Friday, 15 January 2010

The Bride Wore a Suit.

Spooky Madcow
"Do you, Gorgon, take this man Peter to be your awful dreaded husband?"

Gorgon "Do I?"

The Count "You do."

Gorgon "I do"

Spooky Madcow "And do you, Peter, take this, er, this thing here, in sickness and on the National Health?"

The Count "I suppose so"

Spooky Madcow "Then I now pronounce you man and man-shaped thing. For as long as you both shall spin. You may now do to each other what you do to the country every day- wait until I'm out of the room, please!"

Speaker Bercow is apparently a champion of gay rights. I'm sure everyone out there, gay or straight, realises that the only thing any politician really champions is themselves and standing for causes they know nothing about is always simple vote-grabbing. Call me cynical if you like. I don't mind, because I am.

So, Spooky is to hold a gay wedding (oh, I don't care what the proper PC terminology is and there's no point getting all worked up about it because it changes every five minutes anyway) and he is to hold it in the Spooker's Chamber in Parliament.

I don't care about that. I'm not gay, nor am I religious so it doesn't matter to me who marries who or what they subsequently or previously do to each other in private. As long as they don't want to do it to me, it's no business of mine at all.

What I'm wondering is - are heterosexual marriages allowed in the same place? Would Spooky publicise them with the same fervour if they were? And if not, why should we see this as anything other than simple vote-grabbing?

The thing about such divisive methods of vote-grabbing, of course, is that it only grabs votes from the group being 'championed'. It tends to turn any group that disagrees with the 'championed' group away.

Norman Clegg, last of the sombre whiners, is finding that out too. This leader of the opposition to the opposition, whose arrival into a room always brings a certain absence with it, has declared that religious schools must teach that being gay is a Good Thing.

I've read the Bible. Was forced to as a child. I can still list the Old Testament books in order but I get a bit lost towards the end and have forgotten the names of most of the New Testament ones. However, I can tell you with certainty that if you're gay, God doesn't like you. He said so in his book. If it's any consolation, he doesn't like me much either but for different reasons (I'm scruffy, lippy and disruptive, smoke and drink too much and would, if I could, spend far more time with loose women).

So telling adherents of the Bible and the Torah and the Koran that they must teach that something totally at odds with their belief is a Good Thing, is the same as saying they must hold up their holy book in class and tell the children 'God was wrong'. It's not going to work, is it?

Clegg doesn't see that. I suspect not even Stewart, nor even Archbishop Cranmer have yet made that link. I have no links to Muslim commentators but I suspect they will be similarly incensed. As a vote-grab, it's backfiring faster than a specially designed backfiring clown car run on the wrong sort of fuel with the timing set by an untrained deaf and blind man who's just polished off his second case of Red Stripe and has no fingers.

It is guaranteed to infuriate anyone of any faith (and there are lots) and it annoys faithless, straight old me too. It'll even annoy a lot of gay people. Not because of what he wants to order the schools to teach but because he wants to order the schools to teach any particular worldview at all.

If he had said that faith schools should not teach the kids that gays are evil and should be thrown off mountains, I'd be behind him all the way. If he had stuck with 'stopping homophobic bullying' I'd be okay with that, although I'd rather he said 'stop all bullying' but that's the impossible dream of all who meddle in the education system. Kids will bully each other, always have and always will. It's how they establish pecking order and it's one of the things that drives the less physical into the arms of real learning so they can hire the bullies, years later, and then fire them just after they've signed for a mortgage. Karma can be fun.

Sexuality is an individual thing and at least up to puberty, kids don't know for sure which way their preferences lie. They don't know, and most don't want to know and don't care. Labour has already forced kids to grow up too fast and plan to extend that into the primary schools. Adult life is confusing and complicated. Kids have a short few years of uncomplicated playing around. Leave them alone.

You never know, we might even end up with fewer utter gits leaving those school gates and no need for a school maternity wing.

When I was at school, a serious-faced chemistry teacher taught us about dangerous explosives and said 'Now don't try this at home.' We went straight home after school... past the chemist, the grocer, the ironmonger and the gardening shop and we had our first detonation by 8 pm. The components were easier to get in those days and nobody really minded as long as we didn't blow up anyone else.

If we had had sex education, we might have tried that too.

That's the thing with kids. You tell them how to do something and they want to give it a go. Teach kids about anal sex and imagine what a bully and his gang will do with that information, next time they have a gay kid cornered.

