Melanie Phillips wants you to kill the gays by shoutingatco.ws
We’ve spoken before about Melanie Phillips, who is desperate to take over from Liz Jones and Jan Moir as hate figure de jour in the Mail. Her current bugbear is those gays and how they want to be treated like ordinary human beings, despite putting their willies somewhere ungodly.
Of course, “being respectful to people in law” is exactly the same as allowing gay people to run roughshod across the country, gleefully pissing in the face of history, tradition and jesus. Yes – it’s the ugly side of the gay marriage discussion. And we don’t just mean Elton John.
For it was revealed yesterday that ministers are planning to change the law to allow homosexual couples to ‘marry’ in religious ceremonies, including in church.
Hmm, the church is notoriously anti-gay – in fact, as the Bible says, Melanie shouldn’t writing columns in national newspapers about them, she should be dusting off her pitchfork, and sticking the business end right up their disgusting backsides:
And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God’s death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway.
(Romans 1)
And in case she’s picking and choosing which bits of the Bible to follow, she might also pick Jeremiah:
Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)
This is from the same newspaper that constantly bleats on about how Muslim values aren’t compatible with the west, right?
But anyway, gay marriage in churches. This sounds like a Daily Mail nightmare – constant streams of swastika tattooed knuckleheads wandering onto the village green? Except, of course, as Phillips admits:
For sure, this change doesn’t force religious institutions to introduce such ceremonies; whether they do so is up to them.
Oh. So, er, the vicars that aren’t that keen, um, don’t have to do anything.
Truly, we are fast reaching the stage where upholding Biblical sexual standards will become the morality that dare not speak its name.
Ridiculous over-stating aside, are these the same sexual standards that involve killing gays? And involve things like this:
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
Phillips goes on to deliberately misunderstand what the gays want:
Gay rights supporters contend that there can be no justifiable objection to extending the status of marriage to those who are not heterosexual. Gay or straight — what does it matter, as long as two people are committed to each other?
But those who make this argument merely reveal they have no idea of the significance of marriage. They seem to think it’s just another contractual arrangement involving a binding (or not so binding) commitment — like buying a house or a car.
But the truth is that marriage is a unique institution because it involves the process by which humanity reproduces itself — which is only through the union of male and female.
Are we being overly-simplistic here by pointing out that marriage largely is an administrative act, and that people are free to fuck and make babies pretty much any time they like?
She drags this down the ridiculous route of reckoning that having sex with another man is pretty much the same as screwing a beagle. Well done, Mel.
If still in doubt, try this thought experiment. Imagine the Government was planning to recognise polygamy and polyandry (marriage with more than one woman or man), or marriage between ‘zoophiles’ (people who have ‘loving and committed relationships with mammals’, or bestiality to you and me) and their, er, partners.
She concludes,
The so-called ‘culture war’ now raging between those determined to destroy Western moral codes and those struggling to defend them is simply the most urgent domestic issue we face.
Hint: It’s probably not. In fact, the mass unemployment, bollocksed economy and crippling cut-backs are just a touch more significant day-to-day than whether a man and a man choose to marry in a church – a church that has accepted them.
Rob in Lincs is convinced though:
Gay marriage. Yeah, very modern. Very trendy. A nice legal arrangement. Helps when a gay couple wants to adopt. But not worth a lot of fuss for the relatively small number of gays in the country. Stonewall seems to overstate the number of gays around because that’s in their interests but apparently the percentage is about 1-3. They just make a lot of noise. The only problem with letting them marry is that they’ll then want something else. Gay rights activists are not going to stop now. Which is silly because resentment is growing. Britain is getting really tired of interest groups. All of them. Gays, feminists, muslims, etc. They just don’t seem to know when to stop.
- Rob, Lincs, 14/2/2011 8:26
Rob in Lincs is also a massive dunderhead.
Related Posts
Recent Posts
Newspapers
Comments
Leave a Reply
© 2012
Never mind her woeful content and the extreme terminal nutjobs that seem to agree with her, it’s her sentence structure that truly upsets me.
God almighty!
Look, I’m not saying she should face a firing squad or anything but… oh wait, that’s actually quite a good idea. Such people are conscious defenders of this degenerate system, sadly there are quite a few gay people who take a not entirely dissimilar reactionary line (and I say that as a gay man). liberation means defying or ignoring their agenda!
As I said earlier on the Twitter. Mad Melanie Phillips says that bestiality has the same level of social acceptance as bestiality. Fantastic! *bums otter*
If she’s following the bible, then she’s already an abomination!
1 Timothy 2:12
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”
western values -erm ! eastern religious values.
polygamy- so it isn’t possible to love more than one person, she makes it sound like performing fellatio on a monkey.
marriage involves the process of reproduction- fairly sure that’s sexual congress.
if she really wants things the way it says in the bible , she should in the home producing children and looking after her man, who,even if he cheats/beats/abuses her she should stay with