79 3 mins 10 yrs

Another day dawns and I see that the Northern Ireland born Cardinal Keith O’Brien has stood his ground despite the gale of a liberal media storm and said that  countries which legalise gay marriage are “shaming themselves” by going against the “natural law,” and should not consider their actions “progress”.

He claimed same sex unions were the “thin end of the wedge” and would lead to the “further degeneration of society into immorality.” In a series of controversial comments, he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that if same sex marriage were legalised, “further aberrations would take place and society would be degenerating even further than it already has into immorality.”

Quite right too. There is no doubt that the thin end of the wedge argument is in play here and the very fact that someone defending thousands of years of traditional marrige is called “controversial” speaks volumes.

As I have stated previously, if you radically redefine what marriage actually is then all sorts of other possibilities come into play. If we are so foolish as to think that the state of matrimony can be defined as that between man and man, or woman and woman, logically why stop there? Surely there are other sorts of arrangements that can come into consideration?

Why stop at the singular when the plurality can be said to be just as reasonable a choice, for some? How about marriage meaning an arrangement between various men? How about marriage meaning the arrangement between various women? How about marriage meaning the arrangement between one man and many women?  And then there is the ongoing campaign to continually LOWER the age of  consent to 16. There are those who think it should be even lower, with 12 being advocated as a possible starting date. If this becomes the heterosexual norm it then becomes the homosexual norm. Is that “progress”?

The Cardinal has been very fair in his comments but the fact is that the “progressives” are winning this argument. Quite what this means will become apparent in years to come as Secularism trumps Religion. The observation that an atheist society has never endured stands intact and in this instance we seem determined to gaily proceed down the road towards cultural oblivion, content that “anything goes” is a solid basis for civilisation. It isn’t and instead of haranguing the Cardinal we should be congratulating him.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

79 thoughts on “WHERE THERE IS NO SHAME, THE CULTURE PERISHES

  1. An Atheist asks:

    How come the Catholics, whose Supreme hierarchy and canon law absolutely condemns and forbids the sanctioning of “gay-marriage” and furthermore strongly denounces “Gay sex” of any form, make up about 93% of the Republic of Ireland’s population and yet the vast majority of these moral, sanctimonious servants of Christ and the Holy trinity see absolutely no moral issue with “Same-sex marriage”?

    Do I hear the call of the Hypocrit-cuckoo birds?

  2. No I am not a believer but I have to recognise the part played by the Judeo/Christian Religions in setting the social structures that have allowed us to develop the Western Civilisation and mores that most of us live by today. I am not at all sure that the attempts to replace what has gone before by secularism alone is a good thing trampling, as it does, on both beliefs and social acceptances which have guided our social development and moral outlook in days gone past.

  3. A man who practices celibacy is your role model for the natural order of things? Many of the same arguments invented to attack marriage between people of different races or religions are raised here. The Wolrd didn’t end then and won’t now.

  4. The Church to which he belongs has taught that marriage is the union between one man and one woman for thousands of years. So has the reformed Church. Clearly they lack the enlightenment of modern day liberalism.

  5. The intolerant will forever reach for the straws of tradition to justify their intolerance.

    As I and others pointed out on another thread, traditional marriage is a myth. There was never anything romantic about it. That’s a recent phenomenon.

    Nor did the word “marriage” leave room for the female, it being derived from the Latin for “man”.

    The intolerant and bible-thumping can’t take their cues from their holy books either. Previous little guidance there.

    They will try the old ploy of declaring gay marriage to be “unnatural”. Men can’t be parents. Really?

    As Noel reminded them, marriage is more than procreation (or ought to be).

    “Thin end of the wedge”? No, thick end of the beam in your eye 😉

  6. Clearly they lack the enlightenment of modern day liberalism.

    Yes poor dears. But give them time and eventually even the church will catch up.

  7. Geoff,

    Indeed. I’m looking forward to greeting the first pregnant bishop 🙂

  8. As I and others pointed out on another thread, traditional marriage is a myth.

    You did but you were wrong. Outside the aristocracy the model for marriage in Europe has been two people in love freely choosing to spend their lives together.

  9. the model for marriage in Europe has been two people in love freely choosing to spend their lives together.

    Great — let’s open that up to everyone. Sounds ideal.

