 02:34  
Blogger Dr.D said...

@ Peter D

Peter, why not just come out and say that you are an RC who cannot accept Anglicanism? Your "arguments/comments" are nothing more than the standard RC hogwash regarding Anglicanism.

You ask what is good about being closer to the early Church? Well, let me explain that to you. The further you are from the source of something, the more likely you are to receive a garbled message. The Roman Church is a prime example. As they continue to define new dogmas, such as papal infallibility, the assumption of Mary, etc., while continuing in old errors such as indulgences, simply demonstrates what I mean about the effect of distance in time from the source.

You are fortunate that the UK allows you freedom of religion. If Roman Catholicism was the state church as it was for so long in much of Europe, other Christian religions would be severely suppressed, quite unlike what you enjoy. Quit complaining about Anglicanism, from which you benefit even while you despise it.

Anybody who will follow the present pope Francis I, who is a total joke, cannot be too bright. Benedict XVI was another matter altogether; he was a wise man, a scholar, and a great Christian leader. I really do not think that the Holy Spirit was guiding the cardinals when they selected the current occupant of Peter's chair. It was politics, agenda, and simple idiocy to make the choice that they did. He is come as a punishment for the Roman Church; I'm glad I do not have to accept the leadership of such a nitwit. Just listen to what he says!!

You go ahead with your magisterium, pope, and ever evolving "truth," and I will stick with the TRUTH once delivered to the saints of old.

Fr. D+
Continuing Anglican Priest

4 August 2013 at 04:21  
Blogger grumpyoldcl said...

We talk of the question of who will stand up against the political correctness. We should always remember that the government refused any debate on the issue. What is more puzzling is that the media refused all proper debate as well. Even the Church Times refused to publish any article at all in defence of marriage in spite of my writing to them 5 times. Unless both sides of an debate are published there is NO debate.

4 August 2013 at 07:12  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Well said Grumpy, it wasn't a debate it was a railroaded forgone conclusion. If you read what David Cameron said to the homosexuals at their annual summer garden party at No 10 Downing Street at

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-minister-thanks-campaigners-and-workers-for-helping-to-bring-about-equal-marriage-legislation

you will see that the Prime Minister was one of the lobbyists !

It is rather reminiscent of the Lambeth Palace debate of 1930 which changed the age old church teaching against artificial contraception. The arguments had always been

1 God's command to be fruitful and multiply in marriage and raise Godly seed for the Kingdom

2 Artificial contraception would encourage fornication, other immorality and marriage breakdown

Having rejected the longstanding call for artificial contraception at the Lambeth conference in 1908 the Bishops allowed it in 1930. Their fudge/compromise is reminiscent of the homosexual so called marriage railroad we have lived through. The face saver on moving away from God's commandment was that the Bishops exhorted the flock to use contraception in a "Christian manner".

Muddled, wooly thinking !

Eighty years on we see the consequences on society, family life and personal happiness of the promiscuity and degradation this move against God's teaching has caused. The individual will and its personal satisfaction has became paramount.

In the normalisation if not sanctification of homosexuality we have witnessed the church largely taking the unBiblical and simplistically wrong view that we should "love "homosexuals".

I know the arguments because Nichols, Bishop of Salisbury (see above @ 10:08) took the trouble to correspond with me trying to explain his pro position. His arguments were spiritualised mumbo jumbo and yet they have prevailed.

Our world is unrecognisable from 1930 in terms of Christian witness, moral conduct or otherwise, and strong family life. The spiritual, mental and physical health and wellbeing of fatherhood, motherhood and the rearing of children in the "way they should go" has been decimated.

Any rational person looking at what we have lost in the intervening 80 years will see the HUGE price in the loss of the love and God, both personally and corporately, and the decline of human security, stability and happiness that has been paid for the indulgence of FREE LOVE.

One can only imagine the price that will be paid in the next 80 years for the selfish indulgence of perverted sex.



4 August 2013 at 07:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

No debate? At times, it felt like there was nothing but talk about same-sex marriage on the Internet, in many of the Telegraph columns, and down in the comments sections on any newspaper that mentioned it. There were even a letter from the notorious Cardinal O'Brien read out in Catholic Churches across Scotland. The Coalition For Marriage campaign was much publicised. We had regular surveys commissioned and published. Extensive coverage of the Parliament debates and voting as it went through the system. It seems to me that "no debate" actually means "we didn't get what we wanted".

