Dismantling A Culture

Gay and lesbian politics isn’t one of my central interests. Quite honestly I don’t care what people get up to under the sheets, so long as nobody gets hurt. But the idea of legalising gay marriage seems to me to be an attempt to re-define what the word “marriage” means. And it’s probably the thin end of the wedge, as Norman Tebbit pointed out:

All that, however, seems to be small beer beside Mr Cameron’s determination and haste to legislate for the end of marriage as we have known it for the last five or ten thousand years. No longer would it be a union of one man and one woman. Initially Mr Cameron would make it into a union of any two persons (with the exception of those barred by consanguinity I assume). I doubt if it would remain there. Why should not brothers, or sisters be prevented from “marrying”? Or a mother and daughter or father and son? Already in “liberal” circles in America the zoophilliacs are pressing their case for the legalisation of human sex with animals.

And now the Catholic Church has joined in as well:

In one of the biggest joint letters of its type ever written, they raise fears that their freedom to practise and speak about their faith will be “severely” limited and dismiss Government reassurances as “meaningless”.

They even liken David Cameron’s moves to redefine marriage to those of Henry VIII, whose efforts to secure a divorce from Katherine of Aragon triggered centuries of bloody upheaval between church and state.

They claim that, taken in combination with equalities laws and other legal restraints, the Coalition’s plans will prevent Catholics and other Christians who work in schools, charities and other public bodies speaking freely about their beliefs on the meaning of marriage.

Even the freedom to speak from the pulpit could be under threat, they claim.

And they fear that Christians who believe in the traditional meaning of marriage would effectively be excluded from some jobs – just as Catholics were barred from many professions from the Reformation until the 19th Century.

The comments are contained in a letter to The Daily Telegraph, signed by 1,054 priests as well as 13 bishops, abbots and other senior Catholic figures.

They account for almost a quarter of all Catholic priests in England and Wales.

I wish a few of them had stood up and said that for Britain’s 10 million+ persecuted smokers, many of whom are already being barred from employment.

And why does anyone believe that David Cameron is a “Conservative”, when quite obviously he isn’t. Nobody but a dangerous radical would have proposed such a measure, and that is what he is.

But I don’t think that this has got anything to do with gay and lesbian rights, any more than smoking bans have got anything to do with ‘health’, really. What these people are doing is dismantling a culture, piece by piece.

The smoking ban is part of a process of dismantling the ancient cultural institution of the English tavern. The next step, of course, will be to restrict and then ban alcohol. That will kill the pubs stone dead. And that is, I believe, the primary aim of these dangerous radicals.

The same goes for legalising gay marriage. It’s really just an attack on the institution of marriage. It’s simply another institution that they want to demolish.

And then there’s the EU ‘project’, which is an attack on the institution of the sovereign state with its own elected parliaments.

And it might be added that the global warming scare is a cover under which to launch an attack on the entire institutionalised energy structures and economic foundations of Western society, as well as an assault upon scientific integrity.

All of it is sheer vandalism. But unlike the petty vandalism of street delinquents at the bottom of society, this is vandalism being carried out by people at the very top of society – like the British Prime Minister, David Cameron.

It’s the cultural equivalent of 9/11. This isn’t about demolishing an iconic building and killing thousands, but demolishing an entire culture, and killing millions.

But it’s being carried out piecemeal, in the same way that smoking bans were introduced little by little, in piecemeal steps. And it’s being done this way because they don’t want the people to become alarmed at what is being done to them. They want them to keep on thinking that everything is normal, even when everything is becoming more and more abnormal and twisted and sick. The one thing they don’t want is for people to put two and two together, and realise what’s happening.

I don’t know why the Conservative party has someone like David Cameron as a leader, when he quite obviously isn’t a Conservative. It’s a bit like the Catholic church having a Pope who isn’t a Catholic. Any illusions they may have had about him, with his Eton education, should have all been swept away by now. Or have they all been tied up and gagged in the cellars beneath the Houses of Parliament?

About these ads

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Dismantling A Culture

  1. Wiel Maessen says:

    Nod, nod. You loose me here, Frank…
    Gay and lesbian couples also have their right on freedom… If they want so, let’em…

  2. George Speller says:

    Only the few people who can put it all together are alarmed.

  3. Wiel Maessen says:

    Nod, nod. You loose me here, Frank…
    Gay and lesbian couples also have their right on freedom… Like we, as smokers should have.
    If they want so, let’em… Who are you to judge their lifestyle?

  4. Wiel, while I agree with you essentially, I don’t think Frank is “judging” them in terms of saying that their activities are bad in any way. However, I also disagree with Frank, and I’ll explain why.

    Frank, the “institution” of “marriage” has two facets to it: one religious, and one civil. I see no reason why a religion shouldn’t be able to make just about any rule it wants to with regard to how it defines marriage. If the KookieKlutz Church wants to say white people can only marry black people and that at least one of the partners must be under 15 years old, I’d say they have that right as a religion to define it that way and grant KookieKlutz Holy Marriage Certificates only to couples that met those criteria.

    Civil unions can call themselves “marriages” if they want to, but really they’re just civil agreements that define obligations and privileges in an arrangement between two people (We’ll leave threesomes and quads out of it for this current discussion, OK? :> ) Given the number of people who want to form same-sex civil unions I don’t see any harm at all to allowing it under the law with the same privileges, restrictions, obligations etc that we have for heterosexual unions. It doesn’t affect me, so why should I in any way object if my platonic friend Bob wants to move in and swear fidelity for a lifetime to his non-platonic friend Bill?

    The one area where I can see it getting sticky is with regard to children. While I’m sure there are a helluva lot of same sex couples who’d raise kids a lot better than a helluva lot of inter-sex couples, I can also see at least some value to the argument that a child *might* benefit more, on average, growing up with a biologically female mother figure and a biologically male father figure. I’m not saying that’s true, I’m just saying that I can see a reasonable possibility for it being true. If psychologists studied it and concluded it made no difference and I felt their studies were reasonable I’d have no problem with it, and I certainly don’t have strong enough feelings/beliefs about it at the moment that I’d ever object to a loving, well-balanced, same-sex couple adopting (or artificially inseminating or whatever) and raising a child.

    People in general should not be telling other people how to live their lives, unless the actions of those other people are clearly and strongly harming the lives and well-being of others. The State should be able to guarantee the safety of its people if they want to defy their religious dictates and “marry” someone of the same sex in the same way it should guarantee their safety if they want to work on Sunday or go swimming at the beach wearing a bikini (I’d say the same for topless and/or bottomless as well, but I dunno if the State has quite caught up to me widely there yet… :> )

    There are still gray areas out there… male and female circumcision style operations on infants or even adolescents are a good example… but the less power we give the State to “forbid” things, the better off I think we all generally are. If the bride wants to smoke a cigar during her wedding, more power to her! (or him if the case may be…)

    - MJM

    • Wiel Maessen says:

      Thanks for your diplomatic interference, Michael. As always, you are more sophisticated in writing than I am. We are BOF, as always, again…
      I just hate when I see people using double standards: either you are FOR freedom, or you aren’t.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Thanks for recognising that I’m not condemning homosexuality, because I’m not. I don’t want to see homosexuals persecuted any more than anyone else. And I’m all for homosexuals having ‘civil unions’ or whatever you want to call them – just not marriages. Because to call them that is to undermine the meaning of marriage, which I don’t regard as a either a religious or civil institution, but a fundamental building block of society.

      I’d raise the same sort of objection if people were to say that metres and feet can be anything anyone wants them to be, “in a free country”. And I wouldn’t agree. I’d say that metres and feet were two quite different things, and shouldn’t be confused with each other, because if they are then it would be the end of accurate measurement, and the end of science, because those words would have become meaningless.

      And that’s what I think gay marriage is about. It’s a way of making something – marriage – meaningless.

      • AlexB says:

        Silly question.

        What is the intrinsic definition of marriage? As an instituation it has changed a lot since the beginning. What is the essence of it that is so important that removing the same sex restriction will destroy it? I’ve yet to come across an answer that makes sense to me.

        Honest question. Until I understand this, I won’t be able to understand why it is an errosion of civil liberties.

        In absence of understanding though, would it have been a better move if Cameron had opened up civil partnerships to straight couples, allowing a non-segregated tier of union without touching the marriage thing?

        • Frank Davis says:

          What is the intrinsic definition of marriage?

          It’s something that happens between a man and a woman, and it usually produces (or is intended to produce) new men and women. Which is why it is a fundamental human institution. I am myself the product of one of these marriages.

          The problem for Henry VIII of England (which the Catholic church has cited) was that his wives kept producing daughters, when he wanted sons. So he kept swapping wives until he got a son. And in the process he effectively redefined what marriage was.

          I agree with Junican below. This is all about definitions of the meanings of words. Like the definitions of the words “metres” or “feet” or “inches”. Or, for that matter, the definitions of the words “one” and “two” and “three”.

  5. Nightlight says:

    As always, there are multiple motivations and forces combining behind this push. ‘Dismantling of culture’ is a top level, general force acting on many other fronts (such as dismantling of family (parent-child, wife-husband bonds), cohesion of local or church communities,…).

    In case of gay marriage, the homosexual themselves see it as another lever to open schools to their recruitment and grooming efforts before kids reach puberty and imprint their preferences along conventional lines (anti-bullying is another such lever). With their severely handicapped self-reproduction, the only way to maintain their numbers (in the face of AIDS and other STDs) is to parasitise on biological investements of others. Parents will generally have a natural, instinctive revulsion toward such recruitment/grooming attempts which are seek to to cut off the branch of their biological tree (equivalent in long term biological effects to someone angling to castrate/neuter their kids).

    In any case, I think the best strategy is that of a judo master — help them along by supporting their most extreme forces and goals. E.g. help bring typicall gay parades and kiss-ins to your town, in front of elementary schools, kindergardens, to boy scout festivals…

  6. magnetic01 says:

    Regardless of particular beliefs on the matter, there is one overriding fact of the last decade or so that Walt touched on a few threads ago: “But in general, it seems as though smokers and homosexuals have simply traded places on the social totem pole.”

    I can provide an example of a locale that was also considered in the comments of a few threads ago – Tasmania, Australia – that made it into the news recently due to bushfires. The Australian political “elite” (particularly Labor/Greens), much like those of the English-speaking West, views itself as “progressive”. Two of the major issues of the recent past are antismoking and pro-gay. In Tasmania, the circumstance is even more rabid/passionate. Tasmania is notorious for proposing the tobacco “endgame”; the political elite is rabidly antismoking. And it is for gay “rights”, including “marriage”, as much as it’s against smoking. There is the fast-tracking of antismoking measures and fast-tracking of pro-gay measures as if the future of the universe depended on both. The Tasmanian politicians (Labor/Greens) would be happy to rid Tasmania of smoking/smokers and, by legalizing gay marriage, develop tourism, making Tasmania a “mecca” for gays seeking “marriage”:
    http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2012/05/12/327411_todays-news.html
    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3573863.htm
    http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/14713075/gay-marriage-a-step-closer-in-tasmania/
    http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/14464606/gay-marriage-push/

    This seems to be a phenomenon in rabidly antismoking locales, e.g., California, New York. It’s not a simple case of “trading places on the social totem pole”, but the entire framework defining the social totem pole being turned around…… and getting close to an upside-down state.

  7. junican says:

    Weil and Michael are complicating things unnecessarily. This argument is not about gays uniting their affairs so as to be in the same position financially and in other ways as a man and a woman who ‘unite’ in marriage. It is about the meaning of the word ‘marriage’.
    It would be nonsensical to interchange the description of ‘males’ and ‘females’ indiscriminately, as would the idea of interchanging the meanings of the words ‘land’ and ‘sea’ indiscriminately.

    If the Government wants to allow two individuals to unite their lives for legal purposes, as though they were a married couple (male/female), it can do. But that does not mean that it can redefine the word ‘marriage’, any more than it can redefine the words ‘Sun’ or ‘Moon’.

    I do not see the problem. Why not invent another word for ‘civil partnerships’ which, as far as the State is concerned, incorporates any combination of individuals, whether or not it is twosomes, threesomes, or whatever? A good word to bastardise would be ‘WILL’ (as in ‘making a Will’). “Willers” would be people who have ‘willed’ together. I have no doubt that certain churches would be quite happy to bless the Union of any combination of ‘Willers’.

    But the stupidity of politicians never ceases to amaze me. It is a good job that these people do not run the country.

    • Wiel Maessen says:

      If both are a legal contract between two people, why not call it the same? It’s a matter of emancipation.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Wiel since one is for procreation and the other is basically a live in deal excpet maybe where lesbians are concerned as they can get preggers. The Civil Union idea is the best around. Now lets say 2 lesbians are together and one gets pregnant and the law is its a civil union until such times as it becomes a pro-creation marriage. Im looking at a compromise situation here. Anyway if the other Lesbian decides to be the other parent as in adoptive as it cant be natural they could maybe get a real marriage. As much as Im against it. But the definition of marriage should be maintained as pro-creation in contract in a hetero couple. Its not always the case though but it is 90% of the time. both sides of an issue must give some to come to an understanding where mutual respect of the other position is maintained. A smoking ban is a complete demand,no compromise in it……..

        Am I willing to compromise on smoking bans,maybe 6 years ago but never now. Why,because they made criminals out of us. We dont toss gays in jail for being gay or even for getting a civil Union where its legal and even then they dont go to jail.

        Maybe the gays want no compromise,but they want something they never had,marriage and the attack on it as an institution in religion slaps to them the same way smoking bans do to us…… Its going to lead to civil strife even more as the weight of cultural socialism comes down on folks. People wont give up and many wont take much more before it blows up. A compromise is the only solution to this problem if one can be had. Otherwise its another hit thats become to many. I fear the worse as these things build and build. Now Obamas after guns. That along with all the rest can set off rioting,killings and social unrest so deep the country here falls into civilwar…. Its why I say they have got to back off. People are on the abyss especially in america!

    • Frank Davis says:

      I entirely agree, Junican.

  8. jaxthefirst says:

    I’m sure it’s not the right attitude to take, but these days, having endured state-sanctioned prejudice for the last few decades without anyone from outside my particular minority group (and precious few within it – present company excepted, of course) uttering so much as a peep of protest in support of what by any standards was bare-faced prejudice from all quarters, when I hear of another group – any other group at all – squealing about how their rights are being threatened, and their freedom undermined and unfairnesses imminently about to strike unless “something is done” to protect them, my immediate reaction is: “Welcome to the world of the smoker, you bloody mugs. You supported the principle – don’t now start whinging because it’s being applied to you. Accept that that principle was wrong – regardless of the target group – stand up and say you’ve changed your minds (which, painfully, will include standing up for smokers), or put up and shut up. You may not make the connection, but YOU made this bed. Don’t now complain that you’ve got to share it with all those wicked smokers you so gleefully turned your back on a few short years ago.”

    Maybe if a few other minorities had shown some support – nay, understanding of – out situation pre- and post-ban, especially those who had endured similar themselves, I might just feel a bit more sympathetic. But being as it was the often ones who had suffered the worst prejudices in the past who were the first to jump on the bandwagon once it was “someone else’s turn,” I find I have little inclination to speak up on behalf of other groups who are now feeling (or think they are feeling) the squeeze. Because the chances of my support being reciprocated in any way at all, going by past experience, is absolutely zero. They can fight their own battles. Just like us.

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    My take on it,we need em as allies because they smoke and a lot! Smoking isnt a new right we just came out for today or yesterday its been here for 100s of years. Gay marriage is a new right the gays are pushing for a special right. I dont condone the lifestyle at all. But hey if they want to get married let em. Why should us heteros have all the fun in divorce court,alimony,palimony,private dicks going thru your dirty undies,waiting around to take pics with your estranged lover.Fighting, jealousy. and all the rest of the shit that goes with after 4 marriages Im there! Let em share the joy……………..I cant believe anybody would even want to get married when ya can just shack up and split when its freeking over!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Keeping gay marriage undefined would be protecting them is my take! But hey we are all going to get on subjects that divide us to an extent. We need to find what divides the nazis and do it to them not ourselves…….we have a goal anything else is but a detriment to achieving that goal. We can debate the other shit later………….

      • Nightlight says:

        The visible antismoking loudmouths are inconsequential puppets and fronts for the real antismoking forces driving the prohibitions and hypertaxation — the big pharma, general sickness industry (aka ‘health’ industry), ‘health’ bureaucracies, general government parasites (in pursuit of new tax sources). The division lines here are pretty blurry, especially those between bureacracies and industries they are nominally paid to monitor. While there is some competition between entities of the same kind (e.g. between pharmaceutical companies), the few big guys seem happy to divide the turf and share the monoply using the common government enforcers (FDA, CDC, WHO…) and mass media whores for keeping the public brainwashed.

        Hence, honest government and resulting genuine free market would help in splintering the antismoker parasites, but that seems a pipe dream (the scum always floats to top, however you stir it).

        Our real strengths are (a) in numbers, (b) many other enemies of the same parasites (natural health/supplemens groups, parents and families of kids damaged by vaccines, general public, especially the elderly, damaged and explotied by ‘sickness industry’…).

        Ultimately, it’s the truth that will win for our side. In the first step, awakening the smokers to the scam they are victims of, and after that creating alliances and coordinating with others battling the same parasite on other fronts.

  10. margo says:

    Surely, however we define ‘marriage’ (and, historically, I believe its main purpose was to ensure that property was passed down through the male blood line?) a church is entitled to its own definition: those who don’t accept it shouldn’t try to get married there. Gays who want ‘the blessing of God’ (which is all ‘marriage’ will give them that civil partnerships won’t, isn’t it?) must find a church that is happy to give them that ‘blessing’. There are other people who’d find it hard to get married in a Catholic church, too – such as divorced people and people who have never before set foot in the church. Ditto for them, too.
    It isn’t up to Cameron or anyone to force change on a church. It’s not his business. Any gay person who wants to get married in a Catholic church should fight that out with the church (just as I’d have to if I wanted to – God forbid.)
    The other point here is about minorities. Gay people have campaigned systematically over years for equal rights with heterosexuals in every area of life. I think this is just the last bastion in that process.

  11. melinoerealm says:

    There is another dimension to that. A belief in “overpopulation” (WHO is promoting that and it is about as accurate, as global warming…), therefore one of the methods to curb it is to promote …homosexuality. Yeap, they’re that smart…

    Anyway, the problem with giving gay couples marriage rights is that basically, they get adoption rights. ONLY not under the same reasons as heterosexual couples (oh no, the ‘equality’, is conveniently dumped here). You see, a heterosexual couple seeks to adopt, when there is a serious infertility problem. These have increased the last decades, due to various reasons, and that’s why Jack Straw (from Labour) back in the end of 90′s gave financial incentives to social services to feed the adoption market with more babies, cause they weren’t enough. So, that’s how today we have arrived in the grave problem of child kidnappings under various pretexts and in the destruction of countless parents and families.

    So, gay “marriage”, will make the problem even worse. Because although the ‘gay rights’ nonsense is served under the mask of ‘equality’, gays are given children to adopt although they are PERFECTLY FERTILE! And these children don’t grow on trees… many of them have been kidnapped with legalistic -but basically, illegal- means and are the product of crime.

    If gays want “marriage” to be like everyone else, they should also make their own children. How this is done, I believe it’s well known. Gays shouldn’t be allowed to adopt simply because they’re gay. They should have proper reasons, like everyone else: infertility! And to stop demanding to steal other people’s children. Babies offered for adoption are much less, in comparison with the infertile couples who seek to adopt. Why perfectly fertile people should increase the baby demand? And contribute therefore to the increase of the crime of child kidnapping?

    That’s my reason, for opposing gay “marriage”. If gay couples understand responsibility, understand that babies don’t grow on trees, understand that “marriage” doesn’t give them the right to steal other people’s children, and have their own children, like everyone then I won’t oppose them in the future.

  12. timbone says:

    Changing the meaning of a word can at best be tedious, at worst, alarming. The gay and lesbian community have already changed the meaning of the second word of this sentence, gay, which can be very tedious, sometimes embarassing, and even at times annoying. As for marriage. Gays and lesbians already get married, it is called a civil partnership. I have friends who are gay and lesbain, in both cases they often refer to their spouse as husband or wife. This does not bother me at all, why should it? What does bother me is changing the meaning of the word marriage. I married my second wife in a registry office, and I would have no problem if my marriage certificate was replaced with a civil partnership certicicate. That would however be unnecessary. The word marriage has a meaning, which includes physical union and procreation. Why change the meaning of a word.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Because in the new ”ENLIGHTENMENT” of the ”NEW PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT” all things must change………….Its basically Political Correctness on steroids. They want to destroy the old to create a glass menagerie they call progress built upon second hand smoke science,obesity science,eugenics, socialism and the like. We will adhere or its off the the Gulag for you who dont accept the new order! We are fighting a system of change not just smoking bans.

  13. garyk30 says:

    Have any of you folks actually read the Bible?

    The Bible says that it is an ‘abomination’ for a man to lie with a man as he would with a woman.

    Any religion that follows the teachings of the Bible(old testament), must be against homosexuality.

    That would include ‘gay marriage’ as being a part of homosexuality.
    (Note: there is never going to be a discussion of gay-marriage in Islamic countries. No one there wants to admit, publically, to being ‘Gay”.)

    I do not feel that our masters are dismantling our cultures.
    I feel that they are delibrately building/changing/re-vamping our cultures to fit their ideas of a ‘perfect world’.

    The problem being, how and why they are forming those ideas.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Step by step,incremental change with a few fastballs of change. The use the power of religion state controlled to enforce your mandates thru the belief system of god almighty!

  14. jay says:

    Like Frank, I too have to wonder why Government is even considering this issue. Those who contract a Civil Partnership enjoy the same legal status as those who contract a Marriage – there is no increased benefit to same-sex couples contracting Marriage. It seems to me that either Cameron doesn’t realise that he’s being used by those who wish to dismantle the values of our culture or that, in a naive determination to be ‘progressive’, he is ignoring the, I think, pertinent warnings of unintended consequences.

  15. harleyrider1978 says:

    But its a system of change that was tried 100 years ago and their back again. It failed miserably last time but much of it is still here today and its weaknesses are showing,the FEDERAL RESERVE,social security another ponzi scheme among others,running 100 billion dollar shortfalls the last 4 years running.. The last Progressives reshaped Educational systems creating mandantory public schools where government dogma is taught as the rule rather than the 3 Rs.

    They took all the run about medical schools and combined them into todays univesity systems. Within those new systems they created todays so called specialists in any and all scientific endeavor. That creation alone set them into creating todays junk sciences each aiding the other into its new social movements. When the reformers run the schools,colleges and the legal system as they also created the Law Schools too. The judges rubber stamp and accept their science as the standard and deny any opposing views……….Yet we find they have no proof in their so called science,so the standard bearer of epidemiology is used to force the mandates of these progressives today and they have a 100 year head start on us………….What destroys them,simply
    HUMAN NATURE!

  16. harleyrider1978 says:

    Human Nature isnt that a deep subject. The herd,the individual,the leaders and the followers.
    Its quite precise to say we fighting the bans are the Rebels and not the followers. We lead to fight an injustice against a billion souls worldwide and new smokers everyday. The herd follows orders or dictates from the leader ie governemnt. The herd doesnt think,it simply follows. But the herd is made up of Individuals and in those individuals is a natural substance called independence and freedom. The leaders of the herd can dictate so much until the herd itself suddenly says enuf already and the herd turns into a wild rampaging stampede as in the number of smokers is increasing worldwide. Thats a herd development on a grand scale,its the herd combining against the leader. We the underground have fed truth to the herd and they are at last listening and Franks blog hits and others shoot up and up as the herd wants to devour the truth. As the leader of the herd dictates more and more against the herds viable independence of self and attacks the herd by sub-groups,the herd combines against what is now a threat to all………….then we get 1933 again a complete repeal!

    • Nightlight says:

      Yep, these waves of utopianism and puritanism, drowning us now, wash off after a little while. Most of us will live to see TV anchors and talk show hosts sharing a cigarette with their guests on the air, a doc offering you a cigarette during a visit in his office, a teacher lighting up a pipe while students are busily working through the test, the NASA mission control with everyone furiously smoking throughout the Mars landing excitment,…

  17. harleyrider1978 says:

    Here’s an article from 1998 addressing the increase in smoking restrictions. The concern of smokers was that the UK was heading for a complete ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants. Enter Clive Bates of ASH at the time with the standard “of course not….. how absurd…. that’s just tobacco industry scaremongering”.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/167762.stm

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Blanket bans have already proved unsuccessful in Littlewoods shops and Bass-owned Toby restaurants. Both had to rethink their smoking strategies.

      Fair Cigarette Tax Campaign co-ordinator Eddie Cassidy said smokers should not passively accept the imposition of bans.

      He said Britain’s 15m smokers made a huge contribution to the national economy.

      Second class citizens

      He said: “We spend around £150bn a year on consumer goods and services, and we are increasingly treated as second class citizens.

      “This is why we are encouraging smokers to fight back against what we see as unreasonable restrictions.

      “Our survey shows that smoking bans will make smokers go elsewhere to spend their money. This will be bad news for the pubs, restaurants, and shopping centres concerned, and it could mean lost jobs.”

      Mr Cassidy said the group had written to 550 MPs to complain about intolerant smoking policies.

      He said: “We want them to look at the rights of the smoker as well as the rights of non-smokers. All we are asking is that rooms are set aside for smokers.”

      The Fair Cigarette Tax Campaign, which was set up to find out what the adult smoker felt about the high level of cigarette tax, has also produced a smoker’s crib-card.

      The card, called Help for Smokers on the Spot, enables them to counter generalisations from non-smokers, and highlights the power of the smoker’s pound.

      The survey of 1,001 adult smokers was carried out by NOP.

      Scaremongering

      Clive Bates, director of anti-smoking group ASH, said: “This is a scaremongering story by a tobacco industry front group.

      “No-one is seriously talking about a complete ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants.

      “What they should have asked is whether separate smoking and non-smoking areas should be set up in pubs and restaurants.

      “We reckon that would have strong support from both smokers and non-smokers.”

  18. Zaphod says:

    Marriage is not a way of producing children. Children will appear in sufficient numbers, with or without it.
    The actual historical purpose of marriage, whatever you think it was or should be, is gone.
    I think that practical marriage predates both the State and the Church using it to impose control.

    I believe that the State should not actively prevent gay marriage.
    Neither should the State force any Church to embrace it.

    Gays have had a truly lousy deal throughout history. Can we stop carelessly insulting them?

  19. garyk30 says:

    Why do we,as a society, even need to have Church sanctioned stuff called marriages?

    It would seem to me that restrictions against sex were a Biblical thing.
    That applied to sex of all manner and partners.

    Church sanctioned sex was the only way to avoid the Biblical God’s wrath, as stated by the priests.
    Church sanctioned sex was called ‘marriage’ and sex within marriage was the only sex allowed by God, or so claimed the priests.

    Nowadays; because of the complexities of economics, we need state sanctioned unions to protect the weak from the strong and to allow the state to tax and control everyone.

    For most of the long history of mankind, there was no organised religion and no concept of ‘marriage’ or ‘civil union’ as is known today.

    It took organised religion to make sex bad and regulated.

    Funny how the state must recognise church marriage; but,a marrige by the state(civil union), may have no validity in a church or improve your chances of not going to Hell or where-ever bad people go.

    Are there any Greek scholars here?
    If so, when the Gods on Mt. Olympas married, who performed the ceremony?

    When they got un-married, who sanctioned the divorce?

    Thru civil unions, gays or whatever, have legality.
    It would seem that they want to use the term ‘marriage’ to acquire the appearance of ‘normality’ in sociaties where they are not normal.
    Normal being, part of the ‘norm’.

    Smokers are not the new ‘gays’;tho, they should be considered the new ‘coloreds’.

    There have never been heterosexual only bars, restaurants, or workplaces.

    If the youth is of a certain age, an adult male can,legally, bugger him; but, give him a cigarette afterwards, that is illegal.

  20. nisakiman says:

    “I believe that the State should not actively prevent gay marriage.
    Neither should the State force any Church to embrace it.”

    That.

    What rules of membership the church chooses to impose is up to them.

    All that is incumbent on the government is to ensure even-handedness from the state. Unfortunately, as we smokers know, equality in the eyes of the state is a moveable feast.

  21. beobrigitte says:

    Very interesting post (and replies)! Just spent a little time to think about the meaning of marriage.

    Quite frankly, what surprises me is the view that “marriage” is sacrosanct; a man and a woman make a legal commitment to each other. At the same time nobody bats an eye lid when a husband or wife stray, clearly not taking this commitment seriously.
    I guess this also applies to homosexual people once their marriages become legal.

    I just hate when I see people using double standards: either you are FOR freedom, or you aren’t.

    Being for freedom requires total honesty. I have encountered some men who apply ever double standard under the sun and every excuse possible when it comes to getting what they want. They are not exactly people who respect others and their wishes.

    Which kind of freedom is meant?

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s