Divorced men a good catch: report

Do divorcés make better potential partners than men who have never married? A New York news station reported last month that divorced might be the new single. According to WABC-TV, perennial bachelors might soon be pitied in the same way that single women over the age of 40 often are.

In the past, divorce was a red flag for many women, a sign that the man involved would come with the baggage of a previous marriage. These days, almost a third of marriages end in divorce. As Samantha Jayne, director of private matchmaking agency, Blue Label Life, points out, eliminating divorced men from the equation can make finding a partner that much harder, especially for women in their early 30s and older.

According to dating coach Jane Roder, there's now more of a stigma attached to 40-something bachelors than there is to divorcés the same age. "My personal view is that the older a man is, if he's single and never been married, he's perceived as having commitment issues," she says. "The single man who's never committed, there's a perception of – why not – why hasn't he done that? Especially in a place like Melbourne, where's there's an excess of women," she says.

Divorced men might have proven that they can commit, but for many men, when it comes to marriage, it would seem that once is enough. Just over half of men who divorced in 2000-2002 could expect to remarry, with some resolving never to do so again after the dissolution of the first marriage, for various reasons. "Hopefully they're not hung up on the past but there is a possibility that they haven't let go of the previous relationship," says Aiken. "There may be financial issues because of the divorce and they're not as stable or secure as they once were," he says.

Then there's the not-so-small matter of children. A divorcé might get the green light, but kids are often a deal-breaker. "It's a big consideration," says Roder. "It depends on the individual. Love can conquer many barriers and many people do it, but it is easier for divorced people without children, I think." If you're wanting kids of your own, it's important to establish early on if a divorcé with kids from a previous marriage is willing to have more children, she says.

Kylie*, 38, married a divorcé, with whom she now has three children. "I think they're better (divorcés) the second time around," she says. "The only catch in my situation was that he also had a three year old, and I had to deal with the ex-wife. After getting used to things, it was all good. We are very happily married."

The reason for the divorce, and how  the situation has been dealt with, are other factors to consider. "If he'd cheated, I definitely wouldn't have gone there," says Eve of her divorcé. It's also important that the divorcé has moved on fully before entering another relationship. "The most important thing is that those people have left that relationship and that it's respectful," says Roder. "If they're fighting and still angry with somebody, that's the issue more than anything else because it's a sign that it's unfinished business," she says.

According to Jayne, not being the first woman to walk down the aisle with their husband-to-be is still a major deterrant for some women. "Sometimes people get hung up on it, they think, 'I don't want to be that second wife or second husband'" she says. "I think women tend to worry more about it, they have this fairytale idea of what their future husband should look like and what his life experience should be. I don't think men are so concerned, if kids are involved it's an issue but generally men are fine with it."

The experts interviewed in this story agreed that divorce isn't actually the issue, rather, it's whether or not that person is willing and able to commit again. "What I say to single people is that everyone comes as a package," says Aiken. "Some people will be divorced, others will have kids, others might be widowed or they might come with an overinvolved mother. What you've got to do is you've got to stop and think, what are my deal breakers, and what are things that I can embrace," he says.

"It's not about divorce, it's if someone's emotionally available," says Jayne. "A man could be divorced with a lot of emotional baggage or a man who'd previously never married could have the same amount of baggage," she says. "A lot of clients say, I don't want to be with a divorced man because he's fallen in love with someone else. It's all about a person's beliefs."

SOURCE







The data is now in:  Study claims kids do better with heterosexual parents

CHILDREN with straight parents are wealthier, healthier and happier than those with gay parents, a major study has found.

The finding runs counter to years of study that says there is no difference between the offspring of gay parents and married couples.

The American study assessed 3000 young adults aged 18-39, including 175 children of lesbians and 73 children of gay men.

Children with gay parents tended to end up with less money, poorer mental health and were more likely to be on welfare or jobless.

Lead researcher Associate Professor Mark Regnerus, from the University of Texas, said the study found children "appear most apt to succeed well as adults ... when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day".

Prof Regnerus said there was "far greater diversity in the experience of lesbian motherhood (and, to a lesser extent, gay fatherhood) than has been acknowledged or understood".

Children of lesbian mothers had poorer outcomes than those with gay fathers, and similar experiences to those from stepfamilies and single parents.

Gay groups have hit back at the findings, saying the research is flawed because it compares the lives of children whose parents had gay relationships - which may have lasted for as little as four months - with the offspring of stable, long-term married unions.

Australian Marriage Equality national convener Alex Greenwich said studies "show that a stable and secure upbringing is what makes all the difference to a child's future, not the gender of their parents".

"This study is an argument for allowing same-sex parents to marry and provide their children with the security, stability and recognition marriage brings," Mr Greenwich said.

Jim Wallace, managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, said he was sure there were "many good gay parents".

But Mr Wallace said the study highlighted the "consequence of breaking biological truths". "There is a selfish agenda here, and gay parenting has to be opposed in the interests of what we hold up as in the best interests of children in our society," he said.

But Cath Mok, mum to Dougal, 5, and Maisie, 8, with partner Helen, said gay families were "just like everyone else".

"We deal with the same day-to-day issues, the same joy and the same struggles," Ms Mok said.

SOURCE





British Christian GP fighting for his job had prayed to God for a challenge

Dr Richard Scott was given a warning by the General Medical Council after he told a suicidal patient that Christianity may offer help and he is now fighting to keep his job.

Dr Richard Scott was frustrated with his lot. Despite having a flourishing GP practice and happy family life, he felt that he was not making a difference. So he turned to someone who had always helped him in the past.

“I asked God to send me a challenge that would resonate with people,” he says, “to make them see the importance of faith.”

God listened. Within the year, Dr Scott was locked in a battle with the General Medical Council after he suggested to a suicidal patient in August 2010 that religion might do more to help him than medication.

He also found himself fighting for his own life, after being diagnosed with bowel cancer.

Though Dr Scott has undergone painful surgery, radiation and two rounds of chemotherapy, the cancer, he says, has been the least of it.

What upsets him most is the realisation that it has become dangerous today to express Christian beliefs in the workplace.

The GMC, which regulates standards among medical professionals, issued Dr Scott with a warning last March. He had, it claimed, “overstepped the line” when, in a consultation, he urged his 24-year-old patient to give Christianity a chance.

“The man was depressed, and had left his own faith. So I told him, 'You may find that Christianity offers you something that your own faith did not.’ His mother complained that I was forcing my religion down his throat.”

In finding that Dr Scott pushed his religious views on his patient, the GMC warned that if any further complaints are made about him, the GP of 28 years’ standing risks being struck off the medical register.

His appeal against the official warning was quashed last Thursday, after a four-day hearing that his counsel, Paul Diamond, called “Stalinist”.

From his home in Margate, Kent, Dr Scott said: “It was as if I had stepped into a secret court, with the witness, Patient A, never appearing. He was allowed to give evidence over the telephone, and remained a faceless accuser.”

This proved, he says, “the GMC’s bias against me — and any doctor who wears his Christian faith on his sleeve”.

The same council that allows doctors to promote the healing effects of homoeopathy, chiropractic and reiki, also known as palm healing — which are all unsupported by Western, evidence-based medicine but are backed by belief systems — has banned the mere mention of faith and prayer in a consultation.

Yet, as Dr Scott points out, the medical impact of prayer has been proved in a number of scientific studies.

“Christians recover 70 per cent faster,” he says. “They’re also less likely to get depressed. In America, medical schools have even introduced spirituality and health courses because they recognise the significant role of faith as part of therapy.”

So, too, do the GPs at the Bethesda Medical Centre in Margate. Posters and leaflets at the surgery — which is described in its literature as “expressly Christian” but accepting of patients of all faiths — advises that “if you don’t want to talk about faith, let doctors know”.

The doctors, who include Dr Scott’s wife Heather, do outreach work connected with alcoholics, drug addicts and suicides, and rely on prayers and Bible readings in their mission. The practice, the GP points out, takes its name from the healing pool mentioned in the Gospel of John.

Dr Scott, 51, worries that his case is the latest in an alarming trend that points to the marginalisation of Christianity. Whether it is about abortion or gay marriage, the Christian perspective is under fire from the authorities.

“Look at the GMC,” he says. “It is made up of the great and the good. It is a pillar of the establishment. Yet can they claim to speak for the majority of people in this country? No. More than 70 per cent of Britons, when asked if they believe in God, said yes.”

The former missionary doctor and father-of-three believes that Christians must keep their faith “in the closet” or risk punishment.

“I got off lightly,” he admits, “as I still have a job. Other Christians suffered far more. The electrician who dared display a palm frond in the window of his van was fired; and the nurse who prayed for a patient was suspended.”

Dr Scott believes that efforts to eradicate Christianity’s presence in public life are growing. Before the tribunal hearing, he was vilified in the media as a Bible-thumping zealot; that alone, he says, will intimidate other doctors who dare to infuse their medical work with Christian charity.

By upholding this ruling, he believes the GMC has set a precedent, making it a disciplinary offence to bring faith to work.

Will the midwife who opposes abortion or the doctor who opposes assisted suicide be forced to go against their conscience and participate in procedures they believe to be wrong?

“I fear,” says Dr Scott, “that more and more, the answer will be 'yes’.”

What is it about the Christian mindset that causes such hostility in today’s liberal society? One reason, I venture, is that our culture prizes individualism, and we have grown accustomed to being able to sleep with whom we want, give birth when we want, and even snuff out life (our own, or an unborn child’s) as we see fit.

Dr Scott agrees that Christianity challenges this self-regard by accepting taboos and cherishing principles that the contemporary “anything-goes” culture has rejected. However, as he point out, such moral absolutism when professed by Muslims is somehow acceptable, but in Christians smacks of imperialism.

Dr Scott fears, too, that religious charities and organisations that run hospitals, schools and hostels for the homeless are being squeezed out of the public arena.

Just as Roman Catholic adoption agencies have been shut down because they refused to place children in their care with homosexual couples, so Christian hospices will be forced to shut if they oppose euthanasia, and Christian hospitals to close if they refuse to perform abortions.

It is a bleak scenario — and totally different from the welcome that Dr Scott received in India and Africa during his years as a medical missionary. While he and his wife worked in Tanzania and Kenya, they found themselves loved and respected because of, rather than in spite of, their faith.

“As Christians, we were seen to bring education and medicines, but also an important ally against the witchdoctors who were causing extraordinary violence and misery among the Masai.

"Even when we were unable to save a life, or a limb, the family would offer us a slaughtered cow in gratitude.”

No slaughtered cows here — though his struggle has brought Dr Scott hundreds of letters and emails of support. He takes comfort in these, especially in messages from atheists.

The British sense of fair play is offended by censorship, especially when its victims are targeted for their beliefs. When a woman cannot wear a cross, or her colleague a hijab, it is not only believers who cry foul.

Are Britons cross enough about this to fight back? “Yes,” Dr Scott is adamant. “I think people are fed up of watching their countrymen being bullied by the thought police.”

The GMC and other authorities, he says, ignore that Britons like to live in a civilised country — one in which everyone is free to have their say — at their peril.

SOURCE




Britain's Fascist social workers again

The Argentinian dictatorship took children away from Leftists so we see the company they are in

SOCIAL workers want to seize a baby as soon as it is born because they are concerned about the mother’s violent links to the English Defence League.

Durham County Council has told Toni McLeod she would pose a “risk of ­significant harm” to the baby. Social workers fear the child would become radicalised with EDL views and want it put up for adoption immediately.

Mrs McLeod, who is 35 weeks pregnant, is a former leading member of the EDL, in which she was notorious as “English Angel”. The 25-year-old has a string of convictions for violence, including butting and biting a police officer after an EDL march in 2010 and she has been banned from owning dogs after setting a pit bull on a former partner.

However, her cause has been taken up by Lib Dem MP John Hemming who, despite his loathing for the EDL, raised it in the Commons. He contrasts her treatment with that of the extremist Islamic cleric Abu Qatada, who was allowed to remain with his ­children when he was briefly remanded on bail earlier this year as the Government tries to deport him.

He said: “It raises a curious question as to why Abu Qatada is allowed to radicalise his children but the state won’t take the chance of allowing Toni McLeod to look after her baby in case she says something social workers won’t like.

“I am very strongly opposed to the EDL, which I believe to be a racist organisation, but I do not think we should remove all of the children of the people who go on their demonstrations, however misguided they may be.”

Mrs McLeod has posted racist abuse on social networking sites but denies being racist. She claims she is no longer active with the EDL and has never been charged with violence against children.

Social workers have told her husband Martyn he would be unable to care for his child because he is a full-time soldier just back from Afghanistan.       

Mr Hemming, who chairs the Justice For Families campaign group, said yesterday: “This case is one where the ‘thought police’ have decided to remove her baby at birth because of what she might say to the baby. I wonder what the baby’s father is thinking when he fights for a country which won’t allow him to have a child because of what the child’s mother might say.

“Toni now accepts she was wrong to have gone on EDL demonstrations but freedom of speech means nothing if people are not allowed to say things that are thought to be wrong.”

Mrs McLeod wants to move to ­Ireland for the birth to avoid England’s social services. Rifleman McLeod, 31, plans to request a transfer to Northern Ireland so he can be with his child.

Durham County Council told Mrs McLeod on Friday her unborn baby was being placed on its child protection register. Last month, a judge ruled that her three other children, who have different fathers, should be permanently removed from her care.

The Sunday Express is unable to give details of the judge’s explanation for legal reasons.

Documents seen by the Sunday Express reveal social workers are worried about Mrs McLeod’s previous alcohol and drug misuse, her “aggressive behaviour” and her alleged “mental health issues” .

They concede she is no longer involved with the EDL but believe she is now involved with a splinter group, the North West Infidels. The social worker’s report states: “Toni clearly needs to break away from the inappropriate friendships she has through either the EDL or break-off group in order that she can model and display appropriate positive relationships to the baby as he/she grows and develops.

“Toni has been a prominent member of the EDL. They claim they are a peaceful group, however, they have strong associations with violence and racism.”

Mr McLeod said: “Toni would never harm a child.”

The council said it was unable to comment.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH,  AUSTRALIAN POLITICS,  DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.

***************************