Thursday, January 14, 2010

Nick Clegg: faith schools must teach that homosexuality is 'normal and harmless'

Before Cranmer tackles the hermeneutics of ‘normal’ and ‘harmless’, he wishes to ask what kind of liberal is it which insists that all schools must teach anything? What kind of liberal seeks to subsume religious conscience to a radical and uniform social agenda? What kind of liberal demands that centuries of religious tradition and orthodoxy should be swept aside in favour of a social fad?

And, come to think of it, what kind of ‘democrat’ sets aside the religious traditions, beliefs or vicarious memory of the majority? The vast majority of parents do not want their children’s schools to be turned into vehicles for the promotion of the virtues of homosexuality, and it remains a fundamental principle of education law (and Conservative tradition) that children must be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents.

Whatever side one takes on the whole ‘gay’ debate, it must be acknowledged that there is no faith tradition which believes that homosexuality is ‘normal’, though much debate about the extent, if any, to which it may cause harm either to the individuals involved or wider society, and even more over the extent to which religion ought to adapt to cultural norms.

When the leader of the Liberal Democrats seeks to impose a distinctly illiberal and undemocratic worldview upon any minority, we see the face of true Liberal Democrat tyranny. And Cranmer purposely places orthodox Christians in the ‘minority’ category, for they are increasingly becoming the marginalised, persecuted and dispossessed.

Christians believe that all people are created in the image of God, whether they are straight, gay, bi, transgender, or any other category in the ever-increasing spectrum of sexual expression. And Anglicans believe that all are therefore in some sense members of the church (whether they know it or not); indeed, there are many who would assert that the real Christians are to be found primarily outside the church rather than within it. The Established Church is the recognition of the contribution of Christian ministry to the health of civil society and provides a basis for the pastoral responsibility of the Church at large.

So why should a professing Atheist, which Nick Clegg is, presume to legislate against faith schools, which are increasingly the only defenders of national morality and English virtues against the illiberal evils of secularism?

The people of England still want to feel that religion has a place in the land to which they can turn on the too rare occasions when they think that they need it; and they are not likely to be pleased by legislation which might suggest that the English people as a whole are going un-Christian.

If, indeed, to be homosexual is to be un-Christian. While Pope Benedict views it as a 'moral disorder’ (the inclination, not merely the practice), the Church of England is treading its usual via media on the subject.

And perhaps that is the role of the State Church, for it has pastoral responsibility for all, not least because the Head of State is also the Supreme Governor of the national church: as she is politically sovereign so is she spiritually supreme and therefore pastorally responsible for all her subjects.

But let us come to Mr Clegg’s assertion that homosexuality should be taught in faith schools as being ‘normal’. And here, Cranmer will take ‘normal’ to mean ‘natural’.

Even Peter Tatchell does not believe that homosexuality is natural. And in this, he agrees with St Paul, who refers to men who exchange natural acts for unnatural; that is, they engage in sexual activity which is ‘para physin’ - 'against nature’ (Rom 1:18-32).

Church leaders are therefore right to express profound concern with Nick Clegg’s programme for social engineering – that is, a national curriculum to inculcate the most vulnerable minds with the belief that homosexuality is ‘normal’ – for it is contrary not only to Scripture and tradition, but also to the reasoned understanding of the most intelligent and discerning homosexuals and to common sense.

And if Mr Clegg seeks to impose it upon the (ever-weakening) Christian schools, Cranmer can hardly wait to see what happens when it is imposed upon the (ever-strengthening) Muslim schools. Mr Clegg said faith schools must ensure they do not become 'asylums of insular religious identity'.

Cranmer is more concerned with Parliament becoming a temple to the gods of this world, and even more with a Liberal Democrat definition of what is 'normal'.

Is not the very raison d’être of faith schools to sustain a distinct religious identity?

Boosting ‘equal rights’ may be a truly laudable liberal ideal. But defining in law what is ‘normal’ while condemning the ‘abnormal’ to their asylums of insularity is a betrayal of the liberal tradition. Whatever one's view on sexual ethics, the notion people should be forced to teach as fact what are arguably matters of belief is disturbing; indeed, as one Anglican bishop has observed, it is ‘frighteningly fascist’.

160 Comments:

Anonymous Stuart said...

Well Said!

14 January 2010 at 11:16  
Anonymous Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

But Your Grace, the society we now live in HAs become increasingly fascist in recent years, since (dare one say) 1997 And All That. Indeed, Ms Harman and her Equalities Bill are determined to push things even further. The problem is politicians have seized on schools and 'education' as the perfect tool for moulding society in their own image (a craven image to be sure), none more so than Commissar Balls. Having said that (an agreeing with much of what you say) I admit to a slight confusion: homosexuality does manifest itself in a number of species - mostly mammals but am not one hundred per cent on that one - and therefore could be said to be a 'natural' phenomenon as being something manifest in the world God created. I quite take your point on the word normal - for instance, if the majority of the population were homosexual then that would be normal and heterosexuality abnormal. Will consult Mr Slope on this one: he knows quite a few things about 'pulling the bellrope' and I am sure I will be enlightened.

14 January 2010 at 11:27  
Anonymous Dave North said...

So the argument is that whatever the majority believes, equals normal.

Well excuse me but I'm pretty sure the majority of Germans in WWII believed that there belief was normal.

And I'm pretty sure also that the majority of slave traders believed that they were the norm. etc. etc. etc.

Majority opinion does not equate to normal or right.

14 January 2010 at 11:30  
Anonymous FrankFisher said...

"Boosting ‘equal rights’ may be a truly laudable liberal ideal..."

Ah, but it hasn't ended there has it? Few would quibble with equal access to education, state services, state employment. But equal rights quickly merged to each and any "right" being equal, and then to absolute equality - interchangeability - hence gay marriages etc. As I've long argued, to the point of banning, on liberal conspiracy and elsewhere, the modern use of "liberal" means "do as we bloody well say or you will go to jail. Speak as we speak, or you will be fired and/or go to jail. If you don't think like us you are a monster and should be hounded out of this society".

And that is absolutely not an exageration - Jan Moir, the BBC uganda absurdity, etc.

"Liberal fascism" is absolutely real, always was, and is with us today in the UK - across, sad to say, Labour Lid Dems, and Tories. They're all wedded to the equality monster.

14 January 2010 at 11:41  
Blogger Frugal Dougal said...

Yet another reason why we must agitate against a hung [sic] Parliament or a change in the voting system, and be prepared to assume that democracy in Great Britain has been outlawed à la Goebbels should the latter happen, and act accordingly.

14 January 2010 at 11:44  
Anonymous D Vader said...

So the concept of equality for all is not a christian value then.

What about treat your neighbour as you expect to be treated yourself.

Or is that only for a chosen few.

How I hate religion and all of the fruitbaskets that hold humanity back with their fascile adherence to it.

Go through some stones at the moon....

14 January 2010 at 11:44  
Blogger Bad Catholic said...

Your Grace,
Don't you know that all you backward thinking people who adhere to outmoded concepts such as Orthodox Christian belief, must either be re-educated or punished.

14 January 2010 at 11:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is Clegg wearing in that photo? Does he think he is Henry VIII?

14 January 2010 at 11:57  
Anonymous dave s said...

Toleration is not the same as approval. I may tolerate homosexuality but not approve of it. In a free society it is my right to do so as no one is harmed thereby.
This position is unacceptable to Clegg I presume. Once again at the heart of the modern concept of his misnamed liberalism is the zealot's desire to impose a new orthodoxy.
A nihilism of the spirit and as arid as the desert.

14 January 2010 at 12:06  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

Well, Abp., do not Americans say "scratch a liberal and you find a fascist underneath"? - and while they are surely not thinking about Liberal Democrats, it probably fits LBs rather well, if this Clegg outburst is anything to go by. But ... Lib Dem, is not their party an 'asylum of insular political identity', to paraphrase the words (of Clegg) which you report)?

14 January 2010 at 12:06  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

Actually I think Clegg looks like the Anabaptist who comments on this august blog; is Clegg a secret Anabaptist and what does our friend who comments on this blog think about that ?

14 January 2010 at 12:08  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

This kind of secular intolerance is but the latest incarnation of a long line of faux faith followers extending through Ron Hubbard to Jim Jones. These Dawkins groupies are simply Moonies with Bunsen burners.

14 January 2010 at 12:09  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

What I should also have queried, in my previous post, is this "harmless" pronouncement, of Clegg's, regarding homosexuality, and therefore homosexual practices. Does he really believe this? If so, he desperately lacks real (objective, non-politicised) information; or, is he just pretending this, in order to woo the gay vote? (is he mad, or just bad?). Perhaps he should try a little rimming, fisting and barebacking, then he might actually know the reality - or consult NARTH, for real facts. His idea, it seems, is that rimming, fisting, and barebacking, etc., should be taught in schools (probably soon will be anyway - thank goodness my children are through school!).

14 January 2010 at 12:19  
Anonymous A Gibbon said...

Going by the monicker of JOHN THOMAS must make you an adherent of all the sexual practices you outline.

Do you really think that every gay man partakes in all these practices.

Is it missionary position for you only, I assume with the lights out and the bible by your side.

Such ignorance is breathtaking.

PS: Heterosexuals invented porn.

14 January 2010 at 12:24  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

Why are politicians forcing us to choose between Caesar and God? Why do they feel confident in threatening our children? Why do they see us as patients to be worked on and cured? Why are they intent upon casting asunder the people’s common morality which has stood for over a thousand years and thus breaking the bonds of our loyalties? What is the end of all these things – to turn child against parent? Do politicians not know that we protect our children because we love our children?

What will be the epitaph for this civilisation?

The wall on which the prophets wrote
Is cracking at the seams.
Upon the instruments of death
The sunlight brightly gleams.
When every man is torn apart
With nightmares and with dreams,
Will no one lay the laurel wreath
As silence drowns the screams.

Between the iron gates of fate,
The seeds of time were sown,
And watered by the deeds of those
Who know and who are known;
Knowledge is a deadly friend
When no one sets the rules.
The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools.

Confusion will be my epitaph.
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back
and laugh.
But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying,
Yes I fear tomorrow I'll be crying.

Epitaph, In the Court of the Crimson King (1969)

14 January 2010 at 12:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How ridiculous Mr Thomas - how many homosexuals beyond the extreme fringes engage in rimming, fisting and barebacking?? (Also none of these behaviours is necessarily homosexual, I should add). I agree that Clegg's proposal is dreadful, but why damage your argument by resorting to crude charicatures?

14 January 2010 at 12:31  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

By distracting us with debates about the 'gnat' they continue to escort countless 'camels' into the curriculum in the guise of PHSE ("Personal, Health & Social Education") - and in particular the SRE aspects ("Sex & Relationships Education" ... put the Relationships part is just included in the title as sop).

Why are our schools teaching our children what are normal sexual practices or normal relationships at all - whether it be gay, straight, or anywhere inbetween (with the exception celibacy of course)?

14 January 2010 at 12:32  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

We are a nation of rampant sexual deviants.

From the Christian Institue:

Local police forces have ranked as some of the UK’s most gay-friendly employers, according to a new equality index by the homosexual campaign group Stonewall.
The top 20 gay-friendly employers also include five councils, three Government agencies and two Whitehall departments.

14 January 2010 at 12:40  
Blogger Erika Baker said...

If every society has a certain percentage of homosexuals among them, then a minority proportion of gay people is, by definition, the biological norm.

To teach children anything else would be irresponsible.

You can then talk about the ethics of sexual activity. And again, it's clear that stable and monogamous same sex relationships are, biologically speaking, as harmless as celibate ways of living.

None of that stops you from explaning that some people have ethical and theological problems with homosexuality.

But I would certainly expect my children's biology teacher to give them true information that his not coloured by religious preferences.

14 January 2010 at 12:43  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mrs Bag Lady comments,
'Actually I think Clegg looks like the Anabaptist who comments on this august blog; is Clegg a secret Anabaptist and what does our friend who comments on this blog think about that ?'

I don't take offence easily, but you have pushed me near to the edge.

Beyond the fact that Clegg affects to wear a hat with a feather in it, there is no visual similarity.

As to ideological similarity, there could scarcely be a greater difference. Nothing about Clegg is remotely connected with the beliefs and practices of Anabaptists.

On his latest pronunciamento, I would say that if schools were, as they should be, completely independent of the state, then no jumped-up politician could make demands of what should or should not be taught in them. It used to be that schools were extensions of parental discipline, acting in loco parentis, but now the emphasis has shifted so that they are increasingly extensions of state control. Who gave them that status? Who asked us if that was what we wanted? How many parents would agree with Clegg's asseverations?

Well, as further and further generations are infected by this sort of ideological correctness, more and more parents will inevitably come to accept it, as they will be simply the grown-up children who were indoctrinated in the first place. Just as metrication has spread due to its imposition on the minds of the young, so ideological correctness does the same.

They've achieved it with the global warming scam, and now they're finalising the ideological coup that will make a generation regard as normal that which we all know to be abnormal.

The long march continues.

So let's have no more teasing from you, thanks, Mrs Bag Lady.

14 January 2010 at 12:48  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

Mr Anabapist, I do apologise. You are quite right the only similarity between yourself and Clegg is the hat. But you look better in yours than he does in his (perhaps he is on a grouse shoot- didn't think the liberals agreed with that sort of thing?).

Also, to Erika Baker, Well, if we were all gay, the human race would cease, wouldn't it, so how is this natural? perhaps a glance at a biology text-book might help in that respect,especially the bit about where babies come from -oh, look they don't come from stalks!?.

14 January 2010 at 13:02  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

You mean storks...

14 January 2010 at 13:05  
Anonymous Terry said...

Presumably Mr Clegg wants children taught the probability of catching STDs from homosexual as opposed to heterosexual practice?

14 January 2010 at 13:06  
Anonymous Sarah Respect said...

Of course being gay is natural and harmless and should be taught as such in school. It is as ever the white middle class males who seek to end their dominance of politics, by not approving of lifestyle choices.

14 January 2010 at 13:08  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

Yep, I do Mr Anabaptist.

14 January 2010 at 13:09  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Frome Thinking Anglicans:

Equality Bill - new definition proposed

The Government has proposed a new definition of when “Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion”.

Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if—

(a) the employment is as a minister of religion, or

(b) the employment is in another post that exists (or, where the post has not previously been filled, that would exist) to promote or represent the religion or to explain the doctrines of the religion (whether to followers of the religion or to others).

This would replace the current wording found in paragraph 8.

14 January 2010 at 13:15  
Anonymous Ian J said...

Homosexual acts are indeed unnatural and perverted. Even a surface reading of Romans chapter one will show that we are already, as a nation, under divine wrath m- as every gay pride march demonstrates. If you have never read that chapter from the Bible please do so: it is so up to date.

14 January 2010 at 13:27  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

The word 'harmless' is an interesting one. The doctrine of the sexual propaganda is that it is possible to engage in any sort of sexual activity you like and - if done 'safely'- there will be no consequences.

This is just a blatant lie.

The fact that we have an STI problem of epidemic proportions, a teenage pregnancy rate 2nd to none, and more abortions than live births in many areas should adequately demonstrate this fact. And this is to say nothing of the immense emotional problems of insecurity, shame & regret that seem to beset so many people. You cannot become "one flesh" and not leave something of yourself behind - emotionally, spiritually and even physically - when you go your separate ways.

Instead the whole doctrine of the sexual propagandists is no more sophisticated than the lyrics of a song that was in the charts a number of years back, "You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel"
It is this that they seek to teach our children.

14 January 2010 at 13:34  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Bag Lady said,

//Also, to Erika Baker, Well, if we were all gay, the human race would cease, wouldn't it, so how is this natural? perhaps a glance at a biology text-book might help in that respect,especially the bit about where babies come from -oh, look they don't come from stalks!?.//

The majority of wasps, ants and bees are inherently infertile - they have no purpose for reproduction. It does not mean that sterile workers are unnatural - indeed, to imagine a beehive with thousands of reproducing individuals is very difficult (one may almost say, unnatural). So there is significant precedent in the animal kingdom for producing large numbers of intentionally non-reproducing members - indeed, these are some of the most succesful species on the planet.

You advise Erika Baker to consult a biology text-book - perhaps you yourself should consult a zoology text-book - or a hymenoptera text book.

And that is not even starting with the observation that homosexuals are not sterile, and do reproduce.
---

Cranmer,

I am relatively certain that murder is a natural impulse, and even a natural activity - yet this does not answer the question of whether it is moral or not.

I suspect the discrepancy between your definition of "normal", and Tatchell's, is that he sees "normal" as a description of a relative quantity in society (so a small percentage), whereas you associate "normal" with moral. Of course, in the former case, Christian orthodoxy in this country would be considered not normal, as would homosexuality.

However, I do actually agree with the primary thrust of your point - it is completely unacceptable for the state to demand that schools teach anything about sex. However, I am consistent in my belief, in that I also condemn state laws restricting the "promotion" of homosexuality, while you actively cheer them on (see Lithuania). It seems very unreasonable of you to claim the freedom for parents to educate their children the way they, want one moment, then deny that freedom to those that wish to teach children things contrary to your ethical model, even if parents agree.

Let us not believe that you are a defender of liberty (for otherwise you would be Libertarian).

14 January 2010 at 13:39  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

Oh, that's hilarious, ha, ha, ha, ha! So indiogomyth believes that a gay couple can conceive on their own after having sexual intercourse? Oh that has make me laugh!

14 January 2010 at 13:57  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Indigo

You made it, I was wondering where you were.

14 January 2010 at 14:46  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

You make an observation which increasingly all religious communities are becoming aware of (for if Christianity falls then so do all these religions that properly belong in the fenced nursery of the Judaeo-Christian framework): “… And Cranmer purposely places orthodox Christians in the ‘minority’ category, for they are increasingly becoming the marginalized, persecuted and dispossessed.”

Mr Nick Clegg has stated:

‘The person who I would like to see immortalized in a poem is Václav Havel. He was an inspiration to people of my generation, who admired his courage and that of other dissidents in Eastern Europe. Even though he spent many years in prison, he remained determined to change his country for the better.’

Is Mr Clegg a hypocrite or a comedian?

14 January 2010 at 14:53  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

That's a very gay outfit Clegg is wearing.

14 January 2010 at 14:59  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

Little Black Sambo- don't say that as you'll offend Mr Anabaptist. I actually think the cossy is quite good, but Clegg is no model is he?

14 January 2010 at 15:08  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I am so sorry Your Grace, I just had to look up Wikipedia to discover this Nicholas Clegg and his place in Paradise Isle - for such must I consider this place to be that the insane can rise so high as to be neither Tweedle-Dee nor Tweedle-Dum but to lie between in every sense.....


Clegg was educated at Caldicott in South Buckinghamshire, then Westminster School in London. As a 16-year-old exchange student in Munich, Germany, he performed community service for a minor case of arson:[14][15] he and a friend burned a rare collection of cacti belonging to a professor, something which he said he was "not proud" of, when it re-emerged during his time as Lib Dem Home Affairs spokesman.[16]

He attended Robinson College, Cambridge, after spending a gap year as a ski instructor in Austria and as an office junior in a Helsinki bank. At Cambridge, Clegg studied Archaeology and Anthropology. He was active in the student theatre, captain of the college tennis team, and campaigned for Survival International, protecting the rights of threatened indigenous peoples.[17] In 2008 it was reported that while at university, Clegg had joined the Cambridge University Conservative Association between 1986 and 1987, with contemporary membership records citing an "N Clegg" of Robinson College. (At the time, Clegg was the only person of that name at Robinson.) However, Clegg himself later maintained he had "no recollection of that whatsoever."[18][19][20][21][22]

After university he was awarded a scholarship to study at the University of Minnesota for a year, where he wrote a thesis on the political philosophy of the Deep Green movement. He then moved to New York, where he worked as an intern under Christopher Hitchens at The Nation, a left wing magazine.[23]

Clegg next moved to Brussels, where he worked for six months as a trainee in the G24 Co-ordination Unit (for Ivan Rogers, the chef-de-cabinet) which delivered aid to the countries of the former Soviet Union. After the internship he took a second Master's degree at the College of Europe in Bruges, where he met his wife, Míriam González Durantez.



I find a man of profundity well versed in life's vicissitudes and who has overcome his disadvantages in life to become truly insignificant. His views are taken with a pinch of salt by all but the BBC and Guardian and his understanding of State education is one that only the products of English Public Schools seem able to comprehend.

How fortunate that money and its abundance is able to provide such clarity of thought to the English class system and elevate nonentities to rightful oblivion.

14 January 2010 at 15:17  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, I agree that it is crazy of Clegg to start attacking faith schools, but what gets my goat is the sheer two-facedness of the liberals. When the liberals get into full campaign mode and say one thing to one group in society (trying to get the pink vote) and then saying another thing to a different group (e.g. the Tories who they hope to vote for them in the south west/east Anglia).

