Repeat after me: “There is no slippery slope”


From The Marriage Alliance comes this warning.




In an extraordinary admission, the UK’s “Government Equalities Office” confirmed that the changing of gender legally at whim, with the mere filing of a form, builds on the “progress” made with the redefinition of marriage.

In a joint media release, the Equalities Office and the Minister for Equalities declared that: 

Since Parliament voted for the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967, there has been significant progress on LGBT equality. In 2013 the law was changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. Earlier this year, Turing’s Law was passed, posthumously pardoning men who had sex with men for these now abolished offences. And the recent election saw the highest number of openly lesbian, gay and bisexual MPs voted into Parliament. Today’s announcement looks to build on this progress.

In a near-Orwellian development, enabling individuals to change their gender on their birth certificate at a snap of their fingers is being considered as “progress”: 

Proposals to streamline and de-medicalise the process for changing gender will be part of a broad consultation of the legal system that underpins gender transition, the Gender Recognition Act.


The consultation on the Gender Recognition Act, to be published in the Autumn, will look to improve the recognition process and reduce the stigma faced by the trans community. Proposals will include:

  • Removing the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before being able to apply for gender recognition. The current need to be assessed and diagnosed by clinicians is seen as an intrusive requirement by the trans community; and
  • Proposing options for reducing the length and intrusiveness of the gender recognition system. 

It really is incredible: the UK is digging itself a politically-correct hole so deep, that they have reached a point where “facts” and “medical precautions” are now considered “offensive” – even though Britain was one of the spearheads in the whole transgender movement:

Britain became one of the first countries to legally recognise people who wanted to change gender without surgery in 2004 with the Gender Recognition Act. However in the years that have followed a series of barriers to changing gender have frustrated those who want to make the switch. One is the need to prove they have been in transition for at least two years before they can legally apply to become the other sex.

The other is the medical checks needed. Currently people need to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria before being allowed to make legally change sex.  Campaigners said the tests – which involve seeing a panel of doctors – is embarrassing and intrusive, noting it should be a decision for the individuals.

As stated above, changing one’s registered gender has been possible in the UK for several years. Apparently though, it is not enough to be possible – it has to be super easy, otherwise, LGBTI individuals won’t have ‘sufficient rights’:

Up to now, it was already possible to change your sex in government records, but it was a laborious process. A doctor had to diagnose gender dysphoria and the person had to be living in the chosen gender for two years. Under the new legislation all that will be needed, it seems, will be a rubber stamp. No hormones; no surgery; just an uncomfortable feeling inside that things are not quite right. 

Instead of requiring individuals to seek medical expertise to determine if they truly have gender dysphoria, all they need to do is sign a form.  

Minister for Women and Equalities, Justine Greening, had no qualms voicing her support for the measure

This government is committed to building an inclusive society that works for everyone, no matter what their gender or sexuality and today we’re taking the next step forward.

We will build on the significant progress we have made over the past 50 years, tackling some of the historic prejudices that still persist in our laws and giving LGBT people a real say on the issues affecting them.

However, Ms Greening’s own words show that she is either blatantly ignoring, or entirely ignorant regarding the importance of gender with regards to the LGBTI community.

“What we want to try to do is streamline the process, make it easier, demedicalise it and make it less intrusive,” says Ms Greening.  A study with her proposals will be published later in the years. She recently told the media that society needed “to “stop treating people changing their gender as if it’s some medical problem that needs fixing. Actually this is a choice that people are making and we need to try and make that choice more straightforward than it already is.”

For years – nay, decades – the transgender lobby has been telling us that ‘gender dysphoria’ is an innate condition, not a choice. Now they are backtracking from, not progressing their own statements.

Redefining gender is part and parcel of redefining marriage.  Neither further the progress of anyone’s rights – it creates utter chaos. Think about it: enabling people to change their gender renders biological sex meaningless. Without gender, there is no need for “same-sex” in same-sex marriage – because apparently, a person can switch between either genders without undergoing any type of alterations.

Going further, changing “sex” to something based entirely on preferences (e.g. what gender do I want to list on my birth certificate?) abolishes any “special” status or traits of the LGBTI community. Without preconceived, concrete definitions of biological gender, there is no basis for distinguishing amongst lesbian, gay men, heterosexuals, or heck, even transgender!

All of this has been clearly pointed out by articulate critics of this newest UK kowtow to radical gender reform:

Critics warned that allowing people to effectively “self-identify” as a member of the opposite sex, while maintaining the anatomy of their birth gender, would unleash a firestorm of legal cases over access to women-only hospital wards, prisons, lavatories, changing rooms and competitive sports.

Gender and sex both depend on the definition of marriage. Wherever marriage is redefined without its one man, one woman definition, we clearly see societies abandoning their definition of gender, making sex entirely based on preferences. It is not freedom – it is utter chaos. 

The outright insanity plaguing the UK may seem thousands of miles away, but this is an illusion: any country considering redefining marriage placing themselves in jeopardy of falling to the same chaotic level. 

There is no beating about the bush: redefining marriage brings a torrent of consequences. The traditional definition of marriage is essential to societal perception – and treatment – of gender and sex. If a country is truly considering messing with this foundational institution, then it must be a decision made by ALL citizens. 

Is Porn the “Other” Girl/ Guy in Your Relationship?


Picture this: you are in a happy, seemingly healthy relationship with your partner. You both love spending time together and understand each other in a way no one else does. You have something really special, and you feel really confident in your relationship and secure in your partner’s love for you.

One day, you find your partner looking at naked, explicit pictures of another girl or guy in your friend group. Suddenly, you might doubt your partner’s love for you. Your world is turned upside down. You may think, “Why are they looking at her or him? Am I not enough? Why are they going outside of our relationship for sexual satisfaction? Why are they cheating on me?”

Most of us recognize that finding our partner looking at pictures or videos of a naked friend would be cheating, at least in some way. That person becomes the “other girl” or “other guy” that drives a wedge in the close, exclusive connection. Yet somehow, in our culture, looking at porn is “normal,” even though it means sharing your time, affection, and sexuality with someone outside of your relationship. Even though it means specifically seeking out another person, strangers on a screen, for sexual gratification.

So let’s pose a tough question: can porn become the “other” girl or other guy in a relationship?

The Effects Are Still Real

Porn can be destructive to any relationship. A porn habit takes the time, attention, and affection that can be given to a partner, and instead, gives it to an exaggerating performer on a screen. It can isolate the viewer from their real life relationship and affect the way they view their partner. And at times, viewers may end up seeking sexual satisfaction through their screen rather than with their partner, exclusively. After all, porn never rejects you, it never won’t want to try a new idea, and it’s never “not in the mood.” In any other instance where a physical person is involved, this would automatically be considered cheating, right?

Just because the person is on the screen and not in the room, physically, does not mean that the effects on the relationship are not devastating, and this is something our society gets really wrong. But let’s look at the facts.

What’s the Research?

Two of the most respected pornography researchers, Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillman at the University of Alabama, studied the effects of porn and media for over 30 years. Their studies found that viewing pornography makes many users less satisfied with their own partner’s physical appearance, sexual performance, affection, and sexual curiosity. [1] Other researchers have confirmed those results and added that porn users tend to be significantly less intimate with their partners, [2] less committed in their relationships, [3] less satisfied with their romantic and sex lives, [4] and more likely to physically cheat on their partners. [5]

Porn can also change sexual tastes so that viewers no longer respond to their partners. [6] Researchers have shown a strong connection between porn use and low sex drive, erectile dysfunction, and trouble reaching orgasm. [7] Many frequent porn users reach a point where they have an easier time getting aroused by Internet porn than by having actual sex with a real partner. [8]

The problem with porn is that people who have a habit viewing it can often end up consciously or subconsciously comparing their partner to the never-ending variety of men or women of unrealistic proportions and sexual appetites on the screen. And that’s not exactly ideal for a healthy, intimate, exclusive connection.

So What Can You Do?

Here’s the thing—every person who watches porn can watch it for different reasons. Sometimes, it’s an old habit that’s hard to kill. Others really are hooked, with no intention of giving it up or trying to stop for themselves. Or, someone could be watching porn because they think it’ll inspire their sex life with their partner (even though research shows how that’s not really a good idea). No matter why someone is watching porn, it’s important for a couple to communicate about their expectations and what they think about it. Yes, porn can be very harmful, but there is a huge difference between someone who is watching because they can’t seem to stop versus someone who watches because they don’t want to or care to stop.

In so many cases, porn can really feel like the “other woman” or “other man” in a relationship. Most people want their relationship to be based on mutual love, fidelity, and respect, sharing all of themselves with each other. That’s the best case scenario, right? Giving all of yourself to your partner can be made more difficult if you are simultaneously giving yourself to women or men on a screen. Strive for the ideal, and keep it real.


Why This Matters

In a relationship, porn can become that person “on the side,” whom one goes to in order to have their needs met. If you don’t think porn adds to the health of a relationship, SHARE this article.

Margaret Court and Diversity


Here is a letter to the editor which I sent to The Courier a couple of weeks ago while the media and the leftists activists were demanding Margaret Court’s head for daring to stand up for the existing law of the land that marriage is between a man and a woman. Due to other pressing issues at the time, they published it yesterday.

Tolerance and diversity are buzz words in our culture. Of course if you deviate from the politically entitled view tolerance comes to an end and diversity is discouraged.

Tennis great Margaret Court, now Senior Pastor at a big Perth church, stated that because of Qantas’ constant promotion of same sex marriage, she would not fly with them any longer unless there was no alternative means of transport. As a christian she believes in the Biblical view of marriage as between one man and one woman.

All the enlightened, “progressive” media and celebrities, led by Ten program “The Project”, piled on, calling her a homophobe and a bigot. Sam Stosur called for a boycott of Margaret Court Arena until the name was changed; on recent form she would probably only miss one match there anyway.

This is what passes for civil debate in this age. If you disagree with me, I will shut you down by just calling you names. We must not allow any rational debate that might upset the status quo.

By insulting a great tennis player who happens to be a significant christian leader in Perth, the knee-jerk attacks have also alienated tens of thousands of people who agree with the Christian view of marriage. A boycott might just be a blip on the bottom line of Qantas, but it might be enough to push Ten over the edge.

The supporters of diversity and tolerance would do well to actually look up the meaning of those words, and show real tolerance to those who really are diverse.

How to Win The Argument


So a grumpy looking man plants a lemon meringue pie in Qantas CEO Alan Joyce’s face to make a statement. The media didn’t mention what it was about, and to be fair, it wasn’t immediately obvious.


Given the clips of the incident followed by Joyce returning and laughing it off with some jokes, and the angry disposition of his attacker who will you have more sympathy for?


It turns out that the assailant is a Christian. He chose lemon meringue because it was soft and wouldn’t hurt him- so compassionate.


He is also a member of the Nationals.


Later he produced a statement apologising but stating that he was protesting about the way that Joyce and a few other corporate types are abusing their position to bully corporations and individuals to accept same sex “marriage.”


Clearly not the way to go. For one thing he did not get the message across at all, except to a small number of news nerds. Maybe there was better coverage in WA where the event took place.


Also, unless you are promoting a “progressive” cause you will probably get bad press for this sort of antic. Much better to get a mob together and hold some signs up so people really know what you are protesting.


But for christians, called to imitate Christ, it is particularly a bad idea. We have to always walk in the ways of Christ. That means discussing respectfully rather than going the face pie route, being winsome and loving our enemies whether real or ideological.


So no pies in the face. Not even soft lemon meringue pies. Not even when you disagree with your pastor.

Doug Mainwaring: The Fight Against Marriage

The heart of the Same Sex Marriage war is spiritual not political or legal.


A former gay activist now a christian reflects on this. From Doug Mainwaring writes:

If you think the gay ‘marriage’ fight is over, you don’t understand the nature of the war

September 27, 2016 (Public Discourse) — Up until now, I’ve used only secular arguments involving logic, reason, and experience to address the issue of same-sex marriage. That’s how I first came to think about the issue. But as I explained at Public Discourse last year, once I began thinking, reasoning, and examining my life, an extraordinary thing happened: I couldn’t stop. Reason led me to acknowledge natural law, which led me to begin rejecting some of my former ways of thinking and acting. Reason then led me to recognize God.

I am now a Christian, and even though I am same-sex attracted—or, more likely, because I am same-sex attracted—I marvel at the extraordinary significance of marriage in God’s eternal plan. Marriage is under siege because it stands at the heart of the Good News of the Gospel.

I am neither a philosopher nor a theologian, and I possess no advanced degree, but I try to be an informed observer and reasoning contributor as best I can. As a former apologist for the sexual revolution, and as a gay man who once promoted same-sex marriage, here’s what I’ve concluded.

No matter what you read or hear, the heart of the battle over the redefinition of marriage and genderlessness in culture is not found in our courts, legislatures, ballot boxes, or media. This is not a tug of war between political parties, between left and right, conservative and liberal. Likewise, this is not a battle of “gay versus straight.” And while focusing on religious liberty is an absolutely necessary pursuit, if it stands by itself, it too misses the mark.

Taken as a whole, this is a war of one kingdom against another. At its heart, this is a spiritual battle.

Accepting this as a spiritual battle has profound personal ramifications. We must each examine and deal with our own spiritual passivity and culpability in casually embracing the ways of the world. Each of us bears responsibility. This battle hinges on one thing: the creation of a vibrant marriage culture based on the participation of millions of individuals who value and commit themselves to the spiritual truth about marriage. These people must commit themselves not only to the structural, traditional aspects of marriage, but also to its vitally important spiritual component. The future rests on our shoulders—yours and mine.

Many now chide those of us who oppose the notion of same-sex marriage, telling us, “The battle over marriage has been decided. Move on.” And for the time being, as a political reality, this may be true. However, there is a much larger, far more important reality that must be acknowledged: spiritual reality. While the political battle may be over for a brief time, the spiritual battle is just beginning.



Read the rest here

Official: Gays Are Not “Born That Way”

After insisting for decades that homosexuality was a lifestyle choice, gay activists did a U-turn when they saw that they could use civil rights theory to demand recognition, an end to discrimination and even the right to “marriage equality.”

Psychologists have argued that sexuality id very plastic (i.e. determined by our choices) b




APA researcher explodes myth: Gays aren’t ‘born that way’

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 22, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — A top researcher with the American Psychological Association (APA) and lesbian activist has acknowledged that gays are not “born that way.”

Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-editor-in-chief of the APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology and one of the APA’s “most respected members,” says sexual orientation is “fluid” and not unchangeable.

As clinical psychologist Dr. Laura A. Haynes summarizes Diamond’s APA Handbook chapters, her book and YouTube lectures, “The battle to disprove ‘Born that way and can’t change’ is now over, and (Diamond) is telling LGBT activists to stop promoting the myth.”

Contrary to the typical argument that homosexuals are “born gay” as “who they are” and cannot change, the APA officially recognized sexual orientation change in 2011.

Diamond summarized relevant findings in a lecture at Cornell University (2013), stating that abundant research has now established that sexual orientation — including attraction, behavior, and self-identity — is fluid for both adolescents and adults and for both genders.

This flies in the face of recent laws promoted by gay activists and passed in several states banning “reparative therapy,” which seeks to help patients experiencing same-sex attraction to change.

The stated justification for anti-reparative therapy laws is that anyone who experiences same-sex attraction is not only gay and born gay, but his/her homosexuality is unchangeable and so “reparative therapy,” it is argued, is not only unfruitful but cruel.  The argument goes, “You can’t change who you are.”

Additionally, many gay activists call sexual orientation “the civil rights issue of our time,” and analogous to race. Diamond and the APA, however, refute this argument.

Fr. Johannes Jacobse, founder of The American Orthodox Institute, called Diamond’s “course correction” a “stunning reversal” of oft-repeated gay justification. “Sexuality desire is fluid, homosexual desire is not ‘hard-wired;’ that ‘born that way and can’t change’ is a myth; feelings don’t overrule volition (behavior is a choice, one does not need to act on every feeling — especially sexual feelings); the ‘born that way’ argument is political, not scientific; sexual orientation is subject to change among others.”

“The idea that what a person feels defines who he is — who God created him to be — is false,” Fr. Jacobse wrote. “If a person feels homosexual desire, it does not mean he is created homosexual.”

“If a person decides to engage in homosexual behavior, that decision is freely chosen, even if the desire is not,” Jacobse summarized. “If a person experiences homosexual desire and wishes to change into more normative heterosexuality, abundant evidence exists that such a change may indeed be possible.

Read the full article here


Piers Ackerman- Vote Labor in haste, regret at your leisure

Piers Akerman


SHOULD Labor leader Bill Shorten win office in 41 days, homosexual marriage will ­become a reality across Australia just 100 days later. 

This has nothing to do with fairness, equality, human rights or any other humbug the homosexual lobby and the Marxists lurking close behind their agenda may wish you to believe.

This is about Labor being pushed to the Left by the Greens, radically altering customary practice, dramatically changing the way children are reared by removing either a male or a female figure from the family unit, and setting the stage for a generation who will forever be robbed of a better shot at life.

For it is the demonstrably evident fact that children raised in stable heterosexual families will, on the best available statistics, be best equipped to deal with the world.

That, as unpalatable as it may seem to those homosexual couples (as sharing, caring and warm and loving as they may be) who have chosen to adopt or create children through IVF or surrogacy, is just how it is.

The consequences of adopting homosexual marriage are not benign. It is not just about having two little Ken dolls or two little Barbies in bridal wear on top of the wedding cake.

Those who would change the Marriage Act to redefine the traditional union of a man and a woman know they are merely stalking horses for massive societal change such as are already being experienced in the US, where, in a giant grab for exaggerated victimhood status, the homosexual and gender-confused lobby have now managed to have President Barack Obama force all state schools to permit children use whichever lavatory they feel fits their sexual orientation — not necessarily their biological and chromo-somal identity.

I doubt whether many young girls will feel pressing need to express their inner manliness by fronting the urinals or even entering the boys’ (should they still be labelled as such) loos, but I suspect there will be a rush of hormonally charged teenage boys anxious to entertain their inner sheila and barge into the lavatories and change rooms traditionally set aside for females.

The new anti-gender laws have already restricted freedom of speech, and they will here, too, as there has already been a ridiculous try-on in Tasmania mounted by transgender activist and Greens candidate Martine Delaney.

Delaney lodged a complaint against the Catholic Archbishop of Tasmania Julian Porteous over a church booklet which carried the unthreatening slogan “don’t mess with marriage” and made the case accepted universally for millennia that marriage should be a “heterosexual union between a man and a woman”. To change the law, it said, would endanger a child’s upbringing.

Earlier this month, Delaney withdrew the charge in the face of the Church’s obvious defence — that it was plainly false to assert there was nothing distinctive about a man and a woman, a father or a mother.

As much as Penny Wong and her partner may delight in calling themselves parents of the children who live with them, neither is a man, neither is a father and neither can provide the male presence under their roof that is the ideal in a true family.

Former Labor prime minister Paul Keating famously noted that “two blokes and a cocker spaniel” don’t make a family, and that was Labor’s view until a few years ago.

A more recent Labor PM, Julia Gillard, crossed the floor of the house and sat with then Opposition leader Tony Abb-ott, to vote down a Labor backbencher’s private member’s bill to amend the Marriage Act and permit homosexual couples to marry.

She wasn’t alone. Her treasurer, Wayne Swan, environment minister Tony Burke, trade minister Craig Emerson and former PM Kevin Rudd, joined her in voting down the motion 98-42.

Then the homosexual lobby arced up its campaign.

False statistics about the percentage of homosexuals in the community were flung about (internationally, the agreed number seems to be somewhat less than 2 per cent).

Claims that bullying of gender-muddled children forced some to at least contemplate suicide, if not carry through with their intention, were laid though no statistics bear this out and the statistic which seems most available would ­indicate that the primary focus of anxieties among those who do report bullying is to do with their body image or ethnicity.

This has not stopped those, like Victoria’s socialist Premier Daniel Andrews, or the members of the grotesquely misnamed Safe Schools Coalition, headquartered in the truly ­bizarre Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and ­Society unit at La Trobe University, from supporting the teaching of such skills as “penis tucking” and “breast binding” to prepubescent children.

Shorten, should he be elected, won’t just redefine marriage, he’ll destroy it.

As lesbian Russian author Masha Gessen told the Sydney Writers Festival four years ago “fighting 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. It’s going to change and it should change.”

Two months ago Labor senator Joe Bullock resigned as a matter of principle over Labor’s stance.

He said he couldn’t remain in a party which proposed to deny its members a conscience vote on the homosexual marriage question.

He made his decision after attending the Labor Party’s ­national conference and finding himself, to the best of his knowledge, the only one to vote against this proposition.

“How can I, in good conscience, recommend to people that they vote for a party which has determined to deny its parliamentarians a conscience vote on the homosexual marriage question? The simple ­answer is that I can’t,” he said.

Australians should ask themselves whether they want this radical change forced on their society when they vote on July 2.


Full article