If the reforms pass, then Sir Elton John’s civil partner, David Furnish, could be given the right to use an honorary title.
A 10- minute rule Bill is being put forward today that would enable the partners of gay peers to receive titles.
Under the current system, the wife of a knight, lord or sir is given a title and becomes a lady, although the reverse does not apply.
The proposed reforms, put forward by Tory MP Oliver Colville, would extend this privilege to the partners of gay knights and lords. For example, Sir Elton John’s civil partner, David Furnish, would be given the right to use an honorary title.
What remains vague is exactly what title the partner in perversion would be eligible for since currently the only title available for the spouse of a male peer is ‘lady.’ Somehow, “Lady David Furnish” doesn’t quite seem right.
Mr Colville hopes his bill, called The Honours (Equality of Titles for Partners) Bill, will bring ‘equality’ to the system. The motion is significant because it comes at a time when Government is already considering Lords reform. It insists “that leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for husbands and civil partners of those receiving honours to be allowed to use equivalent honorary titles to those available to women”.
Mr. Colville commented, “If you are made a peer or a knight, your wife automatically gets the title lady, but if you are gay or are a woman and become a dame your partner gets nothing. I just think it’s an anomaly which needs to be put right.”
These proposals will be debated in more detail when the question of gay ‘marriage’ comes before Parliament.
PRAY: We have warned again and again that tampering with the definition of marriage will start a chain reaction of unforeseeable consequences. Even though same-sex ‘marriage’ has not passed Parliament, Mr Colville’s Bill gives us a glimpse of the types of problems our nation will face if same-sex ‘marriage’ is legalized. Pray that God’s judgement will fall upon those who are devising these wicked plans. Also ask our heavenly father to allow this 10- minute rule Bill to expose the tangled web of absurdities that arise from abandoning God’s natural order.
WRITE: To your MP and protest against these plans. Ask for your concerns to be forwarded to the relevant minister. Join Christian Voice today and stand up for righteousness in the land:
It is sometimes difficult to keep up with the topsy-turvy world of homosexual politics, where sea-change shifts in ideology happen almost as a regular occurrence. Once the gay community finally seems to have reached a consensus on some important point, the parameters will shift and they will adopt a new ideology, sometimes the opposite of what they once affirmed.
Once the homosexual community virulently opposed any notion that there is a genetic base to homosexuality; now, anyone who denies the genetic theory is automatically labelled a homophobe.
Once the homosexual community relentlessly championed the notion that sexuality is fluid. Those were the days when anyone who denied that we can choose our sexual identity was classed as a bigot. Now the gay community insists with equal virulence that our sexual identity is something we are born with.
Once more the tables are turning, and this time the issue concerns the role of children.
For years advocates of same-sex marriage have argued that same-sex parenting either makes no material difference to children, or makes a positive difference. Both of these views can be found in the thought of Judith Stacey, professor of Social and Cultural Analysis and Sociology at New York University. In an article reflecting on her debate with Judith Stacey, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse recounts how Dr Stacey argued that the gender of a couple makes absolutely no difference to a child.
I crossed swords with Judith Stacey…at a debate at Bowling Green State a few years ago. I asked her point blank if she believed men and women were completely interchangeable as parents. In front of that very friendly audience, she said absolutely: the gender of parents doesn’t matter….
Treating same sex unions like marriage amounts to saying that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. It is a coin toss from a child’s point of view, whether they have two moms, two dads, or one of each.
Despite Dr Stacey’s remarks at Bowling Green State, the New York University professor has elsewhere suggested that the gender of same-sex couples does actually matter, because having two moms makes a positive difference for the children entrusted to their care. In other words, lesbian parenting is an improvement on traditional households containing a father. Commenting on 81 different studies for an article “How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?” that appeared in of Journal of Marriage and Family Volume 72, Issue 1, Stacey and Biblarz leave the reader with the distinct opinion that traditional man-woman parenting just cannot come anywhere near the benefits generally provided by two lesbians. Here are some quotes from their article:
“Two women who choose to parent together provide a ‘double dose of middle-class feminine approach to parenting.’”
“Women parenting without men scored higher on warmth and quality of interactions with their children than not only fathers, but also mothers who coparent with husbands.”
“If contemporary mothering and fathering seem to be converging,… research shows that sizable average differences remain that consistently favor women, inside or outside of marriage.”
“12 year old boys in mother only families (whether lesbian or heterosexual) did not differ from sons raised by a mother and a father on masculinity scales but scored over a standard deviation higher on femininity scales. Thus growing up without a father did not impede masculine development but enabled boys to achieve greater gender flexibility.”
“If, as we expect, future research replicates the finding that fatherless parenting fosters greater gender flexibility in boys, this represents a potential benefit. Research implies that adults with androgynous gender traits may enjoy social psychological advantages over more gender traditional peers.”
“Thus, it may not be fatherlessness that expands gender capacities in sons but heterosexual fatherlessness. When gay men, lesbians or heterosexual women parent apart from the influence of heterosexual masculinity, they all seem to do so in comparatively gender-flexible ways that may enable their sons to break free from gender constraints as well.”
“Parenting by gay men more closely resembles that by mothers than by most married, heterosexual fathers.”
The basic picture is not hard to discern: homosexual parents are superior to heterosexual parents, especially if they are two lesbians.
This was also the point made by an article published in the New Scientist in 2010. Titled, ‘Children of lesbian parents do better than their peers’, the article reported on the results of the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study which supposedly discovered that “The children of lesbian parents outscore their peers on academic and social tests…”
“in some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don’t…. And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research.
All of this reflects what has been common orthodoxy among the defenders of gay rights. Whether they argue that same-sex parenting is equivalent to man-woman parenting, or whether they argue that same-sex parenting is actually superior, no one has been willing to say that it simply doesn’t matter at all. Indeed, up to now it has been taken for granted that the needs of children should be paramount, and that is precisely why the gay community has bent over backwards to try to show that same-sex parenting (and by extension, same-sex ‘marriage’) benefits children.
At least, until this week.
Now that a study has come out which purports to show that children of same-sex parents actually fare worse, pro-homosexual writers are changing their tune and saying that the question of children is now irrelevant.
In an article that appeared in Thursday’s Guardian, journalist Jill Filipovic suggested that the needs of children should actually be bracketed off as immaterial to the debate over same-sex ‘marriage.’ Mind you, Filipovic doesn’t think children will be adversely affected if the Government decides to legalize same-sex ‘marriage’, and she disputes the recent study on methodological grounds. However, she is adamant that even if children did suffer, that shouldn’t make any difference to our policy discussions. She writes
The “gay parents are worse parents” argument shouldn’t just fail because it’s false; it should fail because even if it were true, less-than-ideal child outcomes do not justify the state’s refusal to extend the fundamental right of marriage to consenting adults.
The fact that Filipovic considers same-sex ‘marriage’ to be a ‘fundamental right’ shows that she has already assumed the conclusion she is trying to establish, a fallacy known as circular reasoning. After all, we do not normally consider something to be a right if it systematically hurts other people. If the state can withdraw someone’s right to live a free life when the person starts putting other people in danger, how much more should a highly contested ‘right’ like gay ‘marriage’ be contingent on the effect it might have on other people, especially children.
Guardian, journalist Jill Filipovic argues that even if children suffer, that shouldn’t make any difference to our policy discussions about same-sex 'marriage.'
It follows that in trying to decide whether the state should make same-sex ‘marriage’ into a human right, it is crucial to ask what effect this might have on children.
My question to Filipovic is this: how many children would have to suffer before it becomes is legitimate to acknowledge that the needs of children are relevant to the debate on same-sex ‘marriage’?
Filipovic actually makes an ingenuous argument to prove that the needs of children should be disregarded. After all, she pointed out, we don’t ban deadbeat dads from getting married even though it is probable that they will have a negative effect on children. Neither do we ban prisoners from getting married, even though it is again probable that they won’t make the best parents. So why should we restrict same-sex couples from getting ‘married’ just because we think children flourish best with a mom and a dad?
The answer should be simple. In cases like the deadbeat dad or the prisoner, what we are dealing with is someone exercising a right that is already recognized as existing. However, if we are considering using the law to create a new right, it is only responsible to consider the social ramifications, including the effect any changes might have on children.
Unfortunately, if Filipovic’s article is indicative of the new climate of ideology, the needs of children simply do not matter any more.
A few days ago, people calling in to Premier Radio were challenged to say what was wrong with David Cameron’s plans for ‘gay marriage’. In the main, they knew it was wrong, but they could not articulate why. You may feel the same, but you don’t have to be tongue-tied any longer.
Our pro-marriage briefing The Trivilisation of Matrimony opposes Cameron’s ‘gay marriage’ plans, firstly from a biblical perspective, and then by unpacking all the other arguments (see contents below). We are not ashamed of the Cross in Christian Voice, and the words of Jesus Christ on this issue form the cornerstone of our objections. We are so keen to get this accessible 16-page booklet into your hands, we are giving it away free if you join Christian Voice today.
Join Christian Voice today, and get The Trivilisation of Matrimony and our latest newsletter, leading on the ‘gay marriage’ issue, absolutely free! We’ll also send you Britain in Sin, which lays out the anti-Christian legislation passed in the last sixty years and our information-packed briefings Understanding Islam and Labelling Halal – all by return of post. You won’t want to miss any of those! Join over the weekend and we’ll have everything in the post for you on Monday.
Peter Tatchell, arch-republican that he is, has been moaning in the Guardian that the Queen is not ‘gay-friendly’.
We disagree – and show why below.
The charge sheet compiled by Mr Tatchell includes HMQ having not visited AIDS victims or mentioned LGBT people in her broadcasts. She had to be bullied, he says, into allowing homosexual staff in the royal household to bring their ‘partners’ to the annual Christmas ball at Buckingham Palace. ‘It was only after a protest outside the palace and the ensuing bad publicity that the royals dropped the ban’, he fumes.
Christian Voice can always be relied upon to take up the cause of the monarchy especially in this Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee year, so in Her Majesty’s defence to the Tatchell onslaught, we offer the following:
In 1967 HMQ gave her royal assent to the Sexual Offences Act, which decriminalised sodomy and gross indecency between men in private. The Act, brought in because a few homosexual civil servants had been caught with their shirts lifted, spawned the entire homosexual industry. The first ‘gay rights’ march was held in 1972. Bars, shops and magazines catering to the ‘pink market’ quickly followed. Sex education could now mention and even promote homosexuality. Britain was already slouching towards Gomorrah just fifteen years into the Queen’s reign.
There was a bit of a blip in 1988 when HM allowed Section 28 of the Local Government Act to outlaw teaching that homosexual relationships were normal, but Her Majesty went some distance to making amends in 1994, when her Criminal Justice and Public Order Act reduced the minimum age for sodomy to 18, legalised it upon women as well and redefined enforced sodomy as ‘rape’ to equate sodomy with sexual intercourse.
In the late 1980’s, Her Majesty’s Government spent millions trying to convince everyone that AIDS was not a homosexual disease, and spent further millions on ‘health education’ and free condoms for homosexuals and anyone who wanted one. She may not have visited AIDS victims as often as the late Diana Princess of Wales, but Her Majesty’s Government fund their Highly-Active Anti-Retoviral Treatments to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds.
In her armed forces, which are very dear to Her Majesty’s heart, homosexual men and women became able openly to serve from 1999. By 2008, all three services were marching in uniform in the London Gay Pride march. As Peter Tatchell admits, her majesty’s homosexual staff can bring their partners in perversion right into Buckingham Palace for the annual Christmas ball.
Her Majesty gave homosexual men legal access to sodomise 16-year-old boys in 2000 with the Sexual Offences Amendment Act. Two years later, Her Majesty decided that homosexual men and women could legally adopt children.
With the Sexual Offences Act 2003, Her Majesty removed the offences of gross indecency and sodomy altogether. Section 28 (that 1988 blip) was removed in the same year, giving homosexual teachers and their allies full rein to promote homosexuality to both secondary and primary school children. In what was a bit of a boom year, she also gave her gracious assent to the idea that people committing criminal offences should receive heavier sentences if the victim was homosexual.
Then in 2004, Her Majesty hit a new peak by giving Royal Assent to the Gender Recognition Act, which allowed transsexuals to go back and falsify their original birth certificates, and the Civil Partnership Act, which gave pairs of homosexuals the same legal rights as married couples.
Peter Tatchell, who has a thing about queens, in the 2003 London Gay Pride parade
In 2003, the Sexual Orientation Employment Regulations had opened up all jobs, even those working with children and young people, to homosexuals.
Following that, Her Majesty gave her consent to the Equality Act 2006. That empowered the Queen’s ministers to bring in in the Sexual Orientation Regulations to force Christian hoteliers to let rooms to homosexuals in Northern Ireland. Great Britain followed with identical regulations in 2007.
2008 saw the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, which brought in a homosexual incitement hate crime law and abolished the ancient offence of blasphemy, to the delight of secularist homosexuals including Peter Tatchell, who tried to read the lewd Gay News poem in public some years before. In the same year, she removed the need for a father or a mother in laws governing assisted reproduction in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, paving the way for lesbians and homosexual men to acquire children using donors and surrogates.
The Equality Act 2010, to which Her Majesty gave her gracious consent, placed a duty on local authorities to promote transsexualism and homosexuality as two of the ‘protected groups’ to be favoured by government and public authorities – including schools – throughout England and Wales.
Her Majesty’s Government is now working out ways to introduce ‘gay marriage’. If that is enacted, which God forbid, Her Majesty will easily give it her royal assent, just as she has given her royal assent to every previous bit of ‘gay rights’ legislation.
Contrary to what Peter Tatchell asserts, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has undoubtedly been the most ‘gay-friendly’ monarch in British history.
Proposals to legalize same-sex ‘marriage’ will provide the perfect mechanism for the homosexual lobby to realize one of its long-term objectives: the criminalization of all opposition to homosexuality.
For years the UK gay community has dreamed of creating a society in which criticisms of homosexuality are punishable by law. However, up to now they have only been able to achieve this on a sporadic basis through a combination of intimidation, vague public order acts, and pro-homosexual members of the police.
If same-sex ‘marriage’ is legalized, however, the gay lobby will be given a mechanism to begin targeting defenders of traditional marriage on a systematic basis.
At least, that is what Stephen Green and Robin Phillips have argued in a recent briefing paper published by Christian Voice. The authors show that changing the definition of marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would create an atmosphere hostile to freedom.
The briefing paper, titled The Trivialization of Matrimony, suggests that legalizing same-sex ‘marriage’ could also have broad implications for Christians across every sector of public life. Green and Phillips pointed out that pension providers, businesses, insurance companies, teachers and private individuals would all be required to accommodate a new and unprecedented definition of ‘marriage’ or fall foul of the law.
When questioned about the guarantees of religious liberty peppered throughout the Governments’ consultation document, Green and Phillips replied that these promises are not to be trusted. “It is a significant fact,” they pointed out, “that throughout the consultation document not once does it guarantee protection to those who may have religious reasons for not recognizing the civil ‘marriages’ of same-sex couples.”
“When civil partnerships were first introduced, Government was adamant that this was not a half-way house to same-sex ‘marriage’, though subsequent events proved otherwise. Similarly, although the current Government is adamant that the new proposals are not preliminary to making churches solemnize same-sex ‘marriages’, what is to stop a future Government, or even the same one, from pursuing the itinerary of ‘equality’ to this final step?”
“Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone stated in a BBC Radio 5 Live interview that ‘it may be that [the issue of same-sex marriage in a place of religious worship] comes back another day.’ This could happen sooner than we think. Equality laws introduced by Labour in 2007 and subsequently enshrined in the 2010 Equality Act could make it difficult, even illegal, for Government to try to maintain this two-tier system of civil marriage and religious marriage.”
“In short, what Government is proposing to do is to change how all of us define marriage. Those who refuse to cooperate with the redefinitions will be found in breach of the law.”
“Governmental Intrusion”
The concerns raised in the Christian Voice briefing paper echo warnings that other defenders of traditional marriage have issued over the past five years. When fighting against same-sex marriage in the state of California in 2008, Dennis Prager wrote a revealing article entitled ‘California Decision Will Radically Change Society.’ Prager pointed to some possible consequences to allowing gay ‘marriage’:
Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming—to do so would be declared “heterosexist,” morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman….
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law.
Companies that advertise engagement rings will have to show a man putting a ring on a man’s finger—if they show only women’s fingers, they will be boycotted just as a company having racist ads would be now.
Films that only show man-woman married couples will be regarded as antisocial and as morally irresponsible as films that show people smoking have become.
Traditional Jews and Christians—i.e., those who believe in a divine scripture—will be marginalized.
S. T. Karnick argued similarly in an article for Salvo magazine titled ‘The Tyranny of the Minority.’ Karnick pointed out that far from being the tolerant option, those who champion same-sex ‘marriage’ are actually fiercely coercive and intolerant:
“Favoring government-enforced recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ is not, as the media invariably characterize it, a kindly, liberal-minded position, but instead a fierce, coercive, intolerant one…. What’s at issue here is not whether people can declare themselves married and find other people to agree with them and treat them as such. No, what’s in contention is whether the government should force everyone to recognize such ‘marriages.’ Far from being a liberating thing, the forced recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ is a governmental intrusion of monumental proportions.
“Although pro-homosexual radicals continually refer to the forced recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ as a civil right, as well as a matter of liberating society from hidebound prejudices, such policies are actually the government-enforced imposition of a small group’s sexual values on a reluctant and indeed strongly resistant population.
Criminalizing Opinion
Section 5 of the 1986 Act outlaws ‘insulting words or behaviour’. If gay ‘marriage’ is legalized, it is likely that the rubric of what constitutes ‘insulting behaviour’ will be broadened to include any advocacy of traditional marriage.
These concerns are not merely hypothetical. Even though same-sex ‘marriage’ has yet to be legalized in the UK, there is already a significant move to persecute those who dissent from the grinding uniformity demanded by the homosexual lobby. Consider just a few instances as a foretaste of what will occur on a much larger scale if same-sex ‘marriages’ are enshrined in law:
In October 2001, a pensioner held up a sign that said, ‘Stop immorality, stop homosexuality, stop lesbianism, Jesus is Lord’. He faced abuse from a crowd which culminated in the police arresting and then convicting him under the Public Order Act 1986 for being insulting. (Read the report at The Free Speech Debate website
In November 2003, the Bishop of Chester was questioned over his views on homosexuality by Cheshire police after commenting that psychiatrists could help homosexuals to re-orientate themselves. The Crown Prosecution Service eventually dropped the case saying the Bishop had committed no crime. (Read the report in The Chester Chronicle.)
In December 2005, Joe and Heather Roberts were interrogated by Lancashire police after complaining to their local council in Fleetwood (Wyre Borough Council) about council tax money being spent on promoting gay rights. Both the Police and the council at the time refused to admit they were wrong. After the threat of legal action, the Council and the Police apologised to the Roberts and settled out of court.
In December 2005, author Lynette Burrows was interviewed by the police after she expressed disapproval of homosexual adoption on a talk show. The policewoman who talked to Mrs Burrows said that a ‘homophobic incident’ had been reported against her and that it would be kept on record by the police. (Read the Telegraph report.)
In February 2006, Dr N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, mentioned in a speech before the House of Lords about the way people were being censured for moderate comments disapproving of homosexuality. He observed, “People in my diocese have told me that they are now afraid to speak their minds in the pub on some major contemporary issues for fear of being reported, investigated, and perhaps charged. My Lords, I did not think I would see such a thing in this country in my lifetime…. The word for such a state of affairs is ‘tyranny’: sudden moral climate change, enforced by thought police.” (Read his speech, ‘Moral Climate Change and Freedom of Speech.’)
In September 2006, Stephen Green was arrested and detained in police station for handing out evangelistic tracts at a gay pride festival in Cardiff. Police said the arrest was because the tracts Mr Green was distributing contained Bible verses about homosexuality. (Read the BBC report.) He was charged but the prosecutors dropped all charges. South Wales Police paid a sum in compensation.
In June 2008, Iris Robinson, wife of Irish First Minister Peter Robinson, was investigated by the Serious Crimes Branch of the PSNI (Northern Ireland Police Force) for speaking out against homosexuality. (Read the Belfast Telegraph report about it.)
In 2008, Christian counsellor Gary McFarlane was sacked from his job with Relate because he confided that he would not be comfortable counselling homosexual couples about sexual problems. (Read the BBC news report.)
Since 2008 British Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close down because of their refusal to place children with homosexual couples. (Read the LifeSiteNews report about it.)
In December 2008, Pilgrim Homes had £13,000 of funding removed by Brighton Council because the home refused to ask its elderly Christian residents every three months if they were homosexual. Funding was only restored when Pilgrim Homes promised to ask the residents about their sexual orientation on admission. (Read the LifeSiteNews report.)
In January 2009, the Earl of Devon (Hugh Courtenay) had his licence to hold wedding ceremonies at Powderham Castle near Exeter revoked by Devon County Council. The justification for removing his licence was that the Earl’s Christian beliefs prevented him from allowing civil partnership ceremonies to be held on his property. (Read about it in the Telegraph report.)
In 2009, Christian Registrar Lilian Ladele faced the sack because she asked if she could be exempt from registering civil partnership. Even though she won the case against Islington Council, the Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned the case and ruled against her. (Read the Guardian report about it.)
In April 20, 2010, street preacher, Dale McAlpine, was arrested for allegedly telling a passer-by that homosexuality is a sin. The 42-year-old Baptist was put in jail for seven hours causing “harassment, alarm or distress.” (Read the Telegraph report.)
In 2011, housing manager Adrian Smith has had his pay slashed as a punishment for saying on his private Facebook page that allowing gay weddings in churches was ‘an equality too far’. (Read the Daily Mail report about it.)
In May 2011, Oxford student Sam Brown was celebrating the end of his exam. In the course of his celebrations, he said to a policeman, “Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?” He was arrested under the 1986 Public Order Act for making “offensive homophobic comments”. He remained in jail overnight before the police dropped his case. (Read the BBC news report.)
In February 2012, hoteliars Peter and Hazelmary Bull were sued using Government money after refusing to offer a double bed to a homosexual couple in 2011. (Read the Guardian report about it here.)
In May 2012, the author of the Archbishop Cranmer blog was being investigated by the Advertising Standards Authority for posting a petition in support of traditional marriage and displayed an image advertising The Coalition for Marriage’s campaign to protect traditional marriage. The image showed numerous heterosexual couples getting married but no same-sex couples. The Advertising Standards Authority launched the investigation in order to determined whether the advert promotes homophobia. (Read the National Secular Society’s report.)
In May 2012, the Law Society cancelled a planned conference organised by Christian Concern called, “One Man, One Woman. Making the case for marriage for the good of society.” The conference was organised by the World Congress of Families but was cancelled by the Law Society on the grounds that it is “contrary to diversity policy, espousing as it does an ethos which is opposed to same-sex marriage.” Andrea Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, commented, “Since when can debate be against diversity? …This action by the professional body…demonstrates how discussion on traditional views on marriage is being shut down before any change in the law to redefine marriage has come into force. If this kind of censorship is happening before gay ‘marriage’ has even been legalized, what will happen afterwards?” (Read Cristina Odone’s article, ‘Heterosexual marriage? I’m sorry, you can’t discuss that ‘)
In May 2012, Roman Catholic schools in Wales got reprimanded by the Welsh government for circulating a letter written by Archbishop Nichols of Westminster in support of traditional marriage. The Welsh Government alleged that the schools support of traditional marriage failed to give students a “balanced perspective.” (Read the LifeSiteNews report.)
PRAY: With the UK Prime Minister and the United States’ president both publicly advocating the legalization of gay ‘marriage’, it is appropriate to reflect on what this would actually mean in practice.
News breaks that some favoured politicians and bankers from the United Kingdom are shunning our gracious Queen’s diamond jubilee celebrations this weekend to cosy up to the movers and shakers of the world’s elite.
The ‘Bilderberg’ group is meeting in Chantilly, Virginia, USA from 31st May to 3rd June under the chairmanship of Henri de Castries, Chairman and CEO of AXA, to plan and plot world events. Whatever these people decide, and their plans do not always work out, it is likely to be designed to benefit them first and the rest of us a long way behind.
On the invitation list from the UK are:
* Bankers Marcus Agius, Chairman of Barclays and Douglas J. Flint, Group Chairman of HSBC Holdings.
* Oilmen Robert Dudley, Group Chief Executive of BP and Peter Voser, the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell
* Journalists John Micklethwait, the Editor-in-Chief of The Economist, Gideon Rachman, Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator of The Financial Times and the FT’s Chief Economics Commentator, Martin H. Wolf. Vendeline von Bredow, the Business Correspondent of The Economist and the same publication’s Foreign Correspondent, Adrian D. Wooldridge are denoted ‘Rapporteurs’ for the meeting, but despite that designation, and the presence of such well-connected journo’s, don’t expect to see anything about the meeting in the papers. It’s top secret, you see, with armed guards and a publicity ban.
The UK’s gay mafia is well represented with Peter, Lord Mandelson, who is now Chairman of ‘Global Counsel’, whatever that is, and Nick Boles, MP, a member of David Cameron’s kitchen cabinet and a good friend of modernisers Boris Johnson and Francis Maude. Kenneth Clarke, MP is a long-standing Bilderberg member and part of its inner circle, as are Agius and the remaining UK delegate, retired diplomat John Lord Kerr of Kinlochard.
Only recently, the Bilderberg Group has started a website and now publishes a press release. You can see it at http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meeting_2012.html and you can click on the other buttons on the site to see the full list of those attending together with the ‘Governance’ of the group.
Apparently, ‘the privacy of the meetings, … has no purpose other than to allow participants to speak their minds openly and freely’. ‘Bilderberg is a small, flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced’. ‘Bilderberg’s only activity is its annual Conference. At the meetings, no resolutions are proposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued’.
So that’s alright then. Pray that all plans for globalism and world domination are thwarted. Pray this Psalm:
Psalm 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
A blog on the Daily Telegraph has shown how the bus advert storm has highlighted a homosexual activist U-Turn.
Brendan O’Neill, editor of Spiked, says it used to be ‘the gays’ who emphasised their choice of sexuality and said they had a right to whatever orientation and lifestyle they wanted.
Now, he says, organisations like Stonewall have switched their position. Now it is all: ‘Be nice to poor us; we cannot change who we are; we are stuck like it; get over it!’
He also says that nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century Christians held to the determinist position, but that they have switched around as well. He is on less sure ground there, although it depends on which theology a certain Christian holds. The evangelicals, such as the prison psychiatrist of Liverpool nick in the 1950s, Dr F H Brisby, who wrote an article for the BMA cataloguing homosexuals who had changed which was submitted to the Wolfenden Committee, have always maintained that Christ can heal and transform our pathological nature.
But as for ‘the gays’, he is bang on target. When I researched my book ‘The Sexual Dead End’, I found a strong emphasis amongst homosexual writers of the 1970s and 1980s on sexual freedom and the right to choose our ‘orientation’. Agreed, it was strongest amongst the lesbians, where ‘going gay’ is seen as a logical feminist rejection of what they see as a male-dominated society.
Books like ‘Pink Triangles’ and ‘With downcast gays’ had a theme of sexual freedom, but it was at its strongest in the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto. In other words it was the radical end of homosexual activism which emphasised freedom of choice, while the political savvies saw that determinism was a better way to achieve their aims.
All the same, Leo Abse, when bringing in the Sexual Offences Bill 1967, which started the whole gay machine rolling, attributed the curse, as he put it, of homosexuality to a lad growing up without a father figure with whom to identify. The lack of a proper identification as a member of one’s one sex is still seen as one of the routes into homosexuality by conservative psychiatric professionals – and Christians in healing ministries, today.
Homosexual behaviour was looked upon as just a matter of sin until people like Carl Ulrichs and Magnus Hirschfield came along in the l880s and proposed the ‘third sex’ idea. Sigmund Freud opposed their determinism and rejected a genetic or hormonal predisposition in a move which was catastrophic to homosexual political aspirations.
It was when Simon Le Vay found differences in the brains of homosexual men as against a heterosexual control group that the determinists got really exited, despite LeVay himself admitting:
“It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain (as quoted in Byrd, et al., 2001).”
Hard on Le Vay’s heels came Bailey and Pillard’s ‘gay twins’ in 1992/1993 and Dean Hamer’s ‘gay gene’ in 1993. Now the determinists and the homosexual politicos were cooking. Hamer’s results have not been replicated, and he didn’t claim to have found a ‘gay gene’ responsible for all homosexuality either.
So to come right up to the present, the Christians behind the proposed bus ads are emphasising what gay activists were in the 1980s, that a homosexual lifestyle is chosen, learnt behaviour. Where they differ is in mainataining that such a lifestyle is not a good thing and that the underlying pathologies can be dealt with and a person restored to how God intended him or her to be through the healing power of Jesus Christ.
And it works; men and women have walked away from the homosexual lifestyle and had their orientation changed by Jesus Christ. Their stories are the ones which cannot be allowed to be heard in today’s politically correct climate, but they will not go away.
And it is because Christian healing is such a political time-bomb that Stonewall have to reject it, with all the determist fervour they can muster.
Followingthe 2003 publication of Dan Brown’s publishing phenomenon, The Da Vinci Code, there has been a renaissance of interest in the ancient heresy of Gnosticism. This ancient heresy has exerted its tentacles deep into the fabric of contemporary life, even influencing the church in many unhelpful ways. (To read about some of the ways that Gnostic ideas have infiltrated the church, see my article, ‘Eight Gnostic Myths You May Have Imbibed’.)
At the heart of the Gnostic heresy was the notion that the material world is bad. If the fundamental antithesis for Christianity was between good and evil, for the Gnostics the fundamental antithesis was between the physical and the spiritual. The material world is bad, they argued, precisely because it is physical. True spirituality involves escape from this world. Whereas the Christian tradition taught that redemption history culminates in the resurrection of the body, Gnostics believed that the goal of salvation was eternal disembodiment.
The Gospel of Thomas… gives esoteric insight into the spiritual realm, but fails to offer either vision or hope for the present world. Whereas the canonical gospels carefully chart Jesus’ ministry within the context of Israel’s story line, showing how Christ brings the narrative of Israel to its climactic fulfillment, Thomas completely neglects this larger narrative of redemption history.
The absence of a redemptive-historical narrative in Thomas is not surprising. For the Gnostics, there is no redemption history of the world because salvation is not about what happens in this world. Rather, redemption is about escaping from the world.
Because of their anti-creational orientation, many Gnostics them taught that sexuality is at the heart of our fallen condition. Being immersed in the material world has given rise to the unfortunate reality of sexual differentiation, and the existence of beings that are capable of uniting sexually. In the Gnostic utopia, however, the gender polarity will be obliterated, as women migrate into a condition of masculinity. Thus in verse 114 of The Gospel of Thomas, we read,
Simon Peter said to Him, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of Life.”
Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”
There is more than mere misogyny going on in the idea that “Every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” For the world-hating Gnostics, the very idea of there being two sexes was anathema. Many Gnostics attempted to achieve a unisex society this side of paradise, teaching an ideal of asceticism that saw celibacy as the only truly spiritual option.
Unfortunately, Gnostic pessimism about sex influenced many of the church fathers, who imported into the Christian faith Platonic and Stoic notions concerning the body. The first-century Stoic Seneca expressed the mood well when he declared,
“All love of another’s wife is shameful; so too, too much love of your own. A wise man ought to love his wife with judgment, not affection. Let him control his impulses and not be borne headlong into copulation. Nothing is fouler to love a wife like an adulteress. . . . Let them show themselves to their wives not as lovers, but as husbands.”
This devaluing of conjugal love within the Gnostic and Stoic traditions was reinforced by the influence of Platonism within Mediterranean society. Though not all scholars agree that Plato took a pejorative view of the body, in Plato’s Phaedo Socrates talks about the body in ways that deeply resonated with the later Gnostic movement:
Plato
“We are convinced that if we are ever to have pure knowledge of anything, we must get rid of the body and contemplate things in isolation with the soul in isolation…. If no pure knowledge is possible in the company of the body, then either it is totally impossible to acquire knowledge, or it is only possible after death, because it is only then that the soul will be isolated and independent of the body. It seems that so long as we are alive, we shall keep as close as possible to knowledge if we avoid as much as we can all contact and association with the body…”
The idea here seems to be that the body holds the soul back from perfect knowledge, so that the philosophers’ task is to disengage himself as much as possible from the trappings of the physical body.
Given the fact that many of the church fathers were deeply influenced by Platonism, it is not surprising to find early Christian teachers imbibing a Platonic and Gnostic view of the body. Saint Jerome (c. 347 –420) reflected Gnostic assumptions when he taught that the more we love God, the less we will have leftover for human affection.
“It is hard for the human soul to avoid loving something, and our mind must of necessity give way to affection of one kind or another. The love of the flesh is overcome by the love of the spirit. Desire is quenched by desire. What is taken from the one increases the other….In paradise Eve was a virgin… virginity is natural while wedlock only follows guilt…”
For Jerome, Marriage was a necessary evil in order that virgins could be produced:
“I praise wedlock, I praise marriage, but it is because they give me virgins. I gather the rose from the thorns, the gold from the earth, the pearl from the shell.” The thirteenth-century French Dominican Vincent of Beauvais put the matter rather brusquely: “a man who loves his wife very much is an adulterer. Any love for someone else’s wife or too much love for one’s own is shameful.”
Jerome was not alone. Saint Augustine of Hippo (354–430) also reflected gnostic and neo-Platonic ideas about the body, arguing that sexuality only came about after, and because of, Adam’s fall.
St. Jerome
Despite the legacy of the church fathers, as well as the fact that a Gnostic devaluing of human sexuality continued to crop up throughout the history of the medieval church, on the whole the Christian tradition has done a good job in proclaiming the goodness of the world and our experiences in it, including the experience of marriage. The Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church have even gone so far as to consider marriage a sacrament.
The Bible itself puts an especially high valuation on marriage. The material world was proclaimed good by God (Gen 1:31), and the marriage bed is particularly honourable (Heb 13:4). We glorify God not by denying our God-given sexual desires, like some in Paul’s day were teaching (1 Timothy 4:3), but by fulfilling those desires in honourable marriage. Marriage is thus the ultimate anti-Gnostic statement, in so far as it proclaims that the material world is good, and that we can glorify God by enjoying the good things in the world that He has given us, such as sex. Thus, the Bible puts a premium on the importance of frequent sex in marriage (1 Cor. 7:5; Proverbs 5:19), and even uses the one-flesh relationship between husband and wife as a type of the love between Christ and the church (Eph. 5:22-33).
What is interesting about the movement to legalize same-sex ‘marriage’ is that in many respects it is a return to Gnostic ideas about the body. Advocates of gay ‘marriage’ will frequently downplay the physical aspects of marriage, urging instead that marriage is not primarily about becoming one-flesh physically, but a spiritual and emotional connection for which our physical experiences are extrinsic rather than intrinsic.
In downplaying the importance of consummation in marriage, advocates of same-sex ‘marriage’ have tried to reduce the meaning of marriage to merely a loving and committed relationship between two adults. It’s an emotional and relational union that creates the necessary conditions for marriage, they argue, not what you do with your bodies. In fact, the physical anatomy of the adults in question is irrelevant. Marriage is first about the communion of souls in a committed and affectionate relationship and only secondarily about physical union.
By contrast, in traditional marriage one cannot disengage the relational and the physical aspects of union. As Robert George wrote back in 2009 in an article for First Things,
“A human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Far from being a mere instrument of the person, the body is intrinsically part of the personal reality of the human being. Bodily union is thus personal union, and comprehensive personal union—marital union—is founded on bodily union.”…
“Arguments that true marriage is something other than or broader than the union of two sexually complementary spouses necessarily suppose that the value of sex must be instrumental either to procreation or to pleasure, considered as an end in itself or as a means of expressing affection, tender feelings, etc. Thus, critics of traditional norms of marriage and sexuality say that homosexual sex acts, for example, are indistinguishable from heterosexual acts whenever the motivation for such acts is something other than procreation. That is to say, the sexual acts of same-sex partners are indistinguishable in motivation, meaning, value, and significance from the marital acts of spouses who know that at least one spouse is temporarily or permanently infertile. Thus, the argument goes, the traditional understanding of marriage is guilty of unfairness in treating sterile persons of opposite sexes as capable of marrying while treating same-sex partners as ineligible to marry.”
For the homosexual community, what we do with our bodies is irrelevant because what really matters is the motivation behind it; therefore, if the motivation behind the sex acts of homosexual partners is the same as the motivation behind the sex acts of heterosexual married couples, then the former should be able to qualify as an instance of marriage. The fact that homosexual sex acts are completely different to full sexual intercourse in marriage is irrelevant within the neo-Gnostic paradigm of the gay community: for them what really matters is what happens in the mind, emotion and soul and not the body. In fact, if their mantra that “marriage is a relationship between two committed individuals” were taken at face value, the body has little or nothing to do with marriage at all. As Adam G. Mersereau pointed out,
Some gay activists try to meet that burden by claiming that marriage is, at its core, the legal recognition of a committed, loving relationship between adults. But that is incorrect. Marriage is not, and has never been, the mere recognition of committed and loving relationships between adults. Lots of adults love one another and are committed to one another (a grandmother and her adult grandchild, or war buddies, or close sisters, and the like), but these commitments have never been considered marriage. No one would argue that these relationships are essentially the same as a heterosexual marital relationship. So it remains an open question why two homosexuals should qualify for marriage merely because they claim to love one another dearly.
Within the Christian tradition, bodies are important and help to define who we are. Our bodies are not, as homosexuals claim, an irrelevancy like race.
Within the Christian understanding, on the other hand, our bodies are important and help to define who we are. I relate to the world as a man, and this is rooted in my biological experience as a male. Similarly, my wife relates to the world as a woman, and this is grounded in her experience being biologically female. The different perspectives we bring to the world as men and women is something to be embraced, relished and enjoyed, not trivialized. By contrast, many within the homosexual community argue that our experience as members of one particular gender is really irrelevant to our functioning in the world.
The biological sex that one happens to be is like one’s race, they argue. Indeed, one of the most frequent arguments for same-sex ‘marriage’ is that opposition to it is akin to opposition to interracial marriage. Just as race is, or ought to be, irrelevant to marriage, so they argue that one’s gender is similarly irrelevant, that my actual physical anatomy is as irrelevant to my experiences in the world as the colour of my skin.
This Gnostic-like trivializing of the body has led homosexual activists to claim that one’s biology as either male or female makes absolutely no difference to a person’s experience as a parent. A dad is just the same as a mom because our biological differences are irrelevant to our lived experiences in the world. Listen to what Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse said in an article reflecting on her debate with Judith Stacey:
I crossed swords with Judith Stacey…at a debate at Bowling Green State a few years ago. I asked her point blank if she believed men and women were completely interchangeable as parents. In front of that very friendly audience, she said absolutely: the gender of parents doesn’t matter….
Treating same sex unions like marriage amounts to saying that mothers and fathers are interchangeable. It is a coin toss from a child’s point of view, whether they have two moms, two dads, or one of each.
This trivialising of our identity as men and women is something that is completely alien to the earthiness of the Christian worldview. It is a throw-back to the Gnostic movement, and to the idea in The Gospel of Thomas that in paradise there will be no sex differences. The only difference is that while the Gnostics expected that to occur in the life to come, the homosexual community is attempting to bring it into the present age. It is an attempt to achieve the sexless utopia described by feminist writer Susan Moller Okin near the end of her book Justice, Gender and the Family: “A just future would be one without gender. In its social structures and practices, one’s sex would have no more relevance than one’s eye color or the length of one’s toes.”
By reducing our physical experiences as men and women to irrelevancy like this, the feminist and homosexual communities have colluded with the Gnostic lie that our bodies do not ultimately matter.
Join Christian Voice by clicking the Join button or send a donation via the Donate button below:
The Conservative Mayor of London has banned London buses from carrying adverts promoting an ex-gay ministry.
Boris Johnson, who is running for re-election next month, told Transport for London to pull the adverts booked by two conservative Anglican groups within two hours of the story about the adverts appearing in the Guardian.
The ads were due to run on 24 buses on five routes and were booked on behalf of the Core Issues Trust whose leader, Mike Davidson, believes “homoerotic behaviour is sinful”.
Core Issues Trust funds “reparative therapy” for gay Christians, which it claims can “develop their heterosexual potential”. The campaign was also backed by Anglican Mainstream.
The advert was due to say: “Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!”
It was an obvious and timely send-up of the Stonewall homosexual lobby group’s bus adverts which say “Some people are gay – get over it!”
The Christian groups used the same black, red and white colour scheme as Stonewall and in a statement announcing the campaign accused it of promoting the “false idea that there is indisputable scientific evidence that people are born gay”.
Johnson, who contacted the Guardian to announce he was stopping the adverts within two hours of their contents becoming public, said: “London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance. It is clearly offensive to suggest that being gay is an illness that someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses.”
The Christian groups insisted the advert had been cleared with Transport for London (TfL), which is chaired by the mayor. Davidson said: “I didn’t realise censorship was in place. We went through the correct channels and we were encouraged by the bus company to go through their procedures. They okayed it and now it has been pulled.”
CBS Outdoor, the media company that sells the bus advertising sites, said the ad had been passed for display by the Committee of Advertising Practice. It is understood TfL was due to make around £10,000 for allowing the adverts to run on about two dozen buses across five routes.
Mayor Johnson’s decision will fuel concerns over religious discrimination by showing that there is one rule for homosexual activists and another for Christians.
The move by Boris is also certain to be seen as anti-Christian by an electorate which includes a large number of evangelical Christians. Half of all Christians in London are black African or Caribbean and other fast-growing churches are heavily evangelical or pentecostal.
David Cameron has quoted from the Gospel of Luke and spoken of ‘we’ Christians at a pre-Easter reception at Downing Street.
Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell famously didn’t ‘Do God’, but Mr Cameron is making rather a habit of it. As Easter Sunday approaches, Mr Cameron has decided to “do God” in public, as Alastair Campbell might say.
He said there were three reasons why the King James Bible was as relevant today as any point in its history.
“First, the King James Bible has bequeathed a body of language that permeates every aspect of our culture and heritage. Second, just as our language and culture is steeped in the Bible, so too is our politics.
“Third, we are a Christian country. And we should not be afraid to say so. Let me be clear: I am not in any way saying that to have another faith – or no faith – is somehow wrong.”
“This is the time when, as Christians, we remember the life, sacrifice and living legacy of Christ. The New Testament tells us so much about the character of Jesus; a man of incomparable compassion, generosity, grace, humility and love. These are the values that Jesus embraced, and I believe these are values people of any faith, or no faith, can also share in, and admire.
“It is values like these that make our country what it is – a place which is tolerant, generous and caring. A nation which has an established faith, that together is most content when we are defined by what we are for, rather than defined by what we are against. In the book of Luke, we are told that Jesus said, ‘Do to others as you would have them do to you’ – advice that when followed makes for a happier, and better society for everyone.”
He told the assembled guests that he welcomed a Christian “fightback”. He said: “I think there’s something of a fightback going on, and we should welcome that. The values of the Bible, the values of Christianity, are the values that we need.”
Interestingly, this is what Jesus said about marriage, which Mr Cameron wants to change into a ‘gay’ version:
Mar 10:6 “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said:
“The last verse, Mark 10:9, is normally taken to refer to individual marriages, which people in Britain today set aside as a routine. I’ve been on the receiving end of divorce on demand. Some fifty percent of marriages are now being put asunder because one party simply decides to walk out.
“But David Cameron wants to put asunder the whole institution of marriage as ordained in the beginning by God Almighty. In 2007 he voted for the Sexual Orientation Goods and Services Regulations which have been used against Christian hoteliers operating the values of the Bible, yet now he urges a ‘fightback’ against secularism.
“David Cameron voted to abolish the blasphemy laws in May 2008, which provided a foundation for a culture of respect for both God and man. In the same month he voted to allow animal/human hybrid embryos. A day later he voted to allow abortion – or the murder of children in the womb – at 16 weeks gestation, a time when every organ and every brain function is in place and operating. It was good that he quoted Christ’s ‘golden rule’ from Luke 6:13 (and Matthew 7:12) but he would not allow to be done to him what he allows to be done to children in the womb.
“It is a good beginning to call for Christian values and to urge a Christian fight-back, but Mr Cameron’s thinking needs to be joined up. He needs to be transformed by the renewing of his mind. How can he in all seriousness urge a ‘fight-back’ against the marginalisation of Christianity and against attempts to ban the wearing of crosses and crucifixes when the Home Office is fighting in the European Court to uphold exactly such a ban?
“David Cameron is right that the values of Christianity are the values that we need’ but he needs our prayers to realise that he cannot pick and choose from the Bible or from the teachings of the Lord. Yes, respect for property helps stop youth looting from shops. Yes, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you helps maintain order in society.
“But keeping a few of Christ’s commandments while breaking a raft of others is to break them all, as the Apostle James points out.
“A little like some of the church today, Mr Cameron overdoes the love and compassion of Christ, but shies away from his laws and judgments. But even then he is selective. He likes being compassionate to homosexuals to the extent of overturning God’s holy institution of marriage, but he doesn’t want a lot of compassion to be shown to last summer’s rioters, or for that matter to the disabled people being made redundant by Remploy.
“Napoleon liked religion when it maintained peace and order, and not when it challenged his assumed right to autocratic rule. Such a convenient approach seems to be catching to leaders.
“I repeat, David Cameron needs our prayers; and a few letters might not go amiss either.”
It doesn’t get any better for Tesco, who have seen their ‘big price drop’ flop, sales and profits drop, the worst perfomance of the ‘big four’ over Christmas, their share price plummet, their UK operations CEO sacked, their local management in a spin, all since announcing a £30,000 gift to London Gay Pride in November 2011. And only days ago we reported on a Tesco manageress in Gravesend calling the police because one of our members was giving out our ‘Boycott Tesco’ leaflets outside her store.
This is not the first time mice have been found in Tesco. Just over a year ago, in December 2010, a shopper in Birmingham was horrified to see baby mice fall out of crisp packet she picked off the shelves in Tesco’s Aston store.
Customer Liz Wray told the Daily Mirror: “There were half a dozen of them crawling out of different holes in the crisps and we couldn’t believe our eyes. All staff did was put a cardboard box over them and close aisle six.
“I’m not sure if they were inside the multipack or if they were just in amongst the packets.
“But there were a lot of holes in the bag, they’d obviously been at them.”
She was astounded that staff did not close the store. To let mice feed in the store would be bad enough. For mice to be allowed to build a nest in the stock betrays a lack of seriousness over hygiene and general cleanliness.
And the same inability to distinguish between right and wrong is behind their decision to support ‘gay pride’. Philip Clarke was elevated to CEO and the recently-departed Philip Brasher to UK Chief in March 2011. It has all goine wrong since then. Tesco’s only hope is to put their trust in God. Repenting of the ‘Gay Pride’ decision will be part of that.
The ability for same-sex couples to ‘marry’ is not a human right European judges have ruled.
The landmark decision comes only days after the UK Government opened a consultation on the implementation of gay ‘marriage’, based on their belief that same-sex couples in the UK are being deprived of a human right.
The case went before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg after the French lesbian couple, Valerie Gas and Nathalie Dubois, complained that they were being discriminating against by not being able to adopt an 11 year-old as a couple.
The judges declared that those in a same-sex partnership cannot be expected to have the same rights and privileges as married couples, adding, “With regard to married couples, the court considers that in view of the social, personal, and legal consequences of marriage, the applicants’ legal situation could not be said to be comparable to that of married couples.”
Although defenders of traditional marriage heralded the ruling as a victory, it was actually a mixed blessing. The ruling also said that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then any church that refuses to offer wedding services to them will be guilty of discrimination.
“Where national legislation recognises registered partnerships between same sex,” the judges said, “member states should aim to ensure that their legal status and their rights and obligations are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples in a similar situation.”
This announcement contradicts Coalition promises that churches will not be compelled to conduct homosexual weddings under Government’s gay ‘marriage’ plans. It confirms what Church of England lawyers have already understood from analyzing equality legislation, namely that if same-sex ‘marriages’ are legalized, then equality law is likely to force churches to fall into line and perform the wedding ceremonies.
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said:
‘This ruling has massive implications for theUK. Peter and Hazlemary Bull were held to have discriminated against a homosexual couple to whom they would not let a double bed, even though they had the same policy for unmarried heterosexual couples, on the grounds that civil partnership was equivalent to marriage. TheEuropean Courthas ruled that it isn’t.
‘In addition, David Cameron has promoted his plans for ‘gay marriage’ on human rights grounds. That argument can no longer stand.’
Discrimination law specialist Neil Addison commented on the implications of the ruling:
‘Once same-sex marriage has been legalised then the partners to such a marriage are entitled to exactly the same rights as partners in a heterosexual marriage. This means that if same-sex marriage is legalised in theUKit will be illegal for the Government to prevent such marriages happening in religious premises.’
This Sunday, 18th March 2012, is Mothers’ Day (or Mothering Sunday for the more old-fashioned among us). But if the Government get their way and enact ‘Gay Marriage’, mother and father could be renamed ‘Parent A’ and ‘Parent B’ on birth certificates.
According to Labour peer Lord Brennan QC, the Stonewall homosexual lobby group have said the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ should be replaced by ‘parties to a marriage’, even while saying homosexuals want to call each other ‘husbands’ and ‘wives’. And we know that what Stonewall wants from the Con-Lib Coalition, Stonewall gets.
Lord Brennan says that in Spain, where ‘gay marriage’ was introduced in 2005, ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’ were replaced on birth certificates by ‘Progenitor A’ and ‘Progenitor B’ the following year. We must not believe the Government is they say a similar thing (probably ‘Parent A’ and ‘Parent B’) cannot happen here.
Never forget, in October 2000, Home Secretary Jack Straw said: “Marriage is about a union for the procreation of children, which by definition can only happen between a heterosexual couple. So I see no circumstances in which we would ever bring forward proposals for so-called gay marriages.” But that was when he was laying the ground for the Civil Partnership Bill and trying not to frighten the conservative horses.
Lynne Featherstone, the Governments’ Equalities Minister, will publish her consultation today on how the Government wants to enact ‘Gay Marriage’. Ms Featherstone has said in her heart ‘there is no God’ (Psalm 14:1)
They are only consulting on how to do it, not whether to do it. Many people would say that smacks of arrogance. Here are some reasons why Her Majesty’s Government should keep their hands off marriage:
1. Marriage was ordained by God as the first social institution. All earthly government is subject to the power and empire of Christ our Redeemer (as Her Majesty the Queen was told at her coronation when being given the Orb set under the Cross). Therefore Her Majesty’s Government has no power to change the definition of marriage. No Church can change what God has ordained. And no State can change what God has ordained.
It does not matter whether it is church marriage, or civil marriage, it is between a man and a woman as explained in the opening chapters of the first book of the Bible:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
At a time and in a society in which polygamy was not unknown, the Lord Jesus went right back to the creation ordinance to define marriage as it has been understood in those societies based on Christian laws right up to today:
Matt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
2. A marriage must be consummated. In consummation, the couple become physically, emotionally and spiritually ‘one flesh’. It does not matter if theirs was a registry office wedding, they still become physically, emotionally and spiritually ‘one flesh’. Becoming one flesh is what the Lord Jesus said is the foundation of marriage, and it is something a pair of homosexuals can never do. In the immortal words of Dr David Reuben (author of ‘Everything you always wanted to know about sex’), they are trying to solve the puzzle with only half the pieces.
Under Section 12 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 a marriage is voidable if it has not been consummated due to the incapacity of either party to consummate it. Consummation requires sexual intercourse which is ordinary and complete. How will a pair of lesbians or two men achieve consummation with only half the necessary equipment?
3. Marriage at all times and in all countries has been the union of a man and a woman. Even where polygamy was practised, it was exclusively heterosexual. Even in societies, such as Ancient Greece, where homosexuality was regarded as acceptable, there was never a thought that two people of the same sex could be married. Nowhere in the world, until the last few years, has homosexual marriage even been considered.
Some people believe that human beings are evolving and that this generation is simply the smartest, wisest, most compassionate, most enlightened, cleverest bunch of people who ever walked the earth. We look around, and we see the violence, the sacrilege, the thieving, the contempt for civilised standards, the crassness, the sexualisation, the disregard for God and man, and we beg to disagree.
But we repeat, marriage is not ‘tradition’, it is divine ordinance.
Stephen Green congratulates Raj Bhachoo after his case was dismissed
Christian Voice Press Release – 19.00 hrs Wednesday 7th March 2012
Christian ‘Not Guilty’ in Stonewall email case
Stonewall witness fails to show
A Christian had a malicious communication case against him for sending a strongly-worded email to the Stonewall lobby group dismissed this afternoon when the only prosecution witness failed to turn up.
Raj Bhachoo was prosecuted after sending an email not just warning Stonewall of the fires of hell but linking homosexuality to child sexual abuse. But Stonewall’s Information Officer, Louise Kelly, did not appear and the prosecution case – they could not even produce evidence of the email in question – collapsed in her absence.
Stephen Green congratulates Raj Bhachoo after his case was dismissed this afternoon
The case was heard at Camberwell Green Magistrates Court this afternoon, and Christian Voice National Director Stephen Green had agreed to attend as an expert witness.
Stephen Green said after the case:
‘Raj Bhachoo certainly expressed himself in a robust way, but Stonewall will be the first to champion freedom of expression for their own side. They called me a ‘bigot’ and shortlisted me for a mock award last year, but I am grown-up enough not to go flying down to the police station.
‘I agreed to appear as an expert witness on Raj’s behalf, to show (a) that the word ‘queer’ is no longer a pejorative term amongst homosexuals, (b) that homosexual men have a greater tendency to commit sexual offences against children than heterosexual men and (c) that Stonewall are themselves fond of abusing their opponents. But with no case to answer, my evidence was not needed.’
The verdict marks the end of a nine-month ordeal for Raj, who was refused a not guilty plea last year in the same court and had to apply to the Crown Court for a retrial. By the grace of God his application was successful. Raj came to the attention of Christian Voice late last year when he telephoned for some leaflets against Tesco’s £30,000 support of Gay Pride to give out at his local store.
Born into a Sikh family, Raj became a Christian 8 years ago and is a staunch supporter of the Authorised Version of the Bible, which fed his early walk to faith.
Raj joined Christian Voice then told us about the Stonewall case. No other Christian group would support him, but National Director Stephen Green was appalled by the miscarriage of justice and found a criminal lawyer to represent him. Stonewall thought they could bully our brother, but when it came to it, they lacked the courage even to press their case.
Stephen Green concluded: ‘Thank God that justice has at last been done for our brother in Christ.’
For further information, phone Stephen Green on 07931 490050.
Land Address for Stephen Green and the Christian Voice office:
Wernlwyd, Pen-y-bont, CARMARTHEN, SA33 6QN
01994 484544 / 07931 490050 https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/
A preacher has been found not guilty of a public order offence after a complaint from two homosexuals.
Michael Overd, from Taunton, was part of a street witness and was preaching from 1Cor 6:9-11 in October 2010 when two homosexual men, Craig Nicholl and Craig Manning, passed him holding hands. Hearing the word ‘homosexual’ in the passage, they turned round, went up to Mr Overd and began shouting at him, using despicable foul language. The Court was told Mr Nicholl spat at the preacher.
On a second occasion, 16th July 2011, Michael Overd was preaching alone when the two approached him. In full flow, he said, ‘Even these two dear men, whom I’ve met before, caught in the sin of homosexuality, can have forgiveness of their sin.’
The two Craigs, who recently entered into a ‘civil partnership’, again began screaming at the preacher and making, he told Taunton Deane Magistrates Court, all kinds of homosexually-charged comments and allegations at him. Not satisfied with that, they called the police, but so aggressive did they become, it was Mr Overd who was glad to see the boys in blue.
Michael Overd was prosecuted under Section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986:
Section 4A – Intentionally causing harassment, alarm or distress:
‘A person is guilty if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he
‘a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
‘b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
‘thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.’.
But the Court found that Michael Overd did not have any such intent and found him not guilty.
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, heard the evidence in court and said after the verdict:
‘Coming on a day when both the Bulls and Bideford Council lost their cases in the High Court, this verdict is welcome news. Christians find themselves today in an environment where they can be insulted, sworn at, threatened with violence, even spat at, and then themselves charged with a public order offence. Clearer instructions and better training need to filter down to police officers so that cases like this do not waste the time of the court. This case should never have been brought and the verdict is a victory for Christian liberty and for freedom of speech.’
Messrs Nicholl and Manning, who described each other in court as ‘my husband’ , alleged that Michael Overd told them they would ‘burn in hell’ but this turned out to be as much a figment of their imagination as the idea that they are in any way ‘married’ to each other. Four witnesses told the court that they had never heard Mr Overd use such language.
An amusing moment happened when the prosecutor tried to explore the defendant’s view on certain subjects as heaven and hell, abortion, fornication and homosexuality. Time after time, Mr Overd referred the lawyer to the Bible, saying that he believed what was in it. In the end, the chairman of the magistrates lost patience, and said to the prosecutor, ‘I think we have established that his beliefs are based on what he reads in the Bible.’
By the end of the evidence, the Court was left in no doubt as to who would not inherit the kingdom of God. In the King James Version: 1Cor 6:9 ‘Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.’
Michael Overd was represented in court by Paul Diamond of counsel instructed by Michael Phillips, solicitor.
JOIN Christian Voice or donate by clicking on one of the buttons below:
But there is another issue, and one which we should all be able to agree on regardless of our views on homosexuality. I refer to the way homosexual curriculum, not least the resources UK schools use during LGBT month, overload young children with adult issues that are beyond their cognitive and psychological capacity to process.
To expect a child who has not even reached puberty to understand about transgenderism, cross dressing, gender reassignment surgery, etc., is to introduce categories into their thinking that are well beyond their ability to adequately process and can be deeply confusing. These concepts are confusing for adults, let alone 6-year olds!
That is exactly what Dr. Grossman argued in the following video when testifying last year to the State of California legislature about homosexual curriculum. Her expertise in the field of child psychology and pediatrics gives her a valuable perspective on this debate that the propagators of LGBT History Month would do well to heed.
Join Christian Voice by clicking the Join button or send a donation via the Donate button below:
Douglas Wilson has some good things to say here about some of the issues upstream of the modesty debate, which echoes some of the concerns we raised in the July 2011 Christian Voice newsletter when we covered the ‘slutwalks.’
Wilson also helpfully reminds us that when a woman reveals too much flesh, it is often not because she has too much sexual security but too less. Wilson writes,
One of the most striking things about these flesh parades is how unattractive it all is. As in, gekkk. … There are clearly numerous young ladies who have no one in their lives willing to speak to them truthfully. And when women don’t have someone who loves them like they ought to, they become susceptible to any number of fads, so long as someone — most likely a peer with the same emotional problems — is willing to tell them it is “cute.” Well, it isn’t. Sorry to break it to you. There also appears to be an inverse relationship between the class of the person and how many square feet are covered by the tattoo.
The problem here, at least within the church, is that hints don’t get you anywhere, no effect at all, and if you state the problem plainly, it flattens the poor girl for months, like somebody took a pastoral mallet to her. By “hints,” I mean general references in sermons to modesty and decorum, and by “stating plainly” I mean suggesting that she come to church next week with the mammalian pride dialed back just a skosh. The problem is not that she is secure in her sexuality — it is just the reverse. You can tell this because women who want to be “secure” in their sexuality in this way at the same time do not want men around them who are secure in their sexuality in a comparable way.
When Wilson suggests that the problem with women who parade their flesh is not that they are too secure in their sexuality but that they are too insecure in it, I thought of the recent controversy over Lara Pulver’s nude scene in the pre-watershed BBC1 Sherlock Holmes.
Actress Lara Pulver commented that it was "really empowering" to go completely naked in the new Sherlock Holmes series
Significantly, after appearing completely nude in front of Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock) and Martin Freeman (Dr Watson) for eight hours during the shooting (to say nothing of the more than 10 million viewers who were able to see sustained footage of Pulver in her birthday suit), Mrs. Pulver commented that “something really empowering takes over.”
This echoes many of the comments made by those women who participated in the slutwalks, who said that they felt “empowered” when they paraded down the streets of London in various stages of nudity.
If Douglas Wilson is right, a woman who is secure in herself and in her sexuality does not need to take off all her clothes to feel empowered. Indeed, when women think it is empowering to undress in front of men, that is often evidence that our society in general, and fathers in particular, are not giving them the respect and dignity they deserve. Lacking an inherent sense of their own worth, they feel compelled to prove themselves by parading their flesh. Sadly, this often gives women a false empowering that acts as a substitute to genuine female dignity.
(To read more about nudity in films and the implications this has for how we view the body, see the article recently published by the Chuck Colson Center titled ‘Nudity and the Christian worldview.’)
Join Christian Voice by clicking the Join button or send a donation via the Donate button below:
Homosexual groups throughout the UK are getting ready for next month, which has been designated ‘LGBT History Month.’
In preparation for the event, organizations like Stonewall are providing a plethora of resources to children as young as four, who will be learning details of everything from lesbian love to cross dressing. (See some of Stonewall’s Secondary resources here and some of their primary resources here.)
Sign our Petition ‘Leave our children alone’ by clicking HERE. (Opens in a new tab/window)
Significantly, February was chosen for the occasion since it coincides with celebrations of the abolition of Section 28 in February 2005, an event which made it possible for teachers to begin exposing students to homosexual propaganda.
One of Stonewall's many resources for schools
The enthusiasm for February 2012 is not limited to homosexual activists interested in children. Prime Minister David Cameron has issued a letter of support for the month, saying “I am pleased to be supporting this year’s LGBT History Month…. Events like this enrich our society and challenge us to think more about the world around us.”
Mr. Cameron was joined in his sentiments by Labour Party leader Ed Milliband, who wrote in a public letter that “The principles behind LGBT History Month reflect the kind of society we would all like to see…”
So what are “the principles behind LGBT History Month”? What types of things will British school children will be doing throughout February 2012?
Part of the answer to these questions can be found in the 18 pages of school activities that Amnesty International produced in 2005 and which is still being given to schools by the promoters of LGBT History Month. The human rights organization encourages students to do role playing activities in which some of them are supposed to play the part of people who are ‘homophobic.’ Another activity among Amnesty International’s resources involves school children being asked to look up the following terms in dictionaries and encyclopedias:
What promoters of LGBT History Month will not be telling teachers and students next month is that Kinsey was a sexual masochist who supported using children for sexual experimentation and whose pseudo-scientific ‘research’ has been discredited when it emerged that he did not take representative samples
Gay
Homophobic
Lesbian
Sexual orientation
Transvestite
Prejudice
Queer
Bisexual
Gender identity
Biological sex
Transgender
Heterosexist
Amnesty International justifies one of the classroom activities based on data collected by Alfred Kinsey which, according to the organization, showed that “13 per cent of the men interviewed and 6 per cent of the women identified themselves as predominantly homosexual, and a third of men and half as many women said that they had been involved in same-sex activity at some stage in their lives.” What promoters of LGBT History Month will not be telling teachers and students next month is that Kinsey was a sexual masochist who supported using children for sexual experimentation and whose pseudo-scientific ‘research’ has been discredited when it was discovered that he did not take representative samples. (For a more accurate account of Kinsey’s legacy than will be publicized during LGBT History Month, see the articles from Salvo magazine, Rape Rates: Kinsey’s Junk Science & Other Unreported Sex Crimes and Rotten Apple Awards: Sex Ed Based on Lies Is Child Abuse.)
Amnesty International is not the only organization providing resources for teachers next month. One Stonewall resource for use in schools during LGBT History Month says:
“Talk about the special friendships we have when we are older. Reference mums and dads, boyfriend and girlfriend. Also reference, two men who love each other (gay) and two women who love each other (lesbian). Challenge any negativity the children may have around the use or understanding of these words.”
Stonewall also provides resources for school children such as the the book And Tango Makes Threeabout two male penguins who fall in love and start a family, King and King about a fairytale prince who kisses and marries another prince, and Daddy’s Roommate which introduces children to the idea of two men sleeping together through the character of a boy who forms an affectionate bond with his father’s partner.
The official website for LGBT History Month gives various lesson suggestions, which include everything from guided discussions of pro-homosexual story books to an “intersex presentation” involving a pornographic “trans poem” (scroll a quarter of the way down on this page to view the poem).
The website also offers a free resource encouraging school children to read the story of Jakey and Claire, two lesbian schoolgirls who are forced to be separated from each other when their parents and classmates turn against the relationship.
Not to be outdone, the organization Schools Out is advertising training courses so that schools throughout Britain can have the opportunity of replicating the ‘gay friendly’ model of Stoke Newington School in Hackney. (Click here to see their advertizing poster.)
Last year for LBGT month, the state school at Hackney put on what they called a ‘Creative Day.’ In a video about the event, Elly Barnes, who helped organize the day, shared how students went to their usual lessons while issues of LGBT rights were integrated into every subject, including English, Life Skills, French, Humanities, Music and Drama. Students also made signs for the school’s gay rights parade, with messages such as, “If your [sic] gay, say yay’ and ‘Don’t run away – be gay!’ and ‘Nothing Wrong With LGBT.’ The day was punctuated with the school’s ‘LGBT Spring Concert’ in the evening, featuring students from the school and the London Gay Men’s Chorus.
LGBT history month is not just a chance to try to normalize homosexual relationships in the minds of children. The LBGT History Month website also offers lesson plans on gender variance aimed at helping students think “outside of a simple ‘Male-Female’ model”.
In the section on ‘Teaching Goals’ (see page 1 here) we read that “Students are expected to discover and learn that…[p]eople are not always simply male or female.” Teachers are encouraged to discuss questions such as “Was Joan of Arc a transgendered man or a historical feminist heroine?” One class exercise is centred around the question “How does society accommodate or reject gender crossing?”
LGBT month is also a time for homosexuals to ‘out’ historical figures who cannot speak in their own defence. For example, the LGBT website gives this resource for learning about Shakespeare’s love sonnets, claiming “it seems likely that some of the greatest love poems in the English language were written by one man to another.” Because we know very little about Shakespeare’s personal life, and because he wrote one poem that appears to be about the love of one man for another (there is nothing in the poem to suggest the love was physical), the gay lobby have unhesitatingly claimed Shakespeare as one of their partners in perversion.
ACP Warns Against Homosexual Education
The American College of Pediatricians has published research showing that over 85% of school students with same-sex attractions will ultimately adopt a heterosexual orientation if not otherwise encouraged. Den Trumbull, MD, FCP, Vice President of the ACP has written a letter to school educators urging that “schools should not seek to develop policy which ‘affirms’ or encourages these non-heterosexual attractions among students who may merely be experimenting or experiencing temporary sexual confusion. Such premature labeling can lead some adolescents to engage in homosexual behaviors that carry serious physical and mental health risks.” (For more information on this to share with your MP, see the resources the ACP has made available on their ‘Facts about Youth‘ website.)
Stonewall Aims to Make Children ‘Resilient’ Against the Values of Their Parents
As already mentioned, the gay rights pressure group Stonewall is heavily involved in LGBT History month, providing resources and teacher training packs to primary schools who wish to become gay friendly. By using these materials, schools can prove that they are complying with the Equality Act 2010.
As part of a teacher’s training pack, the homosexual group has included a 29-minute DVD in which activists state that their goal is to make children ‘resilient’ against the values of their parents and grandparents.
Garry Ratcliffe, head teacher at Oakfield Cimmunity Primary School in Kent who was interviewed for the DVD, said
“Our school is a safe environment and it’s a secure environment for the children that we teach and we nurture” “But we can’t guarantee that when they leave that nurturing environment, that their parents, their grandparents and their neighbours are going to hold the same values as we do. And that’s why we need to make sure our children are resilient and proud and assertive so that their generation will actually change.”
Another teacher commented,
“We’ve got boys with the pompoms doing the dance, you know, and I think that is absolutely wonderful because not only are they there saying ‘actually, this is fine, I can be who I am and do this without anybody laughing and teasing me’, but that is a wonderful role model.”
Bill's New Frock was made into a children's movie in 1998. It tells the story of a boy who wakes up one morning to discover that he is a girl.
Stonewall is also working to make children resilient against a binary man-woman view of gender and offers resources designed to broaden children’s understanding of gender. Their recommended resources include the bookBill’s New Frock, which Stonewall explains is the story about a boy who “wakes up one day as a girl and is horrified to be sent to school in a frilly pink frock with fiddly shell buttons.” It doesn’t take Bill long for his gender stereotypes to be undermined, not least because boys begin flirting with him (who is now called ‘her’) instead of bullying him. As the day progresses he finds that being a girl isn’t so bad after all.
It would be nice to say that cross-dressing is limited to fictional school children like Bill. However, in the Stonewall training DVD, teachers have shared their experiences encouraging boys to dress up as girls. A class teacher for St. Matthew’s Primary School in Cambridgeshire boasted that “I had a group of boys last year and every day they came into school they wanted to wear the dressing up dresses. And they really loved wearing dressing up dresses and it went on for several weeks, and within the culture of the classroom I wanted to say that that was ok.” The teacher went on to explain how she reprimanded other boys who criticized the cross-dressers. Tony Davies, the head teacher of the same school, explained how the school had a cheer-leading club in which boys dressed themselves in pom-poms and put in “I think that is absolutely wonderful.”
Daniel Villarreal, a contributor at the prominent gay news source Queerty, has been remarkably candid that their goal is to indoctrinate kids. In an article titled, ‘Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?’ Daniel Villarreal wrote, “We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.”
If organizations like 'Schools Out' get their way, all school children throughout Britain will march behind the homosexual rainbow flag
Mr Villarreal pleads with his colleagues in the gay lobby to come right out and admit that their agenda does involve “indoctrinating.”
Reacting to gay lobbyists who say “It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything” Mr. Villarreal said, “let’s face it—that’s a lie…. Recruiting children? You bet we are.”
He continued: “I for one certainly want tons of school children to learn that…people of the same sex should be allowed to legally marry each other…”
“I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.” (Capitals his)
What is interesting about Mr. Villarreal’s remarks is that he acknowledges the homosexual lobby has been trying to recruit children all along but that they haven’t had the guts to admit it. “And because we hide from this very basic fact and treat it like something to be ashamed of, we end up with watered-down unemotional pleas for equality…”
Mr. Villarreal is part of a growing number of virulent North American homosexualists who are coming out of the closet to reveal their militant aims. For example, writing in the online edition of Xtra Vancouver in October last year, Robin Perelle said about parents who object to homosexual propaganda in schools, “You’re clinging to an outdated moral code, flailing against a tide of change that’s leaving you and your few remaining followers behind. Speaking to parents with traditional beliefs Mrs. Perelle, who is the managing editor of Xtra, commented, “…the gay rights movement is shifting norms in Canada. And with that comes a message to those who won’t evolve: your outdated morals are no longer acceptable, and we will teach your kids the new norms.”
WRITE: to your MP and protest against the Prime Minister’s support of LGBT History month. Ask your MP to forward your concerns onto the Prime Minister’s office.
READ: Deut 6:5-7; Psalm 111:10; Pro 1:8, 22:6; Luke 2:51; Eph 6:1-6
If you are a parent, PRAY: That the Lord would safeguard your children from all danger. Pray also for wisdom to exercise your duty as your child’s God-ordained principal teacher.
If you are a parent of a child in a school, ask your child’s teacher if anything of a sex and relationships nature is planned for next month. (Don’t specifically mention LGBT History Month). And while you are there, ask to see the sex education materials for your child’s class. If you find anything untoward, ask to see the head, and let us know so we can help you motivate other parents.
NOTE: Many parents are taking their children out of school and educating them at home. Contact us if you want to know the available options for going about that.
Written by the managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com, the book takes a look behind the scenes at the powerful forces that have sold evil to the West throughout the past four or five decades. He shows how the architects of various anti-Christian movements employed well planned out methods for inculcating their ideas into the culture.
These methods were rooted in the most sophisticated advertising techniques available and had the effect of desensitizing our society to many things it previously found objectionable. Things that we take for granted now – like associating the negative idea of abortion with the positive idea of ‘choice’– were the results of deliberate strategizing on the part of elitists.
Kupelian quotes architects of the homosexual movement who, in the late 1980’s, had a ‘War Conference’ to discuss their strategy for the 90s. The conference employed a Harvard researcher in neuropsychiatry to come up with effective tactics for mass persuasion and social marketing. Among the conclusions of the conference was the need to desensitize America culture to otherwise offensive homosexual material through an extensive three-stage strategy of Desensitize, Jam and Convert. By inundated the public with a flood of offensive material presented in the least offensive fashion possible, they hoped that it would eventually seem almost laughable to make a problem out of it. The strategy, summarized by Rondeau in an article from the Regent University Law Review and cited by Kupelian, described desensitization
as inundating the public in a “continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.” But, the activists did not mean advertising in the usual marketing context but, rather, quite a different approach: “The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.” They add, “[S]eek desensitization and nothing more. . . . If you can get [straights] to think [homosexuality] is just another thing—meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders—then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.” This planned hegemony is a variant of the type that Michael Warren describes in “Seeing Through the Media” where it “is not raw overt coercion; it is one group’s covert orchestration of compliance by another group through structuring the consciousness of the second group.”
The Marketing of Evilshows how similar processes of mass manipulation have been operative in other arenas, with the effect that sin has begun to look normal and righteousness strange. Kupelian presents evidence to show how this is going on, even at the moment, to subtly orient the West to accept paedophilia as a normal and legitimate expression of sexuality.
Although The Marketing of Evil is written for an American audience, the issues he raises are relevant throughout the contemporary West. The book is a must-read for all parents with teenagers, as it will help them to understand the powerful forces at work to corrupt the minds of the next generation.
