|David Cameron’s curious Love affair with Homosexuals|
|Written by Tim Heydon|
| October 2011 |
Cameron thinks that Homosexuality is ‘Normal’
What is it with David Cameron and homosexuality? He is really pushing it, isn’t he? Cameron has said that being homosexual is ‘normal’.
Most people though continue to think that being homosexual is to be ‘queer,’ ie not normal at all. Homosexuality might be normal in the sense that it is normally to be found in a given population. But then you could say the same about any number of sexual aberrations, including paedophilia. (Homosexuals and paedophiles claim they can’t help it. So should paedophiles get the same favourable treatment claimed by homosexuals on that basis? Watch this space…)
Cameron Backs the Right of Homosexuals to Adopt
Cameron has also backed the right of gays to adopt. If you believe that homosexuality is normal and to be treated on a par with heterosexuality, that is indeed a natural position to take. But homosexuality plainly isn’t normal, at least in the sense that most people understand the word. It clearly involves a fundamentally disordered psychosexual wiring.
Feelings of Repulsion are Normal
Whether Cameron likes it or not, the feelings of repulsion that most people have towards homosexual behaviour (If not homosexuals) most of the time are always going to exist, whatever people like him might say. That’s because while no doubt socially reinforced at times, it seems axiomatic that they are not ‘learned’ and so merely ‘bigoted’ but fundamentally instinctive and as much a part of what it is to be human as breathing. Heterosexuals can’t help their repulsion any more than homosexuals say they can’t help themselves and claim favourable treatment on that basis.
Heteros can’t help their Repulsion.
Axiomatic because if most people didn’t have the feelings of repulsion that they normally do feel towards homosexual behaviour most of the time, we would surely all be at it.
This would be inefficient in the business of getting and raising of children. So nature has arranged for these feelings of repulsion to arise in the human animal when homosexual activity looms in order to dissuade us from engaging in this time and energy – wasting activity.
To allow the bringing up of children in an atmosphere where the ‘parents’ behaviour is viewed with so much distaste and always will be – overtly or covertly, even at some level by most of those who profess otherwise - this is genuine child abuse. So too is the strong possibility that such an upbringing will militate against a human’s primary purpose as an animal: to propagate its genes by having offspring of its own.
Cutting Aid to 93 countries which discriminate against Homosexuals?
Then we heard that those countries which ‘persecute’ homosexuals will have their foreign aid subventions curtailed. There are 93 countries in which homosexuality is punished, in many of them for islamic reasons. From Wikipedia we learn ‘Eminent scholars of Islam, such as Sheikh ul-Islam Imam Malik, and Imam Shafi amongst others, ruled that Islam disallowed homosexuality and ordained capital punishment for a person guilty of it. Homosexual activity is a crime and forbidden in most Muslim-majority countries’.
In seven of them homosexual acts can attract the death penalty: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Nigeria and Mauritania.
Is Cameron seriously going to get up the noses of all 93 never mind the 7?? Not that the oil-rich Saudis or the UAE are going to miss our aid money - it is quite possible in view of Cameron’s largess with our cash that we are giving it to them. No, we need the Saudis more than they need us. In any case, we should mind our own business when it comes to the internal affairs of other countries - and keep our aid money to ourselves.
Gay Marriage - A Step too Far
At the Conservative Party conference, Cameron announced that he backed Homosexual ‘marriages’. It’s ‘because I am a Conservative’, he said.
That should interest many in the Tory Party. If backing Gay ‘marriages’ is part of Conservative Party Doctrine, perhaps these people should continue to ‘consider their position’ as the phrase has it.
They want to Destroy Marriage. And Cameron is helping them. How ‘Conservative’ is that?
One of the superficially strange aspects of present-day Britain is the way in which some of those who seek to destroy marriage, seeing it as an arena of male ‘oppression’, the means by which traditional values incommensurate with cultural Marxism are passed from generation to generation and a barrier between the individual and the power of the state, are nevertheless eager for homosexuals to have the ability to acquire the legal status of marriage for their relationships as if it were something to be prized.
This apparently schizophrenic attitude is in fact all of a piece. On the one hand there is the leftist ideology of statism and ‘equality’ of treatment which is hostile to marriage for the reasons noted above. On the other is the use of the law to undermine the institutions of society in line with this ideology to impose equality by attempting to abolish or ignore the facts of life, such as the differences between men and women. Marriage is to be weakened by obliterating its fundamental character: as a contract between a man and woman for the getting and raising of children with all the responsibilities and costs which that involves even when, as with Paul MacCartney’s recent wedding, there is no real chance of children.
The Overriding Consideration is Love? No, it’s Sex
It is argued by many who advocate homosexual ‘marriage’, including Christian leaders, that the overriding consideration ought to be love. If two people love each other, it is said, it doesn’t then matter if they are same-sex or not. This argument is fallacious. It is not love which is the determining factor for those who advocate homosexual ‘marriage’ in the search for equality: It is sex. If it were love, why should not (say) brothers & sisters, parents and children or two heterosexual but same sex friends who love each other but not in a sexual way and who live together, ‘marry’ and acquire the legal benefits of the married state?
If it’s Sex, why just Homosexuality?
So it is sex that is the determining factor. But again, if it is, why should it focus in the way that it does on homosexuality? Why should not (for example) an incestuous relationship between a son and his sister or sexual relations between either of them and a parent not then be dignified by ‘marriage’?
The philosopher Peter Singer, highly influential on left / liberal thinking, has argued for the equality of human beings and animals (‘All Animals are Equal’. Animal Rights and Obligations, New Jersey 1989 pp 148-162).
He has urged the correctness of humans engaging in sexual relations with chimpanzees. So, continuing to pursue this line of thought, why not then ‘marriage’ between a man and his sheep? Or between a woman and her Labrador? And so on. After all, such relationships would arguably be no more and in some cases possibly less unnatural and repulsive to ordinary humans than homosexual relationships.
If it is then said that that the determining factor ought to be not sex or love but both sex and love, ie sexual love, the question arises, ‘Why?’ Why should sexual love be thought of as something special and to be favoured over the non–sexual loving relationships already mentioned? There can be no reasonable answer to that.
In any case the ready response of those who indulge in perverse sexual relationships other than homosexuality might say that they do indeed love their ‘partners’. And that this is true even in cases of bestiality. If animals seem actually to enjoy these relationships (and some of them give every indication that they do), what possible argument can there be against them?
The Slippery Slope to the Pits
We see how once the principle of exclusively male / female marriage is broken on the grounds of the pernicious doctrine of equality at all costs, an extremely slippery slope presents itself which is likely to end in the total debasement of relationships where human worth is levelled down to that of animals, thus destroying not just sexual morality but civilised living itself.
Homosexual legal arrangements can never be the moral equivalents of heterosexual marriages because they lack the fundamental moral basis of marriage noted above. Heterosexual marriage which exists primarily for the continuance of society brings together difference and makes a whole which is greater than its parts. ‘Marriage’ between two partners of the same sex brings no such benefits and is apt only to weaken society. It is a perverse travesty of the real thing
Who is Cameron trying to Impress ?
A Headline in the Daily Mail of 23 September 2011 read, ‘Most Britons still oppose gay marriage.’ The story, quoting results from the Office of National Statistics went on, ‘And they oppose the adoption of children by same sex partner’ more than half the population is against gay marriages and more than two third are opposed to gay adoption.
People rightly sympathise with Homosexuals and see their condition as an unfortunate affliction but there are limits to their sympathy.
So who is Cameron trying to impress? It can’t be the people of the country (what do they matter). No, it can only be the people who really matter; the Guardianistas in the Political Class; those who control the BBC and the other instruments of ‘opinion formation’ ie oppression of the people.
Or does Cameron have other considerations also?