Gay Marriage And Stonewall Claptrap

Top of my manifesto when I stood for London Mayor in 2008 was the promotion of “marriage and stable family as a long-term solution to youth crime, educational underachievement and child poverty.”

Top of my manifesto when I stood for Newham Mayor in 2006 was the promotion of “marriage-based family and parental responsibility – for our children’s sake.”

An MP told me a few years ago that it was politically impossible to mention the M word in the House of Commons during the Blair years as an argument in favour of marriage was immediately vilified as an attack on vulnerable single mums.

Life has moved on, and today the defence of conventional marriage is vilified as a homophobic attack on gays and lesbians. That’s nonsense of course, but it’s notable that the whole out-of-touch London political elite – all three party leaders and all four main candidates for London mayor – have swallowed wholesale and undiscerningly the Stonewall claptrap that gay marriage is about equality.

So I’m doing my bit and sending out this email:

“There is a war going on at the heart of the nation. The political establishment, having fragmented our strong rich and cohesive Christianised culture by promoting corrosive relativism and silo multiculturalism, is now planning to fracture the bedrock social ideal of marriage as a life-long union of a man and a woman.

‘Gay marriage’ is not a human rights or equalities issue as civil partnerships fulfil those requirements. Rather it’s a deep cultural and ideological – even civilisational – war over a word, a war declared unilaterally by the power-hungry intolerant and insatiable Stonewall Gaystapo et al.

Conventional marriage was “ordained for the procreation of children” and is easily the most stable, healthy and committed domestic environment in which to bring up the next generation, our future. On the other hand and by definition, gay marriage cannot be about procreation – nor about nurturing the next generation.

Rather gay relationships are a sexual and generational dead-end which of course people should be free to choose if they wish. But they should not be used to redefine and undermine society’s time-tested fundamental institution of marriage.

Furthermore, once gay marriage is conceded to the miniscule minority who will actually tie the gay knot, there is logically no argument against the legalisation of Islamic polygamous marriage for which there is already significant demand in the UK. Then, logically, what’s to stop group marriage and even marriage to other mammals? All bets and brakes are off.

Women’s rights campaigners never argued that women should have the right to be called ‘men’. But gay campaigners insist on the right to be called ‘married’. They are clearly not on about claiming equal rights. They are campaigning to capture someone else’s word and idea. It’s an ideological battle pure and simple. And it’s at the heart of our national culture and a vital key to our future.

Please urgently sign the petition at the Coalition For Marriage website:

 Please also forward this to your friends and contacts. Many thanks, Alan”

It’s encouraging that, to date, over 400,000 people have signed the petition (here). There’s a grassroots groundswell against redefining marriage but, guess what? The political establishment, in awe of London’s left-leaning and loaded luvvy liberal elite, aren’t yet listening.



124 thoughts on “Gay Marriage And Stonewall Claptrap

  1. Wait wait wait. We have same sex marriage in Canada. In law and everything. Have done for seven years. Last I looked my country is still here. Furthermore, last I looked my own heterosexual marriage of twelve years is still solid.
    The terror in some of the comments here is breaking my heart.
    And it’s making my own life as a heterosexual Christian man very complicated. I keep having to justify why I am a Christian to people who link to places like this.
    Oh well. Carry on.

  2. Cathryn: “Rather than allow a homosexual act to take place”. You’ve just reinforced what was already clearly evident that you dont regard homosexual gang rape as evil.

    You would have noticed from the Scripture Cathryn that the angels refused to accept Lot’s rather panicked offer of propitiation (hey! not bad word for a 12 year old, eh?) and chose to blind the baying Stonewall mob instead as the preferred ‘homophobic’ means to thwart their gay rights agenda.

    Having observed the hate and intolerance of the homosexual lobby for so long, I am sure that the day is not far off when if someone gets accused of being ‘homophobic’, they will have to submit themselves to buggery to prove they’re not, and if they refuse they’ll be subjected to forced buggery as punishment for being ‘homophobic’.

    Certainly, besides your tacit approval of homosexual gang rape of the godly, the frothing ad hominem you descended to at the end of your last comment is further indication of the dark, hateful desires you harbour towards the Church.

    Enjoy your conference this Saturday.

    Rich, I’m sorry that you are either too narrow-minded or wilfully deluded not to be able to conceive that someone can find homosexuality repugnant but not hold a homosexual’s perversion against them personally. If your idea of love is lying to you about what one thinks of homosexuality then you have a rather different idea of what love means than myself. Your idea of ‘love’ leads to damnation, the love Christ has taught leads to salvation.

