Mothers Day2
Society and Social Structures

Happy Parent B's Day

 

Our Parent A, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name..

This is sure to catch on. With a slight touch of family-downgrading, parent-commingling and gender-neutralising, the Book of Common Prayer and the Authorised Version of the Holy Bible will be wholly compliant with the new social order. In the new dictatorship of relativity, it is imperative that the new terminology should be embedded in both culture and consciousness, sooner rather than later. It won’t be too long before we’re awaiting baby’s first words: “Parent B! Parent B!”, as our children sneer at their history textbooks, which tell of those deeply offensive times when people spoke of ‘blacks’, ‘gays’, ‘mothers’ and ‘fathers’.

Today used to be known as ‘Mothering Sunday’. In the liturgical calendar, it is the fourth Sunday in Lent – Laetare Sunday. But that was when we were a Christian nation. It was a quaint custom in celebration of the patience, kindness, goodness and sacrificial love of those who bore us, nurtured us and guided us in the way that we should go.

But then came the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition with more than a hint of Labour’s inclination for social engineering. They decided that the traditional family – a husband, a wife and children – was a bit passé. And they decreed that marriage need no longer require a male and female of the species, and that two men or two women might enter into nuptial bliss and consummate their union without prejudice or discrimination.

And so it came to pass that all expressions of gender upon official forms and documents were expunged, in case a declaration of marriage might be presumed to be heterosexual. No more ‘Husband’ or ‘Wife’ on marriage certificates; and no more ‘Mother’ or ‘Father’ on birth certificates. And certainly no more letters from schools which made reference to the otiose medieval family worldview: henceforth ‘Dear Parent or Carer..’. The state was compelled to be gender neutral, and the statute books were amended accordingly: all presumption of biological complementarity ceased.

And so ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ became ‘Spouse 1’ and ‘Spouse 2’. And ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’ became ‘Parent A’ and ‘Parent B’.

It remains to be seen how long it will take feminists to realise that ‘Parent B’ is appallingly sexist and insulting to those erstwhile mothers. For who determined that the female progenitive contribution should be recognised merely as the ‘B’ component? Does not the slur of ‘B’ perpetuate the primacy of ‘A’? Is not the matriarch still subject to patriarchy? And what of ‘Parent C’, which is now surely upon us? If human offspring may now have three genetic parents, “created through a specialized form of in vitro fertilization involving cytoplasmic transfer in which the future baby’s mitochondrial DNA comes from a third party”, the state’s bureaucracy will need a further category, lest Parent C feel devalued and discriminated against. A child may even now be registered with two Parent As. Or are they two Parent Bs? In a same-sex union, how do you decide who shall be A and who B?

There was a time when we might have looked to the Holy Parent B Church to speak out.

Levity aside, there is a serious point to consider. The denial of complementarity implies that neither man nor woman contributes anything unique to raising a child simply because of sex or gender. AB/AA/BB is an assertion that male and female parents are interchangeable components in child-rearing. In practice, of course, this means that fathers are separated from their children, because a father is deemed to contribute nothing essential to the child’s nurturing that the mother is also not capable of contributing. So he loses yet one more compelling reason to stay. Everything will be fine if he leaves – just as it was if he were never there in the first place.

  • dannybhoy

    Perhaps ‘Scrabble’ will become the new religion and ‘Trivial Pursuits’ will replace sex education?

    • sarky

      Well this atheist father was up at 6:30 (despite finishing work at 1:00am) to help the kids make breakfast and deliver presents to their mother!!!

      • William Lewis

        Your progeny have a mother? How genderist of them! Unfortunately, my coparent has gone off with progeny C leaving me to prepare lunch for my cohabitees plus coparent’s sibling’s family together with parent-A-in-law and parent-B-in-law! Supposedly with help from progenies A and B who are currently celebrating the time honoured tradition of sleeping till noon. Help!

        • sarky

          Lol 🙂 !

        • The Explorer

          Great stuff! The problem with the new system is that not all parents are same sex. So your Parent A might be another’s Parent B (in each case, what used to be called a father.). A solution would be to say that all Parent A’s are male; but, of course, that doesn’t help with same-sex couples if they are both female, or males who don’t distinguish gender roles. I foresee confusion ahead. In fact, I’m confused already.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Doesn’t the word “coparent” imply that “single parents” are deficient in some way?

          • The Explorer

            You’re right! And just when I thought we had a solution!

          • CliveM

            You know I do wish the my children ( and perhaps one day my Grandchildren) had been allowed the respect of the simplicities of life that I had as a child. I think despite being at 5 Primary Schools I can only remember 3 of my peers being raised in a single parent house hold.

        • dannybhoy

          Alphabet Soup..

          • William Lewis

            Now you know your ABC, it’s gender neutral lunacy.

      • dannybhoy

        We had a great Mother’s Day service in our little village, starting with breakfast of bacon butties toast followed by a good sermonette plus a few rousing choruses that the children thoroughly enjoyed..

      • Royinsouthwest

        Well done for taking your responsibilities seriously.

  • Shadrach Fire

    Good morning Your Grace,
    I trust that Mrs Cranmer gets her cup of tea in bed this morning.
    This piece today. LOL It would be funny if it was not so serious. Unfortunately you are preaching to the converted. Your communicants will no doubt all agree with you, except the odd Gay and Atheist. And they are very odd.
    It is the majority of decent moral voters that needs to read this but then what. What can they do about it? There are just three and a half weeks to find five hundred decent candidates to oppose every MP that voted for SSM. But that could be done.

    With the help of agencies such as ‘Christian Concern’, ‘Christian Institute’, ‘Find my Church’ ,’The CofE’, ‘Care’, ‘Christians in Politics’, ‘The evangelical alliance’, The Jewish Chronicle’ with Melanie Phillips and many other groups that care about the loss of our Judeo/Christian society.

    Seriously,something should be done before it is too late. We have been warned. Don’t say it is too late, God often left things to the last minute just to show that it was Him that had won the battle. Then you have the Kinnock effect. The voters went to vote one way and change their mind at the ballot box. That was God.
    ([email protected])

    • DanJ0

      “Your communicants will no doubt all agree with you, except the odd Gay and Atheist. And they are very odd.”

