Blog Archives

UK 2022 and Civil Fellowships

Bishop Jokeson said this is a magnificent Belgian Shepherd.

United Kingdom, Year of the Lord 2022…..erm, no, apologies: Year 2022 of the Common Era.

The UK Government has recently approved a law recognising “Civil Fellowships”. Through “Civil Fellowships”, the “smart” community (that is: those who have sexual intercourse with dogs, sheep and other animals; the word “bestiality” is now considered “smartphobic”, and a criminal offence) are allowed to have their “union” recognised by the Government, with various provisions to protect, say, the dog in case of death of his “partner”. Obviously, civil fellowship gives the couple right to adopt children, or dogs, or other animals. Nothing new in that, right? It has always happened and Old MacDonald had a farm, too….

The smart community is very proud, and Liberal England rejoices at the new legislation. “Inclusive” and “Progressive”, it is defined. The PM David Chameleon defined it “Conservative”, because “Civil Fellowships” are, clearly, family and the Conservative Party protects the family.

In an interesting development the Catholic Archbishop of Soho & Sodom, Vincent Jokeson, declared:

“In this country, we were very nuanced. We did not oppose smart civil fellowships. We recognized that in English law there might be a case for those. What we persistently said is that these are not the same as marriage.”

So, says the Bishop, provided you don’t think this is a marriage, it is actually fine.  We are “nuanced” here in Britain, and Christianity be stuffed.

There is a little problem though, because the reigning Pope, Christinger, had expressed himself – not saying anything new of course, but doing nothing else than repeating the most banal concepts of Christianity – already in 2017 as follows:

Although the particular inclination of the zoophile person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in zoophile activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.

We have therefore, as we write the year 2022, an evident conflict between basic Christianity and the “nuanced” bishop of Soho & Sodom, Jokeson.

Criticised from, well, the Christians, and in particular from the “Catholic Harold”, Bishop Jokeson “answered” as follows:

Clearly, respect must be shown to those who in the situation in England use a civil fellowship to bring stability to a relationship

It is clear that to our bishop, relationships between – or among; you never know – sexual perverts is something to which “respect must be shown”. More so, he recognises their “relationship” as something that must be helped to achieve “stability”. The bishop clearly thinks that if zoophiles do not have stable relationships, this is bad. “Let’s help Jonathan and Bella to bring stability to their relationship”, he says to himself, “as “respect must be shown” to their civil fellowship. “Clearly”!

In order to make his thinking more clear, Bishop Jokeson

said the key distinction between civil fellowship and marriage is that the former does not “in law contain a required element of sexual relationships”.

It is not clear what this means, as the Civil Fellowships were legalised for no other reason than to give a legal sanction to the sexual behaviour of those afflicted by such a perversion. Zoophilia is not being “friend” with Fido. It really isn’t! Please don’t let me get into the details, but it seems as we write the year of.. em, the year 2022 of the Common Era, bishop Jokeson is the only one pretending not to know what this is all about. Truly, this is hypocrisy beyond belief.

More on the subject from the Bishop:

“One-love fellowships are not marriage because they have no root in a sexual relationship, which marriage does,” he explained. “And that’s the distinction that I think it’s important for us to understand, that marriage is built on the sexual partnership between a man and a woman which is open to children, to their nurture and education.”

“Pay attention, children”, says the bishop, “this is an important distinction! Marriage is open to nurture and education but screwing Bella, the female Belgian shepherd, isn’t! Therefore, we must call the latter relationship (to which, as we have said, “clearly” “respect must be shown” and which must be helped to “stability”) with a different name! Don’t confuse the two, little ones!”

Bishop Jokeson concluded his argument with the following words:

So while bishops Jokeson said we must “respect the existence of one-love fellowship in law,” he said, “the point we are at now is to say that they are not the same as marriage.”

Ah, now Christians all over the world will be satisfied. We have said it isn’t marriage, therefore everything is fine! How “nuanced” has England become in 2022!

That’s the point “we are at now”. Christianity, now, has no point.

Apart from the frontal conflict with the most elementary Christianity – that I will not even start to explain, as even the most tragically retarded liberal would exactly know what the point is – there is an additional matter, on which  the Catholic Harold  takes position as follows:

There’s one new element in that answer: the preposterous argument that “one-love fellowships are not marriage because they have no root in a sexual relationship, which marriage does.” In other words, they’re not like marriage at all. But of course they’re like marriage in one very important respect: that they have as a fundamental defining element that those in such unions have the legal right to adopt children.