4 August 2013 at 08:28  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Dr. D

I was not aware of the continuing Church Of England.

Are there any Bishops on side and have you formally broken from the A of C's camp with your own funding etc.Are you unified and organised as a viable group to reinstate yourselves with significant numbers as the genuine Church Of England.Are there moves afoot to achieve this goal? I suppose all of this is going to be riddled with mine fields but you have to try.
Things have to change. As you said neither of our leaders are up to scratch at the moment.Thank you for recognising Pope Benedict as a
great Christian.I recognise C S Lewis in the same class.

4 August 2013 at 08:30  
Blogger grumpyoldcl said...

Sorry DanJ0 but really there was NO debate allowed. When the Church Times publishes 7 articles in favour of same sex marriage and NONE in support of marriage that illustrates how utterly one sided it all was. It is not a debate when only ONE SIDE speaks and the other can only ever respond. That situation allows the SSM lobby to permanently set the agenda. That is not debate it is abuse.
When the Prime Minister said that he would not debate whether or not to bring in SSM that was bigotry uses its correct dictionary meaning. When the Prime Minister said he would bring in SSM regardless of what the consultation outcome was - that was bigotry by its real meaning. When the Prime Minister said he would not debate marriage with the electorate twice more - that was bigotry, that was bigotry.

4 August 2013 at 09:50  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

Goodie, goodie. This news means I'm going to win my bet against the Archdeacon of Oxford. And well within the time limit too.
Rich at last.........

4 August 2013 at 10:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Grumpy: "When the Prime Minister said that he would not debate whether or not to bring in SSM that was bigotry uses its correct dictionary meaning."

The Prime Minister is the head of the Executive. What do you expect him to do, ask everyone if it's okay first before he decides on a policy?

"When the Prime Minister said he would bring in SSM regardless of what the consultation outcome was - that was bigotry by its real meaning."

Or the consultation was actually on the best way to introduce the policy? It wasn't a Green Paper.

"When the Prime Minister said he would not debate marriage with the electorate twice more - that was bigotry, that was bigotry."

Yet almost all the polls showed a majority in favour of it in the general population anyway. Moreover, it sailed well through both the Commons and the Lords through all the stages.

4 August 2013 at 11:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

That's not to say I agree with how it was introduced, or on the current form of it.

4 August 2013 at 11:43  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0:

I can see the point of a consultation exercise when the issue is genuinely in doubt, and opinion might sway the outcome.


But with a consultation (not just this one) in which the next stage has already been decided on before the consultation: if it's going to happen anyway, why bother to consult?

To my mind (and I'm not just talking in regard to politics) to solicit opinions and then ignore them is simply a recipe for cynicsm.

Better simply to say you know best, and proceed acvcordingly? It comes to the same thing.

4 August 2013 at 12:31  
Blogger The Explorer said...

PS The extra 'v' in there was a typo.

4 August 2013 at 12:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Explorer: "But with a consultation (not just this one) in which the next stage has already been decided on before the consultation: if it's going to happen anyway, why bother to consult?"

What had already been decided? The answers to all of the questions? How do you know this?

4 August 2013 at 13:04  
Blogger tir said...

i think opinions will change when many people who supported gay marriage find that friends and family are persecuted for holding to a traditional view of marriage

there was no real majority support for gay marriage, there was just no opposition to it. if you are not bothered about something one way or the other, support seems more rational than opposition

however those with no strong opinion will not share the gay lobbys view that people who support traditional marriage are automatically homophobic bigots

there could be a backlash against homosexuals when the court cases begin

4 August 2013 at 14:05  
Blogger Naomi King said...


tir - what you say is right although I would say it was not that there "was just no opposition to it", rather I would say that the opposition was too frightened and cowered to say so. This is certainly the position in the Church of England and elsewhere.

4 August 2013 at 14:22  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0:

I don't know. I was going by Grumpy's assertion that the PM had said he would bring in SSM regardless of the consultation outcome; and generalising thereby about illusory consultation in whatever context.

Subconsciously, I must have been thinking about the EU.

Suppose there were a consultation about leaving the EU. Suppose a majority of those consulted wanted to leave. Would it have any effect? Suppose there were actually a referendum, and a majority wanted to leave. Would THAT have any effect?

4 August 2013 at 14:31  
Blogger Dr.D said...

@ Cressida de Nova

The Continuing Church definitely exists in England. My own part of the Continuing Church, called the United Episcopal Church of North America has some operations there, and I know that some of the others do as well (ACC, ACA, APCK, etc.). I have argued with my archbishop that our name will work against us in the UK, but it falls on deaf ears (he is a Brit).

As for sustainability, I can tell you that these operations are all small, self-supporting, and typically worship in less than cathedral situations. But, they are faithful, persistent, and will definitely continue. The are completely free of the Abp. of Canterbury, Parliament, etc. I personally have had some contact with some of these folks several years ago, but I am now retired and the contacts are lost.

I would suggest that you make a computer search (Google, Bing, etc.) for the Continuing Church as it exists in the UK. You will find true Book of Common Prayer worship (some may use the Missal) and wonderful, Christian people.

Fr. D+
Continuing Anglican Priest

4 August 2013 at 14:35  
Blogger Naomi King said...


I also know this "the opposition was too frightened and cowered to say so" was true of MP's and Lords as well.

4 August 2013 at 14:40  
Blogger tir said...

yes i would not disagree with you on that. i remember listening to radio 5 interviewing people on the issue and those lukewarm on the idea kept saying sorry as they expressed their opinion

there can be no fair debate when the media have taught the people that they should apologise for not agreeing with ssm

that it is shameful to think marriage is what we were all brought up to believe it is

4 August 2013 at 14:42  
Blogger tir said...

the consultation was how to implement it not whether to.

they could not have a consultation whether to because they needed to frame the debate as revolving around equality. they could not then consult on whether equality is preferable go inequality

of course this ignores the fact that many dont regard it as an equality issue

4 August 2013 at 14:49  
Blogger tir said...

there is the opinion that this bill will actually set back rights for gay people around the world

when people ask for civil partnerships in other countries how can they counter the claim that cps lead to gay marriage?

has the gay lobby in europe made things worse for gay people elsewhere by getting what they want here? if so it will have shown themselves to be quite selfish

4 August 2013 at 15:07  
Blogger Naomi King said...


The homosexuals assured Parliament when they called for Civil partnerships that they would never be asking for marriage. That assurance had about as much reliability as David Cameron's quadruple lock is going to have.

The LORD called us to love good and hate evil. We will have to stand up and be counted so where are the REAL Men of God who are not infected with this wimpy spirit ?

We need to remember that martyrdom is a GIFT from God. God bless you.

4 August 2013 at 15:15  
Blogger Peter D said...

Dr D

I say, touchy, touchy!

Of course I'm a Roman Catholic!

"Anybody who will follow the present pope Francis I, who is a total joke, cannot be too bright."

A Catholic doesn't "follow" the Pope - er, Bishop of Rome, as Francis would have it.

I agree he isn't the sharpest knive in the drawer and needs to think before he speaks. Who knows what harm he might he do?

"Benedict XVI was another matter altogether; he was a wise man, a scholar, and a great Christian leader."

Agreed - and a good sold Roman Catholic too. The Cardinals certainly got the choice right there.

"I really do not think that the Holy Spirit was guiding the cardinals when they selected the current occupant of Peter's chair."

Its the Cardinals who select the Pope and not the Holy Spirit. Human men capable of error. Sometimes, for reasons unknown, God permits them to make incorrect decisions. However, all things tend to work out as He planned - wouldn't you agree?

"It was politics, agenda, and simple idiocy to make the choice that they did. He is come as a punishment for the Roman Church; I'm glad I do not have to accept the leadership of such a nitwit. Just listen to what he says!!"

You may be correct - a punishment perhaps for Vatican II when all sorts of protestant notions ambiguously crept into the Church opening the doors to all sorts of error and wickedness. Pope Benedict recognised this. However, we're not bound to agree with his leadership. We are bound to follow the teachings of the Magisterium and accept the doctrines of the Church. None of these he is capable of changing as he will be bound by Tradition and previously doctrine.

I'd say, at the present time, the "judgement" if any, is on Anglicanism and protestantism in general, as it splinters and fragments into endless squabbling sects because it fails to recognise the need for collective decisions overseen ultimately by an authoritative leader.

"The further you are from the source of something, the more likely you are to receive a garbled message."

Well no, not if the formulation of the doctrine of the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit and it is God's intention to arrive at a fuller understanding.

"The Roman Church is a prime example. As they continue to define new dogmas, such as papal infallibility, the assumption of Mary, etc., while continuing in old errors such as indulgences, simply demonstrates what I mean about the effect of distance in time from the source."

No, what you mean is that you reject Apostolic authority and the role of Tradition and reason in coming to a fuller understanding of God's revelation.

Matthew 16:18 (John's later Gospel passages, alongside Acts and various references in the Epistles) is all you really need to grasp.

4 August 2013 at 15:21  
Blogger Peter D said...

Cressida

Let us know how your "research" goes.

4 August 2013 at 15:23  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

The general population have been brainwashed and cower, afraid to express opinions that they actually hold. Meanwhile some say that the PM was right to press ahead as he is "Head of the Executive". Kind of thing Mugabe might say.

I call that a totalitarian position. Get the free press frightened, brainwash the population, suppress any info, that goes against your bias, and push, push, push.

It's not even "equality" that is being pushed for. It is one of the most affluent, selfish and hedonistic sections of the population pushing for their wants to be further paid for by poorer sections of the population. We will pay for these people to whinge through our taxes and our support of our churches, despite the fact that they are millionaires and we are not. They paid to hire a womb, for a mother who is never to be a proper Mother. The kids are disallowed from identifying themselves as the genetic offspring that they are without a minefield of feeling disloyalty. So much for the good spirit behind the Children's Act.

While Parliament itself should be cleaning up its own act. Boothby and Driberg were depraved monsters, and got away with it, as were others. At least one was implicated in the Haut de la Garenne scandal. Geoffrey Dickens' dossier was "lost" whilst he was ridiculed and threatened, and Tom Watson has also received threats. The Dickens family destroyed a copy of the dossier because they felt safer that way. All this is a national disgrace. Note that I have only mentioned the deceased. You can be very sure that living persons are also involved. The people under-represented in Parliament are oppressed straight Mothers.

About whom you can say virtually anything without fear.

There are even paedophile professors writing so called learned tomes about "Man-boy love" while Peter Righton was supposed to be a national expert in childcare. There is much that stinks, and many working hard to take down these evil networks, not least ex-policemen and social workers sick and tired of puny sentences, talk of witchhunts, and abused orphans now vulnerable adults (often self-medicated on drugs to prevent their horrifying flashbacks)being psychologically harassed under cross-examination.

4 August 2013 at 15:31  
Blogger grumpyoldcl said...

Dear DanJ0,

In the election campaign the Prime Minister said he had "No plans to change marriage".

We vote based upon a manifesto, that's how our democracy works. The post-election claim that it had been referenced in a pamphlet (not the manifesto) was clear sophistry.

On the basis that David Cameron had been elected on the basis that he wasn't going to change marriage the electorate had a right to be consulted, an absolute right. It is the whole basis of our democracy.

What has happened is a clear and unambiguous abuse of democracy.

4 August 2013 at 15:43  
Blogger The Explorer said...

With this SSM issue, it tends to be presented as if its Christians (and Muslims, in this instance) against the rest. Actually the most offensive comments that I have heard about gays have been from the irreligious.

They won't SAY so in public, for fear of their jobs, but as to what they THINK...

4 August 2013 at 15:51  
Blogger beastie said...

The boys will also be wanting to review their current 'recreational interests' for the sake of their wedding vows ( if their money speaks louder than the law). They might want to cancel their Gaydar account and give up on their fetishes for firemen and speedo trunks for the sake of their vows and the psycological well-being of their children.

4 August 2013 at 15:56  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

15:23
No research Peter...just had not heard of the continuing Church of England and thought it would be interesting to know more.I do feel sorry for the traditional C of E. I feel they have been let down very badly by their leaders.What they need is some sound Catholic advice to get things sorted.I have a lot on at the moment so I cannot volunteer.

Interesting point that you made that even if the Pope throws a wobbly and attempts to do something outrageous we all know basic dogma and doctrine which cannot be changed not even by His Holiness.

Hope you have had a relaxing and spiritual Sunday and your halo is polished and dazzling:)

4 August 2013 at 16:22  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

he Children's Act. 1989 revised 2004, stated that "the welfare of the child is paramount"..The Jillings Report 1996 (Welsh Care Homes- unpublished for 17 years) said "Boys were sexually abused when the council put its equal opportunities policy for homosexuals ahead of protecting children".

We are told that the Report was not published due to litigation concerns. How much more I wonder is happening in the same way.

In Christian teaching "true religion" shows itself in actions such as looking after "orphans and widows". We will defend these principals and oppose those who abuse orphans and push, whilst themselves rich, to share in the meagre help available for widows.

