Wednesday 21 March 2012

The Flames of Homophobia



There is an odd resemblance between Lynne Featherstone, the Equalities Minister in the present coalition government, and Argentina’s President Christina Kirchner. It’s not just the colouring and complexion: they both have a washed-out Botox look about them, faces that seem to be on the verge of collapse. Politically speaking there is also a resemblance: they are both provocateurs.

There is Kirchner, in this anniversary year, making waves over the British ‘occupation’ of the Falkland Islands. There is Featherstone, frantically waving her gay marriage flag, warning church leaders not to “fan the flames of homophobia” in their opposition to this absurdly unnecessary measure.

She clearly has no conception at all what marriage means, no conception of its significance in Christian thought and practice. Gay ‘marriage’ is a joke, a parody of the real thing, just as the black sabbath is a parody of the Christian mass. There is no prejudice here on my part; this is simply a statement of the facts, an understanding that marriage, since the earliest times, was conceived of as a union between man and women for the procreation of children.

Personally I can’t work up any particular energy over this issue; I do not understand why homosexuals need the final step of ‘marriage’ when civil partnerships already exist. Politically the whole thing is just so, well, patronising, a perfect example of the worst kind of trendy gesture politics. Actually I can work up some energy over an increasingly loud-mouthed lobby, one determined to advance its agenda, no matter the cost. I can get worked up by a Conservative government, yes, Conservative, seeking to undermine an important part of the social fabric, as if it has not already been seriously damaged.

Cost, yes; I can also get worked up about the cost implications of Featherstone’s proposal, which will see a Nineteen Eight-Four style purge of all official documents referring to husband and wife. Existing marriage certificates could even be threatened. In future we shall have spouses and partners, though I’m not at all sure who the spouse is and who is the partner!

According to the official analysis released alongside Featherstone’s recently published ‘consultation’ paper (consultation, what consultation?) the cost of this red tape revolution will run into millions. Oh, well, we have money to burn, do we not, in these economically vibrant times? We certainly do, bombing Libya into a new Islamic dark age at one point, introducing gay marriage and undermining Christianity at another. Oops, there I go, fanning the flames of homophobia!

Actually, no, but I am fanning the flames of Liberalphobia, expressing my contempt for all those knuckle-heads like Featherstone who have no greater cause than to interfere in the lives of others, forcing people to accept one fashionable ‘progressive’ cause or another, whether they want it or not. The sad truth about our present coalition is that a predominantly Conservative government is pursuing a social policy agenda that is being set by the Liberal minority.

I welcomed the advent of David Cameron, a refreshing change to the bleak years of New Labour, a refreshing change to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, those sleazy and morally debased ogres. But what a disappointment he has turned out to be, how weak and how vacillating. He is turning out to be a silly, frivolous, inconsequential little man, a politician of no real stature, a man nervous of his own shadow, a shadow in the shape of the risible Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Gay marriage is to be in place by the next general election, to be held, so the gay government marriage agreement goes, not before 2015. Stalin once asked sarcastically how many divisions the pope had. I ask how many people who vote Conservative are in any way enthused by gay marriage. Not many, I would hazard.

There is also, ironically, the illiberal tone of the debate, the terms of which are being set by Featherstone. It’s not about airing views; it’s about silencing dissent, as Simon Heffer argued recently in the Telegraph. It’s about the use of language. ‘Homophobic’ is just another of those words like ‘racist’, a slur to foreclose the argument. It’s being used even so far as churchmen, whose opposition to gay marriage is driven by scripture and canon law, not bigotry. Abuse, vilification and unreason, these are the small coins of a small and feather-brained mind. England does not love coalitions. How right Disraeli was.

20 comments:

  1. Put them all back in the closet where they belong!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent summary on the latest sad yet inevitable wrong headed development of David Cameron's government, Ana. You are right to talk about an 'illiberal tone' regarding this debate. Lynne Featherstone will brook no farther argument against her point of view. It would appear that a Liberal today is a very different animal to the Liberal of my Grandparents' era.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's just so typical, Nobby. They have become the arbiters of PC, that awful disease.

      Delete
  3. The fraud Kinsey announced that 10% of the male population is gay; the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes. Whatever the true number, it is miniscule. But from the influence the gay lobby wields, I have to believe that most of 'em are either in the government or they have salacious pictures of themselves with those who are.

