Jag82 Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 What do you mean? You are unaware that the Church of England is inseperable from the State? The Monarch, Head of State is Dei Gratia Regina Fidei Defensor. The Act of Supremacy established the Church of England an integral part of the State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 You are unaware that the Church of England is inseperable from the State? The Monarch, Head of State is Dei Gratia Regina Fidei Defensor. The Act of Supremacy established the Church of England an integral part of the State. How is this relevant to my post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 You are unaware that the Church of England is inseperable from the State? The Monarch, Head of State is Dei Gratia Regina Fidei Defensor. The Act of Supremacy established the Church of England an integral part of the State. Actually, the Queen would be "Fidei Defensatrix" as she is female. and you are obviously unaware the the title of "Fidei Defensor" was originally only allocated by the then-Pope to King Henry VIII, for writing "Defence of the Seven Sacraments". His title does not actually give the Queen the title "Fidei Defensatrix", as that would be like Enid Blyton's daughter being called an Author because her mother was an Author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Actually, the Queen would be "Fidei Defensatrix" as she is female. and you are obviously unaware the the title of "Fidei Defensor" was originally only allocated by the then-Pope to King Henry VIII, for writing "Defence of the Seven Sacraments". His title does not actually give the Queen the title "Fidei Defensatrix", as that would be like Enid Blyton's daughter being called an Author because her mother was an Author. Wikipedia In her capacity as queen of the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II is styled, "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 You're also contradicting the pound coins I have in my pocket. Plus this thread is about the gays. I was learning loads until it railroaded by godbotherers and ardent atheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jag82 Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 Actually, the Queen would be "Fidei Defensatrix" as she is female. and you are obviously unaware the the title of "Fidei Defensor" was originally only allocated by the then-Pope to King Henry VIII, for writing "Defence of the Seven Sacraments". His title does not actually give the Queen the title "Fidei Defensatrix", as that would be like Enid Blyton's daughter being called an Author because her mother was an Author. I have considered what you have to say, weighed it in the balance, considered the pros and cons and determined that you are WRONG. Royal Arms, Styles and Titles Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor You assumed, incorrectly, that I was unaware of the source of the original title. The Act of Supremacy made the title hereditary. Your allusion to Enid Blyton is apposite, It is probably a bit late in the day to expand your reading now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 about (Jag86's comment on) homosexuality... How do you define abnormal? Statistically it's normal (depending on how you ask the question levels of homosexual attraction are between about 5 and 20 percent) and is widespread behaviour in nature which by most standards would put it into the normal bin. About being "cured" of heterosexuality... That's rather a straw man argument. For whatever reason you care to postulate heterosexuality is considered the norm and many will want to be "normal". More realistically you could ask if someone was unhappy with their homosexuality and a therapist believed they could convert them to heterosexuality and were asked for that service is their any reason that they shouldn't supply it? So which one is normal? If it is both, then my post wasn't a straw man argument and the two comparisons were like for like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 The shocking bit is that the person he found was a qualified psychologist. That's equivalent to finding a cancer doctor who recommends homeopathic treatments. Where did you get that 'Fact' from? The article says the person was a psychotherapist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Where did you get that 'Fact' from? The article says the person was a psychotherapist. evildrneil already picked me up on that in post 45. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.