The “Harold” is, of course, right, then in 2022 England, one-love fellowships have the right to adopt children (and dogs, and other animals). This is something considered too absurd even to think about only 50 years before, but now part of the common feeling of the nation, of which the PM Minister Chameleon is an enthusiastic supporter. So much so, that Bishop Jokeson himself thinks these unions are worthy of “respect”, and the civil fellowship are good because they help to “bring stability” to them.

Aren’t we all oh so inclusive.

The Harold again:

“This isn’t the first time Archbishop Jokeson has said he accepts and supports these unions, and has attempted to father his views on the bishops’ conference: in the immediate aftermath of Pope Christinger’s visit, in September of 2020, he claimed that the bishops weren’t against them and was on record with saying”:

“In this country, we were very nuanced. We did not oppose smart civil fellowship. We recognized that in English law there might be a case for those. What we persistently said is that these are not the same as marriage.”

Get this? “We persistently say it’s not the same as marriage”.

Job done, then! Bravo! !

Mundabor

Christmas 2030: Frank And Christy Adopt Little Jennifer

“If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog.”
Boris Johnson, when he still said what he thinks.

I am heartily sick of hearing people say “why this shouldn’t be allowed” and “why are you against that” concerning matters of obvious moral relevance. When such words are uttered, you can be sure that “they don’t harm anyone” is not far away.

Whenever I hear such expressions, it seems to me that “not harming other people” has become, in the mind of many, the only perceived criterium of morality. If one wants to commit suicide but “doesn’t harm anyone” (beside himself, I think it’s meant), then he should be free to demand to be put to sleep like a dog; the same reasoning applies to many of the other absurdities nowadays smuggled as “human rights”.

Christians have a different system of values, but they are not the only ones having values different from “provided that he doesn’t harm anyone”. In fact everyone has them, they merely forget it whenever appropriate. Ask your liberal interlocutor what he thinks about incest and bestiality and you’ll see him recoil like an artillery gun in a WW II documentary, but without giving a satisfactory answer as to why homosexuality should be allowed and incest and bestiality forbidden.

The reality is that the only reason why homosexuality is not forbidden anymore, but incest and bestiality still are, is simply that some perverts are better lobbyists than others. Look at suicide and euthanasia and you’ll see the same process happening again.

If we apply to everyone the same criteria of “human rights” I fail to recognise why, say, two siblings of 22 and 26 – both perfectly happy with their respective “partner” – should not claim the same “human rights” of two males, or two females. The dangers for the offspring’s health can certainly not be a criterium as liberals tend to be great supporters of contraception and abortion. Besides – and if we want to be really progressive – mandatory sterilisation would certainly put an end to the issue. It goes without saying that the “couple” would then be free to adopt, making the joy of the gutter press by every “Zachary”.

Also very funny is the argument about anyone (say, a male dog of adequate dimensions and an assenting adult female) being “harmed” by sexual intercourse when it is evident to the least enlightened that the introduction of a human penis into a human sphincter is an equally disgusting but certainly a more difficult and potentially harmful exercise. Still, the same people who are disgusted at the mere mention of the girl don’t have any problem in talking of “same sex relationships”, and I’d love to know why.
I imagine that this is what 50 years of liberalism have done to their brains, and to their conscience. Dr. Goebbels would be proud.

A society where everything that doesn’t cause harm is allowed is a society open to every form of disgusting behaviour. Of course, in reality every society has some moral criteria; but modern society has substituted the coherence and solidity of a divinely founded system of values with a random approval of some perversions and punishment of others without any coherent motive as to why.

If you approve of Elton John and “partner” living together and adopting a child then you must explain why you don’t want to have Frank and Christy, the couple in “sibling partnership” down at the 23, informing you that they have adopted little Jennifer; or why you don’t want to be invited to the civil partnership ceremony between Joanna – the mature woman who is always the first to say “good afternoon” and is never short of a smile – and Thunderbolt, the three-years old male of West Highland White Terrier so much devoted to her. (Disgusting, uh? Well, now you know what I think when I read about the parents of “little Zachary”…..).

If you want to have morals, you must limit the “freedom” to be gravely immoral. You can’t have a system in which freedom and individual conscience is the basis of morality because this is a social system open to debauchery of every kind.

Next time you hear of more or less famous “civil partnerships” think of Frank and Christy, or of Joanna and Thunderbolt.

If you don’t wake up, one day they could be your neighbours.

Mundabor

%d bloggers like this: