The Foreign Office is to risk the wrath of homophobic regimes worldwide by encouraging British ambassadors to do more to support gay communities.
Chris Bryant, the new Foreign Office minister, who is gay, has started writing personal letters of congratulations to British diplomats who show public support for gay rights. He is praising them for such support even if it draws anger from national governments or local homophobic groups.
Right. Let's start by listing the heterophobic regimes, those averse to the normal relations between two people, leading to a thing called the family which we once used to value. So, Britain and America are first cabs off the rank.
Let's then find heterofriendly regimes and send letters of congratulations to them for supporting the family unit. Think I'll start today, on FCO letterhead paper.
This ridiculous catchcry 'homophobic', put about by the gay mafia against anyone who opposes them - since when does being opposed to the political swamping of the social agenda by a one issue pressure group constitute homophobia? Live and let live, let the homosexuals do as they wish in private and good luck to them. Just don't block the streets of London and takeover the airwaves and internet please.
I don't want your garbage shoved down my throat.
I know that this is a sensitive issues for you, James and I agree that one does not need a cheap show of slobbering couples thrust in their face publicly-whether they be hetrosexual or homosexual,but their being 'out there' demanding recognition and rights[as opposed to condemnation of their status] is no different than any oppressed group. As soon as one oppresses one for being different then they are forced to,quite rightly, stand up and rebel against that inrfringement to their personal rights.
ReplyDeleteHomosexuals, I don't think, are the ruination of the family unit-they create their own family unit,even if it is not the standard. But with divorce rates so high,unmarried mothers raising children single handedly, step families- the face of the family unit has changed.
Love and security are what make a family,not gender and sexuaol preferences.
I think I'll answer in the next post on Loretta. :)
ReplyDeleteI don't have 'data' to back it up at this point, but there has been, I think, a move to break up the traditional family. I do believe that it is because the traditional family/extended family ties is needed for the stability of society and is necessary for the raising of the next 'functional' generation. This is a blanket statement, I know, and I'm waiting to get 'zapped' for it.
ReplyDeleteIt has been my general impression that the homosexual community wants more of a special status than to have it all equal; they're demanding that everyone accept and acknowledge their lifestyle as normal/natural which people simply are not going to do, for their various personal reasons. It's arrogant and selfish for the homosexual community to demand this of people.
I do agree people shouldn't be second-classed and discriminated against because they don't agree with the mainstream. This is a two-edged sword, however, and the 'politically correct police' I think are worse at honouring this.
disclaimer, I'm usually pretty open to discussing a person's thoughts/feelings, even if it's to disagree amicably. I try to keep it in the perspective that the person is more important than even the most hotly debated topic.
It's frightening, HGF, how much I find myself agreeing with you. I really do think that you represent common sense.
ReplyDeleteYou've obviously got yourself a lovely family so you're a bit biased but you're not saying the homosexual community is bad or they should be stopped or anything like that.
You're just saying it's gone beyond equal now and that instructions from the FCO is astounding because it brings in an issue which should have nothing to do with foreign policy.
Being anti-British or pro-terrorist or something like that would be within the purview of the FCO, within its remit but this thing about favouring gays has zero to do with this man's business in the office.
It's bringing his personal biases into his working life.
You might not agree but I feel he should be sacked immediately.
James,
ReplyDeletejust as an extra thought, what if this man were Catholic, or for that matter, Buddhist and creating his letters in that slant. You could even include the slant of congratulating the Vegan supporting diplomats.
What does all this have to do with the FO? He's using his power to further a private agenda. Not that he's the only one, of course.
Were the private agenda for the good of the whole, perhaps it could be rationalized.
(ta, btw :))
Trying to keep my cool after reading your article and the attendant comments (other than the first, which seems the only thing remotely acceptable here) and only barely succeeding.
ReplyDeleteWhy should wanting to be treated equally be regarded as wanting 'special favours'? Personally I applaud our ambassadors who are supporting the moderately-tolerant culture of their home country, the UK, in the much more repressive countries where they work on our behalf - that's what being an ambassador involves, to represent his/her country abroad. And the fact that an FCO minister has conrimed this country's support for their actions is equally to be applauded.
I will mention a few other examples of countries being unwilling to accept all the heterodox nonsense in countries where they have diplomatic representation which I applauded when I heard about them years ago. The US always made a point of having at least one senior diplomat in Pretoria during 'apartheid' who was African-American, just as they always had at least one senior diplomat in Jeddah (later Riyadh) when I lived there who was of the Jewish faith; perhaps they still do, for all I know. Jews were and are barred from Saudi Arabia under normal circumstances - henry Kissinger was a notable exception when I lived there, a matter which caused widespread local comment and amazement at the time.
I loathe and detest most things about the Labour government and never voted for it, but applaud the fact that they have made great strides in enforcing equality for all British citizens, even if some representatives in Parliament of my own former Party (the Conservatives) attempted a variety of rear-guard manoeuvres to halt this. I generally prefer a Conservative government, but an occasional break is necessary to halt some of the wilder (Lady Young, Ann Widdecombe, Lord Tebbit, etc) elements thinking they can ride roughshod over people's rights, where these happen to fall foul of a 'Daily Mail'-style agenda; this is the newspaper of course which during the 1930s was a fervent supporter of the German government of Adolf Hitler, so I regard it almost as a talisman when people seem to support policies which that foul organ approves of.
I have never shouted my 'gayness' from the rooftops, but I have become too old, and have too little time left to waste, to accept the 'back of the bus' sanctimony that you indulged in here. I regret very much having to write this because you have always struck me until now as one of the more reasonable blog-writers.
As for there having been 'deliberate moves' to break up the normal family as alleged by an earlier commenter, she (for I assume given the pseudonym employed that the writer is a she) wisely states that she has no evidence to back-up this bonkers claim. The fact that your following comment suggested you agree really does make me wonder...
Bill, as a member of a currently oppressed minority - the white, ageing male who is discriminated against at all levels of society today, I myself need to keep my cool, not you.
ReplyDeleteThere was a time when women got the short end of the stick - they then achieved equality and the need for the lobby group disappeared. Now they are "over-equal', thanks to the laughable "positive discrimination", which means "negative discrimination" for the likes of me.
No one speaks of this appalling state of affairs and yet people have the nerve to call this "equality". We suffer in silence, except if we have a blog.
Then came the blacks and they achieved their over-equality. Then came the gays and they achieved their Stonewall, gay pride etc. So they have their equality now.
But they don't want to stop there, any of these single issue groups - they want over-equality and that's just what this Chris Bryant has done - crossed this line.
In his rolle at the FCO, he has absolutely no right to use a single issue interest of his own to direct his department on that single issue. The FCO does not represent just gays or blacks or women or pensioners - it represents ALL groups and he is abrogating his responsibilities in taking the action he has.
Your gayness is not the issue here, Bill. I said at Tom Paine's, I said here, I have no issue with gays. it might surprise you to know that for a couple of years I hung out with a gay set [and there were girls in it too].
Let's step back and be clear about this. Let's substitute the word "opera lover" for "gay"and the argument still stands.
Chris Bryant would equally have no right to send letters to embassies which support opera lovers or try to tackle operaphobic regimes.
Opera is nothing to do with the FCO.
It's exactly the same thing. You're angry becasue it is an issue central to you. But the principle is the same. My post on a heterosexual march is to show the other side of the coin. As if anyone's going to march for the family and yet the family is an oppressed group these days.
Let me conclude by making the two main points again, as I did in the post:
1. since when does being opposed to the political swamping of the social agenda by a one issue pressure group constitute homophobia? Since when does the tail wag the dog?
2. since when is it Ok for a government official to use his own political issue to direct embassies around the world on this issue?
We need to be more clear-headed about this and say, "Enough's enough!"
'deliberate moves' to break up the normal family
ReplyDeleteThere's an abundance of evidence. She might not have it at hand but I do. Many posts on this site cover this issue. There is most certainly a move to break up the family, destroy Christianity, destroy inheritance and create dpendence on the state. No one really challenges this these days.
this is definitely a difficult subject as emotions are involved.
ReplyDeleteIt's true about the over-compensation for times past, with the filling of quotas rather than qualifications.
More amusing is when my African friend went through an application process to finally receive an interview; they were shocked and upset that she was there: she's white African; and, had checked the African-American box on the application, which she was, after-all.
