Gay Marriage Advocates Have ‘Really Ugly, Intolerant’ Streak, Says Liberal Journalist

This blog was indifferent to gay marriage as we were to most ‘Gay Rights Issues’, until while defending (as a good liberal should) the right of opponents of same sex marriage to post their opinions in public forums.

“You can’t claim people have a right to hold such bigoted opinions, you homophobic, religious right, tea party nut job, you are denying people the right to love who they choose,” came the first screaming reply, followed by an orchestrated hate attack from they lefty mob.

Now it so happens that while I find ‘gays’ shallow, self – obsessed, self – pitying, immature and B-O-R-I-N-G, I’ve always had a lot of time for a certain kind of queers (aesthetic, articulate, witty, great company, like my friends James P and Craig D, or the best boss I ever had, Peter H (who later became a friend), and the most loyal friends anyone could wish for.

The claim that by opposing same sex marriage I am denying people the right to love whom they choose is ridiculous and ignorant. Marriage is not about love, marriage in the Abrahamic religions and most other human cultures is a system of trading daughters or sisters for money, status, land, favours, influence.

If you want a taste of what the world of ‘queers’ was like, you could read The Naked Civil Servant by Quentin Crisp, an excellent memoir by an overtly homosexual man about his life in London from the 1930s to 60s.,during which time homosexuality was criminalised.

Crisp’s wit and charm did a lot to make homosexuality acceptable in British society (Unfortunately when he had retired to live quietly as a ‘people watcher’ in New York the nasty, mean spirited, intolerant leaders of the NYC gay community turned on him when as an old man, no longer sexually active, he insisted on having his own opinion on the HIV / AIDS issue)

It is good to find that more and more people who are real liberals and understand hat being liberal means are starting to make a stand against the neo Nazis of the left and the gay rights lobby who are determined to usurp our right to free speech and to determine for ourselves what opinions we hold and where we are free to express them. I introduce liberal journalist Brendan O’Neill, who identifies as a liberal, and who has a long history on the Left of British politics, found himself in Australia to debate the issue which is currently one of the country’s hot potatoes.

But instead of the usual, glowing praise from the liberal Left, in the embedded video, O’Neill offers something a bit more interesting: intellectual honesty. Below the embed window is a summary of what Brendan says, just in case the video does not work or sound quality on your device is poor.

Brendan O’Neill: “Here’s what freaks me out about gay marriage. It presents itself as this kind of liberal, civil rightsy issue but it has this really ugly, intolerant streak to it. Any one who opposes gay marriage is demonised, harassed… we’ve seen people thrown out of their jobs because they criticise gay marriage. We’ve seen people ejected from polite society.

“Two hundred years ago if you didn’t believe in God, you wouldn’t have a hope in hell of getting ahead in public life. Today if you don’t believe in gay marriage, you don’t have a hope in hell of getting ahead in public life. There’s a real ugly element to this.

“You really see it with the whole cake shop phenomenon. This whole thing around the Western world where people are going to Christian, traditional cake shops and saying to them ‘Hey you stupid Christians, make this cake for me’ – and if they don’t they call the police, there are equality cases, shops have closed down. It’s like a 21st century form of religious persecution. It’s horrendous.”

“Of course some people support gay marriage and that’s absolutely fine, but what is extraordinary and unacceptable is that they cannot tolerate the existence of people who do not support gay marriage. And I think we sometimes fail to understand how extraordinary that is.”


Tags: , , , , ,

5 Responses to “Gay Marriage Advocates Have ‘Really Ugly, Intolerant’ Streak, Says Liberal Journalist”

  1. JohnKnight Says:


    Now, I happen to be in agreement with much of what you say/imply here, but it bugs me when you treat some stuff that pops into your head as if it were coming to you from the very mind of God or something, and then get all absolutist in your lingo, which to my mind, is what you are actually decrying in this post overall.

    “Marriage is not about love, marriage in the Abrahamic religions and most other human cultures is a system of trading daughters or sisters for money, status, land, favours, influence.”

    Since when are you able to travel back in time, and into the hearts and minds of millions of people long ago, so as to make such a flat statement of fact?

    Would you “trade” your child like that? If not, why presume people in general were so vastly different from you in this regard?

    By doing so, it seems to me you are making the current self appointed “intellectual elite’s” case for them. If we really are just a few years/generations past being mostly knuckle dragging brutes who saw their own children as handy commodities, then what in the world are you arguing about?

    Why aren’t you joining in with those who demand forcible change, if needs be, so we as a society can continue “progressing” beyond the selfish brute state, which we have just recently begun to emerge from? (thanks no doubt to more “evolved” specimens like yourself ; )

    History is chiefly about powerful “elites”, obviously, and I suggest you refrain from believing that all humans were as devoid of concern for their children’s happiness as many of the ruling elites apparently were, and rather use yourself (the only human you can actually know directly), as a more plausible example of what “common folk” were like in the past.

    Which is to say, be careful about the things that pop into your mind, they are not coming from God (I highly suspect ; )but are based on what we’ve been told and what we can read of a very few people from any given place and time, who we were “trained” to see as the cream of the crop, so to speak . . especially if you feel that the opposite is true about your own place and time. I really don’t think things have changed that much in this regard, and I doubt you’d be content to be casually tossed in with the “elites” of today, as though you were idolizing and emulating the people you actually denounce and disrespect pretty much every day.

