Off to the gulag to cure your disease…

Gulag Britain

Frank Davis teases us with the statement, Smoking Is A Disease, and gives some opinions of those allegedly in the know. He then presents his own very valid points,

But I think that to claim that smoking is a disease is to twist and deform language.

And if smoking is a disease, then what other behaviour might not also be described as a disease? Why not Drinking Is A Disease? Or Eating Fast Food Is A Disease? Or Reading The Daily Telegraph Is A Disease? Or Voting Conservative Is A Disease? Once smoking is classed as a disease, then any behaviour that might be construed to be compulsive or addictive can also be called a disease, and clinics and therapies set up to treat the patients.

And, in fact, this is exactly what is happening. It’s not just smoking, but it’s also drinking and over-eating. Why not reading the Telegraph, and voting Conservative?

Dissent becomes disease. And exactly this happened with dissidents in the late Soviet Union. They were sent to mental institutions, and injected with drugs in an attempt to “cure” them.

In our new version of the Soviet Union, it’s not just a few dissidents here and there who are incarcerated in lunatic asylums, but entire social groups. No need for closed institutions. Our towns and cities have become open prisons in which social groups like smokers and drinkers and fat people are subjected to continuous assault and harassment.

If we are to be made truly equal then we must all be made the same: think the same; do the same; earn the same. It’s communism, isn’t it? If we cannot be made the same through legislation and fear then we must be told we have something wrong with us. The good news is that we can be “cured” and then be considered “normal.” If we don’t present ourselves for “treatment” we can always be sectioned under the Mental Health Act and forced to be cured.

For some time now, the idea that shyness is an illness which should be treated, has been doing the rounds. In 2008 the BBC asked, Is being shy an illness?

Most of us are shy to some degree, but acute shyness is one of the most under-recognised mental health problems of the modern age, say some. So when is being shy an illness?

Like a great many people, shyness has been one of my bugbears over the years. Perhaps I should have been offered this “therapy”:

Walking down a busy high street with your cheeks painted like a clown isn’t normal behaviour for most people. But it’s precisely what is being prescribed for one group of people who desperately want to feel more normal.

Whatever floats your boat, I suppose. But what is “normal?” Are normal children the ones who insist on designer trainers? The young girls who are allowed to dress like the anorexic whores produced for them by the music industry? Are they normal? Or the foul-mouthed boys whose “role models” are rappers?

Is everyone else is a “square?”

When I was at primary school, many, if not most, of the boys (and some of the girls) collected stamps. I expect any self-respecting kid would keep this hobby a deadly secret these days. I don’t know any child who collects stamps today, not even the ones I know from church. I found it was a great way to find out about the world. Stamps teach you about geography, history, fauna and flora, famous people, not to mention more technical subjects like the various printing processes which have been used through the years. I still remember the year Shakespeare was born because the 400th anniversary of his birth was commemorated in a set of five stamps issued in 1964. Okay, I was involved in the stamp trade in one way or another between 1982 and 1991, but the fact is that it is an effective teaching tool and probably one reason it has lost favour.

Despite having been able to do things which others cannot, like tackling politicians and speaking in a packed church, I am shy. I would prefer not to be, given the choice, but a disease? Why can’t people just be different? Smokers and non-smokers, fat people and thin people (and even those who have the “correct” body mass index), the extraverted and introverted – all living in perfect harmony, like it used to be, more-or-less.

But harmony never was the point of political correctness and other government interference. Division and control is the agenda (division for control).

It’s when children are being used and damaged that especially angers me. The Telegraph reported last week that,

Children are being prescribed mind-altering “chemical cosh” drugs for conditions such as shyness and mild social anxiety, behaviour experts have warned.

So it isn’t just the children with seriously bad behaviour who are being drugged up,

Speaking to the Times Educational Supplement, Mr Traxson there was growing use of drugs to treat conditions such as shyness.

According to latest figures from the NHS, some 650,000 children aged eight to 13 are now on drugs such as Ritalin, which is used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

It represents a seven-fold increase on the 92,700 pupils put on drugs in 1997 and it compared with just 9,000 children given prescriptions in 1990.

But Mr Traxson claimed that medication was only helpful in around one-in-five cases.

What has gone so badly wrong?

