LGBT Agenda: Will “Gay” Blood Donations Endanger Lives?

LGBT Agenda: Will “Gay” Blood Donations Endanger Lives?

Click here to read about the lifting of the prohibition on homosexual men donating blood to the Transfusion Service: Gay men will be allowed to donate blood three months after having sex rather than a year, under equalities reforms announced by the Government. [Emphasis added]

Pat McKay, one of our pro-life activist bloggers, emailed the above link and wrote as follows: 

“The BBC, of course, were gushing enthusiasm about it on yesterday’s News 24, with a studio guest from the Terrence Higgins Trust saying …‘how delighted’ they were with the decision, ‘after a long time of campaigning’….. Needless to say, there was nobody from the opposition invited, had you or I been there we would have pointed out how criminally insane this is – well, that would never have done!

So how do they intend to ‘police’ this? If one of them turns up at the blood clinic and claims not have been ‘active’ for 3 months, does the clinic just believe this and say ….‘ok, roll up your sleeve’?..

Talking about blood, it really makes mine boil when I think of how the licence fee revenue is blatantly misused time and again to promote and encourage LGBT interests.”


Is Pat right to enquire about the policing of “gay sex”?   Is he right to ask for some kind of evidence that there has been a three months gap since last activity at time of donating blood, given that homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous?  Or is this too intrusive?  What matters more, the feelings of “victimised gays” or the safety of Joe Bloggs in need of a blood transfusion?

Comments (62)

  • westminsterfly

    Even if the person is telling the truth, and they haven’t had sex for three months, there still appears to be a risk:

    “Is a negative test 100% accurate? HIV tests after the 3 month window are more than 99.97% accurate. They work for all types and subtypes of HIV. Very few medical tests have 100% accuracy. There will still be rare cases where someone is HIV positive and not picked up.” (Source:

    So that means that 0.3% could be falsely diagnosed as being HIV negative. That’s 3 in a 1,000. Should the government be playing Russian Roulette with people’s health just to appease lobby groups? One would have thought they’ve already got enough on their hands with the ‘tainted blood’ scandal:

    July 24, 2017 at 2:49 pm
    • Arthur

      You are out by a factor of 10. 99.97% accuracy would mean 0.03 would be wrong, which is 3 in 10,000, not 1,000. But, heyho, what are facts when you are pushing an agenda.

      July 25, 2017 at 11:22 am
      • westminsterfly

        Hmm, that’s weird, because on the source website I quoted from, which doesn’t appear in any way, shape or form to have an anti-LGBT agenda, it quotes: “As with other types of tests, there is always be a small margin of error. With antibody-only tests (3rd generation) only 0.3% of tests (3 tests in every 1000) will be a false negative after 3 months.” But in any event, even 3 in 10,000 would be unacceptable, when it’s only being done for political reasons. Who’s pushing an agenda, Arthur?

        July 25, 2017 at 1:24 pm
      • Arthur

        I was referring to your own post above, which quoted 99.97%. 100 minus 99.97 is 0.03, not 0.3. I am not pushing any agenda; I am just interested in accuracy, and your post was inaccurate.

        July 25, 2017 at 1:29 pm
      • westminsterfly

        Take it up with i-base then. The gist of my post remains the same. 3 in 1,000 or 3 in 10,000 – why take risks when you don’t have to? 1 in 100,000 would be one too many.

        July 25, 2017 at 2:24 pm
      • Arthur

        I have no interest in i-base. Your arithmetic was askew by a factor of 10 from the second paragraph to the third. Before quoting research to back up an argument, you should ensure that it is accurate.

        July 25, 2017 at 2:36 pm
      • westminsterfly

        Yes you are correct, I should have checked the arithmetical accuracy of that quotation from the i-base website. But the gist of my post remains the same. 3 in 1,000 or 3 in 10,000 – why take risks when you don’t have to? Is that what you call ‘pushing an agenda’? What is wrong with being concerned with public health matters which may even affect myself or those close to me at some point in the future?

        July 25, 2017 at 3:07 pm
      • Athanasius


        Talk about getting one’s priorities right! We’re talking human lives here and you’re correcting insignificant numeracy errors. I don’t suppose you’ve had yourself checked for OCD?

        July 25, 2017 at 3:33 pm
      • Arthur

        Please keep to the point, Athanasius. The poster was making an argument using statistics and his his arithmetic was out by a factor of 10, which is significant. If you choose to quote statistics to further an argument, it is important that they are correct. It is nothing to do with priorities, but with accuracy.

        July 25, 2017 at 3:55 pm
      • Athanasius


        “…his arithmetic was out by a factor of 10, which is significant.”

        Actually, it was not that significant but it was an opening for you to distract from the debate you say we’re not having. I would sure welcome a contribution from you to get us all started, then. What is your opinion on the subject of homosexuals giving blood?

        If the question doesn’t interest you then I suggest you go join the statistical nitpicker forum. You’ve made your point here about the X10 that doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things anyway.

        July 26, 2017 at 12:20 am
      • editor


        Fourth comment in, and you do not mention any concerns about this change in the rules about homosexuals donating blood. Your only concern is arithmetic. Duly noted.

        July 25, 2017 at 4:50 pm
      • editor


        You are accusing WF of “pushing an anti-LGBT agenda” ? And the problem is?

        Are you “gay” – that is, engaging in homosexual acts?

        July 25, 2017 at 4:48 pm
      • Arthur

        There seems to be an absence of any sense of debate on this site. I only corrected an arithmetical error and asked for some substantiation of wild numbers being bandied about, and I am accused of being ahomosexual. A giant leap, you must admit, Editor. For your info, not that it is any of your business, I am a happily married, heterosexual, testosterone-driven, family man with children, but who happens to value accuracy in debate. I think other posters here should value that commodity, too.

        July 25, 2017 at 5:22 pm
      • editor


        “Absence of debate”? Nonsense.

        You come across as a troll, worrying about numbers and demanding links when a blogger merely asked a question, was not making any assertion, and you do not address, even once, the issue of blood transfusions. What was that about “absence of debate”? You think we’re daft? Rhetorical question…

        Are you, as a family man with children, at all concerned that – God forbid – any of your family (or yourself) might need a blood transfusion in the knowledge that “gay” men are permitted to donate? Remember, it’s not so long ago that they were on a list of those who could NEVER give blood. Not “after a year” or “after 3 months” – NEVER!

        In fact, until I read this blog, I didn’t know that the rule had already been relaxed from “never” to “one year” (and now it’s merely 3 months.)

        I’m concerned for your children – are you?

        July 25, 2017 at 7:10 pm
      • Arthur

        I said ‘absence of any sense of debate’, not ‘absence of debate’, which is different. I am accused of being a homosexual and a troll simply for pointing out factual errors on the Catholic Truth site. I thought, given your nomenclature, you would be grateful to me. No-one here knows my views on homosexuality or the suitability of their kind for blood donation, yet I am attacked from every side. It’s enough to make even an alpha male like old Arturo here sulk and feel sorry for himself. It’s the last time I’ll be helping you lot out. Ungrateful so-and-sos!

        July 25, 2017 at 11:36 pm
      • editor


        As someone who used to teach debating skills, allow me to suggest that if you had introduced yourself her by contributing to the topic – i.e. stating your views on the easing of restrictions to allow homosexuals to donate blood after 3 months based on nothing more than their assurance of lack of sexual activity during previous 3 months, things may have turned out very differently for you.

        But as someone who doesn’t have an arithmetical thought in her head, don’t ask me to be grateful to you for pointing out an alleged arithmetical error when nobody gives a toss. 😀

        Now, your opinion on the topic, please and thank you!

        July 26, 2017 at 9:02 am
      • Therese


        Something about the name ‘Arthur’ seems to bring out the elusive in them when they visit this site. This is apparently the second one to visit.

        July 26, 2017 at 4:12 pm
      • editor


        You’re thinking of Father Arthur. Our latest Arthur tells us he is a married man with family. Father Arthur assured us he was a real, live priest, so we have to take both at their word.

        However, as explained in our House Rules section, anyone displaying troll-like behaviour, refusing to engage in the discussion, volume of comments etc. will be despatched into the blackness of the blacklisted. Arthur’s comments are being monitored, so beware of using his name if you reply to any comments which I release, as yours will also disappear and remain in the Black Hole of Blogland until I see them… 😀

        July 26, 2017 at 7:16 pm
      • RCAVictor

        Arthur: there is an absence of “sense of debate” on YOUR TERMS, which (a) have nothing to do with scientific accuracy, and (b) are a complete denial of reality. Unfortunately, in other words, your terms are akin to arguing over the precise shade of gray of a rapidly approaching tornado.

        July 26, 2017 at 4:27 pm
      • Petrus

        My wife had a blood transfusion after childbirth. I wonder what we would have said if the doctor had said, “There’s a 3 in 10,000 chance you will receive blood infected with HIV”. However, I do wonder about these odds. Will they increase given that you are relying on the honesty of promiscuous men engaging in a highly dangerous lifestyle?

        July 25, 2017 at 5:35 pm
      • editor


        I remember a reader who was very well versed in the issues surrounding homosexuality and sex-education, even occasionally speaking on those subjects on radio shows… I remember her telling me some years ago, that she, a mother of ten, was discussing a blood transfusion with the doctor after childbirth. She asked him if he could guarantee that the blood would be “clean” and he said “no” – notwithstanding the screening process. She asked, in that case, for plasma, instead.

        July 25, 2017 at 7:05 pm
      • Petrus


        That’s very interesting. I would be even more concerned now with these latest developments.

        I wonder if there is an overwhelming number of homosexuals desperate to give blood. I doubt it, I think this is more to do with the normalisation of homosexuality.

        July 25, 2017 at 9:12 pm
  • gabriel syme

    While I know the blood donor service is always crying out for more blood, I cant help but think that this move is more to do with normalising homosexuality than it is with the best interests of persons needing a blood transfusion.

    It seems strange that NHS Scotland has made this move, only weeks after announcing that the taxpayer would be paying for HPV Vaccinations and “Prep” drugs for all homosexual men (the latter reduces their chance of catching HIV via sodomy).

    These latter moves were a tacit acceptance that significant numbers of homosexual men are incapable of sexual continence, not to mention an admission of the uselessness of condoms. And so how bizarre that, after such an admission, the conclusions is that its safe for homosexuals persons to donate blood. That clearly doesn’t “stack up” together.

    Even if a homosexual persons blood was free from HIV or other blood borne disease, is it wise to being accepting blood donations which potentially have a cocktail of drugs present in them? (Prep and other drugs taken by homosexuals, to try to mitigate the health effects of their behaviour)

    As for the 3-month wait time, Pat is quite right to ask how this is policed. Its concerning to me because my understanding was that it took a minimum of 3 months for a new HIV infection to show up in the blood.

    I suspect it is the case that all blood donations will be screened for disease, and – using this as a safety net – the (highly politicised) NHS will continue to promote the falsehood that homosexual persons are no more unhealthy than anyone else.

    I thought it was very telling that the original story I saw about this change in policy said it applied to “gay men and prostitutes” – an unwitting reveal regarding the sexual conduct of many homosexual men.

    July 24, 2017 at 2:56 pm
    • RCAVictor


      I agree: this is about normalizing homosexuality – which, for most gay men, is certainly the equivalent of prostitution, as they are prostituting themselves for sex. Wasn’t there a study some years ago indicating that the average homosexual male has 500 partners in his lifetime?

      As for vetting homosexuals for their most recent sexual activity, this is about as rational (and truthful) as claiming that one can vet Syrian Muslim refugees trying to “immigrate” into the country, when most of them have no paper trail with which to vet.

      This is nothing but a politicization of health.

      July 24, 2017 at 6:59 pm
      • Arthur

        Which study is it that you quote, RCA? Could you give a link to it?

        July 25, 2017 at 1:57 pm
      • editor


        Google and you will find plenty of studies to show that “gay” men are not short of partners. During the campaign for “gay marriage”, didn’t whatshisname Tatchell say that in the nature (so to speak) of the “gay” lifestyle, they don’t want to be tied to “marriage” – they like to be free to go with whoever…

        Anyway, Google away and you will find out all these glorious facts for yourself…

        But before you do, DO tell us if you are OK to accept a transfusion on the basis that the blood you are given may come from a homosexual who has assured the nurse that he’s been “celibate” for three months, and never mind Kinsey and Tatchell… Are you OK with that?

        July 25, 2017 at 5:00 pm
      • Arthur

        Your assertion about 500 partners is obviously way off the mark. The General Social Survey has been collecting data in the USA from 1972, and is the largest such survey carried out.

        “GSS data indicates that the distribution of partner numbers among men who have sex exclusively with men and men who have sex exclusively with women is similar, but that differences appear in the proportion of those with very high number of partners, which is larger among gay men, but that in any case makes up a small minority for both groups.”

        As you can see, there is not much difference in the average number of partners between homosexual and heterosexual men.

        July 25, 2017 at 2:10 pm
      • Pat McKay

        I would recommend this link for further info about the astonishing promiscuity of homosexuals. But brace yourselves – it makes for some very unsavoury reading….

        July 25, 2017 at 4:02 pm
      • editor


        Thank you for that and don’t apologise for the unsavoury content. One of the major problems today is that people do NOT know what homosexuals actually do and only a few days ago I was with someone who admitted as much. However, when I began to enlighten her she covered her mouth, as if going to be sick and said: “Don’t say any more… I don’t want to know”.

        She will – I have no doubt – quite placidly accept a blood transfusion without a peep of protest.

        Gimme strength!

        July 25, 2017 at 5:11 pm
      • RCAVictor


        If you would read my post more carefully, I asked a question about the existence of such a study, I was not citing one. For your information, however, here is some data:

        Moreover, if you wish to be swayed by scientific double-talk, such as is present in the paragraph you quote, that is your business, and if you wish to deny that homosexual men are notoriously promiscuous, you will not find any agreement with that on this blog, I can assure you.

        July 25, 2017 at 4:12 pm
      • editor


        WOW – after your early interest in arithmetic, you’ve neatly avoided giving any figures in your piece on numbers of partners. Interesting.

        Listen, the entire world and its granny knows that – by their own admission – homosexuals are very busy men in the infidelity department, flitting from one “partner” to another quicker than most of us can say “arithmetic”.

        I don’t want my health and life put at risk by taking blood that is very possibly contaminated due to the weakness of the Government giving way, yet again, to this tiny minority of the population, a lobby that is literally the tail wagging the dog. The sheer nerve of them.

        July 25, 2017 at 5:04 pm
    • Faith of Our Fathers

      Gabriel as has been said this is Nothing whatever to do with saving life’s. It’s just another normalisation tactic with The Homosexual Brigade and The Step We Gaily On We Go Scottish Parliament. Surely anyone regardless of their Sexuality were on any kind of Drug such as PREP which has not fully been known as to what side effects could come from such medicine should not be donating blood.

      July 24, 2017 at 8:05 pm
  • Athanasius

    The agenda of governments and the media all over the Western world right now is to completely destroy Christian morality and family life. There is even a sudden urgency in these entities to eradicate all gender differences as God created them. Hence at the same time we hear on the news that homosexual men are to be allowed to donate blood, that so-called transgender people are to have the waiting period removed in order that they can switch genders immediately, that people will be allowed to choose “binary” if they so wish (no gender at all). And all this on the back of “Gay marriage”.

    The other front being pushed at the same time is women’s football, women’s cricket, women’s rugby and other usurpations of traditionally male sports. That makes the women just like the men, another form of transgenderism. And now there’s a big row about celebrity women at the BBC being paid less huge amounts of money than their male counterparts. None of these people, male or female, are worth more than the average salary that everyone else has to survive on. The lot of them are way overpaid for what they do, which is arguably less than the rest of us.

    The point I’m making is that suddenly the eradication of gender is being driven along in a frenzy, the more so since Pope Francis appeared on the scene, a very pale reflection of a Successor of St. Peter. Evil feels emboldened and it’s in God’s face in public declaring its rejection of Him and His divine Laws with “Pride”. I note also from the news that they want a cheaper “morning after” pill, so that sex with whoever can be had more frequently without having to worry about pregnancy. And then there’s abortion.

    This is all terrifying because we know that God has directly intervened to punish mankind on only a few occasions in history, always for widespread sexual sins. With homosexuality now being the number one global favourite (with “Pride”), all remaining remnants of Christian marriage and family life are being cleverly and brutally extinguished. I cannot see how this world can avoid the divine wrath that I believe will fall very soon. All the prophecies speak of such a global event in the “last times” coming out of the blue and purifying the world of the filth and evil that will then be spread everywhere. It was the principal message of Our Lady at Quito for our times and it is frightening.

    I’m not generally given to “sensationalist” interpretations of prophecy but I’m afraid it really does look as though something globally catastrophic is on the horizon soon unless there’s a miraculous worldwide return to God, which seems highly unlikely given the fury of the God haters in charge.

    July 25, 2017 at 1:10 am
  • Elizabeth

    And now Dr Who is to be a woman! Where will it all end!

    July 25, 2017 at 9:57 am
    • Pat McKay

      I was gob-smacked when I heard this. I would’ve thought someone of the LGBT trans-species persuasion would have been more appropriate for our times!

      July 25, 2017 at 10:05 am
      • gabriel syme

        Give it time Pat. Apparently one of the plot twists for the new series will be that the female Doctor Who self-identifies as a pansexual Dalek.

        July 25, 2017 at 10:49 am
      • Pat McKay

        And surely we can’t have Time-Lords any more – it will have to be ‘Time-Being’ from now on….

        July 25, 2017 at 11:56 am
      • Athanasius

        Pat McKay

        If they had gone down that road they would have to have changed the programme name to Dr. What!!

        July 25, 2017 at 3:29 pm
      • westminsterfly

        Joking apart, it was a homosexual man who revived and ran Dr Who after its long absence from BBC screens: and ‘gay’ characters were introduced into it a good while ago:

        July 25, 2017 at 4:22 pm
    • editor


      Where, indeed! Scandalous!

      July 25, 2017 at 5:04 pm
  • Pat McKay

    As with same-sex ‘marriage’ and the adoption of children by same-sex ‘couples’, there is obviously a higher agenda at work here. Why else would such a ridiculous amount of time, money and effort be spent pandering after a tiny minority – and what THEY consider to be their ‘rights’? A mere 2% of the population identify themselves as homosexual. And what percentage of these have any interest in ‘marriage’, child adoption or blood donation?

    The ‘gay’ lobby are forever bleating about ‘unfair revulsion and hostility’ towards them…’for acts and desires that are not harmful to anyone’… But medical evidence tells a different story. The very idea of accepting blood donations from homosexuals is dangerous nonsense, but is something pursued with subversive intent and purpose far beyond the issue at hand. Atheistic political and media elites do not expend such ferocious energy promoting these insane issues for nothing. It is all about the insatiable quest for control and domination of the public square, through the demonising all Christian thought and practice.

    Supporters of secular values do not tolerate dissent and their ambition to eliminate religious belief is very alarming. In the name of ‘tolerance’, it appears tolerance itself is being abolished. The propaganda of secularism and its high priests want us to believe that religion is ‘dangerous for our health’. It suits them to have no opposition to their vision of a ‘brave new world’, the world which they see as somehow governed only by [people] like themselves.

    So, how does the LGBT lobby manage to exercise such power and influence out of all proportion to its numbers? For anyone who doesn’t get it, the higher agenda here is formulated by the New World Order generals, eagerly assisted by their media lieutenants and other facilitators. Their quest is for absolute power – and insofar as ‘gay’ ideologues help them reach this objective, these higher powers will pander to their obsessions, assisting their mutually-beneficial war against the Catholic bulwark and nature itself. Ultimately, when they have outlived their usefulness and the ‘powers that be’ have achieved their goal, the entire homosexual collective will be summarily discarded, as always happens to ‘useful idiots’.

    Until that fateful day, the ‘gay’-driven PC oppression engineered by the secular elite intensifies, betraying its essentially Marxist pedigree. Among 45 Communist Goals exposed in the US Congress by Hon. A.S. Herlong Jnr on Thursday, Jan. 10, 1963, as listed on pp. A34-A35 of the Congressional Record, we find the following entry….

    26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as ‘normal, natural, healthy.’

    I rest my case.

    July 25, 2017 at 10:09 am
  • Benedict Carter

    Even common sense is sacrificed.

    July 25, 2017 at 5:53 pm
  • Pat McKay

    In a ‘life or death’ situation, I would rather DIE than accept blood that had been donated by sodomites.

    The toadying BBC, of course, wouldn’t use that term – ‘gay men’ sounds so much more anodyne, now doesn’t it…

    July 25, 2017 at 6:09 pm
  • John Kearney

    If I had any infection whatsoever that could possibly remain in my system I would never contemplate giving blood and risking the lives of others. That is what is called living respoonsibly. I am sure there are gays who actually are responsible and will not act on this. When you delve into the Gay community you find there are this minority who do not define themselves according to their sexual preferences and will have nothing to do with ‘coming out’ and other nonsense. They just get on with their lives yes, admitting they are gay, but not shouting it.

    It is interesting that at this time also there is demand from those who suffered from contaminated blood in the 70’s and 80’s for a public enqiry into that sorry period. Remember this was what started the gay ban. It is also of interest that there are people who can now speak out against Sharia Law and the opposition of Moslems to homosexuals who want more protection from the Government since they just open their eyes to what is happening throughout the Moslem world to homosexuals. Whereas a Christian would find themselves in jail the authorities seem to be at a loss as to how to silence Gays. Names like Douglas Murray and Anne Marie Waters spring to mind. Yes, they are sinners but it was also for them that Christ died.

    July 25, 2017 at 8:33 pm
  • greatgrandmother

    Three months time has nothing to do with all of this:

    “Every individual who has fallen prey to infection with the AIDS virus i INFECTED for the rest of his or her LIFE.
    J.B. Schorr et al,Prevalence of HTLV III Antibody in American Blood Donors N.E. Journal of Medicine 1985:290;749-750

    “Once infected, a person remains infected for the rest of his life. Once infected a person is infectious. It is not safe to assume otherwise? ‘Blood Donors At High Riskof Transmitting The Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome’ Britisnh Medical Journal 1985 – 290: 749-750

    The Aids Cover Up: Gene Antonio

    July 26, 2017 at 5:50 pm
    • editor

      Great Grandmother,

      Well said and thank you for that source.

      That is how AIDS was first presented to us, as incurable; only with the refusal of “gays” to stop their unnatural behaviour has the message changed. A tiny fraction of the population though these people are, they know how to make a noise and they are well positioned in the media and now Government, to exercise undue influence, with bells on. Disgraceful.

      It is truly disgraceful that doctors and scientists who MUST know better, are not speaking out about this and shame on those who have sanctioned this easing of the rules on blood donations.

      July 26, 2017 at 6:58 pm
      • greatgrandmother

        Thanks Catholic Truth (marysong was me but great grandmother is the truth of what I am … lol

        July 26, 2017 at 8:02 pm
  • wendy walker

    I could hardly believe that for the last 3 nights on Anglia News at 6..15pm we have been subjected to the above ….men kissing and dancing together and huge butch lesbians parading around …it was very in depth with the very pregnant presenter LAUREN HALL visiting archives and other places ..of “”gay””interest !!!…I wonder how many hundreds of children having their tea saw this ?

    July 27, 2017 at 9:39 am
  • wendywalker95

    Lauren Hall‏ @ITVLaurenHall 55m55 minutes ago
    Today marks 50yrs since the first major milestone in LGBT equality. Catch up on our special series of reports here:

    0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    Reply Retweet Like
    Lauren Hall‏ @ITVLaurenHall 16h16 hours ago
    LGBT Britain: Today and the future – third and final part of our special series is coming up at 6pm across ITV regional news #LGBTBritain
    0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    Reply Retweet Like
    Lauren Hall‏ @ITVLaurenHall Jul 25
    LGBT Britain: The Fight for Rights – the second part of our special series is coming up at 6pm across ITV regional programmes. #LGBTBritain
    0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
    Reply Retweet Like 1
    Lauren Hall‏ @ITVLaurenHall Jul 24
    Changing law and changing attitudes – tune in now to ITV regional news for the first in our three-part series on #LGBTBritain
    0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
    Reply Retweet Like 1
    Lauren Hall‏ @ITVLaurenHall Jul 24
    Tonight we explore what life was like before the change in the law 50 years ago – well worth tuning in! #LGBTBritain
    0 replies 1 retweet 1 like
    Reply Retweet 1 Like 1
    Lauren Hall‏ @ITVLaurenHall Jul 24
    This week, we have a special series on ITV regional news, marking the 50th anniversary of the Sexual Offences Act #LGBTBritain
    0 replies 3 retweets 3 likes
    Reply Retweet 3 Like 3
    Lauren Hall Retweeted
    Just Like Us‏ @justlikeus_uk Jul 2
    School Diversity Week is here: good luck to the 250k pupils and teachers holding events this week to celebrate LGBT+ equality! #SDW17

    Alice Woolley, David Weston, Owen Jones and 5 others
    1 reply 68 retweets 85 likes
    Reply 1 Retweet 68 Like 85


    July 27, 2017 at 9:41 am
  • wendy walker

    There is a free paper THE METRO has a huge readership i was surprised to see a huge advert covering the front back and the same again inside of homosexuals kissing ….Absolut alcohols seem to have sponsored it …here again any child could pick one up and see all this …..

    July 28, 2017 at 10:33 am
  • wendy walker


    July 29, 2017 at 10:50 am
  • catholicconvert1

    I can remember emailing Edwin Poots, the former Northern Irish Health Minister, regarding this when the sodomites were pressuring him to permit gay blood donation. I sent him these links from authoritative sources:

    Beware, because the second link has a repellent photograph of a sodomite couple embracing.

    August 6, 2017 at 4:50 pm
    • Miles Immaculatae


      That last sentence is a bit extreme even by this blog’s standards. The photograph is entirely innocent and non-sexual. I know I am a big raging heretic now, but I know Catholic teaching reasonably well, and I know for a fact that such an embrace does not constitute a sin against chastity. I have been embraced by friends and family in this manner.

      August 7, 2017 at 1:27 pm
      • Michaela

        I have to agree with Miles Immaculatae about that photo. It’s just like someone running up and jumping on a friend’s back, to surprise them. It’s not sexual at all.

        It is useful to read the statistics, though, that’s something we don’t get from the mainstream media, but have to check out ourselves, no need to ask why, LOL!

        August 7, 2017 at 1:51 pm
      • Petrus


        I think I would concentrate more on the facts presented than commenting on CC’s slight exaggeration. Last time you were here you stated that you had a “delectation for sodomy” and only yesterday you (allegedly) jested about being transgender. Whether or not you think you have come back to the Church, these are not the words of a Catholic in good Faith.

        All the attention seeking nonsense about being a Traditional Catholic, atheist, homosexual, transgender and now Modern Catholic is just pathetic. You are mixed up and you need help.

        What you are trying to do is marry together being a Catholic and having licence to do what you want. The bad priests who are “so welcoming” are leading you up the garden path. It can’t be done. It’s like mixing oil and water. Impossible.

        I would spend less time blogging and more time seeking out a good therapist and spiritual director.

        August 7, 2017 at 2:28 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: