Home » Posts tagged 'homosexuality'
Tag Archives: homosexuality
There really is nothing more bizarre than a minion of the left who has willful blindness about the nature of Islam and the way it considers homosexuality. So often I have seen then full of righteous indignation when someone like myself dares to point out the problems with Islam for someone of their political persuasion. They are horrified that someone should point out that most followers of Islam would happily send every Gay person to a grisly end.
I think here in particular about “useful idiots” like “Paul wello* ” and Richard Ryan and more intelligent lefties, like our learned friend and “Reb” from Gutter trash who seem to be able to achieve an otherwise impossible reconciliation between Islam’s attitude to homosexuality and their own advocacy for Gay marriage. How they do it totally eludes me but then I have moved on from the hypocrisy of political correctness and the madness of trying to pretend that Islam is not totally at odds with secular western democracy.
*Paul is banned here but I will recover any comment he makes from the trash if it is on topic and not too silly, hang on it might be very entertaining if it is as silly as his usual efforts.
- Islam, Homosexuality, & Same-Sex Marriage (bloggingtheology.wordpress.com)
- ‘In an ideal society we would punish homosexuals’, says Islamic cleric in BBC interview (pinknews.co.uk)
- Islamic cleric who describes gays as ‘filthy’ cancels UK tour (pinknews.co.uk)
- Islam and the Death Penalty (religiousgroupsdp.wordpress.com)
- Why you will love Islam (whatyouwannado.wordpress.com)
- Why the West Fears Islam?! (yerelce.wordpress.com)
- Is Islam Oppressed? (ireport.cnn.com)
If you have listened to this song before then it should not have escaped your attention that the process of making good gravy is just as important as the nature of the the ingredients I hear the song on the radio this morning as I read Janet Albrechtsen this morning.
Gay marriage is not akin to securing the vote for women or ending apartheid. After all, civil unions are commonplace. Gay couples enjoy the same substantive rights as heterosexual couples. If they don’t they should. But the political battle to claim the word “marriage” for homosexuals is an elite agenda of the political classes for reasons not always honest.
Take the disingenuous claim that traditional marriage is an evil form of discrimination against gays. As Chief Justice John Roberts said in Hollingsworth last week, “when the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn’t get around and say let’s have this institution, but let’s keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.”
Yet, those who oppose gay marriage for legitimate reasons are too often treated as morally inferior, out-of-date, and worse, bigoted.
Whether it’s a snooty editorial from The New York Times ridiculing the “incoherence” of opposing gay marriage in Hollingsworth or mocking grumbles from the audience on ABC1’s Q&A, too many gay marriage advocates have chosen the wrong way to advance their cause.
Redefining marriage in a way that promotes social cohesion means winning people over with reasoned arguments rather than trying to guilt them into agreeing.
What our activist friends seem to forget is that for the sort of social changes they desire they have to convince rather than coerce a change from those of us who want to see marriage remain as a heterosexual institution.
Patience is a virtue that seems far too removed from the activist mindset, maybe it shouldn’t be so if they want the changes they desire to be enduring accepted and effective.
I have watched far too many nature documentaries during the course of my life and these days if I am clicking through the TV offerings and land on any offerings from David Attenborough you would not see my finger hit the next button because it happens with out a seconds delay. That said I do appreciate the quality of the footage and the insights into the natural world its just that I think there is only so much of that stuff that anyone can watch in their life time before their brain explodes form shear boredom. Now we have a Gay activist whining that David Attenborough is “ignoring” instances of homosexuality in nature:
Obviously this stems from a desire by many homosexuals to argue against the description of their sexuality as “unnatural”. To this end they scour studies of animal behaviour to find instances of same sex couplings and “gay” sexual activity. Of course there are examples of this aberrant behaviour in other species but as it can not produce progeny it is biologically entirely pointless. That does not mean that we can, by extension, deride and dismiss human homosexuality. Such behaviour does seem to be in the nature of a small percentage of our species and I personally don’t see what all the fuss is about as long as we respect the rights of all of our individuals to share their genitalia with any other consenting adult regardless of their gender it does not matter to me how “natural” or ” unnatural” such behaviour is. Maybe its time for Gay activists like Brett Mills to get over himself and stop trying to force all of society to think the same way that he does about sexuality.
- David Attenborough accused of excluding homosexuality from animal documentaries (pinkbananaworld.com)
- Wildlife documentaries. No homo? (safaricamkenya.com)
- The phenomenon of homosexuality in today’s world (english.pravda.ru)
A great piece today in the Oz from my favourite Marxist Brendan O’Neil where he succinctly explains why some otherwise sensible conservatives are taking the plunge to support this seemingly innocuous err, cough, splutter, “reform”.
Of course I expect that our learned friend will be onto this piece like a starving hound would be onto the fox, with a great deal sound a fury (signifying nothing) but we only have to look to Canada to see just how bad the repercussions will be if this so called reform is ever to be made manifest if the activists and fag hags ever get their way.
