After thirteen years of New Labour mismanagement (to put it mildly), what are you hoping for when Dave becomes Prime Minister in a couple of months’ time?
A referendum on the Lisbon Treaty? Forget it. A more sensible relationship with our EU ‘partners’? Not very likely. A better NHS? Schools that educate rather than indoctrinate? A rejection of the climate change scam?
Sorry, but I think you’ll be as disappointed as me when none of these things fails to materialise. New Labour still blames all and sundry on eighteen years of Tory rule, and as long as the Tories stay in power (if indeed they win this time), they will be blaming New Labour for ever. They have good reason, but as we increasingly live in a blame ‘culture’ rather than one where responsibility is the norm, they need to change this lazy attitude if anything good is going to happen with the next regime.
I say regime, because after reading Nick Herbert’s speech at the Cato Institute in Washington DC, the Party is clearly going to be another nightmare of false equality and oppression. Here are some snippets from the speech by the openly homosexual Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. See if you can spot the similarities with New Labour…
So can promoting equality for gay people be compatible with conservatism?
In discussing this I’m going to take three things as given. And if they’re contentious, they shouldn’t be.
Well, let’s find out.
First, since – on the most conservative estimates – around 5 per cent of the population are attracted to the same sex, there are more than 3 million gay people in the UK and 15 million in the United States.
This is contentious straight from the off. I understand that the figure is nearer 2%, but at least he isn’t using Kinsey’s fraudulent 10%.
People often speak of gays as though we are a society apart from the rest, living in our own quarter.
And a few choose to be apart.
But most of us don’t.
We live in every city and town.
We are businessmen and women.
We run shops and stack shelves.
We labour on farms and in factories.
We are fire fighters and police officers.
We save lives in hospitals.
We fight for our countries and sometimes we die for our countries.
Some of us are extraordinary, but mostly we are quietly ordinary.
We are not different. And we don’t want to be different.
We’re not asking for special treatment.
Oh, but you are. Such special treatment, in fact, that the English language is being rewritten for you.
The word ‘marriage’ for example. It means the joining together of man and woman. Always has. Apologists for homosexuality often mention ancient Greece or Rome in an attempt to try and justify this behaviour in a civilised society. This homosexuality was often acted out as pederasty.
Twentieth century historian Foucault declared that pederasty was “problematized” in Greek culture, that it was “the object of a special — and especially intense — moral preoccupation” focusing on concern with the chastity/moderation of the erōmenos (the term used for the “beloved” youth). In Classical times there appears a note of concern that the institution of pederasty might give rise to a morbid condition, adult homosexuality, that today’s eromenos may become tomorrow’s kinaidos, (defined as the passive or “penetrated” partner).
Second, we can’t be uninvented. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice. Our sexuality is a fact. It may be repressed, but it cannot be changed.
This is a barefaced lie. Enough said.
Doctors don’t try to change a person’s colour.
And healers or politicians shouldn’t try to change anyone’s sexuality.
He is using the same old technique of comparing apples with oranges.
Whether it is given by god, or set by nature, homosexuality isn’t nurtured by doting mothers or weak fathers.
A comment left by ‘Len’ on Cranmer’s blog explains how the Almighty could give someone over to homosexual lust.
I think one of the most frightening things is the words in the bible “God gave them up”.
The Scriptures indicate that when a person engages in homosexuality it is an indication they are under God’s judgment. The judgment is described as, “God gave them up.” This happens when a person is in deep rebellion against God. This rebellion manifests itself in homosexuality which would then cause God to give them over to this act. They can be sealed into homosexuality.
A homosexual can repent and trust Jesus Christ as Savior just like any other sinner; however, those that are in deep rebellion against God and not just caught in the power of this sin are given over to it. There is a huge difference between being under the power of sin and being given over to it in judgment by God. A homosexual that is not a reprobate is one that knows the act is wrong and is under condemnation.
There are numbers of homosexuals who are not reprobates as they struggle against this iniquity. There is hope for them in the saving gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. The gospel of Jesus Christ has more power than the lust of homosexuality or any other iniquity!
The reprobate has lost any conviction that the act is sinful. The conscience of a reprobate is dead to God’s conviction of sin. When someone is given over to homosexuality, they have what the Bible calls a reprobate mind. This mind is devoid of God and His word. The Greek word reprobate means unapproved, rejected,worthless.It is also translated castaway and rejected.
This is an unprecedented time in history. The acceptance of fornication/homosexuality is actually being preached from pulpits and by politicians. Homosexuals are standing boldly in pulpits pretending to be preachers of righteousness. They are deceiving and being deceived. God never changed His position on fornication.
Those that practice this sin will not inherit the kingdom of God contrary to what false teachers may say from the pulpits. The Bible is the final authority not false teachers. The Lord Jesus said His word is the final authority:
“He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” John 12:48
This is the reason some people struggle to overcome their sinful lust and others do not.
