GAY TRUTH

News that Sir Paul Coleridge, High Court Judge , has stood down, after being reprimanded for his comments in support of marriage, may reflect a liberal bias at the top of British civic life. The implied suggestion that Sir Paul may have acted in a way unbecoming of a Court official , simply by sharing his frustration at the breakdown of marriages and the impact this has on children, is tantamount to an admission that so-called traditional marriage is no longer considered a norm worthy of protection. Whilst Sir Paul could have continued in his position with the High Court for another five years, he has said that his position is now untenable. He could not, he says, properly fulfil his duties if he felt he had to constantly look over his shoulder. It is outrageous that a judge should be reprimanded for speaking up for one of the major foundations of our social order . Surely if judges are allowed to speak about anything, it should be the defence of the social order they are installe

By Peter Sprigg Why is marriage the union of one man and one woman? The primary public purpose of marriage is to bring together men and women for reproduction of the human race . Marriage then encourages men and women to stay together to raise the childrenproduced by their union. Research shows that children do best when raised by their own mother and fatherwho are committed to one another in marriage. What harm would homosexual "marriage" do? Several harms would result immediately: Homosexual relationships would be subsidized. All taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to provide financial benefits to homosexual couples. Children would be indoctrinated. Schools would teach children that homosexual relationships are an option fully equivalent to heterosexual ones. Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened. Faith-based organizations and individuals would be forced to compromise their beliefs, or be punished or driven from the public squ

The defenders of marriage should take advantage of what is known about same-sex attraction ( SSA ), because those promoting the redefinition of marriage have manipulated public opinion by distorting the facts and research. The five main distortions are: 1) Persons with SSA are born that way. 2) Persons with SSA can’t change. 3) Persons with SSA are just as healthy as persons in husband/wife marriages. 4) Same-sex relationships are just like husband/wife marriages except for the sex of the partners. 5) Children acquired by persons in same-sex relationships don’t have excess problems. There are numerous studies refuting the first two points and no credible studies supporting either. There are numerous well-designed large studies which have found that persons with SSA are far more likely that married men and women to suffer from: · Psychological disorders · Sexual additions and paraphilias · Suicidal ideation and attempts · Substance abuse and addiction, including to drugs, a

Image via Wikipedia Changing the definition of marriage would thus be a blow to parenthood generally, with the State withdrawing its interest in promoting the stability of parenthood.  It is interesting that when Victoria legislated to permit  surrogacy, through the  Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2008 it introduced the concept of "substitute  parenthood" and the first casualty was fatherhood.  There are no fathers in the legislation, just mothers and parents. Everything turns on the woman who gives birth and her relationships and those whom she appoints to be the substitute parents.  The significance of being a father to a  child has been completely lost in the new law. Those who are most harmed by that are the children who no longer have a right to both a father and a mother, and their biological connectedness to a father no longer has any status in the law. By declaring a legal equivalence between same sex relationships and marriage, the revisionist ap