Jimmy Savile and The Misogyny of Liberalism.

There was an editorial in the UK news magazine "The Week", 13th October 2012, by Caroline Law which I have reproduced below. The title above this post is my own interpretation of her comments...

"It was different back then. That's one of the explanations given for how Jimmy Savile got away with molesting girls for so long. Savile, who prowled the corridors of schools and hospitals in search of victims, appears to have been far more calculated in his predations than most. But it is undeniable that many pop stars and DJs routinely exploited young female fans in the 1960s and 1970s. Some even paraded underage girlfriends, yet were not prosecuted. (Jailed for seven years in 2001, Jonathan King was a rare exception; but then he molested teenage boys).
This is often put down to the casual misogyny of the time, but it was more than that. In the era of free love, parents worried, as they do now, about 'dirty old men', but there was also a feeling in the air that sex was something that everyone should enjoy, children included. So much so, there was even an activist group called the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). From 1974 to 1984, PIE openly campaigned for greater acceptance of paedophilia, lobbied for the abolition of the age of consent, and helped paedophiles make contact with one another. And it had influential friends. No less a group than The National Council for Civil Liberties, now called Liberty and then run by future Labour minister Patricia Hewitt, was affiliated to PIE. Consenting sex between adults and children was harmless they argued, and shouldn't be illegal. Perhaps that's how BBC bosses rationalised away the rumours about Savile. They were in respectable company."

Gender, Authority & Sexuality.

Excellent talk this morning at church on Gender, Authority and Sexuality. Check out www.shmedia.org.uk for free mp3 downloads. Or try iphone: http://goo.gl/G5Y2C or Android: http://goo/Owl2Bl or search for "St Helen's" on Apple App or on Google Play.

Sign the Petition.

It seems to me to be a fairly clear observation in nature that male and female together form a compatible unit. There is a clear intention in nature for the two sexes to compliment each other sexually. Indeed in procreation each provides half the chromosomes neccesary to form a new individual.

It is a misnomer to describe homosexual or lesbian relationships as "sexual" because by definition they cannot be sexual, to be "sexual" requires one female and one male. Homosexual relationships are Asexual by definition.

Marriage is a sexual relationship and by definition is a joining together of one male and one female.

Governments do not own marriage and it is not for Parliament or any institution to seek to redefine it.
Coalition For Marriage

Christian Medical Comment: BBC uses distortion, hype, exaggeration and select...: With the consultation about legalizing same-sex marriage already underway in Scotland and with the Westminster consultation about to start, ...

Homosexual Marriage.

Marriage is by definition a Sexual relationship. Genital activity between people of the same gender, whatever else it might be, is by definition Asexual, therefore it is not marriage.
The biological definition of Sex is intercourse between members of opposite sexes of the same species. None of this is rocket science.