To Indigomoth, I really do not understand the part about you claiming that homosexuals can reproduce, be it man and man or women and women having sex. And in the case of the man, where does the baby come out? Perhaps you do believe that babies come on storks?

I also agree with Anabaptist that the more rational (if radical) solution would be to stop the state from domineering the education system in the first. But what politician dare advocate such a change in policy?

14 January 2010 at 15:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sure that Mr Clegg, and those who can't see what the fuss is about, will be happy to teach the fact that in gay affirmative countries such as Denmark the suicide rate amongst homosexuals in higher than in heterosexuals (so much for homophobic bullying being the cause of mental health problems) and discounting the not so uncommon extreme acts such as BDSM and fisting - I know as an ex-gay how common they actually are - the average lifespan of an active homosexual male is 25 years less than a heterosexual male. So much for the propaganda that the homosexual lifestyle is safe.

14 January 2010 at 15:45  
Anonymous judith said...

May I suggest an important point has been missed here, Your Grace.

Will Mr Clegg be advising/ordering the Islamic community to do this?

I eagerly await media footage of a 'brave' speech by the LibDem Leader on this idea given within a Muslim community centre or mosque.

14 January 2010 at 16:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All we need now is Glovy to make an post and all the 'old' crew are back.

14 January 2010 at 16:44  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

I find the response from ex gay
anonymous interesting.I understood that being gay was not a fad but
a life sentence and beyond a person's control. There are ex heterosexuals who become
gay giving vent to their true sexual orientation. Does that mean an ex gay was a heterosexual all along?

14 January 2010 at 16:59  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Miss/Mrs/Ms Judith,

His Grace has not missed that point at all.

14 January 2010 at 17:04  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I think it’s morally wrong to force those under the age of 18 to be “taught” about homosexuality which is a deviation of the norm. It’s not the natural instinct of the majority of human beings to fornicate with another of one’s own sex.
It is known that it damages the young developing mind.

Homosexuality is not normal or harmless. Would they also be teaching the negative side of it? The damage regular activity does to the human body? Would they talk of the untimely embarrassing anal leakages it causes as the sphincter muscle weakens? It’s pretty disgusting for an adult to learn this let alone children.

I think there is far too much emphasis on people’s sexuality nowadays and not enough on the running of the country which is going to hell in a hand cart pretty soon if we don’t stop messing around.

I wonder if homosexuality is on the increase because of the increasing amount of female hormones in our water supplies and food which could be affecting the unborn male foetuses.

14 January 2010 at 17:21  
Anonymous Anyone but the liberals said...

"embarrassing anal leakages" and I was just about to have my tea. I feel sick. But not as sick as I get everytime I see Clegg on TV. I am looking forward to this general election because it will expose the contradictory rubbish that the liberals often come out with. As Lavendon said- they will say one thing to shire tories and another to the liberal urbanites. I hope no-one gets taken in by this gumpf and that people either vote tory or labour. There is no other choice, unless you want the country to be run by the liberals- in which case the country will go to the gutters faster than under Brown. And that's saying something isn't it?

14 January 2010 at 17:33  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Unfortunately all three main political parties would probably endorse Clegg's view.
All three are basically Statist parties which believe that the State has an automatic right to exercise jurisdiction over the individual, and no less in education.
Anabaptist is absolutely right.
There is no such automatic right, and the State has no more authority to impose its moral or immoral values upon others.
As it happens Clegg's view will be politically counter-productive as parents all over the UK will reject his policy.
Incidentally the Tories are no better.
I personally have sought for several months to get an answer from the Shadow Tory Education Minister, Michael Gove, to the simple question:
"Will you reverse current government policy of teaching homosexuality to primary schoolchildren?"
He refuses, even at this stage in the electoral calendar to voice a view. But of course the Tories too have fully accepted to "gay" agenda.
The battle lines are being drawn:
EITHER we as a society will give legitimacy to moral relativism, OR make a stand for moral absolutes.
Even non-Christians will need to be engaged on the issue at this level, especially if they are parents.
The three main parties have indicated where they stand.
Now the electorate will have the opportunity to pass judgment on Clegg at the polling booth.
So be it.

14 January 2010 at 17:35  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Thankyou your grace for your almost independent view of this .

I take the view that sexual education of any kind is aplicable only when the Children or more accurately Teenagers need it to understand the hormonal changes they are going through .

In many ways Mr Clegg is articualting the socialist construct that control of the emotions can be achieved pre emptively programming logic , when it is perhaps far more intrinsic than he believes .

It is very unfortunate that we live in world of so many sexual possibilities without consequence ,lead people down some very unstable forms of life .

The idea that the liberal society will be happy without structure also misses , the problems we see in this society .

The "frightengly fascist" view pays no homage to any thing but the desires of sex as its starting point and not the more difficult task of beleif in the family unit as being holistic or holy even .

But this does nothing for the members of society who are gay who want equality. Mr Cleggs ideas of completely inverting society into unnatural narratives , may have all kinds of hiddeous side effects akin to lord of the flies .
In my era being gay excluded you from all kinds of promotion , in part because no one was sure where it would lead socially and if wouldnt blurr other aspects of behavoir .
The bullying or even beating of people labelled as gay in these times is viewed as tragic, which I give some support to , but the erosion of the churchs teachings to justify gay equality always was a non starter , but it has no doubt played its part in arriving at our current understanding .

your grace outlines that modernity is not only a christian problem in the more social freedoms understanding , the recent case of the protest marches not standing for the judge , as they only respected sharia law (mr Clegg was silent) is another example of where this will lead .

I accept that some ideas on sexuality in the past were a little crude , but this problem has no legislation which can adquately cover what may be termed as rights.

Mr clegg had better install a stone detector at his next explanation of the permissable society to a muslim audience .

14 January 2010 at 17:50  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

This is another controlling pronouncement to crush freedom of choice. Its a symptom of a much deeper malaise. We are no longer in a bottom-up political environment where democracy rests in the hands of individuals who give temporary power to their elected representatives to exercise in trust for the good of the nation. Oh no! Sovereignty was surrendered long ago by our Parliamentarians to a top-down continental oligarchical clique with federalist objectives and a centralist mindset which dictates virtually everything, with few freedoms afforded to the masses.

Clegg is voicing attitudes of the treacherous political class. If anyone is forced to teach children that homosexuality is normal remember to explain to the teenagers that we have all been b******d by Brussels. They'll soon find out that's normal too.

14 January 2010 at 18:01  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

Who cares what Clegg, the serial fornicator, thinks.

14 January 2010 at 18:02  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"Will you reverse current government policy of teaching homosexuality to primary schoolchildren?"
He refuses, even at this stage in the electoral calendar to voice a view. But of course the Tories too have fully accepted to "gay" agenda.

Mr Graham Wood,

With respect, Mr Gove has responded to this, if not to you personally.

His plan is for a complete deregulation of the state education system, permitting hundreds if not thousands of independent but state-funded schools to be set up. They will be free to pursue a distinct ethos and to control their curricula and examinations. It is for this reason that the Roman Catholic Church (in England and Wales) is supporting the Conservative proposal. This will be quite a revolution.

14 January 2010 at 18:05  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Perhaps two theologians should be allowed to contribute to the debate, for after all, the issue reaches to the heart of anthropology (the whole science of 'man'), and then theology, the revelation which God has given in the Christian scriptures.
This is a robust contribution by theologian Karl Barth when speaking of homosexuality:

"This is the physical, psychological, and social sickness, the phenomenon of perversion, decadence and decay, which can emerge when men refuse to admit the validity of the divine command..... In Romans 1 Paul connected it with idolatry, with changing the truth of God into a lie, with the adoration of the creature instead of the Creator.
From the refusal to recognise God there follows the failure to appreciate man, and thus humanity without the fellow man...."

In this and further comment, Barth is affirming that true humanity is impossible outside the married state.... all human beings realise their humanity as they open themselves in humility to the complementary excellencies of the opposing sex.

The second is the Theologian par excellence - Jesus Christ.
His comment is very short and simple:
"It is impossible but that offences will come, but woe unto him through whom they come.
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he be cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones"

"

14 January 2010 at 18:21  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Time to turn the clock back to the good old days when we actually educated kids and taught them to think for themselves instead of politically and socially indoctrinating them.

Bugger socialist "egalitarianism" and bring back grammar schools.

14 January 2010 at 18:26  
Anonymous non mouse said...

So ... let me get my head straight on this: Parents who are nauseated at the prospect of such filth are in such a minority and are so sub-normal that they have no right defend themselves, or to protect their children from it? [But homos who hate and fear the opposite gender are right about everything, and are the truly righteous majority?]

So the only correct definition of equal rights is ... ?

I suppose such legislation would be one more way of lowering the birth rate for indigenes. And of denying them access to the Tree of Knowledge.

They must, however, learn a list of commandments according to anti-Christ. Let's see; it could begin:
1. Thou shalt have no god but humans and other animals who practice homosexuality.

2. All thine images shall be about plucking the wings from moths and butterflies, and impaling them on pins.

etc......

14 January 2010 at 18:37  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Lord Lavendon,

//To Indigomoth, I really do not understand the part about you claiming that homosexuals can reproduce, be it man and man or women and women having sex. And in the case of the man, where does the baby come out? Perhaps you do believe that babies come on storks?//

Yes, but you and Bag Lady use the term "homosexual" - meaning the person, not the activity of homosexual activity. I was responding to Bag Lady who was asserting that if everyone was homosexual then we would be extinct. Clearly this is incorrect, as there are plenty of homosexuals who have children. It merely requires a sperm to meet an egg to produce offspring - it does not require sexual attraction. Homosexuality is a form of sexuality, therefore does not affect ones physical ability to have children. I never asserted that homosexual intercourse could produce children, merely that homosexuals could. Do you understand?

14 January 2010 at 18:50  
Blogger indigomyth said...

non mouse,

//But homos who hate and fear the opposite gender are right about everything, and are the truly righteous majority?//

Hmm, I do not know these homos? Presumably you have missed the frequency of homosexual men having heterosexual female friends? Not exactly the actions of someone acting on fear and hatred?

Hmm, perhaps we can so twist the world that heterosexuals hate their own gender. Perhaps we can invent some complex regarding parental /Oedipus complex, which result in attraction to the opposite sex?

14 January 2010 at 18:57  
Anonymous Caroline Diviine said...

You will have an atheist Prime Minister who will be the one to pick bishops for the Established Church?
That's almost as funny as having gay marriages for everyone, including the Royal Family-except that they probably still won't be able to marry Catholics. Another man/woman, yes. But Catholics? No. Because one has to draw the line somewhere.
Your country claimed to rule France until 1801: I'm guessing that your Established Church will be another pointless anachronism that lingers for centuries in the name of "tradition".

14 January 2010 at 19:26  
Anonymous len said...

Homosexuality healthy and normal?. If one agrees with the assertion that being promiscuous is not healthy, from either an emotional or physical standpoint, then homosexuality as typically practiced must be termed extremely unhealthy. Homosexualities, an official publication of The Institute for Sex Research founded by Alfred Kinsey, Alan Bell, and Martin Weinberg, reported that only ten percent of male homosexuals could be termed as "relatively monogamous" or "relatively less promiscuous." Additional findings showed that 60 percent of male homosexuals had more than 250 lifetime sexual partners, and 28 percent of male homosexuals had more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. Another startling fact is that 79 percent admitted that more than half of their sexual partners were strangers.

A second item that cannot be avoided in a discussion of the health aspects of homosexuality is the actual sexual practices of homosexuals. Are these healthy? Once again, the vast preponderance of medical evidence is resoundingly negative.
( I will spare you the details)
Healthy, normal, certainly not!

14 January 2010 at 19:28  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Bag Lady,

//Oh, that's hilarious, ha, ha, ha, ha! So indiogomyth believes that a gay couple can conceive on their own after having sexual intercourse? Oh that has make me laugh!//

Read what I said, rather than what you think I said.

//And that is not even starting with the observation that homosexuals are not sterile, and do reproduce.//

in response to this comment of yours

//Well, if we were all gay, the human race would cease, wouldn't it, so how is this natural//

Do you deny that individual homosexuals are not sterile? They produce viable gametes, that are capable of binding with other gametes to produce a zygote?

If you get a lesbian women, and a gay man, and the gay man donates sperm to the women, and the women gets pregnant, then they have reproduced, haven't they? Yet no sexual attraction, no heterosexual has been involved in the process. Therefore, my point is proved, and yours is disproved.

Do you deny that people with no sexual attraction to one another can reproduce, even if they use a device to introduce sperm to egg? Therefore, you statement that //if we were all gay, the human race would cease, wouldn't it, so how is this natural// is completely incorrect, because it assumes that homosexual men and women would not share gametes in order to produce children. This is quite clearly moronic, as they do and would.

14 January 2010 at 19:29  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

indiogomyth

Err, no actually, you point has not been proved. What I said initially was that homosexuality was not natural and that if we were all gay the human species would cease to exist, afterall, the usual way of producing offspring for a human being is for a man and a women to have intercourse. Therefore a gay couple cannot produce offspring via intercourse- that is a medical fact.

Regarding you other point, you are being quite crafty, in that you are changing the goalposts (not for the first time) and, therefore the subject matter of debate, by saying that homosexuals can 'reproduce' via medical advances- but that is not a natural way of reproduction and not what I was initially talking about.

Understand me now?

14 January 2010 at 19:51  
Blogger indigomyth said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 January 2010 at 20:03  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

His Grace says:

His plan is for a complete deregulation of the state education system, permitting hundreds if not thousands of independent but state-funded schools to be set up. They will be free to pursue a distinct ethos and to control their curricula and examinations. It is for this reason that the Roman Catholic Church (in England and Wales) is supporting the Conservative proposal. This will be quite a revolution.

But even if the curriculum is set by the school, there will still be strict equality rules about who can or cannot be employed. There will be nothing stopping the lesbian interpreter and her wife, or indigo and his husband from applying for a job; and maybe kissing each other goodbye in the playground.

We could even see the development of Gay schools! Where it is an all gay curriculum based upon satanic anal sex!

14 January 2010 at 20:04  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Bag Lady,

No, what you said was

//Well, if we were all gay, the human race would cease, wouldn't it, so how is this natural//

The first part of this is factually incorrect - as I have demonstrated, homosexuals can, and do reproduce. Do you deny this, yes or no?

//What I said initially was that homosexuality was not natural//

And if you read the rest of my comment, I demonstrate how the fact that being unable to reproduce is not, of itself, unnatural. Do you understand?

//that if we were all gay the human species would cease to exist, after all, the usual way of producing offspring for a human being is for a man and a women to have intercourse.//

Yes, it may be the usual way, but that is not what you said previously, which is the comment I was responding to. It also does not follow that if natural reproduction was totally abandoned, then the human race would become extinct, as your earlier comment asserts. Sexual attraction is not required for the production of children.

//but that is not a natural way of reproduction and not what I was initially talking about.//

That may not be what you meant to say, but it is what you did say. You talked of everyone being "gay", not everyone only engaging in homosexual activity, and not sharing gametes. There is a crucial difference.

//Therefore a gay couple cannot produce offspring via intercourse- that is a medical fact. //

Yes, but you didn't say a gay couple, you said if everyone was gay, as in homosexual, as in being sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. You have confused sexual attraction, with sexual activity.

Do you agree that a gay man, and a gay women can have children, by sharing their respective gametes? If they can, does this not mean that a couple, 100% gay, has produced a child? And would this not disprove your earlier statement that if everyone was gay, then the human race would be extinct?

14 January 2010 at 20:05  
Blogger Pavlov's Cat said...

Oh for crying out loud.

Education is NOT promotion. This is a fallacy. Perhaps believers in this thought terminating cliche should concern themselves that, say, students of GCSE geography will become deranged fantastists who desire to be sexually engaged with the worlds capital cities.

Pointing out to children that homosexaulity a) exists and b) isn't going to get you beheaded in the UK isn't "promotion."

Must try harder next time, Cranmer! I was relying on you for a more level headed perspective of the issue from the faith side of the court, but you fell into that education/promotion trap too early on. Do agree with the final paragraph though, and it's equally relevent to global warming as well as sexuality.

14 January 2010 at 20:18  
Anonymous graham wood said...

YG you said of Mr Gove & Conservative policy:
"
His plan is for a complete deregulation of the state education system, permitting hundreds if not thousands of independent but state-funded schools to be set up. They will be free to pursue a distinct ethos and to control their curricula and examinations. It is for this reason that the Roman Catholic Church (in England and Wales) is supporting the Conservative proposal."

Far be it from me to question YG's statement or research, but I have seen nothing of this on the current Conservative website under 'Education'.
There are many statements prominent for their vagueness such as "rising aspirations", and "empowerment through choice" (great Newlab phrases.
Much about school passports, tuition fees & other periphial matters, but not a word about a policy on homosexuality.
It would have been a very simple matter for Mr Gove to refer me to the relevant clause in his policy on the site, or better still to respond to my many letters and E mails with a simple clarification.
I trust I am wrong, but I don't think the leopard has changed its spots. The Tories did not approve the abolition of Section 28 without due electoral consideration, namely to court the "gay" constituency.
I would be most grateful if you could point me to the relevant information?
In any event, and notwithstanding a Tory volte face on the issue, as DDIM 'n Hoffi points out above,
"there will be strict equality rules" (pace the Equality Bill now going through Parliament), and in addition of course, the need for our provincial government to obey the EU central government's Employment Directive which the Equality Bill is designed to accomodate.
Where now Tory policy?

14 January 2010 at 20:20  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Indigomyth - presumably you missed my deliberate omission of a comma.

No, I have not missed the incidences mentioned in your first comment.

Nor have I missed the suggestion that 'heterosexuals' who hate their own gender are homosexuals (and/or bisexuals).

Nor have I missed the Freudian set-up you refer to in your last comment. Nor have I missed suggestions that Freud and his pals were bent.

Nor have I missed suggestions that neither s**, nor race, nor gender, nor religion, nor age, nor any "fault" in a victim informs hatred in an aggressor.

14 January 2010 at 20:21  
Blogger indigomyth said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 January 2010 at 20:22  
Blogger indigomyth said...

non mouse -

//Nor have I missed the suggestion that 'heterosexuals' who hate their own gender are homosexuals (and/or bisexuals).//

No, my point was that if we follow the argumentation structure that you have used to describe homosexuals as hating members of the opposite gender, because they are attracted to the same gender, we could also argue that heterosexuals are only attracted to members of the opposite gender because they hate their own sex.

Review what I said -

//Hmm, perhaps we can so twist the world that heterosexuals hate their own gender. Perhaps we can invent some complex regarding parental /Oedipus complex, which result in attraction to the opposite sex?//

I am showing that as it would be absurd to argue that attraction to the opposite sex is caused by hatred of your own sex, so it is absurd to argue that attraction to your own sex is due to a fear and hatred of the opposite sex.

//Nor have I missed the Freudian set-up you refer to in your last comment. Nor have I missed suggestions that Freud and his pals were bent.//

No, I was not suggesting that. You have misunderstood my comment.

14 January 2010 at 20:30  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

The politicians/ government should STAY OUT OF OUR PULPITS.

For what I wrote to the Dutch government when the Minister of homo-emancipation, Plasterk, ordered his inspectors of education to visit all schools to make sure all children & students would be taught that homosexuality is normal, which is a DECLARATION OF WAR of the Dutch Government which uses it's Political-Correctism State-ideology-religion as the standard which it enforces upon all Dutch people, even against thier faith, religion, ideology, philosophy, choice go to my website: http://www.thevoiceofgodtoallnations.com/ The Voice of God To All Nations

14 January 2010 at 20:43  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Indigomyth - Nor did I say any of the things you seem to think I said.

Good day.

14 January 2010 at 20:57  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

I still cannot understand how Indigomyth can say that gays can have children- has he not read a biology text book?? A gay man and a gay man having sex does not equal the potential to have children. Nor does a woman and woman having sex equal to having children? Or have I stepped in another world?

14 January 2010 at 21:00  
Anonymous graham wood said...

"For what I wrote to the Dutch government when the Minister of homo-emancipation, Plasterk, ordered his inspectors of education to visit all schools to make sure all children & students would be taught that homosexuality is normal, which is a DECLARATION OF WAR of the Dutch Government which uses it's Political-Correctism State-ideology-religion as the standard which it enforces upon all Dutch people, even against their faith, religion, ideology, philosophy, choice ..."

Well said 'dutchlionfrans!
You are right. As in Holland, so in the UK also - it is indeed a declaration of war against both children and parents.
More important, as you infer, it is a declaration of war against God and his laws.
I suggest the co-ordinating body and ideology behind the policies of bothe governments is the evil EU Commission, which in turn is imposing its Marxist/Fascist ideology on all the member states.
Well said, and good to see your website's uncompromising stand for the Truth of God's word.
grahamwood32@yahoo.co.uk

14 January 2010 at 21:08  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Bag Lady,

//I still cannot understand how Indigomyth can say that gays can have children- has he not read a biology text book?? A gay man and a gay man having sex does not equal the potential to have children. Nor does a woman and woman having sex equal to having children? Or have I stepped in another world?//

Where have I said anywhere that homosexual intercourse can produce offspring? I have said no such thing - what I have done is drawn the distinction between sexual attraction and reproduction.

