5 April 2010


Someone dares to suggest that 'being judgemental' about homosexuals is within the ambit of personal choice and nothing to do with the state, and politicians and journo-pukes fall over each other to condemn it.

Male homosexuals have disproportionate power for a number of reasons, none of which they believe it legitimate for non-homosexuals even to discuss. Not being troubled with children, they tend to have larger disposable incomes than heterosexuals, and the 'pink pound' strongly influences policy-makers, as it does fashion. Possibly for the same reason, they tend to have little regard for posterity. They are also hugely over-represented in the arts and the media, where they exercise a pervasive and group self-serving influence.

They are very damned far from being an oppressed minority. The shrieks of 'homophobia' whenever someone dares to express a critical opinion goes miles beyond a legitimate demand for tolerance. Indeed it seems to go far beyond even a quest for acceptance: it would appear that what is required is that they should be loved not despite, but precisely because of what they are.

Good luck with that, guys.


  1. No, no, they are victims, helpless victims. How could anyone not riddled with homophobia doubt it? Why else would they have such a vigilant corps of media censors watching such sites as e.g., 'Thinking Anglicans', making sure everyone else is thinking what they are thinking? How could anyone so blatantly aggressive as the gay activists NOT be victims? Marriage is so camp. Please vote to let them have campy marriages in all our churches. That will teach us. Won't it?

  2. All 'rights' groups out-run their historical mandate. By the time they achieve their original objectives, they have just got too used to the publicity and the easy money. And they smother internal debate even more effectively than they do any public questioning of their righteousness.