Gay Lobby Bans Mum and Dad – Complete Lie!

The Daily Telegraph story claiming that the gay lobby wanted to ban the words ‘Mum’ and ‘Dad’ in schools, which we posted here has been exposed on Mediawatch on ABC TV as a complete beat up. I’m posting this up so that it has the same prominence as the original article, as any correction should get, but often doesn’t.

The Media Watch transcript is well worth a read, and is very entertaining. Here’s a brief quote:

So, is it official? Of course not. It is true that the Director-General of the NSW Education Department, Michael Coutts-Trotter, opened a one-day conference in Sydney last Wednesday aimed at combating homophobia in schools. But did he mention or endorse the banning of terms like mum and dad? No

[…]

So where did the story come from? Where was the gay lobby and its bans?

Answer: Reporter Bruce McDougall picked up a one-page checklist for teachers from one of many stands in the foyer, this one run by a small youth group called Twenty10.

Number eleven out of thirteen points asked whether:
[image]
Staff refer to “partners” rather than “husband”, “wife”, “spouse”, “boyfriend” or “girlfriend” when speaking with students or families.

— Twenty10 checklist

That’s it. One question, or perhaps suggestion, from a youth support group, on a flyer. Nowhere on the pamphlet – or to be fair, in Bruce McDougall’s story – do the words “mum” or “dad” appear. That was an invention of the Daily Telegraph’s headline writers – they’re nice short words, you see.

It’s worth reading the entire article.

This shows the sort of sensation that newspapers want in order to drive sales, where truth is irrelevant. Both the gay community and the Christian community are great fodder for the media. All the more reason to remember to treat our fellow human beings in love, and be careful not to jump to conclusions based on the press telling the truth.

‘Beat-up’ is probably too kind a word for parts of that article. ‘Complete lie’ would be more accurate.


33 thoughts on “Gay Lobby Bans Mum and Dad – Complete Lie!

  1. Just to let everyone know, I’ve deleted all Lordoqu’s posts at Lordoqu’s request.

    Sorry about that.

  2. I’ll take that as a rebuke, RP,

    The bad press produced denials from a small handful of gay groups, but there is evidence that an agenda exists. When gay activists are in action you would generally look for a pattern of action, since it occurs to me that their lobbyists are well organised internationally,

    From the Daily Mail:

    ‘Teachers should not assume that their pupils have a “mum and dad” under guidance aimed at tackling anti-gay bullying in schools.
    It says primary pupils as young as four should be familiarised with the idea of same-sex couples to help combat homophobic attitudes.

    Teachers should attempt to avoid assumptions that pupils will have a conventional family background, it urges.

    Pupils are enlisted in the war on homophobia
    It goes on to suggest the word “parents” may be more appropriate than “mum and dad”, particularly in letters and emails to the child’s home.

    When discussing marriage with secondary pupils, teachers should also educate pupils about civil partnerships and gay adoption rights.

    The guidance – produced for the Government by gay rights group Stonewall – will be formally launched today by Schools Secretary Ed Balls.’

    (Yes, the name is rather unfortunate, but he can’t help that!):

    ‘It states that children who call classmates “gay” should be treated the same as racists as part of a “zero tolerance” crackdown on the use of the word as an insult.

    Teachers should avoid telling boys to “be a man” or accuse them of behaving like a “bunch of women”.

    This sort of rebuke “leads to bullying of those who do not conform to fixed ideas about gender”, the guidance states.

    At the same time, schools should encourage gay role models among staff, parents and governors. Homosexual staff should be able to discuss their private lives after the consultation with the head teacher.’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=511209&in_page_id=1770

    And could it be that the precedent is already set in California under Bill SB777?

    ‘An international organization promoting families says California families have no choice but to abandon the public school system after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a new “anti-discrimination” bill into law, effectively making terms like “mom” and dad” obsolete.

    As WND has reported, some family advocates in California already had come to the same conclusion as that reached now by the World Congress of Families.

    World Congress of Families Global Coordinator Allan Carlson said the measure, SB 777, is “a blatant attack on the natural family orchestrated by the alternative-lifestyles lobby.”

    The exodus call had been issued just one day earlier by Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families. “We’re calling upon every California parent to pull their child out of California’s public school system,” he told WND.

    “The so-called ‘public schools’ are no longer a safe emotional environment for children. Under the new law, schoolchildren as young as kindergarten will be sexually indoctrinated and introduced to homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality, over the protests of parents, teachers and even school districts,” he said.

    The law at issue went through the California legislature as SB 777, and now bans in school texts and activities any discriminatory bias against those who have chosen alternative sexual lifestyles, Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute, said.

    The World Congress noted the law prohibits “instruction” or “activity” that is perceived to “promote a discriminatory bias” against “gender,” including cross-dressing and sex-change operations as well as “so-called sexual orientation.”‘

    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58185

    And again, as on the other thread, I refer to this quote attributed to NSW Premier Morris Iemma:

    ‘NSW Premier Morris Iemma said Thursday the Department of Education had been lobbied to ban teachers using words such as husband, wife, boyfriend and girlfriend.’

    Get this now:

    ‘”There was lobbying done but the Department of Education did not at any point agree,” Mr Iemma told reporters.’

    There was lobbying done, folks, in NSW!

    And what was the Education Department dude really doing at the ‘It’s so Gay’ Conference, we wonder?

    ‘Education department director-general Michael Coutts-Trotter opened a conference on Wednesday entitled That’s So Gay, described as an exploration of “strategies to address homophobia and affirm sexual diversity in educational settings”‘

    How would one ‘affirm’ sexual diversity? and why would you want to anyway with schoolchildren? Isn’t that the job of parents? Since when did the Education Department become mum and dad, er sorry, let’s see, we should say, eerrm, partner and partner?

    http://news.smh.com.au/nsw-to-eradicate-homophobia-in-schools/20080417-26o2.html

  3. Hi FaceLift, no, I don’t know why your comment went into moderation. Occasionally even though I haven’t set anything up, a post goes into moderation for some reason that eludes me. I’ll have to look up the WordPress help to find out why. So when that happens, I just approve the comment when I see it sitting there.

    I’m not rebuking you either. Nor do I see it as my job to do so, although I’m free to agree or disagree with your posts. But I felt it was important to post up the Mediawatch article, having had the other one posted up with equal prominence, since the Daily Tele has been shown to have stretched the truth remarkably far.

    Where there is a ‘gay agenda’, then it should be discussed based on actual fact, rather than pure invention.

    It’s true that introducing to the children to the concept that ‘gay’ families are ‘normal’ is an agenda of some groups – I’ve heard discussions on the radio etc on this before. But lets talk about factual cases of it, otherwise the discussion has no validity.

    It’s an issue that has to be treated carefully, because in the middle of extreme aims such as reducing language to more limited terms, there are also some valid points. Bullying other children for example is never acceptable, whether it is teasing a child for being ‘gay’, ‘black’, ‘Christian’, ‘fat’ or ‘stupid’.

    I also agree that gender stereotyping – telling a child to ‘act like a man’ or that they are behaving ‘like a bunch of women’ is inappropriate, unhelpful, and would be better being removed from the spectrum of authorities behaviour. Many people don’t fit the stereotypes, gay or not. It’s not just the ‘gay’ lobby that would like to see those stereotypes and consequent intolerance removed.

    However, if it ever truly is raised as an issue, I would be totally against removing the words Mum, Dad, boyfriend and girlfriend from school language. It’s fine to also use the word partner when appropriate though, especially in today’s diversity of situations.

  4. I agree RP, anything that can be done to reduce the tormenting that happens at schools can only be a good thing.

    I remember when I was at school seeing some of the things done to kids that were gay, or even thought to be gay. There’s no place for that at a school.

  5. RP,
    ‘telling a child to ‘act like a man’ … is inappropriate’

    In fact the Bible (1 Cor.16:13) tells men and boys to ‘quit ye like men’, one word, ‘andrizo’, ‘to make a man’, ‘to play the man’, and is referring to godliness in males. ‘Be men!” It’s something we should be telling young males.

    The problem is that the world doesn’t understand what a what a man is. The lines are so confused by this mixed up sexual genderism and the idea that we can’t tell the so-called effeminate male to behave more like a macho machine. Young men should be told that it is perfectly correct to be a man and to behave in a manly fashion. But who is going to define manliness in e current climate of confusion?

    There is a standard men should live up to and imitate, and that is Christ. He was bullied more than any and stood up and gave himself anyway, forgave the lot of us and surrendered his life for ours.

    Sadly Christ’s example has all but been eliminated from the average school curriculum, and is resisted by almost all schools.

    But what are you going to do? Destroy the English language with all of its colourful attributes. Imprison people for calling others names? Throw children out of school for imitating their parents and older peers in what they say and do? Aren’t they all full of sin without Christ? You don’t eliminate sin by banning language. They need Christ.

    The gays attempted to improve the negative image of ‘homo’ and ‘queer’ by adopting ‘gay’, and now the word ‘gay’ is a negative for those who hate what they stand for. ‘Queer’ just meant odd, different, strange. The first time I heard the word ‘gay’ it meant happy and joyful!!! Words are defined by what they reference. Ban one word and another will throw itself up.

  6. “He was bullied more than any and stood up and gave himself anyway, forgave the lot of us and surrendered his life for ours.”

    FL – are you hinting that being bullied in school could help people become more christ-like?

  7. Silly ol’ Ruddigar! Misses the point on purpose to make a pointless point!

    I think the NT example of Christ being taught in schools would help people become more Christ-like.

    Bullies we’ll always have. Victims we’ll always have. Christians who are bullied or persecuted and forgive have more chance of being considered Christ-like by the One who counts. It’s God who vindicates.

  8. FL – perhaps you keep the personal aside completely aside and out of the picture?

    Maybe if your ‘points’ were more clear and less flowery people would understand what you were on about.

    “Bullies we’ll always have. Victims we’ll always have.”

    What a wonderful defeatist attitude to have there.

  9. Well, you seemed to understand that point, Ruddigar. What was the point of your point?

    Not defeatist at all. Just as Jesus wasn’t being defeatist when he said ‘the poor you’ll have with you always’.

    The devil is a bully, and the unsaved world are his victims. As long as there’s a devil and a fallen world there will be bullies and victims. Oh, and every believer can expect to be persecuted. Bullies persecute victims. They’ll always be here – until Jesus comes, that is.

    In the last great scenario, Israel will be bullied by the unregenerate world led by the big bully beast and his mate the bigger bully devil. It’s a fact of life. Without it Jesus won’t come again.

  10. FL, did Jesus also say “Bullies we’ll always have. Victims we’ll always have.” or are you taking the bible out of context there?

    Yes there are bullies out there, but does that mean we should say, “oh well that’s just life”. Surely, a slightly more humane, dare I say christ-like, thing would be to say they should be dealt with and measures put in place to prevent them attacking other children in the school.

    Given the fervour you have shown on the removal of the words “mum and dad” versus bullying, I guess it’s okay for kids to have the crap kicked out of them as long as they can say mummy in the classroom. Nice.

  11. Heh , good point Ruddigar.

    FL you dont have a leg to stand on, but like the Black Knight in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” you keep yelling “Come back, I havent finished with you yet… I’ll bite your knee-caps off”.

    The article you quoted was shown to be a complete lie, but off you go googling to try and find evidence for your global gay conspiracy. As you said : “When gay activists are in action, you would generally look for a pattern of action, since it occurs to me that their lobbyists are well organised internationally”. Do you have a shred of evidence for that astonishing statement, because I put it to you that the international gay lobby only exists in your head, for the purpose of propping-up your own shaky identity as a Christian.

    The article you came up with from the UK Daily mail just suggests that teachers not use the terms Mum and Dad when talking to students about their families or when communicating to the home. Probably a sensible policy in these days of single-parent, blended families and alternative family arrangements. There was no mention of banning the terms for the students themselves.

    The Bible has a constant theme of not separating the “stranger” from us, for loving our enemies, for showing hospitality. But you want to see shadowy groups, intent on brainwashing our kids and breaking up our families. Sometimes absence of evidence means just that – there is no evidence.

  12. ‘‘NSW Premier Morris Iemma said Thursday the Department of Education had been lobbied to ban teachers using words such as husband, wife, boyfriend and girlfriend.’

    Which part of that quote from Premier Iemma didn’t you understand, wazza2?

    It is law in California – precedent set. It is being touted as law in UK. Fact. It is being promoted to NSW Ed Dept. Fact. Who is promoting it? Gay lobby groups. Is it simultaneous action? Yes. As a join effort or a result of a successful precedent? Possibly the latter. Am I proven wrong? No.

    Am I still standing intact, Two legs and arms? Yes.
    _______________________________________________

    Ruddigar, your logic is all over the place. ‘I guess it’s okay for kids to have the crap kicked out of them as long as they can say mummy in the classroom.’

    That’s nonsense, and you know it. How many kids do you actually think are having the crap kicked out of them because the teacher uses the terms mum or dad? Don’t gay people have a mum and dad? Why should children not find out what it means to be a mum or a dad without it having political implications? Why shod we ide the fact that our society is fragmented by divorce, de facto relationships, split and single parents. can’t we face up to what has happened to us through the breakdown in marriage. maybe it will stir us into doing something about it.

    In UK teachers are saying that children of dysfunctional families are suffering and their education is threatened. They say the breakdown in marriage is causing a breakdown in society. And you want to sweep the problem under the carpet by hiding key words in our language. Get real!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=538789&in_page_id=1770

    I know about bullying, having suffered as a child, but I don’t think it’s a case of saying ‘oh well that’s life’. You said that. You make up conversations for me and then criticise what you say I said. I hate bullying. I think it should be removed where possible.

    But I don’t think it’s realistic to believe that removing certain words out of the language will change it. In fact I made the point that introducing the word ‘gay’ has backfired, and it is not considered gay to be gay. The use of ‘gay’ to apply to homosexuals has made the word into a derogatory term for some people. Changing words didn’t change attitudes.

    There are still people who bully gays now for being gay. There as a time when being gay was considered being happy and joyful. Now it means, to most teens, anyway, to be queer, but also to be undesirable. I didn’t make that happen. The word change didn’t change the attitude of the people who bully gays.

    Only a change of heart can do that. Get Jesus ino schools and maybe something can be done about it, but I am right to say bullies won’t go away, and niether will victims. They’re in the homes tonight. Men are beating their wives in front of their kids. Kids grow up thin king is OK to beat their wives and children, and that bullying others in the playground is normal.

    One out of every three girls an every four boys in Austrlaia will be sexually abused, and tat’s the official figures. In reality sexual abuse is covered up by many f0or years because of the shame. This stuff takes place in families and in homes, and ten it is taken into schools. It is cvered up nd hidden away. It should be faced up to. It isn’t just a problem in Aboriginal communities. It os rife in out suburbs, rich or poor.

    That’s where the problem is. You an deny it all you want, but the root cause is sin, not the words mum or dad. Get Jesus in to the homes and there will be change. But don’t weaken the family by removing mum and dad.

  13. “Which part of that quote from Premier Iemma didn’t you understand, wazza2?”

    The part about Mums and Dads, but maybe thats because HE DIDNT SAY IT!!!!!

    Guess what, you keep talking about “Mums and Dads” as if there were some evidence the terms were to be banned. But there is none!!! Its all in your head. Listen carefully. Try to discern what is your own thoughts and what is reality!!

    And here is another tip for you. All sorts of groups try to lobby the government with some wacky ideas. But its not news unless the government is considering legislation to implement those ideas!! Until then its just speculation who is lobbying and what exactly they are lobbying about.

  14. Well, I suppose ‘mum and dad’ are not terms such as ‘husband and wife’, so that’s OK, wazza2.

    So, having been corrected, let me say that I disagree that it is wise to remove terms such as ‘husband and wife’ from the language of schools, and will be derogatory to understood family structure.

    Again, I say, it would be better to face up to the fat that the family disintegration is causing problems for children, in particular, according to UK teachers, their ability to concentrate in school, and that we need to upgrade and update our use of the positive influence of marriage and the family in schools as well as in society in general.

    It is assumed that education can help improve certain elements of society. I put it to you that it would be far more beneficial to educate people in the virtues and value of marriage and the family than to remove important terms in case they offend the gay community.

  15. FL – I didn’t say kids were beaten up because a teacher uses the words “mum or dad”. I was actually making a commentary on how passionate you are to have these words keep in schools, versus your nonchalant attitude to people being bullied.

    If you applied just half of the passion of you have to keep those words to the problem of children being bullied, who knows, maybe you could come up with a solution to the problem.

    But given, “I hate bullying. I think it should be removed where possible. ” I doubt you’ll ever give any effort to help stop gay kids in school being bullied.

    ‘where possible’? Like I said before, nice defeatist attitude. I’m not a scripture guru, but I thought ‘all things are possible through christ’ ?

    Let’s see if you can answer my previous question this time,

    FL, did Jesus also say “Bullies we’ll always have. Victims we’ll always have.” or are you taking the bible out of context there?

  16. I didn’t say it was scripture. I said that as a personal observation. I quoted Jesus saying ‘the poor you’ll always have’. I used it as an example of observing some things which will be around until Jesus comes again. Sin is one of them. Bullying – intimidating, threatening and beating up others is a sin which will be around until Jesus comes. I can’t see where I took anything out of context.

    There are things which will not take place before he comes. One is the eradication of sin. Which means intimidation, threatening and physical abuse of others are sins which will remain in the unregenerate world until he comes.

    Do you claim otherwise?

  17. You imagined a nonchalant attitude towards bullying. I said I hate it. Is that nonchalant?

    I think it’s a difficult scenario you’re proposing. God hates sin. He condemns homosexual acts. Gay men and women practice homosexual acts. They work against the will of God in sexual relations. Gay lobbyists propose education in schools of the homosexual lifestyle, one imagines including ‘safe’ sex with same sex partners. According to my Bible, God doesn’t like this. How can he defend this? Tell me, would you expect God to defend this being taught in schools?

    If I saw a gay kid being bullied because he was gay would I rush to his aid? Yes. Would Jesus? Yes. Should every Christian rush to their aid? Yes.

    Should I condone their sexual practices? No! Should I support homosexual sexual practices being taught in public schools? No! Should I support homosexual lobbyists in removing understood marriage concepts ad terms in schools? No!

  18. Jesus said that we’d always have the poor with us, but he also taught us to have compassion for the poor. We are taught to be generous towards those in need. We are encouraged to take various tangible actions where we can.

    Likewise, with bullying.

    Jesus faced the ultimate act of bullying.

    When we rescue one child from bullying, it is as though we do it to Christ. If we can rescue a vast number of children from bullying, what a wonderful service to Jesus that would be. Including children who are teased for being or appearing to be gay, or not fit whatever mould happens to be regarded as masculine at the time.

    Hey, it was once masculine to wear powdered wigs and lots of make-up. Only the richest, most successful men wore the finest versions.

    A child is often told to ‘be a man’ in the context of telling them to stop crying or get over something. That is just a way of making our lives as adults easier, so we don’t have to get down to the child’s level and deal with the real issue. When it is done habitually, it can result in men who find it difficult to admit and deal with emotion comfortably. Not helpful, and just encouraging kids to conform to a stereotype.

    When scripture talks about encouraging boys to be men, it doesn’t endorse this kind of unloving, convenient avoidance of dealing with things.

  19. So you think banning words like ‘husband’, ‘wife’, ‘boyfriend’, ‘girlfriend’, etc will help stop bullying?

    Or would it be better to teach marriage and family values in schools and encourage sound relationships and peer interaction by educating children in the virtues of the family structure?

  20. Facelift, I think I’ve already been clear that I would not support banning words that describe realities, like ‘husband’, ‘wife’, ‘boyfriend’, ‘girlfriend’. I hardly think that would stop bullying.

    But neither does rejecting people who happen not to fit the norm, because they have two mums, two dads, are effeminate or butch or whatever. Tolerance and acceptance of our diversity as a society should be taught. Accepting people as they are does NOT have to mean agreeing with everyone or endorsing everyone. There is nothing to be feared here.

    When did Jesus support rejecting people because he feared endorsing their lifestyle? He didn’t fear them, he didn’t reject them, he opened his arms and loved them. Even when the Pharisees accused him of being a sinner like those he mixed with and endorsing sinful behaviour. We are to follow Jesus in love, not respond in fear.

    As for schools teaching values – well, if you want a child to be taught family values and marriage _at school_, which are definitely declining values in our society, then send them to a private school. Plus of course you have every right to lobby for those values to be taught in our public shools, as a member of society.

    If you send them to the public school, know that they will likely be taught a reflection of society’s values, and teach them _yourself_ how to deal with that, rather than expecting the school to do that work.

    We do not live in a Christian society, and cannot expect that our values will be reflected in its schools. We can lobby. But, we cannot force our values on others and we have no scriptural license to do so. Only with a change of heart, achieved by God, not the school system, will people come to desire those of our values that are His values.

    We can help our kids, if they choose to follow Christ, to learn to live in a positive way in that society, not by rejecting people, but by being light and adding life. Schools cannot teach them those things. But they may learn them as they do them, in school.

  21. FL you seem keen to believe what has been shown to be untrue in order to passionately have a go at homosexuals in a way that sounds a bit like hatred. In this manner you are for some reason singling out this particular sin over many others.

    On the other hand when the people on this blog are pointing out the outrageous or subtle lies from people who would take advantage of the flock you are the first to defend them.

    This imbalance would label you homophobic in some quarters and although (hopefully) inaccurate such people might have a point. I suspect it more a need for a black and white response that allows you to have a fleshy rail at something to make you feel good but regardless here are some stats to think about.

    In the new testament homosexuality is referred to by:
    Jesus (0),
    others (2 – 1Cor6:9 Rom1:27)
    correct me if I am wrong.

    In the new testament false bretheren attempting to seduce the church is mentioned heaps, just searching for “false” yeilds 9:
    matt24:11 24:24
    mark13:22
    2Cor11:13 (and all of 2Cor really)
    Gal2:4
    Phili3:2
    2Pet2:1
    1John4:1
    Rev2:2.

    I would go so far to say that homosexuality is confirmed as outside the will of God in the NT but discernment and watching out for false bretheren and doctrines of men is a major theme.

    You on the other hand on this and previous blogs condemn people who look out for false prophets, false doctrines and those who would distort the scriptures. You seem to do this on the basis that you name man-made institutions “the church” while others name christians generally “the church”. You argue for the strong against the weak, for the well-known against the unknown, for those trying to follow man or themselves against those trying to follow God.

    You have become like the people Jesus talks about in Luke 6:26 who speak well of false prophets.

  22. Heretic. The post is about the gay lobby, not false prophets.

    ‘I would go so far to say that homosexuality is confirmed as outside the will of God in the NT’

    That’s a good place to start.
    ________________________________

    RP,
    ‘Tolerance and acceptance of our diversity as a society should be taught.’

    No it shouldn’t. God’s Word should be taught. It is largely intolerant of many diverse activities the world encourages and promotes, and are subsequently giving the family massive problems, and will continue to do so the more permissive we become. I don’t think alternative sexual arrangements to marriage should be taught or encouraged.

    I think young people should have it clearly and distinctly put to them that the best lifestyle for a mature adult is in a marriage relationship with the same spouse for life, and to have a fantastic family life, that marriage is a far better proposition that most people are making out, and that despite the hang-ups and dysfunctionality of the past, young couples can actually make a good go of a great marriage if they are shown how to by couples and families who have made it work. i think it would stop same sex experimenttion, in fat, and introduce a brilliant concept whcih was part of God’s entire purpose for people.

    Marriage and family should be the highest priority in life after a relationship with God. Not to say some people shouldn’t be single, but for the majority marriage should be encouraged as workable and exceptionally desirable. It would end many woes.

    Instead we educate them from around the age of eleven to have ‘safe’ sex using a condom and to shop around for the best sexual partner, male or female, from the age of consent up, and have hedonistic fun doing it.

    Hollywood, that great example of how to have a successful relationship (make sure you sign the pre-nuptial escape clauses) touts this jump into bed for frantic sex as soon as you have the slightest infatuation for someone, and if it doesn’t work out by the end of the first intermission, try another, and another, until one day something works for two years, which would be legendary for many a big star (although, some are successful, like the late Charlton Heston, who was a marital credit to Hollywood)!!! But he average teen thinks sexuality is a freeforall.

    What a lie. Do you think we should tolerate this kind of divergence, RP? There’s a false prophet for you, Heretic! The world’s eye view of successful relationships, as taught in your local school.

    Jesus opened his arms to everyone, yes, but not to their lifestyles, or their diversities. He was intolerant of sin, but welcoming to sinners. He didn’t say to the woman caught in adultery ‘Go and continue in your sin!” He said, ‘Go your way, and sin no more!”

  23. “Heretic. The post is about the gay lobby, not false prophets.”

    The point is about following Jesus which you clearly ignore.

  24. Jesus opened his arms to everyone, yes, but not to their lifestyles, or their diversities. He was intolerant of sin, but welcoming to sinners. He didn’t say to the woman caught in adultery ‘Go and continue in your sin!” He said, ‘Go your way, and sin no more!”

    He clearly taught us to love. He clearly taught us that the Holy Spirit will convict people of sin. Railing against people does not love them and does not convict them of sin and is not what Jesus does.

  25. Who’s railing? I’m in a discussion. I disagree with diminishing language to appease people who are offended by commonly accepted words like husband and wife. It seems to me to be more of a defensive position than an attack. It is the language of marriage which is under threat, not gaydom!

    Love corrects you know.

  26. “Heretic. The post is about the gay lobby, not false prophets.”

    FL, I believe it was you who said (back on SP2) that this is a forum of discussion and that digression is to be expected?

  27. That’s not a digression. It’s a derailment.

    It’s also possible on a forum to get things back on track and not be distracted.

  28. Ohhhh I see, so as long as the digression comes from FL it’s fine. From others it’s a derailment?

    Who made you the authority on digression FL?

    No wonder a lot of people on here say it’s a waste of time trying to discuss with you. I am now also adding myself to this list.

  29. You haven’t discussed anything with me except how bad I am.

    Do you think it’s plausible to take words like ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ out of schools to help decrease bullying of gays?

    Tell you what, if you’re all so fed up with an alternative opinion on stuff I’ll just head out and leave you to agree with one another in peace. How’s that?

  30. FL, you just don’t seem to be able to deal with complexity.

    Accepting the fact that we have same sex couples in our society, and telling kids they exist, and that we should treat everyone with basic respect, in no way condones practices we might disagree with as Christians.

    _Sigh_… I’m not going to turn around to my gay friends and refuse to eat with them or associate with them. Neither am I going to make children with gay family groups feel uncomfortable around me. Not if I can help it, anyway. I believe practicing homosexuality is sinful, and no doubt some gay people won’t want anything to do with me for that reason. But I’m not going to act as some sort of policeman on God’s behalf. Particularly to those who don’t share my faith in Christ!

    Neither does this stance mean I hide my faith in Him. That is not what I am called to do, and tolerance or acceptance in no way demands this of me.

    Acceptance of our diversity in society and tolerance of views and practices that differ from our own are necessary for a society to exist in peace.

    Jesus preached peace. He ate with tax collectors – sinners who embodied corruption. He sat down and shared with them. He had compassion for the samaritan woman. He accepted her. He accepted the tax collectors. How can we claim to follow him and not do the same? This acceptance does not mean endorsing, promoting or agreeing with their lifestyle.

    Acceptance of our diversity and tolerance of those from whom we differ, is NOT accepting that every practice is OK! It is not advocating those practices.

    How can anyone possibly expect that non-Christians will teach the Bible? Unless the church and the state are combined – and historically we’ve seen the corruption that has resulted from that. We are not talking about Christian schools here where that is expected. You seem to be saying that God’s Word should be taught in public schools. By whom? Non-Christian teachers, atheists, those of another faith? All these people teach in public schools.

    We can promote Christian values, but not legislate them. God writes His law on our hearts. School systems can’t do that. The only way to truly promote Christian values is to evangelise, to pray, and to live them ourselves.

    If state schools started to systematically persecute Christian students and teachers, that would be a different issue, though.

Comments are closed.