The reason for this is that in the mindset of politically correct ‘progressives’ once their favoured groups become identified historically as victims, they continue to remain victims indefinitely even though their victimhood has ended. So to maintain the propaganda message it is necessary for society to be continually reminded of the time when homosexuals were genuine victims. To demonstrate our collective contrition, we are expected to celebrate the ‘diversity’ which those of a LGBT persuasion are supposed to bring to us all, and rejoice how we have now become so much more virtuous in contrast to the bigotry and hatred once practiced by previous generations.
Now that the legal discrimination against homosexuals has ended, there should clearly no longer be any need for politicians, government, local authorities or schools to involve themselves in the LGBT agenda. With regard to the LGB dimension, there can be no justification for politicians or public authorities to promote any particular minority sexual preference, activity or orientation, since this is purely a private matter that should be completely outside the remit of those who seek to govern us. There should be no recognition of so called same sex marriage, although special legal arrangements on inheritance and property rights can be devised for those in a long term relationship.
As outlined previously here http://bit.ly/2jCiIOf the transgender element is based on the delusion that an individual can change the sex into which they were born. People should of course be free to believe that their characteristics and personality are different to the stereotypes of their biological sex. But the rest of society should not be expected to collude in the deception that they are really a woman trapped in a man’s body or vice versa. So there should be no endorsement by the state of the claims these individuals make that they have changed their sex. Nor should they be allowed into the changing rooms or other facilities of the opposite sex, or demand that people or public organisations should recognise their supposed change of sex and address them accordingly. For those individuals who are so mentally disturbed that they are intent on mutilating their bodies, or being injected with the hormones of the opposite sex, the law should intervene in their own best interests to protect them from this clearly deleterious propensity, as is currently done with FGM.
LGBT activists are not content to just play the victim card ad nauseum, they also want to control the parameters of permissible discourse. Instead of welcoming debate through argument and reason, they follow the usual blueprint for leftist agitation by shutting down challenges to their agenda by means of pejorative accusations, in this case of ‘homophobia’ and ‘transphobia’. So we have now reached the situation where the LGBT lobby can silence any criticism of their objectives by using the power of the state to criminalise as a ‘hate crime’ those who challenge their sensitivities.
Another disturbing development is the extent to which the homosexual lobby has infiltrated schools with LGBT history month and other measures in which they condition young children into accepting the supposed normality and naturalness of their lifestyle and practices, and promote the celebration of same sex relationships. This behaviour confirms how absolutely right the Thatcher government was in the 1980s to introduce the Section 28 legislation to prevent this kind of pernicious indoctrination of youth. Similar measures need to be reintroduced today if we are to prevent children being brainwashed into believing that homosexual relations are what is normal, and that male heterosexual attraction is by its nature deemed to be predatory and exploitive. This is the likely outcome towards which the current malignant alliance of misandric feminists and obsessive homosexual activists appear to be leading us.