Gay Marriage and the Joy of Living

by craig on October 13, 2012 12:15 pm in Uncategorized

I received an email from someone called Kevin accusing me of having refused to state my position on gay marriage. I have never been asked, but am in fact entirely in favour. I think human relationships are essential to human happiness, and I am not in the least concerned about the gender combinations or sexual practices in which people find happiness. Nor am I obsessed with the number two. I have no objection to polyandry or polygamy (or the gay equivalent) either. The key thing is that people enter and leave relationships entirely consensually, once of an age to consent. I do not believe in matters of tax, immigration or any other governmental sphere, any combination of family life should be favored over any other.

My own family life is “conventional” and very happy, but I do not make the mistake of believing one model fits all.

Tweet this post

195 Comments

  1. Sexuality is the joy of living. Perhaps sensuality is the problem?

  2. Hear, hear! I do wish we could get politicians to understand this, and to ignore the bleatings of the Daily Mail crowd.

  3. Neil Saunders

    13 Oct, 2012 - 12:43 pm

    What troubles me about this issue is the staggering intolerance shown to anyone who expresses even the mildest doubt or uncertainty about this major redefinition of the concept of marriage.

    The very fact that NomadUK uses a lazy slur like “the bleatings of the Daily Mail crowd” to encapsulate a large swathe of public opinion (by no means restricted to religious zealots or political reactionaries) does not bode well for genuinely civilised debate.

  4. Who, in OUR democracy, voted for it ?

    The more we allow the government to licence our lives, the less freedom we have to live it.

  5. “The key thing is that people enter and leave relationships entirely consensually, once of an age to consent”

    That’s a good argument for avoiding marriage altogether because with marriage the key thing is that you make a commitment. Doesn’t the Civil Partnership Act mean that all civil liberty issues are now covered? Why mess with the ancient tradition of marriage?

    I find it very odd that, a few months ago, Cameron and Obama both came out in support of gay marriage within a few a days of each other. What a coincidence. It set the alarm bells ringing in my neck of the woods.

  6. A very sensible and enlightened attitude. If only more would share it. By the way, have you seen this excellent article by Glenn Greenwald? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/12/raddatz-debate-objectivity

  7. Civil partnership doesn’t deal with the question of same-sex partnerships. They are not open to people of opposite sexes, who may not want the tradition of marriage to affect their relationship. Moreover they are still not, I think, allowed to take place in buildings licensed for religious marriages and religious language is not permitted. While I’m not in favour of forcing any religious group to conduct same-sex partnerships or marriages, it means that members of my own religious group (the Quakers) and of several others do not have equal rights. Quaker Meetings in Britain have already celebrated same-sex marriages but these are treated differently from opposite-sex marriages celebrated in the same way. This is, of course, only one way in which the law is unequal.

    It might be worth considering why marriage is seen as the business of the state but it was, I think, a secular matter before it became a religious one – and more a matter of contract than of theology. I’m not wild about marriage for myself but I know a number of people of various sexual orientations who have happiness from relationships which look to me like good marriages, whether the law terms them “marriage” or “partnerships.” The denial of the term marriage to people on the grounds of gender/sexual orientation seems pretty offensive to me – and a democracy has to be careful to ensure the rights of minorities in order that it is not governed by violent and unthinking prejudice.

  8. Kathz wrote:

    “The denial of the term marriage to people on the grounds of gender/sexual orientation seems pretty offensive to me – and a democracy has to be careful to ensure the rights of minorities in order that it is not governed by violent and unthinking prejudice.”

    Pederasts are a minority. Shouldn’t we prevent them from having the ‘right’ to practice their perversions?

    Once they have the statute licence of marriage, they will have the automatic ‘right’ to fostering; else it would be ‘unthinking prejudice’.

  9. Michael Stephenson

    13 Oct, 2012 - 1:36 pm

    Any person with the capacity to think rationally and logically would reach this conclusion, the fact that this position does not have an overwhelming majority is frightening. The amount of people without the capacity to think rationally is frightening.

    OT – A film called “99 Percent: The Occupy Wall Street Collaborative Film” is taking legal action against an occupy supporter who has posted videos to youtube, vimeo etc. for copyright infringement.

    http://pastebin.com/w9uPWQhA

    “Hi Jordan,

    I don’t have time for silliness. Just let me know if you’re removing our footage, or if I’m forwarding this to our attorneys. I’m not interested in your creative commons bs (which those of us who actually work in media refers to as amateur licensing) and I have told you that we do not want our work in any of your videos. Let me repeat: we want NONE of our work in ANY of your or any third party videos, and our exclusive licensing agreements exist specifically so that is enforcable.

    Again, just let me know if you’re going to respect our wishes or if I’m handing this to our lawyers.

    (Williams, please go ahead and forward this to the attorneys now, and tell them we’ll either be following up on this with them, or will let them know if our footage was removed.)

    Audrey Ewell”

    The elitist tone to her email is sickening. I hope her movie bombs and she has the mortgage riding on it, that might bring her thinking around.

  10. Neil Saunders

    13 Oct, 2012 - 1:41 pm

    To Michael Stephenson:

    Don’t you think you’re begging the question (in the old, robust sense of this generally misused expression) in asserting (i.e. stating without argument or supporting evidence) that anyone who holds an opinion different from your own must necessarily lack “the capacity to think rationally and logically”? In which case, you’re guilty yourself of the very thing of which you accuse others.

  11. Michael Stephenson

    13 Oct, 2012 - 1:49 pm

    Neil Saunders, The argument for gay marriage is simple if it causes you or anyone else no harm why would you seek to prevent it. Only the irrational do this, and they use irrational and supernatural justifications for doing so.
    Such as gay marriage causing natural disasters. Present to me a rational argument against gay marriage that doesn’t invoke God. Or some vague family values BS that is nothing more than conservatism and is not backed up with any evidence.

  12. “Any person with the capacity to think rationally and logically would reach this conclusion”

    That is a priceless opening line.

  13. O/T sorry – Occupy – 1 yr anniversary today London 2pm – 5pm plse bring a saucepan and a wooden spoon…

    http://globalnoise2012.occupylondon.org.uk/

    Thanks folks any type of support appreciated.

  14. Craig, agree 100%. The reactionary argument against samesex marriage is just a rerun of the pre-civil liberties era argument against marriage between people of different coloured skin. The reactionaries have a need to regard society as an arrangement of boxes that we get put in and from which we should not stray. Screw that.

  15. mobile site builder

    13 Oct, 2012 - 2:10 pm

    Dear Craigmurray,
    Thanks you for your post, Good thing that Canadians laugh at bigots and get great joy out of evil homophobe bigots that want to live in a Theocracy!

    People against gay marriage are sad Canada has equal rights, and Canadians are happy that those sick pathetic bigots are sad!
    Thx.

  16. Tarquin Folgate Norton

    13 Oct, 2012 - 2:57 pm

    AS JimmyGiro points out, we are being required to conform. We are out on licence.

    We are now required to have a “position” on every subject and woe betide you if you have the “wrong” position. The “Land of The Free” has gone further down that road than we in Britain but it will not be long as we are surely heading down that road.

    My stated position on gay marriage in future will be “Double egg and chips with extra mushrooms”

  17. I agree with Neil Saunders. On the one hand, I have no desire to intefere with anyone’s right to live together – whoever they may be.

    On the other hand, “marriage” is a word that has meant one thing for centuries: a formal union between one man and one woman, an important part of which is the bearing and upbringing of children.

    Why extend a clear, precise word like that to include other things that are different?

  18. Gaia Hepburn

    13 Oct, 2012 - 3:04 pm

    I believe the historical origins of Homophobia lie in colonialism, empire and militarism. The sergeant who addresses his recruits as ” ladies”, in an ironic attempt to masculinise his charges, exemplifies the idea that there must be a penalty WORSE than death with which to threaten and intimidate. The continuing anti homosexualism in western culture as expressed by the refusal to extend the umbrella of marriage, emphasises the second class, inferior status of the Civil Partnership, which I personally heard described by one ignorant Council Official as C.P.,also the abbreviation of corporal punishment. Symbols are the control mechanism of culture. Creating and maintaining marriage only for heterosexuals is clearly antediluvian and discriminatory. Craig is absolutely spot on in his views. Gaia

  19. I have no problem with any form of consensual sexual activity, having experimented with most of them, but I can’t join this argument until someone defines what ‘marriage’ means. What is distinctive about marriage, that we must not deny it to all? What privilege is being withheld? It’s a serious question, and I’m hoping for helpful answers.

    So my position on gay marriage is ‘of course, why not – but why does it matter?’

  20. For some It seem,s by taking their sole concept of marriage away, you maybe be denying them, there right to formulate their idea, of what life to them, holds most dear. That right may be that, they want to be how they instictively as feel well as religiously is to get married and partner for life.

    It is not about the `homosexuals`, it is about the `heterosexuals.`

    Forget about tolerance and all that what about the wants of most heterosexuals.

    As long as its called a gay marriage. Heterosexuals should call theres a `consumate marriage.`

  21. Many families are insular and claustrophobic. The extended family structure of the past is less common now; affluence increased mobility, pressure of employment caused many people to relocate, and extended families became dispersed. If you’re part of a good, functional, supportive family, consider yourself lucky; it is an accident of birth.

    Politicians like to advertise their “support of families”. They are considerably quieter about support for community. Community is empowering; you can choose to partake in and contribute toward community, whereas your family circumstances are mostly beyond your control.

    Aldous Huxley’s last book Island explores alternatives and improvements to family structure.

    “God”, of course, is a vengeful watcher of pornography. With His omniscience, He watches all our sexual antics, and gets very upset if we deviate from the sexual practices which He prefers.

  22. Sorry `consummate`

  23. Neil Saunders – Well said!

  24. Vronsky wrote:

    “I have no problem with any form of consensual sexual activity…”

    It’s amazing what you can train animals to do, but they may refrain from incest. People, however, are the craziest animals.

    Vronsky wrote:

    “…having experimented with most of them…”

    What stopped you from performing all? Was it your sense of disgust, or your sense of fear? And where did you get those boundaries from?

    Vronsky wrote:

    “…but I can’t join this argument until someone defines what ‘marriage’ means.”

    Interesting that not knowing your moral sexual boundaries, didn’t stop you from experimenting. Hence what use would it be to you to have a ‘standard’ definition, when you live your sexual life by disregarding moral standards?

    Vronsky wrote:

    “What is distinctive about marriage, that we must not deny it to all? What privilege is being withheld?”

    It is the privilege, and responsibility, to raise YOUR children, in a natural, heterosexual family. A cultural safety net within synthetic society, to preserve the naturally evolved order of humanity.

    Vronsky wrote:

    “It’s a serious question, and I’m hoping for helpful answers.”

    To help you for what? To help you expand your sexual perversions to beyond your fears?

    Vronsky wrote:

    “So my position on gay marriage is ‘of course, why not – but why does it matter?’”

    And here is the the heart of the project: ‘why does [marriage] matter’. The gay marriage debate is about diluting the ‘cultural’ sanctity of marriage and the family; which is one of the core themes of every totalitarian government. It is even written in the pamphlets of the Fabian society and other evil Marxist groups.

  25. I agree with Craig completely, but I think also that our proud and righteous liberal attitude has a moral blind spot, and that moral blind spot is the children that tend to pop out of heterosexual relationships.

    Children are a blind spot because in our free ‘hippie’ attitude toward relationships, we often tend to forget about them, and just expect that they are to tag along for the ride, whatever form that ride should take.

    Far be it from me to sing the praises of the nuclear family, but I do feel sorry for children caught up in the selfish and self-obsessed me-generation of our adult world, and I do feel sorry for children who grow up without the love of a mom or a dad, as a result of being brought up in same-sex households.

    While we don’t want to deny anyone the joy of having children, I don’t see why pausing to consider how children might be affected by our decisions should be so politically INcorrect.

  26. From JimmyGiro:

    ‘It is the privilege, and responsibility, to raise YOUR children, in a natural, heterosexual family. A cultural safety net within synthetic society, to preserve the naturally evolved order of humanity.’

    Ah, possession or ownership of children, marriage as an assurance that the youngsters a man raises actually do carry a portion of his genetic material. But wouldn’t such a standpoint render gay marriage irrelevant?…

    ‘To help you for what? To help you expand your sexual perversions to beyond your fears?’

