The Bishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, is showing what a dick he is. Again.
The Dr is trying to say what a travesty gay marriage will be but doesn’t quite make any decent arguement against it, as expected.
Dr Sentamu writes that homosexual couples should enjoy complete equality with heterosexuals but argues that this does not mean redefining marriage.
Not quite complete equality, then.
He explains: “Up to now, the only reason I have been given for a desire to redefine marriage to embrace same-sex relationships is that it meets an emotional need of some same-sex couples (only some, as I have forcefully been led to believe some reject the concept of marriage altogether).
And what is wrong with that? Marriage meets an emotional need in everybody Nobody needs to get married. Unmarried couples can do everything married couples can, it is only the state and the church that makes people want to get marrried by giving them certain rights. Why shouldn’t gay couples that want to be together for ever have those same rights?
Just because some gay people reject marriage should not be a reason to deny those rights to those that do want to get married. There are lots of heterosexual couple that reject marriage as well. By the bishops’ logic we should remove the rights and privileges of marriage from heterosexual marriage.
This little bit of bollox is trying to clear up his views from an interview he did for the Telegraph in January.
“Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” says Dr Sentamu. “I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are.
So… If it’s not the role of the state to define marriage, then I wonder who’s job, the bishop, thinks it is? It wouldn’t be the church’s, would it? As for history and tradition, there’s plenty of evidence that the definition has been rather fluid. Here’s George Monbiot on it for starters.
“We’ve seen dictators do it in different contexts and I don’t want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way.
This appeal to try and link homosexual rights to the whims of a dictator is just a load of wank. For a start, we don’t live in a dictatorship, and by no stretch of the imagination is it going to turn in one anytime some. It’s just bollox to scare people into thinking if we let the gays marry, the end of the world will soon follow.
Marriage is just a word. If homosexual couples have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples then what is the fucking problem in calling both statuses ‘marriage’?
Once again, the church is in fear of it’s privileged position of power ond control, and it doesn’t like it.
In what seems to be fairly typical of someone trying to defend Nadine Dorries Tory Tottie has, well, been fairly typical.
As the Anti-Nads bandwagon rolls into town once again, those on the collective witch-hunt have been well and truly buoyed up this week, by a piece in the (surprise surprise) New Statesman. entitled:
“Is Nadine Dorries MP using social media to both mislead and attack constituents?
The answer is, of course, no.
The ‘Anti-Nads’ bandwagon is not so much on a witch-hunt, more like sat on the porch watching a car crash happen extremely slowly… and the answer to the question is not, of course, no but yes.
My blog is 70 per cent fiction and 30 per cent fact. It is written as a tool to enable my constituents to know me better and to reassure them of my commitment to Mid Bedfordshire. I rely heavily on poetic licence and frequently replace one place name/event/fact with another.
Reassuring constituents that spends more time in her constituency than she actually did. Oh, no. That’s not misleading at all, is it?
This little show (followed by this) wasn’t orchestrated at all, oh no.
The behaviour by certain people on Twitter is more akin to a scene from Mississippi Burning than a civilised social media site.
Twitter? Civilised? I must’ve missed that sign on the way in.
And David Allen Green of the Statesman delights in throwing another burning canister of gasoline onto the flames.
Referring to Nadine as someone who has engaged in
“the astonishing abuse by an elected Member of Parliament of her blog”
he calls her behaviour ‘weird’ and ‘worrying’.
Read. Davids’. Post…
I used to admire her blogging in her early days: see my comment here. Accordingly, what I have now to report cannot be dismissed as the smears of some long-time opponent. Instead, it is accompanied by the sadness one has when witnessing any decline and fall.
There is no hint of maliciousness or glee or any show of delight in it. It is worrying that an elected representative can throw around the sort of accusations that Dorries has been doing without showing any sort of evidence or proof to back it up. It is weird when someone who previously may have just been disagreeable starts showing signs of some sort of paranoia.
Decline and fall? Of what exactly. Nadine isn’t declining, or falling for that matter. The strength she’s shown in the face of the perpetual, random and hateful abuse on Twitter has been stellar. And her blog continues to go from strength to strength.
