By Imnokuffar and Powys-We all need to look at this issue because it is yet another example of laws being forced onto the majority by a vociferous lobby group under the guise of improving equality.
Marriage was initially a union between a man and a woman whose purpose was that of providing a stable situation whereby resulting children could be given a better chance of survival.
Most religions recognized from a very early date that societies could fail if the family unit was not given official approval and some order and control imposed so that everyone would understand who was the father of whom, and, who was responsible for nurturing the children -- hence the idea that the union of marriage was sanctioned by God; and, that anything that meddled with such unions was condemned as essentially anti-social – mainly because of the danger of interbreeding caused by unbridled promiscuity.
So we can safely state that in most societies, marriage is only viewed as a contract between a man and a woman and that there are normally ceremonies and rituals accompanying the exchange of vows -- which are legally as well as religiously binding on both parties.
Such rituals are also 'rites of passage' and for those who take such things seriously, they usually have a powerful and lasting influence that goes far beyond legal coercion or religious damnation.
In fairly recent times however, the State begun to encroach on the domain of religion and now actually performs marriages -- together with giving the official State documentation of registration.
One might want to question how it came to be that the State felt the need to supplement religion in this manner and we suppose that it was seen as being required to accommodate those having no religion.
Clearly, once somebody decided that marriage could be taken from religious authorities, it was a small step to the decision that it was inherently a civil contract and not really a religious union/contract at all and we were all placed on a slippery slope.
The people of doubtful gender have always been with us, albeit historically in ‘the closet,’ but from the 1960’s onward they began to push to have their kind of union given complete legal recognition.
They fought initially because they wanted the partners in the same-sex union to be able to inherit and receive spousal benefits. Legally they began their fight by insisting that they had certain 'rights' because of their inherited sexual disposition.
HOWEVER, there is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is in fact hereditary and that it could be seen as a choice or something that is socially created.
Regardless of the latter observation it is apparent that they managed to convince the UN and some other places and the idea of civil unions took hold in the western world based on the idea of fairness and ‘social justice.’
This issue of social justice and fairness is something that both Powys and I come across frequently. It is the catch all for everything.
It soon became apparent however that some lobbyists began to insist on an actual redefinition of what the marriage union ought to include.
They argued that ‘we are all the same’ in spite of different sexual preferences and that equality implied that marriage ought to be term that embraced every preference.
While traditionalists argued that homosexual unions could never be about the raising of children, the homosexual lobbies then began to fight for the 'right' to adopt, and, in the case of lesbians, the 'right to have children’ by artificial means.
Even to the casual observer it ought to be quite obvious that societies have opened up a legal and biological can of worms for themselves by rejecting tradition, law and religion as their guide.
Whatever one personally feels about homosexuality or the individuals who follow that particular star (they make up somewhere between 3% and 6% in Britain), it is a fact that the Judeo/Christian religion sees the practice of homosexuality as a sin rather than a right.
In fact such behaviours were seen until fairly recently as criminal in nature and in some parts of the world it is still punishable by death.
So, religion, history and law were and are aligned against the practice of sodomy etc. We would also argue that on the basis of nature that homosexuality is a kind of moral cul-de-sac -- in that reproduction is not the purpose of homosexual congress, and, on that basis is inherently immoral.
A definition of moral behaviour (that does not use the Bible as its authority) defines moral things in terms of those actions which tend to promote a society's survival.
So, to give you a practical example of what we are stating, anyone who thinks that poking around in the ‘Cloaca Maxima’ is perfectly OK had better look at the 40,000,000 who have AIDS and who will die because they violated nature and commonsense.
There are other factors that mitigate against homosexual unions.
Homosexual unions have a far worse tendency towards breakup than heterosexual unions; homosexuals have a far higher rate of suicide; and, because of the nature of sodomy, they are far more likely to other contract STDs -- several of which are life-threatening.
So, as we see things, 'gay marriage' is a step too far because it is an insult to those of us who see marriage as sacred and because our opinions are being ignored by the politicians. Do we, the majority, have rights in this matter and the answer is YES, we bloody well do!
We traditionalists however are now portrayed in the media as ‘homophobic scum.’ You see patriots, aligned against people such as us, we have those who don't bother with marriage; those who would rather have a civil ceremony; and, those who cannot for some reason marry in a church. We also have the fact of a 'liberal' secular society have come to accept any and all behaviours as perfectly alright because they do not accept the idea of there being any universal standards.
So, once again we have the ‘progressive’ perverted political viewpoint dictating what will actually transpire.
It should be obvious that the issue of making ‘Gay’ marriage legal has provoked a firestorm of condemnation from groups other than those of a ‘liberal’ persuasion.
Some of these groupings are unorganised politically and condemn gay marriage on the grounds of religious affiliation/beliefs and others on political grounds and yet others on an abhorrence of the acts of Homosexuality, i.e. aesthetics.
Whatever, the dissention seems to have split the Tory party in Britain, though of course the LibDems and Labour luvvies apparently adore the whole concept!
Oddly, Labour seem not to have noticed that their core voters in the working class are almost universally repelled by the notion of homosexual congress.
The big question though is whether or not their leadership’s ideas will affect their voting habits. Apparently there was a poll taken of those who agreed with gay marriage and it was 62% in favour.
However, as with all polls, results depend on who you ask, the way the question is put and whether people are actually telling the truth or just saying what the questioner wants to hear.
Bias is a well known ‘wild card’ in terms of opinions-polls and they have been known to be wildly inaccurate.
There can be no doubt that the issues surrounding gay marriage will be a defining problem for the major parties in the next election.
The media have spun this in an attempt to imply that if one is against gay marriage then one is automatically a homophobe. We are against gay marriage, but we do not hate homosexuals.
We also think that civil partnerships are sufficient for those who want to be together for whatever reasons.
Homosexuals have already achieved the rights of Inheritance and many of the other privileges that are afforded to heterosexual couples.
In spite of that achievement we note that many gay people are quite uninterested in marriage or its corollary gay adoption and prefer to remain anonymous and quiet about their differences.
Of all the issues surrounding the gay marriage issue, none is more controversial than the matter of adoption and the raising of children in a same-sex home.
For us this is the most alarming and pernicious innovation and we reiterate that we are firmly opposed to such an idea.
The militant gays say this would have no effect on a child’s sexuality, i.e., they will not become gay as a result of having same-sex parents. LGBT adoption is the adoption of children by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons.
This may take the form of a joint adoption by a same-sex couple, adoption by one partner of a same-sex couple of the other's biological child (step-parent adoption), or, adoption by a single LGBT person.
Adoption by same-sex couples is now legal in 14-countries and in some territories.
Opponents of LGBT adoption rightly question whether same-sex couples have the ability to be adequate parents (parenting). Since constitutions and statutes usually fail to address the adoption rights of LGBT persons, it is judicial decisions which often determine whether they can serve as parents either individually or as couples.
Adoption of children by LGBT people is an issue of active debate. Supporters of LGBT adoption suggest that many children are in need of homes and claim that since parenting ability is unrelated to sexual orientation, the law should allow them to adopt children. Their opponents, on the other hand, suggest that the alleged greater prevalence of depression, drug use, promiscuity and suicide among homosexuals (and alleged greater prevalence of domestic violence) could affect children, and, that the absence of male and female role models could cause maladjustment.
Catholic Answers, a Catholic religious group, in its 2004 report on gay marriage addressed parenting by homosexual partners via adoption or artificial insemination and it pointed to studies finding higher-than-average abuse rates among heterosexual step-parent families compared with families headed by biological parents.
The American Psychological Association, however, notes that in an ongoing longitudinal study that none of the lesbian mothers had abused their children.
It also states that fears of a heightened risk of sexual abuse by gay parents are not supported by research.
We would point out once again that all research has an element of bias built into it and that abuse is not just about physicality it is also about moral, intellectual and psychological issues that can also be classed as abuse.
We also point out that many health professionals still regard homosexuality as a pathology.
Several professional organizations have made statements in defence of adoption by same-sex couples.
The American Psychological Association has supported adoption by same-sex couples, citing social prejudice as harming the psychological health of lesbians and gays while noting there is no evidence that their parenting causes harm. The American Medical Association has issued a similar position supporting same-sex adoption, stating that lack of formal recognition can cause health-care disparities for children of same-sex parents.
Britain's only remaining Catholic adoption society announced that it would stop finding homes for children if forced by legislation to place children with same-sex couples.
The Muslim Council of Britain sided with Catholic adoption agencies on this issue. How surprising and for a change we find ourselves actually agreeing with the Muslims!
Here is another consequence of gay marriage – from the Telegraph.
“The last remaining Roman Catholic adoption agency to resist Labour’s equality laws is facing closure, after the charity watchdog ruled that it could not avoid considering same-sex couples as potential parents.’
Catholic Care had been given hope earlier this year that it could get around the controversial anti-discrimination rules that forced other agencies either to close down or sever their links with the church.
In March a High Court judge had ordered that the Charity Commission consider whether to allow the agency's request to continue refusing to consider same-sex parents, thanks to a loophole intended to protect homosexual charities. Catholic Care had argued that a clause of Labour’s Sexual Orientation Regulations, inserted to ensure gay organisations could not be sued for discrimination, entitled it to change its "charitable objects".
However, in a judgement published on Thursday, the quango has ruled that it will still not allow Catholic Care to restrict its services to heterosexuals.
This ruling patriots is yet another example of ‘positive’ discrimination.
The ruling means that Catholic Care is likely to have to close its adoption service, because if it decided instead to consider same-sex couples as parents it would be violating Catholic teaching on the importance of children having a mother and father.
This would also mean that the agency, which can trace its origins back to an orphanage set up in Leeds in 1863, would lose church funding. Since Labour’s homosexual rights law came into effect in January 2009, all the other 11 Catholic adoption agencies in England have either had to close down or sever their ties with the church hierarchy.
Catholic Care was the last ‘hold out’ as it launched its final desperate legal bid.
The charity, which only found out the judgement was coming on Wednesday, has not yet decided whether to close its adoption service.”
Our understanding is that these homes were very good and found good homes for the children under their care. We suppose that these unfortunate children will now be moved into State care – the same State care which looked after the victims of grooming so badly.
We feel sorry for these children and especially Imnokuffar – who has experienced having been in care on the Falls Road Belfast.
The whole point of us writing this was to show that gay adoption and same sex marriage are diametrically opposed to our traditions concerning marriage and child-rearing.
There is no doubt in our minds that gay marriage is as an abhorrent practice as is gay adoption. Sadly there is nothing in the research which is conclusive on these issues that can be used as a guide and we believe that such studies must be done before lawyers and judges decide the matter for us.
The issues surrounding gay adoption are not clearly defined and the research on either side of the argument is poor and biased. It is for that reason that we prefer to stick with commonsense and the tried-and-true.
If a child of either sex has two parents of the same gender it seems likely they will be influenced in many subtle ways that cannot be defined, but apparently this is not of any consequence to those who are driving the ‘progressive’ agenda.
There is no doubt in our minds that the children raised in same-sex households will be teased and bullied at school.
Look, children bully each other because they have red hair, are fat, have freckles, accents and for all manner of other reasons. Imnokuffar remembers returning to England from Northern Ireland to England after a long stay in a children’s home (Roman Catholic)
He had to fight his way out of two schools as they jeered at his Bogside accent and taunted him for being a ‘thick paddy etc’. He was actually born in England and is English to the core; furthermore his family on his mother’s side had been in England since 1689 and on his father’s side a lot longer.
So now, try to imagine the effect of having two parents turning up at the school of the same sex. Do you doubt that that poor child would be at a disadvantage?
And can you imagine what would happen if they lived in an area where they had to mix with that most homophobic of peoples – the Muslims!
It is a fact that homophobia is already occurring in Tower Hamlets and other parts of the country where Sharia Controlled Zones have been implemented.
What is apparent is that innocent children will be used as pawns in the ‘progressive’ game of equality in yet another social experiment.
The likely outcomes will be disastrous for them. On a final note, we note a profound sympathy for these children because they have been abandoned by the mass of the British public and made into sacrifices on the altar of legal fashion and political expediency.
All of these things are happening without the consent of the mass of the British people and they are being put in place by the same people who took away our sovereignty, brought in the 3rd world and gave us multiculturalism and political correctness.
We hope that you are all outraged that these things could come to pass and replace the things that we once cherished.