Now, given that in the liberal and tolerant United Kingdom of the early 21st century you can be sentenced to 7 years in prison for merely discussing the ethics of homosexuality, I have to tread extremely carefully here.
I have nothing whatsoever against homosexuals, or homosexuality. In fact, I sometimes wish I was gay. When the liberal’s hate figure Silvio Burlusconi recently stated ‘it is better to like a pretty girl than to be gay’, he was wrong. At least in today’s world. And it’s news stories like the following that reveal him to be so clearly wrong.
Men with historic gay sex convictions to have crimes expunged
Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat equalities minister, will announce firm proposals for new legislation within days, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.
The move will benefit thousands of men who were prosecuted for gay sex with someone over 16 during decades when the practice was against the law.
Currently, they must disclose the information as part of the programme of Criminal Records Bureau checks if they apply to work or volunteer for charities and other organisations.
Again, I wish to make clear, and not just because I want to avoid being imprisoned for thought crime, but because I genuinely believe this, that the historical persecution and discrimination of homosexuals throughout much of history has been an abomination.
But it does seem to me that there are some absurd elements here that only the crazed and convoluted mind of a ‘liberal rationalist’ could likely make sense of..
If sex offenders registers have any justification, it is surely because they are based upon the assumption that a willingness to break sex laws once makes it more likely that you are going to break them in future (that is, more than those who have never broken any sex law).
And yet a man, who once took a 16 year old boy up the ass when he was in his thirties, knowing that the age of consent for homosexuals was 21, now has his criminal record removed, and is deemed no threat to children. A man, in other words, who was willing to have sex with a child 5 years under the legal age of consent – to, according to the law and the social norm at the time, sexually molest that child. A man, who is apparently far less of a threat to children than is a hetrosexual man caught sleeping with a girl just shy of her 16th birthday.
In fact, it seems Theresa May, the woman who orginally drafted this new law, doesn’t think that 16 year old males are boys at all :
It is not fair that a man can be branded a criminal because 30 years ago he had consensual sex with another man
Despite all the evidence from psychology and neurology that teenage boys mature later than teenage girls, in the eyes of liberal progressives, 16 year old males are men, despite the growing persistant media (and feminist) reference to females in their late teens and even early twenties as being ‘girls’ (Angry Harry has been noting this recently with reference to the ‘girl’ student rioters aged over 18 – the same aged male rioters are never referred to as ‘boys’). Obviously, preventing discrimination against homosexuals is more important than protecting children from sexual abuse. Or at least it is if the age of consent is supposed to be about preventing immature teens being traumatised from having sex with older men – which is the feminist justification for such laws, after all.
But whether or not such unequal ages of consent were fair or unfair to homosexuals, the fact is that they were in law to (ostensibly) protect children, supposedly the highest value in today’s progressive world. As readers of this site are well aware, I believe that the present age of consent in the UK (16) is manifestly absurd in a society which has free contraception, legal access to abortion, a welfare state (in case of unplanned and unsupported pregnancy), and a set of values that permits and even promotes casual sex as something good, or at least morally neutral. However, I’m hesitant to suggest that any man up in court for sleeping with a 15 year old, uses as his defence his belief that in another 20 years, in a more enlightened and rational time, the age of consent will be lower than it is today, and therefore the crime of which he is being tried for likely to have come to be seen as a historical barbarism and any resulting conviction quashed. Let’s just say it’s unlikely to wash with the jury or the judge.
Perhaps you might maintain that the point here is simply that homosexuals were being discriminated against. Men who had sex with underage teenage boys 30 years ago weren’t really nasty paedophiles all too willing to break child sex laws – they somehow knew that morally what they were doing was o.k, because they could predict the future and see that in the UK of 2010, discrimination against homosexuals would be considered a great evil, even greater than breaking historical child sex laws.
Well then what about a teacher who goes to prison as a paedophile scum for having consensual sex with a 17 year old girl, 1 year over the age of consent in the UK? Surely such laws discriminate against teachers? Why should your profession determine who can and can’t consent to sex with you, and whether you should go to prison for who you put your dick inside, anymore than your sexuality does?
In Spain, the age of consent is still 13. And it wasn’t just a ‘nominal age of consent’. Up until very recently, you did see men in their 30’s and 40’s quite regularly walking hand in hand with young teenage girls, girls who obviously weren’t their daughters. Yet, as a British citizen, if I slept with a 15 year old Spanish girl in Spain, I would face extradition to the UK for child sex abuse. Doesn’t that discriminate against me according to my nationality? Isn’t it, in fact, a little bit racist, that I can be arrested for doing something in Spain that is perfectly legal for a Spanish man to do, just because of the accident of my race and nationality? Note that the same government that originated this law of forgiveness for homosexual child sex offenders (Nu Labour) wanted to criminilize hetereosexual men for sleeping with even 16 and 17 year old girls abroad, even when the age of consent in the UK is still 16 (presumably, they had to settle for 16 for ‘sex crimes’ abroad because they were told that any higher would be quite manifestly breaking EU fundamental citizen rights).
And again, in the mysterious mind of a liberal rationalist, a 15 year old girl can happily consent to drop her panties at a party in order to ‘explore’ her sexuality by going to bed with an equally ‘clueless’ 15 year old boy. Yet such tolerant liberal defenders of teenage sex will, at the same time, happily call for men who sleep with the same 15 year old girl to be locked up for child abuse, even tortured and executed.
In the UK we have laws that prevent discrimination based upon age, just as we have for discrimation against ‘sexual orientation’. Yet liberals feel it unnecessary to articulate just why it is right, in the case of having sex with teens, that the law should discriminate upon age but not sexuality. Usually, they simply appeal to some kind of mysterious mystical insight – ‘it’s totally different if you’re not the same age’. Well, I could come up with a 200 page essay as to why the age of consent should be different for heterosexuals than it is for homosexuals. I won’t, and not only because I could possibly face 7 years in prison, getting to know homosexuality on a more intimate and unwanted basis. The point is, I could construct a plausible and coherent devils advocate argument for ‘discrimination’. However, these liberal rationalists don’t seem able to even put into words any concrete justification for the manifest discrimination based wholly on age that allows a 15 year old boy to boast to his mates that he has finally gotten Ashley to give up her virginity, but imprisons a 30 year old man as a ‘dirty old’ paedophile for doing exactly the same thing, or even, more likely, for having a considerate and genuinely loving relationship with that 15 year old girl.
Yesterday, I came across a highly disturbing claim, posted in a Thailand ex-pat forum, that the government there was planning to raise the age of consent to 20. Thankfully, hopefully, there is no basis to this story, as the original poster refuses to provide any link that would confirm it. But what is disturbing is the attitude of many of the other (British) forum members. An attitude of, ‘so what? If you can’t keep it in your pants, you should get it cut off.’ However, when it comes to homosexuals, if the law is unjust, and they can’t keep it in their pants, they deserve official apologies and sainthood rather than castration. I posted this forum link on the new men’s rights reddit. Somebody by the handle of ‘commentbot‘ left the following underneath :
Sounds like it would only be a problem for those sad old perverts you see around the (Thai) islands who wouldn’t get laid other than via prostitution. You know the ones who try to claim ‘I didn’t know she was only fourteen’. Yeah that’s them – child raping paedophile scum.
Just another troll you might think. But looking through this redditer’s previous comment history, it appears that he is a typical liberal progressive rationalist atheist. In fact, he had this to say about Alan Turing, the homosexual genius castrated by the British government for getting dirty with a 19 year old boy after winning them the war :
What piffle! It was homophobia plain and simple. He was well accepted amongst his class, in fact it was an open secret – absolutely nothing wrong with being a ‘nancy-boy’ – many of his contemporaries were also. People in the Service are top-class, very intelligent, and quite unlike politicians and judges who are more capable socially. He had his moods but none who knew about such things thought him a real security risk. He knew Cairncross and Blunt but they all did. It is a complete misunderstanding of his contribution to think that he was some sort of cryptographic key-man. edit: Hormone treatment wasn’t offered to Turing alone.
It got out of hand, when it got out to the oiks.
The ignorant, ingrate mob he helped to save from the Nazis killed him because he was a homosexual.
When it comes to heterosexual men having sex with 19 year old women, errr, I mean ‘girls’, then cut their paedophile dicks off. Homosexual men having sex with 19 year old boys, ahem, I mean ‘men’, then they deserve a place in heaven and a state apology on behalf of the ignorant, sex hating, God fearing mob.
I was recently asked by a men’s rights supporter if we could learn anything from the gay rights movement. And it’s a question that is certainly worth pondering. How is it that only 100 years ago, homosexuality was (disgracefully) a crime considered so ghastly that it could hardly even be discussed, and yet today, in the midst of medieval paedohysteria, even homosexual ‘child sex’ offenders are given state pardons? The answer, it seems to me, is simply that homosexuals have been useful to feminists.
Gay men didn’t win their rights. Feminists decided it was in their interests to give gay men their rights. Promoting gay rights, as well as rights for transgendered people, serves the agenda of the sexual trade union. When that ceases to be the case (and it will likely soon when feminists begin to see conservatives and even Islam as more useful or necessary allies), homosexuals will once again be persecuted by society, probably in a far worse manner than anything they have previously suffered in European history. But at present, championing gay marriage, and the right of gays to serve in the military, allows the sexual trade union to appear ‘sexually progressive’ and ‘tolerant’, whilst at the same time conducting a savagely repressive war against ordinary heterosexuality – the sexuality of the vast majority of men.
America can be held up as a beacon of liberal progress and toleration, and feminism can seek further false credit as a champion of Enlightenment values. Gays can now serve in the military, and even get married. Meanwhile, nearly 1 million American men are officially regarded as subhuman, described by the lesbian Supreme Court Judge Elena Kagan as ‘bacteria, a plague’ of whom the state should have ‘unlimited power to contain’. Even after serving their sentence, and after having taken their prison beatings and rapes, sex offenders in America can now be told that they are not free men, and can be held in prison until the day they die – for as little as the original crime of clicking a mouse upon an image of 17 year old girl in a thong.
And the ultimate irony is, homosexual men in progressive and tolerant America, and the UK, are already probably just as criminalized as they have ever been. In the double-think world of the politically correct, we are supposed to believe that the hebophile Alan Turing, a man who picked up and had casual sex with a 19 year old boy despite knowing the legal consequences (how many others did he fuck, and how old?), if alive today would never, in all the thousands of hours he would no doubt spend on the computers that he invented, ever so much as once click upon an image of a young looking 19 year old boy in a pair of underpants – and thus criminalize himself, and potentially be jailed for life, for breaking feminist ‘virtual child pornography’ laws. Laws made and approved by those very same progressive and rationalist arseholes who gave him a state pardon for sodomizing a 19 year old ‘man’.