    I thought this article by Tim Montgomerie was interesting (A conservative case for gay marriage), and on the same site, Paul Goodman said this:

    However, the polls suggest that … most voters support gay marriage and that the majority for it is likely to rise. The unrebuttable fact is that abstract arguments about custom, tradition and precedent cut little ice with the modern electorate. The opponents of gay marriage will thus have to find a more concrete case if they are to thwart Featherstone – and David Cameron – and ultimately prevent a gay marriage bill from passing through Parliament.

  10. I have a comment stuck in moderation thanks to putting a couple of links in it – here it is sans-links

    the model for marriage in Europe has been two people in love freely choosing to spend their lives together.
    Great — let’s open that up to everyone. Sounds ideal.

    I thought this article (it is on ConHome but I can’t link to it) by Tim Montgomerie was interesting (A conservative case for gay marriage), and on the same site, Paul Goodman said this:

    However, the polls suggest that … most voters support gay marriage and that the majority for it is likely to rise. The unrebuttable fact is that abstract arguments about custom, tradition and precedent cut little ice with the modern electorate. The opponents of gay marriage will thus have to find a more concrete case if they are to thwart Featherstone – and David Cameron – and ultimately prevent a gay marriage bill from passing through Parliament.

  11. Nor did the word “marriage” leave room for the female
    Huh?

    Men can’t be parents.
    How about a little fire, scarecrow?

  12. Geoff Watts –

    You’ll rarely get a conservative argument out of Tim Montgomerie.

    Custom, tradition and precedent underpin conservatism. Rejecting them in favour of policy based on (supposed) polls is very Tony Blair and very conservativehome, but not much of an argument against conservatism itself.

  13. Ross,

    “Outside the aristocracy the model for marriage in Europe has been two people in love freely choosing to spend their lives together.”

    If that’s true, how do you explain the dowry?

  14. Custom, tradition and precedent underpin conservatism
    Of course, that is what it is to be a conservative. The argumentum ad antiquitatem is at the heart of conservatism.

    But when you look at the polling figures on those who oppose same-sex marriage, the opposition is heaviest amongst the old, the right-wing and those from lower socio-economic groups. Most striking is the age profile (60+% support among 18-39 yos, only 20% support among 60+) and that is a demographic group that is, literally, dying out.

    Last time I mentioned this everyone got very upset about it, but the figures don’t lie.

  15. Geoff Watts –

    I haven’t seen any polls on the matter. I don’t pay them much regard anyway. Usually they’re a tool for propaganda rather than enlightenment. But assuming that the figures you report are impartial, unbiased and accurate, so what?

    On the one hand the young and open-minded are in favour of gay marriage in contrast to old reactionaries. On the other, callow youth is in favour while age and wisdom is opposed to it.

    Yes, of course the old are dying out, but then the demographic is always being refreshed with new recuits, and we know that people generally become more conservative and reactionary as they age.

    It’s not for no reason that the Left denigrates the elderly while idolatrising youth.

  16. But assuming that the figures you report are impartial, unbiased and accurate, so what?

    It means that all this ranting and fulminating is for naught. Gay marriage will happen in the same way that mixed-race marriages happened, in the same way that the colour bar was lifted.

    people generally become more conservative and reactionary as they age.

    Indeed they do, but the shift is progressive. In other words what is considered conservative has consistently shifted left. Do you really think that an 18yo growing up today who suports gay marriage for 30+ years is going to oppose it in his or her dotage?

    Conservatives are, and always will be, by definition on the wrong side of history. You just have to read English literature to see that.

  17. The left want oder people to have some dignity in their own age, unlike others who want them to perish in their homes by cutting the fuel allowance and other such attacks.

  18. Geoff Watts –

    Haven’t you noticed that public opinion is irrelevent? If we ever got what we want by now we’d have ejected the EU, reduced immigration to a trickle and reinstated capital punishment. Public opinion is only invoked when it apparently backs up whatever anyone’s saying.

    I suspect your reading of history and human nature is flawed. Man is naturally tribal (and therefore ‘bigoted’), conservative (‘bigoted’) and reactionary (‘bigoted’). If the arc of history bent to cultural Marxism, why was the social revolution imposed by force and judicial activism? Societies left to their own devices are always conservative, or is Africa, Asia and South America full of married, gay couples?

    That conservatives (generally) argue for less government while you lot argue for more demonstrates that your opinions are devient, unnatural and can only live by dint of State violence.

  19. Petr Tarasov –

    It’s no wonder the old would perish without the fuel allowance. People like you have taxed them into poverty.

  20. If we ever got what we want by now we’d have ejected the EU, reduced immigration to a trickle and reinstated capital punishment.

    If we ever got what we want the ‘free market’ would never have been imposed by coercion.

  21. Petr Tarasov –

    How can a free market be imposed by coercion? You’re suggesting that are left alone to act in our interests – by force.

    If only.

  22. Pete Moore

    Haven’t you noticed that public opinion is irrelevant?
    That depends on the subject at hand. While in a lot of cases your argument is sound, there are topics where it isn’t. We live in a liberal democracy not an absolute one. Gay marriage is not a subject of such fundamental importance as those others you cite. It is more marginal and therefore more subject to political calculation. The death penalty and membership of the EU are fundamental issues that threaten the political standing of the United Kingdom.

    Man is naturally tribal (and therefore ‘bigoted’), conservative (‘bigoted’) and reactionary (‘bigoted’).
    What a nihilistic view you have of mankind. Nihilistic and wrong. The fact of general emancipation, the increasing democratisation of society, the increasing egalitarian nature of society and the greater promulgation of rights shows the contrary to be true.

    As for your comments about tribal societies, are we really going to have to go into State of Nature arguments here? It all depends on your view of the role of the state and concepts of freedom.

    The simple, and unassailable, truth is that history is progressive and conservatives are not. By definition therefore conservatives will always be on the wrong side of the argument. (note small “c” not Cap “C”).

    Gay marriage is going to happen, and the empty soundings of a representative of a dying and discredited organised religion are going to do nothing to stop it.

  23. David –

    That’s a very good piece. In contrast to Montgomery’s Cameronesque waffle, it’s a genuinely conservative argument.

  24. Geoff Watts –

    You sound like a young man. We live in a constitutional monarchy, not a democracy of any kind.

    Thousands of years of human civilisation are, I’m afraid, on my side. Granted, you can look to a few genuinely Progressive regimes, but they are all modern day political constructs: revolutionary France, communist Russia, fascist Italy, national socialist Germany etc.

    Yes, Progressivism has its modern day traditions here and in the US, chiefly among Fabians, eugenicists, abortionists, Soviet propagandists and other weirdos, but you’ll notice that the Progressive list of achievements is always and everywhere a catalogue of deceits and forced impositions on societies which resisted their actions.

    When you remove State power and judicial activism, Progressivism is a dead ideology. It cannot live in civil society because it is perverse, deviant and seditious to human nature.

  25. Progressivism, – a catchall title for those who are resistant to education, although they invariably see it otherwise, and feel that they know better than their forebears, or for those who, when instructed to refrain from acts of stupidity, see that as a spur to ‘do it at all costs’.

    As societies grow more affluent the need to try something new will grow, hence these ventures into new forms of relationship, if in pursuing these ventures it annoys a large portion of society, so much the better, it is an added bonus, – nothing more satisfying that ‘cocking a snook’ at authority, whether of the State, family or religious kind. None of which makes such acts right or proper.

    That such progressivism usually involves acts and ideas that are usually contrary to nature must surely be an indication that such ideas are anything but ‘progressive’ and probably owe more to aberration and perversion than to idea that might benefit humanity in general.

    It seems that most of the truly progressive ideas have come about as a result of an evolutionary process rather than any attempt to force unacceptable ideas on an unwilling populace.

  26. If Keith O’Brien hates gays so much, why does he wear a frilly dress and camp hat?

  27. Pete Moore

    And then, just as we were doing so well, you resort to your usual pinging off on a tangent. So that is the point where discourse becomes a waste of time. History is a liberalising force. Get over it.

    As for that article by Alistair Roberts (is he someone who posts here?) it is little more than a lengthy re-iteration of the standard position, and actually provides a very good illustration of the point that I was making on the earlier thread.

    “Marriage is a recognition of the unique significance of the sexual act of penile-vaginal intercourse.” So for those opposing gay marriage, it does come down to sex and the arrangement of genitalia, and not to marriage as an institution for the recognition of love. And has been said on this site heaven alone knows how many times, what people get up to in the privacy of their bedrooms is up to them.

    It also has two implicit assumptions: that sex should only take place in the context of marriage and that reproduction is an end of marriage.

    We do not normally require the magisterium of the church to recognise the ” the unique significance of the sexual act of penile-vaginal intercourse”, certainly not in Southend on a saturday night. That might well have been the case when the bible was written (and before Southend pier was built), but it is manifestly not the case now. The assumptions under which marriage is instituted have changed. It is therefore not unreasonable that the institution itself should change.

    The second addresses the bringing up of children. Gay couples can, and do, adopt children. To suggest that an adopted child merits a lesser institution is not the intention of the author, but if you deny the right of a same-sex couple to marry, then you are by necessity doing just that.

    Again this was not an issue foreseen when the institution of marriage was drawn up. It is reality now.

    Of more interest than that rather verbose and otiose post was one that it linked to, by someone called Peter Ould who does make a very good point about the legal position of consummation. However this is not a particularly difficult point to step around. You can simply remove consummation and the problem is moot but if that is the case then his argument about how gay marriage does alter existing marriage is irrefutable.

    This Peter Ould seems to be a very interesting character. I haven’t come across him before – an intelligent, rational theologian who actually has some logic to his argument rather than simply saying “that is how it has always been”, or “because the bible says so”.

  28. Geoff Watts –

    In a sense, yes, history is a liberalising force (I think I know what you mean), but you’re not talking about (classical) liberalism. You cited Progressivism, which is certainly not (classical) liberalism.

    In fact it’s rather the opposite.

  29. Oh for heaven’s sake let’s not get into an angels on the head of a pin argument. History is a liberalising force. I said it was progressive, you were the person who mentioned “Progressivism” and then went pinging off on a tangent.

    I have just been reading more of this Peter Ould character. The right-wing, religious types on here would like him because while he generally argues from your side of the fence (ie the wrong side) he is not a bonkers, swivel-eyed, hair-on-fire type. And because of that he is actually far more effective – he uses those things called “facts”.

  30. It is indeed the opposite.

    And no matter how you define the self congratulatory term progressive, it would be hard to say that there’s been much social progress in Africa or in huge swaths of the Arab world or in Pakistan over the past 500 years. They’ve largely gone backwards.

  31. The fact of the matter is that Cardinal O’Brien’s Chirc his not be asked to accept gay marriage. Rather he is seeking to prevent those outside his faith from having their marriages recognized by the State.

  32. Geoff has this fixation with what goes on in the privacy of a bedroom between two men. That being the case, why is gay sex attempting to link itself to marriage given that marriage is a legal and Blessed (in a Church) arrangement between a man and a woman, many of whom may choose to procreate and beget children, which gays cannot do. Geoff mentioned that gays can have children – through gay adoption. Wrong: gays can’t have children but there are some arrangements for them to adopt.

  33. Mahons,

    Spot on re O’Brien. Somebody earlier confused an atheist society with a secular one. The cardinal’s interference illustrates the need for the latter. Secularism imposes nothing on nobody, rather the opposite. Churches always have sought to do so. That’s changing, and they don’t like it.

    Allan,

    You’ve come rather late to the party. That’s all been addressed and, er, put to bed 😉

  34. Allan, as usual I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

    gays can’t have children but there are some arrangements for them to adopt. Actually lesbians can have children but that is a pedantic point.
    What matters in the case of children is the environment in which they are brought up, not the biological process by which they came into being. Gay couples can adopt children. I repeat (for a third time) what is the difference between a same-sex couple bringing up an adopted child and a different-sex couple bringing up an adopted child? Why should the two be treated any differently?

  35. Anyway, since we are discussing matters of the Heart, O’Brien should be concentrating on the recovery of the heart of St. Laurence O’Toole.

  36. Iran threatening to start a nuclear war. The economy in the crapper. Labour poised to win by elections despite utter crapulence on the economy. Resurgent Unions threatening to reduce the nation to penury. The vile Olympic farce about to leave us a wonderful leagacy of debt and feck all else. Petrol costing near a tenner a gallon, a small mortgage to buy a years VED. The housing market collapsiing. The red ed grinning jackanape and blinky balls soon to be in number ten. Red Ken to run London into the crapper.

    and all that vexes you lot is who’s playing ‘hide the sausage with whom’, and can we have Father Jack bless our make believe ‘union’. All are feckin equal my arse! I’m only worried they will make sodomy compulsory!

    Who says the era of trivia, bread and circuses is dead.

  37. If you think it is bread and circuses, then stop doing it.

    You lot are the ones seeking to deform the social structure, not us.

  38. How is the social structure challenged by gay marriage. No one is being compelled to marry a gay person? It is a logical step in a recognition that the law should be applied equally to all.

    A Church such as Cardinal O’Brien’s is not obligated to perform such marriages.

  39. Dogisgreat,

    You come across as a very angry person. Have you ever tried Buddhism? 🙂

  40. It has nothing to do with the law applying equally to all.

    Seamus demolished that canard here some time ago.

  41. Mahons,

    Right again. This is what I meant by imposition. O’Brien and his fellow-clerics wish to impose their willies on society.

    Secularists do not. All are equal in their eyes. What’s not to like?

  42. I am unaware of Seamus demolishing the idea that the law should apply equally to all.

  43. Phantom,

    Seamus did nothing of the sort. That bird is still quacking 🙂

  44. Seamus wants the law to apply equally to all.

    Opposing falsehood does not imply otherwise.

  45. Richard – The phrase I enjoy best in describing the situation is “your right to swing your fist ends where another person’s nose begins”.

    It really is that simple, the Church seeks to impose an authority on EVERYONE, even though it struggles to impose this authoirty even among its own adherents.

    I’ve noted before, and will note again, while it has the right to place limitations upon the sacrament of marriage within it own practice it has no right to dictate as to others.

  46. Phantom – Thou speaketh in riddles. What has Seamus, who supports IRA terror bombings but is appalled by gay marriage, ever written tha tset the matter to rest?

  47. The Church does not seek to impose anything on anybody. But they are allowed to have a voice too.

    Re your 532, I take it that you are all for recognition of polygamy then.

  48. Seamus hopefully is warming up in the bullpen.

    His argument was so convincing that he should be the one to make it again.

  49. Phantom – I have no objection to Cardinal O’Brien voicing his opinion on any issue (he is for Scottish Independence by the way, I missed David praising him for that). But he is defining marriage based on relgious, not legal, grounds.

    I have never indicated a “recognition” of polygamy. Certainly the polygamy argument stands and fails on its own, and is used by those opposed to gay marriage as if gay marriage would bring about other changes.

  50. It has nothing to do with the law applying equally to all.
    Seamus demolished that canard here some time ago.

    I must have missed that. Can you link to it?

  51. Actually polygamy has a cultural and religious history behind it, so there is a vastly stronger case to be made for it that they is for SSM.

  52. Actually polygamy has a cultural and religious history behind it, so there is a vastly stronger case to be made for it that they is for SSM.

    Great – then the polygamists will have no problems in winning their case.

  53. Their day will come.

    But none of this has anything to do with anyone having a valid case.

  54. I repeat (for a third time) what is the difference between a same-sex couple bringing up an adopted child and a different-sex couple bringing up an adopted child?

    Geoff – I am sure that the adopted child would notice a difference, as if that mattered to you. Just as an aside but were you brought up by two parents? If so, were they a male and female or some other combination because you seem to be making your argument from the position of a positive experience of the latter?

  55. But none of this has anything to do with anyone having a valid case.

    Meaning what?

    Allan – Yes I had two parents and yes they were male and female. Why would you even ask that question?

    But since I answered your bizarre question, how about returning the favour? From a legal point of view, from any point of view you like what is the difference between those two cases? Why should they be treated differently?

    Let’s deal with the adopted child point. There has been a wealth of studies in teh US mainly that demonstrate that there is no difference in the outcomes for adopted children of same-sex parents. So yes they will notice, and no, it doesn’t make any difference.

    That aside, is it possible you could answer the question?

  56. The proponents of SSM have failed to make any valid case for what they wanted, yet they have had some successes anyway.

    It’s become a trendy cause celebre.

  57. The proponents of SSM have failed to make any valid case for what they wanted, yet they have had some successes anyway.

    Well it’s a double win then. They get what they want without having to work too hard for it. What’s not to like?

  58. Yes, sometimes basic civil rights, previously denied one group, later become rather trendy a viewpoint. It was trendy in the 1950’s to think blacks could sit in public restaurants, use the same restrooms as whites and ride on the same sections of the bus as whites in the American South. That trend became the norm in a couple of decades to the point where we cant fathom that it was ever the case otherwise.

  59. Geoff – it’s just that by arguing for the absurd and unnatural proposition of same-sex parents, your perspective could only be that of somebody who had a bad experience with normal parentage (male and female, or mother and father as I had) or a good experience with bizarro same-sex parentage. I mean, nobody could be as idiotic as you are currently being without good (or bad) reason.

  60. I mean, nobody could be as idiotic as you are currently being without good (or bad) reason.

    I love the idea of the archduke of insane conspiracy theories calling someone else idiotic. And they say irony is dead.

    But no, I had a very ordinary, yet very happy, childhood going to a very good, but very normal, state school.

    Now are you going to answer the question I asked or just toss a few more insults my way?

  61. Phantom

    If the law is changed to allow same sex couples to marry then the law will still apply equally to all , so Seamus and yourself should have no problem with it.

  62. “How about marriage meaning the arrangement between various women? How about marriage meaning the arrangement between one man and many women?”

    My, if it continues like this we’ll soon be back to the standards of the Old Testament.

  63. I repeat (for a third time) what is the difference between a same-sex couple bringing up an adopted child and a different-sex couple bringing up an adopted child?

    The difference is that one couple provides a natural male-female environment for the child to absorb whilst the other is an unnatural same-sex environment which, without the perversions of local authorities, would not have had a child present any other way.

    You should face the facts, Geoff – heterosexual and homosexual relationships are not the same and they are not ‘equal’.

  64. You should face the facts, Allan – heterosexual and homosexual relationships are, the detailed mechanics of coitus not withstanding, the same and are perfectly equal. Both are capable of providing the bedrock for bringing up children in a loving and safe environment — as has been amply demonstrated.

    But like I say you, and the rest of the right, are on the wrong side of the argument on this one, which is probably perfectly comfortable for you, after all it is where you normally spend your time.

  65. Ultimately, Allan, Phantom, Pete, and the rest will be disappointed because these changes are coming whether they like it or not.

  66. I would simply like to say that I support Cardinal O’Brien (and the RC Church’s general stance) on this issue. Whilst I do not wish homosexual people to suffer any form of ‘second-class citizenship’ or degrading treatment, nevertheless I agree with the position that the RCC takes: the homosexual tendancy represents an objective disorder; and its enactment represents a grave wrongdoing. I believe that the very worst, and most unloving thing a society can do towards homosexuals is to seek to ‘normalise’ either their behaviour, or their tendancy.

    And the Cardinal is right: if we normalise homosexuality now, then it’s only a few decades along the road until we decide that paedophilia is (at first) “not so bad as we thought a few decades ago”, and (a few decades later on) “What the heck were those unenlightened idiots in the 2010’s thinking? criminalising paedophilia – surely anyone can see it is just another natural, normal and perfectly nice expression of sexuality”. -NO.

    Well, that’s my opinion. I don’t expect it to be agreed with nor understood, but I’m sticking fast with the tenets of my Christian faith, no matter how anyone else may pour scorn upon it.

  67. “its enactment represents a grave wrongdoing.”

    A grave wrongdoing? Tom, what wrong does a homosexual act do, apart from your idea of religious sin, etc.?

  68. Noel, as I hinted at in my prev. comment, I completely understand your response. (or at least, I understand the premise from which it is made).
    There is much (if not 99%) of the theology of Christianity which will appear, necessarily, to be 100% outside of the bounds of rational reasoning, until one has accepted Christianity. (Yes, I know, that is no answer, it merely reinforces your perspective! I understand that, yet I cannot help but reiterate it).

  69. …Or, to answer you in a different way: Apart from my idea of “religious sin”, homosexiality does absolutely no wrong at all. Only – my idea of religious “sin” and “non-sin” is, according to the Lord whom I hope I serve, the only idea that matters unto Him. That s the real question.

  70. Tom,

    First off, try typing “gay” instead “homosexual/ity” You may find that doing so lightens your task, lifts your spirits and makes you appear less homophobic.

    Second: paedophilia has seldom if ever been a taboo in any society. It’s only in our more enlightened times that we’ve come to recognize it for the frightful crime it is. I can’t see us overturning this judgment anytime soon.

    Next straw man, please….

  71. Richard Clinton, on March 5th, 2012 at 5:23 pm Said:
    Dogisgreat,

    You come across as a very angry person. Have you ever tried Buddhism?

    Stupidity always irritates the hell out of me. I freely admit I a discontent (maybe a malcontent dunno). As the saying goes. The world belongs to the discontented.

    Buddhism…..Dalai Lama goes into a Pizza parlour and says ‘Make me one with everything’.

    Like I said personally I do not believe in same sex marriage. I agree that this is simply not fair, but when has anything in life ever been fair?

    That said I have no objections to what people do in the privacy of etc etc. ALL PDA’s make me puke irrespective of genders involved..why? I am very British thats why.

    I think and I hate saying this but B. Liar called this one OK. Civil partnerships OK, church blessing (up to the church) church wedding nope. Cyril and Hank you will never wear a bridal gown – get over it.

    Now thats UK problem number 6,467 answered let’s go back to number 1.

  72. Dogisgreat,

    No, I wrote mediTation not mediCation.

    Surely your dad warned you that all that “what people do in the privacy of etc etc” can lead to blindness 😉

Comments are closed.