    Jimmy may have been sitting in on God’s discrete DVD evenings.

  27. @Clark

    I’m strictly ‘old atheist’.

  28. So what, Jimmy? You’re still making the same mistake that God is commonly imagined to be making.

    The thing that gets me is that homophobia is wilful. People may imagine or visualise sexual acts that other people are said to perform; such fantasising is a popular kink. But to deliberately imagine or visualise other people’s sexual activities just to get upset about it goes right over from being a kink to a perversion.

  29. From ‘straw-man’ to ‘god-man’.

    Try quoting me Clark, that way you seem so much like an hysterical guardian reader.

  30. The “God sanctioned” marriage is one level of reference.
    In a secular sense some of the practical issues for legally formalising civil unions are:-
    Ownership of a home where partners lived and jointly contributed for an extended period.
    Ownership o f other types of property ( i.e. non-real estate).
    Acquired obligations during the course of the union, such as children.
    To mention just a few of the practicalities of not having a clear rule based system for addressing rights of respective partners.

  31. Michael Stephenson

    13 Oct, 2012 - 5:38 pm

    Jimmy as a supposed atheist how can you possibly define an activity between 2 consensual adults as immoral?
    As for bringing up children and the morality of being brought up in a standard family unit versus a same sex couple. Well it would be nice and convenient if the question of where and how a child should be raised was so simple.
    But in reality since 2 people of the same sex can’t procreate they will be adopting, they will be creating a family for children who have none, straight couples are put in the position where they need to adopt much less frequently due to IVF.
    So the comparison is, is it better for a child to live in a family unit with a same sex couple, or in a shelter, or passed from foster family to foster family?

  32. Neil Saunders

    13 Oct, 2012 - 5:40 pm

    To Clark:

    What gets me about “homophobia” is that it’s a recently-coined, wholly ideological word that pre-judges the issues and conclusions of any debate in which it features (other than, as in my comment here, suitably enclosed between quotation marks for objective inspection). I also suggest that we have an indefinite moratorium on the use of the word “bigot” and its close associates.

  33. Neil Saunders

    13 Oct, 2012 - 5:48 pm

    To Clark (again):

    I don’t know whether you’re genuinely mistaking the actual (as distinct from apparent) function of the possessive pronouns when applied to, say, one’s children.

    When I speak of “my” bank manager or “my” second cousin, once-removed, I can assure you that I do for one moment believe that I own the individual in question in precisely the same sense that I own my house or car.

  34. “The denial of the term marriage to people on the grounds of gender/sexual orientation seems pretty offensive to me”

    Yeah? You’ll appreciate then how offended I am that flagrant ageism and sexism preclude me from joining the Brownies.

  35. Good post.

    On another thread, someone said: “where will it end – multi-person marriages”? In fact, I added a +1 for polyamory on this site previously, but got no bites. If the purpose of marriage is to allow people to commit to one another, and optionally also to form a stable environment in which to raise a family, then we should not mind what configurations people choose.

    We’ve had this debate here quite recently, as it happens. (Hopefully no-one aside from Jimmy will attempt to confuse gay lifestyles with paedophilia again here – dealt with perfectly well on the other thread).

    @Neil Saunders – I believe there is an aggressive homophobic lobby, and NomadUK is right to point that out.

    The major source of intolerance, in my view, is the narrowly defined concept of marriage that has shut out 6% of humanity from this institution, for religious reasons. The church – in its various religions and denominations – has always needed scapegoats for social ostracism and future hellfire, and the “Fornicators and Sodomites” have always fitted that bill nicely.

    So, I see any counter-reactions to the inevitable move towards sanctioning gay marriage as defending old intolerance.

  36. @MJ

    Hehehe.

    Michael Stephenson wrote:

    “Jimmy as a supposed atheist how can you possibly define an activity between 2 consensual adults as immoral?”

    Try incest between 2 consenting adults as a test case. Then think about 2 conniving pederasts, who pretend to ‘love’ each other, so that they can become licensed to be foster parents.

  37. I should add, just out of interest, that I was brought up in a pretty homophobic and religious household, and I recall that the sight of two college-age girls holding hands prompted my mother to declare them “disgusting”. As a result of this conditioning, I exhibited classic anti-gay “reservations” until my mid-twenties, at which point I had a solid re-think of all the religious/shame tropes I’d absorbed in my early years.

    So, I’ve been on both sides of the fence. Letting go of anti-gay prejudices was the lifting of a great burden, and means I don’t need to quiz people about their sexuality before I can decide whether I wish to associate with them. Sadly, I’m quite sure I’d have been rejected by my mother, if I’d turned out to be gay.

    As it happens, I have a Banksy montage in my front room, and it features a panel of two policemen kissing passionately. It’s a splendid defanger of authoritarianism, but I also like to think it says of my house: “Tolerance proudly practiced here”.

  38. Then think about 2 conniving pederasts, who pretend to ‘love’ each other, so that they can become licensed to be foster parents.

    How would not instituting gay marriage prevent child abuse, if these “two conniving pederasts” were a man and a woman? Do you propose to ban straight marriage also?

  39. Jon quibbled:

    “We’ve had this debate here quite recently, as it happens. (Hopefully no-one aside from Jimmy will attempt to confuse gay lifestyles with paedophilia again here – dealt with perfectly well on the other thread).”

    I do not equate paedophilia with anything other than propaganda from the Social Services, the police, and all other agencies that are funded via the breakdown of heterosexual families.

    I associate gay lifestyles with the potential of pederasty.

  40. “How would not instituting gay marriage prevent child abuse, if these “two conniving pederasts” were a man and a woman? Do you propose to ban straight marriage also?”

    What is ‘straight’ about pederasts ?

  41. Ah, that old trope – gay people are more likely to be attracted to children. Not true, I am glad to say – certainly I am not aware of any reputable evidence for it. Got a link?

    I would take the view that sexual abusers of children were sexually abused themselves, or have been through a psychological crisis that has stymied their sexual development. Catholic priests who abuse(d) children were encouraged, in effect, to have an undeveloped and/or confused sense of sexuality, which is why the Church’s proscription on marriage for priests has been so harmful.

