...a blog by Richard Flowers

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Day 2214: Cardinal speaks - Let us be homophobes… or we start hurting the children!


Lord Blairimort is reported to be UNDECIDED whether to allow the Catholic Church a "get out of jail free card" on the law on treating Gay Daddies equally.

Presumably he is torn between gaining forgiveness for his eternal soul… and getting into the Catholic Church.

This is all because a FROCK-WEARING MAN called Mr Tarmac Mary-O'Conman who is also the Cardinal Archbigot of Westminster for the Catholic Team has sent a letter to everyone in the Closet Cabinet saying that he wants SPECIAL RIGHTS for his lot to be bullies.

Has Big Bother taught us nothing? Did Jade die in vain?

The Archbigot writes:

"The Catholic Church utterly condemns all forms of unjust discrimination, violence, harassment or abuse directed against people who are homosexual."

So, I THOUGHT that the next paragraph would read:

"We therefore have no problem with the implantation of these rights for the protection of all people and look forward to treating prospective adopters equally regardless of their gender, orientation or marital status."

But it DOESN'T!

Daddy says note the careful use of the word UNJUST – obviously discrimination, violence, harassment or abuse are FINE so long as the Cardinal feels he can JUSTIFY it.

"What, then, is the problem?" asks Mr Mary-O'Conman.

That is EXACTLY what I was going to ask!

Fortunately, it seems that he has an answer: "It is that to oblige our agencies in law to consider adoption applications from homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents would require them to act against the principles of Catholic teaching."

Unfortunately, I do not understand the answer. Wouldn't that be the SAME Catholic Teaching that he just said "utterly condemns all forms of unjust discrimination"?

I am getting MORE CONFUSED!

He continues:

"We require our agencies to recruit and approve appropriate married and single people to meet the needs of children in local authority care for whom adoption has been identified as being in their best interest."

"We place significant emphasis on marriage, as it is from the personal union of a man and a woman that new life is born …"

EXCEPT didn't he just said they recruit SINGLE PEOPLE?

"…and it is within the loving context of such a relationship that a child can be welcomed and nurtured…"

EXCEPT didn't he just said they recruit SINGLE PEOPLE?

"Marital love involves an essential complementarity of male and female."

EXCEPT didn't he just said they recruit SINGLE PEOPLE?

(By the way: "Complementarity" might look like a MADE UP word, but I have looked it up and it means either "the quality of being complimentary" or "two opposites that together make up all the possibilities")

So… never mind that not all man-person-plus-woman-person couples can have a "union from which new life is born"; never mind that OBVIOUSLY gay daddies and mommies can have relationships of the same loving context that can "nurture and welcome" a child or baby elephant; never mind that gender is a considerably more COMPLICATED idea than just two opposites that make up all the possibilities – if he tried to think about ALL the other possibilities it is possible that Mr Mary-O'Conman's HEAD would EXPLODE! – never mind that the only difference between "married" and "civil partnered" is that the Archbigot and all his frock-wearing chums said they would squeem and squeem and squeem until they were sick if gay daddies or mommies were allowed to use a WORD; never mind ALL OF THAT.

His whole argument is that gay daddies cannot be married BUT DIDN'T HE JUST SAY THEY RECRUIT SINGLE PEOPLE?

I am beginning to DOUBT this person's credentials! Are we SURE that this man is a SERIOUS religious figure and not just a CONFUSED PERSON IN A DRESS?

Let me try to think this through.

He cannot be against gay daddies because they do not have two different genders – because they recruit single people.

He cannot be against gay daddies because they have not had a Catholic marriage – because they recruit single people.

Is he against gay daddies because they are… GAY?????


I will read on to see if it gets BETTER.

"We believe it would be unreasonable, unnecessary and unjust discrimination against Catholics…"

It gets WORSE!

He is saying that it is discrimination for Catholics to have to FOLLOW THE SAME RULES AS EVERYBODY ELSE. That is a dirty low down trick – and that goes double for a man who calls himself "holy".

What he is REALLY saying is: "we WANT you to treat us differently."

Yes, that is right: it is the Archbigot HIMSELF who is calling for discrimination where Catholics are concerned!

"Homosexual couples are referred to other agencies where their adoption application may be considered. This "sign-posting" responsibility is taken very seriously by all Catholic adoption agencies."

This would be like the signposts that used to say "No Blacks"?

"This is an appeal for "fair play"…"

No it isn't! It is EXPLICITLY an appeal NOT to have to play fair!

"…particularly for those many children, Catholic or not, who continue to benefit from the widely recognised, professional and committed adoption services provided through our Catholic adoption agencies."

This is beginning to sound like MORAL BLACKMAIL! "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!" If Mr Mary-O'Conman really WAS thinking of the children he would be trying to get as many adoptive parents as he could find, not ruling out couples because of his OWN SEXUAL HANG-UPS!

"Our agencies receive fees from local authorities directly linked to their adoption work."

So he is QUITE HAPPY to take MONEY from gay daddies, from their taxes, whether they want him to get it or not or not, but won't obey the same rules as everybody else.

"In addition they are supported generally by the Catholic Church community."

And are they giving to charity in order to HELP PEOPLE or in order for the Archbigot to be able to CROW ABOUT IT? Or worse in order to have FINANCIAL LEVERAGE over the government? Cash for Prejudice, you could call it.

It is rather wicked to use the generosity of the people you work for as a means of BIGGING UP your own importance, do you not think?

"Giving protection to the rights of Catholic adoption agencies to act with integrity…"


"…will preserve an excellent and highly valued adoption service…"

"It would be an unnecessary tragedy if legislation forced the closure of these adoption services, thereby significantly reducing the potential resources of adoptive families for the approximately 4,000 children currently waiting for adoption placements."


Look! First the threat:

"This outcome is wholly avoidable."

And then the QUID-pro-QUO, the LUBRICATION, the BUNG…

"We urge you to ensure that the regulations shortly to be laid before Parliament enable our agencies to continue their work with local authorities for the common good."

You fix-a it for me and the Papa, he fix-as it for you, capiche?

In conclusion: "There is nothing to lose…"

Now he is just plain FIBBING.

If you are EXCLUDING some people from the people that you let adopt then there are FEWER people adopting – SOME CHILDREN WILL LOSE PARENTS!

"…and children waiting for an adoptive family have much to gain, by our continuing successful collaboration."

Go on, Lord Blairimort! Be a COLLABORATOR!

This is a WICKED letter from a VERY BAD and possibly QUITE STUPID MAN!

If there had been bullying like this on the TELEVISION there would have been QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE and Lord Blairimort would have said:

"We should oppose homophobia in all its forms."

WHAT will he say in response to THIS?

And shouldn't we see the Archbigot VOTED OUT?

And now... Now... NOW the Archpillocks of the Church of England are joining in!

They say that you cannot make laws about matters of conscience. So that would mean that they want the abolition of protection on grounds of religion? And they think that they should not have seats in the House of Lords Club?


Thought not!

Mr Dr John Sentimoo, The Archpillock of York, was on the The Today Programme just now saying that of course people should be allowed to put their NASTY DISLIKES above the law.

So, asked a HORRIFIED Mr Humpy, it would be all right to deny a couple adoption rights if they were BLACK, would it?

And Mr Sentimoo HAD NO ANSWER!

I am VERY GLAD that I am a MILITANT ATHEIST BABY ELEPHANT – these religious leaders are all selfish Prejudiced HYPOCRITES!!!!!!!!!

No comments: