Matthew Parris

Hedonistic? No, today's gay men are civic-minded - and conservative

The claim that gays think only of themselves and the present is, in my experience, the opposite of the truth

11 January 2014

9:00 AM

11 January 2014

9:00 AM

A gay friend phones over the New Year break. A lovely chap (let us call him Richard) and long retired, he has done well and made money over the years. Richard has called to tell me how he is spending it. I know that in the past he had helped the gay lobbying organisation Stonewall; and that in memory of his late civil partner he had helped endow a local state school in need of funds. Now, he tells me, he has bought a house for a young friend and his partner: someone who helped Richard during the low time after his bereavement. ‘There was no way they could find the savings to get their feet on the ladder,’ he tells me, ‘and I just thought “What’s all my money for if not to do some good? I’ve enough for my own needs, and I’ve looked after my family; so why not spread the rest around?”’ The pleasure in his voice is palpable.

His phone call puts me in mind of another old friend, also homosexual, now long dead, who spent his seventies and early eighties designing and planting the most beautiful garden — trees and shrubs were his greatest love — above the river banks by his bungalow in Derbyshire: a garden whose maturity he knew he would never see. What spare time and money this left him he spent with, and on, his friends at home and abroad, helping more than one establish their careers. Then my mind moved to Michael Bishop, now Baron Glendonbrook, who founded British Midland Airways, amassed a small fortune, and in retirement is giving it away through a charitable foundation that innumerable good causes have reason to thank. Bishop is also gay.

It was a writer I admire tremendously (I think The Spectator’s Paul Johnson has often been touched by genius) who stung me into the rudest piece I’ve ever written: aimed at him, as it happens, and the first of a series for this magazine which has this week continued for exactly 18 years. In his And Another Thing column on 6 January 1996, Mr Johnson had written this: ‘[John] Major is constantly being praised, most recently in this journal, by Matthew Parris, a self-outed protagonist of queerdom whom I think of as the Times Sodom Correspondent (they have a stringer in Gomorrah too, but mum’s the word about him). So the homosexuals like Major.’

This was not Mr Johnson’s first foray into such territory. Two years earlier he had opened an essay headlined ‘From children to rent boys in one parliamentary vote’ by remarking, ‘Nothing is more disagreeable than having to write about male homosexuality….’ but had in fact put himself dutifully through the ordeal with surprising regularity, writing a year later that ‘the theft of this word [‘gay’] by Californian sodomites … and cravenly acquiesced in by lazy sub-editors … who should know better, means that many fine old songs are now completely unperformable.’ Mr Johnson’s defence of linguistic standards has never been extended to protect that good old-fashioned word ‘queer’ in its original meaning, and some fine old sayings like ‘there’s nowt so queer as folk’ still await rescue. So does ‘faggot’.

Back in 1996, however, I experienced a moment of despair. I thought highly of Paul (and still do), so his words stung. On matters of love and sex we are all entitled to our own tastes and moral judgments, but what stood out from Johnson’s writing here — apart from the personal disgust that was his prerogative — was an implicit theory about same-sex relationships that was wounding. I’m sure now that it was utterly erroneous.

The Pauline view reflected a belief that homosexuals were inherently hedonistic, seeking sex only for the sake of sex; and that while heterosexual society organises itself  through successive generations, homosexual society does so by forming bridges between otherwise unconnected citizens. Gays would be drawn away from the values of constancy and love, and duty to elders and successors. They would become what Johnson used to call ‘degenerates’ in more than the physical sense, and live only for today, and for pleasure. The future could go hang.

The theory has a certain plausibility, which made it sting the more. But I did not recognise in myself nor in many gays I knew that carelessness or shallow pleasure-seeking. Rejecting Johnson, I took refuge in the view of Plato and his culture: an analysis with equal plausibility. This view, current among many Ancient Greeks, was that heterosexual reproduction was more likely to distract men from wider social obligations, because they would focus on advantaging family and the next generation, rather than root their interests in society and democracy as a whole. According to this view, same-sex couples would make ideas and values their children; the public good would be ‘family’ to them; and they would not be distracted from public duty by the desire to spawn, endow and promote copies of themselves for the next generation. Gay men would prove more selfless politicians.

Doubtless this too distorts reality, which is as various as people are various. But a lifetime’s observation — especially culminating in the cultural and legal changes which can liberate gay men from furtive and casual sex — has finally and very firmly convinced me that there really is something in it.

It is a matter of fact that since decriminalisation and civil partnership, the shift in gay culture, particularly among the older generation, has been noticeable. An innate conservatism seems to have surfaced, and civic-mindedness and an urge to settle down and be responsible citizens no longer needs to hide itself. I know many wealthy gay men, but none — literally none — who are not involved in investing money and effort in personal projects associated with the public good. We think very hard about a future when we are not here.

Paul is an old man now; and soon I will be too. I would like to think that our dispute is over. But, 18 years later, I remain sure it should be resolved in my favour.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • Zimbalist

    “An innate conservatism seems to have surfaced, and civic-mindedness….”

    Why then do I keep getting called a “bigot” and other names for suggesting that marriage should remain as it has been since the dawn of time? You know, the marriage that produces kids and such?

    I’ve not seen too much in the way of manners or civic mindedness – or an appreciation of democracy or free speech for that matter – from the “gay marriage” advocates. All I’ve seen is the manifestation of a totalitarian ideology which goes on about “equality” and “diversity” until the point at which you disagree with them, at which point one is deemed a non-person without the right to a view.

    If you want to talk about generosity – real generosity – it might be worth noting that the Catholic Church is the organsiation with the most money spent and feet on the ground in third world countries. Yep, that would be the same Catholic Church which is, as a general rule, hated, derided and despised by the gay lobby.

    • VertMB

      But marriage didn’t exist at the dawn of time and when it did start it’s been changed a ton, white and black people weren’t allowed to marry and before you could marry your slaves, times change.

      If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one.
      Your views shouldn’t be allowed to prevent other people doing what they want, such as my views shouldn’t prevent you from going to church.

      • DrCrackles

        In Christian teaching marriage started at the very beginning. God, Adam and Eve and this is the model that is passed onto us. Anything else is against God’s will and will fail, so it is futile to cry against those you see as preventing you from doing what you wish. Similarly, your appeal to equality of tolerance is misplaced, since Christians don’t stop being Christians when the are persecuted for their faith.

        • Mary Squire

          You cannot demand that others who do not share you beliefs live as you want them to. It’s quite mad.

        • Mary Menino

          Listen you should read the bible before you mention it. In the beginning and today in some countries marriage is between one man and several wives and concubines. Read the bible before you mention what is the traditional marriage!

        • Fergus Pickering

          When did Adam and Eve marry? I must have missed that bit.

      • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

        Gay marriage is an oxymoron
        I think

        I do not mean that it is supported only by oxen and morons
        So don’t go down that line OK ?

        adding quote extract :— especially culminating in the cultural and legal changes which can liberate gay men from furtive and casual sex

        Can but most certainly has not.
        Lets meet in the night club toilet Matthew to discus literary matters.

      • David Lindsay

        white and black people weren’t allowed to marry

        When, exactly, was that ever the law in this country? I’ll give you a clue: I already know the answer.

        Marriage did exist at the dawn of human history, as the union of one man and one woman. All other versions of it are fallings away from that original and perennial ideal.

        • Mary Squire

          And your proof that marriage (as you think it should be) did exist at the dawn of human history is???

        • Mary Menino

          You are right. Marriage was between one man and several wives plus concubines. It was allowed by God and it was since the beginning of times. This is the traditional marriage and they are still in some countries and it was here in this country. Now the bible is against about divorce. Why people like you don’t go after the law in this country that allows divorce???? Because people like you are hypocrite.

          • David Lindsay

            Speak for yourself.

            Never having needed to be consummated, civil partnerships should not be confined to unrelated same-sex couples, nor, indeed, to unrelated couples generally.

            Furthermore, any marrying couple should be entitled to register their marriage as bound by the law prior to 1969 with regard to grounds and procedures for divorce, and any religious organisation should be enabled to specify that any marriage which it conducted be so bound, requiring it to counsel couples accordingly.

            Statute should specify that the Church of England and the Church in Wales each be such a body unless, respectively, the General Synod and the Governing Body specifically resolve the contrary by a two-thirds majority in all three Houses.

            There should be similar provision relating to the Methodist Church of Great Britain and to the United Reformed Church, each of which also exists pursuant to an Act of Parliament, as well as by amendment to the legislation relating to the restoration of the Catholic hierarchy.

        • Fergus Pickering

          What utter nonsense. Marriage is man made. Twit!

      • Tom M

        Black and white people wren’t allowed to marry? Where?
        What I fail to understand is after so much effort to prove gays people are different now you want to be so much like the rest of us and get married.

      • Socialism: Organized Evil

        The institution of marriage exists to beget, protect, and raise children. Something that homosexuals are incapable of.

        • Mary Squire

          I think you’ll find there are a great many lesbians and gay men who are begetting, protecting and doing an excellent job of raising children. My grandson is one of the lucky children who has a great life with his two dedicated mothers ( and his father, a gay donor, is also involved in his life). How does it hurt you if his mothers get married. They are already committed to each other and to raising a child! Mind your own business.

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            Sodomites cannot beget children.

          • Mary Menino

            What? What is sodomites you ignorant!

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            India has just made homosexual sodomy a serious criminal offense, punishable by over 14 years in prison.

            That’s a step in the right direction.

          • jiff363

            You do make us stronger with every comment you make. Thanks!

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            I certainly agree with the approach that India and Russia are taking – using the power of the state to eviscerate those who engage in crimes against nature.

          • Fergus Pickering

            What a funny fellow you are, to be sure.

          • Mary Menino

            What are sodomites????? Go learn what sodomite is before you use in your vocabulary.

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            Sodomites are homosexuals.

          • jiff363

            We feel sorry for you, but you do make us stronger with every comment you make. Thanks!

          • Socialism: Organized Evil


            India and Russia are using the power of the state to eviscerate those who engage in crimes against nature.]

            There is no reason to tolerate crimes against nature.

          • jiff363

            Beget? LOL…

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            I think we can all agree that the ideology of liberalism is an ideology of nonsense.

          • Keep stirring the pot if you enjoy it, but as an American I ask that you leave the flag out of it. Or… that’s the point, isn’t it?

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            As an American, I’ll keep flying the flag. Thanks.

          • Liar liar pants on fire! I don’t believe you’re American at all.

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            The media in the US cannot be trusted. Like the democrat party in the US, the ideology is espouses (liberalism) is fundamentally marxist.

          • Fergus Pickering

            If they are exclusively sodomites. But why should they be? Oscar Wilde begat children. Or didn’t you know that?

          • Probably Noel Coward wrote a song about it:

            Let’s beget the begot
            and not forget the forgot
            Your begat is the best thing about you…..

          • Fergus Pickering

            Nice one, Swanky!

          • Cheers, FP.

          • Children need a mother and a father. That is the best thing for them. You are describing a next-best scenario. It isn’t good enough in the long run.

          • Mary Squire

            I have taught hundreds of children who do not have the quality of life, love, and education that my grandson has. He has a father; he doesn’t live with them but he loves him and sees him regularly. He also has a grandfather and several uncles who are a regular part of his life. Is it your business to try and stop other people having children because they don’t fit your idea of a perfect life. Believe me, there is no such thing as a perfect family. Why isn’t it “good enough in the long run”? What evidence do you have?

          • I think it’s very hard to be a human being. I think you give birth, you condemn someone else to face great pain and, sooner or later, their own death. I have a dark view, that way. I think children need mothers and fathers at least to make something of this very difficult human journey. My own parents divorced before my adolescence, and in middle age I see all the ways it hurt me and my chances in life.

          • Mary Squire

            You are right. It is hard to be a human being. That’s why we should all try to be kind to each other. My point was that a child with two good parents to help them is better off, no matter what the sex of the parents. But I agree that the break up of a family is a terrible thing to happen to a child.

          • Baron

            Mary, around 97% of us are heterosexual, that’s a fact. It’s therefore very likely that most of the children raised in homosexual families would also be heterosexual.

            What if some of such children dislike the fact they have been brought up by a homosexual couple? What if they find it harder to find a partner when they grow up. What then? Should we tell them ‘hard luck, it’s equality that did it’.

          • Baron

            Mary, the overwhelming evidence has it that if you take a big number of kids those who do best in life are brought up in a family unit of two heterosexuals.

            Your single example only says it is possible to bring up a child in a unit not like the one that works well for the majority of kids.

          • Mary Squire

            Baron, we could speculate forever but really we have to wait until some decent research is done on gay couples bringing up children. I had the same view as you before my daughter came out as gay and I wasn’t keen on her having a child for the very same reasons. However, through her, I’ve met several lesbian couples with children and they are perfectly happy, well-balanced successful people. And so far, all of them are heterosexual. And I no longer worry about my grandson or any future children. I suspect, but obviously cannot prove, that the most important thing is a loving stable home with two parents, whatever the sex.

          • Baron

            Point taken, Mary, if every child turns out as the ones you’ve met, liked, thought to be happy and well balanced, fine. Baron’s question was what if the outcome’s the reverse of your experience.

            One child in 20 is being adopted by gay couples currently, altogether there are some 13,000 kids raised in same sex families. That’s not an insignificant number. What if just one in ten of these kids rejects the family in adulthood.

            Come, Mary, speculate, what then. Who to blame, what to say to these grown ups?

            The barbarian holds that the only job we humans ought to do well is to rear children. It helps of course if we make cars that don’t break down, pizzas that don’t poison us, or TV series that either entertain or educate us, but all of that is not as important as our bringing up children well. They are in the Burkenian sense the other side of the bridge that spans between the past and the future. The experiment with gay adoption doesn’t have the right smell to it.

            BTW, Baron has no quarrel with homosexuality, he ain’t either clever or courageous enough to argue either with Him or Nature.

          • Zimbalist

            Still, not really fair on the kid to purposefully deprive him of a father that lives with him, however much your daughter & companion may be caring, dedicated, etc.

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            Sodomites are biologically incapable of begetting children.

        • Mary Menino

          Incapable? Where do you live, in the cave????? How many gay couples have biological children???? You are very very ignorant!

          • Zimbalist

            “Incapable? Where do you live, in the cave????? How many gay couples have biological children???? You are very very ignorant!”

            There’s natural, and then there’s un-natural!

            As the advocate of something fundamentally unnatural, you have failed to discharge the onus of proving why the consequences for the child (not having both a mother and father) are valid.

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            Sodomites are incapable of begetting children.

        • Fergus Pickering

          They can’t beget them but they can, and do, do the other things.

        • Dr. Rabbit

          Unless they adopt? And what about couples that choose not to have kids, or are incapable of doing so (infertile, post-menopausal, etc.)? Marriage is about much more than producing offspring (for which it is also entirely unnecessary). If you fail to see that, I pity anyone unfortunate enough to be wed to you.

          The ignorance and homophobic vitriol in some of these comments is thoroughly depressing.

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            Why would anyone allow mentally ill sodomites to adopt children? How evil is that?

      • marriage didn’t exist at the dawn of time

        There are anthropologists that disagree with you, there. Look up Owen Lovejoy and his Science paper of 1981 (I think) (‘Modeling Human Origins: Are We Sexy Because We’re Smart, Or Smart Because We’re Sexy?’). Committed hetero coupling is very ancient among human beings, for excellent survival and reproductive reasons.

  • MikeF

    If an “innate conservatism” is now surfacing amongst the homosexual community are their best interests served by the actions of an intolerant, authoritarian narcissist organisation like Stonewall that seeks to obliterate every vestige of thought it dislikes e.g. its persecution of that couple whose beliefs led them to disallow any ‘unmarried’ couples – heterosexual as well – from sharing a bed in their guest house? Are they served also by promoting the concept of ‘homophobia’ in order to include homosexual people amongst the various groups of ‘protected minorities’ – a concept that means they are protected from unprovoked aggression not as a matter of basic principle but as a matter of preference on the part of a ‘left-liberal’ elite?
    Preferences, remember, can be withdrawn as well as conferred and if 15-20 years down the line the political class decides that homosexual people no longer deserve their favour – much like the ‘white working class’ now – where will homosexual people turn then if they have been complicit in destroying the idea of shared values and real equality before the law? Those are the real issues affecting the future that homosexual – and hetrerosexual – people need to think about.

    • Louise McCudden

      “Persecution” LOL

      • MikeF

        In the guise of a prosecution but in the end much the same thing. Laugh all you want but as I said if the ‘gay movement’ is complicit in constructing a society based an utterly inflexible enforcement of ideologically-motivated law-making what will they do when its laws are turned against them? Such a thing might happen and if it does it won’t be because of ‘nasty’ conservatives like me but because they will have ceased to have any utility for the left.

      • Colonel Mustard

        Yes, persecution. It’s sad that the gay agenda has rid us of one form of persecution only to replace it with other forms.

  • jmjm208

    I accept that this is a thoughtful article and not given to the usual strident tone we have come to expect from the likes of stonewall. However, I would sensitively draw your attention to 1st Corinthians 6 v 9-11.

    In these 3 verses we read the bad news and then the good news. I believe that Jesus can change people from all manner of sinful living into what I call “trophies of Grace”.

    I will pray for you that God will draw you to repentance and faith in Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.

    • rcdcr

      Go fuck your mother.

      • HKfCA


      • Zimbalist

        Oh oh, there’s some of that “civic-mindedness” the author speaks of, right there…..

        • Baron

          Amazing, the post under rcdcr, foul, full of hatred for other man’s view, awaits moderation, but one can click on it, read it. Baron’s postings disappeared without any mention of moderation. It said: “Gay men contribute most to the society” a gay man says so himself. Hmmm”

          • Hi Baron: It’s there, I just checked. But Disqus has an odd way of apparently ‘hiding’ one’s own comments at times.

  • David Kay

    when i saw the title to this article on the front page i thought the word “gay” was being used in the 21st century definition meaning crap rubbish etc rather than the 20th century definition to describe homosexuals

    come on matthew, get with the times

  • Socialism: Organized Evil

    Homosexual sodomy is a vile perversion.

    • jiff363

      Bitter much…LOL…..What about two people that love each other? Same hate?

      • Socialism: Organized Evil

        I think the Russians are moving in the right direction by banning all sodomite propaganda.

        In India, homosexual sodomy has just been made a serious criminal offense with a penalty of at least 14 years in prison.

        Those are two countries taking steps in the right moral direction.

        • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

          Stephen Fry will soon sort the Rooskies out.

          Have you seen how Tatchell was handled in the Soviet Union
          It’s on Youtube.
          His treatment by the bodyguards of a black African whose name escapes me is a bonus chuckle too.

          He’s a brave boy I’ll give him that

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            India has just made the vile perversion of homosexual sodomy a serious criminal offense, punishable by over 14 years in prison.

          • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

            More asylum seekers then ?
            Parris is on the blower to New Delhi as we speak !

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            It would be wise for the West of completely ban the crime against nature that is homosexual sodomy, as well.

          • jiff363

            Bitter much? You must be going crazy that most good people of the world feel the opposite way about people that love differently then you. Plus research shows people like you are just repressed, that must be the worst, I feel sorry for you.

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            Civilized, actually.

            Crimes against nature, such as homosexual sodomy, are incompatible with civilization.

            The Russians and the Indians have the right idea – re-criminalizing crimes against nature.

          • Tom

            Not civilized, since civilization only exists to the extent that individuals are free to pursue their own interests that do not impinge on the liberty of others. Nature has no rights, therefore cannot be wronged in a crime. Add to see this the civilized rights of free speech and association, and it is clear to see that bans on pro gay speech are uncivilized.

          • Socialism: Organized Evil


            The notion that the mental illness of sodomites and the vile diseases spread by them does not infringe upon the liberty of the civilized is sheer nonsense.

            The mental illness of sodomites is seriously detrimental to those of us who are civilized. Similarly, the vile diseases spread by sodomite are also seriously detrimental to those of use who are civilized.

          • Tom

            How so? How does two men engaging in sodomy in private infringe on your property rights, your liberty? As a capitalist and a libertarian I believe that property is the foundation of liberty, and what more basic physical property is there than your own body? If you do not be live that an individual has the right to use their own body in a way they choose, which does not infringe on anyone elses rights, how then can you support the rest of capitalism and liberty?

          • Socialism: Organized Evil


            The rates of sexually transmitted diseases, among the sodomite population, is significantly higher than the rates of sexually transmitted disease among the non-sodomite population.

            Why should my tax money be wasted on health-care for mentally ill sodomites who engage in crimes against nature?

          • Tom

            Firstly, that would be more an argument against socialised medicine than homosexuality per se, and secondly those reasons would also apply to eating fatty foods, smoking, playing risky sports etc. It also would mean that oral sex between men should be more permissable than vaginal intercourse, since transmission of diseases is more likely in the latter.

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            If you look at the numbers – the rates of disease among the sodomite population are far higher than among the normal, heterosexual population.

            It’s also very well known that sodomites have had a tendency to engage in unprotected anal sodomy in a conscious effort to spread their vile diseases.

            Why should I be forced, by the state, to subsidize the sodomites’ crimes against nature?

          • Tom

            Once again, that is more an argument against socialised medicine isnt it?

            So, of itself why does having diseases infringe on your freedom?

            You have also carefully avoided addressing the issue of why eating junk food and smoking should be excepted from your annoyance, given that they have a higher rate of disease causation, and therefore pose a higher expense to you?

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            Are not contagious diseases a risk to the individuals who comprise civilization? Is not the behaviour of the sodomite who intentionally spread those diseases an example of the most vile type of criminal activity one could possibly engage in?

            And yet, sodomites arrogantly expect others to pay for their crimes against nature and subsidize their vile perversions.

            Which is precisely why I think that India has the right idea – re-criminalizing homosexual sodomy to make it a serious felony.

            Russia’s also done a good job of banning all forms of sodomite propaganda.

          • Tom

            Well the contagious diseases that are spread through sex are hardly likely to affect you directly, are they?

            And you still haven’t answered why you don’t think the State shouldn’t ban other activities that have a higher risk of disease or medical injury, such as eating fast food and smoking, or dangerous sports. So, what is the reason for your opposition to gay sex? Because we have established it isn’t due to additional cost, otherwise you would want to criminalise other higher risk activities.

            So, you also don’t believe in free speech either? You support censoring pro-gay speech?

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            Homosexual sodomy is immoral. It is a crime, just as murder and theft are crimes.

            Civilization exists because we discriminate against immoral behaviour such as murder, theft, and homosexual sodomy.

            There is no reason whatsoever for civilized people to tolerate uncivilized, barbaric, primitive behaviour such as murder, theft, and homosexual sodomy.

            Why in the world would you possibly believe that homosexual sodomy is somehow normal behaviour?

          • Tom

            So, we have finally stripped away all the other excuses, and what is left is your hatred.

            Homosexuality is not a crime; it does not have a victim, does it? It violates no ones property rights, does it? Murder and theft are crimes precisely because they violate other people’s property rights. Civilisation exists only to the extent that people can enjoy their property as they see fit; nothing else. Yet you deny the most basic property; the property of ones own body? And you call that civilised?!

            Exactly why do you believe it is immoral? Precisely why. We have established that homosexuality violates no ones property rights.

            Well, I have not based my argument on the fact homosexuality is normal – I have based it on property rights. Now, I happen to believe homosexuality is normal, but no where is that belief required.

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            Homosexual sodomy has been considered a crime against nature for all of human history. In most parts of the world, it is still considered a crime against nature because, well, it is.

            In much of the world, it’s not only a felony criminal offense, it is a capital offense. As it was in Rome.

            What is the source of your grudge against civilization?

          • Tom

            So, most of the world is wrong. As it was when it approved of slavery, and as it still is wrt the rights of women. Do you consider slavery to have merit, merely because it has a long pedigree?

            I have no grudge against civilisation – as I have said, I view civilization as precisely that thing that exists when property rights and privacy are respected.

            I ask again, why should homosexuality be illegal? Even if it is a ‘crime against nature’, why shouldn’t laws just regard crimes against people and property?

            Why do you think it is a crime against nature? Show your working. I also note you don’t refute the accusation of being pro-censorship.

          • Tom

            So, most of the world is wrong. As it was when it approved of slavery, and as it still is wrt the rights of women. Do you consider slavery to have merit, merely because it has a long pedigree?

            I have no grudge against civilisation – as I have said, I view civilization as precisely that thing that exists when property rights and privacy are respected.

            I ask again, why should homosexuality be illegal? Even if it is a ‘crime against nature’, why shouldn’t laws just regard crimes against people and property?

            Why do you think it is a crime against nature? Show your working. I also note you don’t refute the accusation of being pro-censorship.

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            It’s illegal in most parts of the world because it’s a criminal act. A crime against nature that its perpetrators choose to engage in.

            Murder, theft, homosexual sodomy – those have been recognized as criminal acts in every culture, for all of mankind’s history.

            In fact, in many parts of the world homosexual sodomy remains a capital crime.

          • Tom

            Well your first sentence makes no sense at all! It is a criminal act because it is illegal, not the other way around. And nothing in your comment actually answers any of the questions I have asked you with regard to why you think it a crime against nature, why crimes against nature should be illegal, and you also get it wrong that it has been illegal in every culture. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that your ideology stands on nothing more than vacuous vitriol and irrational thinking. Come on – be more interesting!

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            It’s an immoral activity. Which is precisely why it is a capital offense in many parts of the world. And recently re-criminalized in India with at 14 years in prison being the punishment.

            Ultimately, your inability to distinguish between moral, virtuous activities and immoral criminal activities, is your own issue, I suppose.

          • Tom

            But you haven’t established why you regard it as immoral, still less why it ought to be illegal. I am perfectly able to distinguish between moral and immoral activities; I just need a good argument, which you haven’t provided.

          • Tom

            And, if you intend to argue from a position of sickness prevention, than you ought also to support then state intervention in the food and drink industry, to lower obeseity rates etc.

            In any case, the infection rates from unprotected vaginal intercourse are far higher than those from oral intercourse and mutual masturbation, so in fact you ought to prefer, as a matter of public health policy, gay mutual masturbation to casual heterosexual vaginal intercourse.

        • Mary Menino

          Sodomite propaganda??? Dude how ignorant you are!! Do you know what you are talking about???

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            In Russia, all sodomite propaganda has just been banned.

        • Treebrain

          Don’t forget Australia?

        • jiff363

          Just like the Nazis with the Jews? We will never forget what people like you are capable of.

          • Socialism: Organized Evil


            Homosexual sodomy has been recognized as a crime against nature for the entire history of mankind.

      • I could stick chopsticks up someone’s nose and vicky verky because we ‘love each other’: doesn’t make it dignified, does it?

    • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

      What about heterosexual sodomy.?

      Sorry I like a little giggle now and then.
      i’m no party pooper

      • Mary Menino

        Exactly. People mention sodomy without knowing what that means.

        • Why assume he doesn’t know what he means? He’s talking about who’s zooming who.

      • Socialism: Organized Evil

        The topic at hand is the vile perversion of homosexual sodomy and the steps in the right direction that Russia and India are taking to criminalize it.

        • jiff363

          Just like the Nazis with the Jews? History will never let us forget what people like you are capable of. We feel sorry for you, but you do make us stronger with every comment you make. Thanks!

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            Homosexual sodomy has been recognized as a crime against nature for all of mankind’s history.

            It remains a crime against nature today and the Russians and Indians are taking proper steps to re-criminalize it.

    • Guest

      Homosexual sodomy, OMG! His many ignorant people are there in this world. What do homosexual and sodomy mean? How about heterosexual sodomy???

      • Socialism: Organized Evil

        Homosexual sodomy has been considered a crime against nature for all of mankind’s history.

        • jiff363

          You sure do comment a lot on gay issues. Repressed much?

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            Civilized, actually.

            I applaud the steps that Russia and India are taking to re-criminalize the crime against nature that is homosexual sodomy.

          • Nature doesn’t give a damn, actually. Haven’t you got a gulag to run, or something?

          • Fergus Pickering

            I don’t know why but I sort of assume you are very ugly.

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            What’s most hilarious is that you actually think anyone cares about what you assume.

          • Fergus Pickering

            Kind of short and ugly, yeah. Short on sex.

    • Mary Menino

      Homosexual sodomy? This new! I’ve never heard that before. Go back to school.

      • Heteros do it, too. Jesus.

      • Socialism: Organized Evil

        In India, homosexual sodomy has just been made a serious felony, punishable by at least 14 years in prison.

        India is right to punish such a crime against nature very harshly.

        • Fergus Pickering

          India – the country that gave you gang rape on buses.

          • I’m beginning to wonder if this guy is ‘for real’. Maybe he’s a wind-up artist, trying to give anti-socialism a bad look. And note the US flag: what’s that all about? I think he’s a con.

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            I think we can all agree that they’re dramatically improving their reputation through the re-criminalization of the vile perversion of homosexual sodomy.

          • Fergus Pickering

            You Americans are something else.

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            The sodomites have had their day; the tables are now turning against them and their vile perversions.

          • Quite possibly he’s not actually American, FP: he just wants to make America look bad. That’s his game: I shouldn’t play it, if I were you.

          • Fergus Pickering

            It was the sodomy thing that made me think so. Americans are very puritanical, or so I have heard. But you may be right. He probably lives in Huddersfield, wherever that is. I’m prepared to bet he doesn’t live in Brighton.

          • That’s the thing, FP: to be American is to be accused of everything. We’re very puritanical/Sybaritic and too rich/too much poverty and too free/not free enough and once had slavery, and we’re conformists all the same except that our country is a Crystal Palace of multiculturalism and political diversity. Hence all the hate/love and above all, the misunderstanding of us by others.

          • Fergus Pickering

            This is only what I have heard. The Americans I know are sybaritic in the extreme, though not particularly rich,, but I had supposed they were exceptions. But then many people think Englishman are all homosexuals, and that Scotsmen are mean (actually that has the ring of truth.).

        • Fraud: your time is up, Number Seven. Please bring the boat in and stop arsing around. Thank you.

    • Realismista

      So, heterosexual sodomy is ok but homosexual sodomy isn’t: is that what you’re saying?

    • jiff363

      History will never let us forget what people like you are capable of. We feel sorry for you, but you do make us stronger with every comment you make. Thanks!

      • Socialism: Organized Evil

        The pendulum is swinging against those who engage in crimes against nature.

        Russian and India are leading the way with criminalization of homosexual sodomy and those who engage in it.

    • Fergus Pickering

      What about heterosexual sodomy? Is that OK?

  • jiff363

    Of course gay people are smarter, faster and plan better then straights. Society has made them that way to overcome bigotry.

    • Hugh_Oxford

      Which begs the question: what happens when that bigotry disappears?

      • Mary Squire

        Wrong use of “beg the question” I’m afraid.

        • So what? ‘Raises the question…’. Happy now?

          • Mary Squire


          • morbidfascination

            Actually, Swanky’s use of the phrase has become more commonplace and generally accepted. Language changes – as proved by “gay” …

  • Ricky Strong

    “It’s gay men who contribute most to society”

    What an utterly fatuous statement to make; gay, straight, man, woman, black, white, small, fat, thin, tall, blind, deaf, prodigious, disabled. No one group ‘contributes the most’. They have all contributed equally, which is why we have a ‘society’.

    • Not only that, but in a society dominated and ruled by gay men, I shudder to think of the status of women….

      • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

        I’m waffling a bit today but I have often wondered what would have happened to women were it not for male testosterone and the drive to sex resulting in procreation.

        Extirminated I should think

      • Ricky Strong

        It’s funny you say that, I was first going to reply with the assertion that in my opinion it is women who have mostly held society together, they are the unsung heroes, and that in spite of everything they have had to endure over the many years.

      • Tom

        Really? Because the place of women in society is only assured because they are attractive to straight men? I would think that gay men are more able to assess a women for her intellectual merits rather than straight men. Presumably you believe that you have worth not merely due to the way straight men see you?

        • Mine’s just the simple point that women have nothing to offer gay men that they can’t already get from other men. Some gays even see women as ‘competition’ for the attention of men they like. I just think that the glue of society is the glue between the sexes, at bottom — and obviously that glue is a lot stronger between mutually desiring men and women.

          • Tom

            Well, as a gay man whose best friends are female (a pattern I think is quite common) I completely disagree with your assessment. And, let us not forget how women are treated in those countries most arduously heterosexual – Saudi Arabia and Iran. Indeed, reality would seem to indicate the exact opposite of what you suspect, namely that male desire for women results in women being treated liked chattel goods. It may be a glue fastening society together, but I do not think that is to the benefit of women, do you?

          • To your last questions: At bottom: yes, but in a less crude fashion than that question and my answer. The desire for women in civilized men always involves the women’s ‘other skills and strengths’: they are all connected.

          • Tom

            But the point is that that desire does not have to be sexual or romantic. Those other skills and strengths stand on their own merits, quite apart from sexual desire. I cannot see any logical reason why a society dominated by rational gay men would not value the contribution of women who possess positive qualities. Indeed, I think the status of women would be immeasurably improved in many ways. The very fact that gay men do not wish to have sex with women alters the dynamic, and, in my experience allows a friendship that could not exist between even two gay men. Free of sexual tension.

            What reason have you to believe that gay men would treat women poorly. As I say, I can see no evidence of it between gay men and women now.

          • Well argued, but I suppose I feel that male supremacy is always a temptation.

          • Tom

            I agree, but as I say we know with certainity that women are not being well served by straight men in many societies today (most Muslim countries, and even India with its awful rape problems). It would seem that sexual desire for women by men has not protected women from gross harm; I believe at root your hypothesis is contradicted by the world we live in. The world is largely run by straight men (less so in the West) and women’s place in it is fixed certainly, but mostly as 2nd class citizens. Hardly a ringing endorsement of your hypothesis.

          • Yes Tom, but I did say up top somewhere mutually desiring men and women.

          • Tom

            And your comment further up was a blunt hypothesis that a society run by gay men made you shudder when you thought about the status of women. It is quite clearly evident that sexual desire for women has not protected women or ensured a good place in society, and there is no reason to believe that without that sexual desire women would not be better placed. And I would further observe that mutual desire hasn’t protected women, has it? After all, consider the treatment of Muslim wives by their husbands. Again, hardly a paradigm of egalitarianism, is it? No degree of sexual desire of men for women, mutual or otherwise, has, of itself, protected women from harm.

          • Huge assumption about Muslim women there, Tom. You cannot point to their society as exemplary of women expressing and acting on mutual desire.

            I keep trying to point back to the idea of tutored desire, or educated desire such as was given to the character of Emile in Rousseau’s novel of that name. In short, the rest of the world is a mess. When I speak of civilization as I know it, I’m speaking of the West and all that sail in her (modern Japan, for example).

          • Tom

            Well, actually the modern West isnt founded on the mutual desire between men and women, but rather a mutual respect between all members of society regardless of sex, race etc. What you have effectively claimed is that gay men represent a threat to your very place in society; I cannot but take that personally. You are saying that, because of my sexual orientation, I am prone to mistreat women. How is this anything other than a crude and gross generalisation on your part?

            There is no evidence to back up your assertions regarding the relationship between gay men and straight women, nor is there any evidence to indicate that sexual desire has improved the lot of women. Nor, in fact, that mutual desire between men and women, based around sex, is the glue of society.

          • No no, nothing personal in it. I stand by my belief in the last point, restated by you above. I am not suggesting that ‘society’ is the best of all possible worlds. You would probably inhabit a world better than the society with which we are stuck.

          • Tom

            But you haven’t provided an argument, much less evidence for your belief that mutual desire is what keeps women’s place in this society, still less that sexual desire is required for that. What is your argument to support this belief you have that women’s place in society is due to the sexual relationship between men and women? I believe that women are respected in our society because of their own merits and strengths, utterly divorced from sexual desire, mutual or otherwise. For a start, lesbian women get on well enough, and they do not reciprocate male sexual desire, do they? So, what evidence from the world today makes you believe that gay men would be worse leaders of society? As I say, my best friends are women, and I know this is a pattern frequently repeated. Would you agree? If so, it would seem direct evidence that you are wrong: that mutual sexual desire is not required for women to have a place in society.

            And it is personal, as you are saying that the mutually beneficial friendships I hold with women are inferior to the relationships between straight men and straight women. That is a crude generalisation , as well as being utterly unsupported by evidence or argument.

          • Louise McCudden

            So we only treat people with respect if we want to have sex with them now? What nonsense. Just because a gay man doesn’t want to sleep with women doesn’t mean he doesn’t have meaningful friendships with women, or perhaps has female colleagues with all sorts of different skills, or perhaps enjoys art by women, or gets treated by female doctors and nurses, or…

            NEWSFLASH: women have more to offer than sexual appeal. I think it’s you who has issues with the “status of women,” not gay men.

          • David Kay

            “women have more to offer than sexual appeal.”

            indeed they do. They cook, clean, wash the dishes, sew, do the shopping, do the ironing and so on. And if they’ve got a great set of jugs and a nice ass, they look good while they do it as well

          • factsnfriction

            Women have nothing to offer other than sexual appeal? You’re right, it’s a spectacularly simple point.

          • That’s not what I said.

      • Louise McCudden

        Hahahaha! Because straight men have been great at the feminism hahahahahaha oh my days you people.

        • Colonel Mustard

          Why are you bashing straight men? Are you stereotyping them?

      • john hughes

        or the statys of young boys.

    • disqus_KdiRmsUO4U

      In the radio programme that Parris chairs, I forget the name, i heard him admit that journalists often make things up to produce good copy..
      it’s obviously true whether Parris admits it or not.

      A silly but eye catching title helped Parris sell the article.

      • Ricky Strong

        One can only assume that that of which you speak is the sole purpose behind this article.

    • KissThe Pussy

      Sorry… but how do blacks contribute?

    • Fraser Nelson

      That statement was the print headline, which Matthew didn’t write…

      • Ricky Strong

        I did notice it has now changed, I stand by what I said but do concede that the new title somewhat illustrates his point rather more succinctly.

    • Colonel Mustard

      The politics of ‘identity groups’ – all competing for power and special privileges, some protected, others fair game for persecution; q.v. telemachus who excels at assigning labels and reinforcing his prejudices about them. Our future. Divide and rule.

  • Just looking at the facile statement in the headline, then couldn’t be bothered to read the article.
    If everybody was gay, there would be no society – we’d be extinct.
    That this idiot writer can’t see that the basis of society is a strong family base in order to pursue his agenda shows just how worthwhile is his view. It’s like saying that cinema is the most important human element.

    Pathetic, and spare me any homophobic tags – sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

    • JoshuaCzajkowski

      Of course if everybody was gay there would be no society, if you’d bothered to read the article, you’d note that he isn’t stating that it would be preferable if everybody were gay. And you’re right, you’re probably not homophobic, but there is an element of idiocy when you feel you can comment on an article you haven’t read.

      • Read my reply to Sarah, then tell me about just where the ‘element of idiocy’ resides. I made it quite clear that I was commenting on the headline, WHICH IS MY RIGHT, even if it bothers the likes of you. You might try understanding why JUST THE HEADLINE does it for me, gives you less to have to think about. If you feel the HEADLINE sounds accurate then I feel sorry for you.

        • JoshuaCzajkowski

          Calm down, i get it…it’s you’re right to read a headline.

          • Sorry if I jumped down your throat Joshua, it was the ‘element of idiocy’ that did it.
            Now if you want to justify the headline I’m all ears.

    • sarah_13

      You should read the article, Parris is an excellent writer.

      • Sarah I usually enjoy and agree with your comments, but here I must disagree.
        The headline itself rankles with me for two reason – MEN and GAY are stated as being best for society. It’s just too ridiculous to contemplate, and if this guy had any intelligence he should have considered showing it.
        As a woman, regardless of sexual orientation, I would have thought it might have bothered you too.

      • Baron

        “Gay men contribute most to the society”, a gay man says so himself. Hmmm

    • Infovoyeur

      Let’s see–everyone gay, no more peepul, but what about artificial insemination?
      And, strong family base–how about two parents responsibly raising their loved children? Oops, two men, or two women–automatically terrible, I guess..
      I personally, think gay/lesbian SEX, is, well, kinda ridiculous. But I have known more than one gay, or lesbian, couple who truly LOVE each other as committed partners.
      Affirmation: the writer and others do have a right to their personal opinions including homo-disgust, disdain, depersonalization, etc.

      • Not sure what you think spelling people as peepul does for how others will perceive you and your post, I guess you think it makes you ‘cool’. Perhaps, since the topic is about gay men, you are mispelling pee-poles, which might be fitting.

        So let’s deal with your first point – artificial insemination.
        Are you saying in your opinion that you as a being would prefer to have been conceived as a result of a medical procedure, rather than the beautiful act of a man and woman in love engaged in an act which will bring their offspring into being? In any event so long as it is the female which carries the foetus to conception, and therefore develops a special bond, it makes men rather redundant other than as 2 minutes jerking off.
        Strong family base
        Do you think a child will be better balanced by having both a loving male father and loving female mother to look to as role models?
        It’s what each are able to give, and how a child is enriched precisely because of those differences. It’s not just about whether they are loving people, but the deeper connection that comes because they are the child’s NATURAL PARENTS.

        I remind you the points are to be taken into the context of CONTRIBUTING MOST TO SOCIETY.

        • Tom

          I have often thought that manufacturing people using medical technology is superior to the customary popular method. IVF etc is an exercise of intellectual will, an act of deliberate creation and intent; far better than shooting strands of DNA at each other at random. It takes more intellectual humanity to make an iPhone, than a person by the common method.

          • If I extend your logic you would be quite happy for human beings to live in metal coffins where they are automatically fed and ‘purged’, and live in a virtual reality with other human beings without ever leaving their ‘shells’.

            Sounds anyway that you are disappointed with the ‘random strands of DNA’ that were responsible for your being. Do you think you’d have been better off as a robot?

          • Tom

            There are certainly several strands of DNA I deeply regret having – those responsible for my myopia, or my poor dentistry, are two I would gladly change. Is there no part of you that you would alter given the option? And, tbh, I do think life as a robot or android would be quite thrilling. Free of the limitations of the human body and able to do so much more that I will. Hey ho, I fear transhumanism is still a way off yet.

            Wrt your other points, those activities are arguably limitations of humanity. I would have to say though that the artificial constructs of the modern human environment are hugely preferable to the ‘state of nature’ that existed for our ancestors. The British countryside is largely a testament to the wonderful human ability to control and make the environment produce for human gain and will.

          • I appreciate your candour Tom.
            Fortunately the DNA ‘weaknesses’ you describe are remediable, and I’m sure you’d agree ‘it could be a lot worse’.
            If you mean would I rather have been artificially inseminated using ‘perfect’ DNA selection than the natural way that I was, then no. I’ve found that it’s rising to the challenges that life throws at one, within a ‘fair’ margin, has the greatest benefit to ones being. It’s what makes us proud of ourselves. If it was all easy and perfect, what joy would we have?

            What can you see as thrilling to being a robot?
            It is precisely because we are vulnerable and ‘breakable’ that skiing, rock climbing, and the many other extreme sports we can engage in are thrilling. If we knew that parts can be replaced easily and painlessly there would be no thrill at all.

            Perhaps some time in the future you will visit a third world country where people still live in a simplistic and natural way with their environment, with modern technology largely absent. You might question then whether our ‘advances’ have really made life richer for us or not, and what would be the right balance.

            Good luck!

          • Tom

            I agree it could be worse, and in many ways I am very lucky. I just think that the random shooting of DNA is a less than perfect way of creating new people. Preventing haemophilia would undoubtedly be a more pressing concern. I think the world is challenging enough without adding to someone’s woes the inadequacey of a genetic disorder. I do not think that my life, blessed as it has been with only fairly minor genetic problems, is impoverished compared to someone who has had to ‘rise to the challenge’ of a genetic misshap.

            I think you are rather seeing agricultural life in a preindustrial society through rose tinted glasses. Do you believe the hours of back breaking labour on the fields were good? Being at the whims and capriciousness of the weather.

            New challenges would replace those we grew tired of: for a start the exploration of space would be far more feasible.

          • I think you need to remember that in an ideal sense ‘the random shooting of DNA’ is between 2 adults who feel a bond and attraction and are willing to commit their lives together. Can’t be that bad since without it, the world as we know it wouldn’t exist, and neither would you or me. So be careful what you wish for.

            Do you believe the hours of back breaking labour on the fields were good? Being at the whims and capriciousness of the weather. There are billions of people today who still are, and have happy lives – albeit different, despite the tough work they need to do to survive. Values are different, but still there are many rewards.

            I can tell you that I’m over 60, but if you asked me would I like to have been born 20 years ago then my answer would be resounding NO. I’m very happy to have known the world I did, and I’m sorry for society today for how it’s turning out.

            Exploration of Space is pushing further out into the universe without really knowing properly how to deal with the reality on our own planet. The right balance and nurturing the right values.

          • Tom

            And, ideally, IVF and the medical creation of life ought to be instigated by people who feel a bond and wish to commit their lives together in the service of bringing up said child

            But I can almost guarantee that those people, if offered a little respite from that life, would take it. We see it in China, where millions of people formerly consigned to rice fields, are flocking into cities to work. And I don’t know many farmers in the UK who are eager to give up their tractors so they can plough their fields with oxen. Do you?

            Your life today thanks to medical advances is far better than it would have been 100 years ago. If you need a new hip you may appreciate modern technology more.

            I consider space exploration a wonderful endeavour in trying to understand then earth and the Universe. Hardly trivial aims. Besides which, my point was to establish that with improved synthetic bodies, there would still be frontiers left to conquer – still be the thrill of discovery and adventure.

          • And, ideally, IVF and the medical creation of life ought to be instigated by people who feel a bond and wish to commit their lives together in the service of bringing up said child…yet lack the spirit and trust in life and nature to bring it about naturally with their own inert ‘qualities’. Hmmm!
            I’ve no doubt that most people living tough lives don’t see an easier life as worth pursuing. It’s what we all do. Question is, if we could really see what those changes would mean to us whether in hindsight we would be glad to have made them.

            I would venture a guess that you have never spent any prolonged period snorkelling in a natural state on a coral beach, hiking and sleeping out in the desert, or the mountains, jungles, etc. Yet you think space exploration to be worthwhile. I’m almost certain you haven’t really explored the ones available to you – as well as your inner frontiers.

          • If it was all easy and perfect, what joy would we have?
            Probably a lot more than I’m having now!

  • Hugh_Oxford

    It’s all very confusing. What is a homosexual? Women who describe themselves as lesbians actually have more sex with men than women who describe themselves as heterosexual.

    Who knows. If gay men have contributed so much to society over the centuries, perhaps moral and social disapproval of homosexual acts has stimulated the creative force. Perhaps the persecution narrative is a vital part of the process.

    It’s just my opinion, of course, but it seems to me that the minute a public figure “comes out” as homosexual, their creative output just collapses and in many cases they fall apart on a personal level.

    Certainly, none of the pathologies associated with homosexuality have been ameliorated by social approbation of homosexuality and the corresponding suppression of dissent. And it’s interesting, now that we have the internet, to read some of the testimonies of men who are or who have been caught up in the homosexual lifestyle. The world of GRINDR somewhat conflicts with the joyful creative type image Mr Parris paints.

    And I for one cannot think of an extant homosexual man who contributes very much positive to public life in a creative sense, although I’m sure they exist, and I know they have.

    But marriage. Marriage.

    Either concepts like adultery, consummation and extra-marital sex are very real, or “same-sex marriage” is not. Both cannot be true.

    I prefer the virtually universal understanding of marriage, shared by the human race across place and time: that marriage is the social sanctioning and recognition of the sexual unions of men and women; the organic mechanism by which society orders, structures, promotes, protects and supports mating, motherhood, sexual relations and procreation, rooted in the protracted and intense needs of mothers and infants. Something anthropological, physical and socio-biological in character, not legal or political. Not a subjective and malleable construct, but one of two objective ways that people become physically related to one another, the other one being through birth.

    The state has no power over the substance of marriage, which remains outside its purview. All the state can do is commit ontological fraud by creating a legal definition which conflicts with its objective nature and purpose.

    • Eh? Before I was married, I had so much sex with a straight man that my mind now boggles at the memory (marriage having cut off sex essentially permanently — what an irony). For my sins, I have only ever fancied men. They are probably not really fanciable, but it’s been my misfortune to fancy them, anyway.

      • To whoever did the downvote: sorry if my reality doesn’t jive with your fantasy, honey.

  • Peter Stroud

    What a stupid headline. Furthermore, the article failed prove it had any credibility.

  • Well Mr Parris, you may be virtuously and passionately different. But men are, in the gross generality, prowlers, seeking to cast their seed hither and yon, even if — as the renowned scientist Owen Lovejoy has long maintained — their apish ancestors sought coupledom as the best way to forward their genes. Humans are no longer mere apes, as you and I both recognize. But/and the pull towards partnership remains… for very human, non-apish reasons.

    But returning to the truth about males. They have an impulse to partnership, but they want to be naughty on the side, too. Some men are willing to let ‘naughty on the side’ be a matter of fantasy, because doing it for real is too much trouble, and jeopardizes their true love needs, and is not worthwhile. But for others — such as the heterosexual Mick Jagger — coupledom qua coupledom demands too much. It is ‘cutting him off from half the human race’, as I believe he put it when divorcing Ms Hall. The p=nis must always have full access. I cannot tell you frankly how low I rate this.

    But there is something of Jagger in a great many men. When you have men + women, it is bad enough. Think of the compound interest, when it’s men added to men.

  • What have sodomy and gay acts contributed to but HIV, AIDS and newly cultivated WEIRD diseases?

    That is, Doesn’t the medical community recommend that you, “Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom.”?

    Yet, now there are some in the medical community that now say it’s OK to “Sleep with the waste that gets flushed down in the toilet?” and that it’s possible to live a perfectly normal life.

    Twitter Handle: AhContraire

    • jiff363

      It’s about people that love each other, we feel sorry for you and your family that you have to reduce love to such a level. Thankfully your hate makes us stronger with every comment you make, so thanks!

      • Stronger Community? If that is true, how can you explain the million dead and still dying of HIV and AIDS?

        Plus, sodomy, gay s?x, only cultivates stronger HIV for one thing. And, even new antibiotic resistant bacteria is also created.

        Google Search 1: “recombinant HIV medical news today” for the much more aggressive HIV.

        Google Search 2: “nightmare bacteria fecal matter carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae”

        – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

        Another note:

        And for you who are not males, or think oral activities are OK:
        And for those who think lesbians are least likely to get AIDS, the CDC says that HPV is on the rise from unclean practices.

        And for you medical students:
        The orifice where #2 objects are expelled has a far thinner skin than the orifice where babies come from. The orifice where babies come from also produces secretions to minimize friction during baby making aka known as love making, which is very unlike the previously mentioned orifice.

        That orifice, where #2 objects are expelled from, is meant to have objects pass in one direction only and pass very very infrequently. And certainly not in two directions and certainly not at high speed, nor with high repetitions. Yet if this happens, then that thin skin has a tendency to tear easily, hence, blood to feces contact, which is a medically dangerous contact.

        The orifice where #2 objects are expelled was “born that way”, just in case you didn’t know.

        • Sanctimony

          Good grief …. you make sex sound like a Formula 1 tyre testing operation… but I suppose in this age of Mandelsonian liberality anyone is permitted to savour the delights of every orifice into the human body… as long as they do it in the privacy of their own bedrooms and do not frighten the horses in the street.

          Chacun a son gout, as the French say… or voile ou vapeur…

          • Privacy is all talk. The privacy of the bedroom you talk about has lead to a public hazard. That is, HIV and AIDS has lead to epidemics and also dangerous diseases like TB and new antibiotic resistant bacteria that lives off fecal material.

            Google: “recombinant HIV medical news today” for the much more aggressive HIV.

            Google: “nightmare bacteria fecal matter carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae”

            PRIVATE Gay Love Making doesn’t Pro-Create.
            It Self-Decimates.

      • And why shouldn’t I HATE those who practice unclean and medically dangerous acts?

        Do you know why it’s called, “Crimes against Humanity”?
        It’s because that’s what sodomy and gay sex is.

        It is attacking life as we know it through incredibly dangerous acts.

      • Gay “love” and Gay “love making” doesn’t pro-create.
        It decimates.

        1 – “Straight love making” makes babies.

        2 – “Gay love making” only makes newer more aggressive HIV and antibiotic resistant bacteria from fecal material.

        Twitter AhContraire

      • Sanctimony

        Bottoms up !

  • Realismista

    Not your best blog post, Matthew.

    Kindness, compassion, altruism, selfishness, greed etc etc transcend differences of sexual orientation. Anyone who does not understand this simply does not understand humanity.

  • Bob339

    Time to hang up your laptop Matthew. You are only producing crapola.

  • David Prentice

    Via Wikipedia, The Integrated Household Survey, produced by the Office of National Statistics, gives the following figures for the period April 2011 to March 2012:
    1.1 per cent of the surveyed UK population, approximately 545,000 adults, identified themselves as Gay or Lesbian.
    0.4 per cent of the surveyed UK population, approximately 220,000 adults, identified themselves as Bisexual.

    The most deluded, fanatical and tyrannical one per cent in the history of humankind.

    • Jim

      I agree with you. However, my guess is that it could easily be twice that or closer to 3% of the population. What is interesting though is that according to the CIA World Factbook, the UK has a birth rate of 1.9 (the third highest rate in Europe after France and Ireland but much higher than the rest of Europe). This rate is slightly below replacement (which needs to be slightly over 2). If we assume that coupling remains (ie. 1 man and 1 women at a time) then a 3% gay population actually impacts 6% of the total population. A 10% gay population (or anything even close) would actually decimate the British people in a few generations (even after 2 generations the birthrate would have to skyrocket fast to counteract the loss – or massive immigration would be required). Humans as a species cannot support a large gay population. This is not to disrespect the issues or concerns regarding gay people, I am merely pointing out one aspect of the impact a large gay population can have on a people (British).

      • ‘impacts’ and ‘decimate’. I’ve got used to ‘impacts’ as a verb, though I don’t like it and don’t see what’s wrong with ‘effects’ or another verb if that ain’t strong enough. But there’s been a lot of talk about ‘decimation’ on this blog and I still don’t know what it’s supposed to mean. It seems to mean nothing more than devastation in a vague way, whereas the real meaning is much more precise.

      • David Prentice

        Not to worry: the bovine, burka-clad, baby machines of the religion of peace are picking up the slack. Interesting times ahoy!

      • Paul Thompson

        You base your whole argument on the premise that gay people either choose to be gay (they do not) or that they can be “cured” (they can not). There is very significant scientific agreement that human sexuality is something that cannot be changed, so I’m not really sure what your point is…

        Homosexuality has been observed in humanity for thousands of years – yet the human population seems to be doing just fine. It’s been observed in most animal species, yet you never hear of a zoologist claiming a species extinction through homosexuality.

        If you are so concerned about the human population, then why not encourage gay people to use surrogate mothers or gay men to inseminate lesbians?

        Oh and your maths is junk. 3% of the population at a birth rate of 1.9 impacts 2.7% of the population (as the original 3% die).

        Oh, and the birth rate is now 2 (well… 1.98 to be exact).

  • mikewaller

    Why waste a moment’s thought on that time-expired clown, Paul Johnston? My own orientation is heterosexual, but I got so feed up with his bigoted polemics that I abandoned the Specie for about 15 years. One of the pleasures of coming back was finding that for the most part the journal is now PJ-free.

    • You haven’t read his book on art, then. Shame: it’s a treat.

      • mikewaller

        I actually agree, but even he couldn’t be wrong all the time. [:-)]

  • I know many wealthy gay men
    Gays very often are very well off: they don’t have the huge drain on their wealth called children! They can afford to be philanthropic, and I’m glad they are (though I wonder where their money mainly goes: to Leftist causes, probably). But it must be said that there is no ‘contribution to society’ like providing its future citizens.

    • John Hawkins Totnes

      Parris tells us it goes to Stonewall and the like.

    • Tom

      That depends on whether you view the perpetuation of society to be a good of itself. I see no reason why that should be so.

      • I wasn’t expressing a personal view. I’m saying that from society’s perspective, that which perpetuates society is good and that which best perpetuates it is best. It requires personnel, basically.

  • Sanctimony

    Oh, Gawd… another old queen getting things off his chest !

  • Fergus Pickering

    Paul Johnson is a mad old man. It’s been coming on for years.Ignore him. It’s the kindest thing.

    • Daniel Maris

      “Spanker” Johnson?

      • Mr Johnson showed, in his book Humourists, that he thinks or wants us to think that he thinks that women love s=x because of the Greek ladder that happens during it. I wrote him to inform him that many women never have the ladder but like it anyway for other reasons. I don’t know whether this was a revelation to him or not.

      • Fergus Pickering

        I never knew that. Tell all,man.

  • terence patrick hewett

    What should we do with a drunken sailor?
    So the saying goes
    We’re not tight and we’re not too bright
    Great Scott? I don’t suppose
    We’ve lost our way
    And we’ve lost our pay
    And to make the things complete
    We’ve been and gone
    And lost the blooming fleet

    Has anybody seen our ship?
    The H.M.S. Peculiar
    We’ve been on shore for a month or more
    And when we see the Captain
    We should get what for

    Heave ho, me hearties
    Sing Glory, Hallelujah

    A lady bold as she could be
    Pinched our whistles at the Golden Key
    Now, we’re in between the devil and the big blue sea
    Has anybody seen our ship?

    Has anybody seen our ship?
    The H.M.S. Suggestive
    She sailed away across the bay
    And we haven’t had a smell of her
    Since New Year’s day

    Heave ho, me hearties
    We’re getting rather restive
    We pooled our money, spent the lot
    The world forgetting by the world forgot
    Now, we haven’t got a penny for the you-know-what

    Has anybody seen?
    Has anybody seen?
    Has anybody seen?
    Has anybody seen?
    Has anybody, anybody, anybody seen
    Has anybody seen our ship?
    Our ship???

  • Socialism: Organized Evil

    I’ve read most of the great works of Western civilization and I’ve yet to find a single mention of any contributions by sodomites or atheists.

    • Go away, you nasty, trolling, deeply anti-American ignoramus. And don’t use the flag as your avatar!

      • Socialism: Organized Evil

        I think the tide is finally starting to turn against the sodomites, here in the states.

        And I’ll keep my flag, thanks.

        • It’s not ‘your’ flag, we have no evidence for where you live, and you speak only for yourself. Your motives are very much in doubt. As I said, I think they are what is usually described as ‘ulterior’. In short, you’re a fraud.

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            It is my flag and I’m more than happy to defend it against those who march under the filthy rag of sodom.

          • Daniel Maris

            “Von Steuben was forced to leave Baden (a German state) where he was threatened
            with prosecution for homosexuality. When he joined
            Washington’s army at Valley Forge in February 1778 he was accompanied by two
            young European aides, one aged 17. Despite rumors about his parties, there never
            was an investigation of Steuben and he received a Congressional pension after
            the war.”

            Seems like some of your original heroes were gay…and – so what?

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            That’s an interesting statement considering that Washington had banned homosexuals from the Continental Army.

            I’m not personally familiar with the alleged case of Von Steuben, but I’m reasonably certain that George Washington’s orders forbade homosexuals from pursuing their depraved perversions within the Continental Army.

            The filthy rag of sodom is fundamentally incompatible the values and virtues that Washington espoused and that these united states were founded upon.

          • Anybody that talks about ‘filth’ as much as you do has got a filthy mind — whatever your real game is.

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            Regardless, it’s nice to see Russia and India using the power of the state to eviscerate the pernicious evil that marches under the flag of sodom.

            Russia, in particular, appears to have a very bright future.

          • Would you knock it off, you creep. You’ve made (again and again) your hideous point that no one agrees with or cares about — now sod off.

          • You’re more than happy to besmirch it, you mean. Are you working for Castro, Putin, Chavez’s fan club, or what? (Rhetorical question: I really feel quite soiled even addressing you.)

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            I’m more than happy to point out that India and Russia, in particular, are taking the lead in rooting out the vile perversions of those who march under the filthy rag of sodom.

            Russia and India, in these cases, are absolutely doing the right thing in taking a positive, proactive moral stand against the vile perversions of the pernicious sodomite evil.

            Evil must be pro-actively defeated, as Russia and India are starting to do.

    • steffanjohn

      I find that comment hugely hilarious, I’ve got to admit. After all, what did the Greeks ever contribute to Western Civilisation? Whoever heard of Leonardo, Newton, or Wittgenstein?

      You’re right; the intellectual contribution of the Deep South to World Civilisation is obviously far greater.

      • pedestrianblogger

        Why do you assume that this ridiculous person comes from the “Deep South”?

        • steffanjohn

          A guess, certainly. I’ll withdraw the claim if he rejects it.

          • pedestrianblogger

            You could be accused of lazy stereotyping. He might be a Northerner or, just as likely, not any sort of American. Not ALL the Ancient Greeks were homosexual, by the way.

        • Hexhamgeezer

          I’m guessing Hove or perhaps Thornton Heath

      • Socialism: Organized Evil

        Well, as I mentioned – I’ve not found any references to the contributions of sodomites or atheists in any of the great literature that I’ve read.

        What is found in history is a legitimate criminalization of the vile perversion of homosexual sodomy.

        India is on the right track – they’ve re-criminalized the crime against nature, making it a serious felony offense.

        • pedestrianblogger

          Get you, Duckie!! 😉

        • Daniel Maris

          Care to name your top ten non-gay great works of Western civilisation. We’re wondering if you are going to start with Mickey Spillane.

          • Socialism: Organized Evil

            As far as I can tell, sodomites and atheists haven’t contributed much of anything. In all the great literary works of Western civilization, there is nary a mention of the virtues of sodomy or atheism.

            In Burke, Orwell, Jefferson, Locke, Tocqueville, Bastiat, Chesterton, Smith, Aquinas, Newton, Hayek, Popper, and Kant there’s nary a mention of the alleged virtues of sodomy or atheism.

            In fact, for most of the history of mankind, a propensity for homosexual sodomy has been considered a symptom of serious mental illness. In much of the world, it remains a capital crime.

          • Paul Thompson

            You are an idiot. You somehow expect that homosexuality is something to be sold or advertised as if it is a choice. Furthermore, It’s lack of mention in any of the western classics is because at the time all of them were written homosexuality was illegal and taboo – how on earth can you expect a gay man of those times to have written about it? It’s inconceivable.

      • Daniel Maris

        Plato, Michaelangelo, Christopher Marlowe…

  • Roy

    Gay men may contribute something to society but it isn’t a continuance of society, it is a dead end.

  • john hughes

    homosexuals do not contribute to the population. if it was left homosexuals to breed the human race would cease to exist. that is the purpose of life on earth.

    • Paul Thompson

      And your point is?

      Gay people don’t choose to be gay, the world population is quite safe, your point is meaningless.

      • john hughes

        the point is if it was left to the homosexuals the human race would cease to exist. so don’t count your chickens just yet. or have you seen and counted your chickens already.

        • Paul Thompson

          But gay people make up about 2-3% of the population – it’s pretty silly to suppose they would reach anything approaching 100% of the population. If you are really concerned with the extinction of the human race, that’s probably the least likely scenario I’ve ever heard of.

  • AnEnglishman

    “Now we know that God hears not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and does his will, him he hears”. John 9:31 Is Sodomy God’s Will?

  • Frederic Stevens

    “Now we know that God hears not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and does his will, him he hears.” (John 9:31) Is sodomy really God’s Will?

    • Daniel Maris

      Difficult to say but there was a naked man who ran away from the Garden of Gethsemane. And Jesus never married. It seems quite possible he was gay, whether or not he put it into practice.

    • Paul Thompson

      Is that a quote from the book that also supports slavery and the killing of people for adultery? Are you sure that’s a good moral guide to use?

  • hyufd

    Of course gay couples can now have children too!

    • Zimbalist

      Not naturally, and that is the material point !

      • hyufd

        They can adopt and use surrogate mothers and artificial insemination

  • Martin Snigg

    We know a well funded politically ambitious lobby uses homosexuals as tools, and is used by central gov. to excuse their culture war against independent functional smaller centres of social authority. We know central gov. is largely gang or clan politics of a detached ruling class. We know it is this lobby groups interest to marginalise homosexuals who speak against the rampant hedonism and bigotry of active homosexuals. Who highlight the disease, domestic violence, addictions, mental illness, and early deaths of the people they supposedly speak for, and which is directly connected to the TNT of 2xtestosterone and anal sex for men.

    We know homosexuals are disproportiately more wealthy, educated, and in positions of power relative to their numbers and can be philanthropic. This is not news. What would be interesting would be to allow those people to speak firmly against their coopting by totalitarian global liberal governments and denounce the push for the disestablishment/abolition/redefinition of marriage i.e. the enforced denial of sexual difference. How a sane polity simply must apply reason to the sexual power humans are gifted with. Roger Scruton:

    “Societies endure only when they are devoted to future generations” Sacrilege and Sacrament

    As it is the editor of the Spectator, Fraser Nelson, has admitted to a belief that reason should make equal inherited unchosen traits like eye colour with sexual behaviour, when common sense and the numbers we are forced to put on it (70% of teenagers reporting same sex attraction 5 years later report none remaining.) this is a dangerous and absurd metaphysical commitment.

    The Spectator, like National Review Online, seem eager to toady up, as right liberals to a decrepit, indebted, irrational global liberal elite just as their worship of power is about to turn to worship of evil.

    The editor of the Spectator, Fraser Nelson, has admitted to believing that unchosen heritable traits like eye colour should be viewed as uncho

  • Kate R

    Whilst I can see the value of your Platonic argument, I think it is a combination of childlessness and philanthropy that causes the behaviour you are describing, rather than sexual orientation or gender.

  • Louise McCudden

    Very interesting! I think it’s a really good point about what I suppose what is effectively the first generation of openly gay committed partners getting older. I will be interested to see what happens as the LGB population grows older, and the campaigns etc start to focus a little bit more on housing, pensions, etc. I feel like a lot of the campaigning has been quite youth-centric, which is important, but it’s great to see ‘small c conservatism’ as LGB people are able to express ourselves through marriage and so on.

    • Hugh_Oxford

      Well, only 2% of gays took up Civil Partnerships, so why should it be any different for “marriage”?

      There’s no evidence that reordering moral codes makes people who practise homosexuality happier or healthier: if anything, it’s the opposite.

      • Paul Thompson

        “if anything, it’s the opposite.”

        Do you have any evidence to support this? ANY evidence at all?

        • Hugh_Oxford

          Yes, lots. What particular area would you like to focus on?

          • Paul Thompson

            The specific area you referred to, the bit I quoted…

          • Hugh_Oxford

            Sorry, what I meant was, what facet of existence: mental health? Physical health? Behaviour? Longevity?

          • Paul Thompson

            I’m asking for evidence to support the statement you made:

            “There’s no evidence that reordering moral codes makes people who practise homosexuality happier or healthier: if anything, it’s the opposite.”

            So why would gay marriage make gay people less happy and unhealthier? What’s your evidence?

          • Hugh_Oxford

            “So why would gay marriage [sic] make gay people less happy and unhealthier? What’s your evidence?”

            Well, all the other modern legal and cultural innovations intended to normalise homosexuality have preceded the deterioration of outcomes for people who practise homosexuality. Why would “same sex marriage” be any different?

          • Paul Thompson

            That isn’t evidence. Evidence is something that stands up to reasoned and fair inspection and can be found to be logical and factual. What you are stating as “evidence” is merely conjecture.

            If what you are referring to is the rates of HIV (that came in the 1980s & 1990s as a result of gay people starting to be able to live openly) it is impossible to test as against the closeted world that proceeded it. You cannot test that hypothesis against HIV rates as HIV was not in widespread existence before the 1970s (and was spread initially in heterosexual communities in Africa).

            Furthermore, when gay people are forced to hide/suppress their sexuality it is linked to increased rates of depression, alcoholism & suicide – but if you go back to say – the 1950s it’s impossible to identify who in the population was gay and therefore their health outcomes – therefore again your hypothesis does not stand up.

            If you are referring to the hedonistic lifestyle that used to rule gay culture, this is primarily a reaction to the rejection by society and the exclusion of gay men from the societal norms. If you are an 18 yr old gay man and you are told you can never marry, you can never raise children and (as in many cases) you had been rejected by your family and/or community – what else would you do?

            It’s precisely that through offering gay men a chance to take part in the institution of marriage, raise children and the increased acceptance by their communities that they will become less hedonistic and realise that there is a point to building a future.

          • Hugh_Oxford

            As I said, things are getting worse and worse for people who practise homosexuality, by virtually every single metric, not just HIV and HPV and other STDs. They get worse every year, not better. Moral disapporobation of homosexual activity is a good and healthy restraint.

            And gay men have always been able to get married, as you know. Indeed, over the years, many have. Like many straight men, many have realised that their temptations and desires, if followed, will lead them down the path of dissatisfaction and destruction, and have chosen to marry, to be good and faithful husbands and fathers, to be civilised men. And they have had fulfilled and happy, fruitful and ordered lives. Have they gratified their every carnal want? No? But nobody who lives a good life does.

            It is these gay men who choose marriage or celibacy who are really denigrated by fashionable attitudes and legal changes, and those gay men who want to get really married, such as Michael Glatze, whose choices are diminished.

          • Paul Thompson

            Lets dissect this:

            “As I said, things are getting worse and worse for people who practise homosexuality, by virtually every single metric, not just HIV and HPV and other STDs. They get worse every year, not better.”

            HIV rates for all are increasing, not just for gay men, and as a proportion they have fallen over the years. The biggest at risk group is hetrosexual women. It’s getting worse for the entire population, not just gay men. The idea that there is a relationship between the advancement of gay rights and HIV prevalence is laughable.

            “Moral disapporobation of homosexual activity is a good and healthy restraint.”

            That doesn’t grammatically make sense – you’re aggrandising your phrases for the sake of it, a bad practice – so I’ll just ignore it.

            “And gay men have always been able to get married, ….. many have realised that their temptations and desires, if followed, will lead them down the path of dissatisfaction and destruction”

            You seem to this gay men can change their sexuality somehow. Are you really that naive that you think people can choose who or what they find attractive? Do you think you could turn gay is you really wanted? It’s quite laughable and actually backed up by countless peer reviewed scientific studies. Or what you are saying is that they should live their lives as a lie – and you can see this in the many many many failed ex-gays out there. A quick internet search will bring you to countless stories of people who have tried to do just that. And of course, it shows complete disregard for the woman involved – quite immoral.

            “Have they gratified their every carnal want? No? But nobody who lives a good life does.”

            A gay man cannot fall in love with a woman. This is not about sex necessarily, it’s about love. The fact that you draw this down to sex shows a lack of depth in your understanding – gay marriage is not about sex.

            “It is these gay men who choose marriage or celibacy who are really denigrated by fashionable attitudes and legal changes, and those gay men who want to get really married, such as Michael Glatze, whose choices are diminished.”

            So the long and short of it is that you think it is better for gay men who choose a loveless marriage to a woman, or who choose to have no love at all. As a gay man I would rather have HIV, Herpies, HPV, Hepatitis and all the rest than live without love, and specifically the love of my partner to whom I am getting married this summer.

            The advent of civil partnerships (of which I have one), gay marriage, opening up of adoption, increased acceptance by society has meant for me and many of my friends that we can join society as equals, get married and have a family – and thankfully each year more and more people agree with me.

            Perhaps you should go and talk to some gay people some time, educate yourself.

          • Hugh_Oxford

            Actually, no. HIV is declining amongst all groups except for homosexual men.

            ” emailprint
            November 26, 2013

            The Gay HIV Epidemic Is Increasing in All Nations
            The upward trajectory of HIV infection trends among gay men worldwide points to a dire future for that demographic, even as overall HIV incidence rates in the general population have been steadily dropping”


            “So the long and short of it is that you think it is better for gay men who choose a loveless marriage to a woman”

            Why should it be loveless?

            “get married”.

            Well, you can get married, as I said. And no, you cannot marry someone of the same sex: it’s physically impossible.

          • Paul Thompson

            You suffer from almost crippling selection bias. Which part of my sentence did you not understand:

            “HIV rates for all are increasing, not just for gay men”.

            You will note the graph below entitled – Figure 3: Annual new HIV diagnoses acquired heterosexually: UK, 1981-2010

            On the page


            This shows the rate of HIV for hetrosexual people in the UK increasing rather alarmingly. It’s increasing for both gay and straight people. At no point in any way does it prove anything you have said.

            “Why should it be loveless?”

            Ok, lets go back to basics. When someone is gay, it is because they are attracted to a person of the same sex – can you understand that? Gay = same sex attraction? Would you like a diagram?

            Therefore someone who is gay cannot by definition will not and cannot be attracted to women, therefore cannot fall in love with a woman. In precisely the same way a hetrosexual male cannot fall in love with another man.

          • Hugh_Oxford

            What are you talking about? Look at your own sources.

            Figure 1 shows overall new HIV diagnoses falling from 2004 to 2010.

            Figure 2 Shows homosexually acquired new HIV diagnoses rapidly increasing over the same period.

            “Ok, lets go back to basics. When someone is gay, it is because they are attracted to a person of the same sex – can you understand that? ”

            Right. But marriage is not about lust, it’s about love. All married men have deep seated urges to have sex with women other than their wives. But marriage is not about the sating of urges, it is about restraint, responsibility and commitment. Many men will cease to be sexually attracted to their wives beyond the age of menopause. Would that justify infidelity?

          • Paul Thompson

            I think I’m beginning to understand a little more about you. For whatever reason it is, you simply won’t accept clear evidence – your selection bias is so strong that you cannot see there are three charts on the above link – even when I give you the title of the chart! And all you do is confirm part what I said (HIV rates are increasing for gay men), except you completely ignore the other part and fail to comment on the chart I drew your attention to which shows HIV rates rising for straight people also – therefore disproving your point.

            Nothing you say is based in fact, it’s all nonsense that you’ve sat at home and drawn from you own limited experience. You’ve proven above that you can’t even read a basic article with charts showing very very clear trends and form an honest conclusion. I can imagine that if we ever met you’d be perfectly happy to sit in the sunshine insisting that it’s dark.

            I expect you’re white, middle aged or older and live somewhere fairly removed from modern life, and you probably don’t get anyone to actually talk to who has a different point of view, or who is openly gay. In our “conversation” you have ignored basic facts, made ludicrous hypothesis that I easily disproved and fail to back up your claims with any evidence.

            You also spend a disturbing amount of time commenting on gay issues – often working them into comments on articles that don’t even mention homosexuality (I can see from your profile history), why would a heterosexual man do this? There is a considerable amount of evidence to suggest that those who shout the loudest about how awful homosexuality is are actually gay themselves. I’m not saying you are gay, but there are questions surely?

          • Hugh_Oxford

            Your powers of deduction are up there with your powers of statistical analysis. White, middle aged people are for more likely to be pro-homosexuality than people outside that demographic.

            Nor am I that interested in homosexuality, but I am interested in truth, lies and the welfare of young people, so if people start telling lies that jeopardise the welfare of innocent people, then I make a fuss.

            Oh, and I’ve spent 1/4 of my life living – quite happily – with gay men, who I liked and even loved, which simply makes me somewhat less naive than most.

            I’m going to go now. But even if the quote from Aidsmed…

            “The upward trajectory of HIV infection trends among gay men worldwide points to a dire future for that demographic, even as overall HIV incidence rates in the general population have been steadily dropping”

            …was wrong, the incidence of HIV amongst gay men is forty times higher than that of the general population.

          • Paul Thompson

            If you were so bothered with the truth – then why does it seem to elude every conclusion you reach? At no point have i denied that HIV rates among gay men are rising, yet at no point does this prove your junk hypothesis that:

            “There’s no evidence that reordering moral codes makes people who practice homosexuality happier or healthier: if anything, it’s the opposite.”

            You moral duplicity is so ingrained that you are actually unable to perform any statistical analysis – in fact the data runs contrary to your hypothesis. HIV infections infections in gay men have doubled in since 2000, yet heterosexual UK infections have increased by a factor of FIVE! If anything you could hypothesis that the advancement of gay rights has protected the gay community from rises in HIV at the rate to the rest of the population.

            How on earth you can question my powers of statistical analysis when you miss that clanger is beyond me. If you cared about the truth you would have provided some other sort of evidence to your claim.

            If you were so bothered about the truth you would have also provided evidence to support your repeated claims that people are gay because they didn’t somehow suppress their gay thoughts. I can provide a wealth of evidence to show that is utter guff – on this page you will see it nicely summerised with over 80 peer reviewed & published papers as evidence –


            The fact you have not bothered to research any of this, yet are happy to spend hundreds of hours commenting on it online show your real lack of moral fibre.

            “Nor am I that interested in homosexuality”

            What? The vast vast majority (I would say well over 90%) of your many many comments are to do with homosexuality – I even googled your username and found another board where you do exactly the same. Again, you lack such moral fibre that you can lie with ease.

            “but I am interested in truth, lies and the welfare of young people, so if people start telling lies that jeopardise the welfare of innocent people”

            You are not interested in the welfare of young people with your non-researched and highly damaging advice and you do not care about the truth because the truth does not agree with you. There is a word for that, and it is bigotry.

          • Hugh_Oxford

            “You seem to this gay men can change their sexuality somehow. Are you really that naive that you think people can choose who or what they find attractive?”

            Oh they certainly can, and they do.

          • Paul Thompson

            “Oh they certainly can, and they do.”

            Ok, so this is the point I’m thinking that I’ve been got by some internet troll. Someone who lacks any moral fibre or intellect to actually get involved in a debate, but chooses to hide behind the anonymity of the internet to make sarcastic and idiotic comments to people who actually care about a subject.

            If you are incapable of making reasoned debate, then please don’t bother – this is not the place for you.

          • Hugh_Oxford

            Of course people make decisions that affect what they do and don’t find attractive. No baby was ever born with an innate propensity to find rape scenes, bestiality or child abuse sexually arousing, and yet adults do. People make decisions and choices all the time that determine the kind of people they become.

            Most people, at some point in adolescence, have experienced same sex attraction. Most people have sought not to entertain and cultivate those thoughts, and chosen to entertain and cultivate heterosexual thoughts. And thus they have determined the formation of their character, their tastes and their identity.

            I do wish to emphasise, however, that I do not think that such a dynamic exists in every case. Many people have deep seated homosexual inclinations over which they have no control, and have never had any control, and which pose a huge challenge for them, for which they cannot be held responsible, and whose moral culpability in “acting out” is minimal.

  • 2 of my comments remarking how stupid was the original headline for this article were deleted – without just cause. Then the author does a stealth edit of the headline, changing the whole context.
    For the record the original headline was along the lines of Gay Men are best for society Clearly Parris understood from the various comments posted by myself and others just how asinine it was, and subsequently changed it.
    However was responsible for the deletion of my comments, to civilised beings you have a lot to answer for. Shows the Spectator adopting the BBC tack as a Ministry of Thought.
    As for Parris, it makes you insidious as well as rather ignorant.

    This time I’ll save the comment on my PC – just in case..

  • Huw Kares

    Can’t gay people keep their mouths shut about their gayness for a while?
    Just get on with your lives and stop bleating about your sexuality.

    • MellorSJ

      How’s the wife and kids, Huw?

  • Michel Lhombreaud

    Being a hedonist is about one letting his/her base drives govern their lives. This includes the abuse of sexuality. Thus, since in this case it’s about giving in full vent to same sex attraction, it’s hedonistic. If it was about a propensity to succumbing to cream cakes, it would be called greed.

    • Paul Thompson

      “This includes the abuse of sexuality. ” How is being gay an abuse of sexuality? For a gay person it is entirely the natural state. Surely it would be an abuse of a gay persons sexuality to deny it?

      • Michel Lhombreaud

        Among other things your response raises certain questions related to fundamental definitions and purposes. There are destructive forces within humanity that aren’t as accentuated in nature. With respect to sex, on the one hand, animals in the wild, restrict its practice to the procreation cycles. Humans, on the other hand can easily fail to exercise self-control in this and many other areas. As a rule, animals follow natural laws which maintains a ecological equilibrium. Conversely, we have plenty of examples in human history of unregulated excesses of all kinds, brought about by greed, lust, jalousies, covetedness, anger, unforgiveness, the thirst for power and many other (self/) destructive urges, including acting out same sex attraction. Sane and ordered cultures/societies discipline themselves by ordering their pleasures. For instance, treats occur at special occasions. Throughout their lives together married couples (this means one of each sex by definition) also regulate their sex lives. This involves sacrifice which benefits the family unit and is rewarding in the long run.

        • Paul Thompson

          You make a number of assumptions, some not entirely correct (such as animals only restricting sex to procreation cycles – look at bonobo monkeys for example, and are we not simply another animal species?) But that given, what does the frequency of sex have to do with homosexuality per se? Surely what goes on between committed couples is their own business?

          “destructive urges, including acting out same sex attraction.”

          You make the fundamental mistake of assuming that being gay is simply letting oneself be overcome by homosexual urges – this is the result of a lack of understanding and research of the subject. If you take the time to inform yourself you will find that homosexuality is neither a choice nor something that can be altered – see which has links to over 80 peer reviewed studies which support this position.

          If your stance is that homosexuality is destructive to the individual – then so what of it as a gay man cannot stop being a gay man? A gay man is more likely to die in a car accident than to die of HIV – since when did we start telling people not to get into cars because of the small probability of death? The difference of course is that gay people (as straight people) are compelled to form relationships with whom they are naturally attracted to – car drivers are not naturally compelled to drive (although until I sold my Jaguar I would have argued this point).

  • FellowHQ

    I find Matthew Parris sincere and convincing when talking about people he knows. Fine. But he is represented at some level by Stonewall, who are currently campaigning in schools because, they whine, that the word ‘gay’ has been changed by schoolchildren to mean ‘useless’ and ‘feeble’. They accuse the children of being homophobic which is pathetic – Stonewall can’t handle the fact that ‘their’ word – which they took by force – can change its meaning. It can and will as society sees fit. While this is funny, it shows the mentality of those being Stonewall – they are not generous, philanthropic nice people.

    • Paul Thompson

      Well not quite – I agree that to label children homophobic for saying the word “gay” in some contexts isn’t right, but say you are a gay 13 year old and you hear you classmates regularly refer to bad things as gay and for this to be accepted by the teacher cannot be a good thing. I was that person several years ago and I had to sit through years of listening to the very thing that I am being used in the context of something bad. A teacher bans many racial and swear words from the classroom, surely it’s time that this use of the term “gay” joined them?

      • FellowHQ

        This is where the gay movement is struggling. It can’t accept that the word ‘gay’ can change meaning. Well, it is, and you can’t stop it. The homosexual movement took the word and changed its meaning. Now it doesn’t like it that others are doing exactly that and changing it again. But when children say something is ‘gay’ now, the negative connotations are not to do with homosexuality, they’re the least homophobic of generations. They’ve genuinely changed its meaning. I realise this gives the gay community a real problem, but it’s one of its own making.

        • Paul Thompson

          Well the word “gay” hasn’t entirely changed in its meaning has it? It’s the word I use to describe my sexuality, and it would also be the word a 13 year old would use to describe their sexuality (unless you know something that i don’t). Of course the meaning of words change all the time, but you cannot blame the gay community of the 1960s & 70s for a lack of foresight – that’s a bit silly.

          You are right in saying that the use of the word by some children may not carry homophobic intent and to label them as homophobic would be wrong, however it does nothing more than provide negative associations with something that a vulnerable teenager might be struggling to come to terms with. Most school classes will have a gay child in them, and they deserve at least a basic level of protection.

          Imagine if the words “Christian” or “Muslim” or “Jew” started meaning “bad”, would you think that it would be acceptable to have children use these words by their new, secondary meanings and for the teacher to let it slide?

  • AnEnglishman

    “For if God spared not the angels that sinned… And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly.” 2 Peter 2:4-6

    “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” Jude 1:7

  • ianess

    Rich gay men contributing to gay lobbying organisations does not strike me as the essence of civic-mindedness.

  • Greetings! Check Out our newest endeavor! JOIN THE CONVERSATION!

  • Today’s Gay Men? Please……..Gays haven’t changed all that much…..but ‘Society’ luckily has! My favorite Quote? I wish I had been born ‘Black’ instead of ‘Gay’ ~ that way? I would have NOT had to…. Tell My Mother! Charles Pierce 1980……….check out – HELP US – build a new Website ~ – Sam in Henderson Nevada

  • AnEnglishman

    Sin separates us from God.

    “Behold, the LORD’S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness. None calls for justice, nor any pleads for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.” ISA 59 : 1-4

    “And judgment is turned away backward, and justice stands afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. Yea, truth fails; and he that depart from evil makes himself a prey.” (14-15)

    A prey to the militant homosexual movement!