Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Nick Herbert goes to the US to champion gay equality

The Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, Nick Herbert MP, is today giving a speech at the Cato Institute in Washington DC on the theme ‘Is there a place for gay people in Conservatism and Conservative politics?’

Under the leadership of David Cameron, the Conservative Party has gone further in supporting gay equality than other centre-right parties in similar countries and the Party is now taking the case for greater equality to the United States of America, in particular highlighting the benefits of civil partnerships. The Conservative Party advocating Civil Partnerships and gay equality to other countries may come as a surprise to some, but Mr Herbert expounds how it is consistent with conservative beliefs, thinking and aspirations.

He will be sharing a platform with well known gay commentator & author Andrew Sullivan (who was once kind enough to mention His Grace on The Daily Dish Blog) and Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage. The speech will be broadcast live at at noon local time (17:00 in the UK).

In the speech Mr Herbert is expected to say:

I’m delighted to be here at Cato, the guardian of true liberalism.

Thank you for hosting this event.

And I’m especially honoured to be sharing a platform with one of Britain’s most valuable exports, Andrew Sullivan.

On the way over I read Andrew’s book ‘Virtually Normal’.

He ends by calling for a new politics with a simple principle: that all public discrimination against homosexuals should end, and every right and responsibility enjoyed by heterosexuals should be extended.

But I also read Hearnshaw’s ‘Conservatism in England’, written before my father was born, in 1932.

He concludes: “To conservatives above all others ... falls the task of defending the menaced citadel of civilisation and maintaining the eternal sanctity of the moral law.”

Professor Hearnshaw’s “misguided revolutionaries” were not gay rights activists, but his clarion call for a faith-based conservatism finds many supporters today.

So can promoting equality for gay people be compatible with conservatism?

In discussing this I’m going to take three things as given. And if they’re contentious, they shouldn’t be.

First, since – on the most conservative estimates – around 5 per cent of the population are attracted to the same sex, there are more than 3 million gay people in the UK and 15 million in the United States.

People often speak of gays as though we are a society apart from the rest, living in our own quarter.

And a few choose to be apart.

But most of us don’t.

We live in every city and town.

We are businessmen and women.

We run shops and stack shelves.

We labour on farms and in factories.

We are fire fighters and police officers.

We save lives in hospitals.

We fight for our countries and sometimes we die for our countries.

Some of us are extraordinary, but mostly we are quietly ordinary.

We are not different. And we don’t want to be different.

We’re not asking for special treatment.

We are United States or British citizens.

Proud of our countries.

Wanting to play our part in society.

And across the world there are millions of us.

Millions of ordinary people.

Millions of voters.

Second, we can’t be uninvented. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice. Our sexuality is a fact. It may be repressed, but it cannot be changed.

Doctors don’t try to change a person’s colour.

And healers or politicians shouldn’t try to change anyone’s sexuality.

Whether it is given by god, or set by nature, homosexuality isn’t nurtured by doting mothers or weak fathers.

It isn’t a condition to be cured and it can’t be willed away through prayer.

Third, democracies should subscribe to a fundamental principle: that ‘all men are created equal’.

Some claim that the promotion of gay equality has no place in conservatism. In fact, many deny that conservatives should be interested in the equality agenda at all.

It is argued that equality is incompatible with liberty ... that if men are free, they are bound to become unequal.

But conservatives who want people to become better through their own efforts can never stand by while others are denied that chance.

Conservatives should always believe that everyone should have an equal chance in life, regardless of any other factors, and that they should not be discriminated against.

As Robert Levy, the Chairman of this Institute, has recently written:

“Thomas Jefferson set the stage in the Declaration of Independence: ‘[T]o secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men.’ The primary purpose of government is to safeguard individual rights and prevent some persons from harming others. Heterosexuals should not be treated preferentially when the state carries out that role. And no one is harmed by the union of two consenting gay people.”

Today I want to explain why I believe that conservatism is not only entirely compatible with the principle of equality between gay and straight people ...

... but that such equality is in fact an essential element of modern conservatism.

I want to explain how David Cameron has re-shaped the Conservative Party in the UK.

How we have developed a progressive conservative agenda, to secure important social objectives through conservative means.

How we have made a commitment to the vital institution of marriage a central part of our programme.

And how we believe that this institution is strengthened, not weakened, by extending its ambit to same sex relationships.

I am not here to preach or to interfere in your affairs.

I am here neither to tea party nor to go clubbing.

But I can tell you what happens to a party when it closes the door to sections of our society and is reduced to its core vote. It’s no fun being in opposition for thirteen years.

And I can tell you what happens when a Party opens its doors again and broadens its appeal.

A successful political party should be open to all and ought to look something like the country it seeks to govern.

In recent history the Conservative Party in Parliament reflected only a section of our society – male, white, professional, grey-suited and straight.

At the last election, of our 193 MPs elected, just 17 were women, only two black or minority ethnic and two were openly gay.

If we were truly representative of the country we would have 99 women, 16 black or minority ethnic and 10 gay MPs.

So our party leadership recognised the need to change.

Change because we are a national party which needs to be able to speak to, and speak up for, all sections of society in all parts of the country.

As David Cameron said on Monday, “Unless you can represent everyone in our country you cannot be a one nation party.”

Change because we need to reconnect politics with a public who are increasingly disillusioned with a political class.

And change because it was the right thing to do – to promote an environment where people can succeed and live without fear, regardless of their gender, colour or sexuality.

We now have more female candidates, more black and minority ethnic candidates and more gay candidates.

In fact, if we secure a majority in the House of Commons of just one seat, we are likely to have more openly gay MPs on our benches than the Labour Party.

The Conservative Party leadership was not alone in recognising the need to change.

Gay candidates have been selected by local party members – not imposed by the leadership.

I – an openly gay man – was selected before the last election by my local party, voted for by grassroots conservatives, and I’ve been promoted on merit.

I’m one of two Conservative MPs who have taken out a civil partnership – thanks to legislation which – to their credit – the current Labour Government introduced, but which the Conservative Party supported.

I led our Party’s support for a new law to prevent the incitement of hatred against gay people – subject to our concern that temperate comment should not be criminalised.

And our Party Leader, David Cameron, has publicly apologised for Section 28 ...

... legislation introduced by a previous Conservative Government which effectively prohibited the teaching of the validity of gay relationships in schools ...

... a law which was deeply unpopular not just amongst gay people, but with those who saw it as a divisive and unpleasant sign of state intolerance.

We needed to say sorry for a stance that was wrong.

And we showed that as a Party we were willing to admit mistakes and set a new course.

The importance of marriage

In his first speech to the Conservative Conference as Leader of the Party – a major event which brings together party activists from across the country – David Cameron said something extraordinary.

Defying the critics who claimed that party leaders could no longer express a moral preference for the institution, he spoke of the importance of commitment and marriage as the bedrock of our society.

But then he added: “and by the way, it means something whether you're a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and another man.”

And when he said these words, the delegates applauded. Not a half-hearted ripple of applause, but a spontaneous burst of approbation.

At that moment, we knew that the Conservative Party and British politics had changed.

David Cameron has put marriage at the centre of our prospectus for the next election, arguing that society is broken, and that we need to recognise the importance of marriage in providing a stable environment in which to raise children.

But in supporting marriage he has not done so in such a way as to denigrate or even exclude gay people.

In fact, the opposite, because we have recognised that commitment and stability are important in all relationships.

I appreciate the view held by some, on a strict reading of their faith, that marriage is a unique arrangement which is only available to a man and a woman.

And we should never dictate to religious organisations who are doing no harm that they should, in their own rites or places of worship, depart from their sincerely-held beliefs.

But in the UK, we created in law a civil union for heterosexual couples, specifically devoid of any religious ceremony and significance for those who do not wish to marry in church.

So what religious grounds could there be for opposing the extension of a secular institution to gay couples through the introduction of civil partnerships in 2005?

And why stand against the extension of a civil institution which demands a public declaration of commitment and stability?

Those who argue against legal recognition for gay partnerships often claim that many gay people have promiscuous lifestyles.

But there are few social incentives of the kind which conservatives should naturally embrace for gay people to embrace commitment.

There’s little social support ...

... no institutions to encourage fidelity or monogamy ...

... and precious little religious or moral outreach to guide gay people into what may be seen as more virtuous living.

So it’s right to recognise commitment in gay partnerships.

In the same way, we should reject discrimination against gay couples who wish to adopt.

I believe that the best parental arrangements are represented by a good father and a good mother, and children should never be treated as some kind of high value consumer good.

But this ideal of a loving and present father and mother is often not realised. So we should not seek to prevent adoption by same-sex couples who may offer a love and stability that is absent from too many homes.

We should not say that, whatever their talents, despite the contribution they can make, there are things that people may not do simply because of their sexuality.

In the UK we’ve allowed gays to serve openly in the military for ten years.

To bar people from making the most profound commitment to their nation, or to ask them to live their lives dishonestly by not telling, is something no conservative should support.

As Israel – hardly a country which goes in for soft defence – has understood, and in the words of Barry Goldwater, “you don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight”.

