Different sex bigamy now!

Please sign the petition now!

Please sign the petition now!

For them to attain marriage equality with the rest of us, people who identify as bisexual, must immediately be allowed to practise “different sex bigamy”.   The governments of the world (if indeed they still be plural) must all immediately allow each self-identified “bisexual” person to marry two spouses, one a husband, the other a wife.

If the state must allow different sex bigamy for self-identified bisexual people, they may not deny it to anybody.  Nor may they deny others same sex bigamy, if that is what they want.

In the USA, all this is apparently attainable without any legislation.  The Supreme Court can simply rule that different sex bigamy is a Constitutional right, by correctly interpreting the US Constitution.  Apparently all that is needed is for a self-identified “bisexual” would-be bigamist to bring a well-crafted test case, at which my own simple argument set out in the previous paragraphs could be advanced.

Can anybody fault the logic of my legal argument for the right to different sex bigamy, using a counter-argument that does not equally refute the right to same sex marriage, which in the present climate would amount to a reductio ad absurdam refutation of his purported counter-argument?

No?  Then please remember in years to come, who was the first to demand the right to different sex bigamy.  I suspect that it shall have been I.

My idea today is surely an idea whose time shall come.  Isn’t it?

Please sign the petition

Leave a comment

Filed under Family Rights, Homophobic, Human Rights, Law, Persecution of Minorities, Satire and humour

U.S. begs God for severe hell

Stephen Fry once observed that the name of the British politician Virginia Bottomley was an anagram of “I’m an evil Tory bigot”. Fry went on to claim (tongue-in-cheek) that this comical coincidence amounted proof of the existence of God.  I continue this blog’s long and noble tradition of what I like to call “humorphobia”, by reminding readers that the title of the recent case in the Supreme Court of the United States that imposed same sex marriage throughout the entire U.S.A. was Obergefell v. Hodges.

I have noticed that “Obergefell versus Hodges” just happens to be an anagram of the title of this blog post: “U.S. begs God for severe hell“.

Need I say more?

Leave a comment

Filed under Homophobic, Satire and humour

Islam satanic?

A pastor from Northern Ireland is to be prosecuted after describing Islam as “satanic” …

(The pastor’s name is James McConnell.  Please read a report of the prosecution here.)



The secular courts have no business making findings of fact that Islam is, or isn’t, “satanic”. If Islam were to be satanic, it would be the alleged offender’s duty to warn the public of this. Even if this was not his duty, or Islam was not satanic (a finding of fact that a secular court has no business making), the accused would merely be exercising his right of free speech.

This oppressive prosecution could be defeated using this entirely secular argument, which is (in the proper sense of the word) a *secularist* argument.

Instead, I predict that the Christian Institute or the Christian Legal Centre will muscle in on this act because the victim is a Christian, and that the National Secular Society won’t lift a finger to help the victim because it isn’t run by true secularists, but by militant missionaries of atheism for whose deep hatred of Christianity their nominal secularism is merely a camouflage.

The winning secular argument will not be presented by the lawyers for the defence.

Instead, they will present a flawed argument.  They will not argue properly that the accused’s secular Convention rights are being infringed – rights that Christians, Atheists and Moslems alike need to have protected.  Rather, they will argue that there is some non-existent privilege that only Christians have.  They will argue that it infringes “religious” rights to have this privilege limited.  Even if they do not argue like this, the media will report falsely that they did, or, at very least, commentators on reportage of the court case will insinuate this.

The self-appointed spokesmen of “secularism”, who should be defending the accused, will instead rejoice that a Christian is being oppressed by the state for criticising Islam, rather than lamenting (as they should, if they were truly secularist, rather than anti-Christian activists masquerading as secularists) that the state is oppressing anybody at all who has merely criticised a religion that the state unjustly privileges.

That is the sorry story that I predict will now unfold, like a Greek tragedy.

Oh well, at least a man who publicly denounces Islam as “satanic” isn’t yet being prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act … at least so far as we have been allowed to discover.

I look forward to the next prosecution in the series, when the National Secular Society itself complains that a preacher somewhere has offended against the Malicious Communications Act, by denouncing atheism as satanic, and the one after that, when a Christian complains that somebody from the National Secular Society itself has said something unkind about Christianity.   Eventually, somebody is going to get prosecuted for saying that Satanism is satanic, you mark my words!

Related posts

Nice curry, shame about the hate

Burning the poppy


Filed under Gospel, Human Rights, Islam, Law, Persecution of Minorities

# What a difference a Gay makes!

James Rhodes’ love song to Stephen Fry

Why did the mass  media almost always mention Stephen Fry, in reports of James Rhodes victory in the Supreme Court?  The victory clearing the way for the publication of his book Instrumental, which documents the homosexual abuse of James Rhodes during his childhood?

Was Fry’s intervention really necessary, in order for the public to tolerate Rhodes telling the truth about what happened to him? Will every other survivor of underage homosexual abuse henceforth need the sponsorship of a gay celebrity, to establish his credentials as not-in-the-least homophobic, before he’s allowed to write publicly about his ordeal?  You’d think so, judging by this precedent!


What a difference a gay makes!
Plenty for little cowards
Bought The Sun and the powers
Where I used to be blamed

I guessed a gay would do, dear
A ham.  In part.  On cue.  Queer.
My copyright got through, dear!
“Sins?”, you said.   You were fine.

What a difference a gay makes!
They’re zee Rainbow und zhey’re for me!
Guys whose ” lovin’ ” once tore me –
But that moment in court!  My book’s not a tort!

It’s heavy when you … find homos are agains’ you
What a difference a gay made!
(And how distant from true.)

(c) copyright John Allman MMXV

Lyrics of “What a difference a day makes”

Je suis James


Filed under Homophobic, Punning blog post titles, Satire and humour, Songs and poems

Parental alienation made simple



It is hard to imagine that social workers from Cafass and councils up and down the land do not realise what they are doing, every time they are faced with one implacably hostile parent, and another parent who has no hostility to the other parent.  Yet, time and time again, I am hearing that social workers choose to empower overbearing child abusers to become the sole parent a child is allowed to see and to love, and to write the other parent out of a child’s life completely.  They do this as an almost routine administrative decision.

The Hampstead Witch Hunt – parental alienation taken to extremes

Does someone you love hate you?


Filed under Children's Rights, Family Rights

An eye for an eye and a cake for a cake

Why Tesco should resist pressure to discriminate against Asher’s bakery


The old maxim, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, was intended to restrain the lust of the outraged for vengeance, in order to prevent an escalation of conflict.

Earlier today, 719 people had signed a petition at Change.org, urging Tesco to punish Asher’s Baking Co Ltd, for having discriminated against a Mr Gareth Lee (whose occupation is said to be being activistly homosexual), in the matter of the decoration of a certain cake.

One cake.

One of a growing number of what the media have taken to calling “gay cakes”, mind you, so many of these “gay cake” staged court cases have there been, the world over.

Not only does the “support gay marriage” political lobby represent a belief that appears to pass the Maistry test nowadays, it also seems to pass the “pastry test”.  It is good for earning a few bob of pocket money, provided a gay activist like Mr Lee can still find a baker somewhere in the world who is opposed to same sex marriage and who hasn’t yet wised up to this particular hackneyed method of ambush, so repetitiously deployed in today’s culture warfare.

AshersThe 719 petitioners implored Tesco to retaliate, by doing a bit of discrimination of its own, against Asher’s.  Forever, if they had their way, I dare say.  By not buying from Asher’s any of the thousands of cakes or other products that Tesco might otherwise continue to buy from Asher’s, if it didn’t start a bit of discrimination of its own.  Not “a cake for a cake” proportionate vengeance.  Every single potential future cake order not to be placed with Asher’s, as a punishment for Asher’s not having sold one particularly controversial cake, on one particular occasion!

Fortunately, shortly after the “all future cakes for one cake” nuclear-scale vengeance petition was started, what I call a “don’t be silly, Tesco” petition was started, appealing for calm and business as usual, not the escalation of the discrimination wars the other petition was urging.  Fortunately, in the time the earlier petition had gathered 719 signatures, the counter-petition had gathered 5,516 signatures.  When I signed it, I gave my reason that I would find it inconvenient to stop shopping at Tesco.  The truth is, I probably won’t boycott Tesco, even if Tesco does heed the 719, and ignores the 5,516.  I’ll probably just feel guilty about not boycotting Tesco, and wear a hoody, and visit Tesco at night, hoping nobody recognises me, rendering unto Tesco, the things that are Tesco’s, since it is the only shop in town that is still open at midnight.

1 Comment

Filed under General chit-chat, Law, Persecution of Minorities, Punning blog post titles, Righteousness, Satire and humour

Je suis James.

John Allman:

Pianist finally allowed to tell his story of sexual abuse

In the experience of Gagged Dad and others, those who testify to having engaged in homosexual behaviours during childhood or adolescence, but not in their maturity, are one of the most vehemently hated minorities in society today, not former victims whose testimony of abuse that they have survived other people want to hear.

Vitriolic verbal abuse is typically heaped (even some on this blog) upon those who out themselves as “ex-gay” as Gagged Dad and James Rhodes have done, even when (as for both men) their gay years came to an end before they reached adulthood, and in any case were inflicted upon them by older people of the same sex, who perhaps went on to chose a gay (and perhaps ongoing child-abusive) way of life permanently for themselves.

Survivors of homosexual abuse during childhood and adolescence aren’t even allowed to publish their testimonies of abuse they “got over” on the sides of London buses, on an equal basis with those who remained in homosexuality.  Many people HATE former victims of underage homosexual abuse who speak out, accusing them of “hate speech”, because they out themselves as survivors of underage sodomy, as James Rhodes and Gagged Dad have done.

Any ex-gay survivor who goes public can expect a lot of hate mail, if Gagged Dad’s experience is anything to go by.  James Rhodes should expect to be shouted down, by strangers who wish to insist that James should tell his story, using politically correct language of which they approve, in order to document what he endured, and has survived.

Readers who appreciate this post may also appreciate:

Transoriented erasure

Homophobia – the hitherto elusive “gay cure”

The homophobic manifesto

What’s in a name?  There’s LOTS in a name!

B*ggers CAN be choosers!

Why foster carers, but not natural parents?

Two year-old’s contact stopped with “homophobic” dad

Please follow me New-Twitter-Bird-Logoon Twitter – and please follow this blog too.

Originally posted on UK Human Rights Blog:

Guardian: James Rhodes and friends including Benedict Cumberbatch outside Court Guardian: James Rhodes and friends including Benedict Cumberbatch outside Court

James Rhodes v OPO (by his Litigation Friend BHM) and another, [2015] UKSC 32

The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in an appeal by the celebrated concert pianist, James Rhodes. You can read the judgment here and watch Lord Toulson’s summary here.

The case considered whether Mr Rhodes could be prevented from publishing his memoir on the basis that to do so would constitute the tort of intentionally causing harm. Those acting on behalf of Mr Rhodes’ son were particularly concerned about the effect upon him of learning of details of his father’s sexual abuse as a child.

View original 1,273 more words


Filed under Children's Rights, Homophobic, Human Rights, Law, Persecution of Minorities, Reblogged