I can remember at school and my early days at work how socially unacceptable it was.
Those in the homosexual lobby have worked tirelessly to try and be accepted. The last few years have seen this accelerate, particularly through organisations such as Stonwall. Peter Tachell, and other high profile homosexuals have also appeared several times on 'Question Time' quite openly celebrating their homosexuality.
The recent 'civil partnership' act has really moved it to the forefront in a way not seen before. The ceremony of Elton John is probably one of the most high profile events to date.
The normalising process, for what can never be normal, I would suggest is complete. However it does not stop at this, not only is it required to be 'normal' but it is to be celebrated.
In other words, it is now not only seen to be 'abnormal' to speak against homosexuality, but 'abnormal' to not celebrate this new freedom.
Now, here's the thing. On the radio yesterday - and probably other places as well - I heard the presenter defend this by saying that homosexuals are genetically predisposed to such desires. So, genetic predisposition - and due to the fall this is probably true - now absolves from guilt. Others have commented on a predisposition to addiction - alcohol, gambling etc.
What about paedophilia, is this a genetic predisposition? Well, it may well be. Are
Paedophiles absolved from guilt - I am sure some would want this, but most think such an idea absurd. What about a predisposition to murder or theft? Devoid of any absolutes, society regulates what is acceptable - often through minority pressure groups. We have been headed down a very dangerous road. I accept that many homosexuals do not harm others, and I wish no harm to those that have such desires, but it's where it takes us as a society.
Society is normalising activity that is not only clearly condemned by the Bible, but what every right thinking person knows deep down to be true. It would not surprise me to find out that rather than a 'communist' plot in the 1970's, Political Correctness was actually a carefully orchestrated (though it has probably got out of control) long term plan to introduce homosexuality as normal and celebrate the fact.
At this point I stopped writing and had to go shopping. I usually just have a glance at the newspaper headlines. Today, on the front page of the Daily Mail is a story 'The English Inquisition'. Here is an extract from the Daily Mail comment on this:
'Take the experience of Joe and Helen Roberts, sincere Christians whose principles led them to object - perfectly politely - to their local council's policy of promoting gay rights.
They committed no offence. Their views on homosexuality may be unfashionable in liberal circles, but are shared by millions of Christians, Jews and Muslims.
That didn't stop Wyre Borough Council reporting them to the police, "with the intention of challenging attitudes and educating and raising awareness of the implications of homophobic behaviour".
Evidently the legitimate expression of a religious point of view is beyond the pale in that part of Lancashire. But the police response was even more chilling.'
I believe this story should send a shudder down the spine of us all. Now our tolerant (read intolerant) society is about to fall down hard on anyone that opposes, or even hints at, opposition to the onward march of ‘Gay Liberation’.
A few years ago, I was preaching in the town centre. One of the sins listed in the Bible is homosexuality, and if I were to do the same thing today, I believe it would be off to jail for me. Now this is scary stuff. The homosexual lobby will not be satisfied until every thought of opposition is stamped out.
Just who will be the Nazis then. See comments at Wires from the Bunker on this.
Quite frankly, the front page story from the Daily Mail is really really serious and does not bode well for free speech or Christianity in this country.
Will the blogosphere be the only place left to exercise free speech?
Will the Bible be a banned book?
Will the church be able to proclaim Christ and the Gospel?
4 comments:
I think it is unfair to compare alcohol,smoking, gambling etc. addictions to being gay. The former are harmful to peoples' health and life, whereas people who are gay do not appear to have a negative effect on society.
Thabks for the comment. I was merely trying to demostrate how a genetic predisopition applies across the board. I also mentioned paedophilia, murder and theft, catogaries you presumably thought were fair. The Bible also puts several catorgories together as follows:
1Co 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Homosexuals are called upon as much as anyone else to call upon the name of the Lord for salvation.
The Bible tell us to hate the sin but love the sinner. The gay lobby loves the sin and hates the sinner. That's leftism for you - back to front!
Wow. Just... wow.
"It would not surprise me to find out that rather than a 'communist' plot in the 1970's, Political Correctness was actually a carefully orchestrated (though it has probably got out of control) long term plan to introduce homosexuality as normal and celebrate the fact."
I share your concerns about water fluoridation. Those damn Commies are out to get our precious body fluids. They're even putting it in Ice cream! Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream!
Fluoride?Perhaps I meant 'soy'.
(Actually, 'political correctness' is a term created by the right wing to demonise attempts to make them feel guilty for using racial and homophobic epithets. The only people who attack 'political correctness' are people who's parents never taught them that it's mean to go around calling people names.)
Your attempts to compare homosexuality and paedophilia- albeit by muddying the waters over the nature/nurture debate and the ethical implications thereof- are as absurd as they are offensive. You see, there's this little thing called 'consent'. Adults can consent to sexual activity with a full understanding of what that means. Children can't. It's not a subtle distinction. And I'm slightly concerned that I actually have to explain to another adult precisely why paedophilia is morally wrong...
However, onto the matter of Mr and Mrs. Roberts. From what I've heard about the case from the BBC, Mr Roberts called up the council, a democratic body based on democratic principles, and complained about their wacky notion of promoting the idea that all citizens should be equal in the eyes of the law. He then suggested that the council use their resources to distribute 'Christian material' which, given the context of the conversation, could very well be interpreted as 'homophobic hate literature'. When the person on the other end of the phone line refused, Mr Roberts started asking if he was gay. The guy refused to answer- which in my mind probably means 'yes'.
Try to put yourself in his place. A man so homophobic that he actually phones up to complain about the leaflets his council distributes starts asking if you're gay. I think it's fairly legitimate to interpret that as being at least moderately threatening behaviour. After the phone call finished, the possibly-gay council employee calls the police to inform them of the extremely cranky and somewhat threatening behaviour he's just been subject to. I think this is a bit of an over-reaction, but not unreasonable. For all the council employee knew, Mr Robert's next move might have involved explosives.
The police, upon receiving a complaint about homophobic harassment, are obliged to take it seriously. So they visit Mr and Mrs Roberts. They politely explain what a 'hate crime' is, what the penalties are, and perhaps gently suggest that, as they've received a complaint about his behaviour, maybe it would be easier for all concerned if he just knock it off already? No charges were pressed, no caution issued. Just a friendly little chat, suggesting that they show a little Christian compassion and not go around being so nutty.
Instead of taking this advice, they decide to throw a hissy fit, and decide to sue the council and the police. They cave, settle out of court, and the Roberts' decide to donate ten grand of taxpayer's money to a far-right hate group.
This is not a story about the rise of Queer Fascism. This is a story about a couple of cranks who threw a tantrum, and the council who were too cowardly to stand up to them.
For what it's worth, I'm probably pretty much the archetypal pro-sex commu-fag that represents everything you people fear and despise, and I really don't want to ban the Bible! In fact, I've never met anybody from the left, or from the gay-rights movement who has ever said such a thing (except as satire). I'm an absolutist on free speech, and religious freedom as are many- if not most- on the left. Even though I don't believe it to be the literal word of God or anything like that, it remains a philosophically influential work, whose stories and symbolism provide recurring motifs in much of modern literature, cinema, and other art. You don't have to agree with every word of it to accept that at least some of it expresses some very powerful (and left-wing!) ideas.
Post a Comment