Only days ago, I talked about the frequency with which Adam Piggott has voice deeply unfashionable but nevertheless accurate predictions of what would come next.
As much as anything, the fact that my parents and other relatives of their generation were, from the get go, utterly appalled by the whole idea of gay marriage meant that I tended to suspect the opposite must be true – they were boomers after all, and being northern working class, they were all socialists too.
I don’t mind admitting that for a while I was always fairly neutral on the matter of gay marriage, because I know a gay guy who, not withstanding his sexual preferences, was as straight as they come. Professional, intelligent, humourous, honourable, been with the same partner since TVs were globular
But you can’t judge a movement like the gays on its outliers, however much they fit your comforting preconceptions: you have to look at the aggregate and the mean. And you have to ask yourself what their endgame is. Was it just to have their gaudy and tawdry simulcrum weddings? If only…
An old conservative curmudgeon who lives in a small, rural town in South East Nebraska has a detailed article examining the impact of the Australian gay marriage vote two years on. What he finds is not good at all. He has many examples of people being persecuted for wrong-think as regards homosexuality, from sportspeople and other prominent public figures to members of the medical profession. This informal and unorganised bullying is about to take an official form with legislation before the Queensland parliament which will make ‘gay conversion therapy’ illegal.
But there was no slippery slope, remember? The gay marriage vote was just about feelings and letting the poor homos have their marriage moment in the sun. Silly people.
So I can say that I told you so. Who would have thought it?
The reason that they target children is because homosexuals are parasites on society. They will not naturally have children of their own so they must prey on the children of heterosexual couples, known as ‘breeders’ in the gay world which is an invective. As I wrote in that article, marriage exists not for the two people conjoined but for the protection and well being of the children of such a union. Many people who voted in favor of gay marriage did so with a naivety that this was only about individual rights. But in doing so they have unleashed a Pandora’s box which threatens to remove their children’s rights and their rights to their own children.
One of the most alarming and annoying things about globalism and ‘no borders’ is that you can guarantee that any societal disease that emerges in Australia or the USA will be coming to the UK within a matter of months or a very small number of years.
I’m not sure you need much more of an argument in favour of the sort of controls on the free flow of people and ideas that are in place in eastern countries.