It’s LGBT History Month
When I was at school, I learned about the great British men and women who changed our country and the world into a better place to live. There was William Wilberforce, who ended black slavery and the prison reformer, Elizabeth Fry. There were the great inventors, many of them Scottish, of course (the list is far too long to reproduce here!). There were the famous generals and admirals who fought off invading armies and navies. We read the poetry, novels and plays of gifted writers.
Not once, that I recall, were we told about their sexual behaviour.
Well now, thanks to Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender History Month, children can now learn who the famous men were who preferred to have sex with other men and the women who had sex with women. And of course, the men and women who were so promiscuous that they had sex with both genders.
It is at times like this that I feel I must have entered a parallel universe; one where the normal laws of space, time and nature have either been abandoned or changed so that this makes some kind of sense.
So what is the idea behind it?
As far as parents and teachers are led to believe, it is to help ‘LGBT’ people become more accepted and less prone to bullying.
The real purpose, of course, is to further promote lifestyles which are at odds with civilised, healthy society.
Ten years ago, Brian Souter’s private referendum in Scotland on Section 28 resulted in 7 out of 8 people who voted expressing a wish to retain this piece of legislation which protected children from such predation.
The vast majority were ignored, as usual, in this ‘democracy’ of ours and now their children and grandchildren are being brainwashed in the effort to make them ‘celebrate’ homosexuality. Just look at this from the ‘Tool Kit for Schools‘ on the LGBT History Month website:
Heteronormativity
Assertions that normal people are white, able bodied, young, middle class, heterosexual, male and Christian are endemic in so-called western societies. This results in subtle or declared barriers that affect/disadvantage people on the grounds of prejudice against anyone outside the norm (with regard to gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, age, religion and belief, class and/or disability). Any disadvantage accrued by those ‘outside the norm’ is blamed on the person the ‘normal’ people see as ‘different’, that is, different from them or not ‘normal’.
This is what it is really about – totally re-engineering society. Notice how many of these ‘normal’ people are under attack in this so-called equality drive.
The elites don’t want ‘normality’, they want dysfunction. They can control us easier that way.
This is why our society has been engineered to hate Christians and pander to other religions. Many secularists and humanists think this is great, but they are too dumb to understand that the foundations of their culture and freedoms are being attacked.
New Labour has admitted using immigration to re-engineer society. Now we have reports of police forces being ‘too white’ and Parliament is ‘too white’. Even Radio 4 is ‘too white’.
The middle class must be wiped out because they are a major inconvenience to the success of socialism.
Feminism, which some say was created by the CIA specifically to destroy society, has indeed empowered women to sit at a typewriter, sewing machine or supermarket checkout for forty hours a week, while their children are dumped with strangers until they get home and it’s time to feed them, do the washing up and the other chores, then collapse exhaustedly into bed.
It’s not empowerment, it’s just another kind of slavery. With men and women at work, the state gets double the tax and has more access to your children to fill them with notions like heteronormativity, which was coined in 1991 by homosexual writer Michael Warner.
One of the people worthy of celebrating is Tom Robinson. Apparently. I remember his classic 2-4-6-8 Motorway, but he’s hardly a historical figure is he? Ah, but he did sing Glad to be Gay, but then became bisexual and a father, and it’s all this personal detail that gets the attention. That’s because this isn’t about History, but about promoting homosexuality.
UPDATE: Richard Borrett left a comment about ‘The Overhauling of Straight America‘, which is a sort of blueprint for homosexualising the USA and the tactics explained in it have been successfully imported into the UK and elsewhere. Part of the plan is very pertinent to the above post. Their agenda was to:
(4) Make gays look good. In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know — this trick is so old it creaks. Other minorities use it all the time in ads that announce proudly, “Did you know that this Great Man (or Woman) was ________?” But the message is vital for all those straights who still picture gays as “queer” people — shadowy, lonesome, frail, drunken, suicidal, child-snatching misfits.
The honor roll of prominent gay or bisexual men and women is truly eye-popping. From Socrates to Shakespeare, from Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, from Michelangelo to Walt Whitman, from Sappho to Gertrude Stein, the list is old hat to us but shocking news to heterosexual America. In no time, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.
Did they teach you about Alan Turing? One of the great minds of the 20th century his work at Bletchley Park helped Britain win the Battle of the Atlantic. After the war he was destroyed and driven to suicide because of his homosexuality (not by it, before you imply that). We lost one of the greatest minds ever because of homophobia.
Is this what you want? To tell children that being anything other than a straight christian is wrong? To see children suffer because of your blinkered definition of what’s right and wrong?
If you really are a christian, surely you should be against inflicting suffering on others.
Given that our last Prime Minister is an avowed christian who took us into an illegal war which has killed thousands but thinks that it’s all okay because God will judge him, perhaps we should quash christian influence on the way our country is run.
Hey Stewart,
What I find irritating with LGBT thing is the idea that BECAUSE so and so is/was a homo, he has achieved great things, that a person’s penchant for bottoms has somehow contributed to their achievements. Look at Mr Pattinson’s citing of Turing, for example.
If this logic is extended one could say that Nelson repelled Napoleon because he was straight (normal), that Churchill was such a great leader because of heterosexuality, that Mozart was brilliant because of all the ‘groupies’.
Homosexuality should be taught in schools for what it is; a dangerous mental illness, that if left unchecked will so dominate a person’s identity that they they become utterly self obsessed, paranoid and suicidal, able only to view the world through the prism of their own sexual preferences.
The illness is commonly brought about by a person’s willful ignorance of their conscience, leading to that person committing despicable acts, which causes a guilt complex, leading to mental breakdown.
Mr Pattinson,
TB was not then and is not now a Christian. The Bible predicts most clearly that fake ‘believers’ will abound, especially in the closing stages of man’s history. Judas believed in the existence of Jesus, and look what happened to him.
English
You’re being an idiot. Turing was a genius who was destroyed because of people who held views as bigoted, unfounded and hateful as the ones you just spouted. You provide solid evidence that the mental illness is religion.
well done. You can do a Google search on the word ‘Heternormativity’. Brilliant research skills.
If you actually knew much about philosophy or social science you would know that, whilst the word may have been coined by MW, the idea of normativity in society is much, much older, its existence and impact on individuals being discussed, in varying forms, by philosophers since the earliest societies (though, admittedly, much more so in the 20th century). So your pointing to the fact that he is, himself, a homosexual, and the insinuation that this somehow reduces the value of the concept is a prime example of the prejudice and hatred which, sadly, makes LGBT history month necessary.
The idea, admittedly only explicitly noted by EV, but inherent in your piece, that LGBT history month makes out that the individuals are significant *because* they are homosexual is simply, and clearly, untrue. It is obvious that the idea is to counter the normativity (hetero- and, along with black history month, other types) which permeates western society. The idea is to demonstrate that it is possible to be a significant historical figure and not be white/middle class/straight/etc. This is not a promotion of homosexuality or encouraging others to be homosexual – this would, of course, be unsuccessful – it is simply about normalising the idea so that those who are homosexual may one day be able to grow up feeling like valued, equal members of society, not second-class outsiders. Then, perhaps, in an ideal world, it may no longer be necessary to define one’s life by one’s sexuality, as alleged by EV. Only when that sexuality is not a focus for discrimination, abuse, violence and hatred will it stop being such an issue for the individuals. Then, perhaps, this may no longer be necessary.
And before you link to the ‘overhauling of straight america’ document, i’ve seen it and whilst i don’t deny its contents, there is no link between that and Stonewall, LGBT history month nor, as far as i’m aware, any other such group/event. I know it hasn’t been mentioned here but i’ve been meaning to say this. It was a piece of academic writing and is not the policy document or mission statement of any of these groups. To say that, because it is was produced by a member of the same movement, who was also a homosexual, it is undoubtedly the true aim of the entire gay rights movement, is purely irrational.
To talk of social engineering is pure hypocrisy. Yes, strictly speaking, the idea is to re-engineer society to be more accepting. But all attempts to control or have any say over what society or its members may do is social engineering. Organised religion is the best example of that. But, of course, this kind of social engineering is accepted, disguised as it is with ideas of ‘love’ and, of course, the idea that it is done under the orders of some benevolent patriarch. Social engineering which has the aim of allowing individuals to be free, to be true to themselves is considerably different.
Mr Pattinson,
That I am not an idiot is self-evident.
I never said that Turing was not a genius. So was Barnes Wallace, but his attraction to females had nothing to do with his successes.
Bigot. The dictionary definition is something like: Obstinately convinced of the superiority and correctness of one’s own views and prejudiced against those holding differing opinions.
Sounds a bit like the LGBT mob (even better when combined with aggressive atheism) and their cheerleaders, those like you.
Unfounded. Having no basis in fact, plainly incorrect.
That homosexuality was until fairly recently considered a mental disorder by all notable psychiatric institution is a well documented fact. The fact that they now say otherwise is partly due to these oganisations growing tired of having their annual conferences invaded and ruined by militant homosexuals, partly to a growing number of homosexuals in their own ranks. It is not unfounded to say these unnatural practises are symptoms of mental illness.
Hateful. Filled with hatred.
Criticism is not hate. Having a different opinion is not hate. To claim that those who follow a religion (I don’t, I follow Christ, massive difference) are suffering mental illnesses, or claiming any view other than your own is hateful, bigoted, unfounded and that these things have been spouted by an idiot is probably edging towards hatred though. Ahh, but yours is a righteous hate, so that’s alright then.
Ian,
English gave you a good reply. Alan Turing was a genius. He was also homosexual, which as EV explained is a mental illness. We have/had laws for a reason, and anti-homosexuality laws were to benefit society.
If the achievements of Mr Turing deserve to be learned about, and I think they do, then why do we have to wait for an LGBT month? That is, if promoting homosexuality is *not* the whole reason, like I said?
P.S. I don’t recall an instance of EV being hateful on this blog. It’s a word that’s far too easily flung around to try and win an argument without any effort.
English,
I left this comment on Richard Carvath’s blog this morning (still waiting for him to approve it).
“The hatred and perversion which consumes homosexuals is so sad to behold.”
I think it consumes them because of the internal warfare of spirit vs flesh going on.
Maybe some genuinely cannot fathom things out, because they are told that homosexuality is perfectly normal on one hand, yet they feel confused and guilty.
Of course, if they believe the lie that homosexual behaviour is normal, they are also likely to believe that they don’t have a spirit; a soul.
Living this paradoxical life naturally leaves them bewildered which would explain why they find it hard to express their feelings.
Richard,
I didn’t Google heternormativity’, I came across it on the LGBT History Month’s “Tool Kit for Schools”.
I’m a believer in being rewarded on merit. Most famous Brits are white and heterosexual because the population has been historically about 98% heterosexual and 98% white. Please give me some examples of people you think have been discriminated against in history because of their colour. Nelson Mandela and US black civil rights protestors, for example, are famous because what they did was connected to their skin colour. We need a black history month to talk about them as much as we need a white history month to discuss Churchill and the Tolpuddle Martyrs.
Don’t you think that these tactics fuel differences and resentment?
Thanks for bringing up ‘The Overhauling of Straight America’ because I meant to quote from it. Think I’ll add it to the article shortly. It is very pertinent.
Nice piece of doublethink there! This is what always gets me – people know they are being re-engineered and most don’t seem to care. At all. Give me an example from history (white, black, ‘gay’; whatever) where a regime conditioned the masses for their benefit.
English, Stewart.
English claimed I said something which I didn’t say, directly under the comment he pretended I said it in. That’s pretty idiotic in my book. I didn’t say Turing was a genius because he was a homosexual. I said he was a genius who was persecuted because of his homosexuality. Someone who made a gigantic contribution to his country only to be destroyed by it because of prejudice.
I’m sure you both think you hate no-one, not even the damned homosexuals you only want to save from their own sin. But you’re just wrapping your hatred up in religion to make yourselves feel better about it.
Richard
A good, reasoned and detailed answer. Not that English or Stewart will pay any attention to it.
Mr Patinson,
You implied it, which is just a subtle way of trying to link intellectual brilliance with sexual proclivities. A not uncommon tactic, judging by the LGBT web-site. Once rumbled for it, you whine about bigoted idiocy whilst all the time ignoring your own hypocrisy.
My ‘religion’ as you insist on calling it, is not the reason for my opinions on homosexuals. That anybody could have a sexual attraction to fæces appears to me to be evidence of something wrong upstairs.
It is not my mission in life to ’save homo’s’. Or anybody else for that matter. It is, however, my responsibility AND my right to express an opinion about an issue I see as destructive, both to the individual and society. I guess I could start a Straight Rights organisation, and constantly bang on about the accomplishments of normal people, and how homos hate straights, with the only evidence being that they do not concur with their sexual preferences, but I don’t suppose it would catch on. No victim status, you see?
Mr Pattinson,
You implied it, which is just a subtle way of trying to link intellectual brilliance with sexual proclivities. A not uncommon tactic, judging by the LGBT web-site. Once rumbled for it, you whine about bigoted idiocy whilst all the time ignoring your own hypocrisy.
My ‘religion’ as you insist on calling it, is not the reason for my opinions on homosexuals. That anybody could have a sexual attraction to fæces appears to me to be evidence of something wrong upstairs.
It is not my mission in life to ’save homo’s’. Or anybody else for that matter. It is, however, my responsibility AND my right to express an opinion about an issue I see as destructive, both to the individual and society. I guess I could start a Straight Rights organisation, and constantly bang on about the accomplishments of normal people, and how homos hate straights, with the only evidence being that they do not concur with their sexual preferences, but I don’t suppose it would catch on. No victim status, you see?
My post’s are so good I have to say them twice.
The comment system is playing up again Stewart, double posting or not at all, which is very irritating when you just spent 10 minutes writing only to see it ‘go up in smoke.
English,
You’re so obsessed by homosexuality that you read a whole lot more into what I wrote than I put in. And now you’re obsessing about coprophilia. I’m not the one with issues.
Mr Pattinson,
You are well trained, aren’t you? Accuse your straight opponent of latent homosexuality and cite his protestations as further evidence, besmirch his character, blah, blah, blah…….
Homosexuality and coprophilia. Two cheeks of the same backside, so to speak.
I was making fun of you English. With such hateful, pathetic, ill informed attitudes as yours deserve no less. And I’m still showing you more respect than your comments deserve.
What is it about homosexuality that excites you so much you have to shout so loudly?
Ian,
Why cannot we celebrate Mr Turing’s achievements without the need for an LGBT History Month?
Why does ’sexuality’ have to come into it at all other than the fact that it was his downfall.
That is, unless the agenda is to promote homosexuality. Here’s another quote from The Overhauling of Straight America:
What was Alexander Graham Bell’s sex life like? Or John Logie Baird’s? Or Pythagoras’s?
It doesn’t seem important enough to anyone to bang on about it. There is an ulterior motive in only talking about sex when it applies to homosexuals.
Mr Pattinson,
You’re still doing it. Name calling, I mean. And projecting. You admit to ‘making fun of me’, I have ‘hateful, pathetic, ill informed attitudes’, but it’s OK to denigrate me and my opinions because I ‘deserve’ no less.
Can’t you see that you are guilty of the very things you accuse me of? Like I said, I guess that’s OK, because Christians are below homos on the food chain, eh?
Hey Stewart,
The only things I celebrate are Christmas, birthdays and Liverpool beating anybody, especially Man U. The word celebrate has been hijacked and, for me, has such negative connotations that I usually switch off when I hear someone wanting to ‘celebrate’ anything.
Hi English,
Agreed, it seems to be another word which has been changed at Minitrue preparing the latest newspeak dictionary.
Ian,
Am I the “homophobe” you linked to Richard Carvath’s blog via?
Here’s a question for you. English and I think that homosexuality is a mental illness. In your opinion, does this make us homophobic?
What about ‘hateful’ and ‘bigoted’?
Stewart,
You can’t celebrate Turing’s life without acknowledging the tragedy of how it ended. And you’d be near the front of the queue of people crying out about it because you don’t want to see any mention of homosexuality.
If there was no LGBT history month would you stop spouting your particular brand of homophobia? I doubt it.
English,
you’re a homophobe. You want to force your narrow world view on everyone. All the homosexuals and bisexuals I know just want to live and love the way they want without having to worry that someone may wish them harm. As you’re that someone I’ll denigrate you as much as I want to.
Stewart
Yes
Which terms?
Mr Pattinson,
At least you admit your hypocrisy.
You making assumptions again. I do not wish to force my ‘narrow world view’ on anyone. Christianity just doesn’t work if it is forced. I do, however, wish to have the same freedoms as you, namely the ability to state my views without fear of violence or abuse, to have those of contrary opinions recognise that I am equally entitled to mine.
I am not a homophobe. I am not frightened of homos. Nor do I hate them. I am disgusted by their sexual practices. I do not wish my children to be exposed to the glories of LGBT lifestyles. Do I need your permission to hold my opinions, anymore than you need mine to think yours? I think that illegal violence against anybody is totally unacceptable and should be punished heavily, ‘queer-bashing’ is a no-no, so please do not imply that I wish you, or anybody else on the basis of their sexual preferences, any harm. What you do in your bedroom is your business, but what you (perhaps not you, but you know what I mean) do on Hampstead Heath and Clapham Common is another matter entirely, as is trying to teach your lifestyle as anything to be proud of to my children, as is parading around in bumless trouser on Gay Pride marches. You insist on ‘Equal Rights’ but exclude mine.
Perhaps you are a Christianophobe?
English
“Homosexuality should be taught in schools for what it is; a dangerous mental illness, that if left unchecked will so dominate a person’s identity that they they become utterly self obsessed, paranoid and suicidal, able only to view the world through the prism of their own sexual preferences.”
You’re own words. You want children taught something that will harm them.
Mr Pattinson,
I want my children to be taught what I have outlined. You can teach your children what you like, but you won’t be having any will you? Not unless you can pretend that someone else’s are yours, or you could get one of your lesbian friends to… well, doesn’t bear thinking about.
Children in State schools should not be taught this rot, but if they are, they should be taught the alternative, valid, predominant view.
Perhaps you are a heterophobe?
English
I’m straight. You’re a fool.
I do know a few gay, and a lot of bi, people. And every one of them would do a better job of bringing up children than you.
Mr Pattinson,
All the more ridiculous that you should hold these views.
Perhaps you are a veritaphobe?
Ian,
If you are a heterosexual then here’s another quote from our old friend,‘The Overhauling of Straight America‘:
You’re being used.
English
Did I say you were a fool? I meant moron.
Unlike you, I live in the real world. I’ve met all sorts of people and bothered to talk to them. Which is why I know your views are so dumb.
Veritaphobe? You’re thinking of yourself there.
Stewart
It’s called empathy. You should try it some time.
Mr Pattinson,
Your youth and inexperience betray you, as evidenced by your infantile name-calling and group-think mentality.
English
Your narrow mindedness and lack of imagination betray you, as evidenced by your continued false assumptions about me.
Anyway, I have more important things to do. I’ve got to go and ink this page of comic art. Can you spot which one of the characters is bisexual?
Ian,
What could be more important than assuming the “role of protector” in the fight against the ‘homophobes’?
You’re not breaking your programming, are you?
Mr Pattinson,
They are not false, you are young and inexperienced.
As for the Bi, is it the one trying to touch the guy with the dodgy, George Michael beard?
Oooh good guess. But that would be the guy carrying a chair for the man with the broken leg.
I’m far more sensible and wise than you’ll ever be. And I have been so since I was young and inexperienced. You show no sign of having grown up yet.
Mr Pattinson,
‘But that would be the guy carrying a chair for the man with the broken leg.’
Oooh. More tea, Vicar?
Mr Pattinson,
Forgive my silence on these matters from now on, I’m afraid a far more pressing matter has arisen in the real world, as opposed to this one. Perhaps we shall cross swords at some point in the future, perhaps not.
Until that day, ‘Fare thee well’.