The cure for homosexuality?

To infer that homosexuality requires a “cure” is of course is to suggest that there is something wrong with it. Stephen Bennett here explains what that is and how he managed to escape the ultimately unfulfilling ‘gay’ lifestyle thanks to forgiveness and has now found true happiness. He also notes how the push for ‘gay rights’ is a vain attempt at ‘self-acceptance': something which someone living a homosexual lifestyle can never achieve.

The cure for homosexuality

I remember my childhood days in the early ’70s when my friends and I would get together in their basement and play “house.” I would be the daddy and my friend Lynn would be the mommy. Her younger sister Claire would be our little girl. A 4 foot by 4 foot miniature vinyl Barbie playhouse was our “home sweet home.” It was a great time of make believe and pretend, fantasizing what the “real thing” would be like one day. Deep down, I really had a secret crush on Lynn and loved playing house with her, more than she ever knew. Besides, it took me away from the unstable family life I had at home of a real mommy and daddy who both drank and fought much of the time.

Many years later as an adult in the early ’90s, I remember lying in bed together with my partner on a Tuesday night. Tuesday night was TV night for us. We’d both come home from work and after dinner, clean up and put on a pot of coffee. Then we would get into some comfy T-shirts and cuddle up with each other as we watched “Roseanne” and our other favorite shows. After the 11 o’clock news, we’d do some sit-ups, turn off the lights and peacefully fall asleep in each other’s arms. I clearly remember listening to the sounds of the crickets with a cool breeze blowing through our slightly opened windows. Our bedroom was filled with the romantic pale light of the moon and the star-studded New England night sky.

As I look back at that time in my life, I remember exactly how I felt. We had it all. We were on top of the world. A beautiful home, a dog, two cats, great friends and a loving, long-term, committed “storybook” relationship. No doubt, we were going to be partners for life. OK, so it wasn’t exactly as I pictured it years earlier with Lynn and Claire, but hey, he was the man of my dreams.

As I sit here now typing, burning the midnight oil, I hear those crickets outside my window. I can see that same pale moon resting in that same star-filled New England sky. My two little children are both fast asleep after daddy prayed with them and read them “Goldilocks and the Three Bears.” My beautiful wife also is sleeping tranquilly after reading her Bible and saying her prayers. She prays on her knees every night for our family members, as well as countless other families and friends across the country whose loved ones are entrapped in the homosexual lifestyle.

As I look back on all those years of Tuesday TV nights with my boyfriend, I realize the homosexual lifestyle was a deceitful counterfeit of the “real” thing. My partner and I were like the children in my childhood of days gone by. We were two men who thought we had the world in the palm of our hands – when in fact, we had nothing at all. We were two lost souls, living in a world of make believe – two emotionally hurting boys playing house, desperately clinging onto each other night after night, week after week, year after year.

As homosexual men and women across the country strive for their “special rights,” civil unions and ultimately same-sex marriages, I can attest firsthand these individuals are making every attempt to resolve their inner homosexual conflict. These are feelings, thoughts and actions most have had ever since childhood. Many have hidden and suppressed their homosexual feelings for so long, until they finally gave in and “came out” to the world. Their inner struggle for self-acceptance has turned into a misguided outward struggle for civil rights. With each battle won on local, state and federal levels, their pillage is America’s acceptance and tolerance. While they fill their storehouses with their vain plunder, they tirelessly continue their unending life-long search for their “holy grail”: self-acceptance. No matter how hard they search or how long they try, I’m afraid it is something that will never be found.

Homosexuality is clearly an outward expression of things going on much deeper in a person – issues for many originating back to their childhood.

For homosexual men, in most all cases it has everything to do with a lack of relationship with the father. For women, the problem can rest with the mother and/or father or another male figure. For some, molestation or a premature sexual experience was the lead in to the homosexual lifestyle. Whatever the factors may have been to drive someone down that unwanted homosexual path, we must remember one thing: No one was born homosexual. To state such a fact is a tragedy, as well as cop out.

Just as no one is born an alcoholic or a drug addict, the same must be said of the homosexual. “Issues” are what bring a person down these lonely, painful paths – issues when finally dealt with will allow the person to come out of their destructive behavior. You don’t need to be a psychologist to figure this one out.

In 1992, I became a Christian, accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. When I fully understood the forgiveness God extended to me through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, I realized the life-changing power that lay within this efficacious act. I knew that the forgiveness that was so graciously given to me now needed to be extended by me to someone else who needed it just as much: my father.

After 28 painful years of a damaged relationship with the one man whose love I craved and desired the most, my many years of wandering and numerous homosexual encounters came abruptly to an end.

It happened one morning in my parents’ kitchen. My father and I did something we never really did before – we talked. We both dealt with the past, we vented, we questioned, we understood and we healed. And in an emotional embrace I’ll never forget, we both did something else: We forgave. I have never been the same man since.

In a single moment of time, the doors to my painful childhood were slammed shut once and for all, never to be opened again. My homosexual needs and desires were gone and I was changed. Completely. My heavenly Father showed me by example what I needed to give to my earthly father. I crossed that fearful heterosexual threshold that so many other brave men and women in my shoes have done before me. And in doing so, I found something I never could have imagined – the cure for homosexuality. Forgiveness.

Our acceptance and tolerance of the ever-growing homosexual deviancy in America today is really a paradox. You see, we are actually committing a grave injustice toward these misled men and women. We’re not helping these people by affirming them, but actually hurting them even further. By enabling them to remain emotionally stunted and trapped in their pasts, we as a society play a major part in keeping them from their potential futures. And according to the Bible, as a nation, our acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality will keep us from our potential future as well.

I’ve found the cure for homosexuality. Forgiveness. Share it with your “gay” and lesbian friends. Give them some food for thought.

No doubt I am on a mission today: to bring the truth about homosexuality to the world – that no one is born homosexual, it has everything to do with the childhood, and complete change is possible. Completely possible. From the calls that are coming in weekly around the country from homosexual men and women themselves, I can tell you, this message is making a major impact … one forgiving heart at a time.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to The cure for homosexuality?

  1. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    you were doing fine until you said ‘celebrate’. Then you lost me.

    PS. Try this http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/188944/Muslim-right-to-keep-burkha-is-wearing-thin/on the burka thing.

  2. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    I notice that you seem to think that I have a similar opinion about ‘what to do’ about homosexuality as Stewart (perhaps we are both wrong about his opinion, too?). I do not think homosexuality should be banned, for the simple reason that would be ridiculous and unenforceable. Murder is banned, people still do it; theft is banned, people still do it, etc.

    What someone does in the privacy of their own home is the business of themselves and God, unless criminal. Sins and crimes are two, very different things.

    What I do object to is the idea that gay activity is healthy, normative, sinless, etc, or that these ideas be propagated publicly, especially to children.

    If you, as a full grown man, wish to do what I consider to be sick with another full grown man, knock yourself out. Just don’t say I didn’t warn you that God has got ideas about this kind of behaviour (along with an awful lot of heterosexual behaviour) that make mine pale into insignificance.

  3. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    //I notice that you seem to think that I have a similar opinion about ‘what to do’ about homosexuality as Stewart (perhaps we are both wrong about his opinion, too?). I do not think homosexuality should be banned, for the simple reason that would be ridiculous and unenforceable.//

    I apologise absolutely and completely if I have accused you of that. That is my primary gripe with Stewart. I am perfectly happy to accept Christianity condemning homosexuality as a sin (indeed, since I believe that the Bible is nothing more than the religion of an ancient, primitive, culture, I have no trouble believing that it would teach homosexuality was wrong. Indeed, quite the reverse!). But, since I view all action of the State as violent (for that is all the State has – violence), I view any attempt to make something like homosexuality (or coprophilia, or even coprophagia) illegal, as grossly disproportionate and authoritarian.

    //What I do object to is the idea that gay activity is healthy, normative, sinless, etc, or that these ideas be propagated publicly, especially to children.//

    You may be surprised to hear that I agree with you, at least in part. Having examined the evidence, and considered the facts, it seems obvious to me that certain homosexual acts (anal intercourse) drastically increase health risks to the individual.

    Where I disagree with you is that I believe that ‘promoting’ homosexuality also ought not to be a crime. Let me explain: I do not believe in sin, yet some people do. Different people believe different things are sins. In order for a society to be liberated and free, people have to be able to say that different things are sins, or not sins. So, while you have an absolute human right to say that homosexuality is a sin, or that Islam is a religion headed by Satan himself, or whatever else you believe is a sin, I also say that it must be allowed for someone else to say that homosexuality is not a sin, based upon whatever strange and esoteric interpretations of the Bible they wish (for the record, I of course believe homosexuality to be neither a sin, or not a sin, because I reject the notion of divinely defined ‘sin’).

    To take another aspect of your criticism – health. As I have said, I accept absolutely (in that I agree them to be true) the increased risks of anal intercourse, over abstinence, or vaginal intercourse. However, I do not see any difference between the increased risks to health that are presented by homosexuality, or those that are presented by, say, rugby, or boxing.

    I take it you would agree that rugby and boxing both carry greater health risks to the individual than, say, table tennis or chess? If we are to accept a “harm reduction” principle, whereby we do not advocate homosexuality on the basis of increased risk to health, in comparison to the alternatives (abstinence, vaginal intercourse), I see no reason why we would not also refuse to advocate boxing or rugby as “healthy” sports, because they have an increased risks of serious injury, or lifelong disability, than when compared to chess or table tennis. Or, to put it more simply – if our primary, and over-riding goal is to protect children from physical damage, then we must admit that rugby is more dangerous than table tennis, and so, on the basis of protecting children from harm, not advocate rugby as a sport. So, while I completely understand your concerns, I cannot see how, if accept the “harm reduction” principle, we do not end up banning rugby! (This is only considering the harm principle separately to other ethical, moral, or religious concerns).

    And, of course, we could get into the whole issue of smoking. Out of curiosity, do you consider it moral for a parent to smoke around their children?

    //normative//

    Well, it depends on you definition of ‘normal’. If normal means ‘the most frequent occurrence in the population’, then homosexuality cannot be normal, even if you accept the most extreme estimates of homosexual behaviour. But then, neither would be being a Jewish person or a Black person, in the UK today. Normal in this descriptive sense has no moral value. “Normal” in another sense, could be “it is normal to be short sighted”. Perhaps in that sense one could make a legitimate argument that homosexuality is “normal”? Indeed, would you agree that to be sinful is the “normal” condition of mankind?

    //Just don’t say I didn’t warn you that God has got ideas about this kind of behaviour (along with an awful lot of heterosexual behaviour) that make mine pale into insignificance.//

    Don’t worry, I won’t. In fact, if you need a character witness in the after life, I would be happy to oblige, testifying that you did everything you morally could to save my soul from damnation.

    //you were doing fine until you said ‘celebrate’. Then you lost me.//

    Forgive me, a poor choice of words on my part. Perhaps the word “accept” would be more accurate. So, while I may not celebrate being short-sighted, I would not say I “celebrate” it.

  4. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    By ‘normal’ I do not mean ‘whatever the majority situation is’ or anything along those lines. This leaves room for the definition of normality to change, even to be reversed, over time. I meant as in the opposite of abnormal, ie. not strange, perverse or deviant. It is not normal to accept deteriorating eyesight, that is why steps are taken to correct this illness by almost all who suffer from it.

    I do not accept that rugby or boxing represent a similar danger level to the participants as those involved in homosexual sex. There is a massive difference between an INJURY received as a result of a bad tackle or too many punches to the head, and a DISEASE contracted through gay sex. Injuries tend to heal over time (though not all, I accept that), diseases like HIV and AIDS, along with Hepatitis don’t. There is also the number of persons who receive quite terrible and permanent injuries from gay sex itself, often requiring surgery.

    I personally think that it is stupid to smoke in front of children, and bad manners to smoke in front of anyone without their consent. I think that it is wrong, selfish, harmful, therefore I guess it is a sin, but no more of a sin than not providing for your children adequately, or not taking an active interest in their well-being. I also think that, as in the case of gay-sex, it would be utterly pointless to ‘ban’ it, as it would be a virtually unenforceable law, not without employing all sorts of ‘officers’ and making everyone else’s life a misery as well. These things are between a person and God, and I firmly believe that the only true Judge will deal with every man according to his deeds – Matthew 16 v 27. Sins and crimes are not the same things, as I said before, although there are some which cross-over, ie theft, murder, fraud, perjury, etc. It would be pointless, according to the teachings of the Bible, to ‘ban sin’ in the hope that this would eradicate it, this is the teaching of the book of Romans. The Law is our schoolmaster, to teach us that we are incapable of keeping it in a ‘natural (un-saved) state, and need the new, spiritual (born-again) nature to be adequately equipped against our own tendencies to sin. It is not the place of a Christian to attempt to inflict a Theocracy on those who do not give two hoots for God and his ways (a mistake which many, if not most Christians seem to make). The Bible teaches that it is our duty to come away from ‘the world’, its ways and its wants. These things are not for us. The Bible teaches that a Theocracy will indeed be set up in the future, with a perfect King (guess who?), and that this Theocracy will in its initial stages be brutally enforced on all those who will not submit to its authority.

    Just so we’re clear though, I am not a Libertarian, I do not believe in unlimited free-speech, I do not believe that freedom means that a man can do just whatever he chooses.

  5. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    //I do not accept that rugby or boxing represent a similar danger level to the participants as those involved in homosexual sex.//

    I know that the level of danger is not similar, but that is unimportant in our consideration. All it is is % risk, and one may quibble endlessly about the level of risk that one deems acceptable for their offspring to undergo, in return for satisfaction.

    My point was, that if we accept that the % risk of injury is higher in rugby than that which is associated with chess, then, if we were purely considering a harm reduction situation, we ought only to advocate chess, and never advocate rugby. How the % risk in gay sex relates to the % risk in rugby, is irrelevant to the secondary consideration between chess and rugby. Let us say the % risk of detrimental health effects (disease, injury etc) in gay sex is 50%, the risk (injury, long term disability etc) for rugby is 20%, and the risk associated with chess is 1.5%. Now, considering harm reduction, it would clearly be the case that we should not advocate gay sex, as the % risk is higher than for rugby or chess. However, we also should not advocate rugby, because the % risk is so much higher than for chess. In that way, if we are purely considering the % risk, I still do not see how rugby escapes being not advocated because it is “dangerous”, for it clearly is dangerous in comparison to chess.

    I would also argue that many of the diseases that can be caught through gay sex, if treated correctly, are relatively minor, and represent no more of an inconvenience than the increased risk of arthritis in the joints as a result of any particular gymnastic or athletic sport. Granted, the big ones, like HIV, are crippling and deadly. Yet, I do not really see the difference between dying of AIDS, and dying of a broken neck on the rugby field (or of a car crash in F1, or a rock fall in rock climbing, or of a killer whale in a water park etc etc). I myself have suffered a soft tissue trauma – thrice have I dislocated my shoulder (the first time, playing rugby). This has required surgery to correct, as the tissue is permanently damaged, stretched beyond its tolerances. That is why it was dislocated the other 2 times. Even with surgical correction, my shoulder remains damaged; it is painful to change a light bulb, for example. So even relatively minor injuries in sport, can have long term consequences for the well being of the individual. It would seem quite reasonable to say that my health would be superior now, had I not played rugby, and played chess instead. So, I do not believe there is as much of a distinction between injury and disease as you make out – but again, this is all down to the level of % risk that we are prepared, as individuals, and parents, to accept for ourselves and our children.

    //Just so we’re clear though, I am not a Libertarian, I do not believe in unlimited free-speech, I do not believe that freedom means that a man can do just whatever he chooses.//

    I do not believe a man can do just whatever he chooses. I do not believe I have a right to steal, or murder, or attack, anyone. That is why human rights (proper ones, not New Labour ones) are so important. (To be fair, you do seem to be approaching a libertarian (dare I say, liberal), platform of opinion. Come over to our side, it is fun over here! You get a free gun, and the space to believe and say what you want!)

    Re: your third paragraph, I agree entirely with you. Indeed, if more people, Christians, Communists, Neo-Liberals, Muslims etc were to adopt your way of viewing things, life would be much more pleasant (or, at least, much freer). It is also perceptive of you to recognise the jobs-worths that would have to be created in order to monitor people, in order to make sure no illicit behaviour was going on. It seems inevitable that if you give someone the power to spy into peoples homes, then that power will surely corrupt them, and whoever granted the authority to the spy, will find themselves, eventually, spied upon.

  6. Richard Borrett says:

    Before i say this, I am not a geneticist…

    I do however know that we have not yet discovered the true impact of every single gene in the human Genome and therefore it cannot be conclusively said that there is, or is not, a gene which has some impact on any particular personality trait or behaviour. Some have been discovered and some have not.

    EV you seem to have assumed that there is not and will never be found any such genome. If you have finished the analysis on the human genome you really should publish your work…

    Not, of course, that the Genetic-basis argument is particularly relevant, but if you are going to have a debate you should at least do it properly.

  7. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    ‘Come over to our side, it is fun over here! You get a free gun, and the space to believe and say what you want!’ … I’ll stay where I am, thanks. I already have the gun, and the space to believe, and the mouth (but you may have already guessed that).

    The point I was making about dangerous sports and dangerous sexual practices, ie gay-sex, was that the damage done to sportsmen are injuries, the damage to homosexuals are both injuries AND diseases, and the death-toll is very, very considerably higher for those who practice gay-sex compared to those who practice rugby or boxing.

    With regard to your ideas about spying and the spied upon, perhaps you would see this as a degeneration of British society (I assume you hail from a Home country)? Perhaps you can see that the Gov. has become ridiculously powerful, while most of the people have fallen asleep, unaware that the real freedoms that men have fought and died for, even within living memory, have been eradicated and replaced with non-sensical ‘rights’, which do nothing except trap more and more people in a sense of unjustified entitlement, and empower them to sue their opponents for all and any infringement of these ‘rights’, even to have them imprisoned? I see these things too; in the mad dash to allow Muslims to rule the nation, to destroy the C of E from within and without, to pass thousands of useless and discriminatory (in the real sense) laws, to allow minorities and victim groups to dictate public policy, based only on the moral superiority of their victimhood. It’s just that I see gays and the gay ‘movement’ as part of this problem, and a lot of people are caught up in what they think is a revolutionary movement, the emancipation of homosexuals, when in actual fact they are no more than slaves to their own corrupted sexual urges and pawns of the Government, to allow them to divide and conquer.

  8. English Viking says:

    Richard Borrett,

    I have no idea what you mean by ‘true impact’ in relation to the genes in the human genome. I do know that the genome has been fully decoded, and has been since 2003.

    I have said in a previous answer that proving a negative has historically proven a little tricky. I’ll assume that it’s safe to say that you cannot refute the idea that homosexuality is affected by the phases of the moon, unless you can publish your analysis to the contrary.

    You see your false premise now, don’t you?

    If you are going to try to put someone down, you should at least do it properly.

  9. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    //The point I was making about dangerous sports and dangerous sexual practices, ie gay-sex, was that the damage done to sportsmen are injuries, the damage to homosexuals are both injuries AND diseases, and the death-toll is very, very considerably higher for those who practice gay-sex compared to those who practice rugby or boxing. //

    Understood. However, I do not see the difference between “diseases” and “injuries” in regard to the fact that both diseases and injuries are detrimental to health (both long term and short term), and therefore I think it is artificial to distinguish between “injuries” and “diseases”, if we accept what I said about the seriousness of most diseases, and the effects of even “minor” injuries on the long term health and well being of an individual (ie, my shoulder).

    //the death-toll is very, very considerably higher for those who practice gay-sex compared to those who practice rugby or boxing. //

    Agreed. However, I doubt that consoles those that have lost love ones who have been killed in rugby, boxing, or other sporting and recreational activities. I do wonder if the actual ratio of those killed as a result of gay sex is greater than something like, saying, the career of fishing, which has the highest mortality rate of any employment. But, I suppose that would require statistics that do not really exist. But again, this comes down to percentages; you may draw the line at a 65% fatality rate, but why ought it not to be 60%? And, if 60%, why not 55%. And, if 55%, why not 50%? And so on, and so forth, until every activity is not advocated, because there is a degree of risk of serious injury or death in every one (I am sure I can find at least one person who fell on a Bishop chess piece, and blinded themselves).

    //It’s just that I see gays and the gay ‘movement’ as part of this problem, and a lot of people are caught up in what they think is a revolutionary movement, the emancipation of homosexuals, when in actual fact they are no more than slaves to their own corrupted sexual urges and pawns of the Government, to allow them to divide and conquer.//

    Well, I am no pawn of the Government (as I hope I have demonstrated), yet believe many of the things that the gay movement believes (about reducing the interference of the State in the lives of the individual). Where I differ, significantly, from that movement is their belief that the State has a duty to enforce non-discrimination, etc etc. Indeed, I am even more anti-government than you or Stewart! With regard to “divide and conquer”, since I view the “natural” state of man as being divided (as one family is divided from another in terms of custom and habit, so the individual is divided from another in terms of taste and preference), it does not bother me for people to be divided. Indeed, we have to be divided if we are to be free! To be otherwise requires that the State exercise violence to force people together – either to force me to sacrifice my desires and beliefs in order to be acceptable to you, or to force you to give up your beliefs so that you accept me, or acceptable to me. Either option is abhorrent and evil, at least to me.

    I confess, I used to be one of the “gay movement” in the fullest sense, then, the atheist movement. Both have become addicted to the State. But since I have found the philosophy of Libertarianism, I have rejected the power and violence of the State. We do not need to be united in anything other than in a mutual despising of the State, and the agreement to leave each other alone.

    I agree that the lamentable circumstances of the populace is largely due to their own apathy and lack of consideration of the ethics of politics.

    //I assume you hail from a Home country//

    County or Country? Yes to both.

  10. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    ‘it does not bother me for people to be divided. Indeed, we have to be divided if we are to be free! ‘ – All well and good, until this ‘freedom’ of which you speak involves the ‘natural’ propensity of different tribes of humans to wish to band together.

    If an office was comprised of 100 people, and 3 of them were gay, would they speak to each other? Would they be taught not to? Would they be taught to do so would be a crime? Imagine the same scenario, but with black people. What about muslims? Maybe Japanese?

    I think that white, heterosexual, Christian (nominal or not) men would be taught that all these things are perfectly normal. To say otherwise would be racist, or homophobic, or Islamophobic, etc.

    Unless a group of 3 white, straight, Christian [or even just non muslim] non-orientals want to. Then it’s different. Then there is ‘thought-crime’. Then the 3 are filth. By law.

  11. English Viking says:

    PS. I too believe in reducing the power of the State on the lives of the individual; but not because you are gay, nor that I am straight, but because ‘Big State’ inevitably leads to ‘Big Death-Count’.

    In one way, I really don’t care if you’re gay (you realise that in the Christian sense, I do care?). I am far more concerned at the power of the State to do, or say, or demand, or even kill, than I am at a bunch of effeminates parading about in stilettos.

    In a perfect world (according to me) there would be neither Big State, nor gays; I know I do not live in a perfect world, and if I was forced to choose… Blair, Bush, Thatcher, Kinnock, Mandelson, Balls, Brown, Heath, Major, etc, etc, would not last 5 minutes. They are by far the bigger criminals.

  12. English Viking says:

    PPS. I forgot Prescott. Surely, if anyone deserves a punishment, it’s him?

  13. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    //Unless a group of 3 white, straight, Christian [or even just non muslim] non-orientals want to. Then it’s different. Then there is ‘thought-crime’. Then the 3 are filth. By law.//

    Agreed. The law as it standards is a gross distortion of political moral truth. I consider it utterly evil that the State dares to say who can and cannot stay in the bedsit of a Christian family. It is absurd, and authoritarian.

    //In a perfect world (according to me) there would be neither Big State, nor gays; I know I do not live in a perfect world, and if I was forced to choose… Blair, Bush, Thatcher, Kinnock, Mandelson, Balls, Brown, Heath, Major, etc, etc, would not last 5 minutes. They are by far the bigger criminals.//

    You give Thatcher a hard time, but she did do good things for the economy. She reduced government interference, for one. Perhaps the best of a bad bunch?

    //PS. I too believe in reducing the power of the State on the lives of the individual; but not because you are gay, nor that I am straight, but because ‘Big State’ inevitably leads to ‘Big Death-Count’.//

    I agree with you. However that is not primarily my reason for being against an intrusive ‘Big State’. It is very good reason, but I believe the Big State is, of itself, immoral and evil, even if any particular Big State is not actively engaged in mass murder.

    //PPS. I forgot Prescott. Surely, if anyone deserves a punishment, it’s him?//

    Well quite.

  14. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    I think that Thatcher was probably the last of the kind of politician that did not do or say what she thought would get her elected, regardless of what she herself actually believed; she said what she believed and hoped that 40% of the electorate agreed with her, and I respect her for that.

    I have to say that I do not look back at her with fond affection. She was vindictive, which can be a nasty trait at the best of times, when it is on just a personal level, but to decimate the North (yep, I’m a whippets and pies man), entire industries, close down villages and towns, putting nothing in their place was cruel. I lived through it (it is still going on today), I have seen firsthand the destruction of family and community, even the deaths caused by her political spite. Abandoning the people and reducing Government interference are two different things.

    She also ‘won’ a rebate from the EU in 1984, in exchange for the keys to the country.

    I admit that I would prefer her to all her successors though, but I think that the flatness of the surrounding landscape is what makes her appear such a giant.

  15. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    Is there still a great deal of antipathy for her in the North of England? Can you ever see the North voting for the Tories in any large number, or do they stick to Labour because they actually like Labour, and its socialism? What would you say is the ‘natural’ party of the North?

  16. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    Thatcher is almost universally HATED where I come from. The Yorkshire ripper is held in higher regard. You’d have to be a brave man to say that you thought she was half-decent in any of the pubs (the ones that are still open) in my neck of the woods. What I don’t understand is the near retarded reaction to her style of Government, which seems to be, I’ll vote Labour, even though they’re worse, just because they are not Tory (and my dad voted for them, and his before him, etc).

    I don’t know if I dare say it, oh, go on then; the natural party for most of the folks around here is the BNP. (If they can get their act together and stop the incessant in-fighting). The Islamification is absolutely unbelievable, you really do need to see it to believe that any Government would not only allow it, but encourage it. BTW I’ve never voted for them, but I do agree with a lot of what they say. You might be pleased to know that they seek a kind of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ arrangement that, in my mind, suits both straights and gays without causing either too much grief.

    PS Labour are not socialists. If they were, a lot more people would vote for them.

  17. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    I find the desire the the BNP has for control over people to be hugely Statist. Having looked on their website, and read their manifesto, they are entirely obsessed with the power of the State to do things. Indeed, they are even more left-wing than Labour! But then, being the hardcore Libertarian, you would expect that sort of reaction from me.

    //You might be pleased to know that they seek a kind of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ arrangement that, in my mind, suits both straights and gays without causing either too much grief.//

    I disagree, I am afraid. Just as it is immoral to have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to Christianity in Islamic countries, so I find it evil to have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to sexuality in this country (or any). Imagine if someone told you that no one would ask you about your religion, but don’t tell anyone about it either! Hardly a just state of affairs. Again, this is to do with my commitments to absolute Free Speech, rather than any particular commitment to “gay rights”.

    PS I am not a lover of Islam. Geert Wilders compared Islam to Nazism. I have to say the comparison is unfair – to Nazism. Nazism was evil stacked on evil stacked on evil, yet Islam is worse in many ways. Under the Nazis, woman had, if not an equal standing to men, then one very much more comparable to men. In Islamic countries, women are reviled. Technology under the Nazis was very greatly advanced, under Islam, it has almost universally receded. The Nazis practised eugenics on those they considered inferior humans – Islam practices the same procedure on women, with FGM and other such atrocities.

    I do not know how the West can deal with Islam, without itself becoming a controlling, authoritarian, statist civilisation.

  18. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    You are correct, BNP are ultra-left, real socialists, like the National Socialists (why people think they were Right-wing, I’ll never know). I guess I’m kind of the other way around to most people on the BNP; I agree with the repatriation of people who have no wish to integrate, whether like it or not, but disagree with a lot of their economic policies and other, general day-to-day stuff.

    I loathe Islam. It is a pernicious evil that most definitely take over Western Europe, by force, within the next 50 years. Unless people wake up soon to the danger we are in, it will be too late to oppose it effectively. If you think I’m a bit strident in my view of homosexuality, you ain’t seen nothing compared to what a Caliphate will do.

    Amongst the other things I have already mentioned that I dislike or disagree with, is Democracy. It only works if the people being governed agree to it, and we will see that this inherent weakness will be our downfall; Democracy will eat itself.

  19. indigomyth says:

    EV,

    //I loathe Islam. It is a pernicious evil that most definitely take over Western Europe, by force, within the next 50 years. Unless people wake up soon to the danger we are in, it will be too late to oppose it effectively. If you think I’m a bit strident in my view of homosexuality, you ain’t seen nothing compared to what a Caliphate will do.//

    Agreed. But, as I say, I do not know what can be morally done to discourage it.

    //Amongst the other things I have already mentioned that I dislike or disagree with, is Democracy. It only works if the people being governed agree to it, and we will see that this inherent weakness will be our downfall; Democracy will eat itself.//

    Again, I am in surprise agreement with you. I find the idea that somehow the “majority” have the authority to violate the individual’s rights (as is done in many Muslim countries) to be absolutely disgusting. Unfortunately, I do not see any viable alternative that does not put power into the hands of the corrupt. It does seem like democracy is the best of a bad bunch.

  20. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    I an constrained by the medium, so I cannot write a 50 page piece to explain why Democracy is a wicked system of government. I strongly suspect that we disagree with this system for different reasons.

    I do not think that a society can be effectively run unless someone, or some organisation, has absolute power. I understand your concerns about dictatorship, but I would much rather be dictated to by a good man than an evil one, or an Islamic Government. I favour Monarchy, but do not have the space or time to explain. BTW, If I ruled the world, the current monarchy would be removed, for treason, and made to work in a coal mine, for the average national wage. They could try living on a council estate too.

    With regard to a moral response to the perils of Islam, it is usual and moral for an invaded nation to attempt to repel the invaders, by force if necessary. Not a pleasant task, not a choice one would like to make, but a choice that needs to be made, just like the men did who fought and died to oppose a similarly vile system 70 years ago.

  21. indigomyth says:

    EV,
    //I strongly suspect that we disagree with this system for different reasons.//

    Most likely.

    //I favour Monarchy, but do not have the space or time to explain.//

    There are benefits to the Monarchical system, but if the current crop of potatoes that inhabit the throne (Prince Charles really is a vegetable) is any indication of the quality of monarchs generally, I fear it may not have a huge number of advantageous.

    Anyway, we seem to have lapsed into agreeing with each other, which is just boring, so I shall have to bid you good evening. I hope you lose no more boats.

  22. English Viking says:

    indigomyth,

    Very well. Until next time then…

  23. Pingback: Ex-‘Gay’ Man: ‘Homosexuality is Just Another Human Brokenness’ | Real Street

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>