Peter Tatchell is accused of hypocrisy for his Channel 4 hatchet job on the Pope (The Trouble with the Pope) on the eve of the latter’s visit to Britain .  But what of The Trouble with the Tatchell?

Tatchell complains about the scandal of priests abusing mainly teenage boys, but he himself has argued for the elimination of ages of consent, he sees nothing wrong with adult/child sexual encounters and said in a paedophile campaigning book that it is court appearances and societal pressures that cause a victim to have anxiety over child sexual abuse, rather than the abuse itself.

Catholic writer Damian Thompson provides compelling evidence that Peter Tatchell cannot even be trusted to report accurately on his subject, and that is even before he begins to mention the homosexual abuse scandal.

But in the campaigning book ‘Betrayal of Youth’, edited by the Vice-Chairman of the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange, and published in 1986, Tatchell wrote that children need:

‘protection against self-destroying feelings of guilt and anxiety which are so often stirred up by sexual encounters outside the ages of consent precisely because they are illicit and regarded as shameful.  It is usually this social shame, more than the sexual act itself, which harms young people.  The psychological scars of court cases and societal disapproval often remain long after the actual sexual encounter is forgotten.’ (BOY p118)

The editor of ‘Betrayal of Youth’ wrote helpfully: ‘Readers will by now be aware that all the contributors to this study agree that we should be working towards the day when when children’s rights are recognized and accepted. … The mere fact of an adult having consensual sex with a child should not of itself be construed as an abuse.’  (Middleton W in ‘Betrayal of Youth’ page 179)

In the same book, Tatchell asked: ‘What purpose does it (the age of majority) serve other than reinforcing a set of increasingly quaint, minority moral values left over from the Victorian era?’

His views don’t seem to have changed.  In 1997, Tatchell wrote to the Guardian to say: ‘Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.’

Last year, in an article headed ‘Don’t Criminalise Young Sex‘, he wrote: ‘If sex at 14 is consensual, and no one is hurt or complains, is criminalisation in the public interest? Is it in the 14-year-old’s interest? It is fair?’

On his website, Peter Tatchell argues for a sexual consent law which accommodates the requirements of a fourteen-year-old boy he calls Lee who has been ‘having sex with boys since the age of eight and with men since he was 12.’ Lee says he ‘likes men in their 20s or 30s. They are more experienced and serious.’

Tatchell comments: ‘The age of consent laws don’t make it easy for Lee to have a stable gay relationship.’ According to Lee, and Tatchell does not bat an eyelid at this: ‘The law is stupid. If I know what I’m doing and I’m not harming anyone else, I should be allowed to have sex with who I want.’

Tatchell, who has not masked his approval of the anonymous casual  sex prevalent in the homosexual world, was even invited to a Christian event this year, the Greenbelt Festival.

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today: ‘There can be no doubt that the Catholic Church did wrong and did immense damage to its reputation and to the cause of Jesus Christ with whom people inevitably identify it with, by covering up such scandals, moving priests on and failing to address the anguish of the victims.

‘As an organisation which upholds the Protestant settlement of the United Kingdom , you will not normally find Christian Voice defending the Pope.  But it is impossible to keep silent in the face of Peter Tatchell’s hypocrisy.  He is the man leading the charge against the Catholic Church for the sexual abuse perpetrated by a minority of its priests.  And yet he sees nothing wrong in adults and children having sex together as such.  He is on record speaking with no sense of criticism of 9-year-olds having sex with adults.  And even where there is abuse, he blames the stigma imposed by society and the court system for the trauma victims suffer rather than the sexual activity itself.

‘Nor does Tatchell confront the elephant in the room which is that ordinary homosexual men who fancy teenagers, as many do, have infiltrated an institution which gives them privileged access to exactly that group of targets.  Frankly, how secularist and homosexual campaigners and especially paedophilia apologists like Tatchell can keep a straight face when condemning the Catholic Church for abuses caused by their own gay ‘brothers’ is truly amazing.’

SEE OUR ARTICLE: THE RC GAY SEX SCANDAL – ABUSE OF THE TRUTH

The first bit of misinformation to nail in the ‘paedophile priests’ story is that all the abuse is actually ‘paedophile’, in that it is being perpetrated on little children.  The majority of the perpetrators (reports vary from two-thirds to 90%) appear to have been sexually interested in teenage boys rather than primary-school children.  And that 13-17 pubertal age-group happens to be the one which a good number of homosexual men will readily admit attracts them.

The second canard is the contention that sex scandals in the church are derived from celibacy and not from homosexuality.  In other words, that it is the Roman Catholic Church’s rule that its priests must be celibate which turns them into rampaging abusers.  The figures don’t bear this out.

Something between 4% and 6% of priests in the US Roman Catholic Church are reckoned to be abusers.   (The New York Times, 12/01/2002, found 1.8% of priests involved, and four out of five victims were male.)  Christian Voice is not upholding celibacy amongst priests; both Testaments assume those ministering in either Temple or Church are married.  Furthermore, we read in the Bible that believers in general, not a subset, are ‘a kingdom of priests’.  But to be fair, if celibacy were at fault, why do around 95% of Roman Catholic priests manage to avoid interfering with those in their charge?

On the other hand, homosexual men seem attracted like wasps around a jam jar to paid and voluntary positions involving proximity to teenage boys.  The Paedophile Information Exchange which existed as a campaigning group in Britain in the 1970s and 1980s had men with a wide range of sexual preference, from small children up to teenagers.  According to its last Chairman, two of the group’s executive were in voluntary work with children; one as a scoutmaster, the other as a Sunday-School teacher.  (Smith S in ‘Betrayal of Youth’ pages 242-243)

The vicious campaign to force the US Scouts movement to allow homosexual men to serve as scout leaders was only partly for hurt feelings of being discriminated against  (and even then it was because ‘the gays’ did not like the assumption that they weren’t safe around young boys).  The real reason was to open up the recruiting pool.

Apart from the Scout Movement, teaching and the Church are other professions attractive to predatory homosexuals.   (incidentally, although teaching has had more than its fair share of sexual predators, no-one is pointing fingers at the profession as a whole.)  And in the Church, the one denomination which requires its men not to be married is an obvious choice.

Secularists are constantly telling the Church to move with the times, to be reconciled to modern evils like abortion and gay rights.  US lesbian columnist Tammy Bruce writes this about the Roman Catholic Church: ‘The institution may not have adapted to the feminist and gay civil-rights movements, but the priesthood sure did.  The result of all that reconciling is what we’re dealing with today – predatory gay priests seducing adolescent boys.’ (Bruce T, The Death of Right and Wrong, 2003 Three Rivers Press, New York p47)

The sexual abuse scandal seems to have been at its peak from the 1960s to the 1980s.  These were decades, according to the Washington Post, when more than half of the priests surveyed by the Council of the National Federation of Priests identified a ‘homosexual subculture’ in their diocese or seminary.  (Hanna Rosin, Priest Survey: Gay Cliques Exist, Washington Post, 16/08/2002) In his book Goodbye Good Men, investigative reporter Michael Rose documented the homosexual infiltration of the American Catholic hierarchy.  Some orthodox men told him they left the seminary after suffering sexual harassment by homosexual faculty members and students, while others were drummed out as ‘too rigid’ after they admitted to being opposed to homosexuality. (Bruce T, op cit, pp225-226)

And still those secularist journalists berate the church in general and the Church of Rome in particular to be less dogmatic about sexual mores and subjects like abortion and homosexuality.  Christian Voice is not an apologist for Roman Catholicism, but it rather seems on the subject of the evils of sodomy in its seminaries, and faced with the problem of sexually-compulsive gay men swamping them, that successive popes have not been nearly dogmatic enough.

Tammy Bruce asks: ‘Why have these damaged gay men joined the priesthood, only to betray their vows to God and to society?  How have they dared to destroy the lives of children in their selfish effort to obtain sexual satisfaction?  The answer lies partly with them and partly with our society, since these malignant narcissists have been brought up and developed by our rotting culture.  … The abuse of children by Catholic priests, I contend, is the most perfectly clear microcosm of the conscious and subconscious agenda of the left to make society – all of it – look like them.  In this instance, it is gay men, and the Gay Establishment, using the church for their gratification while simultaneously blaming the church for what certain gay men have inflicted.’  (Bruce T, op cit, p224)

The Greenbelt arts festival, ‘rooted within a Christian tradition which is world-affirming, politically and culturally engaged, … that embraces instead of excludes,’ has invited a supporter of under-age sex and homosexual ‘cruising’ to speak this year (2010)

Peter Tatchell, who contributed to the campaigning paedophile book Betrayal Of Youth, published in 1986 and edited by a Paedophile Information Exchange committee-member, will join a line-up which includes pro-abortion ex-MP Clare Short and Leftist American theologian Stanley Hauerwaus at Cheltenham racecourse over August bank-holiday.

CHILDREN HAVE ‘A RIGHT TO HAVE SEX’

Last year, the heretical homosexual bishop from New Hampshire, Gene Robinson, took the stage at Greenbelt . But inviting someone who believes that a child has the right to a sex life is a rather more dramatic step down the ladder which leads to total depravity.

Betrayal Of Youth was part of a campaign to abolish all ages of consent, destroy the responsibilities of parents for their children, deny any ill-effects on children of interference by paedophiles, and withal to make it easier for paedophiles to gain sexual access to children.

One of Tatchell’s co-contributors, ‘out’ paedophile Roger Moody, had earlier had the brilliant idea of switching the argument away from the rights of adults to have sex with children, towards the rights of children to have sex with adults, or with whoever or whatever they wanted. He wrote: ‘the only people who have the right to kid’s rights – are the kids themselves.’ So at a stroke, paedophiles were talking the language of The Rights Of The Child.

Unlike many of his co-contributors Peter Tatchell is not a paedophile, but his article, ‘Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent‘, certainly served their purpose. In it he said: ‘In a fully democratic and egalitarian society, there can be no question of adults usurping the rights of young people by keeping them in a state of ignorance, fear and guilt, or by resort to arbitrary and autocratic laws which deny them responsibility for decisions affecting their lives.’

14-YEAR-OLD LEE ‘LIKES MEN IN THEIR 20s OR 30s’

Even today, on his website, Peter Tatchell argues for a sexual consent law which accommodates the requirements of a fourteen-year-old boy he calls Lee who has been ‘having sex with boys since the age of eight and with men since he was 12.’ Lee says he ‘likes men in their 20s or 30s. They are more experienced and serious.’

Tatchell comments: ‘The age of consent laws don’t make it easy for Lee to have a stable gay relationship.’ According to Lee, and Tatchell does not bat an eyelid at this: ‘The law is stupid. If I know what I’m doing and I’m not harming anyone else, I should be allowed to have sex with who I want.’

It rather goes without saying that this is not in accordance with the Biblical witness. It is also fairly certain that parents, even those irresponsible enough to take their children to Greenbelt in the first place, do not want to drive back from Cheltenham only to hear their twelve-year-old son or daughter claim they have a right to a gay sex life.

The most wishy-washy liberal Christian parents probably do not want their adolescent children looking up Peter Tatchell on the internet when they arrive home and telling them not to usurp their rights to decide what they want for their lives or where they wish to go cruising for anonymous sex. As the American College of Paediatricians has pointed out, introducing teenagers to the idea that they might be homosexual is detrimental, wrongly affirming feelings they would otherwise grow out of.

GREENBELT IS ‘INCLUSIVE’

Greenbelt says it is ‘inclusive’, which means ‘accepting of all, regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexuality, background or belief.’ The key words in that disingenuous statement are ‘sexuality’ and ‘belief’. What Christian event would not be open regardless of ethnicity? What family event, as this is, would not welcome both men and women of whatever background? But ‘sexuality’ and ‘belief’? Does that ‘all’ accept and embrace the sexuality and beliefs of 14-year-old Lee and his 30-year-old boyfriend?

A planet-hugging ‘global justice’ atmosphere pervades at Greenbelt , according to reports. This year, Greenbelt has a ‘new eco-spirituality worship venue’. Greenbelt’s partners are Christian Aid and the Methodist Church. For both of those, salvation is worked out by buying Fairtrade coffee and the UK Government is judged solely by how much taxpayers’ money it gives in overseas aid. How the money is spent is largely immaterial. The assuaging of comfortable western consciences is all that matters. With their long-range binoculars, Greenbelt and its partners ignore their own land, where culturally every day is just a bit more secularist, sexualised, crass and brutal than the one before, to agonise over conditions in the Gaza Strip.

‘NOTHING WRONG’ WITH ANONYMOUS CASUAL SEX

When Anglican Mainstream’s Lisa Nolland pointed out to Greenbelt that Peter Tatchell sees nothing wrong with anonymous casual sex like homosexual ‘cruising’, she received this response: ‘Every year Greenbelt hosts speakers with varying and sometimes contrasting views on a whole range of subjects.’ No, it doesn’t. It only invites those of a liberal, socialist, pacifist, grindingly politically-correct disposition. Dissenting, radical, Biblical, Christ-centred voices are collectively persona non-grata.

But have they gone too far with Tatchell? His profile on the Greenbelt website has been watered down by a worried management. It started off a couple of months ago by calling him ‘a militant queer rights campaigner.’ When Mainstream started asking questions, this was sanitised to ‘best known as a controversial campaigner on issues of sexual freedom and human rights.’ On further reflection, the new Greenbelt Festival Director, Gawain Hewitt, decided Tatchell was merely ‘campaigning for human rights, democracy and global justice … driven by a love for humankind.’ Yes, he is still ‘campaigning to complete the struggle for gay and lesbian equality in the UK ‘, but now Peter ‘also works in solidarity with human rights activists in many other countries’.

HUMAN RIGHTS ‘R’ US

So human rights is Peter Tatchell’s forte. That is very Greenbelt . Even completing the struggle for gay and lesbian equality to the extent of forcing Christians to shut up and stop criticising them may well accord with Greenbelt philosophy. But viewing human rights to include those of fourteen-year-old boys to have sex with adult men? For some reason, Greenbelt haven’t yet owned up to that aspect of their guest’s profile.

PRAY: That Christians start forming their opinions on the word of God which is the Bible rather than on fashionable liberal trends. Pray that the Body of Christ will start acting worthy of His name. Pray that we stop being one-dimensional and start witnessing for the whole of the Gospel, politically-incorrect though it may be in Britain today. Pray that Greenbelt will withdraw their invitation to Peter Tatchell.

WRITE: To the Festival Director, Gawain Hewitt at: Greenbelt Festival, All Hallows on the Wall, 83 London Wall, LONDON , EC2M 5ND . You can email info@greenbelt.org.uk or phone: 020 7374 2760 or 020 7374 2755.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

A convicted sex offender is leading a campaign by a homosexual lobby group to promote sodomy in schools.

Liam Nolan, 42, is leading a session on how to use bullying as an excuse to get sodomy talked about in the classroom at a conference organised by Stonewall. It is being held in the British Library on Friday 2nd June.

‘IN A RELATIONSHIP’

Nolan was convicted in June 2007 of outraging public decency after a furtive encounter with a male stranger in bushes at Birmingham beauty spot Sandwell Valley . Astonishingly, he was allowed to continue as head teacher of nearby Perry Beeches school.

Nolan’s sordid ‘cruising’ excursion happened despite his claim that he was ‘in a relationship’ at the time. Recent research from the homosexual network shows that gay couples routinely cheat on each other, even in so-called ‘committed’ long-term relationships, to a extent orders of magnitude greater than married heterosexuals.

Stonewall’s conference is called ‘Education for all’ and the subtitle is ‘challenging homophobia and supporting young people.’

SCHOOLS NOW REQUIRED TO PROMOTE PERVERSION

Promotional material says it is ‘ Britain ‘s leading event dedicated to tackling homophobic bullying and promoting equality amongst young people.’ It includes ‘opportunities for you to find out how to combat homophobic bullying and comply with forthcoming laws’.

The conference is well-connected, reflecting Stonewall’s status as politically-correct feet-under-the-table government advisors. Several civil servants are leading sessions.

Patrick Leeson, Director of Education and Care at Ofsted is taking part, as is Teresa Clark, who is ‘Head of Equality Mainstreaming’ at the Department for Children Schools and Families. She will speak on ‘The new public duty and what it means for schools’. The title of her lecture refers to the Equality Act 2010 which placed a new duty on public authorities, including all schools, to promote homosexuality and transsexuality.

The Stonewall website tells teachers, in words which will worry parents, ‘The new public duty will require you to proactively consider and accommodate the needs of lesbian, gay and bisexual young people and promote equality. Attend the conference to find out how.’

HOW TO PROMOTE SODOMY THROUGH THE CURRICULUM

Parents have complained that schools are using the whole curriculum to promote sodomy, rather than just addressing the subject in specific sex and relationships education (SRE) classes, which would be bad enough. When Muslim parents of children at George Tomlinson Primary School in London’s Waltham Forest tried to withdraw their children from a week of teaching about ‘LGBT History’ last year, the head teacher told them the school was adopting a ‘whole-curriculum’ approach, making it impossible for them to withdraw their children.

So of further concern will be the presence of Mark Chater, Curriculum Advisor with the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, leading a session for gay activist teachers on ‘How to promote equality through the curriculum’. He will back up Stonewall’s suggestion to teachers that they should be ‘integrating teaching on difference and diversity into your work and actively promoting equality’.

Most parents would say that is not why they send their children to school. The parents at George Tomlinson Primary School – thirty of them – defied the head and the local Education Authority and kept their children off school for the whole of LGBT week last year, by the way. After a lively campaign and meetings with LEA and school officials, no school in Waltham Forest ran ‘LGBT week’ this year. That was a welcome set-back for ‘the gays’ and a testimony to ‘parent-power’.

PARENTAL RESISTANCE GETS GAYS WORRIED

Parents, especially parents who go to the press, are a major obstacle to the promotion of sodomy in schools. Parental opposition is such a worry that the conference will have a session taken by one Sara Hassell of the feminist, pro-gay ‘Parentline Plus’. The session is entitled: ‘Managing resistance – working with parents and carers.’ For ‘working with’, read ‘neutralising’, ‘working round’, ‘patronising’ or even ‘flatly ignoring’.

We saw from the draft NICE guidelines released on 15th June 2010 that parents and carers are viewed with a mixture of fear and contempt by the entire sex education industry. Parents are people who should be ‘managed’, ‘reassured’, ‘provided with information’, and have the benefits of explicit material which any sane person would regard as inappropriate for a child ‘explained’ to them. Those with ‘diverse faith and cultural beliefs’ are people whose ‘discrimination and prejudice should be discussed and challenged.’

Finally, just before those attending get stuck into Stonewall’s ‘Wine reception’, Rikki Beadle-Blair, the director of Stonewall’s new film ‘FIT’, which pretends that a predliction for perversion (in which previous sexual abuse, emotional disturbance and sinful choice all play a part) is morally no different from race or hair colour (which are morally neutral, and which people are born with). He will show ‘how to use’ his propaganda production ‘in the classroom’.

NO EVIDENCE

Let us be clear that there is no academic peer-reviewed evidence whatsoever that pro-sodomy propaganda decreases the amount of bullying in schools. It is more plausible that bringing homosexuality to the attention of children, particularly in primary school, may even increase name-calling. Children who would not have thought of it before can begin to use epithets like ‘lezzie’ against little girls who are holding hands, or accuse non-sporting boys of being ‘gay’ after the introduction of lessons like the ones Chater is urging.

Stonewall say ‘In schools that have said homophobic bullying is wrong, gay young people are 60 per cent more likely not to have been bullied and are twice as likely to enjoy going to school and feel part of the school community. Pupils who have been taught in a positive way about lesbian and gay issues are 60 per cent more likely to be happy at school and 69 per cent more likely to feel able to be themselves.’

The figures, or most of them, come from their publication ‘The School Report’, but that document was based on anecdotal evidence and failed even to give the raw figures which led to the conclusions supposedly drawn.

MORE FAT CHILDREN BULLIED – BUT STONEWALL DON’T CARE

The fact is, following years of pro-gay programming on TV, children are more aware of sodomy but the overwhelmingly majority still view it resolutely as a perversion. They use the word ‘gay’ to refer to things, garments or people who are not ‘cool’. Stonewall themselves say that “98 per cent of young gay people and 95 per cent of secondary school teachers hear the phrases ‘that’s so gay’ or ‘you’re so gay’ at school”.

Stonewall say also that a YouGov poll of secondary school teachers ‘found that homophobic bullying is the most frequent form of bullying after bullying because of weight, three times more prevalent than bullying due to religion or ethnicity.’ Significantly, no-one is holding a conference to decrease fatophobic bullying. Fat children are fair game in Stonewall’s focused world.

Of course the YouGov figures do not mean that those targeted were actually homosexual. It just means that the homosexuality was being used as an insult. Even Parentline Plus say on their website: ‘Your child might be the victim of homophobic abuse even if they are not gay.’ The way to deal with this is for a school to have a simple policy against bullying, cursing and name-calling of any kind. Singling out one type of abuse is discriminatory.

‘SERIOUS RISK OF ERRONEOUSLY LABELLING STUDENTS’

It is plausible that an increased awareness of homosexuality being promoted by authority figures such as teachers will increase homosexual name-calling, lead to more girls and boys being so labelled by bullies, and if these children are emotionally fragile for whatever reason, it can lead to them self-identifying as ‘gay’. That will increase Stonewall’s client base, which may well be the main motivation for the conference and their whole anti-bullying campaign.

The American College of Pediatrics reported that as many as 26% of 12-year-olds were uncertain of their sexual orientation, yet only 2-3% of adults identify themselves as homosexual. The British surveys have found even fewer adult homosexuals. ‘If school personnel encourage students to “come out as gay” and be “affirmed” there is a serious risk of erroneously labelling students who may merely be experiencing transient sexual confusion and/or engaging in sexual experimentation.’  See also http://factsaboutyouth.com/

Stonewall live on a planet where even children below the age of puberty can be homosexual. They say: “Bullying of this type isn’t limited to older students. More than two in five primary school teachers say that young people, regardless of their sexual orientation, currently experience homophobic bullying in their schools and three quarters hear children use expressions such as ‘that’s so gay’ or ‘you’re so gay’.”

SEXUALISING PRIMARY-SCHOOL CHILDREN IS GROOMING

Stonewall are very keen to get primary-school children thinking about homosexuality. Anywhere else, such a ‘catch them young’ approach would be condemned as grooming. But those who believe that small children can be ‘gay’ seem to be keen on sexualising them.

Stonewall are worried that ‘less than a quarter of young people have been told that homophobic bullying is wrong in their school and nine in ten teachers and non-teaching staff at secondary and primary schools have never received any specific training on how to prevent and respond to homophobic bullying.’ Their potential for expansion, now bolstered by the Equality Act 2010, is therefore huge. Parents of children at all ages need to be very much on their guard.

PRO-SODOMY EDUCATION AUTHORITIES

Parents need to be especially aware of the threat to their children in the following local authorities which are members of Stonewall’s ‘Education Champions Programme’:

• Birmingham City Council
• Blackpool Council
• Brighton and Hove City Council
• Bristol City Council
• Cambridgeshire County Council
• Coventry City Council
• Derbyshire County Council
• East Sussex County Council
• Gloucestershire County Council
• Hertfordshire County Council
• Hull City Council
• Kent County Council
• Kirklees Council
• London Borough of Brent
• London Borough of Camden
• London Borough of Enfield
• London Borough of Greenwich
• London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
• London Borough of Lambeth
• London Borough of Lewisham
• London Borough of Southwark
• London Borough of Sutton
• London Borough of Tower Hamlets
• London Borough of Waltham Forest
• Medway Council
• Newcastle City Council
• North Yorkshire County Council
• Nottinghamshire County Council
• Oxfordshire County Council
• Reading Borough Council
• Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
• Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council
• Sheffield City Council
• Suffolk County Council
• Thurrock Council
• West Sussex County Council
• Wigan Council
• Wiltshire County Council
• Worcestershire County Council

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Not satisfied with mere civil partnerships, homosexuals are constantly demanding the right to marry. What could this mean for the institution of marriage? Already some newspapers refer to civil ceremonies as ‘weddings’, and a pair of lesbians are often called ‘brides’, in a parody of the purity and loveliness of a real bride..

Does such language degrade true marriage, proper weddings and real brides? And given their renowned promiscuity, how would homosexuals cope with an institution characterised by the intention – at least – of lifelong sexual fidelity? Would they try to change it and in so doing, would they rip all meaning out of it?

COUNTERFEIT

At the most basic level, it depends on how many fake marriages there are. There is a certain number of £50 notes in circulation. Every counterfeit note depresses the value of the real ones. In the same way, the counterfeit of marriage which is civil partnership reduces the value of real marriage, and if homosexuals were allowed to marry, it would be devalued further.

As Mollie Ziegler Hemingway put in Christianity Today on 10th May 2010, ‘the question that same-sex marriage advocates frequently ask, “How would gay marriage affect your marriage?” is posed rhetorically, as if marriage is a private institution with no social consequences.’ Her article went on to defend chastity and fidelity against an onslaught against these Christian virtues contained in an article in The New York Times.

The article, on ‘homosexual unions’ claimed that these ‘could significantly alter marriage norms’. It centred on a new study of homosexual couples in San Francisco . Half of these are “open,” meaning that partners consent to each other having sex with other people.

SEXUALLY OPEN RELATIONSHIPS

The New York Times article, written by a homosexual, Scott James, said that the prevalence of such relationships could “rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony”. It would do this, James argued, by ‘showing straight couples that monogamy need not be a “central feature” of marriage and that sexually open relationships might “point the way for the survival of the institution.”‘

Significantly, nobody in an ‘open relationship’ agreed to give their full name for the story, worrying that “discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.” If it comes out, so to speak, that relationships based on sodomy are intrinsically unfaithful and unstable, then marriage would seem, in the public mind, an inappropriate institution in which to accommodate them.

The Family Research Council (FRC) reviewed some of the evidence of the stability and fidelity of both marriages and homosexual relationships. Taking various census findings and surveys of homosexual life, they showed that, even with all the current pressures to have affairs and divorce, around 60% of couples married in the 60s and 70s had been able to celebrate their 20th wedding anniversary. Only 5% of homosexual couples had done so. 70% of couples married in the 80s were still together after 10 years, a feat achieved by a mere 14% of gays.

STAGGERING LEVELS OF PROMISCUITY
85% of married women and 76.5% of married men reported sexual fidelity in a study by McWhirter and Mattison. Only 4.5% of homosexual men could say the same. Other studies note the staggering levels of promiscuity amongst homosexual men. Bell and Weinberg found the 43% of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners. Paul Van de Ven et al found the same: ‘”the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.’

