Equality with gay marriage drips slowly into place…

weddingThe push towards ‘equal marriage’, as it is now being called, is saying, in effect, that traditional marriage, that is, marriage ‘between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others’, as the Australian Marriage Act 1961 presently has it, will be redefined.

So, effectively,  heterosexual, or traditional marriage, will, in future, be considered ‘equal’ to homosexual marriage.

If activists are going to use the term ‘equal marriage’ then the only conclusion is that heterosexuals who are married will soon be considered equal in marriage to homosexuals in marriage.

Of course, because some countries, such as the UK, where the changes are also being proposed, have strict legislation on Discrimination, Equality and Inclusion, if the term ‘equality’ is used in any reforms, marriage will have to be legally demonstrated to include all forms of relationship, including polygamous, intrasexual, extrasexual, outrasexual, transsexual, pansexual, necrosexual, and any other sexual variation which may arise, because, surely, if it is truly ‘equal’ then the real definitions required are those of ‘equality’ and ‘numbers’. All you need is two, or three, or four, or more of some gender.

Peter Saunders, a respected Sociologist, gives a very valid argument, from a secular perspective, for why a change in marriage laws will effectively become a dripping tap into the potentially perverse.

Gay marriage, polygamy and the social order
Peter Saunders | 01 June 2012

What are we to say about gay marriage? Britain’s Coalition government is committed to introducing an Equal Marriage Bill before the next election. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg says it should not be a free vote because ‘we are not asking people to make a decision of conscience.’

Gay couples can already enter civil partnerships that offer the same legal rights and protections as marriage, but equalities campaigners say this is not enough. Equality requires that men must be allowed to marry other men, and women other women.

So what’s wrong with that? I can think of good arguments against allowing gay adoption, for there are third-party interests to consider (principally, the right of a child to both a mother and father). But gays already have the right to adopt children, and there will be no going back. Christian adoption agencies that do not want to place children with same-sex couples have had to close because such discrimination is now illegal under UK equalities law.

With gay adoption already legal, I can think of no good, logical arguments against also allowing gay marriage. If two people of the same sex want to marry, it harms nobody else, so on classical liberal principles, they should surely have the freedom and the right to do so.

Mind you, the same reasoning also applies to polygamy. I can think of no good, logical argument why one man should not be allowed to marry more than one woman, or one woman more than one man, provided they all freely agree to the arrangement. Indeed, there are cultures in the world where polygamy has long been practised and is legally sanctioned, which is more than can be said for same-sex marriage. The case for polygamy thus appears at least as strong as the case for gay marriage, and I would be amazed if the UK parliament does not come under pressure in the next few years to end the discrimination of marriage law against Muslim and any other men who want more than one wife.

The only possible argument against such a change is the rather lame response: ‘But this is not what marriage means in our culture.’ In the Western world, marriage evolved as a binding relationship between one man and one woman. But this cuts no ice with those demanding gay marriage, and it will mean even less in the future when demands surface for polygamous marriage to be legalised.

Two thoughts strike me about all this.

One is Friedrich Hayek’s warning about the vanity of the intellectuals. Intellectuals are affronted by social institutions (such as free markets and monogamous marriage) that have evolved over hundreds or thousands of years without people like them ever having consciously invented or designed them. They think evolved institutions are not ‘rational,’ and they believe they can do better. The only argument for leaving marriage unreformed is that it has been this way for a very long time, but that is never going to win the day with ‘modernisers,’ in whose ranks we have to include Prime Minister ‘Dave’ Cameron.

The second thought is that gay marriage will not bring the bourgeois social order crashing down, but it is one more step in Antonio Gramsci’s call in the 1930s for a revolutionary ‘march through the institutions.’ Gramsci, an Italian Marxist, realised that Western capitalism would not be destroyed by economic class struggle, for it is good at meeting people’s material needs. What was needed, therefore, was a long-term campaign against the core institutions through which bourgeois culture is transmitted to each generation. Break the hold of the churches, take over the media, subvert the schools and universities, and chip away at the heart of the citadel, the bourgeois family, and eventually, the whole system will fall.

Gay marriage. Drip. Drip. Drip.

Peter Saunders is a Senior Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.

The whole politically correct issue has, as Saunders reminds us, already claimed at least one victim, that of the Christian agencies which have been forced to close because they refuse to place children with same-sex couples, rejecting any denial of long held specific familial values and will not bend them to government requirements, which, inevitably, interfere with the standards those organisations have traditionally adhered to.

This is only the beginning.

Posted by Steve


302 thoughts on “Equality with gay marriage drips slowly into place…

  1. Steve, are you married? If so, do you imagine your own marriage with your wife will be affected by equal marriage? Or, if not, do you think your friends’ marriages will be affected? How, precisely?

    Equal marriage means people being happy. What’s not to like?

  2. Are you including all people or some? For instance, do you support bisexual polygamous marriage? Or all age marriage, such as the former Indigenous tribal rights for elders to marry as many prepubescent girls as could be arranged? If it were about happiness alone, why have marriage laws at all? Whose happiness? Some cultures force, mainly girls, to marry a person they have never met purely for religious or political reasons.

    Marriage should be between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. That is a sound Christian value.

    If the laws and definition are changed, as they shortly will be throughout the West, marriage as we know it will end forever.

    But not in some cultures, where homosexual marriage will never be allowed. It is not a unifying equality. It is divisive, complex, and defeats everything marriage has ever stood for culturally, practically and spiritually.

    Because if it is based on equality then, by western regulatory definition, all have the right.

  3. And, of course, what we are seeing is the gradual marginalisation of faith-based groups such as Christians, their values and beliefs.

    Personally, I think this is a good thing, even if it will be hard for people, because, soon, it will be apparent who the true believers are when it comes to Bible-based Christianity.

    There will be a massive separation, including that between Christianity and the State, and, partly, on the basis of politically correct legislation which draws a line between what a person can or cannot publicly declare without fear or threat of sanction, legal action or even being considered a criminal act.

    The use of the term ‘equal’ is indeed a game-changer.

    Christians will potentially become the least ‘equal’ of all.

  4. Steve, it won’t. Saying it don’t make it so. Your marriage will be completely unchanged, and if you want to associate with people in your narrow little sect, that is fine, their marriages will not be affected either.

    Marriage with children? My criterion is, is there exploitation? I think with marriage to children, or forced marriage, there is exploitation. I am wary of polyamory, I think people will remain jealous, but it seems that people can make it work. Again, a polyamorous menage will not change your marriage at all.

    Poor Steve! Mocked rather than persecuted, you choose to believe you are persecuted. You are not, really: look at Christians in Egypt or Northern Nigeria to see persecution. Here, we simply see the narrow, bigotted rubbish you spew out, and mock it.

    When Equal marriage comes to the UK, will you leave your wife? No? Thought not. Do let me know if you do.

  5. Clare Flourish,
    Poor Steve!

    No need for a condescending tone. Just give me your argument, and I’ll respond. I’m an adult.

    In fact I have the blessing of being rich, Clare, in God, in marriage and in parenthood.

    And it’s never been about how my marriage is affected. I know my marriage is safe from all ungodly arrangements. It always was and always will be as long as we are both alive to enjoy it. We are shielded in our holy covenant before God from every other arrangement which has nothing to do with Him.

    Mocked by you, perhaps, it seems, but not by God. That is what you will need to fear more than anything I say.

    The point of Peter Saunders’ argument is that, in a secular sense, and purely from a logical standpoint, polygamy has a stronger argument for marriage than homosexual or lesbian claims, if merely from the physical aspect, especially if the gay lobby is going to use the equality card, which it has, and very successfully, I might add.

    As I said, the equality ambit is a game-changer.

    But please don’ think your mockery or condescension means anything to me.

    This is about effectively eliminating marriage as it has been accepted for centuries by may cultures, regardless of how those cultures, religions, ethnicities and tribal entities think or wish to continue.

    Once homosexual and lesbian marriage is included as a legality marriage in its Christian form will have been butchered and buried in the eyes of the legislators, even if not in the eyes of those of us who will continue to recognise marriage as an institution arranged between a man and his wife by God Almighty Himself.

    As a Bible-believing Christian I could never accept that God will ever consider homosexual or lesbian couples as married in Hs sight.

    That is what it is about, Clare. That is what you can’t, or won’t see.

    Ignorance is not bliss.

  6. Q,
    The more the law is secularised and moves away from Judeo-Christian values, the more there is a line drawn between the lost and true Christianity, between darkness and light.

    God has told us to “Come out” from the world, and “Be separate”, to “not be unequally yoked” with “Belial”.

    If the secular democratic society we live amongst wants to assist with the separation, so be it. Whatever they legislate for which is not godly will add to the darkness and light will be seen more clearly.

    “Arise shine”, Q. What did Isaiah say about gross darkness being laid bare in the last days?

    The tares are being exposed and the wheat illuminated.

    Bring it on!

  7. “The only argument for leaving marriage unreformed is that it has been this way for a very long time,”

    Oh dear, if thats the only argument … then he is not standing on much for his article. He’s using that and the slippery slope, and …. well thats it really.

    Slavery was around for a very long time, didnt mean that it shouldnt have been reformed. Women were considered men’s property for a very long time, no one is arguing that shouldnt have been changed. Votes for women? A rather new idea after 2000 years of democracy. Votes for aborigines is an even newer idea.

    Did any of these reforms lead to a slippery slope descent into a slithering moral morass? I dont think so. As I’ve said before the granting of voting rights and citizenship to Aborigines did not lead to subsequent demands for the same rights to Wombats and Kangaroos. The emancipation of the slaves did not directly lead to similar movements for the emancipation of zoo or farm animals.

    For a slippery slope argument to be valid, you have to show how one thing leads to another. Otherwise its scare-mongering.

  8. “This is what you can’t or won’t see.” Now who’s being patronising? I see the value of your argument very well. I despise it. You talk of “tares”. You write off God’s creation. You write off the LGBT folks as bad, the Equality and Human Rights Commission too, because of its aims, perhaps the Universities because they teach that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old. You write off more and more of Creation as “tares”, and retreat into your bunker. I pity your children, growing up in your loveless darkness, frightened of all God’s good Creation, which you call “tares”.

  9. wazza2:
    For a slippery slope argument to be valid, you have to show how one thing leads to another. Otherwise its scare-mongering.

    Saunders:
    Christian adoption agencies that do not want to place children with same-sex couples have had to close because such discrimination is now illegal under UK equalities law.

    So do you consider the current move towards polygamous marriage recognition to be more or less valid that homosexual moves, and, since it is the gay lobby pursuing it, and not [polygamous groups, is this evidence of an escalation in the division of the marriage pie?

    Hw long will it be before a gay couple challenges a church on the basis that the minister refuses to marry them in the church he pastors because of the church beliefs? I fact, didn’t I read that it has already happened?

    Equality is a game-changer!

  10. Don’t forget child marriage. Been around for centuries that. Damn goody two shoes enlightened liberals had it stopped. Should bring it back.

    Same with arranged marriages.

    It’s better than gay marriage after all.

    And much more valid.

  11. Clare,
    You write off the LGBT folks as bad, the Equality and Human Rights Commission too

    No, just the change in the definition and law on marriage, actually.

    There is a gathering separation, and, by your own words, you marginalise traditional Christian theology and thought.

    You write off God’s creation.

    Sin writes off God’s creation, Clare. Didn’t you know? Righteousness restores it. That’s why it’s called a new creation.

    My children are safely growing up in the light. As they develop they will make their own choices, like all of us.

    Being right in your own sight doesn’t make it light.

  12. Steve, I want to get back to the Biblical model for marriage.

    Do you have any daughters you would like to sell for my sons?

    I have a 1986 Commodore I could swap for one.

  13. God on equality, through the Apostle Paul:

    O Corinthians! We have spoken openly to you, our heart is wide open. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections. Now in return for the same (I speak as to children), you also be open.

    Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?

    And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.”

    Therefore “Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you. I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the LORD Almighty.”

    2 Corinthians 6:11-18

  14. Bones,
    Would that be Old Testament or New Testament marriage? I’ve brought up my children on Christian precepts, not Mosaic law.

    You wouldn’t have enough for any of my children.

  15. Did you see what Paul said by the Spirit, Clare?

    “You are restricted by your own affections”.

    Brilliant assessment!

  16. Welcome Clare.

    This topic has been done to death. Honestly when it comes in it’ll have the same effect as the Millennium Bug. It’s in my home state of Qld already I think.

  17. No, Bones, the issue at hand is that of the means to the end. By calling it ‘marriage equality’ the gay lobby has effectively appealed to the politically correct trap governments have set for themselves.

    And the next steps are already being taken, which why the polygamy lobby has surfaced.

    End the marriage definition as we know it and you effectively end marriage within a generation.

    Plus you confuse a large youth community regarding their sexuality. Did you know there was an increase in children seeking sex change procedures because they want to be seen as the opposite gender to what they really are?

    If you think God condones any of this you are sadly out of touch with His will.

    It’s only the beginning.

  18. And you can see how I am marginalised even on here for holding a traditional Biblical view.

    To her credit Clare hasn’t played the homophobia card! Bt I daresay it was in the pack!

  19. Did you know there was an increase in children seeking sex change procedures because they want to be seen as the opposite gender to what they really are?

    I should add that parents of these children are paralysed like rabbits in a headlight beam because they do not want to be seen to overrule their children and become ostracised from the community because of any seeming intolerance or homophobic tendencies by telling their children to wait until they at least reach puberty or adulthood.

    So gradually the State becomes the parental control of our children.

    Dear God, what a mess the world is in! Come Lord Jesus!

  20. Incidentally, and ironically, the mere fact that you are arguing for gay marriage demonstrates amply that you don’t have a clue what godly marriage is, or what Biblical holy matrimony consists of.

    Point proved!

  21. “Homophobia card”- well, you do seem scared of us. And that fear is not reasonable. Our celebration of our committed unions before God will not affect yours. Even if people were allowed to marry wombats, that would not affect your marriage, which you could have as traditional- “Wives obey your husbands” etc- as the two of you wish. So, yes. Homophobia.

  22. ‘Us’? You’d be lesbian then. Or a transvestite! And yu seek marriage to your same-sex partner. No problem. I think you’ll get it very soon, depending on where you live in the world, unless you’re in Iran!

    ‘Scared’? Of God, yes, but of homosexual or lesbian folk? Hmmm!

    Homophobic? Fear of same-gender sex-act proponents?

    No, Clare. Never. But you did play the card! It was in the pack. Why am I not surprised! Still I’m glad we got it out of the way so that we can eliminate all possible silliness resulting from its inclusion.

    Again, as I have already pointed out, it is not about affecting my marriage. It could not, would not, and is not relevant to anything to do with affecting my marriage.

    It is about affecting legislation and the activities of hitherto effective Christian agencies through the inclusion of equality as a gambit.

    So you suffer from heterophobia, do you, Clare? Or Christophobia? Because by the same reasoning, because you promote gay issues you are, by some weird association which I can’t think of, therefore, heterophobic!

    I mean, that is the same logic you, and all activist homosexual people, use when devising and utilising that silly card, which doesn’t even belong to the same pack, like some wild-card joker which slipped into a game of snap!

    Yes, I’m shaking in my boots every time I meet a homosexual or lesbian, Clare. Trembling! Not!

  23. Do you understand why the Bible says that the marriage bed (koite – coitus) is honourable and undefiled, Clare? Or the sexual and filial context in which the word ‘marriage’ or God ‘joining a couple together’ is intended?

    Jesus on marriage:

    “From the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Mark 10:6-9

    Jesus is quoting from Genesis. He says God made them male and female to be joined together as one flesh. That is marriage. That is what makes the marriage bed honourable and undefiled.

    I’m sorry, but, however much you love and cherish your female partner, and I am sure it is intensely, you do not qualify for God’s definition of marriage. I am not being deliberately rude to you, just scripturally honest.

    You cannot carry out consummation, either physically or, by association, emotionally. Non-coitus consummation? In rare cases where age or health issues prevail, but not in a lesbian partnership between perfectly healthy females. Unless your marriage is consummated it is not considered marriage.

    Yes I know secular thought is changing this and it is no longer seriously considered important. But it is not about secular philosophical reversals, but about God’s intention for marriage.

    That’s why I tell you you don’t understand what Biblical Christian marriage involves.

    Yours is probably a wonderful and powerful emotional union, and clearly has the fulness of your attention in its affections, but it is not marriage in the sight of God.

    As for men and the consummation of a homosexual partnership through the coitus involved, well, that is a completely different issue, and nothing like the real thing.

    It will not, and cannot count as marriage in the sight of God.

  24. But you are scared, Steve. Otherwise you would not oppose equal marriage, which will not harm churches, society, your marriage, or anything. You are afraid of the damage equal marriage will cause. But it will cause none. Yours is an irrational fear.

    I am a follower of Christ, not that you could understand that.

    Heterophobia- fear of the other. No. Resentment of people like you opposing this Godly reform, yes- but a majority of straight people support it. You are by no means speaking for straight people, or for Christians, just your own narrow-minded group.

  25. Nice try, Clare, but I don’t think that’s going to work for you! The day I fear secular irrationality is the day I deny God.

    I am only concerned with pleasing Him not pleasing men.

    Denying Him is tantamount to losing salvation. I fear that far more than your petty arguments about perceived homophobia, which is an oxymoron.

    The truth is that you have to attempt to intimidate people who hold to Biblical truth because you are tormented by the consequences of being found to be wrong about the pressure you place on Christian values by God Himself.

    All I have demonstrated here is a genuine respect of your person and your desire to discuss an issue with me. I have been circumspect, as I am wont to be on this site, and I have handled the discussion in a low key way.

    If you would prefer me to up the ante and demonstrate how unafraid I am of your sexual preferences and warped theology I’d be happy to oblige.

  26. And I put it to you that I am speaking, if not for Christians, then certainly from a Christian theological position of strength.

    I think you mistake fear for truth.

  27. How about this for a thought, Clare – you have joined the chorus chanting ‘equal marriage’ where once you chimed ‘gay marriage’, but why the change?

    Why have you dropped the gay marriage thrust for equal marriage? Because ‘equal marriage’ sounds like a concept which has more legs than the more controversial ‘gay marriage’ push.

    This is not a theological argument, or even a logical argument. It’s primarily a semantic argument.

    It is a level of propaganda promulgated by a persistent choir with a low moral argument modified into a falsely legitimised appeal to equal recognition with God’s higher standard for marital engagement.

  28. I think “equal marriage” is a more accurate phrase than “gay marriage” because the former correctly shows that they are the same and not different.

    Really, Steve, I do not care what you think. Fewer and fewer people think like you do. This is not because you are the Remnant, but because you are washed up. After all, no Christian supports slavery nowadays.

  29. Is someone talking about slavery? That’s merely desperation in the absence of a decent Biblical argument.

    In fact you haven’t raised a single scriptural argument for marriage to include homosexual and lesbian unions in the sight of God. That’s because there are none.

    You r appeal to slavery is a diversion, often used by people like Bones and wazza2, to appeal to some kind of moral equivalence in the absence of Biblical proof.

    This isn’t about whether people should be forced into labour. It’s about how we define and perpetuate marriage, a holy institution for Christians and people of other religions also.

    Marriage is one of the great Christian sacriments, as are baptism and communion.

    You say you don’t care what I think. You should. I represent the case for Biblical marriage as it is presented by Christ and the Apostle Paul, and based on the very first recorded prophecy.

    You say I’m washed up. I can assure you I’m not, and there are many who believe the way I do.

    If I were washed up you wouldn’t be debating me on this based on the post I put up. No, I’m far from washed up. If I were washed up, so would be the message of Christ, as would be the gospel. But it is not. God’s word is eternal. The gospel is eternal. It is the power of God unto salvation for those who believe.

    That is not washed up. As long as I have breath and can speak I have the Word of God, the Spirit of God and the gospel, and it will be uttered, and it is alive and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword. It will not return to God void, but will accomplish all it was sent to achieve.

    That is not washed up. That is thundering like a great wave down on those who deny its power. Maybe not today, or next week, or next year, but it will come.

    All kinds of things which are not Biblically sound have been legitimised by governments for the sake of secular approval, such as abortion, prostitution, gambling, taxation, and drunkenness but that hasn’t changed God’s mind about whether he will judge them at the end of time.

    It is God who judges all things in the end. That is the ratification for marriage you should be seeking.

    We have to obey secular leadership, of course, but secular governments are nothing compared to God’s rulership and dominion.

    You can legally and acceptably be a drunkard in the seclusion of your own home, but it will not get you into heaven simply because it is legal on earth. Drunkards are refused entry into the kingdom. I don’t see anywhere in God’s charter that homosexual sex is called anything but sin. Yet you would legalise sexual sin in marriage with your folly.

    Do you really think you’ll get this past God?

    You need to get your priorities right.

  30. Equal marriage is a shifty oxymoronic argument which is totally unnecessary, since, in the true scriptural definition of the word, marriage is already equal, being between a man and woman in the sight of God. That’s about as equal as you can get.

    What you want to bring in is an illegitimate form of marriage under the guise of equality on the basis of existent legislation which rightly promotes equality and diversity in our secular society in an acceptable form.

    So in one fell swoop you undermine two excellent concepts by uniting two words which have separate meanings to that which you propose.

    It is almost Orwellian in its brilliance, and most do not see it for what it is, which is why you will actually, perversely, get away with it.

    The appeal to equality is a game-changer.

    But, as with all perversions which are sanctioned by popular vote, there will inevitably be repercussions which were unforeseen by those who are worn out by your importunity and just want some peace and quiet away from your constant, nagging, orchestrated and very united agenda.

    As God once said to Himself, there is nothing you can’t achieve through unity.

  31. Since it was you who came here as a result of a post, I’d say you were affected most, and you are still here. People do read this blog. Hopefully they’ll enjoy the exchange.

    I’ve been immensely helped by our conversation, even if it has compounded my original argument. Thanks.

  32. Which god would that be, Clare?

    Besides which, you’re extending the argument away from the issue, which is the use of equality as a ruse to obtain gay marriage rights.

    Your backwardness is dying out

    No. Your forwardness is being exposed.

    All over the Church, the lights are going on.

    No, wherever this perversion is being accepted, the light is going out.

    The Word of God is established. It is not changing. God is eternal. He is not changing.

    Consider this:

    But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.

    Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.
    James 1:14-17

    No variation, and no shadow of changing. He has said what he means and means what he says.

    You cannot make homosexual sex right, therefore, you cannot include it in God’s marriage covenant, therefore God does not delight in any change to what he has declared to be marriage.

    In fact there is no change as far as God is concerned. Why would there be? He has told us what marriage is.

    Public sentiment has nothing to do with it.

    If ever man and woman on the planet decided that gay marriage was acceptable it would not change what God has said.

    It would not be the first time that every person had gone against God’s will, either.

    As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open tomb; With their tongues they have practiced deceit; The poison of asps is under their lips; Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their ways; And the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
    Romans 3:10-18

  33. Clare, since you claim to be a Christian, I challenge you to show one single passage of scripture which directly supports homosexual or lesbian marriage.

  34. Galatians 3:28

    And I challenge you to show one single passage of scripture which directly opposes polygamous marriage.

  35. Galatians 3:28?

    So you’re free to marry your sister? Or brother, for that matter? Not to mention something of a conflict with Ephesians 5:21-32!

    I think you’re stretching things rather a lot there wazza2.

    Try again!

  36. Poor Steve. You ask for Bible verses then deny them when we give them. You have no ears to hear. As for your question “which God would that be”, I am a Monotheist. There is only one God, Steve. How many do you believe in? Oh, and Ephesians 5: does your wife really submit to you? Poor woman!

  37. Bones, thank you. Wonderful. I loved “Downfall” as a Serious Film, and a way for Germany to come to terms with its past further, and this-

    Do you have a blog? Can we talk somewhere else?

  38. Claire, you’re a Quaker!

    Could you sum up what Quakers believe and how that relates to issues like the Bible and homosexuality. I’m very interested in that.

    I notice that Quakers have always been at the centre of a lot of civil rights issues.

    Sorry I lurk around here and annoy Steve and Margot and bring them back to reality. I’m also a groupie over at Group Sects.

  39. Leaving aside the clear scriptural mandate being uprooted by this in-coming Act, the significant secular, humanist and deliberate collateral is that Bible-adhering Christians will become legally prosecutable for ‘crimes’ of acting in ‘unequal’ and ‘discriminatory’ ways when defending their belief in the teachings of Jesus, Paul et al. This is an attack upon the basics of the Christian faith – nothing less.

  40. Really, Zeibart.

    Been a few pastors saying lately that gays should be killed. US government hasn’t done anything about them.

    Yet apparently Christians are going to be persecuted for discrimination.

    Is that logical?

    Sounds like scare tactics to me. Like when the blacks were given their freedom, they would be terrorising the countryside raping white women.

    Actually there are 10 countries that allow gay marriage: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden.

    Interesting to note that some of those countries are heavily Catholic. Are Catholics in Spain and Argentina being persecuted given the Catholic church’s stance?

  41. Clare and Bones are made for each other!

    Clare:
    You ask for Bible verses then deny them when we give them.

    ‘We’?

    Wazza2 gave a verse completely out of context. That is not what I am asking for.

    He utterly denies God’s definition of marriage with his interpretation of the verse he produces, which refers to Christ’s inclusion of all people for salvation, not just the Jews, and has nothing to do with marriage.

    And you read Ephesians 5:21-32 and decide you can’t even live by the very first verse in it, mocking all godly wives in the process.

    The context, however, refers to all believers submitting to one another in the fear of the Lord.

    If you can’t submit to other believers, of course, in the Church, you could never submit to a husband, nor could you ever truly submit to God.

    Of course, some people get around this by considering God to be a female deity.

    In other words, you don’t have a clue what godly submission and love are all about, since he also commands husbands to love their wives, and wives to reverence their husbands. The husband gives his life for the wife, washing her with the Word, and presents her to himself a glorious bride.

    This, he says, is a mystery which is type of the Church, where all believers submit to Christ, who, on behalf of the Church, as its Head, submits to the Father.

    But why would you understand anything about the godliness and power of true holy matrimony when you are part of the move to pervert it?

    I take it you are also a feminist and a man-hater.

    Maybe Bones should watch his back after all.

  42. Bones,
    Been a few pastors saying lately that gays should be killed. US government hasn’t done anything about them.

    Typically over the top provocative put down comment by Bones. Do you have anything positive to say about… anything? I think you’ve caught anti-pastoritis from Lance. Oh, wait a minute, you admit as much…

    Sorry I lurk around here and annoy Steve and Margot and bring them back to reality. I’m also a groupie over at Group Sects.

    Delusions of grandeur mixed with a totally warped view of the Church! You should be sorry!

    Back to reality? Back? As in return? No. No. No. Reality is when you live in the truth, Bones, not in some eclectic delusion.

    What you mean is, you try to spread the delusion and are so hoodwinked by your own guile you actually think you have succeeded!

    Go figure!

  43. As if I have anything to worry about with Clare. Thanks for your concern though. I’ve got all sorts of Fundamentalist nutbags sticking pins into little dolls of me and praying for my condemnation. It’s good to talk with normal people every now and then though.

    I take it you are also a feminist and a man-hater.

    Typical Steve throw off, generalisation aka doesn’t have a clue. Not that any of those would scare me anyhow. I’m not afraid of people who aren’t like me.

  44. Here’s an exercise for those of you who would like to change the definition of marriage. Starting with the Australian model, which most of us are familiar with, redefine marriage as you would like to see it:

    “Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”

    Off you go…

  45. In fact, my former ‘throw off’ helped establish that Clare had the ‘homophobic’ card in her hand, and we drew it out so we could get over it and on with the discussion.

    So don’t knock preempting an argument. It is part of the art of debate.

    If she’s not a feminist or man-hater, we can dispense with the preliminaries. I find these things sometimes go hand in hand, though.

  46. Yes, yes, Bones, just another of your diversions.

    I didn’t say it doesn’t happen. But it is not typical of Pastors’ attitudes towards homosexual marriage, is it.

    The discussion isn’t about whether Christians should like homosexuals, in fact, but about the concept of ‘equal marriage’ as a replacement for the former ‘gay marriage’ tack.

    Ae you suggesting anyone here approves of this kill-the-gays drivel?

  47. Oh, dear Lord! You’re recycling Groupsects material. Wouldn’t you know it!

    Why don’t you out up a post on it so people can comment, then we can get on with the actual subject at hand.

  48. What you mean is, you try to spread the delusion and are so hoodwinked by your own guile you actually think you have succeeded!

    I’m not spreading any delusion pal. Just coming against your egotistical, pompous self righteousness who will condemn all sorts of Christians but lie down and worship the TD Jakes’s of the world.

  49. Ae you suggesting anyone here approves of this kill-the-gays drivel?

    Why aren’t they being persecuted, Steve? Why hasn’t the government arrested them for what is no different to proclaiming Sharia Law? Aren’t Christians who are opposed to gay marriage going to be persecuted?

    I’m showing you how stupid your argument is.

  50. So, having now resorted to changing he subject entirely, whilst hurling unedifying personal attacks, and abjectly resisted the need for a scriptural basis for your claims that God will actually approve of the proposed so-called equal marriage which will involve the acceptance of homosexual and lesbian couples, I think we can establish that you have no valid arguments for your case.

    In fact, Saunders gave an illustration of what is already happening in the post, which I also repeated, but for the sake of the kiddies, I will remind you about.

    Christian adoption agencies that do not want to place children with same-sex couples have had to close because such discrimination is now illegal under UK equalities law.

    That is why I am saying that the appeal to ‘equal’ marriage is a game-changer, Bones. There is already evidence that, if people discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, even though it is against their religious principles, they will be marginalised, ostracised or lose funding, governmental credence and even livelihoods.

    Your understanding of what marginalisation, or even persecution, is is limited to your delusional idea that it must be aligned to some US whacko redneck ministry in the middle of some Bible-belt, hillbilly outpost, where gun laws are non-existent and they live by the Old Testament.

    I am a Christian who believes the Bible, that is all. I have written about what it says, that is all.

    Being marginalised in a democratic nation is already a fact.

    This post is actually an example of how people with the same opinion you have, which is so politically corrected it has become a shadow of what true Bible faith stands for, can push those who actually believe what the Bible says about marriage, homosexual relations and lesbian sex into a corner where you hurl derision and abuse at them for taking scripture at face value.

  51. @Steve

    Brilliant series of posts! It’s inevitable that homosexual marriage will become the law very soon. After all, we live in a Godless society. And it will be a very short time until polygamous marriage and incestuous marriage are the norm. I can guarantee also that within a decade pedophilia will no longer be a criminal offence but simply a societal no-no, and within a generation even this despicable act will become just another sexual peccadillo. And there will be the inevitable faux-Christians like Bones, wazza and Clare championing the cause for those “poor” pedophiles! As for the current push regarding gay marriage, I can understand atheists and non-believers championing this cause, but to see supposed Christians like Bones, wazza, and this Clare person try to twist the bible to suit their warped worldview is really saddening. It’s important that we real believers continue to stand up for what is right and biblical, even in the face of their “reasoning”, and I commend you for doing just that. I tell you what, I would not want to stand before my God and have to try to justify having called evil good and good evil, as Bones, wazza and Clare are doing. You’d think they would at least consider the fact that they will stand before God one day and have to account for their twisting and distorting scripture. It beggars belief that anyone who calls themselves a believer in Christ can be so shamelessly anti-scripture! Anyway Steve, keep going mate. We aren’t, as Clare would wish us to be, dying out! The majority of born-again believers feel the same as you and I. It’s the liberal approval-seekers who are the minority in the church, and I for one wouldn’t wish to be one of them when I die and stand before my king.

  52. Thanks Roundhouse, zeibart, margot. This is an issue which should be important to all true Christians. It is about far more than just a few gays in wedding dresses and stretch limos.

    I don’t think Bones or wazza2 read the post or subsequent commentary, or they would realise what it actually is they are arguing against.

    Judging by their arguments, they certainly don’t have a clue about what is being said.

    Maybe if they at least read the last two paragraphs of Saunders’ piece they might grasp the significance of his argument, and why I have posted it.

  53. I object to that. Roundhouse says people like me will champion paedophiles. No. Paedophilia is exploitation which causes great harm. Homosexual love is equal and makes two people one flesh, as the Bible says. How dare this person equate them? How dare s/he suggest I might? You and he have even less understanding of people than you have of God!

  54. You and he

    Talk to Roundhouse about it, Clare, not me. I have addressed you personally from the outset.

    Maybe he’s afraid of scary feminist lesbians! 😀

    Homosexual love may be equal and make people one flesh, as you say, but God has never approved of it.

    Neither does he approve of fornication, male effeminate behaviour or adultery. That’s his prerogative. Neither of us can change this.

    What changes is us.

  55. @Clare

    “Paedophilia is exploitation which causes great harm. Homosexual love is equal and makes two people one flesh, as the Bible says. How dare this person equate them? How dare s/he suggest I might? ”

    50 years ago homosexuality was considered by society to be abhorrent, abnormal and vile. Now the “love” between persons of the same sex is considered normal. Any homosexual will state that their love is natural and beautiful. Lets compare this with pedophilia. Now it is considered to be abhorrent, abnormal and vile. But ask any pedophile and he will will state that the “love” between a man and a young boy or girl is natural and beautiful, It is only a matter of time before the same thing happens – it will become, just like homosexuality has become, normal, and anyone who objects to the practice will be labelled pedophobic and vilified as being hateful towards anyone who practices this “natural” love. It will happen, Clare. And people like you are the reason why.

    “Roundhouse, what exactly did you mean “this Clare person”?”

    You are a person, right? Named Clare? Wow, what is it with homosexuals and their searching for offence in everything?

    @Steve

    “Maybe he’s afraid of scary feminist lesbians! ”

    Yes, I am. Scared of the society they are creating, scared of the world my children will grow up in, and scared of the fact that in the near future true Christians will be jailed and churches shut down by these kinds of people for standing up for the truth in the bible.

  56. “Judging by their arguments, they certainly don’t have a clue about what is being said.”

    It’s clear. You’re playing on fears and delusions.

    “Bones, wazza and Clare championing the cause for those “poor” pedophiles!”

    You are a disease and scum. Thankfully the vast majority of people have been vaccinated against your type. The sooner people realise that the Christian Taliban and its version of sharia law is no better than its Muslim relative the better. Then yes you will be marginalised. A clanging bell of extremists crying out woe to the world.

  57. “But ask any pedophile and he will will state that the “love” between a man and a young boy or girl is natural and beautiful, It is only a matter of time before the same thing happens – it will become, just like homosexuality has become, normal, and anyone who objects to the practice will be labelled pedophobic and vilified as being hateful towards anyone who practices this “natural” love. It will happen, Clare. And people like you are the reason why.”

    Throughout history child marriages have been allowed even celebrated, reaching its climax in the Middle Ages when 7 year old princesses were married to regents and princes, always with the blessing of the Church. And why not. The Bible certainly doesn’t condemn it and the reasoning at the time was if a girl who was able and willing to consummate a sexual union was fit for marriage, whatever her chronological age, and boys who were fit for sex were likewise capable of contracting marriage.

    We of course find that offensive and abhorrent but not because the Bible condemns it which it doesn’t. It’s because we have been influenced by social movements like the rights of children.

    So yes society has blessed and accepted paedaphilic marriages in the past. Our society has determined due to education and social movements, that such practices are detrimental to the welfare of children.

  58. Let me distance myself from the pedophile comparison to homosexuality, Bones and Clare, because I did not say this, neither would I. Pedophiles are far more predatory and revolting creatures that any others, barring, perhaps, serial murderers.

    Adding this to the argument is destructive to it, in my opinion, and serves no purpose but to further anger and alienate homosexuals. They are no more pedophiles that heterosexuals, as far as I can make out.

    Homosexuals have the legal right to civil unions. In a secular sense I support this. They have all the rights of a couple who are in either a de facto or marriage relationship. They can even adopt children and have access to IVF.

    I am not arguing about these issues. I am saying that marriage, as we understand it, should remain as it is and not lose its Biblical basis. I wonder, really, why homosexuals and lesbians have pushed this case so far into the territory of faith-based groups.

    There is a line which should be drawn which protects the right of a Christian to say they consider holy matrimony to be between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, as it is clearly and succinctly Biblically expressed, and there be a level of mutual respect given by homosexuals and lesbians that heterosexuals should have an exclusive right to enjoy.

    Unfortunately, the homosexual lobby has seen Christianity as the main antagonist to its cause, and many would like to take all the ground in what they perceive as a class war, regardless of the very obvious religious views of the majority of Christians.

    I know there are many homosexuals who would actually agree with this, and do not see the need to press into marriage ‘equality’, when they have already secured societal equality and civil unions, if they want them.

    Your response is to Roundhouse’s opinion. If I want to attack pedophile activities I will do so in a separate post.

    In fact, Bones, with your disgraceful personal attacks you demonstrate that, indeed, you do not grasp the argument, mine anyway, and you are a narrow-minded, bigoted person who refuses to listen to any other argument but your own.

    You have a large chip on your shoulder which develops into a spiny hedge surrounded by your frosty thoughts towards anyone who challenges your concepts.

    But unless we challenge the status quo, right or wrong, we never change anything.

    My challenge of Catholic dogma is a case in point. Biblically what I said was accurate, but you called me the most revolting names for confronting you with the truth.

    The same goes for marriage, here. You have slimed people for wanting to protect what they see as the holiness of marriage from what they know is a perversion.

    You have no arguments against what is actually being said, just an angry attitude towards those who say it.

    You even harp on what you claim as false persecution, as if we are talking about gun rage in hill-billy land, when it is already clear that Christian-based, including Catholic, groups have been shut down by Government legislation on equality for not wanting to put children in the foster care of homosexual couples.

    I call them bold for making the stand. You call them a disgrace for not putting children into homosexual homes.

    Slandering people for having a different perspective to your own is a great sign of weakness of character.

  59. But unless we challenge the status quo, right or wrong, we never change anything.

    Of course, this goes for anything, including the homosexual and lesbian lobby’s right to challenge the current legislation on marriage, and to attempt to have it redefined.

    But you are going to have produce a reasonable argument you can sustain, and not personal slander of a person’s character. That is no argument. That is no defence. That is just mud-slinging.

    From a Christian perspective, I’m looking for your Biblical evidence to support homosexual and lesbian marriage, otherwise I am not going to budge.

    The civil union aspect is already achieved, and fair enough, the whole world will burn and be judged for its decisions. Why should I bother with this?

    I’m interested in being separate, walking in right-standing with God, and not allowing the corruption of the world to singe my clothes.

    If you have a point, state it, prove it.

    But don’t expect me to bend to your name-calling and petty curses.

    They just make me wonder if that’s all you’ve got!

  60. Oh, hello Greg!

    Now, I know you are supporter of homosexual and lesbian marriage, so I’ll take it that your perspective is that of a supporter of Clare’s cause.

    I have not been rude to Clare, or affronting, and I am certain she can handle herself! She’s clearly not a baby, and has given as good as she has got. We’re adults, Greg, having a discussion. She certainly doesn’t need your big, hairy, neanderthal male intervention.

    In fact, Peter Saunders pointed out, in the post, which I have reiterated three times, that there are already charities in UK which have chosen to close their works down rather than send children into foster care with homosexual couples.

    Is that clear enough for you?

  61. And the reason they have done so is because the Equality and Diversity legislation in UK is so strict. They would be breaking the law by refusing to hand over children onto foster care with homosexual couples.

    Are we clear on this yet?

  62. And, Greg, I’ve already produced enough scriptural truth on this thread to demonstrate what God says about marriage.

    My ‘assumption’ is that you haven’t read through the entire argument, or you’d aready know…

    1) I have demonstrated that charities have shut down rather than follow the Equality legislation to farm out foster care to homosexuals.

    2) God says marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

    Mr Bluster enters the room, and the furniture flies!

  63. Hahaha that last post of yours was funny. You spend too much time talking to yourself.

    Let’s have another look at Saunders’s article which I skimmed through as the must be the zillionth thread on this.

    Gramsci’s got nothing to do with it. That is a real clutch at straws. It stems from the civil rights movements beginning with women, children, blacks, gays. Was MLK influenced by Gramsci’s ideals of destroying western society or by freedom and equality? Were the antiapartheid marches really just about bringing down the bourgousie? No. It comes from a recognition that people cannot be treated differently based on differences whether that be gender, race, age, sexual preference regardless of what a religion’s Holy Book has to say about it. A recognition that some don’t have privileges on the basis of how they were created.

    That Saunders can’t see that is amazing. He can’t see that all these movements are related and have brought the same response from conservative Christian groups each time who have combatted those movements.

    Pretty simple really. Even a blind man can see it. But not Saunders. Unless he doesn’t want to see it.

    As for the Christian adoption agencies, if they are dependent upon government funding then as far as I’m concerned they toe the line. Not bite the hand that feeds them. That is a church/state issue.

  64. Have you researched the US charities which have closed their doors for the same reasons, Greg? It’s worth a google.

    So, do you support ‘equal marriage’? Do you support ‘gay marriage’?

  65. As for the Christian adoption agencies, if they are dependent upon government funding then as far as I’m concerned they toe the line. Not bite the hand that feeds them. That is a church/state issue.

    That’s if it’s even happening of course.

    How are Christians going in these places that legalise gay marriage?

    Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden.

    Has Catholic Spain and Argentina started persecuted Catholics yet?

  66. So Steve do you agree with Saunders’s assertion about Gramsci? If so how is the gay rights movement different to all the other rights movements on which our society is based eg workers, women, children, black? Or are they all working to overthrow capital oppressors?

  67. Do you support ‘equal marriage’, Greg? Or ‘gay marriage’?

    If you don’t answer no, I’ll assume it is, as I suspect, yes.

  68. Those adoption agencies amended their constitutions to adopt to people based on their religious character. Easy way to get around it.

  69. OK, thanks, Greg. You confirmed I was correct in my assumption. Why was that so hard?

    So, since you are a ‘gay marriage’ and ‘marriage equality’ sympathiser, why why would I take a blind bit of notice of your confrontational attitude when you burst unto this thread with your loaded gun of vitriolic flabby bluster?

  70. The pojnt, dear Greggy, is that they are Christian agencies wh would prefer to hold to Christan values, and not have to bend to Government legislation which would clearly compromise their beliefs.

    That is why Christians are being marginalised.

    That is why secularism is causing a separation.

    I call this a good thing.

    I would rather be called names by semi-christians for supporting genuine Biblical principles than join your sympathetic anti-scriptural brand of bland.

  71. Bones. Nice try, but the fact is that the Sexual Orientation Regulations have seriously damaged the previous open policy government had towards charitable organisations.

    Everywhere I have said…

    …this is just the beginning!

  72. I made the ‘assumption’ based on previous comments by you Greg. In fact it was less of an assumption than a known fact. We’ve been at this for some time now, Greg. Memory failing in your old age?

    The fact is, I was right.

    And you did come in with guns blazing. What did you expect? A cowering jellyfish! Wobble, wobble!

  73. Someone’s hero has fallen.

    Posted by Steve

    https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/uk-pm-slams-archbishop-over-pc-values/#comment-25092

    All the same it stands in stark contrast to the Aussie PM’s atheism, although she has done the secular thing of personal non-commital, leaving the national decision making processes to her caucus, none of whom, apart from a handful of Labour Parliamentarians, were elected by the population.

    At least Cameron is saying Christians need to come out form hiding and be vocal, and help shape the narrative with God-given commentary, even if it rubs some sectors of the nation up the wrong way (for them).

    The point he is making isn’t necessarily reflecting his own views entirely, but reminding the Church of its mandate from God, instead of following the ‘moral neutrality’, or ‘passive tolerance’ of the politically correct weak-kneed post-modern secular left.

    It should encourage the Church to be heard as well as seen.

    Come out form beneath that bushel, folks!

  74. What you call a tightly held bigoted world view probably reflects a Christian perspective, Greg, so once a gain on this site you demonstrate that you are Christian in name only, not in action, which is what I mean by semi-christian, which is term, but it is an oxymoron, I agree.

  75. And you did come in with guns blazing. What did you expect? A cowering jellyfish! Wobble, wobble!

    More like the Scarecrow from Wizard of Oz searching for a brain.

  76. Yes, Cameron seems to have shot himself in the Christian foot, Bones.

    It is very sad to see. He is promoting the cause of equal marriage, even calling it the Equal Marriage Bill. Sucked in, and completely proving my point that adding ‘equality’ to the phrase is a game-changer.

    He will face revolt from his coalition partners, though, it seems.

  77. Oh come on, Bones, this site was dying on its feet two days ago from lack of spunk and interest. You had to resort to raging over at GripSocks.

    Maybe I should have just let the old cow die.

  78. Break the hold of the churches, take over the media, subvert the schools and universities, and chip away at the heart of the citadel, the bourgeois family, and eventually, the whole system will fall.

    Do you think there is an intellectual push to diminish the power of the Church, State and Media?

  79. Ah. A non-answer. Of course even you can see that the gay rights is really just an extension of all the other rights movements. Not some Marxist plot.

    The Church is getting left behind as society moves on. See ya later Steve.

  80. You know, Greg, I have pointed out the very things which you have, and yet you seem to think I am some kind of enemy of the state for saying them.

    I don’t think you actually read in English, for, if you did, you would know that I have previously stated that the Equality legislation is already in place, and the gay lobby has latched onto it to create a dilemma for governments who have thus far added the Equality legislation.

    Thais entirely the point of the post!

    Duhhh!

  81. I don’t think the gay lobby’s thrust is a marxist plot, but it has taken advantage of socialist ideology, and latched unto politically correct legislation to promote its cause, which, in effect, strengthens the left’s nanny state progressiveness.

    So, if you look at it form this perspective, the left is being offered an extension to its control systems, which will either…

    …adapt and change the way the Church operates, as we have already seen with the hitherto mentioned charities…

    …or be shunted off into an obscure corner, cowering beneath the threat of legislation…

    …or rise up as the Church Jesus intended us to be, completely separate form secular or worldly influence, his vehicle for change and deliverance for those who embrace his offer of salvation.

    I’m in the latter crew. The politics is an interesting diversion, thats all.

  82. Yes, yawn. It’s all been heard before with all the rights movements from Conservative Christianity, terrible for society , against the Bible yadda yadda yadda.

  83. So you don’t think the Bible is worth standing up for?

    The Dutch Reformed Church (South Africa), KKK and Southern Baptists (pre 1970s) want you to know they are standing up for the Bible too and agree with your line of argument.

  84. Roundhouse, let me tell you about the World. It is comprised of good Christian people who support the rights and equality of LGBT folk, and good atheists and good members of other religions. Good people. Everyone has some good in them, and all do our best in difficult circumstances. We good people recognise the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia. It seems that you imagine that, because a good Christian supports LGBT rights, which you think are wicked, they will support everything you think is wicked, including paedophilia. Not so, Roundhouse. See God’s good Creation as God made it!

    As for me: standing up for the Bible? Yes, absolutely. Believing that gay people should be stoned to death, as Leviticus says? No. Never.

  85. Roman Catholic adoption agencies in both the UK and the US have closed down voluntarily rather than be forced to place children with same-sex couples. Gay couples and organizations will increasingly take legal action against agencies that discriminate against them on the basis of sexual orientation.

    That’s obvious. Homosexuals want to have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals. Exactly the same rights. First it was to have their unions legally recognized. Once that has been achieved then, they have and will logically assert the right to marry and to adopt. That’s clear enough. And actually, the right to adopt has come before the right to marry usually.

    If not allowing a man to marry a man is deemed discriminatory in the same way as it is to deny a man and woman of other races to marry, then of course same sex couples who are committed members of a church will claim discrimination in the future if they are refused a church wedding on the basis of sexual orientation.

    Of course that day will come. Anglican church lawyers in the UK are already preparing for that and don’t have any confidence that churches will be exempt once certain legislation is passed.

    And while some here might say that won’t come -why would you think that? On what basis could they refuse? Because they think it’s sin? The church will no longer be able to say that homosexual activity or orientation is sin.

    But, the issue for me is not what churches have to do or not. Churches won’t have a choice. It may not come immediately but it will.

    It all comes down to whether or not homosexuals have the same legal right to marry and adopt.

    Which is of course why the homosexual community worked so hard on getting civil unions recognized. Once that is recognized, the logical progression is gay marriage. I’m not even talking about whether same sex marriage is sin or not, or good for a secular society or not.

    A simple google search, or just reading the news will make anyone realize that Christian foster and adoption organizations who do not want to place children with same-sex couples, or single homosexuals are in a difficult position.

    As for whether I think same-sex marriage/adoption is right or not, i’ll simply state that I believe (regardless of religion), that the ideal union we should be promoting and protecting in our societies is a family unit where there is a father and a mother who are in a monogamous married relationship.

    I don’t even think that religion needs to come into the discussion.

    Given the fact there are so few adherents to Christian religions in modern society, I don’t think there is any point talking about Judeo-christian heritage, or what the Bible says, or God’s will in this debate.

    Most people don’t care, and why should they if they don’t believe in the truth or even benefit to society of religion?

    For the record, I am not in favor of killing gays or those who have sex outside of marriage, and I do not support polygamy.
    I don’t think polygamy is sin, but I don’t think Australia should recognize multiple wives in the case of Muslim immigrants. I don’t think it’s ideal from a biblical or secular viewpoint. (I think humans deep down are romantics).

    I’ll leave it there, and answer as many questions as I can later.
    I’ve decided where I stand on this issue, and as much as possible will give my opinion without resorting to insults.

    As this is a Christian site, I’m prepared to discuss from the Christian viewpoint – which I think is extremely clear, but, I also don’t really need to refer to any biblical scriptures or my theories about what God thinks.

    So, I don’t have the confidence to call any of you semi-christians – you’re probably all much more Christ-like than I am. In fact, call me .01 Christian if you like.

    I won’t be able to answer questions/attacks/insults etc for a while
    but I’ll try to read through them all at some time, and I’ll try to make this my last long post.

    What I feel the most keenly on a spiritual level is how profoundly the church has failed and sinned in history, recently and how much I have in my own life. In that sense I understand the accusation that the church has lost it’s right to lecture society.That’s probably why I would prefer to debate from a secular viewpoint.

    Before I go, I’ll say that I believe that if the Church (we – me, included) had lived better, we wouldn’t be having this debate now.
    The terrible rates of divorce, the unhappy marriages, the hypocrisy of clergy and the sexual abuse of children by clergy, have all contributed to the level of bitterness that surrounds this debate, and the speed at which it’s progressing.

    I say that not only because I know how much the church has failed in moral matters and family life, but also because I note with interest that at a cursory glance the countries that are moving ahead with same-sex marriage all seem to be countries with a Christian history, or what you might call post-Christian societies. (Happy to be corrected on that one).

    Anyway, without starting a completely different thread…….

    God save the Queen! (looking forward to the jubilee concert – regardless of the sexual orientation of the performers…..)

    Over to you good people!

  86. We are New Testament people, Clare. Christians were never asked to stone homosexuals, only to love all people and introduce them to Christ.

    But this doesn’t convert into an acceptance of homosexual or lesbian marriage.

    When we come to Christ and accept the offer of becoming his disciples, we also accept the responsibility for the lifestyle.

  87. It’s like tag team wrestling on this thread, with all the theatrical posturing to boot. Although sorry you’ve not got any folk to tag, Steve. You’re holding up well though 🙂

    Greg, Bones and Clare, can you see that legislation such as a Marriage Equality Bill, alongside Hate Speech laws, protection of minority ‘rights’ etc simply marginalises much of traditional Christianity? The secular, liberal, humanist agenda forces the Christian to take sides; it’s an inexorable incremental progression towards choosing either the Bible or the state.

    We are witnessing another step towards a state-sponsored articulation of ‘church’ much as China has to endure with its Three-self Patriotic Church. I have no qualms with that per se since an underground church movement is often far richer and more engaged with God that any surface expression. Also, I have no qualms with homosexuals wanting to have their relationships officially recognised; and that is the case today.

    Marriage, however, is reserved for a man and a woman, not 2 women, 2 men, nor a man and a goat – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_goat_marriage_incident

  88. Thank you, Steve. That is a step forward. On the whole I am glad you do not want me dead. So is it the case that you will only cite NT verses about homosexual acts, forsaking the OT verses?

  89. @Bones

    ” “Bones, wazza and Clare championing the cause for those “poor” pedophiles!”

    You are a disease and scum. Thankfully the vast majority of people have been vaccinated against your type. ”

    Comprehension obviously isn’t your strong suit, is it Bones. If you read what I ACTUALLY wrote I said people LIKE you lot. In other words, people masquerading as Christians who ignore scripture and God’s precepts and follow another “gospel”, one of their own making, people who call those things that are good evil, and evil good. So, do I get an apology for your vile language toward me? Probably not!

    @Steve

    “Let me distance myself from the pedophile comparison to homosexuality, Bones and Clare, because I did not say this, neither would I. Pedophiles are far more predatory and revolting creatures that any others, barring, perhaps, serial murderers.”

    I’m afraid Steve that I have to question your comprehension in this case too. I did not in anyway equate homosexuality with pedophilia, and I will not, because they are not the same thing. What I did say is that in the same way that homosexuality was once considered to be abhorrent but is now an accepted lifestyle, it is inevitable that pedophilia will one day go the same way. It is the old frog in the boiling water metaphor. The more that society allows, the worse those things it allows become.

  90. This was just on Q & A.

    The thin edge of the wedge/ slippery slope argument has been around since the first gay civil rights activism. It actually started with if homosexuality is decriminalised then we’ll see paedophiles roaming the streets as well. As more rights were given to gay people, the same argument was used. Well if you can’t dismiss a person because they’re gay then the same goes with paedophilia.

    It’s an old fear laden, devious argument.

    Even good old Barnaby Joyce conceded that.

    Also Roundhose, paedophiliac marriage was once acceptable but now we view it as abhorrent. Not because the Bible tells us though.

  91. “Bones, wazza and Clare championing the cause for those “poor” pedophiles!”

    I read perfectly well thank you very much. You’ve been caught out and will get no apology from me. You’re a despicable grub. The apology needs to come from you. But yeah you’re the real Christian around here. Your words are full of deception, hence revealing the spirit that you are under.

  92. @Bones

    What I wrote is in black and white and easily understood. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the “people like” that I wrote in my original post in your second attempt to demonise me just proves to me that you’re not interested in facts, only baseless accusations.

    And let me add, your comments supporting pedophilia are alarming. Who’s the grub?

  93. Greg, Bones and Clare, can you see that legislation such as a Marriage Equality Bill, alongside Hate Speech laws, protection of minority ‘rights’ etc simply marginalises much of traditional Christianity? The secular, liberal, humanist agenda forces the Christian to take sides; it’s an inexorable incremental progression towards choosing either the Bible or the state.

    So hate speech laws marginalises traditional Christianity does it? The stuff that comes out of the US you can say whatever you want about gay people, wish them dead – nothing will happen to you.

    Ten countries have legislated for gay marriage including Spain and Argentina, Where is the oppression of Christianity in any of those countries?

    The sky is not falling, Chicken Little.

  94. And let me add, your comments supporting pedophilia are alarming. Who’s the grub?

    You are you, disgrace. You’re saying false Christians like me, Wazza and Clare will support having sex with kids. Your words condemn you as a lying disgusting prick.

    Oh and if you know anything about history, the church recognised child marriages in the Middle Ages. That is what I am pointing out. We now view it as disgusting, not because the Bible tells us but because of education and movements such as the rights of children.

  95. So the two Danny’s weren’t taken to court for speaking about Islam, Bones? Figment of our imagination? John Laws wasn’t take to court for calling someone a poofta? Yet Fred Niles can be pilloried and caricatured on the streets during the gay (so-called) and lesbian Mardi Gross?

    I’m not saying I agree with the way they went about it, but please don’t say we have perfect liberty to say what we want about either Islam or homosexual behaviour. What a strange combination that is!

    It may come very soon that speaking out like I am here will be very risky. I think it probably is where I am.

    Or do you think I am on safe ground with my views?

    I am actually being quite careful about how I phrase things even now because I know what is at stake and I know what can happen if I say things in the wrong way.

    The sad thing is that you wold actually support any sanction f it came. I get the impression that you and Grrrrrreg would actually cheer it on.

  96. @Bones

    “You’re saying false Christians like me, Wazza and Clare will support having sex with kids.”

    Yep. People like you, who have exchanged the truth for a lie, will definitely support it when that time comes when it is no longer viewed by society as being abhorrent. I can guarantee it.

    “Oh and if you know anything about history, the church recognised child marriages in the Middle Ages.”

    Oh, I know about this. I too have an extensive knowledge of history, in particular the period between the reign of Edward the Confessor and the 100 Year War in England. I am aware of the common practice to marry off a young girl to the nobility, and I am aware of the church’s acceptance of the practice. I am also aware of the church’s practice of selling indulgences, neither of which true Christianity embraces. It is disingenuous to use this example in trying to support your fallacious argument.

  97. On child marriage in the Middle Ages

    Hostiensis reminded his readers that the real criterion of readiness for marriage was sexual capacity; a girl who was able and willing to consummate a sexual union was fit for marriage, whatever her chronological age, and boys who were fit for sex were likewise capable of contracting marriage. (Brundage, p.434] [Hostiensis was Henry of Segusio, Cardinal bishop of Ostia, d. 1271] As abhorrent as we find it in the 20th century, then, the merciless logic of a marriage theory which required consummation to complement consent winds up in at least a possibility of pedophilia in medieval child marriage.

    Is there anywhere in the Bible that condemns the Bishop’s words? No.

    Paedophilia is evil because of the harm it does to children, emotionally, physically, sexually. It is society that has determined that child marriage is unacceptable and on that basis alone will never be acceptable or decriminalised.

    That Christians can’t see that is mind boggling.

  98. Yep. People like you, who have exchanged the truth for a lie, will definitely support it when that time comes when it is no longer viewed by society as being abhorrent. I can guarantee it.

    I can guarantee that you are a dickhead. The only way it would be acceptable is if some religious nutbag removes the statutes and legislation which guarantees the safety and rights of children. Probably someone like you.

    That you don’t see this as a rights issue is utterly astounding.

  99. Inevitably, as I have said countless times, legislation will be introduced which changes marriage. It will not and cannot ever be the same again. That is a tragedy. It will be corrupted. It will have a fragment of its original meaning. Already does, otherwise you would not support this travesty.

    It certainly does marginalise Christians because we will have no choice but to continue to teach what the Bible teaches on sexuality and sexual relations. This means we will put on notice, inevitably, that to do so will become a potentially criminal act.

    If you don’t see that then you have your head in the sand.

    The thing is, and the primary reason the sky hasn’t fallen down is that most Christian speakers will now steer away from the issue, and, in fact, already have, so what we are seeing is a very much watered down version of the Christian message because political correctness demands it.

    And you are a slave to it. You are so blinkered by cosmic reason and worldly logic that you actually think it is acceptable for a Christian minister to be ostracised for telling the truth.

    In fact you are a cheerleader for the ostracising team, waving a white flag of surrender to political expedience as a pioneer of wishy-washy theology.

    You are a marginaliser-in-chief, out on the front lines of discussion blogs, pushing your case for demolishing Biblical truth.

  100. @Bones

    “The only way it would be acceptable is if some religious nutbag removes the statutes and legislation… ”

    You bluster on about the Middle age church, yet know nothing of our modern times. Homosexuality is now viewed as normal, not because of religion but because of secularism and atheism. In fact, religion is pilloried because of it’s objection to it. To say that pedophilia will be legalised by religion (and I guess, according to your “logic”, Christianity in particular) is simply nuts! It will become legal by the same people who support homosexuality – secularists and atheists

  101. Nothing wishy washy about guaranteeing people’s rights. Could have sworn you were moaning and groaning about sharia law being seen as acceptable and how we shouldn’t bow to Muslims. Boots on the other foot now champ, they don’t want to follow your religious law.

    It’s hard to accept that Christians can no longer tell people what to do anymore.

    Because that of course is the mission of the Church.

  102. Clare
    So is it the case that you will only cite NT verses about homosexual acts, forsaking the OT verses?

    I won’t forsake any of the Bible, Clare. Neither should you. It is what it is, and we are to use the Old Testament as examples.

    All I know is that I am not commanded to stone homosexuals or adulterers. However, that is not a license for either.

    Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. He didn’t say she wasn’t guilty. He said he found no fault in her, but that she should stop being an adulteress.

    That is pretty plain language. That is our message. That is our new lifestyle.

    The New Testament calls homosexual sex a sin. I know that gay lobby groups have attempted to give strange explanations as to why this isn’t so, but to the neutral student of the Bible the language is concise, and it is sin to engage in any kind of sex outside of a marriage between a husband and his own wife.

    End of!

  103. It will become legal by the same people who support homosexuality – secularists and atheists

    Nonsense. Our society is based on rights – children, gays, women, workers which Christians would be quite happy to get rid of. It would be nothing for an extreme religious nutbag to roll all that back.

    It won’t happen because people will be in uproar.

    Where does the Bible condemn paedophilia again?

  104. Guaranteeing people’s rights! Who defines rights? Man or God?

    Do you, as Christian, Bones, consider it the right of a homosexual man to marry another homosexual man?

    Can you qualify that for me? In Christian terms, please.

  105. @Bones, your hatred of the bible is obvious. Your hatred of the church more so. Your hatred of anyone who holds to biblical truth is also obvious. The bible tells us that we will know His children by their fruits. Your fruit is rotten to the core.

  106. I think we’re discussing two different sets of rights here, Bones. You are stuck on secular rights, and of course you’re right. Whatever the secular authorities contrive will be the law.

    But I am discussing eternal justice, not temporal law.

    I am more interested in telling people what will happen t them after this life is over than while it is happening.

  107. @Bones

    “Get behind me, Roundhose. I recognise your father and he is not the father of truth.”

    Ha! You quote from the book you hate! Your fruit is rotten Bones, and the rot oozes from every word you write.

    @Steve

    Love your stuff. I wish I could write as succinctly as you!

  108. Guaranteeing people’s rights! Who defines rights? Man or God?

    Typical western Fundamentalist answer who of course is basking in the rights fought for him and his family by others.

    Let’s look at the basic rights of children. They were seen as property all the way up until the industrial revolution where many kids had to work often long hours in dangerous jobs. It was only then that children began to develop basic rights like education and laws began to be passed prohibiting the use of child labour.

    Women’s rights? Ever heard of the rule of thumb. You can hit your wife with a stick so long as it wasn’t as wide as your thumb. The right to vote, equal pay, work, have a career…..

    Freedom of slaves and end of Apartheid. Yeah God must have yawned when that happened. Like big deal. But hey I’m not black so who cares.

    But I am discussing eternal justice, not temporal law.

    No, you are campaigning for Christian morality, not unlike the puritans.

  109. Interestingly I was reading about Prohibition in the US and how Christian temperance groups influenced legislation to have alcohol banned in the US in the 20s on the basis that alcohol destroyed the family unit, encouraged domestic violence etc. Banning it actually made people drink more and many people went from being casual drinkers to alcoholics instead. Illiegal alcohol sales actually soared past the sales of alcohol when it was legal. Then there was the problem of crime, gangs like the Capone gang, cost of law enforcement. It was actually a total failure.

    You can’t legislate to stop people sinning.

    Here endeth the lesson.

  110. Of course, as I said, Bones, the natural human justice of secular society, which eventually comes close to the Ten Commandments of Judeo-Christian construct, handed down by God Almighty as a system designed to hold a nation together until the true King of Liberty arrived.

    But then, inevitably, as is the pattern of man, removes itself once again into a corrupt form of liberty, worshipping some golden calf, whilst engaging in their orgy of humanised liberty, until some great reformation draws them kicking and screaming back into God’s justice.

    So you wag your spiked tongue at people for following Christian principles whilst you defend people’s rights to ignore God’s precepts.

    I like your appeal to a just society, Bones, but I think it is often misguided by a desire to please people in the most unbiblical ways.

    So, tell me how homosexual sex glorifies God, Bones.

  111. Bones,
    You can’t legislate to stop people sinning.

    Very true, hence the abolishment of the Mosaic Law.

    But that doesn’t mean we support sin either. What fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness?

    Why are you spending so much energy defending sin?
    ___________________________________

    Grrrrrrreg,
    Earlier you were quick to slap me down for calling Bones a bigot, which is fair enough, even though I consider the word ‘bigot’, once used by you to describe me, and to have been defined (by you) to mean something other than a gross insult, as a fair English word to use in certain contexts…

    …but…

    …where were you when Bones was letting lose with a blunderbuss full of scattershot insults aimed at anyone who defended traditional marriage values, some of which were far stronger than your definition of ‘bigot’?

    And where were you when you were throwing around personal insults as if they were going out of fashion, even calling people, me especially, by robust names which you would not articulate in front of your children (I hope)?

    So you flap in like a drunken albatross in a tea shop, smash the place up and depart like a vapour into the mist, and we’re all supposed to think you’re a reasonable chap?

  112. @Bones

    “Get lost Roundhose you vile, disgusting individual.”

    I’m not the one who publicly states my hatred for the bible, the church and Christians. So who’s the vile one?

  113. @Everyone

    Look, the debate has gotten very, very bitter here. I put my hand up and say that I have definitely contributed to it. But I would like to take a moment to explain why I have said the things I said. I love Jesus. I love God, and I love the bible. I would also say, expecting to be crucified for this, I love His church. Whenever I see someone, in the name of Christ, tear apart those things I love, I don’t just sit there on my hands and keep my mouth shut, I defend those things I love. I may not have the eloquence of Steve, or his biblical knowledge, but I know my God, and I know who I am in Him. I know the differences between right and wrong, and I know when someone is heading off on an unbiblical tangent. And when I see someone who professes Christ turn around and proceed to stomp all over His word because it doesn’t suit their own experiences or views, then I say something. Please note, I have not used extreme language ( I encourage you to go through everything I have posted here), which is something that cannot be said of Bones and Greg, but instead I have attempted to call them out on their hypocrisy, and for that I have been called the most unGodly names. And Bones even tried to accuse me of being of the devil! Bones, who supports gay marriage, ignores huge swathes of the bible, and uses fouls language at every opportunity, calling me of the devil! Anyway, I just want to set the record straight. I am not here to intentionally cause problems. I am not here to get anyone angry on purpose, or to cause anyone to fall into sin. I am not here acting as judge, jury and executioner. I am here to learn more about Jesus, and to learn more about other people’s views on HIm and His word, but if I read something that I believe is unbiblical or anti-God, I will say something, because I love Him and His word. I also fear for my children’s future. The world is going to Hell in a hand-basket very, very quickly, and as a believers we are exhorted to read and understand the times, and it is obvious that this world is becoming more and more wicked every day. And to see those who profess Christ seemingly applauding this is distressing, to say the least.

    So, that is where I am coming from. Once again, let me categorically state, I am not here to cause anyone anger, or to bait anyone. It is not and never will be my intention to do that. I just try to defend what I believe is biblical. If I offend anyone, I apologise. But, as I said, I will also not sit back and watch people walk all over God’s word without me saying something.

  114. @ roundhouse – it wasn’t always like this. Certainly a theological free-for-all at times, but never stooping so low with the crude language.

    I see it as a reflection of the slippery slope away fom orthodox Christianity, that some have taken – particularly Bones (he just makes me sad). We can disagree on secondary issues of theology but not when it comes to God’s declared Word on topics such as homosexuality. I don’t give a rip for those who want to argue every variant of “arsinokoites”, what matters is, what does God say, in context, cover to cover.

    We are to be at peace with all men, something we can do with homosexuals. But what we are dealing with here is “an aggressive movement that will not leave Christians, and society, alone. It is a movement that is intruding into the media, schools, religious institutions, society, and politics that has resulted in great division, debate, and anger.”

    And it’s interesting to read that unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe punishment administered by God Himself. See Romans 1:24 – God Himself literally allowing their hearts to be hardened.

    I’ve having more of an issue with Bones, wazza2 and Greg, than I am with “Clare” (and why does everyone refer to him as “she”?).

    The others should know better, and “Clare”? Perhaps we can safely say as a Quaker, he may not be in the realm of orthodoxy, depending on his doctrinal stance?

  115. @Margot

    I have nothing against homosexuals at all. I have several friends who are gay, and I love them. But I grieve for what is happening in this country, and in the rest of the world on this issue. True Christianity is being assaulted, and sadly, not just from the world, but from within. That’s what is so distressing about Bones, Greg, wazza and Clare. Instead of obeying the word of God, they are exchanging the truth for a lie, and then abusing us for sticking up for that truth, as if WE are the ones who are wrong! I can handle immature name-calling. What I cannot abide is people like them abusing God’s word and calling it truth. It is sickening, quite frankly. But anyway, I’ve said my piece.

    “(and why does everyone refer to him as “she”?).”

    Clare’s a He?! Wow, I didn’t see that coming!

  116. John 15:19 “If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.”

    All we are doing is standing firm on God’s Word, without slander, without expressing crudity, not attacking homosexuals, only pointing back to what God is saying.

    And we are the “haters”?

  117. @Margot

    I didn’t think to click on his name, so thanks for the link. Strange, strange stuff. Have you clicked on any of the links on his blog? My goodness! And he comes on here and pretends to be a Christian! This is just a small taste of where this world is heading, and Bones, wazza and Greg are ok with it? In truth, they are not only ok with it, but they openly and proudly SUPPORT IT! They are more interested in the approval of men than the approval of God. How very, very sad.

  118. “But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.” 2 Timothy 3:1-9

    Yep, that’s just about sums up Bones, wazza and Greg!

  119. I didn’t take up the invitations to link elsewhere. I found the blog to be very self indulgent and vain, especially if it is to explain gender identity crises. Would some people get their “kicks” at the thought of others logging on to their sites to explore? Probably…..

  120. Margot, I get no kicks from imagining you on my blog. I write in the hope that others understand more. But you do not have ears to hear. New Age- have you not read, “Behold, I have made all things New”?

  121. @Margot

    Blogs essentially are a “hey, look at me everyone” kind of venture. I don’t begrudge “Clare” his right to have a blog, and I also believe he has a right to post whatever he likes on it, but to come on here and misrepresent himself as 1) a Christian, and 2) a woman, is very sneaky indeed. I guess my referring to him in one of my earlier posts as “that Clare person” ended up being a very apt description!

    And for the record “Clare”, you may dress in female clothes, grow your hair, change your name, grow breasts and cut off your “bits”, but you will always be a male, hence my referring to you in the masculine sense.

  122. @ “Clare” ……

    “We cannot look into the heart of someone to determine whether or not he is saved, but there are two things we can examine: profession and actions.

    First of all, the person who would confess the basic biblical doctrines of Christianity such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, his physical resurrection, justification by grace of faith, etc., is affirming the necessary elements that must be held by faith to be Christian. But, if someone denies that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead physically, or denies justification by grace and faith in Christ alone, and other such essential Christian doctrines and refuses to affirm biblical truth even after proper teaching, then we can safely say that such a person is not saved.  Take for example what Jesus said in John 8:24, “unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.” Jesus was claiming divinity, as is later evidenced by Him using the divine name of God “I AM” in John 8:58 (see Exodus 3:14). The deity of Christ (that he is God in flesh, Col. 2:9), is a necessary doctrine in the Christian faith. So, if someone were to deny openly such an essential doctrine, we could say that the person is not saved.

    Second, a person’s actions need to be examined to see if they’re consistent with his profession. 1 John 2:4 says, “If you say you know him and do not keep his Commandments, the truth is not in you and you are a liar.” So, if someone professes to be a Christian and yet behaves in a manner contrary to that profession, then we would naturally doubt his salvation.

    So, let’s say that someone is confessing Christ as Savior, but is openly and unrepentantly involved in an adulterous relationship. Such lack of conviction of sin, and lack of struggle against it, is a strong indication that the person does not have the Spirit of God within him. It would be evidence that such a person is not saved.

    Finally, we must be very careful not to be too judgmental too quickly. It is a serious thing to say that someone is or is not saved. If you are unsure about the salvation of someone, then you should pray for that person, ask God to work in a person’s life, and ask the Lord to give you wisdom.” Matt Slick

    Reading your blog takes the reader into a world of fantasy in regards to scripture, books not even the bible yet quoted as if canonical – I’m not buying it.

  123. So do you approve of prepubescents having medical procedures because they think they are girls when they are boys, Greg? It’s happening in the UK.

    And parents don’t really know what to do about it because the homosexual/lesbian lobby has society in such a twist they don’t know what they dare say or do!

    And Clare, who has been treated with a high degree of respect here, despite his/her lack of understanding of why Bible believing Christians might be affronted by the push for the surrogate ‘equal’ marriage ambit of the homosexual and lesbian lobby, of which s/he is a fully paid up member, may, or may not have had a/n un/natural surgical procedure or two to redesign what God had given him/her, but, regardless of his/her true gender, has been given every opportunity to rationally put his/her case.

    Are you confused over Clare yet? The nature of delusion is confusion. God is not the author of confusion, but he does allow delusion in those who refuse him.

    Did you know there is a definite push by some academics to remove every reference to gender in the English language, especially on signage, so we don’t risk offending anyone? There are families who are being asked to experiment with not calling their children him or her, she or he, male or female, his or hers, boy or girl, to see how it all works out.

    This is the world we are being asked to live in. Risk free correctness, which is a false kind of human righteousness, and you know what God thinks of that bag of rags.

    Let’s get rid of all risk taking in life! Let’s stop children eating worms and mud and dirt, the very things which help build an immunity into their systems.

    Let’s not risk calling a homosexual unnatural in his affections. No, let’s say they were born this way. They can’t help it. They have no control over themselves. They must have anal sex. Anal sex is perfectly normal and natural. We men were built for it.

    Really? In fact the draught was created for extraction only and not for reception. It is made to eject, not to accept delivery. Nature itself announces this with a rather large sign!

    The other end of that tunnel contains human refuse! Is that any place to shunt male seed?

    Of course the other, accompanying sign is that, unless protective apparatus is used in male to male anal sex there is very high risk of infection, and, because the lining wall is fragile, tearing which can also lead to infection.

    Whereas the action of a penis in a vagina is, provided it is not with more than one partner, perfectly safe, totally design friendly, and the only reason you’d need to wear a condom is if you were attempting to prevent fertilisation of the seed, which, after all, is what natural sexual intercourse is all about.

    Let’s not risk saying gay marriage is wrong. Let’s not offend the poor little homosexual fraternity by saying we, as Christians, agree with God that homosexual sex, especially in males, is an abomination, partly for the aforementioned reasons, is sin, as decreed by God in the Word, and therefore, should not be included in any communal marriage ceremony as the Law of the Land.

    You need to wake up, mate.

    And you, Greg, bumble in on this conversation, twice now, with your assertive, aggressive male indignant rage about a major issue which has, otherwise, been discussed with passion, prose and poise, apart from one or two vain attempts, mostly by yourself and Bones, at casting ignorant insults, and you have the gall to think you actually have a handle on both the debate and the issues, when it is clear from your approach and eventual self-extraction, on apparently indignant moral grounds, that you do not have a clue what is at stake here.

  124. @Greg

    It is most definitely black and white. “Clare” was born a male and will die a male. No amount of wishing or medical procedures will change that fact. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that. I only wrote what I did to explain why I am calling him a he, no other reason. You’re a sensitive guy aren’t you Greg? It must be sooo taxing on you to spend all that time seeking man’s approval.

  125. @ Greg – I know you care for people of all stripes, loving them unconditionally. However, your “gospel” is not the biblical gospel and we could argue back and forth about that. I really care that one day you WILL know that your words were misleading and those you counselled and whose behaviour you approved, will end up in that Hell you don’t believe in.

    Isaiah 5:20 – you are calling “good evil and evil, good.”

    You prefer your own reasoning to what has been “divinely revealed, the councils and declarations of God”.

  126. @Steve

    Wow! Great stuff again! (extending my “love-athon” – there you go Greg!)

  127. @Steve and Margot

    Check out the video on this website. Even though it is about the media enquiry that the Federal Government instituted, it applies equally to what we are talking about here regarding freedom of speech.

    http://theforbiddenhistory.com/

  128. @wazza

    “if Clare were able to marry a girlfriend, would it be a sin?”

    Bit of a silly question, but at the risk of giving you the answer you are fishing for, thereby possibly setting myself up for some kind of “gotcha”, I’ll attempt to answer – it depends on whether his “girlfriend”really is a girl.

  129. @wazza

    Well, “Clare” is a male, his girlfriend is a female, so I guess, no. Ok, now cue wazza with his “gotcha”! Probably something to do with “girl bits”, but, anyway, off you go

  130. Wally,
    If Clare identifies as male, which I think s/he is, s/he can already marry a girl. Can you suggest how s/he might consummate the marriage, though?

    A good get-out clause, though, since, if it can be shown consummation has not taken place, the marriage can be easily annulled.

    How would this work for a male couple, wahlee? Surely they, too, would be unable to consummate their marriage. I don’t think anal sex counts as consummation, do you?

  131. Hmm, there are indeed a large number of cucks, crazies , losers and nutters who turned out to be right.

    Most of them however are just cucks, crazies, loser and nutters who are wrong. And I reserve my rights to tell them they are wrong.

  132. Oh the debate is obvious. You want to continue making the vast majority of non-Christians become part of your religious law. That’s no different to sharia law.

    You are on a moral crusade trying to create fear with a tired argument which has been used time and time again whenever there has been change in society. Only thing is people are tired of it.

    It’s hard for Christians to believe they are in a secular society when they are used to telling people what to do. Only now no one is listening.

  133. Steve, there are some heterosexual married couples who cant consummate the marriage for various reasons.

    Are you suggesting theirs is not a valid marriage?

  134. Interesting that many on that list of Forbidden History were condemned by conservative Christians: Galileo, Martin Luther King, Mandela. Mandela proved that not even restrictions on the freedom of speech can prevent the waves of social change. No matter how much conservative Christians try to stop it.

  135. @ Bones – the narrow way no longer appeals to you?

    “Christ came to teach us, not only what we are to know and believe, but what we are to do; not only toward God, but toward men; not only toward those of our party and persuasion, but toward men in general, all with whom we have to do. We must do that to our neighbour which we ourselves acknowledge to be fit and reasonable. We must, in our dealings with men, suppose ourselves in the same case and circumstances with those we have to do with, and act accordingly.

    There are but two ways right and wrong, good and evil; the way to heaven and the way to hell; in the one or other of these all are walking: there is no middle place hereafter, no middle way now. All the children of men are saints or sinners, godly or ungodly. See concerning the way of sin and sinners, that the gate is wide, and stands open. You may go in at this gate with all your lusts about you; it gives no check to appetites or passions. It is a broad way; there are many paths in it; there is choice of sinful ways. There is a large company in this way.

    But what profit is there in being willing to go to hell with others, because they will not go to heaven with us? The way to eternal life is narrow. We are not in heaven as soon as we are got through the strait gate. Self must be denied, the body kept under, and corruptions mortified. Daily temptations must be resisted; duties must be done.

    We must watch in all things, and walk with care; and we must go through much tribulation. And yet this way should invite us all; it leads to life: to present comfort in the favour of God, which is the life of the soul; to eternal bliss, the hope of which at the end of our way, should make all the difficulties of the road easy to us.

    This plain declaration of Christ has been disregarded by many who have taken pains to explain it away; but in all ages the real disciple of Christ has been looked on as a singular, unfashionable character; and all that have sided with the greater number, have gone on in the broad road to destruction. If we would serve God, we must be firm in our religion. Can we often hear of the strait gate and the narrow way, and how few there are that find it, without being in pain for ourselves, or considering whether we are entered on the narrow way, and what progress we are making in it?” Matthew Henry

  136. So Clare can’t be a Christian because she is transexual?

    How does she repent of that?

    What of hermaphrodites?

    (Did Christian eunuchs ever marry? Is marriage just about sex?)

  137. Bones,
    You’re completely on your own on the shariah law charge. What a silly argument that is.

    What does shariah have to do with sin? If God calls homosexual sex sin, then what has that to do with the law? It is a fact. Or is sin now acceptable for Christians?

    For instance, are you now allowed to murder if you feel like it? Would it now be shariah because I say to you that murder is a sin? Of course not. I am not a Muslim.

    I am a Christian under instruction from Christ, who reminds me not only that I should not murder, but that hatred itself is akin to murder.

    He also confirms, clearly, that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that no man should interfere with this, because i is God’s arrangement.

    Get back into reality and argue with something sensible and applicable to truth.

    wazza2,
    I have already pointed out that there would be extreme cases where consummation was not possible because of age or genuine infirmity. I said the case of two healthy males or females would not count.

  138. Margot, what other beliefs would you like to force on non-Christians?

    Would you like to see alcohol banned re prohibition? Why not ban divorce for offences other than adultery (including domestic violence).

    We do not live in a Christian society. Get over it. That’s the real debate. You think that society is going to hell over this one issue.

    If you lived in a Muslim country would you be trying to make Muslims act Christian or do what the Church is called to do; make disciples. Not be legislators of moral codes.

  139. @Bones

    “So Clare can’t be a Christian because she is transexual?”

    Is English your second language? You have major comprehension issues my friend. We never said anything of the sort. What we did say was that according to his blog, he is a New Ager, with a “make-it-up-as-you-go” belief system, and not a born-again believer. Try to keep up

  140. “You’re completely on your own on the shariah law charge. What a silly argument that is.”

    Rubbish it is. It’s exactly the same. You are trying to enforce, as you have claimed the Biblical view of marriage on the rest of society. Muslims would like to enforce the Koran’s view on it and maybe Mormons might want to as well.

    In fact it’s the Muslim argument for sharia law in Western countries. If Christians can do it in a secular country, we can too.

  141. Oh I get it. you’re only ridiculing Clare because you don’t like her beliefs. Not that she’s different to you.

  142. Bones, I notice that whenever a person brings up a sound Biblical reason for opposing your point of view you resort to secular thinking, like some kind of shapeshifter.

    Of course, you ar absolutely right, and no one disagrees with you, that in a secular sense all of these things you are arguing for are right and correct and can be demonstrated to be, in a humanist way, correct.

    But…

    …from a Christian standpoint, which is where most of us are arguing from, what is right in a secular sense is not necessarily right from God’s perspective.

    Now. We need to know. Are you arguing as a secular humanist, or as a Christian?

  143. @Bones

    “you don’t like her beliefs”

    My goodness, please, please, please read the posts before your reply. Who said anything about not liking “Clare”? I don’t know “Clare”. All I know is that he has stated on his blog that he’s a New Age believer, not a Christian. He came on here pretending to be a Christian so I am simply calling him on it.

  144. Under the New Covenant, Clare has the opportunity to receive life.

    Christians do not have the right to kill people because they are sinners. They only have the right to love them and tell them the truth.

    We do not live under law, but under grace, and we are called to exhibit love.

    How is it love to lie to Clare and tell her gay marriage is acceptable to God when it is not?

  145. Whom God loves he chastises.

    Sometimes the truth isn’t what people want to hear.

    I’m not here to tickle ears.

  146. I am a Christian living in a secular country. If I lived in a Muslim country I wouldn’t be jumping up and down trying to change their marriage legislation. That’s not my role. You know Christians in Muslim countries. Are they trying to change the moral code? Or preach Christ crucified.

    Even Early Christians did that. In the midst of the excesses of pagan Rome, they didn’t call for a moral society but sought to transform it through the proclamation that Jesus is rise. He is Lord.

    And I am a humanist who believes that Jesus is God and therefore the greatest humanist there is.

  147. I’m not trying to change the marriage constitution. I like it as it is.

    I’m actually defending it.

    I’m doing my best to preserve it.

  148. I’m not God, but His Word represents His views.

    I can repeat His Word, and I’m authorised, nay, sent by Christ to do so.

    As is every believer.

    But you knew that.

    Bones, you’re an old fraud with your arguments at times.

  149. @ Bones – you say..

    “Margot, what other beliefs would you like to force on non-Christians?”

    Apparently in your zeal to protect his (“Clare”) rights, you’re not demonstrating any love for him at all. And for some reason, you just don’t see or care.

    I don’t get to force beliefs on anyone nor would I even try.

    I’m a sovereign grace believer, remember? God does the choosing and that choice may just include “Clare” if she hears the gospel and is brought to repentance. And by His grace, we get the opportunity to pray for the “Clares” of this world, that the Lord may show His mercy towards them as He has us.

  150. On Shariah, Iran accepts m-f transsexual people as women. They are extremely intolerant of gay people, but not trans people. In Iran, I would not be dead.

  151. Actually, I was trying to treat someone I didn’t know with courtesy and dignity, And I still would. I didn’t realise that I was condemning her to Hell by doing so.

  152. @Bones

    “I was trying to treat someone I didn’t know with courtesy and dignity,”

    How nice of you. Is that because you agree with him? Because if I remember correctly, when I first posted here you immediately began abusing me because you didn’t agree with me. A little consistency might be nice Bones, otherwise you may just make yourself appear a hypocrite.

    “I didn’t realise that I was condemning her to Hell by doing so.”

    Who is condemning him to hell? He condemns himself if he denies Christ

  153. Well, Clare, if you are a genuine hermaphrodite, I have no argument with who you are or what you think. I, emotionally at least, appreciate your dilemma. It would not be easy.

    I still do not accept that God will ever ratify a union between people of the same sex and allow it to be called holy matrimony.

    I also remain convinced that God considers homosexual sex to be sin, but no less than adultery or sex outside of the marriage bed.

    That is the reason for my apologetic here.

    I have no personal quarrel with you. You are a person. Jesus loves you and died for you.

    Thing is. If you are truly saved, are you my sister or brother? 😀

  154. Yours is the moral campaign, Bones.

    You are one of the moralists-in-chief here. You can find a moral integrity for any cause, even against the highest morality, which is that of heaven.

    Greg takes the cake though. He is such a moralist that he can out-moralise God.

    Greg is so much of a moralist that he things everything has a moral right to its own morality.

  155. No. I do not believe that God puts anyone in Hell.

    However, my earlier point has got lost in the rush. I asked Steve if he rejected the OT verses on homosexuality, and he said no. He is still happy to quote Leviticus 20 against us. But he does not want us dead. So, on what grounds do you pick and choose the first part of Lev 20: 13 and reject the “putting to death” bit?

  156. I’m not a moralist, Steve. I didn’t vote in the last election on the basis of homosexual marriage. Didn’t even think about it. I didn’t try to influence anyone either way.

    I’m not a politician.

  157. Roundhouse A little consistency might be nice Bones, otherwise you may just make yourself appear a hypocrite.

    It was interesting reading your first couple of posts and watch Evangelical Christians try to eat each other.

    This was an interesting series of posts which showed you aren’t very tolerant of people who have a different interpretation than you.

    https://signposts02.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/bill-johnson-the-lords-prayer-reveals-gods-will/

    Specifically May 4

    So, judging by what I am reading from wazza, Bones, and now you Margot, none of you believe the bible. Interesting…….

    The problem with wazza, Bones, Zorro and Margot is that they are literalists, either by virtue of their attending denominational, law-loving and spiritually dead churches, or, methinks, just to be downright difficult. They usually follow the letter of the law, rather than seeking the spiritual truths behind what is written, but in this case, because the text is so plain and easy to understand, yet flies in the face of their own earthly experiences, they go all “no, you are” and start with their childish little name-calling and tantrums.

    You quickly showed your ignorance and judged those who disagreed with you don’t believe the Bible.

  158. In fact, Clare, I didn’t say I use anything against you (plural).

    I have not commented on you (plural), except to say that I do not support the concept of revising ‘equal’ marriage, because marriage as it stands is accurate to its own terms and is already equal in the sense that all people over a defined age, from whatever ethnicity, race, culture, creed, gender, marital age, or physical condition can marry, provided they are of the opposite sex, are not already married, and no closer than cousins in blood.

    I have never, ever preached Leviticus 20 against a homosexual. That is not my way, anyway.

    I preach truth as it is written.

    If the truth convicts a person, or convinces them of their need of Christ, repentance or confession, then it is the Holy Spirit at work, in conjunction with the Word, and I am only a vessel.

    I told you I am a New Testament believer. All Christians are. There were no Christians under the Old Testament. The Law was given to Israel, not the Nations.

    However, the Old Testament is given to us as examples of how to live, of why we should obey God, of what it is that God requires of us, an how we should respond to Him.

    He has made it clear, in the Old Testament, that homosexual sex is an abomination. That was His word. Hebrew, towbah, meaning ‘a disgusting thing, ritually unclean, and ethically wicked’.

    In other words, God does not like a man to lie with another man in the same way he lies with a woman, meaning sexually, which, under Jewish law and custom, meant in marriage, since it was also a sin with a death penalty, for man to lie with a woman outside of marriage, which gives a clear indication of what God thinks of a potential shift to homosexual marriage.

    When you compare this to the New Testament, where Christians are told not to stone people to death, or put them to death for anything, but rather to forgive them and leave all judgement of sin to God Himself, you will still see that God considers a man lying with another man in a sexual relationship to be sin. He has not changed his mind simply because he annulled the Law of Moses by bringing in righteousness through faith.

    So please don’t put words into my mouth.

    Everything I have written here to clarify my position is discoverable in your Bible.

    I hope you find it soon and believe it.

  159. Steve is right.

    Interesting that lying is an abomination like homosexuality.

    The Old Testament gives us other examples to live by:

    Leviticus 7:18 If any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering is eaten on the third day, he who offers it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to him; it shall be an abomination, and he who eats of it shall bear his iniquity.

    Leviticus 11:10-19 – (6) “But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is an abomination to you. They shall remain an abomination to you; of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall have in abomination. Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to you.”

    “And these you shall have in abomination among the birds, they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey, the kite, the falcon according to its kind, every raven according to its kind, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk according to its kind, the owl, the cormorant, the ibis, the water hen, the pelican, the carrion vulture, the stork, the heron according to its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.”

    Leviticus 11:20 “All winged insects that go upon all fours are an abomination to you.”

    Leviticus 11:23 “But all other winged insects which have four feet are an abomination to you.”

    Leviticus 11:41 “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is an abomination; it shall not be eaten.”

    Leviticus 11:42 “Whatever goes on its belly, and whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet, all the swarming things that swarm upon the earth, you shall not eat; for they are an abomination.”

    Leviticus 19:7 “If it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an abomination.”

    Isaiah 66:17 “Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, says the LORD.”

    Deuteronomy 22:5 “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.”

    Deuteronomy 23:18 “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot, or the wages of a dog, into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow; for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God.”

    Judges 20:6 “And I took my concubine and cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel; for they have committed abomination and wantonness in Israel.” (Referring to the rape and murder of the concubine of a Levite who was a guest.)

    Proverbs 3:32 for the perverse man is an abomination to the LORD, but the upright are in his confidence.

    Proverbs 6:16-19 There are six things which the LORD hates, seven which are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers.

    Proverbs 11:20 Men of perverse mind are an abomination to the LORD, but those of blameless ways are his delight.

    Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who act faithfully are his delight.

    Proverbs 16:5 Every one who is arrogant is an abomination to the LORD; be assured, he will not go unpunished.

    Proverbs 17:15 He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.

    Proverbs 28:9 If one turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.

    Isaiah 41:24 Behold, you are nothing, and your work is naught; an abomination is he who chooses you. (Worshipers of people who set themselves up as gods.)

    Malachi 2:11 Judah has been faithless, and abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the LORD, which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god.

  160. Oh, but you are moralist, Bones, and very political.

    You take up arms with any cause which is the opposite to what you see as an evangelical perspective. Wazza2 is the same, but more of a gotcha critic who surfaces when he is reasonably certain he can’t lose a point, and consequently silent when he does. Not really a risk-taker like you. Greg is his own animal. A Pseudo-Catholic on steroids.

    You moralise for the minority group.

    Moralise: comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority. Yes, that’s you!

    I have said it is an admirable trait in you, and a potential weapon for good, but it is sometimes stubbornly misguided, and I’ve considered your approach close to antichrist at times because you seem to defend issues even against the Biblical record, and even been prepared to decry the accuracy of scripture to force your agenda, which is why you have often had your claim to being a Christian challenged at various times.

    But, regardless, you bring out the best in people because you, unlike wazza or Greg, are prepared to take a chance with your own judgment and challenge what you see as the the gross in defence of the pretty.

    I’m OK with that. Just don’t like the name-calling.

  161. Wow! Bones got out his Concordance! This could be the start of something big.

    Of course, the eating of unclean things was rescinded under the New Testament when God told Peter he could eat anything and it was not to be regarded as unclean, and this was a foreshadowing of God accepting the Goyim, the Nations into the fold.

    So it is now OK to eat insects with your salad if you so choose!

    Still no change on homosexual sex though. Oh well!

  162. And once again Bones shows his hatred for the bible. Using Old Testament scripture and throwing them in our faces as if they are dog faeces. I’ve seen this kind of thing from atheists many times, but never from someone who professes Christ. I am so grieved that Bones displays such disgust for the word of God.

  163. That reminds me, I once had an accidental insect meal on a missions trip to Indonesia, when a dish contained a cockroach in the sauce was served up. It didn’t go down too well, and attempted several times to come up later, but we managed to preach on, anyway.

    I’m gad to say, having read scripture, that it wasn’t ritually unclean, but my stomach wouldn’t agree.

  164. Don’t take it personally, Roundhouse. The NT confirms that lying, deception, justification of wickedness, condemnation of righteousness, turning ones back on the law, prostitution, adultery, perversion and homosexual acts are an abomination to God, so producing OT scripture to confirm it is helpful.

  165. And once again Bones shows his hatred for the bible. Using Old Testament scripture and throwing them in our faces as if they are dog faeces. I’ve seen this kind of thing from atheists many times, but never from someone who professes Christ. I am so grieved that Bones displays such disgust for the word of God.

    You are a hypocrite.

    I’m showing you how the Old Testament is used inconsistently on the basis that one thing is an abomination to God whereas other things aren’t anymore.

  166. Yeah I like the lying and deception one. You can apply that to much of Fundamentalist Christianity who will lie, deceive, manipulate the truth anyway they can to dishonestly win an argument.

  167. Moralise: comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority. Yes, that’s you!

    So what do you think I believe about gay marriage?

  168. @Bones

    “You are a hypocrite”

    Explain to me how I am a hypocrite. All I am doing is pointing out your hypocrisy. How is that hypocritical of me?

  169. Because you claim you see when you don’t.

    Now show me how I have disgust for the Word of God and I hate the Bible.

    Typical overreaction and personal attack.

    Of course you could have presented an argument which would have been what exactly?

  170. Roundhouse.
    Bones finds it easier to play the man than actually try to win the ball. That way it seems as if he is producing a reasonable argument abut the issue, whereas, in fact, he is arguing about the person.

    Bones,
    So what do you think I believe about gay marriage?

    You tell me.

    I know what you think about Roundhouse and Clare, but not about the subject in hand. That’s very telling!

    You can apply that to much of Fundamentalist Christianity who will lie, deceive, manipulate the truth anyway they can to dishonestly win an argument.

    Really? That is a high call. The whole of Fundamentalist Christianity, eh?

    Now I know you can’t be taken seriously.

    And you say you’re not a moralist!

    Just a judge, then!

  171. So what you are telling us is that you have a chip on your shoulder about certain people, but you can’t say why except they are from a certain group?

    Is there a medication for that?

  172. So, Bones, now that we have got that out of the way, tell us why, or on what basis, you support equal marriage and, therefore, by association, gay marriage,

  173. Bones,
    I’m showing you how the Old Testament is used inconsistently on the basis that one thing is an abomination to God whereas other things aren’t anymore.

    Is that right?

    I thought you were cut and pasting from your online concordance all the references to ‘abomination’ from the OT.

    Which to me is a confirmation of what we’ve been saying all along, but, somehow, to you, is a refutation of everything we’ve been saying.

    Strange.

    Perhaps you should have pointed out the alleged discrepancy so we could respond.

    All I see is a list of things which demonstrate that God is still, apart from eating of certain foods, saying that these particular things are sin, and an abomination to him.

    Now we understand that, and no one is denying that lying, deception, denying the Word, supporting wickedness, and the rest, including homosexual acts, are listed as both sin and an abomination to God.

    When we put that into context with the argument here, if you do indeed adhere to the Word of God as your guide, you could only conclude that, amongst other things, homosexual acts are abominable t God, and therefore, should not feature in a marriage covenant.

    What is hard about that?

    Unless you actually don’t believe what you yourself have produced as evidence of what God abhors.

  174. What the hell are you talking about?

    I have presented arguments against:

    the false thin edge of the wedge argument that Christians use against gay marriage (and every gay right including decriminalisation). For which Christians like myself are going to let paedophiles out to rape my own children apparently. Disgraceful argument.

    the argument that Christians are going to be persecuted when no such thing I know of is happening in the 10 countries that legislate for gay marriage including Catholic Spain

    the argument that it is all a Marxist plot when it reality it is an extension of the civil rights movements

    that Christians have tried to legislate and impose their own morality on the rest of the population which led to more problems than at the start

    that it is not the role of Christians to be moral police for the rest of the population

    If people want to play rough. I’ll play rough too. I just won’t hide behind the Bible.

    Just a judge, then!

    That’s right Your Honour. You’ve taught me well.

  175. Finally, Bones stop playing the man and says something. Phew!

    I agree with your first comment. Homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles that any other, ad it is a poor argument, which I already discussed, and which Roundhouse qualified.

    You created a diversion on persecution which was more akin to redneck shooters than the less violent politically correct subversion which is already taking place, and which is indeed marginalising Christians. Have you tried to wear a cross as a hospital worker anywhere?

    Socialism is indeed bent on introducing the idea that academia knows better than plebdom. There’s an inquiry going on in UK called the Levenson Inquiry, and one in Australia called something like the Finklestine Commission as we speak, which may be about other issues, but actually feature the right to free speech. Maybe you don’t read the newspapers anymore. After all they’ve been watered down to left-speak for so long you can work out what will be said before it happens. That’s why blogs have become so powerful… for now. So, the gay thing, as I told you, is about using the socialist agenda as a means to an end, which assists the marxist focus whether it believes it or not.

    Which Christians are trying to legislate to impose their morality on anyone regarding marriage? None! We are asking for it not to be changed, because we agree it is already appropriate. It is the gay lobby which is forcing change. Are you still going to argue this mute point?

    We are called to be salt and light, Bones. The savour of our community. Judgment begins at the Household of God. If we can’t judge our own hearts in regard to what marriage is, then how can we be salt to the world when they work out what they want.

    And you claim to be playing tough after everyone else has somehow been tough on you, when in fact you are the one who came out with the peashooter insults.

    And you think others are hypocrites!

  176. Wow, Bones, I just realised what you are saying.

    Hiding behind the Bible!

    That is such a crass, lowlife comment.

    How you demonstrate, as Roundhouse says, your contempt, not only for the Word of God, but for His people.

    I don’t think I really need to be even discussing this with you anymore.

    You think you can insult God and his people in one angry phrase and be taken in any way seriously?

    Sheesh!

  177. @Steve

    “Wow, Bones, I just realised what you are saying.

    Hiding behind the Bible!

    That is such a crass, lowlife comment.”

    Yep, he’s proved my point perfectly, don’t you think?

  178. Einstein once observed “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

    How ironic it is, then, that Bones has Einstein as his avatar – Bones the pseudo-intellectual pseudo-Christian, who is so proud of all he knows, and who spouts off reams of information (and the ideas of others) at the slightest provocation – but who himself is singularly lacking in the far more important attribute of imagination.

    Einstein also noted that “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination”, which is also apropos regarding Bones. Bones thinks he is intelligent because he has amassed knowledge, but the true poverty of his intellect is clearly displayed by the distinct paucity of his imagination. Not only that, but men can acquire knowledge and proudly parade facts all in their own strength – but imagination is something that is innate: it is a gift from God. Bones does not know God, and is therefore not in a position to receive from Him any gifts, including that of imagination.

    I think that Bones’ rancour is the result of his deep-seated frustration at reaching for the things of God, but doing so in the weakness of sinful flesh. He desperately wants to be somebody, and he can’t understand why, despite all his efforts, he finds himself constantly thwarted. He needs to repent and turn to God, trusting in the finished work of Christ on the cross. He needs to humble himself and believe – only then can he know the freedom and the joy that comes not from becoming the person that we wish to be, but rather the person that God destined us to be – even before the foundation of the world.

  179. Even atheists get it……

    “When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.”

    – Theodore Dalrymple

  180. I indicated he was an atheist and I knew his father was a communist, Greg.

    I didn’t conveniently/purposely leave anything out, I had just read the above (as quoted) elsewhere and was reminded of those here who choose to compromise the declared Word of God for the sake of appeasing the “minority”.

    Interesting thought “co-operating with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself” – sounds like those who call good evil,and evil good.

  181. Bones has gone very quiet. Could he have finally seen the absurdity of his argument? Has he realised that denying the truth in the bible doesn’t make that truth untrue? One can only pray that he has.

  182. Funny how noone actually responds to my arguments. Because you can’t.

    Instead play the man.

    You ain’t got nothin left.

    I agree with your first comment. Homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles that any other, ad it is a poor argument, which I already discussed, and which Roundhouse qualified.

    You don’t even understand it. The argument that Roundhead uses is that if gays are allowed to marry then so too paedophiles and those who support the former will support the latter. That argument has been used since homosexuality was decriminalised. If homosexuality isn’t a crime, why not paedophilia?

    You created a diversion on persecution which was more akin to redneck shooters than the less violent politically correct subversion which is already taking place, and which is indeed marginalising Christians. Have you tried to wear a cross as a hospital worker anywhere?

    Huh. Are Christians being persecuted in countries where gay marriage is legal?

    Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden.

    Simple question really.

    Socialism is indeed bent on introducing the idea that academia knows better than plebdom. There’s an inquiry going on in UK called the Levenson Inquiry, and one in Australia called something like the Finklestine Commission as we speak, which may be about other issues, but actually feature the right to free speech. Maybe you don’t read the newspapers anymore. After all they’ve been watered down to left-speak for so long you can work out what will be said before it happens. That’s why blogs have become so powerful… for now. So, the gay thing, as I told you, is about using the socialist agenda as a means to an end, which assists the marxist focus whether it believes it or not.

    I’ll say it again. The gay rights movement is part of the children’s, workers, women’s, blacks rights movements. Are they all socialist, Marxist movements? Dr King of course was called a communist for preaching freedom to all.

    Which Christians are trying to legislate to impose their morality on anyone regarding marriage? None! We are asking for it not to be changed, because we agree it is already appropriate. It is the gay lobby which is forcing change. Are you still going to argue this mute point?

    Actually it’s an extension of their civil rights. If it is not illegal to be gay and they are to be treated as normal human beings then on what grounds does modern, SECULAR society have to deny them. That’s the argument. You can put all the Bible verses you want but you are living in a SECULAR society.

    Btw Roundhead and Zorro are just trolls with nothing to say. I’m not even gonna bother read what they say anymore.

  183. I’ve actually had conversations with atheists who use entirely the same approach as these three false brethren. It’s like some kind of deja vu. Spooky! Especially when you consider they’re supposed to represent Christ.

  184. @Steve

    I made that point in the other thread. I have had quite a few conversations with atheists both on blogs and also in person, and every one of them, without fail, has presented me with the exact same arguments that these three have. It is very telling.

  185. Am I one of the “false brethren”, Steve? And why should the fact that an atheist puts it damn any moral argument? Are not atheists capable of thinking and acting morally?

  186. I’ve had some conversations with Islamists who use entirely the same approach as Steve and Roundhead (false believers!). It’s like some kind of deja vu. Spooky! Especially when you consider they’re supposed to represent Christ.

  187. No you haven’t Bones. You don’t even know what you’re talking about, let alone listening to.

    In fact, I’m asking for marriage to remain as it is because it is clearly true to Christ’s definition. That is all. Why is that anything to do with militancy, sharia or even Islam?

    Are you calling Jesus Islamic, now?

    Tell me the one thing you’ve avoided thus far. What is your definition of marriage…

    1) According to Jesus’ words in the NT

    2) According to your revised definition for homosexual and lesbian inclusion?

    Greg,
    There is no mention of gay marriage in the Bible (except, possibly, the account of the ‘covenant’ of David and Jonathan).

    I almost missed this one, Greg.

    Is this an example of your exegesis ability?

  188. @ Steve – here’s a interesting (recent) news story. Would you agree this may apply across the globe?

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/americans-have-no-idea-how-few-gay-people-there-are/257753/

    @ Zeibart – you say you have significant disagreements with Greg ?Can you tell us what those disagreements are?

    In light of how things are led in that environment (Zac’s Place), is it a case of people sitting around saying “this is what it means to me” rather than someone in clear leadership saying “this is what the Bible actually says”?

    Having attended yourself, would you voice those concerns?

  189. Yes, thank you, Margot. I would agree that certainly in the developed nations the perceived percentage is far higher than the true count.

    If we were to examine their vocal and activist volume it is clearly louder than its actual numeric presence, which is an astonishing achievement for such a minority.

    It is also a factor with some religious groups, especially Islam, that the same overdeveloped sense of presence is felt. The reasons are plain. They are single minded, actively engaged, cashed up, focused and tenacious.

    The percentage of Christians, whether nominal or devout, is far higher.

  190. One of the major reasons for the overestimation of the number of gays is their representation in Tv and movies. Very simple.
    And they are usually positively presented – unlike religious people.

    (Sorry, I’d love to make more comments on this subject, but I need to wait until I can get more concise.)

    In short, I disagree vehemently with Bones and Greg, but I think that Greg is doing a good thing with that place of his. He just loves people.

    But, each day that i read the news and observe this discussion, I realize more and more that marriage between a man and a woman is the basis of any society – not just Christian. It’s beautiful and needs to be encouraged. Show me a totally non-Christian country where the family unit breaks down and i’ll show you a country in trouble.

    That’s where I disagree with you Steve. I don’t see a Christian world and a secular world. God’s ways work for all humans. If there’s something that is good and just and right – it works for atheist Chinese as well as C3 people and Catholics.

    That’s why Jesus and Paul could say “even the heathen …”

  191. Marriage between a man and a woman is beautiful. Sadly, not many of us have marriages as good as what we could and should. I think a good marriage begins when we are children – so this may sound a little off topic, but we need to raise boys to be good husbands and girls to be good wives. We need to resist the efforts to legalize gay marriage, but at the same time it should be a wake-up call for us to encourage, nurture and protect normal marriage.

  192. @ Q – no disagreement there. We have been married 44 years and of course it’s not perfect and in that imperfection IS all the “good”. Must have done something right, raising 5 children with happy (not perfect :)) marriages and 18 grandchildren. Our son looked to his father as an example all his life and it’s reflected in his character today. A character
    soon to be tested with the addition of twin daughters (or she-cubs as he calls them) to his grwoing brood.

  193. A response to the above article from Stand To Reason blog…..

    May 30, 2012Same-sex Marriage Arguments

    A columnist in the Chicago Tribune wrote a column about why the arguments against same-sex marriage fail. I certainly appreciate that he responds to the arguments with rational responses rather than ad hominem attacks or red herrings. That’s a refreshing change. But I still think his responses fall short of undermining the reasons. Here’s why.

    “Gay marriage violates tradition.” He says that tradition is a mixed bad and expanding rights requires overturning it. In principle, he’s right. But we don’t appeal to tradition just for the tradition’s sake. “We’ve always done it this way.” it’s a universal tradition across millennia, cultures, races, and religions. It’s pretty much universal tradition. So there’s a pretty big precedent that can’t be dismissed. And there’s reason behind this vast tradition. It’s the way societies work best to organize families to protect children to perpetuate the next generation. Look, tradition has been overturned before the push for same-sex marriage. It was most notably overturned in the U.S. when no-fault divorce was introduced and the sexual revolution ensued. Families have been eroding for a while now and the results aren’t good. Experience would argue that there was wisdom behind tradition and we should return to it instead of advancing on to further social experiments.

    “Gay couples can’t produce children.” He cites other cases of marriage we allow that don’t produce children. True enough, but citing exceptions doesn’t undermine the rule. In general, society’s interest in marriage is the children they produce. Same-sex marriage doesn’t create an exception but an entirely new class of marriages in which children do not result as a rule. While individuals may be free to engage in these relationships, society and government just don’t have a stake in them so marriage doesn’t apply.

    “Having a mom and a dad is better for children than having two moms or two dads.” All of our experience says so and so do studies. Study after study in the last 30 years has demonstrated the horrific consequences for children in single-parent families and broken homes. The damage to children and society as a result is significant. J. Warner Wallace guest hosted the radio program Sunday and opened the show commenting on this. You can listen here.

    “Legalizing same-sex marriage will put us on the slippery slope toward legalizing polygamy.” He asserts that same-sex marriage does not fundamentally alter the two-person model of traditional marriage. Only if you consider the sexes interchangeable. It’s not as though the two people being male and female is incidental to the traditional marriage. It’s a fundamental change to the definition. And there is a logical slippery slope between the way proponents of same-sex marriage justify their arguments and polygamy. Once the arguments are encoded in the law, there’s nothing in principle that keeps the justification for one from justifying the second. Supporters of same-sex marriage admit that further radical redefinition of marriage is part of the agenda.

    “Same-sex marriage trivializes and therefore weakens the institution of heterosexual marriage.” To the extent that heterosexuals have already weakened and trivialized marriage with divorce, living together, and out-of-wedlock parenting, the institution has already taken some significant hits. But that doesn’t mean we should make further changes that undermine it. And the fact is that homosexual couples haven’t taken advantage of the freedom to marry in significant numbers according to the U.S. Census and studies in other countries. That seems to indicate that the goal isn’t marriage as much as social acceptance that marriage conveys.

    “Homosexual behavior is immoral and ought not be encouraged.” He doesn’t want to argue morality. Fair enough. But arguments about morality aren’t simply based in religion. Largely, morality arguments are drawn from nature, which can give us a good justification for design and purpose. Greg gives a case here

    But all of this really is beside the point. The real issue is whether or not marriage is a right. It’s not. It’s nor more a right than a drivers’ license is a right. As far as goverment’s recognition of marriage, there is no right to either on. They’re civil arrangements that the goverment has an interest in. The only obligation to rights the government has is to treat equally all citizens who meet the qualifications. If you pass the driver’s test, you get a license. If you meet the qualifications for marriage, you also get a license and recognition from the government. And in that respect, everyone – heterosexual or homosexual – has exactly the same access to marriage: Each is equally free to marry one person at a time of the opposite sex. The qualification for marriage has never been to marry who you love, it’s bee to marry an individual that creates a union the government has an interest in. Everyone else is free to carry on relationships as they wish.

    It doesn’t come up in this column, but just because I think it’s such a good argument, here is Frank Beckwith’s explanation for why the analogy between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage fails.

    Posted by Melinda on May 30, 2012 at 03:00 AM in :Melinda Penner, Christianity & Culture, Ethics | Permalink

  194. “There is no mention of gay marriage in the Bible (except, possibly, the account of the ‘covenant’ of David and Jonathan).”

    You are a truly sick individual, Greg.

    You will see David at the judgement: he will be standing on God’s right along with all those who are righteous in Christ. You will be able to look him right in the eye, and you will know that there is nothing aberrant in him – nothing at all.

    So long as you draw breath there remains time for you to repent. I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes if you die without having done so.

  195. “You will be able to look him right in the eye, and you will know that there is nothing aberrant in him – nothing at all.”

    Unless of course you call falling in lust with another man’s wife, and then getting him killed so you can marry her aberrant.

    Anyway, we love you Zorro.

  196. @Zorro

    I’ve seen several books on David and Jonathan’s supposed homosexual relationship. Each one of them was written by a liberal academic. These authors lacked several things – a relationship with Christ, a grasp of the ancient Hebrew history, language and mindset, and the understanding that two men can have a close bond that transcends anything sexual. You look at the relationships that many soldier forged on the battlegrounds of most wars. They endure hardships by bonding in a way that none of us who has never been to war can understand. Men sharing foxholes in the dead of winter with nothing to warm themselves but each other’s body heat, or a constant bombardment of artillery where the only solace and peace you can find is in the embrace of another person. Sharing the spectre of imminent death gives men a connection that those of us in the real world simply cannot comprehend. But, none of it is sexual in any way. Of course, a person standing back and looking at the scene can very easily assume something different. But ask any returned soldier whether there was something else going on, and he will categorically state that without that bond he wouldn’t have made it through (that would be after you manage to get up off the ground after he has thumped you for even suggesting such a thing!). So, by grasping at the straw that David and Jonathan had a sexual relationship simply shows the ignorance of the person suggesting it.

  197. @ Wazza2 – concerning David, it is said of him (1 Ki. 15:5), That “he turned not aside from the commandment of the Lord all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.”

    In Psalm 51 he confesses his sin (v. 3-6)…..

    “For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against You, You only, have I sinned and done what is evil in Your sight, so that You may be justified in Your words and blamesless in Your judgement….”

  198. “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.”

    That’s what happens to those who are saved – God doesn’t count their sin against them. That you are blind to that simple truth is indicative of the fact that you yourself are not saved, the upshot of which is that God *does* count your sin against you. Your heart is completely devoid of understanding, and you are in deep, deep trouble.

    “Anyway, we love you Zorro.”

    You love the sound of your own voice, you love falsehood and lies, you love the delusion under which you labour. You are as lost as lost can be, and you are blissfully unaware that having professed yourself to wise, you have in fact become a fool.

    It is true that the glory of man is fleeting like the flowers of the field, and you will discover all too soon the truth of the matter when you stand before God to give an account of yourself.

  199. “Btw Roundhead and Zorro are just trolls with nothing to say. I’m not even gonna bother [to] read what they say anymore.”

    That’s really sad; I guess it means that we’ll never get to discover what your IQ is. Could you perhaps give us a hint? Is it a two-digit number, or can it perhaps be expressed in just one?

  200. How does one qualify to be a “troll” around here? By being in disagreement with Bones, Wazza2 and Greg?

    The opposite of good “netiquette” is trolling. This is where mean-spirited users purposely seek to cause disharmony, conflict, and bad feelings online.

    Now I’m really confuse!

  201. @Margot

    “How does one qualify to be a “troll” around here? By being in disagreement with Bones, Wazza2 and Greg?”

    That’s exactly it! Whenever they don’t like our arguments or questions, they resort to deflections, unicorns and name-calling.

  202. “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.”

    If I get saved will the Lord not count my homosexuality against me?

  203. @ wazza2 – do you honestly believe that we don’t understand grace? That though I’m found in Christ, I still live in the now/not yet? That sin still has its influence on me but….

    Phil 3:12-16 “12 Not that I have already attained this—that is, I have not already been perfected—but I strive to lay hold of that for which I also was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. 3:13 Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself to have attained this. Instead I am single-minded: forgetting the things behind and reaching out for the things ahead. 3:14 With this goal in mind I strive toward the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 3:15 Therefore, let those of us who are “perfect” embrace this point of view. If on some point you think otherwise, God will reveal this also to you. 3:16 Nevertheless, let us live up to the standard that we have already attained.”

  204. If I get saved will the Lord not count my homosexuality against me?

    Yes.

    He will however not count against you any antisemitic, racist or bigotted beliefs.

    Because we know the verses about calling evil good and good evil.

    God’s just like that.

  205. @Margot. So what we need is more people like you and your husband! So maybe you can start teaching the younger women….

    Not saying you’re old of course! 🙂

  206. “concerning David, it is said of him (1 Ki. 15:5), That “he turned not aside from the commandment of the Lord all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.”

    Once again Margot, you’ve mentioned something that i’d forgotten that answers some big questions.

  207. “But arguments about morality aren’t simply based in religion. ”

    Many people seem to forget that. It always astounds me the way people assume that the only people who aren’t in favor of legalizing gay marriage are fundamentalists of Abrahamic religion. It simple isn’t true. And as I’ve said before, the countries that want to legalize gay marriage are all historically Christian countries.

    Which, to me as a western Christian living overseas is an embarrassment.

    Many countries don’t want a Christianity that will teach their kids that it’s okay to be gay, or to have an operation to turn yourself into the other sex. They think it’s nonsense basically.

    Ironic isn’t it? The attraction of Christianity to other parts of the world has been the superior morality. But now it’s the opposite.

  208. Yes, well it’s amazing since Qld my home state and the best state on the Earth legislated for gay marriage, I have to report that nothing has changed. Life goes on normally. Still beautiful.

    Of course there are better places to live that ban gay marriage like below

  209. @Bones

    “I have to report that nothing has changed. Life goes on normally. Still beautiful.”

    As a God-despiser you only see in the natural. You’ve been given over to your fleshly passions and understanding, so you don’t know or see the things of God. You are blind to sin and unGodly ways because you live in the flesh, and as a result you only see what your sinful nature wants to see.

  210. @Roundhouse,

    “Whenever they don’t like our arguments or questions, they resort to deflections, unicorns and name-calling.”

    They are cowards all, and they are furthermore insipid, uninspiring, intellectually mediocre, spiritually dull, and completely lacking in imagination, creativity, or originality of thought. And those are their good points.

    Naturally enough they bitterly resent anyone who points out these things, whether directly or by implication.

  211. “If I get saved will the Lord not count my homosexuality against me?”

    Yours, Wazza? So now the truth comes out: you believe the lie because you have an itch that needs scratching.

  212. “I have to report that nothing has changed. Life goes on normally. Still beautiful.”

    Yes, and it was a warm sunny afternoon, and people in Sodom and Gomorrah were going about their business as usual – without a care in the world – just before fire rained down from heaven.

    You are a fool.

  213. “I have to report that nothing has changed. ”

    Maybe it hasn’t and won’t for you personally, but it will for others. And the effects won’t be known for decades. Life’s like that.

  214. “And those are their good points.”

    Zorro, you’ve been taking lessons from Bones, I see.

  215. I don’t know why you keep posting this stuff God-despiser. The more you post, the more ignorant you appear

  216. Of course the same thing was said when blacks were given their civil rights. It would be the end of civilisation as we know it and blacks will be rampant throughout the countryside raping all our white women. All because they weren’t the put in their proper place.

  217. Bones, I didn’t watch the video yet, but suffice it to say that because there are things you don’t like about a country in Africa that doesn’t legalize gay marriage doesn’t mean that gay marriage needs to be legalized in Australia.

    There might be countries where they cut of people’s hands for theft, but I still think stealing other people’s property is wrong, not good for society, and shouldn’t be allowed.

    Australia isn’t Uganda, or Old Testament Israel, or 18th century Georgia. Marriage is between a man and a woman, That’s all there is to it.

    I don’t think xrated sex scenes should be shown on television. Christians, Buddhists, and even some atheistic feminists think the same way. It doesn’t matter to the argument in Australia whether people kill or maim for producing or displaying pornography. I can still say that existing laws don’t need to be changed to allow xrated sex scenes on TV. And btw, there are obviously those who things there is nothing scientifically wrong with xrated sex scenes on TV. Indeed, some will argue that it’s natural. Maybe you will even argue that Christians can’t dictate morality to a secular society.

    But, I argue again that that thinking is nonsense.

    In conclusion, I’m not talking about Uganda at the moment. I AM interested in stopping gay marriage and adoption, and educating children that homosexuality is normal in the US and then Australia, because if it is allowed there, then people like you argue that other countries should follow suit.

    That’s why it’s so distressing that American with it’s Christian heritage is falling into this nonsense. Good on Billy Graham for making a simple but profound stand on the issue.

    So in short, no I don’t want to live in Uganda. But if I did, I wouldn’t want gay marriage to be legalized there.

  218. Sorry, that should have been

    ” It doesn’t matter to the argument in Australia whether people kill or maim for producing or displaying pornography. IN UGANDA OR OTHER COUNTRIES.

  219. In other words, the excesses of punishments for certain crimes or practices in other countries and in other times in history doesn’t influence my understanding of what should be allowed in Australia in the 21st century.

  220. Bones,
    The sun is still shining!,

    2 Peter
    3:1 ¶ Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder),
    2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior,
    3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,
    4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”
    5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,
    6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.
    7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

    8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
    9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
    10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

    I realised earlier that what Greg called ‘sarcasm, irony and rhetorical devices’ was, in fact, scoffing and mocking.

    The ultimate scoffer, as the Apostle Peter points out, is the one to say that the sky hasn’t fallen in, so where is God’s coming, where is his judgement, and make the mistake of pushing out deeper into liberalised lawlessness.

    Of course, the wrath of God hovers over us as we speak and is only withheld by His grace and mercy, for which we should all be grateful.

    But there will come a time when all heaven breaks loose and his wrath is released.

    Until then he is not slack concerning his promise, but he is remaining longsuffering and allowing evil to persist, not be cause he condones it, or promotes it, or permits it, so that more can be rescued from it.

    But he won’t withhold forever, and the sun won’t shine is beautiful Qld forever.

  221. @God-despiser

    For some strange reason you keep bringing up black civil rights, as if it in some way equates to God’s precepts about homosexuality. Either you’re not very smart, or you’re attempting to fling more unicorns. I’d like to think it’s the latter, but…..

  222. I simply believe that a baby girl is female. If she thinks that she is really a male on the “inside” whatever that means, it doesn’t change the fact that she is female, and should either grow up to marry a man or remain single. If whatever reason, she feels no attraction romantically or sexually to males and has no desire to marry, she can stay single and have all kinds of meaning relationships. But, I don’t agree with her surgically becoming a male, then marrying a female and adopting children and raising boys -or girls.

    I don’t know why some people have same sex attraction anymore than I know 100% of all the reasons why some people want to do al kinds of things. But that’s not the point. Marriage is between a man and a woman. I don’t see what is so difficult to understand about that.

    And no, David and Jonathon were not having gay sex with each other. Neither was Jesus is any kind of sexual relationship with women. To justify an unbiblical lifestyle, people would love to say so, but “just because that’s how you want it doesn’t mean it should be so”.

  223. I realise, incidentally, that placing scripture in the comments is a futile gesture as far as Greg, Bones and wazza are concerned, and I say that based entirely on their own comments here, but there are several people who do lurk here or look in – over 500 in a day last week, and up to 100 new visitors some days – so I like to put the Biblical perspective into the thread, not for these men who have openly made the decision to diminish the importance of scripture, but for anyone who is watching the discussion and deciding for themselves whether the basis of marriage, as presented by God in the Word, is comparable to that presented by those who have watered down the importance of God’s will revealed through scripture and seek to change the legal definition as we have it.

    Q
    I wholly concur with your comment that marriage should not only remain between a man and woman, but also be protected and for it to be taught to other generations so that they can be more successful at it than many others.

  224. “The sun is still shining”

    Yeah, I understand your point, but it’s not really a good one. Because the sun is still shining doesn’t mean things are good. The sun is still shining in Uganda. And the sun was still shining during the slavery years that you keep talking about.

    There are so many things that changed in our society which had ill effects which weren’t seen for years or decades. Society is paying now for the breakdown of marriage, and morality from decades ago.

  225. “Zorro, you’ve been taking lessons from Bones, I see.”

    “To the Jews I became like a Jew […] To those under the law I became like one under the law […] To those not having the law I became like one not having the law […].”

    Bones can give it out in spades, but he can’t take it.

    Like all bullies, he is a coward at heart.

  226. btw, the main reason I’m even commenting on this is because I realize that Christians and conservative people have failed through non-action. The gay movement has really taken over the debate in the public arena – and especially the internet. If you look at comments on blogs, news sites etc, the comments are ridiculously biased to anti-christian, anti-conservative thinking. So young people grow up now thinking that being anti-gay marriage is the same as being racist, or wanting to own slaves and all the other absurd ideas. People end up thinking that not only are the majority for gay marriage, but there are so many more gay people than there really are. So, NORMAL people have to get onto the internet and have their say.

    Not that Steve needs any help of course! But most people aren’t really brave and tend to follow the crowd. And the noisy crowd on the internet is pro-gay marriage. The only reason that the number of people who support gay marriage is increasing is because they increasingly doubt their own opinions. And others are too scared of being bullied.

  227. “Maybe you will even argue that Christians can’t dictate morality to a secular society.

    But, I argue again that that thinking is nonsense.”

    Well it’s not working. Christians haven’t been able to influence laws relating to pornography, abortion, alcohol, divorce, prostitution.

    That doesn’t mean that the government has said it is ok to show porn to kids, give alcohol to kids and and provide prostitutes to kids. A bit of common sense goes a long way.

    Marriage is recognised by secular law. It’s secular law that says who can marry, at what age, whether they are related, whether they’ve been divorced or not. It’s secular law that recognises the contract. There’s something called the separation of church and state. The Church absolutely hates it when the state intrudes on their territory (though they are happy to claim tax free status). On what basis does secular society tell law abiding gay citizens that they cannot marry?

    I AM interested in stopping gay marriage and adoption, and educating children that homosexuality is normal in the US and then Australia, because if it is allowed there, then people like you argue that other countries should follow suit.

    On what basis should governments tell homosexuals they are abnormal? Should a teacher tell a gay student they are not normal? On what basis should a teacher tell kids not to bash up gay kids when they’re not normal? Schools are about educating for society part of which is tolerating differences.

    And what do you see are the long term consequences of countries legalising gay marriage?

  228. “so that they can be more successful at it than many others.”

    Heterosexual marriage is hard enough. We need to work on that.

    Also, good point about lurkers. That’s why I made the point about commenting. The people who are most passionate about this are the ones making comments all over the internet. It’s sad that many see the ones who are ACTUALLY the majority as the minority view.

  229. I realise, incidentally, that placing scripture in the comments is a futile gesture as far as Greg, Bones and wazza are concerned, and I say that based entirely on their own comments here,

    I’m well aware of what the Bible says about homosexuality. The issue is why you expect secular society to hold the Bible as a standard for moral behaviour (but not the Koran nor anyone elses holy book) when society overlooks what the Bible says on prostitution, pornography, abortion, alcohol, divorce etc.

  230. I realize that Christians and conservative people have failed through non-action.

    I disagree. I think that many of the outspoken conservative types have caused more harm and have turned off people who would be ambivalent to the whole issue.

  231. Eg

    “The Australian Christian Lobby’s Jim Wallace in a debate with Dr Kerryn Phelps on same sex marriage on Channel 7′s Sunrise said that the campaign “would do great credit to Joseph Goebbels”.

    Phelps, who is both Jewish and gay, is a human rights activist campaigning for same sex marriages and is married to Jackie Stricker.

    Presenter and debate moderator David Koch cut Wallace off as soon as his remark was made…but the damage was done.

    Phelps told J-Wire: “It was highly offensive to both Jews and Gays to introduce to this issue a Nazi propogandist. We are involved in a valid struggle and Wallace’s remarks were those of a man with no argument. It was a desparate play.”

    Wallace’s full statement was “I would like to just say that I think this whole campaign would do great credit to Joseph Goebbels, because what we’ve had, we’ve had the demonisation”.

    A spokesperson for Jewish Gay and Lesbian group Aleph told J-Wire: “It is with extreme disappointment and dismay that a representative of an Australian religious organisation has invoked the name of one of the most feared people of the Holocaust, in comparison with a minority group who are campaigning for equal rights under Australian law.

    Tens of thousands of homosexual men were murdered under the hand of Joseph Goebbels, alongside many millions of Jews and people from a variety of national identities and religious beliefs. To be compared to this person, in the pursuit of equality and human rights is unconscionable. It beggars belief that an individual with a respected career in the Australian Defence Force is incapable of comprehending the gravity and insensitivity of the words he uttered on national television.

    from J-Wire

  232. “Well it’s not working.”

    Neither are laws against rape and murder. People are still getting raped and murdered. Does that mean we change the laws? No. People will always break laws.

    Christians haven’t been able to influence laws relating to pornography, abortion, alcohol, divorce, prostitution.

    Once again, I’m trying to say that it ISN’T ONLY CHRISTIANS that set laws and have opinions about all of the above. There are pornography laws in every country I know. Even ones that have less than one percent of Christians! But pornography still exists. So do we just have no laws about it? Is that what you suggest? I suggest that is wrong.

    “That doesn’t mean that the government has said it is ok to show porn to kids, give alcohol to kids and and provide prostitutes to kids”

    And that my friend is basically my whole argument. The weaker the laws regarding porn are the more likely kids will have access to it! And the worse the stuff they access. We will never have a perfect society, but laws are in place to protect people. So whereas once there were no topless scenes in movies, but now it’s hard to keep kids away from the most graphic pornography. But maybe if normal people (and/or Christians) had been more outspoken about things decades ago we wouldn’t have what we have now.

    Abortion? Yeah, people want to make abortion more available and in later stages. It’s not a good development. Should we argue that as Christians we aren’t allowed to say anything?
    Divorce? Exactly, divorce has become easier and easier. Do we have a better society? I don’t think so.

    Alcohol? Another good example. Are teenagers more or less likely to binge drink now than the old days of restricted hours.
    Prostitution? Yes, it always existed. But legalizing prostitution in the world hasn’t made men respect women any more, and it hasn’t even stopped foreign women and underage girls from being exploited.

    So no, I don’t think the answer is for Christians to think that porn, divorce, drugs, prostitution and abortion are just “churchie” matters. They effect everyone. If I were a principal of a secular public school I wouldn’t throw out all rules re above because I didn’t want to push Christian values on secular kids.

    And for the record Christian (bible values) are GOOD values. I’m not ashamed of them. I’m not embarrassed by them. They will help people and not hinder them, and they will keep them from harm. Prostitutes, porn, threesomes, etc etc don’t help anyone – INCLUDING non-Christians.

    “But t A bit of common sense goes a long way.”

    Yeah, I agree. The problem is that common sense isn’t so common anymore.

    “It’s secular law that says who can marry, at what age, whether they are related, whether they’ve been divorced or not. It’s secular law that recognises the contract.”

    Halelluya for secular law. I’m all for secular law. And I think the very sensible SECULAR law definition of marriage is the union between a man and woman. Guess what. That’s the definition in many secular countries! Why? Because allowing men to marry men is considered ridiculous by SECULAR lawmakers in secular countries.

    I like secular law. Some of it is based on Biblical principles but some of it in other countries is based on Confuscianism. Actually, this may surprise most of you – but I don’t think humans are that different.

    By the way – re your laws aren’t working. Speeding laws aren’t working either. People speed. But giving up and deciding that from now on we won’t have any speed limits would be a good idea? I don’t think so. Would that result in less accidents? I think not.

    “On what basis does secular society tell law abiding gay citizens that they cannot marry?”

    Well, if you don’t know the answer to that, maybe you could ask the japanese, Chinese, Singaporeans, Taiwanese, and your mother and father. It’s always been like that!!

    Okay, here’s what you tell them. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Okay, do I get a prize…? Wasn’t that simple!

    “On what basis should governments tell homosexuals they are abnormal?”
    Well, the could give them a basic biology lesson for one. Simple. It’s not rocket science.

    “Should a teacher tell a gay student they are not normal?”
    When I went to school I don’t know if students said to teachers. “Sir, I’m gay. Am I normal?”
    If the teacher can’t answer the question, then maybe they can say “I’m a math teacher, maybe you can go and see such and such.”
    But, I would hope that a teacher might see that the parents were consulted somewhere along the way.

    “On what basis should a teacher tell kids not to bash up gay kids when they’re not normal? ”

    On the basis that kids aren’t supposed to bash up other kids. I, like you don’t want to legalize all kinds of stuff, But I would stop kids from bashing up other kids for any kind of things -even if they were incredibly abnormal.

    Maybe you could just say. “No bashing is allowed in this school”
    Once again – a pretty simple answer. If a kid said, I am in love with my pet lobster and want to marry it, I would still stop kids from bashing him up. In fact, I’d stop kids from bashing other kids who said that were pedophiles. Bashing up is a completely different thing.

    …………….. this is getting tiring.

    Man I just realized that I came across as offensive. I’ll leave it stand as it would take too long to retype. No offense meant – as I just realized that you weren’t being offensive to me. Sorry.

    “And what do you see are the long term consequences of countries legalising gay marriage?”

    1. I’m against gay adoption.
    2. Legalizing gay marriage will definitely make it difficult or impossible for someone to state that they don’t consider homosexual relationships to be acceptable or to be encouraged. Teachers will be in very difficult situations. As will adoption services, some businesses, and religious organizations. Textbooks etc and lots of educational resources will also have to change.
    3. I think that legalizing gay marriage, obviously involves the acceptance of homosexuality and I think that will INCREASE the level of homosexual experimentation and confusions over sexual identity in not all, but some young people.

    That’s off the top of my head.

  233. Be gone for a few hours. I may have came across the wrong way so sorry if I did. Bones, I understand what you’re saying, and I’ve had many of the same thoughts before. Actually, you remind me of a smarter, more articulate version of myself in many ways.

    Good to see you’re a QLDer. At least we’ll on the same side come Wed night!

  234. Textbooks etc and lots of educational resources will also have to change.

    I’m fascinated by that statement. Please elaborate.

  235. Good to see you’re a QLDer. At least we’ll on the same side come Wed night

    Yep, The series will be over on Wednesday night.

  236. Correction. I don’t think gay people are abnormal. I think their sexual orientation is for want of a better word, abnormal.

    But I probably have many abnormal desires or inclinations too.

    LAter

  237. Q, I’m not saying the laws aren’t working. I’m saying the Christian lobbying and influence on those laws isn’t. On what basis should a secular society ban prostitution or divorce? I’m not saying those things are good, nor that they are for Christians but society is not bound by scripture.

    How do we empty the pubs and brothels? Follow the example of the Welsh Revival – tell people about Jesus. Not ban pubs and brothels!

  238. “Textbooks etc and lots of educational resources will also have to change.”

    To elaborate,

    In the same way that elementary school reading books have changed to reflect gender roles, there will no doubt be moves within education for textbooks across the board to reflect the presence in the community of relationships other than traditional heterosexual family units. Can’t give you concrete examples of the top of my head but I’m sure they are already out there in the US and will come.

    Obviously if there are courses for sex education, or life education or whatever they are called, there will no doubt be moves to explain that some boys will grow up to love other boys. But not only that, in reading books, math book examples or whatever there will no doubt be moves for their to be gay couples included – just like feminists argue for more female doctors in illustrations (not saying that’s wrong).

    You don’t think that will happen? I wouldn’t like to be a teacher in the public system who has to explain that homosexuality and gay marriage is normal.

    You don’t see that happening? I’ll do a search on it and see what I come up with.

  239. Okay, I didn’t know of any examples, but I just figured that it would be the logical progression. Not sure of the validity of this website,but my first result included this.

    “Eberhard van der Laan says the country’s school system must treat same-sex couples as a normal part of daily life. The 55-year-old father of five children is mayor of Amsterdam, which has been marketing itself as a destination for gay travellers. Now his call has been heard by Holland’s largest school book publisher.
    ‘At the moment schoolbooks do not reflect life here,’ says Frans Grijzenhout, director of the Noordhof Uitgeverij publishing house. ‘When a textbook deals with a family going on holiday, for example, the accompanying drawing will show a father, a mother and children. But there are other types of families.’
    In future Noordhof’s books will reflect the existence of same-sex parents in Holland. The country’s schoolbooks already deal with Holland’s multicultural society with depictions of Muslim girls wearing headscarves, says Grijzenhout. ‘In the same way we intend to bring homosexuality to children’s attention.’
    Holland’s association for the Integration of Homosexuals has welcomed the move. It says the ‘hetero-normality in schoolbooks’ should have done been away with long ago. For a long time the association has been observing a ‘decline in tolerance towards homosexuals’ in Holland.”

    I think Holland was one of the first places to legalize gay marriage, so they are ahead of Australia probably.
    Obviously this is seen as a good move by many, but not by others.

    The illustration given in this article was a math book. (Instead of a mother and father going out shopping it was two fathers”)

    Obviously, I realize that the “sun would still shine” if textbooks are like this and parents would be free to explain to their own kids at home their own thoughts on gay marriage. But, it will definitely make for a definitely different society.

  240. “I’m not saying the laws aren’t working. I’m saying the Christian lobbying and influence on those laws isn’t. ”

    Yeah, it seems that way. But maybe the lobbying isn’t working because Christians aren’t united – i.e. some sections of the church argue that gay marriage and abortion are okay.

    On what basis should a secular society ban prostitution or divorce?

    I don’t think a secular society has to ban divorce. There was provision for divorce before the big changes in 1975 or whenever it was, and there is provision for divorce in secular societies. Prostitution will obviously continue no matter the laws, but there are many countries with nothing to do with Christianity that outlaw prostitution. There is moral reasoning and argument for public “decency” etc outside of Christian countries.

    Okay, forget the Bible for a moment. And forget a Christian background. I can tell you that if you went to China or Japan you’d find that most wives who are in love with their husbands don’t want them going to prostitutes. Even most mothers don’t reward their son’s coming of age to a visit to a brothel. And most people around me who don’t care about God or Allah, don’t want their daughters working as prostitutes. Let’s face it, most prostitutes no matter how much they argue for their right to work in the sex industry and how their are helping to keep marriages intact hope that their daughters follow in their footsteps. And there are always cases where men fall in love with prostitutes (maybe not in Australia) and leave their families, or spend too much money on them. Actually, I could go on and on, but many people see many things wrong with prostitution. And for every atheist feminist who supports prostitution as a form of empowerment, there’s another one who sees it as exploitation, and using women as sex objects etc etc.

    I’m realizing that we are all seeing things from the worlds we live in.
    Probably in Australia, many who are completely secular and atheistic aren’t secular “in a vacuum”. i.e. They see things through a secular lens, but still in response to Christianity whose influence they want to decrease. So, in Australia, it seems the atheist will be for everything that the church is against.

    But in other societies there’s no horrible “church” to attack. So, people can be atheist and against prostitution, pornography, gay marriage for reasons having nothing to do with religious oppression and rejection of mosaic law. Pre-marital sex was frowned upon in communist China for example.

    “I’m not saying those things are good, nor that they are for Christians but society is not bound by scripture.”

    True. I personally think that a society bound by scripture is a good society. And in a democracy I’m happy to vote the bible way. Then the Buddhist can vote according to the noble eightfold path, and the anarchist can vote their way. But like I said, I find that scriptural principles are held in many countries. Again, scriptural standards I don’t really find to be that strange.

    “How do we empty the pubs and brothels? Follow the example of the Welsh Revival – tell people about Jesus. Not ban pubs and brothels!”

    I hope the other see this last comment of yours. Once again, I really do understand your position. I think your concern is that the more Christians take up positions against people and issues, the less chance we have to present Jesus because people won’t even listen. And that’s probably true.

    So after all my long defense of my position, I’ll ask the others to at least have a go at seeing your perspective and heart. Your approach is a pure approach. Let Christians just preach Christ. Not morality, not the law, not imposing a Christian way of life on people who don’t want it, but just preach, do good deeds, love and let your light shine – then as people come to Christ they won’t go to the brothels, etc. And I think it’s probably true that the early Christians just went about preaching and doing – for example, instead of agitating, they just went out and buried the dead, gave people proper funerals. Slowly, those in the Roman empire saw that Christians were different.

    But just to be picky and pedantic…….I’ll point out that I see a big difference between a pub and a brothel. Put it this way, I could tell my wife I’ll just be at the pub for a little while “I’ll have alf” and be home soon, but it would be different to say i’m going to the brothel but I’ll stop at three.

    You said you were a teacher? If so, it’s probably difficult in your environment. I’d say Greg to in his desire to reach out to people who aren’t interested in going to church, is treading a different path to a lot of the rest of us.

    So maybe we can all go a but easier on each other.

    With the way I rave on, and then worry about everyones feelings, maybe I’m gay after all….?

    outahere

  241. Bones,
    On what basis should governments tell homosexuals they are abnormal?

    When it comes to homosexuals adopting children, that is entirely the wrong question.

    The question is ‘why can’t they produce children without having to resort to adoption rights’?

    So whether or not homosexuality is normal doesn’t come into it.

    What would be abnormal would be if a homosexual man were able to make another homosexual man he is married to pregnant.

    But I guess they’re working on this!

  242. Gosh, Bones, you invoked Hitler yourself on one of these threads, yet you think Wallace is a horrendous person for doing less.

    He was very careless to have produced such a dumb remark, and, of course, everyone has seized on it, and quite rightly. As we did with you.

    But I don’t think you were exactly the one to have pointed it out with any kind of decorum, since you used exactly the same argument yourself.

    Secondly, you talk about separation of Church and State, but the whole concept wasn’t to prevent Christians or Church goers form having an influence on Government, but rather for the Government being prevented from setting up a State run Church, or controlling Church affairs, either by legislation or by prohibition.

    Which is why the Victorian legislation which saw the two Danny’s up before the magistrate was so unconstitutional and prohibitive, and rightly thrown out by the High Court.

    You also claim that Australia is Governed by Secular Legislation, but that is not strictly true. It is influenced more by secular thought than by religious or cultural ideology.

    In fact it is just the Legislature and that is all. Whether it is secular or not is a product of the times.

    For instance, if Australia were to have a religious revival comparable to Welsh revival, one would assume that the Legislation would reflect evangelical values over secular ideology.

    The claim to sole ownership through secular control is erroneous. It is the people of the nation who decide what kind of Government we have in a free democratic nation.

  243. I think you’ll find, because of its location, that the sun was shining on Sodom the day it was melted into oblivion.

  244. Drip, drip, drip…

    Escalation Watch Newsflash

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/denmark-forces-churches-to-perform-same-sex-marriages

    COPENHAGEN, DENMARK, June 7, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The nation of Denmark has voted to force churches in the established Evangelical Lutheran Church to perform same-sex “marriage” ceremonies inside their sanctuaries, although one-third of all the denomination’s priests say they will not participate in such rituals.

    Danish parliament voted by an overwhelming 85-24 margin to compel churches to carry out unions for same-sex couples that are identical to heterosexual marriage celebrations.

    The law takes effect June 15.

    Since 1997, homosexuals have been able to get “married” in a blessing ceremony after the normal church service.

    Under the new law, priests may opt out of performing the “wedding” service for theological reasons. However, a bishop must arrange for a replacement.

  245. “Oh look! The sun just went behind a few clouds in Denmark!”

    Yep, it looks like there’s a shadow being cast on the slippery slope.

    Bones is a fool.

  246. The correct Christian activist solution is to immediately shut down or sell off all the church buildings and their sanctuaries, rename the movement, and reform inside people’s homes, or hire school halls, rent or buy warehouses and convert them into meeting places for Christians, marry whoever they want when they want.

    Revise the Lutheran Church tag if possible. In some nations, though, you’re not permitted to start up a new denomination. I’ll have to research Denmark to see if this is the case.

    See how the State has been gradually tightening the squeeze on the Church.

    This is where the Church goes underground.

    Stuff the legislation if it seeks to change or undermine godly doctrine.

  247. Do you realise, everybody, that, in Australia, the only place you can find reference to Recognised Denominations is within the Marriage Act 1961.

    The same act which lobbyists such as Bones, wazza and Greg are seeking to change to reflect homosexual and lesbian marriage.

    I had to do an in-depth investigation and report on the list of Recognised Denominations for the denomination I worked for a few years ago.

    The Attorney General’s office has been gradually turning the screws on the Act for several years to tighten it up, and, for some in tegral reasons, correctly, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that the connection between the Marriage Act 1961 and denominational affiliation and registration is becoming a crucial area.

    Financially churches come under the Not-for-Profit sector, and I’ve always been intrigued by the way they are listed under the Marriage Act.

    Drip, drip, drip…

  248. The Denmark Lutheran Church is in an unusual situation. It is a STATE run church which is funded by the state and the Danish parliament can regulate it according to its constitution.

    The ruling is not binding on other religious denominations.

    The issue here of course is the separation of Church/State. Which is always going to be an issue to be honest ca German Church in 1930s and 40s.

    This is also a change from the existing legislation which has been in existence since 1997.

    Denmark’s Parliament has approved a law allowing same-sex couples to get married in formal church weddings instead of the short blessing ceremonies that the state’s Lutheran Church currently offers.

  249. Eberhard van der Laan says the country’s school system must treat same-sex couples as a normal part of daily life. The 55-year-old father of five children is mayor of Amsterdam, which has been marketing itself as a destination for gay travellers. Now his call has been heard by Holland’s largest school book publisher.

    Yes I remember the outcry when Play School had 2 Mums on it. See your saying its abnormal based on the Bible. Society doesn’t work that way. If someone is a legitimate member of society they have certain rights whether we like it or not ie they are normal. Same goes with adulterers.

    When you work in the public sector ie government you have to treat all people as equal regardless of their marital status, race, sexuality and your own beliefs. Btw gay families are already here (not many). I haven’t encountered any yet. In 13 years of teaching I’ve never had to give a talk on what a family is, nor is it my role to judge kids and their families unless I have concerns about the child’s welfare.

    And no I cannot report a child to child welfare for having 2 mums.

  250. Gosh, Bones, you invoked Hitler yourself on one of these threads, yet you think Wallace is a horrendous person for doing less.

    He was very careless to have produced such a dumb remark, and, of course, everyone has seized on it, and quite rightly. As we did with you.

    But I don’t think you were exactly the one to have pointed it out with any kind of decorum, since you used exactly the same argument yourself.

    You’re kidding right. Wallace is telling a Jew that she’s as bad as Goebbels. Yeah right. (How? Because he doesn’t like gays). So Phelps a Jew is as bad as Goebbels the Jew hater who had millions of Jews and homosexuals killed.

    I pointed out the teachings of Martin Luther which were exactly used by Nazi Germany. I quoted his teachings. I quoted Nazis who said Luther was their inspiration.

    Yep. Sure that’s the same argument. If you don’t have a brain.

    Let’s defend Martin Luther. He may have hated and called for the destruction of Jews but at least he wasn’t into gay marriage. Then he would’ve gone to Hell.

  251. And no I cannot report a child to child welfare for having 2 mums.

    I have encountered and had to feed kids who actually would’ve been better off with gay parents. They sure as hell couldn’t have been any worse role models than their supposed biological parents.

  252. It was naivety rather than malice.

    I think he was probably referring to Goebbels as a propaganda spreader rather than a murderer, but the fact is bringing anything to do with Godwin’s Law is folly in an argument most of the time.

    It is obvious that the Homosexual Lobby has been extremely persistent in their onslaught of marriage and spectacularly so. His point was that it had even hired Channel 7 to promote its cause.

    That is a propaganda coupe of the highest proportions. That coupe he was comparing to Goebbels’ methodology, but, of course, the mere mention of Hitlerism and off go the fireworks.

    Which is entirely why you were equally naive to have done so.

    Phelps is no stranger to controversy, though, and has pushed far more buttons than Wallace in her career.

    Strange she is compelled to play the innocent victim now when she has so often been the protagonist.

    Still Jim missed a chance to make a point for expressly the same reason you did.

    And your appeal to really extreme extremes is so out of keeping with anything whatsoever that is being said here that your credibility is sinking faster that the drachma.

  253. This thread is absolutely staggering. One of the things I try to see in threads is the love of Christ.

    Out of the overflow of the heart ‘the hands type’, as it were.

    Do you realise that we are all sinners, all fallen short, all in need of Calavary?

    Some people say that there is no such thing as a ‘gay christian’. Well, if that is true, then there is no such thing as a ‘gossiping christian’ or a ‘promise breaking christian’ or a ‘speeding christian’ or a ‘theiving christian’ (ever forgotten and taken a pen home from work in your shirt pocket?).

    The question then becomes one about ‘is gay sex a sin?’. Your answer to that will dictate what you think about ‘gay marriage’.

    I once worked with a transgendered person. After the first 5 minutes of sharing a desk … I saw this person as someone for whom Jesus died. You know, whatever a person is or is going to be … they are just people. And all need Jesus.

    I do not want to put barriers in the way of people to prevent them from meeting Jesus.

    Having said that, I am a traditionalist and that might cause people to react to me in a similar way to Steve. My only concern about the legislation is that Churches will have a difficult decision to make when the law is enacted.

    The will either perform same gender marriage when requested. Or they will not be places where marriages take place AND have the legal recognition of the state with the marriage being registered in the same location. So we would have registry offices followed by church blessings … much like for divorcees who remarry in the CoE.

    I think this is all deeply unsatisfying for everyone. Most people could accept the need for civil partnerships in the UK. However, once that was passed, it was simply a case of pushing the door wider. I cannot see the Equal Marriage Act being the end of the story if Churches are allowed to say NO to requests from gay couples. Indeed, CoE being the established church would be bound by the law to agree to ALL requests. Other churches would presumably be in the same boat as Mosques and Synagogues initially.

    However, I expect that all Churches, unless they claim to be sufficiently different from Mainstream Christianity, would be lumped into the CoE bucket.

    I agree with Steve that the Church will come under increasing pressure from Society while other religions will be ignored. I just hate it that it will be on this issue.

    We really should not refer to racism, slavery, or sexually abusive practices to make points …

    We should just stick to the substantive points:
    Homosexual Practice is sin … or it isn’t within a legally recognised marriage/partnership. Everything else is just froth.

    Many on here will have to agree to disagree … but remember this, we ALL deserve the judgement from Father God. It is only by grace that we have a relationship with Him, through the Son of God who died an atoning sacrifice for our sins … all of them.

    None of us are perfect, we all still sin. We all need to repent all the time. We all, by the grace of God, have God the Holy Spirit residing in us. We all have the kingdom of God at hand. We all need to show and see Christ in each of us.

    Indeed, the biggest task in the next few years will be for the LGBT christian community to come out and stand up for their brethren in the church who disagree with them. In the end, it’s about Agape love.

    Isn’t it?

    Shalom

Comments are closed.