Sunday, 28 June 2009

All Rights for Everybody

SPON tells us about yesterday's Christopher Street Day in Berlin and can't, of course, RESIST to pepper the report with lots of juicy photos.
"Stück für Stück ins Homoglück - Alle Rechte für Alle" [something like "step by step towards homo-happyness -- all rights for eveybody, and no, that is NOT a joke] is the motto of this year's Christopher Street Day (CDS) parade in Berlin. Up to 250,000 people are partying in the capital, according to the organizers.

The parade, which is the 31st of its kind, took off at the Kurfürstendamm [Berlin's boulevard landmark]. Tenthousands of gays, lesbians and transsexuals started out at 12.30h with 55 floats or banded together on foot towards Siegessäule, where the final rally will take place.

Numerous participants were wearing colourful costumes and brandishing rainbow-banners. The organizers are demanding the inclusion of the protection of homosexuals in the constitution.
(Mixed times in the original!)

Berlin's (openly gay) mayor Klaus Wowereit with Renate Künast, a prominent Green politician.




Oppressed gay men are having at last (for the 31st time) some innocent fun.

Those are, mind you, the MSM-approved pictures.


Here we have some from the renowned daily Süddeutsche Zeitung under the header "Bunt als Lebensgefühl" [something like: "Multicolour as a way of life"]:


This is a picture from the Hamburg 2005, not of the Berlin 2009 event because, so we can only presume, this year's pictures from Berlin weren't swinish enough for the quality journalism for which the Süddeutsche stands.

Homosexuals against "right wing extremism": "Bend over Skin[head]", the placard says.

One can now be, as I am, disgusted by those pictures and the depravity of the media, and I have yet to find a single critical account of this debased spectacle pretending that it's the outcry of an "oppressed minority". On second thought, however, it may be not all bad. It will cure the odd wellmeaning liberal from the false perception that homosexuals are doing, as one often hears, "no damage". Wellmeaning liberals, who have never seen homosexuals save the nice, middle class, quiet, sober, unobtrusive couple from next door, tend to think that. I was once one of them. After all, those inoffensive mild excentrics have a nice house with a garden and wouldn't a child better grow up there than in an orphanage, and why shouldn't they have a sort of civil union so that the surviving one will get his "widower's pension"? It would only be fair and do no harm, won't it?

And then one sees those pictures, hears those strident demands for equality and one starts to think. There hasn't been any discrimination against homosexuals for decades, neither legal nor factual. Yet now they are demanding the inclusion of the "protection of homosexuals" in the constitution. What does that imply? They are saying it quite openly: All rights for everybody. Now a man demands to be able to legally "marry" a man based on the principle of "legal equality". Next he wants to "marry" a minor. Why not? Doesn't the setting of an age of sexual consent limit the "legal equality" of minors and, not to forget, of those who would like to have sex with them? I am talking rubbish? The Green Party has never credibly renounced their goal to legalize sex with minors, a party that once took off as a pro-homosexual, pro-immigration, feminist, enviromentalist and pacifist organisation with a few old "blood and soil" Nazis thrown in who have long left or died out. Based on that logic from hell, they could as well demand that a blind man must be granted a driving license. All rights for everybody!

Homosexuals are a minority that should be accepted and respected by the majority were it not for the fact that they see themselves as a pressure group hell bent not just on equality but on replacing the majority. They are known to form "rope teams" and thus claim a societal and political importance based on nothing but their, to all "normal" intents and purposes, unimportant sexual orientation. They, as I wrote in an earlier entry, are claiming an importance they don't possess and an attention they don't deserve. In that, they are demonstrating a frightening affinity to Islam in our Western culture, an affinity that, not so amazingly, transcends matters of politics and mentality to fulfill itself somewhere very real in North Africa.

No comments: