GAY TRUTH

The Australian Christian Lobby welcomes news that the NSW government is considering an “opt-in” option for parents regarding the Safe Schools program following a debate in the Parliament yesterday. However, ACL NSW Director Mark Makowiecki said the move only practically applied to one aspect of the program, namely the controversial “ All of Us ” lessons. “What has been widely misunderstood by politicians and pundits is the fact that Safe Schools adopts a ‘whole-of-school’ approach, meaning that LGBTIQA themes are not taught in stand-alone lessons, but are woven into the curriculum and propagated through policies, posters and school assemblies ,” Mr Makowiecki said. “This fundamental misapprehension was evident in some of the speeches given yesterday in the NSW Parliament , as a 17,000 signature petition calling for the abolition of the Safe Schools program was being debated. “The “whole-of-school” approach is made clear, particularly in an early edition of the  Guid

Australian support for marriage equality has apparently,  steadily increased over the years; it has risen from just 38% in 2004. A July 2014 poll showed 52% of Australians supported the legalisation of same-sex marriage . It is unknown whether people answers honestly in polls fearing some form of being labelled a bigot. That question is never asked. The poll was limited to 1000. Research was done by the gay organization - Australian Marriage Equality Despite this support for marriage equality, marriage itself is in decline in Australia . There were just 5.2 marriages per 1000 people in 2014 , down from 6.2 in 2004 and 9.2 in 1950 . Hence, only those who are married should be allowed to vote in the homosexual plebiscite as they are the only one who has invested in this institution. Why should people who disregard even hate marriage have a say in marriage?  Related articles Marriage equality plebiscite: Pyne says Coalition may consult Labor on wording (theguardian.com) Why

These social conservatives, mind you, have played a blinder. They have convinced the cabinet to approve a proposal ­utterly doomed from its inception. It has absolutely no chance of passing the Senate and that refusal could well pave the way for a delay of several years in any change to the laws on same-sex marriage . This would be a good thing in that the destruction that homosexual marriage brings with it will be clearly seen. The lies, manipulations, false argument, unhealthy destructive behaviour of some homosexuals. The abuse of anybody who stands against anything LGBTQ .  Bill Shorten and many others who support same-sex marriage seem terrified by the prospect of a real public debate on this issue. Australians can be trusted but many of our pollies can't be trusted to conduct a civil discussion on a contentious issue. We saw the confused illogical 'family argument' last week from Labor's deputy. It clearly shows no understanding of what homosexual mar

A grammar school in the UK included a question on traditional marriage in a Maths quiz - homosexuals are screaming that they are offended and the school is homophobic . Bizarre! The teacher at Royal Grammar School , an all-boy’s school in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire , included a statement about traditional marriage in a question about percentages . Here is the question: ‘If in a town 70% of the men are married to 90% of the women (and each marriage is between one man and woman, as God intended when he made humans male and female) what percentage of the adult population are married?’ Parents have screamed it as homophobic and for teaching children homophobia instead of teaching calculations. The maths is in the question. What people are objecting to is the traditional definition of marriage. " between one man and woman, as  God  intended when he made humans male and female)" So, why is the traditional concept of marriage so offensive and homophobic? Why are pe

A confused homosexual student has made a plea for politicians to stop using "children as political bullets" and stand up for the Safe Schools anti-bullying program. Unfortunately, this program is not about bullying at all. This program is all about indoctrinating the LGBT agenda into the minds of children. The LGBT agenda is about deception, lies and falsehoods. The Safe Schools program, designed to teach students about not bullying is really about promoting sexual and gender diversity and creating the climate for hate laws -homophobia, will undergo content changes and only be used in high schools after a Government review sparked by concerns from conservative MPs senators and thousands of families across Australia . Minister Josh Frydenberg said while he was "moved" by the student comments though illogical and immature, he understood the mental health issues facing some young people, he stood by the Government's stance on Safe Schools. The mental health

