Why? Because as new Home Secretary and 'Equality Minister', her voting record did not go down well with over 65,000 Facebook campaigners. Her voting record, for the record, from a Catholic point of view was rather good.
According to an irate writer in The Socialist, she voted...
'...against the repeal of Section 28 and against the lowering of the age of consent for gay men to 16. She also voted against adoption rights for same-sex couples and against the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which would give lesbian couples the ability to receive fertility treatment, as did the new Conservative Prime Minister. In addition she abstained from a vote on the Gender Recognition Act that allows transsexuals to change their legal gender.'
How shocking that Teresa May did not buckle in the Commons to the demands of the LGBT lobby and dance to their tune like her predecessor Harriet Harman did during her time as Minister for the Promotion of Homosexuality. Now that Teresa May has, as part of her brief, the responsibility for 'equalities', she has begun to do the YMCA, but only because of the hatred poured forth from those whose only agenda is for the LGBT community.
A Sack Teresa May campaign and a Facebook page with a similar title was quickly established which attacked her for, basically, standing up in the Commons in defense of marriage, the child, natural law and the family. All of these concepts appear alien to the LGBT community and their supporters who clearly believe that life is just one big erotic festival and that children, families, married couples and religious faith are concepts that belong to ages past, never to be allowed to rear their ugly heads again.
I managed to see footage of the Question Time debacle in which Teresa May buckled under the pressure of cameras and lights and lent her support to gay adoption. Christina Odone, a 'Catholic' who writes for The Telegraph, appears to think this is wonderful news, 'Quite right too,' she wrote on her blog.
Gay adoption is not a moral good, since every child deserves a mother and a father who can be protectors, carers and role models for the child. A family requires a mother and a father. A child needs both maternal love and care and paternal love and guidance. Of course, the LGBT community don't really think of the best interests of the child, they are consumed with self-interest and the promotion of their rights to the detriment of the child.
Neither is the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle to teenagers by lowering the age of consent to 16 a moral good, since at the age of 16, children are just coming to terms with their sexual maturity. Many of the victims of sexual abuse in the Church, especially in the US, were in fact around this age and look what happened to those children. 16 year old children can be easily groomed by homosexuals who do not have their best interests at heart and who want them only for their own sexual satisfaction. Section 28 was concerned primarily with the protection of the child as was, of course, the age of consent at 18, rather than 16 when a teenager is still in his or her formative years. Above all, LGBT campaigners are reckless and especially so, given that rates of HIV in the gay community continue to remain high.
Nearly every Government proposal in the Human Fertlisation and Embryology Bill was morally repulsive and destructive of human life. This is the same Bill which enshrined in legislation the rights of the scientific community to bastardise, experiment upon, inject animal DNA into and then destroy, human embryos. It is no surprise therefore that the same Government proposed that lesbian couples should receive fertility treatment and leave countless children without fathers quite deliberately.
This is a 'brave new world' indeed, but a braver one would stand up to communities of men and women who are so blinkered by their own ideologies and sexual fetishes that they are willing to sacrifice morality absolutely in order to achieve their goals. The child is not a right, but a gift from God. Marriage is not a human invention but the union of one man and one woman before Almighty God. This country has been held to ransom by men and women whose hearts are not set upon the moral improvement of society, but the destruction of society from within. Without families, without marriage, without children and without the bedrock of Faith this society and indeed the whole of Europe will fall apart. The amorality which those who bullied Teresa May into submission propose will indeed contribute not to a new and better society, but the collapse of a whole civilisation descending into sterility, self-interest and personal pleasure at the expense of this generation and all generations to come.
25 comments:
"16 year old children can be easily groomed by homosexuals who do not have their best interests at heart and who want them only for their own sexual satisfaction."
I hope you mean Pedophiles.
No, I mean homosexuals can groom the young for their own ends.
If you want evidence of this, as I said, look at the sex abuse crisis in the US.
Laurence has it spot on. Its like the big elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge.
Can't heterosexuals groom young children too? And doesn't the act of grooming a child make you a paedophile by definition?
There's also a pro-Theresa May facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=121006464588900&ref=ts
Gay adoption is going to create a market for children. And when that happens we'll see children removed from good, religious homes that are now deemed "abusive" ~ and put into the care of homosexuals that can't make their own kids.
I saw that Question Time programme and it was quite clear that Teresa May was running scared of these people.Is it, I wonder, because so many of them went to Public Schools that they now appear to dominate the media?
this article is quite frankly disgusting and highly ironic when you take into account that it's written by a catholic seeing as the faith is rife with sexual indecency - homosexuals do not 'groom' people for their own advantage, sexual orientation is a choice and should not be judged by narrow minded blog writers.
Of course all homosexuals do not do that. But, I bet that some do.
I'm spent some time on the gay scene in my time - it is a highly charged, highly sexualised culture.
Older men do pay a great deal of interest in the 'fresh' younger men who come into the bars. Young, vulnerable men who walk into gay bars aren't treated like young, vulnerable men but are largely pounced on because they're attractive.
