|
Another day, another collection of Daily Mail articles about gay people. The attitude of the Daily Mail towards gay people has been covered on this site many times before [see related articles below] and this isn't because I see myself as some kind of champion for gay rights, it is simply because I would like a like to see just a little more tolerance and understanding of the issue.
One of the main ways that the Daily Mail is stopping its readers from having a better understanding of homosexuality is that it constantly insists that gay people do not want equality but actually want domination. Therefore section (or clause) 28 that David Cameron apologised for was not about banning teaching the existence of homosexuality in schools, but a ban on promoting it. Likewise, regular homophobe Richard Littlejohn regularly states that homosexuality is taught in schools as a way of converting straight people to become homosexual. Therefore the very idea of tolerance and understanding has instead become replaced by another 'war' that threatens to undermine the 'traditional British way of life'.
This means that the Daily Mail is not homphobic or intolerant, it is instead bravely taking up the fight to protect your children from the rampaging 'gay agenda' that is bent on converting you and your family to the perverse treats of same-sex love.
The best way of stopping engagement with a minority is to make that minority a threat. Thus gay people are no longer seen as seeking equality because the Daily Mail gives the impression that equality has already been achieved; want gay people actually want now is a a victory over heterosexuality and they will not be content until we are all making their 'lifestyle choice'.
The Bishop of Rochester - Dr Michael Nazir-Ali - has decided that as a person who has made a career of believing in a giant sky-fairy he is fit to comment on homosexual behaviour: 'Controversial Church of England bishop Nazir-Ali tells gays to 'change and repent''. He told the Sunday Telegraph:
'We want to uphold the traditional teaching of the Bible. We believe that God has revealed his purpose about how we are made.
'People who depart from this don't share the same faith. They are acting in a way that is not normative according to what God revealed in the Bible.
'The Bible's teaching shows that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the way to express our sexual nature.'
What I still find surprising is that anybody takes religion seriously - in particular why the Bible is seen as a reliable version of 'god's word'. I was pleased to answer the door a couple of Saturday mornings ago to a lady who wanted to see if I had any faith. Her opening gambit was to blame the many problems in the world today on a 'lack of faith'. I pointed out that the vast majority of the world's problems could be clearly linked to an abundance of unfounded, silly and backward 'faith'. I then asked her whether she believed in the literal truth of the Bible, for example was the creation of the world in 6 days metaphorical? 'Oh yes.' She replied. So I asked her if other parts were to be taken literally: 'Oh yes.' She confidently replied. I pointed out that making judgements about whether God was being literal or metaphoric seemed quite presumptious and I asked her why - if only God should stand in judgement - do religious people find it so easy to cherry-pick (based on their own judgement) whatever they please from the Bible? At this point I think she was hoping I would just shut the door. The above digression is supposed to make the point that whilst some people shy away from the literal story of creation, or the absolute bastard that God is in the Old Testamount they don't shy away from God telling us that Gay people are the spawn of Satan. Naturally this article is written up by The Daily Mail Reporter who is also quick to point out:
It also came as Sarah Brown, the Prime Minister's wife, joined a Pride London march to celebrate gay culture on Saturday, and last week David Cameron apologised for his party's enactment of Section 28, the 1988 law that forbade schools from promoting homosexuality.
So, once again, we have the word ' promoting' used to describe schools attempts to educate people about the existence of homosexuality. It reminds me of Bush and Co linking Iraq to 9/11 - repeat it enough and the majority of people will believe the lie that schools are actively trying to promote homosexual behaviour in children. Melanie Phillips - not to be outdone when hysteria about the fall of modern civilisation can be engaged in - goes a little bit further in her latest foaming outburst: ' Hooray! The Tories are backing marriage - but they're wrong to pretend all relationships are equal'. Of course, the implication is clear: gay people are not normal and subsequently do not deserve equal treatment. Likewise, Section 28 was a worthy law trying to stem the evil tide of homosexuality from converting our children:
His apology last week for the Tories' original support for 'Clause 28', the totemic attempt to stop councils from distributing gay propaganda in schools, provoked widespread scorn...
Most people will have to look up what 'totemic' means in this sentence, to save people time i've taken the following from the Free Dictionary:
1.
a. An animal, plant, or natural object serving among certain tribal or traditional peoples as the emblem of a clan or family and sometimes revered as its founder, ancestor, or guardian.
b. A representation of such an object.
c. A social group having a common affiliation to such an object.
2. A venerated emblem or symbol. So, used as an adjective ('totemic') it means that Melanie Phillips is saying that Clause 28 was actually an revered emblem guarding against the onslaught of homosexuality that schools were supposedly promoting. Again, the battle lines are clearly drawn: homosexuals do not want equality, they want to destroy the traditional institution of marriage and all that is sacred to the British race. She also is much blunter about what it is that schools deliver to children, it is not the 'promotion' of homosexuality but a more powerful 'gay propaganda' campaign. It is also telling that Melanie Phillips deems it neccesary to discuss homosexuality when the article appears primarily about the Conservative Party championing the institution of marriage. What has this got to do with gay people? The answer - to Melanie at least - is clear: homosexuality is part of the evil liberal 'lifestlye choice' culture that has set out with an agenda to destroy the traditional family:
That is what has happened in Britain over the past four decades as part of a deliberate attempt by the 'progressive' intelligentsia to reshape society around the unrestrained gratification of adult sexual desire under the banners of 'liberation', 'equality' and 'rights'.
Welcome to the world of Melanie Phillips: progression - bad; liberation - bad; equality - bad and rights - bad. I have often suspected that Melanie Phillips is mentally ill - and I do not say so flippantly, her perception of the world around seems so completely at odds with reality that I really do suspect that she is mentally ill. As if to prove this point she then moves to create a link between the breakdown of the institute of marriage and the 'gay agenda':
[David Cameron's] intention to repair the family is undermined by his support for gay rights... the gay rights agenda undermines marriage.
The Tories insist that this is not so and that the two sit happily together. Promoting gay rights, they say, is merely about ending intolerance. It is irrelevant to family breakdown, which is a heterosexual problem.
Undoubtedly, the overwhelming reason is the collapse of constraints on heterosexual behaviour. But it is surely wrong to deny any connection....
is the gay rights agenda really about tolerance, or is it about trying to stop heterosexuality being the behavioural norm?
Because it entails treating gay relationships as identical to heterosexual ones in every respect, any differences - over marriage or adoption, for example - are damned as discrimination and bigotry.
As a result, what started as a decent intention to eradicate intolerance has turned into intolerance as morality has been stood on its head.
Interesting that Melanie uses the 'magic but', stating that you can't really blame the collapse of marriage on gay people just before the magic 'but', after which she argues that gay people are in fact to blame for the collapse of marriage.
So Melanie Phillips argues that the gay agenda is about promoting intolerance of traditional marriage, and that homosexuality can be linked to the wider 'sexual liberalisation' of society. Here we have 'lifestyle choice' used to not only describe cohabitation outside of marriage, or single parenthood, but also the implication that homosexuality is just another negative choice that people make.
As the term 'lifestyle choice' is regularly used by Daily Mail writers to described homosexuality it is telling that Melanie uses it to describe what she sees as negative choices made by straight people - as if being gay is just another negative 'lifestyle choice' made by straight people. This brings me neatly to another point raised in the comments section of a previous article from a lady called Jan Webb:
Could you please refer to the recent studies that "gays are born that way". Is there now a proven genetic link? As a health care professional, I work and treat gays on a regular basis. However, to normalize the pratice of homosexuality, I find somewhat irresponsible. It remains a "high" risk lifestyle. (e.g. 76% of the newest HIV infections are among gay males) The next highest risk population are teenage girls. There are many other examples. But my greatest concern is the early "sexualizing" of our youth, without the benefit of learning about the responsibilities and respect for others that should co-exist. All people have the right to make their choices, but the facts bear out. The knowledge about sex without learning about the responsibility and character that should accompany it, is unhealthy for children.
