Search This Blog

Tuesday, 25 January 2011

Protesting too much

Is it something in the water supply that makes “journalist” Melanie Phillips of the Daily Mail into the unutterable bitch she is? Is she on some sort of medication that’s rotting her brain?

I ask because she’s at it again, thinking there’s some sort of gay mafia running things, pushing homosexuality down everyone’s throat, insinuating it into every school lesson as part of some huge conspiracy.

I refer you to this piece of “journalism” in yesterday’s issue.

Schoolchildren, she says, “are to be bombarded with homosexual references in maths, geography and science lessons as part of a Government-backed drive to promote the gay agenda.”

Her examples?

“In geography, for example, they will be told to consider why homosexuals move from the countryside to cities. In maths, they will be taught statistics through census findings about the number of homosexuals in the population. In science, they will be directed to animal species such as emperor penguins and sea horses, where the male takes a lead role in raising its young.”

So you can just see the school timetable. Monday, 10 a.m., double period of “Homosexuals moving from countryside to city”. Tuesday, 3 p.m., “The number of homosexuals in the population”. Friday, 11 a.m., “Homosexuality in the animal kingdom”.

We all know that’s not how it is. In all kinds of subjects, real-life situations are used as examples. No doubt racial groups have been used to make points; gender has been used to illustrate statistics; age and other demographics have been used to discuss social issues.

Now, the last time I looked, gays were a part of the community. Is there any reason, then, Ms bloody Phillips, why the gay section of society should not be likewise used?

Sorry, what was that? There is a reason? Oh, what is it, then?

What was that again. This is “all part of the ruthless campaign by the gay rights lobby to destroy the very concept of normal sexual behaviour”?

Oh, I see.

So a group of gay people have lobbied the powers that be, have successfully had gay-related subjects injected into the curriculum, and their whole purpose has been to destroy the concept of “normal” sexual behaviour? Is that it?

And how are you defining “normal”? Just what’s in the majority? What’s natural? Well there are a lot of things that aren’t in the majority (left-handedness, for instance; red-headedness) that you would consider natural. So let’s leave that one out.

That just leaves “natural”. But, if it happens and it’s part of a person’s nature, it’s natural, isn’t it?

OK, I think I’ve gone far enough in picking the flaws in this ridiculous woman’s excuse for an argument. Read it for yourself (it’s linked to above) and then write to the asinine woman and tell her.

On second thoughts, maybe not. She’d probably revel in getting criticism from what she perceives to be the enemy. It would just justify her ridiculous, vicious crusade against people who have as much right as she does to take part in society and enjoy a full natural life in so doing.

Fortunately, people like Melanie sodding Phillips have become caricatures of themselves by going on and on about sexuality – so much so that you wonder what they’re trying to hide. Doesn’t she just make you want to echo Mr Hamlet and say, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”?

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

what's natural about sodomy?

Armand K. said...

Well, it definitely isn't artificial or synthetic. Whatever "icky factor" you're counting on, it's not enought to make something not natural.