GAY TRUTH

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.

Don't be fooled into thinking that once same-sex marriage is legalised that the LGBT activists will be satisfied and stop campaigning for rights.   No. As we have seen from Canada, the UK, the United States and New Zealand, same-sex marriage was just a stepping stone toward a much larger, a much wider sex/gender revolution with the agenda to completely re-engineer reality as we know it. Here are some chilling examples: From Canada... • Transgenders represent approximately 0.3% of Canadians, yet the government has mandated the use of pronouns (such as che/zhe/chir/zir) for transgenders and failure to address transgenders with their preferred pronouns will result in fines. See more:  http://bit.ly/2vfXC0w • Canadian Schools Now Pushing “LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP” inclusivity training - see here:  http://bit.ly/2gaTGHU • Canada introduces 'X' as third gender option on passports hailed as an “important step towards advancing equality for all Canadians regar

WHY ARE JOURNALIST LYING ABOUT SAME SEX MARRIAGE? First, the media lied that Melbourne was “plastered” with homophobic posters by “no” campaigners. Channel 10 even faked a picture of one . Now, the media is spreading more untruths, false claims that three women in a “no” campaign advertisement are liars. Last week, the Coalition for Marriage aired a TV commercial arguing for a no vote on same-sex marriage. It featured three women: Heidi McIvor , a Sale pastor; Cella White , a Melbourne mother; and Dr Pansy Lai , a Sydney GP and founder of the Australian Chinese for Families Association. The women made two claims, in particular, that set off a furore. First, White, warning how far the same-sex marriage push would go, talked of her son’s experience at Frankston High: “The school told my son that he could wear a dress to school next year if he wanted.” Then Lai added: “Kids in year 7 are being asked to role-play being in a same-sex relationship.” Since then, the women

The Necessity of Godly Outrage as a Moral Force Several church leaders have stated that Christians should not express outrage during the homosexual marriage debate. Some say outrage and panic are not the responses of those confident in the promises of a reigning Christ Jesus.  Jesus expressed outrage at sin repeatedly in his ministry. The cleansing of the temple is a fairly concrete case in point. So too his "brood of vipers" lambasting of the  Pharisees . Most would see outrage in his indictment of Galilean cities: "Woe to you,  Chorazin ! Woe to you, Bethsaida ! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, in sackcloth and ashes. But it shall be more tolerable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum , will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades" (Luke 10:13-15 par. Matt 11:21-24). John the Baptist too expressed outrage by criticizing publicly Herod

It seems Australia is making its way to a postal vote on whether we should change our marriage laws to remove reference to gender, i.e. to make same-sex marriage lawful. Whatever the outcome of the postal vote, the parliament will still have to decide, and our representatives won't necessarily be bound to make the same decision as the people. Even if most people vote 'no', some parliamentarians would vote 'yes' to a bill, and vice versa. If you have doubts about whether changing our marriage laws are a good idea, or if you disagree with it, what should you say to friends or colleagues who support the 'yes' vote? I offer some thoughts here. The 'yes' position may seem simple and easy to understand. It says that everyone should be treated equally, so it's wrong to deny marriage to same-sex attracted people because it's wrong to make marriage available to some people and not to others. This position sees marriage as an entitlement,