Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Posts tagged 'gay rights activists'

Tag Archives: gay rights activists

Who are the real bigots in the St Pat’s spat? or the proper way to nurture social acceptance

As its a fine Saturday morning and I think that such days are perfect for a change of pace I offer a new topic that I have come across from my subscription to “Spiked”. It concerns the refusal of the St Patrick’s day marches in New York and Boston to allow Gay activists to march under Gay themed banners in their parades. Of course our friends of the pink persuasion are screaming “discrimination” with a great deal of vim and vigour so loudly that you would think that the march organisers were planning to burn a few homosexuals at the stake as part of the celebrations. What I find most worrying about the whole thing is the same “if you don’t support the Gay agenda 110% then you are a bigot” mindset from those homosexual activists who want to hijack the ostensibly Catholic festival to promote their own cause .

 

irish_gay_protestThere have also been reports of people losing employment after it was discovered that they do not agree with gay marriage. A common theme in these reports is that the individuals involved do not appear to dislike gay people, but they have nonetheless been labelled bigots due to their objections to same-sex marriage. Rather than encouraging a live-and-let-live attitude, it appears that some supporters of same-sex marriage seek to find and root out anyone who won’t publicly accept this relatively new institution.

When lawmakers in Arizona introduced a bill last month that sought to clarify whether small business owners like wedding photographers can refuse work on religious freedom grounds, there was little consideration in the media of the legal pros and cons. Few highlighted that the existing law allows private vendors to refuse work on the grounds of sexual orientation, and thus continues after the governor vetoed the bill. Instead, the proposed law was greeted with a hysterical campaign to label it ‘anti-gay’ and ‘Jim Crow’ (an historically illiterate comparison, beginning with the fact that Jim Crow was enforced by state law and businesses that refused to obey it could be prosecuted).

These tendencies to demonise dissent are visible in the campaign against the St Patrick Day parades. There is a rush to label any disagreement with gay marriage or gay culture as out-and-out ‘bigotry’. There is a desire to not simply state that certain views of gays are wrong, but to have those views silenced. And there is an operation to target and scare corporations that are associated with such views. Gay activists threatened a campaign against corporations in Arizona, including the National Football League for holding the Super Bowl in the state, if the recent bill passed. Similarly, they pressured St Patrick’s Day sponsors like Samuel Adams and Heineken to withdraw support. This is the top-down, elite-led politics of name and shame, rather than a properly liberal campaign that draw upon popular support.

What we are witnessing is an attack on those who don’t share today’s pro-gay outlook. Some may want to opt out of this Culture War, but the war increasingly won’t allow there to be any bystanders. Instead, there is pressure to conform. Even if it does not spill over into the political or legal world, such conformism is problematic for the free flow of ideas.

The sky will not fall if gays and lesbians are allowed to march in the Boston and New York St Patrick’s Day parades. But we will create a conformist, intolerant and unfree society if we do not allow space for the expression of different views, including traditional religious teachings about homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

source

The title of the article asks Who are the real bigots in the St Pat’s spat? and I can’t avoid concluding that its the very noisy Gay activists who are using every possible way to bully people into “endorsing” to their position. I can’t help thinking that this may well back fire on them and lead to a backlash that seriously damages the hard earned public good will towards homosexuality that has been steadily been accruing over the last few years. Social acceptance can be most fragile flower that needs nurture and careful cultivation and it can be oh so easily lost if you start tearing up the field with loud and noisy tractors instead of well directed hand tools.

Cheers Comrades

high_class_hoe__x1_tool_animation_scale2_5_quality10_loop_1355197228

Kevin Donnelly vs “buggery 101”

One of the sadly amusing aspects of the way that our society views sexuality is the rather desperate way that so many “gay rights activists want to insist that all aspects of human  sexual practice are “natural” and therefore should be absolutely affirmed by society and by extension our education system. Surely it all boils down to precisely how “natural” is defined and its the definition that underlays the piece in today’s Fairfax press that attacks Keven Donnelly for committing the heinous sin of suggesting

‘Forgotten is that many parents would consider the sexual practices of gays, lesbians and transgender individuals decidedly unnatural and that such groups have a greater risk in terms of transmitting STDs and AIDS.”

In the eyes of the “politically correct” it is the worst sin imaginable to be in any way critical of the sexual practices of gay people and the worst possible sin is to claim or imply that such practices are “unnatural” . While I and most other parents are more than ok with the idea that our children should be taught that there is a great deal of diversity in the way that human desire and sexuality is expressed there is no need to pretend that everything done in the quest for sexual pleasure is “natural”. It should be enough for students to learn that the primary consideration when it comes to any sexual activity between any individuals is that it has to be entirely consensual, we don’t have to pretend that there is anything “natural” about some types of sexual congress because homosexuals want to have their desires and sexual practices socially  affirmed. 

Yet the social engineers of the left just won’t give up on “buggery 101” until it is front and centre in every classroom and they will attack without mercy anyone who might dare suggest that some sexual practices are anything but natural. Thus we find Fairfax dragging out the cudgels to bash Kevin Donnelly just because he points out the widely held belief that not all types of sex are entirely approved of by the parents out there. The politically correct teaching unions of course think that they know better than parents but they forget that its not their place to dictate what is taught to our children. That is the prerogative of parents; teachers are both our servants and proxies in the teaching process not our betters or our  masters and they clearly need to be reminded of this fact.

Cheers Comrades

Gay dog1

 

 

%d bloggers like this: