Who are the ‘Bigots’ in the ‘Gay Marriage’ Debate?


This has to be one of the saddest sights in the world, indicating a union of two people of the same sex who are settling for a fake life together, denying themselves the joy of true marriage, children and grandchildren.

Just to prove that the SNP are as keen to follow the same agendas as the Lib/Lab/Con Party on support for the European Union and love of social re-engineering, talk of “gay marriage” is in the air north of the Border. And just like in those other parties, people who express an opinion contrary to these agendas are portrayed as being fruit loops. People like me who argue (reasonably) calmly and logically are the “nutters” while those who try to shout down people with opposing views by calling them names and demanding they shut up and apologise, are standing proudly atop the moral high ground.

Yes, all the usual names have been trotted out for people like Dunfermline MSP, Bill Walker, who signed fellow SNP MSP John Mason’s motion against marriage being redefined in Scotland. And those names are the same ones I have been called: “bigot”, “homophobic” and accusations of living “in the Dark Ages”.

Sodom and Gomorrah were millennia before the Dark Ages, so just who is living in the past here?

Subrosa writes,

Divisions within the SNP have called Mr Mason’s objection ‘a nasty little anti-gay marriage motion’ – and that comment was from my own MP Pete Wishart.

She is concerned that should gay “marriage” become legal in Scotland, Mr Mason’s motion may be needed to protect clergy who do not want to perform ceremonies for same-sex unions. She writes,

What right has anyone, unless they are members of a particular church, to demand a minister or any other religious person, carry out a service?  None. If they’re not a paid up member then they can’t complain.

This isn’t just about redefining marriage and therefore society as a whole, but making churches conform and denying all people the right to act on their conscience.

When Labour were in national government, they engaged in a campaign of degeneration of society while condemning anyone who held traditional views, i.e. often the majority. It is therefore not surprising that Labour MP Thomas Docherty wrote a letter to Alex Salmond about Bill Walker’s comments and said to the First Minister,

break your silence on the despicable and disgusting comments.

Mr Docherty then claimed that Mr Salmond had gone mental when they discussed the issue at the opening of a new school. But it seems to have backfired on the intolerant Labour MP,

Councillor Douglas Chapman (SNP), chair of Fife education committee, said,

Any suggestion that Mr Salmond lost his temper is absolutely incorrect.

I was in the room along with guests and senior council officers and nothing untoward happened, other than Mr Docherty’s approach was totally inappropriate given that the focus of the visit was making children feel really proud of their new school.

In fact, most people in the room were unaware of any supposed incident and Mr Docherty and his press office are guilty of pure fiction. If anything, it was Mr Docherty’s inappropriate approach to Mr Salmond that was aggressive and the First Minister’s response was a model of restraint.

Mr Docherty’s childish behaviour was questionable in raising a political issue at the opening of a new school, which was a day for the proud pupils, parents and teachers.

Mr Docherty then left – presumably to prepare his fantasy press release – and didn’t even have the good grace to stay to share the day with the children.

These actions will be seen by many of his constituents as being not only juvenile and inappropriate but wholly crass and opportunistic.

There seems to be a feeling among the general population that “gay marriage” won’t affect them at all. I disagree, because there are sound reasons why homosexual activity has been a taboo throughout the world, as it is detrimental to the tribe as a whole.

And when homosexuality becomes accepted, that society naturally suffers the decline that comes with hedonism. As I wrote on Leg-iron’s coverage of the subject,

The sort of society children grow up in will define that society when they are in charge (or think and act like they are in charge).

The resulting sexual ‘revolution’ (of all sorts) has caused all manner of social breakdown in the West.

Naturally, this affects us all.

And it does in so many ways. Changes in society’s norms have seen the need for many more houses, which has resulted in a shortage and house prices and rents going through the roof. It is not just financially that social re-engineering is costing everyone, but through intolerance and rudeness, fear and crime and the attitude of the police.

A marriage is between man and woman. God declared it. The human anatomy confirms it. Healthy societies need healthy relationships for them to flourish.

This is not me being a “bigoted Nazi homophobe,” but a realist. If marriage is redefined, it will weaken society even further. We will all pay for it even more.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

98 Responses to Who are the ‘Bigots’ in the ‘Gay Marriage’ Debate?

  1. Jae says:

    A few points:

    1) I’ve heard very few, if any, people even suggest churches should be forced to perform marriages for same-sex couples. The Catholic church isn’t forced to marry divorcees, and I can’t see any reason or want for us to force any religious organisation or specific pastor, vicar etc to perform a same-sex marriage. Given Labour’s love of forcing people to do things they don’t want to, I understand your fear, but I think in this case it is totally unfounded.

    2) As I’m sure you believe yourself, the population of same-sex couples in this country is extremely low as a percentage. It’s impact on housing is almost irrelevant. But if you are going to use this as an excuse, surely marriage equality would help ease this situation? Rather than single gay men and women living on their own, this should help merge such households once it becomes the “norm”. Given marriage breakdown would be at the heart of the problem you identify, I think encouraging marriage across society only strengthens the institution rather than demean it.

    3) I think it is unrealistic for you to suggest marriage equality stops those who want to live in a heterosexual lifestyle from doing so. Even if reparative therapies (from the so-called “ex-gay movement”) are effective in a number of cases (something I’m not personally convinced of) I believe it’s only a small percentage who will benefit from them, and those therapies are out there for those who choose to seek them. The fact is most people with same-sex attraction aren’t interested, and just wish to get on with their lives in peace with the one’s they love. Marriage equality simply ensures a consistent partnership contract across the country for all couples.

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    Thanks for commenting, Jae,

    1) It’s the slippery slope syndrome. E.g. adoption agencies have been banned from placing children solely with heterosexual couples. Churches that don’t comply with providing services to the whole community could be denied their charitable status and other benefits and may be forced to close as well.

    2) My comment about housing was in relation to the changes in social norms generally, in this case, mainly the relaxation of divorce laws, modern sex “education” encouraging promiscuity and the benefits culture.

    3) I think that “gay marriage” would devalue the institution of marriage. I can’t stop people from having sex with who or what they want, but I won’t accept society’s norms being destroyed to suit the few.

  3. English Viking says:

    I’m a bigot. And a homophobe, apparently. Perhaps a bit of a Nazi, too.

    Nobody’s perfect.

    Pooftahs should be shunned, not applauded.

  4. John says:

    “those names are the same ones I have been called: “bigot”, “homophobic” and accusations of living “in the Dark Ages””

    Just out of interest, would you describe yourself as homophobic, and would you agree with the last sentence in English Viking’s comment?

  5. English Viking says:


    Forgive the interruption, please.

    Homophobic is a nonsense word. The same as ‘higgledy-piggledy’. A fabrication.

    The true meaning is ‘an irrational and unwarranted fear of homosexuals’.

    I don’t (and I think Stewart is in agreement) fear gay-boys; I pity them, and am repulsed by their disgusting behaviour.

    It is not normal, it is filthy. An abomination. Utterly vile.

  6. John says:

    I don’t think you’ve interrupted anything English Viking. I also agree that Stewart is in agreement with you. Now if you’ll excuse me, I am going out where I will enjoy being filthy, abnormal and utterly vile. Try not to think too hard.

  7. Stewart Cowan says:

    It is natural to be repulsed by disgusting behaviour. It is a defence mechanism and nothing to do with being bigoted or hateful.

    Most men wouldn’t want another man’s penis up them just as they wouldn’t want to drink water with faeces in it or put a dirty bandage on a wound.

  8. English Viking says:


    Please don’t. Really. Just stay and argue with me. Please.


    ‘Dirty bandage’ sums it up perfectly.

    I can sympathise with tools like Richard, when they crave images of beautiful women engaged in sexual relations. Who amongst us doesn’t? Self control is needed.

    Up the pop-hole is a bridge too far.

  9. English Viking says:

    Ooh Yeah,

    It’s getting heavy – try this-

    Proper tunes

    PS I’m always amazed when I post stuff and it appears,


  10. Vee says:


    An important point in the debate about homosexuality is that politicians have to start being more honest, the media more objective and the medical profession more open about a sexual culture that is inherently devastating and so demonstrably unhealthy.

    If not, and presently this seems likely, homosexual practices are increasingly likely to adversely affect society. Evidence suggests the institution of marriage will be grievously harmed and with it the inner contentment, health and happiness of future generations of our children. Conventional marriage, which is the bedrock of society, is under threat of death by a thousand cuts. The detrimental effects of single parenthood, for example, is leading to increasing numbers of dysfunctional families. This then contributes to dysfunctional communities where social cohesion has all but evaporated.

    Paula Ettelbrick, one of Americas leading gay activists has observed, ‘Being queer means pushing the envelope … radically reordering society’s view of reality … transforming the very fiber of society’ (Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Law, 1993).

    Gay marriage deliberately adds to this demise. It is possible to draw one solemn reassurance from this. History teaches that homosexual communities have eventually withered before society regains the stability of a traditionalist marriage dominated by a heterosexual culture.

    After studying eighty primitive and sixteen advanced societies, J. D. Unwin’s massive anthropological comparative study ‘Sex and Culture’ concluded that cultural achievement and sexual licence were incompatible for more than one generation. Societies only flourished where absolute monogamy was practised.

    Similarly, the French Revolution freed the bonds of family with a ‘free union’ and established laws facilitating easier divorce by mutual consent. Social disorder rapidly followed as women and children were abandoned. So the National Convention had to reaffirm the family and the Napoleon Civil Code eventually led to divorce being outlawed altogether in 1804.

    More recently, is the Russian ‘free love’ Bolshevik Experiment of 1918 when a revolutionary Family Code severed the concept of marriage. Divorce rates soared by nearly 70 percent and the social fabric of society critically deteriorated. By 1929, Lenin was appalled with the consequences of the policy he had created and in 1936 the Supreme Court repudiated most of the earlier ideas and introduced measures to strengthen and support the family unit.

    Civilization requires the regulation of human sexuality and relationships. No society — ancient or modern — has survived by advocating a laissez faire approach to sex and sexual relationships. Every society, no matter how liberal, sanctions some sexual behaviours and proscribes others. Every society establishes some sexual norm.

    Pitirim Sorokin, the founder of sociology at Harvard University, pointed to the regulation of sexuality as the essential first mark of civilization. According to Sorokin, civilization is possible only when marriage is normative and sexual conduct is censured outside of the marital relationship. Furthermore, Sorokin traced the rise and fall of civilizations and concluded that the weakening of marriage was a first sign of civilisational collapse

    The creative relationship between a man and women is biologically unique. Two of the most important things that come from traditional families are procreation and parenting. The basis of parenting is richly complemented and profoundly harmonised by the binding structures of familial interaction and association. The family take on a generational dimension which ensures continuity that contributes positively to a communal social consensus. The child is linked in a long line of blood relations,

    Relationships which involve same-sex partners can only crudely mimic the creative function, and have real difficulty in generating a family tree with its many interconnections between diverse family members and on different levels.

    However ungracious same-sex couples contrive to produce offspring; and we have seen some frightening examples here; they then have to invent familial structures which are at best tenuous, at worst false. At its very basic level, two homosexual Dads or two lesbian Mums are a clear contradiction which defy the notion of family. This helps to explain the natural aversion felt by the heterosexual community to the idea of same-sex parenting. The needs and rights of the child are undermined.

    The gay community may intend that same-sex marriage should imitate conventional unions, but all they do is end in a feeble charade. A child of a same-sex couple is denied the close human contact with either the natural/biological mother or father, as may be the case. And in some cases, the biological lineage is masked preventing the child knowledge of its true origin. All of which, of course, is contrary to the Declaration of the Rights of the Child that was issued by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. It declares that special care and protection should be provided to the child and mother. Significantly it observes, ‘A child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother.’ This places two homosexual ‘Daddies’ in the dock.

    We need to recognise the competitive political edge of the homosexual lobby which strives to create a family, not necessarily for its true domestic qualities, but rather to convince society that their lifestyle is as good as any. Although only a gay minority interest, the opportunity for marriage and family is still pushed by those who are disinterested, in the desperate hope it enhances homosexual culture. The goal is to attain an undeserved dignity by presenting homosexual families as normal, even noble. But this lacks both stability and substance.

    As a result, the growing number of homosexual scholars have to ignore, even conceal through devious erudition and substandard study, the fact that homosexuality invokes dark and damaging forces which destabilize the harmony of an ordered society. What they cannot contest are the very real consequences to themselves of disease, ill-health and premature death. More telling perhaps, the homosexual culture returns us to a paganistic ritual and barbarity which celebrates the atavistic lust for licentious behaviour. Pop icon George Michael, reflecting on his new ‘romance’ with gay porn star Chris Hope, recently revealed he is not monogamous. ‘You have people on the side for sex. Simple as that.’ he unashamedly observes.


  11. bjedwards says:


    Your reasoning is entirely fallacious. Gay marriage has no more effect on marriage between a man and a woman than a raindrop does on an ocean.

    You are not arguing reasonably; you are defending a religious concept, an article of faith, fallacious claims that have been repeatedly debunked rationally.

    The “institution” of marriage – your definition of which you cannot rationally justify – between a man and a woman is not affected in any way. You have no empirical data nor rational explanation to back you up.

  12. Stewart Cowan says:


    See Vee’s comments! And this is not just about ‘religion’. It is a fundamental principle that proper family life is a requirement for strong, healthy societies.

  13. Vee says:


    bjedwards – what a fool you are!

    To understand homosexuality you have to enter a seductive labyrinth of mesmeric make-believe and fertile fantasy. Take for example the very basic notion of marriage. Importantly, a fundamental biological union between a man and women, which usually, but not inevitably, functions to produce progeny, without which, society is finished.

    Homosexual men and women defy logic and nature when they attempt to mimic it, because it is impossible to unite that which is biologically incompatible. Not only is the familial genealogy fractured, but also the influence of the male and female sexual complementarities that flow naturally from conventional homogeneous unions. Moreover, most gay activist reject the concept of marriage and wish to smash it as an oppressive institution that inhibits sexual licentiousness. Thus, homosexual politics involve profound contradictions and inconsistencies.

    It is interesting to note how few homosexual men and women have availed themselves of the provisions for legally binding ‘civil partnerships’. Almost 50,000 same-sex couples have formalised their relationships since civil partnerships were introduced in December 2005. It should be observed that as the number of civil partnerships grows, it gets less each year, but the number of dissolutions keeps inexorably growing. This does not stop homosexual activist Peter Tatchell from demanding the fullest recognition for same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, bisexual Lib Dem Simon Hughes MP predicts the redefinition of conventional marriage in the immediate future.

    Consider also, gay parenting though largely confined to a few? As far as a child is concerned there is no such thing as ‘two Mums’ or ‘two Dads’. It defies the natural order of reproductive relationships. The creation of a child strictly depends on the fertilisation of the male sperm and female ovum to which offspring is inexorably bound forever, to which gays, as a functioning unit, are excluded. Homosexual parents fool only themselves at immense cost to one another and society at large. It should also be observed that their own narcissistic interests displace that of the child. More bizarre still, are those cases reported by an irresponsible media of homosexual ‘men’ giving birth to a child – a biological impossibility. In all cases, moreover, the normal pivotal and personal commitment of parental sacrifice is subordinated to work against the welfare of the child, whose concern is removed on the expiatory alter of political correctness.

    Of course, the gay parenting conspiracy is now facilitated through legal instruments in permitting individual tailored pacts to withhold, or otherwise, the true family and identity of the child. The legal, social and psychological impact of this experiment does not augur well for the future well-being of the child since the real family background and biography; as opposed to the parodied; can be suppressed. A child’s fundamental right to know its true origins is being forfeited. But even in cases where this is known, any relationship with the authentic absent parent is likely to be somewhat superficial and fleeting because it serves as a threat to the viability of the two ‘parents’ in the gay adoptive role.

    More chilling, are those cases of gay parents who create disabled ‘designer babies’ to suit their lifestyle.

    Now comes news that homosexuals Sir Elton John, 63, worth about £175 million and his partner David Furnish, 48, have purchased a newborn baby from America at a purported cost of £100,000. They had previously been unsuccessful in adopting a baby from the Ukraine. John was rejected because of his age and homosexuality.

    The child’s family consists of two unidentified mothers and the fathers’ identity is being kept secret. It is not known who the true father is – even if either of them. If they followed homosexual practices, however, each would have provided a specimen of sperm to be mixed up in one sample. Only subsequent DNA analysis will determine who the father is. The child’s biological mother donated her egg in a process known as ‘gestational surrogacy’ to a mystery surrogate mother. However complicated, strange or unfamily-like, once a British legal device called a parental order is authorised, a birth certificate will be issued identifying both John and Furnish as fathers.

    Thus, the State colludes in a lie, is willing to punish any who disagree, and grotesquely crushes civil morality and Christian virtue. So, uniquely, the child has two furtive mothers and two feckless fathers, comprising of the biological and counterfeit. A couple of decades ago, such a situation would have been met with spitting scorn, sharp derision and utter horror. But now, this is the new freaky fetishism that has become famously fashionable. It corrupts both culture and morality and it does so deceitfully in the name of ‘love’. Conventional parenting which is biologically based is now commercialised into a form of contract parenting.

    Celebrity friends gushed effusively, congratulating them on becoming a happy family. Fulfilling a dream, Sir Elton was “…overwhelmed with happiness and joy.” The subsequent BBC news announcing the event interviewed Christian preacher Stephen Green who said, “This isn’t just a designer baby for Sir Elton John, this is a designer accessory.” Echoing a UN resolution he condemned the arrangement on the basis it was selfish to deprive the baby of a mother. More specific, Articles 7 and 8 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the child provide for the right to know and be cared for by both his/her parents, and the right of the child to preserve his or her identity.

    Internet news website Pink News, the propaganda arm of Stonewall, quickly responded furiously condemning Green and readers organised to flood the BBC with complaints of homophobia. Green has become the target of gay hate and vituperation simply because he has previously thwarted their endeavours. It is also apparent that gays are defiantly against free speech!

    The following day Andrew Pierce, consultant editor of the Daily Mail, an adopted gay man, went on to criticise the pair, describing Elton John as an “…ageing, pampered, self-indulgent millionaire”, reflective of another episode of Tantrum and Tiaras. He observed, I can’t help feeling that this decision to become a father is another grotesque act of selfishness from Sir Elton, and that the child is a little Christmas bauble he and his partner have awarded themselves.”