Progressive Conservatism

I don’t believe that conservatism should be a closed membership club.

We must be open to everyone because we believe that everyone should have a chance.

Conservatism at its most powerful has always been a uniting creed.

We’re conservative because we believe in strong defence and the nation state.

We’re conservative because we believe in responsibility and justice.

We’re conservative because we want to strengthen society and limit government.

We’re conservative because we’re sceptical about big government and have faith in our institutions and families.

Since Disraeli spoke of ‘one nation’ we have always understood the importance of maintaining a strong society.

And we have never confused that goal with faith in big government or state action.

The progressive conservatism which David Cameron has espoused is in the true one-nation tradition.

It’s about using radical conservative philosophy, politics, and policy to serve truly progressive goals.

It's about fostering local democracy, engagement and accountability by returning power to town halls, neighbourhoods, and individuals.

It's about pursuing a family agenda that lets parents take responsibility for their children's education, allowing them to set up their own schools so that we can give everyone a fair chance in life.

It's about developing bold approaches to tackling poverty and inequality in all its forms, engaging more actively with the voluntary sector and encouraging a revolution in social responsibility.

And it’s about recognising that there is such a thing as society, it's just not the same as the state.

If we stand against equality of opportunity, which should be an article of faith for the Right, it becomes the preserve of the Left ...

Warped into an agenda of state interference, targets and central control ...

... when it should be about getting out of people’s way and letting them advance.

Consensus on gay issues

In the UK, all three major political parties are now assuring gay people that it’s safe to vote for them.

Typically, far from taking pleasure in this new consensus, the Left has greeted it with dismay.

For over a decade they have sought to build a client state, where groups are beholden to their generosity.

And now they want to open up ‘clear pink water’ between themselves and the Conservative Party.

There’s an election coming, and it suits our opponents to argue that we haven’t changed.

But we self-evidently have changed. I suppose, in a small way, my presence here is evidence of that.

The truth is that there are millions of people who we drove away but who share our values and want to join us.

Gay people are not the property of the Left, or of any party.

They are not an interest group or a political commodity to be traded.

They are not vessels for votes.

Gay people are motivated by the same issues as any other voter.

They will vote for the political party which best sits with their views – so long as that party does not make itself taboo.

Moving the agenda forward

For the modern Conservative Party, embracing gay equality is neither a temporary phenomenon, nor an agenda which can be reversed.

We know that we have further to go to modernise our Party

If we form the next government, we intend to entrench the progress made on gay equality, and to move the agenda forward.

If there is a need for new laws, we will consider them.

But we will also understand where we should give a lead, and where there is a need for law.

Conservatives should never leap to legislate.

So we will show leadership in demanding action to tackle homophobic abuse in sport, where behaviour and role models can exert such a powerful influence on young people ...

... as we should demand action against all abusive behaviour on the playing fields.

We will take the strongest stand against the homophobic bullying of children in schools ...

... as we should take a stand against all bullying – and we will not allow our support for faith schools to undermine that stand.

We will insist on action against hate crime where gay people are the victims ...

... as we should insist on action against all hate crime which incites fear and violence.

We will speak out when countries abuse the human rights of gay people ...

... as we should speak out when any human rights are abused.

None of these areas necessarily require new laws.

But they do require a clear-sighted and determined conviction about the importance of political leadership in promoting human dignity and equality.

When I was born in 1963, homosexual conduct was a crime.

I, and millions of others, are free to be who we are now because of the courage of political leaders who saw that this prohibition was wrong.

I, and thousands of others, are free to enter into a civil partnership now because of the courage of politicians who saw that to exclude us from making that commitment was wrong.

And the need for this leadership has not gone away.

Our vision

So let us be clear about the kind of society we want to build.

One where a child can go to school without being bullied because of his or her sexuality.

Where people can be honest with their friends and families and employers, and not
live a lie.

Where the terraces at football games do not ring with homophobic abuse.

Where a public declaration of lifelong commitment to another person can be made by anyone.

Where communities are safe and no-one is fearful because of who they are.

Where anyone can serve their country without being asked who it is they love.

Where no-one is held back and opportunity is available to all.

And where the Prime Minister of the UK or the President of the United States could just as easily be gay as black.


Cranmer refers his readers and communicants to this article and to this article he wrote a year ago.

Has politics become so utterly superficial as to be more concerned with the colour of one’s skin and what one does with one's penis than with one’s moral worldview?


Anonymous Dyfed said...

Social conservatives must be struggling with this speech, especially all those Christians who think the state should control personal lives. I've blogged on the issue today

17 February 2010 at 12:01  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

'...discrimination against homosexuals should end, and every right and responsibility enjoyed by heterosexuals should be extended.'

Excuse me for asking, but will somebody please tell me what rights and responsibilities enjoyed by heterosexuals (whom I would call normal people)are denied to homosexuals?

How about the right to marriage? As far as I know, homosexuals have as much right to be married as anybody else does. But they just prefer to live with other men instead.

What about the right not to be married? Well, we all equally have the right to be bachelors.

So just what are these alleged rights and responsibilities?

17 February 2010 at 12:13  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Oh yes, and how about the right to use the word gay with its proper meaning? Can we have that back, please?

17 February 2010 at 12:15  
Blogger John.D said...

First of all, Good afternoon Dyfed. I live "across the straights" in Conwy; I have a brother who resides in Anglesey.

Secondly, what is the world coming to?

17 February 2010 at 12:17  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

" a conservative estimate, 5% of the populace are attracted to the same sex.."

"..Being gay is not a lifestyle choice. Our sexuality is a fact. It may be repressed, but it cannot be changed."

I wonder. If there is a 'gay gene' (which no-one has actually identified), one wonders why there are still homosexuals in society as homosexuals would tend not to beget children. And if the
high proportion of homosexuals in the population can be attributed to those in the past who stayed in the closet and married, then presumably in today's liberal society homosexuals will gravitate to each other and will not beget children. Within a couple of generations, the incidence of those with the gene will naturally reduce to a small background percentage, comparable, say, with the incidence of polydactylism in the population (0.3%).

If on the other hand, it is a lifestyle choice the 5% will tend to grow as homosexuals continue to become more powerful, proselytise and dominate the agenda.

17 February 2010 at 12:57  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

Anabaptist. I believe you are precisely correct in your question:

"will somebody please tell me what rights and responsibilities enjoyed by heterosexuals (whom I would call normal people)are denied to homosexuals?

Answer: They (homosexuals) are, as you imply, as free to the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual people. But the militant "gay" lobby has seized the opportunity to entirely change the argument to make it one about "equality". Indeed the whole raft of legislation including the latest "Equality law", gives the impression that those who disagree with the "Gay" agenda, are guilty of promoting inequality.
But that is not the case.
"Straight" people, including Christians have never argued (or should not) that homosexuals are 'inferior', or less equal than others as persons per se.
So, in order to justify the promotion of the "gay" agenda AS AN IDEOLOGY, the mask of an alleged inequality argument is being used.
Of course, Christians believe that all people are equal in the sight of God. Period.
All people are also equal in their common sinnership before God.
But Christians also go on to affirm that in human sexual relationships God has ordained ONLY heterosexual monogamany as the created order (from Genesis) i.e. Marriage between one man and one woman for life.

Modern cultural obsessions with a "gay ideology" does not alter that basic fact of life and experience, neither does it bear on the non problem of equality.

17 February 2010 at 13:03  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

I hate false statistics and other lies employed to push one's way upon a majority of the people who disagree.

Why are these figures never questioned in the media? Because the media are evil!

The same as our minister of homo-'emancipation' Plasterk who called upon Dutch soccer players to 'come out.' Based on the false figure of 10% of the population must be homosexuals, therefore he calculated there must be an X number of homosexual soccer players. And since there is not one professional homosexual soccer player, therefore, the Minister concludes - based on these false statistics the homosexual community provided - that the homosexual soccer players are being discriminated against.

MERCY! Why are these people so blind? Why are we ruled by such blind people? If there are no professional homosexual soccer-players, should not therefore the Minister conclude that the statsitics provided by homosexuals are FALSE? What will cause these blind fools, who do not deserve government power, even to waste our money, they robbed from the taxt-payers to waste on their false doctrines and false issues that even go against the majority of the people - to wake up? Is this God's judgment that we are cursed with such people in government?

But as we are ruled by fools, who by the way in 1963 (Official Policy of US-Congress) decided - as an instrument to deal with the so called 'overpopulation' the lying Club of Rome came up with - to support and promote homosexuality, NOT because they deserved this or because homosexuals were being discriminated against, NO! But because homosexuals do not multiply!

So as we are ruled by such fools, since the statistics must be true, then the government will do everything to MAKE THEM COME TRUE! This is not government homo-emancipation; this is State sponsored homo-sexual-production.

By the way: What do homosexuals need to be liberated from? The only thing they need liberation from is their homosexuality which is possible after true repentence to Christ! As 2 Cor.5:17 says: Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

But our governments policy is to maintain homosexuals as homosexuals, even if homosexuals would not want to, and to make the false statistics come true: The government says there are 10% homosexuals in the population, so since they can not be found, the government will MAKE them! This is State-Tyranny which can not be tolerated any longer!

17 February 2010 at 13:04  
Anonymous He's Spartacus said...

Has politics become so utterly superficial as to be more concerned with the colour of one’s skin and what one does with one's penis than with one’s moral worldview?

Unfortunately, some people still think the colour of other people's skin and what they do with their penises dictates those people's moral world view.

But more government intervention isn't the answer. Homosexuality is hasn't been illegal for decades. From that fundamental point, all rights should arise naturally, without the need for drowning us in yet more legislation.

17 February 2010 at 13:11  
Blogger Brian, follower of Deornoth said...

Who was the chap that mentioned he'd had far less hate and vituperation directed at him for being gay in the company of republicans than for being republican in the company of gays?

17 February 2010 at 13:11  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

Just to make one more observation:

In the vision of this homosexual politician, he says:One where a child can go to school without being bullied because of his or her sexuality.

Let me comment: It was rarely an issue until homosexuals who want to PRODUCE HOMOSEXUALS made it an issue! Troubling and bringing unrest and injustice to millions of schoolchildren and teachers, school-boards etc. ABUSING STATE-POWER to FORCE Christian schools to hire homosexuals in violation of the very foundation it is built upon and teaches from. This is State-Tyranny which can not be tolerated. And all this in the name of 'freedom.'

What they call freedom is in fact lasciviousness. And for their unrestrained sinful behaviour, all nation must bow, and suffer enormous BONDAGE!

17 February 2010 at 13:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dutchlionfrans1953, don't you enjoy bondage?

17 February 2010 at 13:40  
Blogger Sinful Soul said...

Your Grace,

What utter nonsense and poppycock,what use will equality and gay rights be when the oil has run out,the supermarkets are empty and famine,disease,war, social breakdown and sin is the normal day to day experience of humanity.


17 February 2010 at 13:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anorexiacs and the morbidly obese"

17 February 2010 at 13:58  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

Another lie which comes from the homosexual pipeline is, I quote: "..Being gay is not a lifestyle choice. Our sexuality is a fact. It may be repressed, but it cannot be changed."

Every ex-homosexual proves this lie wrong! There are many ex-homosexuals but they are hated by homosexuals who refuse to repent. One prominent ex-homosexual is the worship leader and Gospel-song writer Dennis Jernigan. Listen to his testimony:

And also: Michael Glatze, who had become a leading activist in the homosexual community, made the shocking announcement in a World Net Daily column entitled "How A 'Gay Rights' Leader Became Straight." He said: It became clear to me, as I really thought about it – and really prayed about it – that homosexuality prevents us from finding our true self within. We cannot see the truth when we're blinded by homosexuality.

In a society where gay tolerance is increasing and more than half of Americans say they do not believe homosexuality is changeable, according to a recent CNN poll, Glatze posed, "If there had not been homosexuality condoned in the culture, would I have developed the notion that I had such an identity because we know the nature of that identity is suspect?"

The culture tells him he should be proud of his gay identity, he said, but such a culture prevents him from "fully growing."

"In my experience, 'coming out' from under the influence of the homosexual mindset was the most liberating, beautiful and astonishing thing I've ever experienced in my entire life," Glatze wrote in his column.

Glatze has always believed in trying to fight for the truth. As he read the Bible more, he said he tried to "actually open my mind."

"People often call themselves open-minded when they would absolutely never listen to certain aspects of the literature that's out there," he noted.

"I believe that all people, intrinsically, know the truth. I believe that is why Christianity scares people so much. It reminds them of their conscience, which we all possess."

In an earlier interview with Time magazine in 2005, when he was still a rising gay activist, he had stated, "I don't think the gay movement understands the extent to which the next generation just wants to be normal kids. The people who are getting that are the Christian right."

He now calls the Bible the "number one self-help book" that teaches you how to be yourself – genuine and true."

Glatze's testimony comes months after a prominent black lesbian activist also came out of the closet as an ex-homosexual.

Charlene E. Cothran, 48, also ran a pro-homosexual magazine (Venus) and was at the forefront in gay pride movements and lobbying efforts for homosexual persons. She too abandoned the homosexual lifestyle and the belief that one can be a homosexual and a Christian through the teachings of Jesus Christ.

17 February 2010 at 14:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

17 February 2010 at 14:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

If homosexuality is an inherted biological trait rather than a lifestyle choice, wouldn't that prove Christianity and many other religions to be false?

What is your view on both the cause and the consequence of homosexuality in relation to the truth/falsehood of religious teachings?

17 February 2010 at 14:16  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

I quote also: Third, democracies should subscribe to a fundamental principle: that ‘all men are created equal’.

This is another lie. All men are NOT created equal! This is a MARXIST doctrine. But communist practise shows that some are MORE EQUAL than others....

Every lie can only be introduced and maintained by abuse of State-force. Because most people refuse lies that go against their nature naturally!

17 February 2010 at 14:21  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Kenpachi,

His Grace has addressed your concern in one of the linked articles.

17 February 2010 at 14:26  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

@Kenpachi: You observed correctly.

This is why it is FALSE to say that homosexuals are born that way. If it was so, there would be no hope for homosexuals to ever change. They would have no choice. And God´s condemnation of homosexuals as an abomination to Him would make no sense!

17 February 2010 at 14:28  
Anonymous Tony B said...

>All men are NOT created equal! This is a MARXIST doctrine.

Er, I think you'll find that precise wording in the US declaration of Independence, which predates Marxism somewhat..

17 February 2010 at 15:13  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

Yes Tony, it says that. Btt you must know what it means correctly.

I quote from Wikipedia: The quotation "All men are created equal" is arguably the best-known phrase in any of America's political documents. Thomas Jefferson first used the phrase in the Declaration of Independence as a rebuttal to the going political theory of the day: the Divine Right of Kings. It was thereafter quoted or incorporated into speeches by a wide array of substantial figures in American political and social life.

This phrase has been and is being abused by many. I am NOT equal to a woman as I am a man. God has given a woman a different body than a man, but also a different position and role.

ONLY by following God´s given nature and His prescribed Manual - His Word, the Bible, rightly interpreted not by men but by the Holy Spirit, not to kill but to bring life!- can men and women - in short: Society be most fulfilled, most content, and most happy.

Woman has been fighting for domination or at least equality to man since God cursed her after she listened to satan and disobeyed Him. Originally God made her out of Adams rib meaning she was equal to Adam / by his side. But since she was cursed by God Who told her: I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Many- including me would interpretate that verse as God causing women to lust after men. But because I did not in general see this is society, rather the opposite, I was very happy with the interpretation - which the context also supports - that since menw as given rule over women, she would desire to take over.

Whenever a woman is allowed to rulke over men society suffers. And since the State has embraced this false ideology - even abusing it´s legislative power etc. - society suffers.

Women´s ´lib´ was and is supported in the USA by the Rockeffelers, with the EXPRESSED INTENTION to DESTROY TH FAMILY! This is also why they support homosexual ´emancipation.´ To destroy the family.

This also is a MARXIST DOCTRINE! For strong families and a strong church would hinder the establishment of a communist State!

17 February 2010 at 15:41  
Anonymous Tony B said...

Oh, I see. You subscribe to the David Icke school of fantasy. I hadn't realised.

17 February 2010 at 15:57  
Blogger Gnostic said...

I think the question the Tories should be asking themselves is:

‘Is there a place for honest, impartial, common sense people in Conservatism and Conservative politics?

At the moment the resounding answer to the question appears to be - NO!

I don't give a toss about whether or not an MP is gay. I do give a toss about whether or not that MP can do the bloody job s/he was elected for. It's not rocket science is it...

17 February 2010 at 16:31  
Blogger Sinful Soul said...

Your Grace,

With so many perils on the horizon that will have a negative impact on society as a whole,(not just gays) why oh why are our elected reps wasting time,energies and taxpayers money on this type of rubbish..most people do not give two hoots what others do lawfuly with their bits,and the care of ones own soul is largely and ultimately ones own responsibility.

Cameron would gain much more respect I believe from the general population including gays if he declared he would be putting a stop to this type of nonsense and focus on what really mattered to,crime,planning for the future etc.

Of course the gay vote is another step to power!but do gays really want or need this type of drum beating,flag waving.

And what of the conservative moral stance on pederasty,its a sin,"sin no more" obviously a Christian morality comes a poor second place to votes.

Still,this will all be dust in the wind when the more important issues that effect us all can no longer be ignored.

17 February 2010 at 16:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

There are many posters here that I have come to respect such as: Anabaptist, Gnostic and Lord Lavendon. I only mention these as they have said they won’t be voting Conservative. I am beginning to understand why. I am in a dilemma. If I vote Conservative Cameron has to complete Harriet Harman’s attack upon my church and indirectly my faith. He is compelled to because federal law requires it. He has made a commitment to federal law.