  42. Further, as Vronsky insinuated, there is no real gain for gays in gay marriage, whereas there is an increase risk of pederasty being aided and abetted by institutional means.

  43. “I would take the view that sexual abusers of children were sexually abused themselves, or have been through a psychological crisis that has stymied their sexual development. Catholic priests who abuse(d) children were encouraged, in effect, to have an undeveloped and/or confused sense of sexuality, which is why the Church’s proscription on marriage for priests has been so harmful.”

    Had you not considered that Catholicism is matriarchal, and its terms of heterosexual ‘celibacy’ for priests and nuns, would have attracted many homosexuals to their ranks, due to their social ostracism in the past. Hence they could engage in same sex communism.

    I don’t say this as a mere quibble, since I think it ties in with the comments of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who pointed out that most of those involved in perpetrating the ‘paedophilia’ scandal within the Catholic Church, were homosexuals. This is why I think we should get into the habit [in a non-sartorial sense] of calling it ‘pederasty’.

    Indeed, it would be a telling exercise for those who have the statistics, to compare the populations of Catholics to homosexual child abusers, and make a definitive deduction of which group is more prone to this activity. My suspicion is that Tarcisio Bertone is right, and that it was Catholics turning a blind eye to homosexuals that led to that particular Trojan nightmare.

  44. “NomadUK” and others can say what they like about the Daily Mail, but today’s paper carries a two-page spread under the headline “Was Mossad Behind the Alps Murders?” I can’t see many other newspapers running that.

  45. Ah, interesting! Catholicism as the natural, welcoming home to gay and lesbian people the world over. Except that bit about the church doing its best to perpetuate homophobia, and to let the 6% know that their naturally-occurring minority sexuality is “sinful in the eyes of God” (etc ad nauseum).

    I’m not au fait with the details of child abuse in the Church, but where boys have been abused, I would regard that as I indicated above: a priest whose sexual development has been deliberately stunted by the brainwashing of the church does not have a sexuality per se – he is just seeking base gratification from wherever he can get it. Perhaps, in any case, priests have been more likely to encounter boys than girls? (Not a Catholic, so don’t know the gender rules on choirs).

    In many of these cases, most of those priests wishing to marry would have married a woman, since most people are heterosexual.

    Absent the statistics you would like to find to support your theory, I stand my ground. If a wild claim linking consenting gay relationships to child abuse is made, the onus is on the speaker to prove it.

  46. Stand up Tarcisio Bertone, and prove it!

    Alas he was shouted down by the politically corrected world press.

  47. Clark: God’s evenings are probably discrete (assuming He labels time in the same way we do) but I should think His evenings involving a DVD are probably discreet too! 😉

  48. Well, Jimmy – you could always prove it. Surely there must be one publicly available thesis on the internet that supports your theory? I would expect you would already have it bookmarked, since this does appear to be rather important to you.

  49. Jon, I am not at all “anti-gay”, but I do not support gay marriage in a church or adoption of children by gay couples. Interestingly, a friend of mine who is gay doesn’t support these either. I see you’ve set yourself up on the moral high-ground by lumping together people like me with the genuinely anti-gay types who believe in hellfire and damnation for homosexuals and who probably would disown a son who turned out gay. This being the way you tend to operate, it enables you to position yourself as the nice, compassionate good guy while everyone opposing you is nasty, irrational and full of hatred. It must make you feel terribly pleased with yourself.

  50. Btw Jon, I’d lose the Banksy montage in the front room if I were you. Aside from ssounding serioiulsy naff, it’s only rebellious or anti-establishment in a phony middle-class sense, much like wearing a Che t-shirt.

  51. Jon hoped:

    “Well, Jimmy – you could always prove it. Surely there must be one publicly available thesis on the internet that supports your theory?”

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9548/

    And remember Jon, you were the one who started by claiming that the priest scandal was a result of religious confusion, and claimed that 6% is the fraction of gay folk, yet where are your links?

  52. My thanks to Jimmy for reacting to my question, but it’s a reaction rather than an answer. I’ll repeat: what privileges are conferred by marriage that gays should be concerned if they are denied them?

  53. I think that there are many ways of being gravely unlucky in life, and being born with an attraction to the same sex is one of them, just as being born very poor, handicapped or not good looking. That justifies compassion towards such people, but not, in my view, redefining sexual morality to suit everyone. As one sympathetic to Catholic teaching, as I see it, homosexual activity is wrong, and therefore so-called gay marriage should not be approved by the state.

  54. Vronsky wrote:

    “what privileges are conferred by marriage that gays should be concerned if they are denied them?”

    None, unless they wished to use the automatic right of fostering of other peoples children.

  55. Michael Stephenson

    13 Oct, 2012 - 8:12 pm

    Jon: The first google result for “scientific papers on same sex adoption” is actually against same sex adoption. It doesn’t seem focussed on “pederasty” but does just go to show how lazy Jimmy has been in attempting to inform his own opinion and back it up with evidence.

  56. “Jon: The first google result for “scientific papers on same sex adoption” is actually against same sex adoption. It doesn’t seem focussed on “pederasty” but does just go to show how lazy Jimmy has been in attempting to inform his own opinion and back it up with evidence.”

    Not lazy, just moderated by the pinkos as per usual.

  57. @JimmyGiro

    the automatic right of fostering of other peoples children

    You mean ‘other people’ who can no longer look after their children for whatever reason. Or do not wish to.
    Any my understanding is that there is no ‘automatic’ about any fostering process anywhere in the world.
    So what are you on about?

  58. About fostering by gay couples.

    Firstly there’s an assumption that a single parent isn’t enough to look after children.

    But leaving that issue aside, it’s evident that a couple’s gender, sexuality, religion and so on do not determine whether they are likely to be good foster parents. If they do not determine this likelihood, they are irrelevant. Other factors matter instead. A foster service examines precisely these factors. And if these factors are unconnected to gender and sexuality, then there are no logical or reasonable grounds for excluding people, single, a couple, three or more, from this process on the basis of their gender and sexuality.

    The only factor that can be said to be problematic for gay couples wanting to foster is, guess what? social prejudice against them (and thus the child and children) as a gay couple. But in a society committed to civil rights, intolerance from others cannot be used as a justification for denying a person’s equal rights, or those of a couple, or a family, whatever its makeup. This is essentially what we are talking about.