    Linked to my post on Featherbrains (http://crockettlives.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/party-of-the-1st-part-do-you-take-this-person/)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks again, Bob, for moving this question to the front of my mind by your recent, and excellent, article. Did you ever see The Manchurian Candidate, I mean the original, not the remake with Glenn Close? I begin to feel that there is some truth here.

      Delete
  4. This is the fox-hunt-ban issue of this parliament. Its sole purpose is to enrage the most vocal and irrational and fill the media with nonsense to distract from other, far more serious issues, such as the climate conspiracy, immigration, europe, and, above all, money.

    Like other distractions: animal rights, abortion, etc., it has the great advantage that the polarities will never accept a decision as final; they will continue to argue their extreme until doomsday, so the issue can be revived again and again, forever. Yet, so few people actually care one way or another, it doesn't really affect popular voting at all, while making it appear to the unsophisticated that issues of great moment are being discussed exhaustively in the popular fora. Behind this noisy diversion, the nation is being stolen by blackguards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, dear Calvin, how right, how perspicacious you are.

      Delete
  5. "Gay ‘marriage’ is a joke, a parody of the real thing, just as the black sabbath is a parody of the Christian mass."

    Masterful words, Ana. And, more importantly still, true, ones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Dominic. It's nice to see you, as always. :-)

      Delete
  6. I am beginning to wonder whether there is in the drive to institutionalize "gay marriage" a political agenda by militant homosexuals: to subvert and marginalize the moral thinking of heterosexuals.

    Ordinarily, a person's sexuality is of no interest or concern to me, but the modern usage of the word "gay" sticks in my throat, and if someone were to try to accuse me of "homophobia", I'd be tempted to retort: "Me? I'm not afraid of a bunch of queers!" Except that they probably wouldn't spot the joke.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Another well-written and thoughtful post, thanks. Definitely political correctness is going out of hand everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have never believed the estimates of the numbers of homosexuals. I think there are:

    1. Lots of men who don't like women.
    2. Lots of men who can't make a relationship with a women work.
    3. Lots of quite unattractive women.
    4. Lots of women who don't like men.

    Living with a woman takes lots of hard work and tolerance. Almost as much as it takes a women to live with a man.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Michael, sorry I missed this comment. Yes, absolutely correct, especially the last part. :-))

    ReplyDelete
  10. You start with an ad hominem (attacking the person rather than the argument), which doesn't bode well for the rest of the post.

    You then assert that "marriage, since the earliest times, was conceived of as a union between man and women for the procreation of children." You do not support this statement with evidence. It is mere assertion and conjecture. In fact, In fact, the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is more modern than many think. At least two of the Roman Emperors were in gay unions, and, according to the historian, John Boswell, the orthodox church's practice of "adelphopoiesis," was an early form of gay union. Additionally, the institution of marriage has always been flexible: For example, the Catholic church has had to accept that re-marriages and divorces are a common occurrence these days. Hence, the idea, propagated by the church, that they are defending the institution of marriage against “radical change,” is blinkered in light of this history.

    You then talk about damaging the "social fabric" and about "trendy, gesture politics" which is a nice metaphor, but it's not really an argument with any purchase, so I'm not sure how to respond.

    Your next paragraph is straight from the Daily Mail, and there is no reference to any source whatsoever for another assertion that the proposals will "purge... all official documents referring to husband and wife."

    You then talk bout the cost of a consultation. A consultation which would have been completely un-necessary if it weren't for a bigoted minority who are against this change.

    Then you argue against "knuckle-heads like Featherstone who have no greater cause than to interfere in the lives of others, forcing people to accept one fashionable ‘progressive’ cause or another." This claim is the most absurd and fanciful, since it is no interference in your life - whatsoever - to allow me and my husband to marry, if I wish it. The claim is garbage.

    Then you're back to ad hominem again, followed by an unsubstantiated argumentum ad populum... If this is the "conservative case against gay marriage," I can rest easy!

    Read a full counter-argument here: http://www.jamesarmstrong.org.uk/2012/03/11/a-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, the bargain basement Socrates. :-)

      Look, sweetie this is a blog with a purpose. It’s polemical and political. The very heart of any political critique is the personal, the ad hominem people refer to ad nauseum. I take no prisoners. I will mix facts with the most trenchant criticism, laced with a large dose of sardonic humour. My ideas and expressions, moreover, are my own. I don’t trot out the ideas of others in a tired second hand fashion, a knowledge absorbed but not earned. Look, let me be frank; I don’t like you and your kind. In case of any misunderstanding I mean I don’t like unimaginative and boring little prigs. Oops, ad hominem. :-))

      Delete