Let me now turn to portions of Mr Herbert’s speech which is an attempt to change what the Conservative party has stood for since William Pit (the Younger).

He baldly asserts, without evidential proof, that being homosexual is not a lifestyle choice. That is a superstition. A superstition is the reluctance to look for counter-examples: hasbians (former lesbians who are now heterosexual).

Therefore, when he attempts to equate the homosexual lifestyle with skin colour: the attempted equating has no basis. Again, it is a bald assertion.

He subscribes to what he calls a fundamental principle: ‘all men are created equal’ - yet no religion supports the idea men were created homosexual. Indeed from the tittering in Plato’s writings to every religion: homosexuality is condemned: precisely because it is harmful to society. He argues that heterosexuals should not be given preferential treatment compared to homosexuals - yet as we know that when rights of people collide in a court of law: one party wins and the other loses. Preferential treatment is the result. The question is which right should trump another right for a healthy society.

The Conservative party is projecting the impression it has changed - the fact is federal law has changed it. The people, as the opinion polls show, are on course to deliver a hung parliament. I can see no other way for a conservative party to emerge.

17 February 2010 at 17:37  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

'gay commentator & author Andrew Sullivan (who was once kind enough to mention His Grace on The Daily Dish Blog)...'

Daily Dish???

Does that mean you were some sort of gay page 3 boy?

I think we should be told!


17 February 2010 at 18:15  
Blogger Sinful Soul said...

Your Grace,

It is ironic that buffoon Boris is holding a placard saying "some people are gay get over it"

...well I would argue that the vast majority of the public got "over it" some time ago,it is only the politicians and special interest groups who have not.

17 February 2010 at 18:23  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Hyatt,


His Grace assures you that there isn't a cat in hell's chance (what is the provenance of that phrase?) of his ever being a 'gay icon'. Should it ever be determined that cat's do indeed go to hell, His Grace is sufficiently latitudinarian to be able to revise his dogma.

17 February 2010 at 18:32  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Peter Hitchens wishes the Conservative Party would self-destruct. David Cameron is his instrument

17 February 2010 at 18:44  
Anonymous len said...

I think one of the most frightening things is the words in the bible "God gave them up".

The Scriptures indicate that when a person engages in homosexuality it is an indication they are under God’s judgment. The judgment is described as, "God gave them up." This happens when a person is in deep rebellion against God. This rebellion manifests itself in homosexuality which would then cause God to give them over to this act. They can be sealed into homosexuality.
A homosexual can repent and trust Jesus Christ as Savior just like any other sinner; however, those that are in deep rebellion against God and not just caught in the power of this sin are given over to it. There is a huge difference between being under the power of sin and being given over to it in judgment by God. A homosexual that is not a reprobate is one that knows the act is wrong and is under condemnation.
There are numbers of homosexuals who are not reprobates as they struggle against this iniquity. There is hope for them in the saving gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. The gospel of Jesus Christ has more power than the lust of homosexuality or any other iniquity!
The reprobate has lost any conviction that the act is sinful. The conscience of a reprobate is dead to God’s conviction of sin. When someone is given over to homosexuality, they have what the Bible calls a reprobate mind. This mind is devoid of God and His word. The Greek word reprobate means unapproved, rejected,worthless.It is also translated castaway and rejected.
This is an unprecedented time in history. The acceptance of fornication/homosexuality is actually being preached from pulpits and by politicians. Homosexuals are standing boldly in pulpits pretending to be preachers of righteousness. They are deceiving and being deceived. God never changed His position on fornication.
Those that practice this sin will not inherit the kingdom of God contrary to what false teachers may say from the pulpits. The Bible is the final authority not false teachers. The Lord Jesus said His word is the final authority:
"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." John 12:48

17 February 2010 at 19:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Commenters suggesting that sexuality,contra Nick Herbert, is a lifestyle choice are quite correct. There are plenty of men who get fed up with their wives and decide to take up the gay life.

As homosexuality becomes more socially accepted and tolerated more and more men are taking it up. This is what one would expect.

No doubt there are some men who have heterosexual relations because they actually do like women rather than because they are bullied into it by state and social pressure; but who knows for sure how few this is?

Of course homosexuality can be promoted and people be encouraged to take it up, it happens all the time. Nothing of any moral significance flows from this though. It wouldn't matter a jot if the whole world turned gay.

17 February 2010 at 19:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'Nothing of any moral significance flows from this though.'

There does indeed. A son then ought to be allowed to marry his mother and consumate the marriage.

A brother ought to be allowed to marry his sister.

And a woman ought to be allowed to marry her pet chimpanzee and comsumate the marriage.