Again, we're back to the argument that somehow homosexuality is a choice. Funnily enough I don't recall the time in my life when I chose to be heterosexual, I had just always been sexually attracted to women. Likewise, I have never heard a gay person talk about their long battle to choose whether to be gay or straight, normally they just point out that they've always been attracted to the same sex - to them, this is normality. Normality is a difficult concept and I would also point out that gay people are still a minority, in terms of statistical normality they are still considered not normal. We're not normalising homosexual behaviour in the sense that everyone must practice it; instead as a society we're simply saying that any human being - irrespective of their sexual preference - deserves equal opportunities as someone's sexuality is no-one else's business.
Slightly off the thread of argument: it really bugs me that some people state that they 'hate gays', I always want to ask them why? Are they somehow offending you, even though you do not have to participate or engage with them in any way? Why does it bother you what someone else does in their personal life?
Anyway, back to the thread of the argument: homosexuality hasn't started since society became more liberal, but has always existed within recorded human history. This is even more extraordinary considering the punishments metered out to homosexuals in times gone by - including imprisonment and a red hot poker inserted into the anus, causing an agonising death. Seems strange that a someone would actively make a 'lifestyle choice' that would lead to such an extremely painful end - and it seems strange that such a choice could be made in such a conservative society, when homosexuality is spread by liberalism according to Daily Mail writers.
In response to her request for evidence, I'll admit that genetic evidence is inconclusive and that many experts argue it is a behaviour that is part nature, part nurture. However, the nurture factors are complex and often occur at a very young age, there is no evidence to suggest that an awareness of same sex attraction through education would contribute towards making a person gay. Furthermore, the human is a genetically complex being and just because no 'gay gene' has been found, there is no reason to suggest that it does not exist, merely that it has not been found. In addition to this, despite the calls from many people for homosexuals to 'repent and reform', no-one seems to have found a cure to homosexuality either, suggesting that the nature / nurture is very difficult to overcome.
However, the above argument is not wholly important. The important point is that why should anyone care whether someone is homosexual by choice, or by default? Should it be proven beyond doubt that it is nature or nurture should we change our attempts to live in a tolerant, live and let live society? Or should we manufacture a cure and make everyone the same? I know what the Daily Mail and its readers would do:
You cannot applaud this man enough. He is the true leader of the church in this country. Whether people like it or not is irrelevant, homosexuality is a sin according to the bible.
- Matt, Basingstoke, 05/7/2009 08:12
Pray tell me how Nazir Ali expects a Homosexual to change? Is he expecting them to wake up one morning and say "Oh goody, I'm now straight?"
In the ideal world there would be single sex marriages, but some people are made differently and experience different feelings. Its not something that can just be changed.
- lynne barbara, luton england, 05/7/2009 08:04
Also, congratulations to Martin who sidesteps the debate on homosexuality to make a point about dirty foreigners stealing British jobs:
Are there no English people in authority anymore?
- martin, UK, 05/7/2009 07:21
Related articles
Conservative Party not persecuting gays enough for Mail readers
Racism, homophobia and ratings in the Daily Mail
More 'fury' over gay adoption
Gay marriage outlawed in California, It's PC not enforced
The Daily Mail and the Gay Agenda
Siding with the enemy
War against gays
Feminazery also has a related post on this: 'I don't hate gays, I just don't think kids should know they exist' |
The free distribution provided by BA will increase the DM's circulation figures, thus increasing the value of their advertising space. Are we to assume that this alignment means BA shares the fascist, racist and homophobic views of the Daily Mail?
http://www.petitiononline.com/bastopdm/petition.html
Click the link below to view a fascist history of the DM. You will see references to archived DM articles not dissimilar [some much worse] to the ones authored by the infamous Jan Moir. The DM’s historic opinion that the Jews simply got what they deserved at the hands of Hitler’s Nazi Germany is particularly disturbing to stomach:
http://www.suffolkhands.org.uk/node/1031
Please sign the petition and forward to your friends. We are ordinary people who can make a difference…