Having forcibly – and understandably – rectified the Versailles-type injustices and humiliations foisted on the homosexual community, the UK’s victorious Gaystapo are now on a roll. Their gay-rights storm troopers take no prisoners as they annex our wider culture, and hotel owners (here) and (here), registrars (here), magistrates (here), doctors (here), counsellors (here) and (here), foster parents (here), grandparents (here), adoption agencies (here) and traditional street preachers (here) and (here) find themselves crushed under the pink jack-boot.

Thanks especially to the green light from a permissive New Labour government, the gay Wehrmacht is on its long march through the institutions and has already occupied the Sudetenland social uplands of the Home Office (here), the educational establishment (here), the politically-correct police (here), and the Guardianista management of the BBC (here). Following a plethora of equalities legislation, homosexuals are now protected and privileged by sexual orientation regulations and have achieved legal equality by way of civil partnerships.

But it’s only 1938 and Nazi expansionist ambitions are far from sated. Flattered by appeasers and feted by the political class, the Oberkommandos from Stonewall and OutRage! have expansive goals for cultural hegemony and have long wanted to march on the next territory. They want to hijack a word and capture our culture at its deepest level. They want to reconfigure relationships, eliminate the traditional family and hence eradicate stable upbringing for our children. They want SSM – same-sex “marriage”.

And, unbelievably, the Conservative prime minister, betraying many centuries of Christian marriage in his green and pleasant land and naively revelling in his Munich moment, makes virtue out of vice, holds a piece of paper aloft and declares triumphantly to the Tory party conference, “It’s Gay Marriage in our time”.

Someone once said, “There is a time for silence and a time to speak… a time for peace and a time for war”, and SSM could be the invasion of Poland, the catalyst for war and a cultural fight-back. Catholic bishops are incendiary, evangelicals are appalled and even the dear old Church of England seems to think SSM is a step too far – “The Church’s view remains of marriage as the life-long union between a man and a woman,” said an Anglican spokesperson (here).

Cometh the hour, cometh the man. For years Winston Churchill was a lone voice against the burgeoning darkness of Nazi ideology and intolerance. In the wilderness and with few public friends, he was marginalised and dismissed as belligerent and a war-monger. He was scorned as a political has-been, out of touch with the then-modern mainstream.

But he saw clearly the hidden hegemonic ambitions of the Nazis and their intended assault on our civilization, our values, our way of life. To the fury of the Nazi leadership in Berlin he exposed the sinister truth, gave a trumpet-call for resistance and rearmament, and in due course galvanised the nation for an epochal battle against the fascist menace.

Our civilisation, our values, our way of life – indeed the national character – are inevitably formed from the values of the Christian faith, as over a thousand years and more ‘Christianity’ and ‘Englishness’ have become fully entwined and fused. So erase Christianity and you erode Englishness and the nation loses its identity and self-confidence. In recent decades gay militants have been in the van of the secularist and new atheist assault on Christianity, and as a consequence our culture has corroded and debased and national confusion and self-doubt has grown.

Christian believers have been a lone voice against the resulting sexualisation, narcissism, hedonism, selfishness and materialism. Marginalised and dismissed as bigoted and homophobic, Christians are now despised as has-been and out of touch with the cool cosmopolitan mainstream.

But the hidden hegemonic ambitions of the Gaystapo have been exposed recently by their plans to annex and redefine ‘marriage’. They already have achieved equal rights through civil partnerships, so to covet the word and undermine a foundation-stone of our civilisation – and nurturing place for our children – betrays other more ominous intentions. They want to change our language, manipulate our culture and thereby impose their world-view on us all. Cultural domination is their aim and fascist-type intolerance (here) of politically-incorrect dissent (here) is their weapon. The eradication of marriage as “the life-long union between a man and a woman” is a huge next step along their way.

Cometh the hour, cometh the man or woman. Who will stand up and publicly confront this new domination and intolerance? In 1938 it was perfectly reasonable to like the German people but hate Nazi ambitions and ideology. Today it is perfectly reasonable to warmly engage with your gay neighbours while at the same time forcefully confronting the vaulting ambitions of gay leaders and their atheist and humanist fellow-travellers.

There is a season and a time for everything under the sun. For Christians, the season of appeasement, fear and cowering in the corner is over. “Whom shall I send,” said the Lord, “and who will go for us?”

Now is the time for people of courage to rise up and defend marriage, our children and the very foundations of our civilisation. The only right response? “Here I am, send me.”

222 Responses to “Confronting The Gaystapo”

  1. AdrianT Says:

    Oh hoestly, Alan….

    First, the Trafford Housing case, the Salt and Light Cafe and the case of a crackpot preacher in Cumbria being arrested were wrong. I hope the victims of these miscarriages get suitable compensation.

    However, the rest of this article is just full of self-pitying hysteria. Nobody is imposing their world-view on you or anyone else.

    You can believe whatever nonsense you want. believe that the earth is 6,000 years old and man co-existed with dinosaurs if you like. If you don’t believe in gay marriage, fine: don’t marry someone of the same sex.

    We’re simply stopping you from treating other people as second-class citizens. Your idea of ‘dissent’ seems to be the right to have a say in other people’s lives. The law finally says you have no such right. To equate an inability to interfere in other people’s lives with Nazism is a gross insult to the many who really did know the meaning of suffering.

    The difference is, we’re fighting for inclusion. You wallow in self-pity because you can’t exclude people, based on the proposition that you are so intimate with the mind of god, you know with whom we should sleep with! Ridicule is the only answer to such an unintelligible proposition.

    On the subject of persecution, I don’t see any stories of Christians being beaten to death in this country (and thankfully so).

    Gay people face this real risk, and get abuse hurled at them every day because a nasty minority still harbour irrational prejudices – the same prejudices you want the law to treat with respect. Thankfully, most of society has moved on from this, just like it has moved on from segregation and racism.

    Thankfully, you represent but a tiny minority of Christians; my only hope is that the vast majority of well meaning Christians stand up to folks like you. Otherwise, you make Richard Dawkins’s job too easy.

    You and your fiendish friends have the freedom to harass gay people at pride events with horrible placards threatening death and damnation. Carry on, by all means, but expect consequences of more ridicule and jeering.

    An example of true dissent would be the Unitarian Church and Society of Friends breaking the law and marrying gay people, instead of being dictated to by the Church of England.

  2. AdrianT Says:

    Mr Craig, there can be no wilder accusation than comparing gay people to Nazis, which is what you did in your piece. I certainly don’t see Christians cowering in fear of their lives.

    It is a pity that life isn’t full enough for you to avoid writing such unutterable nonsense about people who mean you no harm and whose relationships affect you or your church in no way whatsoever.

    It is a shame that such tolerance isn’t a two way street. I’m sure you haven’t been to pride, fine I take that back. Even so, it is awful what people do and say to and about gay people, on account of their faith, in this country.

    To repeat, you are welcome to your beliefs about gay relationships and sexual orientation. But I don’t want these beliefs to disadvantage me in any way. But they do not deserve any privilege in law, because they are not based on evidence and do not reflect reality of what contributes to a good society.

  3. AdrianT Says:

    Alan, why write all this nonsense about ‘Gaystapo’, ’1938′, ‘stormtroopers’, ‘Sudetenland’? You used all this imagery in your original article. Equating the fight for acceptance of gay people to the Nazi Genocide machine is wholly inappropriate. If you can’t tell the difference between the activities of Peter Tatchell and Treblinka – well, I think you should reread Primo Levi.

    (You are welcome to go on and have any debate you like on ideology, there is plenty of time.)

    I am delighted you have a live-and-let-live approach. However, I am concerned that you share a podium with others who clearly do not.

  4. John F Says:

    Love it! You’ve enriched my vocabulary for confronting this tyranny!

  5. hippiepooter Says:

    As ever with homobigots, Adrian T falsifies the arguments of his opponents to smother the truth they’re exposing. In essence he’s accusing you of hate crime for expressing your views and that’s the false pretext under which Christians have suffered the abuses of authority he claims to be against.

    Homosexuality is a perversion. If it’s normalised in our society (not long to go now) we will end up like Sodom & Gomorrah.

    Adrian T raises the name of Peter Tatchell. A man who literally disrupts church services because Christians refuse to betray they’re faith by accepting his perversion as normal. No, no ‘gaystapo’ parallels there, are there?

    Then of course we have Tatchell’s infamous letter to the Guardian of 26 June 1997 (link below – reproduced at the end):-

    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/tatchell-reiterates-call-for-lower-age-of-consent/

    And this is the man who ‘protested the Pope’ because of child abuse by Catholic priests.

    Anyone who swallows Tatchell’s spiel that he does not endorse paedophilia will probably accept the spiel of Nick Griffin that he’s not a racist.

    Yes Adrian T, we hear you marching jackboots and we see the victims already in their wake. May the Lord forgive you.

  6. Rachel Says:

    As a Christian it’s none of my business what goes on behind closed doors in gay homes, people make their choices. Saying no to gay marriage is different because then the state is saying that a gay relationship is a good place to bring up children, since marriage is the foundation of the family. Saying no to gay marriage, which is something most voters actually don’t want, is not about excluding people but rather thinking about the structure of family that you want to endorse as a society.

    I agree with Alan about fascist tendencies, people loose their jobs all the time because of an opinion about homosexuality. It’s thought crime and whilst nobody should be beaten up for being homosexual, nobody should loose their job for disagreeing with someone’s lifestyle choice, and it is a choice – people who are gay go straight all the time.

  7. Alan J Says:

    Hi Alan,
    Best piece yet I have read on SSM. Kirk and Madsen would be delighted to see how well their Machiavellian campaign has gone (After the Ball, 1989). Socarides (A Freedom Too Far, 1995) would be fully entitled to say ‘I told you so.

    The techniques of desensitisation, jamming and conversion used by gay rights activist have worked their demonic and totalitarian magic but the forces released will do them no good at all in the end. You can’t steal people’s freedom to tell the truth and keep it forever.

  8. James Waddell Says:

    One way that everyone, Christian and others, can show their disdain and rejection of GLBTQ values is to Boycott Tesco who are proudly sponsoring World Pride 2012. I for one will not allow the profits from my grocery shopping to be used directly to sponsor GLBTQ values and their evil life style.
    I call on all others who share my view to do this same. This is a simple way (no tents, posters or activism required) to cause a Tsunami impact on the bottom line of Tesco and get their share holders and the directors to take notice that the majority of their customers find it disgraceful that Tesco should sponsor such a fascist and socially divisive movement. More info at http://www.christiandoctrine.com.

  9. Norman P Says:

    Allen,
    Adrian T said that he didn’t see any Christians cowering in fear. The technique of the infiltrator is to use stealth. In my life time I have gone from not knowing what a homosexual was 50 years ago to wondering where one could go to, to get away from them and their ungodly lifestyles. The first I came across were choresters at Southerk Cathedral. Lot and his family just managed to escape the degenerate city of Sodom. (Except his wife who had a hankering for the past). Change comes about gradually, drip by drip, precept by precept. Sometimes so imperceptibly slow that you don’t even notice. Little by little the pink brigade has worked upon the media and our leaders, whispering in ears like courtiers with a hidden agenda. Suddenly we find that it is almost too late. You stand up to complain and you are shot down like someone so out of touch, you wonder where you have been all this time.
    You are right Allen, we need God to provide a way to convince the world that his precepts are right.

  10. AdrianT Says:

    Well, this really did bring out some ghoulish comments didn’t it? Above all, it exposes the same nasty undercurrent of hate that we all saw in Channel 4′s Dispatches programme about Christian fundamentalism four years ago (the Christian Doctrine link is the best example, above, calling for the recriminalisation of homosexuality, among others).

    First – The Bulls are running a business, a service for the general public. The commercial area of their guest house is thus not their home; one does not charge friends and family for board plus VAT for crossing the threshold. If they want to do that, then they must abide by the laws of the land. They are welcome to make any prohibitions they wish on visitors to their personal quarters.

    I don’t recall Peter Tatchell, or a mass army of gay people all defending any gays-only hotel in Torquay. Discrimination like that has to go too. A simple sign saying no to stag and hen parties solves that in any case. If that is the best you can do to make your holocaust analogy work, then it fails miserably.

    The reason why gay people have achieved the equality in law that they deserve is because millions of people, especially younger ones, come out to friends and family. And people see at first hand that the nasty stereotypes – that gays are predators, or that homosexuality is a choice – are nonsense. We have exposed the hurt, the hate, the violence, the ostracism and the misery. And we have appealed to the better nature of the public. We have won the general public over by being ourselves.

    You are welcome to say and believe anything you like. But if it is based on nonsense then you must expect the contempt in return.

    You, it seems, can neither tolerate the differences of others, nor the opinions of others.

    Rachel says gay people are becoming straight ‘all the time’. Really?! Who? Where? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In fact, if you go to exgaywatch.com you can hear the testimonies of numerous people who suffered years of self hate, and even suicide attempts because they fell for such fraudulent nonsense. Exgay therapy has never been proven to work and belongs in the same category of pseudoscience as witchcraft, demons, creationism, astrology and alchemy.

  11. AdrianT Says:

    Hi Alan,

    You see fit to allow the most appalling insults against gay people on your page, calling gay people perverted, websites calling for gay people to be treated as criminals. Goodness knows how a teenager who is gay or questioning their sexuality must feel trawling through such comments like this must feel. Might these comments not also lead to a lynch ‘mob’ mentality? You then insult the dignity of gay people by degrading their relationships to ‘choice’ and ‘lifestyle’. Yet at the same time, you accuse anyone who dares to stand up to such hate, or dares to answer back, or dares to claim their equality under the law, as ‘neo-Nazis’. You make claims about sexuality, and when your outlandish claims are ridiculed as nonsense, you moan about ‘intolerance’. Rubbish – you haven’t put up a remotely convincing case.

    You claim to be better informed than every medical, psychiatric and psychological institution in the western world, who all regard homosexuality as a natural, unchangeable, neutral state.

    Hundreds of people who were bullied into these awful ex-gay camps, and even the people running these organisations, are speaking out about the hell they went through at ministries like Exodus. Brave people like Zach Stark, Peterson Toscano, Sergio Viula have revealed how life for such inmates was like something out of Nineteen Eighty-Four. But that doesn’t fit your world view, so I guess those people don’t count.

    Tell me, which credible studies, precisely, show sexual orientation to be a choice and changeable? These reports don’t get in credible scientific peer reviewed journals because the research isn’t good quality. Jones and Yarhouse, for instance, have done a number of studies and, even thought they are much loved by the extremist right in America, have failed dismally to show that change in sexual orientation is likely. According to their latest study, 6 out of a sample of 98 people claimed to felt a little bit more straight through the untestable ‘power of prayer’, for instance. That is not credible evidence for change. And NARTH, the source of almost all propaganda on sexual orientation has never had any serious study accepted by a scientific journal (indeed, its contempt for science is exposed with its support for another form of junk science, Intelligent Design; what a surprise).

    Your attempt to show homosexuality is a choice fails miserably, of course: either sexual orientation is a choice for everyone or no-one, straight as well as gay. Your two case studies, Elton John and Michael Barrymore, say more about the dilemmas and ruinous consequences facing celebrities struggling to keep in the closet. You may as well present Joan Collins and Hugh Grant as average heterosexuals and have done with it.

    The choices you mentioned refer to decisions about whether to make a legal commitment to someone. Obviously these are important decisions that are taken by people all the time, but this is nothing to do with sexual orientation. Nobody chooses to fall in love with, or be attracted to, someone. And if you reduce a relationship with a loved one to a ‘choice’, then I advise your wife to seek a divorce as soon as possible, because you clearly do not understand what love is.

    Stonewall’s award will probably be a source of great pride to Melanie Phillips. She says nasty things, and gay people answer back. It is high time that she and others like her realised that we too can be offended, and we will say so. And it’s high time she got used to it. What is really ironic is that she works for a newspaper that committed treason by supporting Hitler’s invasion of Prague until March 1939, and engaged in Jew-baiting after the declaration of war. The spotlight of hatred has simply moved, as witnessed by their July 16, 1993 headline, ‘Abortion hope after gay genes finding’. How apt that their ‘state-of-the-art web offset printing operations’, churning out hate at 80,000 copies an hour, go under the name ‘Harmsworth’!

    I happen to agree that there are worthier contenders for the bigot award. The Christian Institute, for instance, which constantly misinforms lawmakers about LGBT people and which still calls for gay people to be kicked out of the armed forces; Stephen Green, who supports the death penalty for homosexuality; CARE Scotland for its relentless campaign against gay charities helping vulnerable LGBT young people. To name but a few.

    It wasn’t gay people who demoted Adrian Smith, that’s an issue for Trafford Housing, who are also in the position of dealing with LGBT homeless people, driven onto the streets by their families because of their sexuality. Gordon Wilson was voted off his position democratically, no doubt as a result of making obnoxious remarks about LGBT people. It just shows how homophobia is being regarded as being as appalling as racism.

    As I said, you’re all welcome to your ludicrous opinions – so long as they have no consequences for me or other LGBT people, I just don’t give two hoots what you think. But don’t equate being ridiculed with a neo-nazi hate consiracy – it will just invite more laughter.

  12. Matty C Says:

    For the tldr crowd, here’s the Cliffs Notes.

    Sad, desperate-for-attention representative from increasingly irrelevant group claims divine right to exert power over others that are different. Despite all evidence to contrary, quotes lines from some old book to say that he’s right. Fails at first hurdle according to Godwin’s Law.

  13. Kat Brown Says:

    As a Christian, I am utterly ashamed of this sort of horrible bigotry.

    Many of the strongest relationships I know are between gay and lesbian couples, all of whom would make excellent parents should they choose to start a family. They are certainly terrific friends to me.

    As to Tesco’s links with World Pride – good for them! I will be waving a flag with exactly the same amount of pride that I wear the bracelet I was given for my confirmation.

    I’m very sorry that you can’t see the good in people, whatever their sexuality. I’m sure there must be lots that’s good in you, despite your ignorance.

  14. Sarah Says:

    Articles like this are a great part of why I left the Christian faith, and why I’ll probably never return.

    Comparing the gay civil rights movement to Nazi Germany is insulting on so many levels that I frankly don’t even know where to begin.

  15. Darren. Says:

    Hi Alan,

    Serious question: are you attracted to men?

    Best regards,

    D.

  16. JONATHAN HARVEY Says:

    Shame on you Alan Craig.

  17. Jonathan Shepherd Says:

    Homosexuality is not a choice. From my earliest memories I have always been attracted to other guys, and have never had a relationship with a woman. I never intend to either.

    Please cite the ‘solid peer reviewed’ evidence that gays turn straight all the time and I will give you a thorough critical appraisal of this evidence using standard academic critical appraisal criteria.

  18. James Says:

    You don’t know the half of it, Alan. We’re going to follow the Nazi plan all the way, not just stop at winning equal rights. We’ve already infiltrated the rail system, and we’ve got the camp locations all planned out (let’s just say that one day Newport Pagnell will be a name of horror, just like Treblinka is today).

    You just wait until you rest for a moment and then we’re coming for you all.

    The best thing about it is that I can say this openly, just as Hitler declared his intentions in “Mein Kampf”, and nobody will believe our diabolical plot. They’ll say it’s ridiculous, absolutely absurd. They’ll say that the metaphor you’ve chosen was an obscene one, given that the Nazis persecuted gay people viciously and that more than 10,000 died in the concentration camps.

    But that’s our diabolical cunning, you see. Tick tock.

  19. AllyF Says:

    In Nazi Germany, around 100,000 gay people were arrested and punished. The pink triangle was the least of it – at least 10,000 gay people died in concentration camps. And you think this is an appropriate analogy? Really?

    What a truly perverse set of Christian values you must have.

  20. Darren. Says:

    ….also, please do have a read of this Alan: http://bit.ly/thZJw3

  21. r2 Says:

    What an amazing article! Where is your head? I am only surprised that you have not blamed the feminists for this mess of equal rights we find ourselves in. Take care though, your ideas may just take hold in some societies and you may find the you have lost the right to publish these thoughts or indeed the right to worship your god…. who will stand up for you then? Your God, or the gay and lesbian people who have a good record of getting things done… as you have spend a few 100 words complaining about. I wish you the best of luck navigating this world… your god knows you are going to need it….

  22. Catherine Says:

    I hate to break this to you, Alan, but you don’t speak for me as a (straight) Christian – or indeed any more than a tiny handful of the Christians I know. Shame on you for this embarrassing, hateful, clichéd, tabloid-level drivel. Your unhealthy interest in other people’s private lives is highly suspicious. Maybe you should get yourself a hobby? (How about a writing course?)

  23. Jason Says:

    This article is pretty batshit insane, you know Nazis weren’t too keen on gays right?

    I think you’re a Nazi.

  24. Jeff Fuson Says:

    *applause*

    This is a marvellous satire of over-exaggeration and hyperbole on the internet.

    I bet all those people who seriously compare homosexual equality to Nazism will feel pretty silly after reading it.

    +1

  25. Dan B Says:

    Oh dear Oh dear. What a misguided angry little man you seem to be.

    I disagree with every single word that you write and pity anyone who is forced to spend time in your company.

  26. Michael Says:

    Disgusting. You Should be ashamed of yourself.

  27. Phil Says:

    I think it’s disgusting that Christians such as yourself are being forced to denounce your own religion and marry someone of the same gender. Totally disg…oh wait, you’re not? Then stop going on about gay marriage as if it was something that actually affects your life.

    Seriously, some Christians these days spend more time thinking about gay people than gay people do. Denial, much?

  28. zefrog Says:

    Since we are talking of a group imposing their world view on another. How about the tiny minority of (vaguely) regular church-going Christians (15% of the population attended church at least once a month in 2007) imposing their world-view on the rest of the population? A world view which has changed and evolved over the centuries, so why can it change and evolve further?

    I would also add that 43% of the population in favour of marriage equality. So perhaps, you, to use your despicable and childish analogy (have you never heard of Godwin’s law?), are part of the nazi contingent.

  29. Will Patterson Says:

    The Church harbours evil people, but Alan takes the biscuit.

  30. Jack Dinn Says:

    Haha! A pitch perfect parody. Imagine if someone had written all of that and actually meant it! You should send this to the Onion!

  31. Ed Simpson Says:

    So many layers of irony here I’m not sure where to begin. However, I would like to say that one of the most significant individual contributions to our salvation from the Nazi threat was made by Alan Turing. A gay man. Without his genius, the world would be a very different place today.

  32. Sean Fleming Says:

    Invoking the Nazis and their atrocities in an attempt to give your wafer-thin argument a veneer of thought only serves to make you look like a bigot.

    The arrogance displayed in equating your point of view with one of the darkest times in human history, when millions of people were tortured and murdered on an industrial scale, beggars belief.

    Very poor.

  33. Musa Okwonga Says:

    Dear Mr. Craig,

    One of the great things about living in the UK is that we are free to express our opinions. The problem with your piece isn’t that you disagree with the right of gay people to marry, but that you use an analogy either flippantly or calculatedly that is guaranteed to cause the greatest possible offence. I don’t see any Christians being marched to the gas chambers for their disapproval of “the gay lifestyle”, and neither – I suspect – do you.

    Best wishes,
    Musa

  34. Mark Riley Says:

    ROFLMHO – best satirical piece I have read all year. Watch out Private Eye – this is genius. Thanks ‘Alan’s Angel’

  35. Jon Purdom Says:

    Sorry Alan, Adrian is right and you are indulging in the kind of hype that is normally reserved for the Sunday tabloids. And accusing gays of “intolerance”? No, they just want to be treated as equals, after thousands of years of discrimination, much (but not all) of it by religious groups.

    I think that the recent events at St. Paul’s helped to clarify the debate. The “church” seems to have forgotten Jesus’ original message. Whichever denomination one looks at (with the possible exception of the Quakers and a few groups mostly based outside of the UK)there seems to be an obsession with other people’s perceived flaws.

    Judge not, less ye be judged. Take not the mote from the eye of your brother. Let the wheat grow with the chaff. The bible makes it clear that we should not judge others, who are equally the creations of God. Christ’s message was one of love.

    If you see your faith purely as a refuge for your bigotry, then you justify the type of persecutions that have taken place against Christianity and other faiths over the ages.

    Don’t miss the central message of Jesus while obsessing over something that is only mentioned a couple of times in the bible and reflects the prevailing ethic of a very different era.

  36. notjarvis Says:

    This was a joke article, right?

    Using Hyperbole to make the point you think people should stand up to Gay Marriage?

    We live in a (supposedly) free society, and I firmly believe

    a) What consenting adults decide to do with one another is entirely their business

    b) It really is no-one else’s business either.

    c) Is partly a result of the above two, you shouldn’t discriminate based on what people do in their own time.

    Laws of the country should stay entirely out of the debate of what consenting adults want to do in privacy in their own time, or how they want to live in my opinion, as long as it doesn’t affect others.
    Multiple wives/husbands? Why not?
    Gay Marriage? why not?

    I personally (in my opinion) think basing some laws on a confused religion / morality the vast majority of people in the country don’t really practice any-more is a ridiculous throwback.

  37. harry Says:

    yes just like the real nazis, who were gay and killed christians

    oh no wait i’ve got that wrong, they were christians who killed gays. hooray for jesus!

  38. Blake Says:

    Your suppositions are totally groundless. Orientation is inbuilt and is in no way considered a mental disorder or alternatively a “choice”.

    Perhaps you should read:

    http://www.godmademegay.com

    http://www.beyondexgay.com

  39. Tim Hardy Says:

    I’ve been deeply impressed by the good work done by people of faith in tackling poverty, in confronting the arms trade and most recently in supporting the Occupation at St Paul’s.

    With one post you have reminded me of the festering hatred that can lurk inside, beneath the whited sepulchre of appearances.

    I hope one day you will look back at what you have written and feel ashamed of yourself.

  40. John S. Says:

    Whilst I agree with the main thrust of what Adrian T says, I would query the need for Gay rights Parades.
    For me they seem to be as antagonistic, as an Orange parade in a Catholic region of Belfast.
    The concerns of this minority of alleged Christians shouldn’t be dismissed carelessly.
    Brought up in an era, when Stan and Ollie sharing their bed was considered normal, the present press references to Liam Fox and various other men in positions of power should be as much a cause of concern as stupid old MP’s bedding young Russian spies, to straights and gays.

  41. saddened Says:

    I do find this debate so depressing. Why would anyone use the language of Facism in 2011? It’s offensive no matter what the context. I’m a liberal Christian, and am sure that a lot of hostility towards gay people, or indeed anyone who’s perceived to be different, is driven by ignorance. There’s so much in the Bible about loving thy neighbour and telling straight people how to behave, and not nearly as much about gay people. Frankly, I don’t think God wants us to be judging people because they are gay. I just wanted to reassure folks that not all Christians take refuge in homophobia and right-wing terminology to defend themselves.

  42. Adny Says:

    This was published in The Church of England Newspaper? Come on CoE, you can do better than this.

    I like way Alan’s imaginary mindbattle with alien reptile gay nazis features himself as Winston Churchill. We are surely in the presence of honey here.

  43. Johnson Says:

    Hitler was a Christian; he wasn’t gay. Go figure.

  44. Richie Craze Says:

    Yeah, that’s right Alan.

    You just accuse Adrian of supplying only hot air and no facts; and then when he presents you with evidence which demolishes your position, wave your hands and claim it’s he who’s not listening to you! Religious hypocrisy at its finest.

    You go right ahead and act all hurt.

  45. Anvil Says:

    Disgraceful and intolerant article. You should be ashamed of yourself and of the bigots you allow to post on your site.

    And this: “…the stream of bias and bile is a matter of real concern.”

    Huh? Really? This is your response when an individual takes the time to present you with obviously lucid argument and analysis of your hateful piece?

    You really do need to Google ‘Cognitive Dissonance’. It really does take religion to make good people do bad things, doesn’t it.

    Anvil.

  46. ChrisB Says:

    To condone denying someone their rights because you don’t like how this person lives their life is rather a nazi act. So for you to compare gay people to Nazi’s is very hypocritical.

    Being gay is not a choice. Gay people have about as much choice over their sexual orientation as they do over the skin colour. so will you now start calling for an end to black people getting married?

    If you think it’s a choice then you yourself must have faced this choice. Did you reach a point where you realised you liked both men and women but knew you had to choose? Or did you just know your whole life that you liked women? Exactly! I like how according to you Christians being straight is natural but being gay is a choice. Yet more hypocrisy.

    For more final point I’d just like to ask you, as you beleive god created us, Why did God, a supposed homophobe, put a male pleasure organ (the prostate) in mans bum?….

    Adrian-I’m not a gay man I just have many GLB friends and this kinda bile infuriates me. My arguments will seem like rubbish compared to your wonderfully worded responses but in my defines I am rather angry so I apologise if my arguments are rather crass.

  47. Dominic Fox Says:

    Dear Alan,

    You’re not mistaken, I think, about the way our society’s argument over the “normalisation” of homosexuality is going – it’s going against you, I hope inexorably and irreversibly. Given the way things are going, your embattled position is understandable, although to be found rather ludicrous by the outside observer.

    You are I think mistaken about the cause of this defeat. It isn’t the implacable determination of a ruthless cadre of pink militants that now carries the argument, but the ordinary conviction of a great mass of ordinary people that stigmatising and excluding homosexuals is cruel and unnecessary.

    It’s cruel to define homosexuality as a mental, emotional or spiritual disorder, to treat it as a disease requiring a cure; the proposed “cures” themselves, from hormone therapy to prayer-assisted brainwashing, are often cruel and seldom if ever effective. It’s unnecessary to exclude gay people from the institution of marriage, or the responsibilities of parenthood, because – in the eyes of anyone for whom homosexuality itself is *just not a problem* – the full participation of gay people in these important aspects of our common life is also *just not a problem*.

    It is partly thanks to the courage and occasionally obnoxious persistence of militants like Peter Tatchell that this shift in attitudes began to be possible, because there was a wall of silence around the subject that needed to be broken down. But it has never been possible for Tatchell or anyone else to create, all by themselves, the broad climate we now enjoy in which defenses – on the grounds of purported religious “conscience” – of cruel and discriminatory treatment of gay people are treated by the majority of us with the impatience they deserve. As in the old joke about the number of psychologists it takes to change a lightbulb, a society must *want* to change – must change itself, in recognition of a better vision of its own nature – in order for such a shift to come about.

    I understand that you deeply resent this change, and want to oppose it by whatever (at least rhetorical) means you can. But I’m afraid that your enemies are not the “gaystapo”, or any such imaginary “brigade” of political enforcers. Your enemies are just about all of us, straight (as I am) or gay, Christian (as I also am) or non-Christian. If you are going to engage in ideological struggle against the majority current in this country, you will need to begin by recognising this fact. How do you propose to persuade so many of us that you are right, that your vision of society is better – less cruel, less governed by unnecessary and petty distinctions – than ours?

  48. Tom Says:

    Please read this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2011/11/07/richard-land-bocephus-and-the-scandal-of-evangelical-ethics/

    and dont be a liar for Jesus

  49. sam Says:

    Christian pretending to represent the majority and pouring hate on the minority because life style does not fit into his own world view. I miss the days when we had new forms of hate. This is all very 1970′s.

    Really wish you could publish this peer approved research as most of the scientists I’ve ever studied say that trying to tamper with sexuality and re-wiring brain to hate your own urges would lead to an increase in suicides.

    But who knows couple dozen dead gays I guess would be good for the fundamentalists.

    Why I like my vicar he just teaches love your fellow man and that that if we all work together and volunteer to help the less fortunate the world would be a better.

  50. Alastair Newman Says:

    Alan, whatever your views on the rights and wrongs of homosexuality this likening of gay rights activists to the nazi regime in Germany is disgusting. Given how many homosexuals were themselves victims of the nazi holocaust your analogy is in the poorest possible taste, and the whole thing smacks of sensationalism in order to sell copy.

    The trouble is, where you see aggressive “anti-Christian” “anti-English” (British?) “anti-family” power grabbing, those campaigning for SSM believe they have a right to something heterosexual couples have had for years. And what you see as your own democratic right to protest against SSM will, I’m sure, be seen by those campaigning in favour of it as being both aggressive and discriminatory.

    I am not against free speech – express your view by all means, but Nazi metaphors, really? How would you like it if similar accusations were made against you and others who shared your views? (They may well have been already, but that is no excuse to respond in kind)

  51. KMac Says:

    I’m confused. The About page of this website says “Alan is a passionate advocate for social justice and fairness”. I sadly don’t see any evidence of that here.

  52. Zyaama Says:

    His is a parody, right? Right?! I mean, zite lulled this from the web for me, and I didn’t tell it to look for mindless drivel from British bigots, so I wanted to invoke Poe’s law even before Godwin’s law came up. But after reading the comments I’m not so sure any more. Are there really people who ink like this, even worse, write stuff like this? Wow. Poor guy.

  53. Aisling Says:

    I’m quite unsure as to how I ended up on this website. This is appalling. God is love. This article spouts nothing but hate. Shame on you.

  54. Rachel Says:

    Adrian, all I can say is WELL SAID on all above points. Shame on you so called ‘Christians’.

  55. Dave Says:

    Just for the record, as a (heterosexual) Christian I find what you have written in this column disgraceful. Shocking and offensive, and so far from love of God that I can only think it is written deliberately to bring Christianity into disrepute.

  56. Mia Says:

    I don’t get it, Alan. Adrian T asked for some very reasonable justifications for your views and then you say he ‘doesn’t give a hoot what you think’. Which is bizarre because over numerous detailed and thoughtful comments he clearly has demonstrated he really does care what you think.

    From here, it looks an awful lot like you don’t really know how to refute any of the facts and arguments he has proposed, because he’s right.

  57. LogicPolice Says:

    *Cough* Godwin’s Law *Cough*

  58. Jack Says:

    You know Alan, I can’t help but notice you haven’t attempted to refute Adrian’s points about how every leading medical authority in the world does not consider sexuality a choice or a lifestyle. Apparently you know more than them.

    Also, your comparisons of gays to Nazis are hilariously awful. If you talked about blacks, Jews, the disabled or Muslims in this way, this would likely never get published. Why is it OK to discriminate against some and not others? I’m not a practising Christian, but I had a Church of England upbringing, my parents are Christians, and I still believe in the tenets – namely, love thy neighbour as thyself. I’ve been raised to see Christianity as a faith of love and acceptance, so to see people warping it to fit their own bigotry is nothing short of disgraceful. I am heterosexual myself, but I never consciously chose to become attracted to women. And, let’s be honest, neither did you. So on what authority can you claim it’s a choice?

    Furthermore, if you ever evoke Nazism, or Hitler, in an argument, then you have lost the argument. Godwin’s Law is designed to encourage more creative thought than simply “Nazis are bad, I don’t like this group, so they’re all like Nazis!” I’m not going to tell you you’re wrong in having your opinion, so long as nobody is hurt. But don’t make such far-reaching comparisons as this.

    Thank you for your time.

  59. Sophia Says:

    You are presumably aware that gays were among the groups targeted by the Nazis for extinction? Your claims are preposterous, but the fact above makes them extraordinarily insulting, both to homosexuals and all other victims of the Nazis.

  60. Simone Webb Says:

    Have you any idea how horrible and offensive it is to compare LGBT+ people to Nazis, considering the atrocities the Nazis levelled against people like us?

    ….apparently not.

    Also, any idea how offensive this is to actual queer Christians?

    …again, apparently not.

  61. Tony Says:

    Can someone dig out a quote from Jesus for me on homosexuality. I’d be interested to see what he has to say on an issue that clearly upsets so many Christians.

  62. Uncle Marvo Says:

    Sir, I am astounded that this article was published in the Church of England’s newspaper. I have read the rantings of the bigot brigade but this one pretty much tops the lot.

    I urge you to search your soul for a solution to your problem and will pray for you.

    I am not an atheist nor am I gay, by the way. And you are not a nice man.

    God be with you.

    Unc

  63. Leanne Foster Says:

    When I first read this article I thought it was a joke.
    I have been raised a devout Christian, I was taught in a Convent and have remained a practicing Roman Catholic. But do you know what I’ve always been taught by them? Love thy neighbor. Its sad to think that in this day and age people are still so incredibly small minded that they feel the need to post such hurtful things online for the world to see.
    One of my best friends, a young homosexual man, directed me to this Blog and its no wonder Christians are given such a bad name as far as accepting people of all race, religion and sexual orientation.
    You’re free to have your own opinion, but next time try and get your facts right. It’s not down to choice or lifestyle; Its down to their heart.

  64. Shep Says:

    AdrianT.
    I love you (no homo)

  65. John Maclean Says:

    What would Jesus say? Disgusting piece of writing and you should be ashamed to claim to be a Christian. You need to get out of the Dark Ages and into the Light.

  66. Robert Ramsay Says:

    you might find this interesting…

    http://bit.ly/ldNk0s

  67. Tom Says:

    ‘defend’ your children!? I thought bearing false witness was a sin?!

  68. Tom Says:

    P.s. Why do you hate me so much? Do you also hate Jewish people? Black people? The disabled?

    Your analogy is particularly insensitive since around 10,000–25,000 gay men were killed in the holocaust.

    Did you think Martin Luther King was also a Nazi? How about the suffragettes?

    If not, then what’s the difference? It seems to me pretty bizarre to call for less rights for a minority then claim that THEY are the ones acting like Nazis. I mean, it’s not as if we are calling for a ban on Christians getting married, or to allow companies to fire people for being Christian?

    I love my husband. Why are you an enemy of love? Don’t you think Jesus would be ashamed of you?

  69. Charlie A Says:

    Whilst, I wish to be civil, this “article” is a farce comparing homosexuals to the Nazi Regime.
    I have never met or heard of a homosexual who tried to convince me I was wrong in my mind because I differed from them in my sexual orientation.
    It is anyone’s right to sleep with or marry any other willing partner, gender be damned.
    Also, I wonder if the author is aware that in his earlier years, Churchill himself voiced opinions nearly identical to Hitler, fully endorsing the eugenics movement to sterilise or kill mentally or physically disabled people?
    Hardly “a lone voice against the burgeoning darkness of Nazi ideology and intolerance”.

  70. Dave Says:

    Just in case it needs spelling out, in your analogy the ‘man’ you are looking for is the equivalent of Hitler himself, not Churchill. Gays were among Hitler’s victims. Hitler ‘rescued’ Germany from Gays, Jews, Gypsies etc just as you seek someone to rescue England from Gays, atheists, Muslims etc.

  71. Outraged Says:

    What a c**t you are. Definitely not a Christian.

  72. Henry Says:

    The Nazis killed about half a million homosexuals: your gratuitous pun on Gestapo is unbelievably offensive. Perhaps when gays start burning Christians at the stake you might have a point, but so far the incineration seems to be asymmetric. Are you some atheist troll trying to give Christians a bad name?

  73. Camille Ralphs Says:

    There are so many things wrong with this article and the argument presented in it, I don’t even know where to begin. I have, however, selected the five points I find issue with the most, and will explain to you now exactly why I think them so flawed.

    1) “…rectified the Versailles-type injustices and humiliations foisted on the homosexual community…”

    These Versailles-type injustices you speak of must include, of course, the suicides of 10 teenagers last September as a result of the homophobic bullying they were forced to take on at school (the youngest, in case you aren’t aware, was 13. Clearly a deserving member of the Gaystapo). These Versailles-type humiliations you mention must include the humiliations endured by Matthew Shepard in 1998, when he was robbed, pistol-whipped and tortured before being tied to a fence and left to die – all in the name of his sexuality.
    Versailles – as you must know, though you currently appear somewhat blind to your own knowledge – was a treaty reached as a result of Germany’s role in the First World War, and its main effect upon Germany in the years that followed was an economic one. Now tell me, Alan – when did the homosexual community have any part in a war against the rest of society (and don’t give me some line about a ‘war on morality’ or anything similarly subjective)? Any violence involving the gay community has been more akin to a massacre than a war; additionally, the only thing the gay community seeks is equal rights, something that every other human being in this country already has access to, and which the gay community – as a part of the country, and a fairly large 10% of it at that – should have access to as well.

    2) “They want to reconfigure relationships, eliminate the traditional family and hence eradicate stable upbringing for our children.”

    I have a homework assignment for you. I want you to go to a gay pride event (something you’ve already admitted you’ve never attended before) and I want you to hand out some questionnaires to the people you meet there. These questionnaires will have a number of tickboxes beneath the question, “What do you want the most?” The tickboxes they have a choice of will say, “1 – To reconfigure the relationships of those around me”, “2 – To eliminate the traditional family”, “3 – To eradicate stable upbringing for everybody’s children” and “4 – To marry the person I love”.
    The world will not end, the country will not fall to pieces, and your straight relationship will not fail if gay people begin to get married. All that will happen – and hold onto your seat, Alan, because this is shocking news – is that gay people will get married.
    You constantly repeat this idea that marriage is an institution only for man and woman. What you seem to forget is that gays and lesbians are men and women, too, and are no less human for their sexual preferences. A union between two people who love each other should NOT be restricted in any way – it should not be restricted, as it was not too long ago, between people of differing racial backgrounds, and should also not be restricted between two people of the same sex who want nothing more than to be considered fully human. Twenty to thirty years in the future, the world will look back on the views of people like yourself and will weep for the past’s mistakes.

    3) “For years Winston Churchill was a lone voice against the burgeoning darkness of Nazi ideology and intolerance.”

    How dare you use Winston Churchill to defend your bigotry. That you compare the gentle advances of the homosexual community to the Nazi regime is bad enough, but that you then drag the name of a great British figure through the dirt too is unbelievable. Today’s Conservative government is doing the right thing in recognising homosexuals as people of value, like everybody else, and I have no doubt that – were Churchill still alive today – he too would be a lively advocate of gay rights.
    It almost seems from this comment that you are comparing yourself and your campaign against gay rights to Winston Churchill’s fight against fascism, and if this is the case, it truly exposes the foolishness of your argument. I have to tell you, Alan, that you are nothing like Winston Churchill – whereas he supported freedom for those being tyrannised by the Nazis, you are more the embodiment of one of the tyrants than you are one of the heroes.
    The article you have written is not revealing of any great moral truth, as you intend it to be – it is only revealing of your own prejudices and your inability to live with the differences you see in other people. Were Winston Churchill still with us, he would have little interest in the behaviour of any two people in the bedroom – he would be more preoccupied, as you should be too, with greater issues in the world such as real wars and real fascism.
    Unlike your article, he would make me Proud to be British.

    4) “Marginalised and dismissed as bigoted and homophobic, Christians are now despised as has-been and out of touch with the cool cosmopolitan mainstream.”

    I have three points I must make about this statement. Firstly, I would like to point out that bigotry wrapped in prayer is still bigotry, just like a bomb is still a bomb if you paint a smiley face on it. Your views, Alan, ARE bigoted and homophobic – I can find no reason for your hatred of homosexuality other than fear – and will be defined as such by those who come across them. Saying “I’m a Christian” does not change this fact.
    Secondly, the truth is that actually, a majority of Christians are still respected, not only by myself but by the gay community as a whole. It is only the ignorant hatemongers like yourself who are marginalised and dismissed – and with good reason. You and others like you are more of a threat to this country’s Christian background than the homosexual community will ever be (I can think of a number of Christians in my immediate circle of friends who would read the above article and think, correctly, that such intolerance is a disgrace to humanity).
    Finally, assuming that in saying “the cool cosmopolitan mainstream”, you are in fact saying “the annoyingly correct and influential majority”, I think it’s safe to say that the views expressed in this article are of no threat whatsoever to anybody who does not feel so embittered and “out of touch” as you do yourself. Don’t attempt to trivialise the views of the majority by referring to them as the “cool” gang – this only serves to make you sound like the unpopular guy in the workplace who laments the unfairness of his life and believes that everybody is wrong but him. It’s time for you, and others like you, to move with the times – or the times will move on without you.

    5) “Today it is perfectly reasonable to warmly engage with your gay neighbours while at the same time forcefully confronting the vaulting ambitions of gay leaders and their atheist and humanist fellow travellers.”

    Hello, Alan. I am your gay neighbour. I’m interested in hearing your views on my evil and immoral lifestyle, my fascist Nazi attitudes (stemming from my desire to be treated as a human being), and my right to be free from homophobic abuse. Oh, what’s that? I see. Well, in that case, I don’t want to be your neighbour anymore. You clearly have no idea how to coexist with others who lead different lives to you.
    I’d like to point out, as your gay neighbour, that unless you have installed cameras in my bedroom, then what goes on there between myself and another consenting adult is neither your business nor the business of the state, and will certainly have no impact on what you do in your own bedroom. Equally, the goings on in my heart are no business of yours, and if my “vaulting ambitions” were to one day see me married to the woman I love, then this would have no implications for your own marriage.
    In other words, Alan, the answer is NO: no, it is not perfectly reasonable to do this. It is perfectly unreasonable, and any of the gay neighbours you supposedly warmly engage with would be happy to tell you as much. Additionally, your suggestion of a link between homosexuality and atheism/humanism is one with no concrete evidence at all to support it, and is just another sign of your own fear of opinions that are different to your own. Taking a swing at atheists and humanists in the course of an article about homosexuality is, effectively, a fantastic way of injuring your own argument. You have an agenda, it seems, that is quite different to the one you originally propose. Stay on topic, next time, and your argument may not be as flawed.

    The conclusion to your article, naturally, is something else I take issue with. Looking at the view from the other side, I would say that “the only right response” is in fact something quite different:

    Here I stand; I can do no other.

    I notice that in your responses to other comments on this article, you have danced around the points, saying very little to refute them. If you do respond to my comment, Alan, I’d like to see some solid arguments from you, as I won’t be satisfied with the self-preserving rubbish you’ve replied with elsewhere. In the event that you have nothing of value to say, thank you for reading this comment anyway.

  74. Matt Robinson Says:

    You’re hilarious, Alan, and I bet the gaystapo uniforms look fabulous. It’s a shame that you couldn’t even finish the title of your piece without invoking Godwin’s law. Making analogies to Nazi Germany really isn’t doing you any favours. It’s too absurd to be offensive, but even those who might otherwise be swayed to your cause will distance themselves from you.

    Bigotry, intolerance and homophobia are not Christian values. Quite the opposite.

    It really shouldn’t be necessary to point out that the ability to marry a partner of the same sex is not a ban on marrying the opposite sex, nor could it ever lead to one in a free and open democracy such as we generally enjoy. In any case, what could such a ban possibly achieve? It’s a ludicrous argument that removes you from any chance of reasoned debate with others who feel strongly on the subject of gay marriage. To argue rationally, you must first accept that family is important to everyone regardless of their sexuality, and that marriage as an institution is a lasting stable bond that strengthens the individual, the family and society as a whole. Then you must establish why that would not be true if the partners were of the same sex. Simply saying that this is so is not enough.

    If instead you declare that civilisation itself is on its knees, that the loss of a church-going Christian English majority has led to a moral decline, and that allowing two men, or two women, to marry each other will unleash a tidal wave of murder, rapine and bloodshed, condemning right-thinking, upstanding gentlemen like yourself to the gas-chambers, then you stand alone in a cartoon fantasy of your own fevered imagination, and there is no hope for you.

  75. GJ Says:

    I’m with Adrian here. Alan please consider that you yourself might be the one with his hands over his ears not listening to reason. Please take more of a rational evidence-based view on the world.
    Kind Regards

  76. Chris Says:

    Hi Alan,

    I’d just like to register my voice that I find your use of Nazi comparisons completely outrageous. I’m not sure what point you were trying to make, but it is hard to read past that nonsense.

    What a shame.

  77. Olivier Weber Says:

    My my, what a noble & brave Christian bigot you are. The “gaystapo” stopping you from hating and discriminating in peace? The heart bleeds. May I remind you that gay people where among the targets of Nazis during those dark days which seem to inspire you so much. Nazis who scapegoated categories of human beings, a form of intolerance which you exhibit yourself. Contemptible and dangerous

  78. Sue Says:

    I’m speechless. You area doing yourself no favours with this vitriol. Have you any idea how offensive what you have just written is? Somewhere between 5,000 and 15,000 gay men perished in the Nazi death camps, many were beaten to death and Nazi soldiers were known to use them for target practice. I am speaking BTW as someone who isn’t yet sure whether committed gay relationships are biblical or not. The arguments are strong on both sides of the debate, but I do know that homophobia is a sin, as is trampling so wickedly on the memories of those poor souls who died in such terrible circumstances.

  79. Robyn Griffiths Says:

    I find your comments comparing gay rights activists to Nazis dispicable and boarding on Incitment to Hate Speech under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 1998. Also may I give you a history lesson? The Nazis persecuted and murdered homosexuals and transgendered people durng their murderous reign in Germany. Homosexual men where forced to wear a pink triangle on their clothes, lesbians had to wear a black triangle. Alan Turing who was the main man behind breaking the Enigma ode is WW2 was gay as were many of his follow cryptographers.

    All gays are asking for is equal rights. What is wrong with that? We are not asking for special treament but equal treatment. I am a christian and transsexual and have been accepted by my church.

  80. Sliz Says:

    I call Godwin’s Law on this entire article. If you can’t make a point without ludicruously overwrought comparisons to a genocidal regime.

    Yes, gay people getting married is perfectly analoguous to Nazism, a political ideaology that saw the murder of political opponents, the persecution and attempted extermination of Jews, disabled people and homosexuals (epic history failure here on your part), among others.

    I’m sure Jesus is very proud.

  81. James Says:

    Alan, you cite David Starkey … are you aware that he is himself gay?

  82. Richard Wilson Says:

    Hi Alan – has it occurred to you that likening gay rights activists to the racist mass-murderers of the 1940s might amount to demonisation, and risk fostering just the kind of hatred that you, as a Christian, are committed to opposing?

    Can you point to any examples of Christians anywhere in the world getting killed, tortured or imprisoned by gay rights activists because of a) their views about homosexuality or b) their status as Christians? I may have missed something here but I’m not aware of any such cases.

    Sadly, your-fellow Christians in Uganda, and many other countries in Africa *have* been seeking to have gay people jailed and executed, and have threatened and murdered gay rights activists. Earlier this year, the Ugandan gay rights campaigner David Kato was beaten to death with a hammer after repeatedly being threatened over his activities: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/01/28/ozatp-uganda-murder-idAFJOE70R0HS20110128

    At David Kato’s funeral, the presiding pastor used the occasion to make a speech condemning homosexuality as “ungodly”. Local villagers refused to help bury David Kato’s body, so his fellow gay rights campaigners bore his coffin to the grave and buried him themselves.

    What do you suppose Jesus would have done in that situation?

    Looking at this from the outside, which group do you think a neutral observer might feel most closely resembles the Nazis – the gay rights campaigners, or the “Christians” who murdered David Kato?

  83. An Observer Says:

    It could be useful for all the sides to understand the distinction between “hermaphroditism” and “homosexuality”. Hermaphroditism is an inborn sexual abnormality – a person is neither a normal male nor female.
    This does not necessarily imply that such person would indulge in any form of behaviour.
    Homosexuality is an addictive behaviour of which any normal person is capable of, similar to use of drugs, alcohol, etc. It is just a perverse way of satisfying reproductive instincts and emotions. So to talk about “gay people”, as some kind of “race”, who are born that way, is like talking about a race of alcoholics or drug addicts. And the fact that governments promote and encourage such perversions is just evidence of the extent of moral degeneration affecting the modern “society”.

  84. Nicola Says:

    To compare gay men to the Nazis is narrow minded, disgusting & extremely offensive. Aren’t Christians meant to be tolerant? What a despicable hypocrit you are.

  85. Adam B Says:

    Yes, those uppity gay-rights “activists”, demanding pesky things like equal rights and not being treated like second-class citizens. Shocking. They should Know Their Place.

  86. Sean Fraser Says:

    What an ignorant article. Gay men were killed in their thousands, alongside lesbians, gypsies, the disabled and ethnic minorities, nor forgetting of course the millions of Jews. This was in the holocaust, carried out by the nazis against individuals who sought nothing more or less than the right to live and love.

    Inform yourself – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust

  87. Smiffy Says:

    What I find most depressing, as a committed Christian, is that Admin sees no problem with his frequent use of comparisons with the Nazis in his railings against those who disagree with him over the homosexuality issue. Apart from the issue of whether his views are actually justified by scripture, it is hard to see how he contributes to an adult debate by linking the activities and views of some (and only some) in the gay community with those of the Nazis as they exterminated a massive part of one race and a huge number of other people for their orientation or their firmly held views. To say the comparison isn’t apt doesn’t begin to make clear just how inapt and offensive it is. Jesus was clear about rights and wrongs but always acted in love. We could do with a bit more of that in this sort of dialogue.

  88. David Gerard Says:

    I suppose it won’t help my case to allude to the enticement superpowers of pink jackboots.

    (Those blond Aryan boys are airheaded twinks anyway. You get sick of them after the first few hundred.)

  89. John Says:

    The sad thing about this is that you use your religion to excuse your dislike of gay people. I have gay friends and Christian friends. If my Christian friends and my gay friends all get married, their respective relationships are on their own backs. Saying that gay marriage weakens marriage is like saying my faulty weakens yours. Also, to suggest that marriage is a Christian concern is to ignore the fact that other religions exist, as well as atheists. If two peope want to come together why shouldn’t they. Did you think that maybe you see gay rights as infringing on your religion because some people are so against their lifestyles that they ‘create’ beliefs which hinder gays. Jesus said nothing about gay people, and forgave a prostitute. He also professed that divorce is sometimes necessary. Could it be possible that Jesus saw marriage as a union of two, and not as the beginning of a family.

    I personally believe that if you believe in equality you should wish it for all, and in that I fight for the equality of all. If I saw Christians being kicked out of a B&B I’d fight for their rights as well. Religion is about belief and about living your life the way you believe is right; can you accept that the way you love your life may not be the only way to live?

  90. Peter T Says:

    I have never read a more bigoted hateful twisted article in ages..

    For a so-called “christian” you spout the nastiest inflammatory bunch of old fashioned out-of-date delusionalist nonsense..

    Gay people are gay without choice.. and are constantly denied their equal rights and demonised by holier-than-thou bigoted “christians” who haven’t crawled out of the 1800′s..it’s 2011 gay people are here and are equal and your religious delusions are not a reason for other peoples equal rights to be trampled on.

    It’s always funny that bigots like to follow the most hateful and retarded bits of the Bible…but not the message of love that Jesus promoted…whilst at the same type quite happily wearing clothes made of different fabrics, not locking their wives up when they are menstruating or planting different crops in the same field and enjoying a nice piece of pork with apple sauce on a sunday.

  91. Corrections Officer Says:

    Rectalfying stormtroopers in pink jackboots?! :D

    You kinky sod.

  92. Peter T Says:

    I also think a fair few Jewish people will be highly offended by the holocaust/Nazi references you bandy about… but then again you “christians” are not that fond of your co-abramhamic religionists either…

  93. Conor Says:

    Woohoo! What a conversation. AdrianT rules! Well argued, and if I may use such an inappropriate phrase; AdrianT, you have the patience of a saint!

  94. Peter T Says:

    and ..finally I’d just like to point out that Adrian T’s eloquent comments are well written, to the point and I for one am in complete agreement with every word he says…

    and your final reply to him was condescending, arrogant and very ‘holier than thou’… you’re entitled to your bigot beliefs and biblical codswallop…but you’re NOT entitled to trample of other peoples equal rights or compare them to Nazi’s.

    And finally…most Nazi’s and Hitler himself were staunch Catholics supported by the Pope… how very “christian” of them to let 6 million burn without a comment…

    The sooner in our country that everyone has equal rights in all aspects and the sooner that religious delusion and hatred is removed from the public sphere.. the better. Humanism and rational freethinking promoting true equality for all no matter what colour, sex, orientation..then will Britain be a better a place.

  95. Lovebug Says:

    This is the funniest homophobia currently available online.
    Two quick points
    1) Stop being surprised all the time when laws against homophobia are applied to homophobes. Thats why we have them. You cant legislate prejudice away but you can allow folk to buy a pint without having to show their marraige certificate.
    2) Hitler was bad. He wasnt however the only bad thing ever. Things can be bad without being analogous to Hitler. Like this piece.

  96. Custard Says:

    Your views aren’t have as abhorrent as your throw cushions.

    You should be should be walked all over in pink jackboots for such awful taste in soft furnishings.

  97. Another Rachel Says:

    Woah! How depressing is this debate!
    I am a Christian and a lesbian.
    I can’t dazzle you with my knowledge in theology or political history, but I can only speak as someone who has struggled with sexuality. I never chose to be gay, and being attracted to girls and trying to follow God and the beliefs of the church has caused me do much pain! I have tried to hate God to deal with my pain and sexuality, I have turned to alcohol to try and numb it away, I have tried throwing myself into church life to forget but could not escape who I am. I’m a lesbian.
    Now I’m open about my sexuality, and have chosen to enter a relationship as I could not continue to be friends with this girl with the amount of love I have for her. I have been tossed aside by my Christian friends because I’ve come out. I don’t go to church because of the way they have attacked me and my girlfriend, who would like to be able to go to a safe loving environment to hear about God.
    I have been with my partner now for 5 years and I want to be married, not civil partnered, married. I don’t want a marriage to raise children. I don’t want children as I am unable to have a baby that is part of me and part of my partner. I want a marriage as I want to have a union between me my partner and God. I want to make a promise to my partner and to God about our commitment. I don’t want a wedding like all the non believers who can marry in a church. I want a marriage!
    This is not a ‘self pity party’ but simply my experience of being gay. Others have experienced awful prejudice due to sexuality. I’m sure the lesbians in Africa who are raped and excluded from society because of their sexuality have not chose there sexual orientation. We are not extremists trying to take over the world. We are simply people who throughout history have always been in the minority.
    I’m not saying this Hoping for an argument. Just wanted to add a different perspective.

  98. Oliver Says:

    Your equating treatment of Christians in this country with the Holocaust is extraordinarily distasteful. Up to 50000 LGBT people were arrested under the Nazis and up to 15000 sent to the concentration camps. Indeed many LGBT Germans suffered rearrest in the post war years because of the ban on Homosexuality at the time.

    So, look at this is context. A few Christians have been upset because they have been forced to follow the law (i.e treat people equally when running a business). If your that threatened by two people loving each other and wanting to live a normal life, may I suggest you discuss the sanctity of marriage with Kim Kardashian

  99. Vincent Lauzon Says:

    I’ve recently gone back to the church. I was raised catholic but now worship with the Anglican Church of Canada, precisely because I was trying to get away from this kind of infantile silliness. How can I look my children in the eye and tell them, look, this is what many of our coreligionists believe, sorry about that, just stare at your shoes and hum a bit while they forget to be nice to people. And don’t worry, of course you can marry someone of the same gender if that’s what you want. The law says you can, and our church is halfway there. Mother Maïda, our priest, will be delighted to officiate. These embittered old reactionaries will look like right chumps when they have that conversation with Christ. Indeed they’ll look like right chumps when they have that conversation with their grandchildren.
    Articles like this are so depressing.

  100. Peter Gregory Says:

    Wow! What kind of stuff are you TAKING to produce the vitriolilic hatred-filled Mosleyite ramblings of your “Gestapo” ravings?

    Get a life and grow up and realise that times have changed- you can no longer force everyone into thinking you’re right, everyone else wrong and that your lifestyle and values can be forced upon everyone else.
    TRY, just TRY to mature a bit and abandon your terrifying insecurities about changes and diversity and supposed subversion to your lifestyle (which no one else is actually interested in) and get real, IF you can.
    There are people with different lifestyles about whom you are paranoid and sadly ignorant. TRY to be constructive and rather more grown up and start to worry about drugs wrecking lives, about police corruption, about bankers’ corruption, about “establishment ” figures abusing powers and in their arrogance trying to force retro class systems and hidden agendas on others, Try first to stop priests and others raping young children, then after that try to stop drug gangs taking over council estates, then try to stop bullying in the classroom, particularly of gays who then end up dead thanks to you. How do you sleep at night with your hatred, paranoia and bigotry?- Peter gregory

  101. ABC Says:

    I was going to comment on this ghastly article but AdrianT has said everything I would have said.

    Comparing people who fight for equals rights with a movement responsible for the deaths of millions of people is absurd and horrific and is exceptionally offensive.

  102. Oliver Winter Says:

    “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”

    On that basis along, it is probably necessary to at least speak up.

    Firstly, lets make something very clear, as you seem keen for the church to appear in this all together (and I quote you as evidence of this : “Catholic bishops are incendiary, evangelicals are appalled and even the dear old Church of England seems to think SSM is a step too far “), let me judge you as one body.

    The indignation of the church over consenting adults sexual orientation is as nothing to the public indignation of the sexual proclivities churchmen have forced upon non consenting children.

    I suggest the church puts its own house in order before it takes up the moral highground.

    Whatever argument you are trying to put forward is totally destroyed by likening anything to the moral atrocity of Nazi-ism.

    There are few darker chapters in our histories than these events and by trying to align any section of society with it, when clearly they are not, just makes you look like a fool and weakens your argument.

    Given the Nazi persecution of homosexuals as part of their moral crusade it actually makes you look to be rather on the wrong side of the moral line. Possibly not where you intended to place yourself.

    You can be dismissed as a crank easily and sidelined quickly.

    Obviously you really liked the analogy you created and were pleased with your clever word plays and timelines.

    I am not interested in your argument, I don’t care if it is right or wrong. Whatever you say is wrong the moment you start likening things to the rise of Nazi Germany.

    You lost the argument before it began.
    Godwin’s law invoked in the first paragraph of your own argument is quite a stupendous bullet in your own foot.

  103. Thor Thunderbringer Says:

    If you are going to try and be historically correct, it is worth noting that the Norse mythologies were actually the dominant theology in the northern part of the country -the Danelaw- until the 13th century. To claim that Christianity defines england is to deny the truth: that northern europe owes its history to the Norse gods. This is why 3/7 of the days of the week are named after our deities, versus none for yours.

    You may forget this but remember that when Ragnarök comes, your belief system will count for nothing. Thor does not forgive.

    Wishing you all a present Odin’s day and hoping your Yull festival preparations are coming along.

  104. Vincent Lauzon Says:

    It suddenly occurs to me that the “it’s a choice” argument is specious anyway. Being a Christian is a choice as well, and we certainly expect Christians to have full civil rights.

  105. Garrick92 Says:

    Admit it, Alan: You want c***.

  106. JustAnObserver Says:

    Interesting that you should use Nazi analogies…

    … if you want to know who the real Nazi is, Alan, look no further than the closest mirror.

    And it’s even more interesting (and satisfying) that you use historical analogies, 1938 etc…

    … as you will doubtlessly recall, Alan, Nazism was defeated. Evil triumphs when good people do nothing, and like it or not, Alan, the gay community will not back down in its quest for equal rights.

    You will lose this war.

  107. SusannF Says:

    I am absolutely shocked about the article and the Christian-fundamentalist comments I find here, while freedom is defended by one person in the discussion. I found this article after a mention in today’s Guardian, in which one representative says that the article is still here to promote a discussion about the topic. Unfortunately I don’t find a discussion, but a stringing together of rakish comments that air long-cherished anger about political correctness, now that ‘someone has finally said it’.

    Being a heterosexual agnostic woman from Germany, living in the UK, I can only say that I feel (1) ashamed of what I read here today, as I had hoped that comparisons with the Third Reich would be handled with more care in this country and(2)deeply disappointed by the (non-)state of tolerance I had thought was an agreed point in this country (which is one the many reasons I love living here).

    It does make a difference if you want to live a Christian life yourself or if you want to forbid someone else to live a non-Christian life. And if you do, at least find better arguments than evoking unparalleled horror and suffering for your cause, please.

    Best wishes, A

  108. JustAnObserver Says:

    Sorry, couldn’t help but reply to Rachel.

    Where to start?

    “Saying no to gay marriage, which is something most voters actually don’t want, is not about excluding people but rather thinking about the structure of family that you want to endorse as a society. ”

    You are endorsing THE worst kind of majoritarian authoritarianism. Your view, if extended to its logical conclusion, would essentially see Great Britain determining the rights of its minorities (no matter if racial, sexual or hey, how about religious?) on the whim of the voting majority. If 51% vote to withhold (or even say deprive) civil rights from the other 49%, your logic would comfortably sustain it. Tell me, would a good citizen (or a good Christian?) be happy to see this country vote to force blacks to sit at the back of the bus? Rachel, your logic would sustain it. How about this country voting to ban Christian ceremonies in churches? Rachel, your logic would sustain it.

    The fact that a few opinion polls may have said the majority are opposed to gay marriage is IRRELEVANT. Civil rights are not to be decided by opinion polls or even referenda. You are proposing division of the worst kind of this country.

    And this was a classic…

    “…nobody should loose their job for disagreeing with someone’s lifestyle choice, and it is a choice – people who are gay go straight all the time.”

    Are you a straight woman who was formerly bisexual or lesbian, Rachel? If not, do you know what gays and lesbians think, what they feel, what sexually arouses them, what feelings of love they feel or repress?

    And how exactly would you know that ‘gay people go straight all the time’? Do you have statisitics from a credible source, or did you acquire your information from a church pamphlet? Or maybe a glossy gossip mag picked up near the checkout in Sainsbury’s? Or perhaps you are intimately acquainted with a statistically representative number of gay people (out of the millions in this country)? Which is it?

    Tell the world, Rachel… what makes you the authority on the origins of homosexuality?

  109. Meet Alan Craig … « thirtyblackhorses Says:

    [...] Meet Alan Craig » Blog Archive » Confronting The Gaystapo. [...]

  110. Merseymike Says:

    The fact is that you have lost the court cases and really, other than a few conservative Christian extremists, no one is bothered. And gay marriage is coming, with support from all the main party leaders – and you know, the same will happen again, because most people really don’t have this sort of obsession with this issue. For all your panic and scaremongering, the world hasn’t caved in, and for the vast majority of people, they won’t be affected one way or another by gay marriage.
    Given that there is precisely no chance of you achieving your aims, you may want to seek somewhere to live where the legal position might be more to your liking. Pakistan or Iran come to mind. Oh, hold on….

  111. AdrianT Says:

    Dear Alan,

    Oh well – all good things must come to an end! Thank you, by the way, for enabling unedited comment under your article. I suppose I do care about what you think. I just wish I didn’t have to!

    I see the sincerity of your opinion, I absolutely defend your right to express it, but I reserve the right to hold your very serious claims to scrutiny.

    May I leave you with the note from Thomas Paine to George Washington, in the introduction to the Age of Reason – an essential piece of literature for every schoolchild – as they are my sentiments too.

    “You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

    The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.”

    Feel free to keep showing concern.

    Very best wishes,

    Adrian

  112. Graham Says:

    Oh dear, how ironic. Alan, are you REALLY saying that you can not engage with someone who has his hands over his ears? How on earth can you hear yourself speak in that case.

    Matthew 7:5 Alan, read it, ponder its meaning and then, if you have the courage, remove your hands.

  113. Paul Says:

    Alan, the Church must be mortified that you’re airing such views in a public forum in their name. I can’t believe any Christian would condone invoking Nazi references to make their point – a more articulate and well informed individual would be able to make his point without such a sensational stance; it simply proves your arguement to be unfounded and without merit.

    You’ve rightly pointed out our Conservative government supports single sex marriage. That’s a CONSERVATIVE goverment. Are you feeling a little out of touch? What makes you think people require the authorisation of the christian church to marry. Marriage is a legal process; an agreement entered into by two adults.

    What are your thoughts on gay Christians? Given your arguement such a person must be a work of pure fiction, but a I have a funny feeling they do exist.

    Dear oh dear Alan, who exactly is ‘they’? People who strive for fair treatment for all, without prejudice, or hate or preconcieved notions – I wonder what Jesus would make of the ‘they’ you refer to.

    As for quoting passages from the Bible to support your arguement, I refer you to Matthew 7:12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets”

    Do you supose Matthew was speaking of acceptance and a prosperous society; or perhaps he was speaking of the physical act of expressing homosexual love. After all, weren’t we all bought up being told to love our fellow man. Do you think ‘they’ have adopted a too literal interpration of that teaching Alan?

  114. Huh? Says:

    “This country has a strong Christian heritage. You see the gospel of the freedom of Jesus Christ leads straight onto social and political freedoms.”

    I’ve just watched a video where you say those very words Alan.

    But apparently such social freedoms don’t extend to two men or women who love and honour each other, who are prepared and willing to forsake all others, and commit thesmlves to one another before their family, friends and God, being permitted to marry.

    One word, Sir. “Hypocrisy.”

  115. JustAnObserver Says:

    Oh, I see – so you can’t take criticism, is that it, Alan, so you remove my posts?

    And this is why you’ll lose the battle over gay marriage – because you can’t communicate maturely, you can’t rationalise, and you can’t debate effectively.

    Your opposition is doomed. You are becoming irrelevant.

    And I say thank God for that.

  116. JustAnObserver Says:

    Oh, you’ve put them back up?

  117. Joe Totale Says:

    Gays = Nazis

  118. Stephen Glenn Says:

    Alan you condemn Adrian for a stream of bias and bile, yet throughout your article you use Nazi imagery and language to equate the LGBT community to those who actually like you thought homosexuality was unnatural and a reason along with being Jewish, disabled or a political objector to be put into a concentration camp and put to death.

    You brought up such imagery even using the abbreviation SSM for equal marriage within this context looks like a parallet drawn to the Schutzstaffel.

    If you are truly interested in hearing what people who disagree with you say why start with such negative and misplaced imagery?

  119. Darrien Says:

    “The stream of bias and bile is a matter of real concern.”

    …WHOA! You mean like the stream of bias and bile…titled something like…’Confronting the Gaystapo’?!

    Indeed, I am concerned…

  120. Patrick O'Gormley Says:

    If it’s war they want it’s war they shall have, but they should think on. They will be the losers and not just to the status quo, but to complete anillhilation as they sorely deserve. It is time to stand up to those who wish to put fiction and opinion above basic civil rights. The religious right have had it their own way for too long and have proven that they are not worthy of such indulgence. So I say to this xtian creep Alan Craig….Bring it on Brother!

  121. Patrick O'Gormley Says:

    If it’s war you want it’s war you shall have, but you should think on. Religion will be the losers and not just to the status quo, but to complete anihilation as you sorely deserve. It is time for mankind to stand up to those who wish to put fiction and opinion above basic civil rights and human dignity. You in the religious right have had it your own way for too long and have proven that you are not worthy of such indulgence. So I say to this xtian creep Alan Craig….Bring it on Brother!

  122. Jill Says:

    Could this be you, AdrianT?

    http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/theology/staff/thatcher/

  123. Oliver Says:

    I read this through a link from the guardian, and I found it so ridiculously over the top that I wonder how serious it is. But if it is serious, then the author has so little sense of moral proportion that he has no right to claim to be defending any ethical values whatsoever.

    If you seriously think that two men or two women sleeping together, and committing themselves to one another for life in a legally recognised ceremony that uses the word marriage is comparable to tens of millions of fellow humans dying through gunshots, bombs, gas chambers, typhus and starvation – then you have no moral sense at all.

    If you can honestly say that young children being gassed to death with their parents and then having their remains burned should ever be slightly compared to homosexuality, you are sick.

    I don’t normally write things like this, I don’t normally get outraged or offended. But articles like this are just horrible. The Christian churches need I believe to get over this pointless hatred of homosexuality, accept their relationships, and move on.

  124. Merlyn Says:

    Just keep up with your twaddle. You are making Christianity look far worse than I could ever dream of doing–than any gay activist could ever think of doing.

    Actually, there are plenty of hard feelings. When YOU want to deny or revoke rights of those who do not harm you and whose having all the rights you dowill not in the least affect your life, you generate plenty of hard feelings. No one has said you have to marry someone of the same gender. Why would we–you’re straight. But you feel more than entitled to restrict our rights as much as you can. Luckily you are getting less and less far with your bigoted goals.

  125. Needlessly Offensive From Beginning To End « Northwood Megan Says:

    [...] to everyone in all situations. ‘Everyone’ includes Anglican priests who call gay people ‘The Gaystapo’. It includes comedians who make crude jokes about the Pope. And it also includes men who threaten [...]

  126. Roy Says:

    If I can refer you to Goodwin’s Law.

    Nazi comparisons are ridiculous and vile. Congratulations on being a good Christian and turning the other cheek.

  127. Bryony Says:

    How dare you. I cannot believe I am reading this. You compare gay people to Nazis. Feel free to have your opinions, but considering that thousands of gay people were killed in concentration camps by the Nazis, this is just incredibly disrespectful to the memory of Holocaust victims.

    In addition: I do not want many things in life. As a bisexual woman, one thing I do want is to know that I can marry whoever I choose to spend my life with. Marry, not have a civil partnership with. I do not want to redefine that word – all I want is to be able to partake in that tradition of marriage which carries so much cultural weight. I want to be part of that tradition, not to twist it or change it. I want to get married to the person I love and raise children, and I want to do that whether it is with a man or a woman. I will not harm anyone by doing that; I will not change your religion or the culture of this country by doing that. I don’t understand why you think I am imposing on your culture by wanting the right to get married that you have always taken for granted.

  128. Andrew Says:

    I have only just read this article as it was linked to another article I read on the Guardian website.

    I would like to reply to an issue raised that a “gay family” is not one conducive to bringing up children. I have two dads, my birth mother having long given up on me and my biological father, and I grew up in a loving, caring and stable home. I was my bio father’s best man at his Civil Partnership and I was proud to see the two men who raised me and looked after me for so many years make the ultimate commitment to eachother.

    I was taught right from wrong, the importance of hard work, to treat others how I would want to be treated. I have a degree and a good job and am in a steady and rewarding relationship (with a woman).

    Knowing how hard others faught for my family, I am deeply saddened to hear you call such people “Nazis” and can only hope that neither of my parents ever read your article.

    Intolerance exists on both sides of the debate, but you try growing up in Essex when you have two dads and then talk to me about intolerance!

    You talk about Winston Churchill, a man who faught against injustice and tyranny with all his might; I am quite confident that were he alive today he would be as equally admonishing to both sides for their lack of respect. He did afterall famously quote Voltaire: “I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it”. Hopefully none of us need go that far.

  129. Wandering Pilgrim Says:

    Alan,

    You have forgotten that in this day and age the Bible and Christian faith mean very little and certainly have little to no protection.

    You of course are expected to have your faith and beliefs trampled on in the name of equality and if you disagree with sin then you suffer for it.

    The days of crucifixion, or beheading may be gone… but you better believe that if you disagree with sin then your opponents will try to kill your career and your reputation.

    You said what many feel, and expressed real concerns of a large body of the Church, God Bless you for having the courage and I’m praying for you and for all those who have commented.

  130. Sam Says:

    Hey, just thought I’d let you all know I was brought up by a lesbian (now married) couple. Unfortunately for your small minded views I’ve turned out pretty good. I’m the first in my family to attend university, I have a brilliant group of friends, Its never been an issue in my life and I have amazingly supportive parents and extended family whenever I need them. Your comparison of gays to Nazis is pretty sick and only goes to further the substantial increase of atheism, a realisation that the ridiculous out-dated fairy tales which intrude into others lives needs to be challenged and stopped from having any legal say in the running of this brilliant, strong and tolerant country.

  131. Anonymous Says:

    Worse than the Daily Mail’s usual drivel, you’ve exceeded yourself. Appalling.

  132. Catherine Says:

    Please can you tell me why my post hasn’t been included? Or are you limiting the free speech of other Christians? I could post it on the social networking sites instead, but then it would be out of context, wouldn’t it? I reproduce it in full below:

    I hate to break this to you, Alan, but you don’t speak for me as a (straight) Christian – or indeed any more than a tiny handful of the Christians I know. Shame on you for this embarrassing, hateful, clichéd, tabloid-level drivel. Your unhealthy interest in other people’s private lives is highly suspicious. Maybe you should get yourself a hobby? (How about a writing course?)

  133. Richard U Says:

    One of the most offensive and hate-fuelled articles I have read for a long time. Good to see that the vast majority, christians and gays alike, have rejected this bile. Round of applause for Adrian T – thank you for taking the time to stand up to this disgusting display.

  134. Tom Brookes Says:

    Aside from the obvious bias of the author, the main problem with this article is its research. While there may be many linked stories evidencing this ‘Gaystapo’ (a term so crass it really is almost laughable) stripping Christian values from society, the values in those articles aren’t very Christian. as a couple of examples:
    A Magistrate who consider gay adoption a ‘social experiment’, denying loving couples a family doesn’t seem Christian – they don’t hand out babies to experimenting teenage couples stumbling out of gay bars, there are vetting procedures for this sort of thing – & babies go to stable, loving couples. I don’t know that the bible describes what a family must be. Nor that a Magistrate has a right to.
    The counsellors, too, were relationship therapists who said they couldn’t give advice to gay couples because of their Christian beliefs. That’s like saying you can’t give relationship advice to a black couple because of your racist beliefs! That’s why it’s called discrimination & why folk are against it; you don’t get to pick and choose who’s a decent person based on unchangeable and irrelevant characteristics like sexuality or skin colour.

  135. Jonh Kimble Says:

    Bald

  136. Anonymous Says:

    The “gaystapo?” What’s next? The Gay Mafia? To quote Robin Williams, “Does this pistol make my a** look big?”
    My boyfriend directed me to this article, and I must admit it got it’s point across. I was rolling by the time I finished it. My biggest issue with this whole “no-gay-marriage” issue is that there IS no sanctity of marriage anymore. There are those of us that DO go around promiscuously, but those of us that have genuine relationships? 98% of the time, those relationships last longer than most marriages here in America. The average length of a marriage before divorce is 3 years, and 50% of marriages end in divorce. I don’t know what the statistics are over there in the UK, but I hope you get my point, considering there are a truckload more Christians in America than there are in the UK. Gay’s are LUCKY in the UK in comparison to us in the US. The Christapo over here spend more on blocking civil partnerships than would end hunger in Africa ten times over. Frankly, I don’t WANT to get married, I would consider it an INSULT considering how farcical marriage is treated by the majority of Christians worldwide.

    Furthermore.let us talk history. irrefutable evidence, refutable if you believe in Christian Magic, shows that civilization started LONG before the Christian “God” was dreamed up by stoned Arabs.

    Two more short things.
    Firstly, you say, above, “…than I’d say all Muslims are Islamists or…” That is a direct quote. YOu obviously know nothing about this religion or you’d know that Islam and Muslim are both different names for the SAME freaking religion. If someone is Muslim, it means that they follow the religion of Islam. All Muslims ARE Islamics. Go read a damn dictionary. English or American, it doesn’t matter, they’ll both tell you the same thing.

    Secondly. Most of you religious nutjobs find a reference to God being against homosexuality in Leviticus. Do you have a daughter? If she’s ever spoken back to you, you were biblically OBLIGATED to have her stoned to death? Have you ever eaten a shrimp/prawn or a clam? Yep, stoned to death. Divorced? Death.
    My point? If you can not kill your daughter, and eat shrimp, I can eat cock.

  137. Emma Says:

    The idea that the majority are against gay rights is dubious to say the least. Most people, unlike Alan, live under the principle of “live and let live”. Fortunately, this sentiment is reflected in the wider rule of law in the UK.

    The idea that the so called MAJORITY should have a veto over the civil and human rights of a minority is disgusting. Utterly despicable.

    I am so glad to see the love and warmth in the voices of dissent. It would appear that not many need a beardy man in the sky to show them how to love.

    Peace.

  138. John Barr Says:

    This sort of poorly written, hate-filled article diminishes the world and makes it a poorer place. What is astonishing is that a church endorses it. Invoking Nazi Germany as a metaphor. Really? Shame on you all who had anything to do with this piece

  139. Melissa Says:

    You really do make me cringe. I have been brought up to treat every other person the same no matter their race/religion/sexual orientation etc, and I always have done. It makes not the slightest difference to me whether somebody else fancies men instead of women and wants to marry them. Why should any human have less rights than another just because of who they love? I wish every person in the world could respect and care for every other person unless they mean harm, then the world would be a perfect place, but people like you are setting us back, you claim to be Christian yet you don’t follow some of the most important Christian beliefs. Why do you want to hurt people who have done no harm and try to influence others to hate them with your twisted, ancient opinion of homosexuals? You people saying homosexuality is evil, ungodly and a PERVERSION(?!?!!), are you insane? A couple of girls or 2 guys getting married to eachother and moving in together being in a happy and loving relationship does not affect/harm you or anyone else in the slightest, so how in any shape or form is that evil or perverse? Tell me, I’d love to know. I am happy for those who have found love for eachother, you however are stuck in the darkest parts of your religion which have been left behind in the past now. I am a heterosexual Christian and I live by what I call the good parts of this religion which are relevant to our modern society which teach you to love and respect others, and ignore parts of the bible which were clearly just the beliefs and opinions of the people who wrote it in that time which some people still even to this day choose to blindly follow even though it hurts other people.

  140. JCF Says:

    Let this be ANATHEMA.

    Lord have mercy…

  141. Robyn Griffiths Says:

    I think that Herr Craig should learn from the Native American’s and their Two Spirit Societies. They believe that LGBT peole have extra powerful medicine and are regarded as people who are to be respected and protected

  142. Hannah Says:

    “Christians are now despised as has-been and out of touch with the cool cosmopolitan mainstream” – no, Christians are scorned because (despite the fact that most are wonderful, accepting people) closed minded, backwards bigots like you tar their good name with your repulsive beliefs.

    I am sick to my teeth of people using the veil of ‘religious belief’ as a means of expressing hatred.

  143. Jill Says:

    I see that the Guardian readers have all come over here now with their usual brand of charm and well-reasoned arguments (not!)

    It appears that the word ‘Gaystapo’ was used – if not invented, I don’t know – by a gay man, Johann Hari, who tells of the involvement of Nazi gay men.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-strange-strange-story_b_136697.html

    This is an absolute MUST to read.

  144. Christo-Fascists Give Me Gas… « MommieDammit Says:

    [...] – Allan’s Angle – and reprinted it in the Church of England Newspaper under the title “Confronting the Gaystapo”. You guessed it – the entire bilge-fest is dedicated to comparing the LGBT equality effort in [...]

  145. Richard Ashby Says:

    This is a disgraceful article, the author ought to be ashamed of himself and the newspaper condemned in no uncertain terms for publishing it. I hope that the advertisers who support the CEN will withdraw their support.

  146. Christians are being ‘crushed under the pink jackboot’, says lunatic councillor Says:

    [...] – Confronting the Gaystapo – published in the Church of England Newspaper and reprinted on his personal blog, Alan’s Angle – the ghastly Craig holds “a permissive New Labour government” mainly to [...]

  147. Old Says:

    Considering the persecution of homosexuals by the Nazi regime, regardless of your views of the rights of gay people, your running metaphor is insensitive.

    http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/

    Our society is also guilty of the persecution of gay people into the recent past. Into the 1970s it was treated as a mental disorder, and gay people were incarcerated in asylums. Alan Turing, one of the greatest minds of the 20th Century, who greatly contributed to the war effort, was subjected to hormone injections for being gay, which lead to his suicide.

  148. Allan Harry Says:

    Hi Alan

    You are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else on here. All I want to say is that I am a happy, healthy gay male in a proper relationship. Why should I not be allowed to get Married and have the same treatment as every other str8 couple out there?

    In my opinion, to call it something other than “marriage” or to not allow it at all is treating me as a second class citizen which is definitely discrimination.

    You may not agree with the action or the way that stonewall and the various other gay rights groups go about their goals however they are workign to ensure people such as myself are being represented/given the same rights as every other person in the country.

    Allan

  149. Ben Goudie Says:

    Since you’ve gone with a Nazi allusion, surely Godwin’s Law says you automatically lose the argument (as well as coming across a little scary, and making the Christian right seem rather stupid and rather churlish).

    As to marriage, to my mind there ought to be Marriage for Christians and civil partnership for atheists. Until that’s sorted out, I’d say sexuality is a non-issue.

  150. Alan Craig and the Gaystapo controversy | eChurch Blog Says:

    [...] Yesterday morning I was alerted on Facebook to a blog post written by Alan Craig, entitled: Confronting The Gaystapo. [...]

  151. Andy Says:

    Blimey! You really believe all that tripe? I can’t wait to read about the skeletons which will surely, one day, come tumbling out of your closet. It’s usually the case with right wing bible thumpers who try to demonize those who just want to live their lives without fear of violence and bigotry.
    I look forward to reading about your downfall in the Mail. Should be quite entertaining.

  152. Nick Says:

    I am deeply upset with the hateful ignorance that is truly at the heart of this article. You are an intolerant man, looking to justify your outdated religious dogma (which you have right to believe in) but by using such a crass and wholly untrue comparison you make your argument utterly atrocious.

  153. Sam Says:

    This is absolutely amazing satire

  154. James Says:

    Comparing yourself to holocaust victims? Classy. An abridged version of this article would make a passable dictionary definition of ‘persecution complex’.

  155. Coticbane Says:

    WOW! Godwin’s Law evident as early as line 3 of the rant. Do you not care that Reductio ad Hitlerium is a fallacy of irrelevance? I guess that, admitting to being a Xian, you don’t — one wouldn’t expect anything like clear thinking or logical argument from a grown-up who openly professes to worship a zombie (which is the usual English-language term for something that “rises from the dead”).

    However, I do applaud you for showing the true face of Xianity in these times where the Xian establishment pretends to be all caring and warm and cuddly. It is good to be reminded that Xianity is essentially an unpleasant conglomeration of cults that is infested with vile bigotry and that the execrable principles of this utterly intolerant religion should be permitted nowhere near any seat of power or public office.

  156. Mark Says:

    Alan,

    the only cheering thing about your article is the size, quality, faith-base and humanity of the responses.

    I very much hope you’ll ‘hear’ these, repent (ie turn around) and get on with the much more enjoyable and profitable business of talking about your friend and Saviour and mine, Jesus.

  157. Derek Williams Says:

    The Nazi regime imprisoned, tortured and murdered homosexuals. While it’s fair at any time to subject LGBT activism to scrutiny and criticism where justified, Mr Craig’s analogy is beyond offensive and poisonously inaccurate.

    “The Nazi campaign against homosexuality targeted … more than one million German men … more than 100,000 men were arrested … Approximately 50,000 men served prison terms as convicted homosexuals, while an unknown number were institutionalized in mental hospitals. Others—perhaps hundreds—were castrated under court order or coercion. Analyses of fragmentary records suggest that between 5,000 and 15,000 homosexual men were imprisoned in concentration camps, where many died from starvation, disease, exhaustion, beatings, and murder.”

    I know of not one single case where any LGBT activist has *ever* advocated or engaged in even one of the above heinous crimes against humanity.

    http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/

  158. not.amused Says:

    You bastard. You campared *us* to Nazis? I just spent the last ten minutes throwing up. So yeah, you got to me. I suppose you’re happy. Well bloody done, *christian*. Y’know what you are? Nothing better than any two-bit emotional terrorist, aka, bully, aka, gay-basher.

    And Adrian T totally rules this page. Screw what I have to say. Why don’t you try to find the balls (oh! and the brains!) to answer him… Yeah, good luck with that.

  159. Shaun Says:

    “In recent decades gay militants have been in the van of the secularist and new atheist assault on Christianity, and as a consequence our culture has corroded and debased and national confusion and self-doubt has grown.”

    …and, and, and, and.

    You are not only a man who has made an outrageous and offensive comparison, but also a man with a poor writing style. The former is obvious to all so I thought that the latter could be mentioned.

  160. Gavin Deichen Says:

    “Marginalised and dismissed as bigoted and homophobic, Christians are now despised as has-been and out of touch.”

    Yes you are. Well, some of you are. The ones who write long, ridiculous, rambling rants comparing gay people to Nazis, for instance.

    Similar rants can be found in the darker recesses of the Internet making claims about Jews, Muslims, blacks, feminists etc. Pop along to any good White Supremacist site and read your own words back to yourself, but with regards to racial minorities. The big difference, of course, is that these people realise that they’re the Nazis.

    Do you not realise that, in spite of the rise of atheism and secularism, most people remain completely indifferent? It is your sort of silly rant that allows the irreligious in your midst to steer opinion away from your outdated, bigoted viewpoint. You are the past. Goodbye.

  161. LP Says:

    Alan,

    This is not a zero-sum gain- gay rights don’t detract from your rights in the slightest, unless you mean your right to be bigoted and homophobic on the high ground of white fundamentalist Christian male privilege. I see this sort of article (bemoaning that the ‘gaystapo’ wants to take over ‘your’ culture and ruin ‘your’ society) as a simple case of the classic knee-jerk response of the privileged to any challenge to their power.

    Needless to say, I am heartily annoyed that you have compared gay people to Nazis. I don’t know how wanting the right to love and be with whoever I like regardless of their gender is at all comparable to murdering children or persecuting and imprisoning millions of people based on their race. Pretty sordid shock jockey writing, Alan; and pretty disrespectful to thousands of Holocaust victims.

    Finally, if you feel threatened by gay people, that’s your own issue. We don’t want to destroy society, or hurt Christianity. We just want to be treated like all other human beings. If you want to spew this sort of bigoted nonsense, then yes, by all means feel threatened by the ‘Gaystapo’- we don’t think there should be a place for this kind of intolerance and hate in society, not because you’re a Christian, but because you are a prejudiced and unpleasant individual.

  162. Alice Says:

    Dear Alan

    It is so, so sad that people like you blacken the names of Christians.

    I’ve been a Christian all my life. However I find it difficult to call myself a Christian without having to deal with the negative perspectives people have of Christians because of people like you.

    I would not be too surprised if the words you hear when God judges you are ‘I never knew you’.

    The real problem here is the persistence of fundamental Christians who still try to pass off the Bible as the accurate word of God. This is not only illogical and obviously naive, it is pretty blasphemous too. You’re basically taking a collection of historical documents written by a very wide variety of people, translated through several languages over thousands of years and cherry picked by the religious elite of various time periods, and saying it is the word of God. How dare you?

    Perhaps you should consider what being a ‘Christian’ actually means. It means to follow in the way of Christ. To follow his example and teachings – most of which were not only straight forward and simple to understand, but told to us in the form of stories. Why? So that through the years, no matter how mankind mangled the translation and content of the Bible to serve their own ends, the stories wouldn’t change. Yes, some meaning may have been lost, yes, some of the characters in them have been swapped out as cultures changed, but the way Christ treated people and his simple commandment to love thy neighbour remains as the single thing that we as Christians can trust.

    Seeing people who claim to worship my God quoting passages of the Bible to support their hatred of gay people makes me question the teaching of the church (I have not been a part of a church in a long time, and am unlikely to ever join one again). Let me make this very clear. You do not serve the same God that I do. You do not serve Jesus Christ. His message was one of love, not hatred. You are doing the work of the enemy without even realising it. Not only are you and your like not even close to being Christians, you have become the persecutors Jesus spoke against.

    May God have pity on you.

  163. Pam James Says:

    What a depressing read this piece is.

    The witterings of a small man, with a small mind. You need to get ‘out’ more.

    Embrace diversity Alan, God will love you for it!

  164. Alice Says:

    I completely agree with Adrian here and would just like to add that it’s quite ironic that you are using a Nazi metaphor for the equal rights of homosexuals.
    You do realise that the Nazis persecuted homosexuals, and thousands of them suffered and died in concentration camps don’t you?
    In fact homosexuals have been horrifically treated for centuries. While christians have ruled for years and today still get extra rights (e.g churches not paying taxes in America, Religious ministers being allowed visas in England more than asylum seekers).
    Also, do you have scientific proof that homosexuality is a choice? Or are you assuming that because you are not homosexual and you do not understand that people are different?
    Also, “In 1938 it was perfectly reasonable to like the German people but hate Nazi ambitions and ideology. Today it is perfectly reasonable to warmly engage with your gay neighbours while at the same time forcefully confronting the vaulting ambitions of gay leaders and their atheist and humanist fellow-travellers.”
    is an extremely ignorant comment. Many Germans of the time were not Nazis, wheras all gay people are homosexual(obviously). You could like Germans and not like Nazi ideology because German did not equal Nazi, I do hope you understand that.

  165. Tom Plant Says:

    You do realise that the Nazis systematically exterminated homosexuals, don’t you? Identifying the two is at the very least in poor taste. You look old enough that you should know better.

  166. bridge Says:

    Alan, what would Christ make of this?

  167. Aidan Says:

    Dear Alan

    I worry about your subtle use of language here. It is very sneaky but not very noble or truth-loving. There is no recourse one can have against being called a ‘Nazi’ – it is a name that automatically tarnishes its victim. But you have said, so I must respond.

    Yes, gay rights movements are intolerant – they are intolerant of intolerance itself. This is only logical. To say that something is politically incorrect is to say that it is a priori intolerant: intolerant of a person on the basis of something that has no bearing on his or her moral character. Let me assure you that the moral characters of the LGBTI community are as diverse as they are in the straigh communities. We are, after all, all human, nothing more and nothing less. But, we have learnt the hard way – by being victims of intolerance – that we cannot allow others to create an atmosphere that relegates anyone to the corners of society for something that has very little bearing on the well-being of society. This is why the labels of ‘political incorrectness’ and ‘bigotry’ were created – in order to root out those who would refuse to know us on the basis of a very small fact about our very human lives.

    Then comes the your analogy of same sex marriage, comparing it with the invasion of Sudetenland. I must ask, how are same sex marriages invasions? This is simply not clear to me. How does John and Jack marrying undermine the interests that Bill and Sue have in marriage? It makes no sense, unless you buy into a picture that there exists somewhere, out there in the platonic ether, some ideal marriage-form which is irreparably damaged by every blemished marriage that ever occured (in which case, SSM is merely the very last of a multitude of nails in that coffin). Otherwise, granting a same sex couple the same legal benefits as a heterosexual married couple seems to me to only produce a stabler society for all in question.

    Is it an invasion on church perogative? I believe that much of the pressure that the church feels to recognise SSM come from within. There are many LGBTI Christians out there and even more who are sympathetic to their plea. I would like to think that what many of the clergy are feeling is not so much a shout from within but the desparate cries for love, acceptance and recognition from within. As a person of faith myself, I know that when I want to get married some day, I will want the spiritual community in which I find myself to recognise myself but also my union with my life-partner. From an emotional point of view, that only makes sense.

    So, what are we to make of you tirade of anger, frustration, ‘war-mongering’ and pent-up resentment? Are we to assume that you and beloved, static, mythical Brittain are under threat from (GASP) yet another ‘invasive’ change? I think not. Your voice and its desparate grasping at justifications and excuses joins the chorus of voices throughout history that have opposed mixed marriages, the downfall of Apartheid, the liberation of slaves and parity between men and women in the work space, politics and marriage. You are not lamenting an attack, but rather change – and change that seems to me to come only from having to consider the world yet again through the eyes of the oppressed.

    Most sincerely
    A South African who has seen social change before
    Aidan

  168. Joe Watch Says:

    I’m neither a homophobe nor an evengelical but I’m struck by the hypocrisy shown here: firstly, those who comment are claiming to be liberal and understanding of others’ views, while at the same time branding Alan ‘sick’ and a homophobe and saying he should be silenced by the criminal law – not much tolerance or respect for free speech there then.

    Secondly, people are accusing Alan of ignorance about homosexuality and what it means to be gay, the clear message being that there is a single orthodox approach to homosexuality which everyone has to share. The sheer hypocrisy of this can be seen by considering two groups which are very influential in the gay community: Stonewall and Gay Times Magazine. Stonewall last year nominated X Factor winner Joe McElderry for their ‘Gay Icon’ award and Joe features on the front cover of the current Gay Times as a role model for young people in the UK.

    And what is Joe’s story (as announced by him on the front page of the Sun on 31 July 2010): that he only discovered he was gay by reading a “hacked” tweet sent from his own Twitter account which said ‘I am gay’. This ludicrous invention is now being peddled by the movers and shakers in the gay world as a model for youth of what it means to be gay. So we are expected to listen to these people with respect as they pontificate on what homosexuality is all about? I think not!

    Alan your only mistake was calling these people Nazis: they are really Stalinists, peddling their own perverted philosophy as ‘science’, trying to monopolise truth and labelling dissenters as mentally ill and in need of incarceration for the greater good. So good luck to you: because when the thought police have carted you off to jail, they’ll start picking on anyone else who doesn’t share their own brand of intolerant propaganda. Unfortunately, any respect for moral standards or for truth have now been abandoned in the UK as old fashioned and what remains is the deceitful expediency of the screaming politically correct brigade.

  169. A Nazi Analogay | An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy Says:

    [...] Newspaper published a column by Alan Craig, the head of the Christian People’s Alliance. You can find the piece here. Needless to say, it attracted a huge amount of attention, as exampled by this piece from the [...]

  170. hiiii Says:

    Wow. Look’s like you attracted the attention of the internet.

    Andrian put it wonderfully. You’re only making Richard Dawkins job easier with rubbish like this.

  171. Mia Says:

    I left my last comment in the depths of despair that someone from my country could write this awful stuff and have so little response. I came back today not only happy to see the response, but also happy that Councillor Craig is at least able to publish the overwhelming and justified revulsion at his own position.

    Now perhaps he will demonstrate himself strong enough to address, with good manners and the learned and reasoned criticisms made.

    This isn’t just a learning experience for him, it’s one for us. Always speak up. Always counter hatred with reason and love.

  172. Thomas Carson Says:

    It is utterly despicable to compare the gay rights movement with the rise of Nazism in Germany, which in fact saw the torture and murder of thousands of homosexuals. Your christian veneer of humility and compassion wears thin in light of your repugnant, divisive remarks. You have disgraced yourself and brought shame to the faith you claim to speak on behalf of. Everyone has a right to hold their own opinion but there is such a thing as decency, it may be a word you might consider learning the meaning of. If nothing else, please understand that, while there may always be people like yourself who seek to impose their superstitious beliefs and theocratic rules onto others, there will always be someone like me, ready to speak out against you.

  173. Allo Allo? « Nick Baines's Blog Says:

    [...] I got tweeted the other day from the BBC to ask for a comment about an article in the Church of England Newspaper, I hadn’t read the piece and didn’t comment (other than to ask if they know anyone who [...]

  174. Andy D Says:

    I should be really angry, and to honest I am.

    Please look at your language it sounds very much like the rants that the real fascists entered into, and something the BNP would be writing. I am totally ashamed that you are British.

    You not only pervert the facts you dishonour the people who were gassed at Auschwitz and other death camps – these were Jews, Gypsies,and Gay people. You dishonour those who died and you devalue the horror of the names we gave those who committed these horrors.

    Bishop Tutu said ‘if God was homophobic then I would not want to worship him’ and if he is filled with ssuch intolerance you display then I don’t want to know him.

    You have dishonoured God and Jesus Christ with your rant and I pray you will be forgiven.

  175. Hitler and the ‘Gaystapo’ have no place in gay rights debate « MGN: Miami Gay News Says:

    [...] have to assume this rather obvious explanation doesn’t apply to former councillor Alan Craig’s article in the Church of England Newspaper, inviting its readers to “confront the Gaystapo“. It [...]

  176. AgentCormac Says:

    What a vile, deluded little man this article shows you to be. Hang your head in shame, Craig – you are a disgrace.

  177. Keith Says:

    The author of this piece is truly one despicable, deluded and intolerant fool. Please, Fellow Reader, for the sake of humanity and all things rational and decent, shun this worm and his ridiculous ideology. The more people rage against him, the more his deluded mind will compel him towards greater intolerance and self-righteousness. He should simply be ignored and pushed aside lest that vile and twisted ideology extend deeper into what the rational are steadily striving to make a fair, tolerant and civilised society. We have a long way to go but we’ll get there, particularly if we simply dismiss the intolerance of the deluded minority for the evil it fundamentally represents.

  178. A man Says:

    Alan, will you marry me?

  179. JJL Says:

    Don’t you DARE claim to speak for Christians. This is disgusting.

  180. lol Says:

    If anything is promoting Nazism, it’s this article. Hypocrisy at its absolute finest.

  181. JohnMWhite Says:

    Oh dear, Alan, you’ve really put your foot in it. I could understand a slapdash article, penned in the middle of the night after one too many and not enough sleep, could bring forth this sort of vitriol from a frustrated white Christian male seeing his privilege diminishing day by day. It is a disconcerting feeling of sinking, to know that you are not so special after all, and other people (even gays!) are getting to live the life they wanted. Just like you could have, at any time.

    What really concerns me though is your attitude in your replies to Adrian. You flip flop, you move the goalposts, you simply protest dishonestly. You claim you have no ill-will towards homosexuals, yet repeatedly compare them to a dangerous, murderous force that the UK went to war to stop. What exactly do you think that implies? You also make enormous assumptions that reality is whatever you think it should be. You claim the married-only place was ‘inoffensive’ – stating that as if it were a fact, when quite clearly plenty of people could be offended by not being treated equally and by a business blatantly breaking the law. That privilege and that firm belief that reality is whatever you want it to be is what underlines everything you write – you believe you speak for god, and that god agrees with your pet hates and petty prejudices.

    Maybe he does. To all the Christians saying to you that you are a disgrace and are sullying the name of Jesus, I would like to point out that the good book does say homosexuals are to be put to death, and Jesus does say he will not change one letter of the old law. There’s no getting away from it – the god you worship hates gays. Fortunately the majority of Christians are far better people than that.

    But either way, this god is only believed in my certain people, and then they pretty much all only take on board some of his rules. It is not up to you, Alan Craig, to enforce the entire country to live their lives based on what you believe. The simple answer is, and always has been, if you oppose gay marriage, don’t get gay married. If you think sodomy is a sin, don’t do it. Let the rest of the country attend to its own affairs. Take the plank of wood out of your eye before grandstanding about perceived splinters in those of everybody else.

  182. John Says:

    Re: Harry 8/11. Obviously never heard of St. Maximillian Kolbe, Edith Stein, Bonhoeffer, Blessed Titus Brandsma & thousands more. The nazis were virulently anti-christian but this is beside the point. Re: Alan’s post. The nazi imagery is regrettable. However, there are some disturbing case studies which indicate anti-Christian sentiment is growing in the Uk. Perhaps we will be martyrs afterall – but let’s always love those who hate us & pray for those who would wish us harm

  183. David Says:

    Alan Craig, just your every day religious extremist, prejudiced bigot, just like any other. Trying to impose his stone age mentality onto the rest of us. Keep your religion where it belongs and lets the rest of the civilised World get on with living in the 21st Century.

  184. Avi Says:

    This was comically bad. And I mean comically bad. This could easily be used as an onion article. I actually laughed while reading it because of how forced and outrageously and stereotypically extreme the Nazi imagery was. I’m calling Poe’s law here: this is satire and it’s brilliant satire.

  185. Jona Says:

    Thank God! I am a good Christian man who is too terrified to leave his own home. Everywhere I look the homosexuals are pushing their Godless filth on me. I even had to stop accepting mail after my mailman tried to hug me. Please come to America and help free me and the other oppressed!

  186. Bishop Alan Wilson – on ‘Gaystapo’ & Homophobia | Kiwianglo's Blog Says:

    [...] have to assume this rather obvious explanation doesn’t apply to former councillor Alan Craig’s article in the Church of England Newspaper, inviting its readers to “confront the Gaystapo“. [...]

  187. Jake Collingwood Says:

    Because, as we all know, wishing to be able to get married is equal to murdering 10 million people and starting the most destructive war in history. Absolutely equal.

  188. Neil Says:

    Get her with the Gaystapo yet. Oy! So if I choose to exclude Jews from my bed & breakfast and it’s disallowed as anti-Semitic discrimination then it’s fair to accuse anyone supporting non-discrimination of being the equivalent of Nazi secret police.

  189. JohnMWhite Says:

    @John – The Nazis were not in any way anti-Christian. “Gott mit uns”, the blending of Nazi and religious services and the concordat with the Vatican come to mind. They did kill some Christians, but they did it because these people defied their authority, which was to be total, being totalitarians and all. Christians who try to palm off the Nazis on ‘the other lot’ are intellectual cowards too afraid to confront the truth and too foolish to realise that it doesn’t matter – that the Nazis were Christian and that Hitler was a Catholic does not make Christians and Catholics evil people predisposed to genocide. It did, however, provide good excuses for them to further their agenda.

  190. Timothy Hughes Says:

    I am a Christian. I am a homosexual. The first is the one I made a conscious decision to become.

    To suggest I’m a Nazi is so deeply hurtful. I’ve grown up knowing the wider church views me as a sinner, a pervert – whatever. I’ve learnt to handle that. I never, ever thought I would be labelled a Nazi – the worst “group” I can imagine.

    You are a horrible man. I hope you’ve achieved what you wanted.

  191. Is Post-modernism Passé | Recurring Themes Says:

    [...] poppies, the dissenting voices are also vilified or silenced. Take for example Alan Craig’s recent article in the Church of England Newspaper where he used the term ‘gaystapo’ to comment on the rise of the gay rights lobby, and [...]

  192. Shmuel Kuper Says:

    Congratulations for your stance. It places you on the right side of the cultural war God fearing people are waging to keep Western Civilization from gliding back to hedonist paganism.

    As an observant Jew, I express likewise ideas, and I invite people to help me especially in this Lefto-Facsist web-forum, the “New Cafe” http://newcafe.org/ in my Blog/Forum there: “Sami_Blog_Cafe” in the topic called “GAIDS”.

    One must register 1st and then, in the main page, role to the middle to: “Go to forum” http://newcafe.org/motet/bin/download.cgi/Board.9.4128/screenshot_cafe.jpg and there roll to my blog.

    Shalom

    Shmuel

  193. hippiepooter Says:

    Adrian wrote:-

    “You see fit to allow the most appalling insults against gay people on your page, calling gay people perverted”

    Well this is exactly it Adrian. You have the Henry Ford approach to democracy, ‘you can buy any colour car you want so long as its black, you can express any opinion you want, so long as I dont dislike it’.

    Your words are abject humbug Adrian. The Church will live forever. You’ll never be able to extinguish the Truth. Your desire to do so shows how deeply insecure you are about your sexuality.

    I have absolutely no doubt that there are plenty of people born with the affliction of homosexuality, just like some people are born with the afflction of being blind. It doesn’t make it normal. It doesn’t make it natural.

    What you see Adrian as ‘homosexual equality’ others see as normalisation of perversion that can only lead to a depraved society.

    What one sees with homosexuals like David Starkey and Andrew Pierce is that there are a good number of homosexuals who are prepared to ‘live and let live’ and see the normalisation of their sexuality in law but also accommodate the Christian conscience that can never accept homosexuality as normal.

    Unfortunately, while there are moderate homoxexuals there is no such thing as a moderate homosexual lobby, and it is the pink jack boots of this gaystapo that is goosetepping its way through politics stomping upon our democracy.

    Adrian, do tell; any thoughts you’d like to share with us on that letter Peter Tatchell wrote to the Guardian endorsing paedophilia?

  194. DaisyG Says:

    Gays have achieved equal rights already, it’s called civil partnership. Why are they so keen to hijack a word (marriage) that for centuries and everywhere in the world has meant the union between a man and a woman (well, apart from polygamy …). It shows that it is not about equal rights, but about re-engineering society. A large part of citizens do not accept this. It’s not about being anti-gay (otherwise we would be also against civil partnership, which is generally not the case), but about respecting the beliefs and feelings of a large part of voters and calling different things with different names.
    If two people of same sex wish to enter in a civil partnership they are free to do so, but in the same way I wish to be free to express my opinion about same-sex relationships without losing my job or being prosecuted!

  195. Adrian Tippetts Says:

    Hippiepooter –

    Until you realise, that you have no business to interfere in other people’s private affairs, then you are going to have a very miserable time.

    It is clear, you want not only freedom of expression (you have every right to say what you think about how terrible it is for gay people to fall in love, and wail and scream away to nobody on the high street with a placard if you must), you want your backward and hateful views enshrined in law, and you even want people to respect you bonkers opinions! No way. That is not ‘live and let live’. You can’t even tolerate people disagreegin with you. That is called intolerance and imposing your views on others. And it won’t happen.

    Recognising the relationships of gay people infringes your rights in no way whatsoever. So forget this ‘jackboots’ babble.

    You would never consider asking my opinion about your personal relationships. Likewise, I don’t care for your opinion or approval – and so long as the law says that your opinion does not count, that is fine with me.

    Find something else to occupy your time with, rather than other people’s love lives.

  196. Royalist humanist Says:

    Having read the article and the comments, i have come to the conclusion that very few people have considered the basic points of the article.
    While I am an athist and humanist, and do not believe on the religions, I find the basic premisis of this article very intersting and true. A Few years ago, I attended the London AGM of theInternational Humanist & Ethical Union. On the first day, there were lectures, 1st one being on Darwin’s Science of Evolution by Prof. Richard Dawkin. At the question hour after first three lectures, I declared that although I fully support equal basic and fundamental rights for all irrespective of any sexual orientaion; i oppose the act of homosexuality-the anal sex, in accordance with the Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. I gave my arguments which nobody differed or disproved. The same year I was in Germany on another international Humanist Conference by the German humanists: an honorable lady German senator declared her aim of supporting homosexuality everywhere: I opposed the Hon Senator; my point and arguments were well taken and nobody opposed me although the senator disagreed.
    After a few months I applied for the membership of European Humanist federation; Mr. David Pollock-the British president of the federation rejected my application specifically on the gound of opposing homosexuality.
    There are two other such incidents which I may narrate later. The aggressive behaviour of the Gays and homosexuals leave no doubt that they are behaving in a heavy-handed discriminatory manner towards natural-sex practioners, I conculde in this comment.
    (While points like what is the esence of Gay marriage from sexuality point of view, homosexuality during Nazi era, Pinke Triangle of sodomy-victims and Pink-Swastica of sodomite Nazis; and forced sodomy-rape of the German Youth; these topics may need be discussed separately in future comments.)

  197. Royalist humanist Says:

    I am an atheist but I have faith and belief in the colleective wisdom of humans as the Guide ; my lifestance or religion is Humanism. I wish to respond to the question of gay-marriage, of sexuality-natural and unnatural, with reference to the Darwin’s Science of Evolution. According to the Science of Evolution: Every organ of human body, as of other animals, is evolved over millions of years, with a specific structure suitd to a particular type of functions: The nose is evolved for air breathing and mouth is evolved for drinking and eating. If you try to drink a cup of coffee through your nose, the nose will react immediately. There are some organs of body like nose which react at once against any abuse by producing acute sypmtoms and diseases and there are others which react slowly and in a delayed way by developing subacute or chronic symptomes and diseases. In breathing through mouth, the mouth reacts slowly, becomes dry and with time create other symptoms and disease processes. All wrong use or abuse of body organs result in the initiation of disease processes like infections, tumours, cancers, AIDS or other such viral pathologies, sexually transmitted diseases etc, rapid or slow …. Sexual organs are the parts of body with similar reactions; human female vagina is evolved for sexual intercourse; it has the structure and functional capacity to recieve the erected human male sex organ. The structures of vagina and male sex organ have in-built defense mechanisms to safeguard against most diseases. On the other hand human anal canal, used for sexual intercourse by the homosexuals, is not evolved for sexual intercourse. The human anus is evolved as reservior of foul smelling gasses & feces. It has a sphincter mechanism to prevent leaking of foul-smelling gasses and liquid feces in inconvenient social places. When an erect human male sex organs is introduced in the anal canal, this sphincter mechanism is functionally and/or structurally injured and causes leakages of gasses or liquid feces in the inconvenient social places … Moreover, human anaal canal has not evolved any defence mechanism against entery of sexual diseases through the sex intercourse and the human male sex organ has not evolved any protection against the diseases contained in the foul feces in the anal canal ; therefore AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases like Gonorrea and Syphilis are 20-40 times commoner in the anal-sex practitioners like homosexuals as well as in bisexual men and women. (Exception are not the rules: under certain medical conditions, babies and even men needs feeding through the nose, but that is the exception and not the rule; it is a medical and curative practice and not the normal practice…) The problems of Bisexuality: Gender attraction is different from sexual expressions : A Bisexual man is the one who pracrices vaginal as well as anal sex and thereby easily spreads diseases acquired through the anal route into women through vaginal route. A bisexual woman is the one who allows men to have sex with her through vagina as well as through anal canal, or is forced to do so; she often gets sexual diseases from biseual men and then spreads AIDS and other sex diseases to other men…. Therefore a community is always in danger from the sexual activity of homosexuals and the bisexual men and women. While homosexials and bisexuals may claim that they can use Condoms: There are still the problems: 1.This does not prevent the sphincter injury and ensuing problesms. 2. Catholic Church is against the use of condoms and many a Catholic homosexuals and gay do not use the condoms for religious reasons. 3. The condoms do not give 100% security and many people get sexual diseases and AIDS even when they use condoms. 4. Many people in far off African, Asian and South American countries do not have the facility of condoms, cannot afford the price, or are not conscient of it, therefore condoms cannot be unicersely trusted to safeguard anal-sex-practitioner from dangerous diseases. Moreover because of the fast air, water and land travels as well as through immigrations, many people from the poor and illiterate communities find themselves in advanced countries and some of them who are homosexuals, they can freely spread dangerous diseases through their sexual activity…. Now coming to the problems of gay-marriage: “The word marriage has been used over hundreds and thousand of years for sexual and social union between a man and one or more women for engaging in sexual activity through vaginal route, for living together as family and for having and raising childre, if any”. Therefore those who have invented the male to male sexual union through anal sex route, or similar practice between male and female, they must invent another name for this activity. This is commonsense: Table is the word which has specific meanings, it cannot be used for chair; if you want to invent a new name & function for table, you have to invent it yourself. People have the right to expectation: this is a genuine human right and civil liberty; and when the word Marriage is used, people have the right to expect that it means what it has been meaning in the past: therefore those who invent a new type of sexual union, they should not call it marriage, however, they are free to invent a new name for this activity. ….Having discussed all this, I must declare that I am a firm believer in the equal basic and fundamental rights for everyone without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientaion alone, – as clearly mentioned in the constitution and laws of my country of residence as well as other countries…. (However, this is applicable in the official dealings only-as nobody can be forced to socialize with somebody from a particular orientation in one’s private and personal life). There are yet two more aspects of the anal sex remains to be discussed: As a male introduces his erect sex-organs, he functionally and/or structurally damges the anal sphincer of the other person whose anus he is penetrating, this is an injury,; and even with the permission of the person involved nobody can injure the other person’s body, functionally or structurally, except for well-recognized medical and curative purposes; therefore the anl sex remains a controversial pracice even with consent…. Moreover, anal-sex or sodomy has been used as a form of rape against children as by pedophile Chhristian Jesuits, Catholic priests or Islamic mullahs, as well as against young adult men and women as an act of aggression or punishment as practiced by the Christian Nazis against the German and Jewish Youth. Roman soldier, in accordance to their religious beliefs, used sodomy-rape to conquer and humiliate the males of the conquered nations, to make them effeminate and submissive, therfore mere accepting gay sex or anal sex means indirectly accepting sodomy-rape and pesophilia as well, which is wrong and illegitimate; surly an incorrect position….. [The UK AIDS statistics show that of the 91,500 people living with HIV in the UK at the end of 2010, approximately 24 percent were unaware of their infection. Although HIV is more often a homosexual or ‘gay’ problem, through heterosexual (ususally bisexual) sex account for the largest number of HIV diagnoses in the UK. The majority of people who acquired HIV were infected overseas but only became aware of their status after being tested in the UK. In terms of HIV infections that occur within the UK, homosexual men accounted for two thirds of new cases in 2010.….]

  198. Adrian Tippetts Says:

    Just because you have lost your religion, ‘Royalist Humanist’ (Widerspruch in sich, meiner Meinung nach…) does not mean that you have by default found reason. You sought to join a humanist association, while denying self-autonomy of others. You have the right to say homosexuality is not for you, but you have no business deciding what is best for others. Why do you not show such disgust at childless couples?

    As for Darwin… actually homosexuality is found in hundreds of other species. Homophobia in only one. Another point: the population of the UK is at a record breaking 60 million. nd rising. Homosexuality is thus, not a remotely interesting issue. If everyone in the population went forth and multiplied, then there would be overpopulation, and eventually, extinction.

    Another pint: we evolved to enjoy non-productive sex. We are one of the few species on the planet to do so (the evolutionary reasons are explained in Jared Diamond’s ‘why is sex fun’).

    Besides, we owe everything we cherish in our civilisation to the fact that we have broken the rules of raw Darwinian evolution, and the survival of the fittest. We have succeeded because we pass on ideas, and created a society where we all rely on each other, and thus, where we care for each other. It reminds me of a story of a gay couple in Birmingham earlier this year, who were harrassed by their homophobic neighbours for years. Then suddenly the gay couple in question were responsible for rescuing the family from a house-fire. Who is responsible for this family’s ability to create future generations now? You claimed to have sat through a Richard Dawkins lecture, but my guess is, it all went over your head. ‘River Out of Eden’ explains how we have broken the rules.

    It seems, you are talking about Social Darwinism, which has nothing to do with Evolution and everything to do with fascism. Your attitude to others is neither humanist nor ethical, accordingly it is no wonder Mr. Pollock told you where to go… (‘zum Teufel’, I imagine).

  199. Royalist humanist Says:

    I fully agree that British gay community is on the offense not only against the those oppsing homosexuality in any way, but that they are trying to take over the social organizations and cultural values. The gays and homosexuals have long played as victims but now they are themselves offensive, and people of conscience who opposed gay-marriage and homosexuality as well as the innocent natural sex ractitioners are the victims … Slowly and stealethly, the gay and homosexuals are influencing the people in authority particularly in the British Labour party who are easily manipulated with emotive slogans of human rights, civl liberties etc.… It is also a fact that homosexuals and gays do not hesitate in decieving, cheating and creating problems for other people ; they are, indeed, socially and culturally dangerous. Following report will put some light on this :
    My first encounter with the British gays was at the Humanist International Congress in Mumbai 200o where I met the so-called humanist « luminaries » like Mr. Roy w Brown, Mr. Jim Herrick. There was a resolution in favour of defence of the homosexals which surprised me, however, this resolution was marginally defeated. In 2004, I attended the International Humanist & Ethical Union’s international congress in Uganda. On the 2nd day, some local journalists were led into the Executive Committee meeting, this was unussal ; Mr. Roy W Brown-a self-acclaimed humanist, (a Methodist Christian by religion), presented a resolution in support of « homosxuality and gay marriage ». I was surprised as I did not define Humanism with reference to this resolution. I opposed the resolution which made Mr. Roy Brown very angry. Later Mr. Jim Herrick, a self-acclaimed secularist and homosexual ([former ?] Roman Catholic) gave a briefing to these journalists, wrongly informing them thet this IHEU congress was an international meeting of homosexuals, Lesbians and gay people ; and claimed that we gathered in kampala to propogate and proteect the rights of homosexuals and gays. The next day the Uganda newspapers were full of protests and cartoon about the IHEU Congress of homosexuals and gays ; there were columns of protest in the dailies and weeklies, disapproval by the dignitaries of Ugnada and calls for arrest of all the participants. Luckily a UN conference was taking place same time in the same hotel, therefore we escaped arrest but authorities in my country were informed of my participation in this meeting in favour of an activity deemed illegal and criminal in Uganda, and I had to suffer for this.
    The Executive Director and President IHEU were informed about the press articles and cartoons but they just laughed, as if they were party to all this.

    Concluding this comment, I fully agree that the British homosexuals have infilterated the liberal, humanist and secular organization, and that they are using favouratism, discrimination, deception and cheating as a part of their aggressive and offensive campaign of destroying cultural, social, educational institutions and healthy and normal values in thier onward march of flag-waving for homosexuality and gay marriage and for their takeover of the society and the poltical power.

  200. Royalist humanist Says:

    No ad hominem attacks please, it is more respectable to discuss the points of discussion rather than finding faults with the persons ….. For one, I have nver lost my lifestance or religion-Humanism, it remains with me and reasom, rationality & commonsense are its integral parts, therefore there is no contradiction od any type at all ;… and I did not deny self-autonomy of others, we are only discussing a topic ; therefore no Fatwas please. And, of course, I did not decide in any manner at any moment as to what is best for others ; and then why should I show disgust against the childless couple, anyway ?)
    As to Science of Evolution and sex : Hundreds od epecies of animals walk on four legs, eat gras directly with their mouths, urinate, defecate and have sex in the open but nobody follows them … !, The humans are most evolved of animal kingdom, physically as well as socially, intellectually and they are the highest in their intelligence and social manners. They have the faculty to discriminate a wrong way from the right. As to population control, there are hundreds of methods available and practiced by the British population ; homosexuality is not one of the recommended one, except by the Catholic priests.
    Believe me, Sir,I have no objection on enjoying non-productive sex as long as it doesn’t harm the other person physically or functionally and doesnt inoculate diseases as happens in the anal-sex practitioners. The civilisation we cherish is one of the gifts of the human evolution ; we are part of the process of evolutin and we have not broken away from any rule of Darwinian evolution particularly as to the survival of the fittest specie in the face of the challenges of catastrophies. Surely, we have succeeded as a specie because we pass on ideas, and created a society where we all rely on each other, and thus, where we care for each other.

  201. Royalist humanist Says:

    There were some comments about the right of two persons to what they like behind the closed doord in these words :
    « it’s none of my business what goes on behind closed doors in gay homes, … people make their choices. What consenting adults decide to do with one another is entirely their business…It really is no-one else’s business either.- you shouldn’t discriminate based on what people do in their own time. Laws of the country should stay entirely out of the debate of what consenting adults want to do in privacy in their own time, or how they want to live, in my opinion, as long as it doesn’t affect others. Multiple wives/husbands? Gay Marriage?
    If an adult man is raping a woman behind a closed door, if a Catholic priest is sodomy-raping a littler child, or when a homosexual is sodomy-raping a boy without consent ; state and society seems to have a legitimate right to prevent such a happening. State must prvent an adult committing crime against a second person behind closed doors, as well as two adults conspiring to do an act of terrorism, damage the property or person of one of more individuals.
    If an adult man is damaging or injuring another person’s body’s functional or phsyical integrity, with or without consent, the state and society are under obligation to prevent this.
    State and socity are rsponsible for establishing institutions for health care prevention and treatment, it has to ascertain how best to prevent communicable disease. The state has to establish peace in the society, it must not allow any aggression on one person by the other in its jurisdiction, behind open or closed doors.
    Right of privacy is conditional to good intentions and legitimate deeds. A diseased person with AIDS or other sexually-transmitted diseases may transmit his/her disease through sexual act to the other person without prior information to the victim. How should state, then prevent the transfe of the dealy vnereal diseases ? Of course, no carte blanche can be given to the state authorities against the private legitimate dealings between two adult persons, in the similar fashion, privacy has its limitations. In Sweden it is necessary to use condoms when two adult persons ar engaged in sexual activity, otherwise persons like Assuage of Wikileaks has to face persecution in the interest of prevention of the spread of dieases to other members of the society.
    ———— :

  202. Royalist humanist Says:

    Lesbianism, Homosexuality and Gay-marriage

    Learning definitions is important in communicating the real meaning of the terms more so before supporting a cause and before labelling others. The supporters of the gay marriage and the gay-right- slogan-mongers, the vote-hunting politicians like the Hon. Madam Hiliary Clinton-a Methodist Christian, are raising slogans in support of homosexualty and gay marriage without even defining the terms … !
    In traditional terms, a sexual act comprises sexual union between humans of opposite genders : It involves introduction or penetration of the male sexual organ into the vagina of the female ; as a term sexual intercourse is also used for sexual act between two males through the anus or between male and female through anal route, or through other body holes of the other person.
    As Lesbians cannot do with each other with their natural sexual organs therefore, they cannot have sex : Lesbians are not homosexuals.
    Family : a basic social unit consisting of parents and their children, considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not: The traditional family ; a social unit consisting of one adult couple of male & female together with the children they care for: A single-parent family : one person, ususally female with the child or children ; the word family is also used for any group of persons closely related by blood, as parents, children, uncles, aunts, and cousins, as in the say : to marry into a socially prominent family.

    As the falg-waving for the new invention of the gay-marriage heats up ; a question has been raised if there is any hidden ambition, of coveting the world and undermining a foundation-stone of our civilisation – and nurturing place for our children, the family. «The supporters of gay marriage want to change our language, manipulate our culture and thereby impose their world-view on us all». The normal family is the place to bring up children, as the man-woman natural sex marriage is the foundation of the family and the civilization. However, saying no to gay marriage is causing problems for many as the state is saying and demanding the political correctness of repeating that that a gay relationship, being named as gay marriage is a good.
    In European and Europeanized countries, every person has equal basic and fundamental human rights irrespective of any particular sexual orientation, what then is the rationale in the flag-waving of gay rights, gay marriage and gay parades ? Why all this ? … Is cultural domination, the secret aim of gays community ; and is fascist-nazi style type intolerance of politically-incorrect dissent their weapon, as alleged in the article ?
    In this context it doesnt seem true that all gays are asking for is equal rights !
    Even if we take a secular view of European and English civilization, it is right time to feel endagered by the gay offensive as many Germans felt afraid of Nazism in its early days … A section of Christian are raising their voices today, however, they are not the only voice, some atheists and secular people do feel disgusted by these aggressive homosexual and gay startegies.
    Medical/psychological aspects
    Some would emphasize that homosexuality is genetic, is it ?
    During the reign of US President Bill Clinton, human genonomes were discovered and announced : No genes for homosexuality was discovered nor has any such thing found to date ; therefore it can be safely declared that homosexuality, like oral sex or masterbation etc. has no genetic basis.
    It is known that most victims of pedophilia, mostly by Catholic priests and Jesuits, graduate to homosexuality as soon as they are sexualy mature. According to Bishop Patrick Buckley, upto 40% Catholic priests are homosexuals or gay. (While it is known that 70-80% Jesuits are homosexuals¨pedophiles-particularly as the Catholic priests are not allowed to marry) ; he says that he was himself a victim of pedophilia.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/470645.stm
    A similar practice is rife in the Islamic madrassas even when mullahs are allowed to marry. It is known that the only form of sexuality known by the victims of pedophilia was the anal-sex, the homosexuality. Therefore, no wonder they satisfied their natural sexual instincts in the only way taught to them. Many victims of pedophilia and other homosexuals were specifically indoctrinated in not having sex with women as it was dangerous for health- a conditioning of sexual misogyny.
    Is homosexuality a choice ?
    Therefore while homoseuxuality has no bais in genes, it is not even a choice. Homosexuality is the only sexuality such individuals have been exposed to ; and it is known that many such adult indulge in anal sex with their wives even after marriage !
    Psychologically, a frontal sex relation with a female imparts warm feelings and healthy emotional ties between the partners, it creates a civilized behavious with mutual sharing of sexuality, involves social courtesy as well as a feeling of cultural uplifting ; while a rear-sexuality even when vaginal does not involve both in the emotional milieu. On the other hand a rear-anal sexuality adds filth to the sex with flaus and feces.
    While one may not define homosexuality as a mental, emotional or spiritual disorder, it definitely is wrong conditioning and indoctrination. Psychologists as well as many spiriualists have tried to revert the conditioning and indoctrination and have been successful.
    It is truism that homosexuality can beecome an addictive behaviour of which any normal person is capable of becoming a victim, similar to use of drugs, alcohol, etc. « It is just a perverse way of satisfying reproductive instincts and sexual emotions ».
    More than a year ago, a bunch of US psychologists and psychiatrist were appraoched and convinced by the gay organizations, using the emotive slogans of human rights etc. to declare homosexuality and gay relations as normal and natiral. Homosexuality was deleted from the list of psychological/psychiatric illness or wrong behavious by the sheer emotive voting in some professional organizations of these experts, (without any regard to the medical facts, of course!).
    The National Secular Society in London dully recieved the report and decided on a similat crusade in UK. Mr.Terry Anderson, the president of the NSS wrote an official letter to the professional organizations of the Psychologists and psychiatrists in UK, urging them on the emotive slogans of fundamental human rights, and ordering them with the rare moral authority to delete homosexality as a treatable diseases or abnoramilty of sexual behavious, and to declare homoseuality as natural and normal, in the light of the American studies and the resolutions in this respect.
    Like other members of NSS, I came to read of this deed and decided to respond. As a professional man of medicine, I wrote letters to the UK professional organizations of the psychologists and psychiatrists, informing them the defects in the American studies cited as well as informing them that the NSS President Mr. Terry Anderson, being a non-medical person, has neither the knowledge nor the moral authority to write such letters. My arguments were well taken and NSS initiative failed to convince anybody. However, that year when i applied for the attendance of the NSS AGM, I was refused any reply … !

  203. Royalist humanist Says:

    Socio-sexual factors

    Genocide is technically the mass extermination of the men and women capable of transferring their genes for the creation of next generation. Seen in this light, if a sizeable population of a racial or ethnic group is murdered or locked away in reservation refusing them the chance to transfer the genes, technically it would be a gernocice. Similarly if a sizeable portion of an ethnic or racial group is indoctrinated and brainwashed into masterbation, oral or anal sex, it twill have similar genocidal effect for that community.
    This has been one of Roman imperial technology to encourage homosexuality amongst captive men, slaves as well as its soldiers of foreign origin ; and to produce Roman childrren from the women captives. Roman ideologies and social/sexual technolgies were inherited by what is called the West.
    Roman Catholicism doesn’t allow marriage of priests and nuns, thereby indirectly encouraging homosexuality and Lesbianism ; it has also continued its practice of producing Roman children from the nuns of various ethnic origins while inducing their men into homosexuality. Romans also observed that homosexual men are more brutal and kill in a barbaric manner without any remorse. Similar socio-sexual technologies were at work in the colonizing process by the Christian West where Roman Catholic Jesuits practiced their pedophilia in the colonial missionary schools and spread their vicous homosexuality in the society.
    The Roman Nazis at their inititail stages practiced a similar socio-sexual teechnology, they raped young Jewish boys as well as German members of the Nazi Youth. Later Hitler came to a point of choosing between Prussian nobility who opposed homosexuality and his earlier homosexual friends ; it was then on « The Night of Long Knives » in 1932 that Hitler got his homosexual friends killed en mass.
    Homosexuality and gay-marriage, therefoe, is not an individual act or right, it can have devastating effects on the society, and ethnic/racial group.
    —–.
    Sodomy whether practiced with consent or without consent as pedophilia or sodomy-rape, has something inherently unnatural about the act which gives the victim a deep feeling of humiliation-a shame like that of leakage of flatus or feces in public ; many victims of pedophilia-sodomy-rape have committed suicide in New Zealand, Belgium and possible in UK where some girls in the South committed suicide for no other obvious reasons. While last september, 10 teenagers committed suicide as a result of the humiliation by their school-mates, as these teenagers tried to flag-wave their homosexuality in public.
    The homoseuals and gay people have used emotive slogans like human rights, religious oppression etc. to influence the politicians of all colours but particularly the emotive members of the Labout Party where people will support a cause merely as a fashion if it contains rebellious slogans.

  204. Royalist humanist Says:

    Nazim and the Gay.

    It is not just that the modus oprendi of British Gays and Nazism is the same, the resemblance goes further.
    Bavaria in Germany is an ancient region : after the Roman conquest of Germany, it became an important Roman centre, then as Christianity became the political ideology of the Roman Empire after 313 CE, it became the regional centre of Christianity, then of Illuminati ; then of Freemasonary ; then of Jesuits. When Hitler came to Munich in Bavaria, Thule society- a secret society with visible homosexual membership as well as leadership resembing Illuminati and Jesuits Society in struture in function and inspiration, run by the Jesuits and their agents controlled the politico-spiritual milieu of the city http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society
    The DAP-The German Workers’ Party- the short-lived predecessor of the Nazi Party, was founded in Munich in the hotel “Fürstenfelder Hof” on January 5, 1919 by Anton Drexler, a homoseual member of the occultist Thule Society. German Workers Party soon evolved into Hitler’s Nazi party, however, it continued to be controlled by the THULE society by its homosexual members.
    Homosexuality: The Secret Behind Secret Societies
    http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=136&contentid=6193
    http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/Chapter2.htm
    The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party is a book first published in 1995 by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams.[1]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pink_Swastika
    http://www.whale.to/b/abrams_b.html
    Homosexuality in the nazi Party
    http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id12.html
    Homo-Occultism
    http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/Chapter2.htm
    The Other Side of the Pink Triangle
    http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/the-other-side-of-the-pink-triangle.pdf
    In brief, Nazism starting as an offshoot of the Thule Society, a secret society with many homosexuals as its members ; it came to surface as German Workers partysoon evolved into the notorious Nazi party of Adolph Hitler. It slowly and stealethly took over the German society, influencing the German society, its culture, its values as well as its state institutions one by one through its homosexual storm trooper irregular & brutal army- the SA, till it won the state power through democratic elections.
    However, because of the presence of Prussians nobility who opposed homosexuality, the Nazis were not able to discriminate so openly as the British homosexuals and gay organizations are doing, particularly through its infilteration and emotive political exploitation of the Labour Party of UK.
    Therefore, the basic premesis of this article is very correct : first alarm has been raised ; indeed, it’s a dangerous conspiracy against the British monarchy, British cultural and democratic values as well as for the nations under the British political and cultural influence. Therefore it is time to wake up …. !

  205. hippiepooter Says:

    Adrian Tippetts Says:
    December 8th, 2011 at 12:36 am

    As ever Adrian, you misstate the views someone has expressed instead of addressing the views they have expressed.

    No sign of insecurity there on your part I’m sure.

    One thing we can agree on though, I have no doubt that you and people like you will give people like me a very miserable time for not shutting up about what we believe.

    The ‘miserable’ time you wish to give us will vindicate those beliefs.

    And then there will be Judgement.

    Unless you are prepared to face this ‘miserable time’ you currently wish to inflict on others, you will not be saved.

    I hope you managed to learn something from Christmas this year Adrian.

    God bless.

  206. Royalist humanist Says:

    Atheism/Humanism/Liberalism and Sexuality

    Basically Atheism, Secularism, Rationalism, Liberalism, Agnosticism, Skepticism, Freethought have nothing to do with homosexuality or gay marriage. Their policy is that in their dealings, they do not discriminate against anybody on the basis of sexual orientation alone. However, the gay people took undue advantage of this and manipulated different organizations with emotive slogans of human-rights etc. to work in the interest of homosexuals.
    Atheism means not believing in an Allah or God for reasons of lack of positve proof, and the whereabouts, origin et. Of any such claimed Allah or God. Theists claim that there is an Allah or God who created the universe, he runs the system of the universe, listens to prayers, perform miracles and rewards for the good or bad actions. Deists, on the other hand, believe that an Allah/God did create or or might have created the universe but that such a deity doesn’t listen to prayaers, doesn’t interfee in the day to day functioning, doesn’t perform miracles, and doesn’t rewardfor good or bad action of the people.
    Humanism : Humanists believe human beings to be the centre of all ideologies, values etc. : « Humans are the measure of all things », rather than a deity, an Allah or God being the centre and measure of things.
    Secularism came out of the bad experience of the religious wars between Catholics and Protestants since 16th century after Protestant Reformation and the wars of Counter-Reformation in Europe when after huge displacements due to religious identity, killings of brothers by brothers for religious reasons, it were the religous peole belonging to minority religious sects who demanded non-religious political states : the secular state.
    Rationalism wants to see the world with the tools of rational reasoning.
    Liberalism : Liberals do not believe in any dogma good or bad.
    Agnosticism : While Gnostics believe that it is possible to know the reality with the help of knowledge, the Agnostics do not believe it is possible to know the reality, esp the reality of an LLAH/god through knowledge.
    Skepticism : Skeptics see every value, evry understanding of reality with suspicion
    Freethought : Freethinkers think outside any chains of belief systems, religious or otherwise ; they may run amoke but stay rational.
    Well, none of these or similar ways of throughts and living involves or includes anything like homosexuality or gay-marriage. (Indeed, the word « Gay » had been hijacked by the homosexuals as they are now trying to hijack the term « Marriage ». In the literature of different countries the word gay had nothing to do with homosexuals etc.) However, the organizations dealing with these ideologies had been thoroghly infiltrated by the homosexuals and gay people. Similarly, using emotional slogans, they exploit the members of the Labour Party ; the same was done by the Nazi homosexuals who created their own Human-right organizations to emotionally exploit and blackmail the German Weimer Republic after these leftists and honosexuals successful in creating general unrest for forcing abdication of the Prussian Emperor Wilhelm II in 1919 which was also the end of monarchy in Germany. A similar danger looms large over the United Kingdom today.

  207. Royalist humanist Says:

    Why Gays/homosexuals seem so committed

    Madam Maryam Namazi is an ex-Muslim of Iranian origin ; she is settled in London where she keeps herself busy working for the Council of Ex-Muslims. I got interested becoming a member of the Council of Ex-Muslms and after reading the manifestoe decided to attend the AGM. But the invitaion letter astonished me as it was full of gay-flag waving. I asked her that I wanted to attend the annual meeting but I objected the gay flag waving as i twas not part of being an Ex-Muslim. I thought I was within my right to expect that an organization works according to its label & dclared manifestoe, and that when the Council of Ex-Muslims does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation then why this flag-waving of gays ? She was infuriated and refused my membership/AGM attendance offer. She was not a bisexual or gay herself but I found out that not only her major support came from the London gay groups and she felt compelled to gay flag-waving under the pain of loosng her support ; but that some foreigners might have got asylum only because of declaring themselves as gay otherwise he gay-supporting official would not accept their application.
    In August 2010, I attended the IHEU AGM in Brussels. A resolution (education in schools) was presented which gave tactical support to paedophilia and child abuse, therefore, after my brief speech it was not presented to the IHEI AGM. Hoeever, it was wrongly reported by the IHEU website and IHEU newslatter of September 2010, that the said resolution had been passd. Being a life member, I attended the IHEU AGM at Brussels in August 2010 in my personal capacity as an observer ; and when this resolution was presented for discussion, I asked the permission to speak. I was given only two minutws to speak (although there is no rule to this effect and even the UNO human Rights Council in Geneva gives at least three minutes to observers) ; I objected the following two points in this resolution : Education should ensure that children are informed about a range of religious and non-religious lifestances and have autonomy in their choice of their own lifestance….. »
    My point was :
    « As long a child is a child (a minor) he cannot be asked to have autonomy in their choice of their own lifestance. This gives tactical support to paedophilia and child abuse in cases where it may be claimed that the child has made a free choice for sex under the suggestion or sway of some lifestance which permits such practice. (Here one may refer to Mr. Tatchell’s infamous letter to the Guardian of 26 June 1997 :
    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/tatchell-reiterates-call-for-lower-age-of-consent/
    Where Mr. Tatchell, [in his attempt to promote and justify pedophilia by Jesuits and Catholic priests] repeats call for lower age of consent for sex to 14 years.)
    (A lifestance is any religious or religion-like-ideology which might be ethical or unethical, particularly in relation to children in matters of sex etc.). A child is not responsible for the consequences of his free choice, therfore it is not legal to ask a child to make a free choice in any matter, a child, a minor-by definition always needs guidance of teachers and parents.
    2. « … Publicly funded schools should not promote one particular religious or non-religious lifestance as the only correct one, but teach about the various lifestances (including Humanism) factually and in an objective way. » Here « the various other lifestances » gives a blank cheque to lifestance whether good or bad, constructive or destructive ; this is therefore unethical ; we are Humanists and we can recommend only Humanism for schools and not just any lifestance whatsoever.
    These points were well taken and this resolution was not presented for voting and therefore this resolution was not passed. The Chair asked the delegates to volunteer for a committee to look into the wordings of this resulution as well as the two pending resolutions of the IHEU AGM 2009, so that all three resolutions could be presenteed before the 2011 OSLO AGM with improved wordings.
    AS the IHEU website announced passing of this resolution, I wrote back to the delegates recieving only confused and altogether different responses : Intellectual dishonesty, i must say.
    In the same IHEU AGM, I opposed the enty of the British NGO « The Pink Triangle » for their declared agenda of supporting homosexuality everywhere. I objected that Pedophilia, Sodomy-rape of boys & girls/women/men are also types of homosexuality and that this NGO may not be allowed till it clears its stance. However, the NGO was admitted into the IHEU
    ————-.
    People do not support homosexuality and gay-marriage only because they practice these, but that they are knitted in secret Freemasonary-style hierarchical structures in such a way that their social and economic well-being is dependant on supporting such orientations and ideologies as ordered. If they disobey their secret organizational hierarchy, they, the shallow individuals whose only qualification is the secret support, loose their position, social status etc. A man who cannot even define Humanism, easily becomes president of an international or national humanist organization just because he is supported by a secre organization.
    A similar situation as exists in UK today, existed before French Revolution of 1798, before Russian Revolution of 1919 and before Nazi take over in Germany ; people would support an ideology as ordered by their secret superiors, irrespective of their own practices or the rightness of the issue. One can find hundreds of article and books on this subject on internet and bookshops. The United Kingdom is a complex political entity ; it is a national, multi-national and international monarchy which has served as an empire and much of its imperial structure is intact in former colonies, There are secret powers and international institutions which would like to abolish British monarchy and take over the structure in their hands as had already happened with Habsburg Empire, German Empire and Russian Empire, just to name the few.
    To appreciate this point further, it would be useful to go to the following links and read through the lines as well as in between the line on the evolution of political institutions and states, so that a discussion on how to confront and defeat the gay-Fascism may be advanced :

    The Strange, Strange Story of the Gay Fascists
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-strange-strange-story_b_136697.html

    Jewish Enlightenment and Reformation
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Interesting_articles/message/33

    ——-.

  208. Royalist humanist Says:

    Is this gay flag-waving & support of homosexuality, gay–marriage part of larger conspiracy ; by whom & against whom?

    Jesuits started their « Society of Jesus » in 1543 in Paris University with the purpose of using the newly discovered social sciences in the service of Counter-Reformation & spreading Roman Catholicism. Slowly, through their tactics of infiltration and taking over institutions, they were at the helm of most of overt & covert social, cultural & political organizations of their day and continue to be so even in our own days. They choose a « Black Pope » every few year who is responsible for spreading intellectual, political, intellectual, Biological & psychological and other types of evils and vices : Black Pope or the Superior General of the Society of Jesus:
    Freemasonary- a secret society existed in its ancient & real form, in Paris around 1300 CE (AD) ; it was an independant mostly non-religious society of professionals and intellectuals living under the pressure of an absolutist Catholic monarchy run by priests with a ceremonial king or queen at the helm ; other countries in similar circumstances had similar secret organizations in their countries. However, Paris soon saw the persecution of Freemasonry members as it had earlier seen the burning alive of the European women as witches, intellecetuals and professors as heretics. « … The year 1314 was a watershed for the Freemasonary; on that fateful year, the infamous and ignoble Christian Catholic Inquisition burnt at stakes the last Grand Master of the Knight templers / Freemasons in Paris. It was a turning point in the history of world and it was also the start of Freemason Diaspora. From France the Freemasons fled the religious terror and headed north. They reached Scotland, Switzerland, Ireland and other far off & safer lands. And where ever they arrived, that educated the people, taught them arts and crafts, they opened hospitals and charities, they started educational institutions and they raised the conscience level of the communities, elevating them from the mere bioligical animal levels to the higher levels of human dignity. While oppression forced others to turn to Illuminati or to religious wings of Knight Templers or other Christian secret societies ».
    As mentioned above, starting their « Society of Jesus » in 1543 in Paris University as a secret military order – which was the most forceful Counter-Reformation organization ; Jesuits’ basic attack was against the Reformation forces and the Proteatant Church/Protestant monarchies ; however, soon they took their arms against every non-Catholic and non-Christian monarchy, and other such organization which the Catholic Church opposed. As a secret society, they adapted tactics of secret invasion and infiltration of Church denominations and organization suspected of being disloyal to or working/existing without the persmission or the goodwill of the Pope and the Catholic Church. Using the tactics of disguise, among Protestants they became Protestants ; amongst Jews they became Jews ; and when they arrived in the colonies, they took the guise of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists etc., and turned these religions as Roman as possible by creating new sects in the interests of the Vatican and the Catholic Church. While in the political fields, they were communists amongst the Communists, Socialist amongst the Socialist ; they raised the shining slogans of democratic liberties, human rights and abused these liberties and rights in a destructive manner. In a similar fashion, the Freemasonary organizations were thoroghly infiltrated and taken over by the Jesuits who quickly became Masters and Grandmasters of the lodges, and controlled the Freemasonary organizations everywhere, to the extent that only Christians may become members of Freemasonary in Norway.
    In British colony of India as in other Western colonies, the Jesuits started creating Freemasonary-like secret organizations around 1750, recruiting locals who worked for the imperial Christian East India Company in its colonial armies, police forces and other services where they worked alongwith the Europeans recruited by the imperialists. Jesuits forced the locals to convert to Christianity and those who refused were dully burnt at stakes as witches and heretics, for example in Goa-India, which is known to history because of Voltaire’s letters of protests agaisnt this practice. [Ref : Society of Jesus : Freemasonry: , Freemasonary rites of York :
    While People legitimately plan their policies, political courses and business affairs in secrecy, penal codes of nearly all countries recognize that men illegitimatey conspire against other men, groups, organizations and countries ; that being the modus operandi of the secret societies. Secret society :
    The 1789 French Revolution, the 20th century Russsian, the German & the Chinese revolutions which overthrew Protestant, Orthodox and non-Christian monarchies in these countries, were preceded by the establishment of secret societies dully helped by Jesuit advisers from the Christian Western countries. Reading the « Jesuit Oath » : would put some light into the the anti-monarchy, secret and revolutionary ideologies of the Jesuits and a brief on their clandestine activites all over the world : http://www.remnantofgod.org/jes-oth.htm
    However, what is amazing in these pages of history is how these revolutionary ideas spread around in a very organized fashion. After the French Revolution of 1789, anti-monarchy and revolutionary ideas spread in all those countries where Jesuits worked, as a result the European countries started putting restrictions on the activities of the Jesuits. The 2nd French Revolution of 1848 sent a 2nd waves and even the non-monarchial countries like Switzerland put restrictions on the entry and activities of the Jesuits in their countries : (See 1870 Swiss Constitution).
    In the post-WWI year 1919, there was a sudden jungle-fire like spread of the ideology of Communism from India & Africa to UK, Germany, Russia, China, France and Latin American countries-all Christian countries and their colonies. In colonies the Communism was mixed with anti-colonial flavour, by the Christian priests, mostly Jesuit teachers and professors in the Christian missionary schools and universities. In his book »Mein Kempf » the Nazi leader Hitler dully praised Jesuits and imitated their organizational in Nazi party, Hitler had many Jesuits as his advisers and soon after the establishment of the Nazi Party, the Catholic Cantral party of Germany was dissolved and nearly all its members joined the Nazis.
    In 1968 a similar wave of wild fire revolutionary ideas took hold of the world in a very regular fashion involving educational institutions and factories mobilizing the students and the labour force everywhere resulting in revolutions in many continents and countries.
    —–.
    While upto 40% Catholic priets are homosexual as referred in an earlier comment with reference to Fr. patrick Buckley, the ratio of homosexuality and pedophilia goes up in Jesuits >>> 60-80%. A little search on Google will give countless links showing the high rate of pedophilia, homosexuality and other sexual perversion in them. The Methodist Church also shares the ratio of the Jesuits in homosexuality ; and there are many links & references to show that the Methodist Church had long been infiltrated and infested with Jesuits. A causal reading of the links about priest and homosexuality shows that Jesuits, Catholic priest and Methodists are dully involved in spreading such sexual activities : This evolution can be described as : Pedophilia >>> Homosexuality >>> Gay-marriages…
    It can also be observed that at the intellectual level, most of the so-called Leftists, gay marriage supporters and supporters of radical Islam are Methodists, Catholics or Jesuits.
    ——.
    The war against Nepalese monarchy is the latest example of the combined activities of Communists, Socialists, Islamic radicals and homosexuality-supporting humanists/Christian priests :
    Nepal had a stable traditional Monarchy which the late King voluntarily transformed into a Constitutional Monarchy with a parliamentary a few years agao ; it was peacefully progressing which didn’t please the ideologues of Communist partiess who planned abolishing monarchy with a Chinese-style Communist revolution. China started helping eith material and ideology, some socialists and communists in India and Australia as well as the West were practically sympathetic, while a US university’s Lefty teachers sent books on revolutionary tactics through internet. The Communists were in dire need of funds, however. Suddenly a humanist organization arose in Nepal ; IHEU and some of its member organizations started propaganda against monarchy and arranged sending funds into Nepal through the humanist organization; with these funds the revolutionaries were able to buy their arms and ammunition. Revolutionaries succeeded in overthrowing monarchy ; and after the revolution, the first and the only proud activity of the communists was : The gay parade and gay tourism… !
    Fashionable slogans like socialism, civil librties, equal rights were used to attract the masses ; rise of socialism & communism came in with similar slogans in Russia, China and other countries,
    IHEU, under the Methodist Christian President Mr. Roy W Brown recruited many criminal-type elements and homosexuals in Uganda and other 3rd world countries as they did in Nepal. It is feared that such elements are a danger not only to the British Monarchy but also to the contemporary human civilization and cultural values, as described dully by the blogger.
    ——–.
    To destroy the civilization and culture, the gay-fascists have started writing alternate history books where they destroy the characters of historical figures like Alexander the Great by falsely calling them homosexuals : this has been the tactic used by Jesuits throughout their history ! Greeks, a civilized nation was accused by Roman Christians calling them homosexuals, [You cannot trust Romans in matters of Greek history ; winners write history as they please, and we must trust or distrust such historians as we please].
    The contemporary gay community has been using all the evil tactics used by the Jesuits : they adultrate history, cultural values, they offer honors and medals to popular actors and singer and then call them gay-supporters ; they manipulate and emotionally exploit people using emotive words like human rights and civil liberties.
    Conspiracy Against whom?
    While, the conspiracy to destroy civilization and cultural values is against humanity in general, its particular victims are the European races who are particularly vulnarable to intellectually stimulating slogans invilving matters of equal opportunities, human rights, civil liberties etc. Europe and European races being the vanguard and repository of Renaissance, Enlightenment, educational, intellectual activities and modernism are particularly under attack.
    It must be emphasized that in WWI, German Emperor Wilhelm II’s army, although defeated, did not allow a single foreign soldier to put feet on German soil, yet its organized & efficient army was helpless and was defeated by the secret societies of irregular rebels, Socialists, Commmunist and homosexuals in Germany and as a result Wilhelm II had to abdicate and German monarchy was abolished.
    Two years ago at the IHEU London AGM, an African delegate was led in: and without any prior notice, he got up at the begining of the conference loudly shouting : « My country was colonized by British-the whites, the colonizers…. There was a head-down pin-drop silence in the conference ; I got up and opposed him giving references from the history books that whites or British were only the instruments of colonization and not the colonizers. Having been raised in the hot sunny summers of Indian SubContinent, with my brownish face, I gave him examples from the Indian history as well as from the history of other colonies. I also asked him as to who built railways, roads, hospitals, colleges, universities, airports, parliaments, municiplties, telephone systems, radio stations and television technologies, and built thousand great cities ?
    ———-.

  209. Royalist humanist Says:

    Reading the « Jesuit Oath » : would put some light into the the anti-monarchy, secret and revolutionary ideologies of the Jesuits and a brief on their clandestine activites all over the world : http://www.remnantofgod.org/jes-oth.htm

    . [Ref : Society of Jesus : Freemasonry: , Freemasonary rites of York :

    Secret society :

    Black Pope or the Superior General of the Society of Jesus:

  210. Royalist humanist Says:

    Fighting Gay-Fascism : The Way Forward

    All that is necessary for the evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.

    Accepting all the laws, rules & regulation as well as the court judgement, and without commenting on the homosexual individuals, I must say that it is indeed time to speak out against the acts of pedophilia, homosexuality and same-sex marriage, as it is the pedophilia victims who grow up to become homosexuals and it is them who then call out for gay union and gay marriage.

    The blogger has suggested Christianity to be vanguard in the struggle against gay-takeover of our society. He has dully cited Archbishop Williams of the Anglican Church as supporting and accepting homosexuals and I fear soon he would be following the Catholic Church in accepting the Gay-marriage….

    By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
    (CNN) – The Archdiocese of Hartford, Connecticut, this month is beginning a program that ministers to gays and lesbians, CNN affiliate WFSB-TV reports. January 5th, 2012
    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/05/controversial-catholic-program-for-gays-begins-in-connecticut/

    Looking back to Germany under Nazi Hitler ; « Magnus Hirschfeld-a Christian, who formed the Scientific Humanitarian Committee in 1897 and later opened the Institute for Sex Research in Berlin »…. The homosexuals also started « Society for Human Rights » to promote the rights of homosexuals…. In 1935, Paragraph 175 was amended with Paragraph 175a which criminalized any type of behavior that could be construed as indicating a homosexual inclination or desire (Burleigh and Wipperman: 190)… Interestingly, the Nazi new criminal code addressing homosexuality deleted the word “unnatural” from the definition-Reisman, 1994:3.)…

    See Britain : As a bishop of the disestablished Church in Wales, Williams was the first Archbishop of Canterbury since the 16th century English Reformation to be appointed from a position outside the Church of England. As a patron of “Affirming Catholicism”-an extremist Catholic organisation for catholic priests, his appointment was a considerable departure from that of his predecessor and his views were destructive and were seized on by a number of Evangelical and conservative Anglicans……. (Not the least those expressed in a widely published lecture on homosexuality -see below). Soon, as has already been mention of Berlin, Williams founded the ‘Institute for the Study of Christianity and Sexuality’ (which in 1996 became the ‘Centre for the Study of Christianity and Sexuality’) – a group meant to combat homophobia, (in fact, for supporting homosexuality and making it acceptable in general public.) When he was Professor of Divinity at Oxford University, Williams work characterised him amongst the so-called liberal Anglicans as a significant figure in the effort to make the Anglican Church’s moral stance on homosexuality more accepting.

    Although generally considered as an Anglo-Catholic, his sympathies are broad… He was in New York at the time of 11 September 2001 attacks, only yards from Ground Zero delivering a lecture; he subsequently wrote a short book, ‘Writing in the Dust’, offering reflections on the event. In reference to Al Qaeda, he claimed that terrorists “can have serious moral goals”.

    … Williams’ contributions to Anglican views of homosexuality were perceived as quite liberal before he became the Archbishop of Canterbury. These views are evident in a paper written by Williams called ‘The Body’s Grace’, which he originally delivered as the 10th Michael Harding Memorial Address in 1989 to the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, and which is now part of a series of essays collected in the book Theology and Sexuality (ed. Eugene Rogers, Blackwells 2002). … … Though acknowledging that he was simplifying the Church’s position, Williams said in September 2010 “There’s no problem about a gay person who’s a bishop. ….According to some, Dr. Williams’ unfair and undeserved rise to”the theological throne” clearly points towards the presence of Vatican’s mafia-style influence right inside the Anglican Church. Indeed, his whole agenda seems to had been motivated with Jesuit-like demonic programme and he has been using the Jesuit-like destructive tactics of creating mass psychological confusion and mass-misguidance on the name of God and religion through abusing his status and position as the head of Anglican hierarchy; he has been loyal to Vatican rather than England- a clue to Vatican centuries long and constant Counter-Reformation war which the Jesuits had been waging against Englnad and Scotland and other Protestant countries since the days of Reformation, but only that their latest tactics include abusing mass-psychology, multi-culturalism to dilute the spirit of Protestant rebellion against the catholic absolutism; He has followed Vatican’s moves on promoting and supporting homosexuality in priests and general public; he has also supported Islamic Shariah in a move to impose Islamism on Muslims in England;, …

    …. In an August 19, 2006 interview with a Dutch newspaper, Nederlands Dagblad, Williams stated that “in terms of decision-making the American Church has pushed the boundaries” in its policies regarding homosexuality. Williams argued that the Church had to be “welcoming”, rather than just being “inclusive” to the homosexuals.
    …. On January 24, 2007, it was revealed that Williams and John Sentamu had written to Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, on behalf of the Church of England, united in support of the Church’s bid to be exempt from laws on adoption by gay couples. In a letter they wrote, “rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning, (? Since when homosexuality became a matter of conscience…!)”…. in his Advent Letter for 2007 he said: “… it is part of our Christian and Anglican discipleship to condemn homophobic prejudice and violence, to defend the human rights and civil liberties of homosexual people … (Indeed, making virtue out of vice as mentioned by the blogger), and to offer them the same pastoral care and loving service that we owe to all in Christ’s name (The Bible never allowed such absurd and morally corrupt views….!)”. In “The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today”, an address to the Anglican Communion in June 2006, he said: “It is possible – indeed, it is imperative – to give the strongest support to the defence of homosexual people….. (Why ?)

    Like the Pope saying that Gay mariage is threat to humanity-while overlooking homosexuality and pedophilia in the priests as threat to humanity : Playing double game : Introducing homosexuality in children through pedophilia in the majority children of a community is equal to an indirect genocide being perpetrated by the Church.

    Therefore looking at the history of Christianity as Theology, as an hierarchical structure, as an hstorical force, and as its present role in keeping silent and therefore indirectly promoting pedophilia & homosexuality ; Indeed, Christianity’s role in the War of Resistance against Gay-Fascism is suspicious, to say the least.
    Roman Catholic church’s paedophile investigator jailed for possessing thousands of child porn images :

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054674/Roman-Catholic-churchs-paedophile-investigator-jailed-possessing-thousnds-child-porn-images.html

    ———.

    Tactics are as important as truth.
    In the interest of the war of defending civilization at this moment, it is necessary to adopt such ideologies and ideas, slogans and organization which are attractive and tactically upto the tssk. Only the orthodox and regular churcrh-goers, a small percentage may be convinced with Christinity, as Muslims, Hindus and Jew may be argued against gay thought with refrence to their religious texts. However neither the gay community nor the general public nor yet the intellectual section of the nation can be convinced with the religious sermons. Whenever a blogger starts opposing homosexuality and gay marriage on the name of Christianity, 98% of the hundreds if not thousand comments condemn religion rather than gays ; they cite the barbaric medieval punishments for homosexuality in Christianity, they cite pedophilia and they cite all types of corruption in the religious theology, hierarchical structure and its historical reecord : Bishops, Archbishops and great confessors of Mother Teresa, and thousand of priests have been found indulged in pedophilia and homosexuality, and as yet neither the Christian theology has been able to convince them nor the Church structure or hierachy has been able to investigate them or stiop them… ! Other deeds of Catholics : abduction of new born babies in Spain and other countries :
    Christian roots of antil-Semitism
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Interesting_articles/message/34

    300,000 babies stolen/exchanged from parents & sold for adoption by Catholic Church in Spain alone: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049647/BBC-documentary-exposes-50-year-scandal-baby-trafficking-Catholic-church-Spain.html

    Trafficking in English children : Read Gillian Wagner’s book « Children of the Empire » and other countless such facts handicap the religions in being a force against gays. As in Nazi Germany, the Thule society and the Theosophy Society were the on fore in inventing and propagating new and often shiny ideas : secularly spiritual and social but bizarre ideologies similar character was played by the Theosophy Society and Roman Fabian society in UK in spreading new ideas like Socialism, Communism, Liberalism, (deep indoctrination with the deeply holdable believes), Similar techniques of indoctrination, brainwashing and mass-motivation have been used by the ideological patrons of homosexuality and gay-marrriage as are the.ideological brainwashing, or indoctrination on the pretext of new ideas, modern philosophies, new social systen, new cultural values ….

    Each Catholic Church Parish serves not only a religious, political centre but alos as spiritual feudal cantre with the locally organized crime which is then affiliated to the national syndicate of crimes and then to Vatican and the Italina Mafia. It is of interest that Catholic Church never spoke against pedophilia or the homosexuality in priests and Vatican bank has been found to be laundering Mafia money.) Similar is the case, in general, about other established religions.

    On the other hand, most people are impressed and motivated by the shiny slogans of Civilization, Renaissance, Enlightenment, Rationalism, Liberalism, Secularism. Human Rights, Humanism, Sciences, Technology etc.Therefore I propose the slogans and organization under the titles of : Civilization : Renaissance, Enlightenment, Rationalism, Liberalism, Freethinking, Agnosticism, Skepticism, Secularism. Human Rights, humanism, Sciences, Technology Humanism, Common Sense etc. as the forums to oppose to peddophilia, homosexuality, gay marriage etc. However, superficial and rgullible, as thes people become more intelligent and rational they care less for medieval, dogmatic theology of preachers and more fo the trendyr logic of speakers.
    The way seems to be that either the people, religious or non-religious, join such organizations in their localities or at the regional, provincial or national levels, make thier voices heard, contest and change the policies od such organizations and ideiologies abour homosexuality and gaay marriage ; or such people come forward and make their own parallel organizaions under such titles.
    I have already discussed in the earlier comments as to how the agents of gays infiltrated such organization and how they emotively and structurally expolited such organization. To counter them, we need similar tactics in the least.
    Propaganda Tactics : Youtube programmes, Facebook messages and discussions, Twitter messages and counter-messages ; Websites, blogs, internet interest groups ; voice media like Paltalk, Beyluxe etc. for oral discussions ; school, college, university discussions, articles in papers, magazines :Conference lecture discussion with questions and answers ; attendance at the AGMs of different NGOs, publicity, approach to the MPs and ministers and Lords, letters to editors, working for Human Rights for non-gay dissidents, asylim seekers & immigrants etc.

  211. Royalist humanist Says:

    Journal of medical ethics, I980, 6, 128-129

    Homosexuality and freedom of speech

    R D Catterall Department of Genitourinary Medicine, Middlesex Hospital, London

    Editor’s note : Dr Catterall was the Chairman at a symposium entitled ‘Homosexuality: congenital or acquired?’ organised under the auspices of the London Medical Group in October 1979. He describes here how this symposium was so badly disrupted that the papers by Dr Sidney Crown and Dr Malcolm MacCulloch could not be presented as prepared. These papers will follow Dr Catterall’s introduction.
    Homosexuality has always been a controversial subject
    and still arouses strong feelings, not only among the
    general public, but also among professional people
    including some doctors. However, recent changes in
    attitudes to sex, especially greater tolerance and understanding of various types of sexual activity, have
    encouraged more objective and scientific studies of the
    condition. In many medical schools students have
    opportunities to discuss existing knowledge and to
    obtain clinical experience with patients who come to
    doctors for help and guidance. These changes have
    resulted in a situation where in most medical and scientific circles free and objective discussion of homosexuality is now quite common without dogmatic statements or obvious prejudice.
    Unfortunately this is not always the case in nonmedical
    circles. Throughout the 1970S there has been a
    tendency for a number of homosexual men to advertise
    their sexual orientation and self-proclaimed liberation
    in an aggressive, strident and exhibitionist manner.
    They have often been totally intolerant of those working
    in the field as well as others with a sympathetic and
    understanding attitude to the situation. This has
    resulted in scientific and medical meetings packed by
    noisy demonstrators, whose raucous and vulgar
    behaviour has disrupted scientific discussion and in
    some cases reduced the proceedings to the shouting of
    slogans and compulsive exhibitionist behaviour of a
    totally inappropriate nature.
    On the 23 October 1979, for example, the London
    Medical Group held a symposium entitled ‘Homosexuality: congenital or acquired?’ at The Middlesex Hospital Medical School. There were three speakers, DrM J MacCuloch of Liverpool, Professor Ivor Mills of Cambridge and Dr Sidney Crown of The London
    Hospital, all of whom have made important contributions
    to the understanding of homosexuality. The lecture
    theatre was packed with doctors, medical students,
    nurses, social workers and others, many of whom had travelled considerable distances to hear the speakers and take part in the discussion. Before the meeting started it was obvious that there was a small disruptive element present but it was also clear that the vast majority of the audience had come to listen to the speakers.
    Exhibitionist behaviour
    The first speaker had only just started when a barrage
    Of chanting and shouting of slogans made it difficult for
    the audience to hear. This rapidly deteriorated to the
    shouting of personal abuse at the speakers and the use
    of obscenities. Exhibitionist behaviour spread among
    the minority, who were obviously determined to disrupt
    the meeting, characterised by stylised feminine
    posturing and even undressing at the front of the hall.
    Despite appeals for order and quiet the speakers were
    quite unable to make themselves heard and decided
    that they could not continue with the symposium. I, as
    chairman, therefore, adjourned the meeting. Later an
    informal group of medical students and others met in
    the hall and were able to discuss some aspects of
    homosexuality in a less emotionally charged atmosphere.
    This unfortunate episode resulted in the total disruption
    of the symposium on an important contemporary topic, organised by the London Medical Group, well known for its wide range of lectures on issues raised by the practice of medicine and for its encouragement of the expression of minority views. A small number of determined people planted in the lecture theatre had been able to prevent the vast majority of the audience from hearing about the research work of three
    distinguished physicians and from taking part in discussion afterwards. Unfortunately this is not the first
    time that such activities by similar groups on the same
    subject have interrupted meetings and spoiled the
    quality of the discussion. It is, however, the first time
    that speakers have been prevented from addressing
    their audience and a fundamental freedom has been
    denied them.
    Suppressing free discussion
    In modern society the activities of small groups who
    hold emotionally charged and intolerant opinions on a
    variety of topics can easily disrupt meetings and suppress free discussion. The difference between violence Homosexuality and freedom of speech
    on the football terraces and the disruption of scientific
    meetings of learned societies is not so great that we can
    afford to be complacent about it. The question must be
    asked, why is it difficult, indeed often impossible, to
    discuss homosexuality in public in a quiet, disciplined
    and thoughtful way? Minority groups are often their own worst enemies and their behaviour is frequently counterproductive and damages the public image of their cause. The disrupters themselves often do not have a clear idea as to why they behave in a particular way, nor are their long-term motives always understandable. Homosexual men have achieved a great deal of tolerance and freedom for themselves and their cause is ill-served by the small number of demonstrators who take it upon
    themselves to deny freedom of speech to others.

  212. Meet Alan Craig » Blog Archive » Against The Gaystapo Says:

    [...] you followed November’s synthetic furore over my October Church of England Newspaper article (here) about the bully-boy tactics of the UK’s gay leadership – I borrowed gay journalist Johann [...]

  213. Winston Smith Says:

    Good post Alan.

    You are totally correct – someone must stand up to these monsters.

  214. Monica Shelley Says:

    The post about how homosexual activists disrupt scientific research and impose their own views by bullying and aggression is absolutely right.
    Since that time they have embarked on a programme of rooting out all who don’t support their agenda from political parties and professional bodies. So it is absolutely correct to compare queers to Nazis.
    See this website which has a lot of articles and is regularly updated:-
    http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/school-counsellor-victimized-by-homosexual-bullies/

    Here is another interesting article about how the queers use deliberate propaganda and indoctrinate people:-

    http://girandola.hubpages.com/hub/Ten-Gay-Myths-That-Need-to-Go

  215. Monica Shelley Says:

    Pity Alan’s article started with such a craven apology!

  216. Monica Shelley Says:

    @ Hannah. You are totally wrong. It is homosexuals who hate Christians, not the other around. Why? Because they hate morality. Christianity believes in morality, not “gay rights”. The Lord’s Prayer says “Thy will be done” i.e. God’s will.
    Queer rights says “My will be done and to hell with anyone else.” Of course they hate anyone who dares to question this selfish, uncouth creed, and they express their hate in every possible way from verbal abuse to direct action. Homosexuals don’t want to acknowledge that morality exists, so they call it “hate”. They are the bigots and you are a naive person who has fallen from their propaganda.

  217. Official: Christians banned from operating adoption agencies in UK at Roger Pearse Says:

    [...] those who are in the right can only be opposed by deceit and misrepresentation.  Let us then bless the gaystapo, as they have rightly been called, for their testimony to [...]

  218. Roger Pearse Says:

    Well said, Alan. You’ve put your finger on it.

    It is the classic method of persecution to find something that your victim cannot agree to, without losing their identity, and then make it mandatory, and to persecute them for failing to conform. “Just a pinch of incense … what harm can it do?” they jeer.

    Still, we can thank the gaystapo for one thing. The next time the atheists jeer that “you don’t need to be a Christian to be good”, we may point them at this issue and ask how it comes about that only the Christians are resisting this evil? Something that every atheist knew was an evil until a few years ago, and suddenly, conveniently, has forgotten.

  219. jose gonzales Says:

    How do perverts have a right to adopt children exactly? This is just like that case where rapists who impregnated a 14 year old girls decided to sue for visitation rights when he got out of prison, and it wasn’t laughed out of court like it ought to have been! The world has gone insane! Oh Lord Jesus come quickly!

  220. Meet Alan Craig » Blog Archive » ‘Bigot’ Bites Back Says:

    [...] of the Year’ award (here). My Church of England Newspaper article Confronting the Gaystapo (here) was the cause of my nomination so I issued the following statement to the magazine and [...]

  221. LGBT Fascism : Alan Craig sees a Gaystapo | testifyingtotruth Says:

    [...] http://www.alansangle.com/?p=851 [...]

  222. Meet Alan Craig » Blog Archive » “Won’t Somebody Please Think Of The Children?” Says:

    [...] I was stung to write my most satisfying piece on the issue so far, ‘Confronting the Gaystapo’ (here), in which I compared Cameron in 2011 to Chamberlain in [...]

Leave a Reply