Turing Cranmer
Civil Liberties

If we can 'pardon' past convictions for gross indecency, why not heresy?

 

The Royal Pardon is usually reserved for those who, having once been convicted of a criminal act, are subsequently discovered to have been innocent of the offence and so granted the Monarch’s prerogative of Grace and Mercy in the remission of any retributive sentence, with all stain and shame upon their name and reputation being thereby expunged from all official records. It usually follows a request by a family member, and may be granted posthumously.

In the case of Alan Turing, the Royal Pardon was granted in 2013 despite his conviction for gross indecency with an under-age boy being sound and in accordance with the law as it stood in 1952. Turing was guilty not only of engaging in homosexual acts, but of what we now term paedophilia (though technically hebephilia). The age of consent in 1952 was 21: his lover was only 19. But, having applied postmodern perspectives of moral relativism to the criminal justice system, it was only a matter of time before Parliament would be lobbied to wipe clean the historic criminal records of the 49,000 other men who were ever convicted of committing acts of gross indecency with other men. It is, after all, profoundly unjust to single out Alan Turing for a Royal Pardon simply because he became something of a code-breaking national hero: what of all the ordinary men who were in consensual relationships with other men? Are only genius mathematicians worthy to receive the Queen’s Grace and Mercy?

Not according to Ed Miliband, who has jumped on the merrily-rolling gay-pardoning bandwagon and decreed that the next Labour government will extend the Royal Pardon granted in to Alan Turing to all those who were convicted of homosexuality, irrespective of the contemporary severity of their crime. If it be legal now, it will be declared legal then – all the way back to the Labouchere Amendment to the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, which omitted to define ‘gross indecency’. Since morality develops custom, and ethical perspectives evolve with societal evolution, that which was once illegal and indecent may, by act of Parliament, be made lawful if not decent. It is not quite a re-writing of the history of decadence and degeneracy (Miliband’s proposed expansion – to be known as ‘Turing’s Law’ – falls a little short of the full pardon granted to Turing himself: convictions will be treated as ‘spent’ and so disregarded), but the principle of retroactively permitting that which was once prohibited raises all sorts of legal ethical and moral philosophical complexities.

On 24th October 2012, Labour MP Tom Watson dropped something of a bombshell during PMQs (HERE at 27.00). While MPs were fretting about GDP, growth, fuel tariffs and the West Coast Mainline, a question was hurled into the Commons Chamber about a paedophile network with links to Downing Street and a former prime minister. Mr Watson told a stunned House of Commons:

“The evidence used to convict paedophile Peter Righton, if it still exists, contains clear intelligence of a widespread paedophile ring. One of its members boasts of his links to a senior aide of a former prime minister who says he could smuggle indecent images of children from abroad. The leads were not followed up, but if the file still exists I want to ensure that the Metropolitan Police secure the evidence, re-examine it and investigate clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No10.”

The Prime Minister responded that this is “a very difficult and complex case”, and added that he was “not entirely sure which former prime minister he is referring to”.

The vacuum of unknown unknowns has since been filled by endless column inches of tawdry gossip. Former Conservative minister Edwina Currie went on to claim that Sir Peter Morrison, PPS to Margaret Thatcher, had sex with 16-year-old boys (when the age of homosexual consent was 21). This may, of course, be true, but it is easy to disparage and defame the dead.

But, in light of  Labour’s new-found moral crusade to right past wrongs relating to sexual morality, there is a problem with Tom Watson’s allegation (and the ongoing police investigation). If we are now to view all of modern history through the postmodern prism of social liberalism, we must surely legislate to amend the statutory provisions relating to paedophilia and decriminalise it retrospectively, thereby rehabilitating all those who were disobeying the law at the time. If the state determines to permit that which it once prohibited in respect of same-sex relations, then contemporary permission must negate and nullify the historic prohibition of paedophilia (or, strictly, hebephilia).

Now that the age of homosexual consent has been equalised at 16, Mr Watson’s allegation of a paedophile ring “leading to No10” is rendered otiose. Certainly, if Peter Righton and Sir Peter Morrison were having sex with 16-year-old boys when the age of homosexual consent was 21, according to Parliament they are no longer a paedophiles.

Indeed, if one were to take an EU-wide perspective on this (being a ‘single legal area’), Tom Watson’s allegations would not stand up to scrutiny in a political union where the age of consent begins in some member states at 12 or 13. There is no agreed EU (or wider European) definition of what constitutes pederasty. And if the mystery prime minister to whom Tom Watson referred were having sex consensually with underage boys (or girls) in (say) the 1970s, the present Prime Minister has absolved his predecessor by redefining both ‘paedo’ and ‘consensual’. If past crimes against children would no longer show on a CRB/DBS certificate, no crime was ever committed.

Accordingly, if the age of consent were to be lowered at some point in the future (as it most assuredly will be), to 15 or even 14 (if only to harmonise with EU ‘ever closer union’), the legal precedent has been set for retrospective absolution. Just as yesterday’s gays can look forward to the effective pardoning of their convictions for ‘gross indecency’, today’s paedophiles can look forward to the eradication of their criminal records, and an assurance that they will not be condemned to the life-long shame of ever having to declare that they were once convicted of under-age sex. They thereby become ‘fit and proper’ people to work with children.

But let us go further. If, in the enlightened perspectives of tolerance, equality and sexual anti-discrimination, Parliament sees fit to ‘pardon’ those who were once found guilty of gross indecency, why, in the enlightened perspectives of theological ecumenism, spiritual sophistication and religious anti-discrimination, will they not pardon those who were once convicted and executed for heresy? Not enough votes in it?

  • The Explorer

    I had to look up hebephilia, and discovered in the process that there is also ephebophilia. And presumably yet another term for someone on the cusp of these two conditions? And just when I thought I was getting my head round the fifty-two genders Happy Jack is always talking about…

    • magnolia

      Hebephilia is a way of excusing adult men who should know better imposing themselves on older teenagers. Most of these men are sexually obsessed and cannot see their pestering loutish behaviour that relies on the respect that older people generally get from younger as anything other than proper. Little is done to protect the male from 16 upwards against predatory and promiscuous money waving treat-giving, threat-making advances, often with drugs and alcohol as the lure.

      It is a complete and utter immoral shambles, with many destroyed people overlooked. Many of our ancestors would look upon Britain these days with moral disdain, and I fear they are right.

      • Guglielmo Marinaro

        Why do you specify the male particularly? Is it all right if females are subjected to such behaviour? Little has been done to protect the female from TWELVE upwards against predatory and promiscuous money waving treat-giving, threat-making advances, often with drugs and alcohol as the lure. Oxford, Rochdale, Rotherham, God only knows where else…

        • magnolia

          No very much not, and Rochdale is an absolute crying disgrace. I am equally appalled by such cases. I like men, but it does seem to me that male sexuality has a dangerous element, (as female authors like the Brontes quite eloquently testify), and that they and society are much happier and better off when it is a force that is very strongly encouraged to stick within useful and healthful boundaries and not use, cajole, emotionally blackmail or predate upon the much younger. Part of the trouble is that people need not only to respect “no” as an answer, but look for a “yes” that is thoroughly from the will, and not a cajoled and bullied “yes” with a short term carrot before and an instrument of torture behind.

          • And that, Magnolia, is why God decreed that marriage is the only correct state for the expression of sexual desire. It actually protects girls, boys and women from the morally disordered sexual drives of promiscuous men.

      • DanJ0

        Presumably, you mean ephebophilia rather than hebephilia. I make the same assumption about hebephilia in the article too. But anyway. There’s an odd phenomenon I’ve noticed where homosexuals when they reach about 40 and if they have looked after themselves physically seem to become very attractive to homosexuals in their late teens and early 20s. I think something similar happens with young women and heterosexual men when they reach about 40. In each case, they practically throw themselves at the older men whether or not the older man is interested. And, let’s face it, young people may well be at their physical peak at that age but, heck, aren’t they uninteresting socially and intellectually to the point of tedium?! Perhaps that’s why some older blokes do their stuff and sod off sharpish?

    • IanCad

      Got me scratching my head as well. I have to admit my first thought was that it was descriptive of those gentry who have a penchant for young, underage Jewish boys.

  • Quite right Your Grace, as I was saying on Twitter only yesterday. And I can’t help but notice that the BBC today are constantly referring to Harvey proctor having being convicted of gross indecency in 1987; yes, but yesterday the BBC were cheerleading for men like him to be pardoned.

    And more, I think most of us think cannabis will eventually be legalised int he UK; so should we all start ignoring the law today? In court, will arguing that today’s law and morality is inferior see you get a lesser sentence, or greater? Why does Miliband think so little of today’s voters, suggesting the arrow of history will inevitably produce wiser and more just electorates in future?

    • Johnny Rottenborough

      Hello Frank.

    • Barry Guevara

      Good old Frank. Reliably hating gays.

      • Good grief. So wanting the rule of law to stand = hating gays? Moron.

        • Barry Guevara

          I’ve seen you on Twitter, sweetheart. Gay people must thank their lucky stars that Frank F. doesn’t want it banned.

          • If you have a point to make, make it. Did you read Cranmer’s article above?

          • Barry Guevara

            Yes. It’s vigorously homophobic.

          • You think so? In what ways?

          • Barry Guevara

            The conflation, albeit tacit, of homosexuality and paedophilia is fairly unpleasant. And it seems to, slightly nastily, want people’s reputations dragged through the mud even in death.

          • The conflation of homosexuality and paedophilia was a simple matter of fact in law of the past, and if people want to be pardoned, they must expect the situation to be re-examined. Myself I think the rule of law should stand, and I think the people best placed to judge the rightness of a law are the people of that time.

            Who do you think is best placed to make our laws today?

          • Barry Guevara

            You think the Nuremberg Laws in Germany should be respected, do you? Or that they were immoral then and are immoral now?

          • That’s a matter for the German people, not me. Why don’t we stick to the matter in hand? Do you think our laws today should be made by us, or people in 50 years?

          • Barry Guevara

            I think the laws were immoral then and are immoral now.

          • That isn’t what I asked you – do you think the people of today are fit to make laws of today? Or do you think we should accept that the people 50 years down the line should decide?

          • Barry Guevara

            I think some of our laws NOW are immoral.

          • So we can all ignore any law we think might be changed? Tell me, in a Muslim-majority UK of 2100, do you think homosexuality will be legal?

          • Barry Guevara

            This is self-evidently babble from the hospital bed. Perhaps you dislike the idea that the law doesn’t absolve you of being a moral actor right now.

          • Do you think it would be morally just for anyone who sincerely thinks homosexuality will eventually be criminalised in the UK to stone you to death?

          • Barry Guevara

            They’re welcome to try.

          • But don’t you think it’s their right, if the current law is mutable according to whims of various eras?

          • Barry Guevara

            People at the time knew that slavery was immoral. They said so and were pilloried for it. You’re in the same camp with the people who pilloried them.

          • I am? Why?

            Look, you want law rewritten to suit any old vague fashionable shit that interests the media at some point in the future, possibly resulting in pardons for the guilty, posthumous convictions for the innocent. me, I’m backing democracy and the rule of the law – and you think you’re the good guy don’t you? You’re not. You’re an ignorant, shallow, dangerous prick. Enjoy.

          • Inspector General

            Well, that’s his victimhood requirement topped up for today then. As the rough fellows at one’s regular, the ‘Mouse and Wheel’ would put it. “Let’s hope he’ll piss off now”

          • The Explorer

            Looks like it’s worked. He’s gone.

          • Barry Guevara

            Banning slavery was ‘fashionable shit’?

          • magnolia

            You don’t seem to understand just who are today’s equivalent of the slaves. Not your affluent pink pounded guy in the Savile Row suit looking to share in widows’ pension rights, and buy women’s wombs to create bi-fathered and mother-deprived children.

            The equivalent of the slaves is the “spring chickens” that the homosexual paedophile sex tourists expects to be served up. That is partly why there was so much annoyance with Putin around the Winter Olympics as several paedo rings were severely hacked off that he protected Russian children with some strong laws.

            You need to fight for the genuinely pilloried and those boys who reportedly went to sleep on pillows wet with tears in the childrens’ homes after being taken out of the dorms at night and abused.

            Hear their genuine tears, and not the self-indulgent ones of the affluent and sleek. You fight the wrong fight.

          • The Explorer

            Rash answer with the Inspector around.

          • Inspector General

            How dare you, sir!

          • Politically__Incorrect

            Good point. Laws reflect a perceived morality of the time. We also presume that all our current views on morality reflect “progress”. That is not always the case

          • Busy Mum

            Posthumous punishment?Presumably, if all these 49000 pardons go through, the next step will be to demand retrospective punishment for the more than 49000 people who must have been responsible for what is now deemed a huge miscarriage of justice.

  • Martin

    To talk about moral relativism is a misnomer. Once you abandon the morality based on God’s moral law you abandon morality for opinion. And, of course, opinion can change with the wind.

    Our society has abandoned morality and is sliding down the slope to Hell depicted by Paul in Romans 1. Only the mercy of God can stop that slide.

    And, of course, the Crown Prosecution Service has decreed that it is the arbiter of what is a crime worth prosecuting and what is not.

    • Guglielmo Marinaro

      I think that what is under discussion here is what the legal position is or ought to be, not people’s private religious beliefs.

      • Martin

        GM

        The legal position has no value unless it is based on what God has said. And that is clearly seen in the failure of the CPS to uphold the law.

        But then morality is a religious position, since morality requires an authority. The state have abandoned morality for opinion no longer has a guide on what is right and what is wrong.

        Nor are religious beliefs ever private. You wish to impose your religious beliefs on me, a position which I reject because I know mine are right, a knowledge that you share.

        • Guglielmo Marinaro

          “The legal position has no value unless it is based on what God has said.”

          Thank you for that one. I must remember it for future use: if I ever get done for illegal parking, for example.

          Morality is not per se a religious position, and I say that as someone who himself practises a religion. Right and wrong would still be right and wrong if there were no such thing as religion. I don’t know who it that is trying to impose their religious beliefs on you, but it certainly isn’t me. Nor do I share the “knowledge” that your religious beliefs, whatever they are, are right.

          • Martin

            GM

            Parking is not a moral act as such.

            Right & wrong is dependent upon what God says is right & wrong, nothing more.

            That you know God exists makes it inevitable that you also know that God is the sole arbiter of what is right & wrong.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            No, parking is not a moral act as such, but what is under discussion here is the legal situation, not moral acts as such, nor people’s religious beliefs about moral acts.

            Right and wrong are not dependent on divine decree; to say that they are, that God makes things right by commanding them and wrong by forbidding them, is to empty the concepts of any real meaning.

          • Martin

            GM

            Morality is very much under discussion here and right and wrong depend on God’s command. That is the only real meaning, all else is just opinion.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            If right and wrong depend on God’s command, then they have no objective meaning. If right means nothing more than what God has commanded (assuming that we know exactly what it is that God has commanded, but that is another question which we can leave aside for the moment), why we should we pay the slightest attention to it?

          • Martin

            GM

            You have it precisely wrong. Right & wrong have no objective meaning outside of their being dependant upon God. For you they are just a matter of opinion, with no appeal to morality.

            As for knowing what God has commanded, it is clear that He has created us with that knowledge.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            What you are saying in effect is that “What God commands is right” means simply “What God commands is what God commands”, a mere tautology which empties the term “right” of any objective meaning. Thus “right” and “wrong” become merely ways of labelling God’s arbitrary whims: theft, murder, adultery, lying etc. would just be things that God has decided he doesn’t like. They’d be perfectly OK if God had decided that he did like them and had given them the go-ahead.

          • Martin

            GM

            God, by definition is the source of all that is good. That’s all there is to it. You can wriggle all you like but it remains so.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Martin

            If that means that right and wrong depend on God’s arbitrary decree, then to say that God is good ceases to be a significant statement. You can wriggle all you like but it remains so.

          • Martin

            GM

            Since God created all things He gets to say what is right & wrong, good & bad. Even your notion of good comes from God.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            God SAYING what is right or wrong, good or bad, is one thing, but for those terms to have any objective meaning the concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, must logically be independent of God’s decrees. If they depended on God’s DECISION, then they would become simply terms indicating what an entity called God has decided he wants and doesn’t want. Hating our neighbour, stealing, murder, adultery, rape, torture, sexual abuse of children, bearing false witness etc. – God could make all these things “right” by commanding them: they would be “right” by definition, and not doing them would be “wrong”.

          • Martin

            GM

            Everything is dependant upon God’s decree. Indeed, nothing would exist without God decreeing it. That is objective fact.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            If good and evil, right and wrong, depend on God’s decree, then to say that God is good is a mere tautology. I’m sorry if you can’t grasp that.

          • Martin

            GM

            It’s very simple, all things depend upon God. Obedience to God is good, disobedience is bad. That’s the way it is.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            If good has no independent meaning but is simply whatever God chooses, there is no particular reason to obey God’s commands, whatever they are, other than personal preference.

          • Martin

            GM

            The particular reason to obey God’s commands is that He created you and therefore gave you all you have. At the very least, gratitude should cause you to seek to obey.

            And, of course, the very nature of God is good so to reject what He says is, by definition, bad.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Martin

            Any obligation to do what anyone else tells you must be contingent on the rightness of what they are telling you to do. That you are acceding to their wishes out of gratitude does not guarantee that you are right to do what they want. People have been known, purely out of gratitude, to obey instructions to do some very wrong things.

            Not that God would ever command anyone to do anything that wasn’t right. Of course not. But if God commands people to do things, it is always because those things are right in and of themselves. God does not make them right by commanding them, nor does he make other things wrong by forbidding them. Murder, for example, is wrong. God has not made it wrong by forbidding it. It is wrong no matter what, and would still be wrong if there were no God to forbid it, as any decent atheist will tell you.

            You rightly say that “the very nature of God is good”. But if “good” simply means “whatever God decides to be”, the statement is reduced to a meaningless tautology.

            Here’s a question for you, Martin. Do you think it possible that God might be having you on?

          • Martin

            Since God is our maker, He owns us & what He commands is right. Indeed, He is the source of all that is right. God has made those things He commands right by commanding them, that’s the way it is.

            And no, I don’t think God is having me on.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Martin

            You don’t think God is having you on. But you can’t be sure of that, can you? Not even morally sure, I mean. Not on the basis of how you have defined right and wrong. On that basis, it’s impossible with any logical consistency to argue that God would never do a wrong thing like that, because that argument would be self-contradictory and meaningless, wouldn’t it? You have made it clear that what is right and what is wrong is purely an arbitrary decision of God’s: in your own words, “God has made those things He commands right by commanding them.” So if God decided that he wanted to have you on, it would be right by definition for him to do so; the very fact that he was doing it would make it unquestionably right. As you so tersely put it, that’s the way it is.

          • Martin

            GM

            Yes, I can be sure of that. Not of course that you are capable of understanding that.

            Where do you think your concept of right and wrong, such that it is, comes from?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Martin

            If you start from the premiss that right and wrong are determined by God’s arbitrary choice, then he could decide that having you on is right, and his decision would make it right. Therefore no argument based on God’s “goodness” can give you any assurance that he isn’t. Even the late C.S. Lewis, an inveterate defender of the indefensible, saw that the idea that things are made right or wrong by God’s decree won’t work:

            “Things are not good because God commands them; God commands certain things because he sees them to be good. … If ‘good’ means ‘what God wills’ then to say ‘God is good’ can mean only ‘God wills what he wills.’ Which is equally true of you or me or Judas or Satan.”

            I agree with the late Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll) in accepting

            “the Proposition that the ideas of Right and Wrong rest on eternal and self-existent principles, and not on the arbitrary will of any being whatever… that God wills a thing because it is right and not that a thing is right because God wills it.”

            That, of course, is not an idiosyncrasy of Dodgson’s, but is a commonplace among sound theologians.

          • Martin

            GM

            God is the source of all that is good, despite what some CoE cleric might say. The CoE is not known for many godly men, there are a few but Dogson isn’t among them. And I’m afraid C. S. Lewis isn’t one of Christianity’s greatest thinkers.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Although C.S. Lewis was very good when speaking and writing about everyday life and common sense, I have never rated him highly as an apologist for the Christian religion. He rightly perceived, however, as do most intelligent and intellectually coherent people, that the notion that divine command is what makes things right and divine prohibition is what makes things wrong wouldn’t fly. But I agree with you that Lewis wasn’t one of Christianity’s greatest thinkers.

            On the other hand, Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) certainly was, although most of his work was in quite other fields than theology. As for Dodgson being a godly man, despite wild and far-fetched speculation, particularly during the second half of the last century, there is no substantial reason to suppose that he was anything else.

          • Martin

            GM

            Neither Lewis nor Dodgson were particularly great thinkers & I’m not aware that the latter ever showed an indication of being a Christian.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Opinions will differ, but I would say that Dodgson was definitely a great thinker. He was also both a good man and a good Christian, as is shown both by his letters and by the testimony of those who knew him, and his Christian faith was extremely important to him throughout his life.

          • Martin

            GM

            However great a thinker a man is, however good, they are no match for God. And Jesus said that no man is good. I’ll grant I know little of Dodgson, but if he was a great Christian I’d know more of him, as I do of other men of his time.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Martin

            Dodgson was a man who had little taste for self-advertisement (unlike some others, who possess it in a highly developed form). That is doubtless the reason why most of his published work – not only his famous “Alice in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking Glass”, but also his poetry and his papers on mathematics, logic, social questions, theology etc. – was published under the pseudonym “Lewis Carroll”. Being not only a sincere Christian, but also a clear and logical thinker, he saw that the theory that right and wrong depend on the decrees of any being, even a divine one, empties those terms of any objective meaning.

          • Martin

            GM

            Dodgson was reportedly a minister of the gospel. Since there appears to be nothing known of his preaching I doubt that he was of a standard to be noted.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Dodgson, although he was a deacon of the Church of England, didn’t do a great deal of preaching, as he suffered from a speech defect. His main work was as a mathematician at Oxford University.

            But that is by the way. He was undoubtedly right on this point, as are other sound theologians.

        • Kara Connor

          So you support Sharia Law. How very un-American of you.

          • Martin

            Kara

            Sharia law has nothing to do with God, it is the invention of man. And in any case, I am not an American.

          • Kara Connor

            Of course. All the other religions are made up and wrong, but somehow yours is the one unquestionably true one.

          • Martin

            Kara

            If the other ‘religions’ were true I’d follow them.

            In any case, all false religions require the follower to do something to improve themselves. Christianity changes the sinner.

          • Kara Connor

            Which sect of Christianity is the true one? RC, CofE, Baptist, 7 Day Adventist? How do you know yours is the true one? What amazing good luck that you managed to filter out all the fake ones. I’d be fascinated to see why you think the others are wrong.

          • Martin

            Kara

            True Christianity is that which follows the Bible, whose followers are changed, born again.

  • CliveM

    Why not a blanket pardon for all past convictions. I sure we could come up with some spurious reasoning (poverty. Unrepresentative Jury’s, poor quality of investigations etc.)
    Let’s just go for it and save time and hassle.

    I particularly feel speeding convictions should be included.

    • In the future we shall all have personal jetpacks capable of supersonic speeds, so it really is a nonsense to nick people today for doing 110 on a perfectly empty motorway.

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    Now that the age of homosexual consent has been equalised at 16, Mr Watson’s allegation of a paedophile ring ‘leading to No10’ is rendered otiose

    Up to a point, Lord Copper. One of the victims of ‘Uncle Leon’ alleges ‘that Lord Brittan attacked him from the age of 11’ and that ‘he witnessed other boys, all aged under 14, being abused as well.’ Uncle Leon is described as being ‘as close to evil as a human being could get’.

  • Barry Guevara

    Did you really just link paedophilia with homosexuality?

    • magnolia

      By percentage, that is , for those that would fudge the figures the number of paedophiles per 100 people in any community, the active homosexual and bisexual male community comes out absolutely at the top for paedophilia as compared to the male heterosexual community, the female homosexual community, and the female heterosexual community.

      The day we stop being able to state that clearly and unequivocally is the day free speech dies, Orwellian newspeak has taken over, and the day we no longer care about justice to the most vulnerable in our society, who are not adult male gays or bisexuals, however much noise they might care to make, but children, who indeed have far less of a voice.

      • Barry Guevara

        And I’m supposed to take your word for it?

      • Anton

        Please would you define “homosexual” (distinguishing between one partner above and below the age of puberty) and “paedophile” and cite evidence that they are correlated statistically? I am not contending with you but urgently requesting clarification of these important (and hotly contended) points.

        • magnolia

          Well, let us put it this way:
          All heterosexual abuse of boys is done by women, and is a tiny %. All homosexual abuse of boys is done by men and bisexuals, and is a significant %.

          The maths is clear, and can be done several ways around. The police figures are fairly easily obtainable.

          Unfortunately male abuse of boys is also more likely to include sadistic elements as well, but this should not surprise anyone who has seen gay adverts, where “SM” is frequently posted as an element.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            “All homosexual abuse of boys is done by men and bisexuals, and is a significant %.”

            Same-sex abuse of boys can be and sometimes is done by men who are homosexual in the ordinary, everyday sense, but usually it is not. When the perpetrators are investigated, they are far more often found to be sexually interested only in children – and not a few of them are found to have also sexually abused girls – or to be men living a conventional heterosexual lifestyle vis-à-vis adults.

            For example, the UK Home Office report “Sex Offending Against Children: Understanding The Risk” (1998) notes that the sex of the children targeted by abusers “does not appear to reflect, however, sexual orientation towards adults”, and that “Marshall et al. (1988) found, for example, that even in a group of men who had offended exclusively against boys aged five to 10, two thirds had adult heterosexual preferences.” (p. 18) The Home Office report does not say what the adult sexual preferences of the remaining third were, or even whether they had any adult sexual preference at all, but cites on the following page a 1991 paper on child molesters by the same research team, which refers to “the FEW [emphasis added] who engaged in homosexual behaviour with adults.”

          • Inspector General

            This is the kind of guff you’ll find on Pink News. What will happen there is that the inmates will be virtually slapping Gug on the back for proving without doubt in his own words that boy child abuse “is done by men who are homosexual in the ordinary, everyday sense, but usually it is not.”

            In case it hasn’t registered yet Gug, sex abuse of boys is committed by men who have a sexual interest in male children. We know these people as homosexuals. That you wish to reserve the word only for non paedophilic examples is really stretching reality, even in your world.

            So it should come as no surprise that the militants want time to run backwards and apply todays law to yesteryear. Pardons aplenty if need be.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Yes, sexual abuse of boys is committed mostly by men who have a sexual interest in male children. (I say “mostly” because there are, in fact, some women who do it too.) You can make a case on linguistic grounds for calling the men homosexual (just as you can for calling the women heterosexual, and for calling men with a sexual interest in young girls heterosexual). You can make an equally good linguistic case for calling men who have a sexual interest in other men homosexual; it was, indeed, to describe those men that the word was originally coined. But the two groups of homosexual men are not, by and large, the same people. That is a fact of life.

            If I am told that Mr S is “heterosexual” or “straight”, I do not take that as implying that he has a sexual interest in female children (and I don’t believe that most other people will either). He may have, of course, but the statistical likelihood is that he hasn’t. Mutatis mutandis, exactly the same applies if I’m told that Mr G is “homosexual” or “gay”. If a man sexually abuses a girl, the problem is the abuse, not the “heterosexuality” of it. Likewise, if a man sexually abuses a boy, the problem is the abuse, not the “homosexuality” of it.

          • Inspector General

            Oh no. You’re not getting away with that one. Two degrees of state of homosexuality, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is NOT acceptable. There is no way this man is going to let you run loose on this site unopposed with that sociology rot. You take responsibility for it all, otherwise you are hereby defeated, and you may as well sign off.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I see. So, using exactly the same logic, two degrees of state of heterosexuality, ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is NOT acceptable. You can’t legitimately differentiate between ordinary, “common-or-garden” heterosexual men and men who sexually abuse little girls. They’re all just heterosexuals. I have got it right, haven’t I?

          • magnolia

            Sorry but after Peter Righton I trust my own observations more than such statistics, The home office has a far from clean record, and a PIE officer was even running the PIE from there at one stage. It is certainly not what those who are working with adults abused in childhood report, nor what has happened in parts of the church, nor what I have seen in schools, nor what I have seen myself to be happening. I did say homosexual or bisexual, which would cover those who hide behind a “wife”, or those who were heterosexual but have changed preference.

            If anything the homosexual side of things is under-reported and covered-up more. Many people were astonished at how few boys were reportedly abused by Savile when it was what he was apparently most known for in some circles. He has gone down as largely heterosexual, which is a bad joke.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Well, if we are going to go solely by our own personal experience, which is limited just like everyone else’s, then I have to say that my own, such as it is, bears out what I have said above. The two most prolific male sexual offenders against boys whom I have ever known were both married (in the traditional, heterosexual sense) with children of their own. I was for quite some years a teacher (I escaped from that profession comparatively recently), and during that time a number of male colleagues were sacked and in most cases prosecuted after being discovered to have sexually “interfered”, as it was put, with boys, and I also knew of other local men who were prosecuted for offences of this kind. Although a regular on the gay scene, I never encountered those people there.

            If the late Jimmy Savile has “gone down as largely heterosexual”, it is because 90% of his victims were female. If you have factual information to the contrary, perhaps you could be more specific about it – for instance, in which circles was he most known for abusing boys? – and disclose how you came by it.

            I would add that the Home Office Report is but one source of information on this point. Other researchers have come to similar conclusions. For example, Dr A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the study of child sexual abuse, concluded that “The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation.”

          • magnolia

            A man who abuses a boy is either bisexual or homosexual. It is messing with semantics to suggest otherwise. If you seriously think you can suggest that a married man messing around with the sexual organs of a boy can be termed exclusively heterosexual then we are not talking the same language. If we are not talking the same language there is no further point.

            There may be people trying to skew the statistics. It really doesn’t surprise me. There was a massive intersect between CHE and PIE which is exceptionally well documented in their own literature, as the one ran adverts for the escapades of the other. The abuse of minors has always been a striking facet of a substantial – though clearly not entire- subsect of the gay scene. It is safe only to mention the dead, but let us mention Boothby, Burgess, the Krays, Driberg and Cyril Smith for a start.

            Yuk, what a revolting collection! Time for a bath.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            You can say that a man who sexually abuses a boy is either homosexual or bisexual, on the ground that what he is doing is “same sex”. Similarly, you can say that a man who sexually abuses a girl is either heterosexual or bisexual, on the ground that what he is doing is “different sex”. It is NOT legitimate or honest, however, to say that the former is in the same category as a man who is in a consensual sexual relationship with another man, any more than it is to say that the latter is in the same category as a man who is in a consensual sexual relationship with a woman.

            I have not suggested that “a married man messing around with the sexual organs of a boy can be termed exclusively heterosexual”. What I have said is that men who sexually molest BOYS are not infrequently men whose sexual attractions and behaviour with regard to ADULTS are heterosexual; if you want to use precise technical language, they are at the same time heterosexual teleiophiles (teleiophilia = sexual attraction to adults) and homosexual paedophiles. They are not as a rule men who have sexual relationships with other men. I’m not claiming that they never are, but most usually they are not.

            It is true that at one period in the distant past PIE tried to hi-jack the gay rights movement, and with a certain amount of temporary success. They also managed to gain the support of some equally misguided heterosexual people. But in the end they got nowhere, and they certainly won’t succeed if they try again.

          • magnolia

            a) Cut and paste has striking limitations. Not just because using someone else’s words without quotation marks or any other acknowledgement from yourself is bad form, and suggests incapacity to use one’s own words adequately. But also in this case because you have numbered the living amongst the dead.

            b) Your attempt to twist semantics is sadly behaviour that has been encouraged but is going nowhere.

            c) Enough boys in boarding schools, care homes, scout camps, church charities for young people (think Chichester), have been abused by homosexual men under whose “care” they were for parents to have a wholly justified desire that gay men should never be put in charge of the sleeping arrangements of young or vulnerable men, just as heterosexual or bisexual men are never put in charge of girls. There is an equivalence which some want ignored. So much for “equality”. These equivocations are more like propaganda. There is a “Children’s Act” which states that the interests of the child must be paramount. And that entails realistic guarding of people from temptation, not pretending that some would never be tempted, which no heterosexual man would get away with when it came to young girls.

            There has to be equality of not being put within the bounds of temptation, and bisexual men- or women- should not be in charge of either gender’s sleeping arrangements in these circumstances.

            And anyone who flouts these guidelines should be in trouble with the law.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I have used your own words, magnolia, in order to show up the argument in your last paragraph as the piece of special pleading that it is, which I have succeeded in doing effectively.

            I would just like to say this. We now have enough information and experience concerning the sexual abuse of boys in boarding schools, care homes, scout camps etc. for most intelligent people to realise that the vital question when deciding whether a man is safe (in a sexual sense) to be in charge of boys is not “Is he heterosexual / homosexual / bisexual?” but a rather different one: “Is he an actual or potential paedophile?” The latter question is, unfortunately, seldom an easy one to answer with any assurance. Enough boys have been sexually abused by men living a heterosexual lifestyle to whose care they have been entrusted to show that knowing the man’s sexual orientation or sexual lifestyle will not provide the answer. Most people who are placed in such a position of trust never betray that trust, no matter what their sexual orientation, and it is cause for great sadness when anyone does. However, there is, I’m afraid, simply no means of ensuring that that never happens, although obviously the usual careful vetting procedures (CRB disclosure etc.) should always be followed. Any notion that one can weed out potential sexual predators on the basis of whether they are heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual is dangerously naïve.

            I speak as one who has spent quite some years working with children, and that includes experience as a teacher in more than one boys’ boarding school.

          • magnolia

            Yes, most people in a position of trust never abuse that trust, though for some they do and are never caught. Most heterosexual men hypothetically asked to look after a girls’ dormitory would not betray the trust either, nor women asked to look after a boys’ dormitory. But they never are, and for good reason. For equally good reason homosexual or bi-sexual men should equally never be asked to look after boarding houses. Partly for their own peace of mind and safety from accusation, just as it is for straight men and women.

            Or are we saying that straight men should be able to look after girls’ dorms on the basis that their orientation is only towards adult women? And any attempt to weed them out was “dangerously naive”? Never happens, does it?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I understand your reasoning, but I don’t see how it can be applied usefully or effectively in practice. Countless gay men have done excellent jobs working with boys in positions of pastoral responsibility, without ever betraying their trust or being in danger of doing so. And how do you discover the sexual orientation of men whom you are considering for these positions? Interrogate them? How do you know that you will get truthful answers to your questions? A paedophile seeking such a position with the deliberate intention of abusing it will simply give you whatever answers he thinks will satisfy you. In the case of men whose “lifestyle” indicates with reasonable certainty that they are heterosexual, that is far from being a guarantee that they will not betray their trust in this way, as I know from my own experience and observation. If you automatically filter out anyone whom you know or believe to be homosexual, you will end up rejecting many perfectly safe candidates, while some highly dangerous ones will slip handsomely through the net.

          • magnolia

            You make some fair and reasonable points. And you are right that the solutions are not easy ones. I had no idea Bp. Peter Ball for e.g. was a bad guy in this respect, and sadly he was. The church’s naivety and mismanagement as Chichester diocese became something of a haven for a small group of paedophiles was awful beyond awful..

            Yes, dangerous candidates will slip through the net by saying or guessing and giving the right answers, being crowd-pleasers, even given the psychometric testing that people like the foreign office give. However we must do all we can, just because the betrayal of trust is so awful.

    • Inspector General

      How about Homosexuality_Public Toilets then….

      • Barry Guevara

        Are you just a homophobe or a Christian homophobe?

        • Inspector General

          That’s better, isn’t it. Throwing the ‘H’ word around. Now, let’s have a go with bigot next. You put your lips together, and out it comes with ferocity…

          • Barry Guevara

            I’m a straight, white, male Christian.

          • Inspector General

            Come on then. I’ll buy it. What are you about?

          • Barry Guevara

            Tolerance.

          • Inspector General

            Ah, we’re getting somewhere. See? All you have to do is to put the knife away and start explaining yourself and the point you wish to make.

          • Barry Guevara

            You follow a Christ who would never recognise way you preach.

          • Inspector General

            Christ had plenty of time for lepers, and no doubt homosexuals if they were around then. But it would have been platonic. Savvy?

          • Barry Guevara

            Depends. Do you think the Bible is inerrant?

          • Inspector General

            Anyway, back to your intolerance. Is their anything else in this world that irks you. Global warming, the price of fish, having to die, cold weather…

          • Barry Guevara

            Disappointing answer.

          • The Explorer

            Any relation of Che?

      • Dreadnaught

        How about Homosexuality_Public Toilets then….

        Sounds very much like an invitation … put me down as a NO in that case Iggy!

        • Inspector General

          Keep it under your hat, Mr D. One feels a petition is about to be started on that too…

    • stephengreen

      Yes, because in this case it was a homosexual act with a person below the age of consent, the consideration of that era that it was an effective sexual child. Makes as much sense as to say in the Peter Wright example above, “did you link paedophilia with heterosexuality”.

      Now we’ve got that out of the way, there’s a clear homosexual dispensation in some quarters for the idealisation of young men by much older ones, exemplified of course, in the book, Death in Venice and in modern homosexual slang by the phrase ‘twink’. While the latter example is usually that of a post-pubescent male, the glorification of non-pubertal features, effeminacy etc, really underlines the instinct for innocence and lack of experience and therefore of sexual near-children.

      • Barry Guevara

        Loving the way you ignore older men predating on younger girls.

        • stephengreen

          Because one does not mention one of millions of additional considerations within a short response does not mean that one either ignores or discounts the value of other considerations. You are a rather muddled thinker, motivated it seems by a reflex, instinctive desire to race in, like a camp Sir Galahad, when you believe that there has been some slight towards homosexuals.

          • Barry Guevara

            There’s been more than a slight.

          • stephengreen

            Then please cry into your hankie and respond to others who may be more concerned than I, with your vicarious thrill at feeling offended.

          • Barry Guevara

            I’m not offended, though. The mainstream culture has always done things that are violent and oppressive.

          • stephengreen

            Sorry, bored. Leaving this.

          • magnolia

            Increasingly it has been doing it to children, and many of your imagined victims have been perpetrators. it is more important to make children and young adults safe than it is to protect older adults, of which I am one. Always it is. The balance tilts back as you get into old age if you are unwell and have dementia.

            Adult men of 25 to 60 really do not need all this protection you appear to wish to lavish on them, whether or not they wish to be a protected species and “first into the lifeboats”. It is unseemly. They are top of the heap in what life offers, usually. Save your protective desires for children, for pregnant women, for the ill and the abandoned, for unborn children and babies, for the disabled, the homeless, exhausted “time poor” and money poor mothers, for scared young adults who cannot find jobs, for those with dementia, for the frail and elderly, even for the drug addicts.

            As for strong adult men who have a job, a house, a pension, and decent health, well, you might just find that once you have put all the above first, you don’t have too much time left for those who are bothered by “equal rights for gay people” which not infrequently oppress others, including those on the above list.

          • The Explorer

            The underground culture’s been right up there with it, if you think of the Marquis de Sade: cutting a girl and opuring hot wax into the wounds. Or would you say de Sade was mainstream, since his theories about the impersonal use if the body undergird a lot of pornography?

          • Barry Guevara

            The underground culture is where it safe to be gay without being persecuted by loonies.

      • Dreadnaught

        the consideration of that era that it was an effective sexual child.
        Crap! – that would have made the British Army guilty of recruiting or drafting child soldiers and I suppose you would have been good with that?

        • stephengreen

          It’s often been said that children can be drafted into the army, but yet are not deemed of a suitable age for other activities, such as in modern times drinking alcohol or voting. It’s not unusual.

          That said, your point is either illogical or clumsily formulated, what is the argument that you are trying to make?

          • Dreadnaught

            It’s often been said that children can be drafted into the army…

            Who in the British Army said that then?

          • Anton

            Check the age at which you can vote and the age at which you can join up in various decades since 1800. “You’re old enough to kill, but not for voting” – Barry McGuire.

          • Dreadnaught

            Why you insist on making such an ASS of yourself escapes me – I think if anything needs checking its your predeliction for humiliation.

          • Anton

            But not yours for insulting?

          • Dreadnaught

            See?

          • Anton

            No.

          • stephengreen

            It is an oft heard objection:

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-21742512

          • Anton

            Art thou Stephen Green of Christian Voice?

          • stephengreen

            Nope

          • DanJ0

            I expect we’re all relieved to hear that.

          • stephengreen

            Due to his views or mine? Likely if you look at my commenting history, a bit of both. Seems a fairly sensible chap to me, keep intending to purchase his book contra homosexuality ‘The Sexual Dead End’ to determine his brain power, but haven’t yet.

          • Inspector General

            One is aware that children in the army were as drummer boys, and the navy, powder monkeys. In the air force, they used to drop unwanted orphans on the enemy…

          • Dreadnaught

            You left out Slavery, child sacrifices and kids under six being stuffed up chimneys and under mill looms – ahh the good old days when we were a real Christian nation eh IGGY!

          • Inspector General

            They say there’s a child stuck up the chimney in Inspector Towers. Found a leg bone in the grate last year…

          • DanJ0

            Not trying to escape, I hope.

          • Anton

            This is precisely why I assert that there never was and never will be a Christian nation until Jesus returns. The new covenant is with individuals called out from every nation.

    • Inspector General

      There’s some figures published further up. As for the abuse of male children, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that one or two of the perpetrators were {GASP!} ‘homosexual’…

  • preacher

    One wonders if they’ve given up searching for the ‘missing’ files relating to the abuse at Dolphin Square. by leading politicians & others in the realms of power.
    Or perhaps the reputed murder of at least one boy will also be in receipt of a royal pardon – If those responsible are ever found.

    A sign of the times perhaps? – Well the old rubbish at the bottom of the bin always stinks the worst.

    Maranatha.

  • saintmark

    I expect that when we finally get an Islamic government all the convictions for those who molested teenager girls in Rotherham, etc will be quashed.

  • Inspector General

    The Inspector has always suspected that he holds sway on this site in the
    company of an astonishing number of the criminally minded. But before you
    scallies get too excited, you have to be a member of a SIG. That’s a Special
    Interest Group for the those that know no better. No SIG, no pardon.

    There was a documentary on Holloway prison last year. Among the saintly
    covered included Ruth Ellis. Our Ruth calmly waited outside a public house
    before emptying a revolver into her lover as he departed the premises. They’d
    had words. He was not keen on her continued working as a hostess (prostitute?) and let her know in no uncertain terms. For this, he had to die, and as a batteree, Ruth was perfectly entitled to kill him, serve a handful of years in prison, and then have her pretty self released to publish the book. Anyway, that’s what happens when you have SIG status granted you by an outraged public…

    • Barry Guevara

      If I was Ruth Ellis, I’d have shot the swine.

      • Inspector General

        Have you taken leave of your senses, sir?

        • Barry Guevara

          She was being brutalised by someone who was quite evil.

          • Inspector General

            Oh Lord. You’re a gay in a violent relationship, are you? Seek help dear. You’re unlikely to get much on Cranmer’s site.

          • Barry Guevara

            He’s a vigorous hater, all the more powerful for telling himself that his hatred is a holy one.

          • Inspector General

            We Christians don’t hate anyone. We’re not allowed to, silly. But there’s nothing to stop us from taking a strong dislike to someone. You, for example.

          • Barry Guevara

            ‘We Christians’ hate so, so well.

          • Anton

            She could simply have left him.

          • Inspector General

            Without killing him! As Barry says, he had it coming, unfortunately…Besides she loved him and didn’t want anyone else to have him.

    • The Explorer

      When I saw the topic I thought to myself, this is one for the Inspector: given that you had raised it a couple of threads ago. Good to see you on the trail already.

  • DanJ0

    Article: “Turing was guilty not only of engaging in homosexual acts, but of what we now term paedophilia (though technically hebephilia).”

    I don’t normally criticise the articles but, with respect, that’s rubbish if his partner was 19 years of age.

    Moreover, if someone of 19 years of age can’t consent to sex then what on earth are we recognizing marriage at 16 year, and allowing people to vote in our democracy at 18 (and possibly 16 soon)?

  • IanCad

    Nothing like an unambiguously Homocentric post to build up the comment numbers.
    A new record in the making??

    • The Explorer

      Cracking thread already, ain’t it though?

    • Inspector General

      For shame sir! You’re worse than Hitler.

      • Dreadnaught

        HITLER – PING!

        • IanCad

          Godwin violated already!

    • The Explorer

      407 up. Don’t know if it’s a record, but it’s certainly up there as a really big innings. (I assume your reservations about rugby don’t apply to cricket?)

      • IanCad

        Over six hundred now; nearer to seven.
        No close contact in cricket so not as likely to bring out any unnatural behavior, as in rugby.

  • Darach Conneely

    I think the key term here in ‘age of consent’ is ‘consent’. Middle aged men using their political power and connections to prowl Care Homes for pretty teenage boys and girls doesn’t count.

  • Inspector General

    A disturbing aspect of granting pardons is there will be an unconscious
    reduction in the seriousness of the crimes associated. That is too big a price to
    pay…

    FROM THE NSPCC 2013. Offence category Number of offences
    Sexual assault on a male child under 13 1,267
    Rape of a female child under 16 2,793
    Rape of a female child under 13 2,365
    Rape of a male child under 16 353
    Rape of a male child under 13 785
    Sexual assault on a female child under 13 4,172
    Sexual activity involving a child under 13 2,175
    Sexual activity involving a child under 16 4,461
    Abuse of position of trust of a sexual nature (includes under 18s) 192
    Abuse of children through prostitution and pornography (includes under 18s) 176
    Sexual grooming 373
    Total 19,112

    • Anton

      Can we get the gender of the perpetrators? Then we really have some stats to settle some of the arguments.

      • Inspector General

        Here’s some help. They were all men, probably….

        • Anton

          “Probably” isn’t the point. This needs to be settled with serious data, not opinions. I’m not ranting at you personally Inspector, just tired of inconclusive arguments.

          • Inspector General

            In one’s opinion there are so few incidents of woman being responsible that each one seems to make the national news.

          • The Explorer

            I remember some German teacher called Renate, employed at a boys’ school, running naked along the beach or something on a school outing. She made national news at her trial.

          • Inspector General

            Yes, a remarkably fit women for 63.

          • The Explorer

            My Latin teacher never did anything fun like that.

          • Anton

            I do find it ironic when a 15-year 11-month-old boy who is bragging loudly to admiring classmates that he shagged his teacher is referred to as a victim.

          • The Explorer

            Yes, that extra month would have made all the difference regarding victimhood. It would have been the same if he’d been 15 years 11 months and 29 days (February excepted) towards being 16.

          • magnolia

            Ah, but just because you don’t think you are a victim does not mean that you are not, especially at that immature age. It will not do to confuse sexual maturity with maturity of the will, especially when we know what state the pre-frontal cortex is in. No teacher, male or female, should overstep the boundaries. It is their duty and their function to be the responsible adult and, quite rightly, this is the law.

          • Anton

            Obviously no teacher should behave like that, but if the boy was not sexually mature then he would not have been able to perform the feats of which I portrayed him boasting, which at 15.9 years of age he surely can.

      • magnolia

        Well…how can one put it? I think it unlikely that any of those rapes upon a male child were done by women, all things considered.

        I f you read “The Needleblog” ever, which is the equivalent of a broadsheet in these matters, you will find that men who were abused as children are very scarred individuals indeed and carry shame and humiliation and anger as part of the package. Many are unwilling to come forward to admit to their humiliation, particularly as they know they will have to relive it in the telling, may be targeted by the perpetrator, or have their families targeted, may be disbelieved, or unable to provide any corroborating evidence by the time they are old enough to have the courage to speak, and may have used drugs to blot out the pain and thus be delineated as an unreliable witness.

        Hence these figures are undoubtedly a great underestimate.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Yes, we can look forward to the day that Gary Glitter gets a full pardon, and Jimmy Savile is absolved of all wrong doing.

    Of course Milliband’s idea is nothing but a headline-grabbing gimmick, pandering to the culture of victimhood of the gay community. Perhaps the next thing will be the reverse – to write people into history as criminals even though they never broke any law.

    • Anton

      What if the evidence is strong that deceased persons had broken the law? If you can be tried in absentia in some jurisdictions, can you be tried in the grave?

      • The Explorer

        Vlad the Impaler knew they’d dig him up to indite him after death, so had an empty coffin officially interred, and his actual corpse buried elsewhere. When they duly dug up the coffin to desecrate the corpse: wow, empty! Hello start of Dracula legend.

        • sarky

          Thats not actually true. When an unmarked grave attributed to vlad was excavated it was found to contain animal bones. The cause of vlads death along with his final resting place are unknown (although quite a few legends have grown up)
          Bram Stoker wrote Dracula after staying in Romania and hearing the local legends of vlads supposed brutality.

          • The Explorer

            That’s your version. I’ve heard that, but the version I quoted is more fun. He got around, old Vlad, impaling Turks alive and burning a hall full of beggars. And when you’re linked with Countess Bathory in the annals of infamy, accurate details are going to be hard to come by.

          • sarky

            You forgot gilles de rais aswell!

          • The Explorer

            True. And I recall, when reading Pepys, Charles II hunting down those who had killed his father, and executing them. If they were dead already, I seem to remember he had them disinterred. Didn’t that happen to Cromwell?

          • Pubcrawler

            Yup.

          • sarky

            Correct. Charles ll had him disinterred and hung the body from morning until four in the afternoon. The head was removed and placed on a 20ft spike until a storm broke the spike and the head fell to the ground. The head was finally reburied in 1960!

          • Anton

            John Wycliffe was dug up and his body burnt and the ashes put in the local river centuries earlier.

  • Anton

    Ou est Linus?

    • The Explorer

      Agreed. A topic for him as much as for the Inspector: but from a different viewpoint.

    • William Lewis

      Il est détenu dans la pâtisserie. Son gâteau de mariage est trop petit.

      • The Explorer

        Maybe he managed to find a Christian baker, and is suing him.

        • Linus

          No, but you can sure that if I do, I will.

          • The Explorer

            Glad you’ve made it onto the thread, Linus. We’ve missed your insights..

          • Linus

            I have a life and I can’t be everywhere at once. But as far as this particular ooze of nastiness is concerned, I’ll leave you to spit up all the vomit you want in peace. It’s part of the Christian sickness. I can pass you a bucket if you like…

          • The Explorer

            Oh dear, I think he’s saying it was just a fleeting visit. Still, decent of him to touch base.

          • Anton

            A boy named Sue.

          • Happy Jack

            “No, but you can sure that if I do, I will.”

            Missing word alert !!! Missing word alert !!!

            To be or not to be …………..

          • Linus

            Verb omission is an accepted literary device when making short replies that refer back to previously stated intentions. No grammatical error there. Sad Jack clearly isn’t widely read or he would have known this.

          • Happy Jack

            “Verb omission is an accepted literary device …. yada, yada, yada … “

            ROFL

          • Linus

            So Sad Jack was lying when he said he’d washed his hands of me.

            One more sin to confess. So many sins, so little time…

          • The Explorer

            No, no LInus. That should read: “So Sad Jack when he he’d his hands of me.”

          • Happy Jack

            Wicked man.

          • Happy Jack

            This is not that Happy Jack. For a person who claims to be of above average intelligence, you are rather thick.

            There are more of ‘us’ too. Never ever,ever say “Be Frank with me.” You really wouldn’t like him.

          • Linus

            So we have to add dissociative identity disorder to the long, long list of your mental ailments, do we?

            *Sigh*

            How is it you’re not in an institution, Sad Jack? Or maybe you are and they let you vent online as a safety valve. Stops you from attacking the nursing staff, I guess.

          • Happy Jack

            Jack is only at liberty very occasionally – when he is stirred into life by narcissistic nerds and the others permit it.

            , hello, Linus. Jack didn’t notice you there. Did you want something or are you just showing off?

          • carl jacobs

            Verb omission is an accepted literary device

            There is no accepted literary device in the English language that would allow you to drop ‘be’ from that sentence. You are misapplying whatever rule you have in mind. Or you are just covering up for dropping a word.

          • Linus

            Musapplying a word in the English, am I?

            Pot calling kettle black, perhaps?

          • carl jacobs

            No, Linus, I am just starting a fact. You might check your spelling as well. And perhaps you could investigate this unique concept called ‘editing’. I always review a post to check for obvious errors and lack of clarity. Especially when I post using a phone.

          • Linus

            Starting a fact, are you?

            Will you ever finish it, do you think?

            So much for your careful editing process.

          • carl jacobs

            And the point of this is what, Linus? That people aren’t perfect? That people make errors and miss things? Well, congrats. You have learned something about the world. I’ll fix the error you noticed. That doesn’t change the fact that there is no rule allowing you to drop ‘be’ from your sentence.

      • Anton

        Let them eat cake!

        • William Lewis

          Apparently his wedding is going be bigger than Will and Kate’s! He may be planning on jumping out of the cake! Guests might prefer to eat from the buffet later on.

          • The Explorer

            Is it going to be televised? Heads of State present: especially from Muslim countries? Notre Dame, or somewhere more secular?

          • William Lewis

            He did say that there might be a live link but was coy about whether he would give us access or not.

          • Martin

            Nonwedding

          • William Lewis

            The wedding is real Martin. Linus has ordered the cake! Whether anyone will actually be married at the end of it is another matter.

          • Martin

            The party may be real, but it isn’t a wedding.

    • Inspector General

      Linus is at the clinic (again). Quarterly test results due…

      • The Explorer

        You’ll be getting on Linus’ radar, along with Happy Jack.

  • The Explorer

    Anyone remember that old parlour game ‘Consequences’? You know, where you write your story on successive bits of paper, collecting from the right each time and passing to the left. And you end up with a sheet containing contributions from eleven different stories.
    A bit like that on this thread, trying to work out who’s said what to whom.

  • len

    It seems that Alan Turing`s ‘works’ hang in the balance.Do his ‘good works’ outweigh his’ bad works’ and we are invited to sit in judgement?.
    Of course the Law is blind and can only discern if the law has been broken and in Alan Turing`s case the law was apparently broken .
    We will all one day meet the Great Judge God Himself and if we do not have a mediator to speak for us (Jesus Christ) we also will be judged and have to give an account of our actions in breaking God`s Laws.
    In God`s estimation our’ good works ‘can never outweigh our’ bad works’ so we must put total reliance on what Christ accomplished on the Cross at Calvary

    • Inspector General

      There was only one code breaker in the 39 45 war. That was Turing. There was only one person at Bletchley Park at the time. That was Turing. Ever heard of ‘Station X’. Yep, Turing’s code name.

      Who was it whose work shortened the war by 10 years. Step forward Alan Turing.

      After all that, he should have been allowed to sodomise anyone he wanted to, such as Dreadnaught, and with the state’s blessing too.

      • Anton

        Nonsense, Inspector. Turing’s work cracking the Enigma code at Bletchley Park was brilliant and it significantly shortened the war but other equally important and ingenious work went on at Bletchley, notably the cracking of the ‘Lorenz’ code by the world’s first programmable digital computer Colossus, designed and built off-campus by Tommy Flowers. The intelligence provided by the cracking of Lorenz was as important as that from Enigma.

        • Inspector General

          Saw Colossus stored in boxes there years ago. They planned to reassemble it, and think they’ve done it now. It was Churchill, no less, who ordered it to be taken apart. After the notoriety of the GESTAPO and their famed record keeping, he didn’t think the world could be trusted with such a device.

          • Anton

            Yes, it’s up and running there, I’ve seen it.

          • Miles Christianus

            Me too, when I was working out of what was part of Station “Y”. Apparently they used bits of old GPO switching gear after BT went digital and were throwing it out.

      • Shadrach Fire

        Actually Inspector I saw a documentary not too many months ago about two Post Office engineers that worked on and created the first electronic computer for code breaking during WW11. Nothing had been heard about it because the two old workers had signed the official secrets act and kept to it for more than fifty years. One at the time of the documentary had moved to Canada. Very few people knew about what they had achieved.

        Turing’s code breaker was based on a mechanical system of systematical elimination. Not as sophisticated as these PO guys computer with it’s glowing valves and whatnot’s.

  • The Explorer

    Anyone noticed that the last part of His Grace’s title, ‘Why not Heresy’, has barely featured, if at all? Turing has stolen the show, while poor old Cranmer languishes.

    • Inspector General

      Buggery is the new Heresy. Or to be particular, any attempt by law to discourage it.

    • CliveM

      It would be interesting if we moved on from obsession on this one example and considered the wider more important issues.

      My speeding offence was entrapment and I want justice.

  • preacher

    Although many contributors have commented on the homosexual abuse of young people, if the inspector’s figures are correct, under age girls are as much at risk or even more so than boys.
    We understand from the latest news reports, that young girls are groomed & abused, even murdered by paedophiles. We should be careful of targeting one section of the community as scapegoats, when we should be aware of the next possible step to gain political followers.
    The age of consent is lower in many E.U. countries & one feels it is only a question of time before it happens here. Children are being given sex lessons at young ages in our schools, with explicit graphics & videos, under the excuse that it will avoid promiscuity later in life. Statistics have proved that more under age girls are getting pregnant now than has been the case for decades. Even if sex is consensual (curious young people will generally want to experiment with new experiences) proving that the idea doesn’t work – or does it? What if the ground was being prepared for what amounts to a legal acceptance of paedophilia? there have been instances when P.I.E had friends in high places & have only failed in their objective because it would be unacceptable to society in general.
    Someone somewhere is moving the goalposts & soon we will be told (not asked) that goalposts are irrelevant & they slow up the game so the answer is to remove them altogether. Is that what we want?.

    • Inspector General

      ” We should be careful of targeting one section of the community as scapegoats,”

      Preacher, lifted straight from a report on the scandal in Rotherham, and why it was allowed to go on unabated.

      • preacher

        Inspector, the law was broken in Rotherham & it was overlooked through fear, many children suffered because the law was not upheld. But if my suppositions are true, there would be no protection at all, because frightened young people would have to face their abusers in court to try & prove that they were not complicit & that the abuse was non consensual.

        • Inspector General

          The law was broken in Rotherham and it was not upheld because of multiculturalism. No policeman wanted to be condemned in a court for being a racist. And those condemning would not have been the muslim community. They would appreciate what their young men were like.

      • CliveM

        Considering the number of names coming to light from earlier times, who seemed to have raped their way the through the youth of their day, I think it wise to recognise that Pakistani Muslims aren’t the only problem. A lot of white males also seem to be an issue. Also, I notice, benefiting from deliberate blindness by many officials and the police.

        • Inspector General

          Point taken Clive. Tell you what, we’ll put Pakistani muslims at the front of the queue. How about that…

          • CliveM

            Inspector

            As long as the whole queue is addressed and prosecuted, I suppose we have to start somewhere.

    • Anton

      If I said outside a classroom to children what teachers are instructed to say about sex inside a classroom then I’d (rightly) be done for grooming. This filth is not sex education but sex lessons and it is pouring fuel on flames.

  • Hi

    I’m confused by one point : How could there have been an age of consent for homosexuality in 1952, if such an act was illegal in law anyway ? I know that when homosexuality was made legal, it was at the age of 21 to begin with and then gradually lowered to the same age of heterosexual couples.

    • The Explorer

      You’re confused by just one point? I wish I had your clarity of mind to navigate this particular maze of differing opinion.

      • Hi Explorer,

        True. I was focusing on one point, but there are many different avenues thide discussion could go.

    • Inspector General

      Good afternoon Hannah. Under 21 was a much more serious offence. Interfering with a minor, it was called then. Contrary to public belief, if you were a practicing homosexual and were discreet about it, you were left alone. Otherwise half the West End stage would have done time in clink. Harry Andrews was very open about his orientation, and had no problems at all.

      • IanCad

        Harry Andrews?!
        The sergeant major in “The Hill”?.
        No; Surely not!
        Don’t watch many, but that one was terrific.
        Who else?
        I’ll say it again; It’s all down to rugby.

        • Inspector General

          And the sergeant major in ‘Ice Cold in Alex’

        • CliveM

          Down to rugby? What the school? You can’t be reffering to the greatest team sport in the world.

          • IanCad

            I’ve said it before: I’ll say it again: I consider the game of Rugby an apprenticeship for buggery.

          • Athanasius

            What, all that manly bonding and locking in the scrum with your arm between your teammate’s legs? What could possibly have given you such an idea?

          • Inspector General

            Don’t say it loudly in Gloucester, though. A rugby town.

        • Inspector General

          Used to play skittles with a chap who told me he was put in the real ‘Hill’ in or near Alexandria. He was 19 and liked to lark around. Went for an unauthorised drive in an army truck with a mate, and he got detention for that.

          Anyway, one hasn’t played skittles for many years, and fears the fellow is now with nearly all of the rest of the Eighth Army, wherever they may be.

        • Athanasius

          Remember the young lieutenant of military police with the sniffy attitude in the bar at the end of “Ice Cold in Alex”? Harry Andrews’ other half. There seems to be a “grooming” thing going on in the gay world, because the pairings so often have a big age gap.

          • IanCad

            I’ve never seen the film. Maybe I can get it on youtube.

      • Hi inspector

        Thanks for the explanation, which clarifies the post. You are a mine of information!

      • Guglielmo Marinaro

        “Contrary to public perception, if you were a practicing homosexual and were discreet about it, you were left alone.”

        I think that you will find that there are people still alive who can testify to the contrary. I’m reliably informed that the 1961 black-and-white film “Victim”, which has been occasionally re-run on TV and is still available on DVD, gives a fairly authentic picture of life back then for gay men. Anyone who would really like to go back to that is a – well, I can’t use the word that springs to mind, as it would probably lead to this post being deleted.

  • Busy Mum

    It would be really nice if all we professing Christians stopped using the term ‘age of consent’; God only recognises a ‘state of consent’.

    • Inspector General

      One does prefer ‘reaching of majority’. It was 21 for men, when much that you couldn’t do in law was there for you now. Be a company director, that kind of thing. Don’t think woman had such an age themselves, they of course being passed from their father to their husband to look after their interests, so no need.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Interesting to see what age(s) Roman Catholic Canon Law puts ‘consent’ at!
      You will genuinely be shocked. Available on google – I’m not going to tell you myself, you wouldn’t believe me.

      • The Catholic Church condemns all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman.

        The Vatican State has set the ‘age of consent’ at 18 years of age within its territory – below that it is a criminal act.

        In terms of Canon Law for marriage, the lowest age for a male is 16 years and for a female 14 years. This is in line with many nation states. However, to repeat the original point, for the Church sex would only be permissible within a sacramental marriage.

        And your issue with this is?

        Ah, silly Jack; he forgot. You were simply mud slinging.

        • Dominic Stockford

          My problem with 14 year old girls marrying? Obvious. Gosh jack, sometimes you take ‘defence of your realm’ too far.

          • Should one expect accuracy from the secretary of the Protestant ‘Truth’ Society in matters relating to Roman Catholicism.

            You knowingly confused the ‘age of consent’ with the age the Church permits marriage. Why?
            As an ex-priest and person who claims the position of ‘expert on the Catholic Church, you know the she only sanctions Sacramental marriage for females aged no younger than 14 years and males no younger than 16 years. Furthermore, in line with Canon Law, the priest would have to be satisfied both parties to the marriage understood its nature and freely consented. These ages are in line with the civil laws of many states- including European and American ones.

            So what is your issue with 14 year old females marrying, subject to the framework outlined above? And do bear in mind the generally accepted age of Mary, the mother of Jesus, before answering.

          • Dominic Stockford

            There are two inaccuracies, 1 dissembling, and one invention in your above comment.

          • “Interesting to see what age(s) Roman Catholic Canon Law puts ‘consent’ at!
            You will genuinely be shocked. Available on google – I’m not going to tell you myself, you wouldn’t believe me.”

            And you accuse Jack of dissembling?

            You have no substantive answer, then? Not unsurprising.

  • carl jacobs

    The criminal record of a dead man is not expunged to benefit the dead. It is done to legitimize the living. So there isn’t any necessary precedent in practice. The perpetrators first have to be socially approved. Homosexuals are being pardoned to declare the Enlightenment of this present age. The pardon declares that past men lived in darkness – as well as those today who share their attitudes. The same will not be said about powerful men who can be presumed to have used their position to leverage sex. A thirty year old man can have sex with a sixteen year old boy, but only within certain contexts.

    This is what passes for Enlightenment in this wicked age.

    • Hi Carl

      “Social approval”.

      The same goes for a 16 year old and a 30 year old heterosexual couple, although it’s legal but doesn’t feel quite “right” (the old phrase about going out with someone half your age plus 7 years as a minimum springs to mind).

      The law does seem arbitrary in many ways:

      1.You can get married at 16(with parental consent)

      2.You can have sex at 16 (without parental consent)

      3. You cannot buy alcohol or cigarettes until 18 (if you are like me you get asked for id if you look younger than 25).

      4. You cannot have sex at 16 with a teacher , or any one else in’ position of authority’ over you, even if it is consenting.

      5.You can’t join the army till the age of 17.

      So you can die or loose limbs for your country, but still need parental consent to marry, but you can have sex with anyone you want to, but you can’t smoke or drink alcohol….

      • Phil R

        Point 4

        I think it is 21 for some odd reason

        A guy I know is a teacher. He has several kids and is a Christian

        His wife was 17 when he first went out with her. I am sure they had lots of sex and did not wait until they were married when she was just 19

        Oh yes. She attended the same school that he taught

        in theory he should be sacked and imprisoned for child abuse or whatever

        they recently celebrated 25 years of marriage

        • CliveM

          How long ago was this. I ask because I thought the Blair govt tightened the law on this.

          The other point is unless the girl complains, you don’t get a conviction.

          • Phil R

            25 years ago

            You can get a conviction whether the girl complains or not

            Recently a 16 year old went to France with a teacher. She did not complain but he was still sacked and jailed

          • CliveM

            Yes if remember though it was for kidnap. I will need to check.

          • CliveM

            Btw I’ve just remembered in the French case, the girl was below the age of consent. In the case of your friends the girl was over 16.

          • Anton

            If the Eastbourne case I’m thinking of, she was 15 and admitted having sex with him in this country. (15 is the age of consent in France.)

          • Phil R

            What percentage of the population should be in jail then?

            The appropriateness of the relationship should be judged by the community.

            One size fits all does not work and we need a rethink

            if it had not been such a high profile case he would not have been convicted

          • Anton

            I’m not making a judgement on whether the criminal law should be involved, just giving the facts as there was some confusion about her age.

        • Hi Phil

          That’s something presumably you and Carl can argue over
          I’m just pointing out that lack of consistency in the law.

        • The Sexual Offences Act 2000 – which reduced the age of consent for homosexual acts, including anal sex – also prohibited a person in a position of trust from sexual acts with minors and vulnerable people. This is used for the protection of young people who are above the age of consent but under the age of 18. Only after that person has left their trust may they pursue a sexual relationship with them.

          It is intended to cover ministers, employment, foster parents, care home staff, doctors and other groups.

          The Sexual Offences Act 2000 itself was primarily intended to equalise ages of consent for homosexuality and heterosexuality. It was driven by Europe. In 1996, the European Court of Human Rights challenged the inequality inherent in divided ages of consent. The Bill sailed through the House of Commons but the House of Lords successfully blocked it a couple of times. Eventually, the government forced it through by using the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949.

        • Dominic Stockford

          ” I am sure…”

          You mean, ‘I am guessing…’

          • Phil R

            Yes I don’t know for sure.

            She often slept in his house when she was “staying with friends”

            She shard a tent with him when we went camping as a group

            Therefore….if it didn’t happen often.

            Self restraint must have been better than mine!

        • The law was only enacted in 2000 and isn’t applicable if the child has left school or the teacher works elsewhere. Besides, it’s not retrospective.

      • Pubcrawler

        Point 5. You can join the British Army at 16, but may not be sent on combat operations under the age of 18.

      • carl jacobs

        Hannah

        It doesn’t feel right because it isn’t right. There is only one reason for an adult aged 30 to cultivate an intimate relationship with a child of 16. And it doesn’t have anything to do with emotional attachment. The relationship is inherently exploitative and inherently objectifying. In a civilized society, the girl’s father and uncles and brothers would take the SOB into the woods and beat him until he couldn’t walk. But we are enlightened these days.

        • Former Catholic priest and anti-Catholic campaigner, Richard Bennett has made available the testimonies of converted Catholic priests.

          Jack has been learning interesting information. For example, one American person’s initial reason for leaving Catholicism:

          “I also cherished teaching my religion class at the Carmelite high school . . . I enjoyed watching the girls giggle as they flirted with teasing boys . . . my attention was drawn to one of the more diligent students, who thoroughly captivated my interest . . . She was lovely and shyly responded as we stole moments talking alone after class. This was a new adventure, and I soon interpreted our newly discovered affection as love …. “

          That’s not “love”; it’s called lust and the behaviour he describes is called grooming.

          “I listened with interest as some openly discussed the impractical nature of mandatory celibacy . . . For the first time in my life, I doubted the authority of my religion.”

          And that’s called seeking a reason for breaking a voluntary vow and a justification for rebellion against one’s faith.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Partial quotation of a much longer story is hardly fair. And if you have issues with all he says, why don;t you get in touch with Richard directly. he is always ready to debate with RC’s.

          • Happy Jack has quoted what he considers to be the most pertinent part of the ‘testimony’ – lustful attraction to and the grooming of a young school-girl prompting a rebellion against a sacred vow and then rebellion against his faith.

            The rest of the ‘testimony’ is simple self justification wrapped in a spiteful misrepresentation of Catholic faith – much like your own.

            What’s to discuss?

          • Anton

            Contact him and find out.

          • Are you another ‘Berean Beaconite’, Anton? Full disclosure now.

            He’s not Richard Bennett but a well known anti-Catholic in America.

            Why would Jack want to contact him? He or Richard Bennett can visit the Archbishop’s good weblog, if they have a mind to do so.

            Jack would be interested in hearing a defence of the morality of men in positions of spiritual authority, in their late 20’s, permitting and justifying erotic feelings towards a 14-17 year old girls and actually fostering such relationships. A cold shower and a cross country run would have been more fitting – with prayer.

          • Anton

            “Are you another ‘Berean Beaconite’, Anton? Full disclosure now. He’s not Richard Bennett but a well known anti-Catholic in America.”

            I don’t understand the question. Berean Beacon is a website run by an ex-Roman Catholic ordained priest called Richard Bennett. I do read it from time to time and I have the book edited by Bennett setting out testimonies of ex-Catholic-nuns. does that make me a “Berean Beaconite”?

            Are you confusing him with the late Dave Hunt of Berean Call, an American protestant?

          • Jack knows who Richard Bennett is and he is aware of his publications and his website.

            You have his book and you read his website “from time to time”.

            You ask: ” … does that make me a “Berean Beaconite”?
            Jack answers: not unless you see it as part of your ‘mission’ to warn evangelists about the dangers of Roman Catholicism and to attempt to convert Catholics.

            Are you intent on doing either?

          • Anton

            I do not attempt to convert Roman Catholics to protestantism; I believe that God will do that as times get rough and Rome apostatises further, or if its hierarchy is cut off.

            Evangelists don’t need warning of the dangers of Roman Catholicism but less well informed Christians might, and that is one of my purposes (although by no means the only one).

            I accept with joy that there are many genuine believers in Jesus Christ in the Roman Catholic system. My problem is that the RC church regards Christianity as political, yet politics = law and the gospel = grace, and it has two unsound idols on top of its sound Trinitarianism: itself (eg ‘inerrant’ Magisterium and ‘infallible’ papacy whenever it do declares) and blessed Mary.

          • Are you also a supporter of the PTS, Anton?

          • Anton

            I was only 90% certain that you meant the Protestant Truth Society. I do not recall having read any of their material and I know very little about them, so I could not call myself either a supporter or a detractor of them.

        • Hi Carl

          My gut instinct totally agrees with you on the principle of that statement (but not the method)-the law of the land is the law- except in 3 circumstances when we must die rather than transgress.

          But what about Phil R’s point below?

          • carl jacobs

            Fathers of daughters would understand.

            As to Phil’s story, outcomes don’t determine the moral nature of an act. It’s hard to respond completely because important details are missing. However, I personally would severely punish a teacher for getting involved with a student – notwithstanding what might be the outcome 25 years later. You can’t wait 25 years to evaluate something like that.

          • Carl

            “Fathers of daughters would understand”

            Nods in understanding ( Sephardic /Mizrahi are particularly family centred). Yes they do and so do mothers.

            I’m currently watching a Purim play at Hannah’s house with my eldest daughter as Queen Esther (Samuel is Mordachi). If anyone hurt or violated any of my daughters I’d be pretty -understated phrase- “upset”

            I’m 50 tomorrow. I’ve just met one of my daughter’s first serious “university ” boyfriend (he’s an Israeli , served in the IDF , 24 years of age to my daughter’s 20 ,of north African heritage , whose staying over for a long weekend, in a separate room, btw) . After spending a couple of hours with him, I asked him how he felt. “It’s like meeting the fockers” he said and hastily explained that this was an American film. Presumably this was a good comment? I shall quizz him more later when the wine and beer flows. I may be a granddad in a few years.

          • The Explorer

            David! Long time no hear from. Greetings!

          • magnolia

            You would need to be semi-hippy and married to a sex therapist for it to be accurate I believe, and own your own island!

            Or if it is the film rather than the family you have the option of being an OCD ex CIA agent!!

            Ahem!

          • “Fathers of daughters would understand.”
            Hmm … understand possibly, so too would mothers.

            And fathers and mothers of sons who are seduced by woman twice their age, Carl?

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            You aren’t asking the right question. You should be asking about a son who gets seduced by a man twice his age.

          • Carl, interesting point.

            If we are talking about moral corruption and the exploitation of the young by the older and more mature, regardless of sexual inclination, what’s the difference?

            Being human, Jack would be enraged if any of his children were seduced by older males – his daughter or his sons. He would probably be more enraged by homosexual advances on them – daughter or sons – because once such aflame such a disordered desire might not be easily extinguished.

            However, shouldn’t he feel the same if an older woman made a move on one of his boys as he would if an older man seduced his daughter? What’s the difference?

          • Powerdaddy

            i suggest you keep them sons away from catholic priests then, better to be safe than sorry……

          • Happy Jack

            Take a hike ………… Are you following Jack around out of interest in his body? Sorry to disappoint; it is spoken for.

          • Powerdaddy

            watch it if you have the balls.
            from 28:30 onwards, 30 minutes long.
            its bang on topic.

            do you donate to the church?

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            For future reference, when I misdirect you, please stay misdirected.

            What’s the difference?

            I don’t have sons, so it’s hard for me to answer. But in general, I would say that the damage done to a boy by a homosexual encounter in terms of undermining and confusing his sense of masculinity is extraordinary. Girls of course relate to sex through relationship a different again can be severely hurt by the realization if being used. Plus the consequences of sexual misadventure are both more permanent and more severe. The common thread is that both are acted upon. The boy who is seduced by an older woman be ones the actor. That has its own problem I am sure. But the path to being used is not so obvious. He is more likely to suffer from implicitly being told he can use women. To be crude about it, being penetrated carries more vulnerability.

            Just my thoughts.

          • Interesting thoughts too, especially about penetration and vulnerability . That said, women can and do rape men and the experience is traumatic. Jack’s point is that any experience that distorts the proper formation of sexual relationships can carry long term consequences.

          • Phil R

            I think we need to be cleverer

            When I was in my 20s and still in uni I was interested in becoming a teacher. So I fixed up to visit a school for 2 weeks in the summer term and a young maths teacher gave me a lift.

            The second day on the way to school he spotted a girl he know wound down the window and drove over and slapped her hard on her backside. He drove off but she kicked his car and he stopped and she came over stuck her head in the car and kissed him for 2 min or so with other pupils walking past. She was about 16. They went on to have a relationship for at least 5 years. (The school did try and sack him but the girl was clever and the other pupils supported her — amusing stories for another time)

            Even in the short time I was there three girls asked me out. (I didn’t go out with any of them– honest!)

            The problem issue as I see it is not age but appropriateness of the relationship.

            The girl loved the teacher and was definitely the one with the power in the relationship. She could make him do anything she wanted. The guy was a complete maverick. No one else in the whole world could make him do anything he didn’t want to do.

            She could and did.

            Relationships between men and women are far more than just arbitrary rules. Easier your way I admit.

            But we are humans Carl and God made us wonderfully complicated.

            Thankfully.

          • carl jacobs

            Phil

            First of all, I hate the use of the word ‘appropriate’ in a moral context. It is appropriate to eat salad with a salad fork. That word has no applicability to the choice of a sexual partner. Second, there is never a right relationship across the boundary of teacher and student. It’s an authority relationship that involves evaluation. Any sexual relationship must be inherently manipulative. Third, the teacher has a professional responsibility to not get involved with his students. Fourth, an adult man who shows interest in a 16 year-old girl is doing so for one, only one, and no more than one reason. He wants access to a young piece of ass. That’s it. He is using her for his own gratification. There is no mercy for that kind of offense.

            This is why God invented shotguns.

          • Phil R

            The shotgun is always an option

            I was threatened with murder twice by a girl’s brothers. The first time as soon as they realise I had a relationship with her (They judged me inappropriate!!) and then perhaps far more seriously when they got to know that she was not the only girl I was having a relationship with. (The girl didn’t seem to mind continued to see me but warned me about her nutty brothers.)

            The thing is it is these sorts of things that makes life exciting. You can add to God’s law if you like Carl but when you do, you stop us being human. God never meant us to be Pharisees.

            Regarding the teacher and the girl. She was stunningly beautiful, knew her own mind, was after his arse (etc) and held all the power in the relationship.
            He misses Hannah’s formula of half plus 7 by a year, but it seemed to work because of her intelligence and maturity and his complete lack of these attributes. (Any attributes as far as I could tell)

            I watched a few of his lessons in the two weeks. He seemed to me to be an average teacher but the kids really liked him.

            I am stressing the point because we should not as Christians try to regulate the fun out of life. This has always been our undoing. When you are young you want risk. E.g.why do you ride motorbikes and cars at crazy speeds. Why do you pick fights for no reason. Why do you have sex in a girl’s house when her parents are asleep? (Why does she let you in?)

            The last point is your comment about objectifying women.

            That is exactly one of the things they want from you as a man. They want you to desire them like crazy, to think of them when you are apart, to take care of them, to cherish them and for you to lead and behave like a man.

            Take that away or pretend it does not matter and your wife will get it elsewhere or get fat and depressed. Christian or not they are still women.

  • Athanasius

    On a point of curiosity, is there any intellectual activity going on in the gay community, or is it only happening below the belt? I enquire because a quick perusal of the comments above appears to show only the required scream of “HOMOPHOBE!” in response to anyone not actively endorsing the lifestyle, and nothing else.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      “intellectual activity”? Depends. some of them still use the NewSpeak dictionary with just two words in it: “homophobe” and “bigot”. Sometimes they combine these words for the sake of a little variety. Such a limited vocabulary inevitably restricts the thought process – exactly what Big Brother wants of course. 🙂

  • CliveM

    I can’t help but wonder that considering his great achievements, if he were still alive Turing would be pleased with this focus on his private life? He seems to have been quite a private person and I can’t help but feel that like anyone, he would wish to be remembered for what he achievemed and not for what he did in bed.

    I suppose at least heretics were convicted for their beliefs and would be happy to be remembered for that.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      “he would wish to be remembered for what he achievemed and not for what he did in bed”

      I am sure you are right. The thing is he has become an iconic figure for the gay community. I’m also sure if he were still alive and raised objections about the publicising of his private life, then the same community would be quick to roundly condemn him and ostracise him. He is simply useful to them

    • Inspector General

      Any gay of note immediately becomes the property of the gay cause. Imagine a soldier, or hero parading through the street, and the mob lift him up and carry him at head height. He goes where they take him, and his own wishes become irrelevant. Militant homosexuality is a form of fascism. You’re individuality is second or even third to ‘the cause’

      • Linus

        Apostrophe of catastrophe alert!

        Whither go the bigots, there it flourishes.

        • Inspector General

          One hears you’re up for a civil partnership. Well done you.

          • Linus

            Marriage, not civil partnership.

          • Inspector General

            Blimey, you’ve found a woman then. Who’d have thought it…

          • Linus

            Marriage to my partner. I can assure you, he is not a woman.

          • Inspector General

            That ain’t marriage, that’s a travesty. A mocking of the natural order. .

          • Linus

            Yada, yada…

            Heard it all before. It was claptrap then and claptrap it remains.

            You mind your own marriage and leave me to mind mine. I know that doesn’t appeal to your interventionist instincts, but guess what? I don’t give a monkey’s…

            I’m getting married, poor old deranged Inspector. To another man. And there’s not a thing you can do about it. So rant and rave and rail all you like. With a bit of luck you’ll disappear up your own tailpipe and the global online bigotry index will fall significantly as a result.

          • Inspector General

            Heh! Who said the blasphemy laws were dead. Question a deeply held, albeit new, tenet, in our new secular condition and the venom flows…

          • Linus

            Who said you were forbidden from expressing your opinion? Like I said, you’re free to rant and rave and rail all you like.

            Only religionists enact blasphemy laws. They can’t handle the expression of any opinion except their own. In a secular world we accept that many different points of view exist and have the right to be expressed. You’ve expressed yours. I’ve expressed mine. And any venom in my point of view is more than matched by your habitual outpourings of hatred against gays and women and Africans – indeed, anyone not exactly like you.

            Feel free to carry on though. Ranting must give you some relief from the daily frustration of knowing that your belief system no longer rules the world.

          • William Lewis

            That should be “forbidden”, Linus.

          • Linus

            I think you’ll find it is…

          • William Lewis

            No, it’s still “forbidding”.

          • Linus

            Not on my screen.

          • For the record:

            “Who said you were forbidding from expressing your opinion?”

            *chuckle*

          • Linus

            Yep, made a typo. Saw it straight (sic) away and corrected it. But feel free to vent some of your rage and hatred against me anyway. I really don’t mind. It’s (sic – oh, hold on … no … that’s right isn’t it?) what I expect from Christians. “Vengeance is mine,” saith the Lord, but the Pope has given you all a dispensation to act on his behalf in this matter, hasn’t he?

          • The Explorer

            Not me: I’m a Protestant.

          • Linus

            So what’s your excuse then?

          • The Explorer

            We have a hotline direct to God.

          • Linus

            With a receiver planted directly in your head, no doubt.

            Happy conversations on the Deophone. Does it come complete with a Googlemaps Heavenly Street Plan app?

          • The Explorer

            Nice pub on the corner where you can get some first-rate nectar.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Me neither, me too…

          • Not Happy Jack and he’s a Roman Catholic who accepts the teachings of his Church.

          • The Explorer

            Linus now has two main enemies to hunt. Instead of letting you have it with both barrels, he is obliged to reserve one for the Inspector. Anton and I qualify only for an occasional burst of buckshot.

          • Happy Jack

            He’ll need three barrels ……… And Jack is used to being hunted down. Ask Ole Blowers.

          • The Explorer

            With the editing function, we’re in the world of ‘1984’. The past can be re-written. Truth still exists within our memories.

          • Inspector General

            Ah, the word ‘hatred’ and some wonderful hyperbole from you. You’re a gay man alright. No doubt about that.

          • Linus

            When it comes to hyperbole, few can surpass you. So following your own theory, that makes you a gay man too!

            Interesting. It’s all starting to fit together. You only ever say disparaging things about women. Your verbal coruscations are flamboyant to say the least. I think we must be looking at yet another closet case…

          • Inspector General

            Come across that before. The ‘I find you so repellent you must be one of us’ theory. Never mind.

            By the way, one’s best wishes for your union. Hope you’ve found happiness (and that it might even reflect in your posts). Of course, you’ve stolen the word marriage to describe it and that irks somewhat as it defies the natural order, but there you go. You people have it (at least for now).

          • Linus

            I’m torn between surprised thanks for the “best wishes” and the snide inference that ultimate catastrophe awaits. Am I being wished the same sort of joy a condemned man takes in his last meal?

            Hmmm, on second thoughts, I’ll limit my notice of your “best wishes” to a nod of acknowledgment. Feel free to savour the thought of the punishment you believe awaits me. You need some form of consolation in this world where nobody takes you seriously any more.

          • Dominic Stockford

            We don’t savour it, not one bit. We agree with Thomas Cranmer, who wrote,” ALMIGHTY God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ… desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness, and live.” That’s why we keep bringing it up.

          • Inspector General

            Good Lord! The Inspector’s fearsome reputation does indeed go before him. The best wishes desire is sincere. As for punishment, you people are responsible for the rods you feel on your back. We gave you tolerance. You take everything you can.

          • Linus

            Ah yes, the old Christian meme “you know it’s wrong and you feel guilty about it but you just won’t admit it…”

            A standard manipulative tactic. Tell someone what he feels rather than ask him. And when he objects to you projecting your thoughts and beliefs into his head and telling him they’re actually his thoughts and beliefs, claim that his objections are just pretense and rebellion.

            The only thing we ever got from “you people” was condescension and rejection. We had to find love, respect and self-determination for ourselves. The decent ones among you have apologized and now treat us as equals. Luckily they make up the vast majority of “you people” and old relics like you are just marginal nuisances who largely confine their activities to online ranting. So as I said above, rant away. It clearly makes you feel better and it does no conceivable harm to me.

          • Inspector General

            How about ‘you darling people’. Does that help you…

            As for “The only thing we ever got…” onwards, well you have the Inspector welling up with grief aplenty and regret and shame. Well done. That’s tonight sleep pattern out the window…

          • William Lewis

            “And when he objects to you projecting your thoughts and beliefs into his head and telling him they’re actually his thoughts and beliefs, claim that his objections are just pretense …”

            You are funny Linus. That is as good a description of your modus operandi on this blog as you could get.

          • Phil R

            Except atheists never accept views contrary to the view deemed acceptable by them

          • Linus

            We don’t accept your views, but guess what? You don’t accept ours. Doesn’t mean we can’t both express ourselves. In a secular state, at least. Try living in a theocracy and expressing a view the priests or mullahs don’t like.

          • Phil R

            You might like to think that happens.

            The reality of the atheist /secular state is very different

          • Linus

            The reality of an atheist/secular state is very different from the distorted image of it you carry in your head. You have freedom of expression, a freedom you exercise frequently on this site and elsewhere too, no doubt. And still you moan and wail. You won’t be happy until all other viewpoints are suppressed and you have sole control of all media. That’s the freedom you desire. That’s why your vision of society must be constantly opposed and pushed to the margins.

          • Phil R

            What is in my head is the Atheist States in the history books.

            Revolutionary France, Russia, China want me to name more?

          • Linus

            The examples you give are poor ones. They were specific to their time in history.

            Modern secularism has little to do with historical Marxist-Leninism. And the Revolution was a reaction against an autocratic and oppressive régime.

            Modern France is a stable secular state where freedom of expression is guaranteed. You can be a Christian here and talk about your faith as much as you like.

            What more should you reasonably want? You want to be able to force people to follow your religion and do things your way?

          • Phil R

            States that called themselves Atheist were not exclusively communist.

            All had very little freedom and did not tolerate opposing views. Even from fellow Atheists.

            You cannot simply dismiss these examples because they don’t fit your argument!

            Hundreds of millions died. To terrorise people into accepting the ideology of no God.

          • Anton

            Freedom of expression is not guaranteed in modern France. Brigitte Bardot has been hauled before the courts many times for complaining publicly but entirely peaceably about the number of Islamic immigrants. You don’t have to agree with her to see that freedom of expression is limited. But a lot do, if the rise of Marie le Pen is anything to go by. What more the French might reasonably want is lower taxes, too. That’s why those with more vim come to England; Boris Johnson recently pointed out that Hollande’s policies have made London a major French city.

          • DanJ0

            “The reality of an atheist/secular state is very different from the distorted image of it you carry in your head.”
            That’s because in his ignorance or perhaps religious malice Phil equivocates between an atheist/secular State and the underlying political system. A secular/atheist State based on liberal democratic principles differs very much from one based on personality-cult totalitarianism or some bastardisation of Marxist socialism. Any fool knows that.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            In the secular state Christians are arrested against preaching against homosexuality in the street. Clearly not so different from what is in his head.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Of course, we do accept that they have the view, and that they are ‘allowed’ to do so. However, we don’t agree with them, nor do we like the way they seek to impose their views on us. All rather different to the way ‘they’ treat ‘us’.

          • Martin

            Linus

            Seems to me that you keep insisting we can’t express our opinion. And blasphemy is now spelt homophobia, the sin against the great god Self.

          • Linus

            I keep disagreeing with your opinion, which in the mind of a Christian is, I will grant you, the same thing as an attempt at censorship. You brook no disagreement, so any attempt to dispute your version of the truth is an attempt to shut you up.

            Only it isn’t.

          • Happy Jack

            Tsk, tsk …. you’re telling porkies, Linus.

