Poaching?

Why the need to co-opt members?

AN ESSAY on Hugh Jackman's Broadway show by the world's most powerful theatre critic is laced with insinuations about the Australian star's sexuality, saying that he comports himself on stage like "a flaming queen".

and

But he isn’t gay, and is bemused — as is his wife Becky, an English teacher — by the fact he has such a strong gay following on Twitter.

‘Camp? I don’t think I am,’ he says, before adding: ‘Well, maybe a little. Whatever, I get messages which suggest people think they are going to be able to “turn” me, which I find bizarre.

‘I love women. I have always loved women. The irony was that being in the choir when I was a teenager was a surefire way of meeting them.’

-- Nora

UPDATE: Kevin Rudd's Labor supporting sister takes a principled stand in opposing same-sex marriage and is cruelly pilloried for it in comments on this story and the Brisbane Times link on Facebook.

And Away We Go

What did I say last week about polyamorists bucking for official sanction of their relationships in light of the ALP's change of policy on same sex marriage? Five years?

Try one week.

-- Nora

The Law Of Unintended Consequences II

Post one on the law of unintended consequences can be found in an update here.

This one is about the consequences of the US Government repeal of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' homosexual policy in the military:

In an unlikely alliance, the Family Research Council (FRC) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have found a common cause: the criminalization of bestiality in the military. Both groups are calling for keeping an explicit ban on sex with animals in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that may be eliminated by the Defense Authorization Act.

One of the many changes in the act included the removal of the sodomy section of the code after the removal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell ban. Few realized that the UCMJ defines sodomy either as homosexual relations or as sex with an animal. By striking out the entire sodomy provision, Congress may have decriminalized bestiality.

Yes, you're rolling your eyes now - it's a joke, surely? The White House spokesman and the assembled press pack thought so.

It's no laughing matter to PETA who are taking the issue very seriously indeed:

In watching last night's news briefing, we were upset to note that you flippantly addressed the recently approved repeal of the military ban on bestiality. With respect, this is no laughing matter. Our office has been flooded with calls from Americans who are upset that this ban has been repealed—and for good reason. As we outlined in the attached letter sent yesterday to the secretary of defense, animal abuse does not affect animals only—it is also a matter of public safety, as people who abuse animals very often go on to abuse human beings.

I hope that in the future, you will address important issues with sensitivity and not dismiss them with a joke.

Redefinitions indeed...

-- Nora

Family Lies

Oh no.... we're not trying to redefine marriage and family...

‘By painting the traditional family as a tiny minority this report is giving a false picture of life in Britain. It makes one wonder what their agenda is.

-- Nora

Packs A Punch

Mr Yanner, who is attending the ALP conference as a business observer to lobby ministers over uranium mining in the Gulf, said he confronted several MPs about the conscience vote.

"It's a cowardly act," he told The Courier-Mail. "It's political gay bashing.

Assault is something Mr Yanner has hands on experience in dealing out.

-- Nora

Marriage - Not a Gay Ole Time

This weekend the ALP national conference discusses, amongst other things, whether to adopt gay marriage as part of its platform, hot on the heels of Queensland's Labor Government introducing civil partnerships for homosexuals.

We're told that it's about 'equality' and 'tolerance' and 'respect' and 'rights' and that to disagree with gay marriage makes one immoral.

Funny isn't it, how ideas can be twisted so that which was once immoral is now moral and many of those who are against same sex marriage (SSM), swamped by the speed that this fundamental societal shift has occurred, struggle to articulate their reasons against it.

Let's demolish some of the arguments for same sex marriage:

The state has no right to discriminate in recognising adult relationships
The principle argument for SSM is that the state has no right to prohibit any adult to enter into a relationship with any other adult.

Well the state already discriminates with respect to relationships between adults. A brother and sister cannot marry; a father and adult daughter cannot marry; a man cannot have multiple wives; a woman cannot have multiple husbands.

The reason for this is plain (watch this space, I believe in the next 5-10 years polygamists and adult incest supporters will agitate for equal 'rights' to marry).

From the state's perspective children who are born to incestuous couples are likely to have medical conditions which the state will have to provide for. Children of polygamous families are often not supported by their father, thus proving a greater welfare drain.

The state also recognises that children raised by their biological mother and father in a committed life-long relationship have better social, educational and financial outcomes than children raised in other circumstances.

Yes, children are raised by solo parents and go on to do okay, (Nicky and I are two examples) but it is nonetheless the truth that children raised by their parents have social and financial advantages that others do not.

The state regulates marriage for public health and welfare.

Marriage is about recognising the right to love who we want and not about raising children or if it is, childless heterosexual couples don't have a right to marriage either
This is a specious argument if there ever was one. And one which (deliberately?) misunderstands the contractual nature of marriage covenant.

Let's take a look at those traditional wedding vows that form the cornerstone of what most people understand as marriage:

my pledge to stay by your side ...
in sickness and in health,
in joy and in sorrow, as well as
through the good times and the bad.
I promise to love you without reservation, forsaking all others,
comfort you in times of distress,
encourage you to achieve all of you goals,
laugh with you and cry with you,
grow with you in mind and spirit,
always be open and honest with you,
and cherish you for as long as we both shall live.

The undiscussed nature of homosexual (both gay and lesbian) relationships is twofold:

• They're short lived. Homsexual relationships are less likely to last 'until death do us part'. In fact a they're unlikely to last to their 7th anniversary with the majority of relationship in gay men lasting about six months (Adrian Brune, "City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says," Washington Blade (February 27, 04): 12.); according to a 1988 survey, lesbians fare even worse with the average relationship petering out in less than 5 years; In Australia the average length of a marriage is 32 years. There is no evidence that granting state sanctioned marriage will improve the longevity of these homosexual relationships. Very, very few will last 'til death caused by advanced old age


• They're rarely monogamous. Now there's the real elephant in the room. Monogamy is a real struggle for gay men and a high number of lesbianstoo. By contrast a survey published in the Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows. (Michael W. Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and Correlates in a National Survey," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 170.)

I'm now going to introduce the Kardashian Law. It similar to Godwin's Law in which 'as an online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfeited the argument.'

The Kardashian's Law works on a similar principle in which 'as an online argument on gay marriage grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up the failed relationship of a celebrity as an example of normal heterosexual relationship or marriage. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Kardashian's Law has effectively forfeited the argument.'

An example of this pops up on Facebook every so often:

"Let me get this straight...Charlie Sheen can make a "porn family", Kelsey Grammer can end a 15 year marriage over the phone, Larry King can be on divorce #9, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, Kim Kardashian can get a divorce after 72 days of marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods, while married, were having sex with EVERYONE. Yet, the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really? Re-post if you are proud to support equal rights."

The examples quoted here say more about the narcissistic and toxic culture of the entertainment and celebrity industry than it does about real marriage.

Very quickly addressing the issue of childless married couples (Nicky and I are a case in point, we're childless by choice) - the answer is simple: having children is not obligatory. But let me tell you, if homosexuals do receive legal sanction to marry then expect an explosion of court cases demanding the 'right' to children.

It's a civil rights issue
This argument is a big one in the US where homosexual advocates have tried to align themselves with black civil rights causes from the 1960s.

Homosexuals are allowed to vote, can sit anywhere in the bus they like, can make legal arrangements for inheritance and sick bed visitations. There is no real discrimination as was experienced by African Americans during that time.

Unlike laws in some states of the US that prohibited a black man marrying a white woman and vice versa - a gay man is free to marry any woman, a lesbian can marry any man.

The fact that gay men and lesbians are same sex attracted is their issue. Not the State's.

Two gays getting married doesn't affect your/my marriage
If homosexual relationships are less likely to be long-lived and less likely to be monogamous, it does by definition changes the expectations of marriage in a wider context - especially when those advocates invoke Kardashian's Law and use the facile, inept and insincere coupling of celebrities as their examples.

Not only have we seen the concept of marriage being an exclusive union of a man and a woman for life eroded through the introduction of quicky, no-fault divorces, but we are also seeing a push to redefine even the meaning of monogamy.

This link on Psychology Today is very instructive:

I've wanted to write an article on this topic ever since I began working with a gay male couple who told me that they were monogamous. After several months, however, they informed me they had had a three-way. When I asked if they had changed from monogamy, they said, "No."

I was confused. Maybe I hadn't gotten the correct information in our initial consultation? I told them, "I thought you told me you were monogamous," and they said, "We are." Now I was REALLY confused! So I said, "But you just told me you were monogamous."

Their reply was, "We are monogamous. We only have three-ways together, and are never sexual with others apart from each other."

If that's not a redefinition of monogamous (from the Latin for One + Marriage - a form of marriage in which an individual has only one spouse/sexual partner at any one time.), then nothing is.

Hollywood mainstream also plays its part in trying to stretch the accepted boundaries of monogamy in marriage - take this year's comedy flick Hall Pass (defined by the trailer as 'a week off marriage with no consequences) in which two married men are let off their vows by their wives and allowed to do whatever they want up to an including having sex with other women.

Also, take the TV series Big Love that sympathetically portrays a polygamous relationship.

Again the universal principle of 'Garbage In/Garbage Out' applies here. If this is the type of pop culture you and your children are consuming, then it is going to affect how they view relationships and thus the concept of marriage is redefined outside of a true fusion of the lives of one man and one woman becoming (in the Biblical parlance) 'one flesh', one entity for mutual love and support for life.

Those who argue that what others do does not impact on them misses mark on the importance of marriage has on the greater welfare of our society.

Why am I against same sex marriage? For three fundamental reasons:

1. Same-sex marriage is bad for children
2. Same-sex marriage is bad for civil society
3. Same-sex marriage is bad for public health

Same-sex marriage is bad for children

It’s clear that children benefit from having both a male and female parent. Recent medical research confirms genetically determined differences between men and women and those fundamental differences help explain why mothers and fathers bring unique characteristics to parenting that can’t be replicated by the other sex. Mothers and fathers simply aren’t interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father. One-sex parenting, whether by a single parent or a homosexual couple, deprives children of the full range of parenting offered by dual-sex couples.

Only mother-father families afford children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier and more comfortable for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. Overall, having a relationship with both a male and female parent increases the likelihood that a child will have successful social and romantic relationships during his or her life.(5)

Same-sex marriage is bad for civil society

Not only does SSM amplify issues around the raising and socialising of children, overseas experience has shown that a government that mandates the acceptance and recognition of SSM are more likely to act punitively against people who do not support it.

Here are other examples, all annotated.

Even those who are not religious and so may support SSM should react in horror to the concept of the state criminalising thoughts and beliefs.

Same-sex marriage is bad for public health
Here's the second elephant in the room - one which homosexual advocates and their supporters don't like to talk about:

Homosexuals have shorter lifespans, indulge in more risk taking behaviour including drug use, are subject to more interpersonal violence (IE suffer more domestic violence) and suffer greater mental illnesses such as depression and suicidal tendencies than those who are heterosexual.

Let's add in one more point. Homosexuals and bisexuals are a tiny minority - why are we pandering to them on this issue? According to September figures from the UK, only 1.5% of the population are gay or bisexual - especially when it can be argued that there are a good number of homosexuals who do not support legalised marriage at all.

So if 1.5% of the population is homosexual and, let's say for argument's sake that one third of that 1.5% are not interested in 'marriage' at all, then why are our political leaders devoting so much time considering such a far reaching (and negative) shift to our society's structure that is demanded by 1% of the population?

-- Nora

UPDATE: The ALP national conference has just officially changed its policy to endorse same-sex marriage. It's just a vote in parliament away folks. I wonder what the old time Catholic Labor Union supporters think of their party now>

UPDATE 2: A couple of typos corrected and a slight rewriting on the paragraph on length of relationships for clarity and to include some additional information.

UPDATE 3: The law of unintended consequences reasserts itself. From the Daily Mail:

People who have had two sexual partners in a year may be 'too promiscuous' to donate organs under new health guidelines

That of course would include the 'monogamous' homosexual men referred to in the Psychology Today article earlier in this post. This is why redefinition of words and the societal understanding that goes with them is so dangerous. Potentially deadly.

UPDATE 4: I've been keeping an eye on this story for a few weeks now. Since we're talking about the influence Hollywood has in shaping our thinking and our expectations of societal norms, I thought it was worth linking to:

Does Hollywood Face a Child-Molestation Crisis in Casting?

And not just in casting. And not just in Hollywood.

So GLAAD

Surely the pun was not intended:

For the second straight year, ABC led nominees for (nine) awards from (GLAAD) an organization that monitors depictions of gays and lesbians in the media. (emphasis added)

It's ironic that America's free-to-air ABC should do so well in the eyes of a homosexual lobby group while 'alternative' pay-TV station Bravo, the channel that brought you Queer Eye For The Straight Guy, garners only three nominations.

Looks like the mainstream is doing all the proselytising GLAAD's heart desires.

But is the paranoid little bitchboy in Ugly Betty really their idea of a good role model?

-- Nick

Suffer The Children

A female teacher sexually abuses a female student:

Prosecutor Tony Elliott said the case was unusual because it involved two females...

No, it's not:

A leading woman tennis coach has been convicted of molesting one of her 13-year-old students. Claire Lyte, 29, a former Wimbledon competitor, had been accused of embarking on a torrid lesbian affair with the schoolgirl player.

Interesting that in both cases, the abuse is referred to as 'an affair'. It's not; it's abuse, both sexual and of trust.

In the second case, the girl's mother joined in harming her daughter for ambition's sake:

The jury had heard how the victim's mother found Lyte and her daughter having sex in the teenager's bedroom, but did not report the incident to the police for more than six months because she did not want to harm her daughter's tennis career.

Meanwhile, more child abuse:

AL-QAEDA is actively "grooming" children and young people to carry out attacks in Britain, the head of the country's domestic intelligence service says... “This year, we have seen individuals as young as 15 and 16 implicated in terrorist-related activity.”

-- Nick

When Children Become Mere Fashion Accessories

The woman said she enjoyed some aspects of the pregnancy, such as decorating the girls' nursery, but other parts were distressing, including purchasing a pram.

Finish your breakfast as the rest of the story may disgust you.

-- Nora

UPDATE: The story becomes more ridiculous.

The woman, who yesterday described her experience thus:

"It was like the last frontier of acceptance to spend hundreds of dollars on a pram," she said.

And who requested a general anaesthetic for the implantation procedure is, in today's article, described by her partner:

"My observation is that (the twins' birth mother) was one of the most confident and centred people that I have met," she said.

Really? Her testimony yesterday belies that.

And now the coup de grace:

"I find (now) that she doesn't have the same ability to love that she used to and the same capacity to, I guess, embrace differences and issues as a couple or as a team.''

She said the pair lost their lives functioning as a couple, becoming mired in everyday tasks associated with raising two children.

Diddums. You want normal - you've got it.

-- Nora

Ford Queers The Pitch

For an auto company with a lot riding on a particular vehicle, Ford Australia appears strangely suicidal when it comes to advertising the Focus small car.

The Aussie arm of the global automaker is to begin building the Focus in this country in the next couple of years, hopefully soaking up some of the workforce made redundant by the impending end of the locally-manufactured I-6 Falcon engine in favour of an imported V6.

The German-built Focus got off to a poor start in Australia, with some suggesting it was coming from behind as an unknown nameplate seeking to replace the widely-recognised Laser. Sales have picked up in the last couple of years but Ford would do well to think through some of their marketing decisions with regard to the vehicle.

They've previously suggested that only narcissistic dullards would purchase the Focus with ads that showed primped male and female airheads leaving a hangbag and a phone on the roof.

Now they continue the pitch to the self-absorbed crowd with their 'Everyone's Journey Is Different' ads bundling the Focus together with their Fiesta atop a Brisbane car park.

Don't blink or you'll miss among the 'aren't we clever we bought this car' faces the first open pitch to homosexuals by a motor manufacturer in Australia. On screen for an almost subliminal fraction of the time given to others in the adverisement are a pair of tall, neat chaps with matching lap dogs.



Well done Ford - you've cast the Focus as a gaymobile.

Not that there's anything wrong with that if you buy into the idea that homosexuals are a huge cashed-up DINK demographic just waiting to be exploited. However, it's:

...a widespread myth that gay people are economically advantaged compared to heterosexuals. U.S. Census data and other national surveys indicate the opposite. In fact, gay and bisexual men earn anywhere from 13 percent to 32 percent less than heterosexual men.

-- Nick

The Hokey Pokey

You put your left foot in:

Lesbian bigamist who lied about marriage avoids jail

You put your left foot out:

Suzanne Mitchell, 30, a mother of five, admitted that she had lied about being single when she signed a civil partnership with Caroline Beddows, 24. She was given an eight-month suspended prison sentence for breaching the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which allows same-sex couples to “marry”.

You put your left foot in:

...(she) entered into a civil partnership with her girlfriend while still being married to her husband...

And you shake it all about:

Mitchell, from Shrewsbury, who is 12 weeks pregnant and has rekindled her relationship with her husband, Charles, was ordered to complete 100 hours’ community service.

Is that what it's all about?

-- Nora

Picture Post

This couple



is unsuitable to adopt children.

So is this couple:



It is not in the child's best interests.

This couple



is suitable.

So is this couple:



Not that there's anything wrong with that.

-- Nick

Vertical Integration

As Agence France-Presse reports that the next mayor of Dallas could also be:

...the first openly gay man to be elected mayor of a major US city...

...it comes as no surprise to learn that the candidate in question is:

...Democratic party-endorsed...

The Democrats like to put 'edgy' leaders into local government, such as crack cocaine smoking Washington DC Mayor Marion Barry who returned from a six month Federal prison stint to get re-elected mayor and busted again in 2005 for testing positive for cocaine and marijuana and failing to pay federal and local taxes.

Or:

Neil Goldschmidt - Democrat - Oregon governor. Admitted to having an illegal sexual relationship with a 14-year-old teenager while he was serving as Mayor of Portland

Or:

Lee Alexander - Democrat - Mayor of Syracuse, N.Y. from 1970 to 1985. Was indicted over a $1.5 million kickback scandal. Pleaded guilty to racketeering and tax evasion charges. Served six years in prison.

Or:

Bill Campbell - Democrat - Mayor of Atlanta. Indicted and charged with fraud over claims he accepted improper payments from contractors seeking city contracts.

Or:

Walter Rayford Tucker - Democrat - Mayor of Compton, California from 1991 to 1992; U.S. Representative from California from 1993 to 1995. Sentenced to 27 months in prison for extortion and tax evasion.

And that's just those heading up local government. (Source)

-- Nick

Mother Load

The lives of four children have been effectively ruined by selfish homosexual interests:

A SPERM donor who helped a lesbian couple conceive two children is liable for child support under a state appellate court ruling that a legal expert believes might be the first in the US...

It gets worse.

...Jodilynn Jacob, 33, and Jennifer Lee Shultz-Jacob, 48, moved in together as a couple in 1996 and were granted a civil-union licence in Vermont in 2002.

As well as conceiving the two children with the help of Mr Frampton - a longtime friend of Ms Shultz-Jacob's - Ms Jacob also adopted her brother's two older children, now 12 and 13.

But the women's relationship fell apart and Ms Jacob and the children moved out of their Dillsburg, Pennsylvania, home in February 2006.

Oh and that's not the end of it.

A Superior Court panel last week ordered a Dauphin County judge to establish how much Carl Frampton Jr would have to pay to the birth mother of the eight-year-old boy and seven-year-old girl...

...Mr Frampton, 60, of Indiana, Pennsylvania, died suddenly of a stroke in March, leaving lawyers with different theories about how his death might affect the precedent-setting case.

-- Nora

Meet The Flintstones

Apparently there is something wrong because one-in-four Aussies would rather not have homosexuals as neighbours:

Prof Mangan is co-author of a paper interpreting statistics from the Human Beliefs and Values Survey, conducted in 24 Western countries between 1999 and 2002.

He said the results showed anti-gay prejudice was by no means confined to Australia.

"The conclusion is the most prevalent form of bigotry is homophobia," he said.

"It's everybody except Scandinavians, so it's not a particularly Australian thing."

Oh, well that's comforting I guess.

Pehaps the reason for the mistrust might be incidents like these:

TWO paedophiles who dragged a teenage boy off the street and used him as a sex slave have been found guilty of planning to kill the 14-year-old, dump his body in bushland and dissolve it with acid.

A jury today took five hours to decide the men were determined to carry out a "sick fantasy" of raping the boy and then murdering him so he could not reveal their identities to police.

Robbie Sebastian Wheeler, 43, and his boyfriend Victor Leslie Urquhart, 46, have been on trial in the West Australian District Court after pleading not guilty to conspiring to kill the then 14-year-old boy.

The lovers had both pleaded guilty to kidnapping, indecently dealing with and sexually penetrating him between August 30 and September 19, 2005.

Or that no matter how 'tolerant' we try to be we innately recognise that those who identify as homosexual exhibit a wide range of mental illnesses and deviant habits.

-- Nora

What Can You Expect From The Mentally Disturbed?

How hilarious that the Poofs On Parade in Sydney last night mounted a float (pun unintended) in support of the release of Islamic convert and self-confessed Australian jihadist David Hicks.

As Tim Blair reports:

A reminder, on the night of Sydney’s gay and lesbian Mardi Gras, of how a recently-removed government once treated its non-breeder community:

While the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, it regularly executed homosexuals. Islamic jurists in Kabul and Kandahar only differed on the method of killing. One group of scholars believed the condemned should be taken to the top of the highest building in the city and hurled to their deaths, while others advocated placing them in a pit next to a wall which was to be toppled on them, so that they are buried alive.

Thus homosexuals call for the release of one who would kill them for being homosexual.

The parade also included its annual calls to be rid of Liberal Prime Minister John Howard, further demonstrating the homosexual community's inability to see further down the track than their next orgasm or 'rights breakthrough'.

The fact is that a Liberal Government, for all its 'oppression' of homosexuals, offers them the best long term chance they have to not be 'hurled to their deaths' or crushed by walls.

A Labor Government - the party of which imported radical Islam to bolster its own political ambitions in various Australian electorates - would go soft on these same Islamists and ensure Australia follows the French path towards '2030, then we (Muslims) take over'.

A homosexual vote for John Howard is a vote to stay alive.

What strange bed fellows.

-- Nick

Judge Pushes Barrow

High Court Judge Michael Kirby has accused America of being obsessed with September 11:

... saying more people died each day of AIDS than perished in the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

It might equally be said Justice Kirby is obsessed with AIDS.

-- Nick

Contradiction In Terms

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has caved to homosexual activists and nixed pleas by the Catholic Church to be allowed to refuse placing children with same-sex couples through their adoption agencies.

The Catholic Church says it may may now be forced to close its agencies in the UK, as did the US wing of the church.

Homosexual rights groups, predictably:

protested that the Church was "blackmailing" the Government.

...while conveniently ignoring the fact that there are many other adoption agencies they could go to who take a much more politically correct and less morally principled stand on the issue.

Meanwhile, Blair comes out with this contradictory doozy:

"I have always personally been in favour of the right of gay couples to adopt. Our priority will always be the welfare of the child," he said.

If welfare of children is the priority, the last thing one should be doing is placing already traumatised children in homosexual households:

In 1999, homosexual activist Dan Savage published the book, The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Get Pregnant - An Adoption Story. The author comments:

"Having children is no longer about propagating the species... [it is] something for grownups to do, a pastime, a hobby. So why not kids? Gay men need hobbies, too. …. I've done drag. I did Barbie drag, dominatrix drag, nun drag, and glamour drag. Now I'm going to do dad drag."

American website the Child Welfare Information Gateway - an organisation with an apparently somewhat Nineteen Eighty-Four reverse meaning name - had its own Blair moment in 2000 when it stated:

The bulk of evidence to date indicates that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to become homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals. As one researcher put it, "If heterosexual parenting is insufficient to ensure that children will also be heterosexual, then there is no reason to conclude that children of homosexuals also will be gay".

But surely logic would suggest that if the majority of heterosexual parents produce heterosexual children, then homosexual parents will produce homosexuals.

Just ask Ry and Cade, two unfortunate young women featured in:

...a recent article, "Growing Up With Mom and Mom," published in the October 24 issue of The New York Times Magazine, (in which) Susan Dominus tells the story of two girls, Ry and Cade, who were artificially conceived and raised by a lesbian couple.

The story of these girls could not be more poignant. Having reached adulthood, one daughter became a lesbian and the other, though heterosexual, lives in a continuous state of tension between her formation and her own feelings. Dominus writes:

"Sometimes when she's with her boyfriend, she [Ry] told me the first night we met, 'I feel guilty about how much privilege I feel as a straight couple, but I also love the privilege. …. At the same time, it's like this nightmare to be totally absorbed into this stupid straight world.' She made a face, half-sticking her tongue out. 'So at the same time, it's sad for me. I feel like I'm losing something else.''

She narrates her intimate struggle:

''It took me a lot of struggle to realize that I really was attracted to men, yet now it is really hard for me to deal with men as human beings, let alone sexually.'' Further on, Ry reports about how she was intrigued but ''repulsed'' by heterosexual relations, afraid of the 'sexist soul-losing domain of oppression.' Her parting thought: 'I cannot understand or relate to men because I am so immersed in gay culture and unfamiliar with what it is to have a healthy straight relationship.'"

Furthermore, there is no 'bulk of evidence' supporting the supposedly benign nature of homosexual households.

When Robert Lerner, Ph.D, and Althea Nagai, Ph.D. evaluated studies favouring adoption by homosexuals, they found them fatally flawed:

Completely misconstrue and thus blatantly misuse the standard logic of statistical hypothesis testing (e.g., they attempt to affirm the null hypothesis, which is wrong; one can only fail to reject the null hypothesis) - Fail to use proper or even any control groups - Use wildly unrepresentative nonrandom samples - Use far too few cases to draw any valid conclusions - Fail to control for essential variables when presenting their findings - misanalyses its own data, which in fact show that the daughters of lesbian couples are more likely to engage in lesbian sexual experimentation as adults than are the daughters of heterosexual couples.

The greatest irony of the growing Church versus State clash in the UK is that it finds some Anglicans and the majority of Catholics on common ground with an unexpected third group:

The Muslim Council of Britain said it fully supported the "principled stand" by the Church leaders.

The Muslim Council of Britain would also fully support stoning homosexuals to death.

The Catholics just want to stop state sponsored child abuse.

-- Nick