    Still, I’m glad that your against blighting the future of countless children by denying them placements with Christian adopters and carers because they dont regard homosexuality as normal, you support the right to free speech in debating the issue of homosexuality and you dont want to see the Church persecuted for refusing to marry homosexuals. That is what you meant isn’t it, that you dont want to force your views on ‘Xtians’?

    I’m glad that Alan allows free rein to homosexualist opinion on his site. Christians have nothing to fear from a free and open debate on the issue. My comments at the so called ‘home of the decent left’ Harry’s Place are suppressed.

    No sign of insecurity there I’m sure.

  3. Graeme, Your ‘frothing’ ranting reply demonstrates that you did understand my point after all:-)
    Thank you, I will indeed endeavour to enjoy the conference and talk with some like minded rationalist freethinkers, afterwards I’ll be spending the rest of the weekend with my girlfriend, who I unfortunately don’t see often enough as she lives at the other end of the country:-(
    But at least you have no reason to disapprove since lesbians aren’t mentioned in the bible:-)

  4. Cathryn, you’ll find that most civilised people would not regard your approval of homosexual gang rape as ‘rationalist freethinking’. The word they’d probably uses is “evil”.

    Rom 1:26
    >>For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature<<

    God bless you and your girlfriend this weekend Cathryn. In the deepest darkness the light of Christ shines most bright.

    It can never be extinguished.

  5. Graeme, I’m not going to dignify the first part of that with a reply, it’s a rather pathetic attempt at a slur.
    The Romans quote doesn’t mention lesbians at all, the unnatural sex it refers to is previously defined in Leviticus as beastiality. Of course the reason it doesn’t mention them is because the authors are unable to conceive of women having a sexuality independent of men, except with animals. This just emphasises women’s place in this worldview as equal to livestock. Property, only there for breeding. Try again:-)

  6. Slur? Cathryn, the import of how you chose to express yourself with regard to homosexual gang rape is very clear.

    Rom 1:27
    “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another ; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

    I doubt any genuine “rationalist freethinker” would bear out your above interpretation.

    You are not a rationalist freethinker Cathryn. You carry far too much ideological baggage to be that.

  7. “Vincent Lauzon Says:
    April 20th, 2012 at 2:25”

    Vincent, if you think your Christian witness depends on the Church accepting sodomy, then you really are the blind leading the blind (Matt 15:14; Luke 6:39).

  8. Graeme, Yes, as you can clearly see in that bible quote, there is no mention of women with women, it only references men with men.

    Graeme said previously
    “Why do I regard homosexuality a perversion? Well, it actually has nothing to do with Biblical teaching as such, Scripture simply enshrines what nature teaches.”

    Strange, Graeme since you seem to place much emphasis on biblical teaching as the basis of your discrimination whilst seemingly ignoring the substantial well documented evidence of same sex interaction amongst many species in the natural world… Contradiction much?

  9. Like I said Cathryn, you’re carrying far too much ideological baggage to consider yourself a ‘rationalist freethinker’. Anyone with the minimum of intellectual integrity would have no trouble understanding the meaning of “likewise”.

    So your contention is that because homosexuality occurs in the ‘natural world’ it makes homosexuality normal?

    If I’m to accept your contention as true, and for the sake of argument I shall, incest is rife in the animal world. Paedophilia is rife among monkey troops. Does that make it any less of a perversion among humans?

    I think there’s all sorts of reasons for homosexual behaviour, including foremost from my observation, an affliction that people are born with.

    People are also born blind. Does that make it ‘normal’?

    People who suffer from homosexuality need help. Why is the homosexual lobby so keen that those who want it dont receive it?

    Now that’s ‘homophobic’.

  10. hippiepooter – like every other religious person you are too stupid to face reality. People don’t choose their sexuality. People are born gay or straight and no amount of wish-thinking on the part of the intolerant voodoo brigade can change that. So you can believe in your personal “salvation” and that I’ll be going to “hell” all you like, but yes, that does make you an intolerant, sanctimonious bigot. A bit strong? Well, in your other posts you seem to be suggesting homosexuality is the moral equivalent of padeophilia. People like you are a waste of time trying to reason with. Like this little gem:

    “People who suffer from homosexuality need help. Why is the homosexual lobby so keen that those who want it dont receive it?”

    Which form of “treatment” do you prefer? Voodoo (three hail marys)? Electric shock treatment? Hormone therapy (Alan Turing)? Imprisonment? Or just the tried and tested concentration camps?

    Just to be clear: we don’t want your damned help. You can’t “help” us. There’s nothing wrong with being gay and nothing harmful or abnormal in it. Leave us alone to live our lives. Imagine gay people were out to “cure” people of religion. Would you find that tolerant and acceptable? Come on, hippiepooter (hiding behind anonymity – how brave) – let me cure you of your affliction in believing in utter unsubstantiated nonsense. Oh, and remember, I’m motivated by love! How does that scan, hippiepooter?

    “I’m glad that your against blighting the future of countless children by denying them placements with Christian adopters and carers because they dont regard homosexuality as normal” – what if the child is gay? That would do untold damage to the child’s psychological well-being to be placed with bigoted voodoo vendors. Better that the child is brought up to accept people’s autonomy and reality.

    “you support the right to free speech in debating the issue of homosexuality and you dont want to see the Church persecuted for refusing to marry homosexuals” – what has “free speech to do with that?? If churches don’t want to marry homosexuals, fine, that’s up to them. Do you support the hundreds of CofE clerics who wish to perform gay marriage? Do you support the right of Quakers and some episcopalian denominations to perform gay marriage in their churches because they want to? Or do you only support “freedom of religious conscience” when it supports your views?

    “I’m glad that Alan allows free rein to homosexualist opinion on his site. Christians have nothing to fear from a free and open debate on the issue. My comments at the so called ‘home of the decent left’ Harry’s Place are suppressed.” My experience of posting on the Daily Mail and various other right-wing nutjob sites is that the comments don’t see the light of day. Your side is no better, I assure you.

  11. Ella Said:

    ‘It is absolutely disgusting to assume – as you do – that anybody has the right to dictate over who may and may not marry.’

    And, after her ‘moral’ outrage at the idea that anyboby has the right to dictate anything to anybody else, she then goes on to dictate to everybody her definition of marriage

    ‘Marriage is an institution designed to celebrate love; love which can occur between any two people, regardless of sex.[sic]’

    Hubris, hubris, hubris.

  12. Graeme, dude. I’m thinking that Christ has better things to do with his time than get upset about people in love. I try to be the best Christian I can be. In my everyday life that involves very little freaking out about homosexuality, to be honest. I’m hoping this is your experience as well. And I just can’t imagine that, come the day, Christ will look me in the eye and tell me I should have been a prat to people who are in love. If he does I’ll bloody well give him his cross back.

  13. Awesome. “I’m more of a Christian than you are!” “No, I’m more of a Christian than _you_ are!” Tell you what: you be the better Christian if you like. I’ll go around actually trying to be kind.

  14. Whoa, you edit comments without doing the [Removed by staff] thing? That’s… not very professional.

  15. Yes, didn’t think reference to male private parts was relevant, necessary or appropriate, nor your associated use of Christ’s name in that context.

    Deleting the one sentence didn’t change the sense of your comment.

  16. I’m not disputing your right to edit comments. I’m saying doing so without leaving a trace of the action is a bit shoddy. Mind you, I thought my reference to private parts was quite relevant, because much of the interaction in these comments is precisely that, but it’s your site. 🙂

  17. Didn’t intend to be shoddy or unprofessional. Probably just inexperienced as I rarely edit comments – in 4+ years of this site I’ve refused one and asterisked another couple, all of which were simply vulgar.

    I welcome free play of all opinions.

  18. @RobNorthampton and Zen: You are wrong and you are deluded. You are also rude to call Mr Craig a “bigot” and if you imagine everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a bigot then you must apply that term to most people in the world!

  19. Thing is, if you look someone – who is doing you no demonstrable harm – in the eye and tell them that what they _are_ is an abomination, well, being called a bigot is probably fairly warranted.

  20. ‘Gaystapo’ very intelligent use of language, unfortunate for you it makes your argument redundant.
    Marriage IS NOT a Christian custom it’s much older than that. Adam and Eve were never married. Marriage is not about reproduction.
    ‘Family’ is not a Christian institution. You only choose religion, you choose to have a belief in belief, the only evidence in God is a ‘Belief’
    Christians are nuterious for making up history destroying history rewriting history to suit their own agenda, just have to read the bible to prove that. Non of you are real Christians more like anti-Christians. It’s so amusing how you attack homosexuals stereotyping all to fuel fear and hate, thank God we live in a democracy where we can all write to MP’s sending them copies of pages like these to justify the need to end discrimination and call for equality.
    Religion Churches need to be Taxed…..

    Have a lovely hate filled day and thanks for the amo

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *