It's not a straightforward one for me, because I'm 'the wrong type of gay'; conservative to a pretty hard-right degree, my priorities in life being small government, individual responsibility to oneself and to society, and freedom to live within the bounds of the law of the land without persecution or discrimination. What makes me sad and increasingly angry is that we had pretty much achieved our 'equal rights' well before the end of the last century, so that should have been that. But much like with the racial question, it wasn't enough for a vocal minority of us and they proceeded to push, push push further, until we're at the point now where they risk tipping the previously achieved tolerance irretrievably too far.

I think a severe blow was dealt by the gay marriage push; the mere two words are an oxymoron. Clever-clogs on other forums' when I've cited the obvious biblical aspect come back with the sophomoric argument that 'religion doesn't own marriage'. True. Then so have a 'legal marriage' defined as signing a bit of paper, unceremoniously, to take care of all the practicalities stuff, oh hang on no we already have that, it's just that they're called 'civil partnerships' or variants rather than 'marriage'. Marriage to me is and always will be one man and one woman, forming a blessed union in the eyes of the God that they believe in. I'll go as far as to say that if one isn't a practicing adherent of an established religion, they have no business marrying in a house of worship, and may they suffer the potential consequences.

Consequently, the 'crossing the rubicon' of the 'gay marriage' issue has opened the floodgates and now we have all this 'trans' rubbish which can NEVER be compatible with my principles of 'live and let live, within the law behind closed doors'. Because its very essence is dependent on 'being different', being 'seen' to be different, and being 'entitled' to special treatment and concessions made to established law and societal mores as a result. Militancy has never been a pretty business, and now we have a section of society than identifies itself through physically embodying that. A bit like the whole question around growing Islam in the West, which in itself is going to be an interesting development when numbers on the latter side reach enough to start seriously agitating against the former.

As for children, I'm inclined to agree to a degree; for a start, it is neither normal nor healthy for a tiny minority of children to be being raised fundamentally, and thereby conspicuously so, differently to their peers around them by having same-sex 'parents'. Having said that, when I was younger I had little affinity with children and younger peers, but as I have become more conservative and am getting older, and looking at the world around me, the way it's going and what that is doing to our young people, a part of me now wonders if the ultimate way I could fulfil my purpose in life and leave a legacy would be to save a child from all that crap by raising them properly. The dilemma being that I'd only be prepared to do so as a single carer, which won't be a prospect for a good few years yet.

It's not a straightforward one for me, because I'm 'the wrong type of gay'; conservative to a pretty hard-right degree, my priorities in life being small government, individual responsibility to oneself and to society, and freedom to live within the bounds of the law of the land without persecution or discrimination. What makes me sad and increasingly angry is that we had pretty much achieved our 'equal rights' well before the end of the last century, so that should have been that. But much like with the racial question, it wasn't enough for a vocal minority of us and they proceeded to push, push push further, until we're at the point now where they risk tipping the previously achieved tolerance irretrievably too far.

I think a severe blow was dealt by the gay marriage push; the mere two words are an oxymoron. Clever-clogs on other forums' when I've cited the obvious biblical aspect come back with the sophomoric argument that 'religion doesn't own marriage'. True. Then so have a 'legal marriage' defined as signing a bit of paper, unceremoniously, to take care of all the practicalities stuff, oh hang on no we already have that, it's just that they're called 'civil partnerships' or variants rather than 'marriage'. Marriage to me is and always will be one man and one woman, forming a blessed union in the eyes of the God that they believe in. I'll go as far as to say that if one isn't a practicing adherent of an established religion, they have no business marrying in a house of worship, and may they suffer the potential consequences.

Consequently, the 'crossing the rubicon' of the 'gay marriage' issue has opened the floodgates and now we have all this 'trans' rubbish which can NEVER be compatible with my principles of 'live and let live, within the law behind closed doors'. Because its very essence is dependent on 'being different', being 'seen' to be different, and being 'entitled' to special treatment and concessions made to established law and societal mores as a result. Militancy has never been a pretty business, and now we have a section of society than identifies itself through physically embodying that. A bit like the whole question around growing Islam in the West, which in itself is going to be an interesting development when numbers on the latter side reach enough to start seriously agitating against the former.

As for children, I'm inclined to agree to a degree; for a start, it is neither normal nor healthy for a tiny minority of children to be being raised fundamentally, and thereby conspicuously so, differently to their peers around them by having same-sex 'parents'. Having said that, when I was younger I had little affinity with children and younger peers, but as I have become more conservative and am getting older, and looking at the world around me, the way it's going and what that is doing to our young people, a part of me now wonders if the ultimate way I could fulfil my purpose in life and leave a legacy would be to save a child from all that crap by raising them properly. The dilemma being that I'd only be prepared to do so as a single carer, which won't be a prospect for a good few years yet.

It's not a straightforward one for me, because I'm 'the wrong type of gay'; conservative to a pretty hard-right degree, my priorities in life being small government, individual responsibility to oneself and to society, and freedom to live within the bounds of the law of the land without persecution or discrimination. What makes me sad and increasingly angry is that we had pretty much achieved our 'equal rights' well before the end of the last century, so that should have been that. But much like with the racial question, it wasn't enough for a vocal minority of us and they proceeded to push, push push further, until we're at the point now where they risk tipping the previously achieved tolerance irretrievably too far.

I think a severe blow was dealt by the gay marriage push; the mere two words are an oxymoron. Clever-clogs on other forums' when I've cited the obvious biblical aspect come back with the sophomoric argument that 'religion doesn't own marriage'. True. Then so have a 'legal marriage' defined as signing a bit of paper, unceremoniously, to take care of all the practicalities stuff, oh hang on no we already have that, it's just that they're called 'civil partnerships' or variants rather than 'marriage'. Marriage to me is and always will be one man and one woman, forming a blessed union in the eyes of the God that they believe in. I'll go as far as to say that if one isn't a practicing adherent of an established religion, they have no business marrying in a house of worship, and may they suffer the potential consequences.

Consequently, the 'crossing the rubicon' of the 'gay marriage' issue has opened the floodgates and now we have all this 'trans' rubbish which can NEVER be compatible with my principles of 'live and let live, within the law behind closed doors'. Because its very essence is dependent on 'being different', being 'seen' to be different, and being 'entitled' to special treatment and concessions made to established law and societal mores as a result. Militancy has never been a pretty business, and now we have a section of society than identifies itself through physically embodying that. A bit like the whole question around growing Islam in the West, which in itself is going to be an interesting development when numbers on the latter side reach enough to start seriously agitating against the former.

As for children, I'm inclined to agree to a degree; for a start, it is neither normal nor healthy for a tiny minority of children to be being raised fundamentally, and thereby conspicuously so, differently to their peers around them. Having said that, when I was younger I had little affinity with children and younger peers, but as I have become more conservative and am getting older, and looking at the world around me, the way it's going and what that is doing to our young people, a part of me now wonders if the ultimate way I could fulfil my purpose in life and leave a legacy would be to save a child from all that crap by raising them properly. The dilemma being that I'd only be prepared to do so as a single carer, which won't be a prospect for a good few years yet.

It's not a straightforward one for me, because I'm 'the wrong type of gay'; conservative to a pretty hard-right degree, my priorities in life being small government, individual responsibility to oneself and to society, and freedom to live within the bounds of the law of the land without persecution or discrimination. What makes me sad and increasingly angry is that we had pretty much achieved our 'equal rights' well before the end of the last century, so that should have been that. But much like with the racial question, it wasn't enough for a vocal minority of us and they proceeded to push, push push further, until we're at the point now where they risk tipping the previously achieved tolerance irretrievably too far.

I think a severe blow was dealt by the gay marriage push; the mere two words are an oxymoron. Clever-clogs on other forums' when I've cited the obvious biblical aspect come back with the sophomoric argument that 'religion doesn't own marriage'. True. Then so have a 'legal marriage' defined as signing a bit of paper, unceremoniously, to take care of all the practicalities stuff, oh hang on no we already have that, it's just that they're called 'civil partnerships' or variants rather than 'marriage'. Marriage to me is and always will be one man and one woman, forming a blessed union in the eyes of the God that they believe in. I'll go as far as to say that if one isn't a practicing adherent of an established religion, they have no business marrying in a house of worship, and may they suffer the potential consequences.

Consequently, the 'crossing the rubicon' of the 'gay marriage' issue has opened the floodgates and now we have all this 'trans' rubbish which can NEVER be compatible with my principles of 'live and let live, within the law behind closed doors', because its very essence is dependent on 'being different', being 'seen' to be different, and being 'entitled' to special treatment and concessions made to established law and societal mores as a result. A bit like the whole question around growing Islam in the West, which in itself is going to be an interesting development when numbers on the latter side reach enough to start seriously agitating against the former.

As for children, I'm inclined to agree to a degree; for a start, it is neither normal nor healthy for a tiny minority of children to be being raised fundamentally, and thereby conspicuously so, differently to their peers around them. Having said that, when I was younger I had little affinity with children and younger peers, but as I have become more conservative and am getting older, and looking at the world around me, the way it's going and what that is doing to our young people, a part of me now wonders if the ultimate way I could fulfil my purpose in life and leave a legacy would be to save a child from all that crap by raising them properly. The dilemma being that I'd only be prepared to do so as a single carer, which won't be a prospect for a good few years yet.

It's not a straightforward one for me, because I'm 'the wrong type of gay'; conservative to a pretty hard-right degree, my priorities in life being small government, individual responsibility to oneself and to society, and freedom to live within the bounds of the law of the land without persecution or discrimination. What makes me sad and increasingly angry is that we had pretty much achieved our 'equal rights' well before the end of the last century, so that should have been that. But much like with the racial question, it wasn't enough for a vocal minority of us and they proceeded to push, push push further, until we're at the point now where they risk tipping the previously achieved tolerance irretrievably too far.

I think a severe blow was dealt by the gay marriage push; the mere two words are an oxymoron. Clever-clogs on other forums' when I've cited the obvious biblical aspect come back with the sophomoric argument that 'religion doesn't own marriage'. True. Then so have a 'legal marriage' defined as signing a bit of paper, unceremoniously, to take care of all the practicalities stuff, oh hang on no we already have that, it's just that they're called 'civil partnerships' or variants rather than 'marriage'. Marriage to me is and always will be one man and one woman, forming a blessed union in the eyes of the God that they believe in. I'll go as far as to say that if one isn't a practicing adherent of an established religion, they have no business marrying in a house of worship, and may they suffer the potential consequences.

Consequently, the 'crossing the rubicon' of the 'gay marriage' issue has opened the floodgates and now we have all this 'trans' rubbish which can NEVER be compatible with my principles of 'live and let live, within the law behind closed doors', because its very essence is dependent on 'being different', being 'seen' to be different, and being 'entitled' to special treatment as a result.

As for children, I'm inclined to agree to a degree; for a start, it is neither normal nor healthy for a tiny minority of children to be being raised fundamentally, and thereby conspicuously so, differently to their peers around them. Having said that, when I was younger I had little affinity with children and younger peers, but as I have become more conservative and am getting older, and looking at the world around me, the way it's going and what that is doing to our young people, a part of me now wonders if the ultimate way I could fulfil my purpose in life and leave a legacy would be to save a child from all that crap by raising them properly. The dilemma being that I'd only be prepared to do so as a single carer, which won't be a prospect for a good few years yet.