political commentator * author * publisher * bookseller * radio presenter * blogger * Conservative candidate * former lobbyist * Jack Russell owner * West Ham United fanatic * Email iain AT iaindale DOT com
Friday, October 19, 2007
It's All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married)
One of the funniest satires I have seen in ages. And yes folks, it is satire. Just before anyone thinks it's actually serious. OK?
34 comments:
Anonymous
said...
If it's one of the funniest "satires" you've seen in ages, Iain, that's too bad.
I don't think you can be a conservative and support gay marriage. Setting fire to the morality, rules and traditions of several milennia to placate less than 3% of the population is ridiculous. Homosexuals should stay in the closet rather than leap out and try and corral us all back in there with them. It is considered brave to depart such an enclosed, small space: but guess what, gays are small and narrow part of the population, and if Britain were a room, they would, in proportionate size, be the nail filer or empty coke can next to the bin, not the wardrobe.
scott, grow up. I'm a gay conservative and back gay marriage. Do I think i'll ever get married? I don't know but if people want to do it then they should be allowed the same legal freedoms as straight couples
Scott, wouldn't you want The Gays to get married so that They aren't constantly out prowling the bars, trying to drag you into their insignificantly small closet of Gayness? Think about it: if They could get married, a large proportion of Them would be at home baking cakes etc, making a tiny problem even smaller. Your bottom would be more safe, not less!
Many people used to voice their worries in abolishing other hallowed traditions, like women not getting the vote, or slavery. As often as not, these worries were discovered to be unfounded.
Shorter diablo - "I'm not gay btw. Whinge moan I fink what they get up to's disgastin, and so does my wife. Gripe mutter anyway there arent many gays about and people dont hate them... so stop whingeing."
If Iain had not banned swearing, scott would be the perfect target. But as he obviously has a bit of a "problem" with gays (as well as with grammar and spelling), poor dear, best not to be too unkind.
Many of your correspondents have short memories; how much does this issue conform to the rule of boundaries whereby when a boundary is granted those concerned will push it to the limits?
40 years ago a bill was sponsored by two Parliamentarians, Leo Abse and Lord Arran.
Arran said at the time of those whose plight he championed,
Any form of ostentatious behaviour; now or in the future any form of public flaunting, would be utterly distasteful... Homosexuals must continue to remember that while there may be nothing bad in being a homosexual, there is certainly nothing good. Lest the opponents of the Bill think that a new freedom, a new privileged class, has been created, let me remind them that no amount of legislation will prevent homosexuals from being the subject of dislike and derision, or at best of pity."
Leo Abse said recently
'Those of us putting the bill through thought that, by ending criminality, we'd get the gays to integrate. But I was disconcerted and frightened at first because they were coming out and turning themselves into a self-created ghetto.'
and also
'On my 90th birthday, I had lots of telegrams. I never had one word of thanks from any gay activist or lobby. When I've shown any reservations about the gays, they haven't forgotten. The ghetto suggests they are not at ease. They've got to have a gay world. Perhaps it was presumptuous to think they would integrate and become part of society. They use the excuse of external pressure and discrimination, but really it's not good enough.'
Before the relativists jump in and make accusations, it is worth pointing out that values, of any kind, have to have longevity if they are to be worth anything at all. To dismiss the above by telling me that "we have moved on" would indicate the worst form of nihilistic relativism which can turn around at any time and bite you on the back.
My own feeling is that so often, the moral, personal, social and pragmatic issues are used interchangeably and this is frequently the cause of name-calling and unneccessary rancour.
The moral arguments are tricky in a pluralistic society and are best left to philosophers and theologians.
Personally, we are all entitled to an opinion and nobody is going to tell me what to think about homosexuality. As to what I think of homosexuals, I refer to the paragraph above, which should include (for my money) a section on the Christian tenet of not judging others.
Socially, all sub-cultures should take account of the primary society they inhabit. I do not believe that gay pressure groups have attended to this, having preferred to be resident in ghettos or militant and in some cases, just offensive.
Pragmatically, we have to deal with the fall out of human behaviour, whatever it is. It is essential that public spending, counselling, healthcare, legal protection and understanding are applied to all without partiality. And Scott, pretending an issue does not exist will not help..just look at the problem with AIDS in South Africa.
And lastly, on the video.
It is funny and it points to the absurdity of scapegoating minorities, but we must be careful that in supporting the rights of minorities we do not in turn create another set of scapegoats, that of white straight males, or indeed, whole organisations, like Churches, who have been targeted quite viciously at times.
I don't think you can be a conservative and support gay marriage.
Conservatives, supporting the freedom of the individual? Whatever next?
I'm not sure you can be a Tory, in the sense of believing that the state should impact as little as is necessary on people's lives, and not support gay marriage.*
In fact, I would say, Scott, that if you believe the state has any right whatsoever to dictate whom you may or may not marry**, you are a socialist.
As for the idea - which you may not have written but lies behind your post like a watermark - that the state should be allowed a say in what two consenting adults can and cannot get up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms, that is bordering on fascism.
*it seems a little irrelevant to point out that I'm not gay - in this argument I don't think it should matter - but as I can forsee ad hominem responses accusing gay people of self interest / special pleading, I should probably state that I'm not.
**yes, I realise that taken to it's logical conclusion this condones inbreeding. I haven't got round to working that out yet. I find the idea distasteful, but then I find a lot of things distasteful. I don't always think they should be illegal.
When the BBC starts its Iranian news channel do you think that they will be highlighting gay issues? perhaps some gay lifestyle programmes about gay Iranians? Will the BBC cover the public murders of lesbian women and gays? Im trying to see the TV times prog guide in my mind, 1930GMT women being buried upto the neck and then has her head smashed in with stones!(BBC likes local muslim culture doesnt it?) OR 2100GMT young gay boy is strangled to death slowly by being lifted up by the neck by crane(can take 30mins to die, very painfull)! The BBC, its what they do!
I don't want to monopolise this thread but Pooh Bear has cited a very very important argument.
The plight of the liberal elite today is not that nobody agrees with them, or that their arguments are stale and bankrupt (which they are) but that they contradict each other.
So desperate are they to promote minorities that the fact that some minorities are totally opposed to each other conveniently escapes them.
This is because relativism is a redundant creed. It is as specious as aetheism, which today inhabits all the frothing hysteria (see Dawkins) that was once reserved for TV evangelists.
If the BBC is going to start a Muslim service, for a minority group whose followers want gays and women stoned to death, then why aren't they starting a station for Neo-Nazis who want to repatriate blacks and exterminate Jews?
As I said nihilistic relativism will return to bite the hand that feeds it. QED
Benny - There is no such thing as gay marriage. There are legal civil partnerships, which is only right, that give the partnership a formal status. Like the right to visit a sick partner in hospital, property rights and so on. I don't think anyone in their right mind could find anything to object to in this.
How can you claim that gay people are stuffing their lifestyle down your throats and then say they've created their own ghettoes? Either they're integrated and can express themselves freely without harassment or they're ghettoised into their own clubs, social groupings, etc.
It seems those who complain when gay people kiss in public are those who also say that they've created their own ghettos. Hypocritical.
Nicholas please stop trying to shift blame for anti gay feelings out there on to the 'evil Tories' because the real blame lays elsewhere as you know full well! The old worn out mantra that the Tories are homophobic Etc is just tired propaganda! Im Gay and as I look around the world I see REAL evil and cruelty to gay people BUT on this REAL evil the left seems to be silent! The leftist BBC seem to think its fine for Gays to be tortured to death just as long as the perpetrators are doing it for 'cultural' reasons. So yes I would like a council home with a partner BUT that in the greater world is pretty much a luxury isnt it?
What is inappropriate or unacceptable about marriage between people of the same sex and how is it any business of anyone what other people do as long as they are not hurting anyone else (which does not mean not offending)?
It is absurd that 'gay marriage' is an issue in what is supposed to be a mature social democracy.
Scott: What do you mean by 'the morality, rules and traditions of several milennia (sic)'?
I don't think you can call yourself a conservative, and treat your values like it's a matter of utilitarian calculus - let alone taking the attitude that encouraging stable, dedicated partnerships between gay men and lesbians isn't deeply 'conservative'.
IMO, what really scares the poop out of people like you is that allowing same-sex civil marriage challenges the convenient box you like to put homosexuals into. You know what I'm talking about: neurotically promiscuous perverts whose every waking moment is concerned with how to infect 'normal' people (especially children) with queer germs.
People like you would be funny - and plain pathetic - if you weren't quite so sinister.
And don't worry your pretty, empty little head Scott - I think your botty is quite safe from recruitment. At least from this particular 'empty Coke can' in the great student squat of life.
Scott - Firstly, there is no such thing as gay 'marriage' - there is just same sex unions.
The idea that gay people wishing to enter into some kind of public commitment undermines public morality is rubbish. The only thing such unions undermine is the kind of sexual promiscuity which has given gay people a bad name - so they are a positive thing if only for that.
However, as well as this, Same sex unions actually enable gay people to contribute to society by 'normalising' their relationships, giving them a status and a dignity they should rightly have. They also mean that gay people can at last enjoy many of the benefits that hetrosexual people take for granted.
I cannot understand why you would be against that - whatever your politics!
Sockpuppet, you can be anti-gay and conservative, but you cannot be a liberal (or libetarian) conservative. Likewise, you can be a socialist and also anti-gay!
This is where modern politics breaks down. The arguments are no longer about left and right, but about authoritarian and libertarian. Both party's have both in their midst, which is ahy Gordon Brown - an authoritarian socilaist, is trying to appeal to authoritarian Conservatives over the head of David Cameron, who is a liberal Conservative, and holds some appeal to liberally minded socialists and social democrats!
34 comments:
If it's one of the funniest "satires" you've seen in ages, Iain, that's too bad.
Mildly entertaining, though.
I don't think you can be a conservative and support gay marriage. Setting fire to the morality, rules and traditions of several milennia to placate less than 3% of the population is ridiculous. Homosexuals should stay in the closet rather than leap out and try and corral us all back in there with them. It is considered brave to depart such an enclosed, small space: but guess what, gays are small and narrow part of the population, and if Britain were a room, they would, in proportionate size, be the nail filer or empty coke can next to the bin, not the wardrobe.
Haha he's quite cute. Stubble: the sandpaper of love. ;)
Ha ha! That's hilarious.
scott, grow up. I'm a gay conservative and back gay marriage. Do I think i'll ever get married? I don't know but if people want to do it then they should be allowed the same legal freedoms as straight couples
clever satire - I loved it
jo
Scott, wouldn't you want The Gays to get married so that They aren't constantly out prowling the bars, trying to drag you into their insignificantly small closet of Gayness? Think about it: if They could get married, a large proportion of Them would be at home baking cakes etc, making a tiny problem even smaller. Your bottom would be more safe, not less!
Many people used to voice their worries in abolishing other hallowed traditions, like women not getting the vote, or slavery. As often as not, these worries were discovered to be unfounded.
Abominations before God!
I just heard Galloway on channel 5 describe Cameron at PMQs as like "a young Cassius Clay..".
Well raise my rent
Perhaps Mr Dale is thinking of getting hitched himself...
Poor Scott, someone must have pissed in his porridge this morning.
Sorry big guy, but being gay and conservative are NOT mutually exclusive.
Scott went on to pontificate: "Homosexuals should stay in the closet rather than leap out and try and corral us all back in there with them".
Believe me: I don't want to "corral" you anywhere. Leave me out of your deranged fantasies- and cheer up.
PS Iain, I thought it was good and I just may nick it.
I think this song found its inspiration HERE
It's not a satire, it's a Mitt Romney campaign ad.
Shorter diablo - "I'm not gay btw. Whinge moan I fink what they get up to's disgastin, and so does my wife. Gripe mutter anyway there arent many gays about and people dont hate them... so stop whingeing."
Riiight.
If Iain had not banned swearing, scott would be the perfect target.
But as he obviously has a bit of a "problem" with gays (as well as with grammar and spelling), poor dear, best not to be too unkind.
Such fun.
Many of your correspondents have short memories; how much does this issue conform to the rule of boundaries whereby when a boundary is granted those concerned will push it to the limits?
40 years ago a bill was sponsored by two Parliamentarians, Leo Abse and Lord Arran.
Arran said at the time of those whose plight he championed,
Any form of
ostentatious behaviour; now or in the future any form of public flaunting, would be utterly
distasteful...
Homosexuals must continue to remember that while there may be nothing bad
in being a homosexual, there is certainly nothing good. Lest the opponents of the Bill think
that a new freedom, a new privileged class, has been created, let me remind them that no
amount of legislation will prevent homosexuals from being the subject of dislike and derision,
or at best of pity."
Leo Abse said recently
'Those of us putting the bill through thought that, by ending criminality, we'd get the gays to integrate. But I was disconcerted and frightened at first because they were coming out and turning themselves into a self-created ghetto.'
and also
'On my 90th birthday, I had lots of telegrams. I never had one word of thanks from any gay activist or lobby. When I've shown any reservations about the gays, they haven't forgotten. The ghetto suggests they are not at ease. They've got to have a gay world. Perhaps it was presumptuous to think they would integrate and become part of society. They use the excuse of external pressure and discrimination, but really it's not good enough.'
Before the relativists jump in and make accusations, it is worth pointing out that values, of any kind, have to have longevity if they are to be worth anything at all. To dismiss the above by telling me that "we have moved on" would indicate the worst form of nihilistic relativism which can turn around at any time and bite you on the back.
My own feeling is that so often, the moral, personal, social and pragmatic issues are used interchangeably and this is frequently the cause of name-calling and unneccessary rancour.
The moral arguments are tricky in a pluralistic society and are best left to philosophers and theologians.
Personally, we are all entitled to an opinion and nobody is going to tell me what to think about homosexuality. As to what I think of homosexuals, I refer to the paragraph above, which should include (for my money) a section on the Christian tenet of not judging others.
Socially, all sub-cultures should take account of the primary society they inhabit. I do not believe that gay pressure groups have attended to this, having preferred to be resident in ghettos or militant and in some cases, just offensive.
Pragmatically, we have to deal with the fall out of human behaviour, whatever it is. It is essential that public spending, counselling, healthcare, legal protection and understanding are applied to all without partiality. And Scott, pretending an issue does not exist will not help..just look at the problem with AIDS in South Africa.
And lastly, on the video.
It is funny and it points to the absurdity of scapegoating minorities, but we must be careful that in supporting the rights of minorities we do not in turn create another set of scapegoats, that of white straight males, or indeed, whole organisations, like Churches, who have been targeted quite viciously at times.
I don't think you can be a conservative and support gay marriage.
Conservatives, supporting the freedom of the individual? Whatever next?
I'm not sure you can be a Tory, in the sense of believing that the state should impact as little as is necessary on people's lives, and not support gay marriage.*
In fact, I would say, Scott, that if you believe the state has any right whatsoever to dictate whom you may or may not marry**, you are a socialist.
As for the idea - which you may not have written but lies behind your post like a watermark - that the state should be allowed a say in what two consenting adults can and cannot get up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms, that is bordering on fascism.
*it seems a little irrelevant to point out that I'm not gay - in this argument I don't think it should matter - but as I can forsee ad hominem responses accusing gay people of self interest / special pleading, I should probably state that I'm not.
**yes, I realise that taken to it's logical conclusion this condones inbreeding. I haven't got round to working that out yet. I find the idea distasteful, but then I find a lot of things distasteful. I don't always think they should be illegal.
When the BBC starts its Iranian news channel do you think that they will be highlighting gay issues? perhaps some gay lifestyle programmes about gay Iranians?
Will the BBC cover the public murders of lesbian women and gays? Im trying to see the TV times prog guide in my mind, 1930GMT women being buried upto the neck and then has her head smashed in with stones!(BBC likes local muslim culture doesnt it?) OR 2100GMT young gay boy is strangled to death slowly by being lifted up by the neck by crane(can take 30mins to die, very painfull)! The BBC, its what they do!
I don't want to monopolise this thread but Pooh Bear has cited a very very important argument.
The plight of the liberal elite today is not that nobody agrees with them, or that their arguments are stale and bankrupt (which they are) but that they contradict each other.
So desperate are they to promote minorities that the fact that some minorities are totally opposed to each other conveniently escapes them.
This is because relativism is a redundant creed. It is as specious as aetheism, which today inhabits all the frothing hysteria (see Dawkins) that was once reserved for TV evangelists.
If the BBC is going to start a Muslim service, for a minority group whose followers want gays and women stoned to death, then why aren't they starting a station for Neo-Nazis who want to repatriate blacks and exterminate Jews?
As I said nihilistic relativism will return to bite the hand that feeds it. QED
Benny - There is no such thing as gay marriage. There are legal civil partnerships, which is only right, that give the partnership a formal status. Like the right to visit a sick partner in hospital, property rights and so on. I don't think anyone in their right mind could find anything to object to in this.
How can you claim that gay people are stuffing their lifestyle down your throats and then say they've created their own ghettoes? Either they're integrated and can express themselves freely without harassment or they're ghettoised into their own clubs, social groupings, etc.
It seems those who complain when gay people kiss in public are those who also say that they've created their own ghettos. Hypocritical.
Nicholas please stop trying to shift blame for anti gay feelings out there on to the 'evil Tories' because the real blame lays elsewhere as you know full well! The old worn out mantra that the Tories are homophobic Etc is just tired propaganda! Im Gay and as I look around the world I see REAL evil and cruelty to gay people BUT on this REAL evil the left seems to be silent! The leftist BBC seem to think its fine for Gays to be tortured to death just as long as the perpetrators are doing it for 'cultural' reasons. So yes I would like a council home with a partner BUT that in the greater world is pretty much a luxury isnt it?
Did the Mail on Sunday or the Daily Mail fund this??
What is inappropriate or unacceptable about marriage between people of the same sex and how is it any business of anyone what other people do as long as they are not hurting anyone else (which does not mean not offending)?
It is absurd that 'gay marriage' is an issue in what is supposed to be a mature social democracy.
Scott: What do you mean by 'the morality, rules and traditions of several milennia (sic)'?
Scott:
You are extracting the urine, aren't you?
I don't think you can call yourself a conservative, and treat your values like it's a matter of utilitarian calculus - let alone taking the attitude that encouraging stable, dedicated partnerships between gay men and lesbians isn't deeply 'conservative'.
IMO, what really scares the poop out of people like you is that allowing same-sex civil marriage challenges the convenient box you like to put homosexuals into. You know what I'm talking about: neurotically promiscuous perverts whose every waking moment is concerned with how to infect 'normal' people (especially children) with queer germs.
People like you would be funny - and plain pathetic - if you weren't quite so sinister.
And don't worry your pretty, empty little head Scott - I think your botty is quite safe from recruitment. At least from this particular 'empty Coke can' in the great student squat of life.
Pooh Bear..
"So yes I would like a council home with a partner "
If you can manage to get him pregnant, you may jump to the top of the queue!
Iain, you SO need a sense of humour implant! I thought it was crap.
Scott - Firstly, there is no such thing as gay 'marriage' - there is just same sex unions.
The idea that gay people wishing to enter into some kind of public commitment undermines public morality is rubbish. The only thing such unions undermine is the kind of sexual promiscuity which has given gay people a bad name - so they are a positive thing if only for that.
However, as well as this, Same sex unions actually enable gay people to contribute to society by 'normalising' their relationships, giving them a status and a dignity they should rightly have. They also mean that gay people can at last enjoy many of the benefits that hetrosexual people take for granted.
I cannot understand why you would be against that - whatever your politics!
Sockpuppet, you can be anti-gay and conservative, but you cannot be a liberal (or libetarian) conservative. Likewise, you can be a socialist and also anti-gay!
This is where modern politics breaks down. The arguments are no longer about left and right, but about authoritarian and libertarian. Both party's have both in their midst, which is ahy Gordon Brown - an authoritarian socilaist, is trying to appeal to authoritarian Conservatives over the head of David Cameron, who is a liberal Conservative, and holds some appeal to liberally minded socialists and social democrats!
Nicholas please stop trying to shift blame for anti gay feelings out there on to the 'evil Tories'
Pray tell, show me where I have tried to blame Tories for anti-gay feelings?
Actually, by supporting individual's right to live a certain way I'm being more Tory than the social conservatives!
I don't get it.
I like the bit where the women flash their knickers though.
Post a Comment