feel compelled to write on the serious issue of redefinition of marriage and the determined attempt by British liberals to impose a homosexual worldview on Britain while hiding behind the fight for equality. As a parent, I do not envisage that a Christian country like Britain will suddenly abandon its Christian moral foundation and become a country where the homosexual worldview is mainstream. I thought Britain knows the difference between the normal and variant and able to tolerate all irrespective of the sexual orientation and skin colour. Having examined the argument for homosexualism, I have come to accept that it should not be criminalised as it is the case in many African and Middle eastern countries but very opposed to the attempt normalise it and impose it on the normal majority. Homosexuality is also a moral issue which should not be viewed only as issue of liberty as it seem to be the case in Britain and there is need for wider debate on its moral dimensions and implications before using the law to force people to accept what they may consider morally repugnant.
The advances in equality in the west have been commendable. Even though racial identity is different from sexual preferences or orientation, gay activists compared discrimination against them because of their sexual preference which in many cultures is regarded as morally distasteful, with the fight against racism which is prejudice against people because of their ethnic origin and colour of their skin and not what they have chosen. This has enabled them to make great strides in the fight against discrimination and prejudice. The fact that Black people cannot become white even if they wanted, has not persuaded homosexuals that being Black and been discriminated against is not exactly like choosing to be gay even though both can suffer the similar prejudices, albeit for different reasons. I suppose, if there is a choice to become white, some black people who have suffered as a result of the colour of their skin would elect to change. At least many black women and men who spend a fortune on skin toning creams and thereby exposing their body to quinolones would have opted to become white. Of course, this argument breaks down if you believe that people are born gay and compelled to be gay which I do not share. Many people who do not accept homosexuality as a normal way of sexual expression do so because they consider it morally objectionable and often their religion condemns it. However, people who discriminate against black people do it purely out of racial prejudice, sense of racial superiority and often their religion is against it.
I am against discrimination under any guise. I have written against discrimination of homosexuals and the criminalisation of homosexuality in Nigeria and therefor feel entitled to express my views on what I consider to be a dangerous development in the fight for equality of all and against discrimination. Having said this, I believe that discrimination against people on the basis of their preferences is wrong and it is equally wrong for any people to use the law to impose their worldview on all especially on the issue of morality. Therefore the attempt to redefine marriage and the boundaries of equality and moral convictions, and impose a homosexual world view on all by law in Britain is a serious development which no lover of liberty of conscience can ignore. It should not be only a matter of good politics.
In recent times, the attempt by homosexuals to completely change the world in the image of gays has raised many questions for people like me whose objection to homosexuality rests purely on their religious and moral convictions. These are people who also object to discrimination against homosexuals but would never make the choice because they consider it morally unacceptable. They consider any discrimination as unjust and can make a distinction between tolerance which is necessary for peaceful coexistence and compelling by law on the issue of morality which borders on fascism. They see the necessity for abolishing the criminalisation of homosexuality but very aware of the moral violence compelling people by law to accept as normal, what they consider immoral does to the society. Unfortunately, it would seem that the gay right movement has become another religion which has taken extreme position and a very narrow definition of equality and freedom without a thought to the views of those who oppose it equally out of the same conviction with which they pursue their course. They have become guilty of the same wrong which forced them to fight in the first place. Once, people were convicted for being gay, today many are convicted for opposing the excesses of homosexuals and their liberal sexual attitudes.
In recent times, homosexuals have become quite militant and intolerant of those who disagree with them and have used the law to compel people to go against their religious convictions. For example, a Christian couple in Britain were convicted for not accepting Homosexuals in their hotel. Not even the fact that people are free to act out of their moral convictions in issues of sexuality would persuade the homosexually sensitive judge that there is a limit to tolerance of something one finds morally objectionable, a serious mistake in any society which wishes to ensure peaceful coexistence. The wishes, and preferences of homosexuals now take precedence over the moral imperatives of the majority and the religious, and it would seem to me that this is not progress. We need to look at where tolerance ends and moral convictions begin, so that this misuse of the law by liberal fascists in the name of equality to redefine Christian morality can be brought to an end.
Today in England, the fear of homosexuals is the beginning of wisdom. With many of them very rich and influential in the media, financial and political world, because they do not have the encumbernment of normal heterosexual relationship like children. They are pushing the moral boundaries in order to impose their sexual attitude as the norm. Their latest attempt is their determination to change the age old definition of marriage which all cultures since antiquity has accepted as a relationship between a man and woman. They have pushed for civil partnership and got it, and now they are making the unreasonable demand for the definition of marriage to be changed to reflect their peculiar world view. I suppose that the homosexuals, who are pushing for this change of the status quo, will realise that they do not need to change the existing order and subject the majority to their world view to achieve equality.
It is my view that the demand for the redefinition of marriage to include same sex relationship has nothing to do with equality. It would seem to be an example of gay fascism which has taken over Britain. It is like Nazism, a belief in the justness and superiority of one’s perception, and determination to impose it on all by changing the law and redefining existing reality. It is the same mind-set that motivates religious extremists. Britain, should watch it, such an attempt will not make homosexual more acceptable to those who object to it on moral and religious grounds. It would only convince those who would have been minded to change their attitude to homosexuality to harden their position as they would correctly see it as a threat to their religious and moral positions thereby further polarising the society. The government should not continue this homosexualisation of Britain without first demonstrating how it would aid the evolutionary advancement of the Homo sapiens if widely practiced.
We need to understand the benefits of a homosexualised world, where there are no sexual or family boundaries. Where a man can be a father and mother at the same time and children can have fathers and mothers of the same sex. We need to understand what effect it would have on the children, their personality and world view. A world where women are only contracted to give birth to children who are then brought up by two males, or two women buy sperm from the super market and bear children who would have no idea of what fathers and men are for. We need to pause, and think about this new liberal democratic world, fashioned in the image of gays, where there are no moral absolutes, before we continue. This is why we have scriptures to learn what is right and wrong and not experiment with what is wrong and learn the right way to treat those who may be minded to choose what is not right. May be Britain no longer takes the story of Sodom and Gomorrah seriously? It would seem to me that Britain is heading into a moral black hole which may take it years to recover from. As a believer in God, I accept the moral imperatives of the Bible, which provide the foundation of western democracies, juripondence and enlightenment, and we tinker with at our peril. Marriage should remain a consenting relationship between a man and a women and no government has any right to change that definition. Men who want to be married should find wives who are females. The attempt to change the meaning of marriage would create a moral confusion with consequences that is difficult to imagine at this time.
The British government should stop and pause. Gays have achieved the equality they want. They are free to engage in whatever sexual arrangement they want with whoever they want. There is currently no discrimination in Britain on the basis of sexual orientation. It is wrong to impose the homosexual world view on all. Gays should respect the natural order, while working to be allowed to exist as they wish. But attempting to redefine marriage is going too far and it is the wrong thing to do. Today in Britain, people are very afraid of the gay lobby. They are very strong, rich and occupy very high positions in the society. The homosexual movement has become very fascist in the way they deal with dissent and those who oppose their campaign to recreate the society to reflect their pervasive sexual views. At work, many senior managers and executives are gay. In fact, one can describe Britain as a gay country. The easiest way for anybody to become unemployed in Britain is to express contrary views about homosexuality even if it is not prejudicial, and this cannot be enlightenment. The reaction is usually swift as they hide under the fight for equality to destroy all those who do not share their view that a human being can be compelled to follow a particular preference when there is a choice.
This is why I am very concerned at the attempt to redefine marriage. Maybe it is just the beginning. Why should they stop at the redefinition of marriage? Who knows what their next demand would be? Maybe, it would be the campaign to redefine father, to include a man or woman who has a parental responsibility for a child to make it inclusive of those who have chosen a homosexual life style. I say chosen because in reality that is what they have done irrespective of their attempt to misuse science to justify what is by all ramification a sexual preference. Perhaps, they will demand for redefinition of the meaning of wife and mother, as a male or female who is providing the roles and duties which mothers provide in traditional families. Maybe, we should redefine, murder, robbery, paedophilia, adultery, etc. Maybe they will argue that all these changes will make the society more equal or do I say gay friendly because we really need to avoid doing anything that would make people who made a different choice to feel different. Britain is beginning a journey into a moral slippery slop which will only end up in a moral anarchy like was experienced many years ago in Sodom and Gomorrah.
I suppose, the British society should reconsider the meaning of tolerance and acceptance and see that the forcing of people by law to accept what they consider morally repugnant is not ensuring equality but a predominant feature of fascism. We live in a gay fascist Britain. Please Mr Prime Minister, provide the moral leadership this difficult time demands.
God help us.