«

»

Jul 27

BBC unwatchable on Gay Jubilee

Broadcasting House, headquarters of the BBC

Broadcasting House, headquarters of the BBC

Today is the fiftieth anniversary of the legalisation of sodomy. Consequently, the BBC will be unwatchable and unlistenable for a week at least.

Especially today, all BBC channels will be awash with ‘Gay Britania’.  It is exactly fifty years since the enactment of the Sexual Offences Act 1967.

BBC reflecting the Establishment

One can argue the BBC is simply reflecting the Establishment.  It is impossible to be a candidate for Labour, the LibDems or the Tories without being a ‘Diversity’ wonk.  Plaid Cymru, SNP and Sinn Fein are almost as bad.  And anyone Christian or just pro-family in government needs to keep his views to himself.

Moreover, in the broadcast media, Sky, ITV and Channel 4 news will no doubt be promoting what they will see as a joyous day.  It is always interesting to discern between what is news and what is the advancement of the Establishment agenda.  This author reckons BBC ‘news’ is usually 50% propaganda.

Nevertheless, TV viewers have a choice.  RT (Freeview 135) ought to be free of homosexual promotion while Yesterday (19) and TBN (65) should be gay-free zones.

Never satisfied

The homosexual mindset is never satisfied.  Neither with life as a whole, nor with sexual expression, nor indeed with political gains.  It was never enough just to be left alone to do whatever they were going to do in private.  As it happens, we all now know rather more than we ever wanted to about what homosexuals do in private.  That is largely owing to the AIDS crisis, forcing gay charities like Terrence Higgins Trust to list homosexual activities in order of health risk.

So in 2004 Tony Blair enacted Civil Partnerships.  The BBC celebrating that event with footage of happy couples.  Nevertheless, civil partnerships were not good enough.  Equally, gay politics had moved out of its Labour redoubt.  Therefore, a Conservative Party Prime Minister, David Cameron, inflicted same-sex ‘marriage’ on the nation in 2013.  More celebratory BBC footage, this time of gays getting gay-married.

And now the elite are moving on again.   They want to allow anyone, for any reason or none, to change his gender at will.  The Government have announced a new ‘Gender Recognition Bill’ for the autumn.  Our story on that is here.

Homosexuality … universally condemned

The Earl of Arran (by Alan Clifton, for Camera Press, circa 1967)

The Earl of Arran (by Alan Clifton, for Camera Press, circa 1967)

How did it come to this?  Was such a degradation of society in the minds of those who framed the Sexual Offences Act?  Not at all.  The 1967 Act was ‘permissive’ legislation.  That does not mean it was part of the ‘permissive society’, although of course it was.  It means it permitted something still illegal to happen in certain circumstances.  The Abortion Act of the same year is another example of ‘permissive’ legislation.

So the Sexual Offences Act allowed acts of sodomy and gross indecency to take place in England and Wales between two consenting adults (aged 21 or over) in private.  It was a Private Member’s Bill, brought in by Leo Abse MP, at the instigation of Antony Grey of the Albany Trust and the Homosexual Law Reform Society.

In the debates on the 1967 Sexual Offences Bill, MPs and Peers made clear Parliament was refusing to do anything more than permit homosexual acts in certain circumstances. This was emphasised again and again by, for example, Lord Arran, who said:

‘In all the discussions we have had, and in all the speeches, no single noble Lord or noble Lady has ever said that homosexuality is right or a good thing. It has been universally condemned from start to finish, and by every single member of the House.’

First Gay Pride March in 1972

Strangely enough, under a Christian legal system, there would be no need for the Sexual Offences Act.  The Bible requires at least two witnesses before a court can convict anyone of a crime:

Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

If two men were doing something indecent in private there would be no witnesses.  Accordingly, there could be no prosecution.

Peter Tatchell, seen here in the 2003 London 'gay pride' parade demonstrating against Robert Mugabe, took part in the first homosexual protest march in 1972.

Peter Tatchell, seen here in the 2003 London ‘gay pride’ parade demonstrating against Robert Mugabe, took part in the first homosexual protest march in 1972.

But the sentiments of their Lordships, no doubt well-intended, were to fall on deaf ears.  Homosexuality would not now stay private.  Activists held the first ever gay pride march in London five years later in 1972.  Veteran campaigner Peter Tatchell was on it.  He gives a valuable Gay Liberation Front insider’s view here.

Eschew ostentatious behaviour and flaunting

In a later House of Lords debate, one Lord Henderson slightly misquoted the Earl of Arran.  In 1967, said Henderson, Lord Arran ‘asked the homosexual people of the future to comport themselves quietly and with dignity and to eschew any form of ostentatious behaviour or public flouting.’  Lord Arran actually used the word ‘flaunting.’  He said any evidence of it would ‘make the sponsors of this Bill regret that they have done what they have done.’

One homosexual activist, John Marshall, summed up the arguments of the Bill’s supporters like this:

‘The protection afforded by the Sexual Offences Bill, particularly for young people, was stressed repeatedly;  homosexuality was a lesser evil than the blackmail which its prohibition encouraged; relaxing the law would make it easier for homosexuals who wished to be free of their practices to seek help from the caring ministries.’

The Sexual Offences Act 1967 was extended to Scotland in 1980 and to Northern Ireland in 1982.  The latter happened after a European Court ruling and despite a campaign led by the late Dr Ian Paisley MP to ‘Save Ulster from Sodomy.’

Homosexual lobby group founded

Prime Minister John Major MP decriminalised buggery on women.

Prime Minister John Major MP decriminalised buggery on women.

Even twenty-one years after the Sexual Offences Act, in 1988, homosexual activity was still viewed with distaste. That was the year of Section 28, which banned promotion of homosexuality in the classroom.

Section 28 and its description of homosexual couples as being in a ‘pretended family’ energised gay activists.  They founded the Stonewall lobby group in 1989.

Five years later, under John Major, Parliament lowered  the minimum age in the Sexual Offences Act to eighteen.  The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 also permitted buggery on women.

The Christian Voice group was founded in the same year to inform Christians so they could pray into such matters and take action.  But a tidal wave was approaching.

In 1998 activist MPs voted to lower the homosexual age again, this time to sixteen.  The House of Lords objected.  Undaunted, Prime Minister Tony Blair used the Parliament Act.  Accordingly, in 2000 homosexual men gained legal access to sixteen-year-old boys.  In 2003, his administration repealed Section 28.  The Scottish Parliament repealed its equivalent in 2000.

In 2003, Parliament allowed homosexuals to adopt children.  The following year saw civil partnerships.  Also in 2004 Parliament legislated a lie.  They passed the Gender Recognition Act.  That allowed someone to go back and falsify his birth certificate if a doctor agreed he was a woman – or if a woman thought she was really a man.

Like a flood

Tony Blair used the Parliament Act to force the House of Lords to lower the minimum age for sodomy to sixteen. He also introduced civil partnerships. That would never be enough.

Tony Blair used the Parliament Act to force the House of Lords to lower the minimum age for sodomy to sixteen. He also introduced civil partnerships. That would never be enough.

Gay-promoting legislation was now coming in like a flood.  In 2007 we had the Sexual Orientation Regulations, forcing Christian B&B owners to offer beds to homosexual couples.  In 2008 Parliament abolished the offence of blasphemy and passed their own blasphemy law, a ‘gay hate speech’ law.

2009 saw the Equality Act placing a duty on public authorities to promote sodomy and transgenderism.  And then David Cameron forced through the Marriage (Same-Sex Couples) Act 2013.

It is difficult to promote homosexuality politically any more.  The activists have achieved virtually everything.  Accordingly, the BBC is simply leading today’s celebrations.  Of course, reparative therapy offering people a progression out of same-sex attraction is still a target, because the idea there could be something wrong with being homosexual is anathema to the ungodly.  Additionally, it is true there are still grumblings in society.  For example, many parents still do not want teachers promoting homosexuality to their children.  And the Independent says today that 42% of people in Britain still think homosexual activity is unnatural.  Curiously, 59% of Brexit voters said gay sex was unnatural, compared to a quarter of Remain voters.  (And if you want to know which countries in the world say sodomy is unacceptable, click here!)

But one UK institution in particular remains a thorn in the activists’ collective side.  The stronger elements of Christianity are still holding out.  Homosexuals demand full acceptance from the church.  Tolerance is not enough.  So our openly-lesbian Education Secretary has demanded churches offer ceremonies for people getting gay-married.  According to the Daily Mirror, Justine Greening said: ‘I think it is important that the church in a way keeps up.’

Lift up a standard

The Bible shows God Almighty does not ‘keep up’ with wickedness.  In contrast, the Prophet of God says:

Isaiah 59:19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.

And on this day of shame, this satanic jubilee, good Lord, that is what your Church is praying for.  For men of God to be filled with the Holy Spirit, to lift up the Lord’s standard and press the Crown Rights of King Jesus!

Click on the  buttons below to share this article as widely as possible:

Share

27 comments

1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. Rox

    Most married couples were completely unaware that “buggery on women” was ever illegal. I seem to remember that at the time it was called “certain practices in the bedroom”, in case people found out about the possibility, I suppose. It was often said that the Government had no place in the bedrooms of married people, and the police did not make routine checks either. Were there ever any prosecutions, before it was made legal ?

    I don’t think poor John Major wants to be remembered by history for his part in this, nor for his escapades with Edwina Currie.

    1. Stephen

      Nor, perhaps, for a penchant for peas.

  2. Rox

    Gay or not, the character on the old penny, and the Roman province, were Britannia, not Brittania. I am not aware of this having changed.

    1. Stephen

      Mea maxima culpa.

      1. Rox

        Britannia, not Britania.
        As in “Rule Britannia”, or “Britannia metal” (92% tin, 6% antimony, 2% copper).

        Remember :
        ” Two hens, two Ns.
        One for me, one for T “.

  3. Boethius

    I have written to Justine Greening and Theresa May protesting against their attempts to make the Church of England a tool of the government. The Church is supposed to lead the world, not follow it. It is supposed to be light, not darkness. What is happening in the UK today is beyond belief. I certainly never thought that I would live to see the day when men would ‘marry’ men; women would ‘marry’ women; and government inspectors would threaten to shut down schools that refused to brainwash children with this collective insanity. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, says that referring to people as being male of female is offensive. There is no end to this lunacy. The LGBTQ community will not be happy until it has recreated society in its own image. We must all protest for, as Edmund Burke said, “Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.”

    1. Stephen

      There is, of course, no ‘LGBTQ community’. In fact the G’s detest the B’s and many L’s can’t stand T’s.

      1. Rox

        The people who mainly speak of “a male” are the police, including those who are the responsibility of Sadiq Khan. I have never understood why they do this.

    2. Andrew C

      “Edmund Burke said, “Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.”

      He didn’t say that, but there is a common myth that he did. It’s from Plato: “The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

      If you want to quote Burke then here’s a good one.

      “The writers against religion, whilst they oppose every system, are wisely careful never to set up any of their own”

    3. Andrew C

      The giveaway in all of this manipulation of the masses through social engineering is the term pride. Many would believe that pride is a good thing. The tabloids use it continuously as if pride were a virtue. It’s like they say, say it enough times and it must be true, and so it is that through popular opinion, it is established that pride is good.

      However, one has only to do something like read Dante to see that pride was not always considered a good thing. Dante believed pride was the worst sin because it is the route by which all other sins are committed. The Bible says in so many words that pride blinds you. “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” So with a haughty spirit you might trip over a loose paving slab and have a fall, but full-on pride will lead to your destruction. The only possible deduction is you just don’t see your own impending disaster or else you would avoid it.

      So how does that apply to homosexuals? Well there’s one obvious scientific fact, and that is a homosexual does not reproduce, so it could lead to extinction. Then there is this other factor which does not have a scientific explanation. I’ve researched the homosexual political agenda and in my research I tracked down one of the instigators. Back in the 1980s in America there was a political initiative to push this perversion mainstream, and I had my eye on this chap who was right at the centre of this, in one of the prestigious American universities which were behind it. Anyhow I found a little piece of text from this chap in the form of a bit of a blog, as in there was little information to go by, but here he said one striking thing regarding the rest of the lobby group. He said they are nearly all dead now. They should not have been by their age, but AIDS killed many. He’s about the only survivor out of a large group of people. That;s nearly 100% wipe-out, and it confirms the Bible’s warning.

  4. jsampson45

    The Proms are possibly a refuge, where some of the music, being “classical”, was written in praise of God. My Bible reading today was Luke 12:49 where our Lord spoke of bringing fire on the earth. But for the moment here there is peace, except for Justine Greening’s “pockets of resistance”. It is not a good peace.

    1. Rox

      There is absolutely no guarantee that classical music was not written by somebody “debauched”. Candidates for this description might be Tchaikovsky, Jean-Baptiste Lully, Aaron Copeland, Delius, Benjamin Britten obviously. The more recent composers are able to be more frank about it : Michael Tippett, Peter Maxwell Davies, Richard Rodney Bennett, Michael Tilson Thomas. If you stray slightly away to what is respectable but less classical, you find Leonard Bernstein, Ivor Novello, Noël Coward, and many others. One wonders too about a Heseltine who chose to call himself “Peter Warlock” (reminiscent of Gesualdo’s reputation).

      Why so many more now than in the past ? Well, Lully particularly earned the displeasure of Louis XIV and his misdeeds are recorded. Apart from him, who knows ? Bach was twice married and had more than 20 children in total. But Handel never married, and had no children, although he could very well have afforded to indulge. One American musicologist has said (topically at the moment) that “Many of the cantatas avoid identifying the gender of the beloved ” . She doesn’t seem to mention that Handel didn’t actually write the words — many were written by Cardinal Benedetto Pamphilii . Nonetheless, who really knows about Handel ? Or many others ?

      Haydn was blameless, but one might describe Mozart as “debauched”. Wagner not surprisingly got up to a number of things, as did Liszt and others. The word Beatlemania was based on the much earlier coinage Lisztomania (1844). Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Verdi managed to shock the bourgeoisie of his day.

      Oh, music written in praise of God ? Many of them had a go at that. Vivaldi was a priest who worked in a girls’ school and later had protégées.

      1. Stephen

        He didn’t use the word ‘debauched’. And we don’t apply unkind words to people here, however famous they may have been.
        To think you have to be a priest or spiritually perfect to write music in praise of God is I guess a common misconception. Ben Britten wrote some lovely church music. And he is not alone in your list. And where does that tune or that harmonisation come from? I should think most composers have woken up with a melody in the middle of the night. It is recorded that Handel’s valet would find the great man in tears at the beauty of the music he had written for Messiah. Something, or we should say Someone, either inspired him or took him over in some kind of way. Indeed, if we cannot have both, do we want the composer to be as pure as the driven snow, or his music to lift us to the spiritual heights? This, as Joseph Macroon would surely have said, is a big subject.

        1. Rox

          No, he didn’t, in fact he was replying rather off-topic about “God” and “peace” to an article which was solidly about condemning homosexuality. One can only assume that he sees classical music as a peaceful refuge from arguments raging about this “ungodliness”.

          I only wrote:

          “debauched”. Candidates for this description might be

          I was thus leaving it to the reader to decide who might in the reader’s opinion be “debauched”, and not necessarily in a homosexual way. Mozart and the others named in that paragraph were obviously (at least mainly) heterosexual, as also was Delius (who died of syphilis).

          The word is not necessarily unwelcome amongst those who indulge, and I offered it mainly as a way of embracing heterosexual promiscuity etc as well as homosexuality.
          “Some Romantic artists believed that debauchery, drinking and drugs stimulated creativity”.
          Michael Steen. The Lives and Times of the Great Composers.
          He represents Schumann as taking this view and using the word “debauched” (or its German equivalent) about himself, so add him to my list !

          I did point out that “many” on the list wrote church music, including of course Mozart and Verdi (who was strongly suspected of being an atheist). Indeed Handel, having just written the Hallelujah Chorus, said ” “I did think I saw heaven open, and saw the very face of God” . Not, notice, claiming to have actually seen this. So in terms of psychiatry, he was aware that this was a delusion. rather than insisting it was there (which would be an hallucination, if you think it wasn’t really there). This would suggest he was bipolar rather than schizophrenic. The speed with which he wrote this masterpiece suggests that too.

          Composers didn’t always write for their own denomination, either, notably William Byrd. A much less realised example is Charles Wesley, famous for writing so many Methodist hymns, who refused to be buried like his brother John, but insisted on “consecrated ground” at Marylebone, writing (in advance) to the rector : ” “Sir, whatever the world may say of me, I have lived, and I die, a member of the Church of England. I pray you to bury me in your churchyard.”

          1. Stephen

            I think you are verging on the ridiculous when discussing Handel’s vision. He was simply being modest. To suggest he needed a psychiatrist is just Stalinist nonsense. As for his speed of writing, he was a genius, that’s all.

          2. Rox

            I didn’t suggest he needed a psychiatrist, fortunately as there weren’t any. A schizophrenic who thought that his hallucinations were real would have been much more likely to end up in one of the asylums of the time. Handel knew perfectly well that he was imagining it, and was completely in control of his successful life, like many other geniuses who get their inspiration from this kind of condition. It’s a well known phenomenon. I have no idea how Stalin is relevant to this !

          3. Stephen

            I suppose if you totally deny the existence of any spiritual realm, then Handel’s vision must be a hallucination. Some of us are a little more open-minded!

          4. Rox

            He himself didn’t think he was really seeing it. It was in the nature of a vision or dream of some kind. I merely suggested a way in which it might be viewed in psychiatric terms.

            Joseph interpreted dreams about lean kine. Later translators have substituted cows for kine, but I can’t find one who has changed the word “dreams” to “visions” or anything else. It’s all a question of where dreams come from, and Freud (rather than Stalin) would probably disagree with you about this. I’m not an expert. But nobody is saying that the pharaoh or Handel was mad.

            Where do hallucinations come from ? From a spiritual realm, perhaps.

          5. Stephen

            Well, remembering the 1960’s and the Sergeant Pepper era, not that I indulged in LSD, but I should be saying hallucinations are from inside the mind. However, if someone thinks such stuff opens the door to a demonic realm, I shan’t be arguing the point. But where do dreams come from? Joseph is suggesting Pharaoh’s dream (and his own dreams) came from God. The Lord could equally have granted G F Handel a vision.

          6. Rox

            Yep, as I said, it was in the nature of a dream or vision of some kind.

            In which, according to Handel himself, he thought he saw heaven open, and the face of God.

  5. Roy Hopkins

    Well, it is good to know there are some out there who are standing against this satanic insanity. Praise God for that, and bless Steven Green and others like you who try to get the truth across. Pity, and tragic, the fact that us humans love our sin so much we cannot even entertain listening to our Creator.

  6. Epistle

    I note the argument that as two witnesses to a homosexual act is required, in accordance with Deuteronomy, private acts would be unlikely to lead to conviction, and thence under Leviticus to their stoning. If they were admitted by both parties, however, the law could convict.
    Lesbian acts have never been illegal in this country, allegedly because Queen Victoria did not believe they existed.
    The question remains, whilst Scripture condemns such homosexual acts as sinful, whether Christians should advocate that they should be criminal. Unlikely as it is that any notice would be taken of such argument, in this era of decadence, this is a moot point. Adultery is not criminal, and I doubt if even the most conservative Christian would say that the State should criminalise it. Whilst grounds for divorce flow, punishment by the State does not, and arguably should not, as it is an issue personal morality, if with a victim. And on similar grounds, it would be difficult to support imprisonment for consensual homosexual acts. But others may disagree.
    Much is vaunted by the homosexual lobby of “equal” marriage, but homosexual acts outside of that “marriage” are not regarded of themselves as adultery and hence grounds for divorce. Same Sex Marriage is hence fundamentally different as there is no legal consequence for extra-marital sex http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/divorce-adultery-law-rules-gay-lesbian-same-sex-affairs-why-dont-they-count-a7533766.html

    1. Stephen

      My argument would be that Christians should have confidence in the general equity of the civil laws of God in scripture. Otherwise, our faith is just spiritual and we are slaves to an omnipotent State, making the best of a system we cannot change, trying to please the ‘master’ or ‘massa’ all our days, unable to prophecy the word of God to those who lead the country in which we find ourselves – and ultimately unable to pray for it either. The latter because praying for those in authority runs the distinct risk of the Almighty answering that prayer by showing us something to do.
      And by the way, ‘faithfulness’ is meaningless in homosexual relationships. It is impossible to judge them by the same standards as heterosexual love and marriage. Their own activists said that first, by the way. And they went on: If ‘gay shows the way’, why should it ape the heterosexual status quo? And don’t let anyone say, ‘heterosexuals are just as promiscuous as gays’. No, they aren’t. It’s like orders of magnitude. Yes, some idiots bought into the lie of ‘free love’, adopting homosexual mores. Most of those idiots came to their senses. As for today’s heterosexual youth, they aren’t all in Magaluf on a perpetual Club 18-30. But promiscuity is written into homosexual life precisely because it is God’s design for us to link up with someone ‘hetero’, ‘other’, complementary. Homosexuals are trying to solve the puzzle with only half the pieces.

  7. Rox

    I don’t think homosexuals go on being promiscuous when they get older either, particularly if Society and the State allow them to settle down quietly with one congenial partner. Benjamin Britten and Peter Pears seemed to be inseparable. I don’t want to delve into all their private lives, but Sir Peter Maxwell Davis seems to have lived with his civil partner Colin Parkinson in the Orkneys for quite a long time.

    Whereas Sir William Walton had rather a lot of female “partners” much younger than himself.

    1. Stephen

      As men get older things can shall we say settle down, but nearly all partnered-up gay man are having what they call ‘affairs’ anyway. That is well-documented. And never so well as by Orton and Halliwell. It’s because monogamy has no relevance to the gay lifestyle. You seem to know more about Sir WW than most normal people would find respectable. Here is his obituary.

      1. Rox

        You wouldn’t expect his obituary to mention his 5 year “affair” with Imma von Doernberg, or his “affair” from 1934 to 1948 with Alice Wimborne (described by Wikipedia as his “partner”) which even the Sitwells disapproved of. Wikipedia describes him as having “love affairs”, and these two as being his “long affairs”.

        I don’t think most “normal” people in 2017 would find that this was not “respectable”, or even recognise that word as particularly valid. Normal people frequently get information from Wikipedia. It isn’t Julian Assange territory.

  8. Bob Hutton

    God is not mocked, whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap – Galatians 6 v 7

  1. The Freethinker - The voice of atheism since 1881 » Pastor’s Sunday tweet sends titters though the blogosphere

    […] Just like Britain’s own Stephen (Birdshit) Green, methinks, who attacked the BBC a few days ago: […]

Leave a Reply