Saturday, 29 March 2014

Gay Marriage

Today, for the first time in history, couples of the same sex can be legally married in England and Wales. One of the first was Sean Adl-Tabatabai, an acquaintance of mine who works closely with David Icke, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1trURHhdtJY. They got legally married in Camden Town Hall, London, just a few minutes after midnight. I didn't even know he was gay; just goes to show you can't always tell by looking! Congratulations to Sean and his new husband. He and I have not always seen eye-to-eye on everything, but I do wish them both all the very best. Peter Tatchell, who is involved with The People's Voice, was a witness at another a few miles away in Islington. Since 2005 same sex couples have been allowed to enter into what's been called a "civil partnership"; this contains all the rights and obligations in law that marriage has but cannot formally use words traditionally associated with marriage like marry, wedding, wife, husband etc. This has now changed. Although a significant majority of Britons support the change, about a fifth say that if they were invited to a gay wedding they would decline. I'm not one of those; in fact I was once invited to the civil partnership ceremony of a lesbian nurse and her partner and couldn't attend for purely incidental reasons. I have been to a gay porter's wedding. I have no objection at all to two people in love getting married, whether they are a homosexual couple or not; and ironically rates of marriage between men and women have been declining for decades now. Love is such a rare and precious thing in our society that every windblown seed of it should be rigourously cultivated wherever it lands. Objections to this change in the law come mostly from the church; the idea that marriage is a traditional institution between a man and woman ordained by God and regarded as sacred. There are some who oppose gay marriage for secular reasons too; these people claim that the law was "rushed through Parliament" without being thought through properly. There's a feeling from some that this change in the legal definition of marriage will undermine society. Also if civil partnerships are a legal facsimile to marriage then isn't it just a question of semantics?

I don't agree with any of those arguments above; however there are some elements to gay marriage that concern me and have caused conflict in my mind. I think it could pose a threat to free speech if those who dislike gay marriage are not accommodated in society with the sheer basics of respect and humanity. What's clear to me is that the majority of gay marriage sceptics are not raving queer-bashers; even some homosexuals themselves argue against it, like the famous historian David Starkey. A few months ago a marriage registrar was sacked from her job for refusing to carry out civil partnerships. As I explain in this article, in the last paragraph, I get the distinct impression that the action against her was based on ideological grounds, a Thoughtcrime; see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/discrimination-against-christians.html. I've also written before about my deep concerns related to feminism, see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/clares-law-feminist-snoopers-charter.html and: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/anti-feminist-demonization.html. As a white, straight male I can't help feeling that I'm under attack. I almost always sense blatant double-standards and Orwellian double-think whenever I hear words like "equality" or "human rights", in practice if not also in theory. I have to remind people that white, straight males are human too; we have rights like everybody else. Yet I feel that it is seen as immoral just to mention that. I can be refused promotion at work because I am a WSM, I can be turned down for a job because an employer feels obliged to favour a non-WSM above me. In South Africa I can even be brutally murdered and the international community will turn a blind eye, because I'm a WSM. There are institutions and pressure groups for non-WSM's yet none for WSM's; in fact the bare suggestion of setting one up can lead to accusations of racism/sexism/homophobia etc. There are specially designated non-WSM areas in my own hometown where I am banned along with dogs, such as baby-care facilities, two Oxford colleges and swimming pools. I have researched this and discovered that it is actually a very long-running and widespread form of psychological warfare called cultural Marxism and it has its roots in organizations like the Frankfurt School and the Fabian Society which have been enormously powerful and influential for over a century, even though you won't hear their names mentioned in the news much. If you think you've managed to escape its indoctrination then ask yourself this: Have you ever said something like: "Could I have a cup of black coffee please?" and then mentally pulled yourself up with the thought: "Oh no! Have I just said something racist!?" Do you then feel guilty as a result, even though what you actually said was completely benign? If the answer is yes then you are a victim of cultural Marxist brainwashing. In light of this revelation some WSM's get angry; they then lash out by joining a neo-Nazi party or the English Defence League or something. I'd strongly recommend against that because it in itself is a controlled response, a part of the same conspiracy. The aim of cultural Marxism is to break down our minds, and an element of that is divide-and-rule. They want black hating white, women hating men, gay hating straight... and of course vice versa on all counts. The real solution to cultural Marxism has to come from understanding what it really is; so I'd say to my fellow WSM's, don't feel guilty, but don't go crazy either. Cultural Marxism was not created because the elite prefer non-WSM's to the rest of us and want to exterminate WSM's. It was created to destroy the psyches of all human beings using methods tailor-made to each group of us in different ways. So I look forward to receiving an invite to a gay wedding; I'll do everything I can to attend. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26793127.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

right, as a white, straight male you feel you are under attack, yes of course. Tell me Ben, when was the last time someone yelled a racist or homophobic comment at you. When was the last time you were gay bashed, afraid you were going to be raped or beaten up because of your colour. Has anyone ever called you a dirty poof, or a nigger, or a paki, or a bitch. When was the last time someone groped you, or threw bananas at you when you were playing for your team. I know the answer to that one - absolutely never. stop making yourself out to be a victim, there are plenty of places that are no go areas for women, gays and ethnics as well, if the worst you have suffered is not being welcome in a handful of places then consider yourself lucky. You do not face violence and intimidation on a daily basis, that is being under attack, feeling that you may be raped, beaten or murdered for who you are. Stop all this bull crap about being a victimised SWM, you are part of one of the most privileged groups in society and your silly, illogical, delusional bleatings about being discriminated against are laughable. If you feel hard done by then that is your own insecurity, get real. Think about those who really are suffering discrimination.

pete springer said...

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Totally disagree, Anon, and it is YOU who need to get real! There are many times I've been abused and threatened with violence because of my colour and gender. You do not know the answer at all. I do not consider myself lucky at all and I think I do feel intimidation on a daily basis. If there are no-go areas for women/gays/black people etc then they at least can make a grievance about it and they will be listened to (This in to to lessen the severity of the former. Please DO NOT attempt to claim that I don't care about them!) The problem is that the attacks on WSM people are institutional and cannot be argued against in the mainstream. I don't see how somebody who can be brutally and genocidally slaughtered in South Africa, as well as refused a job in this country, can be called "privileged". And don't accuse me ever of not thinking about ANYBODY who is suffering from discrimination! I do, all the time.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

What's more I'd like to ask a question. Is there any hypothetical scenario in which WSM's will stop being "privileged"? When the last white farmer in South Africa is impaled dead on a gatepost next to his raped wife? When the last manager, supervisor or political leader's job has been made off-limits to WSM's? When the last male presenter has been kicked and spat at as he exists Broadcasting House for the last time? WHEN will we no longer be privileged? Because these cultural Marxist policies have no sunset clause and no timetable or roadmap for objectives. For all we know they could go on forever! Until you can answer my question then it is YOU who need to cut the bullcrap!