Empty promises.

Remember Cameron promising those religions that objected to gay marriage that they wouldn’t be forced to perform ceremonies?

Well here… we… go.

It’s started already and the legislation isn’t even law yet. I bet the church will lose in court. They always do.

I don’t object to gay marriage. It doesn’t affect me one jot. Many people do. Are they evil? What about those who object to other people smoking, drinking or being fat? Why are they not also evil?

There are women-only clubs who would object if I tried to join. Why are they not evil?

Can I take a women’s group to court because they won’t let me join? Can I take a smokophobe to court because they won’t let me smoke in a pub – even if it was my own pub?  No. I can’t.

So how come these gay maniacs can hit the church every time and win?

I am sure they will win. When they do, watch out for the next poll, Cameron. It might well be your last as leader of the Conservative (ha!) party.

I will vote against all the main parties because of this gay marriage nonsense and I’m neither gay nor religious – I don’t care about gay marriage at all. That’s not what it’s about.

It’s about yet another empty promise from the empty suits.

39 thoughts on “Empty promises.

  1. Talking about suits, looks more like a “same suit” marriage rather than a “same sex” jamboree, wonder if the well heeled kiddees have matching outfits?

    Like

    • Also makes you wonder, if they have all that money, why not just buy a church and use it to host gay weddings?

      If there is as much demand as they believe, they’d make a fortune. It could even be a proper church as part of the main church – there must surely be some gay priests who would love to run it – and then the church could simply direct all enquiries their way.

      Then nobody has to go to court and it would probably work out cheaper all round.

      Like

      • XX Also makes you wonder, if they have all that money, why not just buy a church and use it to host gay weddings? XX

        Because vicars and priests have to be approved by one of the accepted “state religions”. Only then can they perform legaly abiding wedings?

        I seem to recall something like that.

        The way around this in most, if not all of North Werstern Europe, is to accept NO marraige not carried out in a “Registry office”, or its equivalent.

        This leaves the sky fairy botherers free to make their own minds up as to they have as members.

        We all know what would happen if a church refused to marry some one who was black, so, as the same law covers poofters and dykes as well, I find it strange that no one appears to have taken a church to court yet. (Or have they, and I missed it?).

        Like

  2. They’re obviously the kind of in-everyone’s-face career gays who infest lefty local authority youth services. Marriage? Look in the 4king dictionary!

    Like

    • The same fucking dictionarys that describe “Heathen” and “Pagans” as “Having no God(s), or the same that describe “Boot-boys” as “Bikers and “Rockers”, instead of, as we all know, “Skinheads,” do you mean?

      Do I really need to tell you what I think of such crap?

      Like

      • You must have a really crap dictionary. ‘Boot-boys’ brings up images of shaven heads, red braces and Dr. Martin’s Boots. I met a few.

        I met some bikers I liked, I met some mods and rockers I liked, I once met an ageing teddy boy who was tolerable but I have never met a skinhead I didn’t want to shake hands with using a chainsaw.

        Like

        • “Collins German/English Dictionary 1997 and also a later edition.” 1990 I think (It is at work at the moment, I can not look it up). But I have seen similar, particularly with the Pagan/Heathen description, in the O.U.P Dictionarys, and the “Währig.” All approved for use by the courts and other parts of the legal system.

          Like

  3. I’m really enjoying this gay marriage fuss.
    Personally, I’m not gay, I’m not religious, and I don’t support Big Law.
    I’m just a fascinated observer.

    My suggestion is to abolish marriage as a legal entity.
    If people want to have their own meaningful ceremonies, let them.

    The voluntary bonding of couples predates both the law and organized religion.
    The definition of marriage doesn’t belong to the people who compile dictionaries.

    What my neighbours do in bed is none of my business.
    I don’t mind them talking about it, as long as they don’t expect me to be interested.

    What the Government does, is my business. I enjoy seeing their stupidity exposed.

    Like

    • Personally, I’m not gay…. Professionally, perhaps? And if so, what do you charge?

      Sorry, just kidding. You figuratively went to pick up the soap there and I couldn’t resist 😉

      For the record, I am gay. But your comment chimes precisely with my views on the subject too. Civil Partnerships were, without doubt, an important milestone. It was patently absurd that homosexual people in long term loving relationships were denied the same legal protections that straight people have. I’m in a civil partnership now – needed to be as my partner is a foreign national and its was easier (slightly) to jump through the immigration hurdles with that status – but we’ve been in a relationship for 10 years over all… longer than many regular marriages.

      Having said all that, I’ve never been a supporter of gay marriage. Again, like you, we’re not religious and have always thought this was an issue best left to the church. The irony being most religions have some pretty nasty stuff to say about poofters and some gays are undoubtedly religious. It’s a quandary all right. From the State’s point of view, surely it would have been simpler to have amended the existing laws thus enabling marriage without reference to the couple’s gender? Okay, that still leaves the reluctance of the church to marry homosexuals but that’s their prerogative. In time, some may have acquiesced, others may have splintered or some enterprising but struggling for worshippers church might even have promoted their ‘modern inclusive’ services to the holders of Pink Pounds, Vegas style.

      Instead, the Government, Cameron, whoever, has made a colossal mistake here…. After weeks of ‘will they, won’t they’, the announcement came: “Gay Marriage to be legalised” said the man on the radio. By the time I got home, the headlines on SKY News had changed to “Gay Marriage to be made illegal in Catholic and COE Churches”! WTF says I.

      It must have taken me an hour reading online to understand what the hell they were actually passing. In an effort to please everyone, they are probably going to please no one. This law is like Gulf War One, instead to finishing the job first time, we all know that at some point in the future, possibly after years of torment and pain, we’re going to have to go back and finish the job. What the Same-Suit couple have done is lob the first of many cruise missiles. There will be more.

      Me? I don’t much care either way. I still believe it’s up to the churches ultimately and if they don’t want me and my ilk in their club so be it. There are other clubs; paganism, some of them new-fangled hippiesque crystal worshipping whatevers – they probably only meet on the second Wednesday of every month and allow smoking too – or none of the above. People I’ve spoke with, gay or straight, seem equally less than excised on the issue. Tune out the Government, media and Church and almost no one but the rabid anti-everything sit-in brigade is talking about it.

      Sorry, but I’m pulling up a chair and smiling at the image of the PM and the Arch-Bish fighting over a gay man… as long as it’s not me!

      Like

      • The Bish and Archie aren’t fighting over you, you’ve passed puberty.

        Ever see ‘Achmed the Dead Terrorist’, the puppet by ventriloquist Jeff Dunham? He tried a joke once. I can’t remember it exactly but the gist of it was –

        “I started a fight among a group of Jews by throwing in a penny. Then I started a fight between catholic priests by throwing in a small boy”.

        Like

        • I really enjoy Jeff Dunham, being a ventriloquist he can get away with a lot of non P.C. stuff. I have to say his character Walter has a lot of things sewn up.

          Like

  4. When the ECHR rules in their favour, the powerlessness of our lawmakers will again be exposed. T’will be interesting to hear what Justin Welby has to say.

    Like

      • I think, (and I could be wrong), that the ECHR will inevitably find churches guilty of discrimination if they refuse to marry same-sex couples, once gay marriage is made legal. That will upset a lot of mild bigots, which is slightly regrettable.

        As straight people can marry with State recognition, I think gay people should be able to.
        But I don’t think churches should be obliged to participate.
        To be frank, I’m not neutral about churches. I disapprove of them.
        But that doesn’t matter. They are clubs, for private members, as far as I’m concerned. They should be able to set their own membership criteria, and rules.

        One solution is to dump our membership of the ECHR. I’d prefer that, but it’s unlikely in the near future.

        Another solution is to abolish marriage, in the sense that it has any legal meaning. I could live with that, but many people would be upset.

        Another solution is to just dodge the question until all the old farts, (bless em) with their old-fashioned prejudices have passed on. But Cameron just couldn’t leave it alone.

        Incidentally; as homosexuals seldom breed, and yet they persist in the population, it’s absolutely clear to me that they tend to add something unique and useful to our society. So there! 🙂

        I think the main reason many straight men have a problem with gay men, is that they believe you get more sex than we do. It must be much easier when women aren’t involved, surely? They may be wrong, but since when did the truth affect what people believe?

        Like

        • Other species have gay individuals too, including cows and penguins as recent examples. I think wasps are probably an exception, they just take out their sexual frustrations on anyone who happens by, the evil little bastards. Slugs don’t need to be gay, every one of them has both sets of bits.

          It does something useful or it wouldn’t persist and it wouldn’t be so widespread among nature, it’s not ‘unnatural’ it’s just ‘different’.

          Anyway, gay men getting more sex than straight men – hell, dead men get more than me! I can’t even attract a necrophiliac by lying very very still.

          Maybe it’s a form of jealousy in that women’s world views are utterly incomprehensible so at least gay men have someone they can understand.

          As for me, I now have an intermediate Welsh/Scottish accent so when I say ‘nobody understands me’ it’s literally true.

          Like

          • There is absolutely nothing nasty about Wasps, and I am not having this. I have lived in perfect peace with Wasps Nests on my property at least three times in the last few years, and they never gave me a hard time.
            I suppose that they might know that I like them, but what has that got to do with a game of soldiers?
            I won’t bore you with how interesting they are or how useful they are, but a few more Wasps and a bit less of the pesticides might do us better. They control all of the the insects that destroy crops, given half a chance.
            Anyway, sorry, I was just about to go off on one. But no point if you don’t understand that everything has its purpose.

            Like

            • Everything has its purpose, true, but I still think the entire universe and everything in it was created at the moment of my birth for one specific purpose.

              To annoy me. So far it has proved most effective at its task ;).

              Wasps know that I don’t like them. And I know they don’t like me. I won’t hunt them down if they leave me alone and so far they have built their nests outside my territory.

              Insect control is effected by bluetits and sparrows here. The bluetits are especially good at it.

              Like

                • Do you extend your everything has a purpose philosophy to say, cockroaches ? How about a rats nest in your wainscott or mice running over your food and pissing on it, as they do ? Yeah everything has a purpose in the sense that it has evolved to survive in a given set of circumstances which may or may not be of benefit to other species but that doesn’t mean we have to put up with them if they are causing us harm or even if we just don’t like them.

                  Like

  5. Pingback: Saturday Evening Posts Worth Reading. — Anna Raccoon

  6. Do you know what? I have long not believed in marriage of any kind. I don’t even understand why people do it, beyond that first flush of thinking that it was going to be some sort of partnership. It wasn’t.
    I brought up the little feckers, and paid for them to the tune of fourteen painful years of Public School fees, and without a single qualification to my name. I didn’t even pass my Eleven Plus. I just cleaned a lot of toilets.
    So why should I care if some homosexual is allowed to marry?
    When The Church supports people like me and helps me to support our children, I might think again. And No, I do not blame God for that. In the meantime I am a Pagan, but only in so far as I belong to me.

    Like

    • If two people want to stay together, they will. If they don’t want to, they won’t.

      they could get married in church or synagogue or mosque or at a Pagan handfasting and make their vows in front of everyone, and they could split up the same way without having to buy a licence or pay lawyers.

      All this ‘legalised’ marriage and divorce does is make money for the State. No wonder the State is so keen to pretend there are benefits.

      Like

    • There’s another lot using the same format. I’m writing it now with help from the educational whisky – Teacher’s. Could take a while and it will not be politically correct, in fact it’s getting wilder (and with better spelling) with every pass.

      I don’t have to be up early tomorrow, for a change 😉

      Like

  7. Oh, come on, who really cares? I did the “Till Death Do Us Part” bit, and I even promised to “Obey”, until I eventually realised that he was a pillock who only wanted what I had to give. And my contribution was way beyond anything that he thought was necessary from him. So what is likely to be the difference in a homosexual marriage? They are still only two people, one of whom could well lose.
    Personally, I don’t understand why two people of the same sex would want to commit in the eyes of any God. But then I am fast losing any understanding of why two people of the opposite sex would want to commit in the eyes of apparently the same God.
    Where the hell does any God come into this?
    And presuming that Marriage was supposed to protect the perpetuation of the species, then you can forget that one. The Human Race is doing all too well without it.

    No, I am not entirely cynical. Just a bit pissed off with the hypocrisy of it all.

    Like

      • The Human Race will perpetuate with monotonous regularity. It is what we do. And we don’t have much say in the matter. Even arrogant, wanting to be frightfully upper class and not quite making it, people like me bloody well breed. And in precisely the same fashion. We all screw.
        Some of us hope to do better than some others. But we don’t actually have the right to assume that we have.
        Queer or what? The fact is that homosexuals do not breed. Is this a bad thing? I don’t bloody well know. And it is probably none of my business anyway. Just don’t feed me God.
        There was no God when I desperately needed help. But I never blamed God for that.
        I am a very old child of The Universe. I glory in what I now have the time to see. But it takes a minute or ten years.

        Sorry, what was the point of the original Blog Post? I got a bit carried away with my own concerns.

        Mrs. Do As You Would Be Done By.

        Like

        • Have you been drinking? I have, lots. This could get into one of those long winded drink babbles if we’re not careful.

          My stance is this –

          Religion: I am an apathist. There might be God, thee might be a hundred Gods, I don’t care. None of them have given me any reason to believe they care about me.

          Gays: I don’t care. Anyone can poke anything anywhere if I’m not involved. None of my business.

          Reproduction: I don’t care. The human race can live for a billion years or I could be the last one alive. It doesn’t matter.

          I have a finite lifespan and I don’t know when it ends. I am not going to spend this life worrying about the end of it, nor trouble myself with nonsensical advice about extending it into the adult nappy and nurse-wiping-the-drool years.

          I take nothing seriously. Nothing. It is all transient. Every day is ephemera. Nothing is forever. The world has been through it all before, with the Inquisition, the French revolution, many more before and after those points in tine and nothing is ever resolved and none of it matters at all.

          There is much more in this vein but the bottle is in its death throes. Besides, this kind of philosophical stuff is for a different blog.

          Like

          • Have I been drinking? Probably not half so much as you. But then I never touch whiskey. I like it too much. And I can’t afford it anyway.
            However, I suspect that you take life much more seriously than I do. I don’t even think about it beyond the dog being left alone. And since I don’t have a dog at the moment, then I don’t think about it at all.

            Sorry if I raised the tone of this Blog somewhat. I shall try not to do this in future. Ha!

            Like

            • You raised an interesting discussion but perhaps one for a different and long dormant persona. One more serious than me.

              I really should get that one fired up again.

              Like

              • What? The Dog you mean? I can bore the arse off anyone about Dogs. I have owned more Afghans than you have had hot dinners. And more Pekinese as well. And at the same time. And No, I have never owned one single dog that was ever trained to do as it was told. I just scared them half to death. One look from me and they all keeled over. Along with the ghastly children. Such fun, don’t you think. And what is the difference when push comes to shove?

                Like

  8. I generally seem to miss these nationwide calls to the general public for important consultations and only find any reference to them far too late. Perhaps I am watching the wrong national news channel or reading the wrong national paper or perhaps the postman delivers the invitation to the wrong address.

    I only get to know when I am informed of things like, the vast majority of my fellow countrymen , who never said a word to me about the subject before, are thrilled at the idea of the government banning me from every pub, club or restaurant in Great Britain .

    Now I’m told that nearly everyone in the country is overjoyed at the idea of “redefining” my marriage for me.

    Gay marriage: Government consultation begins
    15 March 2012
    http: //www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17375736

    I missed that completely.

    Ministers accused of ‘sham’ consultation over gay marriage
    10 Dec 2012

    “Yet petitions organised by campaigners, in which more than 500,000 people opposed plans to redefine marriage to include gay couples and around 64,000 supported them, have been ignored by ministers.

    In addition, participation was not limited to UK residents despite claims that lobbying groups in the US had been attempting to recruit people to submit responses.

    Opponents of the plan have cried foul, arguing that the consultation’s finding of majority support amounted to dishonesty.”

    “David Burrowes, the Conservative MP, said: “If they want to rely on those figures it is wholly disingenuous. It makes the consultation a sham in terms of justifying this on the back of numerical support, given that 500,000 people were ignored and they have accepted all-comers from around the globe.”

    He said that support was now so disputed that there was a strong case for a referendum on the subject.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9735738/Ministers-accused-of-sham-consultation-over-gay-marriage.html

    Not quite the same I admit.

    Government ‘fixing health consultations’ with taxpayer-funded groups
    Jan 2009

    “Mr Johnson boasted that the display ban was favoured by an “overwhelming majority” of 96,000 responses to a six-month public consultation on the subject.

    Yet only a handful of those 96,000 respondents came from individuals submitting their personal views. Almost 70,000 came from those collected by pressure groups entirely funded by the Department for Health.

