[Flyboy]

Hmm, let's explore those "beliefs" for a bit:

What we believe-Christian beliefs on transsexualism

Three fundamental premises lie behind the Bill: one, human psychological states rather than human bodily nature can determine a person ’s gender; two, it is right for a surgeon to deform a healthy body in the interests of a psychological disorder; and, three, the State should validate psychosocialconfusions having precedence over unambiguous biological sex. Christians say these premises are wrong from biblical teaching, and also church tradition and common sense reason. First, the Bible teaches that a human person is amind-body whole. So the body determines personhood, not just the mind.

What we believe-Parents have a God-given authority over their children

Parents are expected to exercise loving discipline over their children. As part of this most parents use physical chastisement such as smacking.
Discipline must not be harsh. Fathers are told to instruct children according to what is good and not to exasperate their children (Ephesians 6:4). That discipline can be painful is clearly accepted in Scripture (eg Hebrews 12:7-11). However, attempts to make the administration of reasonable chastisement a criminal offence should be strongly resisted as should other moves which usurp the authority of parents.

What we believe-Marriage is sacred

Marriage clearly is different from other types of relationship. Marriage
is part of God’s ‘common grace’. The Bible clearly teaches that the only context for sexual activity is within lifelong monogamous marriage (1 Corinthians 6:9). Marriage is the proper context for raising children.

Apologetics-Civil Partnerships

Civil partnerships’ thus equate holy matrimony with homosexual liaisons. Marriage is not morally equivalent to such lifestyles.

Apologetics-Homosexuals in the Armed Forces

Far too much material to quote here.

Christian Freedoms and Heritage-Incitement to Religious Hatred

Now, where have we heard these excuses before?

•The Government argued the proposed offence was needed for two reasons:3
◦To combat activities of extremists who stir up hatred against people because of their religious beliefs.
◦To close a loophole that exists under the current incitement to racial hatred laws, whereby mono-ethnic faith groups such as Jews or Sikhs are protected from those who stir up hatred against them, but multi-ethnic faith groups are not.

•However, there was already a criminal offence to incite a crime against another person, whether or not religion is the cause. In addition, the ‘religiously aggravated’ offences (passed in 2001) could also be used.

•‘Religious belief’ is not like race. Religious belief and atheism are about ideas on which people can change their minds and have vigorous debate. However, no-one can choose their race.

•The race laws only protect Jews and Sikhs as a race. The law does not protect their religion as a religion but as a sign of their race. The proposed offence could see courts adjudicating on the fundamental beliefs of Jews and Sikhs, as well as Muslims and Christians, in an unprecedented way.

•Some cults are litigious. They will be able to hold the threat of litigation over any one who criticises them.

•Even if prosecutions against ordinary religious debate are unsuccessful, the threat of prosecution may cause many to keep quiet. This will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

Now, bearing in mind that these have been written, in far more moderate language than is really believed, I think we can surmise that the "Christian" Institute does not hold the Christian values one would expect, i.e., tolerance, forgiveness and understanding.