Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

The Controversial Gay Marriage Issue & The Lobbies

by Laura Stuart
Saturday, May 26th, 2012

The issue of Gay Marriage is to be put to a free vote in the House of Commons, but not before Peers and M.P.s are to be forced to express their views openly on the topic in public. The following are extracts from an article in the Jewish Chronicle this week

A gay rights campaign, in which a Jewish journalist is prominent, is to force each member of the House of Lords, including the Chief Rabbi, to record their position on gay marriage.

The “Out4marriage” campaign will ask every MP and peer to record a video, send a tweet or add their name to a list of those who back equal marriage. Those who do not respond or issue no comment will be added to a public list of those who do not support the move.

So here, Out4marriage is acting as judge and jury by finding those who wish to remain silent on this very controversial issue as being not supportive of Gay Marriage and presumably they will be labelled as homophobic. So in George Bush’s terms “you are either with us or against us”.

Gilad Atzmon recently wrote a very important paper called “Post Colonial Theory Whiteness and Palestine“, the paper touches on the link between Queer theory and Jewish National Aspiration. With similar tact may I suggest to “The Lobbies” two additional questions that some may want to have answered in the same public way.

1/   Do you believe that the State of Israel has a right to exist – please make a video expressing this in clear terms, failure to do so could lead to a public “outing” as a Anti Semite.

2/   Do you believe that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust – please make a video expressing this in clear terms, failure to do so could lead to a public “outing” as a Holocaust denier.

But I digress so back to the subject of Gay Marriage.

According to the  Jewish Chronicle, Rabbi Sacks is to be forced to state his opinion on Gay Marriage along with all the other Peers and M.P.s and those who do not record a video will be ruled as being against it.

This word force seems to crop up frequently when dealing with matters of interest to many Jews, but are Jewish and Gay lobbying groups really so powerful that they can force the Peers and M.P.s to do their bidding?

Ben Cohen, founder of gay news website Pink News, has been part of the team running the Out4Marriage campaign.

Well, it seems yes they are that powerful as Jack Straw has already recorded his pro Gay Marriage video here below

I have an issue with some of what he says – firstly homosexuality has long since been made legal in the U.K. so there is no issue of having to hide it, or if there is, it is a personal issue and not a legal one and secondly marriage in the religious sense has always been for the purpose of procreation, so gay marriage is not equal with heterosexual marriage and never can be.

Backing the campaign to the hilt is local Finchley and Golders Green” M.P. Mike Freer. This week Mike Freer had a twitter exchange about Hendon M.P. Matthew Offord stating that Matthew Offord is misguided in his views on Gay Marriage. Indeed Matthew Offord who does not agree with Gay Marriage has written an excellent reply to one of his constituents explaining why he doesn’t which you can read in full here, below is a very relevant extract from the letter about how Gay Marriage will be taught to young children

In regard to education, Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 places a legal requirement on schools to teach children about “the importance of marriage”. If marriage is redefined, schools will have no choice but to give children equivalent teaching on same sex marriage, even those children of a very young age, including those at primary school. So what will happen to parents who because of religious, or philosophical beliefs take their children out of lessons? It is simply inconceivable in today’s world where political correctness runs a mock in our institutions, that there would not be profound consequences for those who hold traditional views. Parents who object will be treated as bigots and outcasts, possibly excluded from being on the PTA, or from being a governor. Discriminated against and persecuted because they hold views that have been enshrined in our laws and have been the cornerstone of our society for two thousand years. And what of the teachers who object to teaching about same sex marriage. Will they face disciplinary action? How will it affect their careers? Will same sex marriage be covered under such subjects as citizenship forming part of the main curriculum taught to our children and tested through examination? These are just some of the questions that the Government has so far failed to answer.

So to conclude are, we going to be allowed to oppose Gay Marriage without being branded as bigots? How can religious leaders like Rabbi Sacks or indeed Muslim leaders respond to this campaign of bullying? Is the fallout from not supporting the Gay Marriage going to be detrimental to those whose religious or personal views do not conform to THE LOBBY.

No comment

And We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): and evil was the shower on those who were admonished (but heeded not
Share Button
Posted by on May 26, 2012. Filed under Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

65 Responses to The Controversial Gay Marriage Issue & The Lobbies

  1. Gilad Atzmon

    May 26, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    My god, what a shocking story, AIPAC -GayPac, the same tactics, the same people the same protagonists…

    I do not see any reason to oppose Gay marriage, yet, i am against any form of marginal lobbies terrorizing elected politicians and spiritual leaders.

    How funny to see anti Burka enthusiast Jack Straw pretending to be liberal and tolerant… Pathetic indeed. Well done Laura, this is a big story..

  2. Laura Stuart

    May 26, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    Perhaps Gilad more investigation needs to be done on the link between being openly Islamophobic and openly supporting Gay Rights, they go hand in glove.

  3. Ariadna Theokopoulos

    May 26, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    I don’t mean to boast or to sound overly competitive, although I must admit that you, Laura, provoke me when you talk about Islamophobia.
    I think ti is the Brit in you, with a chip on your shoulder that we, Americans, have bested in you everything, keep talking about Islamophobia as if your is always bigger and better.
    Pathetic. You make videos. We make laws!
    Take this, Laura, just hot off the presses, and try to match it if you can:
    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/kansas-sharia-law-ban/2012/05/25/id/440342

  4. Laura Stuart

    May 26, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    Ariadna I am fairly confident that 9 out of 10 citizens of Kansas would not be able to point to Sharia on the Map.

  5. Rich Siegel

    May 27, 2012 at 5:16 am

    “So to conclude are, we going to be allowed to oppose Gay Marriage without being branded as bigots?” But if you oppose Gay Marriage you ARE bigots. Doing the right thing and supporting it ought to diffuse the whole situation.

    “Rabbi Sacks is to be forced to state his opinion on Gay Marriage along with all the other Peers and M.P.s and those who do not record a video will be ruled as being against it.” This strikes me as totally bizarre. How can this be enforced? It would never happen in the US. (I am American.)

    Even so, a comparison really can’t be made between AIPAC and “Gay pac”, for the simple reason that basic and simple morality and common sense demand opposing AIPAC’s positions and activities, and the same demand supporting marriage equality.

    • Sheldon Richman

      May 29, 2012 at 9:36 pm

      I have to agree with Rich. Of course civility (at least!) counsel against badgering people to publicly state their views. I would only except politicians, because they wield the power to oppress.

  6. Laura Stuart

    May 27, 2012 at 5:51 am

    You see Rich that is your opinion but others have a different one – the government is giving this a free vote (no government whip). No one should be harassed by lobbies, it is a very controversial issue here and not just for religious reasons that people oppose it.

    Why not be content with civil partnerships? Gay marriage is not equal with non gay marriage.

    It is not so bizarre when you already understand the tactics used by Jewish political groups to bully and harass. Publically branding someone an anti Semite, a holocaust denier (or a bigot) is typical of what seem to be two very interconnected lobbies.

    • Deadbeat

      May 28, 2012 at 10:32 am

      You see Rich that is your opinion but others have a different one

      This is a real good discussion because there is another aspect that I’ve notices as well — the African American community. The pseudo-Left has been putting a lot of pressure on the Black leadership especially church leaders to accept gay marriage. However if you were to talk to them privately, stand against gay marriage and resent gays associating gay marriage to the Civil Right Movement which thereby trivializes African Americans struggle against White Supremacy.

      The church is a major factor in the lives of many African Americans and due to their history with slavery understand the need to preserve the family unit and the denigration of Black manhood by whites. They see the gay marriage issue as an affront especially when they are aware that racism is a huge problem in the gay community.

      Thus this issue has become a matter of “political correctness” and a litmus test for Blacks as well and has split their ranks. The winner here as usual is Zionism’s tactic of divide, deflect, divert, and conquer.

      • Laura Stuart

        May 28, 2012 at 11:22 am

        Indeed a good example of pressure from the west is in this article on the BBC News
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18118350

        Some Western leaders have suggested they could cut aid to countries which did not recognise gay rights.

      • Ariadna Theokopoulos

        May 28, 2012 at 4:35 pm

        I agree completely. I find your analysis of the affront perceived by blacks extremely cogent and persuasive.
        I am surprised that I don’t see more blacks speaking out against this false analogy of oppression.

    • Sheldon Richman

      May 29, 2012 at 9:40 pm

      Laura, why should gays be asked to be satisfied with civil partnerships? Let’s remember that marriage has changed a great deal over the centuries. It has not been static. It was once strictly about economic security and protection of children, but it evolved to be (in addition or instead) about emotional support and commitment based on love. Many straight couples choose not to, or cannot, have children. But they are free to marry anyway.

  7. Rich Siegel

    May 27, 2012 at 10:46 am

    What’s not equal about gay marriage- as compared to hetero marriage? Gay marriage can’t produce children? How about straight people who marry without intention to have children, or too old to have children?

    Honestly I don’t understand homosexuality. But that’s because I’m not homosexual. My understanding of it is irrelevant, however. I believe it can be shown that homosexuality exists in all races and cultures, has existed through history, and also exists in the animal kingdom. It also seems to have a pretty consistent percentage of the population everywhere. So why not just accept that it exists, even if you can’t relate to it.

    If Islam forbids it and you are Muslim, fine. So you adhere to your religion and don’t be homosexual yourself. Of course this won’t be a challenge for you, because if you were homosexual, you would probably have a very different view on this. You’re not. Accept that others are. Allow them equal rights.

  8. Laura Stuart

    May 27, 2012 at 7:03 pm

    Rich if we agree to differ on the issue of gay marriage do we both agree that religious leaders and others should not be harassed to express their opinion in public about such a sensitive issue? This is more about the power of the lobbies isnt it ?

    • Rich Siegel

      May 28, 2012 at 3:03 am

      Laura-

      I totally agree that religions are what they are. Islam, various branches of Christianity, and Orthodox Judaism abhor homosexuality. Let them continue to abhor it. Why not? I can’t understand the gay people who insist on their “right” to be included in the Catholic Church’s St. Patrick’s Day parade in New York. Why? The solution is obvious. LEAVE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH! It’s not a club. It doesn’t have a set of rules which are up for vote. It has dogma- strict ideology. So leave and go someplace where you are welcome, and there are MANY progressive Christian churches, as well as non-Orthodox Jewish synagogues, who embrace and welcome gay people.

      My problem is when religions attempt to violate the separation of church and state. The church (or mosque, or synagogue) has the very obvious right to refuse to perform or to recognize gay marriage. But religious institutions DO NOT have the right to try to influence government decisions on same. That’s where my objection lies. You want to be anti-gay inside your anti-gay religion, that’s great. Don’t impose this anti-gay position on the rest of society.

      -RS

      • searching

        May 28, 2012 at 3:14 am

        I worry more about pro-gay lobbies imposing their screwed up values on the rest of society.

        • who_me

          May 28, 2012 at 3:24 am

          “I worry more about pro-gay lobbies imposing their screwed up values on the rest of society.”

          the catholic church and zionists have far too strong an influence. in fact, they shouldn’t have any influence at all.

          • who_me

            May 28, 2012 at 3:26 am

            i forgot to mention, searching, the above means i agree with you about the pro-gay lobbies more commonly known as the zionist and catholic lobbies. ;)

            • Ariadna Theokopoulos

              May 28, 2012 at 3:42 am

              you are close runner up, who_me

            • searching

              May 28, 2012 at 4:12 am

              enjoy staying ignorant who-me. Ignorance has many followers as we can see from the cheers you get from some.
              Go and please the crowds, but remember :those laugh who laugh as last.

              • fool me once...

                May 28, 2012 at 8:28 am

                “but remember those who laugh last…”
                …didn’t get the joke. ;)

      • Ariadna Theokopoulos

        May 28, 2012 at 3:35 am

        And the winner of the debate is… Rich!
        Very well said and very persuasive.

      • Laura Stuart

        May 28, 2012 at 4:57 am

        Rich thankfully Islam does not have Saints and parades – but this is not anti gay it is anti equality of gay marriage to marriage between a man and a woman.

  9. salwa

    May 27, 2012 at 11:01 pm

    Laura – It would have been more powerful to have limited the article to the “political tactics” being used by Ben Cohen, which are totally reprehensible, regardless of the sensitivity of the issue.

    I agree with what Rich has written above and have made a few observations on Gilad’s FB wall.

  10. Jonathon Blakeley

    May 27, 2012 at 11:41 pm

    Ben Cohen and another Gay presenter (whose name escapes me) feature now quite heavily on Channel 4 News. I do feel Ben is the focus of this UK PinkNews Gay Marriage Push on CH4. He has very interesting history if you check him out. All of sudden Channel 4 news felt compelled to create new job 4 technology expert and guess who it is.

  11. Rich Siegel

    May 28, 2012 at 3:31 am

    This is a photo of my two friends, Richard and Danny. They have been a couple for over 20 years. They are my daughter’s godfathers. (That’s right- she has two godfathers and no godmother.) The photo shows them outside City Hall in New York waiting to get married on the first day it became legal in New York. A few months after this photo was taken they had a big wedding and I was band-leader. Now- why would any of you want to deprive them of this. http://news.yahoo.com/photos/richard-skipper-left-daniel-sherman-sparkill-n-y-photo-125842071.html

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos

      May 28, 2012 at 3:50 am

      So that’s what it all comes down to: they let you be the band leader….
      Every man has a price: his vanity. :-)
      I still find it odd that they want to mimic the whole hetero “big wedding” thing, which makes it somehow a simulacrum. I have to go with Jonathon’s sentiment: why not devise their own imaginative, all their own, rituals?
      The photo is nice but what is it supposed to prove: that they have no horns and tails but nice shiny suits? :-)

  12. Rich Siegel

    May 28, 2012 at 4:28 am

    Why not devise THEIR rituals? THEY have no horns and tails…. So there’s “us” heterosexuals, “us” NORMAL people, and there’s “them”, these bizarre perverts who want to act as if they’re normal like “us”.

    Do you know who is really good at living in a world of “us” and “them”? Zionists. I should know, as I was raised deep in the cult of Zionism. There were Jews, and there were Goyim. There were Jews and there were Arabs. There were Jews and there were Anti-Semites. There were Jews and there was the rest of the world.

    In ceasing to be a Zionist, and further, in ceasing to identify as a Jew, I leave behind the world of “us” and “them”. So the bigoted statements above have no meaning to me, and I have no response to them. I can only live my life in a very different awareness.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos

      May 28, 2012 at 3:36 pm

      “So there’s “us” heterosexuals, “us” NORMAL people, and there’s “them”, these bizarre perverts who want to act as if they’re normal like “us”.
      Do you know who is really good at living in a world of “us” and “them”? Zionists.”

      Bingo!
      It is not I who separates between “us” and “them” but homosexuals themselves. It is their group identity (which they choose to define by their sexuality) that has constituted itself into a lobby, very much, like the Jewish lobby (let alone intermingled with it). Perhaps if I live long enough I will see further group differentiation: Red Hair Pride, Freckles Parade?

      Instead of fighting societal discrimination with the right weapon: ‘Why is it your business?!” they promote their life-style with in-your-face gay “pride” parades (didn’t they have Halloween already, a semi-official gay parade on State and Division in Chicago, for example).
      They act as if we don’t know enough, are ignorant, but if only we understood fisting better we’d come to appreciate “gay culture.” No! It’s none of my business, that’s the right attitude to me. Have all the rights and be what you claim you want to be: equal, not special.
      They definitely exhibit supremacists tribal behavior:
      –publicized lists upon lists of homosexuals that led mankind in thought, art, starting with DaVinci (Nobel prize winners not yet but in the works)
      –contemptuous, arrogant attitude toward the majority, called “breeders.”
      As an aside n the US there are TV shows –at least one I remember– where an insufferably pompous self-conceited gay man teaches the slovenly breeders, inborn slobs, how to dress, because gays are the arbiters of taste.
      –lobbying for special rights, setting up PC language, intimidation (it is harder to fire a homosexual than a hetero for fear of a lawsuit), demands of changes in school curricula to “educate” kindergarteners about ‘gayness.’

      I see homosexuals a sad spectacle of decay and corruption, not vis-a-vis the “breeders” but from ancient culture.
      Patroclus did not scamper on the battlefield dressed as a Cryseida, he wore armour.
      Achilles who loved him more than life itself ran to him when he was dying from his wounds, to cover his ass because that was important to the dignity of an Aechean warrior, ANY warrior. The same organ that is “proudly” displayed in cutout leather shorts in gay parades today. Tlepolemos, Aepaminondas and all ancient heros who had male lovers did not belong to a “gay culture” and did not have weddings. They were not in hiding but neither were they special just for using the alimentary tract for sex. They were people.
      They were raised to adhere to the Hellenic life ethics dictating that one should strive to perfect oneself all through life: intellectually, morally and physically. Morally did not include the dilemma gay–not gay but right–wrong, fair–not fair. They were heroes.
      I would want children to learn in school not idiocies like Heather has two mommies but classical literature where, without footnotes and propaganda they can learn by themselves why sexuality had no place in judging ethical models, unless fair-not fair came into play, coercion or violence.

      And I do claim my right of free speech to make fun of their idiosyncracies and mimicking behavior: the bourgeois wedding rituals with gift registries, calling each other “husband and wife,” dressing as women, worshipping women artists not for their talent but for their wardrobe (Cher, Madonna)–arbiters of culture indeed.

      • Ariadna Theokopoulos

        May 28, 2012 at 3:40 pm

        What was I thinking?
        I forgot to add the most important tribal politics feature: influencing the political process through powerful lobbying to tilt elections based on one-issue debates: pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage. See Obama.

  13. searching

    May 28, 2012 at 4:40 am

    “I leave behind the world of “us” and “them”. ”
    ….
    There are bigots and there are people of “different awarness”.

  14. Rich Siegel

    May 28, 2012 at 4:44 am

    Very clever “searching”. But I stand by what I wrote. Ariadna has very honestly presented this issue as “us” and “them” despite herself, and I’m not going to go there. If you find something intrinsically Jewish in that, you are welcome to your view.

  15. searching

    May 28, 2012 at 5:08 am

    “If you find something intrinsically Jewish in that”
    …
    I thought that you renounced your Jewishness, why bringing it up then??
    …
    “I’m not going to go there.”
    …..
    Where??
    into dividing people into bigots and people of “different awareness”?
    of course “them” are bigots, ‘us’ are people of different awareness’.
    Lovely.

    • Rich Siegel

      May 28, 2012 at 12:10 pm

      Lovely. I’m being bullied by someone who doesn’t even have the courage to use his/her own name when posting. I saw that a certain post was dividing the world into “us” and “them”. I recognized this immediately, because I was raised among people who do that: Jews. I stated that this is not a perspective I can address. So now a person who has the need to remain anonymous is chiding me for somehow dividing the world in people who divide the world into “us” and “them”, and people who don’t. Clearly this is not a person who wishes to have an intelligent conversation. This is someone who just wants to get nasty, and the conversation is therefore better left abandoned.

  16. Laura Stuart

    May 28, 2012 at 5:10 am

    Rich this really is about how we in the UK are being forced by powerful lobbies to accept things we don’t want to accept and we keep having to change our laws to suit the demands of certain LOBBIES.

    We are not here to decide if gays are human or not since that is not in question so you posting a photo of your gay friends has given me a fit of the giggles here :)

    All that aside, I do wonder how the Orthodox Jews feel about one of the main cheerleaders for gay marriage having such an obviously Jewish name like Cohen?

    • Rich Siegel

      May 28, 2012 at 12:13 pm

      What exactly is the gay lobby forcing you to accept? That they want to get married? And how exactly does that in any way limit you in your life?

      You don’t have to wonder how Orthodox Jews feel about Cohen. Orthodox Jews are 100% against gay marriage. Orthodox Jews also scorn all Jews who are not orthodox. You can be absolutely sure that they despise this Cohen character.

      Tell you what. You post a link to a photo of you and your spouse and I’ll giggle at it.

      • Laura Stuart

        May 28, 2012 at 8:15 pm

        Forcing us to accept the possibility that our children will be raised to think of marriage between two men as equal, right good and proper as a man and a woman. Did we get it wrong for the last few thousand years then?

        • Rich Siegel

          May 28, 2012 at 9:20 pm

          Who is raising your children? Seems to me that you are. So you can teach them whatever you want. If the society you are living in is suggesting something different when they leave the house, that can be a challenge but you can still teach them as you like. If the society you are living in is just so offensive to you that you fear what it will do to your children, leave. There are still many places where you can live as a bigot in the company of other bigots.

          • Laura Stuart

            May 28, 2012 at 9:36 pm

            This is the law in the UK explained in this extract from Hendon M.P. Matthew Offord

            In regard to education, Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 places a legal requirement on schools to teach children about “the importance of marriage”. If marriage is redefined, schools will have no choice but to give children equivalent teaching on same sex marriage, even those children of a very young age, including those at primary school. So what will happen to parents who because of religious, or philosophical beliefs take their children out of lessons? It is simply inconceivable in today’s world where political correctness runs a mock in our institutions, that there would not be profound consequences for those who hold traditional views. Parents who object will be treated as bigots and outcasts, possibly excluded from being on the PTA, or from being a governor. Discriminated against and persecuted because they hold views that have been enshrined in our laws and have been the cornerstone of our society for two thousand years. And what of the teachers who object to teaching about same sex marriage. Will they face disciplinary action? How will it affect their careers? Will same sex marriage be covered under such subjects as citizenship forming part of the main curriculum taught to our children and tested through examination? These are just some of the questions that the Government has so far failed to answer.

      • Laura Stuart

        May 28, 2012 at 10:28 pm

        I wasn’t giggling at your gay friends photo I was giggling at you feeling the need to prove your pro gay credentials by posting a pic and telling us about your daughters two gay God fathers (a contradiction in terms). I still don’t understand why you identify as an Ashkenazi Jew, who goes to church and has elected gay God parents for his daughter (presumably at her baptism) unless you just wanted to cover all angles.

  17. Laura Stuart

    May 28, 2012 at 5:19 am

    Actually Rich you have such a jumbled thought process here with your St Patricks day parades and pics of gay God parents. Do I take it you are a practising Christian if you had your daughter Baptised? Surely the idea of having God Parents is that you choose people who will help you to raise your child within the teachings of the Christian church? Such a mish mash of beliefs, rituals, parades and celebrating things and saints that Jesus a.s. didn’t instruct his followers to do is what made me leave Christianity for Islam, a religion which still has God’s message in a linear and coherent form.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos

      May 28, 2012 at 4:55 pm

      “Islam, a religion which still has God’s message in a linear and coherent form”

      But that’s what they all say, Laura. So hard to know, going from stall to stall and deciding which to pick. It seems the Khazars knew, or was it just a circumstantial choice based on expediency?
      Going by ethics alone I’d pick Jesus, not because of anything they say ABOUT him (birth, miracles, death, resurrection) but because everything he said himself, according to the scriptures.
      The other two major religions have too much blood and gore in them, self-righteousness and hate towards “otherness.”
      Jesus doesn’t tell you the exact motions of how to clean your nose but neither does he cleverly advises you how to skip cleaning it without being caught by “g-d.”
      By ethics alone I’d join a Christian church that teaches only Jesus’ teachings not his biography. But there isn’t any.

      • Laura Stuart

        May 28, 2012 at 8:12 pm

        Thats great and I agree wholeheartedly with Jesus a.s. teachings if only we could be sure what they were. I do not believe that different prophets came with anything but the same message, as God is hardly have kept changing his mind, the only difference is in how the message was recorded. Sadly we do not know how reliable the information in the Gospels is.

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos

          May 28, 2012 at 9:51 pm

          “Sadly we do not know how reliable the information in the Gospels is.”

          “Reliable”? Ethically speaking they are solid gold. THAT is what counts.
          How reliable is it that god talked to anybody? It is WHAT the Gospels say that makes all the difference. So far no one has been able to come up with anything better than that.

          • Laura Stuart

            May 28, 2012 at 10:01 pm

            Well if you want to follow Jesus teachings you need to know what he said.

            • Ariadna Theokopoulos

              May 28, 2012 at 10:41 pm

              Are you pretending you don’t understand what I am saying?

      • Sheldon Richman

        May 30, 2012 at 1:18 pm

        Simpler still, if one must identify with a religion, is classical Reform Judaism, circa 1885 (or as embodied by Rabbi Elmer Berger).

  18. salwa

    May 28, 2012 at 8:02 am

    Laura, you chide Rich for a “mish mash of beliefs,”etc. I accuse your article of being the same thing, regardless of your religious practices. The issue has nothing to do with beliefs, it has to do with human rights. So now, I will import comments I put on Gilad’s FB Wall and some other comments relevant to your article:

    “Homosexuality is a fact of nature not nurture, not a personal life style choice nor learned behavior. Homosexuals should have the same rights, whether in marriage or out as anyone else. The more honestly people can live, the better for society in general. This is one issue. (I am not including here situations where some people indulge for monetary reasons.)

    The other issue, is the lobbying tactics of this particular Jewish gay journalist, who might be bringing some common cultural traits, who wants to force active public support on the part of MP’s, etc., or they would be declared anti-homosexual. This is the W tactics: If you’re not with us, you’re against us. It is is a double-edged sword he’s playing with and it has nothing to do with gay rights but with force, making politicians, etc. capitulate to this ego maniac’s will. The pitiful Straw video is good evidence of that. If they don’t oppose the legislation, why should he demand what he is demanding. Is it possible for the vote to be made public in England? If yes, that would take care of accountability.

    The article seems to make other connections that are somewhat confusing & not germaine.”

    Actually, I wrote the last statement because I was too lazy to deal with the other points, but here goes:

    Let’s take the point about sex education in schools, which is not lessons of how to have sex but about sexually-transmitted diseases, the possible outcome of heterosexual activity, even when one partner might be homosexual, a surprise little human, etc. So, there is no reason why homosexuality would cause a problem here whatsoever since everyone needs to know.

    Then the other point is “the sanctity of marriage” and it’s for procreation–a generally v. very unrealistic view. Frankly, it is much more preferable for all homosexuals to be out of the closets & accepted for whoever they are than the possibility of having a spouse who cannot fulfill the emotional needs of the other, resulting in a life full of pain.

    Laura, I repeat again what I wrote before, this article would have been much better if you had stuck to the soundness or reprehensibility of the political strategy used by Cohen in this campaign and making any relevant connections that might be applicable in explaining his strategy. The cat is out of the bag, Laura. You cannot put homosexuality back in the closet.

    • Laura Stuart

      May 28, 2012 at 8:16 am

      In fact the reference was to an article by Matthew Offord which explains exactly the issue of the fact that teaching about marriage to primary is the law, until now it is of course about a male and a female but the government has not discussed this issue of how the education act will be affected. I suggest you read the letter that Matthew Offord wrote by the link I provided above.

      This issue is not about put gays back in the closet they already have legal rights including civil partnership.

  19. salwa

    May 28, 2012 at 7:29 pm

    Yes, it is unfortunate then, that those extraneous points, of no particular value to the main consideration of the article, namely Cohen’s reprehensible political tactics, were introduced. There is much more that readers need to know specific to the nature and use of those tactics, the prevalence of Zionists at the helm of the gay movement, etc.

    • Laura Stuart

      May 28, 2012 at 8:18 pm

      Likewise Gays at the head of the Palestine movement as well.

  20. Rich Siegel

    May 28, 2012 at 9:23 pm

    It is very unfortunate indeed that Zionists are at the helm of the gay movement in the UK. Can you sit them down and have a conversation with them? I may be naive but I don’t see a connection between the gay movement and the Zionists here in the US.

    • who_me

      May 29, 2012 at 11:10 am

      “I may be naive but I don’t see a connection between the gay movement and the Zionists here in the US.”

      depends on the gay person. i notice that in liberal circles, gays/lesbians tend to be more islamophobic and use repressive actions by some muslim countries and some muslims to paint muslims as backward and “other”. this sort of “us vs them” attitude is actively promoted by liberal zionists. the fact there are a lot of gay jewish people doesn’t help. it goes kind of like this:

      we are liberal because we promote equality for gays, or are gay

      we are zionist

      israel is a liberal democracy where homophobia doesn’t exist

      muslim nations persecute gays

      muslim people have backward ideas of gender and sexuality

      etc.

      it’s an association game with israel, zionism, liberalism, gay rights, womens rights, human rights, modernity on one side and repression, backwardness, homophobe, abuse of women, no freedoms, muslim, terrorism on the other, which these liberal zionist practice. it is absolute in american media where essentially a rightwing bigot like bill maher is considered a liberal and progressive person. and many americans get their que from there and don’t question this bigoted propaganda they are fed.

    • Sheldon Richman

      May 30, 2012 at 1:09 pm

      I see no such connection either.

  21. who_me

    May 29, 2012 at 11:18 am

    this writer has a very interesting take on racism which i think relates strongly to how those trying to manipulate and divide people actually use anti-racist ideas and concepts to create a false sense of equality. an interesting take on the psychology at work by oppressor against oppressed.

    Anti-racist and anti-violence proscriptions enable oppression

    http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2011/12/anti-racist-and-anti-violence.html

    he describes the way zionists use anti-racism to maintain the status quo of those in power. one can see how this applies to the out4marriage zionist and his tactics.

  22. Ariadna Theokopoulos

    May 29, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    I am not so sure… To me he seems to be playing fast and loose with terminology to get you to agree with his relativist moral tenets.
    He puts self-defense is the category of violence, thereby diminishing the contrast with aggressive, unprovoked violence. In my book self-defense is not “violence” even when it is by necessity violENT.
    This is not violence:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNGGbozilko&feature=player_embedded

    He does the same with racism: eh, we are all racists, the oppressor and the oppressed. But the cherry on the torte is when he says that anti-racist and anti-violence proscriptions enable oppression.
    “Yes, officer, I did beat her up but it’s only because she didn’t hit back.”

    • who_me

      May 29, 2012 at 10:01 pm

      Ariadna Theokopoulos

      “In my book self-defense is not “violence” even when it is by necessity violENT.”

      that’s pretty dumb.

      • Ariadna Theokopoulos

        May 29, 2012 at 10:44 pm

        I can live with your opinion just fine

You must be logged in to post a comment Login