  59. David wrote:

    “You mean ‘other people’ who can no longer look after their children for whatever reason.”

    The ‘reason’ is the Social Services’ requirement of quota filling. Too many kids are falling into care homes thanks to mercenary bureaucracies.

    And how many Social Service groups do you know, which are not headed by lesbians or gays?

    The Shoesmith woman of Haringey Social Services, is a lesbian, and when she was sacked over baby Peter, the BBC came to rescue her name. Now there’s a kiss of death if ever there was.

  60. The ‘joy of living’ – bless you darling x

    http://www.livestream.com/occupylsx

  61. http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/90862/Lady-Gaga-Says-Shell-Chain-Herself-To-The-White-House-Pushes-For-Gay-Marriage-Laws-In-The-US

    After visiting Julian Assange for 5hrs.

    What irks me is why the full left cant see
    the.big picture!

  62. Off topic I know; but a wake-up call if you support the Scttish independence referendum:

    The UK taxpayer is to pay £50m to commemorate the start of WW1. I have no doubt that Cameron will use this national tribute to the fallen (with the BBC and others doing their bit) to remind the country of, how working together as a united kingdom, we achieved success.

    This British jingoistic celebration is being held in the summer of 2014 while the Scottish Independence referendum is to be held in the autumn of the same year.

    No doubt the Scottish Labour; Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties will be out in force in the major cities flying the union jack. It has been suggested that all town halls throughout the UK should fly the union jack at half-mast.

    There is a newly formed “think tank” called BRITISH FUTURE which I suspect has been set up to try and scupper the Scottish independence referendum.

    Sunder Katwala, director of BRITISH FUTURE, told the Guardian: “The centenary of the Great War should be the next great national moment bringing us together as the jubilee and Olympics did this year.”

    Binita Mehta (the first intern of BRITISH FUTURE) says on Conservative Home:

    “I’ve always had a bit of a thing about Union Jacks. On arriving at Warwick University three years ago, I was a bit shocked when my new Union Jack laptop bag was ridiculed for being “a bit BNP”. I’ve always been proud to be British, maybe I got it from my dad who was given refuge in Britain when the Ugandan Asians were kicked out by Idi Amin. So getting accused of being “a bit BNP” sounded like the most ridiculous thing I had ever heard.
    “If I were going to university this year, I would not get the same reaction. The summer of 2012 has changed that. There’s a new sense of patriotism around.”

    Binita Mehta works at the think-tank British Future and is chair of Hertfordshire Conservative Future.

    Another member of British Future is Rachael Jolly. She talks about Danny Boyle’s ‘…uniquely British’ opening ceremony for this summer’s Olympics.”
    “He is tapping into something which we, as a nation, care about. British Future polling shows that across Britain, not just in England (as some sceptics argue), there is immense pride in our green pleasant lands – from the Lake District, to Snowdonia and the Highlands.”

    From The Irish Times (12/10/12):
    “Could the Great War centenary affect Scots independence vote?”

    “Unionist fervour in Scotland was strong in the early months of [WW1] war. However, Scots learned after the war that 26 per cent of their menfolk who had joined up died in uniform, compared with 12 per cent for the rest of the British army, leaving a bitter aftertaste.”

  63. Michael Stephenson

    13 Oct, 2012 - 10:46 pm

  64. You are entiely missing the point. ‘gay’ marriage is concerned with ‘cultural marxism’ not ‘human rights’ etc.
    homosexual relationships are already recognised by the state and that is needed or most want (check out stephen hough’s blog in the dt). you need to understand how cultural marxism is used to 1. indentify a ‘minority’ 2. proclaim an adversity suffered by the minority at the hands of evil white hterosexual males 3. ploclaim the need for laws concerning the need for ‘equal’ or greater ‘rights’ for the minority and the need for thought crime laws against the usual suspects 4. get the minority steamed up through special university depts created for that purpose 5. change the laws 6. move onto the next ‘minority’ etc.

    what is this all about: simply to undermine western culture. check it out, there’s plenty on the web. Why do you not have free speech? why can you be locked up for saying the ‘wrong’ thing? why do employers have to employ people who are not english who are completely useless such that entry requirements have to be lowered to fir them in or women who are constantly on maternity leave etc.

    what next? the archbishop of canterbury together with the rest of the establishment celebrating a ‘gay marriage’ in westminster abbey between a one legged black lesbian and a transgendered descendent of royalty with the bbc in ful gloat and shrieks of merriment emanating from n. london. it is an attack on our culture of which the established church is significant part.

  65. Jimmy, you can say you’ve been “moderated by the pinkos as usual”, but you know full well we have an auto-spam device here. You are not being deliberately censored, even if you wish you were!

    On incidence of homosexuality, WP is a good read. I think my 6% came from this:

    HM Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry completed a survey to help the Government analyse the financial implications of the Civil Partnerships Act (such as pensions, inheritance and tax benefits). They concluded that there were 3.6 m gay people in Britain—around 6% of the total population or 1 in 16.66 people.

    On priests, I didn’t say religious confusion, I said sexual confusion; the difference is important. That it might be due to stymied sexual development due to celibacy requirements is just a theory, but I’d have thought quite a reasonable one, since something has prevented sexual attraction to adults. This is a good read for causes – several are proposed. The section on “Clerical celibacy” reflects both views.

    Although I wasn’t looking for this in particular, I found this:

    Research on pedophilia in general shows a majority of abusers identify themselves as heterosexual.

  66. @forthurst – I think it would be the right thing to do, from liberal principles, to prevent the tyranny of the majority. But, support is better than you state. In the UK, support for gay marriage is higher than opposition to it (ref).

  67. @forthurst – I should say that the legislation will not force religions to perform marriages they do not wish to. A church I used to belong to (C of E) refused plenty of heterosexual couples, usually on the grounds that they were not sufficiently devout.

  68. @Giles – I am quite sure I don’t deserve your spiteful posts.

  69. Jon wrote:

    “On priests, I didn’t say religious confusion, I said sexual confusion; the difference is important. That it might be due to stymied sexual development due to celibacy requirements is just a theory, but I’d have thought quite a reasonable one, since something has prevented sexual attraction to adults.”

    Are you suggesting a priest or nun, change their sexual proclivities as adults, in situ? If so, that would contradict the idea that homosexuals are born that way, hence would make it imperative that children be protected from such nurture.

  70. @Jimmy – your key thesis is that gays and lesbians are attracted to the Catholic priesthood and/or that there is a link between homosexuality and paedophilia. However the Spiked! article which you put forward as supportive doesn’t mention either of these – what were you trying to show by it?

  71. @Jimmy – well, I put forward no theories on nuns per se, since they were not – as far as I know – implicated in the sex abuse scandal. That said, I think it is reasonable to assert that the processes of sexual development can be harmed in women too.

    In the (abusing) priesthood, my thesis is that men are attracted to children because their sexual development was prevented from maturing normally. So, the sexual identity of the (abusing) priest is confused, and he finds himself attracted to children not adults, and possibly to boys even if that would not have been his normal developmental preference (see earlier about most paedophiles identifying as heterosexual).

    I agree it is possible that a proportion of priests were genuinely gay – I am not asserting that gay people cannot become child abusers. But I am asserting that given two well-adjusted, happy adults, one straight and one gay, there is no greater chance of either becoming an abuser of children.

  72. “I agree it is possible that a proportion of priests were genuinely gay – I am not asserting that gay people cannot become child abusers. But I am asserting that given two well-adjusted, happy adults, one straight and one gay, there is no greater chance of either becoming an abuser of children.”

    This is the crux, and why I said the stats need to be gathered regarding the sexuality of all priests, and the sexuality of all pederast priests. I noticed that the link you gave regarding what sexuality the abusers declared themselves to be, also stated that over 80% of the victims were boys.

    Now, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its probably a duck, even if it thinks it’s a goose.

  73. It’s all so easy when you’re a traditionalist. Each person is either ‘a man’ or ‘a woman’, and on that basis you can decide whether they are allowed get married or not.

    But nature is messy and not so easily classified:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

    ‘Intersex, in humans and other animals, is the presence of intermediate or atypical combinations of physical features that usually distinguish female from male. This is usually understood to be congenital, involving chromosomal, morphologic, genital and/or gonadal anomalies, such as diversion from typical XX-female or XY-male presentations, e.g., sex reversal (XY female, XX male), genital ambiguity, or sex developmental differences. An intersex individual may have biological characteristics of both the male and the female sexes. Intersexuality as a term was adopted by medicine during the 20th century, and applied to human beings whose biological sex cannot be classified as clearly male or female’

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity

    ‘However, some individuals have a combination of these chromosomes, hormones, and genitalia that do not follow the traditional definitions of “men” and “women”. In addition, genitalia vary greatly or individuals may have more than one type of genitalia. Also, other bodily attributes related to a person’s sex (body shape, facial hair, high or deep voice, etc.) may or may not coincide with the social category, as woman or man. A survey of the research literature from 1955–2000 suggests that as many as one in every hundred individuals may have some intersex characteristic’

  74. Ben Franklin (Anti-intellectual Colonial American Savage version)

    14 Oct, 2012 - 12:31 am

    Every opportunity I have to ask the question; How does gays getting married adversely affect you Mr/Mrs churchgoer? I get vague and poorly thought out responses. I thought this issue was exclusively American because we are such righteously appointed Guardians of sexual morality/hypocrisy.

  75. Should we audit existing marriages, to make sure no in-betweenies have been married inadvertently?

  76. Many good people are so succeptable to the propaganda of the main stream media. Only a small percent of people know what is really going on.

    If the 38% – 46% solid base of American and European people the puppet politicians rely on to support their desperate game of terror, control and conflict, cannot be enlightened and told what to do, then the direction we turn in time will not be forward, it will be skewed into a circle of control and conflict. That circle will only be broken when our world fails to support life itself. That is a fact.

    It is not a complicated message. It is a test of your conscious now. The circle was conceived to support you. to support your children and their children. Then it will self-implode and humans eventually die out like dinasaurs, attempting to survive by killing each other. That is also fact.

    Knowledge is key. It is like a pandemic. Talk to people, communicate with each other. Educate each other. Use passion. Express emotion. Encourage involvement. Diffuse fear. Move the message forward even it the darkest of places – do not let the circle close. It is the only way.

    http://www.livestream.com/occupylsx

  77. at least the daily mail has broken the deafening silence on this one.

    includes quotes from the great judith curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. (from wikipedia: Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992) curry has become increasingly sceptical about “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” in recent years:

    13 Oct: Daily Mail: David Rose: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it
    The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported…
    Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.
    Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun…
    Not that there has been any coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend…
    Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html

    the manmade global warming scam has discredited science for a generation.

  78. pielke jr is professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) where he served as Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder from 2001 to 2007. Pielke was a visiting scholar at Oxford University’s James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization, and author of The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming):

    Oct 12: Denver Post: Roger Pielke Jr: Guest Commentary: Climate spin is rampant
    But there is one group that should be very concerned about the spreading of rampant misinformation: the scientific community. It is, of course, thrilling to appear in the media and get caught up in highly politicized debates. But leading scientists and scientific organizations that contribute to a campaign of misinformation — even in pursuit of a worthy goal like responding effectively to climate change — may find that the credibility of science itself is put at risk by supporting scientifically unsupportable claims in pursuit of a political agenda.
    http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_21752735/climate-spin-is-rampant

  79. I don’t say this as a mere quibble, since I think it ties in with the comments of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who pointed out that most of those involved in perpetrating the ‘paedophilia’ scandal within the Catholic Church, were homosexuals. This is why I think we should get into the habit [in a non-sartorial sense] of calling it ‘pederasty’.

    The predominance of same-sex child abusers in the Catholic priesthood may indeed be true.

    However, if it is true, it would nevertheless be rash to assert that homosexuals are more likely to be child abusers than heterosexuals. The historical context is important. Until quite recently, in most countries, homosexual practices were illegal, often exciting severe punishment. For men living in fear of these regimes, the Church may well have been perceived as a welcoming community, partly immune from the scrutiny of the state.

    I recall in the early days of the AIDS epidemic in the US, one of the most vulnerable groups to the disease were Catholic priests, suggesting a very large population of practising homosexuals among their number. Some of these chaps may also have been interested in boys.

