Saturday 2 June 2012

Same sex marriage and the politics of elitism

An article by Brian Clowes posted earlier this week on LifeSite News examines ‘The six ways homosexual activists manipulate public opinion’.

It argues that ‘homophile strategists’ are very adept at manipulating public opinion with an arsenal of six tactics that are based upon deceptions and half truths:

1.Exploit the ‘victim’ status
2.Use the sympathetic media
3.Confuse and neutralize the churches
4.Slander and stereotype Christians
5.Bait and switch (hide their true nature)

Clowes’ whole article is well worth a read especially for its references to the early gay rights publication ‘After the ball’ and to American hate-crime statistics.

But I also heard a masterful speech on item 1 (‘Exploit the victim status’) this week by ‘Spiked-on-line’ editor Brendan O’Neill at a London debate on same-sex marriage between Catholic Voices and the British Humanist Association.

O’Neill has now placed it on his website under the title ‘The fashion for gay marriage has nothing in common with the civil-rights campaigns of the 1960s’ – also well worth a read.

He argues that, whilst gay-marriage activists often compare themselves to the civil-rights campaigners of 1960s America, in so doing they actually unwittingly draw attention to the vast differences between these two movements.

The greatest difference, he says, is between the agony suffered by those civil-rights campaigners compared with the celebrity and adulation enjoyed by gay-marriage activists today.

‘In order for gay marriage to become one of the most celebrated issues of our time, embraced by everyone from David Cameron to The Times to Goldman Sachs, nobody had to fight on the streets; nobody had to organise long and bitter boycotts of public institutions; nobody was water-cannoned by the authorities, attacked by police dogs, burnt out of their homes.

Where civil-rights campaigners had to go through all those things and more for their cause to be taken seriously, gay-marriage campaigners just had to say “We want to get married”, and, hey presto, the vast bulk of the political and media class said “Yes! We agree! This is the most pressing equality issue of our time!”’

He draws attention to the ‘remarkable ease with which gay marriage has moved up the political agenda’ showing ‘that this is an issue which the political elite feels very comfortable with’.

‘… for all the gay-marriage activists’ rather desperate claims to be like the oppressed blacks of the past, this is in fact a very elitist campaign. It is underpinned by an aloof and disdainful political outlook.’

He then outlines those areas where the gay-marriage issue has more in common with the modern-day politics of elitism than it does with olden-day civil-rights campaigning:

‘The first is in its snobbery towards vast sections of society; the second is in its intolerance of dissent; and the third is in its indifference to the lives and experiences of everyday people.’

Firstly, its snobbery. Gay-marriage supporters have a real tendency to look upon their critics, not as people who might be won over, but as backward, uneducated creatures, whose minds have possibly been warped by religion.

Opponents of gay marriage are frequently said to be suffering from “homophobia”, which, as one gay writer recently reminded us, is a “recognised mental illness”. ..

…This verbal abuse, so unbecoming of supposedly liberal campaigners, shows the extent to which gay marriage has been turned into a marker of respectability. Expressing support for gay marriage has become a key way of distinguishing yourself from the unenlightened mob. This is one of the main reasons it is so attractive to the political elite – it allows them, everyone from discredited investment banks to fusty old conservative newspapers, to advertise their moral credentials by contrasting themselves with the ignorant homophobes at large in society.’

Secondly, there is the intolerance of dissent. If gay marriage really is a civil-rightsy, freedom-orientated issue, then why are so many of its supporters so hostile to open debate?

… gay marriage is a uniquely black-and-white issue on which no “cultural differences” of opinion can be tolerated. So it isn’t surprising that when anyone does put forward an alternative view, they tend to be shot down in flames. …This hostility to dissent also speaks to the elitism of the gay-marriage issue. What the political class and various political cliques love about gay marriage is the sense of belonging to a club, a decent, moral, enlightened club which has come to the “right answer” on gay marriage.‘

His conclusion?

‘What we have in the gay-marriage issue is elitism disguised as equality. Strip away the self-flattering civil-rights garb, and you can clearly see a top-down campaign which demands conformism, which demonises cultural difference, and which invites the state further into people’s private lives.’

Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the recently launched Out4marriage campaign, where we see politicians and media celebrities fawning and falling over each other to register their politically correct soundbites for youtube videos.

Items 4 and 6 in the list of manipulative techniques above were ‘slander and stereotype Christians’ and ‘intimidation’.

I made the mistake of tweeting a link to Brian Clowes article earlier today as follows:

‘The six ways #homosexual activists manipulate public opinion. Interesting article #gay #lgbt #homosexuality’

Within just over an hour I received the list of tweets below which rather beautifully illustrated the point.

I am not ‘homophobic’ but ‘homosceptic’. I do not dislike gay people and certainly do not feel intimidated by homosexual activists (if I did I would not be posting this!)

But I do believe it is important that the manipulative techniques of some homosexual activists are identified, named and exposed in the interests of robust honest debate.

So there you are.

Tweets I received in just over an hour for flagging Brian Clowes article

Toni Jenkins ‏@amnerisuk
@drpetersaunders Why do gays trouble you do much? I'm RC and married but don't see them as a threat just different

Tammy Newman ‏@tamnet11
“@welsh_gas_doc: Blimey @drpetersaunders, sometimes there are no words. Your obsession with gays is quite remarkable.” - he should come out

Alexander Dando ‏@ajd90
@drpetersaunders @welsh_gas_doc Perhaps not the best representation for a Christian organisation eh?!

Bob Churchill ‏@bobchurchill
@drpetersaunders Intimidation? Every LGBT rights event I've ever been to has a Xian handing out hate lit, or telling people they're evil.

ClareBear ‏@coldilox
@welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders the obsession is somewhat telling, no?

Rachel Holmes ‏@mcgingersnap
For ways in which anti-gay activists manipulate public opinion, see Prop 8 judgments. Evidence-based court decisions.@drpetersaunders

Stuart Sutton ‏@StuSutton
I find @drpetersaunders twitter feed depressing - I don't believe most Christian doctors share his #homophobic views so why is he #CMFCEO?

Rachel Holmes ‏@mcgingersnap
.@drpetersaunders 6 ways gay activists manipulate public opinion? 1. Appeal to humanity. 2 - 6. Repeat 1. (Only works if audience has soul.)

Andrew ‏@GahndiAndy
@welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders classic overcompensation.

Ben Humphrys ‏@benhumphrys
@drpetersaunders @welsh_gas_doc If you accept that people can be born gay (i do), most of this 'homosexual agenda' is just child protection.

Jonathon Tomlinson ‏@mellojonny
@welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders eg Rt wing hatred/ fear of vulnerability

Charles ‏@charleshvl
@drpetersaunders far-right Christians playing the victim card as they find it's no longer socially acceptable to dehumanise humans

Jonathon Tomlinson ‏@mellojonny
@welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders public obsession is usually a sign of internal repression

Craig Williams ‏@IntenseGas
@drpetersaunders @welsh_gas_doc,frightening how too closely held belief can damage.

Fi Douglas ‏@fidouglas
@MargoJMilne @keirshiels @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders Ah, the great irony of all those people who have bible verses tattooed on them...

Margo Milne ‏@MargoJMilne
@keirshiels @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders DOI: I have a tattoo. I presume I'm therefore doomed to burn for eternity?

Fi Douglas ‏@fidouglas
@keirshiels @margojmilne @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders in that case, I bow to your superior knowledge. :-)

Petersmam ‏@petersmam
@MargoJMilne @keirshiels @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders*shudders at mention of shellfish* *cuddles a gay to recover*

Keir Shiels ‏@keirshiels
@fidouglas @margojmilne @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaundersJesus redacted that one too.

Keir Shiels ‏@keirshiels
@MargoJMilne @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders in fairness, Jesus redacted that sin. But he never redacted tattooing.

Fi Douglas ‏@fidouglas
@MargoJMilne @keirshiels @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders Or wear clothes with blended fibres...

Margo Milne ‏@MargoJMilne
@keirshiels @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders Or eat shellfish...

Keir Shiels ‏@keirshiels
@welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders far more people have tattoos than are gay. Why not concentrate on a more prevalent Levitican "abomination"?

Gareth Bundy ‏@gabundy
@drpetersaunders @welsh_gas_doc Methinks the good Dr Saunders doth protest too much!

Esther ‏@FabFingertips1
@feekelife @drpetersaunders Sounds like it!

Lageraemia ‏@Lageraemia
@drpetersaunders @welsh_gas_doc @PeteDeveson As a PoliceSurgeon, I can confirm that gayness not a factor in deprivation and crime #wrongtree

Andy ‏@fintanbear
@drpetersaunders It would appear that article is employing all six ways to manipulate opinion too. (cc @welsh_gas_doc )

Tom Mallinson ‏@MallinsonT
@drpetersaunders "atheist" answers still more sensible than "an alien who likes to be worshipped did it & my book says so" - sorry

Matt ‏@matthud59
@welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders Methinks he doth protest too much!

sheila scoular ‏@sheilascoular
@MargoJMilne @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders The voracious interest in other people's sex lives of so-called religious folk is disturbing.

Peter ‏@PME200
@welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders And was as if this study came as a *complete* surprise to us all!

Ben ‏@tooPsychedout
@drpetersaunders It alarms me that you as former Doctor have so little understanding of Science & seem to be so keen on such pseudo-science

Paul Davies ‏@docpgd
“@drpetersaunders: The six ways #homosexual activists manipulate public opinion. Are you ****ing kidding me!

Brownhills Bob ‏@BrownhillsBob
You're evil >> RT @drpetersaunders: The six ways homosexual activists manipulate public opinion. Interesting article

Kees Engels ‏@KeesEngels
@LazyJaySez @drpetersaunders THE XENOPHOBIA! IT BURNS!

BendyGirl ‏@BendyGirl
@MargoJMilne @welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders Had to stop reading. The inbuilt hatred made me gag.

LazyJay ‏@LazyJaySez
@welsh_gas_doc You noticed too? @drpetersaunders

Pank ‏@originalpanksta
@welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders #comingoutofthecloset Live and let live FFS

Margo Milne ‏@MargoJMilne
@welsh_gas_doc @drpetersaunders ...and possibly pathological

Dave Jones ‏@welsh_gas_doc
Blimey @drpetersaunders, sometimes there are no words. Your obsession with gays is quite remarkable.

LazyJay ‏@LazyJaySez
BIGOT DETECTED RT @drpetersaunders: The six ways#homosexual activists manipulate public opinion. Interesting article

Simon Feeke ‏@feekelife
@drpetersaunders you are obsessed with homosexuality - I think you need to get laid more often!

john Fairhurst ‏@mail2fairhurst
@drpetersaunders very interesting article, the writer depicts gay people as almost sub human, the article is dripping with hate and bigotry


  1. "Within just over an hour I received the list of tweets below which rather beautifully illustrated the point. "

    My dear fellow, they illustrate the fact that you've made yourself a reputation as a homophobic tit who lies and twists his and others' words. You are a grave embarrassment to the cause of Christianity, which you claim to defend.

    So which are you: a fool or a troll?

    1. I am not a fool - this is clearly defined in Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 and does not apply to me.

      Nor a troll - a troll is a person who uses a nom de plume rather than their real name and makes offensive comments on other people's websites. A touch of irony there!

      Finally can you define 'homophobic tit' for me and others? Then we can discuss whether or not the label applies to me.

  2. Robust, honest debate might possibly occur is everybody were being honest. However, that nasty little fundamentalist website you linked to has banned me, although all I did was politely point out flaws in arguments.

    Peter dear, you ARE a bigot. You're not stupid, so you could yet be saved. Lay down your overweening pride, open your mind and heart, let what Jesus said about gays be your guideline when condemning them as sinful. Right now you're more like the Pharisee and the Sadducee than the Samaritan.

    1. Are you calling Life Site News, one of the world's most popular prolife portals, a 'nasty little fundamentalist website'? Why? Is it because it takes a contrary view to your own?

      Please tell me what Jesus say about 'gays'.

  3. "I am not ‘homophobic’ but ‘homosceptic’" is the way all homophobes describe themselves.

    Clearly you are homophobic Peter, and the greatest homophobes are always those that are deepest in the closet.

    I find it somewhat disturbing that I haven't visited this page for a couple of months (until my return to it yesterday) and you are still banging on about not letting gay people get married.

    Homophobia probably is an illness, but so is believing in supernatural beings which defy the physical laws of our universe.

    1. If you are going to accuse me of being 'homophobic' could you please define the term for me (and others)?

      I certainly neither dislike nor fear gay people. In fact I have many close friends who are gay and I spend a lot of time talking with others.

      To many people 'homophobic' seems simply to mean having a different opinion on any issue from the gay rights lobby.

      But how do you define it? Pray tell.

    2. Whilst I respect the fact that you take time to engage with people who respond on your site, I really think it's best not to feed trolls. When a man considers faith as a disease, he has shown such a primitive lack of logical thought that you'd have as much success persuading an asylum inmate that he isn't really Napoleon Bonaparte.

    3. Thanks. These three are part of the crowd of atheists and gay rights activists who follow me on blogger and/or twitter. They all use nom de plumes to hide their identity and this stuff is typical of what they write.

      They are very much at the polite end of the spectrum.

      They don't generally use logic but prefer ad hominem attacks.

      You will see from other pages that often I choose not to respond but I have chosen to do so on this occasion.

      As a general rule I usually accept responses from those who are registered with google even if they remain anonymous but I have had to close the blog to anonymous posters as I otherwise I get too much frankly obscene material posted.

      Very few of my opponents are interested in rational debate.

    4. Thanks. These three are part of the crowd of atheists and gay rights activists who follow me on blogger and/or twitter. They all use nom de plumes to hide their identity and this stuff is typical of what they write.
      I am more than happy to reveal my real name but I am not sure what purpose it would serve. Additionally I am not a gay rights activist although I am an atheist.

      They don't generally use logic but prefer ad hominem attacks.... Very few of my opponents are interested in rational debate.

      Using logic to argue with people who have a sky buddy on their side is often pointless. The very fact that you believe in a god opens you up to ridicule, the fact you cannot understand why is not our problem.

      Rational debate should start with asking why you are anti gay rights and end with you admitting that we should all have the same equal rights - that has been tried but you subvert the issue into some nonsense about your god being offended by the very people he is supposed to have created.

      K Rodgers -

  4. 1. The fact that so many people responded to the article outlining their subversive tactics by using tactics 4 and 6 is hilariously apt.

    2. The use of the term homophobe (because who isn't afraid of things that are the same?) has become counter-productive. It has cheapened the term. The originators of this obviously thought they were being clever by associating anyone with whom they disagreed with irrational thugs who beat people because they are different. However they were too caught up in their gay argument panacea to realise how much it's been cheapened. One time a 'homophobic attack' raised images of skinheads attacking a young gay man in the street minding his own business. Nowadays it conjures up nought more than a man who disagrees with a homosexual in public. Homosexuals thought they won the war to manipulate the English language, but now homophobia means nothing. It is the word that cried wolf.

    I don't need to assert that my opponent is irrational using a unintelligent cliché portmanteau of x and phobia; I prove it using logic. Christians are hated far more in this country than homosexuals, yet I rarely hear the word 'Christianophobic'. That's because we have proper arguments to back our case.

    1. 1. Yes I agree.

      2. Again I agree. That is why I ask people to define the term. The term 'homophobe' has become so cheapened that it now applies to anyone who disagrees with the gay rights ideology for whatever reason.

      3. Christians should expect to be hated if they express Christian beliefs or values. Jesus himself said we would be. But there are some who listen in to these sorts of conversations and change their minds and for them it is eternally worth it.

  5. Peter,

    You perhaps should have realized by now that the one thing which the 'gay-rights' mob detest above anything is informed and civilized comment which negates their every argument.

    I have long argued that the last thing to be observed around the so-called 'gay rights community' is gaiety or happiness. I know many homosexual couples who just wish to get on with their lives, don't wish to rock the boat in any way whatsoever, and therefore behave in the same, quiet discreet manner as everyone else around. They have achieved, through one of the very, very few pieces of sensible Labour legislation passed in thirteen years, acceptance of their stature in the Civil Partnership Law, and that is perhaps what was necessary to amend injustice and a lack of accessibility to benefits, pensions, etc., but that milestone was just the clarion-call for the vociferously awful minority who do really give the homosexual community such a bad name.

    The statement by Cameron that he is an advocate of ‘gay marriage’ should be heard in the context of the fact that he is, first and foremost, a politician. Can you remember the last time a politician spoke when those words would be regarded as gospel. I would place two names in contention for that honour; the first being that of Enoch Powell, the last true gentleman politician, and the second of course being Margaret Thatcher. Cameron’s message is that he is ‘hip’, up-to-speed’ and at one with all things ‘progressive’ I reckon he is just as described by a Tory MP; namely one of a pair of ‘Posh Boys’ who don’t even know the price of a pint of milk.

    As for the ‘bent brigade’, they might see the beginning of legislation which would attempt to change the very idea of Marriage as being the sole preserve of a man and a woman, but I would argue that there are too many barriers which should and will be erected by all the Churches and Faiths against such legislation, because they know that once the Civil Marriage Act is passed, the pressure will be on those in Religion to change and accept such change. Because Marriage has always been for the preservation of the Family, and the only natural way of procreation is sexual congress between a man and a woman, that is why the ‘Gay Mob’ want to change things forever, because that is just what they cannot do!

  6. Hmmm. My responses keep disappearing after several hours. I wonder why that could be? Are you deleting them in the hopes that people will assume I used bad words? All I did was (correctly) point out your status as the single greatest reason for anyone who is reading this to completely disregard the Christian faith, an otherwise perfectly respectable religion.

    Or maybe, just maybe, your carefully constructed wall of denial and self importance is starting to crumble. You cannot stand to acknowledge the fact that you are a joke to some and an embarrassment to 1.5 billion others. You could just ignore what I wrote, like you have ignored literally everything else I and others have written that does not consist of praise for you as the second coming of Jesus, but if you do not have the last word then you just can't live with yourself.

    Or maybe this is all just a computer glitch or something. That must be it, since you have such impeccable integrity.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.