      This gay a-theist isn’t particularly interested in the State making such things gender-neutral. I’m not really that keen on homosexual couples adopting or using IVF to have children either, though inevitably some homosexuals couples will still end up looking after children if one of them was in a heterosexual marriage beforehand. A family which contains both biological mother and father ought to be the norm, both mathematically and sociologically. Society never really bothered too much about addressing step-parents correctly as I recall growing up. At the end of the day, it’s mostly just nomenclature for the most part.

      We’ve all weaved a web with same-sex marriage, and I do actually mean all too. At one time, I was quite content with the idea of civil partnerships provided they were viewed to all intents and purposes as civil marriages. I saw them as necessary to address some social and legal ills. Same-sex marriage came out of the blue for me. But militant religionists and religionist pressure groups argued against civil partnerships and, as we saw with the proprietors of the Chymorvah Private Hotel, such people seem intent to be at war with people like me, and I’m minded to think that they bear some responsibility for the move to same-sex marriage and all that follows from it.

      • CliveM

        Hi DanJo

        Interesting post. People are perhaps to quick to tar a whole group with a single ideology. I suppose following the Civil Partnership row I was expecting SSM to be promoted. It was the speed of it that surprised me. Also I didn’t expect a Conservative Govt to risk political capital on it.

        Just shows what I know!

        • DanJ0

          I don’t even have an ideology about sexual orientation. Perhaps I’m missing out there.

          • One genuinely respects you for that, Danjo.

          • Inspector General

            Sometimes. Just sometimes mind, you do show hope of coming round to a sensible way of thinking, like what we do….

          • Shadrach Fire

            Your comment shows that you might be the odd one out of your compatriots. God does not justify his people if they do wrong. He only justifies his eternal self and his unchanging word.

          • CliveM

            Personally I don’t trust ideology. To measure people by an ideology is asking for trouble.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      “What can they do about it? ”

      Interesting piece in the Birmingham post recently about parents protesting about plans to teach LGBT propaganda to their primary school children. The parents were muslim. I presume that having always been on the “right” side of political correctness, they feel more empowered to complain thanChristian parents. I wish the latter would stand up and be counted too. Still, this is going to be interesting. In the long run, one wonders how long this kind of pc stupidity can really last. I’ve yet to meet a single person who thought it was a good idea

    • Dominic Stockford

      I’m struggling to find just one such candidate for this constituency. It is beginning to look like “if not me, who?”

      (Brownie points for knowing who said that)

  • Uncle Brian

    It’s those people at the Circumlocution Office, Your Grace. Their new officialese sounds even more awkward and unnatural than the old one. It’s hard to believe that English is their Parent B tongue.

  • DanJ0

    Happy Simnel Sunday everyone, by the way.

    • William Lewis

      and to you.

    • Uncle Brian

      I had to look that up. “Especially in Lancashire,” it says. Anyway, thank you and the same to you, DanJo.

      • DanJ0

        I’m actually from West Lancs as it goes. Despite being a dab hand at baking, I’ve never made a simnel cake. I ought to have a go today.

        • Dominic Stockford

          Don’t bother, it’s not as good as it sounds.

          • magnolia

            Absolutely excellent when made well, though like many of the yummiest foods, rather calorific, I am afraid!

    • CliveM

      Thank you, I think.

      Sadly not a big fan of Simnel cake!

      • Inspector General

        Sounds too much like semen cake. Found at gay weddings…

        • CliveM

          Thanks for that unwelcome image!!

        • IanCad

          Actually Inspector you may be closer than you intended.
          Under the Wiki entry it is also referred to as – “Placenta Cake.”
          Think on that next time you dig in to a raspberry trifle.

          • Inspector General

            Some African peoples still tuck into the afterbirth today. Much to the chagrin of the more barking of religious types who care not to be reminded of our animal origins so at odd to a certain ridiculous story found in the bible on the subject of our being here.

  • Update:
    Happy Parent B(a) – the womb donor;
    Happy Parent B(b) – the egg;
    Happy Parent B(c) – the mitochondria donor; and
    Happy Parent B(d) – the care giver.

    (Subject to reviion)

    • The Explorer

      Revise reviion while you’re at it.

      • Eh?

        • The Explorer

          On the subject of a mutual friend, LInus was pitching into me in tremendous style on last thread but one. I think I’ve finally been promoted to the most-hated league, along with you and The Inspector. It’s been a while coming: an honour not easily won.

          • CliveM

            Truly you are one of the elect.

            Poor Linus I do pity him.

          • magnolia

            Ah well you are a British heterosexual Christian. That is three naughty points from Linus. And you are not ashamed of any of those three attributes, which gives you a 4th 5th and 6th naughty point. And you are not impressed by him, or his ilk, 7th and 8th naughty points. And you have the nerve to answer back on all those areas of disagreement, which gives you naughty points 9 ,10, 11, and 12 …aka beyond redemption and a fit object for hatred.

          • Royinsouthwest

            “Many are called but few are chosen.” Matthew 24:14.

          • Wear it as a badge of honour.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Parent A(a) – the sperm donor
      Parent A(b) – the DNA donor
      Parent A(c) – the other carer
      Parent A(d) – The state (when the parental relationship goes belly-up)

      • Parent B(e) – a transgendered adoptee who ‘chooses’ to be female.

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    Lenin said, ‘Destroy the family, you destroy the country.’ He could have added, ‘And the experts in country destruction tell me that importing millions of unassimilable people also works wonders.’ The question is, who stands to gain from the destruction of white Christian countries, and why are the political classes in those countries implementing the destruction so obediently?

    Thinking back to the Afghanistan service, when the Queen has to be followed up the aisle of St Paul’s by protection officers, and when a military parade has to be guarded by armed police, country destruction is coming along very nicely indeed.

    • The Explorer

      At least the protection shows an awareness that there’s a problem. Worst of all worlds would be knowing there’s a problem, but refusing to provide protection in order hide the problem.

    • It’s not immigration, Mr R.

      “There is no shadow of a doubt a battle exists, a battle in which the eternal salvation of us all is at stake. No ! Either you are with Jesus or you are against him.”

      “The battle is two-sided, Look around us – it is enough to open a newspaper, as I said – we see the presence of evil. The Devil is acting.”

      The focal point of Satan’s assault:

      “Married couples are sinners just like everyone else, but they want to continue with love, in all its fecundity. They continue in the faith, bearing children. Let us pray to the Lord and ask Him to protect the family in the crisis with which the Devil wants to destroy it.
      Families are the domestic church where Jesus grows in the love of a married couple, in the lives of their children.

      This is why the Devil attacks the family so much. The Devil doesn’t want it and tries to destroy it. The Devil tries to make love disappear from there.”
      (Pope Francis)

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        @ Happy Jack—When the Pope has worked out why Western politicians are doing the Devil’s work, I trust he’ll let us know.

    • Dominic Stockford

      The armed officers are no doubt very fine men, but their presence jarred almost as much as that of the women masquerading as clergy…

      • Johnny Rottenborough

        @ Dominic Stockford—The best is yet to come. A black, one-legged, lesbian Archbishop of Canterbury presiding at a coronation.

    • dannybhoy

      As I have said before, only in the post Christian western world has this misguided experiment of multiculturalism been tried.
      Our Lord said that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and I think the same principle applies socially. Only as long as the host culture remains strong and in control can other minority groups live in relative harmony.
      I suppose it could be argued that we are reaping what we have sown in terms of our colonialist/Imperialist past, but personally I don’t buy that.

  • Owl

    Well said YG.
    We are certainly in the era of the absurd and Blair and his successor Iron Dave have a lot to answer for.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      “Iron Dave”?
      I’d have thought aluminium foil would be more appropriate

      • Owl

        Is fluffy pink with green stripe pillow Dave OK?

  • Inspector General

    The Inspector would like to remind you all that under the terms of the New
    Social(ist) Order, we should be referring to each other as ‘comrade’. And not
    comrade brother or comrade sister either. Just comrade, thank you very much.
    There was much sense in this, so they argued, as the capitalists had
    successfully divided the proletariat for their evil ends, and as we squabbled
    amongst ourselves over whose turn it was to change the shitty nappy, had in the
    process allowed them to make slaves of us. Well, that’s how it goes. So it comes
    as no surprise that the children and grandchildren of the architects of this
    order are out to destroy what has been quoted by a communicant on Pink News as
    “the bifurcation of the sexes which is no longer acceptable or tenable in this
    day and age”, or words to that effect…

  • The Explorer

    A precedes B in the alphabet. So isn’t it privileging males to call females Parent B’s? And if all mothers are Parent B’s then surely we haven’t escaped the old nomenclature? Shouldn’t we mix it up a bit; so that what used to be a mother might be either an A or B? Unisex parenting. (Or unigender parenting.)

  • The Explorer

    Is anyone addressing the appalling sexism of x and y chromosomes? I hope there’s somebody getting on Nature’s case and demanding that Nature gets in line with twenty-first century values.

    • Royinsouthwest

      At least the chromosome than makes a person male, the y chromosome, comes last alphabetically and therefore feminists cannot claim that the name is sexist.

      • Inspector General

        They’ll tell you the X is by far the larger and thus should come first, and that the Y hardly matters. And they’ll do this in a building constructed by holders of the Y, near a road similarly constructed by holders of the Y in or near a town also constructed by holders of the Y.

        • magnolia

          “No one will ever win the battle of the sexes; there’s too much fraternising with the enemy. ” (Henry Kissinger).

          No great fan of that politician, but , note, Inspector, he was right on that one, and so it just isn’t worth trying to fan the embers of the half-hearted battle!

      • The Explorer

        The problem with X is that it used to indicate a wrong answer (back in the days when there was such a thing.)

        • Inspector General

          Very good Explorer. Of for the days when there was a wrong answer and not different shades of right, perhaps best demonstrated by the A grades now prevalent in our educational exams.

        • … or a Kiss.

          Jack used to think his rather attractive school teacher had a crush on him. Wonder whatever happened to Miss Wilson.

          *sigh*

    • William Lewis

      Don’t worry, a little taming of nature here and some renaming of parts there and any anomalies will soon be ironed out.

  • The Explorer

    ‘Absurd Person SIngular.’ Alan Ayckbourn was ahead of his time.

  • Inspector General

    Can we all spare a few moments reflection on the children who through the selfishness of what parent they do have, will nevertheless never know a mothers love. For even if they come across the womb renter responsible for their existence, there’ll be nothing between them. Well, perhaps a receipt somewhere they can cherish in later life…

    • dannybhoy

      Having spent some years working with children in care, there is nothing more sad than to see the look of longing on a child’s face for the parent(s) who have abused or abandoned them. A child longs for its parents, no matter what, and nothing affirms us in our sense of selfworth and belonging as ‘Mum and Dad’..

    • And all those children in the womb who are denied life by their mothers.

  • Royinsouthwest

    How can any rational person not see that this is a war against nature? It is, of course, part of the rebellion against God that has been going on since we were given free will. Atheists and agnostics may disagree with that but they cannot question the existence of nature.

    • Inspector General

      Much of it is the result of man listening to the whining of obvious ‘damaged goods’ if we can call them that.

  • dannybhoy

    Anyone seen the row that has broken out between Dolce and Gabbana and Elton John?
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/stars-support-elton-johns-vow-5338969
    Personally I back D&G.
    If you are gay, be gay. But you have to accept that means you can never be parents.
    If on the other hand you want to be a parent then deal with your gayness. Children need role models. To offer them two Mummies or two Daddies is unnatural and selfish in the extreme..

    • And how the ‘camp’ of the ‘faithful’ have spat back. No doubt Stephen Fry will weep tears. A house divided and all that.

      • The Explorer

        Do you know, there used to be a brand called ‘Camp’ coffee? Not sure if it still exists, but I remember it from the days when ‘camp’ had ‘bivouac’ as its primary meaning, and ‘gay’ meant ‘happy’.

        • dannybhoy

          It does, and the only difference is that the bottles are plastic rather than glass.
          I bet it still tastes awful though!

          • Inspector General

            The motto on the bottle, resplendent with a highland regiment camped in India, was ‘Ready? Aye, ready”. One’s maternal used to buy the stuff for coffee flavouring in cakes. The idea of making a drink out of it was repellent, even then.

          • Inspector General

            Forgot to mention. ‘Ready? Aye, ready’ is still spoken aloud by the Inspector when he is about to leave Inspector Towers, having checked about his person for keys, wallet, silver topped cane, etc

          • Uncle Brian

            Monocle? Top hat? Tails?

          • Inspector General

            Them were the days…

          • CliveM

            Hmm my father use to mutter while checking, testicles, spectacles and watch.

            How he thought he’d leave his….. never mind, best not speculate.

          • Pubcrawler

            I believe it’s a sort of mnemonic for the correct order in which one should cross oneself.

          • CliveM

            Really never knew that. Suspect he didn’t either!

          • Inspector General

            Yes, it is.

          • Grouchy Jack

            … and another one.

          • Grouchy Jack

            The Sign of the Cross starts at the forehead, then to the breast and shoulders.

            Are you another one who can’t tell the difference between his head and testicles?

          • Inspector General

            You’re wrong there Jack.

          • Don’t trust Jack?

            “The sign of the cross was made from forehead to chest, and then from right shoulder to left shoulder with the right hand. The thumb, forefinger, and middle fingers were held together to symbolize the Holy Trinity — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
            (Catholic Education Resource Centre)

          • B flat

            But that is not the way Catholics sign the Cross on themselves! You are mislabelling an Orthodox tradition.

          • Grouchy Jack

            It’s both a Catholic and Orthodox tradition. Jack got the left and right shoulders wrong, however, either way is fine.

            “An instruction of Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) evidences the traditional practice but also indicates a shift in the Latin Rite practice of the Catholic Church: “The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because the signing is done together with the invocation of the Trinity … This is how it is done: from above to below, and from the right to the left, because Christ descended from the heavens to the earth, and from the Jews (right) He passed to the Gentiles (left).”
            While noting the custom of making the cross from the right to the left shoulder was for both the western and eastern Churches, Pope Innocent continued, “Others, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right, because from misery (left) we must cross over to glory (right), just as Christ crossed over from death to life, and from Hades to Paradise. [Some priests] do it this way so that they and the people will be signing themselves in the same way. You can easily verify this — picture the priest facing the people for the blessing — when we make the sign of the cross over the people, it is from left to right….”
            Therefore, about this time, the faithful began to imitate the priest imparting the blessing, going from the left shoulder to the right shoulder with an open hand. Eventually, this practice became the custom for the Western Church.”

            http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/the-sign-of-the-cross.html

          • B flat

            Thank you for giving that reference. I was unaware of this Trinitarian significance in the sign of the Cross having ever entered the Latin Church. Verbally, of course it often did – perhaps usually for a layperson, since they crossed themselves while saying “In the Name of the Father &c….” I have never seen any Latin Catholic make the sign of the Cross on themselves with their fingers held in the way you indicated and quote Pope Innocent III. That is normal for the Orthodox, as is touching the right shoulder before the left – every true conservative knows instinctively why this is correct. 😉
            The fact you muddled the order of touching the shoulders, betrays some lack of practice, or maybe you just weren’t thinking…. (I am not picking a fight. It’s late on a peaceful Sunday evening. Good night, and God bless.)

          • Grouchy Jack

            It was a cut and paste job – unthinking – and Jack didn’t notice the left/right difference at the time.

            As for the fingers, Jack was unaware of this too although he does make the Sign of the Cross regularly. This must have fallen into abeyance. Pity, as it does have a pertinent symbolism.

            God Bless.

          • Pubcrawler

            Maybe I had an over-aggressive facelift, and it’s not a beard I sport

          • CliveM

            Explains the nose!

          • Royinsouthwest

            When Australians do the Sign of the Cross wouldn’t it be logical to start at the opposite end? If you disagree doesn’t that make you a Flat Earther?

          • Grouchy Jack

            Grrr ….

        • Pubcrawler
    • Uncle Brian

      I find myself unable to join the boycott against Dolce & Gabanna, never having spent so much as a penny on anything they make. In fact I’ve never even gone to the trouble of finding out what exactly it is that they do make.

      On the other hand, I am similarly unable to join a boycott against Sir Elton John, never having spent a single minute listening to any of his performances, other than those that happened to pop up on the screen while I was relaxing in front of the telly.

      If all three of them, Dolce, Gabbana, and Elton John, were to disappear off the face of the earth this very moment, I really couldn’t care less.

      • The Explorer

        I’d not only never spent a penny on Dolce and Gabanna; until today I’d never even heard of them.

        • Uncle Brian

          I once saw an ad for a wallet, I think it was, or possibly a belt, that had the D&G logo on it. But I suppose they may perhaps make other things as well.

          • Famous their handbags – apparently. Where is Linus?

          • The Explorer

            Now, now! I don’t want my new status as Linus’ No 1 enemy toppled too soon.

          • Jack thinks he may have scared him off with his last comment.

          • The Explorer

            Whether we scared him or simply bored him, we certainly seem to have done for Sidney Deane.

          • Grouchy Jack

            He’s ‘Nobody’s fool’ and is in search of an owner. Ask him if you can adopt him.

            Btw, he likes to be called “Snork Maiden”.

        • IanCad

          Me neither!

          • Nice range of ankle length cotton track pants you might want to consider.

          • IanCad

            A decent pair of American work pants is what I’d like.
            Even though they’re all made in China I can’t find them over here.

          • Try ebay ……

          • IanCad

            Jack. And Clive. Thanks but I’ve tried them both. Not the same; I always bought them at WalMart and had expected Asda to stock the same, but not so.
            Besides, I have to have dark brown.

          • Are you an offiicoor in the Fronchie army, Iancad?

          • CliveM

            I’m going to ask a really stupid question, but did you try Amazon USA?

          • Grouchy Jack

            “I’m going to ask a really stupid question …”

            Nothing unusual there, then.

          • CliveM

            Grouchy Jack who looks quite short should be careful!

          • Grouchy Jack

            Bring it on …..

          • CliveM

            Perhaps tomorrow, knackered! Just been to hospital with son……..!

          • Oh dear. Hope everything is okay.

          • CliveM

            Yes he is now thanks.

          • CliveM

            Or Amazon

        • CliveM

          Never shop anywhere else………..

          • Ummm …. have you their ‘Leather Love’ range?

          • CliveM

            I lied, I’m more charity shop!

            Still leather love range, hmm interesting.

          • The Explorer

            The poet Swinburne (the “sweet Parent B of pain” bloke) was into leather love: a leatheriing once a week from a dominatrix. Actually, I might be wrong about that: it might have been a birching now and then.

        • DanJ0

          Really?

    • magnolia

      Hilarious- in a dark grey sort of a way- that Sir Elton and David Furnish are described as “the best patents (sic) for [their] children” in that article you link to. Freudian slip anybody?

      Patent A and Patent B; how about that?

      • Royinsouthwest

        Patents can only be awarded for innovations that are original, potentially useful, and not obvious.

    • Shadrach Fire

      If you are gay, be gay. But you have to accept that means you can never be parents

      Wish that were true but you are more likely to succeed in adoption or you can have your own baby via surrogacy.

      • dannybhoy

        This is true Shadrach, but for us Christians it goes against God’s order and for those who believe in evolution it goes against that too.
        I have nothing against those who are homosexual; they are sinners like me, but there is a paradox here which they needs to be faced up to.
        If you say that it’s perfectly normal to love someone of the same sex, commons sense must tell you that e.g. anal sex will not bring about conception.
        It is only through modern science that this can be achieved, and even then it requires a third person, a donor or incubator. It remains a perversion of the natural order.
        That’s why up until now no society has recognised same sex marriage; even if they have recognised liaisons between people of the same sex.

        • Shadrach Fire

          Your not wrong. However the way it should be is not the way it is.
          So what do we do about it. Just stand back and let them get away with it?

  • The Explorer

    The thing is, the card shops and supermarkets and flower shops aren’t yet up to speed. I distinctly saw adverts for ‘Flowers for M—–‘s Day and ‘M—— Day Meal’.

    • Uncle Brian

      Plod will soon be on to that lot. Only a couple of months ago he was going round the newsagents, leaning on them to hand over the names and addresses of customers who had placed orders for Charlie Hebdo, the Survivors’ Edition. A very hardworking body of men, our police forces. No wonder they don’t have time to waste on piddling complaints about teenage girls who earn a bit of pocket money by being nice to Pakistani gentlemen.

  • CliveM

    Sign of the times CBBC Programme, Marrying Mum and Dad. The children arrange the marriage of their parents.

    Says it all really!

  • The Explorer

    “I’ve ‘ad yer mum!”, that favourite insult of school young male gender persons, seems doomed. “I’ve ‘ad yer parent B!” just isn’t emotive in the same way.

    • Inspector General

      Happy memories there of ‘My dad could av your dad’. Only to be answered by ‘My MUM could av your dad’…

      • … nowadays she most probably ‘as.

      • dannybhoy

        And some could too!

        • Inspector General

          Yes, that awful thought did not escape the pre pubescent Inspector as mothers with arms the same circumference as his thighs turned up to collect their children…

          • dannybhoy

            It’s sad ain’t it? As a fervent admirer of Felicity Kendal in her prime, it comes as something of a shock to encounter ladies complete with tattoos and necklaces made of shrunken (male) heads…

          • The Explorer

            The praying-mantis phenomenon. You know what the female of the species does after she’s mated? Codes of behaviour from the animal world are carrying over into the human.
            Come to think of it, though, are you sure they’re HEADS?

          • dannybhoy

            Heads or knobs of some kind.
            I’m short sighted…

          • Danny, you really must learn how to distinguish them.

          • CliveM

            You do wonder how he has managed to date!

          • Jack could not possibly comment.

          • CliveM

            Lol

          • Grouchy Jack

            This Jack could ……

          • CliveM

            Well don’t be shy.

          • Grouchy Jack

            Jack will wait for the right moment.

          • CliveM

            Very wise…………..

          • CliveM

            We’re old fashioned boys Dannybhoy. Both struggling to adapt to the current horror. Femininity has come to mean something horrible :0)

          • sarky

            Didnt know you were acquainted with the Mrs? ?? (Only joking)

          • dannybhoy

            He said… wistfully. You wish!
            Felicity Kendal, Joanna Lumley – Wendy Craig; real women!
            Feminine, pretty and intelligent…
            Sighs…

          • sarky

            There are still plenty of such ladies around, you just have to look a bit harder (I did and it was worth the wait)

          • dannybhoy

            My wife is one such, and not only do I love her, I admire her and count myself extremely blessed to share my life with her.
            She shares my admiration for these lovely ladies, but perhaps for slightly different reasons… 🙂

          • sarky

            One would hope so 🙂

          • Pubcrawler

            Saw Ms Kendal on stage recently, in some Coward play I think it was. Still quite, quite delicious.

          • CliveM

            Which one, Felicity Kendell or the tattooed monster?!

          • sarky

            Im a bit young for felicity so I’ll let you guess.

  • It seems to Happy Jack there is good reason for depicting Satan as an androgynous person carry a deformed child in the crowd scenes in ‘The Passion of the Christ’

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3n9yjiuMLI

    • CliveM

      It’s a film I’ve never watched. Not good with violence. Interesting the way they’ve portrayed Satan. However as Angels (fallen or not) don’t have a sex I suppose accurate.

  • Shadrach Fire

    Many communicants today are taking this all as a joke. It is however very serious. Most decent voters are left in a quandary as who to vote for. Even UKIP do not give any confidence that these issues would be dealt with.

    It is the majority of decent moral voters that needs to read this but then what. What can they do about it? There are just three and a half weeks to find five hundred decent candidates to oppose every MP that voted for SSM. But that could be done.

    My comment from 1st thing this morning.