    I really think that what you wrote there is exactly what the people you oppose want us to believe. For then, it’s no big leap to convince “us” that we need a few “intellectual” elites to rule over us for our own good, and certainly our children’s. They are simply taking the same “story” you yourself told there, to the next logical step . . and placing you in the role of the outdated primitive.

    (PS, My religion in Christianity. It is based on the premise that what is written in a particular book, is actually a communication to us from our Creator (God). It’s public information, so to speak, so this is extremely weird to me; “marriage in the Abrahamic religions … is a system of trading daughters and sisters for money …”. Show me, please, where in the Book God tells people to do such things, or kindly leave me out of your . . weird imaginings. That guilt-by-word-association crap is getting kinda old, Professor Progressive ; )

    • specialcorrespondent Says:

      I approved your comment on Ian’s behalf John, but as you and he obviously know each other in cyberspace at least I’ll leave him to reply when he gets back. Thanks for commenting,
      Ken McAllister (special correspondent is a log in for many people as co authors are limited here)

      • JohnKnight Says:

        Thanks, Ken

      • ianrthorpe Says:

        “Since when are you able to travel back in time, and into the hearts and minds of millions of people long ago, so as to make such a flat statement of fact?”

        Since I first opened a history book and read about it. And I was still at school then.

        “Would you “trade” your child like that? If not, why presume people in general were so vastly different from you in this regard?”

        Yes, people were vastly different, the practice of dowrys, bride prices and arranged marriages is well documented all over Europe and went on into the twentieth century.

        The British aristocracy was in big trouble until in the eighteenth century, the practice of the monarch having to approve all marriages of aristocrats in order to keep the bloodlines pure having led to inbreeding and congenital idiocy.

        Hard up aristocrats flocked to marry their offspring to the sons and daughters of wealthy business people, money land and titles were part of the deal.

        Once freed to cross breed with the merchant classes, the aristocracy began to recover.

        There was a minor constitutional crisis over the wedding of Prince Charles to Lady Diana however. Although Diana was sold as a brood mare to The House Of Windsor because she came from an aristocratic family while Charles’ lover, the current Mrs. King-in-waiting was a commoner (i.e. no family title) and was previously married.

        The crisis however was not about any of that, traditionalists were upset because the heir to the throne was marrying someone who was not a member of a Royal house.

        And that was only 34 years ago.

        I am entitled to say what I said because it is right and well documented.

  2. JohnKnight Says:


    “Since I first opened a history book and read about it.”

    Oh, so you believe other people can travel through time and read multitudes of dead people’s minds and hearts . . fascinating ; )

    “Yes, people were vastly different …”

    I don’t believe it. I believe people were just about as gullible as they are now ; )

    “… the practice of dowrys, bride prices and arranged marriages is well documented all over Europe and went on into the twentieth century.”

    Sure, I get all that, but that doesn’t mean all people were ignoring the wishes of their children. Again, would you just go along with being married to someone you didn’t want to be “tied to” for the rest of your life? Or would you ask that you be permitted to chose for yourself?

    (I think you may have been watching too much Monty Python, and listening to too many expert remote heart knowers ; )

    It is simply irrational to me, to think everyone was devoid of consideration for their children’s happiness . . until a few centuries ago . . and then suddenly we “evolved” the sort of emotions I felt regarding my own child from the moment she was born.

    What I felt for my child, and her mother, were obviously “natural” and very powerful emotions/inclinations. And several newish dads have told me of the same sense of being virtually overwhelmed by their “attachment” and sense of responsibility to their children.

    And we can see this same reaction in all sorts of mammals (and birds). The idea that I would run away from a grave threat and leave my family to be consumed or whatever is ludicrous to me.

    And I think it’s ludicrous to you too . . even without having children (if you don’t), you must sense the relative ease with which our emotions can allow us to virtually ignore danger or discomfort to ourselves, in the interest of the well being of others, especially those in our own family.

    That is what you are dismissing as insignificant, it seems to me, on no logical grounds at all. You can believe that the reason you would not “trade” your child for some beads or goats or whatever is because you are vastly different from your ancestors if you wish, but I really am an “existentialist”, and that is nonsensical as far as I’m concerned.

    And “history” is chock full of examples of people risking life and limb for their children, and/or wives/husbands/siblings/parents/friends/neighbors/strangers etc. as well. We are not psychopaths (for the most part) and the concept that our “natural” tendency to care for our children is some sort of recent development is just not credible to me.

    Therefore, I strongly suspect that a great many people got “married” willingly to someone they really cared about and wanted to raise a family with, and so on.

    Of course that doesn’t preclude various “imitations” of that genuine “pair bonding” behavior, and people being/becoming insensitive/selfish . . I mean, I am a Christian after all, and that’s kinda the main problem God speaks of us having; Calloused hearts.

    “The British aristocracy was in big trouble …”

    Still are, I believe, unless they can somehow manage to un-callous their hearts. (Circumcision of the heart as the Book puts it).

    Strange as this may sound, I find the Book’s explanation for what is going on in my reality-land much more plausible than the “virtual robots slavishly trying to spread our genes around” explanation the Siants religion professes, and indoctrinates us with.

    It’s not even close, and I doubt you really believe that jive either. You’re just too smart and self aware (in my opinion) to believe you are a freaking biological robot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: