The equality conundrum

The UK reels under strain from an attempt to get everybody equal. That principle suffers in law and it suffers in human terms as well. In law it is impossible to get equality between parties that are of different wealth and in personal terms it is impossible to treat everybody equally on various terms.

With gay marriage now going to be legal in the UK, we hear those more older and/or conservatives amongst us moaning about it. I am especially surprised about the stance of Lord Carey and Reverend Welby, as those are the representatives of the Church of England, the religion as has preached liberalism and did the least to enforce church and religious discipline.

Prior to the gay marriage debate was the gay adoption debate, with the Catholic church shouting the loudest against.

Lets put it into context. If all those heterosexual people who produce the children would do an exemplary good job of looking after their offspring no adoption would be necessary. It is merely that ‘normal’ people produce children, they are either incapable or unwilling to care for.

The church had abandoned their flock generations ago when it became a matter of choice whether to be religious or not.

We have even heard a comment that because Boris Johnson produced a child with an unpaid volunteer whilst working with the Mayor of London, the fitness of the Mayor to do his job would be reflected upon under the circumstances of that extra-marital affair. Yet when gay people have sex during working relationships, they could not possibly produce a child doing so but that does not mean that they are better suited to do the work just because their affairs cannot become so evident as gay couples do not conceive.

As a society we have to look at values and what we want to achieve. At the moment laws are passed all over the ‘civilised’ world, trying to avoid disaster through casual sexual disease by introducing gay marriage. Of course the next worst disaster would be a spread of aids and other diseases because of frequent partner changes.

The statistics make grim reading in  that same sex people feature worst for wear for instance:

  • 60% of all drug abusers, that sought help were elder members of the lesbian, gay and trans-gender scene.
  • 57% 0f all new gonorrhoea cases and  81% of syphilis cases are among gay men.
  • HIV/Aids is prevalent among gay men.

Yet straight people do their utmost to tolerate if not encourage gay relationships. Yet homosexuals are not so happy if somebody wants to turn away from the habit and become straight, ads that direct such people to a charity that wants to help them were banned from TfL buses.  Yet it is possible in every other walk of life to turn a corner and get help doing so but gay people seem to be trapped in that situation.

Even in the USA there is a call to get more women involved into work just as in Japan. Even the UK follows the international trend for female employment.

It’s like this magic formula being used internationally that more homosexuality and more women into work makes less babies.

To bring this back to the equality issue, we have to ask ourselves why people always want to have sex and that it is this addiction that causes problems. We need to ensure people find other values in life rather than skin-contact.

Obviously it is a G8 strategy to promote those lifestyles. The people on top of governments are stupid and we need to stop voting for the same old idiots.

The Catholic church teaches that sexual contact is only used for wanting to reproduce. That is a good rule. Also people must first of all calculate exactly that they are in a position to care for the child(ren) made.

But what is happening is that caring about the results of physical contact has ceased and that either people use their children to make war or don’t care for them at all.

Make love not war is a stupid slogan.

Advertisements

Bash your head against a wall

Lord Carey has a very good point when he refers to persecution of anti-gay sentiments. Stonewall of course condemns the church leader’s remarks.

But Stonewall does not quarrel with the latest government initiatives that systematically persecute ordinary, poor families who see their livelihoods withdrawn from them under the pretence of benefits reforms, which are supposedly beneficial but do nothing but force people into soup kitchens and food banks. Poor families were supported previously by generous welfare programs that gave their off-spring social housing and benefits that paid per child produced.

Lord Carey fears polygamy and sibling marriage, a tendency highly supported by overcrowding and poverty. Especially when poor people do not get any money, how are they supposed to progress into life. Would they not then be stipulated to shrivel into previously outlawed personal practises?

Unfortunately the systematic quashing of breeding instincts in the poor people of this country coincide with a drive to promote homosexuality, so Stonewall is just in the right place to allow those wanting to continue as they were to bash their heads against a wall.

Forgotten to say, of course the government pretends that there are lots of jobs around that people can do to better themselves to put the icing on the (illusive) cake.

Perhaps it is no coincidence either that latest scientific research is published that suggests that a proportion of humans have ape like feet, perhaps the thought springs to mind that those not able to find a home revert to more primitive ancestral habits?

I think our culture has reached a turning point.

Opinion forming

Just watched this discussion program on the TV and the audience was obviously primarily pro-gay marriage. The program was totally biased in that it was conducted in a way that made the one person that voted against it in the recent Commons look ridiculous.

Obviously if there are 50 Million people in the world against it and you fill a studio full of only 100 supporters then you give the impression to the world that there is huge support and that everybody has to be for it and not against. It takes only a small minority to be transmitted to the world to change opinion.

Fact is, the more people do it, the more proclaim it as good. Quite rightly the older generation is all against because the way you are brought up forms your opinion.

There are 2 different issues here, one is the issue of sexual health and that disease is not so easily transmitted if 2 people stay together in a monogamous relationship. That is good for us all because the more frequent people change sexual partners the easier disease is transmitted. On that basis, the spread of HIV has not declined or stayed steady, it is slowly on the increase despite widespread health education about the matter. HIV/AIDS also allows other diseases to flourish.

Yet we do make big health campaigns that smoking kills and causes cancer but we do not make big health campaigns that unprotected homosexuality and any unprotected sex potentially  kills and causes or transmits HIV/AIDS and other diseases.

Then there is the principle issue of homosexuality and whether that should be allowed and that is where many people have not gotten used to the idea. Gay men have become more careless by using less condoms, which has a huge impact on the rest of us; also in the light of the fact that blood donations can now be accepted from practising homosexuals.

I think  it is only responsible and the only option we have, is to encourage people, regardless of sexuality, to stay with one partner because it is safer for us all if people are not promiscuous. The dogging parties are the most dangerous because disease is rapidly transmitted and disease is getting more dangerous and deadly.  Especially now that antibiotics are getting less useful, we have to be especially careful.

I think the principle of marriage for all must not be the first issue to be discussed but the issue of homosexuality as a principle status has to be discussed.

I think the more health deteriorates in relation to sexual practises the more the world will get concerned and take issue with this.

What disturbed me with this discussion that the pro-gay lobby wanted to disregard the 1000s of letters an MP gotten from his constituents to railroad their opinion through against common sentiment. The gay minority doesn’t like to be overlooked so why do they want to ignore the opinion of others? It is frightening to see that gay people seem not to want to respect a democratic process and wanted to dismiss everything and everybody who objected as old-fashioned and crazy.

The general problem that exists is that the less people care for their health or whether they live healthy and long lives the more are those affected who do care for their health and want to live long and healthy lives.

If you read all those links above you might ask yourself what is more important, sexual promiscuity or sexual practises? But we do not really have a choice because the law dictates that we have to tolerate modernist thinking and modern practises around us.

Declare political donations by sexual orientation

I think it makes a lot of sense what High Court Judge Sir Paul Colerige said in that he pointed out that gay marriage is a minority issue that affects 0.1% of the population. Yet political parties like the Conservatives blow up the issue out of all proportion. I think this might have to do with party political donations and therefore political parties, I suggest, should have to declare their donations by sexual orientation since that is such a hot potato and obviously steers party politics out of the mainstream arena into niche discussion just to get a few dollars more from donors.

I have already written about the subject of gay marriage in an earlier post, entitled From G(c)rime to shine, and apparently the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster and judges both support my views, or better said, my views tie in with their opinions.

Strauss-Kahn case near collapse

I am very careful about the contents of press reports about ongoing cases and so far only welcomed the fact that accusations of sexual misdemeanour are being taken seriously and not even prominent politicians are safe from investigation but now feel a bit disturbed to learn the further facts in the Strauss-Kahn case.

To be honest my first thought when I read about the Strauss-Kahn arrest some while ago was that it could be a stitch up to discredit a political opponent of some sort.

I recently had some experience with immigrant workers of some sort myself and could not help noticing the discrepancies in how spoken words had been falsely written down and that things were made up to make a story.

When I now read that the maid previously lied on an immigration application about a rape that on her own admittance, did not happen, I felt all my hair stand up at once, and my hair is quite long at the moment. What is a job description of a hotel maid and is it not very much a matter of what happens when a hotel maid is in a room between the guest(s) and the maid present at any moment in time.

Reading that the maid cleaned another room before she reported the alleged offence, sounds a bit strange to me, reading that she previously lied and admitted to have lied about a rape in her immigration papers makes me say to all women out there: Never use sexual accusations, never allow a man to touch you if you do not want to be touched, always keep your distance if you do not want to get physically involved.

The fact of the matter is that consent is something that happens at the beginning of a relationship. If you allow a man to touch your thigh, then of course a sexual consent is already given at that time because you allow the man to touch your body.

