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)

It was the start of a liberated sexual new dawn. The era of ‘Why not?’ Archaic laws restricting sexual practices and relationships were going to be swept away. No-one was to say who should do sexual things with whoever, or how. Sexual liberation had become – for some reason – a vital part of true Socialism. If adults consented, then, hey, why should the Church, or the Government, or assorted boring old fuddy-duddies say no to them? And for that matter, if children wanted sex lives, or if adult homosexual men wanted sex lives with children, then that was all part and parcel of the glorious sexual revolution.

Or so it seemed in 1986, when the most extraordinary book of the decade, The Betrayal of Youth, (Click here for the Table of Contents) was published by CL publications in London with the sub-title “Radical Perspectives on Childhood Sexuality, Intergenerational Sex, and the Social Oppression of Children and Young People.”

The Betrayal of Youth was edited by none less than Warren Middleton (alias John Parrott – NOT the snooker player) the then “vice-chairperson” of the Paedophile Information Exchange, Britain’s foremost paedophile advocacy and aficionado support group. They did indeed have a lot of vice to be chairperson of.

A CAMPAIGNING BOOK

In a preface, Middleton acknowledged the help or support of Dr Ken Plummer of Essex University, Dr Brian Taylor of Sussex, Mr John Hart of Sheffield Poly, Chris and Jayne Hobbs, his mother and father, homosexual activist Jeffrey Weeks, Nettie Pollard of the National Campaign for Civil Liberty (now called just ‘Liberty’), assorted activists and feminists, and a large number of P.I.E. executive committee members.

The book 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.

A host of weird sex-obsessed nutcases contributed, at Middleton’s invitation. Among them was militant feminist Beatrice Faust, another was the editor of the Sex Maniac’s Diary, Tuppy Owens. In fact she wrote a chapter with Tom O’Carroll, convicted of corrupting public morals earlier by sending out a list of paedophile contacts.

Labour activist Eric Presland, playwright and leading light in the Organisation for Lesbian and Gay Action (OLGA), contributed to The Betrayal of Youth. His article was a routine denunciation of the “power” that adult society has over children, prefaced by a first-person account of sexual activity with children. Mr Presland related his first paedophile experience with a Asian boy of thirteen, and boasted of interfering with a little boy of six.

AGES OF CONSENT ‘ARE USELESS’

‘Parents,’ he wrote, ‘because of their autocratic power, their exclusive rights, and dubious motives of self-aggrandisement which lie behind the decision to have and rear children, are in many ways the group least fitted to be entrusted with the task of child-rearing.’ So who are? Reading his chapter one is left with a strong impression that he thinks paedophiles make the best child-rearers. Presland wrote of one pre-pubescent sexual partner, ‘I fought for him to free himself from the confines of the family.’

Two of the editorial collective of the far-left Peace News, Miss Kathy Challis and Miss Elizabeth Holtom, the latter a Quaker, contributed a chapter for The Betrayal of Youth. In it they ventured an opinion that would have been viewed with astonishment by Josephine Butler in her fight against child prostitution 100 years earlier: ‘Ages of consent are useless. They are completely unrealistic, and they don’t give children protection from exploitation in any case.’

The former chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange, Steve Smith, contributed a chapter to The Betrayal of Youth. The biographical notes said coyly he “now resides in Holland ” – he fled there to avoid conviction for sending obscene articles through the post – and he “now hopes to become active in the Dutch crusade for children’s rights.” Presumably he did just that, until even the Dutch lost patience, deporting Smith back to the UK and 18 months at Her Majesty’s pleasure in 1991.

PAEDOPHILE MOODY ADVOCATES CHILDREN’S RIGHTS

A member of the PIE executive revealed the group’s early thinking on consent law in the Scottish Minorities Group homosexual paper:

‘Adults should be prohibited under CIVIL law from having relationships with children under 4, and in the case of children over 3 and under 10 a similar civil injunction could also be made by those close to the child …. For children between 10 and 18 there should be no legal restriction in cases which did not involve proven physical/psychological harm. Ten is the legal age of responsibility and if a child is deemed responsible for its criminal acts then it should be responsible for its own sex life.’

But Roger Moody, an ‘out’ paedophile intellectual, set out a political stratagem, the key to which was “a revolutionary perspective on social change.” Roger Moody explains:

‘Specifically, this means we don’t work to lower the age of consent, but to abolish it, and we don’t argue that rights over kids be transferred from courts to parents, but that the only people who have the right to kid’s rights – are the kids themselves.’

This was the philosophy behind The Betrayal of Youth for which Peter Tatchell wrote his chapter ‘Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent.’ His chapter preceded Moody’s offering: ‘Ends ‘and Means; How to Make Paedophilia Acceptable.’

CHILDREN’S RIGHTS CAMPAIGNER’

At the height of the Cleveland child sex abuse scandal, Peter Tatchell was allowed to comment on it on the Jimmy Young TV programme and promptly advocated ‘rights’ for children, In The Betrayal of Youth Mr Tatchell, homosexual activist, self-proclaimed ‘children’s rights campaigner’ and described as an ‘avid supporter of socialism,’ according to the biographical details, tried to make the legal molestation of children an ingredient of democracy:

‘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.’

When I pressed him on this point in a debate at the Oxford Union it turned out that the abolition of the ‘arbitrary and autocratic’ age of consent law applied to children of twelve. My suggestion that it might involve children even as young as ten did not even cause Tatchell to blink. After all, the whole point of his article and the theme of The Betrayal of Youth was that there should be no age of consent at all.

Indeed, Tatchell wrote in The Betrayal of Youth that the age of majority (sexual consent) is ‘Re-inforcing a set of increasingly quaint, minority moral values left over from the Victorian era.’ The idea that they might just protect children from predatory men, men like his co-contributors, is not one that found any sympathy with Peter Tatchell.

REQUESTS – AND THREATS

When I was on BBC’s The Big Questions on 8th January this year, Peter Tatchell was one of the podium guests. I was asked by the production crew not to comment about paedophilia in connection with Tatchell. The request had come from Tatchell himself. That incident prompted this article. And why should Tatchell make such a request? Not the Oxford Union debate, but another event almost sixteen years ago is still in his mind.

On the Judy Finnegan television show on Sunday 8th May 1994, just eight years after its publication, I accused Peter Tatchell of contributing a chapter to The Betrayal of Youth, which I described as a paedophile book. Tatchell is of course the leader of the homosexual media stunt group Outrage. When the homosexual ‘age of consent’ was last lowered – to 16 – an Outrage banner was photographed saying ’16 is just a start’.

Click Here to View Pages from the Book

Anyway, Tatchell called me a liar, and threatened me with a suit for libel. In the “hospitality suite” afterwards he became abusive and violent. Obviously, Tatchell’s contribution to the book on its own, let alone the company in which he placed himself, is now a source of great embarrassment to him, as indeed it should be. No writ was ever received, of course.

PAEDOPHILES ‘AN OPPRESSED GROUP’

For the high-minded socialists and homosexuals of the 1970s and 1980s, sexuality was seen as just one aspect of the way in which children were exploited by patriarchal capitalism. Campaign for Homosexual Equality chairman Michael Jarrett was identifying paedophiles as an oppressed group, and the CHE list of “demands” included the complete abolition of minimum ages for sexual activity. The Labour Gay Rights Manifesto of 1985 said ‘A socialist society would superseded the family household. … Gay people and children should have the right to live together. … It follows from what we have already said that we favour the abolition of the age of consent.’

So was Peter Tatchell out on a limb writing in a book advocating paedophilia, edited by a known paedophile? It is true that a lot of the loony homosexual left thought the same as he did and some of them were active paedophiles as well. But most of them stayed clear of contributing to this vile book. We should be clear that there is no evidence that Peter Tatchell was or ever has been a paedophile – but he certainly gave them support and was in company with them in The Betrayal of Youth.

PETER TATCHELL HAS QUESTIONS TO ANSWER

But twenty-four years later, and with Peter Tatchell elevating himself to the status of ‘human rights activist,’ helping a bunch of child-abusers achieve what they thought were their ‘human rights’ to interfere with small children doesn’t seem quite such a clever thing to have done. Are Tatchell’s views at an intellectual level still the same? Does he realise the implications of them? Does he understand that he provided support to a bunch of men who wanted nothing less than to interfere with little tots? Who approached whom to secure his contribution to this shameful book? Was he aware that Warren Middleton (alias John Parrott), the editor of The Betrayal of Youth, was an avowed child molester? Was he aware that at least two other active paedophiles were contributors? Is he still in contact with Middleton and his cronies? Has he ever renounced them? Answers to these questions will reveal much about Peter Tatchell’s mind, agenda and judgment.

See how to join Christian Voice by clicking below (Link does not commit you to join):

It would have taken a heart of stone not to be touched by the story of how rugby international Gareth Thomas had fought homosexual desires throughout his rugby career and marriage.

Thomas is Wales ‘s most capped player, with 100 internationals to his name before he retired in 2007 following his captaincy of Wales to the rugby world cup. He also led Wales to a grand slam in 2005 and won three caps for the British Lions, whom he also captained. He continues at the moment to play for the Welsh region Cardiff Blues.

His marriage to teenage sweetheart Jemma came to an end after he told her of his homosexual feelings. Sadly, Jemma had three heart-breaking miscarriages during their four-year marriage.

Thomas announced publicly that he was homosexual in December 2009, after first confiding in Welsh coach Scott Johnson in 2006. He says Welsh team-mates Stephen Jones and Martyn Williams were supportive, with the latter saying he would never have thought it.

NOW PATRON OF LGBT HISTORY MONTH

After the public announcement, Robert Norster, the Cardiff Blues chief executive, said, rightly in many people’s view, ‘His private life is his own concern.’

Where sympathy for Thomas evaporates is that he has made his predilections about as public as it is possible to do. On top of that, according to homosexual website ‘PinkNews,’ which quoted a statement he gave on the subject, he has now become patron of ‘LGBT History Month’.

Jake Dyos and Adam Ward were helping run the SchoolsOUT and LGBT History Month stall, and also in the parade. Photo: Chris Walker

‘LGBT’ means ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual’ and the ‘History Month’ is a shameful propaganda exercise run every February by Schools Out’, a gay activist organisation dedicated to promoting sodomy to school-children under the guise of anti-bullying.

Thomas says he wants to be ‘hands-on’ in the organisation that claims the Roman paedophile Hadrian as a great historical role-model of a gay man.

NO EVIDENCE THAT BULLYING IS REDUCED

We are all opposed to bullying, but there is no evidence that the propaganda favoured by ‘Schools Out’ and other gay activists reduces homosexual name-calling. In fact it is more likely that it gives bullies a new weapon to use against a tom-boyish girl or studious boy.

Indeed, parents at George Tomlinson Primary school in Leytonstone, London, where a week of such teaching was held last year, said their little daughters became afraid afterwards to hold hands in the playground for fear of being called a ‘lezzie’ by bullies.

The teaching materials given to children – as young as five – included books like ‘And Tango Makes Three’ about two male penguins hatching an egg, which is designed to make adoption of children by pairs of homosexuals seem acceptable.

PARENTS SPOKE OF ‘GROOMING’

Another book was called ‘King and king’. In it a prince rejects suitable princesses and ‘marries’ another prince. Parents of children at the school spoke of ‘grooming’ and ‘sexual abuse’, and complained that their children’s innocence was being violated by exposure to what is by any measure a seamy side of life.

In adolescence, pro-sodomy teaching in secondary school can easily turn an adolescent phase of same-sex attraction, which many girls and boys go through, into a fixed orientation. Gareth Thomas is urging such children to identify themselves as homosexual, and to inhibit their normal development into heterosexuality. That is a wicked thing to do to impressionable young people. The Lord Jesus Christ spoke about millstones being tied around the necks of those who lead children astray.

DO NOT FOLLOW GARETH THOMAS’S ADVICE!

The fact is, if Gareth Thomas had followed his own advice, as he himself admits, he would not have won 100 international caps – or possibly even one. His talent would have been lost to the game. And it is wishful thinking to believe that the rugby pitch is any less a cruel and unforgiving place today than it was then. Teams and their supporters will use anything to unsettle an opponent. The Football Association recently failed to gain support for its ‘anti-homophobia’ video from any professional footballer.

Peter Tatchell claims that there are 50 homosexual footballers out of the 500 who are playing, but he is stuck in a 1960’s Kinsey time-warp. The true figure is around 1% of the population, not 10%, and in the macho world of football, there may be 1 or 2. If they are wise they will keep quiet. If they are properly advised, they will seek healing.

MORE CONTRADICTIONS

There are more contradictions in the Gareth Thomas story. He says he is homosexual, yet he plainly had a fully-fledged physical relationship with his wife Jemma. That would make him bisexual at worst. He said he did not want to be known as a ‘gay rugby player’, but that is exactly how homosexual website PinkNews describes him. Thomas hopes his sexuality will be ‘irrelevant’ to his career, yet he is portraying himself as an unashamed gay activist by his association with LGBT History Month. He wants to ‘send a positive message’ to ‘other gay people’ especially those considering a career in sport. Yet his own testimony screams: ‘Wait until you have safely retired from international sport before coming out.’

CLUB TO BE TARRED WITH THE PRO-GAY BRUSH

Most right-thinking people would be appalled that sex in any form and sodomy in particular is being thrust down small children’s throats, yet that is what Gareth Thomas is now promoting. It would be understandable if any club associated with him came to be tarred with the same brush. Right-thinking people do not like sodomy being promoted to children.

Thomas himself admits to feelings of deep shame after each early homosexual encounter. This is not untypical of homosexual life stories and reflects the operation of his God-given conscience. Sadly, his prayers to be released from his homosexual desires, which the Bible calls ‘vile affections’, went unanswered.

The tragedy is that there are Christian ministries which help with sexual healing, but apart from the occasional media foray they stay under the radar for fear of reprisals from gay activists. If Gareth Thomas had come across one of those ministries, he might have found fulfilment as a complete man and still be happily married to the woman he says he still loves.

HOMOSEXUAL DESIRES ARE NOT FIXED – PEOPLE CAN BE HEALED

There was a conference a couple of weeks ago at which men and women who have been set free from homosexual desires through the Lord Jesus Christ shared their experiences. So same-sex attraction is not fixed and immutable. People can be healed and they have changed. Jesus Christ saves today and heals today. No-one has to ‘stay gay’. It is our prayer that even now Gareth Thomas will find such healing, be put in touch with those who can share its reality with him, and walk away from the lifestyle he is now promoting.

But in the meantime, promoting homosexuality to school children is beyond the pale and we shall make every effort to resist him in such an unholy pro-gay campaign.

See how to join Christian Voice by clicking below (Link does not commit you to join):

Peers have overturned the Government’s attempt to force churches and Christian organisations to employ those hostile to our Faith. In three separate divisions in the House of Lords their lordships rejected the provisions of the Equality Bill in this area.

The Bishops of Chichester, Durham , Exeter , Hereford , Liverpool, London and Winchester and the Archbishop of York stood up for Christian freedom.

With the employment issue settled, unless the House of Commons sends it back to the Lords, three areas are still of great concern: Harassment and Victimisation, Provision of Services and Public Sector Equality Duty.

Under Provision of Services, church-based adoption agencies are being forced to close rather than place children with homosexual couples. An amendment to the Bill could reverse that.

In connection with the last heading, Public Sector Equality Duty, Part 11 of the Bill places a duty on public authorities to promote homosexuality. One likely effect is that faith-based groups currently providing services to local authorities could lose their funding.

SCHOOLS MUST TEACH HOMOSEXUALITY

But the impact on schools is equally important. Parents in Leytonstone and Broadstairs objected to inappropriate pro-gay teaching being given to their children, some as young as five, only last year. The Equality Bill will mandate such teaching in every school in the country and pro-sodomy activists are behaving as the Bill were already enacted.

Stonewall are sending around a video promoting homosexuality to schools as we go to press, and ‘Schools Out’ are openly stating that they are trying to ‘infiltrate’ schools. We must pray the House of Lords will remove the duty to promote ‘sexual orientation’ at least from schools. Even then, the police, councils and other public authorities will also use the Bill if enacted as it is to promote homosexuality and minority religions as widely as they can, including to children, and against the wishes of the vast majority of parents.

PRAY: Thank God that Christian organisations and churches will continue to be free to employ Christians. Pray that peers and those advising them will realise that the issues which concern God are more than just religious freedom, important as that is. Give them a heart for the children who will be indoctrinated by pro-sodomy propaganda if the Equality Bill goes through as it is.

How peers voted on Monday 25th January 2010.
Note: there were three votes. The letter F means a vote favourable to Jesus Christ in each division; the letter U means a vote unfavourable.  A dash (-) means the peer did not vote in that division.

The Lord Aberdare: FFF
The Lord Acton: UUU
Baroness Adams of Craigielea: —
The Lord Addington: UUU
The Lord Adebowale: —
The Lord Adonis: UUU
Baroness Afshar: —
The Lord Ahmed: FF-
The Lord Alderdice: —
Lt-Col the Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: FF-
The Lord Alli: U-U
The Lord Alliance: —
The Lord Alton of Liverpool: FFF
The Lord Ampthill: —
The Lord Anderson of Swansea: —
Baroness Andrews: UUU
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: FFF
The Lord Archer of Sandwell: UUU
The Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: FFF
The Earl of Arran: FFF
The Lord Ashcroft: FFF
The Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: UUU
The Lord Ashley of Stoke: —
The Viscount Astor: FFF
The Lord Astor of Hever: FFF
The Lord Attenborough: —
The Earl Attlee: FFF
The Lord Avebury: UUU
The Lord Bach: UUU
The Lord Bagri: FF-
The Lord Baker of Dorking: FFF
The Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: —
Lord Ballyedmond: FFF
The Lord Barber of Tewkesbury: —
Baroness Barker: UUU
The Lord Barnett: —
The Lord Bassam of Brighton: UUU
Lord Bates: FFF
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: —
The Lord Bell: FF-
The Lord Berkeley: UUU
The Lord Bernstein of Craigweil: —
The Lord Best: U-U
Lord Bew: FFF
The Lord Bhatia: -F-
The Lord Bhattacharyya: —
Lord Bilimoria: —
Baroness Billingham: UUU
The Lord Bilston: UUU
The Lord Bingham of Cornhill: —
The Lord Birt: —
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: —
Baroness Blackstone: UUU
The Lord Blackwell: —
Baroness Blood: UUU
The Lord Blyth of Rowington: —
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury: UUU
Baroness Boothroyd: —
The Lord Borrie: —
The Lord Boston of Faversham: —
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone: FFF
The Lord Bowness: FFF
Admiral the Lord Boyce: FFF
Lord Boyd of Duncansby: UUU
The Lord Brabazon of Tara: —
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: —
Lord Bradley: UUU
The Lord Bradshaw: —
The Lord Bragg: —
F.M. the Lord Bramall: —
The Lord Brennan: FFF
The Lord Brett: UUU
The Viscount Bridgeman: FFF
The Lord Bridges: —
The Lord Briggs: —
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: —
The Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: —
Lord Broers: —
The Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: UUU
The Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: FFF
The Viscount Brookeborough: —
The Lord Brookman: F–
The Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: F–
The Lord Brougham and Vaux: FFF
Lord Browne of Belmont: —
The Lord Browne of Madingley: —
The Lord Browne-Wilkinson: —
Lord Burnett: FFF
The Lord Burns: —
Baroness Buscombe: FFF
The Lord Butler of Brockwell: FFF
Baroness Butler-Sloss: FFF
Baroness Byford: FFF
The Earl of Caithness: FFF
The Lord Cameron of Dillington: —
Rt Hon the Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: —
The Lord Campbell of Alloway: F–
Baroness Campbell of Loughborough: FUU
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton: UUU
The Lord Campbell-Savours: UUU
The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury: —
The Lord Carey of Clifton: FFF
The Lord Carlile of Berriew: UUU
The Lord Carr of Hadley: —
The Lord Carrington: FF-
Lord Carswell: —
Lord Carter of Barnes: —
The Lord Carter of Coles: —
The Earl Cathcart: FFF
The Lord Cavendish of Furness: FFF
The Lord Chadlington: —
The Lord Chalfont: —
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: —
The Viscount Chandos: —
The Lord Bishop of Chester: —
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: FFF
The Lord Chidgey: —
The Lord Chilver: —
The Lord Chitnis: —
Marquess of Cholmondeley: —
The Lord Chorley: F–
The Lord Christopher: U–
The Lord Clark of Windermere: UUU
The Lord Clarke of Hampstead: FFF
The Lord Clement-Jones: UUU
The Lord Clinton-Davis: UUU
The Lord Cobbold: FFF
The Lord Coe: —
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico: —
The Viscount Colville of Culross: —
The Lord Colwyn: FF-
The Lord Condon: UUU
The Lord Cope of Berkeley: FFF
The Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: UUU
Baroness Corston: —
Lord Cotter: —
The Earl of Courtown: FFF
Baroness Coussins: UU-
Baroness Cox: —
Marshall of the RAF Lord Craig of Radley: FFF
The Viscount Craigavon: UUU
The Lord Crathorne: —
The Earl of Crawford and Balcarres: —
Baroness Crawley: UUU
The Lord Crickhowell: FF-
Lord Crisp: UUU
The Lord Croham: —
The Lord Cullen of Whitekirk: —
Baroness Cumberlege: —
The Lord Cunningham of Felling: UUU
The Lord Currie of Marylebone: —
Baroness D’Souza: –F
Lord Darzi of Denham: —
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova: U–
Lord Davies of Abersoch: —
The Lord Davies of Coity: FFF
The Lord Davies of Oldham: UUU
The Lord De Mauley: FFF
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: UUU
Lord Dear: FFF
Baroness Deech: FFF
The Lord Denham: FFF
The Lord Desai: —
The Lord Dholakia: UUU
The Lord Dixon: —
The Lord Dixon-Smith: FFF
The Lord Donoughue: FFF
The Lord Drayson: UUU
The Lord Dubs: UUU
The Earl of Dundee: —
Baroness Dunn: —
The Lord Bishop of Durham: FFF
The Lord Dykes: UUU
The Lord Eames: —
The Lord Eatwell: UUU
The Viscount Eccles: FFF
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: —
The Lord Eden of Winton: —
The Lord Elder: UUU
The Lord Elis-Thomas: —
The Lord Elliott of Morpeth: —
The Lord Elton: FFF
The Lord Bishop of Ely: —
The Lord Elystan-Morgan: UUU
Baroness Emerton: FFF
The Earl of Erroll: FFF
The Lord Evans of Parkside: F–
The Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: UUU
The Lord Evans of Watford: —
The Lord Bishop of Exeter: FFF
The Lord Ezra: —
The Lord Falconer of Thoroton: —
Baroness Falkender: -FF
The Viscount Falkland: FFF
Baroness Falkner of Margravine: UUU
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: UUU
The Lord Faulkner of Worcester: UUU
The Lord Fearn: UUU
The Lord Feldman: FFF
The Lord Fellowes: FFF
Rt Hon the Earl Ferrers: —
The Lord Filkin: —
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: FFF
Baroness Flather: —
Baroness Fookes: FFF
Baroness Ford: —
The Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: FFF
The Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland: F-F
The Lord Foster of Thames Bank: —
The Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: UU-
The Lord Fowler: FFF
The Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: FFF
The Lord Freeman: F–
Lord Freud: FFF
The Lord Freyberg: —
Baroness Fritchie: —
The Lord Fyfe of Fairfield: —
Baroness Gale: —
Baroness Garden of Frognal: UUU
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: FFF
The Lord Garel-Jones: —
The Lord Gavron: —
The Lord Geddes: FFF
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: UUU
The Lord Giddens: —
The Lord Gilbert: —
The Earl of Glasgow: —
The Lord Glenamara: —
The Lord Glenarthur: —
The Lord Glentoran: FFF
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: —
The Lord Goff of Chieveley: —
Baroness Golding: UUU
The Lord Goldsmith: —
The Lord Goodhart: UUU
The Lord Goodlad: FFF
The Lord Gordon of Strathblane: FFF
The Viscount Goschen: FFF
Baroness Goudie: UUU
The Lord Gould of Brookwood: —
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: UUU
The Lord Grabiner: UUU
The Lord Graham of Edmonton: UUU
The Lord Grantchester: —
The Lord Greaves: —
Baroness Greenfield: —
Baroness Greengross: UUU
The Lord Greenway: FFF
The Lord Grenfell: F–
The Lord Griffiths: —
The Lord Griffiths of Burry Port: UUU
The Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: FFF
The Lord Grocott: UUU
The Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank: —
Lord Hameed: —
The Lord Hamilton of Epsom: FFF
Baroness Hamwee: UUU
Baroness Hanham: FFF
The Lord Hannay of Chiswick: UUU
The Lord Hanningfield: F–
The Lord Harries of Pentregarth: UUU
The Lord Harris of Haringey: —
The Lord Harris of Peckham: FFF
Baroness Harris of Richmond: —
The Lord Harrison: UUU
The Lord Hart of Chilton: UUU
The Lord Haskel: —
The Lord Haskins: UUU
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick: FFF
The Lord Hattersley: —
The Lord Haworth: UUU
The Lord Hayhoe: F–
Baroness Hayman: —
The Lord Healey: —
Baroness Henig: -UU
The Lord Henley: FFF
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: FFF
The Lord Heseltine: —
The Lord Higgins: —
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: UUU
The Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: F–
The Lord Hoffmann: —
Baroness Hogg: —
The Lord Hollick: UUU
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: UUU
The Earl of Home: —
Baroness Hooper: FFF
The Lord Hooson: —
The Lord Hope of Thornes: —
The Lord Howard of Rising: FFF
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: –U
The Lord Howarth of Newport: —
The Earl Howe: FFF
The Lord Howe of Aberavon: FFF
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: UUU
The Lord Howell of Guildford: FFF
The Lord Howells of St. Davids: —
The Lord Howie of Troon: F-F
the Lord Hoyle: UUU
The Lord Hughes of Woodside: UUU
The Lord Hunt of Chesterton: —
The Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: —
The Lord Hunt of Wirral: FFF
The Lord Hurd of Westwell: F–
The Lord Hutton: FFF
The Lord Hylton: FFF
The Lord Imbert: —
The Lord Inge: FFF
The Lord Inglewood: —
The Lord Irvine of Lairg: —
The Lord Jacobs: —
Lord James of Blackheath: —
Baroness James of Holland Park: FFF
The Lord Janner of Braunstone: UUU
Lord Janvrin: —
Lord Jay of Ewelme: —
Baroness Jay of Paddington: UUU
The Lord Jenkin of Roding: FFF
The Lord Joffe: —
The Lord Jones: F-F
Lord Jones of Birmingham: —
The Lord Jones of Cheltenham: UUU
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: UUU
The Lord Jopling: —
The Lord Jordan: -UU
The Lord Judd: UUU
The Lord Kalms: FFF
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: UUU
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: UUU
The Lord Kilclooney: FFF
The Lord Kilpatrick of Kincraig: —
The Lord Kimball: —
The Lord King of Bridgwater: —
The Lord King of West Bromwich: UUU
The Lord Kingsdown: FFF
Baroness Kingsmill: UUU
The Lord Kinnock: UUU
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: —
The Lord Kirkham: FFF
The Lord Kirkhill: F-F
The Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: UUU
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: FFF
The Lord Knights: —
Lord Krebs: —
The Lord Laing of Dunphail: F–
The Lord Laird: —
The Lord Laming: —
The Lord Lamont of Lerwick: -U-
The Lord Lang of Monkton: FFF
The Lord Lawson of Blaby: —
The Lord Layard: U-U
The Lord Lea of Crondall: FU-
Lord Leach of Fairford: F–
Lord Lee of Trafford: UU-
The Lord Bishop of Leicester: —
The Lord Leitch: —
The Lord Lester of Herne Hill: UUU
The Lord Levene of Portsoken: —
The Lord Levy: —
The Lord Lewis of Newnham: —
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: —
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: —
The Earl of Lindsay: —
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: —
The Lord Lipsey: UUU
The Earl Listowel: —
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: FFF
The Earl of Liverpool,: —
The Lord Livsey of Talgarth: —
The Lord Lloyd of Berwick: FFF
The Lord Lloyd-Webber: —
Baroness Lockwood: —
The Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: —
The Lord Bishop of London: FFF
Lord Low of Dalston: UUU
The Lord Lucas: FFF
The Lord Luce: FFF
The Lord Luke: FFF
The Lord Lyell: FFF
The Lord Lyell of Markyate: —
The Lord Macaulay of Bragar: —
The Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: UUU
The Lord Macfarlane of Bearsden: —
The Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: FFF
The Lord Mackay of Clashfern: FFF
The Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: UUU
The Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: UUU
The Lord Mackie of Benshie: —
The Lord MacLaurin of Knebworth: —
The Lord MacLennan of Rogart: UUU
Baroness Maddock: -U-
The Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: FFF
Baroness Mallalieu: —
Lord Malloch-Brown: —
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: —
The Lord Mancroft: —
Lord Mandelson: UU-
Baroness Manningham-Buller: —
The Countess of Mar: —
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: —
Lord Marland: —
The Lord Marlesford: FFF
The Lord Marsh: —
The Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge: —
Lord Martin of Springburn: FFF
Baroness Masham of Ilton: FFF
The Lord Mason of Barnsley: —
Baroness Massey of Darwen: UUU
The Lord Mawhinney: FFF
Lord Mawson: FFF
The Lord Maxton: UUU
The Lord May of Oxford: —
The Lord Mayhew of Twysden: FFF
The Lord McAlpine of West Green: —
The Lord McCarthy: —
The Lord McCluskey: UUU
Professor The Lord McColl of Dulwich: FFF
Baroness McDonagh: —
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: —
The Lord McIntosh of Haringey: —
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: —
The Lord McKenzie of Luton: UUU
The Lord McNally: UUU
Baroness Meacher: UUU
The Lord Methuen: UUU
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: UUU
Baroness Miller of Hendon: FFF
The Lord Millett: —
The Lord Mitchell: —
Lord Mogg: —
The Lord Molyneaux of Killead: —
The Lord Monson: FFF
The Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: —
The Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: FFF
The Duke of Montrose: FFF
The Lord Moonie: UUU
The Lord Moore of Lower Marsh: FF-
The Lord Moran: F–
The Lord Morgan: UUU
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: UUU
Baroness Morgan of Huyton: —
The Lord Morris of Aberavon: U–
Baroness Morris of Bolton: FFF
Lord Morris of Handsworth: UUU
The Lord Morris of Manchester: -UU
Baroness Morris of Yardley: -UU
Lord Morrow: FFF
The Lord Moser: —
The Lord Moynihan: —
Baroness Murphy: UUU
The Lord Mustill: —
Lord Myners: —
The Lord Naseby: —
The Lord Neill of Bladen: FFF
Baroness Neuberger: UUU
Baroness Neville-Jones: FFF
The Lord Newby: UUU
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: —
The Lord Newton of Braintree: —
The Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead: —
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: FFF
The Lord Nickson: —
Baroness Nicol: —
Baroness Noakes: FFF
The Duke of Norfolk: —
The Lord Northbourne: FFF
The Lord Northbrook: —
The Earl of Northesk: —
The Lord Northfield: —
Baroness Northover: UUU
The Lord Norton of Louth: —
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: —
Baroness O’Cathain: FFF
Baroness O’Loan: FFF
Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve: FFF
The Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan: UUU
The Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: UUU
The Earl of Onslow: —
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: —
The Lord Ouseley: UUU
The Lord Owen: —
The Lord Oxburgh: —
Baroness Paisley of St George’s: FFF
The Lord Palmer: FFF
The Lord Palumbo: FF-
Lord Pannick: UUU
The Lord Parekh: —
Baroness Park of Monmouth: FFF
The Lord Parkinson: FF-
The Lord Patel: F–
The Lord Patel of Blackburn: UFF
Lord Patel of Bradford: —
The Lord Patten: FFF
The Lord Patten of Barnes: FFF
The Lord Paul: —
The Lord Pearson of Rannoch: FFF
The Earl Peel: —
The Lord Pendry: FFF
Baroness Perry of Southwark: FFF
The Lord Peston: —
The Lord Phillips of Sudbury: —
The Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: FFF
Baroness Pitkeathley: UUU
The Lord Plant of Highfield: F–
Baroness Platt of Writtle: FFF
The Lord Plumb: —
The Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: U–
The Lord Powell of Bayswater: FF-
Baroness Prashar: —
The Lord Prior: —
Baroness Prosser: UUU
The Lord Prys-Davies: —
The Lord Puttnam: UUU
Baroness Quin: UUU
The Lord Quinton: FF-
The Lord Quirk: —
The Lord Radice: UUU
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: UUU
The Lord Ramsbotham: FFF
Lord Rana: —
Baroness Rawlings: FFF
The Lord Razzall: UUU
The Lord Rea: UFU
The Lord Reay: FFF
The Lord Redesdale: UUU
Lord Rees of Ludlow: -UU
The Lord Rees-Mogg: FF-
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: —
The Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: —
The Lord Rennard: UUU
The Lord Renton of Mount Harry: —
The Lord Renwick of Clifton: —
The Lord Richard: UUU
Baroness Richardson of Calow: —
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds: —
The Lord Rix: —
The Lord Roberts of Conwy: FFF
The Lord Roberts of Llandudno: UUU
The Lord Robertson of Port Ellen: —
The Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: UUU
The Lord Rogan: FF-
The Lord Rogers of Riverside: —
The Lord Rooker: U–
The Lord Roper: —
The Lord Rosser: UUU
The Earl of Rosslyn: —
The Lord Rotherwick: FF-
Lord Rowe-Beddoe: FFF
The Lord Rowlands: UUU
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: UUU
The Lord Ryder of Wensum: FFF
The Lord Saatchi: —
Lord Sacks: —
The Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover: —
The Lord Sainsbury of Turville: —
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury: —
The Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: FFF
The Lord Sandberg: —
The Lord Sanderson of Bowden: FFF
The Earl of Sandwich: FFF
The Lord Sawyer: —
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: UUU
The Lord Scott of Foscote: —
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: UUU
Baroness Seccombe: FFF
The Earl of Selborne: FFF
The Lord Selkirk of Douglas: —
The Lord Selsdon: FFF
The Lord Sewel: UUU
The Lord Sharman: —
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: UUU
Baroness Sharples: —
The Lord Shaw of Northstead: FFF
Lord Sheikh: FFF
The Lord Sheldon: —
Baroness Shephard of Northwold: FFF
The Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: —
The Earl of Shrewsbury: FFF
The Lord Shutt of Greetland: UUU
The Viscount Simon: UUU
The Lord Simon of Highbury: —
The Lord Skelmersdale: FFF
The Lord Skidelsky: —
The Viscount Slim: FF-
The Lord Smith of Clifton: UUU
The Lord Smith of Finsbury: UUU
Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill: —
Lord Smith of Kelvin: —
The Lord Smith of Leigh: —
The Lord Snape: —
Earl of Snowdon: —
The Lord Soley: UUU
The Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: —
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: —
The Lord St John of Fawsley: —
The Lord St. John of Bletso: —
The Earl of Stair: —
The Lord Steel of Aikwood: UUU
The Lord Sterling of Plaistow: —
Baroness Stern: U–
Lord Stern of Brentford: UUU
The Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington: —
The Lord Stevens of Ludgate: FF-
The Lord Stevenson of Coddenham: —
The Lord Stewartby: FFF
The Lord Steyn: —
The Lord Stoddart of Swindon: FFF
The Lord Stone of Blackheath: U–
The Lord Strabolgi: —
The Lord Strathclyde: FFF
Lord Sugar: —
The Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: —
The Lord Swinfen: FF-
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: UUU
The Lord Tanlaw: —
The Lord Taverne: UUU
The Lord Taylor of Blackburn: —
Baroness Taylor of Bolton: UUU
Lord Taylor of Holbeach: FFF
The Lord Taylor of Warwick: FFF
Rt Hon the Lord Tebbit: FFF
The Lord Temple-Morris: UUU
The Lord Templeman: —
The Viscount Tenby: FF-
Lord Teverson: —
Rt Hon the Baroness Thatcher: —
The Lord Thomas of Gresford: UUU
The Lord Thomas of Macclesfield: —
The Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: FFF
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: UUU
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: UUU
Baroness Thornton: UUU
The Lord Tombs: FFF
The Lord Tomlinson: —
Baroness Tonge: UUU
The Lord Tope: UUU
The Lord Tordoff: F–
The Lord Trefgarne: FFF
The Viscount Trenchard: —
The Lord Triesman: —
Lord Trimble: F–
Baroness Trumpington: F–
The Lord Truscott: —
The Lord Tugendhat: FFF
The Lord Tunnicliffe: UUU
The Lord Turnberg: —
Lord Turnbull: UUU
Baroness Turner of Camden: UUU
Lord Turner of Ecchinswell: —
The Lord Tyler: —
Baroness Uddin: U–
The Viscount Ullswater: FFF
Baroness Vadera: —
Baroness Valentine: —
The Lord Vallance of Tummel: —
Baroness Verma: FFF
The Lord Vincent of Coleshill: —
The Lord Vinson: FFF
The Lord Waddington: FFF
The Lord Wade of Chorlton: FF-
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: —
The Lord Wakeham: FFF
The Lord Waldegrave of North Hill: FFF
Lord Walker of Aldringham: FF-
The Lord Walker of Worcester: —
Baroness Wall of New Barnet: UUU
The Lord Wallace of Saltaire: UUU
Lord Wallace of Tankerness: UUU
Baroness Walmsley: UUU
The Lord Walpole: FFF
The Lord Walton of Detchant: FFF
The Lord Warner: UUU
Baroness Warnock: UUU
Baroness Warsi: FFF
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: UUU
The Lord Watson of Invergowrie: UUU
The Lord Watson of Richmond: —
The Viscount Waverley: —
The Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: U–
The Lord Weidenfeld: —
Lord West of Spithead : -UU
Baroness Whitaker: UUU
The Lord Whitty: UU-
Baroness Wilcox: FFF
Baroness Wilkins: UUU
Baroness Williams of Crosby : —
The Lord Williams of Elvel: FFF
The Lord Williamson of Horton: FFF
The Lord Willoughby de Broke: —
The Lord Wilson of Dinton: —
The Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: —
The Lord Bishop of Winchester : FFF
The Lord Windlesham: —
The Lord Winston: —
The Lord Wolfson of Sunningdale: —
The Lord Woolf: —
The Lord Woolmer of Leeds : UUU
The Lord Wright of Richmond : —
The Lord Archbishop of York : FFF
The Lord Young of Graffham: —
Baroness Young of Hornsey: UUU
The Lord Young of Norwood Green: –U
Baroness Young of Old Scone : —

See how to join Christian Voice by clicking below (Link does not commit you to join):

A leading Christian lobby group, while not endorsing all the provisions of a new anti-sodomy bill in the nation’s parliament, has urged fellow-believers to support the Ugandan people in their determination to rid their nation of foreign homosexual proselytisation.

Peter Tatchell’s extremist gay rights organisation ‘Outrage’ protested outside the Ugandan High Commission last month against a proposed new law criminalising sodomy in the country.

They said, wrongly, that it was a law ‘to execute and jail gays’.

In fact, the death penalty in David Bahati MP’s ‘Anti-homosexuality Bill’, which has drawn the most criticism, is for aggravated sodomy, knowingly infecting others with AIDS, sodomy with minors and homosexual rape. Promoting homosexuality would however be punishable by a jail term, as would concealing an act of sodomy.

It is far from clear that the Bahati Bill will be enacted as is, because the Ugandan government is afraid of bad publicity scaring away investors. Equally, there is a groundswell of opinion in Uganda against the cultural imperialism of Western secularism, and the promotion of sodomy in particular is causing great concern.

EUROPEAN HOMOSEXUALS ARE RECRUITING IN AFRICA

On 15th November last year President Museveni indicated he was sympathetic to Bahati’s concerns, although he did not endorse the bill, “I hear European homosexuals are recruiting in Africa ,” he said, in an address to a youth awards banquet, warning against ‘foreign’ corrupt practices. He added “We used to have very few homosexuals traditionally. They were not persecuted but were not encouraged either because it was clear that is not how God arranged things to be.”

American pro-family activist Scott Lively is opposed to the death penalty for sodomy but observes there used to be a pro-homosexuality law in Uganda under which Christians were executed:

‘By official count 22 young men were executed under Uganda ‘s law on homosexuality,’ he writes. ‘The law in question required that all men and boys in Uganda be willing to submit to the homosexual seduction of its ruler, King Mwanga. When Ugandans began to convert to Christianity in the 1880s, a group of Catholics, led by Charles Lwanga, refused to allow themselves to be sodomized by the King. Enraged, King Mwanga had them torturously bound, marched 37 miles and then roasted alive in a fire pit. The date of their execution was June 3rd, 1886, and is today a national holiday commemorating Uganda ‘s rejection of homosexuality and commitment to Christian values.’

‘It should be no surprise, therefore, that modern Ugandans are very unhappy that homosexual political activists from Europe and the United States are working aggressively to re-homosexualize their nation. Ugandan citizens report a growing number of foreign homosexual men coming to their country to turn desperately poor young men from the slums into their personal houseboys, and that some girls in public schools have being paid to recruit others into lesbianism. Foreign interests have exerted intense pressure on Uganda ‘s government to compromise its laws regarding sexual morality, often using their control over foreign aid funding for leverage.’

UNDERSTANDABLE RESPONSE

Bahati’s Bill, says Lively, is an understandable response to growing public demand that something be done about this problem. He was in Uganda last year arguing for reparative therapy to be offered by the Church to homosexuals.

Outrage claim that the Bill is ‘a colonial hang-over’, but the reverse is true. It is they who are the colonial hang-over, trying to return to an era in which rich Westerners told Ugandans what to do. Ugandans are simply not going to put up with homosexual men going there to put into practice Outrage’s policies on reducing the homosexual ‘age of consent’ to 14 – or even lower. The African revulsion to sodomy is one aspect of a very strong pro-family attitude in the continent, which also views the Western practice of abortion with disgust.

In Britain , the Government’s Equality Bill is going in the other direction, requiring public authorities from government departments to the police to primary schools actively to promote homosexuality. The Equality Bill was passed by the House of Commons and is now in the Lords, where Christians are praying it will be heavily amended.

TWO OR THREE WITNESSES

Christian Voice National Director Stephen Green said today:

‘I do not like the idea of putting anyone to death, but I have to recognise that the Bible calls for the ultimate penalty for sodomy (Lev 20:13) and for rape (Deut 22:25) as maximum penalties, and that our Lord upheld the death penalty when He called for the accusers of the woman caught in adultery to cast the first stone (John 8:7) – if, that is, they were not implicated in adultery themselves. Clearly Almighty God does not view sodomy and rape with the equanimity of some of us in the West, tainted as we are with our twenty-first-century liberal prejudices.

‘It is probably of little comfort that the Bible also calls for there to be ‘two or three witnesses’ (Deut 17:6) before anyone is convicted of a crime, so in practice, whatever penalty were in place for sodomy, men committing it consensually in private would not be affected. But homosexual men seem drawn to commit sex acts in public, and with strangers, leaving themselves open to all kinds of danger and corrupting public places with obscenity and the detritus of sexual encounters.

‘I know what Peter Tatchell’s position is on sex with minors – he was a contributor to a book in the 1980’s called Betrayal of Youth which openly advocated paedophilia. But I should be interested to know what the Outrage position is on homosexual rape and infecting others with AIDS.

JESUS CHRIST HEALS TODAY

‘Put bluntly, Western liberals do not want any law against sodomy, so if David Bahati were proposing a slap on the wrist, they wouldn’t like it, and the outpouring of negative opinion to his Bill – even from Christians – just shows how brainwashed we have become by evil.

‘The Bahati Bill should be enacted, but it would be good for it to be amended to offer the Christian alternative of healing through Jesus Christ. Men and women have walked away from homosexual desires and the homosexual lifestyle, as Scott Lively’s website testifies. No-one has to ‘stay gay’. But if that is to happen, provisions in the Bill requiring acts of sodomy to be reported under pain of criminal sanctions strike at the heart of the Christian confessional, and should be removed.

‘But with all said and done, the contrast between our politicians and those of Uganda could not be more stark. A Parliamentarian in Uganda is trying to protect his nation’s children. The House of Commons of the United Kingdom is trying to corrupt ours. Which country is the more civilised, I wonder, in the eyes of Almighty God?’

UGANDA’ S STATUS AS A SOVEREIGN NATION
Scott Lively has said: ‘In the mean time, despite all of the hysteria in the liberal media, it is important to remember that there is no death penalty for homosexuals in Uganda, only a bill under debate that will hopefully be modified before passage. The only Ugandans who have been executed for their beliefs and actions about homosexuality have been Christians. ‘

Stephen Green concluded: ‘I too hope the Bill will be amended, but Uganda ‘s status as a sovereign nation and its Christian morality is also at stake here. Will Ugandans allow themselves to be bullied by Western secularists, or will they stand by their Christian heritage and the traditional African way of life? I hope and pray it will be the latter, and that the Western homosexuals and abortionists who are trying to corrupt Ugandan young people will be sent packing. If they start from the premise that sodomy is evil but that the King of kings Jesus Christ saves and heals, and out of that execute justice with mercy, they will not go far wrong.

The Government’s Equality Bill has finished its passage through the Commons and now heads to the House of Lords. It consolidates UK discrimination law but also extends it in key areas. It amplifies discrimination law, obliges local authorities to try to bring about equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity (they are ‘to consider socio-economic disadvantage’ when taking ‘strategic decisions’) and allows political parties to use women-only shortlists up to 2030, despite this heavy-handed positive action losing Blaenau Gwent for Labour in the last election.

The Bill left the Commons pretty much unchanged, especially in its anti-Christian provisions which we examine below. We call on the House of Lords to amend the Bill to remove the anti-Christian provisions and we encourage all Christians to join our campaign and write to their local peers (we maintain an authoritative list of peers by locality of affiliation).

We object in principle to the idea that transsexuals, homosexuals and those who follow non-Christian faiths should be protected to the extent the Bill does. We most certainly object to the affirmative action the Bill proposes. Below, we follow the order in which the Bill itself has laid out the various issues of concern. Our comments are in italics following each clause or set of clauses.

HARASSMENT AND VICTIMISATION

Clause 26: Harassment

(1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if-

(a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and

(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of-

(i) violating B’s dignity, or

(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

(5) The relevant protected characteristics are-

• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• race;
• religion or belief;
• sex;
• sexual orientation.

This appears to be a hate crimes law by the back door. If a Christian preacher speaks out against what he sees as the abomination of gender reassignment, or against homosexuality, or against the false religions of Islam or Hinduism, it will be easy for an activist in that ‘protected group’ to claim that his dignity has been violated or that a humiliating environment has been created for him. The activist can then bring an action in the courts. We believe that organisations like Christian Voice are not under serious threat; any activist will think very seriously before taking us on; but there will be Christian individuals and bodies of lesser faith and courage who may well back down or engage in self-censorship – the ‘chilling effect on free speech’ often referred to.

Clause 27: Victimisation

(1) A person (A) victimises another person (B) if A subjects B to a detriment because-

(a) B does a protected act, or

(b) A believes that B has done, or may do, a protected act.

(2) Each of the following is a protected act-

(a) bringing proceedings under this Act;

(b) giving evidence or information in connection with proceedings under this Act; (c) doing any other thing for the purposes of or in connection with this Act;

(d) making an allegation (whether or not express) that A or another person has contravened this Act.

This appears to mean that if someone brings an action under a clause like the one above, anyone reporting on the matter will have to ensure he is respectful to the one bringing the action, however unreasonable or petulant such action appears. Otherwise he will be subjecting the one bringing the action to ‘a detriment’

PROVISION OF SERVICES
29 Provision of services, etc.

(1) A person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(2) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B)-

(a) as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;

(b) by terminating the provision of the service to B;

(c) by subjecting B to any other detriment.

(3) A service-provider must not, in relation to the provision of the service, harass-

(a) a person requiring the service, or

(b) a person to whom the service-provider provides the service.

(4) A service-provider must not victimise a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

(5) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, victimise a person (B)-

(a) as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;

(b) by terminating the provision of the service to B;

(c) by subjecting B to any other detriment.

(6) A person must not, in the exercise of a public function that is not the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public, do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation.

(7) A duty to make reasonable adjustments applies to-

(a) a service-provider (and see also section 55(7));

(b) a person who exercises a public function that is not the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public.

(8) In the application of section 26 for the purposes of subsection (3), and subsection (6) as it relates to harassment, neither of the following is a relevant protected characteristic-

(a) religion or belief;

(b) sexual orientation.

This clause carries on the iniquity that a Christian wedding photographer is obliged to cover a civil partnership, a Christian hotelier to provide a double bed to a pair of homosexuals, or a Christian printer to print the invitations. The Earl of Devon had to close all wedding ceremonies at Powderham Castle last year because he refused to allow the dispiriting spectacle of civil partnerships to be held there.

EMPLOYMENT
39 Employees and applicants

(1) An employer (A) must not discriminate against a person (B)-

(a) in the arrangements A makes for deciding to whom to offer employment;

(b) as to the terms on which A offers B employment;

(c) By not offering B employment.

ETC…

53 Qualifications bodies

(1) A qualifications body (A) must not discriminate against a person (B)-

(a) in the arrangements A makes for deciding upon whom to confer a relevant qualification; (b) as to the terms on which it is prepared to confer a relevant qualification on B;

(c) by not conferring a relevant qualification on B.

Schedule 9 (Applies to Section 83: Interpretation and Exceptions)

Work: exceptions

Part 1
Other requirements relating to religion or belief

3 A person (A) with an ethos based on religion or belief does not contravene a provision mentioned in paragraph 1(2) by applying in relation to work a requirement to be of a particular religion or belief if A shows that, having regard to that ethos and to the nature or context of the work- (a) it is an occupational requirement,

(b) the application of the requirement is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and

(c) the person to whom A applies the requirement does not meet it (or A has reasonable grounds for not being satisfied that the person meets it).

(4) This sub-paragraph applies to-

(a) a requirement to be of a particular sex;

(b) a requirement not to be a transsexual person;

(c) a requirement not to be married or a civil partner;

(d) a requirement not to be married to, or the civil partner of, a person who has a living former spouse or civil partner;

(e) a requirement relating to circumstances in which a marriage or civil partnership came to an end;

(f) a requirement related to sexual orientation.

(8) Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if the employment wholly or mainly involves-

(a) leading or assisting in the observance of liturgical or ritualistic practices of the religion, or

(b) promoting or explaining the doctrine of the religion (whether to followers of the religion or to others).

The Clauses about employment, taken with Schedule 9 of the Equality Bill, are a major change in UK employment law which will greatly damage Christian organisations including many churches.

Many Christian organisations will be unable to appoint someone as a pastor or a worker who is engaged in what they see as sin. Living together outside marriage or being in a civil partnership are instances of such behaviour.

The only exception is if the post in question is ‘wholly or mainly’ concerned with leading liturgy or ritual or promoting or explaining doctrine.

This means that a homosexual applying for the position of a Christian youth worker, an accountant, even a cleaner, or for any job in a Christian social care establishment would have to be employed as the job is not ‘wholly or mainly’ concerned with leading liturgy or ritual or promoting or explaining doctrine.

In fact even a Church minister would be hard pressed to say his job is ‘wholly or mainly concerned with leading liturgy or ritual or promoting or explaining doctrine’. A pastor does many things during his week of work. He may be visiting parishioners, looking after the church building, attending meetings or activities in the community. He is only in church ‘leading liturgy’ or in groups ‘explaining doctrine’ for a small part of his working week

Churches and church-based organisations want their staff and workers to follow their doctrine. There may be meetings for prayer or services; but in any case, they will feel their integrity is compromised by having someone openly hostile to their faith in any kind of job.

Such a person would also be able to bring an action for indirect discrimination. The presence of religious symbols may offend them, for instance. The provisions in the Bill spell the end of faith-based organisations. A cynic might say this is precisely what the current secularist Government intends.

At the Report Stage of the Bill, Labour MP David Drew moved an amendment to protect the religious liberty of churches and allow religious organisations to restrict the appointment of key staff to people whose conduct is consistent with their historic traditions and interpretation of Scripture. The amendment was defeated by 314 votes to 170.

Prior to the vote, the European Commission intervened to support the Government, saying that the Equality Bill must subordinate religious conscience to homosexual equality. Contrasting current UK law with EU requirements, the Commission said: ‘exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for religious employers are broader than that permitted by the directive’.

The Commission was acting in accordance with the Treaty of Lisbon which makes clear that European Union law is superior to and takes precedence over all forms of national law. National authorities are required not only to observe all forms of European Union law; they must also implement and give effect to them in the respective Member States.

GUESTS AND ASSOCIATIONS
102 Guests

(1) An association (A) must not discriminate against a person (B)-

(a) in the arrangements A makes for deciding who to invite, or who to permit to be invited, as a guest;

(b) as to the terms on which A is prepared to invite B, or to permit B to be invited, as a guest;

(c) by not inviting B, or not permitting B to be invited, as a guest.

Schedule 16 (Section 106)

Associations: exceptions

Single characteristic associations

1 (1) An association does not contravene section 101(1) by restricting membership to persons who share a protected characteristic.

These provisions mean that an association can be set up exclusively for transsexuals, for instance, but that a club may not bar transsexuals. This is an important point because transsexuals cause problems in the lavatory facilities they are prepared to use. A man who decides he is a woman and begins to dress as such, prior to the treatment such men are offered by certain medical professionals will not wish to use the gents’ toilet, but will be unwelcome in the ladies’.

And indeed, why should not a Christian or indeed any club or association not be able to restrict membership to persons of a wholesome character in accordance with its core beliefs?

PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITY DUTY
148 Public sector equality duty

(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to-

(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;

(b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;

(c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

(2) A person who is not a public authority but who exercises public functions must, in the exercise of those functions, have due regard to the matters mentioned in subsection (1).

(3) Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to-

(a) remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic;

(b) meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it;

(c) encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.

(4) Having due regard to the need to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to-

(a) tackle prejudice, and (b) promote understanding.

(5) Compliance with the duties in this section may involve treating some persons more favourably than others; but that is not to be taken as permitting conduct that would otherwise be prohibited by or under this Act.

(6) The relevant protected characteristics are-

• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• pregnancy and maternity;
• race;
• religion or belief;
• sex;
• sexual orientation.

Public authorities include:

• Ministers of the Crown and government departments (except for MI5, MI6 and GCHQ)
• The Welsh Assembly Government,
• The Scottish Administration
• The Armed forces
• The National Health Service
• Strategic Health Authorities
• Primary Care Trusts (in England )
• NHS trusts
• Special Health Authorities (but excepting the NHS Blood and Transplant Authority)
• NHS foundation trusts
• Local Health Boards in Wales and Scotland
• A Community Health Council in Wales .
• County councils, district councils and parish councils in England .
• Parish meetings (S13 of the Local Government Act 1972).
• Charter trustees (S 246) in England and Wales .
• The Greater London Authority.
• London borough councils.
• The Common Council of the City of London .
• The Inner Temple and Middle Temple , as local authorities.
• The London Development Agency.
• Police authorities
• The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.
• Transport for London .
• The Council of the Isles of Scilly.
• The Broads Authority in Norfolk and Suffolk
• Regional development agencies
• Community councils and licensing boards in Scotland
• Internal drainage boards
• Passenger Transport Executives
• Port health authorities
• National Park authorities in Wales and Scotland
• Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise ,
• Waste disposal authorities
• The governing bodies of maintained educational establishments in England and Wales
• Education authorities in Scotland

The managers of grant-aided schools and the boards of management of colleges of further education in Scotland

GOVERNMENT NOTES ON THE EQUALITY BILL
Part 11 – Advancement of equality

Chapter 1 – Public sector equality duty to cover gender reassignment in full, age, religion or belief and sexual orientation.

Examples

• The duty could lead a police authority to review its recruitment procedures to ensure they did not unintentionally deter applicants from ethnic minorities, with the aim of eliminating unlawful discrimination.
• The duty could lead a local authority to target training and mentoring schemes at disabled people to enable them to stand as local councillors, with the aim of advancing equality of opportunity for different groups of people who have the same disability, and in particular encouraging their participation in public life.
• The duty could lead a local authority to provide funding for a black women’s refuge for victims of domestic violence, with the aim of advancing equality of opportunity for women, and in particular meeting the different needs of women from different racial groups.
• The duty could lead a large government department, in its capacity as an employer, to provide staff with education and guidance, with the aim of fostering good relations between its transsexual staff and its non-transsexual staff.
• The duty could lead a local authority to review its use of internet-only access to council services; or focus “Introduction to Information Technology” adult learning courses on older people, with the aim of advancing equality of opportunity, in particular meeting different needs, for older people.
• The duty could lead a school to review its anti-bullying strategy to ensure that it addresses the issue of homophobic bullying, with the aim of fostering good relations, and in particular tackling prejudice against gay and lesbian people.
• The duty could lead a local authority to introduce measures to facilitate understanding and conciliation between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims living in a particular area, with the aim of fostering good relations between people of different religious beliefs.

