Reader comments · Comment: Christians, we should have been first to back equal marriage · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Comment: Christians, we should have been first to back equal marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Because it’s not a political issue, it’s a civil rights issue.
    That’s what I’ve being saying all along.
    Religious, Atheist, Agnostic – it’s of no matter.
    This is an equal citizenship issue.

    1. Gemma Gillon 3 Aug 2012, 12:39pm

      Sorry but that’s rubbish and just a cheap attempt to compare it to the suffering of African community. You have the right to form a union, partnership, vote, you name it. The African Americans did not.

      1. Ms Gillon,
        Might I suggest bringing some clear perspective to the table before you make such a blind observation. As much as I respect the right for you to have an opinion it is, I am afraid to say, nether correct in its statements nor objectively thought through and I am forced to reply most cordially in the words of Dawkin that the only “wonderful thing about an opinion like that is that we can totally ignore it.”

      2. And yet the NAACP and the SPLC – time-honored civil rights organizations – are both fervent supporters of gay rights as well as the rights of African Americans.

      3. Gemma

        I feel sorry for you if you wish to acquiesce to second class status – I do not.

        Separate but equal is NEVER equal, despite what dispots and ignorant people like Cardinal O’Brien might try to brainwash you with.

      4. Isn’t it a coincidence that on my screen, right next to your comment, is the advert for the PTF saying “Gay? In some countries it’s a hanging offence”? Comparing the suffering of different communities is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself for even playing the “this group of people suffered more than this group of people so shut up” card.

      5. de Villiers 3 Aug 2012, 6:31pm

        We can vote for parties that support this policy.

  2. Or, for a lok at how other Christians view the issue, take a brief canter though the comments here:

    Marvel at the paranoia! Allow the mind to boggle at the astonishing levels of bigotry. Note the same tired, witless clichés being regurgitated endlessly.

    And you might just note how few of the commentators are able to write coherent English.

    This article’s author has a right to hold their beliefs. Just as I have a right to suggest that these beliefs are utterly absurd when held by an intelligent person living in the 21st century and… pinkwash it all you like… inherently homophobic and hate-filled.

    1. Look* (I’ll learn how to type in English someday! :P )

    2. Paul. London/Essex 4 Aug 2012, 3:01pm

      The writer sets out in brief why he does not hold with the homophobic and inherently hate filled teachings of other Christians. Thus making the case that to be Christian does not mean that you form any views which do not recognise LGBT as anything other than equal.

      Yet you simply rebuff this by finger pointing to another group of people whose interpretation of Christian teachings is the antithesis of the writer’s. His beliefs may very well be utterly absurd but your argument that they are inherently homophobic and hate-filled is lazy and juvenile.

      1. Being a Christian (or theist of any stripe) means to be deluded and in thrall to bronze-age fantasy, as well as enabling any number of loathsome prejudices.

        You’re welcome to view that as juvenile or lazy (or, for all I care, brilliant and incisive), in the same way that I’m relaxed about your efforts to “spin” my comments. :)

  3. Religion is a fallacy created to control the ignorant and weak-minded. Religious people have proved over and over that they are evil sub-human monsters.

    1. Gemma Gillon 3 Aug 2012, 12:41pm

      Spoken like a true socialist.

    2. de Villiers 3 Aug 2012, 6:35pm

      That’s ignorant rubbish Sevrin, from a person who cannot comprehend a view other than their own. Atheists such as Stalin and Mao were evil sub-human monsters. No doubt some religious people are.

      A facet of being human is to understand and comprehend on an intellectual level a point of view with which you disagree. To be unable to do so is to be weak minded.

      1. Religion has no ‘intellectual’ level.

        It simply requires a suspension of disbelief.

        Religious people who can read and write are being wilfully ignorant and stupid.

        ‘God’ is a fictional character.

    3. Painting human beings as evil sub-human monsters is a fallacy to control the ignorant and weak minded.

  4. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Aug 2012, 12:04pm

    One thing he is right about, it’s NOT ‘gay marriage’, but marriage. PN and others frequently resort to the former not realising that it sparks emotions and opposition to equal marriage often used by right wing organisations to score points and foment resistance to introducing it.

  5. You love Jesus?

    You do realise that Jesus is a fictional character don’t you?

    And that there is absolutely zero evidence for ‘god’s’ existence.

    And that belief in ‘god’ is no more worthy of respect than a 40 year old believing in santa Claus?

    1. And yet it is still about preaching love. You should get some for the believers!

    2. de Villiers 3 Aug 2012, 6:37pm

      Evidence, my David, is not available for god. The divine cannot be weighed in scales and measured by volume. It must be felt and experienced. One seeks not evidence for god but artistic truth.

    3. I don’t think you can argue that Jesus is a fictional character. Jesus was a real man, and there are Roman records which prove his existance.

      The question is whether he’s the son of God, and whether God exists. The answer to that, in my opinion, is no, but you cannot deny Jesus’ existance.

      1. Alice, there are no such records. Not one.

        1. to be honest it shouldnt matter wether he existed or if he did wether he was the son of god or not. Its his message that is important. Im not religious but I do appreciate someone trying to make peace

          1. ‘His’ message?

            Don’t you mean the message of whichever fiction writer(s) wrote the bible?

    4. You have got that seriously wrong,Sir. Please try not to expose your ignorance and lack of sensitivity about this. There is more than abundant evidence that the Lord God exists, is alive and working through people and I shall leave you with that thought.

      1. Please provide the evidence you mention: I know of none.

      2. Evidence for ‘god’s’ existence please.

        ‘God’ is no more real than the tooth fairy and you are being wilfully ignorant by pretending otherwise.

  6. barriejohn 3 Aug 2012, 12:19pm

    “Jesus was all about Love”. Really? Like all “believers” you are just projecting your own beliefs onto your prophet/god, and making him in your own image. Jesus was a First Century Jewish zealot, and most of the statements attributed to him in the New Testament derive from other sources. (Notice that there is hardly a single quote from him in any books except the gospels.) Religion is a cancer in society that poisons the minds of people and causes them to utter complete nonsense!

  7. Gemma Gillon 3 Aug 2012, 12:31pm

    Sorry. It’s very unlikely. The old testament proscribed death, Jesus stated he never came to change the law although he did come to complete it i.e he suffered capital punishment for the “sin” of homosexuality, so he would have not killed LGBT persons but straight after Jesus dies instead of any pro-LGBT sentiment rubbing off on his apostles all of them repeat the injunction on homosexuality in the new testament. The worlds three major religions tend to hold LGBT as wrong historically. Apart from Islam ironically that tolerate trans issues. I’m not a fan of conservative anti-LGBT clap trap but im not a fan of rewriting history.

    1. When we won the war against fascism we re-wrote history.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 3 Aug 2012, 3:47pm

      Point us to the reference in the new testament that JC suffered capital punishment for the sin of homosexuality? Last time I read it, he was put to death for claiming to be the messiah and his statements construed as blasphemy and subversion by the religious (Jewish) elders of the temple. As a result he was put to death for it under Pontius Pilate with the support of the crowds who happened to be Jewish. If anyone is rewriting history, it’s you. You need professional help, fast.

    3. de Villiers 3 Aug 2012, 6:41pm

      The ancient Hebrew is unclear on this. The old testament states that a man should not sleep with other man due to it being against their nature. The prohibition is acting against the nature that god provided. However, very few hold that there is choice on homosexuality and those that do, do so as a matter of faith not science.

      Once one accepts that the prohibition is not to act against ones’ nature, rather to enjoy the pleasures that god has bestowed, it becomes a requirement for those who are gay to follow their nature.

      There are other arguments as to the translation of homosexuality but, for the time being, this one holds.

      1. actually the term is “arsnovich” which no scholar is able to define, they believe it to be to very large concept – including looking at the pedastry and instances where it was condemned was where one person forced themselves on the other. Some translations call it an “anal offender” which appears to fit. We can’t just use the American bible, we should look at all the existing translations – there is a website somewhere where you can see the passages as they existed in every english language print.

        1. james, are you referring to arsenokoite? That’s Greek and was a word coined by Paul, it has nothing to do with the proscriptions of the (Hebrew) OT where, as far as I know, no one single word was used to describe what we would call homosexual/ity.

          [Gemma Gillon, I think you need to look up the difference between proscribe and prescribe.]

  8. I could never be a christian, too many ethical and logical problem with christian worldview that I would have to cherry pick out all the unethical and illogical parts out until there’s nothing Christian anymore, there’s just Humanism left.

  9. I find it refreshing instead of hearing about how gay people are ‘recruiting children’ or ‘destroying society’ we have someone showing the slither of goodness from a religion.

    Yet most of the comments here are just disgusting as as hateful as the Catholic pope. Maybe a tad less.

    1. Yes, some of the comments are a bit blunt. But GLBT people are rightly angry with the Christian religion for their constant attacks on us. Let’s not be surprised when the odd terse word slips out on these pages – even if it does come on the tails of one Christian with benign views.

      1. de Villiers 3 Aug 2012, 6:45pm

        It’s not an odd word Cal rather than a systematic and sustained volley of hatred for those who have belief in a divine. And often it is from those with very little understanding or learning of religion.

        I agree that the main religions have been very poor on sexuality. But then so has been every other positively atheist and communist regime.

        Sometimes the only right people want is the right to oppress others. That applies to many people, religious, secular, gay and straight.

        1. barriejohn 3 Aug 2012, 9:35pm

          You’re confusing “hatred” of people with contempt for their views. And in my experience the greatest venom comes not from those who are ignorant of the subject and therefore often have no strong opinions either way, but from those like myself who were indoctrinated with religious claptrap from a young age and can now thank whatever gods there might be that we eventually saw the light!

  10. wow such hateful comments. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of religion, but at least this article shows not all faith is linked with bigotry.

    1. Dave North 3 Aug 2012, 3:13pm

      Spend 50 years being bullied by these so-called “christians” and you will be a tad
      miffed with them.

      1. I’ve spent 30, and yes as a whole, religion in most its forms is a sad and ironic state of affairs. But who is ‘them’? I’m sure my views differ from many people in the gay community, and I think it’s fair to presume that views differ just as much in the religious community. The article clearly shows that some Christian people don’t hold with bigotry, and quite frankly, rather than spend my time hating all christians, I’d much rather encourage those who have faith, but respect other lifestyles. I’m not prepared to change my views on religion, so why should I expect ‘them’ to?
        All I want is for a little legal protection and social respect, I don’t really see what that has to do with slamming other peoples right to believe in their gods.

  11. Yes, you should have been first. We are lead to believe that most christians are “moderate”, but moderate christians have been largely notable by their absence.

    I think all religion is bunk, but have no skin in the game if you wish to worship whatever you want. I will protest if that worship interferes in law, education or social policy. I didn’t draw this battle line, and I will not back down from it. The behaviour of some christians in seeking to perpetuate aggression and oppression is appalling and disgusting (show me the bible verse where Jesus endorses gorging on junk food to support the oppressive).

    Moderate christians, you DO have skin in the game. They are degrading and denigrating your beliefs and you are letting them set the agenda through your silence.

    Make no mistake – they won’t stop with LGBT people, you are worshipping the “wrong” way, they will one day come for you.

    So will you stand, or will you yield? If you yield, your hands are not clean.

    1. Correct, it is the benignly Christ-like thing to stand up in defense of your gay neighbour. I fear too many moderates fear ostracism in their spiritual community. But one must do what is right, even if it is inconvenient.

    2. de Villiers 3 Aug 2012, 6:46pm

      They are not absent – you just do not not know where to look for them. They are well published in academia, involved in the highest levels of the Church and are regularly in the media. Sometimes, you just see what you want to see.

  12. It’s a nice enough article. One person’s opinion. If all Christians were like that I’d have no problem with them.
    But they’re not.

    1. This not just one person’s view – there are a number of us who completely agree. While I acknowledge that we are a minority at this stage and by far the majority of Christians hold to the notion that homosexuality is sin and that “being gay” is some sort of disease from which one needs to be cured . How can something be a sin and a disease at the same time? I do believe that more and more people are starting to see the “issue” differently. The author has presented a very cogent view that homosexuality is neither sin nor a disease, and so while I quite understand that people who are not Christians or believers in any religion will not see it that way, but, would they comment on a religious article if it were not touching on the the lgbt issue. I don’t understand how someone can accuse the author as being homophobic.

  13. Christianity is just such a mess.

    There is division between the Church and its followers – it’s a mixture of political and homophobic influences tainting the Christian ‘message’, which unhelpfully comes from a garbled, confusing, inconsistent Bible.

    What needs to happen is for followers to stand up AGAINST the homophobic views and point out how they contradict what Jesus supposedly said. Writing comment pieces on PinkNews isn’t going to do that. Getting loud about it in an organised way may do.

    Don’t get me wrong, I completely reject the Bible, but there is no WAY Christians are going to all convert to atheism: we have to work with what we’ve got.

    I just wish if Christians are going to call themselves Christians, they’d actually practice what their Bible preaches. Surely a good rule of thumb for a follower of Christ would be to look at what ‘Christ’ actually said about any particular issue…

  14. I am sorry Mastin, but your Christians are reading only the hateful part of the Bible, the Old Testament, and have no knowledge of this dude called Jesus Christ and what are his messages. It’s more interesting for the human being to hate than to love, and no institution based on love is going to have much popularity.

  15. Jesus didn’t mention bisexuals either. Neither did you. Any chance of an edit as bisexuals want to marry their partners too.
    So I do agree re calling it gay marriage being divisive. It’s just marriage.

    1. You are right, bisexuality was not mentioned. However, given that a person has the option of marrying the opposite gender, and the author was speaking about marrying someone of the same gender, if you are bisexual and you want to marry someone of the same sex – well then this article supports you. If you want to marry a person of the opposite gender, there is nothing in law to stop you. We don’t need another category “bisexual marriage” – unless you are proposing some form of polygamy. If you are, please let’s get one thing achieved at a time.

  16. This article flaunts a blatant, relativistic misunderstanding of Biblical teaching. Essentially you’re saying that the whole Bible is worthless except for those two commands. Might as well throw out the rest of the Bible. And it also displays a fundamental misunderstanding for exactly what love and tolerance are. Tolerance is acknowledging the existence of views other than your own, not acknowledging views other than your own.

    1. de Villiers 3 Aug 2012, 6:48pm

      The bible is a series of myths and stories, relevant for the time and containing truths of the age. As in the way of any form of literature, they must be reinterpreted afresh with each generation so as to remain relevant.

  17. Dennis Velco 3 Aug 2012, 3:08pm

    Thanks for this article and your reporting. What you do is appreciated.

    I posted it to my LGBT Group on LinkedIn to spur members to read your article and to make comment. I also scooped it at Scoop.It on my LGBT Times news mashup.

    Link to group >>

    All LGBT+ and community allies…. please come join me and 15,000+ of your soon to be great connections on LinkedIn. The member base represents 80% of the world’s countries. As well as the down stream in my LInkedIn personal connections that reach over 24 million potential live stream viewers on LinkedIn alone.

    The group is strictly professional office friendly dialog, posting and profiles / profile images. I’ve been told by many that it may well be one of the best run / managed groups on LinkedIn.

    You can be as out or private as you like and I provide instructions on how to set those preferences.

  18. It says a lot that I’m so used to hearing words of hate, and intolerance, for LGBT people out of Christian mouths, that it always comes as a surprise (albeit a pleasant one) when I actually hear a Christian talking about love, tolerance, respect, and kindness. There needs to be a few more of this type of Christian in the world, and less of the hateful ones. I’m not religious myself, but I will happily respect any religious person who has equal respect for me, and all other LGBT people.

  19. Rev. Jim Brooking 3 Aug 2012, 5:06pm

    This article hits the nail squarely on the head! It is, without a doubt, a matter of civil rights. We know that separate but equal is a fallacy. Jesus reminds us that people will know his disciples by the LOVE they have for one another….ALL others!

  20. I am sympathetic, but I really have no interest in selective superstitious waffle. And the writer should be pushing this stuff at the God-bothering homophobes, not the readership of PN.
    Is ‘Mastin Kipp’ a real name? It makes me think of large sleepy dogs.

  21. Most Christians aren’t using bibilcal arguments anymore. I think I had more respect for them when they did. Most Christians have now taken up the anti gay arguments and very little has to do with the bible ie it not in the political agenda, the Tories will lose votes, gays don’t want it, it’s bad for children, they’ll be taken to the EU etc etc.

    What have any of these arguements got to do with God and the Bible and yet if you look at the “christian” website, it’s not the bible or God they are throwing at us but these non bibilcal arguments.

    1. barriejohn 4 Aug 2012, 7:48pm

      Absolutely correct, @john. I used to be an evangelical Christian, and it’s what they do all the time. Take a predetermined doctrinaire stand which is completely non-negotiable and then look for “evidence” to back it up (like the guy recently who was telling everybody that gay people die earlier than anyone else, or the masses of Christians who stated quite seriously when it first appeared that AIDS was, if not a divine judgment on gays, at least the sort of thing to be expected if one “went against God’s plan”!) . Argument is futile, as they just bend the facts to suit them or else come up with other arguments which, to their simple minds, justify their position.

      1. barriejohn 4 Aug 2012, 7:57pm

        PS The same thing happens with Creationism and Intelligent Design. They have already decided what they believe and then scratch around for the “evidence” to back it up (the very opposite of the scientific method). It reminds me of our Physics experiments at school where we knew what the answer was supposed to be and worked backwards to get the required measurements!

  22. Calling it “gay marriage” is akin to “separate but equal.” It’s still not fully recognizing the closed mindedness of such a label.

    Amen to that!

    1. Thank you so much for this article! I think it is wonderfully insightful and highlights all the good thinks about love and Christianity, in fact any religion at all. I believe that people are inherently good, and all religions are based in sound moral guidance. Any misinterpretation or overzealousness on the part of fundamentalists and extremists is what has tainted the concept of religion. It has done many a worthwhile thing for this world, and it’s sad to think that it now has a stigma attached to it because of people who take it upon themselves to judge others in the name of God! As far as I can tell, and as the author of this article points out, God is love. It is indeed as simple as that.

  23. Pink News really should be proofing articles better – letting the article be published with sections in ALL CAPITALS for no good reason is an unprofessional way to add emphasis and SHOULD BE DISCOURAGED, otherwise the website starts to look AMATEUR…

  24. I’ve been waiting to hear something like this for years and it completely agrees with my Christian friend’s ideas.

    Christian =/= bigot.

  25. It’s not that simple and special pleading doesn’t make it so, not least because Mastin Kipp makes two fundamental errors. Firstly, he asserts all Christians must think as he does. Secondly, he confuses sex with love. His argument is not helped by the bigotry against Christianity expressed by some of your readers.

    Jesus reserved his harshest criticism for the Pharisees and their hypocrisy. Calling for tolerance while dismissing those who disagree as lacking intelligence seems to me to be hypocrisy at its worst.

    As a Christian I have my individual and world views which are peculiar to me and cannot be parceled up as representing the sum total of Christian belief or opinion. Thus the assumption that all Christians who oppose same sex marriage do so because they believe there is biblical authority for it is false.

    Age may not bring wisdom but it does encourage tolerance in the sense that
    I’ve enough to do to live my own life without running the lives of others.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.