The despair Of The British nation.

Sunday, 13 February 2011

Provocation For Equality.

Well, Count Me Out If 
My Church Goes Down This Path.


Don't take my rant as as homophobic. I just loathe all this "equality" rubbish and live and let live works both ways. My rights are every bit as important as anyone else's. If I feel as I do, it's my prerogative. The magnitude of human existence means that evil, sadism, bullying and nepotistic, power driven murder exists. My little self should be allowed to think and behave, within a realm of decency, which, though not perfect, is better than many and worse than many. Why do we have to suffer this constant meddling and nonsense. Why do we tolerate giving way to a practice that, though a quirk of nature, is not the behaviour or predilection ordained by the need to further our species.
The very psychological  processes driving this quirk of nature are in themselves, a destructive set of brain signals which lead to an even greater degree of promiscuity, grooming and unpleasant behaviour. This is nearly always driven by the "male" side of the equation. No surprise there!
The heterosexual world is upside down these days and is aping the other researched here. That is, that our secular and material society is no longer concentrated on the union of a man and woman for the procreation and nurture of children. Note this telling passage from over 50 years ago,  ...What I have described is one form of "cruising." While the agreements resulting in the "one night stand" occur in many settings—the bath, the street, the public toilet—and may vary greatly in the elaboration or simplicity of the interaction preceding the culmination of the sexual act, their essential feature is the standardized expectation that sex can be had without obligation or commitment. (Hooker, 1967, pp. 175-176)
The changes in law to accommodate prejudice against homosexual practices I fully endorse and welcome. What I don't like is this further passion to "penetrate" every corner of the heterosexual world and hold up the unnatural as the norm. Just quietly go about your lives and don't flaunt what is really something that exists but is not the same as that which is ordained. Besides, our matey in the picture is wearing less than pristine underwear. How's that for a reason to feel uncomfortable?






13 comments:

tris said...

Shoot the buggers at birth. That would save all this waste of time with rights and nonsenses. :)

Oldrightie said...

Hi, Tri, you might say that I...............comment!

Wesley 'Whitey Lawful' Mcgranor said...

Be offensive and freely associate. Lest you rationalyzations leads you to converting to Catholicism--thinking they offer a more conservative institution. As your flesh is sacrifised on the alter of the black eucharest, consumed with homosexxual delights of perverse flesh. It is the past counterculture that has brought this, not a higher piety that the Papist has. So the fixation of the 'anglo-catholic' has wrought such temptation. You have been tricked oh West! The Mohammedan hordes come for you. To fill a void left by you forsaking your once standing culture. You do not value discrimination and advocate postmodern equality -- then your churches will fall with the rest of your institutions.

tris said...

LOL OR... OK... I'll be the spokesman!

Oldrightie said...

"Mohammedan hordes come for you" as free of buggery as it gets. Or not as the case may be, Whitey.

Angry Exile said...

I think what our society has forgotten in its rush to right past intolerance is that discrimination is no more than making a choice, and you have to make choices every waking moment of each day. I hire someone for a job, the best I think of those available, and I have discriminated. I discriminate against random strangers by preferring the company of my friends. I often discriminate against coffee farmers in favour of tea farmers. It was once a compliment to be described as a gentleman of discriminating tastes, but these days people who openly cater for such gentlemen mostly seem to be call girls.

We've developed a phobia of discrimination and forgotten that it merely means choosing one option over another. I have certain prejudices, though as far as I know all legal, and I act accordingly. Vegetarians, anti-smoking zealots, warble gloaming catastrophists, politicians and authoritarians of all stripes. Oh, and Paul McCartney, who sometimes seems to qualify by being all of the above. These are all people I discriminate against. I call them names and I wouldn't want to hire one. I am intolerant. I wouldn't want to give them money. I wouldn't give them the steam off my piss in fact. This is all accepted as being opinion which I'm free to hold, providing I do not, say, beat Paul McCartney to the ground with a large bratwurst.

I do not discriminate against anyone on sex, sexual preference, skin colour or all the PC stuff because I long ago decided it doesn't matter to me personally. They don't get an automatic pass to Angry's Nice People File but unlike, say, Paul McCartney they don't automatically make me want to go out of my way to avoid them. I do discriminate against people who discriminate against others on sex, sexual preference, colour and so on because the bloody law makes me, and that's not on. I can say I hate Paul McCartney and that's fine providing the bratwurst stays in the larder, but if any of you say you don't like poofs that's hate speech and everyone is expected to hate you for your discrimination.

Why? You didn't say 'I've killed poofs and I remember where I buried them all'. All you did was make a choice over the kind of company you prefer and say so out loud. They don't bother me and I'm not bothered that they do bother you, but I'm supposed to be. In our tolerance driven society that kind of behaviour is, oddly enough, intolerable.

Startled Leafletter said...

Good, balanced analysis of the issue. I'm sickened by the Liberals need to get this pushed through as soon as possible. The problem we have is that "the other side" will never simply accept 'existing' but desire to foister their leanings on the rest of the population. When the Pope, Holy Father Benedict XVI said that this was "the most indsidious" of changes, he was not wrong!

Oldrightie said...

"warble gloaming catastrophists" Joyous phrase from a glorious comment/post. Thank you. SL, where have you been! Thank you as ever for sturdy support.

hypocrites said...

I must admit I'm always confused by churchgoers asking to be allowed to practise their religion in peace and not be forced to accept homosexuality etc into their church.
In a truly free society every believer would be immediately locked up for threatening us with the 'lake of fire' if we refused to submit to God.
Read their New Testament. It's in 'Revelations'. We will burn for eternity unless we submit to their crazy supernatural superstitions. Why are churchgoers allowesd to threaten us with eternal torture and not be taken to court ?
The answer is easy of course.
It's their 'Faith'.

Angry Exile said...

hypocrites, they don't threaten us with the lake of fire as they don't say that they themselves will push us in it. God's supposed to do it, not them. To paraphrase Saruman, it will not be their doing - they merely foretell. And since they may also be completely incorrect I'd say no harm, no foul. Yes, it's their faith that they get eternal reward and we get eternal torment, and that they should tell us so in an attempt to save us too, but it's just words and talk. We're not being dragged bodily anywhere and we're not going to be hacked to pieces for our heresy. I worry far more about them starting wars in the belief that they're doing God's work, and failing to notice that what they think is God's desire just happens - miraculously, perhaps - to parallel their own. But then the person I'm thinking of there might be less of a Christian and more of a twat.

As for not being forced to accept homosexuality or whatever else it is that this or that text, as interpreted by various believers in various faiths, says is wrong, to force them is to do away with property rights as well as freedom of association, belief and expression. If we secular types insist on it then we set the precedent for it to be done to us later.

For what it's worth the new law strikes a better balance. The state no longer prevents civil ceremonies in churches and will leave it to the owners to decide. The owners have all said not if it involves going against biblical teaching. As far as I'm concerned this is no different from me telling you that you can't have a party at my house. Does that mean gays who are religious are missing out? Yes, but not entirely. If they can find a member of their preferred clergy to come out to where they're holding their ceremony and do a reading or something then fair enough. And some clergy will be prepared to do that (I know of at least one).

Angry Exile said...

"warble gloaming catastrophists" Joyous phrase from a glorious comment/post.

Thank you, OR. For what it's worth, and don't take this the wrong way, I think of them as religious as well. They have dogma and articles of faith, they point at almost anything and claim it as evidence for their belief, and while they may be right they can't prove it. We must wait and see what the world is like in a century or two. Anything evidence that does not fit with this world view is ignored or twisted and beaten until it can be made to fit, or at least look like it does. I'll give theists of all kinds this: at least there's no real evidence that there isn't one or more gods, and to me that seems to put you in a better logical position than the warble gloaming catastrophists.

hypocrites said...

Angry...
They may just be saying what God said but I don't see how that lessons their culpability. Every day on tv talk shows, on the radio or even in our local High Street there are representatives of God screaming threats of eternal damnation and horrific torture if we don't submit to their sad supernatural superstitions.
Are you saying that if I started screaming threats in the street of a horrendous death unless people followed my cult that I wouldn't be arrested and taken away ?
Some protestors are arrested for merely stating their opinions with banners and peaceful vigils.

Angry Exile said...

Sorry for the late reply, hypocrites - I forgot to subscribe to the comments.

They may just be saying what God said but I don't see how that lessons their culpability. Every day on tv talk shows, on the radio or even in our local High Street there are representatives of God screaming threats of eternal damnation and horrific torture if we don't submit...

What reduces their culpability (to zero) is that they do not intend to do any pushing into lakes of fire themselves, and in fact probably believe that they would be incapable of doing so by dint of being immortal souls. They believe God will do the pushing. Consider this: if I say that I believe Spiny Norman will squash you if you are not kind to normal sized hedgehogs and give them milky bread have I threatened you? Or have I just said that a giant hedgehog whose very existence you'd no doubt find very doubtful is going to threaten you? Note that I cannot squash you and don't claim to be able to since I am not a giant hedgehog myself - I just claim that there is one.

Are you saying that if I started screaming threats in the street of a horrendous death unless people followed my cult that I wouldn't be arrested and taken away ?

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying, though it depends on who you claim will carry out the threats of horrible death. If you say you're going to do it or encourage or order your followers to do it then you should be. If you claim an intangible force or being exists which will be doing all the grim stuff then you would not actually be threatening anyone - you can't threaten on behalf a third party who may not even exist. You can make claims and forecast dire outcomes, and I've seen one of these droning End Is Nigh types doing just that in central Melbourne, but while everyone else is able to shrug and carry on as if nothing at all had happened you would have done nothing but voice a belief you can't substantiate. It might offend others but there is not and cannot ever be a right to not be offended. That's not to say that you would not be arrested - laws vary and some places probably would. But I think you should not be arrested - and certainly not in a libertarian legal environment - if you have done no actual harm and made no real threat beyond saying you believe harm would come to others, which when you come down to it is no more a real threat than a newspaper horoscope telling you that you're in for a shitty day.

That's not to say anything backed up by belief should always be ignored on the grounds that honestly held beliefs excuse anything. There's a line that when crossed demands sanction but if not crossed justifies no action at all. You can see it in Life of Brian. Watch Brian's followers: they harm nobody while all they do is making claims about Brian being their messiah, seeing signs in random things he's dropped and asking 'How shall we fuck off, o lord?' Whose liberty do they infringe? With the exception of Brian himself, nobody at all. The line appears when they begin screaming that the old man whose foot Brian accidentally trod on is a heretic and must be persecuted and killed, and they cross it when they decide that rather than leave it to whoever they think is upstairs they'd make damn sure by doing it themselves. Had they stopped at saying they believed he'd meet a nasty end and that he deserved it he could have replied 'Cobblers' and gone back to his hole.

Some protestors are arrested for merely stating their opinions with banners and peaceful vigils.

That's true and also, I feel, very unjust and illiberal. However, I'd say that sort of thing needs to stop altogether, not be extended to others who are also doing no more than stand and speak.