    Among the groups submitting block responses were SmokeFree NorthWest, SmokeFree Liverpool and SmokeFree North East, which were all set up by the Government to lobby against the tobacco industry.

    The finding has prompted critics to accuse the Government of spending taxpayers’ money on establishing groups designed merely to back the Government line on public health issues.

    Ministers have effectively been accused of “astroturfing” – cultivating a fake grassroots movement in order to make a position appear more popular than it really is.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/4076290/Government-fixing-health-consultations-with-taxpayer-funded-groups.html

    Still, under the 30 year rule I’m sure that eventually we will find out what really happened.

    Like

    • Every government consultation is a sham.

      I agree with Zaphod on religion. I also see it as a club where they have membership rules and if you don’t like the rules, don’t join. I would never, for example, join a club whose central premise was ‘Punch the short white man in the face’.

      Yet there are all these gay Christians and gay Muslims who worship a god who has said he doesn’t like them.

      Then again, we still have smokers and drinkers and fat people still staunchly voting Labour and Tory and Lie Dem and SNP, all of whom have made their thoughts on those lifestyles plain. Must be some sort of masochist streak.

      Like

      • Inexplicable isn’t it?

        I don’t really have a religion since I thought my way out of the CofE stuff I was taught solely at school. I’m sure that there’s a something but I wouldn’t like to even attempt to specify it.

        Like that sudden breath of warm air that you feel on your cheek when you are pegging out the washing in February. That sort of thing.
        I suppose that makes me a bit of an animist.

        I was glad when Civil partnerships were introduced, I thought it righted a wrong, however in my opinion redefining traditional marriage violates both biology and the accepted meaning of words.

        Like the drugs companies redefining herbs as drugs, the great and good seem to go along with such things pretending they understand completely, leaving the rest of us deeply confused.

        “According to the amendment, anything that ‘restores, corrects or modifies physiological function’ in the body will be deemed a drug.”
        http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/feb/29/health.shopping

        Which taken literally includes my lunch.

        Like

        • XX….however in my opinion redefining traditional marriage violates both biology and the accepted meaning of words.

          Like the drugs companies redefining herbs as drugs, the great and good seem to go along with such things pretending they understand completely, leaving the rest of us deeply confused.XX

          Dissagree Ma’am!

          One is defined by science, the other by a belief in a sky fairy.

          NOT the same at all.

          “Biology” needs no deffinition in this sence. What has “Marraige to do with biology outside of a Victorian court room?

          Like

          • FT

            I mean biology in the scientific sense and marriage in a bonding of opposite sexes in a legal framework, rights and responsibilities, inheritance and all that. No sky fairies involved. A legal partnership between two members of the same sex to gain the same things is exactly that, a partnership.

            In the long run it’s entirely pointless and possibly counter-productive to argue over the possession of a word. A huge step was made with civil partnerships, it would have been wise to let that settle for a while and become just a normal part of society. New arrangements should evolve, not be forced upon the unwilling, particularly by means of political trickery.

            I went through google looking for news reports of the gay marriage consultation, unless I was using the wrong search words, I could only find it mentioned in the headlines of religious publications and gay papers. That is not properly consulting the whole of the population about matters that do affect them even if only indirectly.

            Like

            • XX I mean biology in the scientific sense and marriage in a bonding of opposite sexes in a legal framework, rights and responsibilities, inheritance and all that. XX

              Yeess. But I think my point that Biology (Science) has nothing to so with marraige still holds…..

              One is legal, which you could say is “Philosophical” (“Sky fairies”). and, therfore has nothing to do with biology (science).

              One can not be used to support the other.

              Especially from a group of people that think Darwin was mad.

              Like

  9. I popped over to Cranmer and am bemused by the thread. The commenters are just so SURE of their position both in their disapproval of SSM and when they disagree with one another (there is someone who is a Continuing Anglican priest (I don’t know what that means except it would seem that Continuing Anglicans have disagreed with mainstream Anglicans and have split) tussling with another whom he accuses of being RC (rather than Anglican) over the differences between forms of Anglicanism).

    How can people be so SURE unless each has had some Damascene experience? If not they’re relying on texts first written well after the death of Jesus and subsequently translated and interpreted by fallible human beings. It’s like Babel over there!

    Like

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.