GAY TRUTH

FREEDOM of speech has been dealt yet another whack by the gay lobby determined to get its way on same-sex marriage and, what is worse, it was done in the name of human rights. Last week the deputy chief psychiatrist of Victoria, Kuruvilla George, resigned under pressure from his position on the Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission . His resignation came after Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young and various members of the gay lobby queried his professional judgment and his deeply held views on marriage. His crime? He signed a petition against same-sex marriage, as part of a doctors' group called Doctors for the Family. The petition pointed out that the health of the natural family is vital to the health of society and that homosexual relationships are not a suitable environment in which to bring up children. The petition was signed by 170 doctors and had numerous academic medical references (and some interesting non-academic ones from the likes of Andrew

The question posed by the title of this post is simply this: is it a denial of a fundamental human right, for a legal system not to extend the category of marriage to include marriage between parties of the same sex? The question was posed in a stark way by recent reported comments of the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission , Prof Gillian Triggs . Prof Triggs, for whom I have great respect as a scholar and academic, was delivering the annual Sir Anthony Mason Lecture at Melbourne Law School on 4 August, 2016. She strongly criticised a lack of commitment to human rights in recent decisions of the High Court of Australia, and the Commonwealth Government. In a short paragraph near the end of her address , she also said the following: A recent example of the failure of Parliament to protect fundamental rights is the decision to hold a plebiscite on marriage equality. Why do we hold an expensive, potentially divisive compulsory but non–binding national vote on the right

Margaret Somerville is Professor of Bioethics in the School of Medicine at the University of Notre Dame Australia . I wish that I could support same-sex marriage and I have "moral regret" that I can't. When we feel ethically bound to take a position that we know will cause hurt to others, we should - and I do - regret the hurt that causes. If same-sex marriage involved only adults it would be much easier to agree with legalizing it. One hopes its advocates are correct that it would send a powerful message from society as a whole that discrimination against homosexual people and ill-treatment of LGBTIQ persons or a failure to respect them is abhorrent. But marriage doesn't involve just adults; it also involves - and, arguably, primarily - children. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines marriage as a compound right: men and women "have the right to marry and to found a family." The "right to found a family" makes marriage the soci

Schools have been " sowing confusion" in children's minds by over-promoting transgender issues, a leading academic has claimed. Dr Joanna Williams, a university lecturer and author of the book Women vs Feminism, claims that "time, effort and money" is being allocated to "monitoring" transgender policies that are "out of all proportion" to the number of children who identify as transgender. Speaking at The Telegraph Festival of Education on Friday, Dr Williams said that feminists were attempting to reshape school policies on gender, adding that children were being forced to “unlearn” the difference between boys and girls. "We are increasingly reminded that schools are struggling financially. Yet the time, effort and money that goes into producing and monitoring Transgender Policies is out of all proportion to the tiny number of trans children currently in British schools,” she said. “Research suggests that just one per cent of th

The question posed by the title of this post is simply this: is it a denial of a fundamental human right, for a legal system not to extend the category of marriage to include marriage between parties of the same sex? The question was posed in a stark way by recent reported comments of the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission , Prof Gillian Triggs . Prof Triggs, for whom I have great respect as a scholar and academic, was delivering the annual Sir Anthony Mason Lecture at Melbourne Law School on 4 August, 2016. She strongly criticised a lack of commitment to human rights in recent decisions of the High Court of Australia, and the Commonwealth Government. In a short paragraph near the end of  her address , she also said the following: A recent example of the failure of Parliament to protect fundamental rights is the decision to hold a plebiscite on marriage equality.  Why do we hold an expensive, potentially divisive compulsory but non–binding national vote on

President Trump is keeping in place a special international LGBT “envoy” established by the Obama administration to promote acceptance of homosexuality , bisexuality and transgenderism abroad in the name of U.S. foreign policy. The reinstatement of open homosexual   Randy Berry  as  Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBTI Persons was reported Monday by the homosexual newspaper   Washington Blade . It is another blow to pro-family advocates who oppose the LGBT agenda and are counting on Trump to root out homosexual and abortion activists from the foreign affairs bureaucracy after eight years of Obama’s leftist policies. “Keeping Berry only signals to the world that the extreme agenda of the Obama years is still deeply entrenched in the State Department,” said Tony Perkins , president of the   Family Research Council . A career foreign service officer who speaks Spanish and Arabic,   Berry   was given the   international “LGBT Envoy”   position in 2015. The appointmen

Supporters of LGBT rights at the UN are preparing for the most important vote on their agenda since 2008. In November the UN General Assembly must decide whether to approve a controversial new UN post to enforce special new rights based on the sexual preference and behavior of individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) . Literally paving the way to the opening of this year’s debate, a crosswalk traversing 1st Avenue from the US mission to UN headquarters was painted with a rainbow flag so that world leaders would have to tread it on their way to the UN headquarters last week for the opening of this year’s General Assembly. The Human Rights Council established this unprecedented mandate of “independent expert on violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity” through a resolution that narrowly passed this June. The mandate has already  escalated the tension  within the United Nations over the promotion