Exclusive: Queen “probably” approves

Posted by Guessedworker on December 23, 2005, 01:08 PM | #

Well, Alex, the Sun ... no, damn, not that one, this one, did manage to publicise the tail of devout Christian pensioners, Joe and Helen Roberts.  Their attempt to engage Wyre Borough Council in a mature debate about GM - and I don’t mean genetic modification - resulted in a complaint by said kindly council folk to the police.  Well, obviously, it must be terribly distressing for council employees to receive a letter critical of their homosexualist egalitarian efforts:-

“A council official lodged a formal complaint with police who sent two officers to the Roberts’s home in Fleetwood, Lancashire.

They were questioned about their beliefs and police decided no crime had been committed and ruled they would take no further action.

A Lancashire Police spokeswoman said: “As a matter of routine, a police officer attended an address in Fleetwood to make further inquiries and to establish whether any crime had been or was likely to be committed.

As a result of those inquiries, words of suitable advice were given and we will not be taking any further action.

“Some of the wording in the letter was clearly inappropriate and so it was decided to consult the police on suitable action.”

How, exactly does one love a neighbour like Wyre District Council, even at this time of the year?

On a positive note, the Sun did at least reveal to the world that Elton’s “wedding” party ended “on a bum note”.  His guests left early.  Presumably before anyone threw his car keys in a flower pot.

Posted by Søren Renner on December 23, 2005, 01:24 PM | #

Speaking of Rawls: Back in the 1990’s, there was a Presidential awards ceremony in which Clinton gave some civilian medal or other to John Rawls, Stephen Spielberg and Garrison Keillor.

His struggle changed the philosophy of ethics forever.  One man dared to speak up for neokantianism. Stephen Spielberg presents a groundbreaking film about America and the struggle for moral universalism . . . Garrison Keillor stars in RAWLS

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 23, 2005, 02:08 PM | #

I clicked on the link to the Elton John “wedding” in GW’s comment. 

Look at the photo of Donatella Versace and reflect to yourself she’s “on the cutting edge of taste and fashion” and runs one of the world’s top haute-couture fashion houses.  I’ve seen this woman before and her taste in fashion and personal adornment and grooming are shockingly bad.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything this bad—she’s far worse than tasteless bigmouth vulgarian Courtney Love, for example, who applies make-up like a truck driver in drag, and although she’s got to have the ugliest breasts of any woman in the world, insists on running around braless with plunging décolletés and keeps leaning over frontwards into the camera just to make sure everyone’s gotten a good look at what they’d rather get through the day blissfully ignorant of. 

Getting back to the astonishing Miss Versace, I know there’s such a thing as not having been—how to put this?—endowed by nature with looks ... but at least let’s not totally ruin what little nature did give us to work with, shall we?  I mean, look at the inappropriately bleached, artificially straightened hair and ridiculous haircut of a forties-something trying to look 17 again, the tanning-salon skin that’s been tanned so much it looks leathery around the shoulder area and is starting to look leathery around her face, the dress bodice that doesn’t fit properly over the bosom, the ring so vulgar it would embarrass John Gotti’s daughter, the smile that doesn’t affect the eyes, just the mouth, because all the face-lifts, collagen injections, and botox have made the upper half of her face stiff-as-a-board, the balloon-like excessively-collagen-injected camel-lips, the babydoll mascara that’s a cross between Tammy Fay Bakker, 1930s cartoon character Betty Boop, and Bette Davis in “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane,” the Edith-Piaf 30s-style Paris-street-waif completely-shaved-off-then-penciled-in eyebrows that make her look like the actress who played opposite Anthony Quinn in “Zorba the Greek,” and one could go on and on.  I mean—I realize once you get very big you no longer have real friends, the type who’d tell you when you’re doing something absolutely disastrous to your looks, but still—let’s not exaggerate either ...

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 23, 2005, 02:17 PM | #

(And I didn’t mean Irene Pappas in “Zorba the Greek,” of course, but the actress who played Zorba’s—Anthony Quinn’s—girlfriend.)

Posted by Matt on December 23, 2005, 06:47 PM | #

most radical constitutional change of the past century

If this is true, then society has been quite boring for the past century…. lets have a real debate and stop this sham… We need a return to traditional marraige (ie: religious, not govt)... let us work towards a total ban all state sanctioned marraige and the entitlements it brings with it

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 23, 2005, 07:02 PM | #

I find gay marriage distasteful but on reflection I realise that if they allow it they will have to allow polygamy, which I rather approve of.  If we’re not going back to the 1950s and put women back in the home, middle class men who wish to reproduce themselves will be forced to set up threesomes, with a second non-career wife who looks after the kids. Alternatively women with careers will be forced to have two husbands, one of her own age for nookie and one older one to be supported by them both and look after the offspring.  Either way, we will get away from the Moroccan-au-pair-childcare syndrome, which is turning so many kids into werewolves and wrecking their education.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 23, 2005, 07:48 PM | #

Martin, Alexandra Colen who blogs at BrusselsJournal.com discusses some of these questions and a few related issues as they’ve been playing out in Europe lately.

Posted by Matt on December 23, 2005, 08:25 PM | #

There is no need for polygamy…. there is no need for marraige other than in a religious sense…. ban all state sanctioned marraige…. remove all the entitlements the state gives marraige…. you dont need to be married to have sex.

Posted by Phil on December 23, 2005, 08:37 PM | #

Guessedworker,

What if the couple expressing distaste at Gay marriage were named Mohammed Aslam and Saira Aslam (or something along those lines)? I can’t imagine the local police showing such enthusiasm for “hate” in that case.

We have created a strange society. If you’re white, you could get sent to prison for the most trivial things. If you’re non-white (and from a noisy religious group like the Muslims), you can literally get away with murder.

Corruption of the law in the name of diversity. But it will get a lot worse. This is the tip of the iceberg.

Posted by Matt on December 23, 2005, 08:46 PM | #

Marraige has been given the lft wings sel of approval throough allowing same-sex couples to participate. The only way to stop the rot, is to ban it totally.
There is even now a case for ceasing it on a religious level.
People have never needed a ceremony to say they love each other, nor to have children or live together.
Marraige is probably the most unnatural act I can think of.
Now with same sex unions, it is even more so.

Posted by Alex Zeka on December 24, 2005, 07:10 AM | #

Matt, the reason I called gay marriage the most radical con. change is that all other con. changes had some sort of precedent, hisotrical or international. Gay marriage is utterly unprecedented- no other country’s inroduced it on a nationwide basis, and it’s never been tried in history.

Posted by Matt on December 24, 2005, 11:14 PM | #

Point taken Alex, but I just fail to see the point of any form of marraige; gay, straight or otherwise.
Of course I am talking on a legal level here, not a religious or personal one.
If 2 people (or more in the case of polygamy) want to get married, then fine, knock yourselves out, but don’t expect any extra benefits or rewards from the government for it.
Single people should have the same rights and entitlements.
Get the state out of marraige.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 25, 2005, 12:03 AM | #

You’re wrong, Matt.  A healthy community has in interest in promoting stable marriages through making benefits available to married couples, especially ones with kids, that aren’t made available to singles, especially childless singles.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 25, 2005, 12:35 AM | #

The issue you bring up and a few of the reasons why you’re wrong, Matt, are discussed a little in the readers’ comments thread at the end of this log entry.  Bart Vanhauwaert discusses why you’re wrong here, 

“I can’t speak for the author nor for the pro-traditional marriage movement she is part of but I think I’ve followed this debate enough to offer an explanation of why they won’t ask for delegalisation.  They see the traditional family (father/mother/children) as the cornerstone of a healthy society. Thus, according to their view, should the state wish to promote a good community, it needs to encourage people to form such families and support them afterwards. Civil marriage is an excellent institute to do so. Its prestige invites couples to deepen their mutual commitment in the first place and the financial incentives and security that comes with it as the essential support thats needed.”

and here:

“See my earlier explanation in this thread on why I think the author does not believe that civil marriage is an entirely private affair. They do not necessarily see gay marriage as a threat against their personal marriage but as a threat against society itself. They sincerely belief that a society that allows gay marriages is one that promotes a culture of self-destruction. In fact it is certainly possible to subscribe to that idea while at the same time being a-religious. I think the substantial low-profile aversion against gay marriage that is still present in Belgium is strictly areligious and more based on distrust in gays to be responsible enough to marry than faith.  Also read from the same author this where she defends moral conservatism an sich without using it as proxy for her religous beliefs.”

“I Am Not A Dhimmi” also makes a valuable contribution to the overall discussion:

“These arragnments, in the name of progressivisn and anti-patriarchy, will create ever more unstable homes for children, who in turn will be ever poorer parents themselves, if they even bother to have children at all. Thus the death spiral of Europe in demographic terms can be accelerated and the ever more feminized culture becomes easier prey for rampant Islamism.  Feminists and other anti-patriarchy, anti-western types are sewing their own burkhas without knowing it.”

A couple of libertarians posted comments in the thread which made it clear they failed to understand the issues and had nothing to contribute of interest.  Libertarianism, incidentally (to shift from state-sanctioned marriage to a different subject) entails no view or position that puts it at odds with race-replacement.  Libertarians have no quarrel with race-replacement whatsoever.

