Wednesday, 27 June 2012

Disagreement is Gay


There are only two things wrong with Britain’s Liberal Democrat Party – everything it says and everything it does.  In the past I never really paid that much attention to it, a sort of political version of Buridan’s Ass, a refuge for people who have neither the wit nor character to decide between the left and the right, forever locked in a mushy middle.  If I thought of them at all it was as the original purveyors of the European ‘ideal’, sufficient reason to dismiss them with condescension and contempt.

But now they are in government, a devil’s bargain sealed between David Cameron and Nick ‘the schoolboy’ Clegg.  Actually to refer to our benighted coalition government as a ‘devil’s bargain’ makes it sound far too exciting.  No, it’s the gay government, the Brokeback Coalition, as David Davis once referred to this particular civil partnership, after Brokeback Mountain, the movie about two cowboys who have a homosexual flirtation. 

A homosexual flirtation really describes part of our political culture at the moment, the pink tone being set by the Limp Dumbs, with gay marriage as one of their most cherished objectives.  As I wrote previously, it’s not an issue I can get worked up over, though I do consider it to be born of the worst kind of patronising gesture politics.  What I can get worked up over is the loud-mouthed, ugly and vociferous constituency that gay marriage has conjured into existence, people I would be glad to see back in the closet, the cottage, the tea room or wherever other habitat these types prefer. 

The gay lobby has a right to air its view but seemingly nobody else has, certainly if they express any disquiet at all over homosexual marriage.  A lot of Christians have because they consider it to be morally wrong, a caricature of genuine marriage as conceived for generations past.  The opponents include Dr John Sentamu, the black Archbishop of York. The colour of his skin is relevant because when he dared express his disapproval recently he received a number of racially abusive emails. 

Abuse as a mood of discourse; it’s rather the fashion in the internet age.  I stopped reading the comments section that newspapers allow to follow from articles because of the sheer malevolent stupidity of a great many people, people who simply drip venom.  I dare say the gay cowards who attacked Sentamu did so behind a cloak of anonymity, something else the internet allows for.  That’s right; read the Pink News and the Red Guardian at one turn; go online to call a man a Black Bastard at the next. 

The flash mob rose up again recently.  Yes, there they were, brandishing pitchforks and torches.  This time their outrage was directed against Rhys and Esther Curnow, a couple who have become the public face of the Coalition for Marriage campaign.  Committed Christians, they were recently seen in Downing Street, handing in a petition opposing same sex marriage to the Prime Minister.

Cue the hate.  Their Facebook details were circulated by, among others, one Kevin Peel, a Labour councillor in Manchester.  After receiving more than a hundred direct messages they were obliged to change their security settings.  Councillor Peel, when questioned on the issue, said that they should be prepared to hear the ‘opposite view’ from people who do not agree with them. 

Would you like to hear the ‘opposite view’?  Well, the ‘opposite view’ is that they should rot in hell; that they deserve nothing but sadness; that they should turn out to be infertile and die of cancer, which would be an occasion for celebration.  There were obscene sexual references and a suggestion that the recently married couple should be subject to “compulsory sterilisation.”  Now there’s an idea, clearly coming from the gay Nazi fraction.  Heil, sweetie! 

Poor Rhys and Esther are “shocked and saddened” at the reaction, though I cannot help but think them strikingly na├»ve, just innocents abroad.  More experienced hands would have been ready for the fallout, ready for the vile mob.  Still, I have to admire them.  Speaking recently Rhys said;

We’re at a loss to understand how people could be so vicious. All we did was hand in a petition at Downing Street. Surely there’s room for people to disagree without resorting this kind of hatred and abuse.  By all means let’s have a debate – especially as the public haven’t had the chance to vote on this issue.  But the bullies are trying to shut down the debate. We’re shaken and upset, but we won’t let them get us down

The thing is these morons do not want a debate; they want silent consensus…or else.  Debate and disagreement is – what’s the best way of putting it?  - , yes, I know: it’s just so gay.  

12 comments:

  1. It seems that the British Democratic Party is much like the American democratic Party, Bill Clinton Swung the closet door wide open.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "There are only two things wrong with Britain’s Liberal Democrat Party – everything it says and everything it does."

    I'm sure they'll manage a third thing by tomorrow morning.

    "In the past I never really paid that much attention to it, a sort of political version of Burdian’s Ass, a refuge for people who have neither the wit nor character to decide between the left and the right, forever locked in a mushy middle."

    Would you say the Lib Dems were a centrist party? To me they seem more left-wing than Labour.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seymour, I sometimes wonder if the Labour Party can tell its arse from its elbow!

      The thing is about the LDs they have no big ideas just lots of silly small ones. What a contrast they are with classic liberalism, what a contrast with the Liberal Party of the nineteenth century. They seem to me to be neither one thing nor the other, little more than a political glee club for the chattering classes.

      Delete
  3. Prison rape is now the most common un-prosecuted 'crime' in America. Or perhaps some progressives consider it a privilege?

    When the industrial and financial titans of the late 19th Century began to employ the mass communication tools of the 20th, techniques were crude and direct. The manipulation of the public mind has become far more sophisticated in 100 years, and the purposes of the elites more occult. Any particular campaign might be a direct effort to shape social patterns, or simply a diversionary tactic to distract from more sinister goals.

    Our minds are under constant assault from conception to cremation. It is not hard to imagine that those who use such methods do not much value our individuality. Those who care for liberty consider skepticism a worthwhile defense.

    That being said, I used to enjoy the wit and creativity of my gay friends. In the days when their sexuality was criminalized, many seemed to possess an extra energy they diverted into forms of expression given novelty by their non-standard worldview.

    Now we seem to be exposed more to the opinionations of what I might call 'the common or garden queer' whose ideas and attitudes are no more amusing or original than those of any other aggressive sub-culture. Like some of fashion's more outrageous costumes, they seem more attractive in the closet than out in the street.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure you've heard of Peter Tatchell, Calvin. Where once was Oscar Wilde there is now this earnest and tiresome bore.

      Delete
  4. I love your opening gambit!

    If there's one thing I've taken from the debate about gay marriage, it's that the issue divides gay communities as much as any other communities, with many gay people coming out to say that they don't want the agendas behind the move to be enacted in their name.

    On the other hand, a Roman Catholic journalist called Damian Thompson said that RC and Anglican bishops had bent over backwards to accomodate left-wing agendas in the last four decades that their anxieties about gay marriage splitting churches apart are merely chickens coming home to roost.

    I think the most sensible comment on the issue came from Rabbi Schmoley Boteach, who said that if there's a crisis in marriage today it's because heterosexual people aren't getting married or are splitting up for reasons that wouldn't have rocked the boat a couple of generations ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe, that's a good point about the division in gay opinion, something we don't often hear about. It's an observation that I made in a previous post on the subject. I have gay friends who can see through the shallow gesture politics here.

      Delete
  5. One must be careful when speaking about a minority when they are part of a majority. OK we cannot deny that most politicians use the card of gay marriage to get the votes of the gay such as Obama. Anyways, if any one of us were in the gay's shoes we would want rights and we would call for gay marriage or would we not? It's always easy to criticize the minority. I'm not encouraging anything and in my religion it is forbidden, but we cannot judge others. For maybe one day we will become the minority.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said, Lama. What I am criticising, though, is not a minority but a mode of expression, one that would seek to destroy dissent by ugly invective. Intolerance is intolerance, no matter what direction it comes from.

      Delete
  6. I really think this has been blown out of all proportion. Aside of the theological or legal perspective, how many people actually marry in the UK, again?

    ReplyDelete