            You threatened Jack and the weblog owner with a libel action not so long ago because he termed homosexuality a sexual perversion – which means ‘wrongly directly’. Remember?

            Then you got all in a dither because he used the medical term aberration for chromosomal abnormalities in babies. Remember?

          • Linus

            Oh dear, Sad Jack’s obsession with me is going strong. He claimed to have washed his hands of me, but that was just a big “porkie”, wasn’t it? Liar liar liar, pants on fire … isn’t that how people with the same mental and emotional age as Sad Jack usually put it?

          • Happy Jack

            How very queer.

          • Martin

            Linus

            You referred to “your habitual outpourings of hatred against gays and women and Africans – indeed, anyone not exactly like you” which I take to be an attempt to cow me into silence. And are you going to tell me you never use the term homophobia to refer to those who disagree with you? You are not honest about your position.

          • Linus

            Actually, I was answering the Inspector. Granted it’s hard to follow who’s talking to whom on this system, but a good rule of thumb is to assume that not every comment is about you…

          • Martin

            Linus

            Then you clicked on the wrong ‘reply’ for there is after your name a little curved arrow and then my name.

          • Linus

            Oops, my mistake then…

          • magnolia

            Strange motives……

          • Martin

            Linus

            Sorry, it’s fact. Marriage is the joining of what is different to make a new unity. Same sex marriages are a nonsense.

          • Linus

            Same sex marriage is a legal reality. End of story.

          • William Lewis

            It’s amazing how many homosexuals seem to think that SSM is all about the legal right to be married – End of story. It just goes to shows how destructive to traditional marriage this redefinition really is. But that was probably the point anyway.

          • Anton

            The government can issue people with certificates stating the the moon is made of cheese if it wishes, but that doesn’t make it so.

          • Linus

            The government could indeed issue lunar green cheese certificates, but that wouldn’t change anything for anyone. People who believed the moon to be made of green cheese might be comforted in their delusion, but no rights or privileges would accrue to them as a result.

            A marriage certificate is quite different. Having one’s relationship recognized and supported by the state offers a whole host of benefits to a couple. And calling it by the same name as every other conjugal relationship prevents the installation of a “separate but equal” label that masks a “separate and inferior” reality when applied to a minority. “Separate developement” or “apartheid” has been tried before and it didn’t work very well. Governments realize they can no longer discriminate on the basis that one group feels it has more rights than another or inequality becomes ingrained in the system.

            My marriage will be the legal equivalent of any other. You won’t like it because you don’t think I’m your equal and therefore I shouldn’t have the right to call my relationship by the same name as yours. The government disagrees with you. And so does the law. And as laws are made by governments elected by majority vote, and as the British public consistently expressed a majority in favour of equal marriage, your minority point of view has been outvoted. You may not like the result and you’re free to express your dissatisfaction with it, but you’re just going to have to live with it. Democracy carries no guarantee that everyone will be happy with its results. But it does carry an obligation to respect them.

          • Anton

            “My marriage will be the legal equivalent of any other.”

            In France and some other nations, yes. But your marriage certificate will not be accepted in Ethiopia or Saudi Arabia or Russia. Heterosexual ones will.

          • Linus

            And your religion isn’t accepted in Saudi Arabia, Iran and many other countries around the world either. Which probably doesn’t bother you because you have no plans to go live in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

            Guess what … me neither! My marriage will be recognized where it counts. If Saudi Arabians and Russians don’t recognise it, tant pis pour eux !

          • Anton

            The question is not who isn’t going to travel where but, in your own words, whether your “marriage will be the legal equivalent of any other.”. No it won’t.

          • Linus

            Yes my marriage will be the legal equivalent of any other, where it counts. Your marriage has no more force in Britain because it also has force in Saudi Arabia. To claim so is to Saudi law force in Britain, which it clearly does not have.

            Of all the arguments of straight marriae fascists, that one has to be the most ridiculous. Tell a gay couple their marriage is less of a marriage because it isn’t a marriage in Saudi Arabia is like telling a Christian his religion is less of a religion because it’s not recognized in Saudi Arabia.

          • Anton

            What you actually said is that it would be the legal equivalent of any other marriage. But you didn’t say where.

          • Linus

            Not in Saudi Arabia, but as I don’t live in Saudi Arabia and will never go there, their opinion of my marriage doesn’t affect its validity here in France.

          • Martin

            Linus

            Since marriage is, by definition, the joining of one man and one woman into a lifelong union, same sex marriage is a legal fiction. It does not exist.

          • It’s not marriage Linus, civil partnership please. Don’t insult people here.

          • Martin

            Linus

            I third that, it’s not marriage.

          • Linus

            Keep on ignoring reality if you like. It’s no skin off my nose. You’ll just be another crazy Flat Earther along with the rest of them. Your choice.

      • The Gaystapo at work Inspector. Terrible, and the dozy government can’t see for political correctness has blinded them all.

  • Leaving homosexuals to one side, (only for now, Inspector) let’s consider Archbishop Cranmer’s case for a Royal Pardon. Happy Jack is uncertain of what precise crime led to the Archbishop’s eventual execution and who can grant the necessary pardon. Was it sedition or was it heresy – or both? And who had and now has jurisdiction in these separate matters.

    Thomas Cranmer stood before the Star Chamber on 14 September 1153, was charged with sedition – an incitement to disorder and violence against the Crown. On 13 November 1553 he was brought to trial for treason, found guilty, and condemned to death.

    Her Majesty could therefore grant a Royal Pardon in this case, if she so minded.

    In March 1554 the Privy Council transferred Thomas Cranmer to Oxford to await a second trial for heresy. The trial started on 12 September 1555. Although this took place in England, the trial was under papal jurisdiction and the final verdict would come from Rome. Under interrogation, Cranmer admitted to every fact that was placed before him, but he denied any treachery, disobedience, or heresy. On 4 December, Rome decided he was guilty as charged and gave permission to the secular authorities to carry out their sentence.

    Would a pardon for heresy thus require the authorisation of Pope Francis?

    • Inspector General

      Think you’ll find that Cranmer’s point was that the idea of pardoning 49,000 men who were not just picked up off the street for being alive is as ridiculous as pardoning several hundred thousand historical figures who also fell foul of the authorities. To wit, he doesn’t want a pardon.

    • Anton

      The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England – from Article 37.

      • CliveM

        Well without being a pedant, the legal and constitutional Head of State at the time said he did. Whether she was right to is a different question.

        • Dominic Stockford

          Without being extremely pedantic, how could the current holder of the bishopric of Rome then give one, unless he also is the same man as the one back then (wouldn’t entirely surprise me if he was…)

          • In the same way the Monarch now can pardon an offence committed centuries ago. The authority is held by the office. And the Pope’s authority, as Bishop of Rome, is international in nature.

          • Anton

            Dream on.

          • ‘Tis true. It has been infallibly declared.

          • Anton

            I too can say that I am infallible whenever I feel like it but it doesn’t make me so either.

          • Not even the Pope can go that far, Anton.

          • Anton

            Didn’t he in 1950?

          • Did he?

          • Anton

            I’m willing to enter into what you consider a trap… In 1950 Pope Pius XII declared Mary’s direct assumption to heaven under the doctrine of papal infallibility, as you surely know. In other words he believed it and he felt like declaring himself infallible on the subject, so he did so. I could do that too about various things but it doesn’t mean I am right either. (And if I did it then I wouldn’t be daft enough to do it about some claim about the holy family which first arose during the era of the gnostic gospels that talked nonsense about Christ.)

          • You said: “I too can say that I am infallible whenever I feel like it but it doesn’t make me so either.”

            Then you say: “In other words he (Pope XII) believed it and he felt like declaring himself infallible on the subject, so he did so.”

            What you’ve omitted, of course, is that the Ordinary Magisterium of Church had long recognised and believed this, and, as Pope, he was sufficiently satisfied that it was a Divine truth revealed by the Holy Spirit.

            Not a whim; not a personal “feeling”; a dogma consistent with Church theology and Tradition about the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. It’s also held to be true by Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, parts of Anglicanism, and by other Protestant denominations.

          • Anton

            That would be the same Holy Spirit to whom Renaissance Cardinals attributed the results of those auctions piously known as conclaves? And the same Magisterium that licensed the Inquisition to torture in the name of Christ?

          • Is there an argument in there, Anton?
            The Holy Spirit guides the overall journey of the Church despite, not because of, sinful men being in her.

            In terms of infallibility, this applies only to the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium and to the Extraordinary Magisterium, when it holds to, or declares, a truth either revealed by God or through continuing tradition.

            The results of particular Papal Conclaves, some of which were corrupt, and decisions about Inquisitions, are not matters guaranteed as infallible.

          • Anton

            No argument other than reductio ad absurdum for those who read the gospel of grace rather than law and then encounter phrases such as “the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium and… the Extraordinary Magisterium”.

          • Different point, Anton.

            Just how is the Gospel of Grace contradicted by Roman Catholicism?

          • Anton

            I already explained that. Let him who has eyes to read, read.

          • Martin

            HJ

            But the bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction in this realm. However, I think the Judge of all has already annulled the sentence & judged that false judge who passed it.

          • Let’s face it, that’s the only judgement that really counts.

          • Martin

            HJ

            Indeed it is.

    • CliveM

      Now that would put our new touchy/freely Pope in a bit of a quandary.

      Pardon the heresy would look to much like admitting it wasn’t heretical. Not pardoning it might be construed as approving the sentenc! Not the message the current Pope wants to put out!

      • Who is he to fudge?

        • CliveM

          Is this a decision he could take by himself?

          • Yes, Jack believes so. He’s an absolute Monarch when it comes to the application of Canon Law which has no doctrinal implications. Jack really doesn’t know if this contains provision for Papal Pardons and posed the point with his tongue in his cheek. However, if there is such provision, in practice he’s unlikely to do so without broad support in the Church.

          • CliveM

            Well mine was firmly lodged in my cheek as well. It’s interesting simply at an academic level, but is of no practical purpose!

  • Inspector General

    More outrage this day. Guglie has found a way to ensure that homosexuals are not to blame for sex abuse of boys. It’s cunningly simple. Any man who does it CANNOT be a homosexual. He just can’t. There’s other issues WHY he did it, but his orientation is not to blame. And it probably isn’t same sex at all really, said orientation.

    Gentlemen, would you all join the Inspector in congratulating Gug who has proved the old saying. “No matter how long you will live for, you will never hear it all”

    • Inspector, the John Jay Report concluded that male priests who did not self-identify as homosexuals, although they committed homosexual acts on boys, were not homosexual.

      Ergo: the sexual abuse scandal in the American Catholic Church was not homosexual in nature, despite 80% of the offences being homosexual in nature.

      (Who’s Guglie?)

      • Inspector General

        Guglielmo . Our sailor admirer….
        As Goebbels said, if you’re going to tell a lie, make it a big one…

        • Dominic Stockford

          Indeed. The truth of what happened in the USA has been covered up, despite all that has been seen so far. The truth of what happened in this country has also been covered up – Tony MacSweeney (whom I knew personally many, mnay years ago) being only the tiniest tip of the iceberg.

          Then again, why are we surprised when the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law says:

          CHAPTER III.

          SPECIFIC DIRIMENT IMPEDIMENTS

          Can. 1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.

          • Inspector General

            Ask any obstetrician his opinion of the optimum age for a female to have a child, especially in areas of the world where medical care is almost non existent should complications arise, and he’ll tell you 14 or maybe 15.

          • CliveM

            Who told you that? Physically the girl won’t have finished developing. I had been told 17/18 ?

          • Inspector General

            That’s rather like saying a lad should not be a father at 16 because he has another two years of growth in height left in him.

          • CliveM

            You try pushing a baby out through an under developed pelvis!!

            Let’s be honest the physical demands of having a baby greatly exceed the demands of a quick poke.

            Note I am reffering to your comment about the optimum age.

          • Inspector General

            Trust in mother nature. Like trees, the younger they are, the smaller the fruit.

          • The Explorer

            Mary is thought to have been 14 or 15 when Jesus was conceived.

          • CliveM

            I’m not saying it’s not possible, I am talking about the physically optimum age. To young and it is harder and more dangerous to push the baby out.

            Besides Mary will have had some help!!

          • Hmmm …. left a fair bit out there Dominic, haven’t you?

            The ‘marital act’ and any sex act outside of marriage is considered illicit by the Catholic Church. The Church is a worldwide body and is entitled to set conditions about sacramental marriage which is held to be permanent and undissolvable.

            The ages of consent for sex vary across Europe – between 13 and 18. The vast majority of countries set their ages between 14 and 16; only six countries with Spain, Ireland, Cyprus, Malta, Turkey and the Vatican City retaining it at 18 years of age.

            Law No. VIII of 11 July 2013, entitled “Supplementary Laws on Criminal Law Matters” establishes the present law for the State of Vatican City regarding criminal penalties for sexual acts with minors. Article 4 of Law No. VIII defines “minor” for the purposes of that law to mean “every human being below the age of eighteen years.”

            Paragraph 5 of Article 8 provides an exception to this by stating that “the offence does not exist if the sexual acts take place within a marriage.”[147] Canon 1083 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that “A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.”[148] Thus, in the context of this article, the age of consent in Vatican City may be considered 14 for married females who are having sexual relations with their husbands only, 16 for married males having relations with their wives only, but 18 for everyone else, whether married or not.

            [ It should also be noted that the “Law of the Source of Law” of the Vatican State requires that any local laws must first defer to divine law, to Papal decrees, and to canon law. As the Vatican understands divine law, even if not sanctioned with criminal penalties by the state, all sex outside of marriage is illicit regardless of the age or willingness of those who engage in it. ]

          • Albert

            Then again, why are we surprised when the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law says:

            Can. 1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.

            Well that’s very enlightened compared with some parts of the US. Marital ages:

            Massachusetts: 18 for first marriage, 14 (male) 12 (female) with parental and judicial consent.

            Mississippi: 21, no minimum with parental and judicial consent, but in practice the limit is 17 for men and 15 for women with parental consent.

            Missouri: 18, 15 with parental consent

            New Hampshire: 18, 14 for males and 13 for females, in cases of “special cause” with parental consent and court permission.

            New York: 18, 16 with parental consent, 14 with parental and judicial consent.

            Pennsylvania: 18, 16 with parental consent, 14 in case of pregnancy and with the approval of a Judge of the Orphans Court.

            Utah: 18, 16 with parental consent, 15 with court approval and parental consent.

            Washington: 18, 17 with parental consent. May be waived by superior court judge.

            West Virginia: 18, 16 with parental consent, under 16 (unspecified limit) with parental and judicial consent

            So what you say about Canon Law applies a fortiori to these US States (and since Federal Law does not outlaw these things, to the US in general). So shouldn’t your argument be something like:

            Are we surprised when this has been covered up in the US given what US law says about marriageable age? Obviously, clerical sex abuse was not to do with the Church, it was to do with the law in the US.

            But you wouldn’t say that, because that would be silly.

          • Dominic Stockford

            I find it interesting that the US has similar ages of consent to Rome, and, so far, the worst problems with clerical sex abuse.

          • Albert

            So you do want to condemn the US rather than the Church?

          • Dominic Stockford

            Both. But the RC church was about before the US, so ‘they started it’….

          • Albert

            The Church founded the US?

          • Our Blessed Lady is believed to have been aged 14 when she consented to becoming pregnant, carrying and giving birth to God Incarnate. What God wrong?

          • sarky

            I made that argument on here once and my ears are still ringing from the shouting down I got.

          • What argument did you make? That God was wrong – or that Mary was a young teenage girl?

          • sarky

            A because of b !

          • Hmm … well Jack wouldn’t have joined in.

          • sarky

            No bottle!!!!

          • Not at all. If God chose Mary to ask to be the mother of God Incarnated and Mary consented, then she was of at age where she understood. Scripture actually confirms she was aware of sex and that she consented to being made pregnant by the Holy Spirit. It would take an ignorant and foolish Christian to accuse God of exploitation.

          • sarky

            Hmmmm!

          • Then you take it up with Him when you meet.

          • Happy Jack

            Grrrrr ……….

          • Martin

            HJ

            What Blessed Lady is that?

          • Not familiar with your bible, Martin? She is named in it.

          • Anton

            And it even says that all generations will call her blessed.

          • Martin

            HJ

            Just did a search using the terms “Blessed Lady” in my computer Bible. Nothing came up.

          • Then widen your search to the writings of the Church Fathers and see if you have any joy there. Jack doubts if you’ll find ‘Trinity’, ‘Incarnation’ or even ‘Grace Alone’ in the bible.

          • Martin

            HJ

            The church fathers were not infallible & must be tested against Scripture, as must any preacher. You’ll find the concept of the Trinity, incarnation & grace alone in the Bible, but you won’t find your concept of “Blessed Lady”

          • You most certainly will find reference to Our Blessed Lady too, if you look. As for the Trinity and Incarnation, you have this understanding because of the early Church and the Church Fathers. As for ‘grace alone’, we know that’s contested to the point where Luther attempted to insert the word “alone” and remove some books from the Canon of Scripture.

          • Martin

            HJ

            Nope, no “Our Blessed Lady”, or do you mean Mary, that sinful mother of Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon & Judas, the wife of Joseph.

          • Jack is referring to Mary, the Immaculately Conceived Mother of God, who is Blessed with a permanent spiritual union with her Son, the Perpetual Virgin and Second Eve, who was Assumed bodily into Heaven.

          • Martin

            HJ

            Never heard of her & God doesn’t have a mother.

          • Jesus, truly God and truly man, did. Is He our risen Lord?

          • Martin

            HJ

            The man nature had a mother, the God nature didn’t since God was no born.

          • Anton

            Where does that figure of 14 come from, please?

          • No idea. It is generally accepted Mary was a young teenage girl.

          • Anton

            Based on Jewish tradition of the time I see little reason to disagree with that, although I recall that the age of first menstruation has come down recently in which case she would have had to have been a bit older in order to carry Christ successfully. It was the specificity of the ’14’ I was asking after.

          • “From the age at which Hebrew maidens became marriageable, it is possible that Mary gave birth to her Son when she was about thirteen or fourteen years of age. No historical document tells us how old she actually was at the time of the Nativity.”
            (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

            http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

        • The Explorer

          Go you know Guglie from this blog, or PN, or both? (I remember having a discussion with him ages ago, when Cranmer was still in its old format.)

          • Inspector General

            PN, although he is not a regular.

          • Old Blowers

            Guglie..Isn’t that a type of delivery bowled by a right-arm leg spin bowler??

          • Also known as a “wrong’un”.

          • The Explorer

            In this case, “Hello, Sailor.” See picture somewhere in the thread above. Currently sandwiched between two posts by the Inspector, but you know how these things can change with this new format.

          • Inspector General

            He may be a menace to sailors, bur these Jolly Tars aren’t that fussy when the fleet arrives back, from what a fellow has heard, you understand…

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            “For there’s something about a sailor –
            Well, you know what sailors are.”

        • There is a difference between paedophilia and homosexuality, Inspector. The distinction matters. A primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger, is not confined to homosexuals.

          The relationship between the two is unclear but a sexual interest in children over 11 years tends to follow one’s primary sexual desire so it is reasonable to view same sex abuse of pubescent or post-pubescent minors as homosexual.

          Paedophile activism is a sleeping danger. Groups in the late 1950s up to 1990s advocated lowering the age of consent or actually abolishing it, wanting paedophilia to be regarded as a sexual orientation and not a psychological disorder.
          Sound familiar?

          • Inspector General

            One appreciates the difference Jack. What is contested by the Inspector is that homosexuals are not capable of paedophilia, and believe this man when he says these types will adhere to this belief if it is not shown to be the nonsense that it is.

          • Some people are primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to prepubescent children and some to infants and babies, Inspector. It does seem to be mainly men who act on this desire, though the numbers of women are increasing. Such people can also be heterosexual or homosexual, if the desire is not exclusive.

          • Phil R

            Statistically

            The most dangerous place for child to grow up in in a household where there is a male not related to the child and not married to the mother.

            That of course by definition includes every homosexual household.

            There are no reliable statistics yet for exclusively homosexual households. (I bet the stats are not even being collected. I wonder why?)

          • “The most dangerous place for child to grow up in in a household where there is a male not related to the child and not married to the mother.”

            And, according to research, the main group at risk are female children. The prevalence of child sexual abuse is more than double for females over males.

            Research estimates that 2 thirds of victims in the United Kingdom are girls and 1 third boys. Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often brothers, fathers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances, such as “friends” of the family, babysitters, or neighbours; strangers are the offenders in 10% of cases.

            Different issue and different points.
            The point Jack is making is that homosexuality and paedophilia should not be conflated. They are different. Remember, the term paedophilia is only properly applied to prepubescent children and the perversity is not confined to homosexual men.

            The main threat being identified to children raised in homosexual households is emotional – not sexual abuse.

          • Phil R

            “Research estimates that 2 thirds of victims in the United Kingdom are girls and 1 third boys”

            So 33% homosexual in nature. Same stats as mine

            So you agree that homosexuals are massively over represented?

          • Not taking this is, are you? It depends on the age of the child whether it is primarily homosexual or paedophilia.

          • Neihan

            Why is it an “or?” The homosexuality describes their sexual attraction to members of the same sex, the pedophilia describes their sexual attraction to a certain age group of the particular sex.

            I ask honestly, because I have often seen the “They’re not homosexuals, they’re pedophiles” line used – but have never understood that line of thinking except as a bit of sophistry to try and separate homosexual pedophiles from homosexuals non-pedophiles by casting the former as No True Scotsmen.

          • Neilhan, paedophilia is a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children – below the age of 11 years of age. The offending person might be sexually active with males or females as well.

            The confusion arises because the public conflate sex crimes against minors below the age of legal consent with ‘paedophilia’ – instead of ‘hebephilia’, an adult sexual interest in pubescent individuals approximately 11–14 years old; or ‘ephebophilia’ an adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents. The sexual interest of hebephiliacs and ephebophiliacs is consistent with homosexual or heterosexual desire. This is not the case with paedophilia proper.

            In the final analysis, all sexual exploitation of minors is wrong and morally disordered, as well as criminal, but the abuse of male boys by homosexuals is not always paedophilia.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            You can separate homosexual paedophiles from homosexual non-paedophiles in just the same way as you can separate heterosexual paedophiles from heterosexual non-paedophiles. The concept isn’t that difficult to grasp if you just apply your intelligence to it.

          • Phil R

            No I just don’t agree.

            If a guy goes after male children the motivation is homosexual.

          • If they are past puberty, yes. Below that and the sexual interest may or may not be homosexual.

            And, just to state the obvious, not all homosexuals are interested in prepubescent boys. Jack would speculate that teenagers boys may be of interest to many of them – just as many heterosexual men are attracted to teenage girls. Like your teacher friend who’s disgraceful behaviour you were defending earlier. Was he a paedophile?

          • Phil R

            “Was he a paedophile?”

            Absolutely not

            Disgraceful? On what basis?

          • And if he had shown the same interest and behaviour towards to teenage boy? What then?

          • Phil R

            “And if he had shown the same interest and behaviour towards a teenage boy?”

            This was Wales you realise.

            You were regarded as homosexual if you did not play rugby to any standard.

            Homosexuals were simply not tolerated. Still aren’t.

            To answer your question then no it would not have been acceptable as the community had decided it was unacceptable. This is still how we should operate and not have our morals dictated from Westminster.

          • Phil R

            “Phil or his buddies near any teenage girls”

            I was 20 Jack. I don’t see the problem

          • “Homosexuals were simply not tolerated. Still aren’t.”

            Homosexuals or homosexual behaviour?

            ” … no it would not have been acceptable as the community had decided it was unacceptable.”

            But this same ‘enlightened’ community ‘accepts’ lewd and lustful behaviour towards teenage girls from older men?

          • Phil R

            Jack

            Few Welshmen will claim to be enlightened, but you are never the less, pushing your world view onto our community whether we like it or not.

            A four or five year difference in age is not unreasonable.

            If you want to object to a 17 year old going out with 14 and 15 year olds you had better get ready to arrest at least half the population

          • “Few Welshmen will claim to be enlightened, but you are never the less, pushing your world view onto our community whether we like it or not.”
            Now you speak for the whole of Wales? This teacher, lusting after the schoolgirl and behaving in a publically lewd and lascivious manner, was aged 17 years? Apart from being in a position of authority and in ‘locus parentis’ , there would have been an appreciable age gap. Jack knows how he would view it if it was his daughter.

          • Phil R

            No the 17 years was another example. Many 17 year old guys will have gone out with a 14 or 15 year old girl. Not least because the 14 and 15 year old girls wanted/want to go out with older boys.

            I do not know how old the teacher was. It was his first or second year so that would make him I guess 22 or 23?

          • You’d permit your daughter to have her bum smacked – at school – and snog a teacher?

          • Phil R

            No

            but I very much doubt i would know or have any say in it

            Did you tell you sit down with your parents at 16 and chat about what you did with your girlfriends?

          • The point is you agree the school teacher friend of yours was acting improperly.

          • Phil R

            Gosh trap me in a corner

            I suppose it was a bit.

            It was also fun to see. My thoughts were that she acted like the 23 year old and he acted like he was 16.

            life is complicated. It is meant to be. When you regulate it with silly simple and stupid rules you make it less worth living somehow

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Yes, but when the perpetrators of the “33% homosexual in nature are investigated”, you get a hell of a shock. Hardly any of them are gay men whom you meet drinking and cavorting on the dance floor at your local gay club, or the gay couples who live near you or whom you see walking around town. Not only that: men living a typical heterosexual lifestyle are massively over-represented.

          • Phil R

            you would only expect 1% to be gay not 30%

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            To quote the Abel & Harlow Child Molestation Prevention Study (Gene G. Abel, MD & Norah Harlow, 2002):

            “The 1,038 men who molested boys reported a range of adult sexual preferences. Contrary to popular belief, only 8 percent reported that they were exclusively homosexual in their adult preferences. The majority of the men who molested boys (51 percent) described themselves as exclusively heterosexual in their adult partner preferences. An additional 19 percent reported that they were predominantly heterosexual, while yet another 9 percent said that they were equally heterosexual and homosexual in their adult sex life. … These findings are in direct opposition to the generally accepted opinion that the overwhelming majority of men who molest boys are homosexual. The majority of men who molest boys (70 percent) are predominantly heterosexual.”

            I realise that findings like these are unwelcome to some, but the facts must take precedence over what people wish to find or believe.

          • Phil R

            Even if you take your lowest figure homosexuals are still 8 times more likely to molest

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I have to confess that I’m pretty hopeless at anything mathematical, but I have to ask how you work that out, given that the percentage of male molesters of boys whose adult sexual preference is exclusively heterosexual and the percentage of those molesters whose adult sexual preference is predominantly heterosexual are respectively just over 6 times and nearly 9 times the percentage of those molesters whose adult sexual preference is exclusively homosexual.

          • Phil R

            No you are comparing different sample sizes.

            1% are homosexual 8% are in your stats

            You would expect 1% (i.e the same proportion as the population)

            Similarly if the ratio of heteros is maintained then 99% would be the expected percentage of hetero molesters.

          • Phil R

            Many convicted paedophiles describe themselves as homosexual.

            Roughly 30% do the maths!

          • Well, they would, wouldn’t they. Those researched are in prison and its far easier to self define as homosexual (acceptable) than paedophile (unacceptable).

          • Phil R

            They weren’t going to get a change of sentence or category.

            They were still paedophiles.

            The fact is that 30% also described themselves as being homosexual.

          • Were their crimes paedophilia, hebephilia or ephebophilia? In the latter two groups primary sexual desire drives the abuse, not necessarily in the former.

          • Phil R

            They are bastards Happy Jack. Whatever you want to call them.

            Traditionally they are dealt with by the community in ways that ensure no repeated offence is possible.

            Tie them up then lock them in a room with the abused child’s mother seems reasonable to me.

          • Happy Jack accepts the rule of law, Phil.

          • Phil R

            My kids are not safe so I say the law is not working and we need a different approach.

            One that works, does not give them nice labels to hide behind and acts as a deterrent.

            Along with every other parent. If there is a paedophile given a new life in my village (at my expense BTW). I want to know who he is to keep my kids safe.

          • Not overcome that rage yet that led to you beating up a pastor all those years ago? To be frank, whilst he understands your concerns as a parent, Jack would be reluctant to share such information with a person holding your aggressive attitudes and inclinations towards vigilantism.

          • Anton

            “If there is a paedophile given a new life in my village (at my expense BTW). I want to know who he is to keep my kids safe.”

            Hear Hear!

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            No, they weren’t going to get a change of sentence or category. But it would make lot of difference to how they were treated by other prisoners. I know about that from a former prison chaplain.

          • Phil R

            I think we are at cross purposes here.

            I have no idea how the 30% were treated by the other prisoners as I was only discussing the stats. I don’t know 30% of all pedophiles personally, (thankfully.)

            BTW you did a very worthwhile job well done.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Paedophiles tend to be extremely devious and calculating people. They will present themselves in whatever way they judge will be of most advantage to them in any given situation, whether that be as homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals or raving homophobics.

          • Martin

            HJ

            There is no real difference between homosexuality & paedophilia, both are about the misuse of what God has given & are simply about personal gratification.

          • Well yes, as is so is every sex act outside of marriage. The civil distinction is important as not all homosexuals are paedophiles and not all paedophiles are homosexual.

          • Martin

            HJ

            The civil distinction is irrelevant, since, at it’s heart, every sex act outside of marriage is simply about personal gratification.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Well, you are free to think that if you like. Anyone else is similarly free to think that is no real difference between heterosexuality & paedophilia. Personally, I think that life is far too short to worry about such crackpot views.

          • Martin

            GM

            Homosexuality is certainly a crackpot view but it is simply a sexual sin, as is any sexual coupling outside marriage. That is assuming that a coupling between two persons of the same sex can be called ‘sexual’.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Homosexuality isn’t a view, crackpot or otherwise. Nor is it a sexual sin. It’s a sexual orientation, just as heterosexuality is, albeit very much a minority one. And please don’t bother to come up again with your “no such thing as sexual orientation” nonsense. No-one with any insight into human sexuality is going to swallow that one.

          • Martin

            GM

            There is no such thing as an ‘orientation’ and as far as ‘human sexuality’ is concerned, there is male and female, nothing more. You just use such as an excuse to hide your sin.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Male and female are sexes. Heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual are sexual orientations, a different thing. Trying to deny phenomena that you don’t happen to like out of existence is a craze that enjoys sporadic popularity; Mary Baker Eddy made quite a hit with it in America back in the 19th century; but it doesn’t really get you anywhere: reality remains obstinately unchanged.

          • Martin

            GM

            The reality is that there is no sexual orientation, just the two genders, male and female.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            That makes about as much sense as saying that there is no such thing as people being right-handed or left-handed, just the two hands, right and left.

            If there were no sexual orientation, not only would no-one be sexually attracted to people of the same sex, but no-one would be sexually attracted to people of the other sex either. Perhaps you hadn’t thought of that.

          • Martin

            GM

            What nonsense. What you are saying is that putting two bolts or two nuts together is the same as putting a nut & bolt together.

            There is no sexual orientation, just sexual sin, on a par with adultery, paedophilia or any other combination you might like.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            No, I never said anything about nuts or bolts. Why would I want to stray on to an irrelevant topic like that? I know perfectly well that human beings aren’t nuts and bolts, any more than they are keys and locks or plugs and sockets – or even screw-drivers and screws.

            I realise the possibility that there may exist a small number of unusual people who have no sexual orientation, and for all that I know to the contrary you could be one of them, but I can assure you that most of us have one. That’s what leads so many people to form heterosexual relationships, and a small minority to form homosexual ones. Of course you are free to keep clinging to your bizarre fantasy that there’s no such thing. If only we could wish genuine problems out of existence like that, think how much easier life would be!

          • Martin

            GM

            Sexual relations between persons of the same sex are like trying to fit a nut to a nut or a bolt to a bolt. The analogy must be clear enough for even you to see.

            There is no such as sexual orientation, it is just an excuse to cover their sin.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            “Sexual relations between persons of the same sex are like trying to fit a nut to a nut or a bolt to a bolt.”

            Nothing like it. Gay sex works fine. If it were not so, people would soon realise that it didn’t work and give up on it. As for there being “no such [thing?] as sexual orientation”, if you wish to persist in denying reality, that’s up to you. No skin off anyone else’s nose.

          • Martin

            GM

            So does it produce children?

            Indeed, is it even sex. Seems you’re a bit remote from reality.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Martin
            No, we all know that whereas heterosexual sex has a tendency to result in reproduction, although it by no means always does so, homosexual sex does not and cannot fulfil that function. Nothing to get screwed up about, just an everyday fact of life to be calmly accepted.

          • Martin

            GM

            Since reproduction is the primary purpose, you are debasing it to a matter of self gratification. I’d question too, seeing they are the same sex, whether what homosexuals do is in any case, sex.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Martin

            Reproduction is undoubtedly an important function of heterosexual sex, but it is certainly not its sole purpose: human sexuality is far richer in meaning than that. Yes, sexual behaviour of any kind can be and often is used purely for self-gratification, but your implication that that is the only purpose of any non-reproductive sexual behaviour is simply ludicrous. If you want to restrict the word “sex” to heterosexual sex, that is your privilege. The Rev. Mr Thwackum in Henry Fielding’s “The History of Tom Jones” was likewise free to restrict the word “religion” to the Church of England. But nothing is gained or proved by such word games.

          • Martin

            GM

            “an important function”? It is the primary purpose. Again, there is no such thing as ‘human sexuality’, you merely wish to disguise immorality within a concept that you can describe as “far richer”. It isn’t rich in any sense, it is just a corruption of God’s good gift.

            I fail to see how homosexual activity can be called sex when it is undertaken by persons of the same gender. It isn’t me who is playing word games.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            If you think that homosexuality is a corruption of God’s good gift, that’s fine. I don’t.

            To call sexual activity “sex” is, of course, a rather sloppy colloquialism, but it is here to stay. It is called sexual activity because it is the expression of sexual attraction, and homosexual attraction is sexual because, like heterosexual attraction, it is related specifically to the sexual characteristics of the partners. Just as heterosexual people are attracted to each other, when they are, not just as different persons but specifically as persons of different sexes, so homosexual persons are attracted to each other, when they are, specifically as persons of the same sex. I hope this helps.

          • Martin

            GM

            But homosexuality isn’t related to the other persons sexual characteristics, it’s related to the persons own desires for pleasure. It isn’t sex that is in view but self gratification.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Martin

            Yes, of course homosexuality is related to the other person’s sexual characteristics. Why do you think it’s called HOMOsexuality (HOMO = same)? Someone with a homosexual orientation is erotically attracted to other people of the SAME sex. (Not, of course, to EVERYONE of the same sex, any more than people with a heterosexual orientation are attracted to everyone of the other sex.) Their natural desire is for a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex, not of the other sex, just as for heterosexual people (who are by far the majority) it’s the other way round.

            “It isn’t sex that is in view but self gratification.”

            What a silly thing to say! If that were the case, there wouldn’t be people who were attracted only to people of the same sex, and there would be no reason for anyone to bother with homosexual behaviour. Heterosexual sex would do the job just as well – or even just masturbation. It sounds suspiciously as though you don’t even understand what homosexuality is, never mind know anything about it.

          • Martin

            GM

            Since the sexual characteristics of the other person are broadly the same as yours, it clearly isn’t sex. And desires do not make the action right.

            It clearly is the case that the end view is self gratification.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Martin

            If you wish arbitrarily to restrict the word “sex” to heterosexual sex, then no-one can stop you. But nothing is gained by playing with words in that way. I’d be fascinated to hear of an alleged male paedophile who was being tried for sexual offences against small boys admitting the facts as charged, but pleading that he was innocent of any SEXUAL offences, since the sexual characteristics of the children involved were broadly the same as his. I have a shrewd suspicion that the court wouldn’t buy it.

            No, desires do not suffice to make an action right. It is perfectly possible to desire all sorts of things that are wrong; we all know that. What makes a consensual sexual relationship with someone of the same sex legitimate, all other things being equal, is the same as what makes a similar relationship with someone of the other sex legitimate: not the bare existence of the desire, but the fact that there is nothing wrong with it.

            “It clearly is the case that the end view is self gratification.”

            I have no doubt that there are plenty of instances, both heterosexual and homosexual, in which that is true. But if it is meant to be a blanket generalization, well, you can keep on making dogmatic pronouncements of that kind till the moon fails, but they will still be untrue.

          • Martin

            GM

            What didn’t you understand about sex being between those of the opposite sex?

            And after all, there is little difference between paedophilia and homosexuality, both are behaviours that seek personal gratification.

            What makes a sexual relationship legitimate is marriage, nothing else. Seeking gratification outside of the marriage of one man to one woman is always wrong.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Martin

            I can assure you that I have not the slightest difficulty in understanding that heterosexual sex, which is far and away the most usual kind, is between people of different sexes. I can’t imagine whence you have derived the queer notion that I have. Similarly, I have no difficulty in understanding that homosexual sex is between people of the same sex. No problem.

            “…there is little difference between paedophilia and homosexuality…”

            If you genuinely can see little difference between adults doing sexual things with children and consensual sex between adults, I must infer that your logical and moral faculties are seriously impaired. I can only hope that this lack of discernment is, for you, purely theoretical and does not guide your own actual behaviour.

          • Martin

            GM

            Homosexuality is merely one sexual sin among a number. Do no imagine that the claim that it is consensual makes the slightest difference. It is your moral faculties that are seriously flawed if you cannot see that. But then we already know they are flawed.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Martin

            With regard to sexual behaviour, mutual consent is a necessary condition of its being right, but I agree that it is not a sufficient one, and I have not suggested otherwise. If sexual behaviour (or any other kind of behaviour) is morally wrong, the fact that it is consensual can’t make it right. (Although, of course, lack of consent will make it even more wrong.) I see no valid reason to regard homosexual behaviour per se as morally wrong, although, as with heterosexual behaviour, the circumstances may make it so. However that may be, the ability of a person to see but “little difference” between adults doing sexual things with children and consensual sex between adults – no matter what their moral views on the latter – calls seriously into question the soundness of both their logical and their moral faculties.

            I’m sure I don’t know who “we” are.

          • Martin

            GM

            On the contrary, lack of consent does not make it even more wrong, since the offence is against God. Which is why David said that he had sinned against God alone.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Martin

            I see. So if I were to go out today and rape a woman or molest a child, the offence would be against God, but not against the woman or the child. It was thinking along those lines, perhaps, that allowed the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy to feel justified in covering up the sexual crimes of predatory priests and in quietly moving them around from parish to parish. And according to your way of thinking, it is only God’s arbitrary decision that he doesn’t want those things that makes them wrong: if he’d wished, he could have positively commanded rape and child molestation, and by doing so would have made them right and virtuous. Speaking for myself, I have no hesitation in rejecting such a twisted view of morality.

          • Martin

            GM

            No the church of Rome has no concept of that. But David did, as Psalm 51 clearly portrays.

            It is God’s nature that requires good of His creation, and our image of His nature in us, that gives us a sense of what is right and wrong.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            “It is God’s nature that requires good of His creation”

            That sounds reasonable enough, but according to your way of thinking the word “good” means simply “whatever God requires”. Not only does this reduce the above statement to a meaningless tautology; the inevitable corollary is that there is no antecedent reason why God could not require, for example, rape and child molestation: his requiring them would make them good by definition.

          • Martin

            GM

            I’ve already pointed out that what Is good comes from God.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Martin

            Well, that sounds fine, but according to your way of thinking it is only God arbitrarily decreeing and enacting it that makes it good, so the meaning of that statement is reduced to “What comes from God is what comes from God”, a mere tautology. There is then no a priori reason why any of the things that we regard as unspeakably wicked could not have been decreed by God if he saw fit, since God would make them good purely by decreeing them. In fact, since “good” would then mean simply whatever this entity called “God” happened to want, there would be no particular reason why we should pay any attention to it.

            If you can’t see this by now, any further attempts to explain it would be a waste of time, so I won’t pursue the matter any further.

    • Guglielmo Marinaro

      So you have had to resort to misrepresenting your opponent’s position. Say no more.

      • Inspector General

        One has merely transcribed what is happening at the bottom end of this thread. You can if you wish recant your position, and then we can all go home.

        • Guglielmo Marinaro

          No, I’m sorry, you haven’t. You have distorted what I have said. Resorting to that trick is, in effect, an admission of the weakness of your own position.

  • Albert

    the principle of retroactively permitting that which was once prohibited raises all sorts of legal ethical and moral philosophical complexities.

    Quite, it means that the law is used to undermine the law. In the end, these people broke the law. That is a very serious thing, as ideally the law stands by itself. If the law now allows people to break the law, or if people only keep the law because of some other reason, the law loses its purchase.

    What if the law was unjust? A law is either just or unjust. If it is unjust who wants to be pardoned for breaking it? If it is just, then who wants to pardon someone for breaking it?

    • CliveM

      Agreed, this proposal undermines the rule of law. The Rule of Law is becoming a plaything for our politicians. Law making has always been abused, now they are retrospectively interfering with the application of the law.

      There will still be people alive today affected by this law. If they are pardoned, because the law and it’s application were unjust, can they sue? How soon will it be before the cry of ‘compensation’ is heard?

      • chiefofsinners

        If we can have a posthumous pardon, what about a posthumous conviction? Logically, the whole society that ‘wrongly’ convicted Alan Turing should be convicted themselves. The prisons won’t be big enough. Oh no, wait a minute, they’re all dead. We’ll have to re-name the graveyards prisons. How long should their sentences be?

        • David

          For eternity ?
          It is all utter nonsense, politics as posturing.

          • chiefofsinners

            Yes, eternity, but eligible for parole when they are half way through. See how I take the moral high ground by being merciful. Vote for me.

        • Inspector General

          You have a point, but as for posthumous, one suggests members of the police and judiciary who were there at the time would be still around now to receive their ‘hate rime’ conviction…

        • DanJ0

          One can’t be convicted of a crime if it wasn’t on the Statute books at the time it was committed, or sentenced to more than the equivalent maximum for the crime at the time. It’s bound up in the legal and ethical concept of mens reas, I expect. Turing was no doubt guilty of his crime, but we no longer consider it a crime. That’s the underlying basis of the article. It’s a quirky areas, this.

      • Linus

        So if you ever get your way and find a majority to support abrogation of the equal marriage law, you won’t make it retroactive and invalidate existing same-sex marriages then?

        • CliveM

          Linus

          You clearly haven’t noticed but I don’t comment on SSM. To much is said on all sides to too little effect.

          So you don’t actually know what I believe about that.

          • Linus

            I was asking a question, which you have declined to answer, presumably because your answer would invalidate the position you’ve taken regarding retroactive pardons.

            Or is there some form of moral gymnastics and hoop-jumping that permits you to support retroactivity when it suits you, and challenge it when it doesn’t?

          • CliveM

            Linus

            You asked me what I would do based on a presumed knowledge of my position on SSM. If your wrong in your understanding, your question has no meaning.

            However lets be clear about my objection to the pardon. I object to the principle and not because the issue is homosexuality. To give you another example, I disagreed with the campaign to pardon all those shot at dawn for cowardice in WWI. Not because I believe shooting these men was right, but because in the context of the time, it was the correct legal procedure.

            Now to your SSM question. I don’t know if you’ve noticed but the pardons are being applied to criminal law. SSM is civil law. Changes to civil law can be applied in the manner that concerns you and has nothing to do with the Rule of Law.

            Do I think it should? Well I wouldn’t of voted for SSM, but now it’s here, I’m not going to campaign for its repeal. But then I am doubtful of the theological validity of civil marriage as a principle anyway. Although again I recognise its civil legality.

          • DanJ0

            It’s widely accepted that many of the people shot for cowardice were suffering from ‘shell-shock’ and other mental traumas. As a result, the conviction and sentence was probably unjust even if it was legal and ethical to shoot cowards.

          • CliveM

            We’ll as I said I didn’t necessarily agree with what happened. However at best what you say is an argument for a review of the sentences not a blanket pardon.

          • DanJ0

            Indeed. I think it’s a practical issue rather than a moral one. Some people were no doubt just cowards. absconding from the front line.

          • CliveM

            For me it’s a historical one. Also I am deeply suspicious of bandwagons of any type. When politicians jump aboard, I start getting cynical as to motives.

          • Actually, some doctors also had evidence about mental impairment ‘lost’ or simply ignored, or they themselves were too cowardly to present it. Many of these men were young boys.

        • William Lewis

          They could be converted to civil partnerships again.

          • Linus

            All the major UK parties have stated they’ll leave the equal marriage law as it is. Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Ukip and the SNP all support no change. Only the Northern Irish contingent wants repeal, but they’ll never be a majority partner in any UK government.

            So whatever you think could be done, won’t be done. Not this time round. Not in the foreseeable future. Equal marriage is here to stay.

          • William Lewis

            I don’t disagree.

        • Phil R

          Goodness you are naive Linus.

          If there is a majority in favour it is because of some atrocity (manufactured or genuine) that is laid at your door as a minority.

          You will be scapegoats and suddenly find the world has changed again and the wind now blows in a different direction.

          • Linus

            You go ahead and dream of that wonderful future. Dreams are free. You can manufacture them in your own head to your heart’s content.

            But while you’re fondly imagining all sorts of future anti-gay persecutions and pogroms, back here in the real world, I’ll be getting married and then getting on with my life. In a secular reality that increasingly accepts equal marriage as normal and ordinary part of the social landscape.

          • Inspector General

            Are you the ‘bride’ as they say. The passive partner who ‘endures’ his homosexual partners ‘love’….

          • Linus

            Oh dear, not another apostrophe catastrophe!

            Grammatical as well as social ignorance on show tonight, I see.

            Did you never learn that it’s impolite to ask people what they do in bed? Even repressed homosexual urges don’t justify such prurient curiosity.

          • Happy Jack

            This from the person who defends dropping verbs from sentences as grammatically acceptable.

            Linus, “No, but you can sure that if I do, I will”, the supreme teacher of English language,
            .
            ROFL

          • Linus

            Sad Jack’s still hanging off my every word, I see. He should get together with the Gay Sex Inspector. A more age appropriate relationship. And quite frankly, who else would want them?

          • Happy Jack

            Nah …….. Jack’s just taking the p*ss out of you.

          • Powerdaddy

            your church hides pedophiles

            you know and you support it

            ROFL.

          • Goodness, the nutters one is pursued by from American weblogs. Is there no end to them?

          • Powerdaddy

            I agree. You have to be nuts to support an organization that hides and protects pedophiles.
            But look, there are hundreds of them!

            Insane, eh?

          • You’re an atheist, what would you know?

            Jack doesn’t indiscriminately support the “organisation”. He feels no tribal loyalty to men who abuse children or to those bishops who through either ignorance or design protect them. Jack adheres to the doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church. He doesn’t blindly follow sinful men who may happen to occupy positions in it.

          • Powerdaddy

            By stating that you are a Roman Catholic you ARE indiscriminately supporting the church.

            By donating you ARE indiscriminately supporting the church. The same church that actively hides protects and enables pedophiles.

            Here’s me thinking that kind of thing “enrages” you.

            But then again, you’re a theist, what would you know?

          • Anton

            Although the number of paedophile priests is a very low percentage of the total, it seems that 100% of the bishops aware of it in their dioceses covered it up. THAT is what has caused the collapse of Roman Catholicism in the Republic of Ireland. Who on earth would wish to support such an organisation?

          • Pontius Pilate? They exist in every age and in every field. Should Jack stop paying his income taxes because the government acts immorally? The subtext of many arguments advanced against the Church claim there is something intrinsically depraved about her. Evil and sinful are everywhere. Add to this ignorance about homosexuality and the addictive nature of sexual abuse, and the situation becomes more complex.

          • Powerdaddy

            Your membership of the church is completely voluntary, yet you chose to stay and support an organization that is actively hiding and enabling abusing priests.

            You even donate to the costs of these immoral actions

            It seems you get so “enraged” By pedophilia, that you donate money to help cover some of these awful deeds up.

            Morals are not shown by what you say, but by what you do.

          • Anton

            I’m not sure whether the proportion of ordained RC priests who are paedophile exceeds the proportion of the male population who are, but it doesn’t look good and more important is the 100% coverup rate among bishops in whose diocese it is known to have taken place. That’s 100% while the church is meant to be LESS evil and sinful than the world, not more, for how else can it preach with conviction? That is a complete disgrace to the name of Christ and those within this system who love Him might consider the verse, “Come out of her my people!” There are alternative ways of being Christ’s people.

          • “I’m not sure whether the proportion of ordained RC priests who are paedophile exceeds the proportion of the male population who are, but it doesn’t look good …. “
            Perhaps you should research this, then, and also current rates of sex abuse within the Church. From memory, the rates of child sexual abuse within the Church are lower, certainly no higher, than in schools, other denominations, and society at large.
            ” … and more important is the 100% coverup rate among bishops in whose diocese it is known to have taken place.”
            Cover-up is a loaded word. Are you suggesting it was more than negligence and an ignorance about what drives the sexual abuse of minors? Read the John Jay for a less biased account.
            “That’s 100% while the church is meant to be LESS evil and sinful than the world, not more, for how else can it preach with conviction?”
            Ummm …
            “That is a complete disgrace to the name of Christ, and those within this system who love Him might consider the verse, “Come out of her my people!” There are alternative ways of being Christ’s people.”
            What “system”? This suggests you are directly linking the causes of the sex abuse scandal with either a spiritual “system” or an ecclesiastical “system” – or both.
            Evidence?

          • Anton

            Every Roman Catholic bishop known to have been alerted to paedophile priests in their diocese before it became uncoverable-up a decade ago covered it up. I make no apology for the phrase; obviously it was not done with malign intent to the victims but so that the RC church or denomination or system (I care little about terminology; we know what we are talking about) would not be embarrassed. Trouble is, this meant that it never repented corporately or did anything to prevent continuing abuse.

            Evidence? Here are two examples. Fr Lawrence Murphy raped 200 deaf boys in the USA yet the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in Rome declined to defrock (laicise) him. Fr Stephen Kiesle’s defrocking was urgently requested to the CDF by his bishop in the 1980s after he had been convicted of tying up and molesting two boys. The CDF did nothing for four years; then its head, Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) wrote a letter stating that the “good of the universal church” should be taken into account in questions of defrocking. No defrocking order was made at that time (Kiesle was finally defrocked two years later, in 1987.) Ratzinger had been prompt enough in his dealings with dissident Catholic theologians. He and Archbishop Bertone wrote privately from the CDF to all Catholic bishops in May 2001 asserting the church’s right to hold its enquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence quiet for at least 10 years after victims attained adulthood.

            The Murphy Commission’s 720-page report found that “the Dublin Archdiocese’s pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid-1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State.” Only after this report was released in November 2009 did the Vatican publicly use words of contrition over the scandal in Ireland. In fact the Irish bishops agreed in 1996 that they would report allegations to the police, but this initiative was torpedoed by the Vatican itself, in a letter to Irish bishops (dated 31/1/1997) from the apostolic nuncio (effectively ambassador, who traditionally kept bishops in a country in line with the Vatican) to Ireland, Luciano Storero, expressing disapproval. (Until this letter was made public, the Vatican had denied influencing Irish bishops not to inform.) Then the bishops were criticised by Pope Benedict in a public letter in March 2010 for not informing! In July 2011 a similar report about the diocese of Cloyne found that 60% of allegations of abuse made to the church between 1996 and 2009 were not passed to the garda. Mostof these abuse cases seem to be same-sex – abuse of boys rather than girls. Many of the victims were put under social pressure to stay silent, or bought off.

            In Belgium, the Adriaenssens Report of September
            2010 found priestly sexual abuse in almost all dioceses. It is not doubted that Cardinal Groer of Vienna (d. 2003)
            was a serial sexual abuser. Cardinals Angelo Sodano in the Roman Curia, and Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, have shameful records in covering up the scandal.

          • Jack is aware of all this from numerous sources. And you are inferring malign intent and wilful harm, rather than the Church being overwhelmed and ignorant about how to handle the situation.
            What you’ve omitted is the recent changes being made and what the present situation is. Is all this really intended to shed light or merely proselytize on the back of a scandal.

            “Come out of her my people!” – the rallying call of the ex-Catholic dissenters.

          • Anton

            Yes I’ve certainly omitted that. Until Rome’s attitude is one of deep sorrow and repentance rather than regret at being publicly embarrassed then it will remain unfit to represent Christ to the world.

            Of course, the other problem is that seminaries are packed with gays – read the pro-RC book “Goodbye good men” by Michael Rose – and the possibility discussed in this present thread of a correlation between homosexuality and paedophilia. Why so many gays? Surely it couldn’t be correlated with the requirement not to marry?

          • Go pester another Roman Catholic, Anton.

          • Anton

            My aim is not to pester you but to show to His Grace’s readership differing sides of this subject.

          • Well choose another blogger to do this through.

          • Anton

            I’m afraid you don’t have the authority to command me so, and I’m not going to commit to that freely.

          • Powerdaddy

            It’s still happening. To this day.

          • CliveM

            Perhaps you should make your comment history private?

          • Powerdaddy

            Hide comments as well as pedophiles?

            True to form, I suppose. …….

          • CliveM

            Hmmm………………. If their is any section of society not implicated in some way or other in sex scandals I’m not aware of it. Whether govt run orphanages, the police services turning a blind eye etc.

            I’m not a RC, so feel no need to defend. Any child abuse is a serious offence. Covering it up equally so and anyone, Priest, Social worker, Policeman etc found doing so should be imprisoned.

          • Powerdaddy

            I agree.
            But Jack implicates himself by way of association.

            Not to mention his donations have gone towards the protecting, moving around and hiding abusing priests. It’s just a church, Jack is free to leave any time he likes. What would they have to do to lose people like Jack, I wonder. ……

            Would you donate to an organization like that?

          • Inspector General

            One only asked, because he thought that you were dying to tell us :- >

          • Happy Jack

            Need you ask – really?

          • The Explorer

            Linus finds your question prurient. It may be; it is, nevertheless, a perfectly-valid one. In a heterosexual pairing, after all, it isn’t generally necessary to ask which one is the woman. The answer is nearly always self-evident.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            However, a gay male relationship is HOMOsexual, i.e. SAME sex, so by definition both partners are men. There isn’t a woman in it. As John Prescott might have said, any silly fool knows that. Well, ALMOST any silly fool.

          • But Guglie what about gender? One partner, although male by sex, may actually self define as female (or one of the other 50 odd genders).

            Is this is evidence of transgenderphobia?

          • The Explorer

            Now that we’re doing away with the concept of ‘sex’ we presumably need to find new words for the old concepts: homogenderral, heterogenderal?

          • Jack will that to you then, Explorer.

            According to certain sociologists, male and female sex is a physical spectrum, not a binary division, and so too is gender.

            Keep Jack updated on progress.

          • The Explorer

            I’ll you. (You know, there’s a real problem with this leaving out of verbs. Great scope for misunderstanding.)

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Well, I’ll come clean on this one. I know very little about transgender matters, and I understand even less. Whatever, I would say that they have no more necessary relevance to ordinary gay relationships than to ordinary straight ones.

          • “Ordinary”, Guglie? Not too far away from “normal”.

            Jack dubs you a ‘transphobe’. Which, by the way, is a compliment.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            No, I am sorry to disappoint you. Although I have very limited understanding of transgender matters, I am not transphobic, since I have neither fear nor hatred of transgender people. I simply maintain that a sexual relationships between two people of the same sex has no intrinsic connection with anything transgender.

          • Fair enough. Jack was being too frivolous with his use of the word. No one should hate any other person, so he stands corrected.

            Some would dispute your position as too narrow: . “I simply maintain that a sexual relationships between two people of the same sex has no intrinsic connection with anything transgender.” If you accept, as some now do, that sex and gender are beyond binary concepts, then there is no such thing as “intrinsic” in these matters.

            It’s a complex world when phenomenologists and sociologists start to construct reality.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Yes, but I am not convinced that sex and gender are beyond binary concepts, no matter how fashionable that idea may be.

          • We agree there, Guglielmo.

          • Powerdaddy

            It seems you get so “enraged” By pedophilia, that you donate money to help cover some of these awful deeds up.

            “God’s one true church ” protects pedophiles. Happy Jack here likes to help where he can.
            Shameful.

          • The Explorer

            ‘Homo’ comes from the Greek for ‘same’, not the Latin for ‘man’. Therefore, both partners could be women.
            In a heterosexual relationship, the sexual roles are more or less defined by biology. In a male homosexual relationship, the partners may alternate, or one may always take the female role. The Inspector’s question was therefore a perfectly valid one.

          • magnolia

            I don’t think anyone other than a female can take the female role in reality, as men do not have a birth canal. The closest that they can get is only to pretend, in a biologically unclean way, to parody the woman biologically.

            It is ghastly to think that such a parody might be taken as “female” when it is in reality so lacking in the hallmarks of being female, not least of which is the procreation and nurturing of children..

          • The Explorer

            Quite. I don’t mean in reality. I think it’s no accident that Jean Genet was so obsessed with the world of illusion. Years ago, I read Dr David Reuben’s ‘Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex’. Can’t remember the exact wording, but something to the effect that mating males are in search of a vagina. Deprived of that option male homosexuals go for the closest equivalent they can find. No disparagement of the female on my part intended.
            PS: In the past, a marriage could be annulled on grounds of non-consummation: defined as non-penetration. This will not be required for same-sex marriages. Some legislator must have thought through the implications of what is actually involved.

          • Anton

            Actually, Explorer, human sexuality is more flexible than that. There are plenty of men who, overcome by lust and with no prospect of a woman in sight, rape men anally – in jails or on long-distance sailing ships in the past. When women become available they prefer them.

            Our culture is the first to recognise the notion of “a homosexual” rather than what people do with their sex organs. Perhaps that is mistaken.

          • ” … human sexuality is more flexible than that.”

            What you mean is that morally disordered lust has few limits.

          • Anton

            Yes, I agree. We are fallen.

          • The Explorer

            And public schoolboys who went for the most feminine junior available as the closest equivalent to an actual female that they could find. In one of the early O’Brian Jack Aubrey novels, there’s a sailor who has it away with the goat that’s on board to provide the milk. How’s that for flexible sexuality? But this has strayed way away from the Inspector’s question.

          • DanJ0

            If I were stuck in jail with a bunch of women for life then the chances of my raping a woman in the absence of sex with a man is zero, and not just because consent is important. If I felt horny then a quick one off the wrist would always suffice. I’m bewildered by the idea of MSM who aren’t homosexual or bisexual. I could never get it up even to save my life if I had to have sex with a woman.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            People are free to engage in any fantasies they like, but there is no need in a gay male relationship for either of the partners to parody a woman. A gay relationship is good precisely for what it is: a HOMOsexual, i.e. SAME sex, relationship. It doesn’t need to be made into a parody of a straight one.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Yes, that’s what I was saying: homo = same. In a gay male relationship both partners are male. No matter what they do with each other sexually, neither is female. It sounds to me as though you’re trying to talk of homosexual relationships in heterosexual terms. It doesn’t work.

          • The Explorer

            In a gay male relationship, both partners are male. Are you talking sex or gender?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Both.

          • The Explorer

            Fine. Take it up with Happy Jack; it’s his area of expertise.
            To sum up, a TV aerial traditionally had a prong at one end and a hole at the other, until it all went clever. When you had leads with two prongs or two holes, some sort of adaptor was necessary.
            With human sexuality, when prong meets hole there’s an obvious sequence. When prong meets prong, or hole meets hole, some sort of adaptor is necessary. Off blog for a while now. Good day to you.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Despite the graphic classification used by the French of “fiches mâles” and “fiches femelles”, men and women, no matter what their sexual orientation, are not plugs, any more than they are keys and locks, nuts and bolts, or poles of magnets. Good day to you too, sir.

          • DanJ0

            The ‘female role’? What is that, exactly? You mean if the reference point is heterosexual sex then someone is at the other end of a penis at any given time, and that’s the ‘female role’, and this should matter to a homosexual?

          • The Explorer

            Whoever’s the recipient rather than the donor. Does it matter? Don’t know, don’t care.

          • Come now, Explorer. The Inspector claims God isn’t interested in ‘bedroom’ matters.

          • The Explorer

            I thought the Inspector was asking on his own behalf, not God’s?

          • If he claims God isn’t interested, then why should he be? And even if God is, why should he be?

            Jack thinks you’ll find the Inspector sees nothing unacceptable in private, discreet homosexual behaviour. It’s Big Gay, in your face, homosexualists he has an issue with.

          • DanJ0

            He shrugs his shoulders at homosexuals being imprisoned in Nigeria or hanged from cranes in Irans, and regularly blames the victims for the crimes of their persecutors. Yet no-one here really challenges that. Meanwhile, Christians are being crucified or shot in the face or beheaded in pogroms in Syria and Iraq and contributors here throw their hands up in horror. It’s a very odd place, morally and ethically speaking, down here at times.

          • CliveM

            DanJo

            For avoidance of any doubt I absolutely condem the murder of homosexuals wherever it occurs. Be it Nigeria, Syria or Iran. Be it State sponsored or mob led.

            I’m sure the are others who frequent this site who do to.

          • Phil R

            “He shrugs his shoulders at homosexuals being imprisoned in Nigeria or
            hanged from cranes in Irans, and regularly blames the victims for the
            crimes of their persecutors”

            I have never advocated that course of action or suggested that it was morally the correct thing to do.

            I have said it would be interesting to see the outcomes of the two approaches regarding the quality of society, say 50 years from now, for us and for them respectively

          • Inspector General

            Ah, the cherry picking of concern. Granted, the persecution of homosexuals by the lesser races is dreadful, but here Cranmer is trying to do something for Christians similarly affected. If that’s alright with you, that is. After all, few speak up for Christians is distress, but the homosexual lobby has governments on it’s side, has it not?

          • DanJ0

            I’m just highlighting some of the evil down here.

          • Phil R

            Linus

            You know not being gay I don’t really care or think about it much. However, you are a powerful minority. All I am saying is that this can be a dangerous position to be in if the wind changes direction

          • CliveM

            Regards your last paragraph that’s a gross distortion of what I said. Where did I say that?

          • Phil R

            Linus inferred it from what you said

            He wrote
            “So if you ever get your way and find a majority to support abrogation of
            the equal marriage law, you won’t make it retroactive and invalidate
            existing same-sex marriages then?”

          • CliveM

            Well I like to be quoted for what I have said and NOT for what Linus would like to think I said!!!!!!!!

            He inferred the way he did because he thought it gave him the opportunity to ‘expose’ Chrisrian hypocrisy. I don’t think he’s really interested in the actual point I was making.

          • CliveM

            Phil

            I don’t support scapegoating any group and neither would Jesus.

          • Phil R

            I am not saying we would.

            However, historically, governments have always looked for a group to blame when things go wrong.

        • Albert

          This is confused. One case involves those who broke the law, the other case involves those who followed the law. What is legal in one time can become illegal in another, and if that is the case, it necessarily loses all legal purchase. What is not possible is for a future state to make legal in the past what was illegal in the past.

  • Royinsouthwest

    One of the “reforms” introduced when Tony Blair was prime minister was legalising sex in public toilets.

    Government ‘legalises’ sex in public toilets
    http://www.christian.org.uk/pressreleases/2003/may_31_2003.htm

    Would men convicted of offences in public toilets also get a pardon under Ed Miliband’s proposals?

    • Inspector General

      Another popularist move UKIP could adopt. Repealing that. They don’t need public toilets anymore, but don’t be surprised to come across that kind of activity there still. They have apps which allow them to identify themselves, and to meet up using their pocket radio telephones.

      • Dude ,

        UKIP would say anything if they thought it gave them votes. Recently they’ve abandoned their pledge on immigration, whilst also attacking it. They previously made up an attack on kosher slaughter on the hoof. A bit like their sudden proposition against homosexual marriage…. what principle is next ? A UKIP/SNP coalition government? In short they are no different to other duplicitous politicians, but without a rock of any philosophical bedrock. So UKIP people be prepared to be incredibly disappointed and betrayed by any hypothetical UKIP gov’t , although in reality all they’ll do is split the conservative vote and put Labour SNP into downing street and the protest vote bandwagon will go on.

        • CliveM

          Sage words Sam.

        • Inspector General

          Something big is happening Sam. The tired old order of the thick as thieves professional politician is being challenged. . Stay with it. The Jews of Britain have nothing to fear, but their obvious enemies will probably find their ears pricking up in fright…

          • Dude

            I’m just in a ranting mood as i despair of our current politics and sometimes think we need a benevolent autocrat to sort things out…. I guess not very British , my Mesopotamian /Irish genes get the better of me. So let’s do the British thing…. all have a nice cup of tea and calm down. Deep breaths, aaaaand… relax.

          • Inspector General

            Everyone despairs of our current politics. One’s sincere hope is that in 2015, people vote with their conscience, and not tactically…

      • bluedog

        Public toilets are important as collection stations for used needles. One imagines that dedicated progressives have similar receptacles in their own facilities for the use of themselves and fellow adventurers.

    • Anton

      What would Charles Lynton think of it?

    • Slack Alice

      I’m hoping…..

  • David

    When the rule of law becomes the plaything of politicians injustice stalks the land.
    When people can be forced to support things that are contrary to their conscience and faith, injustice stalks the land.
    When the law enforces the legal fiction, over peoples’s consciences, of so called “same-sex” marriage, against the timeless, universal, global idea of marriage being of two people of opposite sexes, injustice stalks the land.
    When the law ceases to reflect reality injustice stalks the land.
    Injustice is now growing in the UK.

    • Doctor Crackles

      I consider lawlessness to be the abandonment of God’s holy law rather than a state of complete disorder, so SSM is an act of lawlessness as is the promotion of degraded behaviour. For believers this indeed creates a state of injustice and I wonder what the Christian response should be? I am not sure we should legitimise tacitly or otherwise our reprobate authorities. Our monarch and leaders are rebels against the Almighty.

    • bluedog

      A parallel development is the emergence of purely abstract and subjective crimes that are based on the perceptions and emotions of the supposed victim. These ‘crimes’ are nothing more than tools for the coercion of the populace towards acceptance of sociological developments that the non-homosexual majority know to be deeply flawed. A counter-revolution would appear to be inevitable.

      • David

        Agreed.
        What is so ridiculous is that many of these leftists claim to be guided by “Reason” yet all the scientific evidence points away from these delusions. They are not at all guided by Reason but in denial of it.

    • Kara Connor

      How is two people a “timeless idea” when polygamy was sanctioned in the OT?

      • David

        Depends when you want to start your theological clock ticking !
        Perhaps you’d start with the amoeba ?
        But I am more than happy that monogamy, normalised about 3000 years ago in Judaism, provides us with a well proven institution that is theologically, culturally and sociologically exceedingly deep. The Christian era has known nothing else, except celibacy, as the only other approved option.

        • Kara Connor

          So it isn’t “timeless”. It has changed over time. Women are no longer chattels as they were only last century, after marriage. Your definition may hold for Christian Holy Matrimony, but US civil marriage is not bound by theology, Christian or Sharia law.

          • It’s all a capitalist-patriarchal plot, isn’t it sister? Men dominated women, and then some men went on to dominate and enslave other men. Come the lesbian revolution all will be right with the world – or not.

            Oh, btw, polygamy isn’t “sanctioned” in the OT and the Christian theology of marriage doesn’t hold that women are “chattels”.

          • Kara Connor

            Do I need to list OT prophets with multiple wives? Are you really that derp in denial. You’ve just demonstrated that you don’t know what “timeless” means, so perhaps so.

          • Happy Jack

            The patriarchs of Israel, Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon had multiple wives. God, speaking through the prophet Nathan, said that if David’s wives and concubines were not enough, He would give David more. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

            The Bible is a remarkably candid book and rather than covering up the flaws of its key figures, it frequently shows humanity as it is. The Bible does not say why God permitted – not the same as sanctioning – polygamy. It was probably an allowance for the benefit of women, who outnumbered men. Brutal wars back then and many men would have been killed. It was nearly impossible for an unmarried woman to provide for herself in those times and they had to rely on their fathers, brothers and husbands for provision and protection. The significant difference between the number of women and men would have left many women in an undesirable situation. God may have allowed polygamy to protect and provide for the women who could not find a husband. The alternatives would have prostitution, slavery or starvation.

            The bible presents monogamy as the plan which conforms to God’s intention for marriage – one man to be married to one woman, for life. This is fully restored in the New Testament.

          • Kara Connor

            So “timeless” monogamy isn’t timeless either, and your god changed his mind. You seem to be proving my point.

          • Old Blowers

            All you have shown is that like Richard Dawkins, you have no grasp on the subject you speak about.

            More studying less ranting might be more useful when impulsively overcome by the humanist desire to keep spouting unqualified nonsense.

            Blofeld

          • Kara Connor

            You’ve shown that you don’t comprehend the English language. Timeless actually means something.

          • Inspector General

            Humanist_Lesbian_Atheist

            You must be fun to be around…

          • Kara Connor

            I’m a hoot, according to my many friends. If you think I’m a humorless feminazi you are way wide of the mark. And I have great legs, which is a good thing since it draws attention away from my face. However, ad hominem generally indicates that someone is out of valid arguments. If, of course, you intended your remark as a genuine compliment then disregard that last bit 🙂

          • Inspector General

            You sound great fun. Good for you for not tearing your hair out over life.

          • Kara Connor

            I spent good money getting the grey bits, erm, enhanced – no way am I tearing it out!

          • Inspector General

            One is rather attached to his grey-black. Nice legs, eh. Are you sure you’re a lesbian, and it’s not a case of a fussy woman not meeting the right man yet.

          • Kara Connor

            I like men, but have no desire to sleep with one 🙂

          • Inspector General

            An older man might do it for you. The Inspector could call you ‘dear thing’ and you could whisper ‘Papa’ to him during our intimate moments…

          • Kara Connor

            LOL – that “papa” thing creeps me out! I doubt you’d want to be with me in that way, though I’d be happy to debate you over a pint. Or a fancy cocktail if you’re paying 🙂

          • Inspector General

            There was a famous advert some years ago, to advertise the Renault Clit. The car for young ladies. That’s where ‘Papa’ comes from….

          • Kara Connor

            I’m from England originally, came here at the turn of the century, and still occasionally find myself doing the “Nicole?” … “Pap?” thing. That was a clever ad (nice “typo” btw 😉 ). And Nicole was _very_ cute !

          • Inspector General

            She was a darling. Women come in all shapes and sizes unfortunately, but everybody loved Nicole

          • DanJ0

            Don’t worry about the Inspector, he bats for the same team as me in reality, and his alcoholism will have shrunk his balls to nothing by now. He’s completely harmless to women. 🙂

          • Happy Jack feels exactly the same way.

          • Happy Jack

            God doesn’t change him mind, you silly sister. He permitted a practice He disapproved of for a time, maybe for reasons Jack speculated about. However, if you look at the bible, you’ll see polygamy was riddled with all sorts problems – jealousies, rivalries, plotting and scheming and such like.
            What’s your beef, then?

          • Kara Connor

            My beef is with the “timeless” claim. That is quote clearly not true. Nor is the “god not changing his mind” claim. If you permit something then ban it, that seems like a diametrically opposite position.

          • Happy Jack

            You can permit something without approving or sanctioning it. What is clear from Scripture is that “from the beginning” God clearly decreed in the first book of the Old Testament that marriage was to be between one man and one woman. God permits all sorts of evil in this world without approving it.

          • Old Blowers

            Dear fella.
            That was a pretty poor response to the greenham common feminist..poor form old boy.
            1.God ALWAYS disciplined against the sin of polygamy.
            2.Anyone, irrespective of position, was commanded not to do it. Those who committed polygamy were condemned as adulterous and despising God himself…See David who repented and Solomon that did not and Abraham that committed adultery with Hagar at Sarah s’ request due to a lack of faith in God’s promise..
            3. It is never requested to be committed or blessed by God. The One man One Woman is eternal from God…There is no other command given by God for the human family except the example of Adam and Eve.

            Blowers

            ps

            Utterly cheesed off at the moment at the mass lobbying of TV productions by homosexual brigade to include more lesbians and homosexuals as characters into shows despite it being unrealistic as a true depiction/representation of the number of these within society.

            As there are more Christians than homosexuals in GB would it not be a truer reflection to show these productions with 2/3 out of ten characters as christian and them reflecting their views as characters in the show. We are being brainwashed into accepting massive imbalanced characterisation as a norm and our children’s perception of reality changed by lying sexual propaganda!!!. I am struggling to enjoy my fav programmes on the telly and the family can see the black cloud hovering over old Blowers when they are suddenly introduced into the show.

            Imagine the outcry if Christians were represented correctly in soaps.

          • Well, that blue chap isn’t as refined as the true Happy Jack. Let him have his day.
            Anyway, good to hear from you. Hope the new job is working out and your health is okay. Keep your chin up Blowers. All we can do is soldier on, loving our family, friends and neighbours and telling those who listen about Jesus. The rest is with the Holy Spirit.

          • Powerdaddy

            True happy Jack?

            Dementia, anyone?

          • Old Blowers

            I’m blue da ba dee da ba die… I’m blue (da ba dee da ba die)

            *Chuckles*

          • DanJ0

            You have Dot Cotton in Eastenders. Surely she’s more than enough to represent Christians in real life. You’ve also got Aled Jones being unpleasantly wholesome on multiple media formats. And you had Jimmy Savile KCSG doing his charity work and all that seems to have implied. Really, you’re well covered.

          • magnolia

            Ha ha…not. One is a fictional nonsense in a bad soap opera, one is a nice, and very talented guy you have chosen to slur, and another has been revealed- as the onion rings have been stripped away- as some kind of Satanist using the church as a cover for nefarious activities.

            What about balance and truth? Or does accurate representation just not matter? Does good art which genuinely “holds the mirror up to nature” also just not matter? Will any old soap opera do? And should we celebrate fourth rate melodrama- with agendas left right and centre?

          • DanJ0

            It was wry humour, you cretin.

          • magnolia

            It wasn’t as pure as that, now, was it?

          • DanJ0

            Wry humour isn’t pure, it’s often mocking.

          • magnolia

            Then I read it as it was. Partially sympathetic, but partially gleeful and rubbing “Old Blowers'” nose in it, not to mention Tiddles’.

            More imp than empathy.

      • Inspector General

        The Inspector finds himself agreeing with you. Marriage was an alien idea when introduced to the blackamoor in Africa. The origin of the human race, so it is thought.

  • Homosexuals are trying so desperately to make what they do respectable by fair
    means or foul they want to scrub out history and so their shame by
    appealing to the left wing nit-wit apologists.

    What’s to say in however many decades that the law against homosexuality or
    the age of consent will not be revised upwards or changed back again
    as we rediscover the dangers of this lifestyle.

    • Inspector General

      Rather inevitable Marie. For to conquer HIV would also mean beating nature’s natural annual clear out of the dead wood, to wit, the flu. And that isn’t going to happen. Bone up on Prep. It’s a method to avoid getting HIV if you exhibit high risk behaviour. It’s not cheap, at £ 4000 per head per year. May well bankrupt the NHS, but then if it’s available, and the gays want it, then by all means they should have it, being the argument.

      • Beyond Cynicism

        Inspector General:

        Nature’s natural clear-out? Really? You expect that to be accepted as an intellectually respectable argument?

        Do you see cholera, typhoid, influenza, the Black Death, malaria, diabetes, all the cancers, neurological diseases, parasites (e.g. flukeworm) in the same light?

        A more rational approach might be to recognise that biology consists of many competing life forms, all of them seeking ‘personal’ advantage and none of them caring very much about the species upon which they prey.

        Your dislike of homosexuality should not rob you of your ability to reason logically, coherently and consistently.

        • Brian Hu

          If everybody become homosexual, humanity will be extinct within a generation.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            So what? If everyone became celibate, humanity would be extinct within a generation. The one contingency is as vanishingly unlikely as the other.

          • Inspector General

            The homosexual community needs to give (heterosexual) society far more respect than they do. It might help if the crowd consider the truth, that they are sterile drones who have little if any interest in the continuity of our species.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I have noticed no lack of respect on the part of the homosexual minority towards the heterosexual majority in general, but very considerable lack of respect to that ever-diminishing faction within the heterosexual majority who are obsessively anti-homosexual. Quite right too.

            “…who have little interest in the continuity of our species.”

            I don’t know how you’ve arrived at that idea, I’m sure. It sounds to me like just some cranky fantasy of yours.

          • Inspector General

            Hoping, or should that be demanding, to go into schools to recruit 10 year olds to the homosexual way is not quite what the Inspector had in mind when it comes to having interest.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I know of no-one who is hoping or demanding to go into schools to recruit 10 year olds or anyone else to the “homosexual way” – whatever that is.

          • Inspector General

            My dear fellow, you should pay more attention to Pink News. You might also wish to visit the Terrence Higgins site and Stonewall’s. For your enlightenment of course, as you seem to be rather un-enlightened as it is, and that would never do for a trendy gay type, now would it?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I know that the latest CEO of Stonewall has some crackpot ideas. I am not aware, however, that either the Terrence Higgins Trust or Stonewall is trying to RECRUIT 10 year olds or anyone else to the “homosexual way” – whatever that is. Can you, as they say, quote chapter and verse?

          • Inspector General

            Recruit may be a tad strong. Persuade then, or educate in the ways of Sodom and how to appreciate those of that nature. And of course, to give it a go themselves.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I have to say that in my experience – and I am far from being a stranger to the gay scene – most homosexuals, just like most heterosexuals, have not the slightest interest in recruiting anyone to anything; they just want to get on with their lives. Furthermore, most are realists: they know that, even in the highly unlikely event that they wanted to recruit anyone to the “homosexual way”, they would stand as little chance of success as would anyone who tried to recruit them to the “heterosexual way”.

            I note that you haven’t responded to my invitation to quote chapter and verse, but if there really is some small group of crackpots who want to go into schools to incite under-age pupils to engage in any kind of sexual acts, including the rape of visiting angels, they certainly won’t be allowed to, so you can stop worrying about that.

            If, however, by “appreciate those of that nature” you mean telling children that the obligation to treat others as they would wish to be treated applies to everyone, and that sexual orientation, whether known or conjectured, has nothing to do with it, then I see no objection to that at all. Indeed, that is precisely what we SHOULD tell children if they are in any doubt.

          • Inspector General

            If only you were representative of the gay movement, all our fears would be allayed. But you are not, so they are not…

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            You still haven’t quoted chapter and verse. Third time of asking.

          • Inspector General

            The Inspector does not dance to your tune, sir. Neither is he a ‘requests show’.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            In other words, you can’t. Thank you. You’ve told me what I wanted to know.

          • Inspector General

            Make of it what you will…

          • Brian Hu

            Don’t live in denial. The HRC and GLSEN are known to have attempted to indoctrinate their homosexual lifestyles into impressionable children.

            The Bible does indeed condemn homosexuality.

            ‘Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God’. – English Standard Version, 1 Corinthians 6:9-6:10

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Don’t live in denial. The HRC and GLSEN are known to have done no such thing, and if they tried to they wouldn’t succeed.

            Yes, the Bible does condemn homosexual behaviour – or rather, those few biblical writers who mention the subject at all do condemn it. We are allowed in 2015 to have different opinions from theirs.

          • Brian Hu

            Yet homosexual activists have no qualms about dragging people before the courts because they have dissented against the homosexual movement. No, it is either homosexuality or humanity that will be destroyed.

            You are lying to someone who have seen the homosexual movement in detail. Any attempts by the homosexual movement to indoctrinate innocent children will fail since they will be stopped by teachers and parents who support the traditional family.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            There is no such offence as “dissenting against the homosexual movement” – whatever that is – so no-one can be dragged before the courts for it. Stop talking patent nonsense if you want to be taken seriously.

          • Brian Hu

            It was you who were talking patent nonsense. I knew that Bernard Gaynor has been taken to the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal by a self confessed serial litigant Gary Burns because he objected against Toronto Pride exposing their genitals to little children. Bernard was in Queensland at that time.

          • DanJ0

            “You are lying to someone who have seen the homosexual movement in detail.”

            How fascinating…

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Brian Hu:

            And since when is the Bible the last word on the suibject?

            For goodness’ sake, it promotes blind obedience to a fantastical being which no-one has yet been able to demonstrate even exists!

            There’s nothing wrong with a good story and the Bible contains many rattling good yarns but I hardly think the prejudices of a people who lived over 2,000 years ago should be allowed to dominate modern thought. Treat your Bible as light bedtime reading if you must but don’t impose your Christian agenda on everyone else.

            Incidentally, religions of all stripes have a recorded, demonstrable history of doing precisely that, up to and including death to non-believers and non-conformists. Let’s hear your outright condemnation of the forceful imposition of your superstitious beliefs on others.

            I’m waiting.

            I’m still waiting …..

          • Brian Hu

            Say what you will about my Christian beliefs, right now it is the homosexual movement that are imposing their beliefs on others.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Brian Hu:

            Except that they are not, are they? I specifically asked you for examples and, so far, you have failed to provide any.

            Second time of asking, please. What evidence do you have for your belief that homosexuals are imposing their beliefs on others and, secondly, what do you even mean by the phrase?

          • Brian Hu

            There are children being brainwashed into becoming homosexuals in public schools at Massachusetts. Are you that blind?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            There is no evidence that people can be brainwashed into “becoming” homosexual, and you have specified no evidence that such a hare-brained scheme is being attempted in Massachusetts.

          • Brian Hu

            Read the following article and read it well, it will tell you everything about the effects of legalising gay ‘marriage’ on Massachusetts.

            http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/index.html

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I’d take any thing produced by that organization with a bucket of salt, but even if every single word of it were true, it would be no proof whatever that people can be brainwashed into “becoming” homosexual.

          • Brian Hu

            I’d rather trust Mass Resistance than listen to all of the rubbish coming from the US mainstream media organisations.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            That’s entirely up to you, mate, but there is still no credible evidence that people can be brainwashed into having a particular sexual orientation.

            There have been projects which have deliberately attempted to brainwash homosexual people into becoming heterosexual. Some people have been pressured by various means, including psychological and religious bullying, into squandering years of their lives on such projects. The only good thing about them is that they have proved a resounding failure.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Brian Hu:

            No there aren’t.

            There are children who are having homosexuality explained to them so that they understand not all people are the same and that difference is not necessarily something to be hated and feared.

            There are children in school today who will discover in time that they are homosexual. If they are lucky, they will have loving, supportive families who will help them to deal with an often hostile world. If they are not so lucky and belong to wilfully ignorant families or strongly religious families, they will suffer all sorts of inner torment that they ought not to suffer. For those children particularly, having another view of the world outside the claustrophobic atmosphere of their own family may well prove to be a salvation.

            No-one is being “made” into a homosexual. That is simply a ridiculous statement to make. The vast majority of the population is heterosexual. That has always been the case and will continue to be the case. Some of the population is not heterosexual. They do not choose to be gay, they are gay.

            Schools are not trying to create a generation of homosexuals. Stop being so paranoid. If nothing else, to do so would be to put teachers out of their own jobs should they ever succeed in such a ridiculous aim.

            However, schools do have an important part to play to help those people to understand that they are not – as the major religions would have it – moral deviants but ordinary, decent people who have a different sexual orientation from the norm. Schools also have an important part to play to teach the rest of us to stop demonising those who differ from us.

            Your attitudes and comments display more eloquently than I ever could why such teaching is necessary.

          • magnolia

            “No one has yet been able to demonstrate even exists”.

            A bit odd, really, as the whole world really demonstrates His existence. This is powerfully spoken of in the end chapters of the Book of Job. Not sure what demonstrable tests you want done on God. Easier to test things you can fit in a test tube, I think, and that is hardly an option, now, is it?

            Of course Gideon had a go, and countless others. One hears many when up against it have prayed something like “God, if you exist, please show me a way out of the mess I am in” and been astonished by an answer that has become the beginning of their Christian journey. It is thus a recommendable prayer.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            magnolia:

            Not at all odd. The existence of the world is not dependent on your god and there are mathematicians who can demonstrate that very sophisticated matter and behaviours can result from very simple inputs given enough time.

            While I will admit that science does not yet have the answer to ‘first cause’, nor has religion. Religion makes many, many very specific claims not only about the existence of god but also his intentions, desires, jealousies and so on – all without even being able to touch, taste, see, hear or otherwise experience him.

            Nothing you have said demonstrates in any way that god exists although it does touch, probably without you even realising it, on many aspects of human psychology and the need so many people have for certainty and a father figure.

            Longing and desire are not proofs or even acceptable evidence.

          • magnolia

            Many top mathematicians have been and are devout Christians. Not the least of whom is Professor John Lennox. I suggest you look up his work on apologetics, as it is not my discipline.

            Your understanding of psychology is inadequate as it can be and is flipped the other way, as St Paul does. You are left with a question you cannot answer in your ways of answering: Does parenthood derive from God or does the concept ( to you) of God derive from parenthood? You will be unable to prove it (as you see) either way.

            Philosophically you attempt another bite of the cherry, but it doesn’t work. You say “Longing and desire are not….acceptable evidence” but there is a philosophical argument about justice and our perceived innate need for it, and its inability to be realised only this side of the grave. You need to consider Kant and derived philosophies re the existence of God to understand that they are indeed evidences, as understood within that philosophy.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            magnolia:

            So what if many top mathematicians do believe in god? That does not make them right and their arguments are countered by the many top scientists of all disciplines who are atheists. You need more than that.

            Interesting that you argue these mathematicians are specifically Christian rather than theists. Why Christian specifically? Any reference to the teachings of the Bible and the belief that Christ was the son of god makes them the intellectual equals of any other religious believer. There is nothing in mathematics which supports the existence of a god who conforms to the Christian understanding of him. Professor John Lennox is Christian: his mathematical background does not accord him special insights into the Bible or the truth of a specifically Christian understanding of the world.

            I do not pretend I have the answer to the question of the origin of all things. Many brilliant people who are far more qualified than me are working on that very question every day of their lives. However, I do know that whenever religion has made specific claims as to the nature of the universe, they have been proved wrong. On that basis, it is reasonable to assume that religionists do not have the key to the universe after all. Their version of the parent/child problem you posit is inadequate and does not stand up to intellectual scrutiny or scientific, destructive testing.

            Your point about my understanding of psychology seems somewhat vague. I have no idea what you mean.

            It has been many years since I studied Kant. I thought at the time that his thinking was both circular and inherently contradictory. I freely confess I have forgotten most of what I learned (it was 30 years ago!) but I doubt he has written anything since that will cause me to change my mind. For the avoidance of doubt, I should add I am well aware he died in 1804!

          • magnolia

            Just a short reply:
            a) Prof John Lennox does see a connection between his understanding of Maths and God. Best to read his words for him to describe his views, as my understanding of such things is much hazier and poorer.
            b) If you wish to deny that justice is inherently possible in the universe we live in a vile and disordered universe in which there is no moral comeuppance nor ultimate accountability and the Jimmy Savilles and such of this life ultimately get away with it. If you want to believe that you are free to, but just remember not to criticise those of us who do believe in an accountability the other side of the grave by ever doing what many atheists do and railing at perceived suffering caused by a God we believe in and they don’t. “How can you believe in a God that allows suffering?” is a hypocritical question to ask if you believe in a universe that allows no fair reckoning and no justice.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            magnolia:

            With respect to your second point, I respect your right to believe in some sort of final justice (although I cannot share that belief). However, that does not mean I cannot criticise your belief. That is the demand of religious believers everywhere, isn’t it? I believe this and it is not up for intellectual or scientific scrutiny.

            Sorry but you cannot make that demand of anyone. Indeed, it is positively evil to do so as we witness in the Middle East every day. Evil men proclaim that evil doctrines and insupportable beliefs are true and people are dying horrible, unjustified deaths because those beliefs cannot be questioned.

            I’m not prepared to accept that you or any other believer has the authority to set the agenda in that manner. With the greatest of respect, I accept you are allowed to believe whatever you want but I do not accept that your views should be allowed to pass without examination or criticism.

            As for your final point, that makes no sense to me. Where is the hypocrisy in asking how a believer can believe in a god that allows so much suffering? The atheist is not saying “God exists but I refuse to believe in him because I don’t like him”. The atheist is asking the believer to justify his belief and support it with some evidence that it might be true. That is called intellectual enquiry and there is no hypocrisy involved in asking the question.

          • magnolia

            There is hypocrisy if you say “how can you believe in a theology which allows this suffering? ” if you believe in a closed system that allows injustice to remain unpunished. It becomes pointless to ask because we can say, “well, however much goes wrong in this world at least there is a time of reckoning.” When all you can say is “yes sometimes people live a charmed life, destroy the lives of thousands, mar the lives of millions, and die in a warm bed.” Then the message to any selfish bastard out there is that they too could get away with being a torturing dictator and living a life of cruelty, luxury and power without ever being held to account.

            Instantly you are criticising a morally higher position from a morally repugnant one. You can do so, but not while attempting to hold the moral higher ground at the same time, as many do.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            magnolia:

            Do you actually understand your own argument?

