GAY TRUTH

There is a school of thought in the debate about redefining marriage that it is inevitable and that Christians should just sue for peace with the same-sex marriage activists. Try and extract as many protections for religious freedom as possible and roll over. To make it easier for us to capitulate, leading politicians such as Opposition Leader Bill Shorten , Attorney General George Brandis and Tim Wilson say same-sex marriage and freedom of religion can co-exist. “I don’t accept the religious practice in this country is under threat,” Mr Shorten said this week. What he is essentially saying is it is okay to go to church and believe what you like there. But what is under threat, and what Mr Shorten is not telling us, is that religious practice outside the church, mosque or synagogue is under grave threat should the definition of marriage in law be changed. Indeed, it is now Labor policy to use the law to punish anyone who does not conform to same-sex marriage ideolog

Islamic and ethnic groups are sounding warnings about the consequences of same-sex marriage in Australia , questioning whether parents will retain the freedom to promote the traditional definition of marriage to their children. Co-founder of the Australian Chinese for Families Association Pansy Lai said she was concerned that schemes such as the Safe Schools program, familiarising students with transgender concepts, could become compulsory if same-sex marriage were legalised. Last year, Dr Lai organised a NSW petition amassing 17,500 signatures from members of the Australian Chinese community in favour of scrapping Safe Schools, which she said promoted “in­appropriate sexual content to ­underage children”. She told The Australian yesterday that large numbers of the Austral­ian Chinese community kept to a traditional view of marriage­, many for reasons un­related to relig­ious conviction, and question­ed whether there were sufficient protections for them. “The religious people m

“The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney­ has branded radical same-sex marriage campaigners as a ‘barge of bullies’ who are swamping the public debate with an ‘intro­spective, authoritarian den­ial of free speech’. Writing in The Australian today, Glenn Davies says the corporate world in Australia has been ‘press-ganged’ into supporting marriage equality and backing div­ersity by gay activists. ‘What kind of diversity is so monochrome that it does not allow differing­ expressions of opinion in the debate?’ he says. ‘This narrow-minded, freedom-restricting carping is what the same-sex marriage­ campaign has come to.’…” – Story from The Australian . Here is an excerpt from Archbishop Davies’ piece – “There is only one upside from the recent attacks and unprecedented abuse directed at an academic and the directors of Christian organisations: people are beginning to wake up and take notice. They are starting to understand that the campaign for same-sex marriage is not sailing on a raft

Education Minister Simon Birmingham has rejected claims that faith-based institutions will be harassed and coerced into complying with new views on same sex marriage . But there is no legislation to back up this statement at all? After 10 years of homosexual marriage in Canada a new very left government is closing faith schools that teach homosexuality is a sin. Canada now forces Catholic schools to have homosexual clubs where gay men come and talk about homosexuality. Tradeau says - have the clubs or loose registration. So Mr. Birmingham is making a promise today but what if Labor or greens get into power? The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney correctly claims faith-based institutions could have to operate differently and be forced to comply if a 'yes' vote is successful in the same-sex marriage survey. Senator Birmingham says all those with traditional views will be able to operate as they do today if the vote succeeds and same-sex marriage is legalised. What legislation

The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney has launched an attack on the push to legalise same-sex marriage, warning that a failure to protect religious freedoms will ­expose many Australians and faith-based institutions to the risk of “harassment and coercion”. Archbishop Anthony Fisher has warned that religious schools, hospitals, charities and welfare agencies could be jeopardised by a Yes vote for same-sex marriage in the government’s postal ballot. Firing an opening shot in the church’s campaign, the archbishop has laid down battlelines for the No case by linking the ­redefinition of marriage to broader community concerns about ­issues such as the contentious Safe Schools program. The push to broaden the debate is supported by some ­Coalition MPs , including Tony Abbott and Nationals senator Matt Canavan, who have issued statements about a march of political correctness and the preservation of marriage as an institution for the bringing up of children. “It’s a pity that there is no s

Some Coalition MPs are warning that the redefinition of marriage will leave churches, schools, charities and individuals that defend traditional marriage exposed to legal challenges in the future. West Australian Liberal MP Andrew Hastie said yesterday that religious protections in Dean Smith's SSM bill were insufficient. “The Smith bill only offered protections to individuals involved in the conduct of weddings. It failed to grasp the far-reaching significance of redefining marriage," he said. Mr Hastie suggested discrimin­ation laws across the country were skewed against those who continued to defend traditional marriage — individuals could be left legally exposed for simply speaking their minds while non-government schools could be forced to change their teachings if same-sex marriage was passed. “What about Australians who hold to the view of marriage as a union between a man and a woman based on empirical evidence, biology and historical precedence? This is how I’

While the flawed postal vote plebiscite has provoked furious rival responses, the pivotal problem is just emerging — the failure in any draft bill by Coalition or Labor MPs to fully protect religious freedoms once same-sex marriage is legislated. This is set to become an explosive issue within the Coalition parties. The alarm has been sounded and if, as expected, the plebiscite returns a “yes” vote, it will be triggered. This will become a serious problem for Malcolm Turnbull and Attorney-General George Brandis . Tony Abbott , a number of other prominent Liberals and church leaders will direct much of their campaign against same-sex marriage on to the failure of the parliament to confront the religious freedom issue and exploit public doubts on this front. Beyond the campaign lies the great dilemma. The proposition is lethal — that it would constitute a historical betrayal of the values of the Coalition parties if they “backed” a bill post-plebiscite on same-sex marriage that e

This is the core point. It is the challenge the Coalition will abandon only at the price of betraying the principles basic to its life since the inception of these parties. Will Turnbull before the next election face the prospect of believers in traditional marriage being penalised or intimidated because his government refused to provide legal protections? If so, how will conservative voters react? The irony is that Smith agrees religious protections are inadequate and should be addressed. He tells Inquirer: “I think there is legitimacy to a broad discussion of religious freedom in Australia .” But Smith doesn’t want this to interfere with his bill or the passing of same-sex marriage . He wants this as a separate discussion. Brandis makes no secret of the approach he took as A-G. His focus was on the same-sex marriage bill itself and he was ambitious in pushing the boundaries against much LGBTI sentiment to ensure that marriage celebrants as well as ministers of religion can re

BE warned. If you mention you are going to vote “No” in the homosexual marriage plebiscite you will most likely be branded a bigot. Now homosexual couples are accepted and have full legal rights . They already have equality and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. “Society” will turn on you. You may even be ostracised in your workplace, nursing home or footy club. So much freedom of speech. What same-sex marriage proponents like Bill Shorten and Malcolm Turnbull neglect to tell you is this: Redefining marriage is redefining parenthood. Homosexual marriage supporters wrongly say that traditional parenting doesn’t matter anymore and that it is OK to bring a child up without a father or without a mother. Same-sex marriage is a misguided concept. And it is not simply a symbolic gesture as the left-wing columnists rush to tell you. It will have far-reaching consequences for children. Here I stress that opponents of same-sex marriage shouldn’t become bigots either. We all know the

Vanstone: In one very real sense the upcoming vote to allow, or not, same sex marriage isn't about that at all. It's about whether we believe that we have the right to dictate how others live their lives. The answer is no . The Government already dictates the age of the person you can marry. You can't marry your father or mother. We already dictate what is acceptable for marriage. We also jail pedophiles - we dictate to them they cannot have a sexual relationship with a child.  So Amanda, the question is really about homosexuals and lesbians - who are both biologically incompatible (infertile) which goes against common sense, evolution, and the very purpose of marriage - should they marry? NO . Should children marry? NO. Why shouldn't kids marry? Because they are too young immature. We all accept that but homosexual and lesbians dont even match biologically.  Vanstone: It's about whether we will let those gay people who choose to, have their

THIS PICTURE IS A GAY PRIDE MARCH -REALLY? LETTER TO THE EDITOR -AUSTRALIA As a decidedly heterosexual male, might I pose five questions to those who oppose equality in marriage?   Do you believe in discrimination? NO Homosexuality was inserted by Labor governments into anti-discrimination legislation . What was the basis for that insertion? It was a criminal offense 20 years ago. Buggery, sodomy, indecent behaviour - by homosexual have always and will always been seen as a sinful behaviour. So the question is why isn't pedophilia under anti-discrimination because we agree that is wrong immoral behaviour .....until someone in Labor changes their mind and inserts it. Will people of the same sex marrying directly affect you? YES Because, it is a chosen unhealthy lifestyle and adopting children or using huamnsurrogates which could in some countries lead to human trafficking for babies who then grow up searching for their biological parents or parent it a dange

ACT Senator Zed Seselja will vote "no" in the Turnbull government 's postal plebiscite on same-sex marriage , arguing Christians and other religious believers could persecuted for their views on marriage and sexuality if the law is changed. A long-time opponent of same-sex couples' right to marry, the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs said the voluntary, non-binding vote would give every Australian adult their chance to express their view. He confirmed he would vote to support changes to the law in Parliament if the results of the plebiscite favour same-sex marriage. "Obviously there will be a vigorous campaign and I will be voting "no", I'll be voting against changing the Marriage Act ," he said. "I've long been on the record for that. I think some of the issues that have been raised about issues like religious freedom, we've seen in other parts of the world that when we do redefine marriag

Heather Barwick was raised by her mother and her mother's same-sex partner . She is a former gay -marriage advocate turned children's rights activist. She is a wife and mother of four rambunctious kids. Gay community , I am your daughter. My mom raised me with her same-sex partner back in the ’80s and ’90s. She and my dad were married for a little while. She knew she was gay before they got married, but things were different back then. That’s how I got here. It was complicated as you can imagine. She left him when I was two or three because she wanted a chance to be happy with someone she really loved: a woman. I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost My dad wasn’t a great guy, and after she left him he didn’t bother coming around anymore. Do you remember that book, “ Heather Has Two Mommies ”? That was my life. My mom, her partner, and I lived in a cozy little house in the ‘burbs of a very liberal and open-minded area. Her

Twenty years after Labor Party leaders changed the law - the last Australian state decriminalised homosexuality , Australians will ask themselves whether gay men and women should be allowed to marry. Think about that. Why was it decriminalized? Because Labor said any behaviour behind closed doors (private) has not to do with the Government . How wrong were they? Domestic violence, physical abuse, pedophilia all happen now behind closed doors and is illegal. This is simply - selective immorality, where some homosexuals wanted they behaviour decriminalized. In the space of just two decades, barely the lifetime of a teenager, community mores around homosexuality have gone from locking gay men up if they kiss on the street to cheering them on as they kiss at the altar, at least insofar as our attitudes are reflected in our statutes. But it was driven by Labor Governments. But as we embark on what is effectively a three month long election campaign we should consider the scale of t