Thursday, August 11, 2005

Stop This Sham

A new study has found that as many as one in twenty-five fathers may not be the biological parent of the child they believe is their own.

Maybe now the political elite will wake up to the manifest nonsense of civil partnerships between people of different sexes - or 'marriages' as some prefer to call them.

These new findings prove what the ordinary, decent people of this country have always known to be true: that the heterosexual lifestyle is inherently promiscuous.
It is characterised all too often by unsavoury practices like 'kerb-crawling' followed by sordid late-night sexual encounters on industrial estates.
Or, in the case of our young people who have been lured into this lifestyle by the powerful straight lobby that has infiltrated our media and schools, by 'quickies' in back alleys after binge drinking in one of the 'straight clubs' that have sprung up in so many of our towns and cities.
And the Church of England, many of whose vicars openly admit to being heterosexual themselves, have forfeited all claims to moral leadership in our nation by blessing these partnerships, despite knowing full well that at least fifty per cent of them will end in divorce.

WE SAY: mixed sex partnerships are not just morally offensive. They don't work.

WE ALSO SAY: end this politically correct sham NOW.
For the sake of the children.
For the sake of our young people.
For the sake of our nation.

13 Comments:

At 5:44 PM, Blogger zaphod said...

Oh deary me mr Lupin, there is spam in your comments box.

I did wonder though

sordid late-night sexual encounters on industrial estates.

Been married 30 years has me and Mrs Zaphod and I have never done it in an industrial estate. *Puzzled*

 
At 6:21 PM, Blogger Willie Lupin said...

zaphod, it was in the context of kerb crawling. My contacts in the Vice Squad tell me that kerb crawlers often take the girls they pick up to out of town industrial estates to do whatever heterosexuals do.
I wasn't suggesting it would be a favoured locale for people like you and Mrs Zaphod, unless you had dubious tastes in roleplay.

 
At 6:48 AM, Blogger patroclus said...

One in 25 *may not be* the biological father? Or one in 25 *isn't* the biological father?

 
At 8:39 AM, Blogger Willie Lupin said...

patroclus: 'may not be'. As always with these things, the margin of error is huge.
"Their review of estimates of so-called paternal discrepancy over more than 50 years suggests the father was not the natural parent in between 1% and 30% of cases."
But I wasn't going to let the small print get in the way of some heavy-handed 'satire'.

 
At 9:25 AM, Anonymous w7 said...

Around Christmas last year, the New Scientiest quoted a one in ten figure: If I recall correctly, the claim was that every tenth child would be fathered by someone who wasn't the legal father. The New Scientiest used this figure to advise that you should direct your Christmas wishlist to your maternal grandmother, as she's got the strongest genetic ties with you, and is most likely to support you thus.

 
At 9:31 AM, Blogger cello said...

I look forward to the day when 'the children' we need to protect from the digrace of heterosexuality can be acquired without having to stoop to it.

Other than that little detail, I'm with you, Willie.

 
At 12:24 PM, Anonymous Alan said...

Gay, Straight, Male, Female, let's face it, the one thing that unites us is that we all do most of our thinking with an organ at the opposite end of our body to the one where we keep our brain cells.

 
At 12:51 PM, Blogger Merkin said...

Whichever proportion it actually is, is it actually a coincidence that (approx) 10% of children are biologically fathered by someone other than their assumed father, and at the same time (approx) 10% of people are not heterosexual? Or (approx) that 10% of people are left handed. Or ginger.

My conclusion: all left-handed, ginger homosexuals are fathered by the milkman. Gosh, it's good to be back blogging! Hello Willie....

 
At 2:29 PM, Blogger Willie Lupin said...

Thanks for all your comments.
Since I almost never read a tabloid it was rash of me to attempt a parody of a tabloid editorial.
Lest anyone be in any doubt, I am a great supporter of heterosexuality. These unions produce thousands of homosexuals.

My main intention was to amuse but also to point out the kind of nonsense that gay people have to endure from some quarters. Virtually every accusation levelled at us could with equal force be made against straight people.

Welcome back, Merkin. Those milkmen must be carrying a lot of 'minority' genes in their jeans. Or is it something in the Gold Top?
And is the ginger gentleman in your pic left-handed?

 
At 2:55 PM, Blogger Merkin said...

He is indeed. The most sinister of ALL Southpaws, in fact! Semi-skimmed, anyone?

 
At 4:12 PM, Blogger cello said...

And a very good parody it was. So don't worry, we got the joke. Am now worried that you thought *I* was being sarcastic. Tone of voice is so hard to do!

 
At 7:40 PM, Blogger Willie Lupin said...

merkin, I'm bound to say that he looks more sweet than sinister, apart from the fact that the blurring of the photo has given him four eyes.
Oh, and make mine double cream, extra thick.

cello, I wasn't implying that any of you commenters were too thick to get it. But only a tiny percentage of readers ever comment so I thought I'd make it as crystal clear as a Ronseal ad.
And I think I know you well enough not to suspect you of directing sarcasm at me, even though I often deserve it.
By the way, I thought of you when in the Co-op today. I saw a television with the brand name 'Cello'. I stood and stared at it, half expecting it to broadcast a performance of Mahler's 2nd.

 
At 9:23 PM, Blogger cello said...

I am very honoured to have my name linked with the Co-op - a fine institution - Mahler, and a TV. Lots of my favourite things. I used to have a Co-op bank account and often had the piss taken out of me for paying off my Amex Gold card with a Co-op cheque. But I grew up and abandoned gold cards a long time ago. Had to give the Co-op up too because of lack of branches. Tragedy.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home