Posted by Matt on December 25, 2005, 02:19 AM | #

Fred Scrooby allow me to point you towards a couple of my previous posts.

We need a return to traditional marraige (ie: religious, not govt)... let us work towards a total ban all state sanctioned marraige and the entitlements it brings with it

People have never needed a ceremony to say they love each other, nor to have children or live together.

I fully support giving incentives to parents who are raising children and by all means, encourage them to stay together, but to prop up married couples with 2 incomes and no kids is ridiculous.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 25, 2005, 05:36 AM | #

Well, happy Christmas guys.  It’s a good day to re-affirm Western societies’ dependence on traditional marriage and the traditional family.

I would like to raise a somewhat un-seasonal point, which is the cynicism of self-interest.  Morally, there are several qualities of self-interest which constitute anti-traditionalism.  For example, there is the self-interest of the Chosen leftists who have philosophised cultural Marxism and who, for the greater part, have led the feminist and homosexualist movements - and whose liberalism is actually conservatism for Jews.  They are purely self-interested.  They have the opposite of the interest in Man which they claim through their liberalism.

Alongside this lies the self-interest of the damaged gentile female and homosexual minds of the Rights movements, both of whom want an impossible equality so as to wipe away their sense of inadequacy.  Again, self-interest renders generosity impossible.
Interestingly, you will hear such people characterise proponents of traditionalism as “mean”.  That is simple projection.

Thirdly, there is the peculiar self-interest of the millions of victims of liberalism who have themselves been denied a family upbringing within traditional marriage, and will not tolerate the idea that they are somehow disadvantaged thereby.  Again, there is no generosity here towards the real interests of our society.

For what’s worth, I believe libertarianism has one useful suggestion with regard to this debate.  Let the full financial costs of those who do not choose traditional marriage be borne by them. But I do believe that the state should support married couples through tax benefits for children, through dismantling the homosexualist threat to traditional marriage and through giving an extra vote to those in traditional marriages, whether with children or not (the latter to re-establish and favour conservatism in our polity - I would also give an extra vote for home ownership and business directorship, and I would remove suffrage for all who do not pay taxes).

Posted by Matt on December 25, 2005, 07:18 AM | #

Thirdly, there is the peculiar self-interest of the millions of victims of liberalism who have themselves been denied a family upbringing within traditional marriage, and will not tolerate the idea that they are somehow disadvantaged thereby.

Actually a lot of liberals come from traditional marraiges. Most become liberals when they have a child affected by things like homosexuality, alcohol & drug abuse etc.
The only turn to the liberals because the right dont wanna talk or listen to them.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 25, 2005, 11:24 AM | #

“Most become liberals when they have a child affected by things like homosexuality, alcohol & drug abuse etc.  They only turn to the liberals because the right dont wanna talk or listen to them.”  (—Matt)

You make it sound as if it’s the conservatives’ fault if people become liberals.  You seem to be invoking precisely what GW just debunked, above, when he said,

“Interestingly, you will hear such people characterise proponents of traditionalism as ‘mean.’  That is simple projection.”  (—GW)

I think you’ve got that and some other things wrong, Matt.  By the way, how would you characterize yourself?  I’d put you in the left(ish)-libertarian category ... ?  (Yes, I realize those categories are only approximations.)
______

Merry Christmas, everyone!

Posted by Alex Zeka on December 25, 2005, 01:41 PM | #

As to the support for trad. marriage vs. laisser faire question, it seems a fairly futile one at the moment. The anti-marriage statists are in charge. Let’s just agree that the state should not be subisiding socially destructive behaviour.
Matt- benefits for children rather than for marriage? We’ve already got child benefits in the UK, and that just encourages underclass families to have more kids: not what we want to be encouraging.
Merry Xmas!

Posted by Alex Zeka on December 25, 2005, 03:09 PM | #

It does say alot about the state of contemporary conservatism that its most eloquent and consistent (or rather least ineloquent and inconsistent) proponent is the Sun of “page three and… um, that’s it” fame.

Posted by Matt on December 25, 2005, 09:21 PM | #

How to describe myself is open to your interpretation. I certainly dont consider myself to be a left of anything, but I’m sure others would, just as some would consider me to be fascist at times. I think it’s an issue by issue thing, we can be pro one thing and anti another, which kind of messes with some peoples minds.
We do have to have money for kids, it’s not their fault which family they were born into.
We need to teach these kids, all kids, values and encourage their parents away from the welfare mentality.
we also need to listen to their plights and offfer real solutions, not just band aid ones or condemnation.
The old line of teach a man to fish.
I don’t care who wants to marry who. I just dont want to pay for it.