One of the most heartrending pieces of evidence I have ever read, is of a boy (now a man) who went to a children's home in Wales after his parents died. Many nights the men in charge would roam the dormitories at night. He learnt to pretend to be asleep, but then would hear those who had been chosen weeping and sobbing their hearts out upon coming back till they fell asleep exhausted on their damp pillows. It is for these boys- though many died early through drug abuse and suicide- that we cannot afford to lie down and let things go more wrong.

4 August 2013 at 16:43  
Blogger tir said...

im an atheist but i dont want to see christians persecuted for the beliefs

4 August 2013 at 16:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Grumpy: "We vote based upon a manifesto, that's how our democracy works."

The manifesto would have been a Conservative Party manifesto. We currently have a coalition government made up of the Conservatives and the LibDems. The coalition programme actually mentions gay rights, you know.

"On the basis that David Cameron had been elected on the basis that he wasn't going to change marriage the electorate had a right to be consulted, an absolute right. It is the whole basis of our democracy."

Not even manifesto pledges are binding and that wasn't a manifesto pledge anyway. However, the Conservatives did say they'd be promoting equality and tackling discrimination in theirs.

You know we're a representative democracy, right? That is, we provide direction as the electorate but our representatives provide the detail take the specific decisions.

4 August 2013 at 17:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Grumpy: "What has happened is a clear and unambiguous abuse of democracy."

Clear and unambiguous to you perhaps, as someone who didn't get what they want.

4 August 2013 at 17:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lucy: "I call that a totalitarian position. Get the free press frightened, brainwash the population, suppress any info, that goes against your bias, and push, push, push."

Spookily, that sounds like a good description of what England was like in the lead up to the Reformation as far as religious freedom was concerned.

4 August 2013 at 17:22  
Blogger The Explorer said...

tir @ 16:52

Thank you, tir: your sentiment is much appreciated; although Christ warned his followers about the cost of discipleship.

Perceptive points in your earlier comments. Thank you for those, too.

4 August 2013 at 17:23  
Blogger grumpyoldcl said...

Dear DanJ0,

The "coalition manifesto", if that's what you want to call it, happened AFTER the election. The electorate did NOT vote for a coalition manifesto. No such thing existed at the time of the election. It is sophistry to pretend that anyone voted for a coalition manifesto - That's simply untrue.

Therefore we have a right to be consulted on a such a fundamental change.

4 August 2013 at 17:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lucy: "Meanwhile some say that the PM was right to press ahead as he is "Head of the Executive". Kind of thing Mugabe might say."

Actually, it's a statement of how our system of government works. The Prime Minister leads the Cabinet, which is the Executive part of our system. The Prime Minister selects his Cabinet and pushes forward the political agenda, usually of his political party. We don't elect the Prime Minister, we elect a party to government. Surely you know this sort of stuff? It's hardly Robert Mugabe territory. Come the next election, if the electorate are not happy then Cameron's party will not get in power again, either directly as a majority, or through forming a minority government, or through a coalition. There's always the possibility that he will be ousted as leader before then, or that the Coalition is disbanded, if our representatives are not happy with him.

4 August 2013 at 17:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Grumpy: "The "coalition manifesto", if that's what you want to call it, happened AFTER the election. The electorate did NOT vote for a coalition manifesto."

I have already reminded you of that. I'll also remind you again that the electorate didn't vote in sufficient numbers for a Conservative government and its manifesto without an explicit pledge to introduce same-sex marriage either. The current government doesn't have a manifesto by definition of it being a Coalition. It's a quirk of the system.

4 August 2013 at 17:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Grumpy: "Therefore we have a right to be consulted on a such a fundamental change."

Complete bollocks, of course.

4 August 2013 at 17:38  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Danjo. I am a Protestant, so what you are saying is irrelevant. Incidentally I have never denied that bad religion is one of the worst things known to man. Look at the religious (not Christian) ceremony at Bohemian Grove to see on of the silliest most kitsch and gruesome examples of this. I have recently seen Voodoo dolls on sale in a motorway service station. A good seller I was told. So they are happy with the idea of people wanting to stick pins in a doll to notionally hurt and do evil to others they disagree with; absurd, primitive and nasty.

I incline to the libertarian. Let the tares and the wheat grow up together, so long as they do no real damage to each other.

Hence very against totalitarianism, rape,sexual acts against minors capital or extreme corporal punishment, most abortion, taking away people's freedom of expression and debate and dissing men or women and their unique and distinct contributions, or dissing the unique value of heterosexual complementarity and the family as a building block of society. Also the nation state, property, and the right to practise Christian belief

A moderate really!

4 August 2013 at 17:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One hears parliament is considering suspending democracy and making Cameron prime minister for life. The views of the public are NOT welcome on this necessary social advance...


4 August 2013 at 17:51  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Danjo. So should homosexuals have an inalienable right to equal employment opportunities in jobs which give access to teenage boys at night?

Yes or no?

4 August 2013 at 19:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lucy, throw out the "inalienable" bit and the answer is "yes" of course.

You know, black men are over-represented in the prison population but why should that mean young black men in general be denied employment in positions of trust? Do you agree that young black men should have equal employment opportunities like that? Yes or no?

4 August 2013 at 19:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 August 2013 at 20:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also, I suspect that men are more inclined, bell-curve-like, to be attracted to youth than women who I suspect likewise are more attracted to status which tends to come with age. If it is true that men are statistically more likely than women to commit sexual abuse of teenagers of either sex then should women be favoured over men for jobs which give them supervisory access to teenagers?

4 August 2013 at 20:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

If we are talking young children, then men have no business in that. But then, you only mention teenagers...

From the book of Common Sense...

4 August 2013 at 21:22  
Blogger Craig Nelson said...

Ahhh so many comments. I have contempt for this pair of idiots on so many levels that I am literally spitting feathers (well not literally but you get the idea). The freedom of religion is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (where it is very highly prized) but reflects a long standing constitutional value in the UK (after going through several wars to get there).

The very idea of suing a church is abhorrent as is the idea of impugning a law which has just been signed.

It is scary to see the 'I'm not getting what I want' and can only guess that being rich sometimes means you think everyone is beholden to you.

In any case - do they seriously think that they can use the law to overturn the CofE's doctrine on same same marriage? Presumably they do. Taking such cases is God's way of saying that we need a progressive taxation system but failing that we'll lighten your bank balance by a couple of hundred thousand £s through litigation instead.

4 August 2013 at 22:00  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

The Matchmaker in me thinks Inspector and Ann Thorpe would make a lovely couple... (:

4 August 2013 at 22:04  
Blogger non mouse said...

Thank you, Lucy Mullen @3/8 14:19 - for relating the discussion to Heart of Darkness" and "civilisation." On one hand, despite a mere century's time-lag, we must beware of anachronism when interpreting in a Post-Modern context. That debased culture concentratrs on the vilest details--somewhat as Kurtz did.

Nevertheless, you're right. Conrad knew civilisation: his allusion and imagery encourage independent response. His rhetorical techniques are ancient; Anglo-Saxons incorporated them from Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Celtic and Scandinavian rhetoric.

I like your extension of Conrad's theme -civilised/primitive- into light/darkness, silence-muteness/speech-voices, male/female. You'll recognise that his abstract canvas also includes other polarities: reality/dream, truth/lies, memory/oblivion, living corruption/death, coloured shells of rhetoric/narrative kernels, clarity of mind/madness of soul. There's even black/white, which involves Africa/Europe; the heart of the earth/the ends of the earth; the dark life-give-and-take of the African forest/the whited all-devouring death of the "Sepulchral City" (75). And since the forest is yellow, it's in the subjugated Belgian Congo, dominated by guess-what-sprouting-city.

Methinks, though, these impressionistic patches surround the heart-head-soul of Civilised European Man(CEM) - i.e. Kurtz. Conrad expresses the long-and-short of CEM through CEMarlow and his CEMephistopheles (135; 93). Which returns us to your "unspeakable rites"(123) - for the meeting-place that houses these is Kurtz's compound: once circled by human heads on spikes. CEMarlow describes one: "[T}here it was, black, dried, sunken, with closed eyelids -- a head that seemed to sleep at the top of that pole, and, with the shrunken dry lips showing a narrow white line of the teeth, was smiling, too, smiling continuously at some endless and jocose dream of that eternal slumber" (132/3).

CEMarlow interprets the heads: "They only showed that Mr. Kurtz[CEM] lacked restraint in the gratification of his various lusts, that there was something wanting in him -- some small matter which, when the pressing need arose, could not be found under his magnificent eloquence. Whether he knew of this deficiency himself I can't say. I think the knowledge came to him at last -- only at the very last. But the wilderness had found him out early, and had taken on him a terrible vengeance for the fantastic invasion. I think it had whispered to him things about himself which he did not know, things of which he had no conception till he took counsel with this great solitude -- and the whisper had proved irresistibly fascinating. It echoed loudly within him because he was hollow at the core" (133).
_______________
Conrad, Joseph. "Heart of Darkness." . First published in 1902.

4 August 2013 at 23:36  
Blogger non mouse said...

cont'd...
My point? It is that the same whispered reality echoes within modern CEM. Those African skulls recall a head cult Celtic scholar Barry Cunliffe describes: "Perhaps, here, too, we are seeing the shifting shapes of Celtic mythology where visions appear and disappear and nothing is quite as it seems."* Cunliffe associates the cult with power, noting: “[T]o own and display a distinguished head was to retain and control the power of the dead person, which was the inheritance of the lineage.” 14th/17th-century British Celts understood this about traitors' heads on London Bridge.

Neither were those who defined barbarity/civilisation exempt from head cults, as the Roman Trajan's Column depicts (cf: various websites).

Head cults thrive in CEMarlow's Sepulchral city: the women knitting black wool recall Dickens' Mme. Defarge - before whom heads from the guillotine fell. CEMarlowe says of one: "Ave! Old knitter of black wool. Morituri te salutant" (74). Head cults branch into medicine too: the doctor measures CEMarlow's head and suggests changes could occur within after visiting Africa (75). This echoes British ideas of "Doolally tap," "going native," or suffering "a touch of the sun."

When Marlow ultimately returns to the Sepulchral City, we meet the CEWoman whose head absorbs light as voraciously as Kurtz had tried to devour everything (135); and Marlow believes he lies to her by saying that Kurtz's last words were her name (121;156-8). But... "The horror! The horror!" ... Mightn't "horror" truly name the Heart of Brussels? The Black Hole? The Utopian "civiliser" that subjugates CEM today; that has insidiously knitted us into its black politico-economic pall; that forces unspeakable filth on us - in the interests of "Peace," "Trade," and 'Yuman Rights' - a perverted "International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs" (123)?

Is that civilised "Horror" the reason why the Lawyer, the Accountant, and Marlow set off, on the "Nellie," from the Thames (65)?*** I've asked before....... Did Conrad know how proleptic his vision would prove?

________________
Cunliffe, Barry. The Ancient Celts. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. *127-8; 113 **209-10

***Chambers sv: "Nellie," dim. of Helen: Brightness.. So although the narrator sees no (enlightening) Lotus in Marlow's hand: perhaps they're all sitting on a little one?

4 August 2013 at 23:43  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

Thanks for that. It is an interesting extension of what I knew- esp, the whole head cult stuff. There is so much brilliance to Conrad, and some of it is sparklingly relevant to today's issues: "The Secret Agent" and "Nostromo" come first to mind.

Re civilisation and modern values
I have just come from hearing Hugo Salinas Price, as it happens, on King World News. He had a harsh analysis of present politics saying that there were almost no elites any more, as elites have values. He referred to some European politicians who said they knew what had to be done in the present economic crisis, but they just didn't know how to be re-elected afterwards.

This is the lack of civilisation that is partly due to lesser values, and partly down to career politicians with no other work to go to should they not be re-elected.

Which is no unrelated to how we got into this situation with SSM.

5 August 2013 at 12:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Struggling to answer Yes because it would highlight hyprocrisy in your question to me, but unwilling to answer No because it would make you look very bad, Lucy? Perhaps better to just pretend you're too busy or didn't see them.

5 August 2013 at 13:20  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

Nope, I just thought it was completely and utterly irrelevant and not an analogy. As would my black friends, acquaintances, and in laws. OK?

5 August 2013 at 13:32  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

You seem undisposed, to put it nicely, to make the distinction between statistics and inner temptation. Temptation is the word here. Also you missed the two criteria to consider which are:
a) the temptation level of the person in charge
b) protecting the person in charge from accusation

For both of those reasons known homosexuals should obviously not be put in charge, either individually or as part of a group, of teenage boys at night (talking of sleeping arrangements here)

As neither should women be put in charge, the only exception being as part of a team in a medical capacity and having gone through enhanced disclosure.

Your use of black prison figures is a bit "off" frankly. You would have to put them through the sieve of whether black folk are more likely to be arrested, or convicted. And then you need to subdivide into cultural beliefs. The folk we see in our churches, neat, beautifully dressed, and radiant are not the same as the ones into gangsta rap, now, are they? I am sure interviewers can tell the difference quite easily, and not leave gangsters in charge of the money.

5 August 2013 at 13:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lucy: "The folk we see in our churches, neat, beautifully dressed, and radiant are not the same as the ones into gangsta rap, now, are they? I am sure interviewers can tell the difference quite easily, and not leave gangsters in charge of the money."

Conventional wisdom says that when you find yourself in a hole looking for a way out then put down the shovel and stop digging.

5 August 2013 at 17:24  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

Nonsense... there is no hole. Shows how many black people you don't know. Those I know are absolutely happy to like parts of black culture, parts of all kinds of culture, and not other parts, just as I am happy to like parts of Western culture, parts of WASP culture, and detest others.

The colour of the skin is utterly unimportant. What the eyes say as the windows to the soul is what is very important indeed.

You prevaricate.

5 August 2013 at 18:24  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

And as for falling into holes, now I would say that the best place for talking about those is not right down at the bottom of a Pooh Trap for Heffalumps, unless you are aware of a big error. (Which is why would a woman quite happily and immediately absent herself and her kind from looking after boys at night while a gay man clings to the concept of equality for himself and his kind with a straight man despite being a clearer danger-and even seems unaware that they would be IN danger of accusations whether guilty or innocent.) Now how do you get to be in such a frame of mind?

Especially with Fort Augustus school on the news last night.

5 August 2013 at 20:04  
Blogger Martin said...

Apostolic authority rests in the Bible, not apostolic succession.

To compare homosexuality, which is a chosen sin, to the ethnic backgrounds of some & their problems is bigotry of the worst sort.

If the hat fits ...

Just wish there was a 'like' button. ;-)

5 August 2013 at 20:22  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

This is problematic. We Lollards knew that the State must yield to the Church. Also, i remind you that Henry was merely a pawn to achieve our goals. However, the state has been a thorn in our side ever since the Reformation proper.

5 August 2013 at 20:50  
Blogger Ditari said...

DanJ0, your 'black' analogy fails because it confuses the relative with the absolute, and the specific with the general.

You falsely compare the rational argument for barring known homosexuals from working in teen boy boarding schools, with a straw-man hypothetical bar on blacks from *all* employment.

To illustrate: a lot of people, including certainly professionals with a lot of trust placed in them, get speeding points/fines from time to time, without any detriment to their careers. But we know that there are certain occupations such as couriers/delivery where ads specify the need for a 'clean driving licence', and we all understand why and accept it.

In the same way, for most jobs homosexuality isn't an issue. But given the historic massive overrepresentation of homosexuals in teen boy abuse, a bar on their employment in certain very narrow and specific job parameters is entirely sensible.

A further question is whether the offences of say, blacks in prison were committed at work against work colleagues or customers or other persons they were responsible for. If they weren't, they're simply not in the same category as molestation of teen boys you're supposed to be looking after.

6 August 2013 at 11:38  
Blogger Steve Gibbs said...

theBreaking
GOODnews---
Marriage is for a man and a woman, in love, to protect their children.

6 August 2013 at 13:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ditari: "In the same way, for most jobs homosexuality isn't an issue. But given the historic massive overrepresentation of homosexuals in teen boy abuse, a bar on their employment in certain very narrow and specific job parameters is entirely sensible."

You may find it sensible yourself but it's discriminatory and almost certainly illegal. You're trying to use statistics to discriminate against a class of people based on the illegal behaviour of a small percentage of them. In fact, you appear to be doing pretty much what you erroneously accuse me of doing regarding the specific and the general. This is what I sought to demonstrate in both of my examples, although curiously only one has been jumped on. I'm quite happy to stand by those two examples and I'll continue to point at that ludicrous claim that 'well-dressed people don't steal' to show the hoops some bigots jump through.

6 August 2013 at 18:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

"You may find it sensible yourself but it's discriminatory and almost certainly illegal."

We’ll just have to make it legal then. We can do that when we show the ECHR the door.

Of course, Big Gay will be up in arms, something about having a right to be put into fiddling temptation, but if it means no more boys are going to be abused by them...

From the book of Common Sense

6 August 2013 at 18:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, perhaps I should look into the statistics about men in their 50s who have rather curiously never married and see what I can come up with to deny you various employment or hobbies or activities. They wouldn't have to show that much of a correlation in order for some bigots here to start extrapolating from the specific to the general by the look of it.

6 August 2013 at 19:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I bet there's something stronger about unmarried men in their 50s who have an unusually vehement reaction to homosexuality too.

6 August 2013 at 19:11  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older