    However, in the general community it is well known that the most dangerous sexual predator is your dad. And most dads molest daughters, not sons.

  80. Ben Franklin (Anti-intellectual Colonial American Savage version)

    14 Oct, 2012 - 2:58 am

    “Knowledge is key” Clearly, Mark. But how to motivate the passive, which are Legion. It seems like flailing at Windmills. It’s poetic and Romantic, but aside from the symbolic hard-on some get about that sensation, what is the outcome? The courage to stand alone despite the throngs who abhor you, while retaining confidence in the rightness of your stand, should be reward enough for yourself. The question is; Is that enough?

  81. http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/social/marriage-colloquium-goes-ahead-despite-attempts-to-ban-it

    hristian Concern and the World Congress of Families hosted an inspiring marriage conference on Wednesday 23 May, despite extraordinary opposition to the event taking place.

    Freedon of speech.

    Do we not all worry for the future as did our parents and there parents before. We may be right.

    As we know the there is an agenda why don`t we all calm down and sort this out.

    THe un-liberal libtards amongst us are worse than the worst fascists, for pushing their leftist super diverse free too make and show and film about almost any subject and show it amongst the masses but hey its ok.

    I spoke to a old gentleman on the subject of child pornography and how its the next taboo and he said oh can`t they just use actors.

    So what is the problem you may ask?

    THe fact that the Libtards are not even open to discussion, as the link above proves.

  82. @ Katz

    Yes Katz, it is a depraved society and those dads you refer to have got it wrong. So how are we helping them get it right?

  83. While our World and Society is being destroyed round about us, the media and this blog has everybody up a cul-de-sac chewing the fat about sexual offendors and deviants.

  84. As I said …

  85. @Jay – by supplying that link, are you asserting that the society we share should be governed by your religious principles? That doesn’t sound fair to the most of us who do not share your religion – or your traditionalist reading of it.

    THe un-liberal libtards amongst us are worse than the worst fascists

    Ah, I see. People who disagree with you are retards, nice. Hopefully Neil, who wants a civilised debate, will ask you to tone it down.

    In the meantime, you’ve broken Godwin’s Law, so I’ll claim my fiver please.

  86. Jon 14 Oct, 2012 – 10:15 am
    “…you’ve broken Godwin’s Law…”

    Pedant’s corner:

    He hasn’t. Jay mentioned fascists. Godwin’s Law requires reference to Hitler or Nazi. Now I’ve gone and done it. Although I haven’t ‘broken’ anything.

  87. Is it not the nature of catholicism that holds the clue here? Its secularity, cosy internal structures of self control and repentance, fear, loathing hell fire and damnation against those sinners that has perpetuated paedophilia and same sex relations ships at the same time. For it is the environment we adapt to and we are rebellious, we always try and find a way to circumnavigate assumptions of moral and greater good, for our own private special rules and regulations, do as I say not as I do.

    Its always been nuture and nature, so if pirates dressed up as women and had same sex relationships was not down to them being gay, just as some sexual relationships in prison are not formed by homosexuals alone, that hetero sexual’s are also having their urges calmed, makes you theory somewhat flimsy Jimmy Giro. Having the same genetic make up and urges as ape’s really explains our calamity, we are not developed to accept others like we do accept our own and being potty for cute cuddly animals does not count.

    That paedophilia thrives in strictly dogmatic religious environs has shown us that religious moral veracity was wrong, that preaching of these morals, whilst going against them in such numbers, has only resulted in secreting these immoral practises and making them the realm of the fantasising psychopath, who can use their personal powers and societal standing to divert the moral outcry of their pederast actions.

    To make out that all gays are potential child abusers is wrong. But the facts show us that if you restrict natural sexual urges with false morals and doctrines, whether its a church or a social service, a private club like the BBC, or keep human physically confined, as on a ship or in prison, a submarine or for long journeys in space, we find that our apparent intelligence does not preclude us switching off our senses and act as the animals we really are.

    And should anybody ever feel the urge to come out here, feeling the need to splash their natural afflictions all over the world, then that is OK with us, isn’t it Jimmy?

    We have to face up to the fact that religions have promoted morals that were not solely concerned with our spiritual development, that their moral guidance on life sex and everything, their relations to power, aloof from the rest of us, war wrong. It has coloured societal development for hundreds of years and has now ended.

    We are living in new moral times and they are set by outrage and uncovering of past filth. Whether it will uncover all of it. I doubt that this moral cesspit we created will ever be filled in. If ever there was enough reason and the right time for a people’s Inquisition, its now.

    please lets not burn churches, just empty them of dead morals and empty hearts, lets turn them into places of speeches and debates, change all seating into rounds, turn pulpits into floral displays. If we want to ring bells for the solstice and not for remembrances of murder and maiming, so be it. If god is in all of us, then these churches are ours.

  88. Mark and Ben – Yes it’s a toughie isn’t it – how to effectively spread the message without it being counter-productive – one is either regarded as a swivel-eyed loon and treated with amused contempt or as a dangerous subversive and “dealt with”.
    But I take comfort in the parables of the mustard seed and the yeast in the bread working away unseen but producing huge results.
    So let’s keep trucking – don’t despair.

    “Here endeth the lesson” (silly face insert)

  89. Ben Franklin (Anti-intellectual Colonial American Savage version) 14 Oct, 2012 – 12:31 am
    “I thought this issue was exclusively American because we are such righteously appointed Guardians of sexual morality/hypocrisy.”

    In my experience this is not a hot topic on the streets of the UK. Although it apparently persists in the poorly attended churches and JimmyGiro’s home. But then again maybe I’m just a cultural marxist, pinkoe, feminist, fascist, atheist, duck loving, gullible libtard who can’t spot a pedophile from a goose.

  90. Nevermind 14 Oct, 2012 – 10:53 am
    “…or for long journeys in space…”

    Of course, gay astronaut sex! Is there a video on the internet? I mean, the money shot would be…slow.

  91. Commesick Commesark

    14 Oct, 2012 - 11:32 am

    Casting PC aside, can someone scientifically inform the forum if the so called gay accent is innate or it comes about as a physical change from being poked in the pooper or comes about as a physical change from poking the pooper or any other reason, deep throat, etc. Then the debate can move further forward on a scientific basis.

  92. Wow this thread has really managed to depress me. Numerous times I have tried to write a reply, but keep giving up half way through because there are just too many false assumptions and so much bigotry to correct. I don’t actually know what’s more worrying, the outrageous homophobia or that the homophobes are dressing up their bigotry as being free thinking truth seekers. Somehow an oppressed minority is being blamed for all the faults of heterosexual families, how does that even work? I don’t see how gay people impact on heterosexual relationships at all. If you feel that only laws and social pressure are preventing you from acting on gay impulses, I got news for you, you are living in the closet. I celebrate gay relationships, but I have never been attracted to cock, I’m just not wired that way. Why do people that claim to hate gays spend so much time thinking about the specifics of gay sex?

    I can’t fathom how people convince themselves that there is a secret gay agenda being pushed to undermine society (seriously, who even worries about Fabians anymore? do you still check for reds under the bed?), it’s just so stupid I don’t even know where to begin. Somehow fighting for the church and state to continue denying gay people equal rights is righteous and brave in the eyes of homophobes. It totally ignores the centuries of oppression that gay people have suffered through. All this teeth gnashing about the sanctity of marriage and it’s timeless nature, only speaks to a great ignorance of history and the constantly changing nature of marriage. Did you know that men can actually be charged with raping their wives now! Another outrageous government intervention into marriage.

    I don’t really think I accomplished much by writing this post, but at least I don’t feel like I am betraying family and friends by staying silent while people push this hateful shit. I was raised (liberal) Catholic and Quaker, it didn’t seem weird to me at all that my god mother is a lesbian and my god father is gay. Neither fiddled with me, and in fact I’m very confident that both would have risked their lives to stop anyone from fiddling with me.

    Katz, great post. I was thinking about the issue only a few days ago, and came to a similar conclusion. Until recently it was not possible to live an openly gay lifestyle, so many men had to hide/deny their feelings. I guess that this would make joining the priesthood and being celibate relatively appealing to gay people. Instead of being celibate only due to fear, they got a great excuse to explain the lack of women in their lives and also gain social stature. Funnily enough, denial, self hatred and a reluctance to deal with reality had very negative consequences for priests and the young boys around them, who’d have thunk it? I think there is a lot more to the issue of sexual abuse and priests than just celibacy. Buddhist monks make very similar lifestyle choices and the issue of child abuse isn’t nearly as relevant for them.

  93. They are legion Ben yet polymorphic and selfish, each seeking their own reward. Thus reward is antithetical to survival.

    Standing alone is not enough.

    One homogenous mind – Won victory

  94. Thanks CC, I enjoyed your post as it did characterise some glum tendencies in this thread.

    History and institutional arrangements will continue to have a major influence on marriage laws.

    I live in Australia, which has a written constitution. Under that constitution, the Federal Parliament has the responsibility of administering marriage. No institution, whether religious or secular could perform marriages legally without a licence from the Federal Parliament. Under the Marriage Act, there was no mention at all of the gender of the persons to be married.

    Then this amendment was passed in 2004, at the instigation of PM John Howard:

    Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
    Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.

    Australian conservatives used to look to the British upper classes for their models of appropriate behaviour. Now they look to the US Tea Party. This is pathetic and infuriating, but also popular. Virtually no one goes to Church in Australia. Organised religion is closer to death here than virtually anywhere else on earth.

    Yet people of conservative bent are terrified of change, as if removing one brick in the edifice will bring down the entire structure. The Right makes use of this fear to instil discipline and compliance. And it works. The cultural ferment of the 1960s terrified many people. They don’t want to go through anything like that again. Better to cling to dead gods that to admit that they never existed.

  95. @Phil – fair enough, but comparing people who wish for gay oppression to end as worse than fascists nevertheless takes the biscuit. Can I get half my claim for nearly breaking that law? 😉

    CheebaCow, yes – great stuff.

  96. doug scorgie

    14 Oct, 2012 - 2:00 pm

    Oddie 1:30am
    The subject of climate change needs a thread of its own and is a bit off topic here but I feel a need to enlighten you.

    Climate change denial: constructing a counter-narrative.

    Climate change denial is rampant in the media (especially in the USA) partly because climate change or global warming as it is usually called, is controversial and feeds the minds of conspiracy theorists (sells newspapers) and also because powerful interests are threatened if global warming is real.

    And it is real as even the Daily Mail admits in the penultimate sentence of the article:
    “Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels.”
    Also: “This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.”

    However it is the hyperbolic headline:
    “Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it” that will be picked up and remembered by gullible readers.

    In that article is this paragraph:
    “At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics [what?] will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.”

    John Hayes is the minister at the Department for Energy and Climate Change. In his first statement at the department he said:

    “I am proud to answer the Prime Minister’s call to assume the role of Energy Minister at such a crucial time both for our energy security and for tackling climate change.”

    But in an earlier Guardian article:

    “He was quoted by the BBC in 2009 as saying, “renewable energy needs to pass the twin tests of environmental and economic sustainability and wind power fails on both counts”.

    The Daily Mail concurs:
    “Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.”

    The Daily Mail has a long history of climate change denial.

    Oddie.
    Read and understand the science and the scientific method then you will be in a position to see through the fog that corporate vested interests produce.

  97. Katz, woo Australia represent 😉 I’m a Melbournian myself, but not currently living there. Thankfully I haven’t experienced many Australians imitating tea baggers, but then I tend to avoid conservatives like the plague. I’m a big fan of Australia’s atheism, its the old school mind your own business type of atheism. Dawkins and Hitchens adopted the US hyperbolic style of atheism which definitely rubs me the wrong way.

  98. I’m in Melbourne right now. Melbourne isn’t really Australia.

    Trams go ding-ding.

    My electorate returned a Green.

    Shock jocks starve for want of an audience.

    It’s a good roost from which to watch the Rest of the world go mad.

  99. “Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”

    You’d be hard pressed to find a clearer or more succinct definition of marriage. Note that sexuality is not an issue but gender is.

    As far as I am aware the Civil Partnership Act confers all the legal rights/duties of married couples onto same-sex couples. I would like to know why this is considered inadequate.

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted In The Cloud