Thursday, May 08, 2014

A British politician speaks frankly about homosexuality!

A politician who has said homosexuality is “abnormal and undesirable” could become the UK Independence Party's first MP.   Roger Helmer, 70 who defected from the Tories in 2012, was chosen as Ukip's candidate on Monday evening to fight the Newark by-election.

Mr Helmer was selected despite last week comparing being homosexual to choosing between different types of tea.  He said: “You may tell me you don’t like Earl Grey tea. That may be a minority view, but you’re entitled not to like it.”

Last week, Mr Helmer’s views on homosexuality emerged in a 14-year-old booklet called “Straight Talking on Europe”.

According to the booklet, Mr Helmer said: “The homosexual lobby is not content with decriminalisation. It wants to be accepted as a ‘valid alternative lifestyle’.

“But it is not a valid lifestyle worthy of equal respect. At the risk of offending the politically correct, I will argue that homosexual behaviour is abnormal and undesirable.”


Since only about 2% of the population are homosexual, it clearly IS abnormal.  And given the much shorter lifespans of homosexuals, it is clearly undesirable too


Anonymous said...

Wow - so belonging to any social grouping that's 2% of the total population can be called "abnormal" even with the obvious intention of meaning wrong or perverse (by of course 'holier-than-thou' bigots).

Anonymous said...

"And given the much shorter lifespans of homosexuals, it is clearly undesirable too"
What is undesirable is being the victims of bigots who lead many homosexuals into social exclusion that leads on to lonliness and depression that can result in suicide or pycho-somatic illness, or resorting to drugs and alcohol or promiscuity, with concomitant diseases. Yes why not blame the victim!

Use the Name, Luke said...


conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.


not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard.

Dean said...

There you go again Luke, trying to use logic with liberals. You should know by now that doesn't work.

4:19 - 'Abnormal' is a valid description. Any offense or further meaning you see exactly that, a subjective judgement.

4:36 - Do you mean to imply living with a genetic defect that sets one apart from the norm is desirable?

There is no argument with your statement as to the treatment the treatment of homosexuals or any victim of genetic accidents. They should be treated with respect and not be persecuted.

But the statement that homosexual behavior or merely being homosexual is undesirable stands. Very few people desire to be homosexual.

Hmmm. It looks like I also am attempting to use logic.

Malcolm Smith said...

To quote George Orwell:"We have now sunk to a depth at which the reinstatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."
So let me take up that duty.
In medicine "normal" and "abnormal" imply the functioning of the mind and body according to its design. More than 2% of the population are born with birth defects, but we call them defects because we know that people are not designed to have (say) cleft palates or club feet. In a tropical village where most people suffer from bilharzia, the few healthy people are the normal ones.
Now, male and female sex organs are designed to be complementary. Almost any healthy man and woman are capable of copulating with each other. But same sex attraction cannot be consummated. Those who attempt it end up performing makeshift actions as imaginative as they are unhygienic. The homosexual raconteour, Quentin Crisp put it succictly when he said: When a man and a woman want to do it, they just do it. But every homosexual "copulation" has to start with a conference about who does what. And, of course, homosexual actions cannot produce children.
Thus, homosexuality is self-evidently abnormal. QED.

Nik said...

Alas, to condemn 2% of the population, based on old school yuck factor queasiness, conservatives lose a culture war and destroy their ability to get elected reliably in the face of true problems like climate alarm and bankrupt governments. See, the thing is, liberals want to *win* instead of just strike a pose. Now that big cities dominate national elections, places where everyday folk actually meet gay people regularly and find them to be a lot less bizarre than the thuggish gang bangers they also run into, and crazy homeless people, then conservatives themselves become seen as the wacky ones, not gays. As cites grow at the expense of small towns, history thus dooms conservatism in its current mode. Cocky righteousness in the face of creeping totalitarianism fails to take the approaching iceberg seriously. When do us city dwellers finally get to actually vote for a normal person who is a socially liberal (as in liberty) and fiscal conservative? Never?! Welcome New Socialism then.


Anonymous said...

Unfortunately heterosexual bigotry is all too *normal* and *usual*. Some comments here just fall short of suggesting that eugenics would be desirable, or at least corrective treatment (now generally seen as pointless or unnecessary, if not cruel).
But what is this obsesssion with "homosexuality" by supposed heterosexuals, especially as a constant topic on this site. A freudian question perhaps.

Nik said...

Malcolm: About 2% of the population are scientists. Semantic wordplay is no excuse for purposefully losing elections based on bizarre obsession with sexuality. That's insane, and however “normal” this textbook homophobia is, it's both classically immoral and Nazi/Sharia retrograde evil not to mention extremely in inappropriate no matter how you feel personally. Who are the sexual deviants here anyway? Straight couples have used anal sex as birth control forever. Stop hating our everyday productive neighbors who dominate the creative industries in Manhattan and we might actually lose our moral disgust with *you*.


Anonymous said...

Malcolm seems to think on the purely animal level that human sexuality is just about attempted procreation and simple coition. I hope his sexlife has a bit more variety and emotion to it.

Anonymous said...

As with most emotional arguments this has devolved into dancing on the head of pins on semantics and interpretation. Homosexuals, engineers, scientists, thrill seekers (such as X game competitors), and politicians are all abnormal due to their small group size versus the total population. The leap that abnormal is also BAD is preposterous although it could be so for politicians. Of the above group homosexuals and thrill seekers have shorter life spans and from a purely genetic standpoint that is not a bad thing (if they live long enough to procreate) but from a social perspective a shorter life span is seen as undesirable. Again, the leap that a shorter life span while undesirable is BAD is preposterous. It is a given that in an emotional argument people make preposterous leaps often.


Use the Name, Luke said...

"Again, the leap that a shorter life span while undesirable is BAD is preposterous."



Anonymous said...

4:22 sounds like a eugenics advocate from the 1930s. (Creepy!)