Category Archives: homosexuatity

Let’s just substitute one word, shall we?

Posted on by
9

I want you to read the following from the Archbishop of York on the BBC website today, and what I want you to do is to substitute the word ‘slavery’ for ‘marriage’ or ‘same-sex marriage’.

Ministers should not overrule tradition on the issue of same-sex marriages, the Archbishop of York has said.

He supported civil partnerships, he said, but only “dictators” tried to overturn history and redefine marriage.

The government will open a consultation on the issue of same-sex marriages in March. A consultation on the subject by the Scottish government ended last month.

But the Archbishop told the Telegraph that it was not the role of government to “gift” the institution of marriage [liberty? - Wolfers] to anyone.

“I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is.

“It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just (change it) overnight, no matter how powerful you are.

“We’ve seen dictators do it, by the way, in different contexts and I don’t want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way.”

It goes on for a while, and demonstrates exactly why I have no time for organised religion. You see government is bad enough with its desire to rule our physical lives, but the churches (yes, and mosques and synagogues etc) seek to control our very spirits, and that is worse.

The thing is John, what you are putting forward are so similar to the arguments that were put forward when the movement to abolish slavery was near to approaching its goals. Tradition, God’s will, an affront to liberty, State interference, all of them were held up as examples of why the abolitionists were wrong.

So, Dr. John Sentamu, were they wrong? I’m guessing you think that the abolitionists were right, and yet you see fit to restrict freedoms to others. Odd that, isn’t it?

Here’s a shock for you, when you say ”I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is”, I’d agree with you. But then, neither is it the role of the Church, and you admit so yourself.

Dr Sentamu also said both black parishioners and white working class churchgoers were poorly represented in the Anglican church.

And that’s because your organisation is now utterly irrelevant and yet you still seem to think you should have a big say in the way things are done around here. You can’t scare us any more, you don’t scare us any more, and religion is based on fear, ‘if you don’t do what we say, you’ll burn for eternity in the fires of hell’. We don’t believe you. Haven’t done for a long time.

You see people’s relationships are no business of anybody but those involved in those relationships, but so important are those relationships to people that they feel the need to certify them, to make them some how ‘official’. Now, I’m not suggesting that the Church of England or any religious institution be forced to conduct same-sex marriages, it’s your club, you make it quite clear that you don’t like homosexuals, and quite why they’d want to be a member of your club is beyond me. The CofE doesn’t have a monopoly on God, none of the religious clubs do, and I see no reason why the Big Gay Pink Church of God can’t be started, it’ll have no more or no less credibility than all the others, and they can be free to tell ‘breeders’ to take a hike and can be free to ensure that ordination of Bishops is only open to lesbians or transvestites, I really don’t care, it’s their club. Go knock yourselves out.

But the Church has no place blocking the marriage of same-sex couples in civil ceremonies, none whatsoever. It is of no concern of yours. You don’t own the word marriage.

Then he comes out with this, I’m almost at a loss;

“We supported civil partnerships because we believe that friendships are good for everybody.”

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat? Friendships? What the actual fuck are you going on about? You know you sound like a mother who has tried to come to terms with her son’s homosexuality but can’t quite make it. “This is my son Gary and his. . . . ‘friend’ Kevin.” In many ways this is worse than overt bigotry, it is almost silent, cowardly.

But Dr Sentamu said the Church would not stand idly by if the government sought to allow same-sex marriages to be on a par with heterosexual ones.

Oh, bless him, he’s going to allow the gayers to be ‘friends’, he’ll even let them get a bit of paper to say that they’re really good ‘friends’. Here’s an idea, John, let’s stretch the metaphor of the piece, shall we? Why don’t we make sure that they have to ride at the back of the bus, or have their own waiting rooms at train stations, or entrances to shops? I’m sure they’ll be grateful for that, it isn’t like they’re proper people is it? Have we heard that argument before somewhere?

But he said: “When I was a vicar there was a lady who didn’t want me to take her husband’s funeral because I was black. I took one funeral and at the end a man said to me, ‘Why did my father deserve to be buried by a black monkey?’ We received letters with excrement in.”

Yeah, discrimination is hurtful, isn’t it? So why, having been on the receiving end, are you so keen to make other people feel second class?

I have a word for people like you, a word that gets wheeled out very rarely. That word is ‘cunts’.

I despise the Church, not because I have a problem with God, certainly because I have a problem with the evil that they have done in God’s name, but most of all because they, all of them, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, whatever, are peddlers of the most sickening bigotry.

Is what’s right, right?

Posted on by
1

A few days ago I blogged about the self-determination of Kosovo, and how I did not believe it was right for the ICJ to rule on the country’s fate.

This morning there is a story of the courts overturning a clear and present declaration of the will of the electorate, with a Federal Judge overturning the decision of the people of California to disallow same sex marriages.

This presents me with something of a conundrum. As a Libertarian I belive passionately that if two people decide they want to marry, then that is no-one’s business but their’s. I couldn’t care less if these people are of a different or the same gender. It really is nothing to do with me. As long as both parties are content to enter into the marriage and are doing so of their own free will, then nobody else is being harmed, so there is no need for any scrutiny or permission from anyone else.

Indeed I would also say the same about bigamy, if a man or woman wishes to take two or more spouses, then as long as all the parties, existing and prospective, are aware and content, then I see no problem with this.

I was surprised that the people of California decided to reject the concept of same sex marriages. California has always had a reputation as one of the more tolerant states in the Union, but the decision to reject was made clearly by the electorate.

So now comes the conundrum.

Is it right for the electorate to dictate what two people can do with their lives when that decision has no influence on how other people live theirs? I believe not, the freedom of the individual is paramount.

Is it right that the Courts can then go in and overturn the decision of the electorate? I believe not, as a supporter of democracy, the will of ‘the people’ must be sovereign over the machinery of the State. That apparatus, in a democracy, is there to facilitate the will of ‘the people’.

At the risk of sounding like an EU apparatchik, it would have been better had the people of California voted to accept the concept of same sex marriages. In my opinion, they made the ‘wrong’ decision. However, I have said on a number of previous occasions that in democracy there is no right or wrong decision, merely a decision you agree or do not agree with.

Unfortunately, it seems clear to me that the decision to reject by the people of California can only come down to two issues.

The first is bigotry, that somehow homosexuality is wrong, and despite the fact that the bigot has no intention of engaging in homosexuality, and will not be effected by the act being carried out by two people unconnected to them, they feel that they are in a moral position which requires them to prevent this sort of relationship being given any legitimacy.

This is likely to be underpinned in most cases by the second issue, that being religion. God says it is wrong, therefore we must prevent it. Never mind that should God exist, He is perfectly capable of making his own judgement and implementing his own sanction. Never mind that should God exist, ‘His’ word is without doubt the word of men who wrote on his behalf, in a rambling text which is contradictory both in content and the way that its adherents apply the lessons contained within.

I find it amazing that even now, this document is being used to determine the way people are permitted to live their lives, even if no hurt is being done to others.

It doesn’t help me with my conundrum though. To promote the ignoring of the will of the people because they have come to a decision I do not agree with would make me as bad as those I rail against. To accept that the apparatus of the State can override the will of the people is a concept that I find repugnant, but do I find it as or more repugnant than the idea that the will of the people can prevent peaceful people leading their private lives, with no detriment to anyone else, as they wish?

I don’t know.

The One That Is ‘Gay Enough’. . .

Posted on by
Reply


A while ago, Leg-Iron posted a commentary on this article about Canterbury City Council being referred to the ombudsman as the city wasn’t ‘gay enough.’

Thankfully, the ombudsman has decided the city is gay enough. I’m not sure how they do this. Perhaps from above with a gaydar mounted on a plane taking off from near-by Manston airport?

There was another to-do a little while ago when wine-bar ‘Scribes’ opened up a lap dancing club. You’d have though the world had come to an end, the bar has a view of the Cathedral (Canterbury is a small city, everywhere has a view of the Cathedral) and the professional complainers were of the opinion that it would have been a handy stop off for Satan en route to him doing whatever it is the anti-Christ choses to do with his evenings.

Scribes was the only lap dancing club in Kent, apparently. Not any more it isn’t. It’s closed. No doubt the professional complainers will be pleased.

Or not.

It is now CO2, a bar dedicated not to men paying for young women to thrust their bouncy bits in their faces, but it is now a gay bar. So there’ll be men kissing each other, for free.

Given the bar’s proximity to the Cathedral, I should imagine it will get more trade from the clergy in this guise than in its former incarnation. The report lists the activities on offer:


drag artists, tribute acts, DJs and camp bingo.

I thought all bingo was camp. No doubt this heralds another collapse of civilisation. Tribute acts? DJ’s? I think the comparisons between this sort of thing going on and the last days of Soddom are startling. I’ve seen a number of tribute acts in my time, perhaps I’ve been living a lie all these years?

Thing is, Canterbury is a fairly normal town. OK, we get far more of our fair share of tourists than other towns in Kent, but it isn’t Vegas, neither is it Riyadh.

It is amazing that a gay pressure group wants, well I don’t know what really, whilst others think everyone should live the lives of Benedictine monks. They’re all bloody mad. . .

The One That Doesn’t Understand The Problem . . .

Posted on by
Reply

Why are people so obsessed with other peoples’ relationships? I remember the very earnest, and in some cases reactionary debate over ‘civil partnerships.’ I didn’t see what all the fuss was about.

I’m straight so would never be interested in marrying a man. If two men or two women decide that they love each other and want to make a commitment to each other, well you’re not hurting me, so if it makes you happy, then go ahead. I wish you the best of luck.

I was astounded that there was even a referendum on the subject in California over the subject, one which threw same sex marriages out. Why? What possible harm are they doing? If you don’t agree with marrying someone of the same sex, then don’t do it.

One of the problems is that marriage is seen as the preserve of the religious establishment, and the problem with the religious establishment is that God has told them what should and should not be done. It’s difficult to argue with what people say God wants, that is the only response in what quickly becomes a circular argument:

Me: Why shouldn’t gay people get married?
Them: Because God says so.
Me: But they’re not doing any harm.
Them: Yes they are, they’re upsetting God.
Me: Well how do you know this?
Them: It says so, in this book.
Me: Well how do you know this is the word of God?
Them: Because God says it is.

And you can go on like that, well, until Judgement Day. I hold the opinion that it is my soul, I’ll take decisions regarding it and deal with the consequences myself.

During the debate about same sex marriages I remember a lot of politicians hiding behind the religious argument when the real issue might have been that they just didn’t like gay people very much and I think this is evident by the fact that in this country, at least, gay people still can’t get married, they can only have civil partnerships. Why stop short? Straight couples can get married without any religious involvement at all, so why should it be any different for gay people?

So it was with interest that I read this story on Al-Beeb today. In a nutshell, Baroness Warsi, the shadow minister for Community Cohesion (don’t even get me started, what in the wide, wide world of sports is that?) had decreed that cultural sensitivity has meant politicians have neglected to discuss polygamy.

She wants all religious marriages to be registered to prevent men marrying more than one woman.

Well, why? What’s the problem? Where has this value judgement come from? Why should people only be allowed to marry one person? That may be the majority Christian view, but is that any reason to impose that value on everyone else?

There will be those who say with a hint of indignation that we are a Christian country and should operate as such. Fine, then have the guts to ask for what you really want, a theocracy. I understand religious observance to be complete, you either believe and follow or you don’t, there’s no ‘I support the teachings of the Church except that bit, and that, and some of that, oh, and I don’t agree with that at all’. To be faithful means you submit yourself entirely to the will of God. So let’s have a theocracy then, let’s ban Islam, throw out the Hindus, lock the Jews in a big old warehouse and burn it to the ground, enforce attendance at church every Sunday. Let’s take a leaf out of the Saudis’ book and have brigades of religious police touring the streets, sweeping anyone up they decide has broken the religious moral code, Lord knows the political police are nearly there.

Look, arseholes, doesn’t matter if it’s a man with women or a woman with men, there’s nothing wrong with polygamy, as long all those involved are adults, aware of the situation and enter into it of their own free will. Who are they hurting? Nobody. So just keep your bloody nose out of what doesn’t concern you.

We either live in a country with personal and religious freedom, or we don’t. It can’t be done by degrees. You can’t say ‘you have personal freedom unless you want to marry another man or want to live with more than one woman.’ That isn’t freedom, and don’t pretend it is, because I understand that God really hates liars.

The One That Is Glad Someone Is Making Sure I Can Sleep Safely In My Bed At Night. . .

Posted on by
Reply

Phew. Thank God for that.

I’ve been very worried. Whilst I’m far from convinced that man has a major part to play in climate change, (indeed I’m not entirely sure the climate is warming, Xmas in the North East US/Maritime Canadian provinces, anyone?) it is true that over the last 100 years we have done some shocking and idiotic things to our planet.

The destruction of the South American rainforest could have very bad results, it could lead to the extinction of a number of animals, birds and insects, some yet to be discovered, not to mention flora that could prove useful in drugs development, it means the destruction of the way of life of aboriginal communities that have lived quite happily in leafy isolation for thousands of years and it means we’ll still have to put up with Sting generally getting on everyone’s tits and producing albums of lute music. It is a bad thing.

However it pales into insignificance when compared to the threat posed to our way of life by consenting men putting their willies up each other’s bottoms. Well, that’s what the Pope says.

He explained that defending God’s creation is not limited to saving the environment, but also protecting man from self-destruction.

Well, I’ll put aside the God bit for now. I’ve said before, if I was God, those who run organised religions and claim to know what He wants and speak for Him, would be right up the top of the smiting list. Self destruction? Certainly. Where will we start? Slavery? Hatred? Wars which still have religion as the catalyst? How about repression in Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Saudi, Iran, China and a host of others? No, good old Pope Benedict gets right to the heart of the matter by saying self-destruction is brought about by a bit of bum sex.

I’ve never indulged myself. My arse is strictly a one-way street, but if it makes you happy, then carry on, it’s not doing me any harm. The same goes for you ladies, if you want to take a close interest in the workings of another lady, that’s fine.

People have been doing this sort of thing to each other before the Christian church existed and we’re still here. If God really was concerned about it, I’m sure He would have taken some action by now.

So, Popey, why not get your own house in order first? Why not take some proper, radical action about the systematic sexual abuse of children perpetrated by your organisation? The old joke has it that Priest stands for Paedophile Resident In Every Small Town. I’m much more concerned about the harm done to unwilling or co-erced participants in this.

When push comes to shove, what two consenting adults get up to with each other is nobody else’s business, as long as no third party is being harmed. That’s harmed, not offended, by the way. It certainly isn’t the business of some old member of the Nazi Youth who has swapped one ugly totalitarian auhoritarian regime for another.

Let’s hope we see Stephen Fry deliver his own festive message, (this is a celebration of the winter solstice, I’m sure I read somewhere that the Romans held the census in the summer, so old JC is probably a Cancer) where he warns that old celibate Germans with ridiculous dress sense are a big threat to humanity.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. You religious lot have had it. You are corrupt, irrelevant and discredited. You’ve had a good run, but it is now time to go. So why not be good chaps and fuck off and leave us alone, eh?