February 23, 2005

Homosexual ‘Marriage’ a Health Risk Doctors Warn Parliamentarians -- Right Honourable MP's Pat O'Brien and Stephen Harper on Gay 'Marriage'

Homosexual ‘Marriage’ a Health Risk Doctors Warn Parliamentarians or download the Adobe Acrobat .pdf file

The following came from someone I know; he has a science background and is very concerned.

OTTAWA, February 17, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A group of physicians has presented to Canadian Parliamentarians scientific evidence that homosexual marriage is a health risk to Canadians. The heavily referenced brief titled "Gay Marriage and Homosexuality, Some Medical Comments" warns that 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.

Doctors who spoke with LifeSiteNews.com also warn that this dangerous sexual practice has spread to the heterosexual community as well.

“There is a significant increase in the risk of contracting HIV when engaging in anal sex,” the paper warns. It cites studies indicating that “Young homosexual men aged 15-22, who had anal sex had a fivefold increased risk of contracting HIV over those who never engaged in anal sex.”

The brief notes also 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).”

The brief warns “Any attempts to legalize gay marriage should be aware of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia. While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in pedophilia, it is of grave concern that there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among pedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make pedophilia acceptable.”

The doctors cite the Journal of Homosexuality in demonstrating an overlap between the homosexual activist movement and the promoters of pedophilia. Moreover, the paper 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.”

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 MD, FRCP (C), Paediatric Neurologist; Hans-Christian Raabe MD, MRCP MR! CGP Internist; W. André Lafrance MD, FRCP (C), Dermatologist

the complete report

Acrobat format






Right Honourable Member of Parliament -- MP Pat O'Brien, London--Fanshawe, Liberal

There are MP's of all political stripes who have demonstrated their integrity. One I wish to note is MP Pat O'Brien, a Liberal, who spoke eloquently against same sex 'marriage'. He spoke out of principle -- obviously, not a YES man for the PM/PMO who, rumour has it, have been pressuring MP's to follow the Cabinet in voting yes to same sex 'marriage'. There are MP's who will vote their conscience and who are mindful of the wishes of their constituents; Mr. O'Brien appears to be one of them.

I admire the integrity of any man who goes against what must be overwhelming pressure to go along, especially in a minority government situation, one who votes his conscience. Liberals like Pat O'Brien will not lose their seats over gay 'marriage', I believe. He joins other MP's who have tried to make a difference -- MP David Kilgour and MP Robert Nault come to mind; I admit I know too little about either but I am impressed with the little I have read about their efforts -- on security in the former case and on cleaning up the finances on the reserves in the latter. They may have failed -- for now -- but they stood for something.

To earn our admiration, MP's do not have to agree with those of us who are of a conservative bent; they just have to be decent representatives for their constituents, MP's who try to do what is right, MP's who articulate what so many Canadians are saying and which some legislators close to the PMO ignore in pursuing their own agendas.

Pat O'Brien gave an impassioned defence of his position supporting traditional marriage. It was an eloquent speech.

Whatever their political affiliation, MP's who act with integrity should be honoured. Most of us simply want those who represent us to actually do so, not be forced to follow the PMO.


Email to thank this MP here: OBrien.P@parl.gc.ca


Most of us can live with what Parliamentarians decide on their own, not caving under pressure. If we do not like it we may vote them out. We can live with that. I would suggest we work to get rid of the judicial activism that props up the whole sorry system of a few deciding for all.





Another Right Honourable MP and Leader of HM Opposition, Stephen Harper -- his speech on the government's attempt to abolish the traditional definition of marriage in Canada

Address in the House of Commons on Bill C-38: the Hon. Stephen Harper, Leader of the Official Opposition February 16, 2005

Mr. Speaker, before I turn to my formal remarks I would like to begin with just a brief reply to the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister spoke at length, as we just heard, about rights in the Charter of Rights. I remind the Prime Minister that in our system of government, the Prime Minister does not decide or define our rights. The Prime Minister does not interpret the Charter of Rights. The Supreme Court of Canada does that. He asked the Supreme Court of Canada to endorse his interpretation and it just refused.

[. . . . ] What do we have today? We have no agreement on child care. We have a phantom deal on infrastructure. We have missing policy reviews on defence and foreign affairs. We have none of that famous fixed for a generation in health care. We have holes in federal agencies, the same old democratic deficit in the Senate, unaccountable foundations and, on the first day of a major environmental and economic accord to which the Prime Minister committed this country, we have no plan whatsoever and the Prime Minister does not speak about it. His only speech is on his new-found passion for same sex marriage because it is the only proposal of significance he has been able to lay before the House of Commons.

The greater tragedy is the greater message in his speech, that if we do not accept his particular views on this legislation, then we are not truly Canadian. That is something that this party will never accept.


Questioning of Motives

[. . . . ] As the Prime Minister invited us to do [to win the leadership of his own party], I do want to engage in this debate about fundamental social values. I do want to discuss how compromise proposals like civil unions may be able to resolve some of the impediments the Prime Minister noted. I hope the Prime Minister will extend to me and roughly half the members of the House and roughly two-thirds of the country who support the traditional definition of marriage, the courtesy of an open debate without facing spurious charges of bigotry or bad faith from the Prime Minister, his spin doctors or his media allies. [. . . . ]



There is much more, ranging over aspects of this issue -- a "must read".




Some Winnipeg MPs receiving the most correspondence of their political careers

Thanks to R for the following item from the Wnnipeg Free Press, Feb 6 2005

- Same-sex marriage legislation has resulted in some Winnipeg MPs receiving the most correspondence of their political careers. CPC MP Joy Smith called the same-sex marriage legislation "a hot-button issue," and noted that her office receives about a thousand responses each week. Jack Haasbeek, executive constituency assistant to CPC justice critic Vic Toews, said this issue alone has generated "more correspondence than any other single issue since Vic was elected in the year 2000." The two Conservative MPs said their mail reflects overwhelming opposition to the legislation, while Liberal MP Anita Neville reported overwhelming support. . . . (K. Carlson : WFP A3).

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home