GAY TRUTH

Image via Wikipedia Even where legal recognition and marital rights and benefits are available to same-sex couples (whether through same-sex civil “marriages,” “ civil unions ,” or “ domestic partnerships ”), relatively few same-sex couples even bother to seek such recognition or claim such benefits. The most simple way to document this is by comparing the number of same-sex couples who have sought such legal recognition in a given state18 with the number of “same-sex unmarried-partner households” in the most recent U.S. Census.19 When a relatively small percentage of same-sex couples—even among those already living together as partners—even bother to seek legal recognition of their relationships, while an overwhelming majority of heterosexual couples who live together are legally married, it suggests that homosexuals are far more likely than heterosexuals to reject the institution of marriage or its legal equivalent. In California , same-sex “marriage” was only legal for a few m

Image via Wikipedia Another important and immediate result of same-sex “marriage” would be serious damage to religious liberty . Religious liberty means much more than liturgical rituals. It applies not only to formal houses of worship, but to para-church ministries, religious educational and social service organizations, and individual believers trying to live their lives in accordance with their faith not only at church, but at home, in their neighborhoods, and in the workplace. These, more than your pastor or parish priest, are the entities whose religious liberty is most threatened by samesex “marriage.” Some of these threats to religious liberty can arise from “nondiscrimination” laws based on sexual orientation, even without same-sex “marriage.” But when homosexual “marriage” becomes legal, then laws which once applied to homosexuals only as individuals then apply to homosexual couples as well. So, for example, when Catholic Charities in Boston insisted  that they would

Image via Wikipedia The advocates of same-sex “marriage” argue that it will have little impact on anyone other than the couples who “marry.” However, even the brief experience in Massachusetts , where same-sex “marriage” was imposed by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court and began on May 17, 2004, has demonstrated that the impact of such a social revolution will extend much further—including into the public schools. In September 2004, National Public Radio reported, “Already, some gay and lesbian advocates are working on a new gay-friendly curriculum for kindergarten and up.” They also featured an interview with Deb Allen, a lesbian who teaches eighth-grade sex education in Brookline, Mass . Allen now feels “emboldened” in teaching a “gay-friendly” curriculum, declaring, “If somebody wants to challenge me, I’ll say, ‘Give me a break. It’s legal now.’” Her lessons include descriptions of homosexual sex given “thoroughly and explicitly with a chart.” Allen reports she will ask he

Image by benchilada via Flickr One of the key arguments often heard in support of homosexual civil “ marriage ” revolves around all the government “benefits” that homosexuals claim they are denied. Many of these “benefits” involve one thing—taxpayer money that homosexuals are eager to get their hands on. For example, one of the goals of homosexual activists is to take part in the biggest  government entitlement program of all— Social Security . Homosexuals want their partners to be eligible for Social Security survivors benefits when one partner dies. The fact that Social Security survivors benefits were intended to help stay-at-home mothers who did not have retirement benefits from a former employer has not kept homosexuals from demanding the benefit. Homosexual activists are also demanding that children raised by a homosexual couple be eligible for benefits when one of the partners dies—even if the deceased partner was not the child’s biological or adoptive parent. As another exa

Image via Wikipedia By Peter Sprigg Some advocates of same-sex "marriage" scoff at the idea that it could harm anyone. Here are ten ways in which society could be harmed by legalizing same-sex "marriage." Most of these effects would become evident only in the long run, but several would occur immediately. Immediate Effects Taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships .  One of the key arguments often heard in support of homosexual civil marriage revolves around all the government "benefits" that homosexuals claim they are denied.  Many of these "benefits" involve one thing-taxpayer money that homosexuals are eager to get their hands on. For example, one of the goals of homosexual activists is to take part in the biggest government entitlement program of all- Social Security . Homosexuals want their partners to be eligible for Social Security survivors' benefits when one partner dies. The fact

Image by Fellowship of Reconciliation via Flickr Activists pushing for a " gay rights" political agenda have become increasingly aggressive in their attacks upon their opponents. They misunderstand (or misrepresent) the views of social conservatives , in part because of conflicting paradigms for understanding homosexuality . The "gay identity" paradigm includes the belief that being gay is an innate characteristic which cannot change. Yet the empirical case for the "gay identity" paradigm is weak-science has not found that homosexuality is determined by biological or genetic factors, and there is an abundance of evidence that sexual orientation can change. Of the three aspects of "sexual orientation"- attractions ,  conduct , and  self-identification -social conservatives view homosexual  conduct  as the most important, and thus operate from a "homosexual conduct" paradigm. We believe  homosexual conduct is harmful , and therefore

All Australian Christians believe that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed.  It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects.  While the origins of same-sex attractions may be complex, there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn. We oppose the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools. Attempts to join two men or two women in "marriage" constitute a radical redefinition and falsification of the institution, and Australian Christians supports any politician state or federal who support traditional marriage. Sympathy must be extended to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions, and every effort should be made to assist such persons to overcome those attractions,