            Something is either true or it isn’t irrespective of whether I like it or not!. Moral superiority simply does not come into the equation.

            As it happens, I do believe this is all there is for us humans. We die and we return to the earth from which we came. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, end of story for us as individuals. I wish it were otherwise but the evidence for life beyond the grave is anything but compelling.

            The message to all dictators is that they can get away with anything … at least unless and until such time as enough people rise up against them and deliver a very human reckoning to them. Most people, alas, are passive and so the monsters of this world get away with more often than not.

            I wish that were otherwise too but the evidence of corruption and the abuse of power on this earth is overwhelming.

            There is nothing morally superior about fantasy, I’m afraid. There is nothing morally superior about hoping against hope that there is some sort of divine referee who will magically sort everything out after death. Either he exists or he doesn’t. If he exists, he exists despite my lack of belief in him. If he does not exist, then no amount of faith on your part will bring him into being.

            This is not a moral question. It is a question of fact, nothing more. Does your god exist or not? A question of fact, not morals. If he does exist, does he accord divine justice after death? A question of fact, not morals.

            Let me help you with a definition. Hypocrisy is defined as the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case..

            The atheist is making no moral claim. He is questioning a dubious assertion by the religious believer as to the existence of some divine being to whom, so the believer would state, we are all ultimately accountable. The atheist’s intellectual position is that the case is far from proven that such a being even exists, let alone that he plays the rôle in human affairs allotted to him by his human worshippers. That does not mean the atheist is making – or even attempting to make -a morally superior argument. As I have already stated, the question is to do with objective truth.

            I would also point out that most atheists are decent people and are as appalled as you are by the atrocities we read about daily. The atheist also notes in passing how many of those who commit the most wicked acts claim to do so in the name of an almighty merciful god.

            I’m sorry but it is a sad fact of life that some people really are monsters yet lead charmed lives and die of old age in their own beds whilst virtuous people suffer unimaginable torment. The day that changes is when the majority of humanity stops believing the lies told to them by the powerful, stops accepting the right of the corrupt to rule over everyone else and, quite frankly, eliminates those who would do evil.

            Too many people remain subservient to religious and political creeds. Too many cynical people understand how true power works and are prepared to use that knowledge for their own ends.

            There is no hypocrisy in recognising the world as it is rather than as I might wish it to be.

          • Anton

            OK Beyond, I am a theoretical physicist aka applied mathematician and all such, whether atheist or theist, recognise that some mathematics has an aesthetic beauty to it and other mathematics doesn’t. The mathematics that is involved in describing the natural world, notably the laws of physics, turns out to be the most beautiful mathematics that is known. There is no a priori reason why this should be. I say it is because those laws were ordained by a Creator who has an acute aesthetic sense. What’s your explanation, please?

            This does not of course prove the existence of a personal God or even the God of the Bible but it is a question that I could not answer when secular, and now can.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Anton:

            No you can’t answer the question. The fact that you have run out of answers and – it would appear – have stopped asking the questions that others continue to ask is not a proof of the existence of any sort of intelligent designer. It barely qualifies as evidence.

            Over thousands and thousands of years, all sorts of human societies have attempted to explain the universe in terms of their preferred god. Within the last few hundred years, science has demolished countless specific claims made for all manner of gods.

            If you are a scientist / mathematician as you claim, then you will know that those theories which do not stand up to destructive testing are unlikely to represent any sort of ‘truth’ (and I understand that that term is itself a hard bugger to pin down).

            I do not know how the universe originated any more than anyone else does. I do know that all the theist arguments rely more on assertion than testing such evidence as we are able to observe. On the balance of probabilities, then, their arguments are unlikely to be true.

            As for ‘aesthetics’ in mathematics, so what? You are bringing a human judgement to bear. However ‘beautiful’ some mathematics may be, that is a subjective, human assessment. The universe is not only unaware of the ‘beauty’ of some mathematics compared to others but is highly unlikely to care. I would add that ‘beauty’ is not ‘oroof’ either. For example, there are mathematicians who posit all sorts of dimensions and parallel universes and, I am told, the mathematics to support these ideas are truly beautiful. That doesn’t mean that they describe anything which has an objective existence. As the religionists before them have discovered, just because a human can think something does not make it objectively so.

          • Anton

            Hold on a moment, you talk about science and then when I respond as a professional scientist you hint that I might not be and then say I am talking nonsense.

            If you think I am lying then there is little point in going on. Tell me, are you a scientist? Or do you not really know what you are talking about here?

            By the way, science now says that the universe had a beginning, in the Big Bang; that essentially follows from Einstein’s field equations of general relativity applied to the whole universe. Many mystical faith systems hold that the universe was always in existence, but the Bible opens with “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” More accord…

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Anton:

            I was not and am not accusing you of lying and I apologise if that was the impression I gave. It was certainly not my intention to cause offence. I have no reason to doubt your professional credentials and did not mean to imply that I had.

            I was responding specifically to your assertion that the beauty of mathematics suggest the existence of an intelligent designer, whether he be the personal god of the Bible or some completely disinterested creator who built our universe but has since moved on to the next contract.

            Nothing in what you say points to the existence of such an intelligent designer. I am aware that most scientists believe there was a beginning of some kind but it is not true to say that everything which followed the Big Bang, Little Pop or whatever else the trigger event was had to be worked out in any detail by some sort of mind. It does not follow either that everything we see around us today was produced either as finished products or by way of ever more refined manufacturing process by a Man with a Plan. A few relatively simple processes seem to have worked in magical ways – but they have had an awfully long time to do it.

            It does not matter how ‘beautiful’ the mathematics or the science is: we simply do not know enough to say that some bloke with a beard was ultimately responsible. Okay, I know I am being a little facetious but the serious point is that it is a huge leap of faith between saying “look at the intricate wonder of the universe, the repeating patterns, the inter-dependencies, the cohesion of the natural laws etc. etc.” and saying “the big bloke did it”. My contention is that such a leap of faith is unwarranted and I say that particularly because whenever religionists have made specific claims about the nature of the universe, they have been proven wrong. Worse still they claim to have intimate knowledge of a being which they themselves accept as being unknowable.

            Religions do not talk in abstract terms about the possibility of an intelligent designer. They claim to know his address, how he votes politically and which school he sends his kids to. Those are very bold claims and they simply cannot be substantiated. It is difficult to believe that someone who cannot prove the truth of such very detailed claims about their god is likely to have a grasp of the fundamental nature of life, the universe and everything or to know – really know – that their god was responsible for the whole beginning of the universe thing.

          • Anton

            OK, I did not say that science proves the existence of the God of the Bible. I am saying that science and the Bible agree that the universe had a beginning whereas certain pagan systems say the universe was always there. And I am challenging – courteously – people with enough education in mathematics to recognise the beauty in the laws of physics to explain its origin. It’s the one question I couldn’t answer when I was an atheist physicist. My answer now is that those laws were ordained by a creator with an acute aesthetic sense. (I am not saying that this proves a personal God.) Every theoretical physicist, secular or not, recognises that beauty and the question is really only for such people.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Anton:

            Of course, all you have actually done is fix an arbitrary point (the creator) as your beginning. The age-old, unanswerable question is obviously “and where did he come from?”.

            Neither secularists nor believers in the divine can answer this question and perhaps the reason lies in the construction of our minds. We are pattern seekers and all our everyday experiences require a specific understanding of the singular flow of time. Within our physical limitations, that makes sense and it is literally nonsense to think otherwise.

            All I would say is that beauty in mathematics does not necessarily equal design.

            Mathematics is a language which is used to describe a universe which already exists and so of course we see patterns and beauty within that language. If the universe had developed in ways other than it did, perhaps we would see beauty in a different form of mathematics. What I am trying to say, albeit clumsily, is that we bring a lot of human-centric perceptions and concerns to our concepts of beauty in the sciences, primarily because we are examining what is already there. Sometimes, too, I think people forget that mathematics is there to describe and understand what is real and it is not for the real world to jump through the hoops we create for ourselves through our imperfect understanding of what actually is. I’m thinking particularly of some of the more obscure quantum theories which hypothesise ever more complex dimensions, parallel universes and so on in order to make the universe or multi-verse or whatever-verse fit the sums. That seems to me to be fundamentally the wrong approach.

          • DanJ0

            Can people be ‘recruited’ into homosexuality if they’re heterosexual? Growing up, I’d have loved to have been recruited into heterosexuality, but sadly it wasn’t possible. However, I know of groups who do try to recruit impressionable children into their lifestyle: religionists. Heck, some of them even run the damned schools! :O

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Inspector General:

            Reproducing is not the only way to ensure the continuity of the species, even assuming that is an important goal.

            I’ve worked with and known many homosexuals of both sexes over the years. They often make great aunties and uncles to their nieces and nephews and I can think of at least two who used to contribute financially towards the upkeep of the children of their brothers and sisters, thereby giving them greater life chances than they would otherwise have enjoyed.

            In Nature, most animals do not reproduce. It is neither necessary no desirable that every single animal reproduces. Most seed is wasted; most eggs are unfertilisedl most mebryos never make it to infancy; most infants never make it to adulthood; most adults never breed.

            Nature is incredibly wasteful. If you knew more natural science, you would be less prone to making silly comments like this.

          • Inspector General

            Quite a few odd comments you have there. Particularly like the bit about most adults never breed. In some parts of the world, that’s just about all they do. And what’s this ‘nature is incredibly wasteful’. Not very good are you. That makes absolutely no sense at all. But most of all, we have ‘Reproducing is not the only way to ensure the continuity of the species’.
            These schoolboy howlers makes one think you are a schoolboy. If not actual, then an overgrown one.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Inspector General:

            Sorry: I should have expressed myself more clearly. I meant “most adults of most species never breed”.

            What I was trying to say – but obviously did not – is that it is not a requirement for any species to be successful that all its adult members reproduce and that, in fact, in most species, it is the case that most of the organisms born to that species will fail to breed either because they die before they reach maturity or they lose the competition for mates.

            Whoops: just realised there is more to your comment so I will save this and come back to edit it in a moment.

          • Inspector General

            The Inspector is so impressed with ‘Nature is incredibly wasteful’ that he’s emailed it his good friend Cath. A school teacher. She collects stuff like that, you see. Will let you know if it’s new to her…

            Er, have you got any more?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I’m afraid that Nature is indeed incredibly wasteful. For example, as the late Cambridge philosopher C.D. Broad noted, “Most seeds do not grow into plants and most caterpillars never become butterflies.” It should perhaps also be pointed out that most spermatozoa by far never fertilize an ovum.

          • Inspector General

            Only the champion sperm gets to fertilise the ovum in nature. In IVF, any old slacker gets the honour…

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            LOL.

          • Inspector General

            It’s true, and IVF children can be all the weaker for it. One problem in boys is that the tip of the urethra isn’t aligned true, and the child will need an operation to correct. Or continue to have the unpleasant ability to piss round corners…

          • magnolia

            That reminds me of the excellent joke:
            “Why does it take 100,000,000 sperm to fertilise one egg?”

            Answer: Because they WON’T ask for directions!

          • Inspector General

            Two sperm swimming along. One says “Are we near the egg yet”. The other replies “Miles away. We’ve only just passed the tonsils”

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Inspector General:

            Obviously I do not know what your school teacher friend teaches. However, if she teaches any of the life sciences and does not know that Nature is incredibly wasteful, then I would respectfully suggest either that she read up more on her subject or reconsider her life calling. What I said about the wastefulness of Nature isn’t even contentious: it is a simple, verifiable statement of fact.

          • Brian Hu

            That is because the homosexual agenda have been prevented from imposing their lifestyles upon every countries on this world.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            “the homosexual agenda have been prevented from imposing their lifestyles”

            What exactly is this mysterious organization called “the homosexual agenda”? And in what way have the members of this shadowy organization been trying to impose any “lifestyles” on the rest of the world? I’d be fascinated to see them in action. Where can I go for this experience?

          • Brian Hu

            Don’t be obtuse. I’m not here to help the homosexual movement. I’m here to thwart them. You can find homosexual indoctrination programmes in various public schools in the United States, especially in Massachusetts.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I don’t live in the United States, but frankly I doubt it. I’m not exactly sure what a “homosexual indoctrination programme” is, but I take it that it’s a programme aiming to indoctrinate people into being homosexual. There is no credible evidence that either heterosexuality or homosexuality can be brought about by indoctrination, so anyone attempting such a crackpot project is wasting their time. But what are claimed to be attempts at “homosexual indoctrination” or the “promotion” of homosexuality invariably turn out on investigation to be simply measures to promote decent attitudes, to replace ignorance with knowledge, and to counter attempts to indoctrinate people with pernicious anti-homosexual nonsense.

          • Brian Hu

            I’m not surprised that you would try to rationalise homosexual indoctrination programmes at schools under the guise of ‘anti-bullying’. What makes you think that teaching children how to perform homosexual acts will stop school bullying?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I certainly don’t see the need to teach children how to perform homosexual acts – and I’m sceptical of the assertion that this is happening in any schools. People have been performing homosexual acts since the beginning of time without being taught how, just as with heterosexual acts. But whatever, knowing how to perform homosexual acts won’t turn people homosexual. I knew at the age of 10 how heterosexual acts were performed, but knew nothing about homosexual acts. Did that turn me heterosexual? Did it hell.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Brian Hu:

            I was always taught as a child that if you were unable to communicate your thoughts clearly to a third party, the chances were high that you did not understand them yourself.

            I invite you to consider whether an agenda of any description is capable of imposing anything on anyone.

            The short answer, if you are still confused as to what I mean, is that no agenda can impose anything on anyone anywhere at any time. The reason this is so is because agenda have no existence of their own. Only people can have agendas,

            Now that we have correctly identified that only people can have agendas and that agenda do not have independent lives of their own, let us consider the central assertion you are making, to wit that homosexuals are attempting to impose their lifestyles on others.

            Can you point me towards any evidence you may have that suggests homosexuals are imposing their lifestyles on others such that heterosexual people are either being forced to commit homosexual acts* or are – for example – being hurled off the tops of tall buildings into the midst of baying, bloodthirsty crows for the ‘crime’ of being heterosexual?

            Thought not. The other way around, distressingly, seems to be relatively common however.

            * Note: of course you will be able to point towards sexual predators who have done this – but such people are in the same class as heterosexual abusers; no decent homosexual would condone abusive sexual behaviour of any kind in exactly the same way as no decent heterosexual would.

          • Inspector General

            Evidence. You want evidence! Hmmm. Let’s see. How about baking gay propaganda cake, or suffering the consequences. Or B+Bs that have a ‘no same sex in the same bedroom’ rule. And one’s favourite, Christian street evangelists being taken into custody after complaints from the gay annoyed.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Inspector General:

            And the big organisations behind these events of which you speak?

            01. The gay cake controversy: a gay couple placed an order with the bakery which was accepted. The order was then cancelled by the directors who decided it went against their religious beliefs. The couple – not a big, secret homosexual “agenda” organisation then complained to the Equality Commission, as they are entitled to do and as anyone else who feels they have been discriminated against on the grounds of their ethnicity, colour, political or religious beliefs or sexuality is entitled to do. The reason they are entitled to do this is because British law recognises that many people are bigots who act in nasty ways towards people of whom they disapprove,

            02. The B & B controversy: I have more sympathy on this one because a B & B is not only the business place of the owners but also their home. However, owners of a B & B do not have the right to impose their views on their guests. If I and my partner* visit a B & B, it is reasonable for the owner to ask us to act considerately towards the other guests in terms of noise and nuisance but it is not reasonable for them, for example, to enquire into our marital status and demand we sleep in separate rooms if we are not married (we are not). When you run a business, you must do so in accordance with the laws of the land**.

            03. The Christian street evangelist: he was arrested under the Public Order Act after two teenagers complained to police and said they felt insulted. What you fail to mention is that the Christian Institute took up the case against Manchester Police, accusing them of wrongful arrest and imprisonment. You also fail to acknowledge that the Manchester Police settled out of Court or that the preacher was specifically preaching against homosexuality.

            In none of the examples you quote is there any evidence of an organised, institutional homosexual agenda, merely specific examples of homosexuals feeling discriminated against or actively denounced.

            In all of the cases you cite, you seem to think it perfectly acceptable for people to denounce homosexuals yet perfectly unacceptable for the homosexuals so denounced to be offended or to have any recourse to law. Why is that?

            The answer is painfully simple. You see homosexuals as some sort of lesser human who should not have the same rights to go about their lawful occasions without harassment as what you would see as ‘ordinary’ people.

            In the 1930s, this sort of thing was exemplified by the poisonous Nazi ideology spouted by Hitler and his followers. Of course, the victims then were Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and the mentally defective … all people, no doubt, who you, too, would wish to see eradicated from the face of the earth.

            So your argument boils down to this:

            a. homosexuals are lesser citizens who should not be treated equally before the law.

            b. heterosexuals who discriminate against homosexuals are a persecuted minority.

            c. homosexuals who complain about their treatment at the hands of bigots are all members of some vast, international conspiracy none of them has ever heard of

            d. heterosexuals who behave badly are somehow the victims and not the perpetrators (which puts you in the same psychological profile as wife beaters by the way; when did you stop beating your wife?)

            It really is not a very impressive or admirable line of argument, is it?

            Finally, just out of interest, why do you dislike homosexuals so much? Do they keep coming on to you in night clubs or something? Why do so many apparently straight men struggle so much with the sexual preferences of strangers they will never meet and who choice of partner is none of their business?

            And why do I never see you lot rail against lesbians?

            * For the avoidance of any doubt, my partner is a female of the opposite sex.
            ** Unless you are a bank.

          • Inspector General

            What a presentation! Thank God for fellows like you to point out that some of us are not at all with the modern message of, well, not thinking like you do. One feels quite ashamed now, and is seriously thinking of ripping up his National Socialist membership card.

            It seems that businesses are no longer able to decide whether they want the business or not, and people are obliged to open their homes to sodomy, even if they don’t agree with it. But most of all, those two teenagers disappointment with free speech. Mummy didn’t say it would be like this, they gushed to the police.

            The law needs changing.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Inspector General:

            01. The bakery had already accepted the business.

            02. A B& B is a business not just a home. Besides, the couple in question would not have dreamed of asking a heterosexual couple whether they also practised sodomy – anal intercourse between heterosexuals is not unknown! Also, you seem rather certain that the homosexual couple who were turned away actually do practise sodomy within their relationship. One does rather wonder how you know this to be true: is one of them playing away with you …?

            03. You miss the point that the police acted improperly under existing law which is why they chose to settle out of Court.

          • Inspector General

            Alright, bad law needs changing. That better? And when it is, perhaps homosexuals will come to learn that irritating the rest of us will gain them nothing.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Inspector General:

            They probably will – at just about the same point “the rest of us” realise that irritating them will not make them meekly shut up and go away.

            This irritation thing of which you speak should work both ways. Otherwise, you are going to have to come up with a damn good argument to explain why it is fine for you to act as you do (to the irritation of homosexuals) but not fine for them to find that objectionable and to act as they do.

            At some point, any argument you make is going to rest on some sort of presumed moral superiority … and there’s the rub: the old referee (god) seems not to be quite as real as we were once assured he was. Pesky science again, challenging and disproving every specific assertion the religionists make.

            Let’s ban science as well and perhaps scientists wll come to learn that irritating the rest of us will gain them nothing …..

          • Brian Hu

            It is science that homosexuals cannot reproduce. Perhaps the homosexual movement should see reason and realise that.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            No, homosexuals cannot reproduce – at least certainly not by homosexual behaviour. By Jove, you’re right! Do you know, I’d never realised that before. Thank you for pointing it out. I’m more grateful than I can say. Now you can tell us something else. If the sexuality of a small minority – not more than 5%, and many are now insisting that we’re far thinner on the ground even than that – is non-reproductive, why the hell should we be the slightest bit concerned about that?

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Brian Hu:

            What reason? When you understand how evolution works, come back to me with a better argument. This post just shows how shallow your understanding of “science” really is.

            Some pointers for researchL

            01. Survival of the fittest – learn what Darwin meant by that unfortunate choice of words.

            02. Evolution and the herd – learn that evolution has never meant that all individuals in the herd have to be the same and understand how mutations come about.

            03. Evolution and lack of moral purpose – learn that evolution is blind and devoid of moral purpose. Organisms constantly mutate in all sorts of subtle, complex ways. Sometimes that might be at the specific level of a gene but, more often, it is at the level of interaction between many genes. If something works, it is propagated – eventually – but understand that it is not necessarily propagated to every individual . If something does not work, it will either be ignored (dormant), die out or cause the species to die out … but see the next point.

            04. Evolution and time – learn that evolution and reproduction work over thousands and thousands of years. Nature has not even ‘noticed’ your existence or mine. We are but tiny grains of sand on an infinitely large beach. If you or I differ from the other grains of sand, it really, really, really does not matter in the grand scheme of things. As individuals, we are too insignificant to count. The success of any species depends on the long term future of the herd, not the fate of any number of individuals.

            So homosexuals cannot reproduce?

            Scientifically speaking, you have not even managed to get that right. Unless a gay person has a medical condition which prevents them from reproducing, they are as capable as you or I. Homosexuality does not damage the physical reproductive systems of either men or women.

          • DanJ0

            I’m homosexual and as far as I know, I can reproduce if I so choose. I like to refer to turkey basters when it’s Christmas and someone makes a thick comment like that. One should angle one’s comments to the season where one can, I think.

          • Brian Hu

            ‘And why do I never see you lot rail against lesbians?’
            We do, and you’re going to watch.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Brian Hu:

            Is that really the best you can do?

            Fact: on these discussion boards, the homophobes amongst you tend not to complain about lesbianism. It is male homosexuality that excites you all so much, not girl on girl action.

            Fact: I am not going to watch anything. Grow up.

          • Brian Hu

            That is where you are wrong. We attack lesbians as much as we attack gay men. Homophobia, or I should say, homo-disgust, don’t care if homosexuals are male or female.

          • DanJ0

            The evidence here on the many threads that end up discussing homosexuality massively contradicts you.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Brian Hu:

            01. You personally may do so but most people who attack homosexuals on here really don’t go after the lesbians. I have engaged in sufficient discussions to know that to be true.

            02. And now the mask slips. For all your talk of ‘science’ (of which it is painfully obvious you know nothing), it is in fact your personal ‘disgust’ which fuels your attacks and nothing deeper.

            Here’s a word of advice for you: learn to live and let live. Homosexuals do not intrude into your bedroom so do not intrude into theirs. Homosexuals do not tell you how to choose your life partner (assuming you have one) so do not presume to tell them with whom they may choose to share their one chance of life. Homosexuals do not presume to tell you how to live your life so do not presume to live their lives for them.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Brian Ho:

            Of course that would be true. Simple mathematics would see to that. However, nature and evolution do not work that way. Nature constantly mutates. Even you are a mutation somewhere within your genetic make-up. It is unlikely that there were no errors of duplication when you were developing as an embryo.

            The glorious thing about Nature is that species develop, arise and thrive as a result of this constant mutation. Those species which cannot adapt eventually perish.

            Too many people look at homosexuality as if the only benefit any person can have to society is to reproduce. Not true. The human species, for example, is so dominant not because of its ability to breed but because of its ability to control its environment. In other words, the ability to make social arrangements, to invent , to learn and – essentially – to pass that learning on are just as important as breeding. Indeed, there is a good argument for saying that those societies which place most emphasis on large families are amongst the most backward and impoverished in the world.

            It is highly unlikely that homosexuals will ever become a majority in any society. Even if they did, then – provided there were enough heterosexuals prepared to breed – society could still continue and perhaps flourish, albeit with fewer people. Quite frankly, in an over-populated world dominated by vicious, armed conflict, that might be no bad thing but that is a separate discussion.

            Given tht homosexuals are only ever a very small proportion of any society, why would you even worry about it?

          • Inspector General

            Last sentence. Small but powerful. Very powerful. That’s why we worry about it.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Inspector General:

            Very powerful? Really?

            Tell me: what has the homosexual lobby ever actually done to affect your life? Apart from lobbying for laws to grant them equality before the law, what have they actually done to affect the daily routine of your life?

          • Inspector General

            Haven’t got over SSM yet. Probably never will.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Inspector General:

            SSM? That’s a new one on me.

          • Inspector General

            Same Sex Marriage. Once you let homosexuals into the driving street, they head straight for queer street.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Inspector General:

            Thank goodness for that. I tried to find a definition on t’internet and it offered me “Stop Sucking Me” which sounded sort of relevant ….

            By the way, I saw you upvoted an earlier comment of mine: you’ve obviously got a sense of humour. Now, if only we could work together to discover the childhood trauma which has left you with this unreasoning dislike of folk who differ from you ….

          • Inspector General

            …you mean like muslim jihadists.

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Inspector General:

            That particular dislike is at least based in something reasonable.

        • Inspector General

          One has never allowed the niceties such as intellectual respectability to prevent thinking outside of the box, that man. As you say, there’s a myriad of nature’s instruments out there to put an end to us, or make life difficult at the least, but we must not forget the law of survival of the fittest. Yes, it’s been somewhat frowned upon since 1945, but it is worthy of rehabilitation these days, don’t you think?

          You’ve spotted a dislike of homosexuality. In truth, it’s a disdain of those fanatics who consider themselves first and foremost homosexuals. They are a dangerous lot, and need to be faced down. Their power is overwhelming at the moment. They even apparently have the power to role back time as this thread attests too. Scary stuff, what!

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Inspector General:

            I have never given a monkey’s for intellectual “respectability”. It is too often a euphemism for lazy, comfortable thinking.

            However, it would have been nice to have seen some evidence of intellectual rigour from you.

          • Inspector General

            That’s the spirit! We must never hold ourselves back when it comes to thought. As for intellectual whatever, this fellow is a rather simple man all told, but his does have the odd flash…

          • Beyond Cynicism

            Inspector General:

            “… this fellow is a rather simple man, all told …”

            It shows.

          • The Inspector “does have the odd flash” !

            Do not scare the cats, Sir.

          • DanJ0

            “You’ve spotted a dislike of homosexuality. In truth, it’s a disdain of those fanatics who consider themselves first and foremost homosexuals.”

            It’s self-hatred exhibiting as homophobia. You’re a repressed homosexual. Your personal circumstances, your obsession with the specific physical act you imagine happens, and your attraction to sites like Pink News show it clearly enough.

          • Inspector General

            Now you’re being silly.

    • DanJ0

      The shame actually belongs to society for its past moral faults regarding homosexuality, akin to the moral faults it had regarding (say) operation of the slave trade, or the forced adoption of children in the 1960s in the UK and Ireland because of misplaced social stigma.

      • I disagree, society was following the Bible and was more moral.
        You can’t really compare with operating slavery, people didn’t know any better at the time until Christian enlightenment stamped it out.
        Whereas licentious sexual behaviour was known to be harmful.

        Unmarried mothers were shamed rightly so for their loose behaviour, and single motherhood is denying children proper parenting and stability of a full family life.

        Same with the dirty, harmful homosexual behaviour.

        • DanJ0

          You’re on the wrong side of history even now, just like the people to which I referred. You’ll be looked at with contempt for your views by classrooms full of kids studying history in a few years.

          • Inspector General

            The same kids that run around calling each other ‘poof’ would that be…

          • History that is truthful not sanitised and manipulated has to be taught for the next generation to fully understand and learn from it’s mistakes.
            It’s fashionable again to embrace sexual ‘freedom’ and homosexuality in light of the latest contraceptions and medications but when it produces a different set of nasty illnesses and malfunctioning body parts, the tides will turn again and we’ll go back to some sort of prohibitions and preaching the clean living based on what is said in
            the Bible. Things go in cycles.

          • DanJ0

            “History that is truthful not sanitised and manipulated has to be taught for the next generation to fully understand and learn from it’s mistakes.”

            Which is why it’s useful that people know how Turing was treated simply because of his sexual orientation. A Royal Pardon is not appropriate but public recognition of the moral fault underlying the repealed law that was used to convict him is.

          • Inspector General

            What about the Catholics in Tudor England, for their faith. Where do you stop. Well, obviously sexual orientation, it seems. Nothing else matters, as the old Flake advert had it…

          • Nothing else matters to homosexuals Inspector.

          • Inspector General

            It’s beginning to seem that way Marie…

          • DanJ0

            That’s just two homophobes with a long history of such here kidding themselves for their own gratification.

          • Brian Hu

            It is you and two other pals who are kidding themselves for your own gratification.

          • DanJ0

            I regularly refer to the evil which religionists inflicted on each other during our religious wars. In fact, I use that fact to argue for a secular state given we have competing religions again.

          • Yes, but it’s not all one sided, the ‘moral fault’ as you put it was justified at the time. Homosexuality was a more dangerous practice. Still is, only now we have penicillin, PREP and a whole host of medications to deal with the consequences of practising such a lifestyle.

            The reasons why it was outlawed also have to be taught for a fuller understanding.

          • DanJ0

            “The reasons why it was outlawed also have to be taught for a fuller understanding.”

            It was outlawed for moral reasons, hence the moral fault when we look back.

          • It’s morally wrong to spread diseases and cause damage to the rectum and anuses of young men and boys.
            Outlawing it wasn’t a fault at all, it was common sense at the time for health reasons. So it was morally right to do so to keep it under control I’d argue. Look what happened not long after it became legal – the AIDS outbreak and HIV epidmics.
            If I were a homosexual today I’d be thanking my lucky stars and keeping a low profile.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Yeah, you’re right, Marie1797: when AIDS exploded in the 1980s, the problem didn’t affect, or hardly, those countries where homosexual behaviour was still illegal, did it? Not bloody much, it didn’t.

          • It was spread through travel.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            What’s that got to do with it? There is not a shred of evidence that legal and/or social anti-homosexual repression did anything to stop AIDS. No, not even in those Iron Curtain countries where travel to and from non-communist countries was restricted.

            You might also like to reflect that in many countries of the world AIDS is rife among the heterosexual population.

          • It was not half as bad in those Iron Curtain countries that had prohibition and restricted travel. AIDS spread to the heterosexuals through BI-sexuality.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Really? In Romania, for example, when homosexual behaviour was still illegal and gay people were brutally punished, Ceausescu told the outside world that there was no AIDS in Romania. When he fell from power, it was discovered that it was a coal-black lie. There was a huge AIDS problem in Romania, as in other Iron Curtain countries. It sounds to me as though you’re just trying to make up facts as you go along to suit yourself. In fact it’s quite obvious that you are.

            How could AIDS have spread to heterosexuals through bi-sexuality? Only by bi-sexuals engaging in heterosexual sex with heterosexuals, thus proving that AIDS can be contracted through heterosexual sex.

          • Well it wasn’t present in the heterosexual community in the epidemic during the late 70s early 80s until it was passed on from the homosexual communities. Western countries whose populations had been indulging freely in no holds barred homosexuality on the scene were the worst hit. Either that or African Chimpanzee meat had become very popular?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            No matter how you look at it, anti-homosexual laws do and have done nothing to curb the spread of AIDS. From a public health point of view criminalizing homosexual behaviour is counter-productive.

          • AIDS in the late 70s and mid 80s erupted in America and European cities in the homosexual communities were promiscuity was rife due to the newfound sexual freedoms. You can’t argue with this fact. The virus spread quickly through travel to other countries.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I haven’t for one moment disputed that AIDS has been spread through promiscuity. What I have said is that anti-homosexual legislation, no matter how draconian, did nothing to halt it.

          • Then why was there an outbreak of AIDS and HIV M group that started in the homosexual community in the late 70s in the US and becoming epidemic in Europe by the late 80s, not that long after homosexuality had become legal?
            It does have something to do with its free practice as opposed to the previous restrictions of less practice due to the fear of being caught and imprisoned

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            “…and becoming epidemic in Europe by the late 80s, not that long after homosexuality had become legal?”

            In most countries of Europe consensual homosexual behaviour between adults had ceased to be illegal long before that, in some of them (those whose laws were based on the Napoleonic Code) well over a century before. In those countries in which anti-homosexual laws were still in force they did nothing to curb the epidemic. Nor are such continuing laws preventing AIDS from being a huge problem in African countries, for example. Why don’t you stop talking ill-informed hogwash?

          • From Wikipedia
            “Paragraph 175 (known formally as §175 StGB; also known as Section 175 in English) was a provision of the German Criminal Code from 15 May 1871 to 10 March 1994. It made homosexual acts between males a crime, and in early revisions the provision also criminalized bestiality as well as forms of prostitution and underage sexual abuse. All in all, around 140,000 men were convicted under the law.

            The statute drew legal influence from previous measures, including those undertaken by the Holy Roman Empire and Prussian states. It was amended several times. The Nazis broadened the law in 1935; in the prosecutions that followed, thousands died in concentration camps as
            a widespread social persecution of homosexuals took place. East Germany reverted to the old version of the law in 1950, following the Soviet Union and its satellite states’ policy of persecuting homosexuals as subversives. The government limited its scope only to sex with youths under 18 in 1968, however, and it abolished it entirely in 1988. West Germany retained the 1935 version until 1969, when it was limited to “qualified cases”; it was further attenuated in 1973 and finally revoked entirely in 1994 after German reunification.”

            You are the one talking hogwash Guglielmo. Since 1969 not that long considering AIDS took a few years to develop on from a person first becoming infected w HIV and society becoming aware of it in the late 70s to mid 80s.
            You just want to try and make anal sex respectable and a healthy lifestyle when it’s far from that.

            Africa is very complicated.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Africa
            From the above:
            “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in Africa are limited in comparison to many other areas of the world. The International Gay and Lesbian Association estimated in 2008 that homosexuality was
            outlawed in 38 African countries, and in at least 13 African
            countries, homosexuality was legal or there were no laws pertaining to it.”

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Yes, Germany was behind even the UK, where homosexual behaviour between consenting adults was not decriminalized until 1967 in England and Wales, and even later in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Homosexual behaviour remained a criminal offence in the Irish Republic until 1993. Did Ireland escape the AIDS epidemic? No.

            Consensual homosexual behaviour between adults ceased to be a criminal offence in Denmark in 1933, and in Sweden in 1944. It ceased to be criminal in France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Italy around 200 years ago. It was never a criminal offence under Polish law.

            As I said, Marie1797, you really do talk ill-informed hogwash. Mind you, I don’t particularly mind you doing it, as you thereby show yourself up.

          • DanJ0

            Lots of things to comment about in there. Firstly, just when do you think it was made illegal? I’m thinking you’re in for a surprise when you google that. Secondly, at the same time heterosexual prostitution was openly available in ‘stews’ and brothels, and it spread diseases such as syphilis. Southwark and Bankside in London were famous for them, despite being on land owned by the Church. Thirdly, I’m homosexual with a sex life and I have never had an STI in my life, unlike a number of my heterosexual friends. Moreover, my rectum and anus is perfectly fine as like many homosexuals, and unlike a fair few heterosexuals, I don’t have anal sex. Homophobes are typically obsessed with the physical act, especially anal sex, as I have observed many times in the past. In fact, it’s often an indicator that someone is not quite right in the head in debates about homosexuality when that’s their primary focus.

          • Danj0
            It’s always been the forbidden love and sinful. It’s in the Bible and has been promoted by the Church as such. Henry VIII in 1533 brought about The Buggery Act where homosexual sex was punishable by death.
            Henry himself had Syphilis and Dropsy bought on through his sexual promiscuity as the lack of effective treatments ensured they spread. Monogamy was the key to avoiding illness and death.
            Society shamed those who had it.

            Good to hear you don’t indulge in the anal bit Danj0. I don’t have a fear of homosexuals. Where do you get the idea that I’m obsessed with the physical act, in particular anal sex? Hardly, but you homosexuals are otherwise you wouldn’t want to push it down the throats of every child in every school.

            I’m listening to that bitchy old gay windbag Steve Allen on LBC right now, he’s on 4 till 6 a.m.
            In small doses he can be quite entertaining.

          • DanJ0

            “Henry VIII in 1533 brought about The Buggery Act where homosexual sex was punishable by death. ”

            I see you’ve googled now. Well done. So, are you still saying he did that as common sense to stop the spread of disease as you claimed rather than for moral reasons as I claimed? You’ve even referenced the Bible and its sexual morality now. And pointed out that Henry was promiscuous to boot, probably using women from Southwark himself despite it being a Biblical sin. Google some more and you’ll probably find that he finally tried to close down stews and brothels as an old man … for moral reasons.

          • It shows Henry VIII to be a bit of a hypocrite.

            Homosexuality is wrong, it’s always been wrong and always will be. There were common sense reasons for it being classed as wrong and outlawing it, disease, damaging to the human body, and non productive.

            I’ve not seen anything from you here until now on opposing the inappropriate teaching of homosexuality and anal sex to children in all schools.

            If you’re as concerned as you like to say you are about this aggressive promotion of homosexuality to children why aren’t you doing something about it? Have you started a petition, written to or seen your MP or organised a demo? Have you challenged Peter Tatchel/Stonewall/Terrence Higgins Trust about this etc…. I suspect not.

          • DanJ0

            “There were common sense reasons for it being classed as wrong and outlawing it, disease, damaging to the human body, and non productive.”

            Feel free to substantiate that with historical references if you can.

            “I’ve not seen anything from you here until now on opposing the inappropriate teaching of homosexuality and anal sex to children in all schools.”

            Take back your blatant lie and apologise. You have no basis for your assertion, other than prejudice and homophobic stereotyping.

            “If you’re as concerned as you like to say you are about this aggressive promotion of homosexuality to children why aren’t you doing something about it?”

            You have no factual basis to say that. You have no knowledge of what I do or do not do off this site in that respect. Having already resorted to writing blatant lies about me, you’re compounding your disgrace now. Have you no personal integrity or sense of shame at all?

          • I will have to track back to the articles I was reading
            about the outlawing of homosexuality, I will do this and let you know.
            But, what do you mean apologise for telling lies??? Where?
            You’re the homosexual Danj0, and a liberal too, so the onus is on you to shout out loud and clear that people know you’re against the madness of indoctrinating all innocent children into the homosexual lifestyle, otherwise one assumes you were going with the flow.

            I only asked you what have you been doing to indicate that you disagree with teaching kids about anal sex? Have you written to Nicky Morgan the education secretary? Being a single heterosexual with traditional beliefs and no offspring a letter I write wont be taken notice of ,whereas you a liberal, homosexual who nearly jumped off a
            window ledge because of his sexuality will have more clout wont it?

          • DanJ0

            “otherwise one assumes you were going with the flow”

            Homophobes deploying homophobic stereotypes might. Apologise for your lies if you have any morals or personal integrity or sense of shame. Also, I note you’re avoiding the question about sex outside marriage back there. Are you a virgin, Marie? If you’ve had sex outside marriage and not filled with shame about it then you’re a self-righteous hypocrite.

          • I have in the past had sex outside of marriage Danj0 and you can call me a hypocrite, but then I wasn’t following the Christian vision and values. I’ve since become more supportive of the Christian way of life as my beliefs matured they have since changed and for me no sexual intercourse before marriage or sex outside of the marriage bed
            is the best way.

          • DanJ0

            Why am I not at all surprised that a homophobic Christian, albeit merely a ‘cultural’ Christian from my observation, turns out to be a self-righteous hypocrite.

          • From your lopsided objectively disordered point of view Danj0, it holds no credence.

          • DanJ0

            Potentially spread diseases with your promiscuity, while moralising about my monogamous homosexuality using Christianity, if you think that gives you any credibility Marie. That’s the trouble with using someone else’s religion to justify your homophobia, you need to live it yourself too otherwise you just look like a hypocrite blind to your own ‘sins’. All that said, I have no doubt you’re arguing for Christianity for the most part because you relate it to Englishness identity and that suits your far-right political views.

          • I was never promiscuous Danj0, how on earth did you conclude that from what we have been discussing? I’ve never had an STI and I’ve been celibate for many years now.
            I don’t have a fear of men or homosexuals either and I’m not going to discuss my past sex life on an open forum.

            I was glad that civil partnership was introduced for same sex couples,but some of your lot just can’t shut up and be grateful.

            I don’t go to that apology of a church calling itself the CofE and I’m still not sure about joining the left footers. I equate Christianity with kindness, love and consideration of others before oneself, virtuous and moral living and doing one’s best to follow Christ’s teachings, which were all British values too before the invasion of the multi cultural takeover and the anything goes lifestyle.

            “Just an additional thought, have you been tested for HIV or other STDs? If you’ve been ‘putting it about’ then you may well be a carrier yourself. I expect some STIs take a while to show up even if you’ve dried up in recent years.”

            Have YOU been tested? Your boyfriend might be getting the full package elsewhere? Monogamy not being usual amongst homosexuals.

          • DanJ0

            “I was never promiscuous Danj0, how on earth did you conclude that from what we have been discussing?”

            I was adopting your approach, for literary effect. Annoying isn’t it? How do we know you weren’t promiscuous when you were happily violating Christian sexual morality, given that most young people seem to be fairly indiscriminate in their choice of sexual partners these days.

            “I’m not going to discuss my past sex life on an open forum.”

            Why so coy? You seem happy to talk about anal sex here, and to make sweeping statements about homosexuals.

            “Have YOU been tested?”

            Why would I need to be tested unless I swap partners? I’m monogamous, I’m not going to infect anyone else.

          • I’m not a man!
            Anal sex is not something I have ever considered even trying, therefore it”s easier discussing things others do.
            Is your boyfriend monogamous? How do you know he doesn’t sneak off for a quickie on the heath, thereby contracting something nasty and passing it on to you?

          • DanJ0

            “How do you know he doesn’t sneak off for a quickie on the heath, thereby contracting something nasty and passing it on to you?”

            Trust, of course. The same as in any heterosexual relationship. But I say again, it won’t be me spreading disease unless I sleep around.

          • I’m NOT a homophobe!

          • DanJ0

            I’ve never really understood why people like you try to deny it yet behave like a textbook homophobe anyway. Why not stand up and say it proudly: “I hate queers!”? What’s the issue with that if you’re going to behave like you hate us? It’s the same with racists. What’s the point of all the tiptoeing around with that “I’m not racist but” stuff?

          • I don’t yet hate homosexuals Danj0, although the more they try and change society to suit their lifestyle and disguise their
            dirty, disgusting, immoral behaviour by reclassifying it as normal forcing the rest of society to accept all sorts of grotesque pairings and bizarre relationships so they can feel respectable is beginning to get to me.

          • DanJ0

            You’re not channelling your homophobia there at all. 😉

          • DanJ0

            Just an additional thought, have you been tested for HIV or other STDs? If you’ve been ‘putting it about’ then you may well be a carrier yourself. I expect some STIs take a while to show up even if you’ve dried up in recent years.

          • DanJ0

            I note you’re using the phrase Dodo stole from the Catechism and deploys to try to annoy me. It’s a strange tactic because it relies completely on there being a theistic god like the Christian one … and I am an a-theist. It is an attempted insult that has no punch because it relies completely on a premise which I clearly don’t accept is true. At best it’s an assertion of belief, which I don’t think either you or he has in real life, and at worst it’s just stupidity to deploy it.

          • I didn’t use it with the intention of annoying you, although clearly it has, I used it as I think it is aptly descriptive of homosexuality and you are an active homosexual Danj0.

          • DanJ0

            I’m just noting the likely intention behind your use of it. If you like to think you’ve succeeded in annoying me with it then feel free to cherish that thought, it’s naught to me. Looking at your comment there, I don’t think you even realise what it means anyway; I reckon you’re just repeating it parrot fashion. That’s often the trouble with people from the far-right like the BNP: not very bright in the scheme of things.

          • Apart from the Popes and the Church others use it too, although some people at the Huffington Post want it changed as the Churches and official description, damn nerve of them. I happen to think it very appropriate.

            Anyway you seem to be the one having memory loss, we’ve had this conversation on whether I understand what objective disorder means about two years ago. Here’s what I wrote on 12th March 2013
            “Danj0
            It means to me that homosexual behaviour is a bad thing, a moral evil if you like that must be kept under control and not be practised. A homosexually inclined person is not evil but the motivation and esire to act so is, hence objective disorder. “

            What have I told you about NOT being a BNP member or supporter and that I was on their email list as I am on many other email lists. I am a UKIP supporter, no doubt you’ll now label me accordingly to what you have heard and think UKIP supporters are. Feel free

            If you’re trying to goad me into giving up and going away? It won’t work sorry.

            You’re so sharp you’ll cut yourself one day if you’re not careful.

          • DanJ0

            See, you don’t really understand what it means as I said.

            Whilst looking for the context of your quote, I can across this statement of yours:

            Thinking about evolution, humans evolve and adapt according to their environment and surroundings, why then in all the millennia hasn’t the male body evolved to be more accommodating to the practice of homosexuality? Why are the same health problems abundant and instead of getting better have become worse amongst homosexuals? There can’t be a homosexual gene after all otherwise the back passage of those with the homosexual gene would be slightly different to the heterosexual surely?

            That’s fantastic! Lol. Proper lol.

          • I’m sure you’d like to enlighten me then Danj0

          • DanJ0

            The disorder thing sounds like an insult, which is why Dodo used to deploy it the way he did, but it’s actually a theological statement. The clue is in the name. It relies on the religious premise that our reality is ordered towards something by divine design. In terms of human sexuality, it’s not just that it has a purpose i.e.reproduction, but that it has wider implications for people regarding relationships and marriage which themselves reflect divine will. As you sort of say, it’s not our fault we’re homosexual, and we should be treated well even so as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, but we commit a religious sin if we act on it nonetheless. But I’m an a-theist so the argument fundamentally fails, not because it is not valid, but because it is not sound. The inplication of all that being that you are using the term incorrectly, even in religious terms. A homosexual can be a devout Roman Catholic provided she doesn’t act on her homosexuality; her objective disorder doesn’t necessarily give her a “lopsided” viewpoint or make her blind to religious sin.

          • Danj0

            Yes I do understand, but the word disorder in my understanding covers a wide range not only the theological.
            So what you are saying then Danj0 is that you’re an a-theist and therefore do not sin?

            I suppose sin in your world means eating a cream cake when on a diet! What is the difference from a religious sin and an atheist sin?

            You see I believe that our world and all living things on it are divinely ordered and created, even if you don’t believe in a God, nature has a natural order of things and man is ruining this. He’s tearing it apart and installing his own order which goes against nature. And in years to come humanity will pay the price. We are seeing multiculturalism not working, why should multi sexualism work? (a
            society made up of various natural and unnatural parings with various forms of children in their many forms too , synthetic – IVF,test-tube, three parent, surrogate and natural. ) I think our government are objectively disordered. Certainly Cameron has a mental disorder pushing SSM on us like he did.

            That we might have evolved from Chimpanzees as we share common DNA, we probably share a common ancestry with other species as we developed too. Without God’s will nothing would have developed at all. Could
            it be that homosexuals and lesbians are Satan’s creations?

          • DanJ0

            “That we might have evolved from Chimpanzees”

            *head in hands*

          • DanJ0

            “So what you are saying then Danj0 is that you’re an a-theist and therefore do not sin?”

            Nobody sins as far as an a-theist is concerned because sins are premised on the existence of a theistic god. That’s not to say people don’t behave morally or immorally, of course. For me, sex in itself is not a moral act; though people can and often do behave immorally when having sex. For Christians, sex in itself is a moral act because it has a special significance to the Christian god. That is, Christians believe it is intentionally ordered towards something, both physically for reproduction and in the wider scheme of things. Hence, homosexuality is nothing much to me, just a variant of human sexuality with potentially good and/or bad consequences, but a great deal to Christians.

          • Danj0

            “Nobody sins as far as an a-theist is concerned because sins are premised on the existence of a theistic god.”
            I know, I was being sarcastic.

            “That’s not to say people don’t behave morally or immorally, of course. For me, sex in itself is not a moral act; though people can and often do behave immorally when having sex.”

            It is not fair that same sex couples be rewarded with synthetic children when they have perverted the course of nature. What gives same sex couples the right to have progeny and cause total disorder in society? No wonder it was outlawed by every civilisation when they realised where it led.

          • DanJ0

            You demonstrate your homophobia over and over again. It’s bizarre that you don’t see it yourself but hey. Not the sharpest knife, etc.

          • Depends on how you define homophobia really. As I’ve said I’m not afraid of men or homosexual ones either. I’d say it’s more the other way round. Homosexuals have a fear of hetersexuals and are displaying all this militant behaviour as a defense mechanism against having been repressed for so long.
            Anyway, thanks for the chat. Have a good day.

          • DanJ0

            “Could it be that homosexuals and lesbians are Satan’s creations?”

            This is why I describe you as a ‘cultural Christian’, you don’t even understand the basics of the religion you’re borrowing.

          • It must be a disorder otherwise God would have made us appropriately formed for it?
            Or as I said to you the atheist, humans would have evolved over time to accommodate anal sex.

          • DanJ0

            Marie, if that is your understanding of evolution by natural selection then I’m afraid you’re too far gone for it to be worth the effort. I’m chuckling at the absurdity of it but, I confess, I’m inclined to put my head in my hands and sigh too.

          • DanJ0

            I note that you focused on anal sex again, despite it not being instrinic to homosexual sex. I tell you, it’s a dead giveaway for people like you.

          • DanJ0

            “Hardly, but you homosexuals are otherwise you wouldn’t want to push it down the throats of every child in every school.”

            That’s a blatant and outrageous lie, and typical of the homophobes here. What is it with you people? Phil R does the same, and constantly. I’m completely opposed to every child in every school being taught about anal sex, or indeed of the existence of homosexuality at all until an appropriate age. I’ve said so in black and white at various times under these threads. How does it help you to lie so blatantly and immorally? Have you no personal integrity or sense of shame at all?

          • DanJ0

            “Henry himself had Syphilis and Dropsy bought on through his sexual promiscuity as the lack of effective treatments ensured they spread. Monogamy was the key to avoiding illness and death.
            Society shamed those who had it.”

            Perhaps you ought to be campaigning for sex outside of marriage to be illegal given that promiscuity tends to spread disease. Afterall, there are plenty of statistics which show the incidences of STDs in the general population rather than just homosexuals. There are also statistics which show a higher incidence of STDs in certain areas of London and in certain ethnic communities. If we’re to use such a broad brush to justify the criminalising of homosexual sex then perhaps it ought to be broader still to cover others who are spreading disease.

  • Shadrach Fire

    Your Grace,

    What is all this nonsense that has gone on before?

    This article is surely all about your last paragraph; will they not pardon those who were once convicted and executed for heresy?

    Your Grace is looking for a Pardon for his names sake who was burnt at the stake for heresy on March 21, 1556, accused by Henry V111’s daughter, Bloody Mary.

    With the anniversary falling shortly, a very appropriate time and who more worthy of a pardon.

    • CliveM

      But as HJ says, would we not need to go to the Pope? If Mary didn’t actually try him for treason but let the Pope do so, then we may need to look to Rome!

      I’m willing to lend my support……….

      • Clive, all the Church of England has to do is say the Governor of the Church of England now carries all the (previous) authority once held by the Pope. Problem solved. Her Majesty can cover both the spiritual and temporal matters and grant a full pardon.

        • CliveM

          Hmm I can see the first glimmerings of a campaign.

    • chiefofsinners

      Yes, if they could do it for Joan of Arc, they can do it for His Grace.
      Linus? Are you out there? Smell an opportunity?…

  • DanJ0

    I think these threads where homosexuality is part of the main theme in the article, or simply referenced by as little as a word in a wider topic, are great in terms of public relations. Speaking as an a-theist homosexual, I mean. 🙂

  • educynic

    In 1983, the Sun published sexually explicit pictures of the then-sixteen-year-old Samantha Fox, under the title ‘Sam gives up A levels for Ooh levels!’

    Since we are concerned to right historic wrongs, should we not now pursue Rupert Murdoch for child pornography?

  • len

    Cranmer certainly needs no pardon other than the one he should have from the RCC for bullying torturing then burning him at the stake for not complying with the ridiculous claims of the RCC.

    • chiaramonti

      Don’t forget, Cranmer was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury by…. the Pope (on the recommendation of Henry VIII

  • Manfarang

    A lot of of the 49,000 convicted were married Inspector please note.

    • Old Blowers

      Think that kicks the ‘We are made this way rather than by choice, who would chose to be gay’ argument, don’t you think?

      Always believed that bisexuals completely destroys the I AM MADE THIS WAY apology!!! It is a choice to be the way you are sexually…One is a natural state (Heterosexual) that one maintains as the norm, the other is a depraved mind (Lesbian/homosexual) that will lie to itself to justify it’s choices irrespective of consequences to society and to themselves as individuals.

      Thanks for your input, old fruit.

      Blofeld

      • Guglielmo Marinaro

        So what you are saying is that everyone is bisexual really. It’s simply that most choose to resist their homosexual attractions and to do only heterosexual things, which is the right decision, and others make the wrong decision and either resist their heterosexual attractions and do only homosexual things, or else make the choice to keep both their heterosexual and their homosexual attractions burning. Yes, that sounds thoroughly down to earth. Anyone who lives in the real world will recognize it as describing their own experience to a T.

        Thanks for your input, old fruit.

        • Old Blowers

          “So what you are saying is that everyone is bisexual really.” I am saying gay is a choice not a gene as the PN following would have us believe.”It’s simply that most choose to resist their homosexual attractions” It’s simply that THE VAST MAJORITY AREN’T INTERESTED IN THE SAME SEX!!

          ” others make the wrong decision (Bless your humbleness) and either resist their heterosexual attractions and do only homosexual things, or else make the choice to keep both their heterosexual and their homosexual attractions burning.”

          Professor Blofeld: By George, he’s got it! By George he’s got it! Now once again, where is the pain?

          Guglielmo Marinaro: [sings] In the brain, In the brain.

          Professor Blofeld: And to stop that bloody pain?

          Guglielmo Marinaro: [sings] It’s so plain, Just abstain!

          All together : [sings] The pain in the brain will wain if you just abstain. It’s that plain, you old feather brain..

          Now every night before you get into bed, hopefully on your own old Fruit, where you used to have dirty thoughts, I want you to say “The pain in the brain will wain if you just abstain.” fifty times. You’ll get much further with the Lord if you learn not to offend His ears and senses with your silly billy obsessed with the willy nonsense.

          “Thanks for your input, old fruit.”You are very welcome sailor.

          Blofeld

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            “I am saying gay is a choice not a gene”

            False dichotomy. Implies that if something isn’t a gene it must be a choice, which is nonsense.

            “It’s simply that THE VAST MAJORITY AREN’T INTERESTED IN THE SAME SEX!!”

            Precisely. They don’t decide not to be interested in the same sex. They just aren’t. They don’t decide to be interested in (some) people of the other sex. They just are. Whether that’s caused by a gene or genes – and no “straight gene” has so far been discovered – matters not. It’s just the way things are. The sexuality of the gay minority works the same way.

            I hope that isn’t too abstruse for you.

          • Old Blowers

            “False dichotomy. Implies that if something isn’t a gene it must be a choice, which is nonsense.”

            What utter cobblers.

            You say you are made this way, it’s in the DNA, it’s orientation not choice.. ‘It appears the scientific consensus seems to be that there is indeed a biological basis for homosexuality – though it’s not necessarily 100% determined by either genes or by environmental factors.’

            This is called political panhandling orientation by scientists determined to provide a get out of jail card for the homosexual community as anything else suggested by the scientific community would be classed as discrimination by research institute bodies that live off large lobbying donations or off the political teets of governments.

            There is no evidence only feigned outrage that others will not live and let live. Truth has become the victim in this nonsense of propaganda!!

            I hope that isn’t too OBVIOUS for you.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            No, it’s not “utter cobblers”. The idea that, if a trait is not caused by a gene, it must be a choice is what is utter cobblers.

            Some may suggest that it’s in the DNA, but I haven’t said that. I don’t know what determines people’s sexual orientation, and neither does anyone else. There are any number of theories around, some at least superficially plausible and others simply stupid, but that’s all that they are – theories, opinions.

            Yes, both homosexuality and heterosexuality are orientations, and irrespective of what their so far unknown cause(s) may be, they are not choices. Mind you, I’m not saying that people wouldn’t be perfectly within their rights in choosing to be either straight or gay, but the point is purely an academic one, since people don’t in fact choose their sexual orientation. If they could, then people who don’t like having a homosexual orientation would simply discard it and choose a heterosexual one instead. You wouldn’t find such people desperately trying to change their orientation by frittering away years, sometimes even decades, of their lives on “ex-gay” ministries, “sexual orientation change therapy” and similar cruel hoaxes.

          • Old Blowers

            Ahoy there sailor.

            Your idea that all are free to state it’s choice is admirable but extremely rare..See http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/25/news/la-heb-cynthia-nixon-gay-by-choice-20120125.

            The mere suggestion from her that it was HER choice and not DNA, environment etc unleashed the hounds of hell against her and the accusation by the ‘Community/Village’ that she had setback the advancement of homosexuality a generation..the party line must be towed at all times!.

            You see the ‘community’ must have a get out of jail card that excuses their ‘orientation’ in theirs and the public’s eyes. It’s just human nature not science.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            “unleashed the hounds of hell against her”

            In other words, people disagreed with her and said so very loudly. You’re allowed to do that. You can disagree with me very loudly if you like. But I say that sexual orientation is not a choice. I have very occasionally come across people on blogs like this who claim that they chose their sexual orientation. I notice, however, that when they are asked specific searching questions about what exactly they mean by that, when they made the choice, how old they were, what considerations led them to make it, how they set about making their choice a reality etc., they invariably either modify their claim or clam up.

            When I say that I didn’t choose my sexual orientation, I’m not offering an excuse; I’m simply stating a fact, just as I am if I say that I didn’t choose to be right-handed or to have blue eyes; the question of excuses simply does not arise. To offer an “excuse” for either a heterosexual or a homosexual orientation is equally meaningless and unnecessary.

          • Old Blowers

            “”In other words, people disagreed with her and said so very loudly. You’re allowed to do that.
            Fortunately, as she had came out as gay, the term hate or bigot could not be aimed at her but the ‘community’ accused Cynthia Nixon of ‘choosing’ the wrong terminology/going off song regarding her claim of choice rather than orientation.

            As there is no definitive scientific evidence that DNA etc can define this as from ‘ in utero’, your statement about orientation is merely a feeling, a claim that you guess why you are as you are as Cynthia guesses but these are never facts (Why are you right and she is wrong or she is right and you are wrong).

            Is it more normal for humanity to be orientated towards good or evil. Are we orientated towards one or the other in utero? Or do we just fool ourselves until a certain situation arrives that reveals the temptations that will lead us astray because of the moment we find ourselves at, that has brought us to this self defining crossroad where we chose good or evil as a lifestyle.

  • Inspector General

    #If I could turn back time
    If I could find a way I’d take back those words that hurt you and you’d stay

    I don’t know why I did the things I did I don’t know why I said the things I said
    Pride’s like a knife it can cut deep inside
    Words are like weapons they wound sometimes.

    I didn’t really mean to hurt you I didn’t wanna see you go I know I made you cry, but baby#

    Cher had a hit with this one. While she’s on the floor weeping past regrets, the rest of us appreciate this. What happened happened. That is how it was back then. There’s no regret, no tears to cry. Man is a curious beast – what seemed wrong then is not so wrong now. And what is wrong now may have been acceptable then. So let’s hear no more of the business of pardoning ANYONE.

  • Can UKIP voters be forgiven, in this age or the age come?