When Nick Herbert says,
It isn’t a condition to be cured and it can’t be willed away through prayer.
He is also lying.
Third, democracies should subscribe to a fundamental principle: that ‘all men are created equal’.
Some claim that the promotion of gay equality has no place in conservatism. In fact, many deny that conservatives should be interested in the equality agenda at all.
Walk down Real Street with me here. How, in 2010, are homosexuals still unequal? Apart from when it comes to getting ‘married’ to each other, which as I have said, is not inequality, because of the word’s actual meaning.
It is argued that equality is incompatible with liberty … that if men are free, they are bound to become unequal.
Something sensible, at last.
But conservatives who want people to become better through their own efforts can never stand by while others are denied that chance.
And who does homosexuality hinder these days? When there is a clash of interests, what we usually see is the man or woman of conscience being victimised.
Conservatives should always believe that everyone should have an equal chance in life, regardless of any other factors, and that they should not be discriminated against.
This makes no sense, because there are always other factors in all our lives. What Mr Herbert is thus calling for are New Labour-style enforcements that persecute, demean and dumb-down the majority in order that, in their view, nobody feels ‘left out’.
As Robert Levy, the Chairman of this Institute, has recently written:
“Thomas Jefferson set the stage in the Declaration of Independence: ‘[T]o secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men.’ The primary purpose of government is to safeguard individual rights and prevent some persons from harming others. Heterosexuals should not be treated preferentially when the state carries out that role. And no one is harmed by the union of two consenting gay people.”
Again he is wrong. History shows how hedonism kills off civilisations.
Today I want to explain why I believe that conservatism is not only entirely compatible with the principle of equality between gay and straight people …
… but that such equality is in fact an essential element of modern conservatism.
Except for the gigantic problem: the elephant in the room, that when people behave in a certain way, their behaviour influences society and others have a right to think and behave differently, even chastise them for what they do.
I want to explain how David Cameron has re-shaped the Conservative Party in the UK.
How we have developed a progressive conservative agenda, to secure important social objectives through conservative means.
Oh dear! There’s New Labour’s favourite word: progressive. What does it mean today?
How we have made a commitment to the vital institution of marriage a central part of our programme.
And how we believe that this institution is strengthened, not weakened, by extending its ambit to same sex relationships.
The original militant homosexual activists deliberately set out to destroy marriage because they saw it as the only way they could ever achieve ‘equality’. You are either for marriage or for homosexuality, i.e. against marriage and normal family relationships.
Ergo, the Tory party is now anti-family by furthering the homosexual agenda.
But I can tell you what happens to a party when it closes the door to sections of our society and is reduced to its core vote. It’s no fun being in opposition for thirteen years.
And I can tell you what happens when a Party opens its doors again and broadens its appeal.
A successful political party should be open to all and ought to look something like the country it seeks to govern.
Hence our Dave being Everyman (and No Man).
In recent history the Conservative Party in Parliament reflected only a section of our society – male, white, professional, grey-suited and straight.
Ah yes, more stereotypes. Some people would have us think that the poor women under the Tories were chained to the kitchen sink.
At the last election, of our 193 MPs elected, just 17 were women, only two black or minority ethnic and two were openly gay.
If we were truly representative of the country we would have 99 women, 16 black or minority ethnic and 10 gay MPs.
So our party leadership recognised the need to change.
Change because we are a national party which needs to be able to speak to, and speak up for, all sections of society in all parts of the country…
We now have more female candidates, more black and minority ethnic candidates and more gay candidates.
He seems to be saying that politicians are so inherently racist, sexist and ‘homophobic’ that the mix in Parliament has to be just right to reflect society. To demonstrate how much of a nonsense this is, even if you take Herbert’s 5% figure for homosexuals, it requires a massive support from the 95% of heterosexuals to take their agenda anywhere.
I led our Party’s support for a new law to prevent the incitement of hatred against gay people – subject to our concern that temperate comment should not be criminalised.
The Tories will allow us temperate comment. How very kind of them. Being furious or even mildly annoyed will be a crime then?
And our Party Leader, David Cameron, has publicly apologised for Section 28 …
Of course he has. The momentum of New Labour’s agenda must be kept up.
We needed to say sorry for a stance that was wrong.
It was wrong to protect children from having homosexuality promoted to them?
And we showed that as a Party we were willing to admit mistakes and set a new course.
No, you have shown you are prepared to abandon your principles for votes.
The importance of marriage
In his first speech to the Conservative Conference as Leader of the Party – a major event which brings together party activists from across the country – David Cameron said something extraordinary.
Defying the critics who claimed that party leaders could no longer express a moral preference for the institution, he spoke of the importance of commitment and marriage as the bedrock of our society.
But then he added: “and by the way, it means something whether you’re a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man.”
And when he said these words, the delegates applauded. Not a half-hearted ripple of applause, but a spontaneous burst of approbation.
At that moment, we knew that the Conservative Party and British politics had changed.
Yes. Then we knew there really was no difference between New Labour and Tory.
I appreciate the view held by some, on a strict reading of their faith, that marriage is a unique arrangement which is only available to a man and a woman.
It is not a strict reading, it is clear and obvious from scripture, nature and common sense.
And we should never dictate to religious organisations who are doing no harm that they should, in their own rites or places of worship, depart from their sincerely-held beliefs.
“Doing no harm?” Let me guess. Keeping your faith to yourself and shutting the heck up at all other times. And let the state brainwash your children.
And why stand against the extension of a civil institution which demands a public declaration of commitment and stability?
Those who argue against legal recognition for gay partnerships often claim that many gay people have promiscuous lifestyles.
Which makes the whole idea of homosexual ‘marriage’ even more ridiculous and pointless than it is already.
But there are few social incentives of the kind which conservatives should naturally embrace for gay people to embrace commitment.
There’s little social support …
… no institutions to encourage fidelity or monogamy …
… and precious little religious or moral outreach to guide gay people into what may be seen as more virtuous living.
Can you believe this? Homosexual behaviour is by nature immoral. The religious or moral outreach comes in the shape of inviting sinners to repent.
So it’s right to recognise commitment in gay partnerships.
In the same way, we should reject discrimination against gay couples who wish to adopt.
So, after admitting that homosexuals tend to be promiscuous, he thinks it is discrimination to reject their applications to adopt.
This shows why the modern warped notions of equality cannot and will not produce a happy, successful society. Not everyone is equal under every circumstance. This is a fact.
I believe that the best parental arrangements are represented by a good father and a good mother, and children should never be treated as some kind of high value consumer good.
But this ideal of a loving and present father and mother is often not realised. So we should not seek to prevent adoption by same-sex couples who may offer a love and stability that is absent from too many homes.
Stability is one of the problems though, isn’t it? And the loony left has for years manufactured a shortage of married couples considered suitable for adoption by making rules that are almost impossible to work with. It has resulted in couples being refused children on such spurious grounds as, they go to church or have too many books.
Society has been turned back to front. After so much conditioning, millions of people see homosexuality as good and normal and going to church as something to be suspicious and frightened of.
Surely an oxymoron?
I don’t believe that conservatism should be a closed membership club.
We must be open to everyone because we believe that everyone should have a chance.
By everyone, he means homosexuals, of course, but by saying ‘everyone’ he makes it sound more ‘inclusive’.
Consensus on gay issues
In the UK, all three major political parties are now assuring gay people that it’s safe to vote for them.
Typically, far from taking pleasure in this new consensus, the Left has greeted it with dismay.
For over a decade they have sought to build a client state, where groups are beholden to their generosity.
And now they want to open up ‘clear pink water’ between themselves and the Conservative Party.
There’s an election coming, and it suits our opponents to argue that we haven’t changed.
But we self-evidently have changed. I suppose, in a small way, my presence here is evidence of that.
The truth is that there are millions of people who we drove away but who share our values and want to join us.
Gay people are not the property of the Left, or of any party.
They are not an interest group or a political commodity to be traded.
They are not vessels for votes.
Gay people are motivated by the same issues as any other voter.
Judging by the comments left on the Pink News website, homosexuals care primarily about a party’s loyalty to the tribe.
Moving the agenda forward
Read: making you accept homosexuality until you burst.
For the modern Conservative Party, embracing gay equality is neither a temporary phenomenon, nor an agenda which can be reversed.
We know that we have further to go to modernise our Party
If we form the next government, we intend to entrench the progress made on gay equality, and to move the agenda forward.
Entrench. That means forcing us all to comply.
If there is a need for new laws, we will consider them.
That’s because you’re no better than New Labour. How many new laws will there be under the Tories’ miserable rule?
But we will also understand where we should give a lead, and where there is a need for law.
Conservatives should never leap to legislate.
So we will show leadership in demanding action to tackle homophobic abuse in sport, where behaviour and role models can exert such a powerful influence on young people …
… as we should demand action against all abusive behaviour on the playing fields.
We will take the strongest stand against the homophobic bullying of children in schools …
… as we should take a stand against all bullying – and we will not allow our support for faith schools to undermine that stand.
We will insist on action against hate crime where gay people are the victims …
… as we should insist on action against all hate crime which incites fear and violence.
Basically, faith schools are evil and devisive (even though they are better at promoting community cohesion, but why bother with facts), ‘hate’ crimes are worse than any other crimes and ‘homophobic’ bulling is the only sort that exists.
We know all this already.
When I was born in 1963, homosexual conduct was a crime.
It still is a crime against nature.
The Tory party is no longer conservative. If you really are going to vote for them, prepare to have to put up with New Labour all over again.