Once you allow legitimacy to the homosexual engagement you have no defence to any other relationship being formed - which then for the sake of consistency should be certified by the State - because the pet chimpanzee caught in bigamy should be prosecuted.

Dontcha think?

17 February 2010 at 19:45  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Voyager said...
'Peter Hitchens wishes the Conservative Party would self-destruct. David Cameron is his instrument.'

Slightly confused logic here, Mr Voyager, if I may say so. Hitchens wants the 'hopeless Tories' to collapse because Cameron is their leader. Or, to put it less simplistically, because they are the sort of party that elects people like Cameron as leader.

You are right in one major respect, however: at the present rate Cameron may well be the instrument of their destruction.

Or maybe Cast-Iron Cameron has caught the zeitgeist, and it is we few reactionaries who are out of touch.

17 February 2010 at 19:46  
Anonymous IanCad said...

'The case for greater equality ' Your Grace? Does that not imply equality is not enough and that some form of affirmative action is necessary to promote this favoured group still further?
The party of limited government? I'm afraid not.
Pray for a Labour victory!

17 February 2010 at 19:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D. Singh:

"A son then ought to be allowed to marry his mother and consumate the marriage.

A brother ought to be allowed to marry his sister.

And a woman ought to be allowed to marry her pet chimpanzee and comsumate the marriage."

You think these things are of moral significance?

17 February 2010 at 20:15  
Blogger Oswin said...

If only I had a flair for 'soft-furnishings'!

17 February 2010 at 20:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon at 8.15 - attention to detail - you used the period after the initial 'D' - who are you?

17 February 2010 at 20:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With all due respect your Grace, I highly recommend distancing yourself from Andrew Sullivan. Not for his homosexuality-that's not an issue, but he has become increasingly erratic and entertains bizarre 'Trig Palin-birther' conspiracy theories in addition to a pathological obsession with Sarah Palin.

Whether his current state is due to his admitted long term testorone use, HIV-induced dementia, or a another unknown reason, Andrew Sullivan is clearly suffering from some mental problems. Fair warning, your Grace.

17 February 2010 at 21:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I used not to care one way or the other about gays until they started with this feel sorry for us stuff.

Anyway no one in America will take this nonentity seriously.

18 February 2010 at 03:06  
Blogger adrian said...

Subversion of western civilisation

Cultural Marxism

18 February 2010 at 05:51  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Slightly confused logic here, Mr Voyager, if I may say so. Hitchens wants the 'hopeless Tories' to collapse because Cameron is their leader. Or, to put it less simplistically, because they are the sort of party that elects people like Cameron as leader.

Hitchens wants the Tories to self-destruct because of their policies over decades in destroying England....Cameron has never held public office to date....he is the instrument not the reason

18 February 2010 at 07:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

Once again the Americans show the way forward:

18 February 2010 at 12:36  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"I used not to care one way or the other about gays until they started with this feel sorry for us stuff."
Anon, that sums it up perfectly.
With this lot to one side and the Moslems to the other we are in a mess.

18 February 2010 at 12:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have nothing against gays.

I am absolutely appalled by Camerons proposal that we should invite all the African gays to our limited landmass, which is in a state of high unemployment, recession, inflation and near collapse infrastructure.

I'm sorry but I simply cannot wrap my head around his logic, unless he intends to finish the destruction of my beloved homeland that NuLabour started.

18 February 2010 at 13:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you enjoy this blog: please donate £5 - to keep it going.

18 February 2010 at 16:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

19 February 2010 at 06:23  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

According to my conservative estimate 0.1% of men are homosexuals and 0.001% of women. It's just that most of them work in the media.

19 February 2010 at 09:47  
Anonymous Southwood said...

Aren't the Tories an utterly pathetic bunch. Oh, this country is well and truly under God's wrath. Cameron is an unbelievable person. Only UKIP offers any political sense i.e. removal from the awful EU but even they are pro-"gay" too, it seems. The only answer for this country is repentance and a return to the reformation principles which made it great because God-honouring.

20 February 2010 at 14:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cranmer seems obsessed with homosexuality. Is there something he's not telling us?

21 February 2010 at 08:46  
Blogger Bryan said...

"Has politics become so utterly superficial as to be more concerned with the colour of one’s skin and what one does with one's penis than with one’s moral worldview?"

That is a false argument.

Unlike the color of one's skin, the choice of what one does with one's own penis is a direct reflection of his moral world view, irrespective of "orientation".

Therefore, while the color of a person's skin is irrelevant, the sexual moires of a person can and should be a political, religious, and societal issue.

24 February 2010 at 22:57  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older