Have parenting skills declined that much? Certainly, the family unit has been under fierce attack. This “equality” has meant women leaving their young children so they can have a “career,” usually sat at a checkout/sewing machine/word processor, while the kids are being looked after (to one degree or another) by a private company or the state. The “sexual revolution” started with the controlled music and film industries and has been promoted by government and now brought us to the place where it is thought that the majority of children of British mothers are now born out of wedlock.

Where are children getting their a) learning, b) morals and manners and c) beliefs from these days?

The nurseries, schools and universities – and television – i.e. largely the State.

The State has become, as intended, a surrogate parent. A very bad one. One that teaches lies, doesn’t discipline and doesn’t prepare youngsters to be strong and independent adults.

The most important thing is that the umbilical cord is never cut.

Children are being moulded to be model citizens: to accept their own enslavement, to have sex where there is no love or commitment and constantly worry about whether they are “normal” – in fact, worry about everything, which is perhaps the main reason British children are reckoned to be the unhappiest in the Western World.

This is very strange when we consider how much of this social engineering has been done for the cheeeldren.

Can we all agree that it is obviously more than a conspiracy theory that the traditional family has been under malicious attack because it provides the basis of a free and civilised wider society?

And what about the conscience? Even this can be diseased nowadays, apparently. Bizarrely, if your “moral compass” isn’t working very well, you might, for example, be given a seat in the House of Lords and a place in the Cabinet. You might “earn” many millions of pounds as “socialist” politicians. And a very corrupt conscience is a prerequisite to being Prime Minister these days.

And what disease would you attribute to Jacqui Smith – the former Home Secretary whose expenses paid for her husband’s blue movies – after agreeing to present a Radio 5 Live documentary called Porn Again?

On the other hand, people who do care about decency and morals and have integrity (surely a mental condition in itself these days as it is so at odds with this Brave New World) are increasingly being seen as abnormal, even though what they believe was mainstream as little as five or ten years ago.

Same sex attraction was a mental illness up until the 1970s. I think it is fair to say that pressure from militant homosexual groups rather than genuine new medical insight was the reason it was taken off the list of psychiatric conditions, but then we live in an age where evidence is carefully selected or fabricated to support the agenda being promoted, such as we see with second/third hand smoking and manmade climate change.

People like Peter and Hazelmary Bull and Francis and Susanne Wilkinson believe in traditional sexual ethics. They also run bed and breakfast establishments from their homes. An explosive combination these days. Two men or two women are welcome to stay, but in separate beds. Double beds are reserved for married couples.

But, they are now forbidden by law to have traditional moral standards – on their own property. The Bulls were fined £3,600 last week for refusing a double bed to Stonewall members Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy.

Who has the disease in this case? The Bulls, for having the integrity to maintain their standards, or Messrs Hall and Preddy, for taking an elderly couple to court because they want the right to act as they see fit on someone else’s premises?

Look at it this way. Most people can quickly recover from the trauma of being deprived of a double bed for a couple of days, however a compromised conscience can scar a person for years – maybe even a lifetime. Perhaps some people are too carnally-inclined to understand this – or too self-absorbed and “proud” to care.

It is heartening to see that a lot of people support the Bulls in this case because of the sheer unfairness of it, and the implications to everybody’s freedom generally.

However, the bottom line for many people is that the Bulls were breaking the law and it seems like they were. “It’s the law of the land and they broke it. They deserve to be punished.”

If people were consistent they would accept that in many other countries same-sex behaviour is against the law. Of course, homosexuals don’t have the same reverence for laws they don’t agree with.

The media seem to be presenting this as a “Christians vs Gays” battle, but it is so much more than this. It is about freedom of conscience, freedom of association and property rights. The government and the courts are saying that we don’t have these most fundamental rights and freedoms anymore.

This is so important it is worth repeating: The government and the courts are saying that we don’t have these most fundamental rights and freedoms anymore.

But apologists for the Establishment will equate refusal to give homosexuals a double bed with putting up a sign saying, “No blacks. No Irish.”

I don’t know if they genuinely believe they are the same thing or just hope to get away with making an unhelpful comparison. And what do black and Irish people think always to be associated with ‘gays’ when they tend to be as much against their behaviour and propaganda as anyone else?

But I think it’s like Frank was saying when dissent becomes disease. Some of us are dissenting and a lot of people don’t seem to know how to cope with this. Apparently, the Bulls are also now victims of a wider hate campaign on the internet, with bogus reviews appearing on travel websites from people who claimed to stay at their B&B over the winter, when they were closed.

And despite Mr Bull recovering from major heart surgery and despite being found “guilty” in court, they are being inundated by requests from homosexuals for double rooms.

I know who I think are the ones with mental illness. I believe the original diagnosis was right all along.

Homosexuals try to justify their sexual behaviour by the standards of animals – not that animals have standards.  I am not saying this to be unkind, but this is no argument for a rational person to try to make. Nobody else seems to.

Beliefs like the Bulls and myself and many others have must be eradicated in the quest to remove all personal freedom in the name of equality. It has reached very serious and sinister levels when you read that children are to have homosexuality and bisexuality promoted to them in geography, English and science lessons.

Do you remember when Labour abandoned Section 28 and we were assured that it wouldn’t lead to homosexuality being promoted in schools?

Who was mad enough to believe them? Not the seven out of eight Scots who voted to keep the Clause.

Were they all mentally ill, the majority who voted to keep the protection?

No, not mentally ill, just not toeing the line; not conforming fast enough, but there were plenty of quangos, fakecharities, publishers and broadcasters to change the nation’s perceptions and realign people’s “moral compasses” to point due south. I’m sure if this same poll were conducted today, there would be far less support for Section 28. Not because there is more tolerance in society now compared with 2000 because there is clearly less, but due to the success of social engineering.

The “gays” might think they are winning battles. The anti-smokers might too. The anti-fat, salt and sugar brigade too, and so on. What they are achieving is the replacement of personal responsibility, conscience and freedom with group think. If you are outside of that there is something wrong with you and nobody is going to come to your aid as you are carted off to a gulag – a corrective labour camp – until you are “well.”

If you swallow the poison of political correctness, you will get sick.

But in this age where everything has been turned on its head, it’s those of us who haven’t been poisoned, or who are taking the antidote: de-programming themselves, who are the diseased.

You just want to live a peaceful life according to your values? No can do – the State doesn’t own you then.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Off to the gulag to cure your disease…

  1. Furor Teutonicus says:

    The Commy turds even have a name for this desease. Any one who even HINTS at returning to “old” values is, in Germany at least (We are talking Bismarck, NOT hitlers “old” valus) are immediately painted as “Rechts-populisten”, which is also immeditely equated with “Rechtsextremismus – “neo-nazi”.,0,0,Rechtspopulismus.html It is in German, but the relevant “links” are clear to see, although the definitions are…questionable. Andi, in English;

    These are the names pasted onto any person desiring Family and moral values, a justice system that does JUSTICE, and have pride in their National identity. (Note, you do not have to even MENTION race/immigration for this “honour”!)

    Once “pasted”, you may as well try and convince your doctor that having once walked past a pub does NOT make you an alkky, nor can your five cigars per month be blamed for your present atheletes foot, as to get a sensible conversation/Radio-T.V appearence, etc.

  2. len says:

    The moral value systems of our Society are being overturned.We were once a Christian Nation but we are only that nominally now.Man instead of aspiring to God`s law and moral standards has now downgraded morality to line up with his fallen nature.
    What we are seeing now is the rebuilding of the’ Empire of Man.’………..Babylon.
    It will not last because man`s fallen nature has inbuilt in it the seeds of its own destruction. Until man wakes up to his true spiritual condition and realises the predicament he is ,in and who the ‘puppetmaster ‘is , in effect who is pulling the strings, he will remain in the dark.

    The ONLY hope for mankind is the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

  3. Vee says:

    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.

    For the full story –

  4. David Skinner says:

    Dear Friends , please would you please sign this petition and, if you think it right, to disseminate it to as many people as you can?
    Beyond Equality, Tolerance, Non discrimination, Inclusion and Diversity to …………..Totalitarianism .



    Peter and Hazelmary Bull, who, until recently ran a Christian bed and breakfast business in their family home in Cornwall, have been ordered to pay £3,600 to two “gay” men, Martyn Hall and Stephen Preddy for refusing them permission to simulate marriage acts, albeit using sodomy in their double beds. They also face financial ruin, the closure of their business and the loss of the home. It is alleged that Mr and Mrs Bull have contravened the Sexual Orientation Regulations (2007) that outlaw discrimination in the provision of good and services on the grounds of sexual orientation. It must be noted, however, that the Bulls have a policy that denies anyone a double bed who is not married, whether gay or straight.

    What the Bulls are actually guilty of is not sexual discrimination, because those who identify themselves as homosexuals are welcome in their home. In refusing a double bed to all, but those who are married according to the definition laid down in the Bible, two thousand years of Christian teaching and currant law, the Bulls are only guilty of gender discrimination. But there is no law stating that it is a criminal offence to discriminate in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of gender. If that were such a law, girls and boys, men and woman would be forced to share the same public showers and changing rooms. Hospitals would be forced to open mixed wards again and Clothing manufacturers would only be allowed to produce unisex clothes. Gender differentiation would be completely banned

    The Bulls make no enquiry into the sexual proclivities, leanings, tastes or appetites of those who sleep in their double beds; they can, for all the Bulls know, have a yearning for all kinds of strange flesh and material. All that the Bulls demand is that the occupants of their double beds are one man and one woman married to one another, forsaking all others until death parts them (not a man and man, a woman and woman, four women and two men, a brother and sister, a grandmother and grandson, a man and dog, a man and his lesbian bicycle, or a goat and a welsh transdresser). This definition of marriage has not changed – unless there is something the present government and judiciary are unaware of but which the judge, Andrew Rutherford is aware.

    Mr Martyn Hall and Stephen Preddy, urged on by the gay liberation lobby, Stonewall and the gay centred Equality and Human Rights Commission, argue that the civil partnership in which they presently live and move and breath is identical to that of marriage . Indeed Andrew Rutherford, who judged the case at Bristol Crown Court has said as much. So why is there still a huge demand from gay liberationists, like Peter Tatchell, demanding gay marriage if they have already achieved it. ?



    We are told that if gay sexual relationships are given marital status, then it will become optional for churches to either give or withhold wedding services. But this is not the way history runs. What begins as a permission soon becomes a right and a legally backed demand.

    Promises designed to allay our concerns, since 1960 have been broken at every stage. We have learnt from experience that there are no exceptions, no tolerance for dissenters. There will be no room for discretion, no opportunity for people to live according to Christian or traditional values. We will have no choice.

    Unless churches are willing to perform what in their eyes are abominations, gay marriages, they, like Mr and Mrs Bull’s bed and breakfast business and Catholic adoption agencies , will be shut down.


    I am yours in

    Christ Jesus

    David Skinner

  5. David Skinner says:

    Beyond Equality, Tolerance, Non discrimination, Inclusion and Diversity to Totalitarianism .
    Starts at 42’ 25 seconds


    Peter and Hazelmary Bull, an elderly couple, who, until recently ran a Christian bed and breakfast business in Cornwall, have been ordered to pay £3,600 to two gay men, Martyn Hall and Stephen Preddy for refusing them permission to perform, under their family roof, what many consider to be an unnatural sexual act, in an unnatural relationship, outside the normal relationship called marriage.

    It is alleged that, by refusing the two men the hire of one item of goods and services, namely one double bed, Mr and Mrs Bull had contravened the Sexual Orientation Regulations [(2007), otherwise known appropriately as the SORs] that “Outlaw Discrimination in the Provision of Goods and Services on the grounds of Sexual Orientation”. There were, however, plenty of other gay friendly double beds available in Cornwall, hundreds of them, but Martyn and Stephen wanted theirs and, as it transpired, much, much more, for it was the route into all our beds and the most intimate part of family life in Britain


    Martyn Hall and Stephen Preddy claim that their civil partnership carries the same legal and social recognition as real marriage, since, in their view, the latter is just as much a man made institution as their civil partnership and can therefore be changed and taylor – made to fit the requirements of the partners.

    But the essential nature of marriage, that makes no biological, emotional or spiritual provision for homosexual or lesbian acts has not changed, cannot change, for it is not a man made institution – not in two thousand years, not since the first man walked this Earth. Yes, there might slight differences due to cultural and religious considerations , but in essence they are uniformly the same. As the birth of new life manifests itself into male and female constituent parts is not a human invention, so the re – uniting of these divided complementary parts to form one new flesh, which in turn has the potential to create more male and female life, is also not a human invention but a part of the created order, which not even divorce can terminate.

    The Bulls acknowledge God’s created order and have a policy that denies any couple a double bed who are not married to one another, no matter what their orientation, gay or straight. This is not some kind of eccentric rule made up arbitrarily by the Bulls but has been universally recognised for thousands of years, The Marxist elites, however, who, have our nation in thrall, are determined to re – engineer the most intimate parts of family life by appropriating, changing and then finally discard marriage.

    Mr and Mrs Bull face financial ruin, the closure of their business and the loss of the home. In addition, they have had to endure a level of hatred and obscenities from the gay community that defies belief in a once civilised country; all this whilst Mrs Bull has to cope with the anxiety of her husband, aged 71, who is recovering from a triple heart bypass. The case against Mr and Mrs Bull was funded by the tax payer. The public is paying, out of its own pocket not only for the destruction of this Christian couple, but for that of the most intimate and fragile building block of society: marriage and the family. Like a magnifying lens, the forces of destruction seem to have been focused on this elderly and frail couple. The human right to be able to live in fair, tolerant, non- discriminatory and progressive society is be enjoyed equally by all, unless that is one is a Christian; In which case one has no rights.

    Even if Mr and Mrs Bull were guilty of having fallen foul of the SORs, how many hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of us going about our daily lives, are unaware that if we if we have not signed up to gay diversity regulations then we too have no rights? The cases of unsuspecting, law abiding, responsible and caring citizens, almost uniformly Christian, who start out at the beginning of each day, expecting to serve in making their community a more secure, stable, cohesive and healthy society, only to have the ground open up and swallow them in the black hole of political correctness, is growing daily.

    With gay ideology there is no mercy, no exemption and no tolerance.


    But the Bulls are not guilty of sexual discrimination, because homosexuals are welcome in their home: they offer them single beds but not double ones. What the Bulls are guilt of is gender discrimination. But there is no law stating that it is a civil offence to discriminate – either negatively or positively – in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of gender. If that were the case, girls and boys, men and woman, in the public space, would be forced to share the same public showers and changing rooms. Clothing manufacturers would only be allowed to produce unisex clothes. Only in one case is it appropriate for a man and woman to be in intimate proximity and that is in the marriage bed. This is universally recognised and has been ever since time began.

    The Bulls make no enquiry into the sexual orientations or appetites of those who sleep in their double beds; they can, for all the Bulls know, have a yearning for all kinds of weird and wonderful flesh and material. All that the Bulls demand is that the occupants of their double beds are one man and one woman married to one another, forsaking all others until death parts them.

    In the view of the judge, however, Andrew Rutherford, who presided over the case of Mr and Mrs Bull and their Bed and Breakfast policy, there is no material difference between a civil partnership ( where the partners are the same gender) and marriage, but neither is there, or so it seems between trans sexual or transgender relationships and marriage. There is already existent, the marriage of the transsexual, Christine, (formerly Christopher) to her (his) wife, Joy Timbrell, that has been recognised by the Department of Work and Pensions .

    But surely if the judge Andrew Rutherford is right in equating civil partnerships and marriage as the same why is that gays like Peter Tatchell are still be demanding its official recognition? How come that judges are able to preempt the law, when there is no such legislation recognising gay or transsexual marriage?

    It is only in our own day when western civilisation, just like that of ancient Rome and Greece, appears to be in melt down that these boundaries and categories are being destroyed. Far from being signs of progress, they are the symptoms of the last phases of decay.


    We are told that if gay sexual relationships are given marital status, then it will become optional for churches to either give or withhold wedding services. But this is not the way history runs. What begins as a permission soon becomes a right and a legally backed demand.

    Promises designed to allay our concerns, since 1997, have been broken at every stage. We have learnt from experience that there are no exceptions, no tolerance for dissenters. There will be no room for discretion, no opportunity for people to live according to Christian or traditional values. We will have no choice.

    Unless churches are willing to perform gay marriages, they, like Mr and Mrs Bull’s bed and breakfast business and all the other agencies, institutions and charities, large and small, will disappear.

    With a case similar to that brought against Mr and Mrs Bull, two gays, Michael Black, 63, and John Morgan, 58, also in a civil partnership, are taking to court a Christian couple, Mr and Mrs Wilkinson, because they too refused them a double bed in their bed and breakfast which is also their home. The argument by one of the two gays is that it was wrong for Mr and Mrs Wilkinson to have gone into the bed and breakfast business in the first place. They compared this to a vegetarian complaining that he was dismissed from working in a meat factory because, after he had been given a job, he refused to participate in meat processing. In other words, since the Wolfenden report and the laws which issued as consequence in 1967 that stated “homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in private should no longer be a criminal offence” (and all the subsequent relaxation of laws surrounding homosexuality), no one any longer had a right to hold the view, especially the Biblical one, that there is anything wrong with homosexuality. In actual fact when the gay man compared the conflict between Christianity and gay ideology with the conflict between being a vegetarian and carnivore, he was closer to the truth than he thought. With the onset of puberty, sexual drives may well be shaped by the balance or lack of it during the emotional and psychological development of a child. But there are others in later life who acquire same sex desire , in the same way that others acquire a taste for certain foods.

    Indeed this usurping of our 2000 years of Christian values and traditions by gay ideology was foreseen as far back as the 1960s, when the laws against sodomy or buggery were repealed.
    With regard to the freedom to criticise homosexuality, Lord Monson, during a debate, on the 3rd March, 2008, in the House of Lords, recounted a previous debate, held, over fifty years ago, when the Wolfenden Report resulted in a relaxation of the homosexual laws. He said that there was a voice of disquiet then:

    “Yes, the Wolfenden proposals are all very well, but they are the thin end of the wedge. The pendulum is bound to swing too far in the other direction. Mark my words, before many years are out, they”—the more militant homosexuals and not, of course, the ordinary discreet sort—“will demand not merely toleration for their sexual activities—no problem about that—but positive respect, even admiration, for them”. ‘To which I (Lord Monson) replied, “Oh, come on. Nonsense. You’re being alarmist”. ‘With hindsight, I have to say that I was wrong and they were right.’

    We could also add to this the related issue of abortion. When David Steele introduced the Abortion Bill in 1967, as a means to save a mother’s life, he never envisioned a time when Britain would have destroyed nearly 7,000,000 babies at a current rate of 200,000 a year. After forty years he seems to have only just woken up to the nightmare of a genocide taking place on an industrial scale – that was of his designing.

    The vast majority of the British public are oblivious, as they go about their daily lives, stressed and distracted with a hundred and one pressures on their lives, to the fact that in 2008, the Labour government were going to wipe out with a single piece of legislation a fundament and priceless freedom that cost the lives of our ancestors, dearly, going back over a thousand years. I am referring to the freedom of speech, thought and conscience. The previous Labour government, dominated and controlled by homosexuals and their supporters, were going to force through legislation that would make it a criminal offence, carrying a sentence of up to seven years in prison, for even discussing homosexuality in a negative light. It was only with the tireless battle of a few peers, like Lord Waddington, who secured for the nation the inclusion of a free speech amendment inserted into the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, clause 58 that now forms section 29JA in the Public Order Act 1986 which reads as follows:

    “In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”

    Harriet Harman and other Labour ministers have vowed and declared that if ever they get back in power, they will wipe out at a stroke, these hard fought and democratically won freedoms.


    But what is that Mr and Mrs Bull and Mrs and Mrs Wilkinson have got against homosexuality apart from their supposed fundamental and bigoted religious prejudice?
    It is not just the disproportionate amount of physical, emotional, psychological, societal and dare I say spiritual harm that homosexuality causes, it is the fact that with the absence of the balancing effect of feminine influence on a male’s natural testosterone driven tendency towards promiscuity (homosexuals have far more partners that do lesbians), and the absence of all those moral constraints and governing influences, such as the instinct towards protecting one’s family, necessary for raising a stable, strong and secure family, then homosexual propagandists, like Tatchell will be free to act like drug pushers within society – urging men and women to cast aside all self control and inner restraints in order to feed their sexual addictions, resulting in all the misery of sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, unwanted pregnancies, violent sexual assaults, especially on the young and vulnerable and the inevitable destruction of marriages and family life.

    Oh yes, Tatchell claims not to have discarded morality completely. The three moral principles for him are 1) that sex between partners has to be consensual; 2) that it has to be enjoyable and 3) that it is safe!! But against whose value system does he judge whether something is consensual, enjoyable or safe, especially with regard to sado-masochism. Not so long ago the case of Armin Meiwes hit the headlines. Factors that guided him towards cannibalism were an absent father and a domineering mother.
    As for zoophilia and paedophilia, exponents of this such as Peter Singer use exactly the same principles of consensuality, mutual enjoyment and harmlessness.

    Like Lot in the city of Sodom, Christians running bed and breakfasts, hotels, and residential centres will either be forced to endure the spectacle of adultery, fornication and sexual perversions taking place under their own roof or shut for good.


    And this brings me to another statement made by the critics of those who refuse to provide goods and services to gay people, on the grounds of health and safety ( as with the National Blood Service), public morality and truth. They say that if one is offering a service in the public domain, then the SORs are absolute. But though it is not specifically mentioned in the regulations, the provision of goods and services takes place not just in the commercial world but also in the private and intimate world of the family. Parenting is all about providing goods and services to children and if a parent is deemed to be denying their child’s right to gay ideology and gay behaviour, it is likely that their children will be put in care and the parents could go to prison.

    The Christians faith will be something lived in one’s head but not outside one’s body.


    As indicated there are many issues here, least of which is the threat to truth itself. We are no longer allowed to debate or reason on the subject of homosexuality but expected to bow, mutely and unquestioningly to gay propaganda . Dissenters are silenced through being accused of being homophobic and thus sent off fore processing and diversity training. If that doesn’t work these are followed by public humiliation , fines, harassment by the police, sackings, have one’s businesses closed down, being dragged into court, have one’s children removed from the family home and finally the threat of prison.

    The Bulls hold to deeply held Christian convictions, which is why they refused the two men a bed. Not because they were homophobic but simply because the Bible says that only a man a women who are married are permitted to share a bed and presumably have sex.

    This belief is not held by a small cult, an archaic cultural eccentricity but is common to most of the worlds great religions, whose adherents when added up come to 84% of the world’s population . Atheists, humanists and secularists who would claim that they are not religious come to 16% and no doubt even a proportion of these would think that marriage between and man and women was the rightful context for sex. So when people say that people who take the Bible seriously in this country are a tiny minority, this arrogant and presumptive lie, with respect to the global scale, has to be robustly refuted.

    The religious freedom to think, speak and act is enshrined in the European charter of Human Rights which says.

    Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
    1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
    2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others ( such as gays).

    However the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion has to balanced against the rights of others on the grounds of gender, race, age, disability colour, language, national or social origin, and sexual orientations.

    The first obstacle for the Christian is the apparent conflict between religion and all the other protected characteristics. Characteristics defined by faith such as religion are deemed to be subjective and therefore do not carry as much weight as those defined by science, such a race, age and gender which are deemed to be objective and absolute

    Homosexuality is deemed to be immutable and comparable to being ginger haired or black, but this is a false comparison. A man might think and experience himself to be all kinds of things such as being a homosexual, the Queen of Sheba or a teapot, but unless we can put him a laboratory and measure his homosexual or teapot characteristics scientifically, we must assume that this reality exists only in his head.

    And on and on and on and on …….

  6. Stewart Cowan says:

    Furor Teutonicus,

    I’m sure the EU wants to ensure the same anti-freedom doctrine is in force throught the Fourth Reich.

    Sad to learn the MSM is just as controlled over there.

  7. Stewart Cowan says:


    I would say that the wheat and tares are almost ripe for the harvest (Matthew 13).

  8. Frank Davis says:

    Thanks for the link. :-)

  9. Stewart Cowan says:


    Excellent points. It really is a super-hoax and sooner or later everyone will understand. When homosexuals realise they are just being used, who knows, they might repent of their attitude to people of conscience. They probably don’t see that by undermining our Christian-based society they are letting in islam, who, as we know, will want to deprive them of much more than a bit of rumpy-pumpy in someone else’s bed.

    Yes, folks should explore –

  10. Stewart Cowan says:

    Mr Skinner,

    Thank you very much for all that. I signed the petition about a week ago.

    It’s very interesting as you say, that because “gay” marriage hasn’t arrived (yet!) that this is an issue of gender, not “sexual orientation.”

  11. Stewart Cowan says:

    Thanks for the inspiration, Frank!

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>