Daily Archives: December 9, 2012
The so-called Church of England has released a first statement concerning the satanic attempt of the satanic British Government to elevate sodomy to the rank of one of the most sacred institutions known to mankind. Cranmer has the story.
I was already expecting a weak answer, but what came out of the nincompoops of the so-called Church of England is much worse than that: it’s an incoherent agglomeration of populist waffle, blasphemies (Anglicans do blasphemy a lot; they call it “being nice”, or “inclusiveness”) and outright sucking up to the Prime Minister.
I cannot imagine how the battle can be won if these are the main regiments at our disposal. Thankfully, there are other soldiers (c4m is far more explicit and Lord Carey is certainly no pussycat, at least as far as Anglicans go; then there are the Lords, and perhaps the ordinary Christians, if they are still there in sufficient numbers) and it would not be realistic to say that this battle is lost already, at least for now. But I can’t imagine how the official hierarchy of the so-called Church of England will be able to give any contribution that does not equates to bad comedy or active help for the enemy.
Let us analyse the work of this bunch of cretins.
It is important to be clear that insistence on the traditional understanding of marriage is not knee-jerk resistance to change but is based on a conviction that the consequences of change will not be beneficial for society as a whole. Our concern is for the way the meaning of marriage will change for everyone, gay or straight, if the proposals are enacted. Because we believe that the inherited understanding of marriage contributes a vast amount to the common good, our defence of that understanding is motivated by a concern for the good of all in society.
Note here: neither God or His commandment are present. There is merely a vague idea that marriage “contributes to the common good”. Why this should be so, it isn’t said. The understanding of marriage is “inherited”, not God-given. This understanding is good because it “contributes to the common goood”, but it isn’t said what the foundations of this common good are supposed to be. It’s good because it’s good, supposedly, or it’s good because it’s inherited. No trace of Christian morality, though. “Some things seems, for some strange reason, to be good, dear PM; and then you see, they are inherited and we Brits love traditions; perhaps we might keep them that way?” This isn’t even an argument. This is waffling for the sake of it.
“The proposition that same-sex relationships can embody crucial social virtues is not in dispute.”
What?? Are these people supposed to be Christian at all? Well, actually not, as they have already refused to frame the issue within a Christian context. Here it goes on: a sodomite relationship can “embody crucial social virtues”. What does this mean? Does it mean that sodomites couples are good because they keep their gardens in order? Or because they say “good morning” to their neighbours? Or perhaps because they are good at small talk?
This phrase is straight out of Satan’s instructions manual, and already destroys everything this bunch of nincompoops might say afterwards. If “crucial virtues” can be “embodied” in civil partnerships, why should they not be embodied in marriage? “But this is not the way we inherited”, the idiots say. But you also did not inherit any idea that institutionalised sodomy might “embody crucial social virtues”, you morons…
The argument is a total non-starter. “We have completely changed our theology in what pertains to the very core of Christianity; – says the so-called Church of England – we have completely destroyed every concept of sexual morality, and we even support what Christians have always considered unspeakable abominations; but please do not change what we call marriage, because… it’s good in some strange way we can’t even explain”.
“To that extent, the Prime Minister’s claim that he supports same-sex marriage from conservative principles is readily understandable.”
This here is nothing less than sucking up to the Prime Minister. I would actually have a more fitting image using the word “job”, but I do have female readers…
You see here with what energy these nincompoops dig at their own tomb (politically, and spiritually). “There can be good things coming out of committed sodomites, and yes, prime minister, we even get how conservative it is what you are trying to do! But could we just avoid it, please?”
Once again, Christianity has been, up to now, completely absent. If sodomite couple can be something good, then God is obviously wrong. Clearly, God is supposed to be wrong and not conservative. Cameron is.
“However, the uniqueness of marriage is that it embodies the underlying, objective, distinctiveness of men and women. This distinctiveness and complementarity are seen most explicitly in the biological union of man and woman which potentially brings to the relationship the fruitfulness of procreation.”
The immense stupidity of this phrase is mind-boggling. There is no reason whatever why the “underlying, objective distinctiveness of men and women” should be anything good, unless it be because it correspond to God’s order. If this is the case, every form of behaviour undermining this must be rejected (yes, you cretins: starting from homosexuality itself, and of course continuing with sodomy; much more concerning “civil partnerships”…). If this is not so, and civil partnership embody “conservative” values, then why should marriage not be changed in order to make it more “conservative”? Or are the muppets saying that for some strange reason their opinion on sodomy can be changed 180 degrees, but marriage can’t be made to serve “conservative principles”?
