Clegg: faith schools must teach that homosexuality is “normal and harmless”
Such a statement proves that everyone should have a problem with the Liberal Democrat leader, because he is certainly not normal or harmless. His statement is factually incorrect (a lie) and illiberal (fascist).
Firstly, homosexual behaviour is not normal for the very obvious reason that the human anatomy is designed for sex between a man and a woman. For a man to enter the waste passage of another man is abnormal in the extreme. It is also not harmless. Changing sexual behaviour in Australia is being blamed for more oral and anal cancers. Harmless? If homosexual and bisexual behaviour, as well as adultery/multiple partners, is normal and harmless, then why is there so much disease associated with the behaviour?
Homosexuals are generally very promiscuous and many engage, not just in buggery, but in anilingus (or rimming) too. No wonder diseases spread like wildfire when the bacteria in faeces is so easily shared. Harmless? What a ridiculous lie!
As leader of the LibDems, you would think Nick Clegg would be a liberal. Certainly, his past sexual behaviour is indicative that he is, so it might be considered strange that he is so illiberal as to want to force faith schools to act contrary to what they believe in and tell lies to children concerning homosexuality.
A senior Anglican bishop (who asked not to be named) told The Independent:
I think this will go down badly even among the not overtly evangelical. Instituting something that must be taught, come what may, is frighteningly fascist.
And in these strange days of newspeak and doublethink, Clegg is keen for the definition of marriage to be changed.
If we don’t want to discriminate, why do we make differences in language? Language is a hugely important signifier of how we segment society and how you seek to create differences between people. Since we don’t want to make differences on this and the law has moved a great deal to do that, we should be linguistically the same too.
The fact that, since the beginning of time, the definition of marriage has been the union of a man and woman obviously means nothing to Clegg. Want to gain the pink vote? Simply change the meaning. Liberals like to talk about ancient Greece as if it somehow justifies homosexuality, but where can they point to to try to legitimise homosexual ‘marriage’? The concept is especially ridiculous since such unholy unions are unlikely to be monogamous.
Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall, welcomed Mr Clegg’s comments but added that he believed Mr Cameron had genuinely changed his views on gay rights.
Therefore, for those of us who are keen to return to a society of decent values – and freedom of belief – there is no point at all in voting for any of the three main parties at the general election. No point whatsoever.
Stewart,
I think that it is very interesting to read what Gordon Brown said in his interview with Attitude Magazine, and to compare it to what Nick Clegg said.
Attitude: So will you require, as Prime Minister, that faith schools – funded with our tax-money – should be required to teach that homosexuality occurs naturally in all human societies, and it’s not immoral?
Gordon Brown: My view of every faith is that the core of these religions is a belief in treating every individual fairly. Some people sum up religion as actually better described by the word ‘compassion’. Not compassion in a condescending sense, but compassion in a sense of being fair to everyone. So, I think we have these debates within the different faiths about what that means in practice, and these debates will always continue. And I just want to say that, at its core, a school that represents a faith is not, by nature, a school that wishes to practice prejudice and discrimination against anyone. And we should have the debate about the faith itself.
Attitude: I know you sincerely believe that. But many religious people don’t. They believe homosexuality is immoral, and they teach that in schools. The result is that gay kids are ten percent more likely to be bullied there.
Gordon Brown:Yes, but which schools are you talking about? You’d have to give me individual examples about where this discrimination has been practiced, and if it has been practiced, it was wrong.
Gordon Brown’s answer to the first question is typically evasive – but it’s a lot better than Nick Clegg’s answer. Gordon Brown’s answer to the second question is actually pretty good.
I’m not a big fan of the Prime Minister, but credit where credit is due. He comes over as much less authoritarian and frightening than Nick Clegg.
Thanks for that YMB. You seem not to have factored in Gordon’s capacity to be totally devious.
After 13 years of social engineering, I give the Brown Gorgon no credit at all. You are too kind to him.
And Cameron scares the living heck out of me.
There may be trouble ahead…
So you are saying “At least Mr. Clegg is honest about his extreme statism”?
Perhaps. But the Prime Minister refused to say what the interviewer from Attitude wanted him to say, and what, presumably, would have gone down well with the readership. Yes, I know we have had 13 years of social engineering. But one does get the impression that Mr. Clegg wants even more radical social engineering.
As for Mr. Cameron, all we know is that he changed his mind over Section 28. Or to be precise, he changed his vote. He may never have had any mind on the subject to change.
I do think the LibDems would probably be even worse than New Labour. I know it sounds impossible.
For the Tories to apologise for Section 28 is a disgrace. We can appreciate now just how vital it was. None of the main parties want my vote or millions of others’ votes. They give the impression they would rather parade their 21st Century pinko credentials than anything else.
I’ve always been a black or white sort of guy.
Homosexuality is a filthy perversion of the highest degree and the fact that the three biggest political parties in the UK say that it is great and everybody should try it before they knock it is a sick, sad, disgusting disgrace.
Section 28 went about a tenth the distance that I would go if I ever had the power to meet this menace head on.
I know I will be met with howls of derision. I also know that 95% of the hate will come from those who are 25 and under.
Ask yourself if you are the victim of social engineering?
English, we can appreciate what ten years of mind-control has achieved when we consider that in Brian Souter’s referendum in Scotland in 2000, 7 out of 8 (86%) voted to keep Section 28. Presumably this translates to practically every Tory and most Labour supporters.
I voted for Section 28 in Brian Souter’s referendum. That was after I was given a copy of the material children were going to be given in schools. The opposition lobby said parents would have the right to withdraw their children if they didn’t think it suitable. It now seems that right has gone and children are being pumped full of information they don’t require until they are well into their teens.
Now they complaint that there’s a literacy problem. If teachers spent less time on these sex related lessons and more on good old Scots and English literature, there wouldn’t be a literacy problem.
I voted to keep Section 28 as well, Rosie. I’m sure this fact won’t startle anyone! I wish people could understand that there is an agenda behind it all. Schools have become indoctrination camps to dumb down and sexualise children to prepare them for a lifetime as slaves to the state. I could go on… and on…
Hey Stewart,
O/T but how do I import my avatar? This dreadful lilac squiggle thing looks a bit gay.
Ha ha. If I knew that, I’d import mine. Eight tiny purple triangles – is that all I’m worth?