Monday, 27 October 2008

Is this an oxymoron?

Click for larger image of the proud sponsors
and spenders of our money


Now I must confess I did not have the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual History month pencilled into my diary as a month not to miss but I did wonder on reading about it, whether there was an oxymoron somewhere in the story.

This year, it is being sponsored by the Department for Children, Schools and Families and that I found a bit strange. Now being an up front type of guy, I must declare to having Lesbian tendencies. I have always been attracted to women, especially attractive ones. Sometimes after a few beers too many, almost every woman in sight in fact.

However the homosexual practices of "rimming and fisting" have never appealed to me. Much to the disappointment of the stunted UAF dwarf Mr Fister who is much attracted to me by all accounts.

Neither have I ever wished to share any of my lady friends with a third person of either sex and the last thing I would ever do is to transform myself into the Green Goddess every other Tuesday.

No, for me, natures way seems the best way of propagating the species and to me families are made up of a Mother, Father and Children. Call me old fashioned but that is the way I see things.

Of course, given that previous sponsors of this event include the NHS, CPS, TUC, and other numerous organisations that feed of what I like to call, normal people, I may well be wrong. But I doubt it.
February 2009 will be the fifth edition of LGBT History Month in the UK. It will also mark the tenth anniversary of the Stephen Lawrence Report; we are proud to be a player in the work to challenge all forms of prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination.
Oh. I wondered how they would work in Saint Stephen of Lawrence.

No. I believe that what people choose to do to each other in the privacy of their own homes is their business, however I do not believe that our government should be promoting those lifestyles as being equal to family values. Those lifestyles are dead ends for children. By the way, I do not include Public Toilets or Parks as being classed as a persons "own home".


24 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think that most sensible people are becoming increasingly nauseous when they witness the continual celebration of the "anti" to all that is decent, especially when they repeatedly roll out the Lawrence affair, after all there have been many more killed for racial reasons since his unfortunate demise, why not use Kris Donald as an example?. And G.A. you stole my thunder, I was about to mention the lovely Mr Fister and then I saw you had. he's famous!...or infamous.

ivan said...

UAF dwarf Mr Fister ?? is this parasite that takes it in his stride to call up schools and make threats still going ? i thought he hung about under margate pier these days with the cockles and muscles he most feels at home with.To those that have never seen a picture of the fister,he looks like a cross between a mackerel and a tuna with matchsticks as legs

Anonymous said...

Well be thankful for small mercies green arrow, and i'm very glad this came up. I've printed this out for my Irish brickie husband to show to his "equally thick" Irish mates on site. (not m y words, the EU's)
Four signed tonight to BNP, pray more to follow!

Katherine

Anonymous said...

So their proud to be a player in the work to challenge all forms of discrimination. I take it they'll be in Birmingham on the 17th november.

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength said...

What is the 'Ministry of Justice' it sounds positively Orwellian?

The Green Arrow said...

War is Peace. Yes I thought that also. Ministry of Justice.

Soon we will have the Ministry of Truth and the Ministry for Re-Education.

R.H said...

Damn, these crazy homosexuals must be stopped! Encouraging kids to be gay is almost as bad as the Black Police Association and other minority 'support' groups encouraging kids to be black, and to rape and murder like black people!

/sarcasm

The irony is that its attitudes like this that make LGBT support groups necessary; sexuality is just another facet of personality, and whatever your personal revulsion towards sex acts that you choose not to participate in, propagating the idea that homosexuals are 'disgusting perverts' is hardly a reasonable attitude. You might a well condemn people who like marmite because you find it disgusting.

Even if you think of homosexuality is a genetic defect, (assuming you don't see homosexuals as people who simply choose to avoid heterosexual relationships, if you do please correct me) we could argue minor points all day about other 'defects' which are perfectly accepted.

Preferring homosexual sex is no more unreasonable than preferring marmite, however tender your nice 'British' sensibilities.

If I'm honest, I'm rather astonished you still publish articles like this; you'd think the BNP's attempt to appear 'inclusive' and 'moderate' would have seen attitudes like this at least hidden away. If you're in need of guidance, I'd take note that it just makes it even clearer that the party and it's supporters have never broken out of the National Front-esque mentality from which it initially sprang. Prejudices, it seems, come not single spies but in battalions...

odin said...

Well you are giving me an education GA. Since coming across you,I have found out what fisting means, & now rimming, bet that leaves a bad taste in the mouth! :)
They can keep all of that as far as I am concerned.
For my own part your definition of how it should be agrees with mine!

GreenPleasantLand said...

There is nothing old fashionned about a family being made up of a Mother, and Father and children... and it is just the sorry state of society today that compells you to apologise if you are being 'old fashionned'.

There is no need to apologise, for that sentiment is natural.

Anonymous said...

RH said

" the party and it's supporters have never broken out of the National Front-esque mentality from which it initially sprang."

Think! man Think! The comment was one writers opinion. Does this blog HAVE to preface all comments with "All thoughts and opinions expressed here are not necessarily the policies expressed by the BNP ...Blah Blah Blah"

And Yes Canadian researchers have found a connection between Homosexuals and genetic abnomalities. You might like to Google it sometime.

You will note I dont use the word 'GAY' there is nothing gay about a homosexual watching his hollow eyed partner slowly dying of Aids.

Albion.

johnofgwent said...

Oh C'mon "war is peace" have you been asleep for all these months ???

Once upon a time we had a Home Office and Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Home Affairs. A weighty title for a weighty job, the size of which never seemed to cause problems for some serious statesmen of past decades and past centuries. Google is your friend if you want some names.

But a combination of the silencing of cabinet government as it used to be, and the dumbing down of ministers (something which is hardly new, Claire Short admitted on Desert Island Disks YEARS ago that within a year of taking a lowly job in the civil service she found the calibre of the government ministers "underwhelming" and resigned in order to try to do a better job herself, and if SHE can do a better job ..... but I digress) meant that soem jobs are too hard today for the numbnuts handed the role.

So they split the Home Office into the Ministry of Justice and The Ministry of Something Else I recall not what.

Anonymous said...

I believe that someones personal sexual habits is their business, and as long as it does not include minors or other vulnerable people, then fine go ahead. But thats the point isnt it?. When did you last see heterosexual people wanting to push their agenda in schools, and is there a heterosexual celebration month?..no of course not. I have worked with homosexuals, in fact to get anywhere in my line of work you really need to be one, and I can honestly say that a more angry/controlling/antagonistic/insecure and at war with society bunch of people I have yet to meet... and far from being the fluffy inclusive and tolerant individuals that the mainstream media likes to present. I dont have any issue with those that keep it to themselves, but I do with those that push their own sexuality down your throat (pardon the pun). And another thing I have witnessed with some is the way they target those who may have had difficuties in their lives, and groom the vulnerable and impressionable, in ways which are abhorrant to a family man like myself. A heterosexual adult involved in the same would be nailed to the floor, and quite rightly so. Many homosexual relationships I have witnessed have strong v submissive roles, with the latter usually having some form of mental health issue, and the strong one usually being very predatory, and again I wouldnt find this acceptable in modern heterosexual circles.

So to the person attacking us for our out moded (in their eyes) view of today's anything goes sexual practices, my advice to them is to be a little more discreet and accepting of our rights to our way of living. After all, if it comes down to it, we may be the only allies you have, as the BNP stance is "wont ask dont tell", wheras the alternative in Sharia Britain is being stoned to death or thrown off a tall building. Now who's the fascist?

johnofgwent said...

RH Said at 21:01 on 27/10

"Even if you think of homosexuality is a genetic defect, (assuming you don't see homosexuals as people who simply choose to avoid heterosexual relationships, if you do please correct me)"

Is that your definition of homosexual then ? "Someone who chooses to avoid heterosexual relationships" ?

watling said...

r.h:

Preferring homosexual sex is no more unreasonable than preferring marmite, however tender your nice 'British' sensibilities.

Firstly, I don't think "British" sensibilities are any more or less tender than anyone else's. The British Empire would not have existed if we had been in any way squeamish or easily offended.

Secondly, I agree to some extent with your statement about preferring homosexual sex. However, if universally adopted, such a preference to the exclusion of heterosexual sex would lead to the human race dying out.

I guess that way back in the mists of time the sex act was primarily a means of procreation, in which case homosexual sex served no purpose. Logically, natural selection should have eradicated those who only indulged in homosexual sex. This leads me to wonder if homosexuality is a choice rather than a preset condition.

Now that sex is primarily a pleasant way of passing the time, it doesn't matter too much who you're doing it with, although people still get pissed off if they find out their partner is getting it elsewhere too.

Yet a person indulging in both homosexual and heterosexual sex (i.e. being both bisexual and promiscuous) leads to an increase in the spreading of sexually transmitted diseases, which cannot be beneficial to the human race. Although the same is true (but I would argue to a lesser extent) for promiscuous heterosexual sex.

So I guess the traditional view that homosexuality is wrong is rooted in our subconscious instinct to wish to procreate, plus our awareness that sodomy is intrinsically a more risky and generally unhygienic act.

R.H said...

johnofgwent
-Not at all, I was merely eager to allay the response that homosexuality is a choice; I would like to make it clear that all evidence I have before me points towards this not being the case.


Albion "The comment was one writers opinion."
-Yes, but a writer who blogs directly in support of the BNP, claims to be a (if not speak for others) 'true nationalist' and identifies his views closely with the party - this might not be party policy, but it is apparently a prevalent set of views amongst the support base. The deeper irony is that my point is only strengthened by this retort; when the 'nationalist' community seems to have popular consensus on this issue, how do you expect to disassociate your views from those of the party which you back, at least in the minds of the public?

And yes, I don't think I claimed homosexuality was not a genetic defect; in a strict anthropological sense it is, since it hinders the prorogation of the species. My point was that there are other genetic defects which do similar - infertility or impotence, for example, even afflictions like colour-blindness fall under that category. Is it wrong to believe that impotent men should be able to live happy and productive lives free from prejudice, and even raise awareness of the condition?

I agree, a dying partner is never a pleasant image, but I will continue referring to my aids-afflicted (from a period of intravenous drug use which he thankfully kicked whilst in prison) friend as 'happily married' to his wife.


Anonymous "the BNP stance is "wont ask dont tell""
- and if people choose to tell you? Or is there a very specific rule about not telling?

Anonymous said...

The BNP stance is.....Why do you feel the need to tell?, I certainly wouldnt judge you on your choice of lifestyle, though I do have my concerns that so many of you feel the need to go public, why is that?. No there isnt any specific rule about not telling, well as far as I can see anyway, so what are you trying to imply?. If there was any intolerance it probably wouldnt be aimed at your sexuality, more your judgeement or sanity in feeling the need to tell the world...or is that what its all about anyway, in an age where individuality is frowned upon, is this lifestyle choice more about making a statement?.

watling said...

The don't ask don't tell rule only works if everyone buys into it.

Clearly it's idealistic and is probably based on the prevailing mainstream opinion from the 1950s and beforehand. My guess is that the BNP accepts homosexuality exists but disagrees with its promotion and celebration, and certainly disagrees with the notion that the homosexual lifestyle can be given equal status to the heterosexual, family-oriented one.

I'm not sure if homosexuality is genetic or a lifestyle choice. Even if the urge is genetic the behaviour can still be controlled, in the same way that I sometimes have the urge to punch someone who's acting like a complete dickhead but I don't because it's not the best way to resolve an argument.

I'm pretty sure that neither impotence nor infertility are lifestyle choices, although some men choose to have vasectomies. I've never heard of anyone being happy to be impotent/infertile whereas the evidence suggests that people can be happy homosexuals.

Anonymous said...

Never mind the gays, go checkout

http://dotconnectoruk.blogspot.com/2008/10/hn51-dna-in-flu-vaccine.html

This will get your sphincter muscle working overtime.

dot connector lives in Wales GA.

JOG, you being a scientist type, what do you know about plastic food packaging and the possible genitic defects caused by it? A doctor client told me it had a lot to do with the increase of todays homsexuality. Im no doctor so Id be interested if any learned person could throw some light on plastic and homosexuality.

Cheers,
Harry.

Anonymous said...

most men are homsoexual, it is only the cowards that live a life in the closet as astraight guys, then they spew their frustrated venom to the ones who did manage to live their lives they way they want.

RH said...

watling
I will abstain from commenting on your first reply - from the contents of your second contribution I assume you have concluded that I do not think homosexuality is purely a lifestyle choice. I would extend that point to your final paragraph; impotence is also a genetic defect in the biological sense, as I think I pointed out. My point on that matter was the impotence does not make the afflicted a second class citizen, nor should it make a heterosexual relationship including an impotent or infertile partner of 'lower status' than a heterosexual relationship which may result in children - any relationship between two loving people should be considered of equal status, whether or not they have children. This raises a further matter of intrigue; how do you suppose that 'status' (whether high or low) be applied to a relationship, and in what form? what, in short, do you mean by "given equal status"? By whom, and how?

To your point that you are able to resist the urge to "punch someone who's acting like a complete dickhead" I can only agree that you're doing the right thing by ignoring that urge, because as you point out yourself ,"it's not the best way to resolve an argument". This explanation for your resistance, however, highlights exactly why this argument falls somewhat flat - you resist because you see an inherently more effective way to achieve something by taking different action. Unless you honestly believe that the act of sex should only be engaged in for the propagation of the species, I would question the inherent 'better'-ness behind not engaging in a homosexual relationship. I would add that two consenting adults engaging in a relationship has no detrimental effect on anyone else, where as punching someone clearly does. Unless the harm caused by homosexual relationships to others is disgust on your own part, in which case I direct you towards the 'marmite' point I made earlier.

Further to that matter of 'British sensibilities' - the only reason I use this particular phrase is that I hope to highlight to impartial readers of this debate that the implied revulsion is noted on the side of the floor which likes to refer to itself (at least in the case of many contributors to this site) as 'true British nationalists', doubtless with 'true British sensibilities'. If a particular sensitivity towards sexual imagery comes part-in-parcel with 'true Britishness' then I am bound to term it so.

Anonymous "If there was any intolerance it probably wouldnt be aimed at your sexuality, more your judgeement or sanity in feeling the need to tell the world"
-There are plenty of people on this forum who want to tell the world that they are British, and should be respected as such. Unless you see homosexuality as inherently shameful in some way, I don't see why these things are any different.

Note; since you seem to be under the impression that I am gay myself, I'll make it clear now that I'm not, and don't think I have implied at any time that I am. If only I were, and were able to make a conclusive point about whether or not I 'chose' to be gay - all I can say currently on this matter is that whilst I have never felt any desire to enter into a homosexual relationship, all the evidence I have thusfar come across (including discussions with gay or bisexual friends) seems to indicate that attraction to a member of the same sex in people who describe themselves as gay is a natural urge equivalent to the attraction to members of the opposite sex experienced by heterosexuals.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"MOST MEN ARE HOMOSEXUAL". it is only the cowards that live a life in the closet as astraight guys, then they spew their frustrated venom to the ones who did manage to live their lives they way they want.

MOST men are homosexual!!! is that a fact? Did you take a country wide census on this. Maybe you see everyone else as a Homosexual as a chicken sees its owner as another chicken......I despair!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Most men are homosexual"

That's very interesting! Have you any figures on women?

Anonymous said...

A lot of Marmite in here, is this a euphemism of some sorts?

Cheers,
Harry.

Anonymous said...

Aims of Common Purpose/Frankfurt School:

The Frankfurt school recommended (amongst other things):

Creation of racism offences

Continual change to create confusion

The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children

The undermining of schools and teachers' authority

Mass immigration to destroy identity

The promotion of excessive drinking

Emptying the churches

An unreliable legal system with bias against the victim of crime

Dependency on the state or state benefits

Control and dumbing down of media

Encouraging the breakdown of the family