    Nevertheless, four months after receiving the baby, John announced his intention of having the child’s DNA tested in order to establish who the father is.

    Feminist and lesbian campaigner Tammy Bruce has cogently observed, “Today’s gay activists have carried the campaign a step further, invading children’s lives by wrapping themselves in the banner of tolerance. It is literally the equivalent of the wolf coming to your door dressed as your grandmother.” She continues, “By targeting children, you can start indoctrinating the next generation with the false construct that gay people deserve special treatment and special laws.”


  14. bjedwards says:

    Stewart and Vee,

    I won’t call you fools as Vee called me; I’ll just remind you that your arrogance of ignorance is behind your completely unsubstantiated claims.

    Again, you make the same claims without a stitch of data to back you up. Marriage between men and women is NOT threatened in any way whatsoever. The statement, “It is a fundamental principle that proper family life is a requirement for strong, healthy societies” is meaningless in that marriage between men and women and having children as a result is not, and cannot be, changed by the legality of gay marriage. It is a voluntary choice and to claim that when gays marry it materially threatens anyone is ridiculous and specious.

    Neither can you backup the unsubstantiated claim that adoption by gays or lesbians threatens children.

    Your appeal to tradition is also fallacious. You need to start thinking rationally and learn something on the subject matter.

  15. isitfoggy says:

    For “strong, healthy societies” (Stewart Cowan August 21st, 2011 at 4:32 pm) we need a bit more tolerance and open mindedness in the world. Something that is clearly lacking here.

  16. Ian says:

    bjedwards you do understand that you’re on a hiding to nothing trying to use logic and proven facts around Stewart and Vee don’t you?

    Vee, you manage to say little of any substance whilst using an awful lot of words. And you appear to be projecting. A “seductive labyrinth of mesmeric make-believe and fertile fantasy” is a great description of religion and conspiracy theories.

    Finding two or three people who have said what you want to hear- out of the thousands who have studied and written on the subject- is not very impressive. Your wishful thinking on civil partnerships having a low take up is weak, but I’ve already taken apart a similar argument on my own blog, so I won’t bother again.

  17. Stewart Cowan says:


    Excellent post. Thank you.

  18. Stewart Cowan says:


    History validates and substantiates our claims.

  19. Stewart Cowan says:


    You’re wrong, “strong, healthy societies” do not happen when loose standards abound and people are tolerant towards things which shouldn’t be tolerated. That’s the path to destruction.

  20. Stewart Cowan says:


    What Vee and I and others have written over the past two years this blog has been around are all the evidence you will ever need to show that the sexual revolution is having a devastating effect on our society, even to the point where the native British people are in decline and extinction is our destiny without a return to proper morals.

  21. The Kat says:

    I have just posted the following on Ian’s blog (just in case it doesn’t appear there!)

    I always find it faintly amusing that some people seem to think that it is bigoted to be repulsed by homosexual activities such as rimming, fisting, felching (look it up)and a little light sodomy. Okay, so I’m a bigot, because I think they’re disgusting.

    If we are to talk of numbers, The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has estimated that homosexual men account for 61% of the new HIV infections in the United States while they only amount to about 2% of the country’s population. Homosexual men accounted for 29,300 of the estimated 48,100 new infections in 2009, and homosexual men aged 13 to 29 accounted for 27% of the new cases.


    With the current approval showered upon homosexuals by government and other useful idiots, this can only get worse. Now THIS is what I call homophobia.

  22. Vee says:


    So – “…adoption by gays or lesbians” does not threaten children.

    Simple propaganda!

    In a major American study of donor-conceived children, “My Daddy’s Name is Donor” (2010), revealed that young adults conceived through sperm donation are hurting more, are more confused and isolated from their families. They fared worst on outcomes such as depression, delinquency and substance abuse. Nearly two-thirds agree, “My sperm donor is half of who I am.”

    Nearly half are disturbed that money was involved in their conception. More than half say that when they see someone who resembles them they wonder if they are related. Almost as many say they have feared being attracted to or having sexual relations with someone to whom they are unknowingly related. Approximately two-thirds affirm the right of donor offspring to know the truth about their origins. And about half of donor offspring have concerns about or serious objections to donor conception itself, even when parents tell their children the truth.”

    Another study of 19,000 young people, Parental Cohabitation and Adolescent Well Being, richly demonstrates that children with biological parents do best.

    About 2,000 babies are born in Britain each year using donated sperm, eggs or embryos. This will include a sizeable number of lesbians. Of course, these are only the ones the Human Fertility and Embryology Authority document. A considerable number of lesbians obtain sperm donations informally from commercial and sometimes dubious sources. Many travel abroad to destinations like Spain, the Czech Republic and America. Often, large sums of money are involved. British sperm donors no longer have a right to anonymity but sperm trading is now an international enterprise.

    There’s much more evidence of harm, but my time is short.


  23. I find it shocking, so obviously and utterly delusional is Ian Pattinson’s belief that he won his comment thread debate with me over civil pervertship stats – but he sincerely believes it. How do you help somebody like that? Somebody in complete denial of reality and the commonest of common sense?

    Ian, not only did you lose the argument but you were also severely humiliated on that thread. And yet you claim victory! No objective observer – being a sane and reasonable person – would conclude that you won that exchange. How you fail to recognise your desperate and truly ridiculous performance on that thread for the farce it was is a mystery.

  24. English Viking says:

    Carvath said -‘I find it shocking, so obviously and utterly delusional is Ian Pattinson’s belief that he won his comment thread debate with me over civil pervertship stats – but he sincerely believes it. How do you help somebody like that? Somebody in complete denial of reality and the commonest of common sense?’

    Astonishing that you could call anyone delusional and in denial of reality.

  25. If you want to be astonished go and read the thread on Ian’s blog and wonder how on earth he views it as a victory.

  26. English Viking says:


    I have read it, and all it proves is that you can’t count, reason, debate or present a coherent argument.

    Aside from that, I literally laughed out loud at the sight of you calling someone else delusional.

    Have you got a timescale for becoming an MP? 10 years, 5, 50? Just wondered.

  27. Ian says:

    Richard, you’d lost the argument before you even bothered to comment. You just made it worse for yourself by failing to understand how your reasoning was nonsense, no matter how simple I made the explanations.

    Stewart, what you’ve proved continuously with this blog is that you’re paranoid, more than a bit delusional and you don’t like people who are different to you. Who are the native British people anyway? Are they the ones with Norman blood? Viking descendants? Heirs of the many races the Romans brought here to garrison their forts and walls? Angles? Celts? Saxons? Peoples from all over the world have been visiting our shores for millennia, mixing their genes with those already here, adding to the wonderful mix that are the Britons. How far back should we go for racial purity? Or is it just that some of the more recent incomers are brown that’s the problem?

  28. English Viking says:


    I don’t speak on Stewart’s behalf, but I don’t think he has mentioned the indigenous of the British Isles on this thread.

    FYI The indigenous are Celts, with a few Angles thrown in for good measure. It’s true that we have been invaded numerous times over the years, but NEVER in sufficient numbers that have affected the gene pool, until now.

    The Vikings, Saxons, Jutes, Romans, Normans and others have contributed to what was, until fairly recently, a homogenous and distinct culture and ethnicity. Those doing the invading were the same race, usually the same or similar religion and there contribution to the genetic make up of the nation was bred out of significance with a few generations. It is thought that the Normans comprised a force of less than 15,000 men. The ‘cataclysmic’ invasion which every good schoolboy used to be taught about was equivalent to less than one weeks’ worth of immigration at current levels.

    If you wish to think the British a bastard race, you’re welcome to do so, but there have been no invasions since 1066, unless you count the current daily disgrace. Racial purity is nonsense, but racial identity is not, and I refuse to be cow-towed by PC propagandists for preferring to spend time with people of my own race, religion, creed, etc, etc. The genetic make up of the inhabitants of the British isles was constant for almost a 1000 years, at least. I (and I dare a great many others) would have preferred it to have stayed that way. No-one asked me, or my forefathers, if we minded importing millions of people, who, it seems to me at least, do care so much for GB, its institutions or laws. No-one asked me if I minded paying increased taxes to pay for this insanity. No-one asked me if minded becoming a second class citizen in my own country, or cared about becoming an ethnic minority in my own country by 2040, if immigration and associated birth-rates remain constant.

    When can Oz have aboriginals, and NZ, and USA, and Fiji, etc,etc, but not the English, Irish, Welsh or Scot?

    I’ll be honest – I greatly resent the social engineering that has completely wrecked the UK, probably irreversibly so.

  29. Isitfoggy says:

    Hmm, looked at the numbers and Richard really can’t add up or admit he is wrong.

    I’m beginning to think that the MP he is after is the missionary position. It must be hard being obsessed with homosexuals, brothels and porn (look at his blog) and not have a willing partner.

  30. bjedwards says:

    Stewart Cowan wrote:

    “History validates and substantiates our claims.”

    You have presented no such evidence. Your further evasion is duly noted, Stewart

  31. bjedwards says:

    Stewart Cowan wrote,

    “What Vee and I and others have written over the past two years this blog has been around are all the evidence you will ever need to show that the sexual revolution is having a devastating effect on our society, even to the point where the native British people are in decline and extinction is our destiny without a return to proper morals.”

    Sorry, Stewart, you can’t even back up the claims you made above. You must be a newbie at this.

    Fortunately, those of us who are rational and real skeptics never accept unsubstantiated claims, much less fundamentally irrational conspiracy theories that you can’t even support as indicated in your above quote.

    You’re not going to get anywhere in the real world, Stewart, with such nonsense.

  32. bjedwards says:

    TheKat wrote for all to see:

    “I always find it faintly amusing that some people seem to think that it is bigoted to be repulsed by homosexual activities such as rimming, fisting, felching (look it up)and a little light sodomy. Okay, so I’m a bigot, because I think they’re disgusting.”

    Are you equally repulsed by heterosexuals rimming, fisting, felching, and doing a little light sodomy? Are will you give them a pass?

  33. bjedwards says:

    Vee wrote for all to see:

    “So – “…adoption by gays or lesbians” does not threaten children. Simple propaganda!”

    Only to those who are denialists like you, Vee, driven by an agenda to control other people’s lives.

    In fact studies consistently show the opposite. For instance:

    “For example, the main reason given (by law makers) for not allowing people to marry the person of their choice if that person is of the same gender has been the inaccurate assertion that this is in the best interest of children, and that children ‘need’ or ‘do better’ in a family with one parent of each gender. As the reviews, statements, and recommendations written by these bodies indicate, this assertion is not supported by the family studies
    research, and in fact, the promotion of this notion, and the laws and public policies that embody it, are clearly counter to the well-being of children. As noted by Professor Judith Stacey, of New York University: “Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued
    reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights” (cited in Cooper & Cates, 2006, p. 36).”


    “A range of rigorous studies has shown that children in lesbian families do at least as well as children in heterosexual families… There is sound evidence of equal or more positive outcomes for children born into families with non-biological parents, same-sex parents and through surrogate arrangements. These apply both to children’s emotional, social and psychological developments, and to parenting styles and family functioning.”

    – Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Parented Families, http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

    The efforts of Stewart and Vee to restrict the rights of other human beings sends us back to the dark ages of discrimination and McCarthyism. Because Stewart and Vee are wholly incapable of supporting their assertions with empirical evidence they resort to the standard methodology and tactics of all denialists. And denilialists always lose in the end.

  34. Ian says:

    bjedwards, Kat doesn’t believe that ANY heterosexuals ever do any rimming, fisting, felching or light sodomy, as far as I can tell. The logic for that assertion was vague to non existent.

    EV. Stewart referred to the “native British people”. You can finesse it as much as you want, but I think my interpretation of what he meant is fair.

  35. English Viking says:


    You are correct – he did mention ‘native Brits’.

    Native/indigenous – same thing. My above summary of facts is accurate.

  36. My maths were correct throughout. My assertion that 1% of the population are homosexual-perverts is the most accurate figure. My assertion that the demand for civil pervertships is tiny – running at a fraction of 1% of the general population – is correct. My assertion that the demand for civil pervertships will remain tiny in the coming years will prove to be correct.

    My assertion of the major significance of the destructive nature of civil pervertships on broader society – despite their being the preserve of a tiny minority – as a major aspect of the homopervual assault on British society is also correct.

    Over the last 20 years the homopervual lobby and its agenda has proved that a group need not be large in numbers to have a massive impact out of all proportion to those numbers in destroying the mainstream general population (and in a supposedly democratic system).

    The mere existence of civil pervertships is fundamentally destructive of the institutions of marriage and family for many reasons, as is the whole homopervual agenda – which must be set and understood in its full context, including an appreciation that pornography and so-called ‘sex education’ promiscuity and perversion indoctrination are bed-fellows with homopervuality under the same umbrella of the sex-radical assault on traditional British morals and standards for over 50 years.

    Ian Pattison is the sad and deluded secular-humanist muppet who sincerely believes that TEN PER CENT of the population are homosexual-perverts. The man is devoid of any statistical credibility whatsoever. I rest my case.

  37. P.S.

    The following link is for homosexual-perverts (and their straight sympathisers) everywhere… my gift to you.

    If you hate heterosexuality, God, the Bible and Richard Carvath then you’ll love this link.

    The link is to one of my favourite works of art (and Stewart should be pleased that the painter was Scottish I believe).


    [And, before you say it, yes, I know – Jacob’s polygamy – and no, I don’t approve of polygamous marriage and neither does the Bible; the practice in the lives of some Biblical characters is recognised but not condoned.]

  38. The Kat says:

    Ian – ‘Kat doesn’t believe’ … etc. On what do you base that assertion? Absolute nonsense. I did point out to you, though, on your blog that while STIs are decreasing, they are increasing rapidly among gay men. Go figure.

  39. bjedwards says:

    Richard Carvath, another blinkered conspiracy believer, wrote for all to see:

    “Over the last 20 years the homopervual lobby and its agenda has proved that a group need not be large in numbers to have a massive impact out of all proportion to those numbers in destroying the mainstream general population (and in a supposedly democratic system).”

    We already know that you have to depend on non-demonstrated conspiracy theories to support your house of cards, Richard. What you seem completely oblivious to is the fact that you cannot possibly demonstrate evidence for your conspiracy theories. You have none.

    Zero. Zilch. Nada.

    The methodologies of denialism, Richard, Vee, and Stewart practice are covered quite well here:

    “What is Denialism?”


  40. Ian says:

    Richard, you believe so many fantasies that adding this one to the list won’t make much of a difference. You demonstrated an ignorance of statistics which I at first thought was wilful but now accept is just moronic.

    I used the 10% figure as a counterpoint to your 1% because it gets quoted a lot. It also made the maths simpler, in the hope that you might be able to understand what I was saying. (I recently read that the 10% figure comes from respondents to Kinsey’s questionnaire who admitted to having sex with someone of the sex, rather than claiming to be gay, so it included bisexuals as well.) And you’re on dangerous ground dismissing minorities as insignificant, as your chosen definition of your religious affiliation puts you in a minority of 1.

    Kat, from your comments on my blog- “So your assertion that straight people readily engage in these revolting practices cannot be true. ” I exaggerated for comic effect.

    EV, 15,000 Normans wouldn’t be much nowadays, but in 1066 the country’s population was between 1 and 2 million. Adjusted to the modern population it’s the equivalent of up to 825,000. Not overwhelming, but not insignificant either.

    I have no problem with a bit of mongrelisation, have you never heard of hybrid vigour?

  41. Stewart Cowan says:

    The Kat,

    You could say that true homophobia is accepting the disgusting, degrading, dangerous things they do and not saying anything. In this respect, we have probably never lived in such a homophobic society as we do today, thanks to the likes of Ian and BJ Edwards.

  42. Stewart Cowan says:


    Sadly, I don’t think the child’s welfare is considered as important as the perceived “needs” of the “parents”.

  43. Stewart Cowan says:


    This thread isn’t about Richard!

  44. Stewart Cowan says:


    Who said I don’t like people who are “different” to me? And who said my definition of native British people was in some way a racist statement?

    British people to me are those with British values. I don’t think you are one.

  45. Stewart Cowan says:


    History amply demonstrates what happens when hedonism takes a firm hold. Go check it out. In fact, just look around you.

  46. Stewart Cowan says:


    Totally right. And it seems that anyone who doesn’t agree with Mr Edwards is a “conspiracy theorist.” He even has a new Twitter account, @DenialWatch.

    If you don’t think like he does, you’re in ‘denial’.

  47. English Viking says:


    So about 0.75% of the total population then? Over a couple of decades.

    Not really the same as the 40%+ total of immigrants we see in Birmingham, or London, for example, is it? Nor was there a mass exodus of native people from the islands, so sickened by their government’s utter incompetency and blatant social engineering in order to gerrymander a client vote.

    You may wish for ‘mongrelised’ grandchildren; I can assure you I don’t.

    BTW ‘Hybrid vigour’. You mean like a mule? Infertile?

  48. Ian says:

    Stewart, just started following @DenialWatch, thanks for finding it. I’m @Spinneyhead, by the way.

    You don’t hold British values. Don’t pretend you speak for the rest of us. You’re not interested in equality, decency, freedom of thought, belief and expression, inquisitiveness, playfulness, humour or any of the other positive values the rest of the country holds. You don’t like anyone who doesn’t agree with your narrow world view.

  49. The Kat says:

    Stewart, my point about the true homophobes such as Ian and BJ Edwards is that by lying to them about their behaviour, and celebrating it, they are condemning them to tragic lives of sickness and a spiral of depression. True love involves telling the truth. Same-sex attracted people often have a very poor self-image and low self-esteem, and it is this which needs to be addressed. It has been proven that tackling the causes can lessen the same-sex attraction in varying degrees, sometimes even eradicating it altogether.

    Ian, your attack on Stewart is unjustified. I would say that it is YOU who has the narrow worldview, shaped by your own small world. Historically, cultures cannot survive when they become steeped in hedonism. And don’t make the mistake of thinking that everybody else holds your views, because I can assure you that they don’t.

  50. English Viking says:

    Ian thinks ‘playfulness’ and ‘inquisitiveness’ are values.

    Good grief.

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>