To back up my "belief" regarding the attack on the family, I did a quick google search to see what was out there and came back with this, some of which I was familiar with including Gibbon, with reference to the fall of Rome:
"Five basic reasons why great civilizations wither and die"
"The undermining of the dignity and sanctity of the home, which is the basis for human society;
Higher and higher taxes and the spending of public money for free bread and circuses for the populace;
The mad craze for pleasure — sports becoming every year more exciting, more brutal, more immoral;
The building of great armaments when the real enemy is within — the decay of individual responsibility;
The decay of religion — with faith fading into mere form, losing touch with life, losing power to guide people;"
- Edward Gibbon, 1788
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:y2zwW3NM80YJ:www.
akdart.com/culture2.html+attack+
on+the+traditional+family+
disintegration+of+society&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
"The decline or degeneration of social and cultural values in society has not happened in a vacuum. This decline has come about part and parcel with the rise of the Almighty Leviathan State. Through the State's meddling in society, the institution of the family has systematically eroded. It perverts the natural inclinations of men and women, their bond together, and familial relations in general."
(http://paleo.vox.com/ archives. The direct html available, but too large for here)
Tolerance v. Acceptance
ReplyDelete"The first deception characteristic of the sloganeers of the new Tolerance is that of consistently eliding the difference between tolerance and acceptance. Traditionally, tolerance meant making allowances for other's errors and mistakes; for the new sloganeers of Tolerance, it means accepting every choice as morally equivalent. Tolerance once meant an attitude of patience and forbearance toward those who failed to live up to social ideals; the new Tolerance means denying the existence of such ideals. For those who now fly its banner, the new Tolerance no longer means simply granting public space for others' moral and religious convictions; the new Tolerance now means actually endorsing all beliefs as equally (un)true. In place of the tolerance that required discretion and humility in affirming moral absolutes, the new tolerance demands that Americans jettison the very notion of moral absolutes in favor of an undiscriminating acceptance of every option on the moral smorgasbord.......
But then moral justifications do not have to deliver much consistency or rigor to satisfy the champions of the new Tolerance. For moral traditionalists — whose understanding of tolerance meant accommodation to inevitable human fallibility — truly tolerating a wide range of beliefs and behaviors did not mean embracing the logic used to defend those various beliefs or behaviors. Hence, traditional moralists could be tolerant without being philosophically inconsistent. But because the new Tolerance actually means acceptance of everyone's beliefs and behaviors, it invariably requires its adherents to jettison the principle of non-contradiction, foundational to logical thought since Parmenides. For when the new Tolerance requires those who profess it to accept every family form and all types of sexual behavior, it also requires acceptance of radically incommensurable moral premises."
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:t7zNLVLEHgEJ:
www.profam.org/pub/fia/fia_1906.htm+attack+on+
the+traditional+family+
disintegration+of+society&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
and, on another, yet I wonder, similar note:
ReplyDelete"from courage to liberty,
from liberty to abundance,
from abundance to selfishness,
from selfishness to complacency,
from complacency to apathy,
from apathy to dependency,
from dependency back to bondage"
-Alexander Fraser Tyler (1743- 1813)
htt p://books.google.com/books?id=HcbuJ4dsoykC&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=1788+by+Edward+Gibbon:++%22The+book+set+forth+five+basic+reasons+why+great+civilizations+wither+and+die&source=bl&ots=7aYzke_B9k&sig=681XH_JaJktkcdl5QW5tWbsVR00&hl=en&ei=cp5TSqOsEYqeswOolqX7Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3
James,
ReplyDeleteHow dare you suggest that you, a WASP , living in the western world is the most discriminated against?A minority even?
Women's rights have co0me a long way to be sure, but no one on the planet wields more power than a white anglo male. That has yet to be changed.
On a personal note, I am offended that your suggestion that the commenter who agrees with you is the only one with common sense, insinuating my comment was not.
I thank Bill for his comment and agree with him wholeheartedly.
You need to get out of other peoples' bedrooms James.
If Bill wants to marry Bob and raise a family and be recognized as such who are the likes of you to suggest they are wrong?
They are not preventing Dick from marrying Jane.
You are showing a lack of tolerance and racism, in even suggesting that blacks are more than equal now, which I find extremely offensive.
Women , gays, minorities are not even equal let alone unequal because, sadly, there are still too many bigots in the world to pull them down and tear them apart.
Not very Christian of you at all.
Women , gays, minorities are not even equal let alone unequal because, sadly, there are still too many bigots in the world to pull them down and tear them apart
ReplyDelete* That should have read OVER- equal.
His Girl Friday
ReplyDelete"It has been my general impression that the homosexual community wants more of a special status than to have it all equal; they're demanding that everyone accept and acknowledge their lifestyle as normal/natural which people simply are not going to do."
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
I don't think there is a gay community.
There are homosexuals who get on with living their lives, and there are the activists - the grievance-mongers and hustlers who raise non-existent issues for power and profit.
In this case, the untouchability of some people according to their victim group - and gay people are one.
Most gay people don't ask for privileges any more than the rest of us - but the victimologists do.
My post was naming Chris Bryant as one of these in office.
Goldfinger
His ministry recently had a chance to help overthrow the most murderously anti-gay government in the world and maybe save us all a nuclear war - and went off after governments that were pussy-cats by comparison...
Because all this gay solidarity stuff is a sham. It's a pose and it's going to get more people of all sorts killed because the politicl class are trivial, gesture-driven, and venial.
Your distinction between tolerance and acceptance is the rub. It's not easy being tolerant in the real world but sometimes it's impossible to be accepting.
Toleration allows us to live with the hateful without going to war with our neighbours.
So tolerance it is for most - for James who speaks up about these things but does not act violently against things he dislikes, for me who accepts the existence of New Labour thugs and crooks still in power and all who are around me at work, and also for all those Muslims who detest our free and party-going ways - but who do not attack us or subvert us.
Tolerate only. Obey the law. Speak your mind. Don't fight.
It's not rocket science.
"James,
ReplyDeleteHow dare you suggest that you, a WASP , living in the western world is the most discriminated against?A minority even?"
Yep, Uber, in Britain we are the most discriminated minority today. Every job we go for, they ask our ethnicity and then they get the age by the CV.
If you are:
1. white
2. male
3. Brit
4. older
... you don't get the job before they even look at any other factor.
Next time, I'm going to say I'm a gay, female, 25 year old black and see if I get an interview.
No doubt about it - we're discriminated against.
"If Bill wants to marry Bob and raise a family and be recognized as such who are the likes of you to suggest they are wrong?"
If Bill wants to be with Bob, fine. I've stated over and over and over today that I'm in no way homophobic. Good luck to them both.
Leave children out of it though because it is not biologically possible, it is certainly not a family and it is not in the interests of the child who needs both parents of opposite genders. It's also not a marriage but a partnership. A marriage is a sanctified union.
But these are semantics.
While we're there, we need to stop gays going into schools to pressurize children into becoming gay, which is precisely what has been mooted recently. We need to stop any one issue pressure group going in and giving series of lectures to captive underage audiences on any issue.
That's why there are teachers there - parents expect that the values imparted will be from them.
It is precisely this concern for the children which IS Christian, Uber. Read the Sermon on the Mount to see what I mean.
Gays are welcome to do what they want, if they are adult, as are opera lovers and small furry animals. As long as they leave other people alone, all is well, just as I don't go to gay meetings to try to convince them to be straight.
I used the term in the post - live and let live, without forcing it on others and without claiming special consideration.
I disagree with nearly everything you havce said,but in the interest of our friendship I shan't say anything more on the subject-on your blog.
ReplyDelete'not very Christian of you'
ReplyDeleteheh
I suspect that Uber isn't a christian but I don't know that for sure.
As Uber and I have very different opinions on multiple matters, I'll wait on that answer.
Lord Nazh,
ReplyDeleteNo, I am not Christian. I do undertand that Christians take this stance with homosexuals[it's but one of the problems I have with the hypocrisy of Christians] but if a person was as loving and tolerant and showed goodwill to their fellowman it would include gay fellow man, too. Christian's don't so in my eyes they are not really all that Christian in the true sense of what Christianity should mean.
Your ideas are amazing, Uber. Have you heard the Byrd's Turn, Turn, Turn?
ReplyDeleteVerse 3, last two lines.