Europe - Again

I wasn't paying attention. Of course 'Europe' is involved with the gay marriage rubbish, this time the Council of Europe. Just need to keep up with the EuReferendum blog by Richard North.

Left Spoiler Vote

The so called Gay Marriage vote has at least shown that a large number of Conservatives do actually believe in a strong, moral country. They have once again led rather than be led, supporting the majority for the good of all. The fads and fashions of the Left and the far Left who use these useful idiots, voting for 'gay marriage'  to upset our society, not cure any supposed ill.

I feel a little more comfortable about the Conservative party now and I think it has clearly shown Cameron for what he is; an idiot, devoted to Left ideology. This is not the time for such pathetic politics, with people like Cameron seeking important jobs, like party leader, PM to bolster their ego.

At times of crisis a country needs clear, decisive leadership, men of ideas and with a clarity of purpose all designed to bring about the best result for the country as a whole. Instead of visionaries we get the boy band Cameron, Clegg and Miliband.

There used to be a saying that you wouldn't trust someone to look after your kids, which being from more trustworthy days meant that most people wouldn't harm your kids but some people were too stupid. Cameron has already proven he is not that good with looking after kids and I don't think we need any more evidence about trusting him with the country.

This weasel avoided a manifesto pledge to allow us a say on how we are governed and now he says we can have a vote if we re-elect him. Nice that he understands he needs to resort to blackmail; there is little chance of being re-elected on merit.

Newsnight Debate

OMG!. I watched a painful few minutes of the live Newsnight debate on same sex marriages. There was a Catholic clergyman who was against it, an Anglican who supported it, a gay Catholic man who thought civil partnership was enough, a gay couple, two lesbians and a woman representing an organisation that wants to keep marriage as it is. So, three against-ish the unasked for legislation and five for. I guess that is what the BBC calls fair.

Though Paxman suggesting the woman for, was a bigot was unhelpful. Maybe, in ideal Paxman world you wouldn't be allowed to have a different opinion, based on hundreds of years of history and experience, but we are not there yet.

Paxman couldn't control things either, because all of those supporting same sex marriage continually shouted down the others, thus not allowing them to be heard. Not a strong argument I feel. One lesbian was incensed at the mention of 'gay' marriage, because she is obviously aware that the Left and its activists need to frame the debate and capture the way words are used., Again, poor argument.

The other, Scottish, comedian (of course) sneered at agreeing with a Tory and then shot off at a tangent to demand he not only support her view on marriage, but also stop the 'massive cuts to the NHS' etc. I'm sure she is well aware there haven't been any and that even an imbecile knows we are spent out, due to her idiot friends.

The gay men said they wanted to marry, they have children and just want equality. Well, those children came about through a biological process from which you are excluded. Who decided on that inequality then, God or Darwin? And who decided, for the children, that they should be given to a homosexual couple? What if their brain chemistry doesn't predict for homosexuality? What then of nature and nurture?

It is not 'progressive' of a society to allow homosexual relationships to be openly accepted, it is just a societal decision. Progressive, as is intended by the political activists, suggested correctness, something that just has to be. In that sense, of blind obedience to natural logic, homosexuality would only ever be wrong, but in a sentient being other decisions can be made.

The past decision to force homosexuals into the background was rational; they had to seek each other out where they could identify each other, natural except for the psychological harm done to them. By making it mainstream we have eased the burden on them, but haven't cured the three part society that now exists instead of the old two part. If I go into a ladies changing room, I am a pervert and liable to arrest.

They have no protection from lesbian viewing though. Why is that? Should we not now have three changing rooms?

Anyway, the debate was rubbish, Paxman partisan as ever and clearly showed homosexuals in a poor, self serving light, which isn't true either (but is of the politics of the gay movement). Thank goodness ice hockey was on at 11.

Question Time, Again

Still no idea why I subject myself like this, but sometimes it is good sport to watch the couldn't-care-less-about-the-damage lefties coming up with ideas of the greatest stupidity. Like someone skewering the extremely self impressed Will Self by saying, if there are not many £2m houses, why have a tax on them? Self then squirmed and twisted, but grudgingly admitted it wasn't a great idea, but then suddenly said 'but I didn't think of it!' as if that had any importance. He just wants it for the usual leftie reason; spite.

Will Young is for gay marriage, apparently. I guess people on death row would vote to abolish capital punishment. I still don't understand why the homosexual community don't understand that society invented marriage to create a family unit as a stable way to raise children. That the 'attraction' is just to procreate, we are a slave to it. Homosexuals cannot procreate and this is the essential difference.

A man who cannot supply the seed or a woman who cannot conceive are not the same as homosexuals in this respect, because they are drawn to the opposite sex by nature, as if they could conceive. Homosexuals are drawn to the same sex, contrary to the genetic coding to procreate and that is not a dangerous thing. It is a fact. I'm sure we could devise drugs to make everyone gay, but I'm not sure there is a future in that.

I don't really see it as a command from God, so the Church's angle is not something I am concerned with, it is the power politics being enacted by some homosexuals. I'm sure also that homosexuals, who demand that the word 'normal' cannot be applied to sexuality (which kind of ignores why one human being would be attracted to another at all), want to have marriages just like everyone else so they can claim to be mainstream. It is why they also demand to be handed or allowed to purchase children (the child of course, having no rights in our society).

Will Young keeps talking about being terrified by certain language, well he should try seeing it from the position of someone who doesn't think he has power on his side. Those people have to suffer, literally in silence, an outrageous assault on the freedom of speech that we once had. A world where I can have an opinion that someone else may oppose. We don't have to fight or even get nasty. We can just debate, disagree or ignore. But gays apparently need something else. They need to have a special category of crime; hate crime. This of course is based on the way you think. And that isn't worrying?

Hold on though, I don't think you are allowed to oppose Climate Change, so perhaps it is any leftist agenda that is protected by the tag hate crime?