“Safe Sex” Is Only Found In The Context Of Marriage, Anthing Else Is A Cheap Knockoff

When people talk about “safe sex”, they mostly mean “sex that allows me to avoid any responsibilities that are too taxing for my self-absorbed, convenience-centred life.”

Funny how that kind of “safe sex” often doesn’t make for the safest environment for children or for anyone else really.

Here’s the wisdom on saving sex for marriage, or what I like to call “authentic safe sex”:

God only permits sex inside marriage. But why? Western culture largely doesn’t see a problem with premarital sex anymore. And if the couple consent, what’s the problem? J.B. from the U.S. writes:

I have been asked something that had me quite stumped. Someone was questioning why God does not allow people to have sex outside of marriage, claiming there is no good reason. I am not talking about homosexuality or anything like that, but like a man and woman having sex when they are not married. I saw one article that briefly touches around the subject, but my question is how should I answer this to an atheist?

CMI’s Shaun Doyle responds:

God forbids sex outside of marriage because outside of marriage there’s no public agreement in place stipulating that each party of the sexual relationship must care for one another and any children that might come from the sexual union. Sexual desire is an incredibly potent force, and sexual activity has massive implications—procreation being the most obvious (Genesis 1:28), but it also binds a man and woman together in a way that nothing else can (Genesis 2:24–25)—the two texts Jesus himself explained marriage from: Christ the Creationist. By forbidding sex outside of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:2) God is saying that we must publically acknowledge that we have a duty of care to our sexual partner before we get to have sex. Think about it; marriage constitutes a public agreement to care for any potential children from a sexual union, so it provides a level of accountability to parents for looking after their own children. Marriage thus provides a first line of defense against child abuse and neglect (Raising godly children). If sex is OK outside of marriage, nor do we have a publically acknowledged duty of care to the person we have sex with. As such, marriage is a first line of defense against sexual abuse.

By forbidding sex outside of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:2) God is saying that you must publically acknowledge that you have a duty of care to your sexual partner before you get to have sex.

Of course, we all know that child abuse and sexual abuse can occur within marriages. But this doesn’t happen because marriage itself is faulty; it happens because humans are slaves to sin (Ephesians 2:1–3). Is the idea of a car stupid just because my car is a lemon? Of course not! But if sex is OK outside of marriage, then sex and children happen outside of contexts where people have voluntarily acknowledged their duty of care to their sexual partner and their children. Does circumventing that public accountability bode well for lessening sexual abuse and child abuse? Of course not! And so it’s no surprise to learn that child abuse and sexual abuse (of both children and adults) are proportionately more common outside of marriage than within it.

But, people in our society today think sex outside of marriage is OK because we have decoupled sex from a duty of care for our sexual partner. Sex is now a game people play, not an expression of love people share. But if sex is a game people play, then why shouldn’t they be able to make money from playing it? After all, baseball, football, and basketball players make obscene amounts of money just for playing a game, and sex is in many ways more entertaining than any of those, so why can’t people make money from ‘playing’ sex? And if sex is a game, why can’t we change the rules as we feel like, and legitimize all sorts of sexual expressions? And if sex is a game, what’s the point of marriage? Why not redefine marriage to reflect socially acceptable sexual proclivities? And what do we see in the Western world? Homosexuality is now just a ‘sexual preference’, prostitution is legal in many places, and same-sex marriage is sweeping the Western world.

The original design of sex was ingenious—God made the most pleasurable human experience the means by which new life is generated.

But notice in all this how children, as products of sexual unions, have been forgotten. Why? Western culture has (largely) managed to decouple sex from procreation. The original design of sex was ingenious—God made the most pleasurable human experience the means by which new life is generated; it puts an enormous responsibility on those engaging in sexual activity. But of course, the general availability of birth control has largely taken the fear of pregnancy away, so it makes it easy to treat sex like a game.

But even without the threat of pregnancy, promiscuity still has a major consequence—STDs (see Does it matter? for more information). STDs are clearly more prevalent in promiscuous societies. As such, even STDs are a reason to limit oneself to only one sexual partner at most, since then most STDs wouldn’t have a means of being transmitted. And health risks are included in any acknowledged duty of care to a sexual partner and children, so marriage again provides a means of curtailing STDs by binding a person to one sexual partner.

“But sex can still be an expression of love outside of marriage, right?” No. It can be an expression of infatuation, or romance, but not love in the biblical sense of actively putting another’s needs above oneself. “Oh, but I’m a generous lover!” In bed, maybe, but what about the rest of the day? The duty of care God says sex binds us to is not simply our partner’s sexual needs, but all their needs. Food, clothing, shelter, emotional well-being, spiritual well-being—all of it. When we view sex as an expression of that sort of love, then it’s plain that anything less than sex inside marriage cheapens the value of sex. If we are not willing to be so bound to someone that all their needs are largely dependent on us, then we shouldn’t be having sex. And if we are so willing, then we should make the public profession to such willingness (with our partner, of course; it takes two to marry!) before having sex so that everyone else can hold us accountable. For more information, please see Family/Marriage questions and answers.

http://creation.com/premarital-sex

Who Will Be Prosecuted: The Disastrous Impact Of Homosexual Marriage On Freedom

The Australian Family Association have put together an excellent document that cuts through the doublespeak and political spin on redefining marriage to tell us exactly what is going on and how many of us will have to pay the price for it.

You can read the document here.

In times like these when human laws fail us, we are reminded that Jesus Christ alone is our hope.
http://www.family.org.au/marriage/Who_Will_Be_Prosecuted.pdf

Support Homosexuality Today, Criminalize Christianity Tomorrow

If you doubt that this is goal, you might need to check up on the court rulings that have already forced Christians to pay massive fines because they don’t want to partake in redefined “marriage”.

At this rate, Christians will soon have to endure yet another season of persecution. Matt Barber’s recent article lays out this successful and near complete plan to shove Christianity into the closet:

It’s never fun to be proven right when warning of some impending wrong. Many in the pro-family movement have long stressed that the cultural Marxist left’s belligerent push for the judicial fiction that is “gay marriage” was never about gaining “equal access” to this biologically exclusive male-female institution, as they profess, but, rather, is, and has always been, about control.

While there are many layers to unfold, the almost instant explosion in government-sanctioned, anti-Christian extremism on display post Obergefell v. Hodges, confirms the poisonous three-fold agenda that underlies the “social justice” mob’s flowery “marriage equality” propaganda. That is: (1) the ultimate destruction of marriage, (2) forced affirmation of sexual deviancy under penalty of law, and (3) the eventual criminalization of Christianity.

The destruction of marriage

Here’s the bottom line: Homosexual activists don’t want the white picket fence; they want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called “marriage equality” but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless.

Masha Gessen, a lesbian journalist, activist and author, expressly admitted this fact in a 2012 interview with ABC Radio: “It’s a no-brainer that [homosexuals] should have the right to marry,” she said. “But I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … [F]ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there – because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.”

Homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein echoes Gessen’s candid sentiments: “Demand the institution [of marriage] and then wreck it,” he once wrote. “James Dobson was right about our evil intentions,” he quipped. “We just plan to be quicker than he thought.”

The goal is to water down marriage until marriage is pointless. And as evidenced by the burgeoning legal push for polygamous and incestuous “marriages” – even for the “right” to “marry” a robot – sexual anarchists are well on their way to achieving this goal.

Forced affirmation of sexual deviancy

Here’s what Christian America is already experiencing from coast to coast. On Wednesday, civil rights law firm Liberty Counsel filed a request for a stay and an appeal of U.S. District Judge David Bunning’s opinion ordering Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis to issue same-sex “marriage” licenses both in violation of her First Amendment right to religious free exercise and the biblical mandate that she must not participate in this explicitly sinful activity. Davis had been sued by the ACLU and two lesbian political activists.

“The plaintiffs in this case only sought licenses from Ms. Davis after learning of her religious objections to same-sex ‘marriage,’ and they refuse to obtain a license elsewhere,” said Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel. “Just as Justice Alito predicted in his dissent in Obergefell, secularists are trying to ‘stamp out every vestige of dissent’ by targeting people of faith who do not agree with same-sex ‘marriage.’”

Judge Bunning wrote, “Davis remains free to practice her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church twice a week, participate in Bible study and minister to female inmates at the Rowan County Jail. She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County Clerk,” the ruling said.

“Judge Bunning’s decision equated Kim’s free exercise of religion to going to church. This is absurd!” responded Staver. “Christianity is not a robe you take off when you leave a sanctuary. The First Amendment guarantees Kim and every American the free exercise of religion, even when they are working for the government.

“Kim Davis did not sign up as a clerk to issue same-sex ‘marriage’ licenses. Her job duty was changed by five lawyers without any constitutional authority. At a minimum, her religious convictions should be accommodated,” concluded Staver.

Indeed, Davis’ oath as county clerk was to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution and the constitution of Kentucky. As Chief Justice John Roberts rightly observed in his Obergefell dissent, the activist majority’s opinion actually hijacks the democratic process and is in no way rooted in the Constitution: “[D]o not celebrate the Constitution,” he said. “It had nothing to do with it.”

The fact is that if Ms. Davis were to issue counterfeit same-sex “marriage” licenses, she would not only be disobeying God and directly participating in expressly sinful activity, she would be violating her constitutional oath.

The criminalization of Christianity

To her credit, Ms. Davis is standing her ground while the decision is appealed. Predictably, many leftists are now clamoring for her imprisonment. They want her held in contempt of court and thrown in jail for refusing to at once affirm homosexual sin and violate God’s commands. This is the new pagan orthodoxy. It’s “here, it’s queer, get used to it.”

Meanwhile, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) reports on “a Colorado Court of Appeals decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig, regarding a cake artist who declined to use his artistic abilities to promote and endorse their same-sex ceremony even though other cake artists were willing to do the job.”

“Americans are guaranteed the freedom to live and work consistent with their faith,” observed ADF attorney Jeremy Tedesco. “Government has a duty to protect people’s freedom to follow their beliefs personally and professionally rather than force them to adopt the government’s views. Jack simply exercised the long-cherished American freedom to decline to use his artistic talents to promote a message with which he disagrees. The court is wrong to deny Jack his fundamental freedoms.”

The court affirmed an earlier order wherein Phillips and his Christian staff were not only ordered to bake homosexual “wedding” cakes against their will, but were additionally forced into pro-homosexual “sensitivity” propaganda classes.

And if they refuse?

Then they go to jail.

That’s how it works. Christian free exercise isn’t outlawed all at once. Judges across our fruity plain simply order from the bench that millions of Christians, just like Kim Davis and Jack Phillips, must either deny recognition of God’s natural order and Christ’s admonition to “go and sin no more,” or face prison for “contempt of court.”

Welcome to America 2015, where evil is good, men are women, judges are tyrants, and Christians are persona non grata. There is no more in between. The anti-Christ left has thrown down the “gay marriage” gauntlet. It’s either God or man.

“But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve. … But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:15).

The early Christians were outcasts because they refused to worship the pantheon of false gods and scripture is clear that there is nothing new under the sun. 

Since Christians were the first “atheists” who would not worship the many false Gods of Rome, I’m taking back the title with regard to the contemporary false gods of homosexuality and tolerance of evil.
http://godfatherpolitics.com/24533/the-gay-marriage-gauntlet-time-to-choose/

Cursing, Lying And Intollerance: When The Left Doesn’t Get Their Way

The homosexual lobbyists know that they are close to forcing their agenda on everyone but a few small thin are holding them back.

That’s why they are getting really angry and cursing and lying about how marriage should be redefined.

They know that a national vote stands a good chance of denying them for a long time and that’s why the ABC is putting their curses in the headlines, tantrum-style.

Apparently not everyone is bent on destroying the institution of marriage after all, despite the left’s attempts to lie to us otherwise.

So at least we can see the internal bitterness, resentment, Intollerance, and outright deceit pouring out of them as they fail to get exactly what they want – much like small, aggressive  and undisciplined children. 

These are, in my experience, constant qualities of the left and perfectly compatible with their values of murdering children, promoting sexual immorality, and destroying things of beauty in the West and even the world.

Here’s the story:

Labor senator Sam Dastyari has described the Government’s moves to hold a public vote on same-sex marriage after the next election as “bullshit”.

After a prolonged debate in the Coalition party room this week, a clear majority of Government MPs and senators voted to maintain the party’s position against legalising same-sex marriage.

The Prime Minister has suggested a public vote in the next term of parliament, but has not specified whether he favours a referendum or plebiscite.

If successful, the referendum option, which is backed by cabinet minister Scott Morrison, would lead to constitutional change.

“The type of issue that could be canvassed under Section 51 of the constitution — simply at the moment, in Clause 21, it just says ‘marriage’,” Mr Morrison said.

“You could equally put in there ‘opposite- and ‘same-sex marriage’ and clarify very clearly what the meaning of the constitution is on this question, and to reflect [what] some would argue has been a societal change since the constitution was first written.”

But Labor argues that given the difficulty of getting the double majority of state and national support required for constitutional change, the proposal is designed to fail.

Some conservatives and Christian groups that are opposed to gay marriage believe a failed referendum could push the issue off the national agenda for many years.

A plebiscite needs to reach a lower bar, only requiring national support, but the Government would not be not compelled to act on the result.

Speaking to reporters outside Parliament House this morning, Senator Dastyari said the Government’s push for a public vote is designed to stop gay marriage being legalised.

“What we’ve seen happen on the issue of marriage equality in the past couple of days is disgraceful,” Senator Dastyari said.

“It’s a rort, it’s a joke, it’s a false premise and frankly we need to call it for what it is and that is bullshit.

“The Australian public have had their say, they want these laws passed, we can pass them now, frankly we should be passing them now.”

Government MP Warren Entsch has been given approval for a private members bill to legalise gay marriage, but he has acknowledged the outcome of the party room vote this week suggests there would not be enough support in the Lower House even if Coalition MPs had a conscience vote.

Two Coalition backbenchers, WA senator Dean Smith and Queensland MP Wyatt Roy have confirmed they are prepared to cross the floor on the issue.

So Christians, vote Labor back in at our own peril.

Pray for our government because priorities are way out of whack.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-13/labor-senator-sam-dastyari-calls-22bull22-on-coalition-app/6693958

Tony Abbott Is The Prime Minister We Need: Keeps Election Promise, Judgment Is Excellent

As per the leftist playbook, they are slinging mud and ad hominems at Tony Abbott because he did not bow to their pressure and instead stayed true to the election promise that he made about refusing to redefine marriage for a tiny minority who largely have no interest in marriage as we know it.

Abbott is exactly the kind of man we need at this hour and the leftists hate it, hence the attacks on his “judgment” and character.

It’s funny how they love throwing his broken election promises at him – the ABC keeps a permanent record of it on display – but on redefining marriage, they want Abbott to break his promise to the public:

 Conscience vote on gay marriage defeated

The Coalition’s marathon same-sex marriage debate ended in a short-term fix which has reignited internal doubts about the Prime Minister’s judgement and leadership.

Two thirds of the joint party room supported traditional marriage and binding MPs and senators to the status quo.

But the Prime Minister said in a late-night press conference this was the last term in which his party could be bound, although the policy it would take to the next election was yet to be settled.

“Our position going into the next election should be that in a subsequent term of Parliament this is a matter that should rightly be put to the Australian people,” Mr Abbott said.

It is yet to be decided whether the popular vote will be a plebiscite, where a question can be carried by a simple majority, or a referendum-style vote which would set the far higher bar of needing to be carried by a majority of people in a majority of states.

In the eyes of those in the party who support change, that position resolves nothing.

Even supporters of traditional marriage said the Prime Minister’s handling of the day’s events was “messy” with one senior Liberal describing it as “madness”.

“I have never seen anything as mad as this,” the senior Liberal said.

“They were literally making it up as they went along.”

Ministers, MPs and senators told the ABC the ramshackle same-sex marriage debate and the slow dispatch of former speaker Bronwyn Bishop have rekindled the same doubts about the Prime Minister’s judgement and leadership that led to a party room revolt six months ago.

The debate began in the Liberal Party room at 9:00am yesterday, when the PM blindsided moderates by saying the issue would be decided by a joint party room vote, which includes 21 National Party MPs and senators.

In an impassioned speech, Education Minister Christopher Pyne argued that was tantamount to “branch stacking”, given the overwhelming majority of Nationals are opposed to change.

Ministers who don’t like party position should resign: Abetz

Some conservative MPs told the ABC they had decided to bring the matter to a head and that they had enlisted the Prime Minister’s support to do it.

They said party moderates should not have been surprised because they had been calling for a vote for months.

While a clear majority of the backbench supported the status quo, half of the ministry argued for a free vote, prompting Senate leader Eric Abetz to say any minister who did not like the party’s position should resign.

That sparked a caustic response from Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

“One thing I did learn as leader is that it’s probably best to keep the team together,” Mr Turnbull said.

“We are eight points behind in Newspoll, 14 points behind in Morgan. Are you seriously saying that having ministers resign would be good for us?”

It is understood Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg quoted the party’s founder Robert Menzies in a passionate speech supporting a free vote, and senator Arthur Sinodinos told colleagues he could not look a gay person in the eye and “tell them they’re the son of a lesser god”.

One Coalition backbencher said “the final count was 66-33 to keep the status quo”.

I’m feeling very disappointed and … I fervently wish the vote had gone the other way.

“This was more like 75 per cent until the executive spoke up,” he said.

“It proves the disconnect between some ministers and the grassroots and why we are having such poll problems.”

Other frontbenchers expressed their surprise that the vote had been called without warning and without being discussed by either the leadership group or the cabinet.

Deputy Liberal leader and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said: “I thought we were supposed to be talking about climate change today”.

Treasurer Joe Hockey was the first member of the executive to propose a referendum in the next term, which was supported by the Foreign Minister and Prime Minister.

Conscience vote debate will be revisited: Laming

LNP MP Warren Entsch said his same-sex marriage bill would be introduced to Parliament on Monday, but accepted it would not pass if put to a vote.

“I can confirm that the Bill will be introduced on Monday morning when I intend to highlight some of the very personal and heartfelt stories that have led me to take this path,” he said.

“I have to concede however that given today’s decision, the likelihood of failure, should it come to a vote, is assured.”

Mr Entsch also said he was not “angry” about the outcome from the six-hour meeting.

“While I’m disappointed with the outcome, I am not angry and I accept the decision of the party room.”

Media player: “Space” to play, “M” to mute, “left” and “right” to seek.

Liberal councillor and Mr Abbott’s sister Christine Forster, who is engaged to a woman, said she was very disappointed with the result of the party room meeting.

“I’m feeling very disappointed and … I fervently wish the vote had gone the other way,” she told Lateline.

“For me it goes to core Liberal principles [by] which we are all equal before the law.”

Queensland LNP MP Andrew Laming said he argued strongly for a conscience vote.

“There is a very strong and emerging current for this to be revisited but it won’t be happening in this election term,” he said.

Fellow Queenslander George Christensen was pleased with the result.

“I’m very happy with where we’ve landed on this,” he said.

“It was robust in some respects, but also very healthy and everyone was very respectful.”

A Coalition MP said: “[The outcome of the meeting] proves the disconnect between some ministers and the grassroots and why we are having such problems.”

Abbott said it best here:

…this is a matter that should rightly be put to the Australian people…

Redefining the historic definition of marriage, something that will affect all of society, should not be made by politicians behind closed doors.

And really, a nation can redefine marriage all it wants but you can’t actually change what marriage is any more than you can make a dog human by calling it “human”.

So this is a momentary victory for truth and it backs Tony Abbott as sincere, something the left prove consistently to not be as they try to find legal loopholes to change an age-old institution on the whim of the tiny minority that is the LGBT lobby.

Interestingly, there are roughly the same number of Muslims in Australia as there are homosexuals so I wonder why they wouldn’t include polygamy, an acceptable practise in Islam according to Islam’s founder Muhammad, in their attempts to destroy our society. Perhaps time is all they need?

“The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” ‭Genesis‬ ‭2:20-24‬ ‭ESV‬‬


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-12/same-sex-marriage-ministers-doubt-pms-judgement/6690104

7 Reasons Why the Current Marriage Debate Is Nothing Like the Debate on Interracial Marriage

Ryan T. Anderson’s article makes the case yet again:

Is opposition to same-sex marriage at all like opposition to interracial marriage?

One refrain in debates over marriage policy is that laws defining marriage as the union of male and female are today’s equivalent of bans on interracial marriage. Some further argue that protecting the freedom to act publicly on the basis of a religious belief that marriage is the union of a man and woman is like legally enforcing race-based segregation. This leads some people to think that the government is right to fine a New York family farm $13,000 for declining to host a lesbian wedding in their barn.

These claims are wrong on several counts, as I explain in my Backgrounder: “Marriage, Reason, and Religious Liberty: Much Ado About Sex, Nothing to Do with Race.” Here are the top seven reasons why:

  1. Support for marriage as the union of man and woman has been a near human universal. Great thinkers throughout human history—and from every political community up until the year 2000—thought it reasonable to view marriage as the union of male and female, husband and wife, father and mother. That belief is shared by the Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions; by ancient Greek and Roman thinkers untouched by these religions; and by various Enlightenment philosophers. It is affirmed by canon, common and civil law and by ancient Greek and Roman law.
  2. Bans on interracial marriage and Jim Crow laws, by contrast, were historical anomalies. These bans were aspects of a much larger, insidious movement that denied the fundamental equality and dignity of all human beings and forcibly segregated citizens. When these interracial marriage bans first arose in the American colonies, they were inconsistent not only with the common law inherited from England, but also with the customs of prior world history, which had not banned interracial marriage. These bans were based not on reason, but on prejudiced ideas about race that emerged in the modern period and that refused to regard all human beings as equal. This led to revisionist, unreasonable conclusions about marriage policy.
  3. Great thinkers—including champions of human rights—knew that gender matters for marriage, and none thought that race does. Searching the writings of Plato and Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, Maimonides and Al-Farabi, Luther and Calvin, Locke and Kant, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., one finds that the sexual union of male and female goes to the heart of their reflections on marriage but that considerations of race with respect to marriage never appear. Only late in human history do political communities prohibit intermarriage on the basis of race. Bans on interracial marriage had nothing to do with the nature of marriage and everything to do with denying dignity and equality before the law.
  4. Even cultures that embraced same-sex relationships did not treat them as marriages. Far from having been devised as a pretext for excluding same-sex relationships—as some now charge—marriage as the union of husband and wife arose in many places over several centuries entirely independent of, and well before any debates about, same-sex relationships. Indeed, it arose in cultures that had no concept of sexual orientation and in some that fully accepted homoeroticism and even took it for granted. Bans on interracial marriage, by contrast, were the result of racism and nothing more.
  5. Marriage must be color-blind, but it cannot be gender-blind. The melanin content of two people’s skin has nothing to do with their capacity to unite in the bond of marriage as a comprehensive union naturally ordered to procreation. The sexual difference between a man and a woman, however, is central to what marriage is. Men and women regardless of their race can unite in marriage, and children regardless of their race deserve moms and dads. To acknowledge such facts requires an understanding of what marriage is.
  6. Jim Crow laws were meant to divide the races, but marriage law unites men to women and children to their parents. Marriage has everything to do with uniting the two halves of humanity—men and women, as husbands and wives and as fathers and mothers—so that any children born of their union will know and be loved by the man and woman who gave them life. This is why principle-based policy has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The argument over redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships is one over the nature of marriage. Same-sex marriage is the result of revisionism about marriage.
  7. The Supreme Court was correct in striking down bans on interracial marriage but it should not redefine marriage. In Loving v. Virginia, the Court found bans on interracial marriage to be premised on “the doctrine of White Supremacy.”The Court found “no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.” Indeed, earlier this summer, Judge Paul Niemeyer of the 4th Circuit Court explained that “Loving simply held that race, which is completely unrelated to the institution of marriage, could not be the basis of marital restrictions.” But this does not require redefining marriage. Niemeyer concludes: “To stretch Loving’s holding to say that the right to marry is not limited by gender and sexual orientation is to ignore the inextricable, biological link between marriage and procreation that the Supreme Court has always recognized.”

http://www.acl.org.au/2015/08/7-reasons-why-the-current-marriage-debate-is-nothing-like-the-debate-on-interracial-marriage/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=eNews+11+August+2015&utm_content=eNews+11+August+2015+CID_20f4f76c110099ac971f49c4bde3aaa9&utm_source=CreateSend&utm_term=Read%20his%20clear%20arguments%20and%20find%20out%20about%20our%20event%20with%20Ryan
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/marriage-reason-and-religious-liberty-much-ado-about-sex-nothing-to-do-with-race

Leftist Media Censoring The Pro-Marriage Argument

The mainstream media is predominantly populated with leftists and while they like to use the term “tolerance” to establish and force their own views on other people, they have absolutely no interest in anyone else’s opinion.

The recent refusal of Australia’s Channel 7 and Channel 10 to air a pro-marriage advertisement that raises questions over the impact and the myriad dangerous consequences of redefining marriage underlines their willingness to silence any dissenting views. You can view the ad below:

It’s a perverse manoeuvre given that homosexuals make up 3% of the population at best and only a tiny portion of those actually want a marriage that looks anything like authentic marriage.

Over two-thirds of the population identify as Christian and even though many of them clearly don’t act like it, the authentic church undoubtedly represents far more than a piddly 3%. Changing a history long institution on a whim for a tiny minority is as bigger warning sign as one could ever need, even more so because significantly bigger minorities and even majorities are silenced to achieve it.

Bill Muehlenberg understands the issue as well as anybody and his commentary on this situation commands attention:

I have written often about our leftist and censorious mainstream media. And I have written often about the militant homosexual lobby pushing its agenda far and wide. When you bring the two together you have the perfect storm of leftist bigotry, intolerance and tyranny.
I have documented examples of this for years now. The secular left MSM is always willing to do the work of the homosexual lobby, and those with a differing point of view are routinely ignored, attacked, vilified or censored. That is the reality we face in Australia and the West today.

And if any media outlet does dare to air the views of the other 98 per cent of the community, then all hell breaks loose. We see all this at work with the attempt to air a short pro-marriage ad on TV and radio. Many if not most outlets are refusing it, and those that are running with it are already facing the wrath of the militants.

And consider how the media is reporting on this story – when it does. The Sydney Morning Herald wasted no time casting aspersions on those involved with the newly formed Marriage Alliance which is producing the ads. The very first line in their article says this: “Marriage Alliance spokeswoman Sophie York has ties to the Liberal Party.”

Um, and that means what? For every time the MSM features something from a pro-marriage supporter, it would run with a hundred from the other side. Yet does the media ever inform us that a homosexual or a pro-homosexual spokesperson has ties with the Labor Party or the Greens?

Talk about demonising your opponents from the get go. Other news items on this ad tend to be rather short, with as much time devoted to quoting homosexuals as it spends on telling the story. Thus the skewing of news, or the censoring of news, continues apace.

Let me offer the words of several media releases of MA, since it is hard to get their point of view across otherwise. One focuses on the rank censorship and political correctness of the networks:

The newly-formed Marriage Alliance are left bemused by Channels 7 and 10 for refusing to run advertisements expressing concern about potential changes to the Marriage Act that would allow same-sex marriage.

Spokesperson for the Alliance, Sophie York, questions the management of the two television networks for denying her organisation the right to broadcast its concerns about the potential erosion of children’s rights and the rights of ordinary citizens if the Act is changed.

“It is quite shocking that two major TV networks are denying the basic right to freedom of speech and expression on an issue that supports the current law of the nation.

“The advertisement raises legitimate concerns about rights. In no way does it denigrate any element of society, but raises questions that most Australians we believe would want to see answered,” Ms York said.

The Marriage Alliance has written to Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten, as well as the Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, to make them aware of the denial by 7 and 10 to run the ads, and to seek their response on the matter.

“Has political correctness or the power of a certain lobby group reached so far down that it now erodes the once proud Australian ’fair-go’ character that it is preventing ordinary Australians from having a voice?, Ms York said.

Another release deals with this in more detail:

Rational debate on the impact of allowing same-sex marriage is being denied to ordinary Australians because those with opposing views fear being labelled as ‘homophobic’ or a ’right-wing extremist’ and potentially face attacks on their business or personally.

The powerful SSM activists are entitled in a democracy to state their view, but it is also the right of mainstream Australia to hear opposing arguments and to express their opinion without fear,” according to Sophie York, spokesperson for the newly formed Marriage Alliance.

“The view of the Marriage Alliance is that permitting same-sex couples to marry under a changed Marriage Act would have major consequences not realised or understood by most Australians.

“Our Alliance has the backing of many businesses, community organisations and ordinary people who are alarmed that important public figures and the media are either staying silent on the issue, or backing a misguided ‘politically correct’ position rather than encouraging open discussion,” she said.

Mrs York said the rights of children were being subjugated by arguments about equality between gay and heterosexual adults. Taking a back seat are the more important issues about the consequences and the rights of future generations, sex education, religious freedoms, morality, business and professional regulations, and legal implications resulting from permitting same-sex marriage.

And as already mentioned, the militants are demonstrating yet again just how “tolerant” they are as they attack any media outlet which actually airs the ads. Consider for example how the tolerance brigade is reacting in WA:

Members of the Perth LGBTI community have called on their friends and allies to boycott top rating radio station MIX 94.5 after the station began playing advertisements from the newly formed Marriage Alliance.

The station is part of the Southern Cross Austereo network alongside sister station hit92.9 and home to popular the breakfast show ‘Clairsy, Shane and Kimba’ and the Drive program ‘Lisa and Pete’.

Yep, so much for free debate and the democratic free-flow of ideas. Just shut down any recalcitrants. That is always how the militants operate. They simply cannot stand real debate, and expect only their own views to be heard. All others must be silenced and censored. And they want us all to be tolerant like they are!

As is so often the case, there is a real need for the alternative media, since the MSM refuses to do its job, and refuses to actually allow real debate on the crucial issues of the day. So I am more than happy to once again give an airing to a group which will not be getting a fair go from the MSM.

I encourage all of you to support the Marriage Alliance in any way you can. The MA website is here: www.marriagealliance.com.au/

And please also share far and wide the short video which so much of the media refuses to run with. You can see the video here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=umhEh9jUrbo

We live in staggering times. When an ad focusing on the rights of children to have a mum and a dad, and the threats to liberty because of militant activist groups actually gets censored, then you know we live in very dark times indeed. Could anyone have imagined just a few short decades ago that to stand for heterosexual marriage would become a social evil subject to rampant censorship?

The militants have done a great job of destroying our culture in a very short period of time. The only question is, who will rise up and reclaim our culture, reclaim marriage and family, and stand up for the wellbeing of our children? Will you?

m.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/seven-and-ten-reject-anti-samesex-marriage-advertisement-20150807-giu2f0.html?skin=smart-phone

http://www.outinperth.com/calls-to-boycott-mix94-5-over-marriage-advertisements/

So there it is. Many Christians who are sympathetic to the cause of the LGBTI, but not so sympathetic Tia child’s right to have a mother and a father, will soon wake up in a society where they are no longer free to really be a Christian.

Australia has so far held firm against the homosexual lobby and if these Christians would stand for truth rather than emoting with the world, perhaps Australia might remain a place of refuge for Christians even as Communism and Islam presses down on our brothers and sisters across the world.
http://www.acl.org.au/watch-the-marriage-ad-the-tv-networks-dont-want-you-to-see/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=AMF+-+Marriage+TVC&utm_content=AMF+-+Marriage+TVC+CID_e0b838e097a0b3f97551ff5927aa3b17&utm_source=CreateSend
http://billmuehlenberg.com/2015/08/08/censoring-pro-marriage-views/

Watch The Marriage Ad The TV Networks Don’t Want You To See

The mainstream media are complicit in concealing many truths, including the truth about Islam and its violent history, Planned Parenthood’s massacre of babies, and the dangers of redefining marriage.

Silencing dissidents is all part of the program these days and Christians are at the top of that list.

The following article highlights yet another important way they are denying the general population:

A new television commercial encouraging people to think twice about the consequences of redefining marriage has been banned by Channel 7 and Channel 10.

The advertisement by the newly formed Marriage Alliance asks people to consider the unintended consequences that may occur if marriage is redefined.

“It’s time to step back and consider all the issues around same-sex marriage, like how it will affect sex education in schools. Or how it will affect children. We could even lose certain rights.”

The advertisement shows an iceberg being drawn, suggesting that redefining marriage might be just the tip of a much larger iceberg.
What you can do

Please contact Channel 7 and Channel 10 today.

You can do that by emailing Channel 10

contactus@networkten.com.au

Or you can phone the networks

Channel 7 (02) 8777 7777

Channel 10 (02) 9650 1010

http://www.acl.org.au/watch-the-marriage-ad-the-tv-networks-dont-want-you-to-see/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=AMF+-+Marriage+TVC&utm_content=AMF+-+Marriage+TVC+CID_e0b838e097a0b3f97551ff5927aa3b17&utm_source=CreateSend

The West Aborts Our Future While Islam Grows And Grows

This is “the” culture war.

The higher the proportion of Muslims in a nation, the more dangerous it becomes. So when the West murders it’s children by abortion and slams its population return rate below the 2.1 children per family required to sustain the population, something practically all western nations have achieved, we are signing the death certificate of our own culture.

Two articles reinforce the direction the world is heading regarding this serious matter.

Firstly, Warning Bell for Developed Countries: Declining Birth Rates makes the point clear that it is developed nations which are in trouble here. Note that Islamic nations aren’t mention here in connection with population troubles or with the reality of being “developed.”

In developed countries today many women receive educations and earn salaries that are on a par with those of men. The fact that women are no longer socially or economically dependent on men has radically altered young people’s lifestyles. A woman can now choose to remain single, marrying only when a man adds value to her life or when she desires to have children within such a framework.

This is creating big changes throughout the developed world. The replacement rate—the reproduction rate that keeps a population stable—for developed countries is 2.1, yet nearly half the world’s population has birth rates lower than that. The U.S. has a total fertility rate (TFR) of 2.0—nearly the replacement rate—with Hispanic immigrants leading in birth rates. The U.S. is aging but not as fast as many other countries. A 2010 census showed that 31.4 million Americans live alone—27% of all households (equal to the percentage of childless couples). Living alone allows people to pursue individual freedom, exert personal control and go through self-realization, but these people have fewer children.

Western European countries have low fertility rates, below the replacement rate of 2.1. Germany: 1.4 (its total population is 81.9 million, of which 8.2% are foreigners). Holland: 1.8

(16.5 million, of which 4.4% are foreigners). Belgium: 1.8 (10.8 million, of which 9.8% are foreigners). Spain: 1.4 (46.1 million, of which 12.4% are foreigners). Italy: 1.4 (60.2 million, of which 7.1% are foreigners), the Pope’s views notwithstanding. Sweden, which provides deep support for parents, has a high TFR of 1.9 (9.4 million, of which 6.4% are foreigners), but that’s still below the replacement rate. Ireland and the U.K. also have high TFRs, at 2.1 and 1.9, respectively, but these rates are derived from non-European immigrant parents.

During the 21st century the U.S. could become the slowly aging leader of a rapidly aging world.

Singapore’s experience is no different from that of these countries. Our birth rates have been steadily declining. The fertility rate of the Chinese segment of our population is the lowest, 1.08 (2011), with the rate for Indians 1.09 and for Malays 1.64. In other words, the size of each successive generation of Chinese Singaporeans will halve in the next 18 to 20 years.

To have babies is, of course, a personal decision, but for a nation’s population that decision carries considerable consequences. The education of our women and their ability to be high-income earners have altered social behavior and led to marriages later in life. But when women put off having children until their mid-30s, they have fewer children.

In Singapore in 2011 seven working adults supported one retiree. By 2030, 2.3 working adults will have to support one retiree. We have more than 340,000 people over the age of 65, with 2.36 million people between the ages of 15 and 64. By 2030 we will have 900,000 over the age of 65, with only 2.04 million working adults between the ages of 15 and 64.

Islamic Population Explodes while West’s Implodes raises perhaps the most concerning issue: that Islam’s population will proportionally grow significantly in comparison to the West unless something changes quickly.

For years we’ve hearing about a coming population crash in developed Western nations – mainly Europe. Births are simply not keeping pace with death rates.

In Germany, “births per 1,000 population have fallen to roughly 8.2 – below even Japan’s 8.4. The death rate, meanwhile, is about 11 per 1,000,” according to Hamburg’s World Economy Institute. Many other European countries appear also to be in the same boat, with dwindling birth rates not keeping pace with deaths.

In June it was estimated that the German population in 2060 will shrink to 67 million – down from its current 81 million.

Journalist Daniel Greenfield writes that a big part of the declines are due to the left’s assault on both marriage and the traditional nuclear family. He says, “Marriage is a fading institution. Family is a flickering light in the evening of the West.”

This should be great news to the population bomb crowd which believes over population is killing Mother Earth. This despite the fact that if everyone stood shoulder to shoulder, we could all fit on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, and that’s not even the big island!

But this is indeed a growing problem for the West, America included, for as our native “cracker” population dwindles it is being replaced by refugees and immigrants – legal and illegal. And at the same time we are on this self-imposed obsolescent kick, the worldwide Muslim population is exploding.

And that brings us to Iran — the centerpiece of the Axis of Evil, and our new found friend and ally. That’s an interesting juxtaposition, is it not?

In 2012, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni decreed that his country would double its population within 50 years or less. Their current population is 78 million. The goal is to “strengthen national identity” and counter “undesirable aspects of Western lifestyle.”

To do so, Iran’s parliament has offered up a bill which “bans voluntary sterilizations, restricts abortions and blocks access to information on contraception,” and a second bill will “encourage early marriage and make divorce more difficult. It would also make it legal for employers to discriminate against female job candidates, particularly if they are single and have no children.”

Many Iranian couples in their 20s and 30s are childless. One such married couple is Shirin and Hossein, who claim they know almost nobody with children. Shirin says that part of the problem is the authoritarian theocratic state, but the other is the “struggle to find a livelihood in a country where sanctions, mismanagement and corruption have inflicted terrible damage.”

But wait Shirin, John Kerry to the rescue! Sure, he won’t do anything about those pesky theocrats, but he’ll gladly free up $150 billion of sanctioned money.

Maybe that extra cash will help grow your economy, make it easier to earn a living and have kids. But no matter — if the Ayatollah says you’re going to procreate — that’s what you’ll do. That’s what all Muslim countries are doing.

So couple the explosion of Third World immigrant populations with the ever dwindling of European and American and pretty soon you have a shift in culture leading to the evaporation of what it means to be French, German, Spanish, etc.

And eventually it will be “Bye-Bye Miss American Pie.”

In some ways, our culture certainly deserves to die but I certainly don’t want it to, especially in the face of Islam.

God is the same today as he has always been and so our hope can be in this promise, even though it was given to King Solomon of Israel:

“When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command the locust to devour the land, or send pestilence among my people, if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” ‭‭2 Chronicles‬ ‭7:13-14‬ ‭ESV‬‬
http://godfatherpolitics.com/24110/islamic-population-explodes-while-wests-implodes/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/currentevents/2012/10/16/warning-bell-for-developed-countries-declining-birth-rates/

Sitting For Truth As Labor Sinks To New Lows

Speaking out against homosexuality takes guts these days. Do it and the ad hominems start to fly your way. Social media bullies will copy discussion you’ve had with individuals and post it everywhere they can to rally gangs to intimidate you into silence.

It’s animal behaviour – a gang mentality – that I’ve had used against me on a few occasions. They figure that like the cowards they are, you will be silenced through fear. But who should we really be afraid of? Mere men? Or God?

While I managed to find one good thing about Labor recently as they agreed to the “turn back the boats” policy, it comes to a grinding halt right there.

Everything else about the ALP is really a downward spiral into social and sexual chaos that rips the Christianity out of our behaviour and licenses anything and everything destructive.

Lyle Sheldon sums up the disaster that was the 47th National Labor Conference:

Labor’s 47th National Conference in Melbourne at the weekend marked the party’s end of tolerance for the natural family as the gold standard for children.

It’s been a slow burn but it is now official. The party’s capitulation to the sexual revolution and Greens’ social policy is complete.

After 2019, any Labor parliamentarian who votes to support marriage as one man and one woman will be automatically expelled from the party.

There is now no room in the party for an aspiring candidate for office who wishes to uphold the definition of marriage that is in the best interest of a child.

As Labor’s president Mark Butler put the motion, the ‘ayes’ were loud and proud.

“All those against?” A solitary “no” which sounded like WA Senator Joe Bullock rang out. I was sitting up in the bleachers so it was hard to tell for sure.

Earlier as Penny Wong, Labor’s lesbian Senate leader, rose to speak she was greeted with a sustained standing ovation.

One man, the former head of the Australia’s largest trade union, Joe de Bruyn, could not bring himself to genuflect before the rainbow regime.

It takes courage not to go with the crowd. It takes even greater courage to do this when the crowd are the people of the party for whom you have given your life.

Someone with an iPhone snapped Joe and put him on Twitter. His decision not to bow was ridiculed with almost 200 re-tweets.

What the mockers will never understand is how much courage that took.

Earlier in the conference, Labor voted to make it their policy to support access to assisted reproductive technology for same-sex attracted people.

Watch now for Australia’s prohibition on commercial surrogacy to begin to be chipped at.

There was no debate about the ethics of denying children their natural mother or father, a necessary by-product of ART.

The irony of all this was hearing on the radio on the drive to work this morning the victims of the forced adoption practices of the 1950s-1970s telling heart-wrenching stories of removal.

Do we seriously think a boy growing up with lesbians will never have an ache in his heart for his dad?

I see how my kids love and relate to their mother. There is a maternal bond that two men cannot fulfil no matter how much the law tries to pretend otherwise.

The Greens and Labor talk a lot about the natural environment for birds and plants. Labor’s conference said nothing about the natural environment for a baby.

And if you think I am being partisan, I am not. It is a Liberal, Warren Entsch, who is leading the charge to abolish husband and wife from the Marriage Act when Parliament resumes in August.

Our political class has fallen victim to a culture that has lost its capacity to reason.

Yes, it is a sad day to see the alternative party of government vote to expel anyone who wants to support marriage as the best environment for a child.

But we must use this seminal moment in Australian politics to wake ourselves up and resolve to re-build a marriage culture.

Doing this will require speaking. It will require challenging the assumptions of our friends who have put a rainbow wash through their Facebook profile.

Ideas have consequences. If bad ideas are the only ones prosecuted in the public square, as was the case at Labor’s conference, then we should not be surprised if viral ideas take root in our culture.

Truth always resonates with ordinary people but it can only resonate if it is spoken.

By remaining in his seat, Joe de Bruyn stood for truth.

We all need to take a leaf out of his book.

Joe de Bruyn is the subject of social media character assignation now – and this rubbish isn’t even in law.

What happens to the dissenters if the laws are changed to redefine marriage?

Lawsuits? Imprisonment? Execution?

Tyrants have done all the above throughout history so it would be unwise to think it won’t happen again.

Christians ought to prepare themselves and their children for social exile at best and even death because it seems we’re about to stroll down the violent, isolated isles of history once more in the West.

We can be sure that Jesus Christ will never leave us, even in death. We can be confident that even death cannot seperate us from his love. But let us not choose the world over Jesus because judgment is coming to the world. Let’s aspire to love God with the same zeal that he loves us, even if that means we suffer greatly now.
http://www.acl.org.au/2015/07/how-a-decision-to-sit-was-the-biggest-stand-for-truth-at-labors-conference/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=eNews+28+July+2015&utm_content=eNews+28+July+2015+CID_77f73a5d421b002496c2a40e769967aa&utm_source=CreateSend&utm_term=See%20why%20this%20was%20a%20stand%20for%20truth