Gay Pride?

The demands of the 'gay pressure' groups has long since left the bedroom behind .... when homosexuality was made legal, or perhaps more truthfully, decriminalised by the passing of the Sexual Offences Act in 1967, many hoped that homosexuals would be happy with having the equality of what went on in their bedrooms, being treated the same as for everyone else. But that has not proved the case, and their ever shriller demands for 'equality' have grown louder over the subsequent decades.

They have considered themselves both a 'persecuted minority' one one hand, and a 'significant percentage' of the male population on the other, and have projected both images in about equal measure for the last 30 years ..... on the first, they are wrong about being persecuted, on the latter they are wrong about being a significant percentage of the male population. The only true test on the numbers of homosexual men was carried out by the NHS in the UK (Over concerns over blood donor supplies), and this showed that the numbers of homosexual (or bisexual men) at around 3-4% of the UK population.

Despite this, they have pressed for ever more recognition in spheres far outwith their one area of alleged difference i.e. sexual behaviour, and have been given further 'rights' .... but they were not content with the civil authorities recognition of their relationships in law, via 'Civil Partnerships', but further insisted, and were granted, that they be recognised as 'married', in some weird parody of the religious recognition that so many of the activists seem to want. To the first of those aspirations they have now got civil marriages, and as to the latter wish they are well on their way to subverting the Church of England, and even the last Pope complained of a 'Gay Lobby' inside the highest echelons of the Catholic Church.

So where will this all end? Well the pressured 'sacking', or 'enforced resignation', or ... well call it what you will, removal of Mr Brendan Eich, the chief executive and co-founder of Mozilla, is a new low, but probably the benchmark for the next round of 'gay fascism', whereby everyone who has ever opposed the 'gay rights' movement, even only as a private individual 'gets there comeuppance'. No doubt there will be various trials by social media juries, whereby the accused will be found guilty of 'thought crimes', and hounded out of their jobs ..... McCarthyism applied by civil actors.

It's actually ironic that a self-proclaimed 'minority', who believe that they have long been 'persecuted' for holding unpopular views, can now turn around and persecute others for the exact same reason ... and apparently feel no shame for their hypocrisy. Its raised a lot of counter anger in the US, although not in the UK that I have seen. Posters referring to the 'Gaystapo' are now on many right-wing US sites

By the way, for the benefit of those who don't follow US, or gay politics, Mr Eich's 'crime' was that he voiced a personal opinion, through a donation to a legally placed ballot initiative in California, and whose various political pronouncements he did not fashion .... this opinion was one that the 'gay' community didn't agree with, and in particular a fascist element within that community, who insist that all people's opinions conform to their view, and mercilessly bully and intimidate those whose don't.

The Campaign Against Mr Eich Was Short, But Savage.

In any free society, Mr. Eich would be perfectly entitled to his own opinions, and should be free to express them as long as they don't incite violence, but as we are increasingly aware we are no longer in a free society. There are groups about whom we are no longer allowed to say anything negative, and in expressing contrary views (even discreetly) we risk being vilified by a mob.

In effect we have now reached the point where we have ask, 'Is it now ok to discriminate against someone at work for their personal views?' ..... well after seeing Brendan Eich 'resign' after less than a month on the job, because of the pressure of orchestrated boycott campaigns, we have to answer that it apparently is.

Those full-time gay-rights professionals in the US and UK, will apparently not rest until a homogeneous and stultifying monoculture is settled upon the lands, and in that aim they are joined by the legions in the PC and race Multiculturalism industry's in the same countries .... and if that means unleashing ignorant social media lynch mobs, to pronounce anathema upon any individuals such as a California technology executive, for their private views, acted on in their private lives, then so be it.

Its interesting to note that consensual homosexual acts between adults are still illegal in about 70 out of the 195 countries of the world (approximately 36% of the worlds countries); And with homosexuals being jailed again in Egypt, you would think that the lesbian and gay lobbies would concentrate on those issues (possibly with the Women's Lib activists who face the same foe in many parts of the world, and with much the same inaction), and not on suppressing free speech or thought in countries where they have more than met their demands.

We have ended up walking down a very thorny path, one which probably wasn't envisaged when the decision to decriminalise homosexuality was passed by politicians in the UK (and was followed by similar acts in other western countries) .... unexpected consequences are the bane of politicians.

When 'minority rights' overrule majority wishes, you have damaged your democracy, and are on the hard road to totalitarianism.

Party Politics and Opaque Transparency

Today the British Parliament enacted a bit of legislation on allowing Homosexuals and Lesbians to marry, a political commitment that none of the political parties bothered to include in their party manifesto's, and therefore which has no moral legitimacy.

Why they chose to do these things, while claiming that we are a democratic society, is beyond me. But Daniel Webster provides a good quote “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters”

Its little wonder that they are frequently shown to be self serving hypocrites, who are happy to try and subvert the course of justice, and lie to the public and the police ..... see Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitken, Elliot Morley, Margaret Moran,  Chris Huhne, and Sundry Others of All Parties.

So once again, all six hundred and fifty of them, have chosen to act on their own, and just the change the social fabric of the UK once again ..... now we will hear the sound of "Do you Brian take Terry as your Husband, and do you Terry take Brian as your Husband" or will that be 'wife', and the BBC will have a million and one TV shows on the theme  ...... Actually I have no idea if they want to parody the current heterosexual marriage service, or if they intend to have a whole new service .... still that's the world we now live in.

Husband and Husband

Of course I understand about Civil Rights, Equality etc, and I have no argument against those principles, or that if we had waited for the popular vote against slavery, or segregation, or women's rights some or all of these things may never have occurred.

But my complaint is that politicians and political parties should practise the 'transparency' they all preach, and not wait until mid parliament to vote through laws that none of them were prepared to stand for at the election.

This has same odour of the 'mass immigration' non debate that the UK has not had ...... you know the one, the one in which the political parties either proposed or objected to the social change in the UK caused by immigration from Africa, and the Asian Sub Continent which has so radically altered the UK that I don't recognise the land I was born into .....

It's A Gay Old Life

A Catholic Bishop, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, has set the PC Brigade into overdrive by his suggestion that plans allowing homosexuals to be classed as 'married' was a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right", and would "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world". 

 

He has joined other church clergy, such as the Anglican Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, who in January insisted governments did not have the moral authority to 'redefine marriage'. Interestingly the word 'Gay' was also defined differently, until the homosexual lobby forced it into another usage ..... so the fact that 'Gay' people are 'Unhappy' about the Bishops comments strikes no one as faintly ludicrous.

In the interests of clarity, I should point out that the proposed change is not to religious marriages and is not to be imposed on religious groups. Its just a change to call what is now called 'Civil Partnership' to be classed as 'marriage'. Sadly for the Bishop, the Catholic churches moral standing has been much dissipated by cover ups associated with the child abuse scandals of the last decade, so he is hiding behind a very small moral fig-leaf when he starts arguing against 'gay marriages'.

My interest in this is that in opening up the debate like this, the Bishop has raised some interesting questions, not least of which is do the government have the right to redefine marriage without asking everyone? For several thousand years (in both pre and post Christian times), marriage has been defined pretty much as the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. No society before has ever permitted the definition to apply to same sex partners.

All the evidence shows that when governments start to tamper with the common rules that have bound societies together for millennia, then it has unforeseen consequences .... unmarried pregnancy was frowned upon before the law changes of the 1960's, and now we have 44.4 per cent of live births outside of marriage. We also have very high single parent rates (especially amongst teen girls) .... society is paying a very high price in terms of crime, civil disorder and a low level permanent degradation of values for that bit of social engineering.

Once the homosexual lobby could argue that it was them who were being discriminated against in the West, but increasingly its now the gay activist wing of the PC brigade who are practising legal discrimination and harassment, against anyone who stands against them. Its now the gay activist lobby who is usually the first to call the police as soon as anyone disagrees with them. How many people have lost their jobs after being dragged before a tribunal or court for "homophobia?

Gays In The West Fare Far Better Than Middle East
 - Gay Marriage Definitely Not An Option.

One final thought, there has been marked silence in all this anti religious (Christianity) rhetoric about the thoughts of the self claimed 'fastest growing religion' in the UK and West. You know the one, the one whose adherents believe that homosexuals should be hanged (and even have the tacit support of the UN). Being denied 'married status' would be the least of the 'Gay' communities worries if they had their way. 

All those calling for the end of Christian churches influence in the UK and elsewhere, should be careful what they wish for, and what might replace Christianity as the moral authority in the vacuum of the West.