The evidence that blows apart Mr Cameron’s claim that gay marriage will strengthen families.

This is such a great article  – please take a look…

'The ties that bind us': For the PM's inner circle of self-styled modernisers, the proposal of legalising same-sex marriage is seen as a key instrument of change, a powerful agent that can 'detoxify' the Tory brand

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2329294/The-evidence-blows-apart-Mr-Camerons-claim-gay-marriage-strengthen-families.html?fb_action_ids=10151378106401198&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210151378106401198%22%3A315009368630424%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151378106401198%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

 

 

Catholic, Protestant and Muslim Mothers unite in Support of Traditional Marriage.

Three mothers from South London have come together to represent their communities in support of traditional marriage. Whilst all respect the fact that individuals can live how they choose, they believe that marriage is, and always has been, a sacred institution between 1 woman and 1 man. All three have signed a letter explaining their views and presented it to their local MP:

Katie McGowan, a Protestant Christian says “Our faiths dictate that ‘marriage’ is an institution between one man and one woman. In countries where marriage has already been redefined, people of faith have faced prosecution for upholding their beliefs. Evidence shows that governments have not been able to protect ordinary people who believe in traditional marriage. We worry that, should the bill be successful, teachers will be sacked for refusing to endorse gay marriage in the classroom, and couples will be banned from fostering children if they disagree with gay marriage. Obviously, these are just a couple of examples.
Furthermore, it may be assumed that the general public are largely in favour this proposal. However, the voters have not been given a say. None of the parties included it in their election manifestos. Marriage is going to be redefined over our heads. In a recent poll by YouGov for The Sunday Times, published on 11 March 2012, a larger proportion of those questioned were against gay marriage than were for it.”

Asma Dar, a Muslim says “Marriage is meant for 1 woman and 1 man, and it is the place to raise a family. We believe that all children have the right to a Mother and a Father. Sadly, however well-meaning they are, a same-sex couple simply cannot offer this to a child. If my husband and I were to die suddenly and our 3 girls were taken into the care of the local authority, it would be possible that they be placed with two men. This would not only be against our wishes and our faith, but it would also rob our girls of any chance of having a mother. What indeed is the legal position of the wishes of deceased parents on this issue?
According to the 2011 Office for National Statistics survey, the gay population in the UK stands at 1%. The population for Christians and Muslims combined stands at 64.1%. The majority of UK residents oppose the bill on the grounds of faith. If marriage is re-defined, the new law will be forced upon millions of people who strongly oppose it. This is especially true in the area of education and adoption. We are stepping into unknown territory and no-one can predict the effect this law will have on children and on society as a whole.”

Clare Short, a Roman Catholic says “I think it is a disgrace that teachers could face being sacked if they fail to promote same-sex relationships to children as young as age 4. Why doesn’t the government concentrate on teaching our kids to read and write, rather than forcing sexual information on them that they really don’t need to know about at that young age. This is a deeply personal political issue that is doing more harm than good in society. I believe it is creating unwanted tension between the gay and straight communities. It is not something people of faith are ‘just going to get used to’ over time. It is an issue of such importance, that we are willing to fight against it for as long as it takes. There is a particularly nasty undertone in the UK at the moment where people are being made to feel guilty for expressing their opposition to the re-definition of marriage on the grounds of being ‘politically incorrect’. This sort of political bullying is completely unacceptable in a civilised democratic society. We hope from reading our story that more people will find the confidence to contact their MP to voice their opinion. Every voice counts.
The issue of re-defining marriage is uniting people of all faiths, and also those who do not have a faith. David Cameron needs to realise that the vast majority of people in the UK do not want marriage re-defined.”

Gay Marriage? – But what about EQUALITY???

But what about EQUALITY??? If Mr. Cameron was really interested in equality then perhaps he should take another look at the succession to the crown bill (passed yesterday) that still makes it illegal for a Catholic to sit on the throne on England! – http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100200514/gays-can-marry-a-first-born-girl-can-rule-but-a-catholic-still-cant-take-the-throne/ Or much more importantly, perhaps he should look at the way disabled children are discriminated against in the womb (abortions are illegal in the UK after 24 weeks – unless the child is disabled. A disabled child can be aborted up until birth.) But no, instead he is insisting that Parent A and Parent B are EQUAL to a mother and a father. It beggars belief that a government so interested in the problem of absent fathers would even entertain the idea of a fatherless lesbian family – or have fathers suddenly become non important? The same goes for mothers. If me and my husband suddenly died, David Cameron is proposing the terrifying prospect that our local authority could place our two young children into the care of two men – therefor robbing them of any chance of a mother. Children need and deserve a mother and a father. And however caring and well-meaning a same-sex couple are, by their pure biology, they will never be able to offer what a child truly needs.

All the Catholics in England and Wales have been asked to write to their MP’s again this week to show their opposition to the re-definition of marriage. It seems to me that we will be hearing about this topic on an almost daily basis over the next few weeks as we draw closer to the vote on whether marriage should be re-defined or not.

The more and more I think about it though, the more I am convinced that this was the biggest mistake of David Cameron’s career. We still don’t know why he decided to bring it up when he did? Was it to deflect attention away from the failing economy? Was it to keep Nick Clegg happy in some sort of party policy ‘trade off’? Was it to gain favour with the extreme left liberal media we have here in the UK? Or was just an attempt to make the Conservative party look more hip and trendy?

What ever it was it one thing is sure. David Cameron sorely underestimated the opinion of the British public. He got it wrong. He got it very, very wrong! It is becoming more and more clear that the British public (and the French it seems!) do NOT want marriage re-defined. This puts old Davy-boy in a bit of a pickle! He is going to have to go through with the vote – otherwise he would seem weak. I suppose he could try to ‘kick it into the long grass’ but that is going to be difficult as it has become such a major issue of public interest. What ever happens, re-defining marriage will go down in history as the topic that generated the most letters that MP’s have ever received on one single issue!

I have decided to publish my letter to my local MP here in the hope that it will encourage more people to do the same. If you need any further information or advice please take a look at the coalition for marriage website: http://c4m.org.uk/downloads/10reasons.pdf

to contact your local MP please visit http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/ ant look in the top right hand corner for ‘find your MP’.

This may be the last chance you have before (and if) the law is changed.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Dear Ms McDonagh,

We are constituents living in your area. We always vote at local and general elections.

We are writing today to tell you our views on the re-definition of marriage. As practising Catholics, we are fully opposed to the re-definition of marriage. Marriage is an institution for raising a family, and we believe that a child deserves a mother and a father not just parent A and parent B. Mother and Fathers have different and complimentary roles that simply cannot be equalled by two members of the same sex – however much they try.

This has been recently scientifically proven by Professor Mark Regnerus( http://www.markregnerus.com/ )of the University of Texas. His research on “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships?” has found that the children from same-sex families have significantly poorer life outcomes than their peers who come from a regular ‘Mum and Dad’ families:

 
“…The differences, it turns out, were numerous. For instance, 28 per cent of the adult children of women who’ve had same-sex relationships are currently unemployed, compared to 8 per cent of those from married mom-and-dad families. Forty per cent of the former admit to having had an affair while married or co-habiting, compared to 13 per cent of the latter. Nineteen per cent of the former said they were currently or recently in psychotherapy for problems connected with anxiety, depression, or relationships, compared with 8 per cent of the latter. And those are just three of the 25 differences I noted.” – Mark Regnerus
 http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/06/gay_parents_are_they_really_no_different_.single.html
 

We are also extremely concerned that people who oppose same-sex relationships on moral or religious grounds are left open to legal prosecution. This has been the case in Canada. Hundreds of Canadians have faced legal proceedings for opposing same-sex ‘marriage’ in the public sphere following its introduction in 2005. Within five years of marriage being redefined in Canada, an estimated three hundred cases have been brought against individuals, mostly Christians, who have opposed same-sex marriage in the public sphere. The proceedings have been brought at employment boards, courts, and human rights commissions. A number of employees have been dismissed from their jobs because they have maintained a conscientious objection to same-sex marriage. Businesses have been sued and churches have been threatened with sanctions over their religious beliefs.

Examples from Canada:

  1. A television anchor on a prominent sports show was immediately dismissed after he posted his support for “the traditional and true meaning of marriage” on Twitter.
  2. A Roman Catholic bishop in Alberta, Fred Henry, was charged with a human-rights violation for writing a letter to local churches outlining the Catholic position on marriage.
  3. A Christian organization in Ontario working with some of the most marginalized disabled people in Canada was taken to court after objecting to the marriage of one of its homosexual employees. The organization faced an ultimatum and had to choose between changing its hiring and employment policy or being closed down.
  4. An evangelical Christian marriage commissioner in Saskatchewan was successfully sued for refusing to marry a homosexual couple, despite assisting the couple by putting them in touch with another marriage commissioner who would be willing to conduct the ceremony.
  5. A campaign has now begun in Canada to remove tax-free status from churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Some Canadian provinces are even considering laws to forbid teachers in private schools from teaching that traditional marriage is the ideal.

Michael Coren, writing for the National Review Online, said: “Once gay marriage becomes law, critics are often silenced by the force of the law. The Canadian litany of pain, firings, and social and political polarization and extremism is extraordinary and lamentable, and we haven’t even begun to experience the mid and long-term results of this mammoth social experiment. I seldom say it, but for goodness’ sake, learn something from Canada.”

The government has no right to mess with an institution as sacred as marriage. The British public are angry and disappointed with the suggestion that it does. Already UK politicians are voicing their concerns. For example, Michael Gove fears that the Government could be powerless to stop primary school teachers being sacked for refusing to teach gay marriage. A senior source in Mr Gove’s department said the UK was not “in control” and that the ultimate decision might “inevitably” be taken at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.  It is worth remembering that he European Court recently ruled that public sector workers can be forced to act against their sincere beliefs about marriage. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9825341/Government-powerless-to-protect-teachers-from-sack-over-gay-marriage.html

Ms McDonagh, is this what you want for the UK?

It is a very, very un-popular idea – the biggest mistake of David Cameron’s career!

Civil partnerships already protect same-sex couples when it comes to legal issues like next of kin or inheritance. What exactly will they be gaining by being ‘married’? Is this all just a poor attempt by the government to try to be seen as modern and ‘fair’? Is it an attempt to win votes? – Because if it is, then it is backfiring! Many, many Labour and Conservative voters I know are now transferring their loyalty to other parties including UKIP and Christian Peoples Alliance because of this issue alone. That is how strongly people feel about this issue – us included.

The vast majority of people within your constituency oppose the re-definition of marriage. You must represent what the people want. I hope to God that as our MP – and as a practicing Catholic yourself, you will be voting NO to the re-definition of marriage.

Yours sincerely,

“I’ve lived through the greatest revolution in sexual mores in our history. The damage it’s done appals me.”

Great article…

By  A N Wilson

PUBLISHED: 23:24, 4 January  2013 |  UPDATED: 19:03,  7 January 2013

Humorous: In the view of poet Philip Larkin, the Sexual Revolution started 50 years agoHumorous: In the view of poet Philip Larkin, the Sexual  Revolution started 50 years ago

The Sexual Revolution started 50 years ago.  At least, that was the view of the poet Philip Larkin, who wrote:

‘Sexual intercourse began In nineteen sixty-three. Between the end of the Chatterley ban and the Beatles’ first  LP.’

Probably when today’s students read this  poem, they understand the reference to the Beatles first LP, but need a bit of  help with ‘the Chatterley ban’. D.H. Lawrence’s novel, Lady Chatterley’s  Lover, had been banned for obscenity, and all the liberal-minded ‘great and the  good’ — novelists, professors of literature, an Anglican bishop and sociologists  — trooped to the Old Bailey to explain to a learned judge why Penguin Books  should be allowed to publish it. To my mind, Lawrence’s account of how a  sex-starved rich woman romps naked in the woods with her husband’s gamekeeper is  risible. It is hard to read the accounts of them  cavorting in the rain, and sticking wild flowers in one another’s pubic hair,  without laughing.

Yet the great English Literature professors  of the Fifties and Sixties spoke of Lady C in the same breath as the most  wonderful writings of the world, and the Chatterley trial in 1960 marked a major  watershed. The prosecuting counsel, Mr Mervyn  Griffith-Jones, lost the case when he shot himself in the foot by asking the  jury whether they considered Lawrence’s bizarre novel was something they would  wish their wives or servants to read. By putting the question in that way and  referring to ‘servants’, he seemed to suggest that being loyal to one partner  was as outmoded as having a butler and a parlour-maid.

With the ban lifted, Lawrence’s book became  the best-selling novel of the early Sixties. And by the end of the decade,  hippies with flowers in their hair, or would-be hippies, were practising free  love Chatterley-style. Those who could not classify themselves as hippies looked  on a bit wistfully. Of course, Larkin — born in 1922 — was being  ironical and humorous. But the 1960s were a turning-point, and the decade did  undoubtedly herald the Sexual Revolution.

I was born in 1950, 28 years after Larkin.  And far from being ‘rather late for me’, the revolutionary doctrines of the  Sixties were all readily adopted by me and countless  others. From being schoolboys who read Lady  Chatterley under the sheets, to teenagers and young men who had the Rolling  Stones reverberating in our ears, we had no intention of being stuffy like our  parents. The arrival of a contraceptive pill for women  in 1961 appeared to signal the beginning of guilt-free, pregnancy-free sex. We  were saying goodbye to what Larkin (in that poem) called ‘A shame that started  at sixteen / And spread to everything.’
The Sixties: Teenagers and young men who had the Rolling Stones (pictured in 1964) reverberating in their ears had no intention of being stuffy like their parentsThe Sixties: Teenagers and young men who had the Rolling  Stones (pictured in 1964) reverberating in their ears had no intention of being  stuffy like their parents

But if the propagators of the Sexual  Revolution had been able to fast-forward 50 years, what would they have expected  to see? Surely not the shocking statistics about today’s sexual habits in the UK  which are available for all to study. In 2011, there were 189,931 abortions carried  out, a small rise on the previous year, and about seven per cent more than a  decade ago. Ninety-six per cent of these abortions were  funded by the NHS, i.e. by you and me, the taxpayer. One per cent of these were  performed because the would-be parents feared the child would be born  handicapped in some way. Forty-seven per cent were so-called medical abortions,  carried out because the health of mother and child were at  risk. The term ‘medical abortion’ is very widely  applied and covers the psychological ‘health’ of the patient. But even if you concede that a little less  than half the abortions had some medical justification, this still tells us that  more than 90,000 foetuses are aborted every year in this country simply as a  means of lazy ‘birth control’. Ninety thousand human lives are thrown away  because their births are considered too expensive or in some other way  inconvenient.

Lazy: When women neglected to take the Pill, there seemed all the more reason to use abortion as a form of birth controlLazy: When women neglected to take the Pill, there  seemed all the more reason to use abortion as a form of birth control

The Pill, far from reducing the numbers of  unwanted pregnancies, actually led to more. When women neglected to take the Pill, there  seemed all the more reason to use abortion as a form of birth  control. Despite the fact that, in the wake of the  Aids crisis, people were urged to use condoms and to indulge in safe-sex, the  message did not appear to get through. In the past few years, sexually transmitted  diseases among young people have hugely increased, with more and more young  people contracting chlamydia, gonorrhoea, syphilis and other diseases, many of  them unaware they were infected until after they had been sexually active with a  number of partners.

The divorce statistics tell another miserable  story. About one third of marriages in Britain end in divorce. And because many  couples do not marry at all before splitting up, the number of broken homes is  even greater. This time of year is when the painfulness of  family break-up is felt most acutely. January 3 has been nicknamed ‘divorce day’  by lawyers. In a moving article in the Mail recently, Lowri Turner, a  twice-divorced mother of three children, wrote about the pain of waking up on  Christmas morning without her children. She looks at the presents under the  tree, with no children to open them, and thinks: ‘This isn’t the way things are  supposed to be.’

Every parent who has been through the often  self-inflicted hell of divorce will know what she means. So will the thousands of children this  Christmas who spent the day with only one parent — and often with that parent’s  new ‘partner’ whom they hate. I hold up my hands. I have been divorced.  Although I was labelled a Young Fogey in my youth, I imbibed all the  liberationist sexual mores of the Sixties as far as sexual morality was  concerned.

I made myself and dozens of people extremely  unhappy — including, of course, my children and other people’s children. I am  absolutely certain that my parents, by contrast, who married in 1939 and stayed  together for more than 40 years until my father died, never strayed from the  marriage bed. There were long periods when they found  marriage extremely tough, but having lived through years of aching  irritation  and frustration, they grew to be Darby and Joan, deeply  dependent upon one  another in old age, and in an imperfect but  recognisable way, an object lesson  in the meaning of the word ‘love’.

Happiness: The GfK's most recent poll shows most of us feel that what will make us very happy is having a long-lasting, stable relationship, having children, and maintaining, if possible, lifelong marriageHappiness: The GfK’s most recent poll shows most of us  feel that what will make us very happy is having a long-lasting, stable  relationship, having children, and maintaining, if possible, lifelong  marriage.

Back in the Fifties, GfK National Opinon Poll  conducted a survey asking how happy people felt on a sliding scale — from very  happy to very unhappy. In 1957, 52 per cent said they were ‘very  happy’. By 2005, the same set of questions found only 36 per cent were ‘very  happy’, and the figures are falling. More than half of those questioned in the  GfK’s most recent survey said that it was a stable relationship which made them  happy. Half those who were married said they were ‘very happy’, compared with  only a quarter of singles.

The truth is that the Sexual Revolution had  the power to alter our way of life, but it could not alter our essential nature;  it could not alter the reality of who and what we are as human  beings. It made nearly everyone feel that they were  free, or free-er, than their parents had been — free to smoke pot, free to sleep  around, free to pursue the passing dream of what felt, at the time, like  overwhelming love — an emotion which very seldom lasts, and a word which is  meaningless unless its definition includes commitment.  How easy it was to dismiss old-fashioned  sexual morality as ‘suburban’, as a prison for the human soul. How easy it was  to laugh at the ‘prudes’ who questioned the wisdom of what was happening in the  Sexual Revolution.

About one-third of marriages in Britain end in divorceAbout one-third of marriages in Britain end in  divorce

Yet, as the opinion poll shows, most of us  feel at a very deep level that what will make us very happy is not romping with  a succession of lovers. In fact, it is having a long-lasting, stable  relationship, having children, and maintaining, if possible, lifelong  marriage.

An amusing Victorian historian, John Seeley,  said the British Empire had been acquired in ‘a fit of absence of mind’. He  meant that no one sat down and planned for the British to take over large parts  of Asia and Africa: it was more a case of one thing leading to another. In many  ways, the Sexual Revolution of the Sixties and Seventies in Britain was a bit  like this. People became more prosperous. People were  living longer. The old-fashioned concept of staying in the same marriage and the  same job all your life suddenly seemed so, so boring. But in the Forties and Fifties, divorce had  not been an option for most people because it was so very expensive, in terms of  economic as well as emotional cost. So people slogged through their unhappy  phases and came out at the other end.

It is easy to see, then, if the tempting  option of escaping a boring marriage was presented, that so many people were  prone to take the adventurous chance of a new partner, a new way of  life. But the Sexual Revolution was not, of course,  all accidental. Not a bit of it. Many of the most influential opinion-formers of  the age were doing their best to undermine all traditional morality, and  especially the traditional morality of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, which has  always taught that marriage is for life.

A decade on from the Chatterley trial, in  1971, an ‘alternative’ magazine called Oz, written by the Australian Richard  Neville and his mates, was had up, not for obscenity, but for ‘conspiracy to  debauch and corrupt the morals of children’. What brought the authors into trouble was  ‘The School Kids’ Issue’, which depicted Rupert Bear in a state of arousal, and  which carried many obscene adverts. The three perpetrators of the filth were sent  to prison, but the sentence was quashed on appeal.

The 'alternative' magazine called Oz, written by the Australian Richard Neville (pictured) and his mates, was had up for 'conspiracy to debauch and corrupt the morals of children'The ‘alternative’ magazine called Oz, written by the  Australian Richard Neville (pictured) and his mates, was had up for ‘conspiracy  to debauch and corrupt the morals of children. Their defender was none other than dear old  Mr Rumpole of the Bailey, John Mortimer QC — warming to the role of the nation’s  teddy bear. He said that if you were a ‘writer’, you  should be allowed to describe any activity, however depraved. Obscenity could not be defined or  identified. And it was positively good for us to be outraged from time to  time.  Even the Left-leaning liberal Noel Annan,  provost of King’s College, Cambridge, suggested this was nonsense. He remarked  that it was impossible to think of any civilisation in history that fitted  Mortimer’s propositions.  But when the Oz Three were released from  prison, the Chattering Classes all rejoiced.

Of course, this was the era when the BBC was  turning a blind eye to the predatory activities of Jimmy Savile, and when the  entire artistic and academic establishment was swayed by the ideas which John  Mortimer presented to the Court of Appeal: namely that old-fashioned ideas of  sexual morality were dead. Moribund. Over. From now on, anything goes — and it was  ‘repressive’ to teach children otherwise.

The wackier clerics of the Church of England,  the pundits of the BBC, the groovier representatives of the educational  establishment, the liberal Press, have all, since the Sexual Revolution began,  gone along with the notion that a relaxation of sexual morality will lead to a  more enlightened and happy society. This was despite the fact that all the  evidence around us demonstrates that the exact opposite is the  case.

In the Fifties, the era when people were  supposedly ‘repressed’, we were actually much happier than we have been more  recently — in an era when confused young people have been invited to make up  their own sexual morals as they went along. The old American cliché is that you can’t put  the toothpaste back in the tube; and it is usually a metaphor used to suggest  that it is impossible to turn the clock back in matters of public behaviour and  morality. Actually, you know, I think that is wrong.

One of the brilliantly funny things  about  the TV sitcom Absolutely Fabulous was that the drunken,  chain-smoking, sexually  promiscuous old harridans Edina Monsoon (played  by Jennifer Saunders) and her  friend Patsy (Joanna Lumley) are despised  by the puritanical Saffy — Eddie’s  daughter.

The TV sitcom Absolutely Fabulous featured the drunken, chain-smoking, sexually promiscuous old harridans Edina Monsoon (played by Jennifer Saunders, left) and her friend Patsy (Joanna Lumley)The TV sitcom Absolutely Fabulous featured the drunken,  chain-smoking, sexually promiscuous old harridans Edina Monsoon (played by  Jennifer Saunders, left) and her friend Patsy (Joanna Lumley)

A small backlash has already definitely  occurred against that generation. I have not conducted a scientific survey, but  my impression, based on anecdotal evidence and the lives of the children of my  contemporaries, is that they are far less badly behaved, and far more sensible,  than we were.My guess is that the backlash will be even  greater in the wake of the whole Jimmy Savile affair, and in reaction against  the miserable world which my generation has handed on to our children — with our  confused sexual morality, and our broken homes.

Our generation, who started to grow up  ‘between the end of the Chatterley ban and the Beatles first LP’ got it all so  horribly wrong.We ignored the obvious fact that moral  conventions develop in human societies for a reason.We may have thought it was ‘hypocritical’ to  condemn any form of sexual behaviour, and we may have dismissed the undoubted  happiness felt by married people as stuffy, repressed and old  hat.

But we were wrong, wrong,  wrong. Two generations have grown up — comprising  children of selfish grown-ups who put their own momentary emotional needs and  impulses before family stability and the needs of their  children. However, I don’t think this behaviour can  last much longer. The price we all pay for the fragmentation of society, caused  by the break-up of so many homes, will surely lead to a massive  rethink.  At least, let’s hope so.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257379/Ive-lived-greatest-revolution-sexual-mores-history-damage-appals-me.html#ixzz2J0IckCM2 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257379/Ive-lived-greatest-revolution-sexual-mores-history-damage-appals-me.html#ixzz2IxHNohFl