“To remove from the definition of marriage this essential complementarity is to lose any social institution in which sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged”.
Again, this idiotic statement does not consider Christianity at all; besides, it begs the question. Sexual differences are acknowledged because Christianity is, has always been and always will be intrinsically heterosexual. Christianity abhors same-sex attraction, which is why Christian societies are structured in a rigid heterosexual way. Christianity does so because this is God’s will, and God’s law. This being God’s law is the only thing which gives “essential complementarity” any value at all. If we keep God’s Law out of the equation, there’s no reason why a commune of six assorted faggots, lesbians and dogs should not adopt. And there is no reason whatever why this commune should not be called “marriage”, either.
“To argue that this is of no social value is to assert that men and women are simply interchangeable individuals.”
This obviously doesn’t mean anything, but I assume some of the ladies thought it sounds well. Still: yes, of course they are interchangeable. The so-called Church of England itself says so. They have already said that in a couple, you can interchange individuals and this can (let me check…) “embody crucial social virtues” and be “conservative”. They have already said so themselves! These people have the logic of a six-years-old…
“To change the nature of marriage for everyone will be divisive and deliver no obvious legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil partnerships.”
Oh, the comedy of this! The same people who have just reneged on the most basic values of Christianity now say something should not be done because it would be… “divisive”. Seriously, how effeminate is that? Is, say, “harmony” their god? Are these people so stupid that they do not understand that if something is right, it is worth some conflict? I can’t believe anyone can write waffle like this and not wear stilettos…
“We believe that redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships will entail a dilution in the meaning of marriage for everyone by excluding the fundamental complementarity of men and women from the social and legal definition of marriage.”
For Heaven’s sake: the very same people who have diluted the gravity of sodomy up to its total obliteration as sin should now object to a small adjustment to the meaning of marriage apt to make it “inclusive” of those people they themselves say are carriers of “crucial social virtues”? Why? Why? Why?
And why should the “legal definition” of anything be of any value? Can legal definitions not be changed? Where were the Anglicans when civil partnership attacked the very core not only of marriage, but of Christianity? They were waffling about the “crucial social virtues”, these damn heathens…
“Given the absence of any manifesto commitment for these proposals – and the absence of any commitment in the most recent Queen’s speech – there will need to be an overwhelming mandate from the consultation to move forward with these proposals and make them a legislative priority”.
Oh, how pathetic is this… they now go as low as everyday party politics, and try to argument from the fact that this monstrosity was not in the coalition’s manifesto or in the Queen’s speech. Seriously, what is this to do with religion at all? If it should be “conservative” that faggots can live together, why wait for the next election or the next Queen’s speech? What pathetic excuse of an argument is this?
“In our view the Government will require an overwhelming mandate from the consultation to move forward with on these proposals and to make them a legislative priority.”
Says… who exactly? Ever heard of democracy? The proposals will be brought in front of both chambers, and the elected representative will be called to say what they think. Again, a pathetic excuse to say “I don’t want this, but I really can’t say why”.
“We welcome the fact that in his statement the Prime Minister has signalled he is abandoning the Government’s earlier intention to distinguish between civil and religious marriage.”
This is – once again, with apologies to my female readers – another “job” like the one before. The PM wants to completely demolish every concept of marriage as a religious institution, and the idiots welcome this. What a sad bunch of eunuchs.
“We look forward to studying the Government’s detailed response to the consultation next week and to examining the safeguards it is proposing to give to Churches”.
This is, at the end, the capitulation. “Give us something we can understand as safeguard, dear PM, and we will swallow it whole”. That every “safeguards” will be worth nothing in the face of the obvious challenges that will be brought against them in court, the ladies seem not to know. They are just demurely asking the PM to build some safeguards in the legislative work, which he has already announced he would do. Therefore, at the end of this pathetic piece of prostitution the so-called Church of England is basically signalling they are in agreement with the general framework of the legislation, but please let them read the details so they can be sure they can say they have saved face.
This is a shameless piece of unspeakable cowardice and prostitution, beside being heathenish in its very core; this is so senseless, it can only come from an Anglican body. This is the point this nation has come to. They aren’t even Christians anymore.
Make no mistake, they will have a lot of time to reflect on the “crucial social virtues” embodied by civil partnerships.
When they are in hell.