Arrogance

Peter Tatchell was playing his games last night on QT and talking crap, but the Left educated audience lapped it up. Ah, for the days when thinking for yourself was valued. First let us establish that the audience was programmed in its responses. To the violent, barbaric murder of an innocent they asked the question, what do we expect people to do when we have the foreign policies we have?

Well, our foreign policy is a mess and is today an echo of the empty headed government of Blair and his monkeys. But it was intended to oppose the barbarians such as we saw on our streets, in their homelands. We just didn't do it too well. That is what happens when you give a serious job to someone who likes the idea of a job, but not its content.

Interestingly, we are less resolute about dealing with the barbarians here. Anyway, it is clear that the question from the audience member was idiotic and could only really been seen as a support for the murderers. I'm sure that is not what was meant, but when you chant Left mantras that are very much the vogue these days, that is what you end up saying.

So, their keenness to applaud Tatchell was partly due to his artfulness, partly not paying attention and partly indoctrination - going with fashion. It was stated by Ian Paisley that he thinks marriage is for families and so irrelevant to same sex couples who have civil partnerships, which covers the issue of legal relationship. Marriage is for children and their upbringing.

Dimmo of course needed to undermine this entirely sensible and clear view, so quoted comments of Paisley's where he had said that sex between people of the same gender disgusted him and needled him to explain how this fits with what he just said. Well, it fits exactly. I'm sure if you are a man and you 'fancy' women, the idea of sex with a man would 'disgust' you, indeed offend you. This is OK though. Whilst 'causing offence' is currently one of the greatest crimes you can commit, it is OK if you are offending heterosexuals or the Christian faith.

This is a view apparently that is not allowed. You are not allowed to think such thoughts. Tatchell then pulled his master-stroke  he said that by supporting marriage for just heterosexual couples he was living in the past, that was not traditional, it was old fashioned. The audience loved it and applauded so hard their iphones nearly fell out of their pockets. Tatchell of course, was conflating not liking the idea of men having sex with opposing the right for homosexuals to exist. Dimmo helped this view along, but it was not even nearly what Paisley had said. Truth and the Left however, are not frequent bedfellows.

Tatchell had not produced a killer political point, undermined an argument, proved a falsehood in his opponents argument. No he had done something much more important, he had appealed to fashion and who will not pay any price to be seen as 'in fashion'. It is dreary to have to point out that marriage is itself something of an old fashioned idea. Indeed has not the Left used homosexuals to promote the destruction of marriage and families? So Tatchell supports one old fashioned idea but not another. Oh dear, the inconsistency, the hypocrisy. Never mind, its not important, its Left wing political manoeuvring.

Tatchell then went on to talk more self evident crap, when he offered to level the playing field he had himself disturbed by suggesting heterosexuals should not be denied the option of civil partnerships! Clearly, it is not what you say, but the way you say it.

I reserve my greatest outrage with homosexuals though, for the deliberate harm they do to children. They do it solely for the most selfish of reasons. This demand that they should be able to buy the children they cannot naturally procure. I say buy, because they are viewed by the state as eligible not just for political reasons, but through being able to afford to raise them.

Consider the boy given to two men. We will say the adoption was enacted when he was a baby, so he knows nothing else and we will assume that the couple fall in the statistically unlikely group of homosexuals who stay together. (And we will certainly assume that the adults find adults attractive and leave the boy alone, just as heterosexuals can adopt without interfering with the child).

The boy however is not biologically prone to homosexuality. He will be subjected nevertheless, to images at home of homosexual behaviour. How will he relate to other boys at school who are heterosexual? Where does his sense of relationship build from? When he meets a girl, how will she react to being taken home, to an environment she cannot understand? Will the boy attempt to be homosexual to please his 'dads'? Will he feel he has let them down if he dates a girl? Will they project feelings of dejection if he isn't homosexual?

This is also to ignore the simple way kids address blatant, rank stupidity by laughing at it. A family of homosexuals is not like a man and a woman who cannot have children for medical reasons. It is a state of being that they have created intentionally, knowing that children are not possible (though perhaps there should be a law banning only heterosexuals from being able to procreate). Yet the demand to 'have' children to 'normalise' their 'marriage' is paramount. Or political to an outside observer.

Marriage was devised to build a family unit for raising children, love didn't really enter into it, so this modern argument is nice, but if you use it to undermine a working system, you are just stupid. And as for homosexuals who want it all, marriage, kids the whole thing - grow up.

As for the QT audience? Well, the Left have ensured that they are as uneducated as possible and promote issues of fashion instead. A nation that worries about its hair and nails, reads Hello and follows drippy 'love everybody' political notions. So while you pay no attention things are done to destroy the capitalist society that has served you so well, to be replaced by an elite in power for ever. And a key part of that is to destroy marriage and the family unit, the basis of our society.