The all-devouring need of the narcissist for total approval is on display as the Gay Lobby turns next to suing churches to punish them for not performing gay marriages.
Gay “marriage” is a platform for launching a legal campaign to destroy the Church. That’s where this is going.
Mark, you must not just approve. You must become gay.
As long as there are any heterosexuals, there will be an implicit criticism of homosexuality. There can be no peace for the homosexual until every vestige of normative and natural heterosexuality is eradicated from human consciousness.
And how babies are going to be produced? Remember that the human race is about one generation away from extinction… Maybe we can use bottles in production lines as described in “Brave New World”?
We will use IVF to implant babies in poor third-world women and claim that the surrogacy is empowering them, and of course, all men will be required to donate to the public sperm bank so lesbian couples can choose from them all. Adolphus Huxley will not have gone far enough.
“…all men will be required to donate to the public sperm bank so lesbian couples can choose from them all.”
I think I saw that movie.
Some folks read dystopian sci-fi to escape. Others apparently read it to get policy ideas.
Although “Adolphus” might just be a clever way of making a point of fascistic eugenics (“Brave New Third Reich”)?
Gimme!! or else I’ll hold my breath!
Bridezillas were bad enough, now this?
You’ve got your sensationalistic headline, I assume you are pleased now. Never mind that this is in a different country. Never mind that this regards a non-Catholic church. Never mind that LGBTs in the England OVERWHELMINGLY oppose this and calls these two clowns (http://tinyurl.com/p5swqaa)
In your mind, all we narcissistic, destructive gays all over the world think alike and act in concert, right? I assume, therefore, that you accept to be held in the same light as, and to sharing the same views of, other Christians like Bryan Fisher, Sandy Rios, Pat Robertson, Peter Sprigg, Matt Barber, Linda Harvey and their ilk.
You make a good point. However…the guy behind this is indeed a raging narcissist with a lot of money to spare. Those are the people who tend to get idiotic cases like this in the courts and in the press.
The best that can happen, as was mentioned in the comments, is some greedy lawyer takes this fool’s money, knowing that he has NO chance of winning his case. Would serve him right.
This case is not idiotic. It stands a good chance of being heard by the European Court of Human Rights. And what LGBT people happen to think is simply irrelevant: this is a conspiracy carried out between a few of the people who really rule Britain, including Mr.Cameron.
Active, unrepentant homosexual acts are NOT a “human right”. I don’t care what the media and political elite say. They’re just not.
Lumping that in with true human rights calamities is making a mockery of the entire concept of human rights.
I still hope the insitgator’s arrogance backfires on him.
If they don’t manage it now, they will manage it another way later. Although I suspect this may turn out to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and that if the Churches find themselves with their backs to the wall the governmental elites who have conspired to force this on the rest of us might find they have a backlash they cannot control.
Maybe I didn’t read the fine print. Was the plaintiff proposing to commit a “homosexual act” in a church?
The anti-SSM movement has absolutely no ideas left to trade upon other than an appeal to raw, gut fear and rage. The core assertions of their movement – that religion should dictate public policy and that gays are a threat to civilization, have been heard, examined, and utterly rejected by Western democracies, in culture and increasingly in law. They lost, and there is no foreseeable way they will win majority support for their agenda during the lifetime of anyone alive to read this.
The strategy is now a war of attrition, a new twist on a very old campaign to demonize gays, to attribute a near-universal evil intent to them, to imply that “they” pose an existential threat to “us.” There are only three possible rationales for this. One, to try to engender sympathy by casting Christians as victims of true oppression by gays (which is really pathetic and delusional in light of the facts). Two, to try to rally the base in a movement which is increasingly getting on with life and which has zero appeal among young people.
A third possibility is the idea that gays are an existential threat and therefore “something”, anything must be done, and that anything done is self-defense against a threat to your own life or way of life which you know the enemy is planning but which you can’t prove. That, of course, is an engraved invitation to evil and is the framework for the drone war, torture, and the very police state which Christians now fear is turning against them. Crazy that they would feed it with one hand as it mauls the other, but then history loves irony…
Stories like this English lawsuit are calculated to stoke maximum fear and hate. They are scrubbed of any perspective or facts or distinctions which might detract from the message. There is, for example, no perspective offered by any competent attorney or expert on the question of whether this suit has ANY realistic chance of success. Anyone can sue for anything, and activists of every stripe use frivolous lawsuits as a way to get a press conference and headline.
Also ignored is the enormous matter of church-state separation versus entanglement that make the case completely incomparable to U.S. law. There, the church is a creature of the state and therefore, citizens might well have a legitimate claim to have the same rights to marry in a state church as in a city hall. U.S. law has enormous presumptions against such claims as well as a fair body of case law. But no matter! The gays, all gays, want nothing more than to destroy your religion, and it’s certain to happen in England and only a matter of time before it happens here. When will “we” step up and do something?
Some gays want to. Some atheists want to. (Destroy religion, that is.)
People listen to them. They don’t listen to the ones who want to live and let live. Being an a-hole makes good headlines.
It’s never presented here as “some” gays. The premise of all of these posts, which come on at least a weekly basis most of the time, is that the only aspiration of gays seeking any form of legal recognition is to destroy your religion and way of life.
Advocacy of gay civil marriage has no legitimate ambition and exists only as an instrument of cultural, and perhaps literal genocide. That’s the tune played on the house organ constantly around here. It’s based on propaganda pieces massaged into “news”, but offered up to people who really want to believe its true, or at least have a lot invested in believing it.
People DO listen to the gay voices who want to live and let live. In fact, it is the only sort of gay person 99.9% of us will ever experience in day to day life. There is no evidence at all that the general public supports the more extreme positions, such as efforts to force churches to marry anyone against their will.
There is also no evidence that angry partisans, gay or atheist, have any real power to “destroy religion.” There is much evidence which suggests that angry and obsessive polemics against gays is a prime reason why so many young people are abandoning Christianity and/or organized religion in general. Culture war Catholocism/Christianity has done (IS doing) more damage to its witness through homophobia than Richard Dawkins or the screwiest gay partisan could do if they lived a thousand years and had the Gates-Buffet fortunes.
Because the Church of England is essentially a branch of the state, it is not impossible that it could be compelled to perform marriages of same-sex partners.
Such coercion does not depend on “everyone” wanting it in order to come about. All that is necessary is a few resentful gay couples threatening to sue or otherwise press the government to give in. After all, many gay people were (are?) indifferent to marriage and did not especially care to fight for it for those who wanted it, either.
I do not think it could happen in the USA, or at least not via direct court action. But there, or in Canada, it is possible that churches that will not perform gay marriages might lose their tax-exempt status. When you have the IRS asking anti-abortion organizations about the content of their prayers… well, anything can happen.
p.s. My resentment is not towards gay people, but towards the bastardized and illiberal “liberalism” being foisted upon all the Western democracies, much of which has little to do with gay people. I believe gay marriage is a bad idea; I’ve lost that particular battle, and I accept that. But I would like to be free to state that I think it’s a bad idea, and explain why, without being accused of bigotry and losing any job remotely connected with government or media as a result.
I admit I don’t know how the case will turn out under British law. I’ll be interested to see what shakes out of it. It is certainly possible the couple could stake and win a claim based on the church being a state function. They would certainly have a 14th Amendment claim here. If nothing else, it’s an excellent argument in my mind for keeping church and state separate. Many evangelicals and not a few Catholics here have sought to weaken that wall of separation with the idea that the state would always be subordinate to their religion. We see in the U.K. case that Caesar is rarely, if ever, the junior partner in a church-state partnership.
The lawsuit in question may be silly from a legal standpoint or highly annoying to you, but I don’t think it qualifies as “coercion.” They’re exercising a basic right to access the courts and petition their own government through a legitimate channel. Maddening at times, but beats the hell out of the Cairo school of civic dispute resolution.
Could tax exemptions become a pressure point? Maybe, but IMO, there should be no blanket automatic tax exemptions for churches to begin with. Our system of government has no business underwriting religion with tax money, and that’s exactly what those exemptions are.