14 January 2010 at 21:10  
Anonymous St Bruno said...

Haven’t you discovered that homosexual practices are the same as heterosexual except the participants are different?
Sex was designed for the procreation of offspring not purely for pleasure and tribal warfare of the gay selfish deviants who sometimes demand both while being only being capable of one.

14 January 2010 at 21:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Welcome to the New World Order!

Pantheism,population control,Big Brother, what else could we ask for? George Orwell, Julian Huxley and others (British chaps) have warned and warned but to no avail.

Freemasonry, banking cult of elite dictators are bleeding us dry and giving millions to all politicians who do their bidding. Now....how do we react to all of this? Ever read "Confessions of an Economic hit man"?

Any thoughts?

14 January 2010 at 22:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is no natural argument for homosexuality! Nature reproduces after its own kind. That in nature that is UN-Natural will be cleansed by nature itself. Example: If we put all the homosexual men on an island...in how many generations would nature cleanse itself of them? ONE!!

14 January 2010 at 22:13  
Anonymous Ben Maregtsone said...

So Indigomyth believes we should all be gay and keep the human species going by medical means? Is this not a typical example of the left/liberal fascism?

14 January 2010 at 22:17  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

Indigomyth- rubbish, you yourself have said " a couple, 100% gay, has produced a child", so you think that a gay couple can have sex and produce a child!

14 January 2010 at 22:20  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

Anon at 22.13, proves my point. Well said.

14 January 2010 at 22:21  
Anonymous len said...

On the subject of being'normal'I think man rejecting Gods standard of 'normal' and re-defining mans standard of 'normal' has led to much confusion.
If you want to see your face you look in a mirror.
If you want to see your spiritual condition you need to look in a spiritual mirror- Gods Word.Now you may not like what you see, but without this knowledge it will be impossible to change, or to see the need for it!
This is the predicament of situations such as those presented and why the presentation of Gods Word is so important.

14 January 2010 at 22:26  
Anonymous Man in the Iron Lisbon Treaty Mask said...

If we could get back to the main thrust of the post –namely the typical rubbish that Clegg comes out with, it would be appreciated. I hope that gays do not get fooled by the hypocrisy of the liberal democrats. They are marginally worse (if that is possible) than suffering a further 5 years of Brown and his socialist cronies. I cannot believe I have just written that.

14 January 2010 at 22:31  
Anonymous Gay Anglican said...

Len, don't you think you are in danger of becoming like the people Jesus argued with in the Gospels?You seem to like to just everyone - catholics, gays, etc. Only God can do that. Shouldn't we embrace gays with christian love?

14 January 2010 at 22:34  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, my apologises for my lip, but I forgot to welcome back D.Singh yesterday.

Mr D.Singh, welcome back and yes the "old gunslinger" is here, ready to battle the collectivists/left liberal socialists and let us pray we stop them at the polls before they do any further immeasurable damage to the realm and faith.

To Indigomyth, I say welcome back to the fray, however, I still think you are wrong to claim that homosexuals can reproduce, any glance at a biology textbook will tell you that. I understand what you say about using medical means which allow homosexuals to have children, but that is a different matter and issue altogether.

I trust that our sparring will be most agreeable and that debate will flourish. For if we do not seek wisdom and through this via debate, we would all be worse off for it. As the Bible says “For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding…Blessed is the man who finds wisdom, the man who gains understanding, for she is more profitable than silver and yields better returns than gold. She is more precious than rubies”. [Proverbs Chapter 2, verse 6 and Chapter 3, verses 13 to 15].

14 January 2010 at 22:48  
Anonymous len said...

Gay Anglican,
First Corinthians 6 is very clear about the eternal consequence for those who practice homosexuality—but there’s good news. No matter what the sin is, whether homosexuality or anything else, God has provided forgiveness, salvation, and the hope of eternal life to those who repent and embrace the gospel. Right after identifying homosexuals as those who “will not inherit the kingdom of God,” Paul said, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).
(We are all sinners, but the good news is we don`t have to remain there, that is why I point people to Jesus Christ, God Bless, len)

14 January 2010 at 22:51  
Anonymous Chrome Diplomat said...

I think its worth pointing out that Clegg was speaking about 'normal' and 'harmless' in the context of homophobic bullying.

What ever your own view of homosexuality (be it religiously motivated or otherwise) I think its fair to say that, if a child is being bullied because of his sexuality the teacher shouldn't join in or tell the other children they are right to do so.

Clegg was not saying people have to believe homosexuality is OK (though for the record I most certainly do) but saying that harassing and intimidating someone for being gay is not and that children who do should be taught that for many people being gay is normal and harmless.

The policy is indeed liberal- (in the Millsian interpretation of, to paraphrase 'you can do what you like providing it doesn't hurt other people') because it is far worse to ruin a child's life through bullying than occasionally have to stand up for something even though you yourself may not totally agree with it.

14 January 2010 at 22:56  
Blogger Tommy 3 Lions said...

Look lads, the dim lems can say absolutely anything they want because they know that they are never ever going to have to fulfill any manifesto promise they give. They will never form a government.

14 January 2010 at 23:01  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

@Chrome Diplomat, if you believe what Clegg or any other liberal democrat says you are either a fool or an idiot or both. Clegg and the Liberals are the worst hypocrites in the political game. They get to spout nonsense because they have zero, repeat zero chance of ever forming a government in this country and their ideas are not subject to any kind of scrutiny – if they were they would be subject to be ridicule (which is why their favour their brand of PR, so that the country will be forever held to ransom - the socialists or the conservatives having to form a coalition with them in backrooms of Parliament - the thought of which is, to my mind, like making a pact with Lucifer himself).

The Liberal Democrat's main strength is in former conservative leaning areas, plus a few seats in which they have duped the socialists into voting for them. Which is why the dear leader feels the compunction to come out with what he has said. This does not, however, sit well with their main strength of electoral support, namely former Tories in the southwest and the south generally. What is even more strange is that Cornwall votes liberal democrat- even though the EU condemns the Cornish fisherman!

Hopefully the leaders debates in the general election will expose the lies and duplicity of the liberal democrats. If you vote liberal, sir, you vote to give this realm over to the EU. Post Lisbon this may seem strange, but the liberals will unequivocally surrender any remaining vestiges of the power of the nation state over to the dominion and prelate of the foreign EU. If this is what you want, it is sedition sir. With God's good grace, I hope that a Conservative/UKIP coalition government will stop this and return Britain to the long lost freedoms, which we all cherish- not least the power of Parliament and the right of the British people to decide who elects and governs them.

Yours Lord Lavendon.

14 January 2010 at 23:13  
Anonymous Stephen Gash said...

One thing that is abundantly clear is, politicians are the last people to moralise to anybody about anything, especially about sex.

We need to clear out this particular corrupt rabble and elect politicians who will actually get on with the job - for which they are paid.

14 January 2010 at 23:54  
Anonymous St Bruno said...

Tommy 3 Lions said...
Look lads, the dim lems can say absolutely anything they want because they know that they are never ever going to have to fulfil any manifesto promise they give. They will never form a government.
14 January 2010 23:01
Only if you are accepted as part the establishment, Liberal Democrats have a nice fluffy history, well the true Liberals have.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say it about the BNP or the Christian Party who attack our friends as they are not even to be mentioned in polite society as the children might hear.

15 January 2010 at 00:08  
Anonymous Chrome Diplomat said...

@ Lord Lavendon

Oh dear oh dear. Right well first off- my comment was about the actual article and the context in which Clegg made his comments rather than a diatribe against another party, but seeing as you wish to do so let me say a few things:

First- if you believe that a vote for the LibDems is a vote to give over this country to the EU then I strongly suggest you do some reading of a) LibDem policy b) the actual Lisbon treaty rather than a synopsis and c) the theory of Dicean democracy that underpins the British constitution and clearly states that any Parliament is not bound by an older one. If Parliament decides in future it doesn't want to be part of the EU it can do- it is still sovereign and to suggest otherwise is to miss the entire foundation of the UK Governmental system.

Secondly, the LibDems have been pretty damn good in Europe they support the idea of the institution and those rules and regulations they deem as right, they do not support those that they don't (for instance attempts to end the UK Opt-out of the working time directive). Just as they do in Westminster. If you believe that because a body makes rules you don't like the body should be disbanded then I'm assuming you will also be calling for an end to Parliamentary democracy in this country- because the Government has made far more stupid laws than the EU. (and before you say it the EU is largely democratic- laws are passed with the consent of an elected Parliament and by the heads of the Member States, each of whom are elected, the Commission does not vote on EU policy).

Thirdly- UKIP will not win seats at the election so fat chance of them helping form a coalition- not that they could with a Tory party most of whom MEPs hate them because the UKIP MEPs do little work, many of whom don't do casework and have no intention of actually helping their constituents (and no they are not their to bring down the EU, they can't do that from the European Parliament).

Fourthly- a Tory/ UKIP coalition to bring back power of Parliament? The use of Statutory Instruments and Henry VIII rules exploded under Thatcher (and has continued under Labour)- neither of the two main parties has ever shown any signs of wishing to diminish their own power by giving it back to Parliament and I doubt very much Cameron will be any different.

Finally on the LibDem election prospects. Yes they are strong in the South West, but many LibDem MPs have built up a personal vote- they are seen as hard working local MPs and that is why they win. This will in many cases offset the Tory resurgence, even in very marginal seats. They will also win seats of Labour because in many Northern areas where people remember what Thatcher did they are the only real progressive option.

I apologise for going on, but I don't think a post seeking to put a Party Leaders comments in context is cause for a personal comment about someone's intelligence, having said that, and bearing in mind your comment added nothing to the discussion started by Crammer, I have no hesitation in calling you a rather small-minded, ill informed prat.

15 January 2010 at 00:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As long as the school teaches 'em hygiene as well, ie wipe the excreta off your penis after making love.

15 January 2010 at 01:19  
Blogger Manfarang said...

All is forgiven!
Bring back the Christian Brothers.
Is that what most of you want?

15 January 2010 at 02:38  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

@ Chrome Diplomat.Anti bullying is not a defence for homosexual promotion in the schools.Christian ethics does not support any form cruelty or bullying to humans or animals so I don't see it as necessary to single out homosexuality for special attention in the school situation.
No minority group should be persecuted or villified but homosexuality will always remain a minority group and cannot expect the life style to be accepted as normal or desirable by the majority.Anyone who is different
from the societal norm is disadvantaged in one way or another
It is called life as we know it.

15 January 2010 at 05:13  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Lord Lavendon,

//To Indigomyth, I say welcome back to the fray, however, I still think you are wrong to claim that homosexuals can reproduce, any glance at a biology textbook will tell you that. I understand what you say about using medical means which allow homosexuals to have children, but that is a different matter and issue altogether.//

But homosexuals can and do reproduce! I have shown that they do! It is not a different matter, whether reproduction is done my medical means, or less conventional methods. It still confronts the very heart of the issue that was raised.

Simple question - do you agree that a lesbian women and a gay man can have children together? Yes / No

Has any heterosexual been involved in that act of creation?
Yes / No

Therefore, have homosexuals not reproduced?
Yes / No

It is simply logic. Nothing, I repeat, nothing, I have said indicates that I think two people of the same sex can reproduce. What I have merely stated is that people of homosexual attraction can reproduce. That statement violates no biology text book. Care to cite a source where you think it says that homosexuals cannot reproduce? Because I have found absolutely none.

15 January 2010 at 07:41  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Bag Lady.

//Indigomyth- rubbish, you yourself have said " a couple, 100% gay, has produced a child", so you think that a gay couple can have sex and produce a child!//

Yes I have, because a gay women and a gay man have produced children. And I never said "have sex", I said exchange gametes - not necessarily the same thing.

You are aware of the turkey baster situation I imagine? In what sense is that not homosexuals reproducing?

//If we put all the homosexual men on an island...in how many generations would nature cleanse itself of them? ONE!!//

Absolutely true. But then, this would also be true if only heterosexual men were on an island. Tell me, in how many generations would a 100% male heterosexual population become extinct? I have yet to meet the heterosexual man that can reproduce with other heterosexual men. I have met heterosexual men that can reproduce with heterosexual women, and I have met heterosexual men that can reproduce with homosexual women, yet I have never met the heterosexual man that can reproduce with other men, of any persuasion.

Once again, you are ignoring the issue of gender, and focusing entirely on sexuality. Sexuality does not equal gender, and therefore cannot equal fertility.

Consider the following question: If you put lesbian women, and gay men on an island, would they necessarily become extinct? No, of course not, because they have the ability to reproduce with each other.

15 January 2010 at 07:48  
OpenID britologywatch said...

I think there is a distinction to be made here between 'normal' and 'natural': Peter Tatchell said homosexuality wasn't 'natural', not that it wasn't 'normal'. Both words can in fact be used in either a value-neutral or value-laden way. Clegg's words could be read as using 'normal' neutrally, to mean 'just a part of ordinary life', 'regular', 'nothing unusual or exceptional'. In that sense, I would agree that homosexuality should be presented to children as normal: statistically, one in ten (or one in 20, however many you think it is) of the population is normal in that sense.

However, Clegg's words are at best ambiguous, in that they can also be taken - and appear to be intended to be taken - in the value-laden sense. In this sense, saying homosexuality is 'normal' does equate to saying that it is morally neutral as well as an ordinary part of human life and society. This is clearly opinion, not fact; and it would be impossible to enforce legally unless you institute some form of official state morality.

Teaching that homosexuality is commonplace is one thing. Teaching that it is just as 'good' or, indeed, bad or indifferent as heterosexuality belongs to the realm of values. And unless the law decrees that Clegg's secular values are the 'truth' (and hence must be taught to children like the other forms of 'truth' they are in school to learn), I don't see how Clegg's proposal could ever be implemented. It would be just as intolerant of alternative views and lifestyles as the Conservatives' ban on teaching about homosexuality in non-Christian schools under the Thatcher government.

15 January 2010 at 07:52  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Ben Maregtsone said...

//So Indigomyth believes we should all be gay and keep the human species going by medical means? Is this not a typical example of the left/liberal fascism?//

Cranmer, did you get a fresh shipment of idiocy in from the Middle East recently? Because it does seem that intelligence has gone through the floor while I have been absent.

No Ben, I do believe that we should all be gay. I never even proposed such a thing. I was inventing a hypothetical situation in order to demonstrate a point to Bag Lady, not advocating the situation as a goal of public or private policy.

15 January 2010 at 07:53  
Blogger Alan Douglas said...

Was there not a report a year or two back that told us how many men Clegg had slept with ? So many that he is now know as Cleggover ?

Alan Douglas

15 January 2010 at 07:59  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Indigomyth,

The logic you use is a bit twisted, but by the logic you use you would be correct. Having said that, getting two gays of the opposite sex to have children is not what would happen in they did what the claim to want to do- i.e. be 'partnered' with someone of the same sex. The situation in which they would find themselves were it not for their ability to use medical means or, as you appear to suggest using the desert island analogy, simply (one would assume) lying back and thinking of England in order to reproduce, would be that they would be unable to have children. Anyway, thank you for this most enlightened discussion, but I must turn my attention to the Chrome Diplomat and deal with his absurd assertions. I have some respect for libertarians (such as your leader's blog) so I wish you would not refer to me in kind as part of a general idiocy. Cheerio for now !

15 January 2010 at 08:02  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Chrome Diplomat

Thank you for calling me a small minded ill informed prat, although this not the worst insult that has been heeped upon me by other people on this blog.

I am pleased to see the true liberal democrat colours coming out. This rather proves my point, but I shall write at some length in response to your post, below:

I think you will find that the liberal democrats are actually the most enthusiastic of the British parties for a pan –European federation and have a desire to see some utopian vision for the continent that is far from the true reality of the political situation. The Liberals would quite happy and slavishly go along with whatever the EU wanted, because it is in their DNA to do so.

The liberals would never put British interests first, let alone question any policy of the other European states. In such a situation Britain would be quickly broken up into her various constituent parts and cease to have any meaningful role as a nation state.

Regarding your comment about my apparent wish to disband Parliamentary democracy in this country, that is far from the truth; in fact I wish to see Parliament restored to its proper place in national live and to have the full powers which it is entitled to do and yes this would include restoring the hereditary peers to the House of Lords (a discussion for another day).

In so far as you assert I wish to disband a body I do not like because I do not like the rules this is fallacious argument. I do not care about abolishing the EU or any of its institutions; I simply seek a desire for Britain to withdraw from the EU. If the remaining EU states wish to continue along the road of a greater federation then that is fine with me, providing Britain is kept out of it altogether.

Turning to whether or not the EU is democratic. A few points:

1.The EU Parliament is the equivalent of the German Reichstag 1870-1918 and thus has very little power.

2.The EU commission is not elected by anyone and is immovable.

3.No British subject or any other European voter has elected the EU President.

4.The EU subjugates British interests via its majority voting system, so no British government can defend our interests anymore.

5.No one voted for Brown to be our Prime Minister- an unselected head of government representing the EU to Britain.

Finally regarding the liberal election prospects, you say that their MP’s have a ‘personal vote’, thus personality is more important to that party than them attempting to put a coherent view of the world to the electorate. Thus the liberals are the great all things to all men, in British politics, they can say one thing to one group of people in one part of the country and something entirely different to another. Hence the relevance of what I was saying, contrary to you view that stated I brought nothing to the debate, which is that Clegg was trying to appeal in this instance to the pink vote. Doubtless if he had been in a more conservative area/environment he would be trumpeting on about family values etc.

I would say, whilst I do not agree with socialism, it is a least a more coherent idea than the mash of ideas the come from the liberal democrats; Gladstone and the other great leaders of the old liberal party must be weeping in heaven!

15 January 2010 at 08:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't Clegg just doing what he accuses Christians etc. of doing, i.e. imposing his view upon others.

If he thinks homosexuality is "normal" that's up to him. I happen to think it is not. It is "natural" in that some people become homosexuals, just like some become paedophiles, fetishists, sadomasochists etc.

But the behaviour can never be described as "normal".

It is also a fact that most heterosexuals, naturally, find homosexual acts repulsive and, rightly, would not want their children to be taught that they are OK.

I choose to be a Christian and I choose to follow the teachings.

Who does Clegg think he is to decide what I choose to consider is disordered, perverted and immoral behaviour?

15 January 2010 at 09:33  
Anonymous ducats not euros said...

Your Grace and Lord Lavendon, quite right, the liberal democrats are frighteningly fascist, as has been demonstrated in this post. Why anyone gives them the time of day is beyond me.

15 January 2010 at 09:59  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Your Grace. With regard to Mr Gove and Conservative policy and the teaching of homosexuality in primary schools - you wrote:

"YG you said of Mr Gove & Conservative policy:
"
His plan is for a complete deregulation of the state education system, permitting hundreds if not thousands of independent but state-funded schools to be set up. They will be free to pursue a distinct ethos and to control their curricula and examinations. It is for this reason that the Roman Catholic Church (in England and Wales) is supporting the Conservative proposal."

I still cannot source this policy statement. Also, where, if at all, has Mr Gove reassured millions of parents and educationalists that he would "reverse the current policy of allowing homosexuality to be taught in our schools?
Please, where can it be found?
With grateful thanks for your time. The issue is supremely important as I'm sure you agree.

15 January 2010 at 10:29  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Graham Wood

To put you out of your misery:

Catholic Church backs Tories' 'free schools'

15 January 2010 at 10:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Graham Wood,

I refer you to the latest of Standpoint and the interview with Michael Gove and Chris Woodhead.

15 January 2010 at 10:44  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

I tried not to comment on this but alas the promotion of this perversion is something I feel strongly opposed to.

I will never except the act of buggery to be 'normal' as it quite clearly isn't and neither is any other form of sexual activity between members of the same gender.

I believe that the bible instructs us to resist temptation and if certain members of our society feel disposed towards homosexuality then they should heed that instruction.

What is even more despicable is the way that homosexuality is being thrust upon society regardless of what we may think with not one politician having the courage to stand against this abomination.


I am certainly not in favour of the persecution of Homosexuals, but the pendulum has swung far too far towards the 'Gay' agenda and going from tolerance to complete acceptance is morally wrong.

15 January 2010 at 10:48  
Blogger Ian said...

Graham Wood - thank you for your comments on this.

"True humanity...", I think is beautifully perceptive, spiritually.

15 January 2010 at 11:06  
Anonymous graham wood said...

My thanks to thos who have pointed me to Gove's 'Free Schools' idea, and in particular the Standpoint discussion.
However, valuable and revealing as the exchange with Chris Woodhead is, these are mainly "aspirations" on the part of Gove, and do not relate to the State sector. Neither does Gove, in the discussion touch on, or hint of repudiating the current practice of the indoctrination of schoolchildren in the State sector with homosexual teaching. (the vast majority)
Many Educationalists/teachers and parents are still waiting for a definitive statement of policy in this area. At least Clegg has spoken, albeit nonsense !

15 January 2010 at 11:58  
Blogger greenalien said...

Cranmer also demands to have Muslim schools and mosques stop teaching violence.

It is only reasonable that christian schools teach tolerance towards minorities.

15 January 2010 at 12:56  
Blogger Lawless Anarchist: said...

Peter Tatchell said that homosexuality was not proven to be genetic. A fair point. That sexuality may be shaped by all kinds of experience does not, however, make it 'unnatural'.

For example, is a sun tan unnatural because one is not born with one?

15 January 2010 at 14:10  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Well, Mr 'Lawless Anarchist' (a bit of a redundancy in your name, I think), there are natural suntans and unnatural suntans. But they all wear off eventually.

15 January 2010 at 14:48  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

How different Uganada's government is doing! We may have to emigrate to Uganada to have a government who does what is right

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100110/elca-presiding-bishop-addresses-proposed-uganda-homosexuality-law/index.html

The Ugandan lawmaker who proposed a highly contentious bill that would, if enacted, broaden the criminalization of homosexuality in the east African nation said Friday that he will refuse any request to withdraw the legislation.
Member of Parliament David Bahati said he felt the “Anti-Homosexuality Bill” is necessary to protect Uganda’s children from being “recruited” into homosexuality.

"I stand by the bill. I will not withdraw it,” Bahati said.

“The process of legislating a law to protect our children against homosexuality and defending our family values must go on," he added.

Now that is hitting the nail on the head! The very reason for the Western governments to promote homosexuality is to destroy the family! US-Congress has OFFICIALY, as part of it's policy, promoted homosexuality for this very reason, and as an answer to the so called 'overpopulation of the world' which is false but whose voice is listened to? Obviously not my voice or the Voice of God, but the voice of the evil Club of Rome.

15 January 2010 at 15:27  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

From as early as 1963 US-Congress has OFFICIALY, as part of it's policy, promoted homosexuality for this very reason, and as an answer to the so called 'overpopulation of the world' which is false but whose voice is listened to? Obviously not my voice or the Voice of God, but the voice of the evil Club of Rome.

This is what I tried to say above.

15 January 2010 at 15:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mostly fairly intellectual comments chaps, but as a 41 year old man who has known that he is gay since the age of eight, some of you rather seem to miss the point. My parents hated my sexuality, but have come to live with it and to love my partner of 20 years.

Homosexuality cannot be "taught" or "promoted" - it is how you are born.

As an aside my partner and I do not engage in "buggery, rimming, fisting or barebacking" - in fact, most gay people I know do not - for most of us it is just that you would prefer to spend your life with someone of the same sex. We live pretty much as our obviously straight parents did/do.

As for teaching in schools, I think it reasonable that children should be taught about homosexuality in a factual and non-judgemental way - if you are a member of the BNP, do you have the right to insist your children are brought up as facists? I would suggest not. If you are a christian and your child is homosexual - ask yourself, would you prefer that they knew they could be honest with you and have your support, or would you condemn them and prefer that they spent their lives in a loveless relationship with someone of the opposite sex because of your beliefs, backed up by the education system.

Anyway - blessings to you all x

15 January 2010 at 16:04  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Lord Lavendon,

//I have some respect for libertarians (such as your leader's blog) so I wish you would not refer to me in kind as part of a general idiocy. Cheerio for now !//

I was more referring to the likes of Bag Lady, and those others claiming that were everyone to be homosexual, then the human race would become extinct.

//The situation in which they would find themselves were it not for their ability to use medical means or, as you appear to suggest using the desert island analogy, simply (one would assume) lying back and thinking of England in order to reproduce,//

Depends if you consider a turkey baster, finger or other such simple mechanism to be "medical means". Even "artificial" might not be an accurate adjective, since a finger is not artificial. I suppose "unconventional" would be best, though "abnormal" if considered to be a description of deviation from the majority of the population, would be suitable.

Anyway, enjoy the rest of your debate.

15 January 2010 at 18:27  
Blogger Observer said...

Reading these comments it is incredibly hard not to laugh.

Soon the day will come when we won't need to ''teach'' anything about homosexuality because it just won't be an issue.

For most normal people it isn't.

15 January 2010 at 19:21  
Blogger Observer said...

BTW gay people have been having babies for years. The act of procreation is not confined to heterosexuals. Gay people just have sex with each and bond because they like it. It's how they were born.

15 January 2010 at 19:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maturecheese:

"What is even more despicable is the way that homosexuality is being thrust upon society regardless of what we may think with not one politician having the courage to stand against this abomination."

Iris Robinson had a good go. I wonder how her campaign is going?

15 January 2010 at 20:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maturecheese:

"I tried not to comment on this but alas the promotion of this perversion is something I feel strongly opposed to."

"I believe that the bible instructs us to resist temptation..."

Whoops!

15 January 2010 at 20:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bag lady:

"Oh, that's hilarious, ha, ha, ha, ha! So indiogomyth believes that a gay couple can conceive on their own after having sexual intercourse? Oh that has make me laugh!"

I know, next thing someone will be telling us about a virgin giving birth. The things they say eh!

15 January 2010 at 20:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

len:

"Additional findings showed that 60 percent of male homosexuals had more than 250 lifetime sexual partners, and 28 percent of male homosexuals had more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. Another startling fact is that 79 percent admitted that more than half of their sexual partners were strangers."

OK len you've talked me into it.

15 January 2010 at 20:56  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

@ALL THOSE HOMOSEXUALS WHO - for obvious reasons - maintain the lie that homosexuals are born that way: Every ex-homosexual proves you wrong! That is why you HATE ex-homosexuals! You may fool fools who deny that there is a God (for moral reasons: They love their sin and do not want to be told that their sin has consequences: Separated from God in the Lake that Burns with Fire and Brimstone FOR EVER!), hence the necessary lie of the evolution-faith (it is NOT proven, so it is a belief and should be treated as such...but fools rule the land...as in a democracy the majority rules...and there are always more fools than wise!). And you have seared your consicence with a hot iron, as Scripture says.

I can recommend the testimonies of ex-homo, worship leader, composer, father of 7 children, Dennis Jernigan, and of ex-homosexual Michael Glatze, who had become a leading activist in the homosexual community: Read about it in "Leading Gay Rights Activist Comes Out of Homosexuality, Tells His Story" & "Black Lesbian Activist Turned Evangelist" (find the links on google)

15 January 2010 at 21:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dutchlionfrans1953:

"and there are always more fools than wise!"

I guess that puts you in the majority then.

15 January 2010 at 21:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dutchlionfrans1953:

"I can recommend the testimonies of ex-homo, worship leader, composer, father of 7 children, Dennis Jernigan,"

He sounds like a reverse version of ex-straight playwright, poet and novelist Oscar Wilde but without the wit or talent.

15 January 2010 at 21:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dutchlionfrans1953:

"They love their sin and do not want to be told that their sin has consequences: Separated from God in the Lake that Burns with Fire and Brimstone FOR EVER!"

I guess its not so much the separation from God but having to share the lake with that canting trollop Iris Robinson that will really hack the gays off.

15 January 2010 at 22:24  
Anonymous Bisexual said...

The anon at 20.32 onwards has a real chip on his shoulder. Clearly not enough people are putting their cock up his anal passage. Or perhaps not enough women are using their hands on her fanny.

This person whoever they may be needs to get over themselves and live a real life.

Fancy a shag anon ?

15 January 2010 at 22:42  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

Anon at 20.32 said :"I know, next thing someone will be telling us about a virgin giving birth. The things they say eh!"

Yes, well, I am a Jew, so I do not agree with the virgin birth anyway. Sorry to burst your narrow minded bubble.

15 January 2010 at 22:48  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

The observer said in his post "Gay people just have sex with each and bond because they like it. It's how they were born."

Indeed and I was born to be a Peer of the realm and therefore to take my rightful place in running this country, by sitting in the possibly the best chamber of a parliament this world has ever witnessed, namely, the house of lords. As I am 'blue blooded' I am also a minority and as the socialists believe in protecting minorities, surely us Lords such be protected by the equality legislation?

And yet, despite my genetics and the fact I am well bred, the socialists see fit to deny my heritage in serving this country, by me being barred into the place in which my forefathers sat. Therefore, if I cannot help being a Lord because of my birth, why does the socialist discriminate against me? Or is this equality agenda merely the same as the animal farm, in which all minorities are equal, but some more than others?

15 January 2010 at 22:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bisexual:

"Fancy a shag anon ?"

You are forward - or perhaps you are all mouth and no trousers?

15 January 2010 at 23:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bag Lady:

"Yes, well, I am a Jew..."

Gosh that lake is going to be crowded.

15 January 2010 at 23:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lavendon:

"the socialists see fit to deny my heritage.."

Is there no end to their perfidy?

15 January 2010 at 23:10  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

Anon, yes, but I couldn't care less about the lake of fire. To clarify my point (which no one seems to understand) is that a gay man and a gay man cannot reproduce via intercourse. That is all I was saying and this is a fact, this does not make me anti-gay, because it is a fact.

Best the bag lady

15 January 2010 at 23:11  
Anonymous Jewish Bag Lady said...

Also, just to clarify there is another poster who calls herself "bag lady" and she is my twin sister. We have agreed that to clarify matters for readers that I will be Jewish bag lady and that the other bag lady will be call Christian bag lady (as my sister converted to that faith a while back- caused all sorts of family rows, but we are now one happy (ish) family) .

Hope that helps!

15 January 2010 at 23:13  
Anonymous The Real Liberal said...

Anon, the socialists will not be happy until they have runied this country. Soon we shall be nothing more than a poor "third world" country, in which everyone will be begging for the basics of life. The socialists only promise more misery. Vote for them and their lapdog allies in the liberal democrat party if you wish. But in doing so, you sow the seeds of your own destruction. The socialists will allow and encourage an islamic state as a result of their equality agenda. So if you are gay, be very afraid of what is to come from more power to the socialist government.

15 January 2010 at 23:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bag Lady:

"That is all I was saying and this is a fact, .."

I don't wish to be churlish; so congratulations on identifying a fact.

15 January 2010 at 23:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Real Liberal:

"the socialists will not be happy until they have runied this country. "

I guess they must be ecstatic right now then.

FWIW I'm voting UKIP.

15 January 2010 at 23:34  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Anon @23.34, I understand this because the Duchess said to me a few weeks back she was going to vote UKIP because she did not trust Cameron (after Lisbon). I was indeed taken aback because my wife is more tory than tory, in fact you could say she has blue blood in her veins. So when the likes of my wife say they will vote UKIP, something of a revolution is happening....

15 January 2010 at 23:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lavendon:

"the Duchess said to me a few weeks back..."

I guess you are either you are a Duke of the realm or you frequent a lot of East end drag bars.

16 January 2010 at 00:00  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Well, Anon Sir, I definitely do not frequent east end drag bars.

16 January 2010 at 00:07  
Anonymous Jewish Bag Lady said...

Lord Lavendon, just ignore the anon, he is clearly a wind up merchant like loki the norse god of mischief. Notice how he or she never actually engages in any kind of debate, just attempting a few 'witty' one -liners.

16 January 2010 at 00:15  
Blogger OldSouth said...

The heart of the matter is:

When the leader of the Liberal Democrats seeks to impose a distinctly illiberal and undemocratic worldview upon any minority, we see the face of true Liberal Democrat tyranny.

Tyranny. Pure and simple.

The moral response to tyranny is resistance. Dignified, reasoned, but unyielding resistance. The refusal to play by tyrannical rules. The refusal to sacrifice one's kids to the Nick Cleggs of the world.

One method employed in the US is home-schooling, in which the family tells the State, 'No, thank-you. We'll handle things from here.'

16 January 2010 at 03:43  
Blogger indigomyth said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 January 2010 at 09:23  
Blogger indigomyth said...

dutchlionfrans1953 said,

//@ALL THOSE HOMOSEXUALS WHO - for obvious reasons - maintain the lie that homosexuals are born that way: Every ex-homosexual proves you wrong! That is why you HATE ex-homosexuals!//

Curious, I have met people who only have one arm, yet I do not believe that means that having two arms is a choice.

Is having a foreskin a choice, for after all, many people subsequently have it removed?

The existence of ex-homosexuals proves nothing in regard to if people are born homosexual or not - much as meeting people without foreskins does nothing to demonstrate that people are not born with foreskins.

A more accurate expression would be to say that homosexuals can change - this is quite clearly true. With any particular level of personal mutilation, be it chemical or surgical, most possible states of humanity are attainable.

16 January 2010 at 09:24  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Old South said:
"One method employed in the US is home-schooling, in which the family tells the State, 'No, thank-you. We'll handle things from here.'

There are also many Home schoolers here in the UK, and yes, fully agree they are telling the State - 'No Thanks'
Unfortunately this evil government hates any suggestion of parents or children being independent of their system, or indeed independently independently minded.
That is why NewLab (probably as a result of EU pressure) is calling for home schoolers to be "registered", on the spurious grounds that they may not be up to educational standard! (Strange because home schooled children excel in academic qualifications)
Also the government wishes to send 'inspectors' into the home, and question children WITHOUT THEIR PARENTS BEING ALLOWED TO BE PRESENT.
Clearly, this is all part of the policy of the destruction of the family unit via the mechanism of the police State.

16 January 2010 at 10:13  
Anonymous Yvette Barrel said...

So Lord Lavendon is now an east end drag queen? Where oh where do people get these fantasises from?

16 January 2010 at 10:53  
Anonymous Perplexima said...

Indigomyth

Can you explain the level of personal mutilation
or chemical it takes to turn a homosexual male into a heterosexual male? You said homosexuals can change. Change into what?

16 January 2010 at 12:55  
Anonymous len said...

Can a homosexual change?, can any sinner change?
Certainly!
Anyone saved by Jesus Christ is a new creation, transformed, redeemed, washed clean, by the power of God.

16 January 2010 at 15:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

len:

"washed clean, by the power of God."

Does it work on the cool wash cycle as well?

16 January 2010 at 16:05  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Perplexima said...

//Can you explain the level of personal mutilation
or chemical it takes to turn a homosexual male into a heterosexual male? You said homosexuals can change. Change into what?//

Well, I would imagine that lobotomy, chemical or surgical castration would certainly causes cessation of homosexual feelings. And it may be then possible to construct an identity where one is attracted to the opposite gender, perhaps with substantial hormone supplements.

Of course, there is also psychiatric brainwashing that may have some success.

Most ex-gay therapies consider it a success if the patient merely has a decrease in same-sex attraction, not necessarily an increase in opposite-sex attraction.

But then, I do not believe such brutal "treatments" are morally correct - but these people desiring to change their sexual orientation are sovereign of their own bodies, and can dispose and destroy it as they see fit. Much as Muslim women have the right to undergo circumcision if they so choose, it does not mean that I have to believe it is moral for them to so mutilate themselves.

16 January 2010 at 16:34  
Blogger Pavlov's Cat said...

Funny how a debate about teaching homosexuality as truth becomes a debate about the validity of the subject itself.

Surely it's easier to teach the, youknow, facts, that homosexuality always has and always will exist, across not only humanity but the entire animal kingdom, and crops up at a statistically constant rate due to natural variation.

Personally I think schools should not have curriculums set by the state, and there can be secular private schools and christian private schools funded by vouchers, and then everyones happy.

P'cat.

16 January 2010 at 19:31  
Anonymous len said...

interesting the analogy between homosexuals and animals not the first time that has been used.But there again if we are merely an animal (according to Darwin)who can blame us?
According to your reasoning because something has always existed makes it OK? Well murder has always existed, so has lying, prostitution,theft, adultery,etc,etc.................

17 January 2010 at 01:33  
Anonymous len said...

You anons(16;05) are going to have to do a lot better than that!
You obviously are interested, post again I can give you details on salvation.
You don`t have to give your real name call yourself ' cool dude'

17 January 2010 at 01:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

len:

"lying, prostitution,theft, adultery,etc,etc................."

Yes, I was wondering what Iris Robinson might get up to next as well. If only she could find God.

17 January 2010 at 08:24  
Anonymous hank boxer said...

The Anon who keeps quoting from other posters and making quick quips about them is clearly incapable of bringing anything constructive to this debate. Must be a six former at a labour comp or a student at a poly university. See the education standard of new labour here.

17 January 2010 at 09:03  
Anonymous len said...

I see why His Grace doesn`t answer anons, if they don`t have the moral courage to own their own name what is their opinion worth?

17 January 2010 at 09:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

len:

"if they don`t have the moral courage to own their own name what is their opinion worth?"

I salute your moral courage "len" it is a lesson to us all.

17 January 2010 at 10:58  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

"Nick Clegg: faith schools must teach that homosexuality is 'normal and harmless'"

Explain to me again why sodomy was legalised? Because what two perverts do in private is no-one's business but their own?

Apparently not, then.

18 January 2010 at 19:20  
Blogger IftikharA said...

The miracle of human variety is in danger of disappearing, if all of us speak alike, dress alike, eat the same food, read the same fiction and enjoy the same music. It would be a great loss to our colourful planet. Public sector needs a multilingual work force. Teachers and police officers can help with race relations in the classroom and in the community. Public sector is seeking multilingual recruits to serve multicultural Britain. The ability to speak languages from Arabic to Urdu is considered to be an asset. Linguistic skills, in addition to the usual entry criteria, will boost the number of recruits in teaching, police, medicine, nursing and the civil service. Bilingual teachers, police officers, doctors and nurses are in a better position to serve the bilingual Muslim community. The language system has been used successfully in the United States. Mary Doherty at TTA, points out those bilingual teachers can be particularly welcome in state schools for bilingual pupils. Various studies show that bilingualism increases overall intelligence. Monolingualism leads to isolationist and inward thinking.

Exposure to different languages and cultures can increase tolerance. Language learning in childhood lays the foundations for developing real fluency in that language. Every child should have the opportunity to study a foreign language and develop their interest in the culture of other nations. Languages can be seen as an important way of putting more fun into primary learning and of broadening the children experience. Learning a second language boosts your intellectual powers by physically increasing the number of nerve cells in the language centres of the brain. A study at University College London shows that the brains of bilingual people are structurally enhanced compared to the brains of people who can only speak one language. The effect is even more marked in people who learnt a second language before they were five. Speaking a second language is like having access to another world. No other subject expands mental horizons in the same way. In an ordinary inner city school in England, nearly 100 languages are spoken, yet still essentially this is still a monolingual nation. London is the most multicultural city in the world with over 300 languages spoken everyday.

Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual teachers as role models during their developmental periods. All state schools where Muslim pupils are the majority should be designated as Muslim community schools. They are in a better position to provide balanced education by teaching the National Curriculum along with Arabic, Islamic studies, Urdu and other community languages. An Islamic atmosphere will help to develop Islamic Identity crucial for mental, emotional and personality development.
Iftikhar Ahmad
www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

19 January 2010 at 12:19  
Anonymous len said...

Is this an advert?

19 January 2010 at 20:27  
Blogger Jorvik_Ubermensch said...

It's funny how worked up some supposedly heterosexual people get about homosexuality.

SOME PEOPLE ARE GAY! GET USED TO IT!

21 January 2010 at 03:31  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

So according to Clegg, a significant proportion of the population object to immigration and would be classed by many as racist.
Therefore racism is a normal feeling, and perhaps should be taught in schools that these feelings are perfectly normal.

These Marxists just make it up as they go, it's not about logical coherance, it's about Smashing Western civilisation to set up theit Totalitarian Gulag, where they can invent enough 'laws' to have anyone they don't like executed.

26 January 2010 at 23:09  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

Ultimately, the Gay Agenda is about Smashing western civilisation using a multifaceted attack on our society.
Of course Clegg will not dare say the same at a Muslim Assembly, He's a coward as well as a traitor.
The Limp Dems want us wiped out, that is why they push immigration, that is why they have supported the Abortion bill, 7.2 million since 1970, this is why they push immigration, while no doubt supporting the call that

British schoolchildren should be sterilised

The gay agenda, ultimately is about Eugenics.
If any of you use public transport, will no doubt have noticed all the posters regarding all the horrible diseases people can catch from doing what comes naturally, all to frighten people out of what is, or should be the most beautiful of acts between a man and a woman.
Instead the Eugenicists and their Gay Lobby have turned it into a guilt trip.

Aaron Russo, the Bankers set up the Feminist Movement

26 January 2010 at 23:19  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

The Limp Dems don't want us British here, what they want are a Dumbed down Slave population to rule over.
Limp Dem Simon Hughes MP

The Gay agenda is just one part of a multifaceted war being waged against Western Civilisation.

IQ is a factor in the world they are hoping to create.

This is why our Children are pumped full of
Neurotoxins as soon as they are born

all the while they are slicing up unborn British Babies they are

secretly importing millions of replacements

27 January 2010 at 03:21  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older