Tuesday, 6 April 2010

Gay as Christmas or Mr. Grayling?

I am not going to take sides on this one simply because I do not care that much. If it is your private property then perhaps you should decide who gets to eat and live there and not the state. Perhaps it is your civil right to dine and sleep wherever you see fit. Perhaps a case-by-case approach is needed instead of the big stick of government.

What I would like to add to debate is this: numbers. The Telegraph says that support for the Conservative party has dropped sharply since the B&B row. We knew all along that the Conservatives were fishing for particularly the Gay vote, consider this poll from Gaydar
This is how members of the Gaydar survey panel said they had voted in 2005:

Labour: 39.9%
Conservative: 22.1%
Liberal Democrat: 19.8%
Did not vote: 6%
Other: 4.1%
Green: 3.7%
Scottish National party: 3.5%
Plaid Cymru: 0.9%

Unsurprisingly, a big lead for Labour. Compare that with the voting intentions for 2010:

Conservative: 28.9%
Labour: 27.5%
Liberal Democrat: 27%
Green: 4.5%
Other: 4.3%
Don't know: 3.7%
Scottish National party: 3.4%
Plaid Cymru: 0.7%
I hope it is quite obvious that since 2005 the Tory gay vote has increased dramatically. Now let me add a spoon of perspective to this. There are 3.6 million gay people in Britain. The 2001 census showed that 42 079 000 identified themselves as 'Christians'. This equates to 71.6 percent of the population. 'Operation World' 2001 puts the percentage at 67.6 percent. Now as a party leader you have to look at the figures you have 3.6m vs. 42m - looking at it from a purely political point of view not involving morals, ethics or religion then their policy makes no sense. If we assume that those 42m really do find gay people a tad odd then surely their money would not be on the Tories with their current policies.

My point being, as Gerald Warner notes
Christian B & B owners do not want acts they regard as profoundly sinful taking place inside their own homes, with themselves as unwilling facilitators. Formerly both their scruples of conscience and their rights as homeowners would have been respected, even championed, by the Conservative Party. Today, however, it is enslaved to the PC agenda and obsequious towards the tyranny of metrosexual opinion formers.

To continue to call this synthetic organism manufactured in a social engineering laboratory the “Conservative Party” would be an imposture. It is no longer the Conservative Party, it is a completely different entity: the Cameronian Party. Today any Christian who votes for the Cameronian Party is contributing to his own marginalisation. That is the other issue raised by the Grayling faux pas: the position and appropriate response of Christians.

Christians in this country today are hurt, concerned, bewildered by the increasing attacks on their faith – the repeated banning of the emblem of the cross is a totemic example. Yet, from force of habit, in a Pavlovian reflex, large numbers of them intend to go out on polling day and vote “Conservative” (or even Labour). They have not made the connection between their supine support of their persecutors and the escalating crusade against their religion.
But that was Gerald Warner's point and mine taken from a libertarian point of view. PC has become a great big cancer on this state and it is growing day by day, because people actually believe in their own stupidity. The two pillars of 'political correctness' are:

a) willful ignorance

b) a steadfast refusal to face the truth

If you add 'a' and 'b' to 'religion' and 'sexual orientation' you have got a pair of simultaneous equations, with an infinite amount of equally corrupt solutions.

Whoever you are, whatever you believe in and however you wish to live your life; exercise it with a bit of common sense. If you want to shag your boyfriend or girlfriend senseless in a private B&B then do so, but do not be offended if you are asked to leave as a result. Everyone is not gay, get over it. Similarly, owners of private establishments, gay people are not the second coming of the plague and are ordinary people just like you and me. If you reject them you are only doing yourself an injustice by loosing out on their business. There is no moral imperative for either side to influence the other, there are gay christians as well as gay atheists and christian heterosexuals.

No one has the right to tell the other what to do, and political parties should take heed as to what determines their policy: sexual orientation, religion or that trivial matter of national necessity. The past few years clearly show a political class which would not touch the latter with a barge pole yet they expect our vote. Their false 'cri de coeurs' will wash of us like butter on teflon.

2 comments:

Jeanne Tomlin said...

The obvious problem with your comments: Where does that right end?

You don't believe in racial mixing and think it is against God's law you have the right to turn me away from your place of business, refuse to serve me food, refuse to let me buy food in your store, or what?

You don't like my American accent, do you have the same right?

Maybe you think women should stay home and mind the baby so you won't sell to me, hire me, let me stay in your establishment?

Either people have to respect other people's humanity or they don't. And that is why I am not a libertarian--because I DO think your rights end at my nose. Or refusing to do business with me because you don't like my sex, color or accent.

13th Spitfire said...

Liberty is the right to live your life in the way you choose, so long as you do not initiate force upon any other individual. This is called the non-aggression principle. All other rights are derived from this right of self-ownership and self-determination.

I must admit I am not entirely sure what you are trying to put across, though I do welcome your comments, most certainly since they got me thinking. I cannot exactly put my finger on what you mean.

My point was that it was nonsensical for anyone to discriminate against anyone for in the end they will loose out as a result. There have never been any successful segregated societies, they have all ended in violence and will always end in violence because it not a natural state of being; to wilfully separate a peoples based on a defining character of their person. It is not natural. In the sense in which we define that word.

You say humanity, but humanity means the essence of being human. Disliking other people because of a separating feature is not human that is social influence, and influence thrust upon us by the majority.

There is no such thing as 'right by numbers' people who often agree in numbers are often right. But sometimes they are wrong, they were wrong in America when they thought black people should go to different universities because they were black. They were different hence they were inferior. That is in my eyes wrong.

We are all equal but we have to respect each other and no assert ourselves in a self-righteous manner - there is no such thing.