Married but for all the wrong reasons.

by Robert Whiston May 8th 2913

Tim Loughton’s speech in Feb 2013 when the “Marriage [Same Sex Couples] Bill” was being debated summed up the contradictions at the heart of the new legislation. In 2004, he readily accepts, that he along with a great number of other MPs voted enthusiastically for the “Civil Partnership Bill” – promoted as it was at the time as “giving full equality in the eyes of the law for people in same-sex relationships.” So why the need now for a same-sex marriage Act ?

Indeed, the Official Report (House of Lords, 12 May 2004; Vol. 661, c.  GC179), plainly states:

  • “I want to put our position very clearly. This is a new legal status that gives rights and responsibilities to people in same-sex committed relationships… We do not see it as analogous to marriage. We do not see it as a drift towards gay marriage.”

After all it never appeared in any of the 3 major political party’s 2010 Election Manifestos ! Not even as an aspiration ! The absurdity does not stop there – with divorce on grounds of adultery and failure to  consummate being unavailable, how can this be called marriage ?

A poll sponsored by the Daily Mail found that only ‘1 in 14’ (or 7%), of those questioned thought that same-sex marriage should be given a priority. Another poll found that more than 60% of the black and minority ethnic communities – the very people that the Tory party wants to woo – were hostile to it.

With this in mind perhaps now is a good time to see how the 2004 Act is working out in practice. Is it, as Tim Loughton MP believes, not a lack of equality in the law but a lack of equality in the eyes of  people,  i.e. society at large ? If so then simply adding an extra flourish or changing the name of the ceremony will not address the problem.[ref. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130205/debtext/130205-0002.htm ].

Gay ‘marriage’ numbers take nose dive !

The opinion held by some is that the homosexual lobby only wanted parity with heterosexuals for political purposes appears to be coming true. The number of ‘civil partnerships’ is not climbing as anticipated but falling steadily.

Through their strenuous efforts to appear as ‘normal’ as everyone else the gay and lesbian fraternity sought to have the status of marriage conferred upon them. This proved a political bridge too far in 2003 – 04 but by 2013 it is now a done deal along with the right to adopt children.

The spine to the present 2013 gay marriage argument is that homosexuals have ‘humans rights’ which are not being fulfilled because they cannot marry or adopt children – but they seems content that they cannot (within their normality) conceive and give birth. This also overlooks the very real fact that many young heterosexual (and homosexual) women conceive and give birth outside of wedlock and yet they make no special pleadings.

The reasons given on the first occasion (Civil Partnerships) were many and varied but high among them was that 1). they wanted nothing more than ‘next of kin’ status so they had the right to visit their ill or dying partner in hospital, 2). that they could not be evicted on the death of their partner and 3). that they could enjoy the same deferred death tax liability as a heterosexual spousal couple.

In the lead up to the vote those politicians in favour of a reform for homosexuals stated that 10% or more, (20%) of the UK population was homosexual – this was quite untrue but it went unchallenged.

This last reason / excuse was in fact a hidden tax advantage since neither of the same-sex partners could divorce and so neither would lose the majority of their wealth in any separation. Most if not all the reason given to homo_1legalise ‘civil partnerships’ were spurious since they could all have been dealt with under the existing law – even the eviction and inheritance tax claims – given a little thought.

From another quadrant, at the time, come the opinion that civil  partnerships’ would probably be short-lived affairs either because having gained that political goal it would prove a launch pad for full equality with heterosexual marriage or that civil partnerships’ would be inherently unstable anyway.

homo_2Those who thought homosexual civil partnerships would be short-lived affairs probably based their opinions on the observed promiscuous lifestyle that homosexual indulged in when compared with heterosexuals.

Five years on and there is now sufficient data to assess the situation afresh and examine what if any prophecies and hypotheses were on target. From the graphic shown here we can ascertain that after the initial publicity and razzle-dazzle causing a burst of interest, numbers rapidly became flaccid, falling from 9,000 in 2006 and 6.000 to a level of 3,000 for both sexes by 2010. [1]

See also “Predicting the number of civil partnerships”  Straight Statistics, Oct 2009, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ayCbb8YAnnIJ:www.straightstatistics.org/article/predicting-number-civil-partnerships+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Figures for Dec 2005 could fairly be subsumed by the 2006 data giving a total of over 10,000 male same-sex partnerships and 8,000 female ones.

homo_2a

Initially males unions out-numbered female one but by 2009 there was almost parity between them.

The bleak outlook created by the yearly decrease in numbers of civil partner-ships being formed is reinforced by the escalation in civil partnerships being dissolved.

What is a civil partnership ?

In Dec 2005 same-sex couples could first form and register their ‘partnership’.

A civil partnership is formed when one party gives notice in writing of their intention to form a civil partnership and the second civil partner then signs the relevant documents.

This is unlike a civil marriage for heterosexuals which is formed when the couple exchange spoken words.

Straight v Gay divorces

Comparing the differences in civil partnership dissolutions with divorces is illuminating. Partners dissolving a civil partnership are typically younger than brides and grooms when they divorce, despite the average age at marriage being lower than that at civil partnership.

In 2007 the mean age at civil partnership dissolution in England and Wales was 40.5 years for men and 39.4 years for women but by 2010 it had fallen to 39.5 years for men and 37.7 years for women.

This compares to a mean age for heterosexual divorce in 2009 (the latest year for which data are available) of 44.0 years for men and 41.5 years for women.

Calculating actual numbers

Cohabitation has always posed a problems for ‘bean counters’ at the ONS as the rapidity of partner exchange means they are a “flow variable” and no a “stock variable” as in the case of longer lasting marriages.

Calculating just an estimate of the ‘stock’ of civil partners from the small number registered and from survey sources results in diverging numbers.

To calculate an estimate for a ‘stock variable’ of civil partners requires the following:

homo_3ONS reports that the estimate for the number of civil partners living in England & Wales is consistently lower when using registration data than when using surveys (except in 2010 where the LFS and registration data are similar).

To give an example, in 2009 the estimated stock of civil partners from registration data was 68,000, whereas it was 78,000 according to the LFS (Labour Force Survey) and 88,000 according to the APS (Annual Population Survey).

How rock solid ?

Comparison are difficult when there might be 240,000 marriages in a given year and only 15,000 same-sex registered partnerships.

homo_4By ‘year four’, i.e. circa 2009, 5.5% (or about 13,000) of the marriages created in 2005

had been dissolved (Incidentally, four years is usually not long enough for the couples to have started a family).

This seemingly compares well with only 2.5% of civil partnerships (CP) that were comparably entered into that year but were dissolved by year four, i.e. 2009

homo_5What one has to consider is whether if there were only 1,857 heterosexual marriage in 2005, would the subsequent divorce rate be higher or lower than 2.5% ? One suspects – given historic data and other trends – that it would be much lower and that if there were 247,805 civil partnerships (CP) the rate would be far in excess of 5.5% after 4 years. 

Murdoch legacy

Much, if not all of the reform introduced to accommodate homosexual wishes, were premised on the assumption – indeed, the claim – that homosexuals and lesbians comprised 10% of  the  British population. The left leaning newspaper, the  ‘Observer’, repeated the 20%  figure promoted by Stonewall’s Ben Summerskill. [2]  Politicians were for several decades under the psychological cosh of the powerful national newspapers that were able to set agendas and massage reactions (as demonstrated in May 2012 by the launch of the Leveson Inquiry).

Analyse for a moment the PC madness of that era (1995 – 1999), which arguably still exists to this day. It was not just the much beloved  judicial allegory of the“Man on the Clapham Omnibus” but MPs who knew that to avoid the accusation of bigotry/prejudice adulation of buggery, sodomy and other perversions had to be embraced as necessary features in “a more liberal society.”[3]

Although deep down the Man on the Clapham Omnibus or MPs might view such things as distasteful if not perversions he is told to hold them in check. However, he is then told that paedophilia is a horrid and abhorrent act and so he is rightly confused.

A head of steam for reform had already been built up by the end of 1999 by activists such as Peter Tatchel. A bewildering variety of figures were cited by protagonists including “over 10%.”  A monthly journal, “The Ill Eagle” (Aug 2000, ISSN 1466-9005) cited the only known dependable/ empirical source as “Sexual Behaviour in Britain” by K  Wellington et al. (Penguin, 1994, p 183). Their 1992 study of 8,337 British men found that 6.1% have had a “homosexual experience” and 3.6% had “1+ homosexual partner. This was sharply discounted by Stonewall and  the Gay lobby as a gross underestimate.

Homosexuality was a topic hardly discussed and so the true extent of it was virtually unknown. Dr. Alfred Kinsey’s infamous books “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” (pub’d 1948) and “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female” (pub’d 1953) had been exercises in disinformation. Kinsey concluded that between ‘1 in 3’ and ‘1 to 5’ of the population were wholly or occasionally homosexual. He served only to muddy the waters.

Into this vacuum came the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry survey at the beginning of 2005 to help the Government analyse the financial implications of the Civil Partnerships Act (such as pensions, inheritance and tax benefits).

Coinciding with the Dec 2005 legal reforms the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry published the results of their survey which appeared to show that government believed “3.6 million  people in Britain were gay.” It was clear that the ulterior motives were economic – if tax concession were to be given to Gays then what did they contribute to the economy ? There then flowed much media discussion  relating to ‘Chasing the pink pound’ and  ‘companies trying to grab a slice of the £60bn gay economy,’ etc. [4]

Public acceptance ?

By 2010, having gained significant advances the Gay lobby wanted to push open still further the door by moving on to having ‘the right’ to adopt children and formally marry, like heterosexuals.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) became involved in homosexuals numbers in 2010 and collected data. They found that only 1.5% of the population considered themselves gay or lesbian  (480,000 or 1% male or female homosexuals, plus 245,000, i.e.  0.5% bisexual).[5]  NB. A further 0.5% self-identified as “other”, and 3% responded as “do not know” or refused to answer.

  • “Almost three-quarters of a million UK adults say they are gay, lesbian or bisexual – equivalent to 1.5% of the population, a survey suggests. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) says 480,000 (1%) consider themselves gay or lesbian, and 245,000 (0.5%) bisexual.”

This is a far cry from the claims of 20% made in 1999 and again as recently as 2005.

Casting our minds back to the much beloved  judicial allegory of the “Man on the Clapham Omnibus”, mentioned above, and the perplexing situation his modern equivalent now faces, the ONS survey (Civil Partnerships Five Years On) tried to measure shifting public attitudes. 

In matters of social change it is often the young who are more receptive to new ideas and a shift in morals. So in many ways the legitimising of Gay marriage is a re-run of the arguments heard during the divorce reforms of 1969 and abortion-for-all battle.

The ‘young turks’ closest to the levers of power  wanted change, almost at any price, while the older generation were either not so sure or hostile. It is a matter of public record that ‘young turks’ such as the young Ruth Deech underestimated the awful impact the divorce reforms they were helping to shape would have on the generale public. [6]

It is a well-known fact that abortions have been seriously high but a lesser known fact is that the introduction of abortions have cut the replacement birth rate. Were all the abortions to be converted into ‘live births’, the ratio of children in families in britain would not be lower than replacement level at 1.9 (or 1.7) but a healthy 2.4 children per average family.

homo_6For many decades during the  20th century homosexuality was seen as repulsive, a sexual deviant behaviour pattern, and even sinful. Some religions still hold all of those views, e.g. Catholics, Mohammedans, etc. 

The repulsion was not aided by the emergence of AIDS and HIV among the homosexual community in the 1980s and their lifestyle became a target. [7] 

The graphic here shows the slow ‘acceptance of homosexual  realtions’ but not, one suspects, the lifestyle or practices which still remains repugnant to homo_7those questioned.

The trend line graph above shows the “cross over date” – at about 45% – where those who thought it always wrong and those who responded that it was rarely wrong to be circa 2001. By any stretch of the imagination this is a significant shift.

However there is a trend among younger people to be more tolerant – but this could reflect social conditioning more than a moral or social judgement.

Although this bar graph represents men’s sentiments the comparable for women shows the same sort of age divide regarding acceptance or disapproval.

One only has to look at the slump in the perceived ‘acceptance’ expressed by age group to see that “strongly approve” at 15% for young people almost disappears at 2% for those age 70 or over.

Those strongly approving “laws that treat same-sex partnership somewhat like marriage” are in the age category least likely to know what marriage entails. Conversely, those thatstrongly disapprove increase as the age group asked gets older, and arguably wiser.

homo_8

Aggregating the combined  total percentage of those that either disapproved or strongly disapproved, the older age group (50 -69 and 70+) disapprove at a  26.5% level compared with the two younger groups  ((18- 29) and 20-49) who disapproved at only 10.5%.

International view

The graph above shows the apparent acceptance of homosexuality by each country. This should this be seen as a validation of homosexuality but more the acknowledgement that they have a right to lead their lives within society at large. Opponents of the same-sex movement point to the possibility of an involvement of  a dominating Commisariat within both the UN and EU at supra-state levels.

Mental illness

Freud recognised and categorised same-sex love and attraction as a ‘deviancy’.  Homosexuality in the modern era (19 th century onwards), was diagnosed and treated as a psychiatric illness – an abnormal behaviour – until 1973, when due to intense political pressure and lobbying it was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) used world-wide in psychiatry 

But even before that time (19 th century), homosexuality as viewed by the unscientific pubic as odd even depraved behavior (ref; Bible, Koran, Shakespeare, statute law, 20th century novel / fiction).

Mental health consequences are overlooked in all the publicly aired debates, past and present. The relationship between being predisposed to homosexuality and suffering depression and or enacting suicide (six times the general population), is treated as if it were a state secret. [8]

Almost three times as many homosexuals  are likely to suffer from generalised anxiety disorder than the general population. Homosexuals are overrepresented in the drug addiction/dependency section of society and are said to be many time more predisposed (five times) to smoking  than non-homosexuals.

Dr. Fitzgibbons who is the source for these particular figures has not surprisingly come under criticism from homosexuals. This is to be expected when the stakes for further progress are so high for the homosexuals lobby which often refers to itself as LGBT ( Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender – or transsexual).

When the “personal is the political” this challenging of sound data has to be expected, however, Dr. Fitzgibbons is a principal contributor to the Catholic Medical Association’s statement on “Homosexuality and Hope” and so can be relied upon to know more than most about the subject.

But this points-up a valid problem. Not enough research has been undertaken of an empirical and superlative nature. Consequently each report that points to the pluses and minus of a homosexual lifestyle is taken to pieces either because of it small sample size or methodology.

No public health warning

Take for instance life expectancy, i.e. mortality. Cigarettes have had to carry a health warning because they are said to shorten life and induce chronic diseases. But there is no such health warning for homosexuality.

Apart from the AIDS and HIV scare, the homosexual lifestyle carries no warning to the young. It can be argued that the case for determining homosexual lifestyle as ‘injurious to health’ has yet to be dully firmed up but the same argument applies to cigarettes where only a linkage – but not a cause or sole  cause – has been established. (See Sir Richard Doll:  “The risk of developing the disease [lung cancer] increases . . . .” For instance, the case for the asbestos industry, or the nickel & coal-tar workers’ cancer is far more clear cut.

Figures from the Family Research Institute, appear to show that ‘sexually active’ homosexual males had an average life expectancy of about 42 years – and this was before the advent of AIDS – with only 1%  living past age 65. [9]

The problem with figures from the Colorado based ‘Family Research Institute’ is that they collected their  information from the obituaries in homosexual periodicals which were usually urban based. Thy claim they collected “tens of thousands of gay obituaries” (2005). Compared with CDC mortality figures  life expectancy for homosexuals is about twenty years shorter than that of the general public. [10]

This might be sound for some purposed  it is not random or spread enough. A study published in 1994 with the rather melodramatic title of “Omega Journal of Death and Dying” used the same biased technique (this concluded that gay men have an average lifespan of 43 years). These obituaries were mostly AIDS-related and with the decline of AIDS as a killer, the death rate can be expected to re-adjust. American homosexual groups see Dr. Paul Cameron, the founder of the  Family Research Institute as a hate figure and the Institute as a hate group. How true this is, is pure conjecture.

Canadian Parliamentarians were presented in 2005 with scientific evidence by a group of physicians into the health risks of homosexual marriage. [11]  Canada’sparialment was warned:

  • “the new law will result in the further normalization of homosexual sex which has already resulted in severe health risks and related costs to care for and treat persons affected by risky sexual behaviour.”

The document, signed by doctors in different disciplines from family medicine, dermatology and neurology, warns that anal sex as practiced by most gay men, has a large number of diseases associated with it, “many of which are rare or even unknown in the heterosexual population” such as: anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhoea, Syphilis, Hepatitis B and C and others.

The same medical experts noted that:

  •  “Over 70% of all AIDS diagnoses in Canada in adults over the age of 15 up to June 2004 were in homosexual men (13,019 out of 19,238). . .. . . .“Any attempts to legalise gay marriage should be aware of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia”

This last issue, paedophilia, is even more contentious than the live expectancy battle – and one can why it is so important for both sides because it is the last barrier to having the right to adopt children like normal heterosexual couples.

Both sides of the argument accept that the majority of homosexuals are not involved in pedophilia, however it remains a concern because a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals have  more paedophilian inclinations than in the general population.

The Journal of Homosexuality has demonstrated an overlap between the homosexual activist movement and the promoters of paedophilia. it is this ‘overlap’ between the gay movement and the movement by some activists to make pedophilia more acceptable.” 

The journal references studies showing that “. . . . .while the number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3% . … . .  the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%.” It concludes:

  • “Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10 – 25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.”  [12]

 One of the earliest references to be found linking homosexuals to paedophilia is by Dr T Stammers (quoting  Kurt Freund 1989). In the Autumn 1997, FYC bulletin he wrote referring to the 2% of the population thought to be homosexual  that “ . . . 35% of paedophiles are drawn from that 2%.”[13]

This is seen by homosexuals as an especially pernicious belief and understandably so. For their part they claim that:

  • A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that’s not the case.

Centre of the storm

The trigger for all of the controversy mentioned above and for much more (enough to fill a double-decker bus), was a 2001 paper published in the International Journal of Epidemiology by Robert Hogg (based at the ‘British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS’). [14] The paper was a study of the gay and bisexual life expectancy in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Due to its pivotal dateline it received so much abuse and misuse that the authors were obliged to complain that their work was being used for non-scientific purposes ie political gain. notwithstanding this the paper demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men was 8 to 21 years less than for all men, i.e. heterosexual.

  • “If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday.”
  • “Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.”

This, of course, assumes that HIV is the same as AIDS, whereby HIV is predominantly a chronic and treatable illness and AIDS is usually a terminal illness.

Gridlocked

Who today can remember that when AIDS was first discovered it was called “Gay Related Immune Deficiency” (GRID) ? Initially, the HIV virus quickly spread among the highly promiscuous male homosexuals. Inevitably, bisexuals introduced it to promiscuous heterosexuals and it went mainstream. Pressure over the name escalated until Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) became more generally accepted, masking the initial source of infection and the obvious connection to the “gay” community.

“And the band played on”

Re-awakening another forgotten memory, is the non-fiction book “And the Band Played On” of 1987 by Randy Shilts, a San Francisco Chronicle journalist. He chronicled the discovery and spread of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). To understand how it spread so rapidly one has to understand the sexual practices of the gay bath houses which non-gays will find astounding.

Shilts specially emphasises the government indifference and the political in-fighting especially in the United States to what was then perceived as a specifically gay disease. Reporting AIDS also proved difficult with many papers refusing to publish .

The book, “And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemicbegins with the first known AIDS case in the late 1970s, that of Margrethe Rask, a Danish doctor working in Africa and end with the announcement by actor Rock Hudson in 1985 that he was dying of AIDS, which  caused an explosion of interest in the disease.

Miss Rask was – and this is only coincidental – a lesbian and she was cared for by her partner until her death in Denmark in Nov 1977. But what is interesting is the subsequent worldwide race to identify the virus and find a cure . Rask’s blood samples were assayed in Copenhagen in 1984 –  a period of extensive global research into AIDS – using the Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technique. It was an early version of an ELISA test and it tested negative for HIV/AIDS. Later, in 1987, the samples were re-tested with a more advanced ELISA test and both tested positive.

But there is some brighter news – though it is only a report and can be said to have no depth to it until it is verified by other findings.

Gay mortality – good news

Denmark was the first EU state to authorise/legalise same-sex marriages and from there come good news for homosexual couples in particular life expectancy for gays. Since the advent of same-sex marriage, a new study finds, the death rates (mortality) has dropped among married gay men and women.[15]

This mimics other studies that have shown a link between  health and marriage for heterosexual (opposite-sex) couples.

Men in same-sex couples now have lower mortality rates than unmarried or divorced men. Only men in heterosexual opposite-sex marriages live longer than the other 3 categories.

Researcher Martin Frisch, of the Statens Serum Institute in Copenhagen and the Center for Sexology Research of Aalborg University, said of the study:

  • “Among men in Denmark, it is more dangerous to be unmarried or divorced than to be married to another man,”

The Statens Serum Institute found that:

  • Female widows and divorcees were about 1.4 and 1.6 times more likely to die during the study period than those who were married to a man.
  • And mortality rates for unmarried women rose slightly between 1982 and 2011, from 1.5 to 1.7 times more likely to die than married women.
  • Men who were divorced also saw their chance of mortality go up over the study period, from 1.3 to 1.7 times more likely to die than married men
  • Male widowers were 1.4 times more likely to die than men in opposite-sex marriages as of 2011, a slight increase from 1.2 in 1982
  • For unmarried men, the same numbers rose from 1.2 to 1.7 between 1982 and 2011.

Flash in the pan ?

Almost 4 years ago  and based on experience abroad, for instance, in Scandinavia and Holland,  attempts were made  to predict a possible trend for same-sex unions (marriages) in the UK. See http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/predicting-number-civil-partnerships dated Fri, 23/10/2009.

The prediction was that it would stabilise at a figure which would  reflect the smallness of the  minority that homosexuals actually represented in society (at the time there were estimates of 10% to 20% ref. Stonewall’s Ben Summerskill et al),  and the media of the time failed to seek verification  of the claim.

Guesstimate

Above is the graph produced in 2009 forecasting what was though to be the future trend of a continued collapse followed by a leveling off at a much reduced figure.

Now that the numbers are available we can calculate the outcome. Assuming that there are a total of 6,000 civil partnership ceremonies pa (3,000 male plus 3,000 female), and assuming that the UK population is 60 million then the number of those taking advantage of the 2005 legislation is a mere 0.01%

If we take the Treasury’s study figure of 480,000 (1%) who say they consider themselves gay or lesbian, then the arithmetic becomes 1.25% (480,000 = / 6,000 =  1.25%).

Leaving aside the question of whether all the fuss was justified for only a 1% of usage among the  designated sub-set or one hundredth of one percent among the generals population, when the legislation was introduced some critics said that it would diminish the status of marriage and make it less likely that heterosexual couples would marry.

The Swedish data on heterosexual marriage rates, however, seems to contradict this. But caution and even skepticism is required when ever politic statistics and ideology find themselves sharing the same bed,

 E N D

 
Footnotes:


[1] See “Civil Partnerships Five Years On”   Population Trends No. 145 Autumn 2011.

[2] “3.6 million  people in Britain are gay – official. First Whitehall figure settles long-running debate” Sunday 11 Dec 2005 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/11/gayrights.immigrationpolicy  Chasing the pink pound: companies trying to grab a slice of the £60bn gay economy

[3] “The Ill Eagle”, Aug 2000, ISSN 1466-9005, referencing Melanie Phillips, Sunday Times, 30 July 2000

[5] Sept. 23rd 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11398629

[6] “Divorce Dissent”, Ruth Deech, 1995.

[7]  “AIDS and HIV risk”. Nature 360 (6403): 410–2. doi:10.1038/360410a0. PMID.

[8] ‘Physician Says Science of Medical Consequences of Homosexual Behaviour is Being Trumped by Political Agenda’ by LifeSiteNews.com, Sat Sep 20, 2003  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2003/sep/03092008 

[9] The Dark Side of ‘Gay’ Issue Date: July/August 2012 http://www.chick.com/bc/2012/darkside.asp

[10] See also Psychological Reports (2005;96:693-697).

[11] Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ a Health Risk Doctors Warn Parliamentarians, by Lifesitwe news.com FEB 17, 2005 HTTP://WWW.LIFESITENEWS.COM/NEWS/ARCHIVE//LDN/2005/FEB/05021709

[12] The authors of the report are John Shea,MD, FRCP (C), Radiologist; John K. Wilson MD, FRCP (C), Cardiologist; Paul Ranalli MD, FRCP (C), Neurologist; Christina Paulaitis MD, CCFP, Family Physician; Luigi Castagna

[13] In Kurt Freund’s  1989 study at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Canada, scientists showed pictures of children to adult gay and straight males, and measured sexual arousal. Homosexual men reacted no more strongly to pictures of male children than heterosexual men reacted to pictures of female children.

[14] St Paul’s Hospital, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/1499.full   

[15] “Same-Sex Marriage Linked to Longer Lives”, by Stephanie Pappas, ‘LiveScience’ Senior Writer, 11th  March 2013 http://www.livescience.com/27796-same-sex-marriage-mortality-rates.html  

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s