Another religious freak.
How many times do these morons have to be told that civil marriage equality has NOTHING to do with their moronic beliefs.
And that denying civil rights to law-abiding same sex couples is unacceptable.
Does he think that discrimination in the name of religion somehow ceases to be discrimination?
Yes, I think that’s exactly how they think.
Agreed. Back in the day when the bible was written, nobody ever wrote, “marriage does not extend to gay people” – because nobody even acknowledged our existence.
This guy believes in the fictional character of ‘god’ and is using his belief in said fictional character (and his belief that the Buy-Bull is the word of ‘god’) to agitate for the denial of equal civil rights.
He should be institutionalised for his wilful stupidity.
The Bible says a lot of things Reverend Jones
The bible is a badly written piece of fiction designed to give meaning to the lives of middle-eastern, desert-dwelling illiterate peasants thousands of years ago.
Religious belief or belief in ‘god’ is a mental illness.
I’ll be sure to let my gran know next time she takes comfort in her belief that my grandpa is in heaven that she’s mentally ill then will I?
I’m not religious myself but I’m not going to pass judgment on those who use faith for comfort or any other reason in their own lives privately if it has no impact on my life based on the malicious behaviour of others of faith/religion
Her mental illness is harmless so long as she does not try to impose it on others.
I AM going to pass judgement on people who despite being educated and despite the lack of ANY evidence of the existence of ‘god’ continue to believe in its existence.
They are mentally ill and / or wilfully stupid.
rather simplistic point of view, believe is usally required in absence of evidence or proof
So belief in an omnipotent broccoli is just as valid as a belief in ‘god’ then?
David, you should admit that you are not learned in religion and that you do not understand theology. Sometimes you sound like the worst of the literal bible believers with their hail and brimstone.
I am, I would hope, well educated. I have studied theology in Paris and Rome in addition to having qualifications in higher physics and maths at the ENA.
The question of the existence of god is a very difficult and demanding subject. It is not unusual that biologists are more strong in their opposition to god due to the certainty in their area of science in comparison to physicists who work always with theory and philosophy.
Delusion is something we are all entitled to.
But when these delusions are used to influence public policy then great harm can be done.
Just “saying” that they are not discriminating does not make it so.
Call a spade a spade.
They ARE discriminating.
Strictly speaking, religions could be classed as symptomatic of shizoid/schizotypal personality disorder – Magical thinking, belief in the supernatural, these are listed as symptoms in the DSM, and are at the core of all religions (If you don’t agree that, for example, Christianity employs magical thinking, what else do you call thinking that a beardy sky-man will give you everything you want if you promise to obey his rules?)
Personally, I think religion is ok, when it’s not the rub-my-dogma-in-your-face kind of religion. The point of religion is essentially to spread the word that the best way through life for everyone is to just not be a dick. The problem is people who don’t get that, but swear they’re the best X Y or Z around. But, playing devil’s advocate, I think dogmatic atheists are just as bad ;P
I think it’s good to hold your own beliefs, whatever those may be, just as long as you’re not trying to indoctrinate the world. Applies to atheism too.
Uhm, but I actually posted here because I wanted to suggest Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to the Rest of us, lol. Excellent summary of the many traditional biblical marriages.
At least dogmatic atheists are not using their lack of belief to campaign for the restriction of people’s human or civil rights.
The National Secular Society versus the Catholic Church?
I know which one I prefer.
Gary, do you wrote that with a knowledge and study of theology or is your view reached without such learning?
It is bloody discrimination! Just because you use a bloody fairy story to try and excuse it doesn’t make that statement any less true.
And anyone who says the buy-bull (a) shows gods invented marriage (b) shows marriage endorsed as 1 man and 1 woman is badly educated and has never read the putrid bloody thing.
God did NOT create marriage – that is wretched stinking filthy bloody lie. I am so sick of the bible-thumpers spouting that lie over an over. It’s a LIE you damned hypocrites and sky daddy will be angry (let’s be honest though, in your heart of hearts, you know it’s all BS anyway).
The buy-bull is full of polygamy – it is clear that it is “1 man and as many women as you can afford”.
Lying, phoney piety and screaming ignorance seem to be the hallmarks of christianity.
Lying, phoney piety and screaming ignorance are also the hallmarks of islam, judaism, scientology, hinduism, sikhism etc etc (Buddhism seems slightly better but still nonsence of course).
They are all rather pathetic attempts at trying to understand human existence by uneducated societies.
Its a crying shame that humanity has never grown out of this childishness.
Buddhism actually teaches that it all nonsense. And never to accept anything as “gospel truth” from any person or book.
Actually, ‘Buddhism’ in its purest form, though a little silly in its belief in reincarnation, places the stress firmly on personal responsibility for living a good life, in a responsible way. As a belief system (if you discount the minor supernatural claptrap) it’s by far the best IMO.
Another post with bloody, bloody, bloody. Your posts are interchangeable with the ranting posts on the Daily Mail and the Telegraph – full of denunciation and rant. only the underlying views are different; the language is the same. I could imagine you agitating for any other group with the same nastiness.
Of course, these individuals are wrong. But the are so many others on the basis on unscientific or unproven beliefs. A belief in climate change, socialism, extreme capitalism, dark matter – these views are often adopted with ferocity rather than understood. Thisis another such instance.
It is worth noting that positively atheist societies such as Cuba and Chinahave never permitted gay marriage and until very recently, there was no proposal for it in the secular France.
Oh, only because I can’t say what I really want to show my abject contempt for christianity – I assure you that it is far more colourful and varied, but this is a moderated location so I use a word that – while lacking in venom – might indicate to those with a modicum of imagination that I would deeply like to unload true and genuine fury.
If that is what you get from my remark, please stop being such a BLOODY bore. And I have no duty to be “nice” to people who seek to perpetuate an under-class for us. So stop being such a BLOODY spineless apologist.
Another day another religious idiot picking and choosing which parts of the bible he feels is relevant.
I guess he eats shellfish and wears clothes made of more than one fabric too, such a hypocrite!
Yes, it looks, that ‘American way’ is only possible for Australian LGBT at this moment: first states like Tasmania, Canberra Federal District, Victoria or NSW, and just then – the federal law.
But the central government overturned a law in one state that had the temerity to allow civil partners to have (shock, horror) an actual ceremony.
Yes, I know, Queensland. But what can be as alternative in Australia today? Its very clear, that gay marriage law is impossible under current political circumstances, and in the very near future too (‘Liberals’ wins elections 2013). Than better in so many states as is possible at the moment. Well go, Tasmania, Canberra, Victoria and New South Wales!
The federal government was able to overturn that law because it was in the Australian Capital Territory which is not a state. Until one of the states actually passes a law for same sex marriage it cannot be tested in the High Court.
“But at least from the church perspective, opposition to such legalisation has nothing to do with discrimination. Plain and simply, Christians oppose same-sex marriage because the Bible, the word of the God who created male and female and also created marriage, clearly and distinctly says that marriage is between one man and one woman – which means not between two men or two women.”
Actually, it has everything to do with discrimination. In just that short paragraph I identified two distinct instances of discrimination.
The first is that you believe gay and lesbian couples should be treated differently than heterosexual couples: you believe they deserve less respect and recognition. This is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The second is that you believe your religious beliefs should be treated differently from the beliefs of others: you believe that your religion deserves greater respect and recognition. This is discrimination on the basis of faith.
Yes, and firstly, it’s not all Christians, it’s some Christians who believe gays are excluded.
Secondly, even if they do believe that, how do they jump from not allowing it for members of their denomination, to banning it for the entire country simply because of their particular religious belief? At that point the discrimination is very obvious.
Yawn. Another “it’s not me who’s the bigot, it’s my imaginary friend” wanker. Like we’ve never seen those before…
Here’s a thought – why not imagine a friend who is considerably less of an arsehole? It’s what the liberal christians do…
This made me laugh out loud at my desk :)
Even supposing they are not being discriminatory, they are being hypocritical. 1 Cor 7:10 explicitly says – with no exceptions – that a divorced person must never remarry. Indeed Paul says explicitly that this is not his view but comes directly from Jesus. Nonetheless, these same people who quote verses from a complicated theological argument (in Romans) that does not address the question of homosexuality, but rather a more complex argument regarding the Fall, are happy to re-marry divorcees (quite rightly of course!). This is hypocricy and is the main reason why their opinions are worthless.
There is nothing discriminatory for any christian oppposing equal marriage but there is when they call for a ban on same-sex couples having access to a civil marriage which has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. They can skew it all they want but civil marriage was invented by the state, not the cults, and does not mention anything about procreation or a deity, end of.
There is not, and never has been in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e. since Federation in 1901) any religious marriage – all legal marriage has been and is entirely a civil matter.
Whilst that is legally true, I would suspect many people who have married in a church would regard their marriage ceremony as religious in nature.
That is a matter for them, their church, their friends, their attitude – it is not for any of those involved to dictate how civil law is developed.
christians are evil discriminatory animals, they should banned from speaking in public.
You employ the language of Hitler.
- who said that Jews were animals. Or Mugabe who compared gay people to animals. You are sickening and evil.
Actually he’s a troll, but here employing the language that is used against us by many so-called Christians, particularly in the US and Africa, no doubt to make a point. Even senior clergymen in Scotland were recently using an analogy to bestiality, which amounts to the same thing.
Suddenly when the language is applied to a sacrosanct group such as Christians, it becomes clearer how the evangelicals and Vatican hierarchy are trying to dehumanise gay people in the marriage debate.
And ‘he’ is a she, at least biologically, :-p
It is disgusting for it to be used towards anyone.
What annoys me most about this sort of comment from the religious is that it completely ignores their own religious texts and history. God created marriage? The church did not think so for the first half of its history, when it refused to have anything to do with marriage. One man and one woman – tell that to the Catholic bishops who had several wives – and yes, it was not uncommon at one period in Christian history. Between male and female – that rests on extraordinarily dubious translations.
As for any representative body of evangelical Christian denominations – well, such denominations are generally, in Australia, placed in the “happy clappy” basket and considered harmless lunatics.
Why politicians are still listening to these people, I do not understand. The majority in Australia supports same-sex marriage.
Yes- and marriage in the old testament was brutish and polygamous (although that was before the giving of the law). Still, churches should be free to perform religious marriage as they wish and the states should be free to provide civil marriage as it wishes. They are two separate domains.
Not if you are a gay christian or jew or muslim.
These was no giving of the law; seems to me they just adopted the Roman norm as it became a Roman church.
That was a reference to the old testament – but yes, I agree it was written by men.
Still, churches should be free to perform religious marriage as they wish and the states should be free to provide civil marriage as it wishes.
Yes, but isn’t that the point? Why is the Presbyterian Church in Australia even commenting on a civil matter? It’s none of their damn’ business!
De Villiers, you are but throwiing red herrings here with your claimed detailed higher study of theology. You still can’t prove a god exists.
I know Egyptologists who are experts on Ra, that does not mean that Ra exists, nor do the gods of the MesoAmerican Maya or Inca exist.
You studied. Good for you. Mythology is complex – wonderful. It does NOT mean that it is true. Its negative influence, however, is vastly proven. Too bad you didn’t use that education money for medicine or food science or alternative energy – something that could actually help humankind.
Just because someone reduces an argument to simple language does not mean they are less intelligent.
Seek validation elsewhere. This is not about you.
I do not seek to prove the existence of god. It cannot be done. The divine can be experienced but not proved. I also don’t say that others are less intelligent. However, comments can be ill informed and wrong. And that is what I seek to demonstrate here – and to redress the balance against disgusting comments that Christians are animals who should be denied the right to speak per Sevrin above
Sometimes the only freedom people seek is the freedom to oppress others – and that is seen clearly above on this board.
“Sometimes the only freedom people seek is the freedom to oppress others ”
No . We only seek to prevent the religious from oppressing us.
If that is oppressing THEM, then so be it.
Why does the BULLY always scream VICTIM when called out for their bullying.
There is nothing wrong with preventing people from oppressing others. I have said that numerous times. However, for gay people to become bullies is as bad as when the religious are bullies.
I have read a number of times the Jews being criticised here because of their treatment of Palestinians despite their own history. They are criticised for being bullies though they once were bullied.
I am disappointed that you also refer to me as a ‘bully’ given that I have never sought to oppress anyone. It is also distasteful that those who believe in god can be described here as having a ‘mental illness’ with all that entails for the denial of individual rights for persons with psychiatric defects and that Christians can be called lower than animals as Hitler called Jews and Mugabe called gays with no criticism.
I did not call YOU a bully.
I am calling THOSE Christians who scream victim whenever they are called out for trying to deny others rights, bullies.
I haver zero issues with people having faith.
Just keep it to yourselves as your Jesus commands.
Jesus said prayer should be a private affair devoid of public display:
“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room (or closet.) and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret…” (Matthew 6:5-6 RSV)
That sounds like people who say homosexuality should be kept behind closed doors.
And spare me you American silliness about being sorry at how I have not benefitted mankind. It is cheap, infantile and Anglo-Saxon. Opera in Covent Garden does not benefit the third world. We ought not to be sorry that such resources are not used in Africa.
So if it is not discriminatory what it is then? Stupid, boring, ignorant, backward church. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Marriage equality was banned 8 years ago under Howard and I remember, so then I started gay rights activism still to this day. Marriage equality is way long overdue in this country and Australia is missing out on millions of tourist dollars because of it. I want to start a political party called the “Australian progressive party” (APP) and the first act will be to allow gay marriage, abolish payroll tax to encourage employment and repeal pointless, silly and outdated crimes that are still on the books (such as Treason against a king).
I am so sick and tired of the Christian Lobby ultra-conservative or right-wing religious fanaticals of the Hillsong Taliban happy-clappers putting there own ideas and beliefs down our throats!
He must have forgotten to use a few words in his sentence. he should have said. “…not only discriminatory but also stupid”.
The final para of the article doesn’t make sense. It implies that support for “traditional” marriage excludes support for equality.
The institution of marriage will be the same, it’s just that it will also be open to gay people.
Other policies of APP are:
* A referendum on becoming a Republic.
* Recognition of Aboriginals and Torres Straight Islenders in the Australian Consitution.
* A Bill of Rights within law or Statute.
* Solar Power Grid Subsidies to put power back into the grid.
* Mandatory “relationship education”, not just sex education to lower the divorce rate.
* A Royal Commission into child abuse within all religious establishments, camps, programs and buildings, etc.
* A Royal Commission into abuse with the Australian Defence Forces.
* Raise the tax-free threshold to $22,000 dollars – currently from 1 July, 2012 it is $18,200.
1. I am certain that religious conservatives objected when African American couples were first allowed to marry after the U.S. civil war. I am certain that they objected when state laws in the U.S. that banned marriage between two deaf people were repealed in the early 20th century. I know that they objected when interracial couples were allowed to marry in 1967. So this is nothing new.
2. The reasons for opposing same-sex marriage obviously make sense to the writer, so he should feel free to make certain that his denomination doesn’t marry gays. But LGBTs are seeking civil marriage which is a human right. The Bible doesn’t apply.
3. If I had infinite powers, my first declaration would be that every statement of the form “The Bible says that ….” be instantly converted to the form “My interpretation of the Bible is that it says that…”
4. The writer is wrong. My interpretation of the Bible is that it allows marriage between one man and ONE OR MORE WOMEN.
Sorry, I got carried away. That should read “four comments.”
Religious conservatives did object to blacks and whites marrying. The 1967 event you are refering to is the Loving v Virginia case, seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v_virginia
The Loving couple objected to the discriminatory ruling made by judge Johann Friedrich Blumenbach in 1959. Just read what rubbish Mr. JFB said about interracial marriages.
Whatever the reason, of course you are being discriminatory. Anyway this is not a religious matter so whether you are discriminatory or not is irrelevant
Unless Presbyterians have their very own dictionary with a completely new definition of “discrimination” then they BY DEFINITION are discriminating when they seek to withhold the civil right of marriage from gay couples.
They may make the argument that there are “valid” discriminations or “righteous” discriminations but they can’t argue that there is no discrimination.
This article only needs the first 8 words.
Like the leader of Australia’s Presbyterian Church, the rest of the article serves no purpose.
What a load of garbage. I suppose those that supported land ownership laws that discriminated against aborigines were not being discriminatory as well.
the bible also says polygamy is marriage , and that it’s ok to let your daughter get packed raped ,if it will calm the hoard. the meaning of the word marriage has change several times over the centurys . it all comes down to can you stand infront of god or your peers and say that you will love this person (standing next to you ) for ever or until death do you part.. if you can do that (even with a translator ) then it is between you god and your partner , or you , your partner and your gathering. no one else should lose any sleep or put their 2 cents worth in . bigots and homophobes keep reading the bible , especially the part about you don’t have the right to judge . it’s between me and my maker . i believe god and i aer doing just fine . after all he created me .
Seems to me someones ability to understand language and vocabulary has been disturbed by their indoctrination.
Denying LGBT people access to civil marriage is discriminatory – plain and simple!
Actually, the “bible” didn’t create marriage. Marriage had been long before the Romans were feeding nutcase christians to lions.
What a tosser.