If the wickedness of the original Sodomites was "beyond measure", the mainstreaming of that same degeneracy by their 21st century counterparts is almost beyond belief. Almost. For though apparently surreal and Kafkaesque, the present baptising of sodomy as an acceptable, even admirable, ‘lifestyle choice’ is perfectly logical, being consequent on the studied rejection of the natural law which defines the Western liberal Establishment and its hellish ‘culture of death’.
Rocket science it ain’t. Indeed, such craven capitulation by erstwhile Christian societies is so predictable that it can be reduced to a simple, cast-iron formula: when man jettisons the precepts of Christian order, diabolic disorder ensues - as in, say, the anarchic recognition of the male rectum as a proper receptacle for the male organ, even to ‘consummation’ in civil ‘marriage’!
Ever since Moses descended from Mount Sinai, tablets of the law in hand, to find his people turned to diabolism and hedonistic abandon [Exod. 32:19], debauched heirs of the golden calf idolaters have preferred the same subjective and sensual prescriptions of false gods to the innate, objective laws of the one true God.
Their corrupting ways, however, were once contained by Christian nations with laws and institutions rooted in the Ten Commandments and administered accordingly. But riding the tidal wave of Luther’s non serviam rebellion down the centuries,(1) - exploiting Western socio-political freedoms painfully accrued by their Christian forebears to subvert and destroy that same Christian heritage - the wicked have advanced relentlessly from the shadowy corners of society to the centre of the public square.
Now shamelessly ensconced there beneath Masonic banners of pseudo-‘liberty’, pseudo-‘equality’ and pseudo-‘human rights’, wielding a Faustian power out of all proportion to their numbers, they have institutionalised vice, and opened the gates of Hell.
Our age, of course, has been utterly disfigured by trampling on the laws of nature, the ramifications of which constitute a grotesque and ever growing litany - contraception, concubinage, adultery (divorce and remarriage), abortion, sterilisation, IVF, surrogacy, embryonic stem-cell research, ‘therapeutic’ cloning, assisted suicide, euthanasia …. Nor is the Pope alone in condemning such evils and their deadly impact. The former U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, for one, has spoken of the carnage wrought on the unborn, weak and elderly in "the dark ages of madness, selfishness, lust and greed for which the last decades of the twentieth century are remembered …."
And yet, amidst the ongoing mayhem, nothing quite encapsulates the politically correct black-is-white insanity presently tyrannising the West and corroding the common good as does the legitimisation of homosexuality.
Because, contrary to the tenets of the bogus Social Gospel preached by liberals, the worst and most destructive thing on this earth is neither chastity nor poverty nor pain, but sin: offending and turning away from Almighty God, our ultimate end and beatitude. And sodomy, quite simply, is at the top of the tree; a singular corruption of the moral law "written in the conscience of every man", guaranteed to provoke God’s wrath.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "the sin of the Sodomites" is one of the "sins that cry to heaven" : homosexual acts are "acts of grave depravity", "contrary to the natural law" and "under no circumstances can they be approved". 
This magisterial teaching is firmly based on Sacred Scripture: from God’s condemnation and total destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, shortly after He blinded the men of Sodom for trying to rape Lot and his angelic male visitors [Genesis 19:1-29], to St. Paul’s several express condemnations of homosexuality, among others in the New Testament.
In his epistle to the Romans, St. Paul explains that the descent to moral degradation began with the "inexcusable" refusal of men to engage their reason and acknowledge the divinity and power of God, so obviously manifest in the visible things He created. Thus, failing to glorify God and give thanks, they "became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man …." Homosexuality, informed by an idolatrous narcissism, followed:
Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.
Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
And, in like manner, the men
also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one
towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving
in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
Elsewhere, St. Paul includes "the effeminate" and "liers with mankind" in the list of those "unjust" who will not "possess the kingdom of God". [1Cor 6:10]
Homosexual revisionists - who outdo even the feminists and Holocaust-deniers in their zeal to rewrite history - conjure up the most absurd arguments to dismiss such biblical injunctions and rationalise their disorder.
In a lengthy summer 2004 interview with The Turning, an online homosexual propaganda outlet with "Christian" pretensions, Dr Cheri DiNovo, a "minister" of a body called the "United Church" who has performed a dozen same sex ‘marriages’ in Canada, typically redefines Sodom and Gomorrah, claiming: "Well, first of all it’s important to remark that this passage is not about homosexuality. In fact, it has nothing to do with homosexuality. It’s about welcoming, it’s about the theology of hospitality".
Although repeated ad nauseam by the homosexuals and doubtless taken at face value by the more credulous biblical illiterates, Catholic biblical scholar Robert Sungenis says that this interpretation of Genesis 19 "is one of the most ridiculous ever devised by intelligent men". In the process of demolishing DiNovo’s arguments point by point,(2) he explains:
It is obvious to any unbiased exegete that the context of the narrative demands that sexual relations is the focus of the passage.
How else do we know that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah involved illicit sexual relations? We know it from the many commentaries in Scripture on this very event. In fact, "Sodom" is used as a figure of sexual sin and is referred to as the place of divine judgment over two dozen times in Scripture (cf., Dt 29:23; 32:32; Is 1:9-10; 3:9; 13:19; Jr 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lm 4:6; Ez 16:46-56; Am 4:11; Zp 2:9; Mt 10:15; 11:23; Rm 9:29).
But more importantly, there are two explicit passages in the New Testament that tell us precisely that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was sexual in nature.
The first of these is 2 Peter 2:6-8, where St. Peter speaks of "righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men". The second is Jude 7:
"… just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire".
Here it is even more explicit as to the nature of the sin of Sodom. The clause "indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh" is from the Greek EKPORNUESASAI and APELTHOUSAI OPISO SARKOS HETERAS. The first is a combination of the Greek PORNEIA, which is derivation for our English word "pornography", and the prefix "EK", which means "out of". The second phrase literally means "going after different flesh". The operative word here is "different", which is from the Greek HETERAS. In this context it refers to sexual relations that are "different" than normal sexual relations, i.e., homosexual relations.
"Hence", concludes Sungenis, "DiNovo’s interpretation of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of being accepted by reputable biblical exegetes".
DiNovo dismisses other clear biblical condemnations of homosexuality in the same ridiculous fashion e.g. as part of a Church conspiracy - a "patriarchal" "agenda" of "hegemony and control" - or an etymological misunderstanding since, she claims, "homosexuality did not exist as a term or as a person in the biblical era". Again, Sungenis exposes her advantageous ignorance by pointing out that in both 1Cor 6:9 and 1Tim 1:10, St. Paul clearly states that those who practice homosexuality - referred to as ARSENOKOITAI, the precise Greek word for "male sexual relations" - will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
‘Judge not’ dogma
Clearly, with razor-sharp exegetes like Sungenis patrolling the Catholic perimeter (Deo gratias!), the attempt to homosexualise Holy Writ through patently phoney ‘scholarship’ will never net the sodomites huge gains in their battle for fellow-travellers. Acutely aware of this, they largely concentrate on the more lucrative appeal to raw emotion: the irrational currency of our value-free age.
Accordingly, DiNovo is quick to play the judgemental card: "Christ basically says, ‘judge not’. That sums it all up, ‘judge not’. Love thy neighbour as yourself. Well, your neighbour is a homosexual".
In essence, DiNovo is claiming that anyone who tells her that homosexuality is a sin is someone who "sets themselves up as holy over us". But once again, this is just a ploy to make the weak Christian feel guilty for condemning homosexuality. The homosexuals really know how to work on one’s emotions. The appeal to "judge not" is as old as the hills, and it is probably the one Scripture that is the most abused of all passages. Unfortunately, the homosexuals know how to exploit it to their advantage.
It is truly amazing how hard homosexuals try to convince people that what they practice is normal and non-sinful. As the old saying goes, "they protesteth too much". But if there is one thing Scripture is very clear about: homosexuality is not only a sin, but one of the worst kinds of sin, and it will receive an even greater punishment in hell.
St. Catherine of Sienna is one among very many "judgemental" saints who concurs. In her Dialogue,(4) this Doctor of the Church teaches that the sin of sodomy is not only abominable to God but also, in a sense, to Satan himself.
As evil as he is, Satan nevertheless continues to possess the angelic nature with which he was originally endowed by the goodness of God. It is this angelic nature that is repelled by the unnatural degradation of sodomy. Therefore, according to St. Catherine, once Satan is satisfied that the sin will be committed, he leaves the scene in disgust.
For Catholics, this dreadful truth not only places the rapid legitimisation of homosexuality in its proper and frightening spiritual context, but provides the very reason we must speak out charitably against it: loving the sinner, who we desire to save from eternal damnation (not to say a short, brutal life(5)) while hating the sin.
For the sodomite lobby and its apologists like DiNovo, on the other hand, all that counts is the homosexual "agenda", not perdition or the debilitating illness, chronic disease, psychological problems and early death it has provoked among those they allegedly represent.(6) And so any condemnation of their favourite sin is denounced out of hand as heinous ‘judgementalism’.
This Pavlovian fodder, together with spurious talk about ‘rights’ (as if vice deserves parity with virtue!), has elicited the usual reflex support from the pagan masses who demand their own ‘right’ to immoral lifestyles which, in turn, binds them fast to the same "judge not" dogma.
Now the underlying social ethos which fuels the ethical relativism of the de-Christianised West, this non-judgemental quid pro quo - endless nods and winks to mutual ungodliness - is personified by Britain’s Labour cabinets, comprising majority mixtures of cohabiting and openly homosexual MPs.(7)
Hence the ungodly transition, within a generation, from a rational aversion to sodomy on moral, social and public health and safety grounds,(8) to the promotion and institutionalisation of homosexuality.
The vast number of nominally Christian citizens ambivalent or decidedly uneasy about this onward march, yet who have regularly - non-judgementally - voted in anti-family, pro-sodomy governments, now find themselves confronted by the mainstreaming of homosexuality at every turn - from explicit "gay" sex-ed lessons for ever younger school children (essential for a sterile fraternity who must recruit in order to survive(9)), to hugely influential prime-time sitcoms and Hollywood movies relentlessly propagating the image of the fit, healthy, and well-adjusted homosexual, even though the deadly reality is the inverse of this caricature. Homosexual and lesbian relationships are typically characterized by wildly unstable, promiscuous and (especially within monogamous relationships) unhealthy and risky sex practices, factors that greatly increase the incidence of serious and incurable sexually transmitted diseases (STDs),(10) including hepatitis, HPV,(11)syphilis, gonorrhea, and AIDS. American studies put homosexuals in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases.(12)
With the "gay"-friendly news media securing this entertainment media cover-up by refusing to publicise the voluminous, incontrovertible evidence regarding the life-threatening health effects associated with the homosexual lifestyle (its significantly higher rates of mental health problems, drug abuse, incestuous relationships, domestic violence, suicide, early death etc.), the degree of cultural assimilation has proceeded apace.
Just consider the public displays of depravity and blasphemy known as "Gay Mardi Gras" which fill streets around the world with behaviour that would make even the men of Sodom blush. Most people would never support, say, a Tobacco Mardi Gras - promoting an activity long demonised by the media as directly or indirectly responsible for killing countless thousands of heart disease. Yet they turn out en masse to egg on those flaunting a homosexual lifestyle that not only kills thousands of young homosexuals each year, but many other innocents as well. And this is to say nothing of the huge financial costs, direct and indirect, associated with AIDS.(13)
Sydney’s "Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras", for instance, not only draws hundreds of thousands of spectators but has received (certainly from Labor’s former "Catholic" leader Paul Keating) Prime Ministerial endorsement and good wishes. In reflecting on this televised, pornographic event in his impressive verse To Restore "Pascendi" herein - which like all good poetry repays repeated reading - Andrew Huntley also notes that it is held in the first days of Lent, rather than before Ash Wednesday, as if to maximise the offence already given to aggrieved Christians.
And yet despite this socio-political acceptance and the tremendous power they wield both as an affluent consumer bloc and through Masonic-like networking - even with all the myriad legal benefits and rights as well as the positive discrimination now enjoyed by this minuscule clique(14) in matters of employment, education,(15) adoption,(16)lottery handouts(17) etc. - enough is never enough. The ungodly rage born of their rebellion against nature itself is unremitting.
To force their agenda on America, for instance, homosexual activists use a "scorched earth" policy. Groups like ACT-UP encourage members to "Earn Your Attitude" through public demonstrations, yelling, civil disobedience, and to be "united in anger." Another suggestion by homosexual activists suggests using "blood terrorism", the act of HIV-AIDs victims deliberately donating blood to the American Red Cross.(18) While deliberate attempts by AIDS-infected homosexuals to infect doctors and nursing staff are well documented.(19)
The pattern is replicated everywhere, with vicious attitudes and despicable strategies part and parcel of "gay" rights lobbying.(20) Even within the Church. One recalls the foul-mouthed diatribe of South African homosexual Bishop Reg Cawcutt several years ago, in response to rumours that then-Cardinal Ratzinger was about to issue a letter prohibiting homosexual seminarians. In a communique to fellow clerical "gays", he exploded:
Kill [Ratzinger]? Pray for him? Why not just f--- him??? Any volunteers --- ugh!!! … I do not see how he can possibly do this --- but … If he does, lemme repeat my statement earlier --- that I will cause lotsa s--- for him and the Vatican. And that is a promise.(21)
The actual e-mail, which contains no prudish dashes, exudes the venom and animus of homosexual activists across the globe: a malign and fascistic spirit which would now deny their Christian opponents that same sacrosanct "tolerance" long demanded for themselves while in the process of assuming power. Instead, the Christians will not be tolerated; must be silenced, in fact. A mentality which recalls their devilish forebears, the men of Sodom, who, although dominant and free to indulge their every perverse whim, would not be sated until each person in the city was forced to share in their wickedness. Affronted by the sight of even one uncorrupted soul, they tormented the righteous Lot "day after day" with their lewd behaviour [2 Peter 2:6-8], finally threatening him with sexual violence, before God intervened.
Plus ça change…. Those who practice sodomy, as St. Peter Damian opined, always "strive to rebuild [the walls] of devastated Sodom". Thus, the rise and rise of the militant "gay" agenda - one of "license, gross irresponsibility and nihilism"(22) - necessarily involves coercive legislation, policies and practices, as the sons of Sodom strive to rebuild their ancestral home through the agency of a veritable police state.
This explains why, as one of Britain’s leading newspapers noted about police attempts to suppress and criminalise the mildest dissent over homosexuality, "something unpleasant and deeply disturbing is emerging today, even as civil partnerships for gays seem to celebrate our tradition of live-and-let-live tolerance".(23)
Big Brother Britain
The reining in of civil liberties in Britain - the shift from authoritarian ‘nanny state’ interference in the private lives of citizens to truly scary ‘police state’ mentality and practice - has arrived at a gallop.
Playing the 9/11 and 7/7 cards in claiming that the public now demand protection, Tony Blair has upped the legislative ante with regard to new restrictive laws governing individual freedoms. From his plans to hold terror suspects for 3 months without trial to the proposal for a new offence of glorifying terrorism, the Prime Minister blithely assumes that "common sense" will prevail in applying such laws. The truth, of course, is that once they are enacted, police and security forces are given their head(24) and judges observe the letter of the law, not the ‘sensible intention’ lurking somewhere behind the PM’s vacuous grin.
The dangers are especially acute in a country with a new breed of ambitious police superiors - like Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair(25) and Scotland Yard’s ‘camp commander’ Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick, who arrived at Elton John’s ‘wedding’ celebrations on 21 December 2005 hand in hand with his male friend. In cahoots with New Labour, these ‘new men’ are creating a new sort of force in their own liberal image. One which, in the words of social commentator Stephen Glover and despite the dedicated work of so many individual officers, "manages to be politically correct, intermittently stupid and slightly sinister at the same time".
Herewith a few brief examples of how things are working out in practice:
Last September, an 82-year-old man at the Labour Party conference was held by police under the Terrorism Act for gently heckling a ministerial speaker (he shouted "nonsense").(26)
While in October, for merely standing peacefully at the Cenotaph and reading out the names of British troops killed in Iraq, an obviously harmless woman was pounced on by no fewer than 14 police officers in two minibuses, dragged off, locked up, charged and fined under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act [SOCPA]. The Lord Chancellor said he didn’t think this incredible overreaction represented an "undue infringement" of individual liberties, as the woman had not sought permission to protest. It was, he said, "The price for protecting Parliament".
Further laws under the SOCPA which came into force on 31 December have abolished the distinction between arrestable and non-arrestable offences, which traditionally acted as a check on police powers over individuals. Police can now arrest suspects and demand DNA samples and the taking of fingerprints and photographs for the most minor crimes, such as littering or driving in the bus lane or harmless minor scuffles.
The emerging Orwellian nightmare, therefore, is not purely down to the homosexual lobby. They are merely riding this rising totalitarian wave to their own advantage through hate crime legislation which is so broadly defined that a homosexual can institute a police enquiry for the most innocuous act or comment. A smug note on the website of radical "gay" lobby group Stonewall sums it up thus:
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) defines hate crime as "a crime where the perpetrator’s prejudice against any identifiable group of people is a factor in determining who is victimised". The definition of a homophobic incident can be adopted by analogy with the definition of a racist incident: "any incident which is perceived to be homophobic by the victim or any other person (that is directed to impact on those perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender)".
Last December, two shocking incidents highlighted the fervour with which Britain’s ultra-politically correct police force is now enforcing this line.
During a 9 December BBC radio discussion about the coming into force of the British Civil Partnerships Act, which allows sodomites and lesbians to ‘marry’ and enjoy the same pension, inheritance and social welfare benefits as married couples, Lynette Burrows opposed "gay" adoption. An author on children’s rights and, like her heroic sister Victoria Gillick, a tireless advocate for the family, Mrs Burrows said that placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men. The following day, a police officer contacted her to say that a "homophobic incident" had been reported against her by a member of the public.
"I was astounded", said Mrs Burrows. "I told [the officer] this was a free country and we are allowed to express opinions on matters of public interest. She told me it was not a crime but that she had to record these incidents. They were leaning on me, letting me know that the police had an interest in my views. I think it is sinister and completely unacceptable".(27)
Just a few weeks later, a retired Christian couple, Joe and Helen Roberts, were interrogated in their home by two Lancashire police officers over their allegedly "homophobic" views. They had objected to the Wyre Borough Council’s policy of promoting "gay" rights and in a phone call and letter simply asked if Christian literature could be displayed alongside "gay" rights leaflets. After being told that this was not possible because it would offend "gay" people, the Council then reported them to police, "with the intention of challenging attitudes and educating and raising awareness of the implications of homophobic behaviour".
It is important to realise that such was the politeness of the Roberts’ in making their requests, that the Council could only claim that they had displayed "potentially homophobic attitudes"! Yet that was considered sufficient grounds and justification for two officers going all the way to Fleetwood to spend 80 minutes bullying a 73-year-old man and his 68-year-old wife in their own home, trying to "educate" them out of their belief that homsexual behaviour is wrong. There could hardly be a more Orwellian scenario! (Nor a more wasteful use of scarce resources in a county where violent crime is reported to have shot up by 17 per cent last year! As Mr Roberts said about the officers knocking on his door at 5pm to ‘re-educate’ him: "If I want police help at that time, I have to call Lancaster, 25 miles away, because our local station shuts at four".)
As a measure of the spooky mentality we are now dealing with - the extent to which the constabularies themselves have been infilitrated, ‘re-educated’ and transformed into zealous disciples of "gay" doctrine - also consider the intense nature of the questioning. At one point the police had the effrontery to warn this demure, law-abiding Christian couple that they were "walking on eggshells"! Mr Roberts also said, "One of the police officers told me my views were very strong. I told him I had nothing against gays personally but I would go on a demonstration against gay rights. He asked me if I would be violent towards gays. I said I am not a violent man".
Indeed, since we are schooled from childhood to turn the other cheek and love our enemies, the very idea that any true Christian promoting and defending Christ’s teachings would "hate" or do violence to homosexuals or anyone else is both patently absurd and offensive in the extreme. Mrs Burrows and the Roberts would have been within their rights to counter-charge their homosexual accusers with hatred of Christians and ‘potentially Christophobic attitudes’ - for making vexatious complaints which impugned their own probity and cast apserions on the Christian faith and the charitable motives of its adherents.(28) But as Scotland Yard confirmed in the wake of the Burrows debacle, "homophobic" incidents are now "priority crimes". ‘Christophobia’ is a non-starter.
And that, of course, is the danger of affording special protections to ‘designated victim groups’: the lives of those excluded from such protections are devalued; victims of crime are not treated equally under the law; and the "tolerant society" becomes the "tyranny of the few", provoking resentment and intolerance among the disadvantaged masses.(29)
Similar suppressions of freedom of speech and lawful opinions concerning homosexuality abound. To mention just a few from recent years:
• In January 2004, Swedish Pentecostal Pastor Ake Green was prosecuted for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached citing biblical references to homosexuality.
• Also during 2004, Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela of Madrid faced a lawsuit in Spain for preaching against homosexuality in a homily he gave in Madrid Cathedral on the feast of the Holy Family. While Belgian Cardinal Gustaaf Joos was charged under Belgian discrimination laws for his remarks about the nature of homosexuality and the Church’s teaching published in a Belgium magazine.
• In February 2003, Irish clergy and bishops were warned that the distribution of the Vatican’s publication on public recognition of same-sex relationships could face prosecution under Irish incitement to hatred legislation.
• Eleven Christians were jailed under Pennsylvania’s hate crimes law in 2004 for singing in a public park and preaching against homosexuality.
• A Canadian citizen was fined over $6,000 for running an ad in the newspaper where he quoted Leviticus 18:22, which states that homosexuality is a sin.
• A mayor in Canada was found to violate a human rights ordinance when she refused to declare Gay Day.
• And who could forget the November 2003 witch-hunt instigated by a politically correct Chief Constable who investigated and reprimanded the genteel Anglican Bishop of Chester, for accurately observing that some people can overcome homosexual inclinations and "reorientate" themselves.
Meanwhile, Americans battle to
avoid the same fate. The U.S. senate is currently considering a hate crimes
bill which allows federal prosecution for crimes based on "actual or perceived"
sexual orientation. In a press release, Liberty Counsel stated:
Like our late Holy Father, in fact!
Yes, a complaint was even filed in a Dutch court against John Paul II, for teaching that "homosexual acts are contrary to the laws of nature". The court ruled that only the Pope’s status as the leader of the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican State afforded him immunity from prosecution. Other religious leaders would not be immune. Presumably, they’ll all be extradited to Holland!
Bullying, threats, naked abuse of state power … "devastated Sodom" is surely being raised again with force on a grand scale. "The very idea of moral norms has to be destroyed", stated commentator Melanie Phillips in the wake of the Burrows affair, "and anyone who tries to uphold them can be vilified as a bigot and intimidated into silence".(30)Once more in the ascendancy, it seems the sons of Sodom will continue to taunt and oppress the heirs of righteous Lot, until God again comes to our aid.
In the meantime, we endure: rooted in truth, truly loving and praying for our enemies, sure in the knowledge that when all is said and done, try as they might, with all the fury of Hell behind them, the "gay" lobby can never square nature’s wholesome circle with unnatural vice. It’s called ‘reality’. Hence the reality-checks for wayward children which met the latest "gay" advance towards their primary goal - "the abolition of the family unit".(31)
As discordant media fanfares sounded the 19 December arrival of homosexual ‘marriage’ under Britain’s civil partnership laws, a pure and truthful note momentarily pierced the triumphal din. Suddenly, the two trouser-suited lesbians exchanging platinum rings in Belfast had no clothes; their grotesque marital parody stripped bare by parental anguish.
Said the father of one: "News of my own daughter’s wedding being the first gay wedding in the UK has come as a complete and utter shock. I condemn it". Lamented the father of the other: "It’s an absolute sin. This will take my daughter straight to hell. It’s terrible news and will cause me to pray for her more".(32)
Indeed, we should all increase our prayerful petitions - that such cries of paternal love are not soon outlawed as expressions of parental hate!
Most Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
(1) See "Luther, Anglicanism and the End of History", CO, Aug/Sept 1996; and "Nature Never Forgives", CO, June/July 2002.
(2)"Refuting Homosexuals who Use the Bible to Defend Homosexuality", www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/bib_homo.htm
(3) From ARSEN = "male"; and KOITUS = "sexual copulation".
(4)Catherine of Siena. The Dialogue, Paulist Press, New York, 1980, trans. Suzanne Noffke, O.P.
(5) (a) A Family Research Institute study of over 6,700 obituaries in sixteen homosexual newspapers in the U.S. found that the median age of homosexual men dying of AIDS was 39. The median age of death for other homosexual men, from all other causes, was only 41, and often linked to suicide and violent death. It has been estimated that less than 3% of all practising homosexuals live beyond 55 years of age (unsurprising when U.S. sodomites are said to average over 500 partners in their lifetime). - Homosexuality: A Disease and For Gays A Cult, Samuel A. Nigro, M.D., Social Justice Review, 1994.
(b) "In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871". - Timothy J. Dailey, Ph.D., InFocus, Family Research Council, Issue No. 232.
(6) In 1995, long after the deadly effects of AIDS and other STDs became widely known, homosexual author Urvashi Vaid expressed one of the goals of her fellow activists: "We have an agenda to create a society in which homosexuality is regarded as healthy, natural, and normal. To me that is the most important agenda item".
(7) The biological cement of this unholy nexus is mutual sterility. The embodiment of sterility, homosexuals recruit to survive. At the same time, post-Christian marital contraceptors and cohabiters, whose separation of sex from procreation is the very rationale for the legitimisation of sodomy, become ever more sterile with time. According to a recent report, "The number of childless women in Britain has nearly doubled in just two decades. Twenty years ago, just 11 per cent of 45-year-olds had not given birth, compared with 19 per cent today. Meanwhile, the overall number of children born each year has gone down by more than 10 per cent since 1990. … - the birth rate among those aged 20-24 fell by a fifth. […] Such is the movement towards marriage with no children that the [Anglican] Church recently considered [but did not adopt] a new version of the marriage service, specifically aimed at such couples". - "We’re Childless and Proud of It!"- Amanda Cable, Daily Mail, 20/12/05.
And so, as sterility within the general populace increases - whether through premeditation or unintended cause-and-effect contraception, abortion, STDs, and so on - the psychological, socio-moral and even physiological distance from the homosexuals decreases, with all parties turning to the same artificial means of manufacturing babies-to-order.
(8) cf. "Homosexual Behaviour", CO, November 2003.
(9) "One video shown to nine and ten year-year-olds enlightens them about different positions for heterosexual, bisexual, gay and lesbian sex". – "Our Sex Education Policy is a Disaster", Melanie Phillips, Daily Mail, 5/12/05. (Having been corrupted by such pornographic videos at an early age, pupils may later act them out, secure in the knowledge that if they are over 16 their schools, and probably their parents, could doubtless be sued under human-rights legislation for preventing them from engaging in homosexual relationships.) The legal enforcement of "gay"-friendly sex ed moves ever closer. Only last December, British government advisory groups recommended both the introduction of compulsory sex education for all children from the age of 5, and that parents be prevented from withdrawing their children from sex ed classes in secondary schools. As part of this, the advisory groups recommend that lessons for five to seven year should instil in the children the corrupting propaganda that all families are of equal value, including those headed by "gay" parents.
