Recently Ruth Hunt, the acting head of Stonewall, the UK’s main homosexual lobby, wrote an article for “Pink News” entitled: “We must celebrate equal marriage whilst looking ahead to what is still to be done”.
“As I say in my forthcoming column in SPUC’s Pro-Life Times: “This aggressive homosexual rights group wants to probe right into family homes – yours and mine – to dictate what parents should teach to their children. And they’ll be looking for legislation to enforce this”. John Smeaton says in his article “Families: beware the homosexual agenda.” (SPUC – Society for the protection of Unborn Children)
Anthony Ozimic, SPUC’s communications manager who has studied the homosexual lobby in Britain carefully, has written the following helpful reflections on Hunt’s article:
After reflecting on the legal recognition of same-sex pseudo-marriage, she (Hunt) writes: “This is an important milestone. But we’re not done yet. We must use our skills and energy to make sure homophobia, biphobia and transphobia are eradicated from our schools, our streets, ours sports fields, our workplaces, our churches and our homes. And we must support our friends abroad.”
Hunt deploys the term “homophobia” but, in her article, does not define it. Both the word and the concept of “homophobia” were invented by an American psychologist at the height of the 1960s’ sexual revolution. Some soi-disant pro-family commentators have accepted this ideological neologism and use it imprudently to try to position themselves as more reasonable than their sounder colleagues. They accept the gay rights lobby’s narrative that irrational negativity towards individuals homosexuals exists to a significant extent in society. The dangerous folly of this acceptance can be clearly seen when we consider what the narrative about “homophobia” will mean in reality.
Ozimic continues: Stonewall’s official definition of homophobia is “the irrational hatred, intolerance, and fear of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people.” This official definition, however, masks the reality of how “homophobia” is being deployed. Dr Evan Harris, the former Liberal Democrat MP and a vice-president of the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association, who has called for the Church of England to be disestablished because it is “homophobic” , claimed that “lots of religious texts are homophobic” and that “discrimination against having gay sex equals discrimination against gay people” Dr. Harris has also called for faith schools to be stopped from sacking or rejecting a teacher based on their marital status, and for religious organisations not to withhold public services from users on “sexual grounds”.
If we move away from the high ground of politico-moral discourse and descend the low ground of trash television, we see exactly the same dynamic at work. In January this year, Evander Holyfield, the retired boxer, appeared on Channel Four’s “Celebrity Big Brother”. In the course of a casual conversation, one of the other celebrities raised the subject of homosexuals in sport, to which Holyfield replied with brief remarks that homosexuality was unnatural, contrary to Biblical morality and a curable condition. The programme’s production team disciplined Holyfield and warned him that “expressing these views will be extremely offensive to many people…Big Brother does not tolerate the use of offensive language…” Boy George, the homosexual pop singer, reacted to Holyfield’s comments by tweeting: “At customs there should be a huge sign! Welcome to Britain, racism, sexism, homophobia and bad hair are not tolerated!”
The result of this dynamic is that “homophobia” can be deployed to devastating effect to relegate anyone who objects to any aspect of homosexuality to “an irrational hatred, intolerance, and fear of” homosexuals, akin to racism. So when Ruth Hunt calls for action “to make sure homophobia, biphobia and transphobia are eradicated from our schools, our streets, ours sports fields, our workplaces, our churches and our homes”, this will mean the eradication of the freedom to uphold normative sexual morality. To achieve this, new laws would need to be passed, especially laws to disempower parents and to make pro-homosexuality sex education compulsory in schools. A very disturbing development in this area is the proposal by the Scottish Government to assign every child with a state guardian. This proposal is reminiscent of the surveillance of citizens by Communist regimes and of the control exercised by sects over their victims. Such power to interfere in family life will almost certainly be used to clamp down on any parents who dare to preserve their children from the influence of the sexual rights agenda – abortion, contraception, homosexuality. The sexual rights lobby have always known that the complete success of their agenda depends upon suppressing the right of parents to be primary educators of their children in moral matters.
Ozimic and Smeaton greatly show how you can create an enemy, through the use of language, the terms they use are nothing less then part of a strategy, demonizing the ‘homosexual lobby’ or demonizing the homophobics, who’s gonna win the battle?