SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.
The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality, by Peter Sprigg.
A publication of Family Research Council, Washington DC
Available for download from
http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf
Founded in 1983, Family Research Council is a nonprofit research and educational organisation dedicated to articulating and advancing a family-centred philosophy of public life. To see other FRD publications and to find out more about FR C’s work, visit www.frc.org
“The Health Risks of Gay Sex” by John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D.
“As a physician, it is my duty to assess behaviors for their impact on health and wellbeing. When something is beneficial, such as exercise, good nutrition, or adequate sleep, it is my duty to recommend it. Likewise, when something is harmful, such as smoking, overeating, alcohol or drug abuse, and homosexual sex, it is my duty to discourage it.”
“The Health Risks of Gay Sex” by John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D. Corporate Resource Council (2002). This resource is available here in pdf format:
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/healthrisksSSA.pdf
Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr., is a practicing Internist with first-hand experience in treating many of the problems described in this paper. He also travels and lectures on a variety of medical topics to audiences around the world.
John R. Diggs, Jr., MD is a board-certified Internist who has put his medical training and 15-plus years of clinical experience to work in developing a series of messages advocating the sanctity of human life and the proven benefits of sexual restraint. His central theme: Overwhelming scientific evidence supports the inherently reasonable and, at one time, universally held belief that sex belongs exclusively inside marriage.
The costs of sexual libertinism are much higher than the well-publicized devastation of the AIDS epidemic. Using the research skills and clinical expertise of a seasoned physician, Dr. Diggs exposes the real-world effects of sexual permissiveness through a message that is logical, consistent, coherent and inspiring. It leads lay persons and professionals to seek the best in themselves and their children. Parents are energized to fulfill their primary role in the education of their children. Teachers are relieved to discover their limited responsibilities in the area of sex education and their larger duty to honor the moral and ethical prerogatives of parents. Civic leaders are encouraged to find that their gut-instincts about the importance of civic virtue actually coincide with the most up-to-date findings in medicine. Businessmen learn of the costly effects of sexual immorality on the lives of their employees and on businesses themselves. Doctors have even commented that they will change their manner of practicing medicine because of the information that is presented by Dr. Diggs.
Whether they are received by medical professionals, church audiences, civic associations or corporate communities, Dr. Diggs’s presentations lead listeners to greater respect for one another and for the power of the human sexual faculty, correctly channeled. Consequently, listeners gain new clarity and hope regarding problems ranging from adolescent pregnancy to sexual addiction, pornography and male-female relations in the workplace. The quick wit and humor that Dr. Diggs injects in his presentations does not blur the bright line of truth that courses through the message.
In addition to a appearing before a variety of professional conferences, churches, high school and collegiate audiences, Dr. Diggs has published numerous essays and articles for local and national print media. He has appeared on more than 100 local and national radio programs — including the “Dr. Laura” Schlessinger show — and television venues such as MSNBC, national Fox News and “The O’Reilly Factor.”
Dr. Diggs has been married for more than a decade and is the beaming father of 3 children.
Source:
http://www.ambassadorspeakers.com/ACP/speakers.aspx?speaker=423
Family Life International NZ, a registered charity that is pro-life, has organised and sponsored a Public Talk on 11th and 14th April entitled “Same Sex ‘Marriage’ and the Threat to Religious Freedom – the Canadian Experience“
Thursday 11th April 2013
St Anne’s Parish Hall • Emmett Street • Newtown • Wellington
Easy access and plenty of car parks. A collection will be taken to defray expenses.
For more information please contact Clare 04 237 8343 or clare.fli@xtra.co.nz
or download flyer (available for distribution):
John-Henry Westen Public Talk in Wellington Flyer (504 KB)
http://www.fli.org.nz/_literature_127154/John-Henry_Westen_Public_Talk_in_Wellington_Flyer
John Henry Westen has written in a recent article entitled:
Do we love those inclined to homosexuality enough to stop same-sex ‘marriage’?
In this battle over same-sex ‘marriage’ it often sounds like those pushing the dismantling of traditional marriage have the upper hand in terms of love. ‘You are opposed to love!’; ‘How does the love between me and my partner affect you in your marriage?’; ‘Why can’t I be allowed to love whomever I choose?’
These are the tough arguments from ‘love’ facing those who are fighting to protect marriage from radical redefinition.
In truth, however, love is the principle reason to fight same-sex ‘marriage.’
You see, law is a teacher and enshrining same-sex ‘marriage’ in law would lead many people to believe that homosexual sexual relations are equal to those of heterosexual married couples. The difficulty, of course, is that while sexual acts between heterosexual married couples can be totally healthy and positive, the same can never be said of sexual acts between persons of the same sex, whether they happen within a relationship given the name “marriage” or not.
For full article go to:
——————–
Family Life International NZ, a registered charity, has organised and sponsored a Public Talk entitled “Same Sex ‘Marriage’ and the Threat to Religious Freedom – the Canadian Experience”
Sunday 14th April 2013
Liston Hall • 30-32 Hobson Street • Auckland City
Access is also available via St Patrick’s Square, Wyndham Street
Parking available at the Farmers Carpark for $2.00 (with validation)
As same-sex “marriage” legislation is before our Parliament, with a very real prospect that it will become law in the next few weeks, you are invited to attend this insightful public meeting on the impact same-sex “marriage” has on religious freedom. A Prayer Vigil culminating in a Prayer Procession to St Patrick’s Cathedral for Holy Mass will also take place after John-Henry’s address.
For more information please contact Brendan brendanr.fli@xtra.co.nz or 09 629 4361
“Gay” couples should not be permitted to marry, among other things because they lack the essential traits that constitute true (conjugal) marriage: for in lacking sexual complementarity, “gay” couples cannot achieve complete sexual bodily union. And lacking reproductive capability they cannot be biological parents.
Heterosexual marriage is orientated towards producing offspring (in principle), while same-sex ‘marriage’ is not. The marriage of any heterosexual couple unable to have children due to sterility or old age etc, or who choose not to have children for any reason, differs in principle from all same-sex relationships. The former involve one man and one women (opposite sexes), constituting the relationship as fundamentally different due to the complementarity of the two sexes.
While same-sex couples can nurture children, they cannot provide the example that a father and a mother can, the intangible things that only a father and a mother can supply. They lack the inherent structure to rear well-rounded, psychologically secure children.
The concept of partnership marriage “between two persons, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity”, as proposed in Louisa Wall’s Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, does not keep or strengthen the existing institution (which is excludes same-sex marriage), but simply allows more persons to join it. Instead it eviscerates it and substitutes a radical experimental concept.
Rex Ahdar, Professor of Law at Otago University, expands on these points in his article published today in The Dominion Post:
Finding true essence of marriage
To read the Society’s written submission to the Government Administration Committee on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill go to:
Forces pushing for genderless marriage are a wellspring of fallacies and unanswered questions about the consequences. Let’s explore some of them.
1. What’s love got to do with it?
Nothing. Romanticizing this debate by claiming that any two people in love should have a civil right to civil marriage is a foolish distraction. Neither judges nor legislators have any business discussing “affection” as a factor in defining civil marriage. Clergy who bless marriages have a legitimate and separate role in discerning the internal dynamics of couples. But not the state.
2. What is the state’s interest in marriage?
First, to recognize the union that produces the state’s citizens. Second, to encourage those who sire and bear the citizens to take responsibility for rearing them together. That’s all, folks. Proponents of genderless marriage often answer this question with non sequiturs such as property rights (irrelevant), civil rights (extraneous to the question), and “love and stability” (not a function of state involvement).
3. Why should state interest in marriage be about children if not all marriages produce children?
It’s thoroughly irrelevant that many heterosexual couples lack children because of intent, infertility, age, or health. Claiming that this is relevant to the case for genderless marriage suggests the “fallacy of composition”: inferring that something must be true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. Citizens of the state can exist only through the female-male union, no matter how the union occurs — whether traditionally, artificially, or in a petri dish. That’s the only fact that provides any grounds for state interest in marriage.
4. What about marriage for the sake of same-sex households with children?
We just don’t have the right to deliberately deprive children of knowing their biological mothers or fathers. But genderless marriage ultimately requires us to do this. It requires society to sanction the refashioning of familial bonds in alienating and experimental ways. Use of surrogates and egg or sperm markets put children at ever-increasing risk of being treated more as commodities than as human beings. Laws supporting genderless marriage cannot help but ramp up these trends to newer and crueler levels.
Read more:
American Thinker, April 6, 2013.
Stella Morabito has published several op-eds on same-sex marriage in The Washington Examiner.