I don’t want to be forced to see gay propaganda

When you see something in a film which is horrible, then you can look away or if it’s in a song, you can change stations. What you’ve become inured to because you’ve had a steady diet of it since birth might not be what I’m either used to nor wish to see.

My sensibilities might have become softer with age, I don’t know but there are things I just don’t want any part of. They’re dark in an offensive, lost, despairing way, lacking any sort of normal human dignity and especially at this time, we need more nobility and higher things to aspire to than what we’ve got, which is not to say we’re angels ourselves – we’re not – but there’s a level below which it’s best not to sink.

Nowhere is it more offensive than in parliament where the behaviour of so many MPs is so despicable that we can’t respect them as a class in any way. There used to be some statesmen.

We have to watch the donning of rose coloured glasses – the age of gentility was also the age of hypocrisy, particularly with Hollywood and celebs of all classes – Marilyn Monroe, Glenn Miller, JFK etc. This age points out the hypocrisy of the Victorian era and its false prudery.

If I choose a highly emotive issue, then it’s not for any other reason than something I saw on Christmas Day. To hell with it, I’m going to say something because it was … offensive. There’s a type of person who lives in a world where nothing is respected whatever. The Pythons at least did it cleverly but these people don’t and they think they’re oh so clever, in a Russell Brand sort of way, when they’re actually total horse’s backsides.

And they insist on all of us, without exception, being privy to their “cleverness”.

Even yesterday, there was something about a journo in Australia called Marieke Hardy and looking at her pedigree, it’s not hard to see why. Celebrity communist father whose saving grace was a “larrikin streak”, meaning he was a bit of a lad, mother who was a comedienne in the Dawn French tradition. The daughter’s tried to do the same but without any class. Uneducated and gross, she feels that reeling off expletives somehow wows everyone and yet the greatest charge levelled against her is that she is an untalented waste of space. And spouting leftist propaganda too. Sure she has a little clique who likes her and a national newspaper welcomes her rants.

In her case though, we can switch her off – we don’t have to read her bilge. Not so when I went into the Age, known now as a lefty rag when once it was a broadsheet and all that that entailed in journalistic integrity and restraint. There, in the top left where it could not be avoided, was that oh so clever picture of Obama and some other man kissing.

Now look, I don’t wish to see this. You can say I could look away but no – no I couldn’t. It had been done. It was offensive and gross and I didn’t want to have seen it. Having seen it, it unsettled the day in a way nothing that Marieke creature could do. With Hardy, I can read a certain amount, just as you can with this post now, and get away from it tout suite.

Not so with those pictures. A few of my mates send me quite amusing cartoons of Jesus Christ, hoping I’ll be offended – look, He’s a big enough Boy to take care of himself. My own past is different to what these words convey and I’ve seen and done pretty much what anyone over 50 has done. Besides, I can bin anything I don’t like and keep the rest. As it should be. Just like porn – there should be another click you need to get to it but if you don’t click, then you should be free of it.

This type of horse’s backside though isn’t content to wallow in his own ordure – he [and increasingly she] has to bring it to our faces, up front and centre, and force us to confront it. Why? Because this person feels it’s important. This person, at the controls of the media, thinks we need to see this. Exactly what the PC society is all about – not forcing people, not trampling on them, not making people do that which they don’t wish to. But oh no – these people are our new guardians – they say we must deal with and discuss homosexuality so by hell, it will be forced into schools for 5 year olds to confront and make their choice of sexuality over and we have to have it splashed over a newspaper.

And aren’t they ready to trot out all the old charges – homophobic, oversensitive, unreconstructed.

Look, you effing idiots – when I was a kid, I was molested homosexually. I was also molested by a woman but that wasn’t as offensive to me, even though I still run a mile from a cougar. I don’t know why, it was just so. I was a kid, I couldn’t rationalize these things. I only know I didn’t want it and wanted it to go away. I was also ashamed of telling my parents, was frightened of the scene it would cause. I didn’t want to talk sex with my parents. Yuk – that’s what my mates and I did, talk about girls.

Now I think I had a right, equal to any of these rights shouters today, not to have to confront these issues as a kid. Later, when I was ready, I could. These people forcing their drugs and gay rights issue onto little kids are just as bad as those molesters. I’ve noticed so many spouting about our freedom to do as we wish cross this line to forcing their freedoms onto me.

No, I don’t want them and furthermore, I don’t think this sewage you see should be splashed over the commons, which is what a national newspaper is. I go to the Daily Mash and expect highly charged things but a national newspaper should have those things a click away, with a hyperlink labelled “Obama’s gay kiss” or whatever. I might even choose then to have a look, find it gross and click out but at least it was my choice whether to see it or not.

The gay issue is one which is emotive to me for personal reasons – I just told you them. They’ll come back at me with why, just because I’ve had bad experiences, should others be “prevented” from seeing them?

This is a gross distortion of the issue. The issue is that ordinary people have the right not to have these cleverclogs’ garbage inflicted on them. In other words, there’s a base level, a dividing line, between reasonable decency and their pig swill. And the line’s not hard to find. For example, a female is in a micro-bikini at the beach – it’s expected that that’s what you’ll encounter. She walks down the High Street and even she knows it’s not the place.

There really is a self-actualization to this. It’s not prudery, it’s not Mary Whitehousism – it’s a base level, below which I can choose to go if I wish but not if I don’t wish and the same for everyone – choice, not having it forced on us. I haven’t committed any hate crime, I haven’t infringed gays’ rights to poojab to their hearts’ content – they can do as they wish, when they wish, in the privacy of their own homes.

Nor do I want to walk along the street and see two gross hetero specimens bonking on the green near the pub, in a puddle of vomit.

Classical liberalism says freedom until it infringes other people’s rights not to be forced to endure something which genuinely is offensive.

That’s all I have to say on it.

13 comments for “I don’t want to be forced to see gay propaganda

  1. December 27, 2011 at 7:58 am

    “Nor do I want to walk along the street and see two gross hetero specimens bonking on the green near the pub, in a puddle of vomit.”

    There’s a reason the phrase ‘get a room!’ was once a pointless thing to think about – for gay couples, at least. They were barred from doing so.

    Now, they aren’t. But the ‘Get a room!’ still applies, just as much as it does to these heterosexual couples.

    What is it with ostentatious displayers of sexual attraction of all stripes and flavours? Why do so very few people desire ‘a private life’ these days?

    Beats me, too…

    • December 27, 2011 at 9:59 am

      The only problem with getting a room seems to be the price of rooms these days. No such thing as half hour hotels either 😉
      I agree though, it’s not something I particularly want to see, though I have no objection to what anyone gets up to consensually in their own privacy so long as they aren’t endangering or harming anyone else.

      • nisakiman
        December 27, 2011 at 4:20 pm

        Bangkok has lots of “short term” hotels, where you rent rooms by the hour. 😯

  2. John
    December 27, 2011 at 9:06 am

    I’m fine with the concept of banning homosexual PDAs and imagery; as long as straight PDAs and imagery are banned too.

    You mention that homosexual child abuse was worse for you than hetero; is this perhaps because of the attitudes to homosexuality at the time making it something to be more ashamed of. Perhaps that isn’t such a good thing?

    And what does banning only some people’s behaviour have to do with liberty?

    • December 27, 2011 at 8:17 pm

      I don’t understand this comment, unless your suggesting that child abuse and the damage it does is simply down to conditioning.Taken to a logical conclusion any child could be conditioned to accept sex with adults of whatever persuasion. Yet we know children who were abused from a very early age when they could have been conditioned to accept it as normal still suffered enormous psychological damage. We need to accept what the poster says about his own experience and not try to reduce it to some kind of pre-political correctness enlightenment.Would he have been less abused if it had happened post-gay rights?

  3. Jack Savage
    December 27, 2011 at 9:31 am

    Heartily agree…but are we just getting old?
    My Dear Old Dad was bemused by the whole “gay pride” thing and his favourite saying on the subject was that he hoped he would die before they made it compulsory.

    • Twisted Root
      December 27, 2011 at 11:24 am

      It’s not that we are getting old. It is that we are not adapting to changes wrought by the social engineers. If you are of a vindictive nature you can take satisfaction that the current generation will become obsolete even more quickly and be left to cope with the fall out from their ‘life style’ choices.

  4. Tattyfalarr
    December 27, 2011 at 10:22 am

    I’ve noticed so many spouting about our freedom to do as we wish cross this line to forcing their freedoms onto me.

    *nods*…there’s nowt so right-wing nazi oppressive than a left-wing politically correct liberal. 😐

  5. December 27, 2011 at 11:11 am

    Just left a comment at the Mail on another of these forced images. Can’t remember the wording but basically it was: “I don’t wish to see this person on the front page. If I choose to click on a link to see her, that’s a different matter.”

  6. December 27, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    I fully concur with your Python sentiment.

  7. meltemian
    December 27, 2011 at 6:21 pm

    As Mrs Patrick Campbell said:-
    “My dear I don’t care WHAT they do as long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses”

  8. Jiks
    December 27, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    Have to disagree with you on this one, James.

    Any human activity has the possibility to offend someone. Either we can be free to offend and/or be offended … or we can live in some totalitarian nightmare with a very short list of approved behaviours.

    If a paper offends you, well you are free to punish it by not buying it. On the micro bikini example, I don’t even agree with you there TBH. As long the weather is suitable and she has the figure and confidence to carry it off. I am not a big fan of public displays of affection but what others do, as long as they are not hurting anyone else is none of my business as far as I’m concerned.

    • admin
      December 27, 2011 at 7:58 pm

      The issue has nothing to do with choice, Jiks. It has to do with no choice. Where there is choice, I can choose not to see. This involved no choice – it was foisted on us. That is not freedom of choice. This was the point made by many above.

Comments are closed.