So lets leave the marriage well enough alone and if homosexual relationships need any sort of legal recognition and social acknowledgement then lets do it through other legal and social instruments like some sort of civil union or relationship register.
I have just read the revelation in the Oz that Tony Abbott’s sister is herself both Gay and in a committed relationship and more importantly that this has not meant that she has become persona non grata at the Abbott household where she has been welcome with her partner on numerous occasions.
Cheers again Comrades
Update the second
As predicted our learned friend has produced a rant about Brendan’s piece in the OZ and also as predicted he is very hound like in his he desire to attack and maul the fox here but I think that he has just ended up with a mouth full of straw and dead air:
Now I am actually a student of our learned friend’s rhetoric and usually he tries to at least find something in the text which he can twist and turn to his purposes but on this occasion he goes one step further and totality invents and argument that O’Neill is not even making:
O’Neill actually argues that – get this – the government stopping trying to encourage gay people to marry straight people (which seems cruel to the straight people who marry them, to be honest) is “an invitation to yet more state interference” in our lives.
Yes, there’s less state control of our lives when the government arbitrarily tells us whether we can marry that man or that woman, purely on the grounds of our gender.
It’s the most bizarre black-is-white up-is-down argument I can remember ever seeing.
I may be wrong, but after reading the O’Neill piece in question five times I can’t find where he argues this at all. of course Our leaned friends fans uncritically accept his argument without question
Worse still our learned friend totally misrepresents O’Neill’s actual argument as well by a mixture of selective misquoting and derision:
Brendan goes on to give us some even sillier stereotyping and false assertions (“A gay relationship is fundamentally one of romantic love, far more so than traditional marriage is”), absurd claims (“In Canada… the words husband and wife, even mother and father, have been airbrushed from official life”) and dishonest strawmen (“Collapsing together every human relationship under a mushy and meaningless redefinition of ‘marriage’”), but that backwards freedom-is-slavery line appears to be his main point, and, unlike the above common furphies, a line I’ve never seen before.
If our learned friend had actaully done some research about the situation in Canada he would discover that there is nothing made of straw or dishonest about the way that official nomenclature has been altered in reference to family and parental roles in the wake of gay marriage there. Unlike our learned friend Brendan O’Neill actaully knows what he is talking about when it comes to the situation in Canada.
The rest of Sear’s rant is just his typical foaming at the mouth wild hound dog raving he is desperately trying to get a mouthful of that O’Neill fox but all he has managed to get is teeth around is a few handfuls of rather rank straw. In typical totalitarian style he declares himself winner as if asserting something will make it so and all the while the fox is sitting there doing a bit of indifferent grooming and leading the chorus of laughter at our learned friend’s foolishness. What a lovely way to wake up to a beautiful day!
Cheers times three Comrades
- CLE on Same Sex Marriage and Civil Unions (lawprofessors.typepad.com)
- The U.K.’s Marriage Equality Debate Heats Up (newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com)
- Homosexual Partnership. (iangardnerdotcom.wordpress.com)
- “Why gay marriage is a very bad idea” (ebougis.wordpress.com)
- What Effect Will Gay Marriage Have? (queerlandia.com)
- Gay marriage: The fight is on, but who is calling the shots? (independent.co.uk)
Now this is an interesting result that makes the endless rants from Gay activists seem rather hyperbolic:
The first ever official count of the gay population has found that only one in 100 adults is homosexual.
The figure explodes the assumption – long promoted by social experts and lobbyists – that the number is up to ten times higher than this at one in ten.
And in further evidence that Britain remains a traditional society, 71% told the same survey that they still regarded themselves as Christian.
Another 0.5 per cent consider themselves bisexual, according to the figures gathered from questions put to nearly 250,000 – the biggest survey possible outside a full national census.
This means that, in total, around 1.5 per cent of the population is either homosexual or bisexual.
The number is far lower than the estimate used as a basis for the distribution of millions of pounds in public money to sexual equality causes.
The size and methodology of the survey suggest that it should be an accurate picture of the percentage of the population who are Gay:
HOW STUDY WAS DONE
The estimate of homosexual numbers was drawn from a new ONS survey, called the Integrated Household Survey.
It was compiled by putting new questions to individuals who already take part in six existing large-scale surveys.
As a result the ONS has managed to draw answers from a large number.
In total, the new Integrated Household Survey can cover 450,000, hundreds of times the size of databases commonly used in research.
The questions on sexuality were put to 247,623, of whom 238,206 provided an answer.
By contrast, the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles which last tried to make a count of the gay population in 2000, used a database of 12,000.
The ONS survey put questions on sexuality both face-to-face and by telephone.
So what does this mean for those of us who are interested in issues relating to human sexuality?
Well for one thing it suggests that the the magnitude of the issue is much smaller than many desperate activists have been claiming . This does not mean that we can just ignore instances where there is obvious mistreatment of people because of their sexual orientation but it does make some of the expensive anti-discrimination campaigns seem rather like using a sledgie to crack a nut.
These attitudes when you denounce those of us who criticise any aspect of Islam…