Every dime they don’t pay in income and sales and property taxes is picked up one way or another by the rest of us. The rationale is that churches do so much charity that they’re actually saving the government all kinds of money. It is very doubtful that the real market value of the charity they do truly offsets the value of the tax savings. It is certainly not documented because churches have no requirement to report or disclose anything under the law. As I noted earlier, it’s never a good idea to be beholden to Caesar for anything, whether it is an ancient but revokable privilege or a favor….
As for freedom to hold and express opinions, we all have that. Our Constitution guarantees the right of all of us to offer our wares in the marketplace of ideas without government interference. There are no guarantees that the market has to receive them or respect them. People can call your or I a bigot for our reasoning, and still others can decide who they find more persuasive.
Free speech on the job is more complicated. If you’re a government employee or official sworn to uphold the law and treat all equally, you have to be careful that your beliefs don’t interfere with that. With media jobs, and all other high-profile work, you’re representing a brand and an organization.
Since when are lawsuits *not* coercion, if their point is to force someone to do what you want or to face a legal penalty?
Certainly people have a right to sue, but recent developments in the law and its interpretation in the Western world have made lawsuits a potent method of restricting people’s freedom of speech and association.
In addition, when there is little fear of penalty for filing a suit that is subsequently dismissed (as in the US), the person or persons being sued usually lose even if they win, having been forced to defend themselves at considerable expense against claims that are not, in fact, valid. In Canada, would-be lawsuit winners go through the federal or provincial Human Rights Commissions, which are similarly without penalty for those who file as opposed to those who are the object of a suit. This puts all the power in the hands of those who wish to intimidate people into silence.
Regarding employment in the public service and media: you excuse discrimination against conservatives on the grounds of fair service provision and “branding”. Well, yes, but in the former case, what if there is no question of fair service provision? Most public service jobs do not involve direct contact with the public.
Even in those cases where they do, is the fact that Professor X has conservative views about homosexuality going to prevent him from providing fair grades to homosexual students? I suppose it might, but much more common in these cases is the insistence of some student that Professor X has created a hostile atmosphere by his expression of his views in class. Is it a good thing in such cases that people never hear views that contradict their own? Is the fact that Larry Summers once made offensive (to some people) suggestions about women’s scientific ability a good reason to have him fired?
As for media jobs, it’s not so much the fact that this or that news organization holds particular views and expect their employees to do so that troubles me. Rather, I worry that the mainstream ones, i.e. the leftish ones, do all in their power to shut down those that hold contrary views. They haven’t yet succeeded, but given time, they may, especially because the legal system and bureaucracy that regulates such matters is strongly prejudiced in favor of anti-“hate-speech” laws, even under conservative governments. The same is obviously true of lawsuits brought against individuals and business for discrimination.
Was Brown v. Board of Education coercion? If not, why not? It cut to the heart of freedom of association and ended up forcing public policy against the majority will.
Yes, Brown vs Board of Education was coercion, and probably not a good idea, from a public policy standpoint, in that it led to such grotesque distortions as busing and ultimately to “white flight,” which has actually worked against the education of African Americans and helped to destroy the public school system in the US.
It’s too late to tell, but it’s possible that a massive spending program – in those days of good intentions and high ideals – on magnet schools in A-A dominated areas might have done more for black people’s long-term prospects.
Segregation was a terrible and unjust thing, but injustice cannot be corrected with further injustice, i.e. by taking away other people’s freedoms. Even John Kenneth Galbraith, that good leftish-Canadian, acknowledged that pitting groups of poor people (working class white vs working class black) against each other was not the way to rectify the injustices of slavery and Jim Crow.
It’s very quaint how the general public think what they want matters. What matters is who can acquire the money, power, and influence — and the “live and let live” types just aren’t driven to do it. Classic intensity gap. Who does that leave? The general public will be halfway through a glass of champagne before they realize they’ve been played for suckers.
Do you think any of that matters to the plaintiff? That any of it would matter to a plaintiff here hell-bent on getting what he wanted?
“I am still not getting what I want”.
“It upsets me because I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works, I just don’t think it is going to happen straight away.
“As much as people are saying this is a good thing I am still not getting what I want.”
I I I I
So the guy doesn’t want the Church to bless his marriage. He doesn’t want to marry his spouse in the House of the Lord. He wants, “a big lavish ceremony, the whole works…”