On the other hand many men are sex addicts, they get carried away and do not know when to stop. So just to be on the safe side, women should not allow the first step to help induce other follow on incidents. That of course does not include professional women like actresses who have to have physical contact of some sort. I also do not think that light dresses allow physical invasion but think that where a physical advancement has been taken without proper preparation and consent that there is a good case to investigate a complaint fully.

It brings men of the world down to earth when they read that one of their fellow members has been taken out of their daily routine for a sex crime investigation.

yet for women please remember not to abuse your privileges and justice by manipulating justice by bringing claims of sexual misbehaviour to get your way, may that be for immigration or other purposes.

I wonder whether there is a point in bringing in a rule that men have to have written permission before they can have sex with a woman, wouldn’t that prevent many a lovechild from  being conceived and born?

It is not Conservative to act like an animal

The whole Libyan rape scandal opens up a wide discussion about what is human and what is animalic behaviour. It is thought to be Conservative in Libya not to have a girl impregnated by someone who has not been chosen for her. If she gets raped and is therefore violated and perceived as unclean, she has been dishonoured and gets killed to do her a favour and to save her from shame.

It is not Conservative to be like an animal. It is a well-known behaviour in the animal world that the lead male will kill cubs that are from other males in the herd or group of animals. Recently an ape baby was killed in a zoo when the male, who was newly introduced would not accept the cub because it was from another male.

Of course in the human world, rape is always unacceptable but that it leads to the killing of the affected women will lead to the killing of a whole generation of women. This rape is used to disrupt the social order of any given region and if there are no social changes that will definitely work the trick. So it is alleged that rape is used by both sides.

From a female point of view, it is the utmost abuse of women from both sides and then to kill those women shows that there is no sanctity to life in those regions and I would definitely object to call that Conservative as it is used in the BBC article.

Women must have the right to keep a child that is a result of a rape and be able to raise the child if they wish and women must not be the victims of the action of irresponsible men in any event. In those regions like Libya women have no own rights and are seen as the property of the men who are only proud to own them if no other male can get their parts into that female. It’s sickening and obscene. But it is basically animalic instinctive behaviour. Though it is desirable to save as many lives as possible and to offer abortions the social context in that region needs overhaul and that means the men have got a few screws loose definitely.

healthy attractions

I find this approach of Canadian women quite refreshing because it shows a demo with a difference. It doesn’t condemn females wanting to be attractive and dressing as such but it condemns that typical lazy attitude that says:” because you dressed invitingly someone had the right to violate you”.

Of course in our culture women and men can dress any way they like without making others think that they can violate that person just because they feel gay and happy and express it in their clothing. Wanting to attract others does not mean that anybody is invited to take what they want without asking. It’s as simple as that.

The liberation of Bin Laden’s wives

There is a link to a comprehensive overview of the proceedings that led to Bin Laden’s killing and closure of his compound in Pakistan. There has been a military operation against a person who lived as a civilian but carried out military terrorist war type actions against nations. That is the new face of war that with the guerilla phenomenon we see this problem of persons apparently living like ordinary people being in charge of armies and operating like military. They expect to be treated like civilians but act like army. It’s a bit puzzling and opened many questions of operational legality.

What is however most disturbing about Bin Laden’s lifestyle, is that one of his 3 wives, a Yemeni woman, asserted that she had not left her room for 5 years, that she had spent her whole time in the compound in that one room.

I had read on other sources that strict Islamist husbands expect a woman to sit in one room on a chair, heavily dressed all day and every day or they would make themselves liable to sexual attack (e.g. rape from other men). Just think there were 13 children in the compound and their mothers where never allowed to leave their rooms. How unhealthy is it if a woman is never allowed to leave her room? In western terms that would be unlawful imprisonment of a person.

Ritualistic female degradation

Up-date on 18/5/11, just read that the hat of Princess Beatrice has reached a bid of £18.000 on eBay, so what is mockery for some is collector’s value for others. Original article below.

It seems to me that the press turned again on the females, that attended the joyous royal wedding to carry out the repeated ritual of female degradation on the women that attended the occasion. So and so often, whether its weddings, funerals, film premiers or state occasions, the press will slaughter women’s fashion sense in the aftermath.

Female emancipation must not turn into the ritual of fashion degradation. In fact I think women should be smarter than this and not go crazy on fashion and wear the wildest styles, which are then shredded in the public eye and in the press.

Men just look good in their uniforms, which do not change, they do not wear wild designs and are not thrashed for what they wear ever.

Why do women think that female emancipation is connected with spending lots of money for expensive fashion designs or even more money is spent on hair styles, which are not very long-lasting hair designer’s creations?

The fact is that women spend 4 times as much as men do on fashion and looking good and women should think on their bank accounts and stop making fools of themselves by splashing out so much money on their external beauty. With men beauty comes from within and it should be the same for women. I think women’s emancipation will only truly be completed when women stop spending crazy amounts of money on the way they look.

Basically it is the animal instincts of wanting to attract the opposite sex that makes women dress up in all sorts of colours and styles but that is not only very expensive but leaves many open to public ridicule. Lets bring sense back into emancipation and allow women to be judged by their personalities and not their fashion.

I am far from suggesting that western women should copy simplified fashions like they are worn by Muslim women, which consist of a long frock and a veil, but say that women should stick to basic designs, just like the men do and so also behave environmentally friendly. If you work this out, the amount of fashions that have to be produced throughout the world, it uses a lot of earthly resources to produce those fashions, from the material to the machinery used. But I think it might have been a male idea to produce so many fashions, which is very profitable to those businesses.

Could we not just agree on basic styles. A man only has to have a couple of suits to last him years and he is still able to earn a living on such basic outfits, yet women seem to think they have to make themselves more attractive with ever-changing outfits that get more colourful and crazier by the day. I think we should calm down and make ourselves less prone to ridicule as female emancipation has reached a stage of self-defeating idleness. Women make themselves vulnerable if they give in to demands to look forever young to keep a job. Is there such a thing as a female council? Maybe we should start one to discuss such basic but necessary strategies.

Privacy versus Secrecy, prostitution through the back door?

I am very concerned about those Super Injunctions enabling the rich to stop gossiping. Because it’s just what people do, people get relationships easy when they are rich and people then gossip about them.

Lets just take the old-fashioned boy meets girl constellation, although there are others possible.

It’s often been the moment of fame when a girl found out that her recent one-night stand was a famous star, that kept her going for the rest of her live and naturally she would boast about that to her friends. It’s just always been super-normal to talk about human interaction of any type.

Why now forbid those chats on the basis that it would wreck a rich person’s profitability? It’s now all about money.

I have read somebody argued that a child could become subject to playground bullying or taunting if the nature of an extramarital relationship was to become public. That is frankly laughable.  That is excusing the wrong behaviour by saying it could cause more wrong behaviour. Its like fighting evil with evil so to say.

These type of super injunctions also allow and aid and promote the plain sexual exploitation of people by rich super stars. If no one can even talk about it then that little relationship with the poor girl never existed and that poor girl has been taken advantage of and cannot make any gain from giving herself to the entertainment of that rich person who never intended to let that relationship go any further. Because that is what this boils down to if the rich can have sex with the poor but the poor are not allowed to speak about this. It is then no longer a relationship, how ever short, it is just a service someone has to give for free. But that is not what the Big Society is about then is it? Surely the idea of volunteering cannot go so far! Because if it does it would mean legalizing prostitution but only if it is done voluntarily.

That means the public profile of the rich person is still intact whilst the poor person has been sullied and has to suffer in silence. It brings the concept of slavery and human exploitation nearer to us. It opens the question when is a relationship worth to report about?

It makes me puke to think that rich people can have this respectable front and flawless family imagine when in fact the person has a seedy and secret personal life and dirty habits.  It becoms a dirty habit if one cannot see it as a relationship between people any longer.

As I just read online, nobody can factually stop people from talking on the Internet such as, where search engine results bring up chat. People can post anonymously and if it infuriates enough people they will simply stick together to publish regardless. I think those recent English super-injunctions are repression of the worst kind and even laughable.

What is more important as an question if the fact that once you are rich and constantly in the media for professional success the public is interested in your private life too and you cannot separate one from another, if that fact would stop brilliant professional talent from blossoming in the public media and/or stop careers before they even take off.

Lets face it there are thousands of brilliant football talents out there and it is only because some major firms have banked on marketing one personality, that they have invested considerable amounts of money in doing so, that those names are worth something to them. The industry itself is not flexible enough, they should stop putting all eggs into one basket and highlight talent and allow new talent to come through the undergrowth and push the old names out when they cannot live up to public expectations.

Musicians were always notoriously immoral with wild parties and now they suddenly are expected to drop their lifestyle and live like prudes to help sell more records?

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 52,762 hits