The decline and fall of an MP. What else? The perpetual, random (perceived) abuse Dorries encounters on Twitter may seem perpetual, because she never give a straight answer to any questions. The questions aren’t exactly random, about expenses, her attacks on constituents and claims of being stalked as well as constituents asking other questions. From what I’ve seen, almost without exception, any questions Dorries has received has been polite – there isn’t much room to ask a question and call someone a cunt in 140 characters. I’m not saying Dorries doesn’t receive any abuse on Twitter, everyone does at some time or other and being an MP Dorries will get her fair share, but the people asking the pertinent questions have not been abusive because that would be the one way *not* to get an answer.
She may have blocked a few people here and there, but then wouldn’t you if people persisted in engaging in what constitutes nothing less than cyber-bullying on a daily basis.
Asking questions? Cyber-bullying? oh, come on.
Allen goes on the allude to:
“Other serious allegations about Dorries’ use of her blog”
“A pattern of wayward – almost random – behaviour has been apparent for many months now.
“For example, she recently resorted to a blogpost to raise implicit allegations of impropriety against a constituent who had been engaging with her on Twitter; and then, only last week, she made direct allegations of criminal activity against a critical blogger.”
If the posts I’m thinking of are the ones on this page, Nadine has simply laid bare a few home truths, turned over a few rocks and exposed the crustacea underneath.
Yes, they are the posts, David is thinking of. I have linked to the individual ones earlier in this post, but there is also this one, which incidentally was edited twice before becoming the version left on Dorries’ site.
As far as home truths are concerned, well, that’s what this is all about, isn’t it? And as far as Dorries is concerned it’s the truth because she says so. Everyone else can back up what they say, but Dorries’ word is gospel and doesn’t need such inconveniences.
And that’s the problem.
I bet it’s not.
Outrageous left-wing political correctness is at the heart of this. Not Nadine’s behaviour.
Hahahaha! Fucking Lefties! Nothing to do with ‘70%’ fiction or accusing a constituent of claiming disability benefits or accusing a blogger of stalking with no evidence. What. So. Ever.
The kind of political-correctness that breeds the disdainful double-standards adopted by an entire generation of ‘Nu Labour’ since 1997.
Lovingly crafted by Harriet ‘Ginger Rodent’ Harman, in her ridiculous pursuit of some kind of high-brow idealogical concept of equality that doesn’t exist.
The Left jump up and down like rabid oompa-loompas the minute there’s a sniff of challenge to their politically correct utopia, where everyone’s equal, we all live on pink fluffy clouds and just love everybody ‘so hard man’.
So in a society where disabled people are referred to as ‘PWD’s, where prostitutes are now known as ‘sex care providers’, where boring is ‘charm-free’ and BO is ‘non discretionary fragrance,’ it’s hardly surprising that one cannot air one’s own opinions on one’s own blog, without being hunted down by hysterical socialist lunatics!
And that’s what’s happened.
It’s political-correctness-gorn-mad-it-is!
Nadine has dared to voice her own opinions on her own blog.
God forbid.
Once again Tory Totty has completely missed the point. No one gives a fuck about Nadines’ opinion any more than they do any other politician. It’s the fact that these opinions are being presented as fact that is the problem.
If Nadine, tomorrow, said here are the incident/crime numbers of the complaints she has supposedly made against Tim Ireland, you would hear a massive ‘crack’ as a fuck load of people snap their necks turning to look at Tim. Scrutiny would then be on Tim and everything else Dorries has said would gain a bucket load of credibility.
But that’s not going to happen, is it.
It’s not just ‘lefties’ that are challenging Dorries, as David Allen Green says himself in the comments…
I am actually a Coalition supporter, having voted Lib Dem. And I am opposed to socialism and the Labour Party.
and he’s not alone from *that* side of the fence.
*Cue quotes which prove nothing.*
So after all that, what was Tory Tottys’ defence of Nadine Dorries? In amongst all her waffle I think it was something like ‘leave her alone, a woman, speaking her mind. You horrible socialist commies’.
Never mind the evidence, eh?