Photograph of Malcolm Turnbull, New South Wales Liberal politician. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) So what’s a good response to the Safe Schools Coalition controversy? Eternity has been looking for some Christians who respond to the public rather than talking amongst ourselves. Here’s two of the better responses we’ve found. What I’d say to the public about Safe Schools, by Nathan Campbell Rule two in public relations is understand your key message — your contribution to the public — and stick to it. Rule three is understand your audience; this requires listening to your ‘public’ before speaking, and specifically the ‘public’ who are listening because they have a vested interest in the conversation; in this case, the LGBTIQA community and their advocates. Rule four is understand how to communicate your message to your ‘public’ — our neighbours — on this basis. Christians worship Jesus . This changes how we see the world, including how we see our neighbours. This change only comes

Justice Michael Kirby, High Court of Australia (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Slogans such as ‘marriage equality’ and ‘equal love’ have dominated the gay marriage debate so far. But as the federal parliament inches closer to dealing with the three ‘marriage equality’ bills that are before it, we are finally beginning to see their consequences. During the recent Senate Hearings into one of the bills, the Green’s Marriage Equality Amendment Bill, former High Court Justice Michael Kirby was asked what logical reason could be given for not extending ‘marriage equality’ to other configurations of love such as consenting polygamous and polyamorous ones. “The question that is before the parliament at the moment is the question of equality for homosexual people,” he told the Senate.“There may be, in some future time, some other question. The lesson in courts and in the parliament, I suggest, is that you take matters step by step.” And it is clear by recent events that there are those who are

English: Michael Hendricks (right) and René Leboeuf, photo showing both their faces. Taken at their wedding (the first same-sex marriage in Quebec), 1 April 2004. Photo by Montrealais. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) SO it is proven, Australians are happy to see the institution of marriage redefined by allowing same-sex couples to marry. That is if you trust the polls touted by the gay lobby. Polling is often about the questions asked and how they are worded — 78 per cent of the 1000 surveyed by Crosby Textor last year agreed that “if it doesn’t hurt anyone else, gay couples should be able to do what makes them happy, including marry”. I’m surprised the response isn’t higher. If there is no harm in something and it makes people happy, why not agree? “Excluding same-sex couples from marriage fosters discrimination,” said 78 per cent. Yes it does, the Marriage Act is discriminatory , that is why not everyone can marry. We all experience discrimination. Not being allowed to go in the la

Gay retired Senator Bob Brown and Richard Di Natale in Melbourne,  (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Listen to Greens Leader Senator Richard Di Natale call genuine social science research : gobbly gook !   Genuine social science research by scientists that have outcomes he doesn't like, so he brands that "goobly gook," but research that supports his position - he says "we have that argument it's finished, no further discussion. Pure ignorance. Natale then generates his own definition of marriage - two people who love each other . He says the debate with kids is over. Now he is an expert? This debate has only started.  Natale holds an unsupported ignorant warped view of marriage.  His personal definition flies in the face of history and is based purely on a small yet very  vocal group .  What is most astonishing is his total disregard of Kathy Faust own personal testimony regarding children of same sex relationships . Natale refuses to hear any argumen

The ABC reports: Government backbencher Warren Entsch has introduced a bill to legalise same-sex marriage in the lower house, despite knowing it is highly unlikely to go to a vote before the next election. In his address to parliament Mr Entsch warned of a "divided nation" unless gay marriage is legalised. "The main purpose of this bill is not a complex one. It is to give same-sex couples in Australia the same right to marry the person they love as that which is currently only granted by law to heterosexual couples," he told the chamber. What Entsch doesn't understand if his legislation is approved the nation will STILL BE DIVIDED "This bill is designed to promote an inclusive Australia, not a divided one. A divided nation is what we will be if we continue to allow discrimination in relation to marriage on the basis of a person's sexuality." Entsch Homosexual marriage bill contains no safeguards for anybody or organization that disagr

Tony Abbott was right to argue in favour of traditional marriage after his party room vote. There are good reasons why people oppose same-sex marriage and the cultural left should understand that, writes Kevin Donnelly. In last night's speech after the majority of Liberal/National MPs voted in favour of the current policy on same-sex marriage, Prime Minister Tony Abbott was right to argue that marriage should be between a man and a woman and that the Australian people should decide if there is to be a change. Those wanting to introduce a private member's bill to change the definition of marriage, such as Liberal MP Warren Entsch , must now realise that the matter is settled until the people decide. This is especially the case as many of the arguments in favour of same-sex marriage are flawed. Those wanting change argue that defining marriage as involving a man and a woman discriminates against lesbians and homosexuals. Ignored is that there are many examples where society