Sunday, 28 November 2010

Why I think that Gay Rights have Gone Too Far.

Anybody who even dares, nowadays, to suggest in public that gay rights have been, or could be, taken too far, is automatically dismissed with the absurd term “homophobic”.
Let me say at the outset that the word “homophobia” is nonsense. The first half “homo” means “the same” - just as it does in “homophone”, “homologue” and “homogenous”. The second half, “phobia” means an irrational fear. So if the term “homophobia" meant anything at all, it would mean “fear of yourself” or “fear of the same thing”.
It is a pretentious, confused pseudo-word. Such terms are coined by ignorant people who are trying to stifle discussion and impose a form of bigotry that is no less bigoted for being relatively new and fashionable. Frequently people make a casual comparison between being black and being gay. It is a way of trying to short-cut the political argument, and hastily appropriate all the anti-racist laws on behalf of homosexuals. That, too, is nonsense. Nobody – except islamic extremists – wants to re-criminalize homosexuality. That is not what I am advocating. I am saying that recent moves to increase what are called gay rights have gone too far and are in themselves unjust.
The fashionable view is that "sexuality" is a right and that no country should be allowed to legislate regarding it. If so, then why do we have laws against polygamy, paedophilia or rape? They are all forms of sexual behaviour. What about stalking, flashing, or sending people obscene E-mails? That's sexual behaviour too.
Homosexuality (as Jean-Paul Sartre said) is simply a form of behaviour, not like being black at all. Black people could and did for thousands of years live independently on another continent, but homosexuals can only exist as a by-product of a heterosexual society. Homosexuals are completely dependent on heterosexuals to create them. Curiously they never express any gratitude for this, while complaining constantly of persecution. If I want to shock people I have only to point out that dear Oscar Wilde, the gay’s favourite martyr, witty though he was, went to gaol entirely through his own fault. He brought a false libel charge, which is a criminal offence, and he could have got five years for perjury, instead of merely two for making use of rent-boys. I wouldn’t like my son to be used as a rent-boy and I think Oscar got off lightly. The biography by Richard Ellman admits that Oscar and his friends gang-raped an under-age boy. People should learn to accept responsibility for their own actions.
Deciding how far to take one right invariably means considering how it might impinge on another. What is happening now is that “gay rights” have been so over-inflated that they are cutting into the rights of the majority. We have recently seen cases where hotel keepers have been forced by law to rent a double bed to a same-sex couple and adoption agencies compelled to place children with them regardless of the agency's religious affiliations. I think both decisions are wrong. To call that "gay rights" is infringing the right of the hotel keeper or the adoption agency to follow their own ethical and religious beliefs, a right which is actually enshrined in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
When it comes to adoption, it makes no sense to argue for the “equal rights” of a homosexual couple because nobody has a right to adopt. Adoption takes place in the interests of the child, not the adults. Prospective parents have always been vetted and ruthlessly excluded on grounds of income, age, mental and physical health or family history. Nobody ever treated them as equal. The adoption societies have always acted in what they feel is the best interest of the child concerned. And what about the child’s rights? Surely it has a right to a parent of each gender? That, after all, is what Nature gives every child, and the point of adoption is to re-create as far as possible a natural family for that child. To talk about gays having a right to adopt is to treat the child like a form of merchandise. It is wholly unacceptable.
If fairness is the issue, it seems fair to me to give a child to couples who have experienced biological sterility or repeated miscarriage, because they really can’t have a child of their own. Their need is greater than that of those who simply choose a same-sex partner. The same cannot be said in the case of adoption by for example, a black couple with a history of infertility. Black and gay are not the same issue.
Undoubtedly in my view, it is wrong to force any adoption society to go against its ethics. What about the connection between homosexuality and paedophilia? Why hush it up? [* See note below.]
Amnesty International, the once-prestigious organization that campaigns for Human Rights all over the world, is now preoccupied with gay rights to what appears to me to be a disproportionate extent. I call it disproportionate because it gives so little attention, by comparison, to the appalling persecution of heterosexuals in countless countries of the world. There are dozens of places where heterosexuals cannot choose their own partner without facing violence, social exclusion, murder, torture or imprisonment by their families. A recent TV programme, Unreported World: Love on the Run, highlighted this problem in India where it is estimated that as many as 900 young couples have been murdered in the last few years, simply for wishing to marry without their families’ consent. There has been a wave of violence across the country’s northwest states.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/episode-guide/series-2010/episode-18

How much do we hear about this issue in the news? Why have we not granted any of these people asylum? Why does Amnesty International consider it a lesser issue than gays being verbally insulted by policemen in downtown Chicago?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/indian-couple-electrocuted-aafor-daring-to-marry-outside-caste-2001570.html

To get a sense of proportion, let us compare this to the issue of Christians being persecuted all over the world. Yes, thousands of people are subjected to a range of discriminatory behaviour world-wide merely because they want to practise Christianity. Some of them are imprisoned, sacked from their jobs, deprived of their property, driven out of their homes or killed. We curry favour with China and other non-democratic regimes, ignoring their record on religious freedom.
http://www.releaseinternational.org/pages/downloads/world-update-webcast.php

Campaigners here in England tell we must give legal aid to gay Nigerians who want to live here because they face persecution in their native country. What gives them priority over Christians who are persecuted in Nigeria – of which there is very good evidence? Why is there so much fuss made on Wikipedia and the like about gay rights and so little about heterosexual rights, or Christian rights?

Gay rights have got out of all proportion. Rather than claiming equality, homosexuals are in many respects now claiming privilege and special treatment. That is not fair. In fact, it is deeply unjust. It is time that we got our priorities back in order.

UPDATE
Since I wrote this, an employee of an adoption agency has been sacked for refusing to co-operate with gay adoption. A bishop protested that this is religious discrimination and he is right.
Our government bends over backwards to be fair to minorities - what is so fair about sacking Christians?


7 comments:

davidsk1nner said...

I live in Bournemouth and am part of london bus ad campaign that
said," NOT GAY. EX- GAY. POST GAY AND PROUD. GET OVER IT!!
Dr Julia Gasper is a gem and needs every ounce of support you can give her. She speaks I am sure for millions in this country that dare not speak up for fear of losing their jobs, being fined and threatened by the police.
A truly brave and remarkable woman. Pity UKIP are not in Bournemouth.
She needs an OBE, MBE, Military Cross ; the lot.
The Battle of Britain has finally started. Lets get down for a long and painful war. But let's do it!!

Mike said...

@davidsk1nneer:
"The Battle of Britain has finally started. Lets get down for a long and painful war. But let's do it!! "

I'm reading these stirring words from across the pond, in the US. Yes, war it is.

Damien DECAUX said...

In France we have starting to fight,
we call us "veilleurs" literally watchers, at least ones a week, we sit down (or stand up apart) in front of our government building with candle singing hope and reading great authors.
That is a peaceful movement but already 170 towns in France and about 10 countries in the world, join us, and show to our government that we will not accept their view.
We Will Never Give Up never, never is our watchword.
Find us at FB
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Les-Veilleurs-debout-Officiel/446298395468799
https://www.facebook.com/VeilleursParisOfficiel?fref=ts
Twitter : @les_veilleurs

Naomi King said...

It is a tragedy that our Queen has given her assent to this unGodly, unChristian and wicked law creating this so called homosexual "marriage". She has broken her coronation oath, which was to uphold the laws of the Gospel and double shame on David Cameron, her Prime Minister, for putting an 80 year plus old woman in such a unconscionable position. We surely do live in times were evil is called good and good evil. Heaven help this Nation now. We all need repentance and a return to righteousness urgently before we invoke the wrath of God.

snobears said...

I agree entirely with Julia's words, and indeed with @davidSk1nner's comments. "Gay Rights" movements have gone completely beyond just promoting fairness for all human beings, and have unfortunately, at times just become an excuse for aggressive & unsavoury discrimination & demonisation, of anybody who happens to share different views - and, as Julia rightly pointed out, that "Gay" people should somehow have preferential treatment over other human beings.

Although I don't agree with Homosexual & Lesbian lifestyles, I love the people! In fact it's sad that some heterosexual men, don't learn something from certain "gay" men, and stop being so terrified about showing their more sensitive side to others, for fear of damaging their image, and appearing "unmanly".

In reality, most homosexual people I have come to know, have no desire to shove their lifestyle into people's faces, but just want to go about their live's in private, & with dignity. Some others however (that more often than not, aren't even "gay" themselves), are just out to pick a fight with anybody that doesn't agree with the "gay" lifestyle - whether it be on traditional, or faith grounds. I refuse to believe they speak for the majority of homosexual & lesbian people. :-)

David Snow said...

In follow-up to my previous comments on this excellent article, I would like to express my deep concerns for the sick comments that have been recently circulated on various social media sites, regarding the recent joyful news of the Duke & Duchess's baby George. Some "Gay Activists" have used this very welcome good news to propagate some particularly unsavoury & sickening comments about the baby prince.

Comments such as: "#RoyalBaby is a boy... Way to let #Feminism down Kate! Could have had a girl third in line to the throne, instead it's a sausage party." or "Okay, so the #royalbaby's not a girl. Can I hold out hope he turns out out to be gay or gender non-conforming? Otherwise, I'm bored now."

I could go on, but I wont...

How can such comments be justified? It's not only insulting to an innocent child, but hugely hurtful to the new parents! Obviously the author has never experienced the joy & blessing, the precious gift of a new-born baby can bring - to utter such bitter & spiteful sentiments?

If any other group of people were to post these sort of comments on-line, there would be a justified uproar, but because these comments were posted under the guise of "equality" or "Gay Rights", they become acceptable. Wrong. They are wholly unacceptable!

I realise that these vicious comments certainly don't reflect all "Gay" people's views, or indeed the views of the whole "Gay Rights" movement, but if we truly lived in an "equal" society, this sort of nastiness would be condemned.

Can we all please start learning to respect each others beliefs, views and lifestyles - regardless of whether we personally approve of them or not, and stop verbally or physically attacking each another. We are after all (whether we choose to accept it or not), God's children

Tim Cripps said...

The success of the campaign to foist homosexuality upon society at large has depended on two things. Firstly the subtle sophistries of the 'gay' activists and secondly the failure of even our more enlightened political leaders and bishops to challenge the most crucial sophistries with sufficient boldness. Julia Gasper deserves all the support we can give her, because she is not only courageous but also she speaks with an authoritative and highly qualified voice. We need to help her expose the fraudulence of the most fundamental lie on which the whole 'gay' "Equality Rights" argument depends, namely that deviant "orientations" are immutable or genetic. The truth is that nobody is "Born Gay". Perverted sexual attractions can be to some extent induced through upbringing and child abuse, but the decision to engage in unnatural sexual practices is always a matter of choice. Public recognition of that fact would entirely demolish the case for homosexuality to be treated as a civil rights issue and objection to it being compared to racism. Consequently failure to recognise this fact will expose society to a Pandora's Box of other claimed "orientations", such as paedophilia, polyamory, incest and bestiality. These are the battles we shall now have to fight and all against a climate of increasing suppression of freedom of speech. At stake is no less than the survival of our civilisation. We are blundering blindly along "the broad road to destruction".