Go away Fred

 

News Limited reports…

“It started out as a balanced discussion on whether the marriage equality campaign was distracting other issues facing the gay and lesbian community, but it ended with a comment that left the audience reeling.

When the Reverend Fred Nile tried to claim fellow Christians were being “persecuted by homosexuals’ on a special Q&A, he was booed by the audience and slated on social media.

The Christian Democractic Party MP said a number of business owners in the US and the UK who objected to proving a service for same-sex couples had lost their livelihoods as a result of being taken to court for discrimination.

He then went on to accuse the gay community of using the law to persecute those who felt it was against their religion to provide services.

“What worries me in some of the states in America where it has come in, and in the UK, the people who are now being persecuted are the Christians who don’t agree with same-sex marriage,” the Reverend told the audience.

“We had a cake manufacturer who said I won’t make a cake for a same-sex couple for their wedding. They took him to court. They forced the closure of his business.

“A marriage registrar who was a Christian said ‘I won’t register a same-sex marriage’. They took her to court and she lost her job.

“These people talk about being tolerant, homosexuals say let’s be tolerant, except when they get the power, they exercise the power. I have a number of friends now before the anti-discrimination tribunal who are being persecuted by homosexuals in this state.”

“They are. Don’t laugh. They are,” he added.

Earlier, transgender woman Julia Doulman, who was the star in the documentary Becoming Julia, said she was “over” debate surrounding same-sex marriage and called on Prime Minister Tony Abbott to “get on” with it so Australia could “get on with more important things”.

Ms Doulman was joined by gay rights activist and author Professor Dennis Altman, entertainer Paul Capsis, broadcaster and journalist Julie McCrossin, and Katherine Hudson, Founder, Wear it Purple on the special Q&A program which discussed the major issues facing the gay, lesbian and transgender community.

The show was held to coincide with the release of the documentary Between a Frock and a Hard Place which looked at the story behind the film The Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert.

The Reverend’s view on gay and lesbian sex and gay parents also set social media on fire with many in shock over some of his comments.”

From http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/special-qa-discusses-how-far-australia-has-come-in-accepting-the-gay-lesbian-transgender-community/story-e6frfmyi-1227404927826

 

Advertisements

63 thoughts on “Go away Fred

  1. Bones your argument is moot and your evidence inadmissible.

    There is no evidence to suggest that MLK endorsed homosexuality – only to the contrary. A 1950’s quote none-the-less but it is the only evidence that articulates his own views.

    Any think else is just inference or hear say.

    I rest my case.

    Like

  2. MLK was a smoker, but that dosent necessarily mean that smoking is a good thing to do.

    I dont really care what Martin Luther King thought about homosexuality in the 1950s – we all have to make up our own minds

    Like

  3. Look I know you would love that a 1950s quote would somehow support yours and Charisma’s bigotry but it simply doesn’t .

    MLK moved on as his wife knew.

    Maybe you know him better than his wife.

    Like

  4. Again the same article you have just posted states:

    “It is difficult for me to know what Dr. King felt about gayness”

    He worked that closely with MLK, and he was never offered any solid confirmation of support MLK’s support for his homosexual behaviour?

    You have to be joking. MLK’s advice to contrite gay people who are struggling with this Sin is clear … “Go see a psychiatrist”.

    Honestly Bones, I think you are just drilling for Vegemite.

    Like

  5. Bones that article is moot.

    It starts with “It is difficult for me to know what Dr. King felt about gayness except to say that I’m sure he would have been sympathetic and would not have had the prejudicial view. Otherwise he would not have hired me”.

    Underscore “It is difficult for me to know what Dr. King felt about gayness” … he obviously did not know what MLK thought.

    However MLK penned his thoughts on the matter:

    “….the undeniable reality remains that, based upon his own words, Dr. King supported neither homosexual conduct nor “LGBT” political activism”.

    Hiring a capable person for skill set is one thing … endorsing the LGBT agenda is another.

    Source:

    http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/clarion-call/50502-mlk-s-response-to-a-boy-with-same-sex-attraction
    https://swap.stanford.edu/20141218230500/http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/publications/papers/vol4/580100-000-Advice_For_Living.htm

    Like

  6. MLK had practising homosexuals in his team. His main organiser, Bayard Rustin, was one. He let him know he had no issue at all with his homosexuality.

    Nice try.

    But MLK wasn’t bigoted like you.

    His freedom speech today would include gay people.

    Bayard Rustin: Martin Luther King’s Views on Gay People
    This 1987 essay by Bayard Rustin reveals a personal account of MLK’s feelings toward gay people.

    http://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/people/2015/01/19/bayard-rustin-martin-luther-king-s-views-gay-people

    Lol at Charisma as a source of ‘facts’. Wonderful Christian comments on that article too.

    Like

  7. Bones says “Well that’s the important thing isn’t it. I’d take MLK over most of what passes for Christianity”.

    From Relevant Magazine:

    “But don’t take my word for it. Unlike the “LGBT” lobby, I’ll let Dr. King speak for himself. In 1958, while writing an advice column for Ebony Magazine, Rev. King responded to a young “gay” man looking for guidance. To avoid being accused of “cherry-picking,” here’s the exchange in its entirety:

    Question: My problem is different from the ones most people have. I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do? Is there any place where I can go for help?

    Answer: Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.

    No amount of leftist spin can muddy Dr. King’s lucid position on the homosexual lifestyle. He recognized it as a “culturally acquired” “problem” in need of a “solution”—a “habit” stemming from a series of negative “experiences and circumstances.”

    Although homosexual activists desperately cling to the fact that, after his death, Dr. King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, did voice some level of support for the homosexualist political agenda, the undeniable reality remains that, based upon his own words, Dr. King supported neither homosexual conduct nor “LGBT” political activism.

    Neither would he have supported same-sex “marriage.”

    Source:

    http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/clarion-call/50502-mlk-s-response-to-a-boy-with-same-sex-attraction
    https://swap.stanford.edu/20141218230500/http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/publications/papers/vol4/580100-000-Advice_For_Living.htm

    Like

  8. Anon

    1) Nothing to be added to scripture, the qualifications for an Elder are clear:

    Qualifications of Elders
    “5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the [a]overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict”. Titus 1:5-9

    2) the husband of one wife

    Again the interpretation must be made in the context of the society that Paul was addressing.

    If one tries to interpret this in the context of polygamy it is wrong headed as polygamy was not practiced:

    The first problem is that there is no record of the church ever having the problem of polygamy. If this was Paul’s intended meaning, he was addressing a problem which, up to that time, had not been observable. Historians also tell us that it is doubtful that polygamy was practiced by the Romans or the Greeks of that time. Therefore, Paul would have been warning against a practice which was not evident among either the pagans or the church.

    Rather of a number of problematic scenario’s Paul may have been addressing is that of (convenient) divorce:

    “It is contended that divorce was easily obtained by the Jews and the Romans during that period of history and that the church was to be an example of what God had originally intended for his people”.

    Sourced: http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f008.html

    Like

  9. Again lets add to scripture to hold up our views will we.

    No where does it imply or say that the qualifications for an elder is a blueprint (or ruling). Maybe like Paul said that he wished all could be unmarried, but not all can. Was his example a blueprint, even he did not say it was but rather his opinion and that he agreed that its not a blueprint.

    And the divorce concept is one suggested by some but rarely taken as the probable reading. Why because it requires adding to scripture that which is not supported.

    The simple suggestion is that the qualification (and Greg’s arguments) showed that there were Christians who had multiple wives and the minister/elder was much better off with only one wife. Paul probably wanted to say no wives, as he mused elsewhere in scripture. But he knew/mused that was not practical and prone to other problems.

    The simplest solution to why one wife for a minister is again the musings of Paul when he talked about distractions of married life and one would expect that a minister needs to keep that from interfering with his added duties as an elder.

    But I do agree with you and Greg that marriage between two people and not multiple spouses is certainly the concept of marriage that Paul promotes as the second best situation to being single. But did he limit it to that, when as Greg suggests he knew of communities where men had multiple wives and OT had plenty of examples of that and the marriage “ruling” had not been changed. Yet in all his writings knowing that multiple partnered marriages existed in Christendom he did not forbade it or suggest that the man rid himself of all but one wife. While that doesn’t make a proof it does suggest that no new ruling against the OT practice of multiple wives by some/many existed until the RC church ruled against it.

    Like

  10. Paul did not endorse multiple wives.

    Rather he may be saying that the elder should have had only one wife and not have been divorced and remarried. In other words, he had not left behind train wrecks.

    The ‘qualifications’ of the elder were to be an example or a blueprint of what was acceptable for the broader community.

    Like

  11. So Greg, having more than one wife was considered acceptable by Paul according to that. Just that a minister should have only a max of one wife. We know that Paul also accepted having no wives as he said it was good he himself was not married.

    Setting a standard for a minister, or an ideal for others like himself, that is one wife or less, does not set a pattern for the other christians, does it. They are special positions. If multiple wives was unacceptable for the Christians then why oh why did Paul not include everyone in that restriction? If it is unacceptable then not saying anything is promoting the sin of adultery for the man and for all wives except maybe one.

    Like

  12. Christians in Africa have multiple wives from tribal marriages. Polygamy is a tribal society mechanism. My wife wouldn’t mind it. It would giver her a rest.

    Like

  13. Bones, it is dishonest to say that either Jesus or the scriptures approved of same-sex marriage.

    Don’t know if I made that claim.

    We don’t know what Jesus would have thought about it as it was a foreign concept in his culture. Was Jesus left or right handed? Did Jesus prefer Macs or Windows? Did Jesus support the Blues or the Maroons? Does Jesus want women to stay in abusive marriages? Did Jesus support renewable energies such as windfarms? Did Jesus support Greece leaving the Euro? Did Jesus prefer test cricket or 20/20?

    Like

  14. Paul was writing to James who was living in a world where pagan culture accepted more than one wife…Christians have never accepted more than one wife or one husband. There were many pagans becoming Christians who had more than one wife…so Paul has to stipulate that to be a leader in the church, one wife was to be the norm. He was not supporting Christians having more than one wife by making the ruling against it.

    Like

  15. Sorry to interrupt this serious discussion, but I just wanted to congratulate Bones on the fantastic Origin win! Was that good or what??!?!!?!? lol

    Like

  16. LF, the scriptures themselves have numerous examples that show I am saying, I am sure most people can think of 5 obvious ones in 1 minute (Christian or not). I’m sorry when the scriptures contradict a translation or interpretation then you have to question it. Just because something is read a certain way does not make it true.

    How long did the “Church” claim the earth was the centre of the universe, or the earth was flat, and anyone who disagreed was called a heretic and if unrepentant could be killed for holding that view. Just because the same church claimed the scripture only allowed one form of marriage does not make it true.

    Scripture trumps your version any day. Too many examples contradicting your view, and the icing on the cake is the qualifications for a minister. You don’t restrict something for a special office if it doesn’t exist, simple logic and follows scripture interpretation.

    You have to read into scripture the limitation to one man to one woman.

    Please don’t misunderstand me, I am not going to suggest we should change the local laws/custom on marriage to include multiple partners. I am just pointing out that our marriage laws in Australia do not and have never used scripture as its authority. They did at one time line up more closely with the CofE version of marriage some 200 odd years ago, but not as authority, but more as something to start off with. Our constitution and laws are secular and the constitution even put in protections against Australia being a Religious Government.

    Like

  17. Hi Anon, “LF, now you are reading things into the scripture”. Rather, I am reading scriptures as they have been faithfully and diligently translated into the versions that we can trust have been accepted over the years.

    It is a brave and unorthodox view to assert that God meant that marriage could be between multiple partners.

    Unless you can find orthodox and accepted scholars who support your assertion that God meant the definition of marriage to be broader than stated in the English translation of the scriptures – I cannot accept your revision.