McWhirter and Mattison reported that, in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years, only seven were monogamous, and ‘all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.’ According to McWhirter and Mattison, ‘most homosexual men understood sexual relations outside the relationship to be the norm and viewed adopting monogamous standards as an act of oppression.’

Family Research Council say: ‘the extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men dramatically contrasts with the high rate of fidelity among married heterosexuals.’

LACK OF COMMITMENT
The lack of commitment mirrored that found in the San Francisco study cited by Scott James in the New York Times. ‘A Canadian study of homosexual men who had been in committed relationships lasting longer than one year found that only 25 percent of those interviewed reported being monogamous. According to study author Barry Adam, “Gay culture allows men to explore different…forms of relationships besides the monogamy coveted by heterosexuals.”‘

This could explain why civil unions and gay marriages are so unpopular amongst homosexuals. FRC found that a mere 21% of homosexual men and women registered themselves as civil partners in the state of Vermont, compared to 52% of the population in married couple households. Despite a clamour for its introduction and fanfares accompanying civil partnership legislation in Sweden and same-sex ‘marriage’ in the Netherlands , only 2% of Swedish homosexuals and just under 3% of their Dutch counterparts registered after a year.

FRC based their figures on an assumption that 2.5% of the adult male population and 1.4% of the female are homosexual. Compared to the British National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles funded by the Wellcome Trust, such a percentage seems quite generous, but choosing a high percentage has the effect of making the percentage of homosexuals going into civil partnerships even more embarrassing.

ONLY FOUR PERCENT OF HOMOSEXUALS IN CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS
In Britain , according to the Office for National Statistics, 33,956 civil partnerships have been registered since the Civil Partnership Act came into force in December 2005. Slightly more males than females registered, so lesbians were rather keener on the idea. But the adult population (sixteen and over) of the UK was around 41,530,000 in 2001.

Using the FRC assumption, there would be just over a million gays (shorthand for ‘homosexual men’) and just under 600,000 lesbians in the UK . Those figures mean that only 4.2% of homosexuals have registered for the civil partnerships that we were told they were crying out for. The numbers, say the NSO on their website, ‘continue to fall.’

By way of contrast, the Office for National Statistics says that 51% of the adult population are married or remarried, with a further 8% widowed and 10% separated or divorced. So marriage is or has been chosen by 70% of the heterosexual population. (Our figures for civil partnerships do not subtract the numbers dissolving their partnerships.)

‘TRANSFORM THE INSTITUTION’
Some same-sex marriage advocates, who accept the rampant promiscuity and infidelity amongst homosexuals are unabashed in their claim that giving gays the same privilege would ‘transform the institution’. New York University professor Judith Stacey, testifying before Congress against the Defense of Marriage Act, said changing the law to allow same-sex partners to marry would help “supplant the destructive sanctity of the family” and help it assume “varied, creative, and adaptive contours,” including “small group marriages.” One Michelangelo Signorile wrote that gays should “demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.”

Others pressing for same-sex marriage hoped that heterosexual marital norms of monogamy and fidelity would be transferred to same-sex unions. But given the internal drive to find new sexual conquests, and the relentless dissatisfaction with the current partner, that hope appears vain.

As psychologist Dr David Reuben said pointedly, homosexuals are ‘trying the impossible; trying to solve the puzzle with only half the pieces.’

DON’T LAUGH AT THE GAYS – OPPOSE THEM!
The enactment in the Western world of civil partnerships and the minuscule take-up by gays and lesbians has reinforced Reuben’s view, while the radical idea to transform marriage into a less-than faithful institution is doomed to failure. But that does not alter the fact that every homosexual civil union, let alone gay marriage, cheapens every real marriage. Laughing at ‘the gays’ and their futile attempts to ape heterosexuality – even at their efforts to redefine marriage – is not enough. Decent people must oppose their whole agenda.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Most people, when asked what ‘ IDAHO ‘ is, would reply that it is a North-Western State of the United States of America .

But in the rarified world of homosexual activism, it stands for ‘International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia’ and it occurs each year on 17th May.

No European or UK politician can afford to ignore ‘ IDAHO ‘. The New Lib-Con Home Secretary Theresa May (Maidenhead – Conservative) released a message in support of ‘ IDAHO ‘. Following criticism by gay lobbyists for voting against adoption by homosexuals, she promised the new government would tackle ‘homophobic bullying’ and put pressure on countries with anti-sodomy laws to ‘improve their treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people’.

Mrs May said: ‘This government is committed to creating a society that is fair for everyone and supports equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people.

‘This means supporting civil partnerships, tackling homophobic bullying wherever it occurs, changing the law regarding historic convictions for consensual gay sex and using our international influence to put pressure on countries where LGB&T people are persecuted.’

New Foreign Office Minister for Europe David Lidington (Con – Aylesbury) also released a message to mark ‘ IDAHO ‘. He said the Foreign Office was ‘committed to promoting British values abroad, including LGBT rights.’

His message said: ‘The UK has a long and proud history of defending the basic rights and freedoms of the oppressed and vulnerable. We are committed to promoting British values overseas and to placing human rights at the heart of foreign policy.

‘Everyone, including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people should be free to enjoy the rights and freedoms to which people of all nations are entitled.’

‘ IDAHO ‘ is held every year on May 17th because on this date in 1990 the World Health Organisation removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses, not in response to scientific truth, just as a result of political pressure.

On last year’s IDAHO , the French government announced it would become the first country in the world to declassify transgenderism as a mental illness. The change came into effect in February. How much worse can it get?

A lot worse.

IN THE EUROBUNKER
In Europe , leaders of all three EU institutions addressed ‘homophobia’ for the first time.

Herman van Rompuy, President of the European Council, the EU institution representing 27 national governments, issued a written statement affirming the EU’s commitment to refuse discrimination on any grounds, and affirming that ‘discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation has ceased to constitute a political cleavage, and is enshrined in the EU’s founding act and statement of values.’

Jerzy Buzek, President of the European Parliament, reaffirmed the commitment of the European Parliament to combat any form of discrimination, including homophobia, in a video message. The President of the European Parliament declared: ‘Homophobia is a clear breach of human dignity that questions fundamental rights; and thus, it must be strongly condemned.’

Viviane Reding, Vice-president of the European Commission and Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, also issued a statement condemning homophobia and transphobia as ‘a blatant violation of human dignity’, ‘incompatible with the principles on which the EU is founded’. She went on to threaten nations throughout the world with the direst sanctions should they maintain ‘homophobic’ policies.

OUR PHILLIPA ‘BELIEVES IN GAY EQUALITY’

No party candidate can escape the vigilance of the gay mafia. Phillipa Stroud stood for the Conservatives in Sutton and Cheam. She is the wife of David Stroud, the leader of ChristChurch , London , and of the New Frontiers UK group of churches.

The Sunday before the election, the Observer newspaper ran an article accusing Mrs Stroud of founding a church and night shelter in Bedford, the King’s Arms Project, which tried to ‘cure’ homosexuals by driving out their demons through prayer.

Mrs Stroud immediately issued a statement saying: ‘The idea that I am prejudiced against gay people is both false and insulting.

‘I make no apology for being a committed Christian. However it is categorically untrue that I believe homosexuality to be an illness and I am deeply offended that the Observer has suggested otherwise.’

When PinkNews.co.uk pointed out to her spokesman that the Observer’s prime claim was not that she believed homosexuality to be an illness, rather that she appeared to believe it could be overcome through prayer and removing ‘demons’, he said: ‘We will not be adding to or subtracting to the statement.’ [Sic]

David Cameron chipped in, denying that Mrs Stroud was ‘homophobic’. He said: ‘She believes in gay equality.’ He added that Mrs Stroud had made “a very clear statement to say she was completely misreported”.

Jonathan Bartley, head of Ekklesia, a limited company with just four members which masquerades as a Christian ‘think-tank’, ventured that it was of even more concern that the New Frontiers church believes that a husband has God-given authority over his wife. This view ‘runs incredibly deep in the church’, wrote a deeply-worried and traumatised Bartley. Shock! Horror! A church actually believes the Bible! Where will it end?

Mrs Stroud, head of Iain Duncan-Smith’s Centre for Social Justice, lost Sutton and Cheam by a few hundred votes. She has now been appointed a special advisor at the Department for Work and Pensions, whose Secretary of State is Iain Duncan-Smith, MP.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

The Prime Minister has pledged to enact more unrighteous laws to please homosexual activists if Labour are returned to power. Or, as he put it a reception he and his wife Sarah hosted at 10 Downing Street to mark the so-called ‘LGBT History Month’, “Stand with gay people until ‘justice is achieved’.”

Gordon Brown said “progress had been made” and said the Government had “fought together” with the “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community”.

‘FULL RANGE OF GAY RIGHTS’ TO BE ACHIEVED

Brown promised not to ease up, even though homosexuals have won virtually all their demands, except one – honour and acceptance by people of faith.

“‘Tonight we reaffirm our commitment, my commitment, the commitment of the Government to standing with you all until the full range of gay rights are achieved,’ he said.

Mr Brown singled out steps taken in the last decade, including lifting the ban on lesbians and gay men serving in the armed forces, allowing same sex couples to have civil partnerships and to adopt.

He said: “We did all these things and more because we stood and fought together.

“Let me promise you I will not give up on the fight for justice until justice is achieved.

“The road to equality is always long and it’s always hard and it’s always tough.

PRO-PAEDOPHILE HARMAN PUSHING ‘EQUALITY’

“But as long as Harriet (Harman) and I and other ministers are able to work with you, I promise you that nobody ever need walk the road to equality alone.”

Harriet Harman was legal officer of the National Council for Civil Liberties (now called ‘ Liberty ‘) in the 1970’s and 1980’s when two campaigning paedophile groups, the Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation, were affiliated to it. Patricia Hewitt was NCCL general secretary at the same time, and campaigning paedophiles were members of its Gay Rights Sub-Committee. Harriet Harman has never apologised for her pro-paedophile campaigning nor condemned PIE. She is now pushing the Government’s Equality Bill through Parliament.

At the ‘Stonewall Equality Dinner’ in April 2008, actor Sir Ian McKellen, a co-founder of the gay activist group, gave a keynote speech in which he gave the real reason why Labour ‘did all these things and more’.

TONY BLAIR GAVE IN TO ALL STONEWALL’S DEMANDS

He told the 540 guests that he had visited Tony Blair on behalf of Stonewall three months before his election as Prime Minister in 1997.

“I reeled off Stonewall’s demands, and he nodded, wrote them down and put a tick by them all. Then he said ‘we will do all that’,” said McKellen.

On 27th June 2009, homosexual journalist Matthew Parris wrote an article in the Times in which he revealed that when he was an MP in the 1980s, he met in a gay nightclub with Labour’s Peter Mandelson, Guardian gay journalist Nicholas de Jongh, and Ian McKellen to manipulate public opinion. “We planned media resistance to Section 28”, wrote Parris.

In the same article he revealed the self-destructive side of the gay lifestyle:

“New freedoms bring security, pride, even swagger. They bring a certain care-less hedonism, and that’s not all bad. There’s more unworried fun in store for a young gay man today than ever there was for me when I was 18.

“With the self-respect and freedom of the young, 21st-century gay man, has come a strutting self-regard, a materialistic consumerism, a vanity and a f***-off selfishness that I do not like. Spot the money, in a culture awash with disposable cash, where everybody’s earning and few are caring for kids or families. Watch the leisure and retail industry chasing the new gay spenders.”

POLITICIANS CHASING THE PINK VOTE

And of course the politicians. Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg and then David Cameron were interviewed in successive monthly editions of Attitude magazine either side of Christmas 2009 desperately courting the vote of a mere perverted 1% of the electorate. Clegg tried to outdo Brown in December then Cameron tried to upstage Clegg in January.

And now Brown has pledged to be gayer than either of them. A look at Labour’s legislative record shows that whichever occupies 10 Downing Street would start his parliamentary pro-sodomy campaigns from heights undreamed of in 1997.

LABOUR’S RECORD IN POWER

From 1998 to 2000, the Government tried to reduce the minimum age for sodomy from 18 to 16. In the end they used the Parliament Acts in order to silence opposition in the House of Lords.

Also in 2000, they removed the ban on homosexuals serving in the military.

In 2003, they abolished Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which stopped local authorities promoting sodomy in schools.

In 2002, the Government legalised joint adoption by homosexual couples in the Adoption and Children Act. The Act came into force in England and Wales in 2005 and Scotland ‘s version of it in 2009. Christian magistrates opposed to it on the basis of children’s best interests have been dismissed or have resigned.

In 2003, the Government introduced the Sexual Orientation Regulations which banned employers insisting on employing people of good moral character. To the annoyance of Stonewall, there was an exemption for religious bodies and churches.

CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS AND GENDER RECOGNITION

In 2004, they passed the Civil Partnerships Act, legalising homosexual unions, and the Gender Recognition Act, allowing transsexuals to falsify their birth certificates.

The Sexual Offences Act 2004 abolished the crimes of buggery and gross indecency.

In 2005, ‘aggravation’ of offences introduced on the basis of ‘sexual orientation’ so that anyone attacking a homosexual would face a tougher sentence than a man attacking a rival football fan.

In 2007, a new set of Sexual Orientation Regulations outlawed discrimination in the provision of goods and services. The regulations obliged Christian hoteliers, photographers and printers to go against their conscience and forced religious adoption agencies to close.

2008 saw the enactment of a ‘homophobic hatred’ law. The House of Lords insisted on a ‘freedom of speech’ clause, as they did when the Government tried to delete it the following year.

In 2009, pairs of lesbians were given the right to be named as joint mothers on the birth certificate of a child conceived through fertility treatment.

Their Equality Bill, currently in the House of Lords, places a duty on public bodies, such as local authorities, schools and the police, to promote sodomy and transsexuality. Last month, the Church narrowly retained the right to employ fellow-believers in a vote in the House of Lords.

The Governments’ Children, Schools and Families Bill, now in the House of Commons, will make sex education part of the National Curriculum. Brown’s pledges to gay activists mean that pro-sodomy teaching will form part of it. Schools Out, the organisation behind LGBT History Month, is already gearing up for an increase in trade, if the expression, used in a homosexual context, does not fall too awkwardly.  (Homosexual men refer to their casual sexual contacts as ‘trade’.)

Not only that, the right of parents to prevent their children seeing unsuitable material by withdrawing them from such lessons will be curtailed. Parents who try to protect their children by home-schooling face the hurdles of registration and inspection by local authorities.

‘EVEN 20 YEARS AGO IT WAS UNTHINKABLE’

Celebrities including comedian Paul O’Grady, actor Antony Cotton (Eastenders) and rent-boy turned Strictly Come Dancing judge Craig Revel Horwood attended Brown’s No 10 bash..

Asked about the significance of an invitation to an event at Number 10 for gay people, O’Grady said: “I was standing having a shave earlier and I thought Oscar Wilde would be turning in his grave.

“It would never have happened. Even 20 years ago it was unthinkable. It shows you what great steps have been made.”

Christian Voice National Director Stephen Green said: “O’Grady is right. Who would have thought that in just seven years, from the abolition of Section 28 in 2003 to the Equality Bill and the Children, Schools and Families Bill in 2010, that the Government of the United Kingdom , with the support of its two main opposition parties, would go from banning the promotion of sodomy to school-children to requiring it?

“For that matter, who would have thought just two years ago that a pair of radio presenters would insult and humiliate an elderly man and his grand-daughter in a sexual context using lewd language on our national broadcaster? Yet that is what Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand did to Andrew Sachs and Georgina Bailie in October 2008.

“Or that a young girl would murder a grandmother in a row over a cigarette? The world that Gordon Brown has helped to create, the one he, Nick Clegg and David Cameron want to advance, a world in which secularism and gay rights are advanced and Christianity and righteousness trampled upon, the world of Sodom and Gomorrah, is and is becoming more selfish, more hedonistic, coarser, more callous, more crass and more brutal than any of us could have imagined.

“Indeed, as Paul O’Grady says, such a world would have been unthinkable twenty years – or even ten years – ago. If Christian men do not stand up for the risen, ascended Jesus Christ soon, this United Kingdom will surely go the way of the Cities of the Plain. And there will be no celebrity bash promoting sodomy at No 10 in that day.”

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)