CAN SODOMY DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 at 08:45AM I would have thought it was pretty obvious that sodomy can damage your health. In fact that is merely a statement of the medically obvious. However a Church of England priest has been ordered to remove comments about gay people from his blog, remarks described by his diocese as "highly offensive".
The Rev Peter Mullen, who ministers in the City of London, said he had gay friends and the words were "satirical". He suggested in his internet blog that homosexuals should have
their backsides tattooed with the slogan: "Sodomy can seriously damage
your health". The gay rights group Outrage described the comments as "Neanderthal".
They were outraged! A Diocese of London spokeswoman said the remarks did not reflect its views. Mr Mullen said: "I certainly have nothing against homosexuals. Many of my dear friends have been and are of that persuasion.What I have got against them is the militant preaching of homosexuality." In the same blog, Mr Mullen called for all gay pride parades, which he branded "obscene", to be outlawed. He also criticised the blessing of two gay priests at a "wedding" performed earlier this year in a City of London church.
I congratulate Rev Mullen for his robust views and if some gays have no sense of humour, tough. I would have thought that the prospect of having tattoos on their posteriors may have been a welcome prospect...
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (38)
The reverend vicar apears confused:
"I certainly have nothing against homosexuals..."
In the same blog, Mr Mullen called for all gay pride parades, which he branded "obscene", to be outlawed.
Huh?
Peter, maybe he's thinking of this:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28491
"I certainly have nothing against christians. Many of my dear friends have been and are of that persuasion.What I have got against them is the militant preaching of christianity."
What possible connection to the teachings of Christ is this dimwit trying to emulate? I know the ranks are thinning among the clergy (the strain is quite great among my own church), but do fools like this really have any place preaching the New Testament.
For Christ's sake (I mean that literally) would anyone wish to sit in a pew and listen to this man? Put aside his very bizare "joke", who is he to demand that the government outlaw public demonstrations?
Mahons,
Banning public demonstrations is something that supporters of the Belfast Agreement endorse. Me, I'm a liberal on this - I have no issues with demos.
"Banning public demonstrations is something that supporters of the Belfast Agreement endorse. Me, I'm a liberal on this - I have no issues with demos."
I am not liberal on this one. I believe that a public demonstration should be banned if it is deliberatly offensive to the population. This is anything from Gay Pride Parades to Orange Order Marchers.
Seamus,
I don't think demos achieve much except allow steam to be let off. I would no more seek to ban a gay parade as an Orange or Hibernian parade. I would not waste my time on them myself and see many of them as Student Grant type proclivities.
But many people see them as offensive and it is a cause for trouble. Look at the history of Orange Marches here or the problems at this years Gay Pride parade when someone masturbated himself to children. Surely we need to have some measure of control to stop things that are offensive. The neighbourhoods belong to the people who live there and it should be their decision as to whether they want any form of Public Demonstration to be in their area.
In terms of public demonstration, would the KKK be welcome in Harlem or a DUP rally on the Falls Road or a Sinn Féin rally on the Shankill. I believe we need to be reasonable as offence can be caused.
Seamus - The KKK would not be welcome in Harlem, but they have a right to go there. The standard of a demonstration 9especially a poltical one) should never be that it simply causes offense. In fact, tha tis often the intent, and a necessary intent. Otherwise, we are not all free.
But, surely if there is a more appropriate place for the rally to take place then it should be relocated. Surely there is a neighbourhood somewhere in Belfast that wouldn't mind a Gay Pride March? Surely the Whiterock Orange Order parade doesn't need to pass through the lower Springfield Road and surely a hypothetical KKK rally doesn't need to go through Harlem? It is about weighing up the needs and comparing them to the effects it would have.
Whoah. Totally agree with Seamus.
Gay Pride marches with their in your face overt sexuality designed to aggravate, a Pro life march with their blatant nasty evil lies, the Army of God demo'ing right in front of a funeral of a man burying his soldier son with placards telling him his son deserved to die because America 'is queer'.
I wonder at the insanity of it all and the poe faced stupidity of chalking this up as a freedom. You can let off steam and express your freedom to grossly offend somewhere it does not infringe on other people's rights to go about their lives freely and without needing to have it waved in their faces. Have your silly little demo somewhere where people are FREE to totally avoid it.
It simply serves to anger and achieves absolutely nothing.
The Nazishave marched in Skokie (a Jewish neighborhood) and I think the Klan has rallied in Harlem.
Surely a march on City Hall would offend politicians, and a march on the Pentagon would offend the military and a march in the Deep South offended segregationists. Free speech and freedom of assembly are too important to sacrifice to comfort and feelings.
But surely Freedom From Intimidation is also important. I grew up in the lower Springfield Road, the site of the Orange Order's Whiterock Parade and even to this day I consider that Parade to be nothing more than attempts to put Catholics in their place. It isn't about removing Free Speech or Free Assembly but Freedom From Intimidation. There is an area, perhaps an empty stadium, were they can have their marches and rallies without offending anyone.
"a Pro life march with their blatant nasty evil lies"
I also have to say that it should apply to both Pro Life Marches and Pro Choice Marches. Both are offensive to certain people and evoke to much emotion.
Seamus and Alison
What about a pro-choice march ?, or a march against oppresion of women under Islam , or a Christian values rally ? or a 'support our troops' parade. All marches have the potential to offend, so what ?. No-one has the right to insist on not being offended. Freeedom does not mean only things that are inoffensive to everyone. Providing a public demonstration or march is regulated and peaceful and the behaviour lawful, then they have as much right to take to the streets as anyone else.
But most of the marches aren't regulated, Colm. That is the problem. It is also a large amount of the time designed to offend people. The Orange Order doesn't march down the Springfield Road because they support Free Speech. They do it to keep the Taigs were they belong. Gay Pride parades are used as an attack on non Homosexual people and if you complain then you are the bigot. Complaining about a grown man masturbating himself infront of children makes you homophobic.
yeah i think the issue here is location.
I cant see how allowing a march in, say, central belfast or new york but not allowing it along the Springfield Road/ Harlem is a major block on freedom of speech.
Simiarly what freedoms are being protected by allowing the despicable Roy Phelps mob to demonstrate at funerals is beyond me...
I am happy for pro choice marches to be contained to environments that do not seek to intimidate. Such as outside churches. Just as I would rather "pro life" people cannot intimidate scared women with their lies right outside clinics. I am happy for marches for women's rights to take place in a neutral environment and not to deliberately set about aggravating. They would probably achieve better ends.
So what Colm? So they achieve nothing except resentment division fear intimidation hurt and aggravation. Like those stupid "orange" marches in Ireland.
They should not have the right to demonstrate outside a man's funeneral, in front of churches or clinics or anywhere. People have a right to be free of their obsessions. If someone was directly intimidating a member of the public through any other means a sane person would intervene.
It is time for everyone to grow the hell up. The days of marches and placard politics are over.
Colm is right and his last sentence especially says it all:
"Providing a public demonstration or march is regulated and peaceful and the behaviour lawful, then they have as much right to take to the streets as anyone else."
By the way, is sodomy bad for your health? I'd be interested to see arguments to say it's neutral.
"By the way, is sodomy bad for your health? I'd be interested to see arguments to say it's neutral."
I've not seen any reports either way. I can't imagine it's great, but as long as you use protection I don't see it being that bad.
On another note, I'm always interested to see the assumption that only gay men have any interest in sodomy
The actor Michael Gambon told a journalist one time, "I used to be a homosexual but had to give it up because it made my eyes water."
Draw your own conclusions but it sounds pretty painful to me !
Terry what is peaceful about the Army of God, gay pride or pro life outside clinics. Peaceful to you as in you are not on the receiving end of the hatred and prejudice. Others have a right to peacefully go about their lives without such idiotics shoved down their throats.
Mid-Ulster,
I don't think Gambon is actually gay though. I think he was just taking the piss because people thought he was.
Andy,
I agree. Location is everything. Anyone (within reason) should be allowed to march in the centre of Belfast but having an Orange march on the Springfield Road or a Easter March down the Shankill is blatant provocation.
It's about context too. For example: the local Blackmen have a little march through my (overwhelmingly nationalist) home town in August. No-one is particularly bothered. On the other hand, if the County Down 12th parade were to be held there, it would be seen as deliberately confrontational/triumphalist.
Yep I think common sense can and should prevail in a truly grown up society. No to the location of demos that provoke deliberately like those Orange things. No to demos directly outside clinics and churches designed to intimidate and stoke up prejudice or areas where people are trying to shop with kids (gay sex antics). And defo big NO to demos outside a man's funeral by religious crazies which infringes on his rights at that precious time. It is entirely possible to balance "free speech" (which is debatable as merely a buzzword now anyway) with the rights of others to go about their lives normally. Speaker's Corner is where we in this cuntry traditionally accepted people talking about whatever they wanted. You speak freely. Others avoid it.
The same logic can be extended to demos which are largely a modern concept and mostly childish in their carry on and their organisation as I found out to my despair when getting involved in a march for free speech a few years back.
country :D
"country :D"
Thank god for that.
Ut reminds me of the joke a few years ago when Australia was thinking of becoming a republic:
Aussie PM: Your majesty we've decided you are no longer going to be our Queen, from now on I will be head of state of "The Kingdom of Australia"
Queen: But one needs a king to be in charge of a Kingdom.
APM: Fair Dinkum, we'll become the Australian Empire!
Queen: But one would need an emperor to become an empire.
APM: Strewth, what do you suggest then?
Queen: You should become a country.
Reg
Thanks
By the way, I should probably ask - who are the local "blackmen" - I take it they arent local afro-carribeans?!
I hear something about a body called I think the royal black preceptory or something - and if so what is that?
Andy
Your local loyalist secret society? With secret handshakes don't-tell-anyone secrets and oaths and the whole shebang?
Andy,
Yep , it's the Royal Black Preceptory. They are a Loyal institution similar to the Orange Order but, as far as I know, they are more of a bible study-group with the odd arcane ceremony (and, of course, the odd march) thrown in.
They are generally looked on by nationalists as more benign than the Orange order/Apprentice Boys.
BTW, I'm currently reading Ruth Dudley Edwards' book on the Loyal institutions. She does a good job of painting them in such a light that I can almost empathise with them; on the other hand, she herself comes across (as usual) as a pathetic, self-loathing southern Catholic with (ahem) "unusual" interpretations of historical events.
Thanks.
By the way do the AOH do any marching in the North? You dont really hear about them much.
Andy,
Not sure. They used to march in my home town on 15th August. I presume they still do. I think they have a march in Kilkeel as well.
I've never actually met a member of the Hibs (that I know of). They're kind of looked down upon as Redmondites and "green-orangemen".
Phantom
Indeed - its interesting though the idea of a supposed secret society (a la orange order) parading publicly. Not the best way of enhancing secrecy one would think.
I'm not sure if this makes them sound more or less sinister.
On another note I should say my opinion of orangemen in general has improved significantly since talking to a couple of them on the web..
"On another note I should say my opinion of orangemen in general has improved significantly since talking to a couple of them on the web.."
I'm trying to obtain a greater understanding of the ordinary people who are members of the Order. Given its historical roots, and the whole Drumcree debacle, it's difficult for someone from my background to see beyond the anti-Catholic bigotry and triumphalism.
But, from what I've read, it does appear that many Orangemen join their local lodge for reasons of religious piety, to find a sense of identity/tradition, or even just for a social outlet.
Re Alison 2:49
Basically the law lets you demonstrate (as I think it should) in public in a way which doesn't inflict violence on others. Subject to that, others have a right to peacefully go about their lives. The test is always, would you want your views banned if someone else said they were idiotic and shouldn't be shoved down other people's throats? Most of us want our own views heard and therefore, as long as there is no violence, freedom should carry the day.
Hate is not prohibited by law. nor should it be; that belongs to the moral realm. Expressions of hate resulting in violence or threats of it are right areas for the criminal law to cover.
I think there is often far more hate shown by hate-speech accusers than by those accused these days.
I kind of answered where I stand on my views or issues I would support etc above at 1:08.
It is not about banning. It is about balance.
No - Army of God should not have the right to demo right in front of a man's son's funeral. His rights should be respected also. Church attendees rights should be respected. Women who attended family planning clinics rights should be respected.
It is totally possible to balance out the need to yell and scream and act like a whiny little prick about your pet causes, where your demo actually achieves very little other than to aggravate divide and in some cases deliberately provoke. And in such a way as to not impact directly on other people's rights to go about their lives normally and peacefully.
Its the hypocracy that gets me ! As long as their not bothering anybody else. Sir Maurice Oldfield the head of MI6 from 1965-1977 ,was according to Thatcher(House of Commons) in 1986 a homosexual , but he hadnt put the country at risk . Where she got this info from i dont know, several of his former collegues disputed it. People are obsessed by this subject. The nudge nudge wink wink stories that used to go round the security forces in the 70s!! The most popular being Ted Heaths visit to Kincora!
Scouseproud
YOu seem obsessed by that particular story. You have mentioned it many times.
Senior religous, political and legal figures in Northern Ireland especially what we used to call the Unionist establishment were blackmailed over this. McGrath was working for British intelligence.