Three dubious moral judgments

One: the coming of the Lord

You know how it’s been raining recently? Do you know why? It’s because God hates the gays. It is. The Bishop of Carlisle says so:

“The sexual orientation regulations [which give greater rights to gays] are part of a general scene of permissiveness. We are in a situation where we are liable for God’s judgment, which is intended to call us to repentance.”

He expressed his sympathy for those who have been hit by the weather, but said that the problem with “environmental judgment is that it is indiscriminate”.

How broken does your brain have to be to believe this drivel? I could write plenty more, but Ophelia is better than me:

Funny god these bishops believe in. Arbitrary, whimsical, cryptic, absent-minded, brutal, sloppy, and stupidly vicious. We’d better hope it doesn’t exist. Oblivion is vastly preferable to being bossed around by a petty shit like that for eternity. Funny that the bishops seem to find it attractive. (But not really funny at all of course, since it’s merely a projection of their own petty shitness.)

Perfectly put. The Archbishop of Canterbury has of course been quick to disassociate himself from the remarks and to emphasise the inclusive nature of…oh, wait, never mind.

Two: it’s icky and I don’t like it

A mother has frozen some of her eggs for potential use by her daughter, who has a medical condition that will render her infertile. This is apparently ethically dubious because of ‘identity problems’:

Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, expressed sympathy with the family, but could not support storing the mother’s eggs.

She said: “The psychological welfare of the baby itself has to be the principal concern.

“Such a baby would be a sibling of the birth mother at the same time as the direct genetic offspring of the grandmother donor.

“In psychiatry we are hearing more and more of children suffering from identity problems, and specifically a condition called ‘genealogical bewilderment’. Could it possibly get more bewildering than this?

Fertilise with the grandfather’s sperm? It’s not really that complicated. Just because the child wouldn’t quite fit with either of the usual definitions of ‘child’ or ‘sibling’ doesn’t mean anything – it’s just something new. I’d want to see strong evidence of psychological problems before denying anyone the chance of happiness through having children, if that’s what they want. As it happens, ‘genealogical bewilderment’ was posited as a possible problem with adoption, but doesn’t appear to exist. It’s tempting to suggest that critics are just scared of things they don’t know how to classify, but who knows.

Three: the EU is a porn merchant!

The EU created a channel on YouTube. The most watched video is ‘Film Lovers Will Love This!‘. There’s a bit of a fuss as it shows:

men and women having sex in different ways and places, and ends with the words, “Let’s come together”.

I’m always happy to suffer for my website, so I watched it. It’s mostly clips from Am√©lie. It’s cut very quickly, there’s no nudity, and it’s pretty funny – I thought it was actually a decent advert. Conservative MEP Chris Heaton-Harris does not:

They do have an image problem but I think cobbling together 44 seconds of soft porn on the internet is not a brilliant way of solving it

Dude, that is to soft-core porn as a monkey is to Jeremy Paxman. Take a look at the top-shelf of the nearest newsagent, and get a grip. Wait, that sounded wrong, although it might actually help. Meanwhile, Labour MEP Gary Titley (stop it) said:

European films are about more than a quick slap and a tickle. It is bonkers that this clip gets so much attention.

I like this. I picture the two MEPs cornered by a reporter, trying to think how they should respond. The Labour MEP pretends not to understand why a video vaguely showing people having sex is popular. The Conservative MEP pretends he thinks it’s disgusting. Over to people who will at least say what they really think:

A Polish MEP from the conservative League of Polish Families has accused the commission of using “immoral methods” to promote itself.

Is all sex now immoral? Somebody should tell them everything’s fine in this case: all the actors were married.

European Commission spokesman Martin Selmayr said there had been a flood of complaints from Poland about an intimate scene between two men

It’s the gays again. Not content with making it rain, they’re now trying to…er…promote the EU. Infamy! What does Martin Selmayr have to say about it?

Fuming at what he called “quasi-religious bashing of the very important cultural diversity we have in the European Union”, he said the lovemaking clips were excerpts from award-winning films, and that the commission was proud of the EU’s rich cinematic heritage.

“The European Union is not a bible belt, we believe in freedom of expression and artistic creativity,” he added.

Go Martin Selmayr! Let’s not mince words, it’s not ‘quasi-religious bashing’, it’s just religious bashing. Find me all the atheist ‘family values’ groups, and I’ll change my mind.

It’s a good job I’m beyond moral reproach, isn’t it?