The BBC reports that the United Nations, that fine body of..ahem.. recognised global moral authority, is having a bit of a problem getting all of its members to sign a declaration decriminalising homosexual acts. The Sodomists charter, put forward by la belle France and the Netherlands, seeks to stop legal punishment of homosexuals. Given the tendency in Islamic nations such as Iran, for example, to hang gay people, I suppose that is a fair enough aim but the assertion by the BBC that “Gay men, lesbians and transsexuals worldwide face daily violations of their human rights” seems remarkably close to propagandising on behalf of the militant gay lobby for my liking. Since when did the right to gay sex become an inviolable “human right”, exactly? And how does the BBC quantify this assertion? Does it consult with the transsexual community and compile a data-base of transgressions against trannies? There are certain topics that engage full-on BBC editorial sympathy; Eco-wackery is one, Gay Rights is another. The fact that the UN cannot even agree on a definition of terrorism is ignored by the BBC as it evangelises on behalf of the Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered community.
WHAT A GAY DAY
Bookmark the permalink.
David,
I think you have made a mistake on this one. First of all I am gay and also feel that the bbc has a strong gay lobby. They always promote the gays view and demonalise the anti-gay view. A lot of what the gay lobby promotes I personally do not agree with (another argument for another day). I also object to being put in the ‘gay community’. I am in the same community as the rest of the country ‘British’.
However with the reporting of a UN charter being put forward asking for laws banning the state abuse of people, I can’t see whats wrong.
Tom, I’m slightly confused (it’s the default setting for me, but I get used to it):
“Whoever causes one of these little ones to sin, it would be better for that person to have a giant millstone hung around their neck……”
This has nothing to do with corruption of children – it’s actually addressed to and about the apostles – ‘little ones’ is Christ’s affectionate term for his infant community of followers. It’s essentially a condemnation of anyone who causes a follower of his to lose their way and abandon the faith.
What is the point of the story of the woman taken in adultery? That no sinful human has the right to judge and condemn a perceived sexual offence against God’s morality. Precisely what Paul says.
I don’t quite understand the contrast you imply between these two stories. In both stories Christ does condemn sinfulness, but in one he additionally condemns the judgement of her fellow sinful humans against her.
Part of the trouble is the belief in human rights. When did they come in – was it the French Revolution, then the USA? I think we should be better off without them. “The best is the enemy of the good.” Totalitarians are usually idealists.
Tom, further – imagine if it were a comment on the corruption of children – in that case we’d have Jesus utterly condemning anyone who caused a child to sin, even though most children’s transgressions include only things that are trivial compared to genocide or murder. I can’t see how even that reading supports your case more than it does mine.
Oh, and er, something about BBC bias as well… *koff*
🙂
henryflower | 19.12.08 – 3:15 pm
It’s just that there seems a note of indignation in his voice when he talks about that millstone that contrasts with the softer line taken with the woman.
He gets pretty indignant about the money changers in the temple too…. gives ’em a taste of his belt, kicks their kit all over the floor….
David Vance.
Yes. Well I’d like to ask why you use the word ‘community’ when I remember vividly from elsewhere you said the word ‘community’ was a liberal construct.
I think you did over do it a little in this post, with the very strong language. A bit like the other night on the telly with the environment debate, you were poised and ready even before the opening credits finished. You put forward a great argument, much as you’ve done here, but when its put, as you put it, then it fails in its purpose which I think is to influence opinion. I don’t think you will influence opinion by radical or inflamatory language, but thats only my tuppence worth.
The best thing for the gay community is to get good role models like Iain Dale, it would further their aims much better than whinging about rights. I do think you OD here, but it was an interesting read all the same.
Regards,
Gosh.
“Gosh” – I was thinking something along the same lines. I just don’t see that there is anything constructive, persuasive, or virtuous about setting out to get people’s hackles up, and allowing them the opportunity to so easily mistake you for a crude idiotic bigot.
DV – I know you’re not one, but in fighting a cause publicly, don’t you have to be seen not to be one?
Back when it was thought homosexuality was demons or just deviant behaviour this sort of lambasting of the BBC would have been acceptable. And okay, they have a vested interest in the matter (and maybe they shouldn’t be so obvious in ‘promoting’ their view, but it’s a valid news story and, I think, the vast majority of licence fee payers in the 21st century would agree with it.*
I suppose what is up for debate is a) why the BBC don’t focus more on challenging the UN and naming and shaming those UN members who are responsible for such diabolical treatment of human beings and b) should the BBC be a soap box for this? Because most free-thinking non-(religiously)brainwashed people will agree with them, should their stories have the flavour of a campaign? After all, bigotted scumbags pay their fee too.
Where does neutrality end and representing the interests of the licence payer begin? Can they be the same?
*”vast majority” being of course my uninformed opinion from living out in the world and not from statistics or any other official data. Sorry if that offends.
Perhaps just like the UN’s Human Rights Council which was filled with Islamic Countries like Libya, their Gay Rights Commission will be run with Countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and most of the African Countries and they will no doubt attack western Countries for not being gay friendly.
DV, if you “figured that this post would raise hackles” but you didn’t want to offend BBBC readers you should have expressed it in a different way. The title “What a Gay Day” and the “Sodomists charter” were guaranteed to offend people, and not just gay people either. Leave it to the BBC to be “edgy”.
Another thing, the BBC mixes up arguments about
1)decriminalising homosexual acts,
2) forbidding discrimination against homosexuals,
3) stopping physical attacks on homosexuals,
4) forbidding critcism against homosexuals e.g. from religious grounds.
No reason why you should too.
I think we’ve been on this topic ages ago, and I think I said it then: homosexuality is an evolutionary self-destruct button. That’s why instinct (the one that is in favour of the perpetuation of the species) makes many feel – at the very least – uneasy about it.
CHuffer: I too have certain ‘instincts’ when it comes to reproducing my DNA, but I don’t let them over-rule my head or my heart.
Reading the BBC link the following section of the article caught my attention:
————————————
Yet there is considerable opposition to this at the UN. Socially conservative countries in the Arab world and in Africa did not want anything to do with it.
————————————-
Under what definition of ‘socially conservative countries’ could any of the 60 countries currently opposing the declaration possibly fall under?.
As I understand it social conservatives are interested in supporting the welfare state, this type of society does not exist in the Arab world.
It would be much more valid IMHO if DV had used this specific post to explore the obvious errors in the analysis by the BBC journalist.
As for the hubris directed towards Gays by DV, I find his comments without merit. In fact, his comments seem to share much of the same ideology as that displayed by Hamas etc.
“allowing them the opportunity to so easily mistake you for a crude idiotic bigot”.
For what it’s worth, I really don’t think it would be a mistake.
Chuffer: Why would people be uneasy about homosexuality because it’s an ‘evolutionary self-destruct button’ – surely, since they themselves will reproduce, and gay people won’t, there’s nothing to fear?
The only thing I find objectionable in the article the BBC ran was the caption beneath the photo, and I’m surprised no-one has mentioned it yet (though that’s understandable given that DV’s intemperate tone distracted us from holding the BBC to account).
“The US was the only major Western nation not to sign the declaration.”
It highlights that, even though the article explains right down at the end precisely why this is so:
“Even though the US Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot make homosexuality a crime, diplomats claimed the declaration was not compatible with the division between between state and federal law.”
So, the US has no need to sign, it’s already on board, and there are internal constitutional reasons why it cannot sign. Note also the standard distrustful use of the word ‘claimed’ when it comes to the ever-lying United States of America.
Anybody else bothered by that? DV – if you weren’t so busy pretending to be Ian Paisley or the Rev Phelps, you might’ve spotted that.
Regardless of whether you’re for or against the substance of this post, I think we can all agree the debate here has been more open and intelligent than anything that’s allowed on the BBC!
As an example of the open, tolerant attitude prevalent in certain parts of the world which shall remain nameless, when President Ahmadinejead was asked during his visit to New York last year about his government’s treatment of homosexuals, he gave a little smirk and replied that the problem of homosexuality simply did not exist in his country (in fact there is some truth to this claim since the mortality rate for persons found guilty of the crime of homosexuality in Iran is close to 100%).
I completely agree with Middleman’s point above about naming and shaming. If the BBC are so concerned about this issue (and I’ve got no problem with that), then let’s see them actually express the sort of moral outrage towards these countries that they seem to reserve only for Conservative spokesmen, Republicans and representatives of the Israeli government.
mugwump – I agree, but the poor BBC has horribly conflicted loyalties on this one: how to reconcile being pro-UN, pro-gay rights, and pro-Iranian at the same time…
They’ve done what all such conflicted people do – had a dig at America.
While I suspect that most of us on here would be on the French/Dutch side rather than the Syrian side of this question, DV’s post is really about the BBC’s very selective approach to balance. If 60 countries take the Syrian side, then the idea that there is a human right to participate in homosexual activity can hardly be a truth universally acknowledged. It can only be right to assert that there is such a human right if you are willing to admit that the Syrian (+59) opinion is worthless. That’s fine by me. But you cannot then take the view that the UN is the fount of all moral force. If it’s right to say let’s ignore the Syrians on gay rights, there can be no moral objection to invading Iraq without UN permission simply because it’s without UN permission (though there may be objection on other grounds.) And yet this very morning I saw a journo on the BBC asking Gordon Brown if he would absolutely rule out the use of force in future unless it was sanctioned by the UN.
DV is correctly pointing out that the BBC’s view is that the UN is the fount of all moral force and should not be disobeyed by mere branch offices like national governments, except and to the extent that the UN takes a different view from standard metropolitan progressive opinion, in which case the latter should take precedence.
Incidentally in the excitement of the gay thing some readers may have missed auntie sliding in a wee anti-American dig with its again very selective use of “claimed”
The US was the only major Western nation not to sign the declaration.
Even though the US Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot make homosexuality a crime, diplomats claimed the declaration was not compatible with the division between between state and federal law.
“diplomats said” would have done just as well as “diplomats claimed”, but would have lacked the necessary incredulous sneer.
David Vance,
Best to stick with your point #3 about the BBC’s abject failure to speak out against the worldwide persecution of Christians. That’s the best way to approach this subject, I think.
This is especially key because – if we’re going to be more honest here than the BBC – let’s face it: the worldwide danger faced by homosexuals is due mostly to a certain religion being in charge of certain countries.
You know which ones I mean: the ones to which the BBC refers as “Arab” states. The religion in charge is one which the BBC actually does go to great lengths to support.
And before anybody brings up the African-Christian angle, the African countries weren’t the Christian ones. The Muslim alliance has derailed previous attempts at this. Even Reuters will admit this. Silence about that from the BBC.
The headline of the article is biased also. The UN wasn’t “split”, but “divided”.
If there are 192 nations in the general assembly, and only 66 signed on while 60 or so countries lined up against it, where are the rest of them? How is that a split? Seems like the same way the BBC interprets poll numbers about Labour. The other way around and they call it a landslide victory. And 66 in favor is less than the number of countries with anti-homosexual laws. Not much of a success where it’s needed, then.
Lastly, while the BBC makes sure to point out twice (including the photo caption at the top) that the US didn’t sign on, they neglect to tell you all that China and Russia didn’t like it either. Bias? And guess why they said that the US is the only “major Western nation” to oppose it? Because their beloved Venezuela was, too.
Almost every other report I’ve seen manages to include a quote from some Syrian official, but the BBC – usually good for a quote from an aggrieved Muslim – left that out this time.
The rest of the your argument is the kind of thing that Beeboids have said makes them avoid this blog.
And now for a real militant gay agenda:
Can’t stay and argue – Fiona Bruce and Kate Silverton are about to do their now-legendary Top Gear ‘we’re realy VERY good friends’ act on Dave…..where’s my box of Kleenex?
I too thought this item was pretty poor “sodomists charter”? Sounds straight out of a radical Imams mouth.
I think the quality of the comments here have saved the day though.
Lee Moore – yup, noted above at 4.33pm, though I much prefer your phrasing 🙂
Sorry henry I must have cantered past your 4.33 comment too quickly
Hi David,
I agree totally with your contempt for the UN (an organisation that has Iran on its Human Rights Council). However, I do believe that it is an inalienable human right for one to pursue any non-abusive sexual relationship.
“Gay men, lesbians and transsexuals worldwide face daily violations of their human rights”
Unfortunately, this is true. I think we should all be supporting people everywhere to overthrow fascist, bigoted regimes that attempt to interfere in people’s private lives.
I thought you were a Libertarian?
Sorry, last post was me.
BBC say: “The US was the only major Western nation not to sign the declaration”
A far more accurate description would be:
“The US was the only major Western nation to put regional democracy ahead of supranational bureaucracy”
And the BBC wonder why they’re considered pro-UN and anti-American…
What a deeply unpleasant post. I suppose I am now used to David Vance’s bigotry, partly a legacy I suspect of the sctarianism of Northern Irish society. At least you’ve moved on from Catholics and now its just gays, Muslims and oh yes, AIDs victims.
Putting aside the usual homophobic vitriol, lets look at the substance of your point about the BBC.
‘the assertion by the BBC that “Gay men, lesbians and transsexuals worldwide face daily violations of their human rights” seems remarkably close to propagandising on behalf of the militant gay lobby for my liking. Since when did the right to gay sex become an inviolable “human right”, exactly?
Propagandising, really? You don’t think that’s maybe somewhat relevant to the discussion? ie. it’s why France and the Netherlands are seeking the declaration?
And it isn’t a human right to ‘gay sex’, there a basic human right to life! This is obvious if you care to read the article.
Of course, you will always feel that the BBC is biased in this way, depite your lack of evidence, because of your own narrow-minded ignorance and hate.
Boba Fett: as a catholic of Irish descent, I’d like to say on record, I’ve never come across even a hint of sectarianism in DV. Deploring the hostility shown by the BBC towards Ulster’s protestants is not the same thing as being sectarian, anymore than my loathing of the shaven-headed, tattooed, triumphalist, hate-driven orange marches that disfigured my years in Glasgow makes me a sectarian.
DV, that went down well then?
David P,
Yeah, those pesky Beeboid defined “Arab” States and their lack of interest in the “human rights” of Christians. I agree that focusing on BBC anti-Christian bias is rich territory.
Boba Fett/Scott,
Full moon tonight?
Grimer,
Yes, I am libertarian minded but don’t buy into “anything goes” – take your point however, made very fairly.
Gosh,
Yes, Iain is a fine chap. My use of the terms “community” was dripping in sarcasm!
Ian,
Appreciate your comments.
Dr Michael Jones,
Again, good comment and I do accept that the tone and words I use were harsher than I might choose on another day. That said, sometimes, just sometimes, every writer may choose to be a tad provocative!
Final point – My issue here lies with the BBC, pure and simple. Yes, it has brought the gay lobby issues to the forefront and if I may say, the overwhelming number of comments here show a sense of maturity and balance missing from any Beeb debate on these points.
Another thing, the BBC mixes up arguments about
1)decriminalising homosexual acts,
2) forbidding discrimination against homosexuals,
3) stopping physical attacks on homosexuals,
4) forbidding critcism against homosexuals e.g. from religious grounds.
No reason why you should too.
I agree with this statement. I think the BBC do this wilfully – they conflate these matters deliberately which makes them part of the homosexualist agenda.
David Vance | Homepage | 19.12.08 – 6:19 pm |
I meant more that using the BBC’s double standard about advocating for some groups and not others is a good way to complain about the way they pimped for the gay rights thing. If you show how Christians worldwide face persecution – in “Arab and African nations”, of course – and the BBC is silent, while at the same time using the “worldwide” hyperbole to promote sympathy for gay rights, then it becomes a case of double standards and not about whether you like gays or not.
If you think about it, this article features the classic trifecta of BBC biases: advocating for gays, defending for Islam, and bashing the US. No need to go on about homosexual agendas beyond that.
PS: I forgot to add in my earlier comment that – seeing as how the US is the only “major Western nation” that declined to sign up – this would be the perfect time for the BBC to mention that the US is so awful when it comes to gay rights, that even the Presidential inauguration will feature a committed anti-gay preacher. Oh, wait, that would reflect poorly on a certain beloved President-elect.
IMHO, whilst DV’s post was somewhat crudely put, there are some key problems with the original BBC article.
Firstly, as several have noted, the article talks specifically about gay human rights, with the implication that they are in some way different to straight human rights. The article betrays a leftist mindset by its grouping of individuals into categories based on perceieved differences, in this case sexuality. Such a basis would never make good law- surely leads to one law for one, one to another.
Secondly, as henryflower noted, the caption to the picture is appalling. What relevance this has to the article is absolutely minimal; any excuse to bash “backwards” Americans. Crass, offensive, and totally unacceptable from a public service broadcaster.
Thirdly, looking at the links to the side of the article to others, it is pretty clear where the BBC stand on this issue. “Gay rights, job done” reads with the bias that one would expect from Stonewall, not the BBC. Above all, it is the linking of gay rights with apartheid that really gets me. Colour is a birthmark, not a choice; sexual behaviour is most certainly open to presonal choice, whether straight or gay. The BBC seem to simply ignore this, and abuse emotive language to service the gay cause.
Fourthly, as others have noted, the BBC is remarkably silent about the presecution of Christians in Islamic countries. I speak from personal experience here: as an Anglican ordinand, I have colleagues and clergy friends who have served in Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and they have been beaten and had brother pastors murdered because of their Christian faith. That the BBC never report this is an absolute outrage, and a clear sign of their slavery to the Islamist cause.
This is how you know that the establishment has successfully made you a victim of their BBC mind control.
BBC mind control that may also be working in high conspiracy with your religious political and educational establishments behind your back, or it may not.
1. You feel irrational hatred towards an individual or group of individuals that you do not know on a personal basis. This is usually called mindlessly pathetic prejudice.
2. You have difficulties in forming relationships, and tend to trust the people you should the most, the very least. Like for example your mother or father.
3. You hate much of what the BBC does and says, but feel compelled to carry on subjecting yourself to more and more obvious BBC brainwashing.
4. You feel the need to be part of a community, but don’t like the community the BBC presents to you. therefore you stay firmly behind closed doors, in an ever more isolated and paranoid state of mind. Therefore subjecting yourself and your family to ever more BBC/MSM MIND CONTROL propaganda.
5. You know that a serious fear of terrorism is irrational and completely counter productive. Yet you feel compelled to fear terrorism all the same. You notice that this irrational fear is always increased after watching The 9 o’clock BBC News.
6. You know you personally are an honest person that would not harm a fly. Yet you irrationally fear being arrested for something you can not even imagine actually doing. Or even worse something you do not believe should even be illegal.
In short your confidence in yourself and your society is low and you feel it is getting lower by the day. Especially the more you have subjected yourself to The BBCs dangerously divisive sole destroying bullshit.
The ONLY cure for the above, that currently exists to my knowledge is to simply stop watching or listening to the BBC. Also the rest of the broadcast media in general, for that matter. Throw the evil mind control device in the nearest council dump or available skip, or simply pull the plug off it ASAP.
Do not buy any news-papers. However if for some unavoidable reason you do so. For the good of yourself and your family DO NOT READ any of it. If you do mistaking do so, do not for any reason take any of it seriously. Even the crossword puzzle can often be a form of subtle mind control.
Concentrate your mental and physical energy on the events and realities that daily surround you. Very preferably, without reference to anything you were ever told at school or ‘picked up’ from The BBC over your entire lifetime. Use as much as possible the common sense that GOD gave you from the moment of your CONCEPTION. Above all treat ALL others at ALL times, as you would hope they would treat you.
If you mother did not tell you this when you were young, she should have done. However learn to forgive her for not only this, but everything else your mother or your father ever did, that you did not like at the time, or do not like now.
Always remembering that although the following is true in essence, it is still bad advice.
Don’t bother giving advice, because the wise do not need it, and the fools will not heed it.
You do have a duty to your designer, to always give the best advice you can. Whether you know anyone is seriously paying attention or not.
Simply try very hard not to get angry when you find most people are indeed fools. Because it really is not their fault.
It is however the fault of The BBC and of the evil and highly manipulative establishment that not only has ALWAYS totally controlled the BBC. It also has the utter cheek to force you, by threat of IMPRISONMENT, to pay for it.
Thanks, Atlas; just when we all thought the level of debate was getting quite good….
I’m very fond of your reference to the ‘BBCs dangerously divisive sole destroying bullshit.’ That’s ‘sole’ as in fish I assume. A comment on the EU’s CFP, no doubt.
And:
‘Do not buy any news-papers. However if for some unavoidable reason you do so. For the good of yourself and your family DO NOT READ any of it. If you do mistaking do so, do not for any reason take any of it seriously. Even the crossword puzzle can often be a form of subtle mind control.’
Priceless. Just about the funniest paragraph I have read anywhere in the last year. Magnificent. Is your medicine commercially available?
Good post DV, and the screeching from the usual suspects just confirms it.
Contrary to the BBC, this:
http://tinyurl.com/6rnh53
is not some uncontroversial piece of touchy-feely legislation and trying to pass it off as such by casting opponents as gay-bashers surely is bias. No, Dorothy, the people who want to string up Sir Elton are not ‘socially conservative’ – not unless Stalin was a progressive.
Ditto, what other folks have said about the UN. It’s the same phenomenon that casts Jordan as a moderate Islamic nation, or a savage dictatorship, depending on whether its government is criticising Britain, or trying to get an extradition order passed. Which is it? The UN as the source of moral authority, or the UN as a cesspit?
To go completely off topic, and because there’s no general thread today, I’d like to mention that our favourite panelist, none other than Ms Chakrabati (spelling?) is on Any Questions this evening. I can’t wait (not).
Tom,
“Ooooh, for instance the agenda that has successfully demanded that Catholic adoption societies must be closed down by the State for the ‘crime’ of refusing to hand over Catholic babies to same-sex couples, because they persist in believing in (perhaps like your Dad) old-fart notions like kids ideally having a father and a mother.”
You make an interesting point. Forgive any rambling (I’m half-cut) but this raises a few issues:
1) Why is it OK for the UK Government to ban catholic adoption for discrimination against gay people, when it is OK for Hackney Council to discriminate against white people? I’m not sure if it is still practised, but I remember reading that white parents were banned from adopting ‘coloured’ children because they were ‘incapable’ of providing the ‘cultural sensitivity’ needed by said children.
2) Plenty of people do think that children do need a mother and father. Personally, I think it probably just boils down to ‘good guy – bad guy’ parenting. A ‘bread winner’ and a ‘carer’ if you will. I see no reason why a gay couple can’t full fill both roles.
3) These ideas/ideals are completely conflicted. For example:
3.1) The rights of a gay couple to ‘have children’ is placed above the rights of a child not to be bullied mercilessly at school. Obviously, in an ideal world, a child would not be bullied for having gay parents. Unfortunately, in the real world, this isn’t the case. Is it fair to the child to place them into an environment where they will be made to feel ashamed of their own ‘parents’?
3.2) Should a child spend their entire childhood in care simply because the ‘powers that be’ believe that the colour of your skin is important enough to prohibit adoption?
3.3) Should a child spend their entire childhood in care because people like me worry about gay parents’ children being bullied at school?
There are no right or wrong answers. I really don’t know where I stand on the ‘gay parent’ issue. I certainly don’t think that white parents should be banned from adopting non-white kids. I don’t think kids should live in care if a loving gay couple are willing to adopt. However, I do think a balance between the ‘rights’ of adults and children needs to be found.
Sorry if that doesn’t make much sense, but I’m having trouble expressing myself.
Sorry, me again…
Duncan:
“it looks like you’re condoning racism or homophobia or even gingophobia.
Is racism/antisemitism/homophobia okay, or do you agree with me and say that there are some limits to free speech?”
____
There are no limits to free speech. I am not racist or homophobic but I believe that people should be free to be. Unfortunately, we live in an era of ‘thought crime’.
There are perfectly valid reasons for some people to be ‘racist’. I grew up in a tiny village with a fantastic sense of community. I moved to Bethnal Green in London. If you go to the local cafes, you will hear views that the BBC/politicians/metropolitan elite believe to be totally beyond the pale – i.e. racist. However, if the government imposed that level of alien immigration upon my home village, I too would be a ‘racist’.
People should be free to vent their anger, lest they become violent. This crude mind control that we are all subjected to is the reason for true racism, not just the ‘bugger off’ reaction we see in Britain.
Tom:
In marked contrast to his treatment of the woman taken in adultery, isn’t it?
there are no degrees of sinfulness…. God is perfect, so any and all imperfections appear black before him.
______________
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t an adulterous women presented before him for judgement? I believe he (supposedly) responded ‘let he who is without sin, cast the first stone’ (at the traditional stoning punishment for adultery) .
henryflower:
CHuffer: I too have certain ‘instincts’ when it comes to reproducing my DNA, but I don’t let them over-rule my head or my heart.
henryflower | 19.12.08 – 4:18 pm | #
______
You closet rapist!!!!!
(joke)
I don’t think kids should live in care if a loving gay couple are willing to adopt. However, I do think a balance between the ‘rights’ of adults and children needs to be found.
I don’t want to get into this because the issue is really about BBC bias, but five minutes looking into the reality of the homosexual lifestyle would convince anyone, I think, that this is not something a child should be exposed to or desensitised to, ignoring the basic fact that any parent knows – that a child needs a mummy and daddy.
The facts around the gay lifestyle are never exposed by the BBC, even when magazines such as Time Out do, and even when the medical evidence about its harmfulness, or its roots in disorder are exposed. To the BBC it is, plainly, a normal phenomenon. Reality says it simply isn’t, and I say that knowing and loving a number of homosexuals.
Grimer – you’re projecting!
Strange bit I half-heard on Radio4’s PM prog a few weeks back:
“…this ruling has put many gay couples in a difficult position.”
The mind boggles…
The key issue in this world is not rights for this group or that group, but the sorry replacement of the concept of individual rights in favour of “collective” (or group) rights, known as “human rights”.
The UN protects no one. DV is right.
A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission.
If you exist only because society permits you to exist—you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time.
As John Galt’s famous speech said:
“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.”
Good post David
In my opinion
Gay, other so called minority rights = special treatment, eg read out to me during “diversity training”, ie propaganda, indoctrination,
“There is nothing as UNEQUAL as the EQUAL treatment of UNEQUALS”
Tom 11:59 – You said everything I was going to say. I’m in accord with all your points.
Specifically, there are no “gay rights” or any other kind of specialised rights. We all enjoy exactly the same rights, and those cover gay people as well as straight people; black people as well as white people, Jews as well as Christians, and so on.
Finally, there is not such thing as “the transgendered” – a made-up, self-important, meaningless word if ever there was one. You can get a surgeon to slice ‘n’ dice you and pump you full of silicone to mimic secondary sex characteristics, and hormones to suppress the growth of beard or ovulation, but your DNA remains the same. If you were born a man, it doesn’t matter what butchery you and hormone “therapy” you undergo, you will die a man. Obviously, this goes for women, too. “Transgendered” men never lose their male voice. Stop taking the hormones and all their secondary sexual characteristic will come back.
The word “transgendered” is attention-seeking and self-glorifying and part of the left new world order.