I am deeply grateful to those persons (signed up to Official Secrets) who at great personal risk to themselves are willing to supply me with information which I can then place into the public domain in the best interests of the British people.
We are all now well aware of Prime Minister David Cameron's commitment to the re-definition of marriage: the Government intends that Parliament will legislate to re-define marriage in 2012.
I have seen a transcript of a recent meeting (for which the re-definition of marriage was part of the agenda) and in which David Cameron said:
"We will crush the Church once and for all."
Cameron was referring to the massive opposition to the re-definition of marriage outside of the Westminster bubble.
Those nine words from David Cameron - 'We will crush the Church once and for all' - testify to the heart of David Cameron, as he revealed his true colours in a private meeting which he fully expected to remain confidential.
The British Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party has set himself up against the Body of Christ (i.e. the Church) and against the Lord God Almighty. We can expect that there will be consequences...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Massive opposition"? I'm astonished to see you write this, as in my experience the opposite is true - the British public overwhelmingly supports marriage equality. Indeed, most people believe it is already in place, and are appauled when they discover that it is not.
ReplyDeleteWhich is what you would expect, of course. If there is any quality that lies at the heart of the British character, it is a belief in fair play. When we learn that straight couples are allowed to marry, but gay couples are not, our common sense and British decency tells us that this is unfair, that this is wrong. And we passionately want that wrong to be righted.
Common sense tells us that homosexual behaviour is a perversion. Common sense tells us that two people of the same gender cannot marry.
ReplyDeleteThe British sense of fair play stands firmly against the child abuse of allowing perverts to foster/adopt children when what children need is to be raised by a mother and a father. The British sense of fair play also stands firmly against subjecting children to evil pervert-propaganda at school.
The British sense of fair play was rather more epitomised in our past than in our present, when - not so long ago - the practice of perversion was (quite rightly) a criminal offence.
The Government's own ONS stats in the recently issued report 'Civil Partnerships Five Years On' clearly show that the majority (of those surveyed) of the British general public favour the traditional and true definition of marriage. Furthermore, the same report shows that the majority continue to oppose the adoption of children by homosexual-perverts.
Carvath 1 Smale 0
Two perverts can already access all of the legal privileges of marriage by forming a civil pervertship. Therefore perverts already enjoy equality of legal rights with married persons under the law of the land.
Carvath 2 Smale 0
The last available census figures show that households headed by two perverts account for just 0.2% of the population.
Carvath 3 Smale 0
Two persons of the same gender cannot conceive a child and cannot provide a child with a mother and a father. Heterosexuals can, and there is ample evidence to show that the raising of children is best achieved within the stability and commitment of marriage.
Carvath 4 Smale 0
And another couple of points...
(1) There is no mention of re-defining marriage in the 2010 Conservative Party Manifesto. This Government has no democratic mandate for re-defining marriage.
(2) This country is bankrupt - people desperately need jobs, housing and basic services - but the re-definition of marriage is likely to cost the country £5 billion.
I trust you will be reporting "those persons" breaking the law supplying information to you?
ReplyDeleteI'm not aware of anybody having broken the law in this matter.
ReplyDeleteThe Government and the top Whitehall mandarins themselves leak information to the press when it suits them.
There is no military/national security concern in regard of the information contained in this blog-post; what we have here is simply a private but highly important remark from the PM made public.
I took the view that it is in the public interest for the British public to know the real attitude of the PM to Christians.
I have every confidence that if put to the test my action here would prove to have widespread popular support from the public and the press.
You're a hypocrite Carvath. You want GMP to enforce the law but when people break the law and their contract of employment you bring out "for the greater good" argument. You are a fool.
ReplyDeleteTo address your points...
ReplyDeleteCommon sense tells us that homosexual behaviour is a perversion.
Does it? To qualify as 'common sense', an idea must first be common - which is to say, widely accepted. This is far from that. So this is untrue.
Common sense tells us that two people of the same gender cannot marry.
According to the survey you quote later, fully 45% of the UK population would disagree. So again, still not common enough to qualify as common sense.
Untrue again.
The British sense of fair play stands firmly against the child abuse of allowing perverts to foster/adopt children when what children need is to be raised by a mother and a father. The British sense of fair play also stands firmly against subjecting children to evil pervert-propaganda at school.
And what do adoption or education issues have to do with marriage equality?
This is irrelevant.
(Plus: "Evil"? "Perverts"? Seriously? All you achieve by using terminology like that is to make yourself look foolish.)
The British sense of fair play was rather more epitomised in our past than in our present, when - not so long ago - the practice of perversion was (quite rightly) a criminal offence.
I find it impossible to understand how horrifying prejudice and discrimination could be described as 'fair play'. So untrue.
The Government's own ONS stats in the recently issued report 'Civil Partnerships Five Years On' clearly show that the majority (of those surveyed) of the British general public favour the traditional and true definition of marriage.
This - though counter to my experience - appears to be true. So I'll grant you one point.
Still, 45% of the population supporting marriage equality (practically every other person you meet) is hardly a small minority. I'd expect that to rise well over 50% very soon, once the issues are more widely understood.
Furthermore, the same report shows that the majority continue to oppose the adoption of children by homosexual-perverts.
Carvath 1 Smale 0
It remains irrelevant though.
Part 2...
ReplyDeleteTwo perverts can already access all of the legal privileges of marriage by forming a civil pervertship. Therefore perverts already enjoy equality of legal rights with married persons under the law of the land.
Carvath 2 Smale 0
A rose by any other name? No, equality requires equal treatment.
("Civil pervertship"? Oh dear...)
The last available census figures show that households headed by two perverts account for just 0.2% of the population.
Carvath 3 Smale 0
An injustice committed against a minority is still an injustice. Not even a small minority, either - 0.2% of the population is 120,000 people, more than the population of Exeter. If the government were to pass a law that forbid anyone in Exeter from marrying, that would be seen as wrong, yes?
More another irrelevancy...
Two persons of the same gender cannot conceive a child and cannot provide a child with a mother and a father. Heterosexuals can, and there is ample evidence to show that the raising of children is best achieved within the stability and commitment of marriage.
Carvath 4 Smale 0
Again, irrelevant to the issue of marriage.
And another couple of points...
(1) There is no mention of re-defining marriage in the 2010 Conservative Party Manifesto. This Government has no democratic mandate for re-defining marriage.
The government is doing many things that were not mentioned in either of its manifestos. All governments do this - you can't govern without the power to improvise in unexpected circumstances, and correct failed policy.
(2) This country is bankrupt - people desperately need jobs, housing and basic services - but the re-definition of marriage is likely to cost the country £5 billion.
Can you quote a source for that figure? Because it sounds implausible, to say the least.
Let's work the numbers, shall we? Let's assume that all of your 0.2% get married, 60,000 couples. Then your £5 billion figure would suggest that each marriage costs the state over £80,000. What is this paying for?
Oh, and presumably straight marriages must cost the same amount, so the 250,000 straight marriages a year must be costing us £20 billion or more. If the government is serious about saving money, clearly it needs to make straight marriage illegal...
In reality, I'd expect an additional 60,000 marriages to cause an increase in economic activity. Think of all those venues booked, those suits and frocks hired, all the extra caterers and wedding DJs employed...
Hi Nick,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments.
The source for the £5 billion figure is Ben Summerskill of Stonewall.
I think you will find that marriage-based families cost the State much less in health and welfare payments than co-habiters or single parents; furthermore, marriage-based families contribute a lot more in tax. So if you're concerned about the national economy, I must point out that marriage [man/woman of course] is very good for everybody's pocket.
I strongly disagree that the issue of child-raising is irrelvant to marriage! But of course the homopervual lobby has no concern for the welfare and the best interests of children.
My general observation of your comments is that you demonstrate proficiency in the art of sophistry!
I have made my basic points on the matter and so have you. We will see what happens next year and, beyond that, the consequences.
I must point out to you that any single homopervual adult in the UK is already eligible to marry... he or she simply has to marry a person of the opposite gender. Now that's what I call common sense and fair play.
One thing you do correctly identify is that the homopervual lobby wants to hijack a word (and the meaning of that word). Homopervuals cannot marry and cannot function as married couples do, but the the homopervual lobby nonetheless craves the application of the word 'Marriage' to any two homopervuals who wish to claim it.
I'm afraid homopervuals are set to be disappointed even if David Cameron does succeed in his stated aim next year, firstly because homopervuals' being able to claim to be married will not alter any of the fundamental truth of the sad, depraved and pitiful nature of the homopervual lifestyle, and secondly because new words and social conventions will arise to ensure that true marriage continues to be distinguishable in practice from any homopervual counterfeit.
I for one will be using the new word 'Perviage' and getting/being 'Pervied' to distinguish from true marriage and getting/being married if indeed perviage is introduced.