GAY TRUTH

In Rom. 1 Paul condemns homosexual acts, lesbian as well as male, in the same breath as idolatry (vv. 23–27), but his theological canvas is broader than that of Leviticus. Instead of treating homosexual behaviour as an expression of idolatrous worship, he traces both to the bad ‘exchange’ fallen man has made in departing from his Creator’s intention (vv. 25f.). Seen from this angle, every homosexual act is unnatural, because it cuts across the individual’s natural sexual orientation and infringes OT law and it flies in the face of God’s creation scheme for human sexual expression. Paul makes two more references to homosexual practice in other Epistles. Both occur in lists of banned activities and strike the same condemnatory note. In 1 Cor. 6:9f. practising homosexuals are included among the unrighteous who will not inherit the kingdom of God (but with the redemptive note added, ‘such were some of you’); and in 1 Tim. 1:9f. they feature in a list of ‘the lawless and disobedient’. The

Anthony Mundine (Photo credit: Eva Rinaldi Celebrity and Live Music Photographer ) Anthony Mundine says homosexuality and Indigenous culture don't mix after watching Redfern Now The Indigenous production company behind ABC series Redfern Now has slammed Anthony Mundine's comments that Aboriginality and homosexuality do not mix. However, the truth is Mundine is correct.  Mundine posted on Facebook last night that promoting homosexuality in Aboriginal culture is not OK and Indigenous ancestors would have someone's head for it. The first episode of the show's second series centred around a gay Indigenous man who had to fight his deceased partner's mother for custody of his daughter following a fatal accident. But Mundine, who converted to Islam , said his father told him that God created Adam and Eve , not " Adam and Steve ". "Watching Redfern Now & they promoting homosexuality! (Like it's ok in our culture) that ain't in our cultur

Below is a copy of the ABC News Australia Facts Check on a statement by the Prime Minister . The Prime Minister holds a Judeo- Christian view of marriage established by the Bible and the church. The Bible does events which list polgamy though not approved by God but are seen as acts of rebellion, yet God showed grace. This nuance is simply ignored by quoting a liberal source. Facts Check is supposedly meant to be neutral balanced provide accurate information, judge information given by politicians, etc to check its truth-worthiness and accuracy. However, this article clearly portrays bias, lack of full perspective in forming an argument and at most deceptive in terms of its viewpoint but upholds the position held by the ABC which is pro-homosexual, anti-Christian and extreme left. The ABC constantly only presents one view on this topic constantly. Tony Abbott incorrect on the history of marriage Updated  4 hours 13 minutes ago PHOTO:  Tony Abbott incorrect on the history

Rainbow flag. Symbol of gay pride. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) IN Australia 's often hysterical same-sex marriage dispute there are two benchmarks - the only enduring basis for change should be the national parliament and that vote should be based on conscience, given the practice established with the 1961 Marriage Act. Or put to a referendum where the people will vote it out as it did with Kevin Rudd who supported immoral homosexual marriage. Related articles Colorado Couple Suing Over State's Same-Sex Marriage Ban (huffingtonpost.com) Why should the high court decide on homosexual marriage and not a referendum? (gaychristianbeliever.blogspot.com) The follies of an over blown town council (iainhall.wordpress.com) Let Homosexual Marriage go to a referendum (gaychristianbeliever.blogspot.com) Homosexual Marriage is a slippery slope (gaychristianbeliever.blogspot.com) Sinful homosexual want what they will never get, RESPECT (gaychristianbeliever.blogspo

Andrew Bolt writes in the Herald Sun .  IT was meant to stop us worrying, but one bit of Labor's new policy for same-sex marriage is a warning. I mean this: "These amendments should ensure that nothing in the Marriage Act imposes an obligation on a minister of religion to solemnise any marriage. I'm sure most of the delegates at Labor's national conference on the weekend did mean it. They just wanted the law changed so men could marry men, and women could marry women. And they didn't want to use equal opportunity laws to then force churches to bless them. But I wouldn't take this guarantee to the bank. The whole idea of changing the Marriage Act is to force us collectively to bless same-sex unions despite the reluctance of many to do so. After all, forms of same-sex civil unions - which I support - already exist in Queensland, Tasmania , Victoria, the ACT and NSW. The legal difference between those unions and marriages are usually small, so what more is gai

Author: Andrew Bolt writes in the Herald Sun .  IT was meant to stop us worrying, but one bit of Labor's new policy for same-sex marriage is a warning. I mean this: "These amendments should ensure that nothing in the Marriage Act imposes an obligation on a minister of religion to solemnise any marriage. I'm sure most of the delegates at Labor's national conference on the weekend did mean it. They just wanted the law changed so men could marry men, and women could marry women. And they didn't want to use equal opportunity laws to then force churches to bless them. But I wouldn't take this guarantee to the bank. The whole idea of changing the Marriage Act is to force us collectively to bless same-sex unions despite the reluctance of many to do so. After all, forms of same-sex civil unions - which I support - already exist in Queensland, Tasmania , Victoria, the ACT and NSW. The legal difference between those unions and marriages are usually small, so what mor

Julia Gillard embraces Penny Wong after Labor endorsed gay marriages in a historic policy change. Picture: Tim Hunter  Source:  The Sunday Telegraph IT was meant to stop us worrying, but one bit of Labor's new policy for same-sex marriage is a warning. I mean this: "These amendments should ensure that nothing in the Marriage Act imposes an obligation on a minister of religion to solemnise any marriage." Click here to have your say at Andrew's blog I'm sure most of the delegates at Labor's national conference on the weekend did mean it. They just wanted the law changed so men could marry men, and women could marry women. And they didn't want to use equal opportunity laws to then force churches to bless them. But I wouldn't take this guarantee to the bank. The whole idea of changing the Marriage Act is to force us collectively to bless same-sex unions despite the reluctance of many to do so. After all, forms of same-sex civil unions - which I support - a

The ACT's gay marriage legislation is a political decision to embarrass the Abbott government in emphasising that a referendum is the people's right to decide big social issues . The vocal minority on gay marriage is the tail that seems to wag the majority Labor dog in the ACT. The ACT Labor government did not consult the people before enacting its controversial and politically motivated legislation. There was no democratic process . Going to the courts is a further run around democracy, allowing a few clever people on the High Court bench to decide how they, not the people, want the Constitution to define marriage. Either way, the people have not been given a say. The Abbott government and the federal opposition should do what ACT Labor refused to do, and endorse a referendum to settle the matter once and for all. The last election disapproved of Kevin Rudd's view of homosexual marriage.  Related articles Why should the high court decide on homosexual marriage

It is deeply unjust to take away the human rights of the majority to enjoy their cherished, cultural and religious institution of exclusive heterosexual marriage , simply so that homosexual elites can marry instead of enjoying substantially the same legal rights as partners in a homosexual civil union. Forcing such change without a referendum is deeply undemocratic. Vilifying those who oppose this as bigots or homophobes is unfair and divisive. But the affirmative action elite are not democrats. They can only be defeated by demolishing their fake arguments about discrimination. It is hypocrisy for homosexuals to argue that denying them marriage makes them victims of inequality when they themselves demand inequality when requesting affirmative action, or exclusively homosexual services, as they do. Civil union legislation acknowledges homosexual identity by providing an exclusive cultural institution for homosexual while leaving heterosexuals with their own, making both groups e

Only nine politicians in the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly voted last week to legalise homosexual marriage on behalf of all Australians. The nine were a predictable Labor-Green alliance and were opposed by eight Liberals. And also this week the Labor-Green government in Tasmania tried and failed to revive its recently rejected bill for same-sex marriage. A political party is in terminal decline when common sense amongst its leaders is no longer common. Throughout recorded history, common sense has understood that marriage is not just about adults – it’s about the needs and rights of children, too. Not so with new Labor, whose leaders have succumbed to the adult-only narcissism of “marriage equality”. Union leader Paul Howes told the Labor party this month “you do not belong with us” if you oppose the “fair go” of letting two men marry. But nowhere in his speech was there any consideration of a fair go for children created within such a marriage, who are forc