Great Britain Gone to the Dogs

j0422873Sadly it seems the UK has ripped the moral compass off the ship of their nation and thrown it into the deep.

The British government has for some time been genuflecting to evil with such vigor that Winston Churchill may just roll over in his grave.  But recent capitulations in England are taking that once-great nation into new levels of darkness.

You may recall that just a few months ago the UK turned away Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders at Heathrow airport and refused him entry to the country.  Unlike the radical Muslim clerics and millions of other Muslims the UK allows into the country, apparently the Home Office considers Wilders the threat.

The British government has also vehemently embraced appeasement to homosexual activism, having banned Biblical truth in public,  and advocating the teaching of the pleasures of homosexual sex to 5-year-olds.

The government has also been pushing Catholic adoption agencies to adopt children out to homosexual couples–an irresponsible move that puts politics and selfishness ahead of the welfare of children. In fact, many of those Catholic adoption agencies have already caved to the pressure.

Now we hear from LifeSiteNews that one of the few Catholic agencies to challenge this insanity,  Catholic Care, has been denied in its appeal

Catholic Care was appealing a previous decision made in March, where they attempted to change their provisions (i.e., their charter, or objectives) that would allow them to restrict who is allowed to adopt, according to section 18 of the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs). The SORs were passed in 2007, and were ostensibly meant to prevent “discrimination,” but have instead led to a culture of persecution against Christians and Christian organizations who hold to age-old beliefs about sexual morality.

These adoption agencies, which perform an invaluable service for their society and their country, are being forced to choose between this vital work and loyalty to the teachings of the Bible.

The government had originally made it sound as if the Sexual Orientation Regulations would allow provisions for religious organizations to remain true to their faith…but now we find out that was an empty promise.

(Aren’t we hearing similar things here in the States as various areas look at “hate crime” laws, “discrimination” laws and other pro-homosexual laws? We hear, “Oh, Christians will still be able to do this and that”…but common sense and experience with homosexual activism tells us something much different, doesn’t it?)

So agencies doing good are sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and bowing the knee to homosexual activism. And children are placed in homes where they will be deliberately deprived of a mother or father, and will be taught by example that one or the other sex is either unnecessary or undesirable.

It certainly takes a depraved government and depraved society to get behind this kind of child-hostile policy.

And in yet another case of the world turned upside down, a man who filmed homosexuals breaking the law and having sex in public has himself been convicted of a crime.

According to LifeSiteNews,  Colin Anthony Haw of  Boston in Lincolnshire was fed up with homosexuals having sex in his local public park.  Police also ignored the law when he tried to report this illegal behavior, so he took a video camera out there to try and shame them into going away.

But in the Isaiah 5:20 culture that has become Britain, the one seeking to uphold the law became the one prosecuted.

Haw was convicted by Boston Magistrates’ Court and sentenced to four months in prison, suspended for a year and a half, and was given 200 hours community service.

Despite Britain’s public decency laws, homosexuals routinely meet for sex in public lavatories in parks and other public places such as bus stations, train stations, airports and University campuses, calling the activity by the slang term “cottaging.”

“Guidance” released by the Deputy Chief Constable Michael Cunningham last year said that UK police officers should balance the law with the “human rights of those people who frequent open spaces for the purposes of having sexual relationships with other like-minded people.”

So now you have the “human right” to have unnatural sex in public, where even children may be exposed to it? I think I definitely hear Winston Churchill–who fought so hard for the freedom and survival of the British people–turning over in his grave.

The LifeSiteNews article quotes Haw on what he did and why he did it:

Outside of Court, Haw told the Daily Mail, “We didn’t go in there to cause people harm. We reported it on several occasions to the police. We tried to name and shame them but we didn’t have any intention of causing them distress. We didn’t put up any pornographic material.

In our videos in Boston we have also brought attention to all the rubbish and the drug users who have thrown their syringes on the floor.

“We were not out to cause any trouble. The police wanted it covered up.

“I’ve got nothing against homosexual people but what gives them the authority to do it in public?”

Obviously nothing legally gives them the authority to have sex in public, since it remains (rightfully) against the law.

This as much as anything goes to illustrate that the homosexual agenda is not about freedom of sexual expression, but an insistence that society fully indulge any behavior homosexuals wish to display–including displaying it in public. Most heterosexuals don’t insist on having sex in public, and they certainly don’t insist they have a “human right” to do so.  Any heterosexuals who do feel the need to have sex in public suffer from a similar depraved mindset to that of homosexuals who insist on the same, and all of them should face legal repercussions.

Unfortunately Britain and so many other nations in the west today have lost their moral bearings and are no longer capable of maintaining a civilized culture.  The no longer have courage of conviction, no longer know what they believe, and in their rudderless confusion are willing to indulge anything.

Sadly, we are watching a once-great empire crumble under the weight of its own moral bankruptcy.

And the evidence indicates that the American civilization is running to catch up with the British empire as they both plunge headlong down the abyss of destruction.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark
  • Tecopa Jack
    There is an "agenda", at work here,..I refer to this whole "Politically Correct", scam, that is pushing this whole,..Homosexual,..Abortion,..Hate Speach,..Hate Crimes,..Tolerance,..Multiculturalism,..scam,..The ultiment, aim of this agenda, is the "utter distruction", of Western Civilzation, to be brought about, by the distruction, of the "value systems", upon which, Western Civilization is based,..We can only "speculate", as to WHO, it is, exactly, that is behind this diabolical program,..
  • Louis
    It is very amusing that the idiot writer of the article calls up the ghost of Winston Churchill rolling over in his grave over gay rights when in fact one of Churchill's more memorable quotes was his statement that" The great traditions of the British Navy are Rum, Buggery ( sodomy) and the lash". As an openly gay man who brought up a child with my male partner ( she is a college graduate, married and with her own child now) I fond your hate filled posturing obscene, and the very opposite of christ like. Something tells me that if Jesus were here right now, he could tell you all about the passions of a male to male kiss....
  • Do you think Churchill was joking along the same lines as many U.S. Navy people tell, especially in the submarine service, or do you really think Churchill thought homosexual behavior was morally acceptable? Surely you're not that ignorant or obtuse.

    I have done nothing but tell the truth about politically correct placement of children into homes that run a high risk of placing the children in jeopardy, and by design and intent deprive them of a mother or a father.

    The true hate comes from those who would willingly and intentionally rob a child of the normality, stability and safety of a home with a mother and father who are committed to sexual and other responsibility rather than following their own petty desires.

    Oh, and someday, unless you repent beforehand, you are going to be extremely sorry when you stand before Him for implying that Christ--who made it clear that homosexual behavior is a sin, and that God's design for human sexuality is between a man and a woman in marriage--would stoop to the depraved behavior you imply.

    Talk about hate? Go look in the mirror, Louis. You'll find plenty.
  • The question is not whether charities like Catholic Care in England have "religious freedom" to discriminate against Gay couples, but whether they are accepting public funds in the process! Gay people are taxpayers too, and I don't want my tax dollars going to organizations that discriminate against me, any more than YOU would want your tax dollars going toward an organization that discriminates against Christians.

    Catholic Charities of Boston went through this same situation years ago. I frankly couldn't care less if their adoption service discriminated against Gay couples or Muslim couples or Jewish couples or whomever. Problem was, Catholic Charities of Boston were being funded by the State of Massachusetts to the tune of a million bucks per year! And they were given a choice: Either stop discriminating against Gay couples, or give up their public funding. They chose to give up the funding. Fine by me. You wanna feed at public trough, you'd better be prepared to play by the rules.
  • Catholic adoption agencies who refuse to adopt children to homosexual couples aren't discriminating against homosexuals any more than they discriminate against other couples and individuals who don't, because of their behaviors and practices, provide a good, wholesome, healthy and balanced environment for a child to develop and grow up in.

    Homosexual couples, in addition to setting a poor moral and health example, intentionally deprive a child of either a mother or father; believe it or not, both have vital contributions to make to child development, and both mother and father bring unique gifts to the situation. Also, since homosexual couples by design include only one sex, they send the message to the child by example that one sex or the other is either unnecessary or undesirable--or both. This is NOT a healthy, balanced environment for a child.

    When you also consider the health risks associated with homosexual behavior (higher rates of AIDS transmission and other STDs, higher rates of anal cancer, hepatitis, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence), the risk to the child becomes even greater. And research shows that even "committed" homosexual couples have notoriously low rates of monogamy, usually continuing to have multiple sex partners despite the relational "commitment." Children do not need this immoral and chaotic example paraded before them on a continual basis--especially in their own home.

    Societies have long understood that such charities perform an extremely important service to the community--one that, were it not provided by these charities--the government would have to perform itself. Many governments, therefore, assist such charities with financial support--a good deal, since private organizations are almost always able to operate at a lower cost than government programs.

    So governments like this that insist on subverting morality and the welfare of children are acting in a manner hostile to children and society in general on a number of levels.

    How pathetic.
  • WOW, Bob, you make it sound like adoptive Gay couples don't go through any of the same screening that Straight couples go through. Obviously not everyone, whether Gay or Straight, is fit to be an adoptive parent.

    But that's beside the point. Your arguments have been refuted over and over again:
    http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
  • I have no doubt that homosexuals go through the same patheticallly weak screening process as heterosexuals. But if the screening process is already geared NOT to screen out particular threats to children, then those threats won't be filtered out, will they?

    You are correct that not everyone is fit to be an adoptive parent. That would include people who don't behave in a sexually responsible manner, and this includes engaging in dangerous and unnatural sex, and the deliberate exclusion of one or the other sex in the home.

    By the way, the APA and their politically correct arguments hold about as much water as a fish net. They forfeited their credibility years ago when they decided to craft policy based on political pressure, protests and political correctness (i.e. peer pressure) rather than scientific, clinical data.
blog comments powered by Disqus