Thursday, 3 November 2011

David Cameron’s promotion of the gay rights agenda is based on a false presupposition

The government has approved the proposal to allow civil partnership ceremonies to be conducted at places of worship.

Civil partnerships in English law are legally exclusive to same-sex couples and in practice are used only by homosexual couples. They have already been granted many of the ‘rights belonging to marriage’ in English law.

John Smeaton has this week catalogued how rapidly the homosexual agenda is advancing as follows:

•3 October: the Home Office announces that passports will now have the option of naming same-sex couples as the passport holder's parents

•10 October: Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary, says the government will cut overseas aid to governments which don't respect so-called 'gay rights'

•23 October: a Christian housing manager is demoted by his employer for opposing gay marriage in a comment on his personal Facebook profile

•24 October: Tesco announces that it is now a major sponsor of the London Gay Pride festival

•27 October: the Commonwealth's secretary-general and the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group endorses the homosexual agenda

•28 October: a politician is voted off a Citizens Advice Bureau board for his opposition to gay marriage.


But these recent events in one month are just part of a much longer line.

On 21 September 2010, the Liberal Democrats, the junior member in the governing coalition, became the first major political party to formally endorse same-sex marriage, when the party's conference in Liverpool approved a policy motion ‘Equal Marriage in the United Kingdom’.

In February 2011 the government expressed its intention to begin a consultation to allow both religious same-sex ceremonies and civil marriage for same-sex couples.

In September 2011, the Government announced its intention to introduce same-sex civil marriage by the next general election.

A consultation on same-sex marriage is expected next Spring.

Cameron’s endorsement of same-sex marriage is consistent with his sacking of Tory election candidate Philip Lardner last year for stating on his website that he believed homosexual acts were ‘not normal behaviour’, a view held by a significant section of the British population.

Tory MP Chris Grayling’s comments about Christians offering ‘bed and breakfast’ being justified in denying double beds to gay couples staying in their homes almost certainly cost him a cabinet post.

And Theresa May managed to hold on as Equality Minister after the election, despite over 75,000 people joining a Facebook group asking for her to be sacked on the basis of her past ‘homophobic’ voting record, but only because she said her views on homosexuality had changed.

It seems that it is no longer acceptable in David Cameron’s Britain to express the view that homosexual acts are in any way unnatural or immoral. But in fact the orthodox Christian position, upheld by the Bible itself, is that they are both.

Peter Tatchell, homosexual rights campaigner, said recently:

‘There would be uproar if the government banned Jewish people from marriage and offered them civil partnerships instead. We would call it an anti-Semitic law; something we would expect in Nazi Germany not democratic Britain. Well, Jews are not banned from marriage but gay people are.’

Tatchell’s argument is based on the false presupposition that homosexuality is a biological characteristic analogous to race when it is nothing of the sort.

And yet David Cameron seems to have swallowed this presupposition hook, line and sinker.

This false belief – that homosexuality is biologically determined – is one of several myths propagated by the gay rights lobby to advance their cause.

The Urban dictionary defines a 'homosceptic' as ‘a member of society who does not hate homosexuals, but generally does not agree with the principle of homosexuality in moral and ethical terms’.

I have previously argued that this definition should be broadened to include ‘being sceptical about the key presuppositions of the gay rights movement’ such as the beliefs that:

• Homosexuality is genetically determined
• Homosexual orientation is always fixed
• Sexual orientation is a biological characteristic like race, sex or skin colour
• Feelings of same sex attraction should be welcomed and acted upon
• Offering help to those who wish to resist unwanted same-sex attraction is wrong

David Cameron I suspect, by contrast, holds the above five beliefs to be true. He is of course fully entitled to this conviction.

But he should not be imposing these questionable personal convictions on the rest of us by using the rule of law. That is an abuse of political power.

15 comments:

  1. Maybe you should write to him and tell him so

    ReplyDelete
  2. May I ask how you know that Homosexuality is not genetically determined or a biological characteristic? All science suggests the contrary...that there is at least an element of biological determination (for example its also found in 450 animal species) and that there is nothing that can be done to change it. Perhaps if someone is bisexual they could go along with saying they've been "cured" but as a gay person I am unaware of any reputable scientific data to suggest any of those two propositions you make are correct.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pippinsmum, I have written to David Cameron on a number of issues. It is a fruitless exercise. He lives in a small bubble listening only to trusted advisors who also live in small bubbles and filter what he hears and reads.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous, If same-sex attraction was biologically determined then all identical twins would share the same sexual orientation. They don't, especially if reared in different environments. There is no evidence for a 'gay gene' in humans where sexuallity is very complex.

    Nature, nurture, choice and habit all play a part - the aetiology is complex. Pure homosexual orientation is extremely rare especially amongst females. Bisexuality is much more common and there is also a spectrum of preference within many individuals and plasticity over time.

    I will return to this issue in later blogs. If you want scientific data then email me via the site and I will give you some links. Blogspot comments doesn't do html easily but one piece I jointly wrote some years ago is at http://bit.ly/vh3McM (cut and paste url)

    The British media (and hence our prime minister and his advisors) approach this issue in an extremely simplistic way. This is also of course, because of the powerful vested interests involved, an area par excellence where scientific objectivity is virtually impossible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter,

      You seem to be under the misapprehension that there aren't cases of identical twins sharing the same sexual orientation (there are even cases of twins reared in different environments sharing the same sexuality), which pretty much demolishes that argument. A study of twins in 1991 published in The Archives of General Psychiatry, found 52 percent of identical twin brothers of gay men also were gay, compared with 22 percent of fraternal twins, compared with 11 percent of genetically unrelated brothers.

      I would agree it has a complex aetiology, but I don't think choice is one of them. There is no evidence of people choosing to be gay. I, for one, never would have chosen to be gay knowing the discrimination and prejudice that one would face from small-minded, backward thinkers.

      Delete
  5. Every credible medical, psychiatric and psychological institution regards homosexuality as a perfectly normal, natural and harmless trait. End of story.

    Did you actually get that article of yours published in any peer reviewed journal, Dr Saunders? Science has moved on a lot since 1997, and in any case. It's bad enough that you down-play the evidence for homosexuality being a natural trait by talking about a single gay gene; as a creationist who pretends that we didn't evolve, you cannot believe in genetics in the first place.

    You are welcome to your opinions. Nobody is forcing you to have a gay marriage or even change your obnoxious, unsupported opinions about gay people. The law is simply protecting gay people - and gay families - allowing them to lead full lives, without being discriminated against.

    And, what is this 'homosexual agenda'? The reason why your opinions don't count is because millions of gay people have come out to friends and families and dispelled fears and unfounded prejudices, and changed opinions.

    Youg gay people have an increasing number of great role models such as John Amaechi, Gareth Thomas, Ian Roberts, Ian McKellen, Steven Fry and many others who are not afraid to say: here we are, deal with it.

    The real agenda is a fundamentalist, sectarian, evidence-hating one that wants to drag us all back to the Dark Ages and destroy civilisation. No wonder that the same people who fulminate against gay rights also want to get creationist junk science taught in schools. The only hope is a Secular Europe that embraces the values of the Enlightenment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AdrianT,

      After reading your arguments, I can tell that Peter Saunders is becoming my role model!

      Delete
    2. Adrian,

      I share all your views, especially the one for a secular Europe (but lets hope it doesn't just stop there - a secular world would be a better one for the benefit of mankind!).

      Delete
  6. AdrianT – brief responses to your various arguments below

    1.Every medical, psychiatric and psychological institution regards homosexuality as a perfectly normal, natural and harmless trait. End of story.

    Response: Not at all. Institutions hold their positions for a variety of reasons. The APA, which led on this, changed its position on homosexuality in 1973 out of political expediency rather than evidence. The point is not what institutions say but what the evidence supports. It is foolish to blindly follow institutions without examining the evidence.

    2.Did you actually get that article of yours published in any peer reviewed journal, Dr Saunders? Science has moved on a lot since 1997.

    Response: My article references peer-reviewed journals and should be judged on the basis of the evidence it presents and not on where it was published. There is little new on this subject that has been published in the last ten years and the general consensus is that homosexuality is a complex product of genetic influences, environmental influences and personal choice.

    3. Millions of gay people have come out to friends and families and dispelled fears and unfounded prejudices, and changed opinions.

    Response: According the Wellings survey there are less than half a million homosexual people in Britain but even if they had the validity of their views should be assessed on the strength of the evidence and not on the strength of their personal convictions and vested interests.

    4. Role models such as John Amaechi, Gareth Thomas, Ian Roberts, Ian McKellen and Steven Fry support this view.

    Response: The fact that two actors and three sportsmen believe something does not make it true.

    5. The real agenda is a fundamentalist, sectarian, evidence-hating one that wants to drag us all back to the Dark Ages and destroy civilisation.

    Response: It is a free society and you are entitled to your opinion. But blaming all opposition on prejudice is the weakest of all arguments. My case rests on the evidence and you have not come up with any counter evidence – just name-calling and lists of people who back your view. It is precisely this sort of approach to arguments – labelling without intellectual engagement - that is the real risk to civilistion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter,

      I think you'll find that the APA changed its position on homosexuality, due to lack of evidence of it being a disorder. It is more realistic and self-evident that a decline in religious influence led to the change in homosexuality being defined in more accurate terms, as an alternative sexuality. I think in terms of mental disorder, it won't be long before we see religious belief correctly characterised as a psychological disorder (and rightfully so!).

      Delete
    2. "won't be long before we see religious belief correctly characterised as a psychological disorder (and rightfully so!" Nicely worded"

      Delete
  7. Thanks Peter, I thought you probably had,I was thinking of doing so myself, but thought it might be pointless. I pray he will either be converted. or deposed ASAP

    ReplyDelete
  8. Adrian T. Can you point to any articles of substance that demonstrate that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality? There may be many unscientfic articles published in "scientific" journals to try and demonstrate this but none that can stand up to scrutiny. Like those who follow the Darwinist religion, the abuse of the scientific process in the literature is bringing science and its literature into disrepute. Read Darwin on Trial by Prof Philip Johnson. Editors and peers of many so called scientific journals are as untrustworthy as our PMs and bankers and ourselves as well.
    I think the first sentence in your last paragraph is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks Peter for not being swayed from the truth and declaring it so boldly.

    ReplyDelete
  10. call of duty free download full version To start downloading Call of Duty Black Ops 2 for free, just follow the download link provided below.

    ReplyDelete