Possibly the most anti-Christian section of the Bill is Clause 148 or Part 11, headed ‘Advancement of equality’. This places a duty on every public authority to go out of its way to ‘eliminate discrimination’ against members of the eight protected groups listed in the clause. Positive discrimination using taxpayers’ money is what the Bill requires. The protected characteristics include religion or belief, so that local councils will feel obliged to promote minority non-Christian faiths and atheism (absence of faith or belief is given equality with faith and belief). Most worrying of all, gender reassignment and sexual orientation complete the list.

This means quite plainly that the equality officer of a local fire brigade might easily suggest participation in a gay pride event and if the firemen themselves object, as happened in Glasgow, they may find themselves outside the law for not having the ‘due regard’ for advancing equality referred to in the Bill.

Public Authority ‘Equality’ or ‘Diversity’ officers, whipped up by outside Equality and Diversity consultants (see Christian Voice February 2009) will be looking for crosses to take down from chapels, Bibles to expunge from hospital bedsides, staff prayer meetings to scrap, municipal church services to make multi-faith, homosexual events to underwrite with public money and dissident Christian employees to sack.

Private companies tendering for public authority work will also be required to demonstrate that they are advancing the protected groups. Given the size of the public sector, the tentacles of the Bill will spread far and wide.

Emily Thornberry MP gave another application in the Commons 2nd Reading debate. When Canterbury City Council was accused by ‘Pride in Canterbury ‘ of failing to promote ‘gay culture’ in the city, the local government ombudsman said ‘no regulations could be used to criticise the council’. ‘This Bill will change that’, she said, chillingly.

GOVERNMENT USES SCHOOL EXAMPLE
But why invent examples when the Government have given some equally bizarre ones in its commentary on the Bill? They say it could mean a government department wasting time berating its staff on the beauties of transsexualism, a local council vainly attempting to reconcile Shi’a and Sunni Muslims in its area, or a school to whip up the spectre of ‘homophobic bullying’ in order to promote homosexuality. This latter is despite the lack of evidence showing such teaching reduces name-calling and the common sense realisation that such teaching may actually increase it, giving the bullies a new weapon, and plant the seed of possibly being homosexual in a young mind.

The latter scenario will cause most concern to parents, because it has already happened, in Leytonstone and Broadstairs, amid public protest, and even before the Equality Bill is enacted. But it appears that not one Member of Parliament raised such sexual grooming as an issue in any of the Bill’s House of Commons stages. Only ten MPs voted against the Bill at Third Reading .

We hope and pray the House of Lords will take more seriously the promotion of sodomy to small children. Gay activists at the British Museum in November 2009, which was advancing Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender History Month (that is February, apparently) said smugly: ‘The year 2010 will bring us The Equality Act with its greater legislative demands of schools and all public institutions thereby increasing the relevance of LGBT History Month.’

CONCLUSION
‘One law shall be to him that is homeborn and unto the stranger that sojourneth with you.’ (Exod 12:49)

Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it. (Deut 1:17)

Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous. (Deut 16:19)

For there is no respect of persons with God. ‘Thou shalt not respect persons in judgment (Rom 2:11)

Words of the Holy Bible (the King James or ‘Authorised’ Version) Described at her coronation in June 1953 as the Rule for Her Majesty’s Whole Life and Government.

The Equality Bill is the latest example of the Government legislating iniquity (Micah 2:1) and calling evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20). Homosexual practice and the worship of other gods, which the Bible describes as evil, this Bill calls good. Christian preaching and the upholding of standards of righteousness, safeguarding small children from sexual abuse, which the Bible states are good, this Bill calls evil.

The Bill takes particular classes of people and, contrary to the Biblical principle that all are to be treated equally before the law, exalts them to enjoy protected and preferential status.

The best thing of all for this Bill is for it to fall. If that is not to be, then may God use the House of Lords to exclude the worst parts of it.

PRAY: That in the face of wickedness, a degree of righteousness, preservation of the Church of Jesus Christ in its broadest sense and protection of children will be maintained. Cry to the Lord that in just six years this country has gone from banning the promotion of sodomy in schools to shamelessly advocating it.

We are entering a period in Britain in which the advancement of homosexuality as seen in Sodom becomes a reality in our time. Those who are object are told to be quiet and not to be judgmental, just as the men of Sodom told Lot . May Almighty God have mercy on us and deliver our nation from such wickedness.

Singer’s Last Hours Reveal Homosexual Mores

As Stephen Gately’s body is flown home, it has been revealed that the Boyzone singer, found dead on 10th October 2009 after an eight-hour drinking spree in a Majorcan gay bar, probably succumbed to a sudden and unexpected heart attack.

News has also surfaced that while in the bar with his ‘civil partner’ Andrew Cowles, the latter – or both of them – picked up a Bulgarian homosexual, Georgi Dochev, and took him back to their luxury apartment.

While Gately, 33, slept on the sofa, Cowles and Dochev went off to the bedroom. Dochev found Gatley in the morning in what has been described as ‘a prayer-like position’. His body is being repatriated to Ireland .

But a Christian prayer and lobby group has said the singer’s last hours are uncomfortably revealing about the perverted standards of behaviour in the homosexual world.

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today:

‘The death of Stephen Gately may have been neither drink or drugs-induced, nor prevented if he had been found earlier, but its manner still speaks volumes about the lack of true feelings homosexual men can have for each other.

‘Here we have two men in a civil partnership, Gately and Cowles, supposedly publicly committed to each other, cruising for sex with other men in a gay bar. Cowles picks up Dochev and they take him back to their flat. There Gately decides that he will leave the bed to his ‘partner’ and the stranger he has taken fancy to, and occupies the sofa. Maybe there was a row, maybe there wasn’t, but such activities are routine in the homosexual world.

‘When I researched my book “The Sexual Dead-End” I found that sometimes there are stories of jealousies, as in the case of Joe Orton and Kenneth Halliwell – which led to Orton’s death, and at other times the pair are equally happy with the arrangement, either sharing the stranger or taking perverse pleasure in each others extra-relational affairs.

‘Homosexuals may try to justify Gately’s and Cowles’ behaviour by saying that some heterosexual couples get up to similar things with strangers. But there are orders of magnitude of difference. Defiling the marital bed with ‘threesomes’ is rare and leads inevitably to bitterness. In the sordid homosexual world it is mainstream for a pair of gays or lesbians to invite others into their corruption and even to be involved in orgies.

‘That must be because their world is defined by sex and rebellion from civilised sexual mores. Once they have set themselves on the path of depravity, further deviation from God-given ethics is inevitable.

‘One day, western society will wake up the fact that the supposed equality which our leaders want to enforce between heterosexual love and marriage on the one hand and homosexual activity on the other is null and void. A system based on a lie cannot survive. Whether Secularism’s demise will be as a result of the resurgence of Christianity or a takeover by Islam is the only point of conjecture, but fall it will.

‘In the meantime, if Stephen Gately’s death serves as a warning to millions of Boyzone fans not to get involved in his heartless world of degradation and depravity it will not have been in vain. I just hope he was praying in repentance when he died, praying for God to forgive him his sins by the merits of the blood of Jesus Christ, asking for release for his tortured mind and fellowship with the God who alone has power to forgive and restore. I pray to see Gately in heaven, repentant, forgiven, restored, washed clean in the blood of Jesus. Amen.’

AFRICAN PROMISCUITY MYTH DESTROYED

Rates of HIV infection have risen in the UK amongst homosexual men while other groups have seen a decrease, the latest HIV/AIDS statistics reveal. The figures were announced just before 1st December, World AIDS Day.

The rise confirms a trend which has seen cases of the HIV retrovirus amongst homosexuals rise for eight out of the last nine years. Meanwhile, a new study has destroyed the idea that promiscuity is to blame for AIDS in Africa .

After a trough in 1988 and 1989, possibly as a result of the Government’s ‘AIDS; we’re all doomed’ tombstone advertisements, HIV infections climbed to reach a high in the early nineties. But as AIDS deaths really started to increase in the same period, a decline in HIV infections in ‘men who have sex with men’ began from the peak year of 1991.

It was as if this highly-susceptible group had really begun to modify their sexual behaviour. Meanwhile, UK cases of HIV among heterosexuals kept creeping up, both in infections acquired in the UK and those acquired elsewhere in the world. The latter was some six times that of the former, but both were rising. Infections acquired from needles in drug use have remained fairly low, and reasonably stable, over the whole period. They decreased in the late 1980s and the 1990s, then show a slight but more erratic increase in more recent years.
‘LIVING WITH HIV’ BECOMES POSSIBLE

After the introduction of Highly-Active Anti-Retroviral Treatment (HAART) in 1995, deaths from AIDS began to decline, and people gained an idea that they could successfully live with HIV. Indeed, ‘living with HIV’ became almost fashionable in the homosexual network. The success of HAART was beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. Deaths from AIDS halved from 1,494 in 1996 to just 755 in 1997.

This dramatic news was announced in 1998 with the release of the Government figures, and that is precisely the point at which HIV infections began to rise. As deaths from AIDS hovered around the 500 mark for the next ten years, HIV infections in homosexuals almost doubled, from 1,384 in 1998 to 2,679 in 2007. In only one year did they actually drop, by just 4% from 2005 to 2006.

Lord McColl of Dulwich, a noted surgeon, said in the House of Lords: ‘The free availability in the United Kingdom of highly active Anti-Retroviral therapy – HAART – has made some people complacent about HIV transmission and there is now a misconception that HIV can be easily treated.’ He warned: ‘There is still no cure. Treatment is complex and it is given for life.’ (L Hans Col 1169 3/04/08)

Amongst heterosexuals, the rise in HIV infections was even more pronounced, quadrupling from 1179 in 1968 to a staggering 4743 in 2004. The overwhelming majority – around 84% of these infections – were acquired abroad, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa . Almost exactly the same proportion of HIV infections in homosexual men were reported to be acquired in the UK .

Then, in 2004, the Government changed the rules on giving HIV and AIDS treatments to asylum seekers, depriving them of HAART treatment. The Government say there is ‘no evidence’ of HIV tourism, but in every year after 2004, HIV in heterosexuals has declined, down to 3604 in 2007, while the proportion of UK-infected heterosexuals has grown to be a larger proportion of the heterosexual group. The 2007 figures showed UK infections to be 28% as the overseas contingent continued to wane.

A BLOOD-BORNE DISEASE

The precise method of contracting HIV has been a matter of fierce public debate, with the British Government desperate to downplay any suggestion that the abusive practices of homosexuals, sodomy in particular, are more likely to put those involved at greater risk. It is good, from their point of view, if HIV/AIDS is a sexually-transmitted disease which can easily be caught during normal sexual intercourse rather than a blood-borne disease which needs direct entry into the blood-stream through more specialised practices. The passage of AIDS to haemophiliacs through infected blood and to drug-users through shared infected needles strongly indicated the latter, which was inconvenient.

Oddly enough, although researchers ask for and record the sexual practice to which homosexual men attribute their HIV infection, they do not ask heterosexuals the same question. No-one knows what proportion of the latter group have contracted HIV by sodomy.

Since the earliest days, the homosexual lobby, aided by governments both sides of the Atlantic , have been keen to stress gay victimhood while avoiding the issue of gay responsibility. As Baroness Thornton told the House of Lords in April, ‘Gay men continue to be the group that is most at risk of HIV transmission in the UK’, (L Hans Col 1172 3/04/08) a comment echoed by the homosexual AIDS charity the Terrence Higgins Trust.

The prevalence of HIV and AIDS in the whole population in Africa has enabled homosexual AIDS lobbyists to claim that HIV/AIDS is spread ‘heterosexually’ in the rest of the world. In the early days it was the epidemiology establishment’s view that whole populations in the western world were at risk of an AIDS epidemic. When that failed to occur, they had to come up with reasons why HIV and AIDS were prevalent universally in the rest of the world – especially Africa – but tended to affect more specialised groups in the West.

AFRICANS ACCUSED OF PROMISCUITY

What they came up with would have been denounced as racist in any other context. However it is dressed up, it boils down to this: Black Africans are vastly more promiscuous than us civilised white folks. A paper published in the British Medical Journal in 2002 by Peter R Lamptey, President of the Family Health International AIDS Institute simply assumes HIV to be transmitted heterosexually and identifies, to his own satisfaction at any rate, the following ‘key factors in the heterosexual transmission of HIV’:

• Frequent change of sexual partners
• Unprotected sexual intercourse
• Presence of sexually transmitted infections and poor access to treatment
• Lack of male circumcision
• Social vulnerability of women and young people
• Economic and political instability of the community

Top of the list is promiscuity, second is a call for more condoms. The ‘factor’ of ‘frequent change of sexual partners’ is not defended, it is just declared. It is actually quite disgraceful to claim that Africans change their sexual partners ‘frequently’, compared with people in the USA , for example. The family is a much stronger institution in Africa than in the decadent west.

Lamptey singles out Botswana and speaks of ‘the disproportionate death rate among the young, sexually active, and productive segments of the population’. It is true, as he says, that ‘large numbers of young children and older adults will have to be supported by a shrinking proportion of productive adults’, but why the emphasis on ‘sexually active’? It is to reinforce his idea that rampant promiscuity in Botswana is the prime cause of HIV and AIDS.
STUDY DESTROYS MYTH OF AFRICAN PROMISCUITY

Thankfully, by the grace of God and in His timing, a study published in the United States , just days after the release of the UK statistics, has shown that this explanation for HIV infections amongst heterosexuals in Africa, that promiscuity is higher than in Europe and the USA , is totally false.

The research, carried out by Professor David P Schmitt, destroys the idea that black Africans are orders of magnitude more promiscuous than white people in the developed world. On the contrary, it shows that levels of illicit sexual activity in the four African countries considered are around half those in the Western/Northern Hemisphere. This will come as no surprise to anyone with more than a passing knowledge of African culture.

The United Kingdom had the dubious distinction of coming top of the OECD countries, with a ‘sociosexuality’ rating of 40.17. The USA scored 37.05, Germany 39.68 and France 36.67. Every country with a higher score than that of the UK , from Argentina with 40.74 to Finland , which scored a Bloomsbury-set-challenging 50.5, was white, or of white extraction.

The African countries scored much lower, led by Zimbabwe with 22.66. Botswana , the country singled out by Dr Lamptey, came in with 27.02. Ethiopia scored 26.55 and even the Democratic Republic of Congo, plagued by civil war, and widely regarded as a hot-bed of rape and fornication, was only 32.43, less than the world average. The lowest score was from Taiwan with 19.22, closely followed by Bangladesh with 19.67 and South Korea with 22.21. Zimbabwe was fourth-lowest.

The survey was carried out by interviewing over 14,000 people across 48 countries, and gives the first-ever scientific over-view of sexual-moral attitudes and practice. It is devastating for the homosexual lobby, who will have to come up with another reason why AIDS affects the whole population in Africa . Clearly, the fact that HIV is being contracted by heterosexuals here and in Africa does not mean the infection is acquired through sexual intercourse. If HIV was transmitted by sexual intercourse, the UK , with promiscuity levels almost twice those found in Africa , would be facing an HIV epidemic. We are not.

Dr Lamptey could be closer to the mark with his third point, that any ‘presence of sexually transmitted infections’ coupled with ‘poor access to treatment’ means that open sores could allow the transmission of HIV through sexual intercourse. That directs us to look at medical treatment in Africa , the subject of a BBC Panorama programme in November 2008.

Reporter Sorious Samura found that the Ugandan Ministry of Health bought 1,800 4x4s for its administrators but only 4 ambulances for Mulago hospital.  British Aid helped build a hospital where there is now no money for gloves or needles.  In Britain , STD’s are treated and running sores are very uncommon.  That is not the case in Africa , and those sores or ‘lesions’ allow the virus access to the blood-stream.

Poor health-care was also blamed in a paper in the International Journal of STD & AIDS by David Gisselquist and others published in 2002.  Gisselquist et al observe that HIV infections in Africa are not totally explained by sexual transmission. On the contrary, up to 40% of HIV infections in African adults may be associated with injections. ‘Differences in epidemic trajectories across Africa do not correspond with differences in sexual behaviour,’ the authors say, before raising ‘the possibility that HIV transmission through unsafe medical care may be an important factor in Africa ‘s HIV epidemic.’ (Int J STD AIDS 2002; 13:657-666)
HAART TREATMENT EXPENSIVE

Meanwhile, as the recession begins to bite, health managers in the UK are facing hard choices on the allocation of dwindling financial resources. Some, for example on the South Coast , are having to restrict funds for HIV treatment and care. The HAART regime costs £16,000 per patient per year. That means that someone living an extra 20 years will cost the Exchequer £320,000, or just about a third of a million pounds.

HAART treatment is now said to be costing between £400m and £half-a-billion annually. That may be an underestimate as 80,000 people in the UK are living with HIV and their numbers are currently being swelled by 6,000 net per year (around 6,500 new diagnoses less 500 AIDS deaths). 80,000 lots of £16,000 would be £1,280,000,000, or almost £1.3 billion.

The treatment and its free availability through the NHS have clearly led to the complacency that Lord McColl described. Ron Christie, of Tayside Body Positive, a homosexual HIV group, says homosexuals have ‘become blasé’ about the use of condoms. There is much evidence that a greater proportion of homosexuals are not bothering to use them with partners of different or unknown HIV status – as many as 30% a year in hotspots like London, Manchester and Brighton.

It would be tempting to say that those who have brought HIV upon themselves in such a way should pay for their treatment, but where would that principle leave smokers, or the obese, or the youth who crashes while driving too fast, or the man who irresponsibly over-reaches on a ladder? Will hospital trust managers employ private detectives to investigate how people came by their conditions or injuries? That defies the founding principle of the NHS.

Another response might be to pour yet more money into ‘safer sex’ campaigns. But those involved in the homosexual network clearly know the message, but have simply concluded they can live with HIV if they catch it. There is also evidence that some homosexuals regard HIV-positive status as a badge of honour, although those who are widely thought to ‘chase’ the bug have proved elusive.

TACKLE HIV INFECTION AT SOURCE

Perhaps it is time to tackle the problem of HIV infection at source through the criminal law. There have been a handful of successful prosecutions for ‘recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm’ through the transmission of HIV. Buggery against both men and women was totally decriminalised in 1994. As the single biggest undisputed known route of HIV infection, such a practice is not just morally repugnant but physically dangerous and financially demanding. If it were again to become a criminal offence, such a law could save lives and relieve the strain on the hard-pressed NHS. It would then be possible for Government, in a joined-up way, to dissuade people from engaging in sodomy.

A nation can live with decadence for a while, but it grows ever more expensive. HIV tourism can be dealt with at a fiscal level. But for home-grown HIV infections, the abusive practice most associated with homosexuality needs to be discouraged at every level. Sodomy is a luxury we can no longer afford.