(10) In a brief submitted on behalf of thousands of Christian doctors in the Texas sodomy case, lawyer Glen Lavy, writes: "Sodomy is an efficient method of transmitting STDs. And regardless of the reason, same-sex sodomy is far more effective in spreading STDs than opposite-sex sodomy. Multiple studies have estimated that 40 percent or more of men who practice anal sex acquire STDs. In fact, same-sex sodomy has resulted in the transformation of diseases previously transmitted only through fecally contaminated food and water into sexually caused diseases - primarily among those who practice same-sex sodomy".
(11) Human Papillomavirus (HPV) is a collection of more than seventy types of viruses that can cause warts, or papillomas, on various parts of the body. More than twenty types of HPV are incurable STDs that can infect the genital tract of both men and women. But whereas only one in a hundred people actually experience genital warts, at the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health in 2000, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that "most instances of anal cancer are caused by a cancer-causing strain of HPV through receptive anal intercourse. HPV infects over 90 percent of HIV-positive gay men and 65 percent of HIV-negative gay men, according to a number of recent studies". - Richard A. Zmuda, "Rising Rates of Anal Cancer for Gay Men", Cancer News (August 17, 2000).
(12) The April 2005 issue of specialist journal Sexually Transmitted Infections also reported a rare venereal disease, a bacterial infection of the anus and genitalia, that is now "a significant" problem for European homosexual men. The disease, Lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV), is caused by an invasive strain of chlamydia. Previously known only as a rare disease in poor countries, LGV was first reported in Europe in 2003, when an outbreak was detected among 100 gay men in Rotterdam.
(13) A report on the human and financial cost of sodomy in American alone states that:
"As of December 2002, of the 501,669 deaths from AIDS in the U.S., 286,018 or 57% were among males-that-have-sex-with-males [MSM]. So AIDS has disproportionately killed those responsible for its spread. But many more have been killed by AIDS than just homosexuals. Hemophiliacs and those who needed a transfusion have died from HIV contaminated blood. To date, these deaths have totaled about 13,000. MSM bear most of the responsibility for these deaths. Since a little over half of those who have gotten HIV are homosexual, at least half the total of the blood bank infections - about 6,500 deaths - are fairly allotted to MSM. […] At least 2 boys who died after being sodomized by a homosexual have made the news in the past 24 years, but media reports have also spotlighted at least 235 boys who were sexually molested by an HIV-infected gay. How many of these boys were infected and how many died is unknown".
"Overall, while MSM have mainly infected each other, there has also been an infection toll on those who do not engage in homosexual sex. As a conservative estimate, at least 7,000 individuals in the U.S. who were innocent of sodomy themselves paid the ultimate price for the sexual pleasures of homosexuals. This translates to roughly one individual for every 41 MSM who have died of AIDS". Financially, the report quotes Los Angeles Times reporter Jennifer Oldham as estimating various employer costs at "$32,000 per AIDS-employee over a five-year period - that is, over $6,000/year". While direct medical costs for "a homosexual practitioner who lives 5 years with AIDS will total about $175,000 and the indirect costs about $1.2 million. If he lives 8 years the direct costs will total about $280,000 and the indirect costs about $2 million". - Family Research Report, Vol. 19, No. 3 May 2004.
(14) It seems that placing the number of homosexuals in a population at more than 2% involves falsely basing figures on the entire population (i.e. including children, bisexuals etc). American homosexuals themselves now admit that homosexuals make up roughly 1% of the U.S. adult population. In the Texas sodomy case - Lawrence and Garner v. State of Texas, No. 02-102 (U.S. March 26, 2003) - a friends of the court brief filed by a coalition of all the leading pro-homosexual lobby groups in America showed that of those aged 18 or over: 0.32% of the total U.S. population identify themselves as lesbians (excluding bisexuals), while 0.7% of the total U.S. population identify themselves as exclusively gay. Source quoted: National Health and Social Life Survey published in Laumann, et al., The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). – Extracted from "Homosexual Groups Back Off From ‘10 Percent’ Myth", InFocus, Family Research Council, Issue No. 260.
Sundry other studies support this low figure. Researcher Tom Smith of the University of Chicago authored a study two years ago entitled "Adult Sexual Behaviour in 1989: Number of Partners Frequency and Risk", which also resulted in a figure of "less than 1% exclusively homosexual". While David Forman, senior staff member at the Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, for example, authored a study in England and Wales between 1984 and 1987 which determined that only 1.7% of his sample had engaged in homosexual intercourse (British Medical Journal 298: 1137-1142, 1989). This figure would doubtless reduce to around 1% or less if restricted to those exclusively homosexual, at least if one goes by a November 2005 report in the Daily Mail which revealed "the farcical conclusion of a three year study in rural Devon which aimed to stamp out discrimination against homosexuals in the area – but failed to make contact with a single one"! Yet the "gay" propaganda never stops. Treasury actuaries, conducting a study on the financial implications of the new Civil Partnerships Act for the Department of Trade and Industry, recently estimated that between 5-7% of the British population is homosexual! They were later forced to admit that they had "little evidence to give an accurate figure" [Daily Mail, 12/12/05]. This follows the grossly inaccurate 2004 government estimate that 425,000 couples wanted to take advantage of same-sex marriages, when newly released details from the 2001 census revealed fewer than 40,000 homosexual couples shared a home. While a mere 700 of these rushed to ‘tie the knot’ when same-sex ‘marriage’ was introduced last December.
(15) A recent Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month to further homosexualise the British curriculum was supported by Metropolitan Police Chief Sir Ian Blair, who approved the use of a police headquarters in West London for a reception of LGBT History Month campaigners last November. The Met also contributed £3,125 to the campaign. Education Secretary Ruth Kelly (a member of Opus Dei) also supported it and her department is reported to be contributing £20,000 towards it. The Department of Health also supports the campaign which aims to "celebrate" homosexuals and their lifestyles and end an alleged "silence" about homosexual issues in schools. It promotes quintessential "gay" propaganda, claiming every other historical figure as "gay" (including Shakespeare!) regardless of evidence, in order to provide role models. "History has conspired to keep our lives hidden", says the publicity material, adding brazenly: "Often in correcting this we rely to some degree on circumstantial evidence"! Not content to pervert history, the campaign also sets out to corrupt the children, urging teachers to introduce pupils as young as seven to sexual and swear words, asking them to repeat them and write them on the blackboard and discuss them. Lessons in "gender variance" are also included: "Students are expected to discover that sex and gender are separate concepts fom each other and both are distinct from sexual orientation." Schools do not have to adopt the recommendations but support from the government departments and the police give it respectablity and will put pressure on heads to recognise the campaign.
(16) With the coming into force of The Adoption and Children Act on 30 December 2005, Britain became the latest country to allow homosexuals to adopt children. A classic piece of ungodly New Labour quid pro quo-legislation which allows both gay and cohabiting couples to adopt, the government forced the Act onto the statute book after a bitter battle in the House of Lords, where peers initially blocked the proposals, only to allow it through on the second reading by a narrow majority.
At least it was some relief to hear the Conservative defence spokesman, Gerald Howarth, who chairs the cross-party Parliamentary family and child protection group, plainly state that: "… it is widely accepted that the best environment for a child involves a mother and a father. Allowing homosexual couples to adopt flies in the face of logic and this unnatural politically-obsessed desire to equate homosexuality with normal family life does a great disservice to vulnerable children". Mr Howarth also queried allowing cohabiters to adopt: "… I do not see why those who do not [get married] should still be allowed to enjoy the benefits of marriage in areas like this". – Daily Mail, 31/12/05.
(17) The distribution of money to homosexual activists by the British National Lotteries Charities Board has been an ongoing public scandal for years. £4.2 million pounds was distributed over a three year period to 34 organisations involved in AIDS and HIV projects, including Men who have Sex with Men: Action in the Community, at the expense of numerous worthy charities [Daily Mail, 21/12/05]. More recently, £120,000 was given by the Big Lottery Fund to a rural homosexual support group. Gay-Glos, to put lonely homosexuals in rural villages in touch with each other, while the Severn Area Rescue Association, which asked for a mere £5,000 to help replace its ageing Land Rover used to launch lifeboats, was turned down. "We applied for a small amount of money to help our station save people’s lives, but were told we weren’t given a grant because we don’t save enough ethnic minorities", the Association’s chairman told the Daily Mail [31/12/05]. "But the lottery gives huge amounts of money to organisations like Gay-Glos, which certainly don’t, or won’t, save anyone’s life." In fact, far from saving lives, insofar as homosexual advocacy groups fail in their moral duty to disseminate medical information that might dissuade individuals from entering or continuing in an inherently unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle, they cost lives by speeding the deaths of the very ‘clients’ they seek to serve.
(18) The Family Research Council reports that "A gay activist in Texas made news when he called for homosexuals to deliberately contaminate the blood supply to ‘get funding’ for their treatment. It is unknown whether or how many gays followed his marching orders, or how successful his followers were in causing infections. But the threat was made and widely advertised".
Yet the suicidal impulse of political correctness ensures that even such acts of criminal incitement fail to disrupt the swaggering homosexual advance. Last year, for instance, the same American Red Cross designated the entire month of June as Gay and Lesbian Pride Month at their national headquarters, while their Chief Diversity Officer lauded the "Gay and Lesbian supporters of the Red Crossers" as "dedicated and passionate supporters of the Red Cross mission". This despite the fact that the Federal Government has banned all males engaged in recent homosexual acts from giving blood to any blood bank out of fear that it will contaminate the blood supply (www.redcross.org/news/archives/2000/9-15-00b.html). At the same time, as one outraged Christian employee wrote, while the American Red Cross spend hard-earned donations, much of it donated by Christians, on spreading the "gay" cult and honouring "the very behaviours that are killing thousands of young men every year", requests for a Christian Month are ignored.
(19)"As former Congressional Representative Bob Dornan told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference [CPAC] in the early 1980s, his sister - then working at UCLA medical center - had caught homosexuals with AIDS urinating on their hands and then wiping it on door knobs and other surfaces in an attempt to infect the nursing staff. Since it is unlikely that there is enough HIV in urine to cause an infection, it is unlikely that this ploy succeeded in infecting anyone. … A number of physicians and nurses have told FRI staff of deliberate attempts by homosexuals to infect them while they were ministering to them. For instance, one homosexual receiving an intravenous treatment jerked his arm in such a way that the nurse ended up sticking herself with the needle as she adjusted it. In this instance, she was not infected - nevertheless, around 200 medical personnel have died of AIDS by treating the infected. Since homosexuals make up over half of those with HIV, at least 100 of these deaths were arguably due to treating MSM". – Family Research Report, Vol. 19, No. 3 May 2004.
(20) A few further examples:
"On Sunday December 10, 1990, at the 10.15 am service, there was a demonstration
at St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cathedral in New York. Thousands of homosexuals
and feminists gathered to voice their hatred of the Catholic Church, its teachings
on homosexuality and abortion, and its Bishop, John O’Connor. They shook placards:
‘Keep your rosaries off my ovaries’. ‘Eternal life to John O’Connor NOW!’ ‘Keep
your church out of my crotch’. ‘Know your scumbags’. ‘Curb your dogma’. ‘Papal
Bull’. Dozens worked their way inside, and as the Cardinal’s sermon began, they
stood on the pews, screaming and waving their fists, throwing condoms in the
air. One, taking Holy Communion, broke the consecrated host in half, and did
what every satanist yearns to do, threw it to the floor and trampled on it.
Others outside hoisted a large portrait of a naked Jesus ‘drawn in such a way
as to appeal to the prurient interest of homosexual males’, according to Bill
Reel of the New York Daily News. A similar spectacle occurred in Britain
in September 1991 at the parish church of Jesmond. ACT-UP and militant lesbians
entered the church during Holy Communion and demonstrated against the stance
of the vicar, the Rev David Holloway, on adoption by lesbians and homosexual
males. St Michael’s, Chester Square in London has also been on the receiving
end of such behaviour. Their crime, in the eyes of the militants: to host the
"Living Waters" healing ministry which asserts that homosexuality
is a psychological - or spiritual - condition which the power of Christ Jesus
(21) See "Cronies, Crooks and Crisis Popes", CO, January 2002, for a summary history of the Cawcutt saga.
(22) Melanie Phillips, Daily Mail, 12/5/05.
I realise that not all homosexuals support this "gay" agenda, not by any means. One is reluctant to acknowledge them, however, since they generally lack the courage to speak out forcefully against their vicious brethren with any conviction, for fear of being ostracised by the homosexual community, and are thus complicit. Nonetheless, some, like homosexual actor Christopher Biggins, who are content with their lot and recognise "this golden age for gay men and lesbians", at least speak against those discontented "gays" always searching "for some fictitious new type of discrimination". In a recent article, Biggins wrote: "I hope that the introduction of civil partnerships will bring a halt to the culture of victimhood which still hangs over the gay world. There is a rather tiresome breed of political activist who wants to find prejudice at every turn and constantly bangs on about some invented grievance. … Now that we have won our civil rights, it is also important that we behave in the same spirit of tolerance towards wider society. We live in a free country, where people are entitled to their personal views as long as they don’t advocate harm against others. One of the less attractive features of the hardline gay rights campaigners has been their willingness to howl down anyone who protests against their agenda". Disturbed by the police harassment of Lynette Burrows over her dissent on gay adoptions, Biggins himself believes that such adoptions should at least "be carried out with the greatest care rather than in the spirit of political dogma". And his naivety about the fascist underbelly of "tolerant" liberalism notwithstanding, he concludes: "I would hate to see us destroy basic freedoms of speech in the name of gay rights. It would be tragic irony if, in the name of tolerance, our society ended up actually becoming less tolerant". – Daily Mail, 23/12/05.
(23). Daily Mail editorial, 23/12/05.
(24) In this regard, the summary execution of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station on 22 July 2005 - shot repeatedly at close range, 7 times in the head and once in the shoulder, by officers of the Metropolitan Police Service after a hopelessly bungled operation - was a reality check for everyone (except perhaps the Prime Minister) and something of a portent. As was the police cover-up which immediately followed. One newspaper commentator described the killing "the most chilling example of the police’s lack of common sense tipping into an abuse of power".
(25) Sir Ian Blair has promoted "gay" rights since becoming the Met’s chief. He has appointed 23 diversity advisers on £35,000-a-year salaries and spoken at "gay" events. See also note 15 above.
(26) The degree of authoritarianism and control at the conference shocked Party members themselves. A man who protested that the bouncers were being too heavy-handed with the elderly heckler, for instance, was also collared and forcibly evicted. While a Veteran Labour MP, Austin Mitchell, complained of having his digital camera removed from him and all photos of the conference queues deleted.
(27)The Daily Telegraph, 10/12/05.
For the record, and for what it’s worth, in support of Mrs Burrows perfectly accurate contention about the risk of "gay" adoptions, let us briefly restate the facts about rates of homosexual molestation of children.
As I stated in a November 1999 letter printed in Scotland on Sunday during the debate over the repeal of Section 28 (which prevented the promotion of homosexuality in schools):
The claim that heterosexuals constitute ‘the vast majority of child abusers’ overlooks the relative rates of molestation. Exhaustive studies - whether indexed by population reports of molestation, paedophile convictions or teacher-pupil assaults - indicate that although homosexuals constitute perhaps 2% of the adult population, they account for between 20-40% of all molestations of children. Of course, just as not every heterosexual is a child molester neither is every homosexual. But enough gays do molest children to the extent that the risk of a homosexual molesting a child is 10 to 20 times greater than that of a heterosexual! [figures taken from Child Molestation and Homosexuality, Family Research Institute, Washington, 1993].
There was not a single letter of response to this statement. It remains, unanswerable, as confirmed by Timothy Dailey’s "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse" fact sheet on pages 66-68 of this edition.
(28) "In any sane moral universe", commented social affairs commentator Melanie Phillips on the Burrows case, "a person making such a complaint would be accused of wasting police time".
(29) This inherent inequity has not only resulted in fascistic policing, it has also dragged the police down into unprecedented depths of puritanical primness and inanity, epitomised in this incident that occurred in Oxford late last year and recounted by commentator Stephen Glover: "A student was arrested after inquiring of a mounted policeman: ‘Do you know that your horse is gay?’ He added: ‘I hope you are comfortable riding a gay horse’. Within minutes the student was surrounded by six police officers and a fleet of patrol cars, handcuffed and thrown into jail for the night. For what was not much more than a Bertie Woosterish joke, he was fined £80. According to a police spokesman, the student’s ‘homophobic comments’ were ‘not only offensive to the policeman and his horse, but to any members of the general public in the area’. It is rather difficult to understand how the horse could have been offended". ["Who’s to blame for our sinister new police?", Daily Mail, 13/12/05]
(30)Daily Mail, 12/12/05.
(31) 1971 Statement of the Gay Liberation Front [see p. 65 herein].
(32) "Down the aisle into history", Daily Mail, 20/12/05.