Clegg goes way beyond the buggery lessons he plans though. He wants all of this:

* Change the law to allow gay men and women the same marital rights as straight couples, including the symbolic right to use the word "marriage" rather than civil partnerships.

I don't care what it's called. I don't care if religion decides to rename heterosexual marriage as 'Splink' in retaliation. It's just a label. It shouldn't matter to the two people involved what that label is and if it does, perhaps it's not the partner you want so much as the label.

* Reverse the ban on gay men being allowed to give blood.

There is a reason that gay men can't give blood. It is not based on discrimination. It is not based on a fear that some five-bellied, slope-foreheaded, hairy-armed goon is going to wake from surgery and demand a mochaccino and then criticise the curtains. It is based on the fact - fact, Clegg, you might have heard the term somewhere - that gay men are at a higher risk of being HIV positive, higher risk of hepatitis, and so on. It's biological risk management, not homophobia.

I don't give blood. I'm not gay and have no disease but since the NHS don't want to treat me because I smoke and drink, I consider that they get enough tax out of me without getting blood too. Besides, I'm still using it. In fact, no smoker or drinker should give blood under the current regime in case they contaminate the Puritans.

* Guarantee any refugees genuinely fleeing a country because of persecution over their sexual orientation asylum in the UK.

This one I actually agree with. I recall an Iranian gay man who was to be deported back from the UK to Iran even though he'd have been dangling from a crane within an hour of arrival - for no crime at all other than who he chooses to sleep with. Meanwhile we still have Hooky and others who are safe because they have been convicted of real crimes in their home countries and it's against their inhuman rights to make them face the consequences.

It would have to be applied with caution however. Such a guarantee can be easily abused.

* Review Uganda's membership of the Commonwealth if its government was to bring in the death penalty for practicing gays.

I think Uganda has already backtracked on that one. And again, Cleggy, we do a lot of business with other countries who kill people just for being gay. What about them - or do dollars still speak louder than lives for you?

Clegg comes across as a Lib Dem. Inconsistent, ill-informed and irrelevant.

If you want my vote, Cleggy, you'd better get your brain back from whoever you've loaned it to, and then study the manual carefully before switching it on.

But then, you don't want my vote. None of the three main parties want to be associated with a filthy, drinky-smoker, do they?


John Pickworth said...

"As long as they don't want to do it to me, it's no business of mine at all."

Oh. I'll put the Liebfraumilch back in the fridge then? :-(

Seriously though, I am gay, yes really (wooo hooo). But not the screaming queen variety, just so we're clear.

I have to say LI, you're bang on the money here. I wish I had time to give a fuller response but you've nailed it totally.

PS. I used to love blowing stuff up as a kid. I was something of a bomb making genius... back in the days when you could look it all up in a library.

banned said...

If I were a gay child the last thing I would want would be a teacher making a song and dance about it.
If I recall correctly none of my mates were particualrly aware of what "queer" or "bent" actually was until David Bowie 'came out' in the early 1970's as a publicity stunt which forced us to confront the issue. We concluded that liking Bowies music would not make us faggits.
Until then then being a "homo" meant being like Larry Grayson or Liberace and none of us knew anybody remotely like that in real life.

Keep it out of the classroom altogether and let the children grow up as they will.

JuliaM said...

"Clegg comes across as a Lib Dem. Inconsistent, ill-informed and irrelevant."

You could replace the word 'LibDem' with 'politician' in that sentence and it'd still make sense...

Snowolf said...

I don't care if religion decides to rename heterosexual marriage as 'Splink' in retaliation.

Orange juice >>>>>> monitor.

Superb line, it's always nice to start the day with a laugh.

manwiddicombe said...

There is a reason that gay men can't give blood. It is not based on discrimination .. .. .. gay men are at a higher risk of being HIV positive, higher risk of hepatitis, and so on. It's biological risk management, not homophobia.

Ten years ago I would have agreed with this statement entirely however reported cases of HIV infection in heterosexuals are now larger than those in homosexuals. And growing.

The risk to donors from blood taken from both groups may soon be equal.

Young Mr. Brown said...

"the only thing any politician really champions is themselves and standing for causes they know nothing about is always simple vote-grabbing."

Do you really think that this is going to help him see off Farage in Buckingham?

I am Stan said...

Very interesting post Leggy..

As leader of Britains newest (and fastest growing) political party I have an ear to the Parliamentary gossip mill,

A house of commons cleaner, after imbibing a couple of cans of Skol an sharing a spliff with me whispered in my ear that,during a policy discussion with Charlie Kennedy and Ming which had come to an impasse as no one could think of any policies Cleggover with a shout declared that he had relocated 3 bottles of Clos de L'Oratoire Des Papes 2007 from the Adam and Eve pub he had visited earlier that day and had stashed them in his bicicle pannier,

He left the caravan and returned with 3 bottles and with a cheeky smirk predicted that "these bad boys will get us thinking eh" to which Kennedy wholehartedly agreed although Ming was rumoured to have turned purple..

15 minutes later the 3 bottles consumed the conversation and debate flowed and the Schools sex education policy was drafted on some knapkins the last tennant of the caravan had left behind,

I have this information on good authority as the cleaners daughter was present,she was there on the invite of Cleggover as part of his public consultation policy and had to lend them her eyeliner to use as a pencil.

What is my point...well the irony is that Clos de L'Oratoire Des Papes 2007 made in the famous region of des papes by an established wine maker,from a blend of grenache blanc, calirette and rousanne offers smooth and refined gentle red fruits but no flavour which is ironic me thinks,an ideal wine to accompany a flavourless,pointless off the cuff LibDem policy.

Apparently the hangovers from this pointless wine and policy are severe..

Bottoms Up!

Stewart Cowan said...

Thanks for the limelight, LI.

Unfortunately, I imagine most faith schools will go along with everything the government/EU dictates to them. They have done so far.

They know that evangelical-types have been made to look extreme and they don't want to be labelled likewise by putting up a fight.

You would think the time must come when they will just say 'No, we aren't playing this game anymore."

Re. 'homophobic bullying' - I left a comment on The Marmalade Sandwich in reply to this comment...

"And why this big concern about homophobic bullying? Why not simply be concerned about bullying per se? And of course the answer is because some people are obsessed with hate crime."

Pure and simply, it is social engineering. By getting people to think that a) there are loads of 'LGBT' children in schools and b) they are getting a hard time then they can build on the concern to normalise homosexuality to children.

They are saying: look, 'gays' and lesbians are no different from you.

Every school should deal with bullying when it occurs and every case will be different. The only reason for singling out 'homophobic' bullying is, like I say, for sympathy and to pretend that it's normal.

This then gives them the scope to attack those who still have their heads screwed on properly, thus Christians and anyone else who wants freedom of speech and thought are threatened with being criminalised.

It's a very simple, yet effective, way of constructing a police state.

And what is an 'LGB' or 'LGBT' child anyway? From what I understand, the majority of teenagers experience same-sex desire. What Stonewall want, IMHO, is to use this opportunity to ensnare vulnerable children into their lifestyle.

P.S. The Almighty doesn't hate homosexuals, but does hate the behaviour. I guess it is sticking two fingers up at His creation.

Angry Exile said...

I can't give blood here because the Australian blood bank people won't let me. Supposedly they're afraid of the possibility I'll give everybody mad cow disease but I suspect the real reason is the fear my Pommie blood will make them crave warm beer and be shit at cricket (well, more shit than Ponting and co were last year).

Can I sue someone or should I just say fuck 'em all and keep my blood all to myself if they're not interested?

Anonymous said...

"Kids will bully each other, always have and always will."

And they don't stop when they leave school.


Anonymous said...

Great stuff from Pat Condell

Mac the Knife said...

"In fact, no smoker or drinker should give blood under the current regime in case they contaminate the Puritans."

Way ahead of you, hacked up the donor card I'd carried since 1975 as well.

Did it on July 1st. 2007 for some reason...

Stewart Cowan said...

Can I also say this?

There are so many bloggers out there who see what's happening with the attacks on freedom and the global government being set up, but don't understand the connection with the 'gay' agenda, sex 'education,' gender equality, etc.

It is really important for the globalists that the traditional idea of the family is destroyed. I suppose because strong families build strong communities and therefore strong nations.

The original 'gay rights' activists knew that they had to destroy the traditional family in order to have what they saw as complete 'equality'.

This man: Henry Makow writes a lot about it. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's worth reading. He invented the boardgame 'Scruples' FWIW!

Paul Garrard said...

Sadly I can't give blood any more due to illness. I think your reasons for not are quite lame. It is a noble and selfless act.

Leg-iron said...

JP - The wine is fine. No vaseline.

Leg-iron said...

Paul G - have you seen the uproar when it was discovered that many lung transplants have come from smokers?

I used to give blood too. I don't now, and no longer carry a donor's card, because of the attitude of those who would benefit.

If they want to continually insult me, fine, but I won't be paying for the privilege.

opinions powered by