February 10th, 2015

gay dads1Fresh research has just tossed a grenade into the incendiary issue of same-sex parenting. Writing in the British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, a peer-reviewed journal, American sociologist Paul Sullins concludes that children’s “Emotional problems [are] over twice as prevalent for children with same-sex parents than for children with opposite-sex parents”.

He says confidently: “it is no longer accurate to claim that no study has found children in same-sex families to be disadvantaged relative to those in opposite-sex families.”

This defiant rebuttal of the “no difference” hypothesis is sure to stir up a hornet’s next as the Supreme Court prepares to trawl through arguments for and against same-sex marriage. It will be impossible for critics to ignore it, as it is based on more data than any previous study — 512 children with same-sex parents drawn from the US National Health Interview Survey. The emotional problems included misbehaviour, worrying, depression, poor relationships with peers and inability to concentrate.

After crunching the numbers, Sullins found opposite-sex parents provided a better environment. “Biological parentage uniquely and powerfully distinguishes child outcomes between children with opposite-sex parents and those with same-sex parents,” he writes.

As he points out, this has immense implications for public policy. The Elton John/David Furnish model of lavishing love and licorice on the offspring of surrogate mothers won’t do. Throwing down the gauntlet before supporters of same-sex marriage, Sullins contends that “the primary benefit of marriage for children, therefore, may not be that it tends to present them with improved parents (more stable, financially affluent, etc, although it does this), but that it presents them with their own parents.”

Read here


February 10th, 2015

gay family3Those who have been concerned that Labour lacks a big, compelling idea before the General Election, and fear that it looks confused and weak, need fret no longer.

On Tuesday, Tristram Hunt, the boyish-looking and self-consciously handsome Shadow Education Secretary, unveiled his master plan. If Labour wins the election, children as young as five will have sex education classes.

The proposal is utterly preposterous. It is also mad. And dangerous. It is amazing that Mr Hunt, who is supposed to be intelligent and reputed to be moderate, could ever bring himself to promote such a policy.

Even in our increasingly sexualised society, most children aged five are not interested in sex. They have other things to think about. Why thrust what must seem strange, irrelevant and possibly worrying notions into their young minds?

The main reason, it seems, is to stop them being homophobes. I am being serious. Launching his plan at a school in East London, Mr Hunt said: ‘The presence of homophobic language and other forms of homophobic bullying in our classrooms, playgrounds and dinner halls is deeply troubling, and it is very real.’

Well, yes. Bullying of any sort is obviously undesirable. But does Mr Hunt really think the cure is to indoctrinate five and six-year-olds? Yes, I’m afraid he does. ‘The use of homophobic language and other forms of homophobic bullying,’ he declared, ‘is damaging the life chances of so many young people. It has a daily effect that limits learning, and causes people long-term damage.’

What on earth is he talking about? The lunacy quotient soared even higher when he asserted that the persistence of homophobia in schools was part of the legacy of Margaret Thatcher’s 1988 Section 28 legislation, which barred local authorities from ‘promoting’ homosexuality, and was repealed in 2003 by Labour under Tony Blair.

Read here



February 5th, 2015

gay family3Take it from the adult child of a loving gay parent: redefining marriage promotes a family structure in which children suffer.

Dear Justice Kennedy,

June is nigh, and with it will come your ruling on the most contentious political issue of our time: marriage.

I write because I am one of many children with gay parents who believe we should protect marriage. I believe you were right when, during the Proposition 8 deliberations, you said “the voice of those children [of same-sex parents] is important.” I’d like to explain why I think redefining marriage would actually serve to strip these children of their most fundamental rights.

It’s very difficult to speak about this subject, because I love my mom. Most of us children with gay parents do. We also love their partner(s). You don’t hear much from us because, as far as the media are concerned, it’s impossible that we could both love our gay parent(s) and oppose gay marriage. Many are of the opinion I should not exist. But I do, and I’m not the only one.

This debate, at its core, is about one thing.

It’s about children.

Read here

December 16th, 2014

pfox1cPaid for by Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays — an organization aimed at helping so-called “ex-gays” gain acceptance — the ad features a picture of male twins and reads, “Identical twins. One gay. One not. We believe twins research studies show nobody is born gay.”

While the billboard is offending local gay and lesbian advocates, Regina Griggs, executive director of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, believes that critics aren’t looking at the facts, specifically when it comes to analyzing how same-sex attraction pertains to twins.

“Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions.  If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay,” she said, according to WVUE-TV. “Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. No one is born gay.

Read here

December 8th, 2014

gay marriageRather than striking a blow for individual liberties, the dogma of gay marriage is stifling them.

Has there ever been a sweeter-sounding, more goosebump-inducing phrase than ‘Freedom to marry’? Everyone likes freedom (even illiberal politicians pay lip service to liberty), and who doesn’t love a good wedding? Marry these two things together (pun intended) and you end up with an endorphin-releasing buzzphrase that will make anyone grin wildly.

So it has been following Senator David Leyonhjelm’s unveiling of the Freedom to Marry Bill. Across Oz, right-minded people who think gays must be allowed to get hitched experienced paroxysms of joy at the introduction of this new phrase into the political vernacular. Sure, those of a leftish bent had trouble computing the fact that it’s a classical liberal politician who’s championing their most beloved cause. But the instant they made peace with this seeming anomaly, they, together with small-l liberals, gay-rights activists and the Age-reading patrons of non-chain coffee shops across the land (well, in Melbourne), were giving themselves adrenalin rushes by whispering those three magic words: ‘Freedom to marry…’

I hate to rain on this fabulous parade, but there’s a massive problem with this happy-clappy rallying cry. And it’s this: everywhere gay marriage has been introduced it has battered freedom, not boosted it. Debate has been chilled, dissenters harried, critics tear-gassed. Love and marriage might go together like horse and carriage, but freedom and gay marriage certainly do not. The double-thinking ‘freedom to marry’ has done more to power the elbow of the state than it has to expand the liberty of men and women.
There are awkward questions the ‘freedom to marry’ folks just can’t answer. Like: if gay marriage is a liberal cause, how come it’s been attended by authoritarianism wherever it’s been introduced?

Read here

gay wedding1

November 6th, 2014

nom_logo“In red states and blue, candidates who supported marriage as the union of one man and one woman won election and those who didn’t were rejected by voters. The Republican Party should take note that their nominees who favored gay ‘marriage’ were opposed by NOM and they were resoundingly defeated.” —Brian Brown, President, NOM—

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today said that their efforts to support candidates who supported traditional marriage and oppose those who favored gay ‘marriage’ were overwhelmingly effective and played a pivotal role in the Republicans capturing control of the United States Senate. NOM won all the races in which they were engaged.

“Marriage won an overwhelming victory last night,” said Brian Brown, president of NOM. “In red states and blue, candidates who supported marriage as the union of one man and one woman won election and those who didn’t were rejected by voters. The Republican Party should take note that their nominees who favored gay ‘marriage’ were opposed by NOM and they were resoundingly defeated.”

The NOM Victory Fund spent more than $200,000 on television advertisements and mailers supporting successful US Senate candidates Thom Tillis (NC) and Tom Cotton (AR). NOM also mounted extensive grassroots efforts in support of newly-elected Senators Joni Ernst (IA) and Ben Sasse (NE), in addition to Governor Sam Brownback (KS) and Senator Pat Roberts (KS).

A major storyline emerging from the election was the rejection of Republican candidates who abandoned marriage and instead supported redefining marriage. NOM actively opposed Richard Tisei (MA6), Carl DeMaio (CA52) and Monica Wehby, the GOP candidate for US Senate in Oregon. Tisei and Wehby were defeated, and the outcome of the CA52 contest was too close to call on election night.

“It’s time for the GOP elite and consultant class to wake up and realize that marriage is a winning issue, in red states and blue,” Brown said. “Traditional marriage amendments have received 50 million votes across America, and candidates who embraced marriage this election won, while Republicans who rejected marriage were themselves rejected. The election results tonight were a stunning rebuke of those who wish to redefine marriage. We look forward to working with Congress to advance the cause of marriage.”

Read here


October 31st, 2014

ukipGay marriage supporters are “equality Nazis” who helped push through something that only matters to “some queen who wants to dress up in a bridal frock and dance up the aisle to the Village People”, a Ukip MEP has said.

In an wide-ranging interview with the Huffington Post UK, David Coburn, who is himself gay, said that same-sex marriage, which passed into law last year, was “false bollocks” that “makes a mockery of the holy sacrament of marriage”.

“What you’re doing with the gay marriage issue is you’re rubbing people’s noses in the dirt. Everyone had agreed and been quite happy with the idea of civil partnership, it was all bedded in and people were happy with it, they got used to the idea,” he said.

“But when you go across the road to pick a fight with someone of faith, that’s not got anything to do with it, that’s the equality Nazis trying to give Christianity a jolly good kicking. You know it, I know it, we all know it – it’s false bollocks, the lot of it.”

Read here


October 20th, 2014

rainbow boot2My name is Rivka Edelman, and I am the product of same-sex parenting.

Recently I published an essay on Public Discourse about the ruthless misogyny that pervades LBGT culture.  I pointed out it that it can and will victimize women and children with impunity and then, in America’s narcissistic fugue, get hailed as brave and heroic.

Since my essay was published, there have been hundreds, maybe thousands, of posts calling me a liar or trying to shame, discredit, intimidate, and threaten me.  Read this for details.  People I do not know have gone directly after my family and my job.  They have posted information, mis-information, accusations, and threats against me.  A vicious abusive “activist” well-known for his unhinged misogynistic cyber-stalking and violent threats, Scott Rose, sent blast e-mails to the university where I teach, describing himself as a “human right activist and an investigative journalist.”

Scott Rose has made threats of violence against Ryan T. Anderson, the editor who published my piece on October 2, 2014:

Read here  


October 8th, 2014

Alan Paris RallyBy Alan Craig:

Two things stood out in Paris on Sunday: the number and the age of the demonstrators.

Last year La Manif Pour Tous (LMPT) organised massive street protests against President Hollande’s gay marriage proposals. On one occasion 800,000 people were on the streets of Paris defending the natural family from this destructive item on the gay lobby’s agenda.

LMPT held another demo in Paris on Sunday and invited Gay Marriage No Thanks to represent the UK. The purpose of the protest was to mobilise opposition in France to “surrogacy, medically-assisted procreation and the promotion of gender theory in schools” but as previously the protection of children and the natural family were the main drivers in the background.

And again the massive number of protestors was a defining characteristic. Organisers said there were over quarter of a million people attending the march and demo, which together lasted for five hours.

The youthfulness of the protesters was noticeable too. Overwhelmingly the participants were in their twenties and thirties, and teenagers were conspicuous by their noisy enthusiasm and, often, street dancing too.

As in the UK, the government is ignoring the people as it drives through its anti-family proposals. But, clearly, at the grass-roots the traditional natural family is alive and well and full of youthful support in France.

The international delegation comprised delegates from Spain, Italy, Portugal, Poland and Slovakia, as well as Gay Marriage No Thanks from the UK. We made good contacts; there is now the start of a pan-European pro-natural family movement which Gay Marriage No Thanks is committed to support.

October 7th, 2014

petitionPetition to: The Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP the Prime Minister of the UK

That the rights of all UK citizens to freedom of conscience, religious belief and expression, be fully guaranteed and protected

Doctors, nurses, teachers, counsellors, registrars and others have been threatened with dismissal, demoted, suspended, removed and even dismissed from their position or employment for not believing in the moral rightness of same sex relationships or same sex marriage, for sharing their faith and even for wearing a religious symbol, like a cross, at work.

Such things should not be happening in a free democratic society like the UK with its long tradition of upholding human rights. Therefore we demand that the rights of individuals to express and act on their beliefs that include for example, that the state of marriage can only exist between a man and a woman, be protected and guaranteed, and be free from threats to their reputation, good social standing and livelihood, for so doing.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the UK is a signatory, was designed to protect all the rights, including the right to act according to their conscience, of all individuals. Its first article states: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience, and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

This belief in equality was never intended to be, and should not be used now, to penalise those who for example, express or act on the belief that the right to marriage and found a family applies exclusively to marriages uniting one man with one woman only, and not to same sex unions. Yet Dr Sheila Matthews, a paediatrician, was removed from Northamptonshire County Council’s adoption panel when she abstained from voting to place a child with a same sex couple.

Please sign our petition to the government demanding it will guarantee to defend conscience and religious observance rights and restore the nation’s reputation for fairness, justice and impartial respect for human rights.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]

[Your Name]