If you're going to promote anything, promote marriage
The following article by Christopher Booker in today's Sunday Telegraph touches on these issues:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Equality Act that disrespects Catholics
QUOTE
The sight of Chris Bryant and Angela Eagle, the Government's gay and lesbian shock troops, accusing the Catholic Church of trying to "blackmail" the Government over the gay adoption issue prompted me to look at the explanatory notes to the Equality Act 2006 which set this furore in motion. The chief inspiration for the Act was EU directive 2000/78, "a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation" that outlaws any form of "discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation".
Our Government chose to extend the meaning of "employment and occupation" to adoption. But the directive also includes a clause stating that the EU "respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations"; and that "Member States may maintain or lay down specific provisions on genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirements which might be required for carrying out an occupational activity".
In other words, our Government could have allowed the Catholic Church still to refuse the adoption of children by gay couples (as is the case in other EU countries such as Poland), but it has deliberately decided not to make use of that exemption.
UNQUOTE
===============================================
It is clear that the homosexual lobby is after only one thing, which unfortunately they will never attain - full acceptance of their abnormal lifestyle and practices.
Tolerance of it is one thing; we all have to agree in society to tolerate different views and different conduct so long as it this is all within the law.
Whatever conesnting adults do in private is up to them etc.
But the homosexual lobby wants homosexuality promoted as an equally valid lifestyle to that of heterosexuality. And over the past 15 years or so been very successful at doing so.
It also wants to suppress all the known health risks associated with active homosexuality, and let's list just some of them - for none are disputed:
* homosexuals suffer more depression
* homosexuals are far more likley to commit suicide
* homosexuals are far more lilkey to be alcoholics
* homosexuals are far more likley to abuse drugs
* homosexuals have much shorter relationships
* homosexuals are more violent, especially towards each other
* homesexuals die 20 to 30 years earlier than hetersexuals
* homosexuals tend to have a range of health problems, both sexually transmitted diseases and other internal illnesses, related to their activities
* many homsexuals indulge in practices too disgusting to mention on this forum.
In any other walk of life, such known and predictable health risks would be enough to have health warnings up all over the place - on TV, in the GPs surgeries, in hospitals, in schools, etc. basically saying: "Keep Healthy - Don't Do Homosexuality".
It might perhaps be a much better idea for pupils at secondary school to have an occasional talk from those who have been happily married and those who deliberately abstain from sex until marriage - as is now happening in many U.S. schools (see references on the Net).
Instead of which the homosexual lobby, with government help, is actually proposing and promoting the use in school of story books which have explicit descriptions of sexual acts including mutual masturbation with other young people. Why?
And some want to take things still further. This was a major news item on AOL News last week:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for explicit videos in classroom
[Search: Sex education - Search: Family planning - Your sexual health]
QUOTE
Some experts claim a new approach to sex education is needed.
Children should be shown explicit videos of mast------on as part of sex education, campaigners say.
Many pupils form impressions of sexual activity from pornography on the internet and need better lessons at school, said Rebecca Findlay, from the Family Planning Association.
She told the Times Educational Supplement that sex is still seen as too "embarrassing'' to be discussed.
Ms Findlay said: "We need to be able to look at someone mast------ng and see it not as pornography but as instructional.'' Using such images in schools might help lift the taboos around sex, she told the TES.
"What is mast------on? How do you do it? What does it feel like?
"These are conversations people should be having in sex education classes. But in British culture, sex is something embarrassing.''
Dr David Limond, a lecturer from Trinity College Dublin, said the 30-year-old row over the controversial 1970s film 'Growing Up' still limits what could be shown in schools today.
Intended as a resource for school sex education, 'Growing Up' featured scenes of adolescents mast------ng and a naked couple copulating.
Dr Limond said there is no reason why appropriately-produced footage of mast------on should not be used in schools.
He called for a more open approach to sex education that would provide a "better transition'' between school, where sex is "veiled and mysterious'', and the adult world where "anything goes''.
Sex education has been mandatory in state secondary schools in England since 2000.
UNQUOTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|