Category Archives: homosexuality

White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett apologises to the gay community

Posted on by
Reply

From here:

White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett  apologized to the gay community Thursday after she referred to homosexuality as a “lifestyle choice” during a discussion about the wave of recent teen suicides.

“I meant no disrespect to the LGBT community, and I apologize to any who have taken offense at my poor choice of words,” Jarrett said in a written statement.

Perish the though of showing disrespect to anyone; that would never do.

Of course, by making this – undoubtedly, Inquisition-coerced – politically correct recantation, Valerie Jarrett has shown disrespect for those who have chosen to be gay and are proud of it.

All of which goes to show that anyone saying anything about anyone who is gay will sooner or later be made to regret it by the 21st century manners-nouveau Gestapo.

Some interesting numbers from the UK on the percentage of the population that is homosexual

Posted on by
4

From here:

The first ever official count of the gay population has found that only one in 100 adults is homosexual.

The figure explodes the assumption  –  long promoted by social experts and lobbyists  –  that the number is up to ten times higher than this at one in ten.

The Office for National Statistics said 1.3 per cent of men are gay and 0.6 per cent of women are lesbian.

Another 0.5 per cent consider themselves bisexual, according to the figures gathered from questions put to nearly 250,000 – the biggest survey possible outside a full national census.

This means that, in total, around 1.5 per cent of the population is either homosexual or bisexual.

There isn’t much reason to suppose that the percentages would be substantially different in North America. I strongly suspect that the percentage of homosexual Anglican priests is much higher, though.

Other than the attraction of dressing up in robes, I can’t think of any convincing reason for this: it does help to explain the obsession that the Anglican church has for what it calls “the full inclusion of gays”. It has more to do with self-interest than anything else.

Homosexuals in the military: Don't ask, don't tell

Posted on by
24

From here:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s choice to lead the Marine Corps says he doesn’t think Congress should lift the ban on gay troops who want to serve openly.

Gen. James Amos’ comment came hours before a Senate test vote on a defense policy bill that would repeal the 17-year-old law, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

It’s probably only a matter of time before the law is repealed, though:

The law is already under siege. A federal judge in California recently ruled the ban on gays was unconstitutional, polls suggest a majority of Americans oppose it and Lady Gaga has challenged it in a YouTube video.

What chance does it have if Lady Gaga – a well known advisor to the US military – is against it? She has a simple solution to opposition:

She suggested a new policy should target straight soldiers who are “uncomfortable” with gay soldiers in their midst.

“Our new law is called ‘If you don’t like it, go home!'” she said.

This  would probably result in the most Marines heaving a sigh of relief and returning home to their families, leaving the US military looking something like this:

We’ll probably wait a long time before General Petraeus complains that an openly gay military would be like a red flag to a bull for the Taliban and will endanger lives.

Gay man sues over blood donation

Posted on by
3

The latest case of a homosexual insisting on giving blood is from China:

A GAY editor is making Chinese legal history by becoming the first person to sue Beijing Red Cross Blood Center (BRCBC) for refusing his blood. The case is now waiting to be filed at the Beijing higher people’s court.

The editor, named Wang Zizheng (his pen name), tried to donate blood at Xidan Books Building on June 6. He replied he was gay in the health questionnaire and was told he was not qualified to be a donor by officers from BRCBC.

“We don’t suggest homosexuals, both gays and lesbians, donate their blood, as a precaution for the receivers,” said an officer from BRCBC. “We are following the health standard for blood donors issued by the Ministry of Health.”

Wang felt he was being discriminated against.

“What is wrong with homosexuals?”

Every Christmas as a child, my grandmother would give me socks; but at least she had enough sense to know that she couldn’t reasonably expect me want something I loathed just because she was eager to give it to me. The curious insinuation that there is something unfair going on here reminds me a bit of this:

Toronto Pride parade allows hate speech

Posted on by
8

From the CBC:

Jewish groups are angry that organizers of Toronto’s Gay Pride festival have decided to reverse an earlier ban that prevented the Queers Against Israeli Apartheid group from participating in the Pride Week events.

Earlier this year, Pride Toronto decided to ban the group from their July 4 parade for fear that allowing them to participate would jeopardize their funding from the City of Toronto.

That decision caused an outcry within Pride Toronto, with some members saying the decision smacked of censorship.

On Thursday, Pride Toronto’s board lifted the ban, saying it was not up to them to decide whether groups violated the city’s anti-discrimination policy. Instead, Pride Toronto will now ask all groups participating in Pride Week to first sign the city’s anti-discrimination policy.

Giorgio Mammoliti, who is also running for mayor, will introduce a motion at council demanding that Pride return all city funding, about $250,000.

Generally I am all for allowing anyone to say whatever they want; that some people – including Jimmy Carter – foolishly call Israel’s attempts to protect itself “apartheid” is more a comment on their own blinkered anti-Israel bigotry than anything else.

But now we have the organisers of the Gay Pride festival who, if criticised, are only too ready to deflect the criticism with shrill cries of “homophobia” and “hate speech”, permitting a contingent in their parade to display – hate speech. And the city of Toronto is paying $250,000 – so far, at least – to help them finance it.

The idiocy of all this is not diminished by the fact that the only country in the Middle East that allows a gay pride march is the one Queers Against Israeli Apartheid are determined to vilify.

Obliterating the distinction between men and women

Posted on by
Reply

Dennis Prager has some pertinent things to say on the GLBT letters:

So, why the T in GLBT?

Because the Left seeks to obliterate the distinction between men and women. They consider this distinction to be a social construct. That is why, to this day, despite all the scientific evidence (as if that were needed) proving how different male and female brains are, many left-wing academics still argue that boys play with trucks rather than with dolls because of sexist socialization.

And that is why, on the left, changing the definition of marriage is only worth a shrug. Since there are no inherent differences between men and women, what difference could it possibly make whether a man marries a man or a woman? Or if children have two fathers, two mothers, or a father and a mother?

For those of us who believe that the male-female distinction is vital to civilization, the Left’s attempts to erase this distinction are worth fighting against. For those who see no purpose in maintaining this distinction, its demise is worth no more than a shrug.

It is extraordinary how many otherwise rather staid and sober companies have jumped on this particular bandwagon – not, I think, in order to sell more of their products, but to be seen as supporting what they believe to be a social virtue: diversity.

LGBTQQIP?

Posted on by
1

From a technological perspective I am a child of my times: I like gadgets, computers, digital imaging, the Internet (I’m not sure how I coped so long without it) and I may even learn to like the iPad when it starts multi-tasking.

When it comes to language, though, I am more at home with the prose of Trollope than Twitter. So encountering a post-English atrocity like LGBTQQIP, presents the unpalatable temptation to do the opposite of what I occasionally succumbed to in a more colourful if muddled era: turn-off and tune-out.

One can’t dignify “LGBTQQIP” with the attribute of meaning, but it apparently begs to be applied to a person who is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, and Pansexual. I remain unclear as to whether one must be suffering all these afflictions simultaneously in order to lay claim to the acronym, but I suspect no-one is counting.

Were I allowed the speak at the forthcoming Anglican General Synod in Halifax – where I will be a blogging visitor –  it is a question I would bring up for deliberation in euphoric anticipation that someone would take me seriously.

Shocking: anti-Semitic slogans banned from the Toronto Pride parade

Posted on by
Reply

From the National Post:Add an Image

Pride organizers have voted to effectively ban the group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid from this year’s parade.

Councillor Kyle Rae confirmed the decision despite the efforts of Pride Toronto board members to defer the announcement until a news conference on Tuesday.

“Pride has voted to ban the use of ‘Queers Against Israeli Apartheid,’ ” Mr. Rae told the Toronto Sun.

The board reportedly decided to ban the phrase “Israeli apartheid,” but not any individuals or groups from the July 4 event — a sleight of hand that has outraged a spokesman for Queers Against Israeli Apartheid.

Tim McCaskell accused Pride Toronto of betraying the gay community and buckling under pressure from politicians and sponsors.

“I think people will find it shocking,” Mr. McCaskell said.

I would have thought that the Toronto homosexual march would welcome a restriction that people find “shocking”, considering they have exhausted every other means of shocking the public.

Toronto gay pride denied federal funds

Posted on by
3

Apparently, taxpayers are not going have to pay to celebrate sodomy this year; shame, since it provides such a wonderful opportunity for a wholesome family outing:

Organizers of Toronto’s gay pride festival were surprised and angry Friday at the Conservative government’s decision to drop the Add an Imagelucrative and popular event from its tourism stimulus package.

Pride Toronto was not on the list of over 50 festivals awarded grants on Friday as part of the federal government’s two-year, $100-million Marquee Tourism program.

In a statement Friday, Industry Minister Tony Clement said there are 20 new beneficiaries this year, and the fund’s second-year goal was to “ensure regional fairness by making sure every corner of Canada benefits from this temporary stimulus program.

Pride Toronto executive director Tracey Sandilands called the decision a “clear indication that the federal government doesn’t believe that queer arts and culture is worth investment in.”

“We are very disappointed …. We believe that that is a very strong message for the queer community, especially here in Toronto,”

Add an Image

Sandilands told the CBC’s Rosemary Barton.

Not to worry, the parade will still have plenty of support from the usual mob.