26 1 min 9 yrs

The idea that David Cameron is a CONSERVATIVE is amusingly at odds with reality and as further evidence of this  I offer you this gem;

David Cameron vowed last night to ‘export’ gay marriage around the world as he held a party to celebrate the passage of legislation in Britain. The Prime Minister told a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender reception in Downing Street of his personal pride at legalising gay marriage. Addressing an audience that included BBC presenter Clare Balding and her partner, the former newsreader Alice Arnold, Mr Cameron boasted that Britain was now ‘the best place to be gay, lesbian or transgender anywhere in Europe’.

Celebrating the transmogrification of marriage is surreal but par for the course from Cameron and it’s a further reason why he detachment from Conservative Party grass roots is going to destroy its future.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

26 thoughts on “CONSERVATIVE PARTY VALUES….

  1. Our Dave seems to be perfectly at home in his new job, being as it is chief publicist for UKIP.

    A great many people who do not belong to the metrosexual so-called elite, will remember what this devious man has done to their lives, when he diluted their lives and marriages in the course of collecting a few votes from a very few loud and gruesome publicists for a way of life which is a perverted ideal of human nature.

    He will learn that the ‘Taliban’ have very long memories!

  2. Just so, Mike. But why the Taliban bit?
    Surely all Muslims abhor buggery?
    It’s their only stand I agree with.

  3. Cameron has so many masters to serve and so many favours to repay, that he is left with nothing else but gay marriage to ‘make his mark’.

    The poor stupid little man is so confused in his efforts to be ‘all things to all men and women’, that he seems to have forgotten the reason for his erlection.

  4. “Predictable homophobic echo-chamber.”

    I think you’re being unfair here. Being anti Gay “marriage”, or the changing of birth certificates to read Parents rather than mother father, or changing the meaning of mother father so as not offend or embarrass, etc. does not automatically mean that people are homophobic.

    Putting it into historical context, no society has continuously or successfully accepted the concept of an equality between heterosexual and homosexual relationships or marriage.
    We are treading unknown territory here, and many predict all kinds of problems. They just haven’t begun to surface yet.
    Doesn’t mean your homophobic. Just like declining to ask bulls whether they want to have things stuck in them or have men jumping over them means that you’re bovinophobic.
    🙂

  5. “David Cameron vowed last night to ‘export’ gay marriage around the world as he held a party to celebrate the passage of legislation in Britain.”

    Someone shoot me in the head.

    Cameron will have plenty of willing helplers. In fact he’ll just be a helper himself. As usual, policy does not come from government. Government is just the mechanism by which special interests make everyone else live by their rules.

    With homosexual marriage, we need look no further than the Council of Europe. It’s in this pack of globalistas that we find the policy which Parliament waved through.

    Cameron promising to evangelise with a rainbow flag is him being a good little European. There’s a promise in there somewhere of course. He’ll park his fat arse on some cushy sinecures in a few years. There are many ways for payment to be made in return for political favours.

  6. There are many ways for payment to be made in return for political favours.

    Oh yes. You can pay them now, which is tawdry, or Pay them Later which is ” above board ” ( cough )

  7. Of course it is homophobic. It is dishonest to pretend otherwise. And how on Earth does some gay couple getting married dilute Mike Cunningham’s marriage?

  8. kateyo –

    On the contrary, there was no mass push for homosexual marriage. It’s a child of the global elites and was foisted on what is still a conservative country by the intelligentsia and metropolitan Power Elite.

    How amusing, though now unsurprising, to see the Left jump aboard an elitist, anti-popular train. It’s all the Left has since the people and the political Left long ago went their seperate ways.

  9. Pete in many ways I agree with you, homosexual marriage like immigration wasn’t voted for or on, yet those party’s implementing these issues keep getting elected.

    Call it indifference,call it looking after ones self (which IMO is the out workings of Thatchers there is no society only the individual). Most issues will begin with the liberal elite and then trickle their way down , why do you think the bbc is criticised so much.

    Like it or not liberal elites change attitudes and conservative values will have to change with them, what choice do they have?

  10. Besides that the post criticises Cameron but Boris wouldn’t have behaved any differently. I do like Boris though he should come clean and say he wants to be leader, he could lead the conservatives place Boris could.

  11. ” Of course it is homophobic. It is dishonest to pretend otherwise. And how on Earth does some gay couple getting married dilute Mike Cunningham’s marriage?”

    Rubbish again from Mr Liberal himself!

    How long has gay marriage been a hot political potato Mahons?
    Stretching how many years back?
    There is a growing realisation that there will be a serious impact on heterosexual marriage, the requirements on teachers and healthworkers to accept the changes and the potential for legal challenges through the courts. There is also the problem of what other groups will be demanding the right to marry and what will be the outcomes there.
    Believe it or not Pontius, there are plenty of people who believe that disagreeing with the debasement of marriage does not equate to homophobia.

  12. Agit8ed – Civil Rights for homosexuals has lagged behind other groups. I don’t think the fact that they have been denied them longer than others actually bolsters your argument.

    There is no “realization” that there would be a serious impact on heterosexual marriage, rather there are obvious untruths that there would be.

    There is no problem of what other groups, you are making that part up as well.

    There are plenty of people who are prejudiced on a variety of matters who don’t see themselves as prejudiced. That doesn’t make them any less prejudiced.

  13. “Call it indifference,call it looking after ones self (which IMO is the out workings of Thatchers there is no society only the individual).”
    I disagree. I think it is the consequence of elected governments giving undue attention and influence to special interest/focus groups, which ends up distorting and destroying democracy.

  14. ” . I don’t think the fact that they have been denied them longer than others actually bolsters your argument. ”
    I meant how long is it that Gays have been calling for Gay marriage?
    Don’t forget that in this country we had the big HIV/Aids scare, and that was predominantly affecting the Gay community. There was no call for Gay marriage at that time.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15886670
    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.533328
    and finally

    Stonewall says it will campaign for gay marriage

    Note the start date Mahons, 2010….

  15. Historically it has been difficult for gays to even identify themselves publically as gay for fear of prosecution, persecution and prejudice. As the first two have fallen away over the last few decades the idea that they could one day insist upon equal rights has grown.

    I don’t know what AIDS has to do with it other than it hit them as a disease greatly and in the minds of more lunatics than one would imagine, it hit them deservedly.

  16. there was no mass push for homosexual marriage.

    There was no “mass push” for many other recent reforms. Does that mean that they should not have been enacted?

    Examples:
    The de-criminalisation of consenting sex between homosexuals (1968)
    The reduction in the voting age to 18 (1970)
    The recognition of rape within marriage (1991)
    Equalisation of the age of consent (2001)

    It is clear from some of the comments here that in Rightworld la-la land none of the above would have happened. It is true that many of their ilk opposed all of the above at the time and are still opposed and would like to reverse (see Daily Mail).

  17. Mahons 11:00pm

    You really are a smuggo* Mahons!

    “I don’t know what AIDS has to do with it other than it hit them as a disease greatly and in the minds of more lunatics than one would imagine, it hit them deservedly.”

    http://www.amfar.org/thirty-years-of-hiv/aids-snapshots-of-an-epidemic/

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/

    Take your oh so liberal “live and let live, love and let love faux Christian” spectacles off for a moment and read the links in the context of Gay marriage.
    It’s not about condemning Gays for being Gays, it’s about saying that the idea of Gay marriage is illogical because marriage is a mingling of two people of opposite sexes with a view to creating children.

    “And this points us to the heart of the issue. The central underlying conviction of the older view can be summed up as this: male-female marriage is a natural good that ought, therefore, to be respected. In other words, marriage cannot be reduced to a social convention. It is more like a feature of the natural world, an element of human ecology, than it is like a technological invention, something we make by our will. It is not a product of human culture that we may freely modify, but rather a structure inherent to the world we inhabit, a basic given feature of human life, which is to be received and welcomed with gratitude and respect.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/04/30/3747877.htm
    The HIV/Aids epidemic hit the Homosexual community because anal sex increases the likelihood of infected bodily fluids being transmitted one to the other.
    Anuses are not designed for sex Mahons, they are designed for expelling waste products, aka pooh/crap/shit.
    In terms of physiology “Convolution” designed the human animal so that the male penis penetrated the female vagina in order to reproduce..


    In my Christian worldview, God created men and women and the way they reproduced was a mingling of sperm and egg to create the next generation. It happens everywhere Mahons, but two people of the same sex can’t do it.

    You ought to get out more.
    Finally, imagine the impact on your family if you came out as being Gay?
    You suddenly realise you have been living a lie and you only married and had 15 children because of the expectations placed upon you by your Irish immigrant parents..
    But in reality you find that young guy working in the same office as you incredibly cute and you find yourself getting a hard on every time he says “Gooood Morning, Mahons…”

    Huh?
    You don’t think it may create problems? It won’t cause problems for your wife and children?
    Get real, Buddy Boy.

    *Smuggo.
    One who is smug.

  18. Agit8ed- So then you must be against the marriage of anyone who is infertile, or the marriage of any couple who is past child-bearing age, or the marriage of anyone who decides they do not want to have children. But of course you are not, because your opposition to gay marriage is based on your opposition to gay existence.

    The fact that you think sex must only involve vaginal penetration perhaps explains you being so uptight.

    The fact you seem to blame a disease on someone who contracts it further reveals your character.

  19. Agit8ed

    What on earth has that bit of rambling nonsense about Mahons fancying the young man in the office got to do with gay marriage ?

Comments are closed.