Archive for June, 2014


Relationship problems, not family rejection, leading cause of higher gay suicides: study

Wednesday, June 25th, 2014

gay teenWhile many assume that family rejection is the leading cause of depression among LBGTI individuals, a new study has found that in fact the problem appears to stem predominantly from the higher incidence of relationship problems among homosexuals.

Dr. Delaney Skerrett led a team of researchers from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention (AISRAP) in studying suicides in Queensland. He found that a leading cause of suicide among “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex” (LGBTI) people is stress from their romantic partners.

“We tend to assume that the psychological distress LGBTI people are often going through is due to family rejection. But it seems that’s not so much the case. The conflict seems to be largely related to relationship problems, with partners,” Dr. Skerrett said.

In fact, he said, “The numbers are telling us there’s a general acceptance at the family level,” something he said is “great” and “really heartening!”

Instead, the study, which waspublished on April 2 in Asia Pacific Psychiatry, found that “LGBT individuals experienced relationship problems more often” than heterosexuals, “with relationship conflict also being more frequent than in non‐LGBT cases.”

That confirms previous studies finding that homosexuals also face higher rates of intimate partner violence than heterosexuals. A 2007 study in the Journal of Urban Health, which is published by the New York Academy of Medicine, found that 32 percent of homosexuals have been abused by at least one partner during their lifetime.

Read here

Vancouver school board approves new policy addressing transgender students

Monday, June 23rd, 2014

Gender confusionGrammar teachers may need to amend their lesson plans after the Vancouver school board approved Monday a policy change that welcomes a brand-new string of pronouns into Vancouver public schools: “xe, xem, and xyr.”

The pronouns are touted as alternatives to he/she, him/her, and his/hers, and come as last-minute amendments to the board’s new policy aimed at better accommodating transgender students in schools.

The vote came after a brief debate that sparked unrest among opponents of the policy who shouted “dictator” and “liar” at trustees, as security guards and police officers watched from their posts at council doors. But supporters waved pink and blue-coloured flags and drowned out the detractors with their cheers once the policy passed. Three previous public meetings were similarly rowdy.

The vote may be the knockout blow in a bitter and protracted fight over the controversial plan to put gender-neutral washrooms in schools and support students in expressing their preferred gender identities.

“We’re standing up for kids and making our schools safer and more inclusive,” board member Mike Lombardi said in an interview just before the policy was voted in. He said the board was simply putting into policy protections for moves already underway in district schools.

Lombardi said the idea for a pronoun addition was raised during public hearings and was a way to bring clarity to the policy, which allows transgender students to be addressed by their name and pronoun of choice.

Read here

Same Sex Marriage in the Church of England: Back to the good old days

Monday, June 23rd, 2014

By Sam Johnson, English Manif:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has made what he would like us to think is a profession of continuing support for real marriage. Dated 14th May, and headed “Same-Sex Marriage: Archbishop’s view remains the same”, it goes as follows:

“Lambeth Palace has issued the following statement in response to reports about the Archbishop of Canterbury’s position on same-sex marriage:

The Archbishop has said before that he accepts the right of Parliament to change the law and that the Church should continue to demonstrate the love of Christ for every person. The Archbishop voted against the Same-Sex Marriage Act in the House of Lords last year.”

The skilfully worded statement is curious in a number of respects, not the least being that the first half of the first sentence in the second paragraph implies the Church of England would accept the right of Parliament to pass any legislation whatever, regardless of content or impact, and without recourse to higher, for example moral, standards. According to the second half, the Church will also somehow simultaneously continue passing on the love to everybody, whatever harmful legislation it has accepted and cravenly approved.

It is even more curious and no less craven when you consider the oath the Church’s head, Queen Elizabeth, swore at her coronation almost exactly 62 years ago.

Judge for yourself:

Coronation Oath, 2nd June 1952

Taken from the Order of Service for the Coronation:

The Queen having returned to her Chair, (her Majesty having already on Tuesday, the 4th day of November, 1952, in the presence of the two Houses of Parliament, made and signed the Declaration prescribed by Act of Parliament), the Archbishop standing before her shall administer the Coronation Oath, first asking the Queen,

Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?

And the Queen answering,

I am willing.

The Archbishop shall minister these questions; and The Queen, having a book in her hands, shall answer each question severally as follows:

  1.  Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
  2.  I solemnly promise so to do.
  3.  Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
  4.  I will.
  5.  Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
  6.  All this I promise to do.

Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the promises: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Arch-bishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words:

The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.

Then the Queen shall kiss the Book and sign the Oath.

The Queen having thus taken her Oath shall return again to her Chair, and the Bible shall be delivered to the Dean of Westminster.”

Contrast Lord Welby’s acceptance of a Law that appeared in no political party’s manifesto, was rejected by 83% of consultation respondents, was rejected by Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish leaders (who also appealed to him to defend real marriage), and which breaches the very same Christian teachings he is on payroll to uphold, with the very clear Catholic document on how to deal with laws cementing homosexual unions.

This document, “Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons”, written by Pope Benedict in his previous incarnation as Cardinal Ratzinger, distinguishes between tolerance of private arrangements, which it advocates, and the establishment of harmful institutional structures, which it opposes.

It gives guidance on what marriage is…

The Church’s teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives…”

…and on how Christians should react to proposed and/or enacted legislation formalising homosexual unions:

“…Where the government’s policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.”

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”

This is not what Lord Justin is doing.

In fact on most points he does the opposite.  As we shall see in a moment, under cover of opposing “unjust discrimination against homosexual persons”, far from “unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology” the Church of England now risks “exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon”.

The Archbishop’s statement finishes with a third paragraph, followed by a link ‘read more here’:

“On Monday this week Archbishop Justin launched new Church of England guidance on tackling homophobic bullying in church schools.

Read more here

Readers will not be surprised to see in this article how swiftly and pervasively bullying in general magically morphs into homophobic bullying. One paragraph is probably enough: “No school can proudly claim to be a safe, loving and protective institution while members of its community are suffering and being made unhappy through bullying. We know senior leaders in church schools are committed to ensuring they build a school culture and community where teachers and pupils feel confident and supported in challenging homophobic bullying”. See? No mention of the main reasons kids are bullied in school: appearance and disability. But then kids who look a bit odd, or who are disabled in some way, do not have taxpayer funded left wing putsches using them as culture busters.

Some Bedouins discuss homophobic bullying

The article holds out the vision of homophobic bullying discussions happening in a kind of big happy ‘Bedouin Tent’, where people of different views respectfully allow each other space. This Bedouin Tent idea is great in theory (and an advance on anything we have seen from the likes of GLAAD or HRC) but given the Church’s involving Stonewall in the programme, it is hard to see a fair hearing for kids who seek to defend reality based views on sexuality, gender and marriage.

The Archbishop himself is scarcely impartial. In a 13th May Pink News interview in which he appears to be going along with the view that traditionalists are homophobic, he is quoted as follows “As you know I have said, and got a fair amount of flak for it within parts of the Church, we have to accept, and quite rightly, that the same-sex marriage act is law, and that it’s right and proper, it’s the law of the land, and that’s great”

It might take a while to sink in. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s view on the UK’s homosexual union legislation is ‘It’s right and proper’ and ‘it’s great’.

That is quite a long way from the message his official statement is intended to convey.

 

 

 

Understanding male same-sex attraction

Wednesday, June 18th, 2014

LGBT Movement is a Civil Rights Fraud: March to Take Back Our Movement!

Monday, June 9th, 2014

Many successful gay marriages share an open secret

Wednesday, June 4th, 2014

gay handsWhile progressives and liberals argue that homosexual “marriages” or unions are no less stable than heterosexual marriages, even if they are right, the monogamy of such relationships might nonetheless differ. Recent research indicates that homosexual couples are more likely to be permissive of infidelity and open relationships.

An article in The New York Times explains that recent research “reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians…The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years – about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationship, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.”

What is peculiar in these cases is not just frequency of outside sexual activity, but that partners are aware of, and consent to, such infidelity. In fact, the article cites a previous study which “concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer [than monogamous gay relationships].” Because monogamy is often not expected, and infidelity is consented to, by the other partner, outside sexual activity is typically not a likely reason for terminating a homosexual relationship.

In contrast with the expectations among “gay marriages,” recent research indicates that adultery is likely the greatest factor in causing divorce among heterosexual marriages. Thus, the expectations and norms regarding fidelity seem to differ greatly between heterosexual and homosexual couple. Perhaps defining stability in terms of the mere duration of the relationship is not enough to capture what ought to be the relevant factors when considering a “stable marriage.”

Read here

 

Gay suicide study: partners, not family, main issue

Sunday, June 1st, 2014

gay handsA new Griffith University study has revealed that gay and lesbian people are more likely to experience major relationship problems with their partners rather than their family.

Surprisingly, the study found family conflict and rejection is one of the least likely reasons for suicide.

Researcher Dr Delaney Skerrett, along with colleagues Professor Diego De Leo and Dr Kairi Kõlves, from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention, have been conducting research over the past year, using information from the Queensland Suicide Register to find out more about the factors related to LGBTI suicide.

“I have to say I was surprised about the family conflict part,” Dr Skerrett said.

“We tend to assume that the psychological distress LGBTI people are often going through is due to family rejection. But it seems that’s not so much the case.

“The conflict seems to be largely related to relationship problems, with partners,” he said.

Read here