The Gay Philosophy of the Conservative Party Leadership

BROKEN MARRIAGE- BROKEN FAMILIES- BROKEN BRITAIN

This demand for raising the profile of LGBTs needs to be seen in the context of the last 100 years, where one barrier after another protecting our personal freedom has been undermined, particularly during the last thirty years, by the gay lobby, Stonewall and the Equality and Human Rights Commission which is dominated by lesbians and militant feminists. The freedom we all once had was not licence, but instead a freedom to obey godly laws that are written on the hearts and conscience of each person, religious and non-religious.

Certainly since 1997 the attack against Christian morality and the freedom to live upright and decent lives has intensified, so much so that those who try to live according to the Bible are accused not only of being medieval, intolerant, oppressive and eroto - phobic bigots, but dangerous terrorists on a par with Islamists. Rather than protecting the public, Dorset Police have harassed me three times in my own home for standing up for protecting the young and impressionable against peddlers of sexual immorality, like the gay Dr Eric Anderson, Professor of Masculinity of Winchester University. Indeed I notified you of this in 2012 but you dismissed my concerns.

In 2006, the former Home Secretary John Reid referred to the Home Office as "not fit for purpose." However, five years later, the Home Office topped Stonewall's 2011 list of gay-friendly employers. [4] In 2010 David Cameron described our nation as ‘Broken Britain,’ but like one possessed, he has put his foot hard down on driving forward the Labour and Liberal Democrat’s policies of dechristianising Britain with the introduction of same-sex marriage, the Trojan horse for destroying marriage and the family.

Some people will say that since marriage has always been evolving and that different civilisations and different ages had quite different forms of it, then gay marriage is just another evolutionary step on the road to progress and enlightenment.

It is true that there have been differences, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the marriages of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Hindus, Chinese and Romans what will really strike him or her will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. But what would a total difference look like? Think of a country where people were married to pavements, dead bodies, animals, their mothers, sisters, a hundred people or themselves. [5]

You might just as well try to imagine a country where the sun was called the moon and the moon the sun. Men have differed as regard the manner and circumstances in which marriages were formed, or to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that it was always between a man and woman.

The indications are the LGBTs demanded the right to apply for status of marriage, without actually wanting it - like applying for a driving licence, without actually wanting or having to observe the highway code or even keep to the highway. One cannot even apply for a licence unless one first satisfies certain criteria like being of an eligible age and having perfect eyesight.

At one time, in South Africa and America black people were segregated and barred from marrying white people, but their demand for acceptance was not in order to introduce a style of sexual practice peculiar to them, which would destabilise and eventual destroy all marriages, but in order to assimilate and conform to the marital patterns of the rest of the population – to enjoy the spiritual, emotional, material and social benefits of being married only to one person of the opposite sex in a life – long and faithful union.

But this is not the case with the LGBTs, their demand for being eligible for applying for the status of being married, without ever wanting or intending to get married, has been in order to officially legitimise all forms of promiscuity and fornication for everyone, not least for themselves, but mainly to gain access to the minds and souls of children in schools through compulsory sex education, where small children are already being forced to act out gay weddings and the older ones are introduced to the ‘delights’ of gay sex.

Since same sex ‘marriage’ (SSM) was made legal, in March 2014, out of a population of perhaps just under a million, adult gays in Britain (1.5% of the population of just over 60 million people [ONS figures]) only 1,400 SSMs have been formed, or 0.3% of the gay population (ONS figures). This compares with 39% of the entire UK population, including 14.8% with dependent children who are married. If as is claimed by Stonewall, 6% of the population is gay this makes the proportion even smaller: 0.07% of the gay population. And if as is popularly believed through Alfred Kinsey’s propaganda it is 10%, then this makes the uptake for SSM even smaller- 0.04%.

For the sake a tiny, tiny minority of narcissist wanting what they want whenever they want, the marriages of millions of people have been redefined and degraded to become meaningless.

Gays do not want marriage, only the right to force the rest of society to conform to their patterns of behaviour. Peter Tatchell regards society as being prisoners of sex negative inhibitions and constraints whom he will liberate forcibly. Those who refuse to be liberated will suffer the consequences.

In his article 'Beyond Equality', he was telling the truth about the attitude of the gay community to marriage

“In any case, the denial of difference is profoundly dishonest. There are differences between straights and queers. We are not all the same. While some lesbians and gay men do mindlessly ape heterosexual values, many do not. The sexual behaviour, relationships, aesthetics, and lifestyles of these queer dissidents are quite dissimilar to those of the average heterosexual. That's not something we should deny, let alone be ashamed of.

In many ways, our transcending of heterosexual mores is a positive and immensely liberating experience. Compared with most straights, queers tend to be more sexually adventurous with a wider repertoire of sexual behaviour, less bound by the strictures of traditional morality, and more experimental in terms of relationships. We don't need a MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE to validate our partnerships….

Homophobia also damages heterosexuals because it means they are denied the pleasure of relationships with half of humanity. Emotionally and sexually cut off from people of the same sex, their potential range of experience is narrowed by 50 per cent. It is not rational to exclude the possibility of loving someone because they happen to be of the same gender. Yet millions of hets do it; depriving themselves of some wonderful sexual and emotional opportunities…..

Queer politics is against assimilationism. The integrationist strategy of lobbyists for homosexual equality assumes that lesbian and gay freedom is about queers adapting to, and being accepted by, straight society. In other words, it means homosexuals conforming to heterosexual laws and values. That's not liberation. It's capitulation!

Sure, it is conformity on an equal basis rather than an unequal one. That's one step better than inequality. But it is conformity none the less. We comply with their system.

The end result is equality on heterosexual terms; equal rights within a framework dominated and determined by straights. Assimilation is just a new and more subtle method whereby heterosexuals continue to call the shots. It obliterates any distinctive queer identity and culture; creating homosexual versions of heterosexual lifestyle and morality.

Integration means us giving up the unique and enriching aspects of our own lesbian and gay community. It requires our surrender to heterosexual norms. We have to become hetero homos and uncritically adopt the dominant straight values. Absorbed and invisibilised, we become mere heterosexual facsimiles.

What assimilationism ultimately implies is that the lesbian and gay experience embodies nothing worthwhile, innovative or liberating. It suggests that queers have nothing POSITIVE to contribute to society; nothing that straights can learn or benefit from. Bulls***t!

Fourthly queer politics asserts that our emancipation is not contingent on us adapting to the heterosexual status quo, but on us radically changing it. Social homophobia is the problem, not queer dissent from it…..

Compared with most straight people, for example, lesbians and gay men are more willing to transgress the boundaries of traditional masculinity and femininity…. Lesbians are usually less reliant on men, and more independent and assertive, than their hetero sisters. Hence their pioneering contribution to women's advancement in previously all-male occupations.

Fifthly, from the rejection of integrationism it follows that queer politics has an agenda beyond law reform and legal equality. Its aim is the transformation of society to ensure sexual liberation for everyone.

This post-equality agenda involves a fundamental renegotiation of sexual values and laws. It seeks an end to heterosexual hegemony and to all erotic guilt and repression.

The assimilation of queers is not just bad for lesbians and gay men. It is also indirectly against the interests of straights. Mere equalisation of the law perpetuates the sex-negative status quo, which hurts them as well as us. Everyone would benefit from a more sexually enlightened culture.

The absurd laws against prostitution and pornography illustrate this point. Securing legal equality for queer sex workers would be a limited advance. Homosexual prostitutes, and their clients, would simply face equal criminalisation and harassment as their heterosexual counterparts. What is needed is the complete repeal of the laws against prostitution, and their replacement by legislation that recognises the right of people to control their own bodies and to use them in any way they wish, providing it is with consent and no one is harmed.

A similar principle should apply to pornography. There is nothing shameful or obscene about the human body, including p****s and p******s. Sex is not dirty, but something to be shared and enjoyed. So why shouldn't we be able to view explicit sexual acts, both hetero and homo? After all, using porn to w***k with is a safe form of sex which can help reduce the SPREAD of HIV. For people who are not able-bodied, young and handsome, and for those who find it difficult to meet sexual partners because they live in remote communities, porn is often one of their few means of sexual fulfilment. Why should it be disparaged and criminalised?

It is not good enough to only seek an end to the way gay porn is more strictly censored than straight porn. Lots of explicit images of sexual acts between men and women are also banned. Equality with heterosexuals under the anti-porn laws would thus mean only a slight liberalisation while leaving the bulk of draconian censorship intact. What is required is a revision of the laws against pornography in their entireity.” [6]

Then Peter Tatchell, served notice on the British people, during World Pride 2012, by saying,

“There are no borders or boundaries when it comes to Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender human rights. No nationality, no culture, no belief system can stand in the way of the historic quest for LGBT freedom,”[7]

This was echoed by Theresa May, the Home Secretary when she trotted out the following mantras whilst speaking at an event hosted by Stonewall. She spoke about how incredibly proud that she and the Home Office were, to have come top of 2010’s Stonewall Workplace Equality Index:

"I think that shows how far we, as a society, we have come…..As a country we have come a long way….as a party, my own party, the Conservatives have come a long way. We now have more openly gay MPs and openly gay ministers than ever before [6]….We've come a long way……despite the real progress we have seen in recent years, there is much still to do….despite the real progress we have seen in recent years, there is much still to do…..And we will go further…We are committed to taking action to tear down these barriers….” [8].

The same serving of notice of intent to prosecute war on the family was proudly repeated recently by the present Secretary of State for Education, Nicky Morgan:

“…. the contribution of LGBT people….. incredible role models….I'm proud …..truly momentous strides…..some of the proudest achievements of this government ….. a measure of just how far we have come…. significant strides... So there is still a lot of work to be done….. we need to make more progress….But to really change attitudes….But homophobic bullying doesn't just affect LGBT young people…. the so-called norm .... We don't tolerate racist language and nor should we tolerate homophobia…..That's why we've introduced a £2 million fund to help schools prevent and combat homophobia.”

You also, Mr Burns, used precisely the same mantra when I raised my concerns about Sir Ian McKellen being given access to thousands of school children in schools: “The government remains determined to take concerted action to tearing down barriers ….”

It is not as though the consequences of this experiment in redefining marriage are unknown. In order to understand why present day Russia is determined, in the face of interference from both America and Britain, to resist the gay agenda, one only has to study Russian history between 1917 and the time that Stalin came to power in the late 1920’s, when he had to put a stop to the social meltdown caused by the Bolsheviks and their passing dalliance with homosexuality and polysexual perversions. Mr Putin’s resolve is not motivated by irrational fear and hatred, “homophobia”, but by common sense and reason, for which things, sadly our government has developed an irrational hatred and fear, or as we call it in the trade, logophobia, a hatred of God’s Word.

[1] http://www.lgbtleaders.co.uk/#about

[2] i) http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/01/13/chris-bryant-mp-on-the-house-of-commons-gay-bar/

ii) http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/13/chris-bryant-labour-mp-parliament-gay-bar_n_1203761.html

[3] http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/church-of-england-bishop-nominated-for.html

[4] http://www.stonewall.org.uk/at_work/4763.asp

[5] i) Man marries fish

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMmFBBwumPw

ii) Woman divorces Eifel Tower in order to marry Golden Gate San Francisco.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXlaS_jYBFQ

iii) Man marries himself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3axSo6o9dvY

iv) Woman marries herself