The Hidden Dangers of ‘Gay Marriage’

The title of this post might seem a bit too much for some, but read on after the lengthy Cranmer piece and you’ll see why I have said it. 

The ‘equality’ bandwagon keeps rolling on, despite Cameron’s promise to stop it (you mean you believed him?). Lynne Featherstone, the Inequalities Minister, wants us all to reconsider what marriage is so that two women or two blokes can tie the knot.  Ms Featherstone says that the church doesn’t own marriage, but as Cranmer writes,

But the state does not ‘own’ marriage, either, Ms Featherstone. It is a union observed in all cultures and, according to Aristotle, exists by nature. The state cannot change nature: it can legislate to call the rain ‘sunshine’, but the rain is still the rain; it’s neither good nor bad; it’s just the rain. And it will still make you wet, whatever you call it.

Marriage is essential for the functioning of society: in Scripture, it is the model used to explain the mystery of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:25-32). The Church of England ‘affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better or worse, till death do them part, of one man with one woman’. This has its basis in the Old Testament, where YHWH says: ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’ (Gen 2:18). It continues: ‘for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh’ (v24). Although these verses do not purport to define marriage, they do describe its origin, and are therefore crucial for understanding the Bible’s teaching on marriage.

There are three principal purposes for marriage arising out of v24: (i) the procreation of children; (ii) companionship, and (iii) sexual union. Marriage is a covenant before YHWH, which Jesus confirms with the phrase ‘God has joined together’ (Mt 19:26); when a person ‘leaves’ and ‘cleaves’. It is the erosion of this foundation which has contributed to ‘Breakdown Britain’.

The thing is…

If, as Ms Featherstone says, ‘it is the Government’s fundamental job to reflect society and to shape the future’, why stop at a redefinition of marriage which includes homosexuals? If marriage is ‘owned by the people’, surely any redefinition must be subject to the democratic will, yet the British people have not been asked about this: proposals for ‘gay marriage’ were not included in any party’s manifesto at the last general election, and there has been no referendum. So is Ms Featherstone saying that a minority group somehow has the right to impose its ‘unnatural’ redfinition on the majority? If so, why not permit Muslim men to marry four or five wives? If the state has the authority to eradicate the heterosexual imperative, who says ‘equality’ must be the new immutable foundation? Surely it is up to ‘the people’? And if marriage may be polygamous, why not incestuous? If ‘the people’ wish to privatise the institution, there is no logical end to the varieties and expressions of ‘family, society and personal freedoms’ which will result. If, a decade hence, they want marriage to embrace consensual polygamy, incest and co-homeowners, who is Lynne Featherstone to stop them?

As the Roman Catholic adoption agencies discovered, and as those who administer school curricula are finding, the inexorable quest for equality does not deviate for any exemption: for equality to triumph, it must eradicate the religious space. There will be no equality until two men can marry in their local parish church, regardless of the theo-political misgivings of the vicar.

But ‘language evolves’, you say: marriage is being redefined to reflect the new societal norm. There was a time when ‘gay’ meant ‘happy’, Abba was cool, Kylie was a c-list soap star and rainbows were a symbol of God’s covenant with every living thing (Gen 9:13). Over the decades, homosexuals have appropriated ‘gay’ and ‘pride’ and the world has not ended. But these meanings have evolved incrementally, even naturally (and are still doing so, for ‘gay’ in teen vernacular has come to mean ‘crap’). But this was not the state decreeing change. The Government is proposing to redefine marriage forever, and it will use the full force of its bureacracy to inculcate the new reality: no longer will paperwork talk of husbands and wives, but of partners. No longer will we be male and female, but simply androgynous individuals. And if you resile from the new order, you exclude yourself from public office and from employment by the state. If you dare to speak out against it, you are criminalised. This is not organic change: it is societal revolution.

If ‘gay marriage’ is the conservative thing to do because, as the Prime Minister avers, it strengthens society, then why are 57% of Christians pepared to abandon the Conservative Party over the issue? Are they all wrong? Are they all homophobic ‘backwoodsmen’ and reactionary ‘Turnip Taliban’? And let us not pretend the alliance against ‘gay marriage’ stops (or starts) at the Church: Lynn Featherstone is uniting the churches, synagogues, gurdwaras and mosques in a faith alliance against the Government. The religious conscience will not be cowed and bullied into submission in the name of ‘equality’, ‘fairness’ or ‘tolerance’.

Coalition For Marriage is uniting people of all faiths and none against ‘gay marriage’. So far, it has collected 39,000 signatures (how many have put their names to a petition in support of ‘gay marriage’?). If the will of the people is sovereign, surely Ms Featherstone must heed it. If it be for ‘the people’ to decide the definition of marriage, and the majority opt for one based on the complementary natures of men and women, who is she to say otherwise?

His Grace saved me a lot of work there, saying largely what I also believe. Two things he wrote seemed particularly chilling:

For equality to triumph, it must eradicate the religious space.

Some people will think this sounds good, but it is a sign of intense authoritarianism which will do nobody any good. Religious persecution is rife in the few (openly) communist countries which remain and this, of course, goes hand-in-hand with restrictions in freedom generally. You cannot kick out Christ and still enjoy the benefits of a Judeo-Christian culture. It clearly doesn’t work that way, so when the former Lib Dem councillor won his court case the other day to have prayers banned, and if pressure groups (this latest story is from Australia – it’s the same agenda everywhere) are successful in making religious education classes “culturally diverse and unbiased” then our very culture will continue to be eaten away. Children will believe that the values on which our society is based are no more important than those of any religious ethos in the whole world.

Some people have a fascinating hatred for all things Christian and for some devilish reason will risk any replacement, even Sharia law.

And if you resile from the new order, you exclude yourself from public office and from employment by the state. If you dare to speak out against it, you are criminalised.

There have been a number of registrars disciplined for not wanting to deal with civil partnerships, but full-blown ‘gay marriage’ will make conscientious objection more difficult. It would probably be impossible for me to get certain jobs because I am not ‘committed to equality’. At least, not the Government’s warped notions of what that word means.

It is not enough to treat people with respect or tolerance – you also have to agree with everything they do (unless they believe in normal British ethics and customs, naturally) and to help them to do it.

I have just read highlights of a recent interview between Elton John and his ‘partner’, and Peter Tatchell in ‘Attitude’ magazine (contains some bad language from Elton, of course).

Education against homophobia and all prejudice should be a compulsory subject in every school, from primary level upwards, with no opt-outs for independent and free schools and no right of parents to withdraw their kids. There should be exams in tolerance. The results should go on pupil’s records and should have to be declared when applying for higher education and jobs.

I have just asked him (under the link to this piece on his Facebook page) is this a new, sinister, objective in collective mind control? Agree with me or you won’t get a job??
 
And as Cranmer says, what’s to stop marriage being redefined ad infinitum? What happens when Muslim (and Mormon!) fundamentalists demand polygamy? And people ‘marry’ their pets, so why shouldn’t they have marriage rights so that their ‘partner’ is protected when they are dead? Don’t answer that, but it was one of the reasons put forward for civil partnerships.

And of course, what about the paedophiles? Don’t they have rights? People will say that’s different because it’s all about consent. I have read at least two stories about judges who thought that men who had sex with 11 and 12 year-olds had been led on and therefore had an excuse to behave the way they did. There have been suggestions in recent years to lower the age of consent to 13 in Northern Ireland and Scotland – when there is no more than a three year age difference. Homosexual acts were taboo, then made legal for 21 year-olds, then 18 year-olds and then 16 year-olds – to make the behaviour ‘equal’ to heterosexuality, of course. Where will it end?

The terrifying thing is that some people believe this equality stuff so much that they will accept grown men and women legally being allowed to have sex with children.

Eventually, you’ll have to uphold this belief if you want a Council job, even one (or especially one) where the wellbeing of vulnerable children is at stake.

Peter Tatchell wants the age of consent reduced, but I’m not sure if he ever says what to, but you know how successful he has already been in changing society. He also believes that children have ‘sexual rights’. We are made increasingly aware of ‘children’s rights’ generally, including their ‘right’ to seek confidential medical advice from their GP (part of the whole sexual revolution, of course). ‘Children’s rights’ sounds really good, but in practise, it actually means that the parents can lose jurisdiction over their own family and the state is in charge. During my visit to a doctor’s surgery a few weeks ago, I couldn’t help but notice the posters and leaflets about teenage sex and confidentiality. The state is encouraging promiscuity and then helping keep it a secret from the parents, thereby assuming control of their behaviour.

Far too many people in the West are delusional now after decades of intense media mind control. They have lost the plot to such an extent that they cannot even see how bizarre, unnatural and plain wrong it would be for two people of the same gender to get ‘married’. Their minds have been trashed by technology! And this is why many people will believe in future campaigns involving children – if it’s being done for reasons of ‘equality’ or for sexual ‘rights’ then it must be good and anyone who says otherwise is a ranting, hate-filled Bible-thumper who needs to realise that this is 2012 (or whenever it happens) and not the Dark Ages.  

And many will doubtless say the same things when objections are made about children sleeping in the beds of pervert adults with full support of the law (or man’s new interpretation of the ‘law’). The schoolchildren might have learned at the new religious education classes that Mohammed married a six year-old, but that this was a good thing (how could it not be; it’s Islam: the Establishment’s favourite religion!) and that it’s okay to be one of several wives to one man.

So you see, the possibilities for redefining marriage are almost limitless and the opportunities for change are already there. If marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples then I don’t think it will take as much effort by other groups to have their agendas catered for in the same way. Everyone is ‘equal’, right? Everyone’s sexual behaviour is ‘equal’, right? Children’s rights are starting to trump their parents. All religions are equal. With such a set-up, anything could now happen.

Already, over half of British children are born to unmarried and single mothers. Making such a mockery of marriage may make it even less fashionable to heterosexuals. The end result is easy to see: more people will be bringing up children under temporary living arrangements and the dysfunction in society will continue to worsen.

So instead of approving of everything the Government wants you to approve of and loving everything they say you should love, try making your own decisions on such matters. Realise why these changes are happening, if you don’t already, and if it isn’t too late, help restore the country to a more civilised place to live. Don’t say what’s happening won’t affect you. It will, therefore it is your right to have a say. Not only your right, but a moral obligation.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to The Hidden Dangers of ‘Gay Marriage’

  1. LJ Rolfe says:

    You are more than correct (for once) when it comes to saying that marriage does not belong to the state, however I think you will find that Ms Featherstone is also correct in saying that the church does not own it either. The entity, in this case, the human race: Need to come too a final agreement as to what the term ‘Marriage’ means, I am not just talking about basic clasification here, I am talking about complete abosolute consensus on the term. This would require not just a general majority of one country or one religious faction but for all people from all countries of ALL RELIGIONS to be given the oppertunity to vote on the matter, its not good you just shouting about things you claim are ‘hidden dangers’ you need to think about things logically! How do people choose a meaning of a word? They don’t meanings are tought behaviours, which really have no physical bearing, all it takes is a majority vote on a global or even galactic scale for a fair and equal desision to be made.

    LJ Rolfe
    signing off :p

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    Thanks for your comments, but the basic definition of marriage has been the uniting of man and woman in holy matrimony since the very beginning. That’s the definition. That’s what it is. That’s the foundation of strong societies, which is one reason homosexuality has been taboo just about everywhere.

    If there were a global vote, it would be in favour of keeping the definition as it is. Not that there ever would be such a vote and I’m thankful for that, even though it would decide the matter in my favour on this occasion.

    The bottom line is that this agenda is moving forward all over the world for the purpose of destroying Western civiilisation and why anyone who is keen to live in a civilised society will oppose it.

    I hope you understand how real the dangers are.

  3. Jill says:

    The law cannot be divorced from reality, from nature. The moment this happens, law becomes arbitrary, the whim of the ruling power: it becomes tyranny.

    This is the strapline from an excellent article entitled ‘what’s at stake in the same-sex marriage debate’.

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/02/4838

    Marriage has already been decided by God (or by nature, for those who don’t believe in God). No amount of voting, or referenda, or posturing by tinpot governments, can alter the fact that marriage is the joining of two sterile halves to make one fertile whole – this can only be a man and a woman. Once the law takes it upon itself to try and change this definition, there is no limit to what future changes it might make.

  4. robbo says:

    Hi Stewart

    Just one question today! You say: “It would probably be impossible for me to get certain jobs because I am not ‘committed to equality’. At least, not the Government’s warped notions of what that word means.”
    Would you please give us a comprehensive run-down of what your unwarped definition of that word is.

    Many thanks in advance.

  5. robbo says:

    I’ve waited several days or an answer so perhaps I will hazard one. You don’t believe in equality at all. You want other people to be denied the rights that you enjoy. In this case the right to marry whoever the hell they want. The lame attempt to mask this with the slippery slope fallacy really does not wash. You are a bigot and a homophobe and you are welcome to sue me for libel for writing this if you wish.
    Warm regards as ever.

  6. Great post Stewart, good reading, thanks. Wish I had the time to knock out some substantial blogs too – but no time for any heavy blogging at the moment. Interesting isn’t it how most of your detractors don’t run blogs of their own to put their opinions across but only attack writers such as yourself via the comment-threads you host. Look forward to reading more posts from you as you find the time to write them…

  7. robbo says:

    haha doofus old chap you’re so funny i could cry.
    How many comment threads have you shown up on to attack the writer, condemn the subjects and preach your vile religious rubbish?
    I comment on here because, for all his faults, Stewart seems to be open to free speech and I have an opinion I wish to share. If you, he or anyone else wishes to take me to task, here seems to be as good a place as any.

  8. Isitfoggy says:

    Richard – you’re always on the internet knocking one out aren’t you? Stop looking at those pictures!

    I agree with Robbo – don’t always agree with Stewart but at least he allows free speech. When are you turning your comments back on?

  9. Jill says:

    There is of course the not-so-hidden danger of gay marriage (which to me is so blindingly obvious that I am amazed that parents aren’t up in arms about it) is what do we tell children? I have posted this same post on various blogs but am beginning to feel that I am the only one who is anxious about this.

    Sex ed is already far too explicit and is aimed at children too young to process the information. Parents are enraged about this, once they have found out about it, as it is carried out pretty secretively. So once gay marriage is given the moral equivalence of marriage, do we tell children that gay sex is morally equivalent to straight sex? I cannot see how this can be avoided.

    The plain truth is that it is not. It involves high-risk sexual activities which harm mind and body. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. If we are going to tell children that gay sex is likely to give you Aids and you will die young, then why are we giving the green light to gay marriage?

    It might interest people to know that, of the £1 billion spent annually by the NHS on the treatment of STI’s, almost half of this goes on hiv/Aids treatment – which, in the UK at least, applies to around 1% of the population. Quite apart from this, there are myriad other injuries and diseases spread by gay sex. This 1992 paper just spells out some of them:

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

    So just what are we going to tell children?

  10. robbo says:

    Jill,

    When you were a kid and you were told two people were married did you spend all your time thinking about their sex lives? Do you think that today’s kids do that? Do you think that kids are so fragile and delicate that they will be unable to process the information that two men or two women can fall in love and get married? Children develop perfectly naturally from being innocent little cheeky angels into sex mad teenagers. Education is required for them to best cope with this inevitability.
    And to answer your other question, YES, we teach children that there is no moral difference between gay and straight sex and if there is any risk associated with either we give them good information about how to protect themselves. Just because one activity is more risky than another does not make it immoral otherwise rugby would be more immoral than football, cycling more immoral than walking.
    Tell us what you propose. Ignoring the fact that there are gays in the world? How will allowing gay people to get married increase the spread of HIV? Will it not, if anything, reduce it? Have you read anything on the issue in the last twenty years or did you just find a paper that backs up your predudices and think that will do?

  11. Jill says:

    Robbo, when I was a kid sex education consisted of the life cycle of the fruit fly! Human biology covered reproduction, and that was that. Funnily enough, our ignorance didn’t result in the number of teenage pregnancies, abortions and STIs we have today.

    As for the spread of HIV, I am sure you will know that its incidence has doubled in the last decade. ‘Safe sex’ education doesn’t seem to have done a lot of good here either. Young people encouraged to have sex will experiment. Anal sex is the most efficient transmitter of the virus, and giving moral status to homosexual relationships is giving the green light to this kind of experimentation.

    Your last sentence made me laugh. I am a researcher into this issue, and spend most of my time reading on it.

  12. robbo says:

    Well then Miss Researcher you must be familiar with all the studies that conclusively demonstrate the benefits of sex education and you will be well aware that arguments from personal experience are of no use at all to a complex issue like this. No doubt you will be well aware of this for example:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080319151225.htm
    How can you say that safe sex education has done nothing to help the situation when years ago the predictions were that there would be an AIDS epidemic? Practising safe sex has saved millions of unwanted pregnancies, infections and lives.
    Are you SERIOUSLY saying that children should be taught that being gay is immoral and that allowing gay marriage will result in them having more gay sex? Where and for whom do you do your research?
    You do realise that anal sex is practiced by heterosexual people too don’t you?

  13. Stewart Cowan says:

    Robbo,

    Been busy with work, so forgive the delay.

    My idea of equality is, of course, different to the government’s. The important thing is that everyone is born equal and everyone is entitled to equality in law. Problems arise when you try to equalise *everything* so that meritocracy, fairness, morals, common sense, justice and freedom fly out the window.

    I hope one day you will understand why the equality and diversity agenda exists. It isn’t because the PTB care about us. It’s divide and rule. It’s to restrict freedom. It’s to destroy our institutions and national identity.

    I won’t sue you this time for calling me a bigot and a homophobe because I believe you say it out of ignorance rather than malice.

  14. robbo says:

    Stewart,
    Errr … thanks ….
    Let’s recap. Your definition is
    1. different from the government’s
    2. everyone is born equal (but presumably lose their equality when they turn out to be gay?)
    3. everyone is equal under the law (except when they decide they want to get married to a person of the same sex?)
    4. not to be given to everything (did you mean everyone?) because that would be unfair etc.
    No, I give up. You got me. I am speechless.
    ROFLMFAO

  15. hunnibunni says:

    hmmmmmmmmmm,
    I happen to be robbo’s flatmate. I also happen the be a transsexual woman. Wow this one is all getting a bit complicated for me?
    Surely “equality” simply means “equality” doesn’t it or what would be the point of the word being in our language at all?
    Ok let me think, gay marriage? At the moment I can legally marry a woman but would have to settle for a civil partnership with a man. I can however already apply for a gender recognition certificate which once issued means I could legally marry a man but would have to settle for a civil partnership with a woman. Wouldn’t it just be so much simpler and more “equal” if I could just marry either if I wished?
    I would just love to know what enlightening views you have on this subject because things have been a little dull in my life just lately and I could really do with some class a entertainment.
    yours sincerely,
    Hunni Bunni

  16. Stewart Cowan says:

    Robbo,

    Everyone being equal is not the same as everything being equal.

    Homosexuals are entitled to equal treatment in law, but marriage is between a man and woman. That’s what it is. That’s what it’s always been and is only being changed for social engineering reasons.

    Do you understand?

    It’s not because the government cares about ‘equality’.

  17. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hunni Bunni,

    Welcome. Many words have been corrupted due to political correctness. There isn’t equality as much as there used to be – now we have many self-interest groups fighting for superiority, not equality. It’s a divide and rule tactic, of course, and it works. And they want the population to be sex-obsessed as if that’s all that matters in life.

    Clearly, your situation is quite uncommon. I believe the promotion of transsexualism is just another social re-engineering device. I don’t believe in civil partnerships, so that would make things simpler for you.

    But if marriage was so important to you, why didn’t you remain a man and marry a woman? Wouldn’t this have been the simplest solution of all?

  18. hunnibunni says:

    I don’t exactly follow a path of “political correctness” i simply follow a path of what is “correct”. I happen to disagree with your belief that there used to be more equality than now. I certainly don’t wish for “superiority” nor am I bothered if the population is sex obsessed or not.
    Can you explain further the “social re-engineering device” which you think is taking place.
    The simple fact is I am a woman. My psychological being dictates what and who I am, not the shell of a body I happen to reside in. Whether you believe this is entirely your choice of course, but unless you yourself actually have to deal with the problem you would never truly understand.
    And in response to your last two questions the answer would be no to both. For me personally the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 is one of the most significant steps towards equality of recent times.
    Hunni.

  19. Someone who isnt insane. says:

    I love these bloggers who think they are so clever behind a keyboard. The reality is that if your views were voiced in real life to real people you would spend either a lot of time in hospital or behind bars.

    Get a life – sentence. Or come out of the closet as you are clearly in denial.

  20. johnnyrvf says:

    @ Someone who isnt insane. Who are you directing your remark to exactly? If Stewart voiced his views ‘in real life’ where I live, he would find the majority of people would agreed with him. However some of the commentators might find their views hotly debated.

  21. Stewart Cowan says:

    Thanks, Johnny. Someone who isnt insane (sic) has obviously revealed how much toleration his homosexual friends have.

    By the way, Someone who isnt insane, I’d say this and as much more as I wanted to your mush. If your lifetsyle was so great, you wouldn’t need to threaten people into accepting it. Comprendez?

  22. thinker says:

    children need to be told at the right age that homsexuality is wrong, and man was never intended to lie with man, as he would with woman in marriage.
    To clarify this, if I were to take 2 homosexual men and leave them on a desert island for 8 years, and provide them with food, shelter,and clothing, so they needed nothing else to survive. How many children would they have, when I would visit after the 8 years?
    And the same goes for 2 women left on an island in the same circumstances.

  23. Stewart Cowan says:

    Thinker – one of the great lies of the homosexual movement is that ‘love’ is the only thing that matters in a marriage.

  24. thinker says:

    I could believe that, I would like to see the truth reaching those who are involved in that type of life style. I dont hate them but I do detest the type of life style they have

  25. robbo says:

    Thinker,
    The answer is none, clearly. So what? I am not very bright, please explain how this clarifies anything.

  26. Rbs says:

    Robbo, you understand, you simply pretend not to. Homosexuality cannot exist on its own. Over time, without a host to feed on, it dies out. That is your unspoken fear. You are an evolutionary dead end.

  27. robbo says:

    Rbs:
    “Homosexuality cannot exist on its own” ??? are you saying heterosexuality can?
    “Over time, without a host to feed on, it dies out” ??? what are you talking about?
    What is my unspoken fear?
    I am an evolutionary dead end? Explain please.

  28. Rbs says:

    robbo, gays are unable to procreate if they truly seek a marriage based on love and fidelity. To reproduce, they need to engage in artificial procedures, essentially leeching genetic material from the heterosexual community and employing surrogates. This violates the whole concept of fidelity, and damages the child. The child has a right to a mother and father, to know their lineage, relatives and history. You fear evolutionary annihilation. Nature dictates that a gay couple is infertile, thus they die out genetically. The gay marriage movement is all about circumventing evolution. Your agenda is crystal clear and is expressed in the homosexual community. Marriage equality is not your goal; you seek to restructure marriage to fit your behavior and force a narrow view point on the greater society. The child’s rights must be primary, and not subordinated to homosexuals desires to thwart natural selection. That is your fear.
    Society has both the right and obligation to oppose that in order to guard the rights of the child. Homosexuals arguments are transparent in this regard.

  29. Rbs says:

    I’ve noted that there is a remarkably virulent streak of intolerance in the whole homosexual community. They are vicious in attacking Religion, and seek to force a narrow minded, selfish point of view on the vast bulk of society. Society has an interest, a right and an obligation to act in the best interests of future generations. Homosexuals would advocate a large scale social experiment in social engineering, with children as the research subjects, with the results being unknown. The potential damage is substantial, and cannot be justified ethically, morally or scientifically.

  30. Stewart Cowan says:

    Early homosexual militants recognised that they had to destroy the family, as we know it, if their “lifestyle” had a chance to be accepted by the wider society. This must have been a dream come true for the Fabian socialists who have been using homosexuals to destroy the family – as they have also known that they need to destroy the family as the only way to achieve total socialist control. The socialists have only been using homosexuals, and their selfishness self-centredness has enabled the Fabians to destroy our culture.

  31. Otto Brudnicki says:

    Scientists on Monday reported failure in a large African trial of three different ways to protect women against H.I.V.The failure was due not to the methods — two different pills and a vaginal gel — but to the fact that the women did not use them consistently.Adherence among the women in the study was “very low,” a researcher from the University of Washington said at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Atlanta, where the results were presented. ^

    Our blog site
    <'http://www.healthmedicinelab.com/pictures-of-ticks/

  32. Sally says:

    I agree, but using phrases such as “since the beginning” or claiming that homosexuals are sterile undermines the argument. Homosexuals are not sterile and can re-produce with a member of the opposite gender. They often do. Also we must be vigilant as to huge amount of heterosexual and often violent pornography that is freely available in this nation’s newsagents. We even have a pornographic newspaper on sale here. This more than any thing undermines marriage, it makes men wander.

  33. Sally says:

    Nature dictates nothing, it is mindless and uncaring. 99% of the natural world is not even visible to the naked human eye, some people seem to underestimate the human need for love or see it through the prism of their own cultural constructs. For instance I am wary of race equality, but I accept the majority view. Though I see no need for legislation to protect or promote people of color.

  34. Stewart Cowan says:

    @Otto – I have heard personal stories of African men refusing to use condoms, yet our “charities” continue to flood the continent with them. People seem to think that giving Africans and children (everywhere) contraception is the answer to half our problems.

  35. Stewart Cowan says:

    @Sally – as a Christian, I use phrases like “since the beginning”, seeing as there was a beginning!

    Most homosexuals are not sterile, but they might as well be if they go fishing for faeces rather than angling for a family.

    I agree that pornography is gross and extremely damaging. Never seen the attraction in it myself – seems pointless, but like any addiction can ruin your life and your family’s life.

  36. Pingback: What happens to marriage and families when the law recognises “Same-Sex Marriage”? | Real Street

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>