Celebrating Diversity in Scotland (but only the right sort)
This video was uploaded to the Scottish Government’s YouTube channel the other day. It is an obvious piece of propaganda ahead of the ‘gay marriage’ consultation. Salmond’s first words are,
In Scotland, we want to celebrate the diverse communities that make our country great.
Firstly, is Scotland still great? Secondly, what made Scotland great was hard work, ambitious geniuses, being part of a strong and independent United Kingdom and having a broadly Judeo-Christian culture. Each of these has been on the way out for some time now, not just in Scotland, but throughout what was once called Christendom.
Now, apparently, what makes us “great” are “diverse communities”.
Of course, the SNP, in common with all the other main parties in Britain, wants us to celebrate homosexuality, Islam and being a member of the European Union. That’s about where diversity worth “celebrating” begins and ends for our politicians. Protestants and Catholics in Scotland are certainly not supposed to celebrate their own cultures. That’s “sectarianism” aka “Scotland’s Shame”. I don’t have any time for the chants at Old Firm matches, but now the SNP are starting to tread on very dangerous ground as they try to obliterate all signs of this “sectarianism” at football matches, which may include banning the sign of the cross from the Celtic End and the singing of “God Save The Queen” by Rangers fans.
I suppose congratulations are in order for Alex Salmond, as he has united Catholic and Protestant against him!
And leaders of the Catholic Church in Scotland have been speaking out against “gay marriage”. The Bishop of Paisley, Philip Tartaglia, has said that a Scottish government which backed same-sex marriage did not deserve the support of the Catholic community.
Even the Free Church of Scotland has spoken out in praise of the Roman Catholic Church’s stance on homosexual ‘marriage’ – Proddy and Tim standing shoulder to shoulder to fight the evils of government. I could get to like this ‘diversity’ lark after all!
At the end of his little propaganda piece, I was left wondering how much Stonewall had paid Salmond, or if he was chasing the coveted Stonewall Politician of the Year Award at the annual ceremony in three weeks’ time. He isn’t short-listed, but after a speech like that, basically asking the rest of us to try to fit in around homosexuality, I’m sure he could be shoehorned in.
You would think that a Scottish bunch operating out of Edinburgh would be more sensible and independently-minded than Westminster and Brussels, but they share exactly the same agenda: pretending that unity can come from diversity. Even many on the ‘left’ now admit that multiculturalism has been a failure.
Salmond talks of independence and plans a referendum to try to achieve it – and will allow 16 year-olds to vote in it to give him a better chance of winning – but Scotland could never be free with him at the helm, because he complies with every politically correct agenda on the planet.
Perhaps Salmond has an even more sinister motivation? Should he be successful in securing an independent Scotland, we would probably not gain automatic membership to the European Union, so appearing more PC than Brussels would shower him in brownie points.
Here is the Consultation on same-sex ‘marriage’. The SNP have already said that they want it to happen, so let’s make it as difficult as possible for them to re-engineer society to the detriment of the vast majority. Salmond, like Stonewall, talks about bullying to try to persuade us to accept the homosexual agenda lock, stock and barrel. I don’t approve of bullying, period. Bullying is not the issue, so let us not be fooled or made to feel guilty.
And for the UK as a whole, there is another consultation on same-sex ‘marriage’. We can stop the rot, but time is running out and work needs to be done. Thankfully, there are some people in the SNP with their heads screwed on correctly.
MSP John Mason tabled a motion which was supported by three other SNP MSPs and which stated that no person or organisation should be forced to be involved or to approve of same-sex marriage.
The former SNP leader Gordon Wilson has called for a referendum and warned that same-sex marriage could have “extremely destructive consequences” for Scotland. Mr Wilson, now chairman of the Christian faith group, Solas, co-wrote a nine-page submission to the Scottish Government’s public consultation with Solas director, the
Rev David Robertson, in which they accused Alex Salmond’s government of pursuing a “harmful” shake-up of the country’s marriage laws and warned that pressing ahead with the proposals could be a danger to Scotland and that the legalisation of same-sex marriages was “an assault on Christian values” and warned that it could lead to “social disintegration” and “sexual confusion.”
Mr Wilson went on to claim that MSPs backing gay marriage would be showing “cowardice, injustice and folly”.
He said: “This is of such a destructive nature to Scottish society that, rather than leaving the decision to a group of MSPs (who themselves are very susceptible to the threats to their careers and positions of political and media lobbying), this decision should be put to a referendum of the Scottish people.
“We are concerned at the way this issue is being used to demonise and attack Christianity, whilst at the same time being used to reshape and change society in a way which we believe is ultimately harmful.
There are other SNP politicians who have stood up and been shouted down by colleagues (in other parties too) who hate free speech. There is clearly a lot of opposition to the idea of marriage being so drastically redefined in Scotland, so nobody should feel afraid of the bullies who would silence us. Nobody.
You seem to be frothing at the mouth for no reason.
This bill isn’t forcing anyone or anything to do gay marriage, it merely supports the notion that if a religion wishes to carry out services for same sex couple then they can.
The RC church is only acting in self-preservation in this instance, it doesn’t talk for the majority of even it’s own congragation, I don’t have figures to back that up but then you don’t have any to refute it.
I don’t think anyone in Scotland minds about it, the sectarian thing is overplayed and is a sympton not of religion but of daft football fan-dom, it is experienced hardly any where else.
What surprises most people is the notion that on the one hand the RC church can moralise about same sex marraige yet fail entirely to deal with it’s own issues regarding peadophila among its own ranks not to mention the damage being done in the name of the catholic religions very own version of political correctness in telling people on the sub-continent that condoms are sinful and do nothing to stop the spread of AIDS/HIV.
The bottom line is, we wouldn’t need this kind of legislation at all if organisations like the catholic church and others could drag themselves into the 21st century where most of us reside.
Paul,
There’s no froth here, but even if there were, it would be for good reason!
You clearly don’t comprehend the gravity of changing the rules of society to this extent. It would affect everyone in one way or another and that means it is everyone’s business.
RC paedophile priests is a separate matter. If the RC Church allowed clergy to marry it would probably help. I also agree with them on contraception.
21st Century? What on earth makes you think that homosexual marriage is enlightened?
It is an acknowledged trend in recent years that permissive legislation (in regard of the pink agenda) quickly metamorphoses into coercive legislation.
And remember that when Civil Pervertships were first introduced in the UK, Government Ministerial assurances were given that there was no intention ever to legislate for Perviage (i.e. pervert ‘marriage’).
This does affect every Scotsman in Scotland because if Perviage is brought in it will be imposed across the whole of Scottish society. Scottish churches (and others) which dissent against Perviage will be severely persecuted.
If Perviage is brought in then every public institution will promote it as the norm. Schools will be required to teach all children that two men or two women can get married.
Perviage will fundamentally corrupt Scottish society and its destructive impact will be HUGE.
We ought to follow the lead of Stewart Cowan in making every effort to campaign for marriage and against the pervert agenda.
very interesting blog this one, after some searching on the net, I found out to my surprise this type of lifestyle was fromed in the 1920,30s by the frankfurt school for the destruction of society and people, by perverted members of society.
I have posted a link so it can be read by all, and to think many of our politicians are supporters of degenerative morals in society by the frankfurt school, tells me they are no better than them.
http://www.catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_882.shtml
.
By infiltrating our religious, civic and state institutions, the gay lobby has created a universal super hoax. Using stealth and deception they claim that homosexuality is a normal healthy alternative life-style.
In society’s rush not to offend homosexual behaviour, most well-meaning people fail to recognize that every advance for the homosexual agenda comes at the expense of rapidly shrinking freedoms of religion, speech, press, conscience and association.
Indeed, we currently face a pernicious sexual revolution that is solely conditioned by an unstable set of hazardous sexual cravings of a minority interest.
The magnitude and scale of this challenge is unsurpassed in human history. Reason enough, it might be suggested, to look forebodingly to the future with real trepidation.
.
.
Cultural Marxism, or political correctness shares with classical Marxism a vision of a classless society – a society of equal opportunity and equal condition. This vision contradicts human nature since people are different and end up unequal regardless of their starting point. So equality has to be enforced.
It is therefore totalitarian in nature.
This explains why political correctness aims to control freedom of thought, speech and the press.
Alexsander Solzhenitsyn has observed, “And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity.”
In brief, socialism aims to abolish private property, the family, religion and hierarchies to produce sameness.
Cultural and economic Marxism share a single-factor explanation of history. Classical Marxism states history is determined by the ownership of production. Cultural Marxism says history is explained by which groups have power over other groups and these are defined by sex, race and sexual normality or abnormality.
Classical Marxism defines workers and peasants as virtuous and the bourgeoisie or middle class and other capital owners as evil. Cultural Marxism defines blacks, feminist women, homosexuals and other minority groups as virtuous and white men as evil. It is a system for punishing dissent and aims to stigmatise what it perceives as cultural heretics.
.
Richard,
Thanks for making it even more clear how much damage is going to be done if ‘perviage’ is legalised.
.
The London based Gay Liberation Front (GLF), now defunct, was an extension of the American GLF which was created following a police raid on a Mafia controlled gay bar in New York in 1969. Black and white gay queens, homosexuals, lesbians and rent boys fought the police and destroyed property in a three day riot. It became a seminal moment in gay history despite the fact we can trace American homosexual movements as far back as 1919.
Another movement was the Mattachine Society, which had been created by Communist homosexual Harry Hay in 1948. Abused as a young boy of 14 by a 24-year-old homosexual, Hay is considered the founding father of the American gay movement. The riot led to this organisation becoming more influential despite the fact that Hay was distanced from it because he endorsed pederasty and the GLF wished to present a more acceptable and respectable image.
Two students at the London School of Economics (LSE), Aubrey Walter and Bob Mellor, founded the British GLF in October 1970 when a small group of 19 men and women met in the basement. At the time the LSE was considered to be a hotbed of revolutionary activists in the country. One popular slogan was “Two, Four, Six , Eight – Copulate and Smash the State.”
Walter and Mellor had previously visited New York and met members of the Blank Panther Movement who supported gay rights on the basis they considered that homosexuals were oppressed. Walter had also joined a gay commune in San Francisco where, “I met Konstantin Berlandt who had dragged up (in a red sequined dress and long blonde wig) to disrupt the American Psychiatrist Convention. Walter would have picked up the politics of queer theory and the components of practical activist organisation and resistance. Cultural Marxism would be at the heart of this and form its essential foundation.
Within a month of the creation of the GLF one of their first targets was the police. They held their first ever public demonstration to protest against “pretty policemen” who were arresting them for public indecency and other sexual offences. They also created the slogan “Gay is Good” and “Gay is Angry”. The latter was a coded reference to the Angry Brigade whose members were also involved in the GLF.
.
Reflect for a moment on the 1985 ‘Labour Gay Rights Manifesto’
It is a direct threat to traditional family life and the welfare of our children for it states:-
‘’Children grow up under the power of their parents. As children, any behaviour which is obviously sexual in adult terms is repressed… A socialist society would supersede the family household… Gay people and children should have the right to live together… Children and young people should have the right to determine their own sexual lives… Marriage should be disestablished… Women need access to free contraception and abortion facilities; this applies just as much to young women as to ‘adults.’ Children should be able to divorce their parents… It follows from what we have already said that we favour the abolition of the age of consent.’
How much more evidence is needed to awaken the useful idiots?
.
.
Who first said this recently?
“Conservatives rightly encourage and approve loving, stable relationships because enduring care and commitment are good for individuals, families and for the well-being of society as a whole. If marriage is a Conservative value, then same-sex marriage is consistent with this value. Far from undermining marriage, gay marriage strengthens it. Conservatives believe in marriage. They should therefore support same-sex marriage precisely because they are Conservatives.”
David Cameron – you say?
Wrong!
Peter Tatchell said it first.
Look see – http://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/releases/how-the-tories-were-won-to-marriage-equality.pdf
.
How, exactly, will gay marriage have “extremely destructive consequences” for Scotland or anywhere? You all keep making sweeping statements about the damage which shall be wrought, but the few attempts to explain how the carnage shall be wrought are vague and not very coherent. Please tell me what, exactly, it is about gay marriage that will cause the walls to come tumbling down. How will two men getting married in Leeds, for example, destroy a family in Manchester? For bonus points try to answer the question without mentioning “cultural Marxism”, something I suspect only exists in your imaginations, or inventing any words that a five year old would be ashamed of.
And the most recent Scottish Social Attitudes survey shows that the majority (61%) of Scots are in favour of gay marriage, so you’ll have to stop deluding yourselves about that as well.
Ian,
You come here for the thrill of the argument. You think you’re clever – and you think two men or two women can get married. You like to provoke and you desire to dominate. You exercise the basic prejudice that religious or socially conservative people are invariably hateful bigots, stupid and always in the wrong (be it morally or intellectually or both). And no doubt you find your little fantasy world very pleasant indeed.
In general, the big problem with all your secular-humanist social-liberal arguments is that you wilfully deny the obvious reality.
Whatever the particular subject is, you deny moral truth. Or you deny 50 years of statistical evidence as to the destructive effect of secular-humanist socially liberal laws, policies and attitudes [50 years if we say the humanist agenda started in the UK in 1960]. Or you deny the obviously correct interpretation of statistics and advocate instead the opposite.
We all know your game here.
The marriage-based family is foundational to a strong, stable and civilised society.
But you deny this fundamental reality.
A strong, functional society bears witness to the great majority of its children being raised by married parents, and non-marital sex being the practice of only a small minority of adults.
But you deny this truth.
It’s rather mischievous and impudent of you to seek debate as in your above comment when you have no desire to accept the truth as might be explained to you, and indeed you lack the ability to grasp that truth in any case given your basic, idiotic prejudices about marriage as I’ve just stated. Great and brilliant essays could be written in response to your provocations – essays heavily laden with irrefutable sourced evidence and great wisdom – but you simply dismiss anything and everything which doesn’t fit your preconceptions of any particular issue… so why would anybody waste their time in indulging you?
You are well aware of the socially conservative position in regard of marriage/family and also the whole homopervual social and political agenda.
You know that marriage is rightly recognised by social conservatives as the foundational social unit of adult life in every good society. You know that the homopervual agenda is rightly recognised by social conservatives as being the destroying force par excellence of the moral standards and cultural conventions of traditional (i.e. well functioning) British society which once made us so strong [along with the homopervual agenda's close bedfellows, namely pornography, promiscuity, sexualised TV and media and 'sex education'].
Given that you know the position but utterly reject it… why seek to provoke debate here? You know very well that there are mountains and mountains of books and websites which set forth the evidence for and the principles of marriage and socially conservative society.
The issue with Perviage is straightforwardly that it is an attack on the institution of Marriage. You know that. The principle is simple: attack marriage and destroy society. You know that. There are decades of evidence which clearly show that the endless and ongoing assault on the marriage institution in the UK has badly broken our society. But you deny the mountain of evidence. Haven’t you noticed the Broken Britain we live in today? You have, but you are in denial of the reality of Broken Britain before your eyes.
The proposed re-definition of marriage is a very serious attack on the institution. Its de facto effect is tantamount to abolition of the marriage institution. Once the marriage institution is poisoned by the legal incorporation of a delusional and cancerous lie, it will become a corrupted and depraved object of mockery and derision and suffer further decline.
I have no doubt that you as a secular-humanist understand very well that the proposed re-definition of marriage is a fundamental stab in the heart both directly to the marriage institution and also indirectly to another bedrock British institution, namely the Church. It therefore mystifies me why you would pretend to be ignorant of the highly destructive homopervual social/political agenda and its history, modus operandi and obvious consequences – all of which you are well aware of and, moreover, all of which you are known to thoroughly approve.
.
Written in 2004 – Read this!
MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern–including gay marriage–is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.
Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp
.
Richard,
If I wanted a thrilling argument I wouldn’t go to you for it, trust me. You haven’t addressed the question- what, really, is so bad about two people who love each other being able to say they’re legally married- let alone answered it, just feigned insult and repeated your claims, pretending your opinions are facts and saying almost nothing.
“You exercise the basic prejudice that religious or socially conservative people are invariably hateful bigots, stupid and always in the wrong (be it morally or intellectually or both).”
I do try to take everyone as I find them, assessing them on an individual basis. If you get the impression that my assessment of you is that you’re a hateful bigot, stupid and always in the wrong it’s your own words that have led me to it. You’re the one exercising basic prejudice with your stupid labels and railing against “secular humanists”. The majority of religious people are decent, caring individuals. You’re not.
“Or you deny the obviously correct interpretation of statistics and advocate instead the opposite.”
It’s so sweet that you’re still smarting over that time I pointed out flaws in your understanding of simple numbers.
“essays heavily laden with irrefutable sourced evidence and great wisdom”
Obviously not written by you, if this comment is anything to go by.
“rightly recognised by social conservatives”
You mean believed. You don’t get to say anything is “rightly recognised” just because it’s what you want. Particularly when you still can’t provide an explanation for your assertions.
I’ll give you half a point for one of your claims. I don’t want to see the church destroyed, as stated above the majority of religious people are decent folk, but I do want to see religion- all religions- having less control over our politicians. When policy decisions can be based upon evidence and reality, rather than dogma and superstition, then we might be able to fix some of the problems you blame everyone but yourself for.
To me Ian religion is a curse on society, as it imposes that you have to do good deeds and work your way into G_ds favour.
Also people have taken the Bible and used it for their own interpretation.
However the Bible really teaches who G_d really is, you can read this in John’s Gospel, but when you do please note Christ’s attitude toward others, he also teaches that if you really love G_d then you do others no harm, but remember that it also teaches about sin and the consequences of sin.
And there are guidelines laid down for people in authority to do justly and fairly, but if people in authority are corrupt then they do not follow the guidelines/ teachings of Christ and so we get anarchy in society.
If you look at my previous post you will find a link, go to it and have a read at it you will see what happens when people want their own agendas.
Ian,
You were absolutely massacred on your own blog on that thread you link to. The fact you delusionally believe you were victorious on that thread simply demonstrates how you wilfully deny the obvious.
That thread ably demonstrates why it would be a waste of time to engage with you on this particular thread (or indeed over any other subject).
I could explain marriage and the homopervual agenda to you in great depth and at the end of it you’d basically say what a load of bllcks and claim victory.
You like to make a pretence of fronting only ‘evidence-based’ claims (or of rubbishing well established truth which you claim is not based on sound evidence) but your acceptance of evidence is largely based upon the need for it to fit with your own prejudices. Furthermore, your screaming demands for ‘evidence’ are typically to back up the most solid principles of all, such as marriage being the foundational building block of every well functioning human society (which you deny). There could not be more evidence for these rock-solid basic statements of human reality – but still you deny these fundamental truths and say such truths are false and lack evidence to substantiate them!
There is abundant evidence of the importance of marriage to British society. You could try studying the history of this country and learn how we ended up in our current disastrous situation since we started to reject and destroy the marriage institution 50 years ago.
The socially conservative position on marriage and family could not be more proven – yet still you deny it.
Why come on here demanding ‘Prove that perviage will destroy society’? Flipping it back to you, perhaps you ought rather to come here and attempt to demonstrate that perviage won’t destroy society; you advance no argument of your own.
The principle of strong society being based upon the marriage institution is well proven over countless generations. Why on earth should it be tampered with to accommodate homopervuals? How could marriage retain any credibility and validity of status if it was altered to include those people who are clearly disqualified by their own choice of lifestyle from entering into such an estate? How on earth do you conclude that perviage would not have an enormously destructive effect upon marriage and thus society when, for example, our kids will be taught from infancy at school that two men or two women can marry? Don’t you see how such a serious and depraved lie would poison kids’ minds and create widespread confusion about a basic principle of adult life? We can be certain that if perviage is introduced then the consequences over the next twenty years will be far reaching indeed.
If you weren’t so far up your own backside Ian, you might spot how glaringly ridiculous and fatuous you look in coming to this blog, and (1) claiming that perviage will have no negative impact upon society [for that is the only substantive implication of your contributions thus far], followed by (2) demanding that those who disagree with you prove that which is obvious and well proven, simply for you to continue to deny it.
If there is any other purpose in your contribution, it is only to target me with nonsense claims of being hateful or uncaring.
If you want to know who is the one in complete denial of ‘evidence and reality’ you need look no further than a mirror. Far from being the guardian of ‘evidence and reality’ you are the chief opponent of these. You deny that British society is broken. You deny that a return to our society’s traditional standards (which were widely in force in our society when it wasn’t broken) would fix what is broken. You deny any brokeness, and advocate instead the further advancement of the very secular-humanist agenda which has broken us. If there is any problem at all according to you, it is that there are still remnants of tradition within British society – such as marriage – which need to be removed, dismantled or so radically altered as effectively to render such tradition impotent and marginal.
And regarding your desire for less religious influence in politics… I hardly think that at present (and over the last 15 years) Christians could have less power and influence in Westminster politics. Indeed that is one of the reasons for this country’s present condition.
Let me put it another way for you Ian, before you come back with more insipid whinging…
Your position on perviage [that it won't harm society] is akin to you claiming that jumping off a high cliff isn’t going to kill you because you haven’t yet done it and therefore lack the evidence of finding yourself to be dead… despite being well aware already of the key fundamental truth which belies your claim, i.e. the law of gravity (and the knowledge that your body will be severely broken on impact with a hard surface at such speed).
Legislating a lie does not alter the truth of the matter – but it does carry serious adverse consequences. We legislated that if we murder an unborn person under the auspices of the Abortion Act 1967 then it’s no longer an act of murder carrying the consequences of murder. But of course the truth remains: abortion is murder, because the definition of murder itself is set in stone – just like the definition of marriage – and that definition of murder continues to apply to every abortion. A legal position ought not to be confused with the truth as the two are not necessarily the same; furthermore, the truth is not defined by a legal position and cannot be altered by a legal position.
Absolute truth (such as the definition of marriage) is both unchangeable and irrevocable.
I am male. We could legislate to outlaw all words which make reference to masculine status. In the eyes of the law I would cease to be male. The law could say there is no longer any male or female. But despite the law, the reality remains and the truth is unaltered: I am still a man.
We legislated a lie to dismiss the truth of abortion being murder, and the result was unprecedented and ongoing mass murder of British society on a holocaust scale.
Similarly, if we legislate a lie to say persons of the same gender can marry, then we can be sure that the resulting consequences of further severe mayhem and destruction to our society will surely follow – not least because perviage is clearly set in the context of a homopervual social/political agenda the destructive consequences of which have already been observed for many years.
To legislate the lie that homopervuals can marry will certainly prove to be as disastrous as legislating the lie that innocent and defenceless unborn babies can be deliberately put to death and yet are not murder victims.
Tinky Winky (aka Richard),
“You were absolutely massacred on your own blog on that thread you link to.”
And only today there were reports that the youth of today lack basic numeracy – I feel this extends to 35 year olds too – there is proof in that thread that you can’t add up either.
Like I said to you on another thread… stick to the Teletubbies.
All my figures and percentages on Ian’s thread were correct, as was my interpretation of their significance.
And my original blog-post which Ian was unsuccessfully attempting to ridicule was also correct.
Ian was exposed as a fraud on that thread. I almost felt embarrassed on his behalf, watching him self-destruct as he dug himself deeper and deeper with every comment, desperately trying to justify the nonsensical position he had adopted.
Perhaps we ought to ask Ian for his predictions here:
How many civil pervertships will have been registered in the UK by 2021?
And if perviage is introduced, how many homopervuals will have got pervied by 2021?
And we should be kind to Ian and allow him to add his predictions for pervertships and perviage together so he has a higher figure which will look even more impressive.
What say you Ian?
Do you think we’ll have 10 million British people in a pervertship or a perviage in 10 years time? 5 million? 1 million?
Tinky Winky, when are you going get a dictionary? Yet again your post is filled with made up words. You’re failing the literacy test as well as numeracy. When you do find your dictionary, look up deluded and delusional whilst looking in the mirror.
Here are some words I made up:
Carvathship – the union of one Carvert with themselves. Left or right hand, doesn’t matter.
Carvert – a fully paid up member of a Carvathship, an internet porn addict pervert
Carvathiage – the legal process of Carvathship
I hope you like them.
Richard,
If you go back and look at the comment thread you’ll spot that you conceded several times that my figures were correct. I showed how you were wrong so many times that you were forced to reveal your true colours. Your argument, basically, is that homosexuals are a minority so it’s okay to discriminate against them. You’re nothing but a man who wants to be a bully, you just want to pick on people who you think are weaker than you. It’s been a long time since I went to Sunday school, but you’re the one who claims to be a Christian, maybe you can tell me if there’s a story in the big book of allegories that is the Bible where Jesus or one of the Old Testament guys tells you that you should not victimise those who are weaker or fewer than you.
(On the other hand, your self described religious affiliation puts you in a minority of 1 (not 1%, 1, singular, alone and crying in the dark), so you really shouldn’t be calling for the victimisation of minorities.)
No civil pervertships will have been registered by 2021, nor will anyone have got pervied. This is because those are meaningless, made up words which you think make you sound clever but just remind the rest of us how weak your arguments are.
I predict that if decency and common sense prevail (it might happen), by 2021 the number of married people will be higher. Most married couples will be a man and a woman but some will be a man and a man and others will be a woman and a woman. And no-one but a few sad throwbacks to a less free age will have a problem with that.
Foggy,
Your pornography/masturbation allusion is extremely pathetic; attribute your evil to yourself – not to me.
Ian,
I follow Jesus; I don’t believe I’m the only one… I’m fairly confident you will find there are a few others.
Homopervuals are indeed a tiny minority. To discriminate can be morally right or wrong depending on the particular reason and circumstances. I do not discriminate against homopervuals as people or because they are a tiny minority; I do discriminate against evil and depraved behaviour which is harmful to people [both those directly involved and broader society], whether the behaviour is being committed by homopervuals or heterosexuals.
We have a bizarre situation in our supposed democracy in which a tiny minority has for several years now been dictating the law of the land. How are the homopervuals being discriminated against anyway? Homopervuals are clearly favoured by our politicians over the general population – and especially Christians. How on earth do you conclude that the homopervuals are discriminated against in 2011 Britain? The homopervuals exercise influence out of all proportion to their tiny number. There was no popular demand or support for scrapping Section 28, or for introducing civil pervertships or for permitting perverts to foster or adopt children. Homopervuals are certainly not a downtrodden oppressed minority in the UK and I’m not aware of any unfair discrimination against homopervuals in British law. Civil pervertships already permit two homopervuals to enjoy all the legal privileges of marriage, and any homopervual is already able to get married (to a person of the opposite gender), so I fail to see how any British homopervual has any credible basis for claiming to be unfairly treated in this country. Far from being unfairly discriminated against, homopervuals are currently the most indulged people in the land.
Tinky Winky,
I’ve had a crazy idea – why don’t you stand as an MP in the UK’s famous democratic General Election. You know the one. It’s where people put themselves forward with some policies and if all the other people agree with them they vote for you. If you get the most votes you win. You get to work in a big house in London town and get to shape the UK’s laws and stuff. Sounds super fun don’t you think?
What? You’ve tried that already? Only 384 votes? So the majority of people don’t agree with you. Democracy sucks eh!
Richard,
You’re very good at dodging the question, I’ll give you that. Just how will two men married to each other destroy the marriage of a man and woman they’ve never met? All you’ve done so far is repeat your beliefs that it’s a sign of the end times or some plot by made up enemies.
You say the family is the foundation of society, so how is creating more families going to cause damage? Would you rather see children grow up isolated and alone rather than be brought up by a loving, stable and responsible gay couple? Are you that narrow minded that your dogma is more important than the well being of a child?
If I had my way no child would be fostered or adopted by perverts under any circumstances. Giving children over to perverts is child abuse. Children need a mother and a father. Your second sentence is a false argument as you know very well. The general issue of the homopervual agenda/perviage being an assault on the marriage institution has already been stated. You were invited to offer your prediction for the number of people pervied and pervertshipped by 2021 but chose not to commit yourself. No essay was asked of you – just a number. You’re fond of asking awkward loaded questions but do not answer a simple straightforward question needing a response of eight characters or less. Rather than being a sophist why don’t you try being honest for once?
How about learning to use real words so your questions make sense and could then be answered.
I’m going to buy you a dictionary to help you. Where should I send it to?
I’ll also include some of my old O level maths books. I realise they may be a bit advanced for you but we have to start somewhere.
New words and phrases are coined all the time – probably more often than not for evil. I do it for good.
Many years ago I understood the significance of lexical engineering and propagandist manipulation of language. And it was all coming from the Evil Team (i.e. the secular humanists and the social liberals). And it had been going on since Freidrich Nietzsche at least. I view Nietzsche as essentially the founding father of the modern technique. Nietzsche hated the Victorian Christian moral consensus and realised that he had to destroy the language of absolute morality – the language of right and wrong, good and evil. I wrote about this in my 2009 book ‘Definitely Sexy’ (available in my archive).
It was Nietzsche who first began to steer the intelligentsia [and thus, in time, general society] away from thinking in terms of absolute ‘morals’ towards the more wishy-washy language of relative ‘values.’
Everbody talks about ‘values’ these days and it is rare to hear people talk about ‘morals.’ But there’s a big difference… morals are objectively defined and are about right and wrong, but values are subjectively defined and can mean whatever you like. Spot the cunning deception!
Over the last hundred years many words have been hijacked to mean something different to their original meaning, and often the complete opposite of their original meaning.
And many short and potent propaganda phrases have been coined over the same period.
For example, one of the greatest propaganda terms ever invented was when somebody thought to put the word ’sex’ before the word ‘education’ to make ’sex education.’ It is so simple and yet incredibly effective in deceiving people into thinking that it stands for something good and beneficial to children. It goes right under the radar of so mnay parents – they don’t even stop to question the principle of whether what the term stands for is something children should be subjected to at all; they are taken in by the positive word ‘education’ and conclude that surely [sex] education must be beneficial – in short they conclude that [sex] education must surely be… educational. ‘Sex education’ is a brilliant con, and it is so simple yet so effective: a propaganda master-stroke.
Another example, which is at least a hundred years old now – the Edwardian sex-radicals like the Bloomsbury set were certainly using it – is ‘Free Love.’ What better euphemism for promiscuity and perversion than to refer to these instead as a combination of freedom and love?
‘Gay’ is a propaganda term. When 20 to 50 years ago there was still considerable societal hostility to the concept of homosexuality in general principle, the word ‘gay’ was softening the evil and depravity of homosexual reality in the perception of the masses. By the careful use of language, a potent evil was made to appear harmless.
20 years ago the word ‘homosexual’ still quite rightly made people recoil in disgust. But in 2011 I’d say the word has lost its potency because everybody is so used to hearing it. The word is in normal and common use and most people no longer think twice about the issue of homosexuality itself.
That’s why I much prefer to say homopervual, homosexual-pervert or pervert instead of homosexual. My terms remind people of the truth – and the truth matters.
These days the word homosexual is generally seen as simply an equivalent opposite to the word heterosexual. In reality there is no equivalence between homosexual and heterosexual. One is a perversion behaviour and the other is sexual behaviour. And the perversion behaviour/attitude is practised by just 1% of the population, whereas the sexual behaviour/attitude is practised by 99% of the population.
So my use of the word ‘homopervual’ is motivated by the serious and urgent need to convey an important truth to those who hear it.
Similarly, ‘civil pervertship’ hits home the reality of two perverts together.
And ‘perviage’ differentiates between marriage and those perverts who want to say they are married.
The re-definition of marriage is all about hijacking one word – but a word the meaning of which is of vital and fundamental significance to the wellbeing of society.
Blah, blah, blah…. all I see is made up words. Nobody else uses them so you just look like a grown man who can’t spell. Back to school for you.
http://isitfoggy.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/the-richard-carvath-homosexual-spelling-foundation/
Yay, go Evil Team!
Morals, as they are derived from some group’s set of rules, are subjective. Somewhere along the line someone decided how they wanted people to behave. Different groups have different moral codes derived from different fairytales or shared experiences. Whilst “values” similarly can be different because of the group setting the value system, you could conceivably devise an objective universal value system by divorcing your rules from the prejudices of religions and other interest groups and only going with what there is evidence for. Your value system could grow as you learnt more and become ever fairer, benefiting ever more people.
Once again in Richard’s world black is white and white is black. Let’s hope he doesn’t get run over on a zebra crossing.
As for the “question” I supposedly avoided I gave an answer. Richard had strung some made up words together, so there is no answer on the terms he asked the question. However I did offer my opinion that the institution of marriage will have been strengthened in 2021 (“by 2021 the number of married people will be higher”) by opening it up to same sex couples.
The source for Biblical absolute morality is God.
To delusionally dismiss the reality of absolute moral standards (and the inevitable consequences of transgressing those standards), a man has ultimately to dismiss the existence of God.
My position is that I acknowledge God and His moral law as given in the Bible.
Ian, would you just confirm that you are an avowed atheist please?
And would you please state your firm belief that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, or for the existence of a spiritual realm of reality?
You recognise only the reality of the material world, which you can see and touch, is it not so?
The reason I ask is because I think you ought to state the fundamental premise for your entire way of thinking: you are an atheist and a humanist.
The big problem you have is that when somebody such as yourself is in complete denial of the most fundamental principles and realities of human existence and the human condition, he is incapable of accepting sound reason.
Hence for example why you think two blokes can get married. Hence why you think botty-licking, sodomy and so on are perfectly normal behaviour. Your delusional basic stance explains why you hold all of the completely potty social views you do (and of which there are many).
I’d just like you to indulge me Ian and answer the simple question: Are you an atheist? Yes or No.
My intention is not to kick off a Christian versus Atheist debate with you about Creation/Evolution etc as I don’t have the time for it, I simply want you to publicly confirm that you completely deny God.
this is interesting reading,
http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/magazines/2008/jan-feb/the-plain-truth-about-homosexuality.
Which part of your moral code Richard allows you to:
A) threaten people on your blog
B) publish hardcore pornographic short stories in your blog comments
C) impersonate people – Roxy anyone?
D) publish pornographic pictures on you blog
E) stalk young women
Etc.
It’s a case of “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Article 9, paragraph 4, clauses IV to XIII.
Keep trying Foggy, but it’ll get you nowhere.
“…but it’ll get you nowhere.” the same as your MP dreams then.
You’re a hypocrite for all to see.
You’re the one expending your time and energy on a rather ridiculous blog devoted to discrediting somebody you say has no chance anyway. Stupid or what?
You don’t need discrediting by me. You do a fantastic job yourself by throwing your arms up in disgust about pornography then posting depraved filth on your blog, threatening people (including me) but then claim to be a good Christian.
It does not add up.
It looks very, very silly.
Try googling yourself – there’s not much positive thoughts about your work is there?
Can’t you see how tremendously ridiculous you look?
I’m just a workaholic who likes to point out your stupidity using my own stupidity. It seems that any fool can get on the internet nowadays – even me. See, I can admit that it’s stupid. Shame you have no humility whatsoever.
Anyway, I’d love to chat but my inbox is overflowing, business is good and quite honestly life is good too (apart from the number of hours I work.)
Love, kisses, hugs etc.
Goodnight.
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay-groups-get-10-times-more-cash-from-scots-govt/
Hmmm. Very interesting.
I’m still waiting for answers Richard.
How can you call yourself a Christian but threaten people, post hardcore pornography on your blog and impersonate people on the internet for your own means?