    Like

  18. Matthew 19 is referring to divorce. To claim Jesus is condemning same sex marriage is to claim Jesus is condemning other patterns of living such as singleness and celibacy or in other words himself. It’s a logical fallacy. When the disciples freak out about his comments on divorce Jesus softens its application “Not everyone can accept this teaching… Let anyone accept this who can” . It’s also interesting that he singles out eunuchs who are born that way.

    It’s actually a dishonest reading of scripture in trying to apply Jesus’s words about one issue onto a totally different and foreign matter.

    Like

  19. LF, now you are reading things into the scripture. If scripture is translated (forget message version for serious understanding) and seems to imply singular, but numerous examples show otherwise then either the translations were wrong using singular (eg translator applying their own opinion) or God did indeed include singular or multiple. EG it says “a man” but really means every man who marries. Singular or multiple can be tricky and often the translator OR reader applies their own views to decide which they want to use.

    One insight is to examine the scripture on the qualifications of a minister. If as you say God ONLY meant a singular man & singular woman can be married. They why oh why did the scripture have to include the restriction that a minister must have only one wife? It would be a waste of words to repeat a marriage rule that EVERY Christian obeyed. Disclaimer: I personally feel that it is punishment to have more than one wife and our society has decided that marriage is between one man and one woman.

    But of course the NT after the LAW was fulfilled it seems scripture leaves marriage rules to the nation/community rules without prescription. The Apostles when formulating what Gentiles should do did not mention marriage (could not have been more important than other life issues). Even sexual immorality was left for the Gentiles to interpret according to their society rules. Remember not to read in things into scripture because some man said them while preaching.

    Like

  20. Hi Ano:

    Re: “LF, the Bible does not state the number of wives a man can have. Only a minister is restricted to one in the NT. And why would the Bible mention that restriction if all Christians only had one wife”.

    I am not sure how you can conclude that God’s design (and by default his definition) is anything different than One Man and One Woman.

    The Bible in Genesis outlined God’s original Blueprint for marriage: “a man is to leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife.” (Note: One Man and One Woman). Gen 2:23-24

    Jesus underscored this design in Matt 19 “Jesus said that “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” Jesus spoke of one man and one woman marrying. He said that marriage is made up of one man and one woman. The two make one flesh”. (Note: One Man and One Woman)

    Like

  21. LF, the Bible does not state the number of wives a man can have. Only a minister is restricted to one in the NT. And why would the Bible mention that restriction if all Christians only had one wife.

    Marriage in Australia is defined by the State and always has been. Just happens that originally it was similar to what Christians at the time considered to be what marriage was. One example is now unlike 1st century age is restricted.

    Why get upset that the State wants to change the definition. Its not like marriage is the only word/concept Christians hold dear. What about “prayer”, “scripture”, “holy” and may other words/concepts that many other religions and spiritualists use and have different meanings for them.

    The slippery slope is false too. If one wants to use the slippery slope then they fall foul of the fact that marriage has changed since Adam who married his rib made into the woman Eve. Practically it has changed since then from marrying brothers and sisters, to having many restrictions on those one can marry. (Race, Colour, Class, Age, close relations, and so on). Some of the restrictions were brought in with the OT law. (eg national and religious identity).

    I would not hold the Roman Catholic concept of marriage as wonderful. To the RC church marriage is for the lesser ones who cannot attain a spiritual level like those in the church hierarchy. Marriage is for the weak, incapable of higher spiritual attainment, a;so to populate the church. That is one reason throughout the ages the church has interfered so much in what a married couple can do, they do it because the couple could not be trusted to have the ability to do whats right.

    As someone once said it is the church that has a problem with sex, they are always trying to interfere and are obsessed with everyone else’s sex lives. While everyone else doesn’t have a problem, they do it then get on with their lives.

    Like

  22. Is it any surprise someone who rejects the divinity of Jesus would seek to diminish God’s definition of marriage, it’s value and sacredness.

    Who are you referring to with that comment Brett?

    Like

  23. Brett – Well said. Albeit the world will soon move to or re-frame it as being between two “or more” consenting lovers, irrespective of sex.

    The terms ‘love’ an ‘unity’ unity are being misused to progress an agenda.

    Love should not be decoupled from truth.

    Like

  24. Jesus, God incarnate, defined marriage as consistent with scripture, being between a man and a woman. He did not re-define marriage, or re-frame it as being between two lovers, irrespective of sex.
    Jesus was communicating God’s standard for marriage.

    Is it any surprise someone who rejects the divinity of Jesus would seek to diminish God’s definition of marriage, it’s value and sacredness. Attempting to render it as meaningless and trivial as any two people shacking up.

    It’s a heart thing. A heart which is hardened against God, rails against God. God’s standard of righteousness is ridiculed. A human constructed morality which is hopelessly flawed is used to supplant God’s morality. Concepts of sin, holiness and righteousness are mocked. Man makes himself his own god.

    Man is so hopelessly lost without God. It is only by His grace and mercy that we can have any hope of coming to our senses. His love is deep for us and deeply forgiving, in-spite of ourselves! But in my personal experience we must humble ourselves before Him.

    Like

  25. Greg-the-Explorer: Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church. Protestants continue to debate whether it is or not.

    All would agree that marriage between a man and woman is a covenant.

    Like

  26. It is as clear as day Boneso,the scriptures record that God created marriage.

    Except that people were getting married long before people wrote the scriptures…the ones which also say you should toss your rude son down a well!

    Like

  27. The Blueprint for marriage has clearly be cast by God as between a man and a woman.

    Uhmm…people were getting married long before Jesus was trying to make a point about Divorce!

    Uhmm….no, it’s not a sacrament. Baptism and communion are the only two sacraments.

    Like

  28. So in other words what people do today when they live together (apart from the exchange of gifts which doesn’t happen in ‘traditional’ marriages anyway).

    So people who are living together are married within the norms of our culture including gays. I wonder when the church will get that.

    Like

  29. Boneso asks “Did God tell Aborigines … years ago to get married and lay down this law for them?”

    Even though these people groups were not (yet) exposed to the Gospel the ‘natural concept’ of marriage was evident.

    Marriage was a central feature of traditional Aboriginal societies. Traditional Marriage Arrangements.has defined four key elements as follows:

    1. The couple should be eligible to marry according to local rules defining ‘ideal preferences and accepted authorities’.

    2. Appropriate betrothal arrangements should have been made between the two kin groups concerned. An exchange of gifts ratifies the contract.

    3. Actual marriage may be distinguished from the betrothal when the parties cohabit publicly and take on ‘marital responsibilities including sexual relations’.

    4. The union is considered to be strengthened by the birth of the first child.

    Like

  30. Well that settles it then.

    It’s in the catechism.

    Did God tell Aborigines 150 000 years ago to get married and lay down this law for them?

    No. Marriage is a cultural practice and construct in affirming a contract or making a public display of commitment. That’s it! Full stop! And it’s becoming increasingly irrelevant today. There’s no magic when the priest blesses your marriage that isn’t in someone else’s relationship who isn’t married.

    However using that definition we can actually show that all relationships are marriages in our modern secular construct. The act of moving in with a partner is the public display of commitment and recognised by Australian law.

    Like

  31. Boneso – I like the way the Catholic catechism scopes it:

    “The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage. The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity, some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life.”

    Like

  32. Which part of “God didn’t create marriage” do you not understand?

    Do you think your marriage is better (more sacred?) than people who live in committed non-married relationships?

    Like

  33. It is as clear as day.

    What do you not understand about “…God created this organic union of the two sexes”?

    Do you reject the authority of the scriptures Boneso?

    Like

  34. It is not as clear as day at all. Marriage is a contract and nowadays nothing more than a public display of commitment. Nothing at all to do with God. The first humans weren’t wandering around looking for a priest before they had sex.

    Like

  35. “Because God created this organic union of the two sexes”

    It is as clear as day Boneso,the scriptures record that God created marriage. Unless of course you do not accept the scriptures as an authority on the matter.

    Like

  36. God didn’t create marriage. And the church doesn’t own it.

    Do you think the first humans raced off to find a priest to bless their union?

    Complete nonsense.

    And of course people living in unmarried relationships (so-called living in SIN) have just as sacred a union than any ‘traditional marriage’.

    Of course the church has to come to terms with why bother getting married as more and more people opt out.

    Like

  37. You must be correct than we do not agree.

    The Blueprint for marriage has clearly be cast by God as between a man and a woman. No the Church does not own marriage – rather God does “…Because God created this organic union of the two sexes, no one should desecrate his art by cutting them apart”.

    Marriage has a ‘special place’ it is a sacrament. Divorce grieves God = and it falls short of his intention.

    And yes. I need to look at my own sin. Though I acknowledge as a sinner that my life falls short of God’s ideal of marriage – but I will acknowledge it and not try to justify it and falsely call my behavior acceptable or endorsed by God = as in the case of Gay marriage.

    Like

  38. No we don’t agree. Jesus left out physical abuse and rape as well which I think are grounds for divorce as well for most fair minded people. It doesn’t worry me that I have friends who are divorcing. Not my business. And if they’re happier finding new life partners then spending the rest of their lives in misery then good on them. Though it is an enormously painful event which most churches would rather show compassion than judgement. And their SIN doesn’t upset me. And SIN upsets Christians more than it upsets God. I need to concentrate on my own marriage.

    Maybe you need to look at your own SIN.

    There’s nothing more sacred about a marriage than an unmarried couple in a long term relationship either. The idea that God is in marriage but not in long term unmarried relationships is nuts. My marriage isn’t more sacred than loving couples who aren’t married.

    So why get married? I married my wife after living with her to publicly declare that this was the woman I had chosen to spend the rest of my life with and to celebrate that with family and friends. I felt I owed it to her. That’s it. No magic happened and the church doesn’t own it. That’s what gays are after.

    Like

  39. Bones, we agree on that point – (heterosexual) marriage has been abused and desecrated and devalued by Christians and easy divorce and remarriage.

    Because the Church allows easy divorce and turns a blind eye to remarriage (which is adultery) does not give it credibility or somehow ‘sanctify’ it or make it right.

    Let’s be clear and call it out for what it is – SIN.

    But because much of this heterosexual sin is now conveniently overlooked by the Church – this does not make gay marriage any more acceptable. It still falls short of God’s ‘ideal’ blueprint for marriage.

    Like

  40. Well that’s the important thing isn’t it. I’d take MLK over most of what passes for Christianity.

    Matthew 19 Jesus is giving a lesson on divorce which most Christians don’t follow either. Who honestly thinks that a remarried Christian is committing adultery? Jesus put that hand down.

    Of course those who are abusing traditional marriage are those Christians who are divorcing at higher rates than the general population.

    Which no one seems to have a problem with.

    Christianity has to face up o the fact that it doesn’t own marriage. Never has and never will. In fact the future of marriage has to be debatable. The only relevance I can see is that it is a public demonstration to dedicate one’s life to their partner.

    Which everyone can do.

    Like

  41. Bones

    Whilst, I have much respect for Martin Luther King Jr, and for all that he has done for equal racial rights – because of his own ‘moral failures’ I cannot hold him as a role model on marriage and fidelity.

    I would rather defer clarity of the correct definition of marriage to Jesus:

    “He answered, “Haven’t you read in your Bible that the Creator originally made man and woman for each other, male and female? And because of this, a man leaves father and mother and is firmly bonded to his wife, becoming one flesh—no longer two bodies but one. Because God created this organic union of the two sexes, no one should desecrate his art by cutting them apart.” Matt 19:6 MSG.

    Like

  42. Yep

    Rev. C.T. Vivian, who worked with King at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, says King would have championed gay rights today.

    “Martin was a theologian,” Vivian says. “Martin starts with the fact that God loves everybody, and all men and all women were created by God. He based his whole philosophy on God’s love for all people.”

    What does MLK’s wife think?

    Coretta Scott King: Gay Rights Are Part of MLK’s Dream

    “I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination.
    “My husband, Martin Luther King Jr., once said, ‘We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny… an inescapable network of mutuality,… I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be.’ Therefore, I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.”
    — From remarks delivered by the late Coretta Scott King, wife of civil rights icon Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., at the Task Force’s Creating Change conference in Atlanta on November 9, 2000.

    Read more at http://www.bilerico.com/2015/01/coretta_scott_king_gay_rights_are_part_of_mlks_dre.php#3i9lqjKesWqJlIeK.99

    Oh dear. I feel sorry for you guys.

    VVVVVV Bahhahhahhahhahhahhahhahahhahhahhahhaggered

    Like

  43. Gay marriage can be compared to racism.

    Arguments against interracial marriage

    1. Against Natural Law
    2. The Fall of Civilisation
    3. Biological Destruction
    4. The Children will Suffer
    5. Like Marrying Animals
    6. God Said So
    7. The Bible Says So
    8. But it’s not bigotry….(ergo the bigots are the real victims)
    9. Slippery Slope
    (‘The State’s prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.’)
    10. Will degrade traditional marriage
    11. Government has no right to define marriage

    Sounds familiar.

    VV Bahhahhahhahhahhahhahhagh!

    Like

  44. People were saying the same thing about interracial marriages. In 10 years time, no one will give a fig.

    Do you think you’ll be made gay, Brett?

    So is it ok to deny Jews services if that’s what your religion/ conscience allows?

    I mean where do you draw the line?

    Like

  45. Bones, you are so blinded by your anti-Christian zeal that your posts fall in the entertainment category rather than objective discussion.

    Nice switch btw. Twist a discussion of lifestyle choice and play the racial discrimination card. Comical.

    Evidently same sex couples want validation of their relationships, by society and by God. It’s inevitable some will want churches to perform same sex weddings, even if the church opposes the lifestyle choice.

    Like

  46. Bahahaha

    I’m a primary school teacher.

    As if gay marriage ever comes up. And yeah we’ll be telling kids you all have to be gay.

    Let the fear continue.

    So is it ok to deny blacks services if that’s what your religion/ conscience allows?

    I mean where do you draw the line?

    Like

  47. “Where do you draw the line Wazza?”

    Gee. I dunno.

    Maybe people refusing to serve bigoted Christians.

    Who knows where that slippery slope will lead.

    As for abortion, well yes they have to.

    Obama’s Final Word: Catholics Must Buy/Provide Coverage for Abortion Drugs

    “The Department of Health and Human Services today released the final text of the final adjustments to the Obamacare regulation that requires virtually all health-care plans to provide cost-free coverage for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.

    The final regulation issued today provides no accommodations at all for individual Catholics and other Christians who morally object to the mandate. It also makes no accommodations for private for-profit employers who morally object to the mandate.”

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-final-word-catholics-must-buyprovide-coverage-abortion-drugs

    Darn.

    Poor Christians being persecuted again.

    If you want to make money out of health insurance you have to play by the country’s rules, not your own.

    Btw Brett does your health insurance company finance abortions and euthanasia?

    Like

  48. “The idea that you should be able to deny a legal service to someone just because their lifestyle conflicts with your religious beliefs is abhorrent.”

    You can’t be serious?

    So it would be abhorrent for the Catholic Church to withhold employee health insurance cover for abortions or euthanasia?

    So it would be abhorrent for the Catholic Church to refuse to perform same sex weddings, even though same sex lifestyle is considered to be a sin?

    It would be abhorrent for a Christian school to refuse to employ a teacher who is a swinger?

    Where do you draw the line Wazza?

    Like

  49. Yes, for example the Catholic church in the US argues that it shouldnt have to provide employee health insurance cover for contraceptives. To do so would violate its freedom of religion.
    Would JW employers be allowed to deny cover for blood transfusions? Muslims and Jewish employers allowed to exclude heart valve transplants from pigs?

    The idea that you should be able to deny a legal service to someone just because their lifestyle conflicts with your religious beliefs is abhorrent.

    Like

  50. Fred has conveniently forgotten .. gay people are routinely fired (losing their livelihoods) by Christian schools and churches.

    When Christians get the power, they exercise the power.

    Like

  51. “When the Reverend Fred Nile tried to claim fellow Christians were being “persecuted by homosexuals’”

    This is the “please don’t persecute us for persecuting others” defence.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s