The Government fails to get the age of homosexual consent lowered
WE were relieved to hear of the decision of the House of Lords to throw out again the proposed measure to lower the age of homosexual consent to 16. By a majority of 76 the peers declined to give the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill a second reading.
Despite that majority, and although public opinion is overwhelmingly against the measure, the Government has threatened to invoke the Parliament Act. This will ensure that the measure is forced through both Houses of Parliament and that the Government will have its way. It will be utterly deplorable if the will of the homosexual lobby, acting through the Government, should prevail over that of the majority of the population, and contrary to the Word of God.
That lobby is very active, as is evident, for example, from a letter we have received from what is bizarrely called the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement. They take exception to our article, Heaven-provoking Legislation, (March issue) and present counter arguments in support of sodomy.
The grossly perverse thinking of such people is indicated not only by their use of the mutually exclusive terms “Christian” and “Gay”, but also by ignoring the statements of Scripture which solemnly condemn this heaven-provoking sin and brand it as “an abomination” and “vile”. But God is not mocked.
Their main argument is that “a persons sexual orientation is fixed by the time of puberty and usually before”. No doubt they base their argument on the statement of a certain Dr Hamer (a homosexual) in the USA, who said in 1993 that his research implied the existence of a “gay gene”. Homosexuals have used his statement to support their assertion that homosexuality is a normal, biological condition. However, scientists now reject Hamers theory, following recently released results of several years of research in Canada. These studies have completely failed to discover the so called “gay gene”.
It is perverse of the Government itself to ignore such findings and the evidence of the harmful effects of this vile practice. It is also high time that the Government, which professes to foster marriage and the family, gave full practical recognition to Gods requirement that a sexual relationship is only to be between one man and one woman lawfully united in marriage.
Premiership football matches on Sabbath criticised by police
THE powerful combination of football clubs and television companies is a major enemy of the Christian Sabbath. Many premiership matches are now played and televised on Sabbath afternoons in England and on Sabbath evenings in Scotland. These Sabbath matches in Scotland are usually played during the time of evening worship, and one match in Birmingham was played during the time of morning worship, on Sabbath 21st March. Churchgoers, especially elderly ones, have been hindered in attending their churches, we are informed, not only by traffic problems caused by people going to the matches but also by fear of football hooligans.
Chief Superintendent Stewart Davidson, president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, said at the annual meeting of the organisation in Peebles. “We are extremely unhappy that the late kick-offs on Sundays are making our streets into places where law-abiding citizens, including many elderly people, are terrified to venture out for fear of being seriously assaulted.” It is good that he is drawing attention to the serious problem, but a great pity that he called only for the rescheduling of match times on Sabbath, instead of recommending an outright ban on Sabbath football.
As Sabbath desecration by Israel of old brought upon her the displeasure of the Lord of the Sabbath, so this nominally Christian nation cannot expect to continue flouting the Sabbath Commandment with impunity.
Doctor cleared of killing patient
Dr David Moor of Northumberland, who admitted some time ago that he had helped up to 300 of his terminally ill patients to die, was cleared last month of murdering an elderly patient with a fatal dose of painkiller.
It was thought that the case could mark a legal watershed similar to the cases in Holland that led to the decriminalisation of euthanasia in the 1980s.
Northumbria Police said after the case that they had had no option but to bring charges. “To a police officer and the criminal justice system the terms mercy killing and euthanasia are meaningless. If you shorten someones life by even minutes that is murder.”
We were glad to see that the British Medical Association insisted that despite the acquittal “euthanasia is illegal in this country and, although there is a range of views among doctors, majority opinion in the profession remains strongly opposed to it.”
Dr Moor said after the trial that there is a tightrope for doctors to walk when treating the terminally ill. Palliative care specialists have responded by stating that this is not so, and that “hospices demonstrate daily that pain-relieving drugs administered properly can actually prolong life where the primary aim is to relieve suffering, not to kill.”
The Medical Defence Union said, “The law does not permit euthanasia. But it recognises that it may be permissible for treatment to be given where necessary to relieve the pain and suffering of a terminally ill patient, even though it could have the unintended effect of hastening the patient’s death.” It is ominous that Dr Irwen of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (VES) claimed, “Slow euthanasia does go on in this country. Dr Moor may have been slightly foolish in admitting to it, but most doctors do it.”
There is a danger that we will reach the situation which is found in Holland. Although euthanasia is illegal there, doctors are not prosecuted if they obtain the “explicit request” of a patient suffering “intolerable pain without prospect of improvement”. But several Dutch studies indicate that doctors are ignoring these rules, and there is anecdotal evidence that families are having elderly relatives dispatched because they are a burden. A Dutch government report found that at least 1,000 people a year were killed without requesting euthanasia. Critics who oppose moves in the Dutch parliament to legalise euthanasia say the true figure is higher.