Monday 4 February 2013

Calling Occupants Of Planet Cameron

Why does David Cameron have an impact on what goes on, on the planet he rarely visits? The manifesto 'pledge' for a tax break for married couples has been dropped, so he can spend time on a project that no-one asked for, homosexual marriage.

Who on earth (no pun intended) put this in Cameron's head? It is being pushed by activists no doubt and some of them may be homosexuals, rather than the anarchist ingrates that are behind most of these attacks on Western civilisation (because it is 'capitalist').

First the Left tried to set the battleground by twisting language and using Political Correctness to invent things you can't say. Here is an example. My views attract the accusation of 'homophobe' which is designed to suggest my view is extreme and should not be allowed to be aired and certainly not listened to.

Thing is though, I'm not afraid of homosexuals, I find the idea distasteful and unpleasant. The reason for this is that I find women attractive, so I would guess that it would be reasonable, for a reasonable person to find my attitude unsurprising.

Nature, as Richard Dawkins and Brian Cox I'm sure would agree, cares nothing for society or human rights, but just sets the parameters for life. To ensure the best result from reproduction, Nature requires animals (humans) to use sex to mix the DNA. So, to careless Nature, homosexuality is not wrong, it is just useless and an evolutionary dead-end. Which is why I always say that all homosexuals are glad their parents weren't.

Sometimes, a chemical imbalance results in a person who does find members of the same sex attractive. Recognising that in the sentient life that humans have, we engage in sexual acts for recreation, not exclusively procreation, perhaps we should not ban same sex, sex.

Marriage is another human construct. It is the union of two people for the best protection of the children of that union. Outrageously, homosexuals cannot have children (though they can buy them) and I'm sure there will be some future activist agitation to make homosexuals believe they are being victimised again.

Society has allowed same sex people to co habit and have 'civil partnerships', nothing else is required. We have to keep a focus on the qualities of the society we have created, to serve real needs, not allow and introduce divisive elements, that are only being promoted by people of malicious intent.

To be brutally honest, we are dealing with choices. When a person becomes 'aware' that they feel they are a girl in a man's body, they seek drugs to assist them with being a 'girl'. They look to surgery to 'improve' their physical condition. All of this we must not be 'judgemental' about, we should allow it as a natural part of their development; we can help them so we should. Well, why then is it 'wrong' to suggest alternative drugs that would make them comfortable as they are, as a man?

No, we get the activists screaming from the rooftops about making victims of these poor people (which is actually exactly what the activists themselves desire and are causing). But it is just a choice and I would suggest, the most obvious one. Again, homosexuality faces the same challenge and the same choices.

If we must accept, apparently, the bludgeoning point of view that the chemical imbalance that causes homosexuality is their right to maintain and just accept they are 'differently sexual' then where does that stop? Animals, children, rapists? Do you not find it strange that, whilst there is no reason to think a bloke who fancies other blokes would also fancy young boys (else why do heterosexual men mange, on the whole to leave young girls alone?), that there is an activist push for ever younger age of consent for boys?

Not forgetting that there are organisations, one of which Harriet Harman used to represent, that sees no reason why sex between adults and children should not be allowed. It is because Left activists are pushing it. It is also why so many politicians of the Left get arrested for child sex offences; they were convinced it was OK by those they associate with.

Homosexuality exists. If they want to seek medical assistance to be heterosexual then that should be a choice they can make, without the vilification that currently attaches to it. If they want to be in a same sex partnership, then so be it, (though it does cause issue with segregation of course, toilets etc) but leave marriage with people who can and do have ambitions for a family.

No comments:

Post a Comment