Thursday, 15 March 2012

The end of the world

I've been contemplating ending this blog.  Well, if the loving religious Catholic people in Britain are to be believed, if same sex marriage enters into law, the world will crack in two and therefore my blog will be irrelevant.  A few comments in recent days from the British Catholic leadership on same-sex marriage:
"would reduce the significance of marriage"
"shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world"
These are simply stupid statements and make no sense at all. I can see that, in say 20 years, people will look back at the comments made by Catholic leaders and actually laugh.  One day they will be seen as the ludicrous statements that they clearly are. Marriage is all about love and it existed long before modern "made up" religions, so why would it be devalued for man/woman combinations if they were some man/man or woman/woman marriages? Think about it... marriage isn't going to be devalued by a tiny percentage being gay ones. The straight couples are never going to think "there's no point getting married as it's been devalued by those gay people who clearly just want to get married for the tax benefits (HA!)".
They insist that marriage is purely for "the procreation and education of offspring".  I assume that the Catholic guys will be advocating fines and imprisonment for couples that do not make babies.  I'm all for that!
The Pope is against gay marriage completely - he sees it as:
"damaging to the stability of society"
What a fool. But I have no respect for the man anyway, let's not forget that the current Pope once wrote to all Bishops around the world insisting that they cover up any pedophile crimes by their Priests or risk being excommunicated.  What nice people these religious types are.


  1. Just one of the matters arising from recent well-publicised opinions on this subject is the disproportionate influence religion still exercises and arrogantly claims it has the RIGHT to exercise, not only on those who do not hold to their beliefs, or those of any religion at all, but also on those who ARE religious but who take a contrary viewpoint. Why isn't there more open argument just between clerics? Or is only one opinion deemed to be valid and, ergo, the rest necessarily to be ignored?
    It's also no surprise to see that a fairly significant number of M.P.s, nearly all of them Tories, (Now THERE'S a shock!), are prepared to side with these piss-pious prelates to fight the move. Well, I suppose that if they feel their constituency majorities are precarious, the votes of even a handful of God-botherers could make all the difference.

    Btw: I'm assuming that the first sentence of your blog above needs to be seen ONLY in the context of what immediately follows. If that were NOT the case I'd have to go into grieving mode!

  2. Ray - sarcasm is my crutch... the first line was pure sarcasm!

    What you say about the unelected religious leaders is correct. The feel that they deserve to be heard and their words acted on.

    It's a bit like the unions threatening to strike over cuts - I didn't vote for them, so don't blackmail the nation.

    1. "It's a bit like the unions threatening to strike over cuts - I didn't vote for them, so don't blackmail the nation."

      Of course, it isn't blackmailing the nation when company directors earning millions a year threaten to go elsewhere and sink the economy if they aren't allowed to keep their millions. It's only the unions, protecting their members' interests (their members being, by and large, relatively POOR, and therefore contemptible), who blackmail the nation.

      Even so, I wouldn't like to see your blog end.

  3. Yes, Stephen - and these religious figures have the gall to complain that THEY are the ones being discriminated against and 'sidelined' - because they themselves are not allowed to practice an equivalent discrimination which they complain about in others. What a nerve! But hang on a minute. Did I say "equivalent discrimination"? No - religion and belief is an OPINION which, unlike colour, sex and sexuality, can be changed if one disagrees - though even if the latter COULD be altered at will, why should they be?

    I am with your opinion of His Hole-iness Papa BeneDICKt. Anyone in any other organisation with the influence which he has had, and who has his track record, would have been hauled before court and certainly clapped in prison years ago. But everyone is so much more ready to forgive him, with his apparent international legal immunity, that he can continue sitting on his throne, spouting out inanities addressed to the entire human race, whether we respect him or not, knowing that many millions STILL believe that he speaks personally on God's behalf. All I can say is "What a God that must be! Certainly not one that I would want to revere and worship!" I'm just amazed at how so many can continue to look up with adulation to this utter disgrace of a man.

    As for that turncoat, Rowan Williams, he'll still never miss an opportunity to reinforce his homophobic credentials as though he's doing penance for his gay-friendly past. (At least Carey has been consistently anti-gay - if that can be taken as a positive). But what's the betting that once Williams is retired he'll try to re-connect publicly with his homophilic side? Well, it'll be too late, you silly old duffer. You can't undo the damage you did.

    Btw: Much relieved by the first sentence in your comment above. I'd been hoping that there had been a 'wink' in the opening of your original blog.

  4. Modern unions blackmail and don't understand business or the economy. Rich people can leave and it won't have the impact a strike would have.

  5. Paul - you are a fool. Have you seen what the unions have done in London today? London Transport had to offer drivers extra money TO DO THEIR JOB that they are paid VERY well for (with 39 days holiday on top) because the unions threatened to strike.

  6. Are you really thinking of stopping blogging? Please no...

  7. No Nik - I'm not going anywhere!

  8. "Paul - you are a fool. Have you seen what the unions have done in London today? London Transport had to offer drivers extra money TO DO THEIR JOB that they are paid VERY well for (with 39 days holiday on top) because the unions threatened to strike."

    Name-calling someone a fool does not advance discussion and is the more contemptible when done from behind the veil of anonymity.

    The free market operates by people exploiting other people's needs or desires solely for gain. Unions who do this or doing no more and no less than employers do, than companies do. Companies charge the prices and pay the wages that they do solely in order to maximise profits. It is odd and revealing that when workers employ exactly the same manoeuvres as companies, they are readily said to be employing blackmail, but that pejorative term is so rarely used when companies hike their prices for the things you want or need so as to increase their profits.

    Again, it is odd (in a free-market context) that it is said to be the workers' 'job' to set gain aside and act altruistically when they are in a position to get something out of the situation. Why isn't it the asset-strippers' 'job' to hold off from the awful social consequences their depredations might bring about? Why isn't it the 'job' of the owners of housing to forego some of the money they can exact by exploiting people's need for housing in order to provide homes for those who need them?