GAY TRUTH

Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman should be added to the Russian constitution, adding that under his leadership Russia would not adopt terms such “parent number 1” and “parent number 2.” Putin made the comments last Thursday at a meeting to discuss Russian constitutional reform. During a discussion on family values in Russia, conservative lawmaker, Olga Batalina, said that some people would like the word “family” to be defined in the constitution as a “union of a man and a woman.”“We need to clarify some things. A marriage is a union of a man and woman,” Putin responded. “'A family is a different thing, but the idea is right and it should be supported. We need to only think about how to formulate it and where.”  Batalina also claimed that the family is under attack from attempts to introduce new terms like “parent number one” and “parent number two.” “This is not fantasy, this is realit

As LGBT activists continue their efforts to impose acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism in the country at large, one prominent conservative thinker has offered a unique legislative proposal he says may help conservatives go back on offense in the culture wars. For months, conservatives have been debating how to respond to instances of left-wing cultural aggression such as Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH), which is the practice of cross-dressers reading to small children in public libraries for the express purpose of acclimating them to notions of gender-fluidity. New York Post editor Sohrab Ahmari initiated the debate in May by identifying National Review writer David French as emblematic of a certain breed of conservative unsuited to meaningfully resist such projects; French argues that DQSH is a free-speech issue government is powerless to prevent. Last week, Hadley Arkes, eminent Amherst College political scientist and architect of the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act

In what is a testament to the marketing acumen of LGBT lobbyists and promoters, U.S. adults, on average, continue to believe that about 25% of the population is gay or lesbian,  more than five times the actual number . Overall, a full 90% believe in an inflated number, with 54% of Americans estimating that gays and lesbians constitute more than 20% of the population, according to a  June 17, 2019 Gallup poll . Only 8% of those polled come close to accurately estimating the LGBT population. Gallup Report, June 27, 2019 / Screenshot “Overestimations of the nation’s gay population may in part be due to the group’s outsized visibility,”  suggests  Gallup, citing a GLAAD report that found that 8.8% of primetime TV characters are LGBT.    Overlooked Gallup Data Tell a Bigger, More Important Story This most recent Gallup report was issued one day after the fourth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s  Obergefell  ruling which instituted same-sex “marriage” across the country. Two

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is commonly credited with defining the philosophical structure called dialectic. While I make no claim to be a serious student of Hegel or of philosophy in general, I think I understand the basics of dialectic reasoning enough to refer to its effect on our culture. In simple terms, the system suggests that cultures evolve through a pattern like this: Thesis (a new idea) --> antithesis (opposition to the new idea) --> synthesis (compromise). (No doubt some will call this an oversimplification of the process. But I believe it accurately depicts cultural evolution.) In our nation’s history, we can see examples of this dialectic process bringing about positive change. The abolition of slavery quickly comes to mind. But not all new ideas are worth pursuing. Probably the best example of a failed dialectic process is Communism. Karl Marx and Frederic Engels’ thesis was first met with fierce opposition. Eventually, however, antithesis gave way to synthesise

I would like comment briefly on suggestions that ministers who are committed to a Biblical view of man/woman marriage ought to “hand in their license” and no longer participate in solemnizing any marriages for the purposes of the  Marriage Act . This is an “internal” debate among those who have a high view of the Bible. But for those readers, I would like to make it clear that I disagree with the suggestion. The position has recently been put forward by someone whom I respect immensely, Pastor Campbell Markham from the Presbyterian Church in Tasmania, in his article “ Resignation from the Marriage Act ” (Nov 29, 2017). Pastor Markham has the courage of his convictions in a number of areas- he is currently the subject of a complaint under the Tasmanian ADA similar to one made previously against Archbishop Julian Porteous. However, on this issue, he and I disagree. Of course, I have no criticism of his decision to not solemnize marriages under the law of Australia if

Recently I was reading sociologist Mark Regnerus’s insightful new book Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy. His premise is that the Pill and ubiquity of pornography have caused sex to be more widely available, which drives the cost of sex down and makes real commitment more “expensive” and difficult to navigate. Essentially, Regnerus examines sex in today through an economic lens. Perhaps the most interesting part of the book was his final eight predictions for 2030 in regard to sex, relationships, and marriage. He admits that these are “educated guesses” and that the evidence for some is more better than for others. Even though he is confident they won’t all come true, they are based on his best reading of current numbers and trends. Prediction #1: Sex Will Get Even Cheaper.  Regnerus considers this one “easy.” Fertility control is improving and there is little risk of pregnancy with sex. Porn use also continues to grow and shows no signs of declining.

The same-sex marriage campaign makes me wonder when my fellow Australian lesbians lost their political backbone? Where's the sparky radicalism of the gay and lesbian community ? When did chasing after marriage become our life's work? Or for that matter any feminists ' work?  For feminist Marriage = Patriarchy . Our heterosexual sisters must be wondering why we're so keen to dignify an institution – which for so many women has led to violence from their partners and drudgery for themselves. They surely notice the hypocrisy; lesbians becoming cheerleaders for an institution which has caused so many so much pain.  We get the "gold rings and honeymoon" appeal of marriage; but I feel embarrassed for our collective selves that the public now sees us as grovelling for the chance to wear white wedding dresses . How are women going to recognise lesbianism as an alternative to heterosexuality, if they don't see us protesting against institutions that

Question: Why should Christians care if same-sex couples marry? If they are unbelievers, why should Christians dictate their actions? Shouldn't we just worry about preaching the gospel? This question is based upon the false premise that Scripture assigns the accountability to marriage to Christians alone rather than to society at large. Christian concern for marriage is deeply concerned with the moral risk taken by unbelievers when they marginalize, reject, subvert, or harm marriage in any way.  Christians believe this risk threatens acting parties with eternal consequences. Furthermore, it is quite selective and arbitrary to say that when it comes to same-sex marriage , Christians should not ask unbelievers to act like unbelievers. Why should that request be limited to same-sex marriage?  Should it be applied to other aspects of the criminal code?  Should Christians not expect non-Christians to live by the same civil laws they live by?  Should Christians require n

The United States Capitol. The official government house of the United States in Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Congress is once again on vacation, and they still have not acted to introduce legislation to protect people of faith from governmental persecution for living out the truth of marriage in their daily lives and at work. The First Amendment Defense Act needs to be introduced to provide that protection. Without it, faith-based nonprofit groups, small businesses , churches, pastors and priests, schools, charities and individuals will continue to be subject to targeting by government officials whenever they do not embrace the extreme agenda of LGBT activists and the left. Believe it or not, Congress schedules a full thirteen weeks of vacation each year. Even when they are in session, they often are in Washington only a few days each week. We need to make introduction of FADA a priority, and that's my second request to you.Please click on this link to l

HOMOSEXUAL ARGUMENT Married couples don’t have children (whether by choice, or because of infertility or age). If we deny marriage to same-sex couples because they can’t reproduce , why not deny it to those couples, too? A couple that doesn’t want children when they marry  might  change their minds. Birth control might fail for a couple that uses it. A couple that appears to be infertile may get a surprise and conceive a child . The marital commitment may deter an older man from conceiving children with a younger woman outside of marriage. Even a very elderly couple is of the structural type (i.e., a man and a woman) that could theoretically produce children (or could have in the past). And the sexual union of all such couples is of the same  type  as that which reproduces the human race, even if it does not have that effect in particular cases. WILL HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE LEAD TO  FEMALE TRAFFICKING? Admittedly, society’s tangible interest in marriages that do not prod

Australia: Why Marriage is the exclusive union of a Man and a Woman  1.1 Many  Christians  will be aware of the ongoing campaign for so-called marriage “equality”.  Different parties and individuals seeking to put bills  before the  Australian Parliament  aims to change the current  definition of marriage  to allow same sex  couples to marry.  This would represent a radical revision of the public understanding of marriage as a  social institution , and a radical challenge to the Christian understanding of marriage. Federal  Parliamentarians  have been asked to “gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal  treatment for same sex couples including marriage”. 1.2 What are our views as Christians on this issue? And why should we engage in the political  debate ?  This paper seeks to answer these questions, setting out the case in favour of retaining the  current  Federal law  which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all