GAY TRUTH

Outrage has erupted in the press and in Parliament over the Exposure Draft of a Bill designed to implement a possible “Yes” vote in the same-sex marriage survey. Senator James Paterson, a Liberal Party member who personally supports same sex marriage, has released a Draft  Marriage Amendment (Definition and Protection of Freedoms) Bill  2017 designed to effect this change, but also to provide protection for the religious freedom of those whose faith will not allow them to approve it. But the Bill has been excoriated as “legalising homophobic discrimination” (Senator Hinch, in a question to the Attorney-General ,  Senate Hansard , 14 Nov 2017, p 21 of  draft proceedings ), and as a “licence to discriminate” (Senator Wong, as  reported  by the ABC .) I think these are outrageous over-statements, and misrepresent the nature of the Bill. I don’t agree with every line of the Paterson Bill, but I think it is a perfectly reasonable attempt to provide an appropriate balance of the r

Safe Schools (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Australia; Victoria has become the epicentre of a bizarre war on the innocence of children driven by an LGBTIQ agenda about which parents are kept deliberately clueless. In this week’s E-news you can read ACL Victorian Director   Dan Flynn’s responses to the latest revelations   about what will become compulsory through the so called “Respectful Relationships” program. Victoria is where the so-called “ Safe Schools ” program originated and “Respectful Relationships” draws from the same rainbow ideology. It is extreme sexual expressionism taught to high school students as normal all dressed up as an anti-domestic violence initiative. It is unclear how the normalisation of often degrading sexual acts helps in the war against domestic violence or helps boys learn respect for girls. In this week’s E-news we also release   a new paper that delves in detail behind the ideology that is driving “Safe Schools” and “Respectful Relationshi

English: Tony Abbott in 2010. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) What an astonishing offensive statement by the editor of the SMH. Any Christian  or non-religious person or MP who rejects homosexual marriage on grounds of logic, biology, evolution, Christian teaching, human history and common sense is labelled an extremist . The inference support homosexual marriage you are normal, object to it you're extreme. What arrogance!  The SMH also believes the refusal to allow immoral homosexual marriage is because of the moral preferences of one man, Tony Abbott ? Again SMH is seeking to twist the argument and the PM to make him look like a sexual Scrooge. Is this journalism or homosexual propaganda? After labelling normal fathers and mothers, young and old people who follow Christ and obey Biblical scripture to label everyone of them as extremist does not create "potential community support." Here is the quote from the SMH below : The Coalition so far has denied its MPs