    Seriously,something should be done before it is too late. We have been warned. Don’t say it is too late, God often left things to the last minute just to show that it was Him that had won the battle. Then you have the Kinnock effect. The voters went to vote one way and change their mind at the ballot box. That was God.
    ([email protected])

    • Inspector General

      Look, about UKIP. Alright, they are not the second coming, but lets give them a test drive, as Clarkson might say. What have we got to lose. If anyone can think of any reason, then let the Inspector know, here, now.

      The alternative is more of the same. We know that will be the case, and don’t bank on getting an EU referendum either. Any man who as leader of the so called conservatives can pull same sex marriage out of the damned hat should not in any way be trusted on anything he says.

      • CliveM

        You know Inspector l am in a quandary. I have voted at every election I have been allowed to. I see no party that I feel comfortable with supporting.

        Oh for the certainties of my youth.

    • The Explorer

      I’m ridiculing it all, but that doesn’t mean I don’t see it as serious. Nietzsche wrote ‘Beyond Good and Evil’. Beyond Male and Female is part of the same rebellious mind set.

    • William Lewis

      “Many communicants today are taking this all as a joke”

      The absurd is often highlighted by humour, as the OP attests. The seriousness of the subject notwithstanding.

      • Inspector General

        Indeed William. Given the choice of whether to laugh or cry…

  • Happy Jack’s beautiful granddaughter.

    http://httpwwwmreman.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/laetare-lucy.html

    May God Bless and Protect her in this troubled world.

    • Uncle Brian

      Amen.

    • Inspector General

      Not sure if they still do them but you could at one time get tiny T shirts for baby with “This way up” on the front.

      • Eh? Is she upside down on your screen?

        • Inspector General

          No, nothing wrong there. It would help first time parents.

      • Royinsouthwest

        Those T shirts have probably been banned in case they are offensive to Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Argentinians and other people who live their lives upside down!

    • CliveM

      You probably won’t have been to a Church of Scotland christening. Afterwards the baby is lifted up and presented to the congregation who sing to it “The Lord Bless you and Keep you”.

      May that be true of your Granddaughter.

      Annoyingly I always get some irritation in my eyes during the song!

    • Anton

      I wish you joy of your family Jack and echo your prayer for her.

      You surely don’t believe that the image on the Turin Shroud is Christ’s face though?

      • *sign*

        • Anton

          Would you care to make a response that actually has some content, such as yes or no?

      • Grouchy Jack

        Grrrr ……

      • dannybhoy

        I first saw this image back in 1971, in the Convent of the Sisters of Zion, Jerusalem.
        I had never heard of it before, but found the image strangely compelling. Is it the face of our Lord? I don’t know, but the face has a real sense of majesty. As far as I am aware the authenticity has yet to be proven, but this is a good article on the subject..

        http://www.6000years.org/frame.php?page=shroud_of_turin

        • Anton

          Danny,

          That article is a triumph of wish-fulfilment over normal reasoning based on selective use of half-truths. Belief in the image on the Turin Shroud as an authentic representation of Christ’s face began in the lunatic fringe of Catholicism – the mediaeval cult of relics – but has since jumped the Reformation divide and is now a tenet of the lunatic fringe of fundamentalist protestantism as well. Neither Rome nor any protestant denomination requires belief in it, however, and here is why nobody should. This evidence is cumulative.

          First, a French bishop, Pierre d’Arcis, wrote a letter in 1390 to a man whom he believed at the time to be the Pope, in Avignon (although history now regards the Roman papacy as having just been restored). D’Arcis’ letter states that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed.

          Second, the Turin Shroud has been radio-carbon dated to the 130 years prior to that date to within an accuracy of a few decades.

          Those who are determined to believe that the Shroud shows Christ’s face have done their utmost to discredit this dating, but they have not succeeded. The three laboratories involved all calibrated their techniques on material of known mediaeval provenance and their accuracy was confirmed. Some people have nevertheless suggested that the part of the Shroud that was tested is from an invisible mediaeval repair patch, but repairs of this sort can at best be invisible on one side only. On neither side of the Shroud is this repair visible, however, so that the material under test must indeed be part of the main weave. Third, the mass of the material in the tests dominated any pollen and mould, etc, that had accreted on it, because the samples were carefully cleaned before testing. The date therefore relates overwhelmingly to the cloth material and not to any later organic matter.

          So far, then, we have a mediaeval bishop saying it is a later forgery and science clearly confirming it.

          Third, the iconography is that of the mediaeval era, not that of any other time and place. Glance at any book on the history of Christian art.

          Fourth, the image has been reproduced using only techniques available in the 14th century by draping a cloth over a bas-relief and painting it with tempura and pigment (including iron-based pigment; iron is in blood and provides both paint and blood with its red colour). This was done by a man called Joe Nickell. His work does not, of course, prove that this is how the image was made, but it deals with the objection that the 3-dimensional nature of the image could not have been fabricated by mediaeval artists.

          Claims that pollen samples on the Shroud match the Holy Land fail to take account of the fact that Mediterranean plants have a broad distribution and that we cannot know which species have become extinct where and when in the last 2000 years. No reliable inference can be drawn from this information.

          Now for scripture. The prophet Isaiah (50:6) foresees that Jesus will have his beard pulled out during the tortures He faced in the final hours before the Crucifixion, but the figure on the Turin Shroud has a beard.

          The account in the Gospel of John (ch. 19) makes it clear that Jesus was stripped of his valuable one-piece kingly garment, crucified stark naked, and then wound with strips of linen. The hypothesis that the Turin Shroud is a cloth placed over His body which received an imprint of His face due to radiation at the moment of His Resurrection is not consistent with this account of “strips” of linen.

          • dannybhoy

            Thanks Anton. Of course we walk by faith and not by sight, but I still remember the impact that image had..
            It looks incredibly authentic anatomically, but I can see its value as a sacred relic.
            Btw when that artist confessed, who did the interrogating…?

            🙂

    • Miles Christianus

      Amen to that. Please convey a virtual bunch of daffs to Lucy’s mum.

  • Inspector General

    Just heard on BBC Radio 2 news Elton John’s disgust that D&G described IVF children as his as synthetic. The truth still hurts, as ever…

    • Jack fears for the futures of these innocent children. Research already indicates they suffer from emotional difficulties. It seems unfair to label them “synthetic” and to burden them further. Attack the selfishness of the parents by all means, but let’s not create a group of social misfits.

      • CliveM

        Good point Happy Jack. I hope and pray that all such children can be happy and well balanced despite the additional burdens society and their parents selfishly load onto them.

        God loves them as well.

      • Linus

        According to the Catholic Church there’s no such thing as an innocent child. Even a fetus is besmirched by original sin. Sad Jack’s reference to innocent children is therefore heretical nonsense. Children are born guilty and deserve everything they get. If that punishment includes having Elton John for a Parent A (or Parent B), nobody should feel sorry for them.

        • Grouchy Jack

          Good moaning, Fronchie.

          How ignorant you show yourself to be. Did you sleep through what passed for religious instruction? That’s “Jansenism”, a condemned heretical movement once popular in France. Orthodox Catholicism teaches that whilst infants share the collective guilt of Adam’s sin until Baptism they are free of all personal culpability.

          Now trot off.

          • Linus

            So you admit that children really are guilty, and yet you refer to them as innocent. The best that can be said is that their guilt is mitigated by a lack of understanding. Which is not innocence.

            In any case, an old priest once told my parents that all unbaptised children go to hell. As do miscarried and aborted fetuses. Some Catholics try to soften the blow by proposing the idea of limbo, but the bible says nothing about such a place, and as only those who accept Christ as their saviour can go to heaven, where else but hell can the unbaptised go?

            Of course the Church doesn’t have a settled doctrine regarding the fate of unbaptised infants, but it’s permissible to believe they go to hell, just as it’s permissible to believe they go to heaven.

            If the latter, one can understand why Catholics don’t like the idea of abortion. But if aborted fetuses go to heaven, what more could a mother do for her child than get rid of it before it has a chance to sin and be condemned to hell. If that constitutes a mortal sin, well don’t we think of mothers who sacrifice themselves for their children as praiseworthy? Condemning yourself to save another is a selfless act, is it not?

          • Grouchy Jack

            Jack repeats: infants are innocent of personal responsibility for individual sin. You have a dark and nasty spirit. And such pride and foolishness too in claiming greater knowledge about God than His Church.

            The Catholic Church leaves this question unresolved. It allows the faithful to hope that through the mercy of God such infants may be admitted to the Beatific Vision but reminds us that we do not know that they are so saved, saying: “the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude.”

            In “Evangelium Vitae”, Pope John Paul stated:

            “Certainly, what happened (abortion) was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourself over with humility and trust in repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you His peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost, and you can entrust your infant to the same Father and to His mercy.”

            There may or may not be such a place as Limbo. One thing is for certain. The eternal destiny of those who culpably reject God and Jesus Christ is plainly taught in Scripture.

          • sarky

            Is it Bognor?

          • The Explorer

            Bognor was just created as a warning: a foretaste of the wrath to come.

          • That was Skegness.

          • The Explorer

            Probably a few others as well. So you can get the idea about the future , even if you don’t travel much. John Betjemen would have said it was Slough.

          • Martin

            GJ

            Does not the Bible say that all have sinned?

          • The Explorer

            Good questions all, Linus, to which Jack has given good answers.
            If I might add a Protestant perspective, once Augustine had committed himself to the proposition of, “No salvation outside the Church,” then the problem of what happens to unbaptised infants followed inexorably. That Limbo is not in the Bible, though, is not a problem for Catholics, any more than Purgatory is: it’s only a problem for us ‘sola scriptura’ Protestants.
            Protestants, as far as I know, either say that dead infants go to Heaven (using what David says in ‘2 Samuel’ , or they fall into the category of those

          • What’s this? Trying to get on his good side?

          • The Explorer

            ‘Romans’ 12: 18-21.

          • dannybhoy

            What happens to babies and children when they die? Well, we can be sure they don’t go to Hell. Why would a loving, righteous, holy and compassionate God do so?
            He has already shown that condemnation is not a part of His revealed nature, by making provision for our salvation.
            In fact I think we can safely say that no one gets into Hell unless they have so committed themselves to evil and the worship and indulgence of self that they are determined to go there.
            Heaven could accommodate all who have ever lived and all who will ever live. In fact I think God has a named place for all of us. If we don’t humble ourselves to claim our adoption as sons of God, it won’t be His fault.

          • Martin

            TE

            Actually I’d say we don’t know. God, however, is sovereign in such matters & may please Himself.

        • Royinsouthwest

          You don’t understand the doctrine of original sin. This world is not as it was meant to be and we are all creatures of that fallen environment.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Y es he’s calling for a boycott of D&G. what a shining example of tolerance and love he is!

      • Inspector General

        That’s one angry poof there alright. (Sorry poofs, but sometimes the word is accurately descriptive…)

        • Politically__Incorrect

          I’m waiting for gim to call them “homophobic bigots”. I believe that is the mandatory sentence for not supporting all things gay.

          • Inspector General

            They are gay themselves, but they have blasphemed. They will now be treated as if they never were…

          • William Lewis

            Mr Dolce said that creating children “must be an act of love”, adding: “You are born to a mother and a father – or at least that’s how it should be. I call children of chemistry, synthetic children. Uteri (for) rent, semen chosen from a catalogue.”

            This kind of heresy demands instant excommunication.

          • Inspector General

            Yes, it’s so divisive these days, and of course, hurtful, probably…

          • PN will be going ape sh*t over this.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Also, it’s interesting to look at the BBC sites coverage. They are trying to play down the SSM stuff and focus on D&G’s criticism of IVF instead.

    • Royinsouthwest

      The children are blameless and since children can be surprisingly resilient I think there is a good chance that they will turn out to be good, well-balanced citizens when they grow up.

      There are many single heterosexual people who would have liked to have children. Single women, provided they are not infertile, can always get pregnant the old-fashioned way if they are desperate enough and if they don’t want to try that method then, whether they are lesbians or not, the state will help them to get pregnant and will then help to pay for their offspring.

      In contrast a single man who would like children would normally have to find a woman who also wants children (either their own or adopted ones) and who wants him. Furthermore he would have to treat her well because if she stopped wanting him for almost any reason and the couple split up then the woman would almost certainly get custody of the children because in the case of heterosexual couples the state recognises that fathers and mothers are not completely interchangeable.

      Some fathers, such as those who are widowers, are single fathers and do a good job of bringing up their children. Even so, it is doubtful if a single man would be allowed to adopt children (except perhaps in the case of orphaned nieces or nephews) since it is far, far preferable for children to have a father and a mother.

      Nearly every single heterosexual man would accept this, If in normal circumstances it would be wrong for a single man to adopt children why should it be right for a pair of men just because they happen to be in a homosexual relationship?

      • Jeremy Poynton

        There’s a reason it takes a man and a woman to make another human being.

        • Royinsouthwest

          That is implicit throughout my comment!

          • Jeremy Poynton

            Indeed – just reinforcing what you wrote. We are of one mind on this.

    • It is Elton John who is synthetic, not the children.

      • CliveM

        Certainly his hair is……..

    • Grouchy Jack

      As predicted the tormented souls at the purgatorial PN are fuming. Lot’s of weeping and gnashing of teeth. Here’s a comment that represents the broad consensus:

      “OMG. What a pair of self-loathing morons! Don’t they realise their homophoba (sic) plays right into the hand of religious bigots? Do they not also see how financially damaging their comments will be? I can only think their target market, to whom they are obviously attempting to appeal, are over the age of seventy and regular church-goers. Hardly the ‘high-fashion’ set …. “

      Tee hee …. a kingdom divided against itself.

      • Miles Christianus

        I assume by the fact that Jack has not become “Thermonuclear Jack” that you didn’t hear Buzzfeed’s LGBTQWERTY bod on this morning’s R4 Today re the “internalised homophobia” expressed by D&G?

    • dannybhoy

      What I didn’t realise (not being a dedicated follower of fashion – see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qilm59WdIVs&index=5&list=PL5tArzwsT0aiSpqvfd8JXVC3fIT-DXsQk ) is that those chaps Dolce and Gabbana are also gay: but they are Catholics and hold a traditional view of marriage…

  • “I do not understand why some people are saying that women and men are exactly the same, and are denying the beautiful differences between men and women. All God’s gifts are good, but they are not all the same ….

    God has created each one of us, every human being, for greater things – to love and to be loved. But why did God make some of us men and others women? Because a woman’s love is one image of the love of God, and a man’s love is another image of God’s love. Both are created to love, but each in a different way. Woman and man complete each other, and together show forth God’s love more fully than either can do it alone.

    That special power of loving that belongs to a woman is seen most clearly when she becomes a mother. Motherhood is the gift of God to women. How grateful we must be to God for this wonderful gift that brings such joy to the whole world, women and men alike …

    God told us, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” So first I am to love myself rightly, and then to love my neighbor like that. But how can I love myself unless I accept myself as God has made me? Those who deny the beautiful differences between men and women are not accepting themselves as God has made them, and so cannot love the neighbor. They will only bring division, unhappiness, and destruction of peace to the world …

    We know that the best place for children to learn how to love and to pray is in the family, by seeing the love and prayer of their mother and father. When families are broken or disunited, many children grow up not knowing how to love and pray. A country where many families have been destroyed like this will have many problems. I have often seen, especially in the rich countries, how children turn to drugs or other things to escape feeling unloved and rejected.

    But when families are strong and united, children can see God’s special love in the love of their father and mother and can grow to make their country a loving and prayerful place. The child is God’s best gift to the family and needs both mother and father because each one shows God’s love in a special way. The family that prays together stays together, and if they stay together they will love one another as God has loved each one of them. And works of love are always works of peace.”
    (Mother Teresa of Calcutta)

  • “When God does not exist everything is permissible.”
    (Dostoyevsky)

    Here we go – the insanity of progressivism continues. Just when we thought we’d pinned down parental designations another development sends us back to the drawing board.

    Three homosexual men have “married” each other in Thailand in the world’s first three-way same-sex “marriage.” When a culture’s only standard for “marriage” is that the parties “love” each other, then all sorts of novel configurations are possible. Look for this to come soon to a country near you.

    Keep your cats indoors Inspector.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2972542/They-look-like-new-boy-band-s-world-s-THREE-WAY-sex-marriage-Gay-Thai-men-tie-knot-fairytale-ceremony.html

    Claims that redefining marriage would lead to polygamous marriage and other arrangements were ridiculed. Those who said so were labelled ‘homophobes’ and ‘bigots’ who ‘hate’. Read the comments. Here’s the spirit of our age captured by a Laura’s in her last sentence:

    “I’m all for gay marriage … but 3 people getting married to each other? I just don’t understand how that can possibly work. And how you could love two people equally as passionately as you would if you were to marry one person. If it works for them and they’re happy then fair enough but [it’s] all very bizarre!”

    • The horse is next!
      It makes a mockery out of marriage.

      • The Explorer

        Old-style Western: the cowboy loves his horse.
        New-style Western: he marries it.

  • petej

    Well first of all I think all mothers would say they are parent A not parent B!!!

    Secondly politicians have not created messy families…human life is messy.

    Your point is basically that to be brought up well a child needs a mum and dad. Apart from being incredibly unfair to many tens of thousands of single parents who give their all to their children, this applies to half the government who were largely brought up by male teachers at boarding school.

    For many the choice is often not between a traditional family and a non-traditional family, but between a non-traditional family and no family at all. There are thousands of kids in care who would have much better life chances even with one parent.

    I would also like to point out, as im sure you haven’t forgotten, Jesus had a family that you probably wouldn’t approve of.

  • Martin

    So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

    (Genesis 1:27 [ESV]

    And those who would be gods in our own day wish to make them gender free. No longer is it the coming together of that which is different but complementary but anything goes.

    No longer is it a sexual union but an expression of freedom, just a satisfying of desire & lust

    No longer does love matter, for love does not allow the loved to be harmed.

  • Charles Cottam

    The levity of this article is appropriate but when will someone speak for the real, deep anger I and others feel that our good and cherished traditions are being recklessly and irresponsibly being abolished?