The
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission took the Stormont Executive to court today (Monday, 12 December 2011) on account of its refusal to
extend adoption rights to same sex and unmarried couples.
This Commission - already infamous for its support of sodomy in our country (cf. its submission to the Belfast High Court during the 'Sexual Orientation Regulations' case in 2005) - has launched a judicial review.
Its argument is that the law in Northern Ireland is discriminatory and differs from the elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
However, our current law accurately reflects the expressed wish of an overwhelming majority of our countries' citizens. A Stormont consultation five years ago revealed colossal opposition to extending adoption rights. Of those who responded, 95% did not want to see unmarried and same sex couples given the chance to adopt.
Since then, controversy over the issue is believed to have delayed any wider reform of the adoption laws.
When he appeared on the 'Inside Politics' programme the Human Rights Commissioner Professor Michael O'Flaherty said his lawyers had instructed him not to comment in detail but confirmed the judicial review is set to go ahead.
"On Monday the Human Rights Commission will go into court in Northern Ireland in a judicial review, seeking to widen the basis for the adoption of children in all unmarried couples, be they heterosexual or homosexual," he said.
The promotion of homosexuality is obvious a principal 'hobby horse' for O'Flaherty. According to one personal profile, he "has contributed significantly to the international definition and protection of gay rights: in 2006 he led the drafting of the 'Yogyakarta Principles' on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity."
Once again, a small minority, representing a perverted lifestyle choice, is determined to foist their dsyfunctionality and depravity on everyone else - no matter how distasteful their chosen activity is in the eyes of both God and man.
Exactly as Scripture says:
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, ... 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet" (cf. Romans 1:18-32).
______________________________________________________________________________
PLAIN REASONS WHY ADOPTION BY HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD BE OUTLAWED
With the Human Rights Commission of Northern Ireland currently locked in a legal battle in Belfast’s High Court, arguing for homosexual couples to be given the right to co-adopt children, this is an appropriate time to ask some key questions.
The obvious one:
Should people involved in homosexual or lesbian relationships be allowed to adopt children?And another, of equally significant moment:
Are children who grow up in single-sex parented homes advantaged or disadvantaged?Statistics are available from the United States that show the tragic consequences of fatherless and single parent homes:
• 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.
• 85% of all children that exhibit behavioural disorders come from fatherless homes.
• 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.
• 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
• 75% of all adolescent patients in drug abuse centres come from fatherless homes.
• 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.
While these statistics apply to children who grow up in fatherless homes, it must be acknowledged that
mothers are equally important in the lives of children and the results of ‘motherless’ homes are equally tragic. Children who grow up with two mothers and no father, and those who grow up with two fathers and no mother, will be horribly disadvantaged in life.
An immediate obstacle to homosexuality - and, by extension, homosexual marriage and adoption - is:
THE BIBLEGod’s Word, the Bible, is
unmistakably plain with regard to homosexuality. This practice is:
• unnatural and depraved (
Romans 1:25-28);
• an abomination to God (
Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13);
• a sin that closes the door of heaven to the one who remains in it (
1 Corinthians 6:9&10);
• certain to bring upon itself the crushing judgment of the Almighty (
Genesis 19, Romans 1:32, Jude 7);
• not to be pursued, but turned from (
1 Corinthians 6:9&10).
God’s Word is equally clear on the subject of marriage: only a man and a woman can enter into marriage. This is the proper foundation for the family.
•
Genesis 2:24 reads,
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”•
Malachi 2:15 says that God made a man and his wife one because He seeks godly offspring.
• Jesus endorsed this Old Testament teaching on what constitutes a proper family when, in
Mark 10:7-9, He stated:
“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”We were created to a plan - male and female complementing each other - and so enabled to enhance each others’ lives and produce and nurture offspring as commanded in
Genesis 1:28,
“Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” This command is repeated to Noah after the Flood (
Genesis 8:15-17). Cain and Abel had neither ‘two mommies’ or ‘two daddies,’ but a father and mother. In this they fulfilled God’s own model for family life.
HOMOSEXUALITY STRIKES AT THE HEART OF GOD’S PLAN FOR MARRIAGEBy way of contrast, homosexuality strikes at the heart of God’s plan for marriage and family life.
THE HOMOSEXUAL HOMEHomosexual relationships are:
-
short-lived and less faithful than biblical marriage.
Even in those homosexual relationships, in which the partners describe themselves as ‘committed,’
the meaning of ‘committed’ typically means something radically different from marriage.
• In the Triangle Project study of homosexual men in Cape Town, 47% of respondents said that they were currently in a relationship, yet only 13.3% of respondents had had only one partner in the past year. 60% of the men who were currently ‘in a relationship’ admitted to having had “sex” with people other than their partners in the past year.
• In the book, ‘The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop,’ the authors, two homosexual lecturers, report a study of 156 men in homosexual relationships lasting from one to 37 years. Only seven couples had a totally exclusive sexual relationship and of these, the men had all been together for less than five years. In other words, all the so-called ‘couples’ with a relationship lasting more than five years had incorporated some outside sexual activity into their relationships.
-
more violent than traditional marriage.
While homosexuals, particularly lesbians, propagate the idea of the lesbian or homosexual home as one of peace and equality, the truth is that homosexual relationships are
far more violent than heterosexual marriages.
The U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that
married women in normal families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.
Consider these studies of homosexual relationships:
• ‘The Journal of Interpersonal Violence’ published an article entitled, “Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships.”
Researchers found that 90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study. 31% of women in lesbian relationships reported one or more incidents of physical abuse.
• A survey of 1,099 lesbians found that slightly more than half of the lesbians reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner.
The most frequent forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.
• In their book, ‘Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence,’ D. Island and P. Letellier report that,
“the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.” -
typically more criminal than traditional relationships.
A study of 4340 adults in five metropolitan areas of the USA showed that bisexuals and homosexuals (about 4% of the sample) compared to heterosexuals:
• exposed themselves sexually to more different bodies (more frequently admitting to participating in orgies and reported larger numbers of sexual partners);
• more frequently participated in socially disruptive sex (e.g., deliberate infection of others, cheating in marriage, making obscene phone calls);
• more frequently reported engaging in socially disruptive activities (e.g., criminality, shoplifting, tax cheating); and
• more frequently exposed themselves to biological hazards, inextricably linked to the sexual activities in which they engage.
-
much more liable to engage in substance abuse.
• A study published in ‘Nursing Research’ found that lesbians are three times more likely to abuse alcohol and suffer from other compulsive behaviours than heterosexual women.
The study found that: like most problem drinkers, 91% of the participants had abused other drugs as well as alcohol, and many reported compulsive difficulties with food (34%), co-dependency on people (29%), sex (11%), and money (6%).
In addition,
“46% had been heavy drinkers with frequent drunkenness.” • The Triangle Project survey of homosexual men in Cape Town in 2000 found that 68% of men had used at least one recreational drug in the past year. 41% had used marijuana, 40% used ecstacy, 36% used poppers and 25% used cocaine. Acid and speed were used by about a fifth of the men.
• A study in Family Planning Perspective showed that male homosexuals were at greatly increased risk for alcoholism:
“Among men, by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking.”• ‘The Washington Blade,’ a homosexual newspaper, reports that,
“various studies on Lesbian health suggest that certain cancer risk factors occur with greater frequency in this population. These factors include higher rates of smoking, alcohol use, poor diet and being overweight.” -
typically have shorter lifespans than other people.
A study in the United States found that the median age of death of married men was 75 and unmarried heterosexual men, 71.
By comparison, homosexual men who died of non-AIDS causes, had a median age of death of 42 (41 years for those men who had a long-term sexual partner and 43 for those who did not). Homosexuals who had long-term partners lived shorter than those who do not.
The study also found that
homosexuals were 24 times more likely to commit suicide and had a traffic-accident death rate 18 times the rate of comparably aged white males.
The 140 lesbians surveyed had a median age of death of 45 and exhibited high rates of violent death and cancer as compared to women in general. The study showed that 20% of lesbians died of murder, suicide or accident - a rate 512 times higher than that of white females of similar age.
THE BEST WE CAN DO?Are these kinds of homes the best we can offer to the children of this generation?
What is best for the child? What kinds of homes can homosexuals and lesbians offer children?
-
Children of homosexuals less sociable and achieve lower grades.
Dr Sotirios Sarantakos from Charles Stuart University, Australia, did research comparing primary school children in married, cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples.
Children in normal marriages faired the best, and children in homosexual homes the worst.
• Children of homosexual couples scored the lowest in language ability, mathematics and sport. They were more timid, reserved, unwilling to work in a team or talk about home lives and holidays. They felt
“uncomfortable when having to work with students of a sex different from the parent they lived with” and were the least sociable.
• Although homosexual couples gave their children “more freedom,” married couples cared for and directed their children most. Children of married parents had clear future plans, while the children of homosexuals and cohabiters wanted to leave school and get a job as soon as possible.
• Children of homosexuals were “more confused about their gender” and more effeminate (irrespective of their gender).
It is not fair of our society, our government and our courts to establish public policy that encourages this social engineering and pretends that homosexual ‘families’ are normal, healthy and desirable. Instead, public policy should work toward mitigating the harmful effects of divorce and single parenting that results in motherless and fatherless homes - not promoting it!
-
Children raised by homosexuals are more likely to explore homosexuality themselves.
While this is "not exactly rocket science," still this is a point disputed by militant homosexuals.
A study by two pro-homosexual sociologists from the University of Southern California, Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, showed that these children,
“seem to grow up to be more open to homoerotic relations (getting involved in homosexuality).” Stacey said that in the past “sympathetic researchers” have defensively stressed an absence of difference, but a re-evaluation of past studies showed that there are significant differences.
Homosexual activists were pleased about this.
Aimee Gelnaw, director of ‘Family Pride Coalition’ (a pro-homosexual organisation) responded to the research,
“Of course our kids are going to be different. They are growing up in a different social context.” Kate Kendall, head of the San Francisco-based ‘National Centre for Lesbian Rights’ said homosexuals should be elated by the study which shows that,
“our kids are somewhat more likely to identify as lesbian and gay.”However, English MP Julian Brazier raises this point:
“This sort of social experiment may be exciting for the people who take part in it but they should ask themselves whether it is in the best interests of the child.” Cornelia Oddie of the U.K. based ‘Family and Youth Concern’ think tank says,
“It must be extra confusing for the children. With homosexual couples the majority of their friends would be presumably part of the homosexual culture, so the children grow up with a skewed idea of relationships. This is bound to give children an unbalanced view of social and sexual relationships.”The implications are severe. With the acceptance of two homosexuals as joint parents, the family is torn from its traditional and God-inspired balance of a mother and a father both giving of their commitment, love and essence to the children.
TESTIMONY OF A FORMER LESBIANFormer lesbian Cherie Tayler had three children by artificial insemination. Her lesbian partner shared the parenting. After the break-up of their 16-year relationship, Cherie admitted that her life as a lesbian has been spurred on by her unloving mother and sexually abusive father.
She said that having children had been a cruel mistake.
She reported on a 60 Minutes TV documentary that she saw the hurt in her children's faces every day. Her 11-year-old son wanted to know about his father’s job, what he looked like, the colour of his eyes - and Cherie was unable to answer.
She said,
“I (now) believe that children should have the best opportunities in life. The best way they can have a balanced view of what is normal is with heterosexual parents.”WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CHILDRENWhen Health Minister Paul Goggins launched a consultation document that was designed to overhaul adoption legislation in 2006, the claim was made that changes to the current adoption law were aimed at
putting the needs of the child at the heart of the adoption process.
Even apart from whether we think homosexuality is normal or deviant, emotionally healthy or not, the fact is that we should do what is best for the children.
People who live homosexual lives say that they have a right to do what they want in their bedrooms and private lives. But adopting children is not about their ‘private’ lives as it intrudes into the life of children who will not have a choice, and are not old enough to make a mature and informed choice.
Special privileges, like adoption, for men or women who engage in homosexuality, are hotly debated worldwide, with the vast majority of countries, and the vast majority of people across the world, saying,
“No, let’s stick to what is best for the children.”NEED FOR HOMESWe realise that many children in Northern Ireland require adoption and that
the number of adoptions in Northern Ireland has fallen significantly since its 1970 peak of 554 to an average of about 150 per year.
On
their website, the Barnardos children’s charity describes adoption in these terms:
“Adoption is a way of providing a new family for a child when living with their own family is not possible. It is the means of giving a child an opportunity to start again: for many children, adoption may be their only chance of experiencing family life.”Barbara Hutchinson of the ‘British Association for Adoption and Fostering’
said in 2006 that she was concerned the number of adoptions had fallen in recent years.
“We hope this new framework will result in more children having the opportunity to grow up with the secure family life adoption can provide,” she said.
A SECURE FAMILY LIFE?What “chance” of a “secure family life” are we giving children if the “family life” they are introduced to is a home in which the ‘parents’ are two homosexuals,
where they will witness firsthand expressions of human sexuality that the Bible describes as “unnatural,” “unclean” and “vile affections” - all of which merit the judgment of God (cf.
Romans 1:18-32)?
The statistics cited above show that homosexual homes are less stable, more unfaithful and relationships are shorter, and the presence of drug and alcohol abuse and domestic violence is significantly greater. Plus children in homosexual homes score lower grades and are more sexually confused and unsociable than other children.
If one homosexual couple wins the right to co-adopt children, the door will be opened for this social experiment, without further research, study or discussion into the issue.
EFFECT OF PREVIOUS LEGISLATION FOR HOMOSEXUALS HAS LIMITED ADOPTIVE HOMES FOR CHILDRENIt should not be forgotten, but rather hugely regretted, that
the promotion of a previous piece of the ‘gay rights’ agenda in the battle for the Sexual Orientation Regulations (2007) resulted in the forced closure of several adoption agencies. In this tragic act, let us lay the blame where the blame is due, firmly at the door of the militant voices who campaigned for this unnecessary and repressive measure to be thrust upon us.
It would be
yet another colossal and crude irony that, should the Human Rights Commission of Northern Ireland be successful in their campaign for homosexual couples to be given the right to co-adopt children, another layer of legislation will be set in place that will further cheat vulnerable children out of the opportunity of a secure home and increase the possibility of them being placed in a morally dangerous environment.
The majority of children needing permanent families today are no longer relinquished babies. Instead, these children have often experienced neglect or abuse and can have multiple difficulties.
To increase those difficulties by placing children into a homosexual home is distinctly unconscionable.
