November 17th 2009
In a first-rate piece in the Telegraph yesterday, Philip Johnston argued that people 'should be free to hold intolerant views'. I'm not sure I'd agree with that (they shouldn't be free to hold anti-libertarian and anti-democratic views), but as he was talking about the Don't You Dare Say a Word Against Pederasts Bill (2009) it was obviously necessary for him to write in code.
A desire to stop me (or anyone else) from being critical of homosexuality should be classed as a sign of tertiary insanity let alone anti-democracy: but in a world gone round the bend, abnormal is normal and vice-versa.
Johnston's piece rightly echoed several columns on this site regarding diversity-bonkers cops lecturing people about 'offensive views' and 'homophobia'. Quite how they have the time to do this (and take children away from their mothers) while feral escapees from detention centres rule the streets unopposed is hard to fathom. As always, one man's diversity is another man's diabolical liberty: kids who like to kick in shop windows, and jokes about fisting on prime-time television, are diverse - whereas being poor and regarding anal sex as aberrant behaviour are very serious criminal offences indeed. So just you watch out.
Once again, twisted polemics are getting in the way of good governance, and bad science is ruling the heads of inclusivity fanatics. Wouldn't I say that anyway, being a grumpy old bigot? No, I say that because the facts support me, not the contemporary mores.
According to the UK's ONS, only 2.6% of either gender have had a same-sex partner in the last five years. The absolute maximum of men who enjoy Gay sex 'at all' is 8% - and this figure includes bisexuals as well as many entirely homosexual men.
US, Canadian and Australian studies suggest that active male homosexuals are between two and three percent of any host population. But in 2000, Blanchard's Canadian study of paedophiles showed that 25% of that orientation were homosexual - ie, uninterested in mature or infant females.
Some advice issued by various American public health sites:
* 'NEVER go from anal to vaginal sex without washing. This would be VERY DANGEROUS for you'.
* '...risks involved in practicing anal sex include tears, anal fissures,
development of hemorrhoids and recurring itching and irritation'.
* 'Use an enema at least 30 minutes BEFORE penetration. If you don't empty
the colon you will experience pain and have a risk for
rupture/lacerations of the colon or anus tearing...'
Anthropologists have known for nearly a century that the desire to reproduce is the top human driver - surpassing the need to eat and survive, although of course the three are mutually inclusive. Typing 'sites agree reproduction top human need' into Google delivers 5.2 million results. Typing 'sites agree sexual diversity vital' gets 127,000. To date, there is no recorded case of a human birth occurring purely from the use of anal sex.
Quote from the American Medical Association:
'The lining of the rectum is more vulnerable to aids transmission than
the lining of the vagina. Also, the rectum is more likely to to tear
during intercourse further enabling the transmission of aids. So that
an infected male is more likely to pass on the virus to his partner
through anal sex than vaginal (whether that partner be male or female)'.
Am I trying to demonise homosexuals by pointing out these facts? Of course not. But the reality being denied is obvious: male homosexuality would be an appalling role-model for any healthy society. It is statistically abnormal, fraught with health risks, and linked to severely anti-social practices.
Criminalising homosexuality is uncivilised, celebrating it is decadent, and denying the right to criticise it is controlling fascism of the worst kind.
Home |