Why The UKIP Is Wrong On “Gay Adoption”.
I like the UKIP in many ways, and I like most the fact that being a conservative alternative to the Tories, they force at least those Tory MP in “endangered” constituencies to wake up a bit before it’s too late. Still, this is a young party which has to develop a coherent thinking yet as it grows out of the one-issue grouping it used to be.
Let us take the controversy about “gay adoption”. A UKIP politician says he is against to his local newspaper in Croydon; predictably, the usual crowds starts to bark; the man tweets desperately around saying (more or less) “gay” is fine, but “gay adoption” isn’t.
If it is fine being “gay”, it really can’t be seen why such a “fine” man could not enjoy all the rights the law gives to his heterosexual counterparts. He should, then, be allowed to adopt as everyone else, and Christianity was simply wrong in maintaining that a homosexual is a sexual pervert. Those heretics and hypocrites like our beloved Archbishop Nichols could then “charitably” assume they live a chaste lifestyle, and give a child in adoption to a sexual pervert (or perhaps two? Nichols is even nuanced about “civil partnerships”…) without blinking.
If, on the other hand, the idea of some “gay” (that is: a homosexual; a man suffering from a very grave form of sexual perversion; a perversion so abominable it has been a taboo for 2000 years, up to this pervert generation) adopting is repugnant and utterly abominable, this is not because gays happen to be, say, “inhospitable” or overly grumpy, but exactly because…. they are sexual perverts!
The argument of “gayness” being fine and “gay adoption” wrong is, therefore, entirely contradictory and rather the fruit of the omnipresent fear of the Gaystapo than of reasoned thinking. The fear the UKIP people have of the Gaystapo shooting the usual “hate” and “homophobic” salvos is what prevents them from saying what they clearly think: homosexuality is a perversion. If it were not so, why would they not support “gay adoption”? How can they say with a straight face to homosexuals “you are fine, but you can’t adopt”? Why, then, can they not adopt? Will it not be because………Yes! That’s why!
We see here at work a disease much spread among politicians: the irrational fear of saying the truth. Therefore, they say half the truth, but refrain from saying the other half. Their argument remains unconvincing, because it is contradictory, and their reputation will suffer, because they will be rightly seen as pliable to the mob’s wishes.
I think this is the wrong strategy. In my eyes, the UKIP should give itself a solidly and rigidly conservative programme in all social and religious matters, and should go and harvest their votes among the disaffected Conservative voters in rural England, where people still (more or less) have fear of the Lord and believe in traditional values.
I can’t see them winning a seat in, say, Croydon any time soon anyway; but if they did, they could only do it at the price of “Cameronising” themselves, which would mean sure death outside of the London area, or a life at the fringe of the British Conservative life.
I truly hope for the UKIP that they will grow to become a seriously conservative Party, but if they keep trying to avoid the serious questions they will never be an alternative to the Tories, and their men will be forgotten as soon as the Conservative party comes back to sanity. Better be a good replica of the Tory party of Margaret Thatcher, than a bad copy of Cameron’s. That it doesn’t really work anyway we can see at what is happening to Cameron himself.
To do so, they must stop the nonsense of allowing a perverts’ group in their midst. It is a matter of common sense and of elementary dignity. If they avoid taking stance on controversial issues, they will soon be forgotten.