lunes, 26 de marzo de 2012



I've just decided this would be a lot better on the banner of the 'blog of the decent left', Harry's Place.  It was inspired by a comment of one of its heterosexual Contributers, 'Sarah AB' when hedging her bets on whether or not it is wrong to arrest Christians if they express a biblical view on homosexuality.

Having been banned I was then unbanned there, and then amid mutual backslapping over how true to their principles they are, my last two posts have been blocked.  I have asked Sarah to have the honour to publically state this giving the mutual backslapping going on about them not doing this, and have offered her the helpful advice of changing her banner slogan to the above.

My two last comments she wouldn't post were concerning her willingness to have someone clearly malevolent and unhinged as 'Flaming Fairy', who obfuscates the disproportionate incidence of paedophilia among homosexuals (a minimum of 300%), babysit for her little boy.  I found it very disturbing that she as a mother, would have a homosexual who would teach her little boy that homosexuality is normal babysit, but not a Christian who wouldn't even broach the subject of sex.  Chilling.  This is what you have to do to fit in with the new age fascism in today's Labour Party - put your children at risk to prove 'ideological purity'.  If you have time to go through the comments on her post Brendan O'Neill on Gay Marriage, you may share my view that she is clearly intimidated by the homosexual fascists she rubs shoulders with in the Labour Party.  And HP is the blog of the 'decent left'!!  Another banner might be 'Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to choose which fascisms you like and dont like'.  It's homosexual Contributers, Gene and Alec - especially Alec - have a visceral hatred of Judeo/Christian sexual morality that might make even Richard Dawkins blanche.

This is the last post of mine she blocked:-

While dcook and I disagree on homosexuality, I thought his post above from a democratic perspective was excellent.  One thing I would take issue with him on though is the following:-

 If the Church wants to believe that homosexuality is wrong then while I don’t agree with them I would defend their right to hold that view. (I believe Peter Thatchell says the same thing)

I didn't get this impression when Peter Tatchell and his chums at OUTRAGE! hijacked Easter Sunday Service at Canterbury Cathederal because the then Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, didn't see eye to eye with Mr Tatchell on homosexuality.

While we're at it, we may as well take a look at what Mr Tatchell (occasional HP Contributer) thinks of having sex with children:-

The letter, dated 26 June 1997, is reproduced in full below

ROS Coward (Why Dares to Speak says nothing useful, June 23) thinks it is “shocking” that Gay Men’s Press has published a book, Dares To Speak, which challenges the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive. I think it is courageous.

The distinguished psychologists and anthropologists cited in this book deserve to be heard. Offering a rational, informed perspective on sexual relations between younger and older people, they document examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike.

Prof Gilbert Herdt points to the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea, where all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood. Far from being harmed, Prof Herdt says the boys grow up to be happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers.

The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.

While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.

Peter Tatchell.

Thoughts anybody??  Alec, Flaming Fairy, Lamia?  Anything you'd like to share?

Alas, we shall never know.  I wonder if Sarah would have Peter Tatchell babysit for her?

2 comentarios:

  1. I have seen some comments from you have been deleted. I did not delete them, but I did earlier not approve some comments from you. I did not object to your raising the question of Peter Tatchell - that has been discussed before on HP - instead I objected to the fact you implied that a commenter on HP was likely to be a paedophile.

  2. Thank you for your comment Sarah but you'll appreciate it's highly disingenuous.

    As I've already stated, I would have disagreed with you suppressing my 'babysit' comment concerning your illiberal and obfuscating commenter on homosexual paedophilia, but understood your point of view. This is your excuse after the event to not have a free and open discussion about homosexuality. Conveniently the comments to your post are no longer there (as with all blogs on HP after a couple of weeks it seems) but on the spurious grounds of my babysit post you said no more comments from myself were going to be allowed, after mutual backslapping from yourself and homo-bigot posters on how true to your principles you had been on free speech, yet here you post you hadn't deleted any of my posts.

    The most telling aspect to your thread was when your homosexual HP colleague Alec issued me with a warning for responding to a comment from 'Brownie' stating I like taking it up the bum, by assuming there was no intended irony in his choice of nic. The comment by 'Brownie' was of no interest to him whatsoever. He also took exception to me using my real name instead of my nic to contribute to your blog!

    There is something distinctly malign apparent in Alec's character.

    What is the point in espousing liberal values if you're going to connive with such bigots in such appalling humbug for the sake of a quiet life? Where does such hypocrisy end?