Above all, like being a Priest is not a right but a vocation, having children is not a 'right' since the best interests of the child are paramount. They are not served by being placed with a 'gay couple'.
The very least we can do for the child is to provide a mother and a father.
I can understand why it would be wrong to place a child with a gay couple, this I understand. But to say that by doing so that couple or homosexual individual is going to groom the 16 year old child, I think is a different accusation, one which is to do with pedophilia and ephebophilia. Admittedly, if the person is homosexual then there is going to be evidence of that in their crimes, but it is the pedophilia part which is to be looked at and not the sexual orientation.
I disagree with the other annonymous in that I don't think sexual orientation is a choice in that one freely chooses it, but that is far from saying i think someone is born gay which I don't agree with. I think the topic is not as easy as anybody wants and whereas before I used to be pretty tough in my views of homosexuality, I think the topic is far more complicated and needs compassion and patience rather than finger pointing. However I know this is difficult when we have a militant gay lobby 'coming out'.
I'm spent some time on the straight club scene in my time - it is a highly charged, highly sexualised culture.
Older men do pay a great deal of interest in the 'fresh' younger females who come into the bars. Young, vulnerable females who walk into straight bars/clubs aren't treated like young, vulnerable females but are largely pounced on because they're attractive.
The reason the 'gay lobby' is millitant is because society has not been compasssionate and patient but rather preferred to fingerpoint and steroetype.
It wasn't very long ago that gay people could be sacked from their jobs, kicked out of their homes and were subject to violence.
These instances of 'unjust discrimination' (as the cathecism calls them) are why the gay lobby are millitant and will remain so until they are accorded respect and equality in terms of civil rights and benefits.
The incidence of paedophilia is not greater among the gay community - all of the research suggest such arguements to be unfounded.
''16 year old children can be easily groomed by heterosexuals who do not have their best interests at heart and who want them only for their own sexual satisfaction.''
So maybe we should deny human and civil rights to heterosexuals based on the same fallacious arguments?
"16 year old children can be easily groomed by catholic clergy who do not have their best interests at heart and who want them only for their own sexual satisfaction."
So maybe we should deny human and civil rights to members of the clergy or the institutional church based on the same fallacious arguments?
''Above all, like being a Priest is not a right but a vocation, having children is not a 'right' since the best interests of the child are paramount. They are not served by being placed with a 'gay couple'.''
Gay people have always had children for varying reasons eg from a previous relationship/marriage, via artificial insemination with another, because they are have assumed parenting responsibility following the death of a family member etc.
Gay people have always been able to adopt (as a single person, whether or not they were in a relationship) and have often taken the most difficult to adopt children with complex needs. All that has changed is that the gay people in a relationship can now adopt as a couple.
Pope JP I refused to speak publically against the italian government at the time's intention to legislate in terms of gay adoption. As a cardinal he was patron of a gay adoption society who's practice was often to place children with disabilities and complex needs with single gay people. He said they would never be able to place such children if the proposed law went through, and gay people proved to be very loving and caring parents to these children.
Actually Teresa May is on record before the election (and therefore also the Question Time programme) as having changed her opinion on these matters. It wasn't because of gay lobbying, it was because the conservatives realised they would never be elected unless they changed their public issue as the 'nasty party'.
Considering her poor voting record on matters of equality, the 'gay lobby' had every right to press for an indication that she will not change her opinions again in the future if it was politically convenient.
*CORRECTION*
JP I was parton of a catholic adoption agency (not a gay adoption agency).
Apologies for the typo!
I've made a error too, ooops!
the conservative party needed to change it's public image as 'the nasty party'... not it's public issue.
"having children is not a 'right' since the best interests of the child are paramount."
Since rights imply duties, and we do not have the right to have children, should we conclude that we do not have the duty to have children either? That would bugger up a lot of church teaching wouldn't it
I suppose now you are aligning yourself with some eugenic restrictive-breeding programme? Or are you just clutching at straws again to justify your own burning gay self-denial, you self-obsessed hysterical queen.
You say repeatedly that gays demand attention and self-validation by wearing the sash, but surely your own pathetic arguments are just an attempt to get some attention for your own mental crusade. I bet you don't even believe in God do you? You tried being gay, didn't get enough attention, and now you see an opportunity to court controversy. Get over yourself sweetheart, you really aren't that important
yes then neither should catholics oppose remaining discrimination and prejudice against ethnic minorities or women either because they have achieved some level of equal human and civil rights to date. The point is they had to protest and campaign and be politically active to achieve these same rights which they enjoy now. Had they not done so, they would still be in a subserviant secondary position within society. gays are political because being political is necessary.
I suppose you don't agree with women wearing trousers either?
I mean, it's just a step too far - why would they demand control over their own bodies?
I suspect one or two people are all targeting you with abuse under different aliases, for some reason. I'm extremely sorry that this has happenned to you, and I will remember you and them in your prayers.
Post a Comment