Tony Campolo Calls for churches to welcome Gay & Lesbian Christians

I do not put up this post to be controversial but to inspire respectful discussion of the issues that face all Christians. This morning, Dr. Tony Campolo, well known evangelical activist, educator, speaker, and founder of Red Letter Christians released a statement on his blog announcing his official change of heart and mind on LGBTQ inclusion in the church. In the statement he says: “While I have always tried to communicate grace and understanding to people on both sides of the issue, my answer to that question has always been somewhat ambiguous. One reason for that ambiguity was that I felt I could do more good for my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters by serving as a bridge person, encouraging the rest of the Church to reach out in love and truly get to know them. The other reason was that, like so many other Christians, I was deeply uncertain about what was right. It has taken countless hours of prayer, study, conversation and emotional turmoil to bring me to the place where I am finally ready to call for the full acceptance of Christian gay couples into the Church.” To read his full statement go here http://tonycampolo.org/for-the-record-tony-campolo-releases-a-new-statement/#.VXZ4_Gd-8iT

Advertisements

97 thoughts on “Tony Campolo Calls for churches to welcome Gay & Lesbian Christians

  1. Fascinating reading! He does not reference gay marriage is interesting but some strong inference leads one to see this is what he is saying. Or at the very least the gay couples he sees. Its also fascinating he does not reference biblical principles he would be standing by.
    Fascinating he compares the issue with christians having ince supported slavery.

    Like

  2. Does his stance mean greater acceptance in churches includes gay marriage? What about gay pastors, youth leaders, childrens ministry etc? He does not mention any of this. Can i infer this is what he means?

    Like

    • Hi Alexie. Yes it’s interesting that he doesn’t reference gay marriage etc. I would think that’s deliberate. All he is saying is that gay Christians should not be shunned from churches. I don’t know if I’d read anything else into it until he maybe expands upon this first statement.

      Like

    • “What about gay pastors, youth leaders, childrens ministry etc? ”

      What makes you think that there aren’t any now ?

      Like

  3. Phillip Yancey comes as close as anyone to describe how i see the whole gay marriage and Christianity thing. His Q and A is worth a read.
    Mel is a good male friend of Yancey’s who is gay.

    http://philipyancey.com/q-and-a-topics/homosexuality

    On an issue like this, I try to start with what I’m absolutely sure of, and work outwards. I’m sure of what my own attitude should be toward gays and lesbians: I should show love and grace. As one person told me, “Christians get very angry toward other Christians who sin differently than they do.” When people ask me how I can possibly stay friends with a sinner like Mel, I respond by asking how Mel can possibly stay friends with a sinner like me. After all, Jesus had much to say about greed, hypocrisy, pride and lust—sins I struggle with—but did not mention homosexuality. Even if I conclude that all homosexual behavior is wrong, as many conservative Christians do, I’m still compelled to respond with love.

    Do I believe that gay people can be committed Christians? Absolutely. I know far too many of them to doubt that. I also believe that alcoholics and prideful hypocrites can be committed Christians. In short, sinners can, and I’ve stepped back from ranking other people’s sins.

    It may be helpful for us to think through our relationships with divorced people. Do I feel awkward? Do I avoid talking about their current partner, or former life? Or I think of my greedy friends, or gluttonous friends. How do I handle their weaknesses?

    Like

    • Jesus said:

      “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” (Luke 16:18)

      How is it in Phillip Yancey’s church? Do they allow “born again” Christians to be divorced and remarried after they were baptised? Or do they permit them to do what they like because converts to Christianity (that were divorced and remarried before their conversion) have been permitted baptism? Does it matter what Jesus actually said or not?

      The apostle Peter said:

      ” 5 And * beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.” 2 Peter 1:5-7.

      How is it with old Phil? When he says that:

      ” I also believe that alcoholics and prideful hypocrites can be committed Christians.”

      Does he not realise that “temperance” (self control in more modern versions) strikes at the sins of lust (hetero and homosexual alike), gluttony and alcoholism in the ultimate quest for achieving love? Or does he skip from faith to love, without realising that the intermediate steps are necessary to develop love? Does he not realise that the Bible condemns outright drunkedness/alcoholism? Can he be so ignorant of the Scriptures?

      Apostle Paul says:

      “Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,” 1 Cor. 6:9.

      Meanwhile Phil says:

      “Do I believe that gay people can be committed Christians? Absolutely. I know far too many of them to doubt that. I also believe that alcoholics and prideful hypocrites can be committed Christians. In short, sinners can, and I’ve stepped back from ranking other people’s sins.”

      Interesting that the Word of God groups homosexuals/effeminates together with alcoholics as classes of people that will not inherit the kingdom of God. Who takes precedence in Phil Yancey’s theological outlook? The Word of God or political correctness?

      Like

  4. I would love to know how Tony sees the many Biblical references to homosexuality as sin and the many verse about marriage/ union of man and woman.

    Like

  5. Here is Tony’s first mistake. Jesus did not say “the least of these” but “the least of these my brethren”. There is a difference.

    When Jesus was challenged to define who His brothers (or brethren if you like) were, He equated it with obedience to the will of God the Father (Luke 8:28). The same Father that condemned homosexuality.

    Here is another verse that Tony ignores:

    “Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.” Hebrews 2:11. Remember that the “one who makes people holy” is the same one who condemns homosexuality, which means that he can cure homos of their proclivities.

    It is clear from these verses and others, that in order to support the gay agenda, Christians will ignore parts of Biblical passages that are not convenient to their agenda.

    Tony refers to himself as an evangelical rather than Protestant, because his church and himself personally have departed from the platform by which Protestantism was born (Sola Scriptura – the Bible and the Bible only).

    For those poor sods in his church we can weep (“if the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do?” Psalm 11:3).

    For Tony we can only say:

    “To the law and to the Testimony; if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them”. Isaiah 8:20.

    Like

    • “the gay agenda”

      What the heck is the gay agenda ?

      How far down the rabbit hole does your weird, bigoted little worldview go ?

      Like

      • The word bigot is part of the language used by people who are blinded by the gay agenda. Mind you it is used incorrectly.

        Like

      • It’s also the word used to describe a bigot.

        How does the gay agenda blind a person?

        Like

      • Bubba, you and your kind use moral turrany and violence.
        by acting in your unreflected world view and moral outrage, (by demonise other humans) your toxic political views and are sicially and politically dangerous in the long run. Far from being a good tool for morality, it violently is morally compromising. There is a very effective way to deal with you and your kind and it is this: it is to argue against your views – to make rational and humane well-considered arguments. If you cannot but influct abuse and violence then so be you influcted with intolerance and true bigotry. You also stamp upon our Australian democracy and flag. The one that gave choice to preceding generations to make laws. One of them is teaditional marriage. Choice is an argument for gay marriage but it seems choice was not ok for past generations. I have yet to read a well informed post by you and one that uses clarity, peace and in depth discourse.

        Like

      • Bigot:a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

        Key words are racial, ethnic, hatred, intoletance. Other dictionaries use religious intolerance. I believe you maybbe the bigot here.

        Like

      • @ Alexie:

        “I believe you maybbe the bigot here.”

        That’s fantastic. Oh, except you haven’t identified what the “gay agenda”is, how the word “bigot” is being “used incorrectly” or why what you “believe” is relevant.

        Like

      • “There is a very effective way to deal with you and your kind and it is this: it is to argue against your views – to make rational and humane well-considered arguments”

        That would be very effective Alexie. Care to make such an argument?

        Like

      • ” to make rational and humane well-considered arguments.”

        So you’re saving them as a surprise ?

        So our preceding generations made laws including the law on marriage. You must have been absolutely aghast then at John Howard’s government in 2004 changing the definition of marriage to be that of “the union of a man and a woman”.

        Were you upset with Howard when he decided to ignore the choice of past generations and change the marriage act ?

        And in this country past generations thought that Aboriginals could not be citizens, that slavery was ok, that women could not vote and that 14 year old girls could be married.

        Were you against changes to those traditional views too ?

        PS You haven’t explained the blinding effect of the gay agenda – is it the rhinestones 🙂 🙂 🙂

        Like

      • To Bubba Ray

        “How far down the rabbit hole does your weird, bigoted little worldview go ?”

        Far enough down the rabbit hole to encourage gay people that their sins can be overcome.

        At the end of the day, the GLBT will burn in hell for the simple reason that in spite of the fact that God had made provisions to overcome sin, they chose not to avail themselves of God’s grace to overcome, but rejected it.

        One question that people who think I am a bigot have not asked, is what are the provisions that God makes in order to help the GLBT person to overcome their particular type of sin.

        Instead, every pastor that has made the allegation that s/he can help GLBT people overcome, has been vilified without giving them a fair go.

        Like

      • Hey Davinci,

        Thanks for that I think it explains your position pretty well.

        Well apart from explaining what the gay agenda is.

        Also it’s not just the pastors, I think you’ll find that throughout history a lot of quacks peddling bogus cures have been vilified.

        Like

    • “Christians will ignore parts of Biblical passages that are not convenient to their agenda.”

      Let’s all look in the mirror when we say that, lest the biter be bit!

      Like

      • What do you mean? What passages? What agenda? Should non Christians look in the mirror? Bitten by what?

        Like

      • Awww I think Stewth might be saying that lotsa people use the bible selectively, Christians as well as others

        Like

      • “What do you mean? What passages? What agenda?”

        You’d need to ask davinci, since these are his words being quoted.

        “Should non Christians look in the mirror?”

        Stewth clearly said “let’s all”, so yeah.

        ” Bitten by what?”

        The biter. Did you miss this bit too?

        Like

      • Strewth,
        What is the mirror you speak of? You constantly make comments that the Bible is not as reliable as I say it is. So what standard of righteousness do you consider the mirror you speak of?

        Like

      • Too put it another way, Davinci, we could forget about mirrors, and just say “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.” If that too is incomprehensible, I’m sorry – just can’t think of a better way to frame my thought. Senility might be making inroads – I just had still another birthday!

        Like

    • “Taking Children From Their Homes: Russia Introduces Bill To Remove Gay Parenting Rights.”

      This is the headline from the link you posted. Here’s the substance of the proposed Russian law:

      “…if one of the child’s parents indulges in sexual contact with persons of the same sex, the damage to the child’s psyche is immense as a mother or father serves as an example for their offspring.”

      Would a bigot by any other name smell so putrid?

      Like

      • You are so offensive with this rubbish out of context, well rubbish.

        Did you know the gay agenda link is a pro gay site? You have just condemned the gay agenda pro gay site. They must all be bigots, those gay bigots saying nean things about other gays.

        Like

      • Stu again.

        Not having read the gay agenda link properly, not realising its gay people writing, you again have not read ny posts.

        “That’s fantastic. Oh, except you haven’t identified what the “gay agenda”is, ”

        See link.

        “how the word “bigot” is being “used incorrectly” did, read above.

        Reading is a useful skill stu

        Like

      • Hey stu, let me help you with the gay site.

        “The gay agenda” is “the human agenda:” we all want love. Hope. Home. Family. We all desire the same things.”

        Also on the front page it says
        “The news that matters for Gays and Lesbians everywhere!”

        In your quest to cause moral viscious violence you tripped up. You showed intolerant bias and bigotry. You should read what i posted for Bubba. Rational debate, with peace and humane attitudes are the way to go.

        Like

      • Alexie, mate, darl, pet.

        Take a big deep breath, step away from the keyboard and calm down a little.

        You’re kinda looking like a bit of a goose here. It can happen when our passions on a topic override our ability to think.

        The little bit Strewth quoted would appear to be that gay agenda group being critical about a proposed Russian law. So nope it’s not bigoted gays saying mean things about other gays it’s gays saying mean things about a backwards and oppressive law that’s being made in a jurisdiction that’s got a bit of form on making backwards and oppressive laws.

        How any sober or rational thought on the topic could reach your conclusions is beyond me,

        Like

      • “…this rubbish out of context,…”

        What exactly has been taken out of context?

        “Did you know the gay agenda link is a pro gay site?”

        Yes, what makes you think I didn’t?

        “You have just condemned the gay agenda pro gay site.”

        How? Was it really not obvious to you that I was referring to proposed changes to Russian law and the people making/or supporting that proposition?

        If all the “gay agenda” is is condemning the persecution of gay people and promoting equal rights, what “rational” or “humane” arguments do you have against that agenda.

        Like

      • “In your quest to cause moral viscious violence you tripped up.”

        My what quest? Demonstrate how anything I’ve written is designed to cause any kind of violence.

        “You showed intolerant bias and bigotry.”

        To who? How exactly?

        “You should read what i posted for Bubba. Rational debate, with peace and humane attitudes are the way to go.”

        I read it. And I repeat: what rational or humane arguments against marriage equality do you bring to this forum?

        “how the word “bigot” is being “used incorrectly” did, read above.”

        Read what above exactly?

        “Reading is a useful skill stu”

        I agree. So are basic comprehension and writing skill. You should try them sometime.

        Like

    • so the gay agenda is a website with “The news that matters for Gays and Lesbians everywhere”

      So you think earlier when Davinic said “….that in order to support the gay agenda, Christians will ignore parts of Biblical passages….”

      What he meant was “…that in order to support the a gay and lesbian news website, Christians will ignore parts of Biblical passages… ”

      And when you said “… people who are blinded by the gay agenda….”

      What you meant was “… people who are blinded by a gay and lesbian news website…”

      Seems a bit of a stretch to me.

      Like

      • Stu and Bubba so obviously biased and irrational. Obviously violent towards those with different views. Just like in the article. When you actually discuss without your moral violence then we can move forward. When you bigots, real bigots of intolerance against religion actually ask good questions a new day will dawn.
        You started quoting Davinci when in no way did i refer to him. You cannot even keep on topic. If you do not ubderstand why i posted that link (apro gay link)then you need to think about it. I await some discussion. But real discourse would be good.

        Like

      • davinci on June 11, 2015 at 13:07 said:
        “It is clear from these verses and others, that in order to support the gay agenda, Christians will ignore parts of Biblical passages that are not convenient to their agenda.

        Strewth on June 12, 2015 at 20:43 said: (quoting davinci):
        “Christians will ignore parts of Biblical passages that are not convenient to their agenda.”

        Alexie on June 12, 2015 at 22:48 said: (replying to Strewth quoting davinci):
        “What do you mean? What passages?”

        So do you still stand by this Alexie?:
        “You started quoting Davinci when in no way did i refer to him.”

        Like

      • Hey Alexie,

        It was Davinci that first raised the issue of the gay agenda.

        How about you start contributing something of intellectual substance and then we’ll move forward.

        As a hint this little woe is me rant doesn’t make the grade.

        Like

      • Actually bubba the topic is what Bryan posted above. Christians being the focus along with Tony’s views on homosexuality.

        Like

      • Bubba Ray

        “What he meant was “…that in order to support the a gay and lesbian news website, Christians will ignore parts of Biblical passages… ””

        Actually I did not mean that at all. If you read carefully what I have said on this website some days back is that there are different classes of glbt people, all with different agendas when it comes to Christianity. The words “gay agenda” is generally used by conservative Christians to describe the type of glbt person who has no desire to repent and be converted, but rather destroy Christianity from within, by infiltrating the Church and mould it into something that Christianity is not.

        An example of this remoulding Christianity into something that it is not, is found in the phrase “the least of these” without the word “brethren”.

        Like

      • So tolerance, compassion and acceptance are something that Christianity is not ?

        Dunno if that really reflects well on Christianity.

        Like

  6. The hearts of men display thier thoughts.

    I placed an article from Phillip Yancey which basically set out my views. The one above that Bryan commented on as “good thoughts mate”.

    I then placed a pro gay website. Then get rubbished for my views priving your hearts intent. I ask for discourse. But recieve. As usual from those on the gay agenda, violence, hatred and moral upmanship.you say its beying you to understand why people come to this comclusion. It is simply you do not listen, obstinate and true bigotry. There is an obvious hatred and leftist tactic of screaming, yelling abuse at those with differing views. There are so many hurting people in the gay community. They need support but its clouded with anger driven up by the gay agenda. You are part of that. I myself know people who thought they wete gay but were not. How many are out thete like that. How many have been abused? No one knows because to dig deep brings hatred and violence. This is where i am coming from. You missed it due to your heart. We have two ears and one nouth for a reason. Do more listening than speaking.

    Like

    • It doesn’t matter what they think of us Alexie. But what does matter is if we allow them to steal our peace. Man, and I include here the great majority of Christians, is largely ignorant of the spiritual war we find ourselves in. Praise God for our weapons of warfare— the breastplate of righteousness, shield of faith, helmet of salvation, sword of the spirit, belt of truth, shoes of the gospel of peace and prayer.

      Like

      • Hey Mon,

        It doesn’t matter what I think of you.

        What matters is that you think.

        If your peace depends on putting down and discriminating against those that are different to you then it’s a pretty poor sort of peace.

        Like

      • Yes, I agree with you Paddy. But you can’t ‘make’ a person think the same way you do. It is wrong to put-down, but we all discriminate in some form or another by the everyday choices we make and by the way our minds work; the decisions and judgments we make. Is being anti same-sex marriage discriminatory? Yes, it is. But, as someone who ‘now’ believes in the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman, I feel discriminated against by being told that somehow there is absolutely no difference between same-sex marriage and traditional male/female marriage. It’s a lie! And I won’t buy into it, no matter how much the ‘gay agenda’ tries to force me to.

        Like

      • Oh, and the peace I’m talking about is God’s peace, which surpasses all understanding, and Alexie knows that peace…..as do others who seek after righteousness.

        Like

      • Good words Mon.
        I would ask Bub if he woukd discriminate against a 15 year okd marrying? A 12 year old? What about a sister and brother?

        Like

      • Hey Alexie,

        The 15 year old and the 12 year old – ask me again in 6 years.

        Yeah I’d discriminate them – but here’s the thing about age it changes each and every year it’s not an innate characteristic like race or gender or sexuality.

        IF you said that boys born in the year 2000 or later and girls born in the year 2003 or later should never ever ever have the right to be married at any point in time then yeah i’d disagree with that.

        Like

      • If God’s peace is dependent on you discriminating against others then you have a pretty poor sort of god.

        Like

      • Hey Mon,

        Any chance you can be the one to explain what the gay agenda actually is ?

        Like

      • So you would discriminate? That makes you a bigot in your own eyes. You then high behind twisting of words. Coward! I asked a simple question. What about marriage between a sister and brother? Would you stop thier choice to marry? Stop the equality you are so fond of? Or are you a supporter of incest?

        Like

      • Hey Aleixe,

        Peodofilla and incenst wow you are scraping the bottom of the barrel aren’t you ??

        In just about every circumstance I can think off I’d be against a brother and sister marrying.

        But that’s each and every brother and sister – regardless of gender, age, intellectual ability, race, creed or sexuality.

        Like

      • Hi there Mon.

        “But you can’t ‘make’ a person think the same way you do.”

        I agree. Nor should we ever try and force people to do so. However when people oppose legalising marriage equality on the basis of personal belief or personal values, then not only are they trying to “make” people think they way they do, they are imposing those beliefs and values on people who don’t share them.

        Like

      • @ Alexie:

        “I would ask Bub if he woukd discriminate against a 15 year okd marrying? A 12 year old?”

        Are 12 or 15 year olds consenting adults? No? Then yes, we should continue to discriminate.

        ” What about a sister and brother?”

        Do you know many siblings that wish to marry? It doesn’t seem to be an issue within that particular demographic.

        Like

      • Hey Monica,

        So that’s it – the gay agenda is approval. “They want people to say, ‘It’s okay that you’re gay’…”

        Fair enough. Doesn’t seem that convoluted or blinding to me and it’s hard to see anything “wrong” with it. Well at least when you consider the issue rationally anyway.

        PS Ever consider that your source might be a teeny weeny bit biased on the topic ?

        Like

      • Hi Stu,
        I’ve been thinking about what you said, but I honestly don’t follow. How can being a conscientious objector because of a deeply held conviction be “forcing my will onto others”? All I want is the right to own those views even if they be contrary to the views held by a ‘perceived’ majority. Unless I ‘act out’ on these views, then I am not harming anyone. I seriously doubt that I’ll ever be given the chance to vote on the same-sex marriage issue, so therefore my views cannot possibly be making one iota of difference or harming anyone—surely? We’ve had six thousand years of recorded history where marriage was always between a man and woman, and now I am deemed offensive because I object to a minority; the gay agenda’s determination to change the definition of traditional marriage?

        Already in America there are applications for threesomes to be married, and as someone said, polygamy at any level will have to be accepted. There are also applications filed for some to “marry” their animals over there. Voices within the gay agenda have declared that they see nothing wrong with pedophilia…..and so it goes on.

        No Stu, in all good conscience, I cannot approve of same-sex unions being called ‘marriage’.

        Like

      • Biased? Well what do you expect Patrick? 😉 But it does convey well, I think, how conservative Christians see this matter.

        Like

      • Hi Mon.

        “But (AFA article) does convey well, I think, how conservative Christians see this matter.”

        I agree. But again I ask: why should conservative Christians have the right to force people who don’t share their beliefs to accept laws and rules based on those beliefs?

        Like

      • And here’s another Paddy, from the Reverend gays love to hate the most……and, even though there’s no such thing as politically correct with him, I think he speaks for a lot of conservative Christians:

        https://www.christiandemocraticparty.com.au/media-releases/rev-fred-nile-imposing-same-sex-marriage-on-traditional-marriage-is-discriminating/

        And Darren Wilson’s article in ‘Charisma News—Caitlyn Jenner and the Ironic Flaw of the Gay Agenda’ says, in part:

        “Throughout human history heterosexuals have never really paraded or lauded the fact that they are attracted to the opposite sex. That’s just the way they were, and life was a lot bigger than that one fact. But for some reason (and in my opinion, it’s because this is an identity issue) the homosexual has placed their sexuality at the very top of the “who they are” list.

        The great irony of the “gay agenda”—if that’s what you want to call it—is that it actually cheapens the very people it is proposing to protect. When people obnoxiously promote their sexuality, exalt their sexuality and wholly focus on their sexuality, then what they are saying is that they are first and foremost a sexual being. But the truth is they are so much more than that. As any married couple will tell you, while sex is indeed an important part of a healthy marriage, it is a relatively small part of a much greater, beautiful whole. The fact that so much of the gay debate devolves into applauding someone’s sexual bent as the most important part of themselves—is in fact WHO THEY ARE—does an immense disservice to the truth. You are not a sexual being. You are a human being. You are a spiritual being. You are an emotional being. You are a relational being. A creative being. Sex is a small part of who we all are, not the biggest part.

        Another major issue is the relatively recent phenomenon of silencing the debate completely. What should be a rational discussion of differing opinions quickly turns into accusations of bigotry and hate simply because someone states that they believe homosexuality is a sin. The most frightening thing about this entire subject is the apparent shift in public thinking that no one should even be allowed to believe that the homosexual act is sinful. It doesn’t seem to matter what your personal convictions are (if you don’t want to bake that cake or oversee that ceremony) because if the mob says you should do this, then you must do it. Personal freedom, it appears, is being edged away by the god of political correctness, and no one seems to care.

        Part of the problem faced by any Christian who answers the question “Do you think this is wrong?” is the immediate backlash they know will come if they answer yes. Our society has always been one that prizes individual freedom of expression as long as that expression doesn’t infringe upon the rights of other people. But with the homosexuality debate, gay rights activists will often say that merely believing something is sinful means that you are actually infringing on the rights of a homosexual to be happily homosexual, as if there has to be some kind of universal approval of a particular way of living life. This then leads to the growing belief that people shouldn’t even be allowed to think that the homosexual act is sinful, and if you are crazy enough to publicly state that you do, then watch out for the fury of political correctness that is about to wash over you.”

        http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/behind-the-lens/50053-caitlyn-jenner-and-the-ironic-flaw-of-the-gay-agenda?showall=&limitstart=

        Like

      • Hey Mon,

        Well when somebody describes things as “Homosexuality is a sign of a person’s brokenness….”

        I think they might have a bit of a bias on the topic of homosexuality.

        Thinking about the first article a bit it would seem that
        1. Gay people would like to be treated like people
        2. Some Christians object to that.

        I think that reflects more poorly on the said Christian than the said gay people.

        “Throughout human history heterosexuals have never really paraded or lauded the fact that they are attracted to the opposite sex”

        And I’ll bet that heterosexuals have never really
        – been beaten or killed because they were hetro
        – been arrested, charged or imprisoned because they were hetro
        – had the police, without investigation, dismiss a complaint they made against another person just because the complainant was hetro
        – been discriminated against in the workplace because they were hetro
        – been told that they couldn’t marry the person that they love for no other reason than that they were hetro

        As to the rest of the article Mon, switch sexuality for race. Imagine if somebody was telling us that being black was a sin, and black people just shouldn’t get upset about that. Or it is ok if a baker doesn’t want to bake a cake for black people.

        The outrage would be immense and justifiable. There’s no difference, nobody woke up and chose to be black, nobody woke up and chose to be gay.

        Any more than you chose to be straight.

        ” We’ve had six thousand years of recorded history where marriage was always between a man and woman… ”

        What so polygamy or polyandry never happened ? What about Solomon and his wives and concubines?

        We’ve had a few years of people trying to re-write human history to fit into the neat little nuclear family of the 1950’s.

        Like

      • In view of some of the strident Christian opposition to marriage equality, it is timely to bring to their attention that the church has a history of not only acceptance but of celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.

        I quote from the final sentences of an online article “When Same Sex Marriage was a Christian Rite”, referring to historical research by Professor John Boswell of Harvard University’s history department:-

        “Professor Boswell’s academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.

        “For the church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.

        “It proves that for the past two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a (Christian) God-given love and commitment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.”

        Like

    • Yes Paddy,

      They’ve had it tough—still do, unfortunately, but I really think that to say the same-sex marriage question is a human rights issue, is wrong. I can’t see how you can say that.

      Like

      •  Hi Mon

        “All I want is the right to own those views … Unless I ‘act out’ on these views, then I am not harming anyone. I seriously doubt that I’ll ever be given the chance to vote on the same-sex marriage issue…”

        No-one is proposing to make what you believe a thought-crime. If you had to vote, would you choose to impose your view then? Or would you say to yourself: it’s none of my business if two people choose to marry, so I will vote yes (or abstain)?

        “I object to a minority; the gay agenda’s…”

        Why would you object to a minority having the same rights you do? And the “gay agenda”, as it applies to marriage equality at least, is supported by a majority in this country these days.

        “Already in America there are applications for threesomes to be married, and as someone said, polygamy at any level will have to be accepted. There are also applications filed for some to “marry” their animals over there. Voices within the gay agenda have declared that they see nothing wrong with pedophilia…..and so it goes on.”

        Comparing marriage equality with these other things is fallacious. Animals and children are not consenting adults. I’m happy to discuss rational objections to the legalisation of polygamy, if you’re interested.

        Like

      • Hey Monica,

        So they’ve had it tough – still do unfortunately but it’s ok to keep on discriminating against them ? How does that work ?

        IF I said that gay people didn’t deserve the right to a the presumption of innocence or a fair trial and that the police should be able to lock them up whenever they felt like it. Then, I think, most would consider that to be a human rights issue.

        So if marriage is a basic human right then by definition marriage discrimination based on sexuality is a human rights issue.

        Like

      • “Or would you say to yourself: it’s none of my business if two people choose to marry, so I will vote yes (or abstain)?”

        Hey Stu,
        It isn’t any of my business . I agree. But that’s not what I take issue with. It’s redefining and applying the word ‘marriage’ to same-sex unions that I object to. That word is taken already. Make up a new word if they have to because as someone said, “it’s like holding up a banana and saying this is now an elephant. Or saying that 2 + 2 shall hence be 349. So on that basis I would want to vote ‘no’. And if I voted no, are you saying that I would be imposing my views onto others? Isn’t that also what you would be doing if you voted yes?

        I appreciate you taking the time to talk to me Stu, really do, but I’ve been engrossed with the comments/discussion on polygamy on this site:

        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-28/green-same-sex-marriage-is-an-easy-vote-for-mps/6502742

        and my head is spinning, so I’ll refrain from this issue just now if you don’t mind. Some good comments though, and thanks for the offer.

        Cheers

        Like

      • Mon:

        “It’s redefining and applying the word ‘marriage’ to same-sex unions that I object to. That word is taken already.”

        At best, this is semantic. There have been all sort of relationships in human history that are outside the current understanding in Australian law that have been called “marriage”. Words change meaning all the time, which is why conversations in Englishtoday bear scant resemblance to those in Shakespeare’s’ time. Calling same sex marriages something else is a kind of linguistic and social apartheid.

         

        “And if I voted no, are you saying that I would be imposing my views onto others?”

         Yes. By voting no, you are effectively saying to same sex couples that you don’t want them to  be able to be married, purely based on your own personal values.

         “Isn’t that also what you would be doing if you voted yes?”

        No, because I would be forcing to you get married to someone of the same sex, or even like the idea. Think of it this way: should your views be allowed to deny two atheists of the opposite sex  to be legally married? Two Muslims? An interracial couple?

         No?

         Then why gay people?

         

        Like

      • Hey Monica,

        Wow a word might change it’s meaning. Gee whiz I’ll be that’s never happened in human history before. It’s gotta be awful right and I mean literally awful.

        Nah it would be par for the course.

        “Words have changed their meaning ever since the first word was uttered”
        Fiona McPherson senior editor Oxford English Dictionary.

        Changing the word marriage to include a same sex partnership is less of a change than a lot of words have gone through. If your partner nowadays called you a bully you’d probably object – yet once the word meant sweetheart.

        If we talk about gay marriage of the two words gay has changed in meaning a lot more than marriage has.

        If you only objection is that a word’s meaning could change then English is not the language for you.

        Like

      • My last comment on this subject Patrick,

        This is what the Australian Catholic Marriage & Family Council has to say on the subject of Marriage & Same-Sex Attraction (11) under the ‘Rights of any Couple to Marry’ heading, No. 34—Is marriage a basic human right?

        “The Church does speak of a right to marriage: “No human law can abolish the natural and primitive right of marriage, or in any way limit the chief and principal purpose of marriage…’Increase and multiply’” (RN 9). But having the right to marry does not mean having the right to enter into a relationship that is not marriage, and then to force others by civil law to treat it as marriage. All persons have the right to marry, but not the right to redefine marriage. Relationships between two persons of the same sex are not, and can never be, marriages, because two people of the same sex fail to meet a basic defining element for a married couple (sexual difference); they are not denied the right to marry any more than different-sex couples that fail to meet the other basic defining elements of marriage (e.g., age, not a close relative). Thus, the right to marry does not include the right to a so-called same-sex marriage.”

        I agree. Call their union by another name, but do not call it marriage.

        Like

      • “I agree. Call their union by another name, but do not call it marriage.”

         So social and linguistic apartheid then? And just because the ACMFC says so (we’ve already covered the naturalistic fallacy and ages of consent).

        Like

      • No stu,

        Not ” just because the Catholic Church says so”. I’ve only just read their statement before I posted it. I’m not a Catholic. But this is what I’ve always believed strongly about, and I was relieved to find out that I’m not the only one who feels this way.

        I’m not saying I am right. Far from it. And I acknowledge and understand that the way I feel about the same-sex marriage proposal would most likely be considered hurtful and discriminatory to most of the gay community, and I apologise for that as there’s no way I’d ever intentionally set out to hurt anyone. But that’s how I feel right now. Honestly, I think I will always feel conflicted about this, mindful of how the gay community hurts and knowing full well that being Christian means that we live by a different set of standards to that of the world—“we are in the world but not of the world”. I want to do what’s right, and be allowed to figure that out for myself.

        Like

      • Hey Mon,

        Here’s another idea – why don’t we change the meaning of marriage to include both hetro and straight people.

        BUT we’ll create another term for those who are bothered by the whole notion?

        Conservative Life Partners or something like that.

        ” that being Christian means that we live by a different set of standards to that of the world”

        So what’s your standard ? Discrimination and keeping minorities down is that it.

        And you know what I’m pretty sure that there are plenty of Christians who are ok with gay marriage. I’d even guess that there are some gay marriage Christians.

        You can’t really keep blaming God for your prejudices.

        As to the Church – yeah I often wonder what a bunch of celibate old men in dresses have to say on the topic of marriage. I mean if anybody should know what it’s like they are the guys – right?

        That Ireland can ignore the dictates of the Church and vote yes on same sex marriage should tell that the day’s of the Church being a social influence are long, long gone.

        Like

      • Hi there Mon.

        For what it’s worth, I appreciate you taking the time to discuss these ideas with me and I’d like to think that I have some empathy for people of religious faith that have to struggle with matters that are clearly a matter of conscience and deep feeling.

        I’d never want to force you to believe or accept something, even if I could.

        🙂

        Stu

        Like

      • Thank you too Bryan. It’s pretty clear to me that many people of religious faith (you especially Mon) come to issues like marriage equality with compassion, even when your values are challenged.

        Like

      • Thanks Stu. I’m confronted by this personally now, only recently…… another family member. I think God wants to teach me a thing or two about acceptance, love and compassion. I hope that I am ready to learn.

        Like

  7. The definition of marriage is rooted in nature. The union of a man and a woman is what the human race is based on. The commitment of a man and woman to one another is what provides children with a mother and father. This is important for people of any country, religion or ethnicity.

    Social science evidence demonstrates that children raised by a mother and father, who are committed to one another in a lifelong marriage, are happier, healthier and more prosperous than children raised in any other household setting.

    Our Laws are created on the rule, not the exception. Not all heterosexual couples do reproduce, but only only heterosexual couples can do so naturally. Homosexual couples cannot do so. That fact provides a clear demarcation line for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. The law is a teacher and if we change the definition of marriage we will change what we teach about all marriages and families. For example:

    -We would teach that procreation is no longer a uniquely important public interest.
    -We would teach that children do not need a mother and a father.
    -We would teach that adult desires, not the interests of society or the needs of children, should drive the definition of marriage.

    Every individual has the same access to marriage, but no one has permission to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married. Removing the last restriction would cast doubt on all the others.

    Homosexual protections are already available to same-sex couples through the use of private contractual arrangements, such as wills, OHS, power of attorney, health care, spousal laws and life insurance policies.

    A biological parent has the same rights whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. The State can provide for homosexual couples to adopt children without changing the definition of marriage.

    The supporters of homosexual marriage resemble the opponents of interracial marriage. Both groups sought to exploit the marriage laws in pursuit of a social goal irrelevant to marriage. Neither racial segregation (in the one case) nor the social affirmation of homosexual conduct (in the other) was or is related to the basic public purpose of marriage, which is promoting responsible procreation and the rearing of children in the optimal family

    Like

    • “The definition of marriage is rooted in nature”

      Ahh nature, like the praying mantis where she kills and eats him after they mate. Or the lion with his pride of lionesses. Or the anglerfish when a male finds a female, he bites into her skin, and releases an enzyme that digests the skin of his mouth and her body, fusing the pair down to the blood-vessel level – with as many as 8 males being found fused to one female (wikipedia)

      Nature it would seem is far beyond your narrow world view.

      “We would teach that procreation is no longer a uniquely important public interest”

      It’s not – there are approaching 7 billion people on this planet, overpopulation is far more of a pressing issue.

      “We would teach that children do not need a mother and a father.”

      They don’t there are decades worth of research into this.

      “We would teach that adult desires, not the interests of society or the needs of children, should drive the definition of marriage.”

      Of course adult desire drives marriage – my marriage is founded solely on the desire my wife and I have for each other. There is no other reason for us to get married.

      But if we are speaking of children in this country each and every day there are tens of thousands of children in need of care because there natural parents can’t care for them. Yet I’ve never heard one “traditional” marriage advocate argue that people who are unfit parents must get divorced or can’t get married. There is no test whatsoever on your ability to parent before you get married. I’ve been to a marriage where it was the groom’s third marriage. But I’m yet to hear anybody trying to ban the divorced from getting remarried. Swingers can happily get married, those people who are physically abusive towards their partners can get married if their partner says yes. People get married for immigration reasons. One partner can cheat on the other for years, divorce them and remarry,

      I’m yet to read one supported of traditional marriage who opposes the marriage of incompetent parents, opposes the marriage of the adulterous or the violent.

      But if two good and decent people who love and care for each other deeply want to announce and celebrate their commitment to each other via the ceremony of marriage AND they happen to be of the same gender. Then there’s opposition.

      As to a close blood relative – what you mean like a first cousin or a niece or nephew by blood. – Can you point out where in the marriage act it’s impossible for first cousins to marry or an aunt and her nephew ??

      Same sex couples do face difficulties that married couples don’t despite the legislative protections, as an example:
      http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/marriage-equality-needed-to-protect-rights-of-elderly-to-access-super-20150611-ghdui1.html

      “The State can provide for homosexual couples to adopt children without changing the definition of marriage.”

      The State already has, same sex couples can adopt, use IVF or surrogacy. Single people can adopt or raise children.

      Which makes your earlier arguments about the raising of children even more completely and absolutely ridiculous.

      You seem to be basing your objection to same sex marriage on the needs of children to have both a mother and a father – while at the same time recognising that same sex marriage is irrelevant to same sex couples having children.

      IF a same sex couple in this country wants to have kids then they have options available for them to do that. They can be parents, they just can’t be married parents.

      The optimal unit, like the polynesian model of fluid adoption ? Or the extended family, the polygamous or polyandrous marriage? The blended family? Or the range of diffe

      The world is moving forward, discrimination on the basis of sexuality is a dwindling relic of the past. However some will fearfully and irrationally cling to it.

      Like

      • “Of course adult desire drives marriage – my marriage is founded solely on the desire my wife and I have for each other. There is no other reason for us to get”

        Your wife must feel so special. Your sole reason for marriage is desire. Seems like love, committment, union, romance, friendship and possibky children are bot reasons. Nor bringing uo children, loving them, sharing them and ultimatly continuing the human race. A lucky woman she is indeed.

        Like

      • Hey Alexie,

        UM as you’ve pointed out above there is no need to get married to raise children.

        If my only reason for choosing a mate was to procreate then there would have been no need whatsoever to get married. Plenty of de facto couples raise kids.

        There would be no need to for us to stay together once the children are independent from us either.

        But I tell ya this, even when we are old and grey and the kids are long gone and it’s just the two of us rattling around the house then she will still be my heart’s desire and still be my wife.

        As to ultimately continuing the human race I had no idea that it was up to us. Gee way to put pressure on a guy.

        SO if the missus and I hadn’t had kids when do you reckon the human race would have ceased to exist.

        Here’s a hint, meant well and offered in good faith, if as the conversation continues you find yourself making less and less sense it might be time to rethink your positions.

        And unfortunately for you that was a few comments ago.

        PS thanks for the comments critiquing my personal life. Is that what you meant by in depth discourse some cheap insults ??

        Like

      • “rse some cheap insults ??”

        Hypocrite.i seem to remember a few insults from you. Plus you critiqued your own life with, the sole reason for marrying is desire. I actually do not believe that. But for you to say you were wrong in sayjng that probably irks you.

        Like

      • Hey Alexie,

        At this point at time the mature party normally says “yeah I went to far sorry about that” and we move on.

        I desire my wife. What’s so hard to understand about that ? Beyond anything on this earth she is my heart’s desire. Will be until my final breath.

        Why on earth would I lie about that and what’s so hard for you to understand? ?

        As to insults from me yeah I’ve said you look like a bit of a goose. Up until this point in time I’ve never met anybody that would consider that to be an insult.
        Sorry if I offended you.

        Like

      • Hey Stu,

        Yeah I’d agree with the self righteousness.

        Apparently I could have picked my wife as a brood mare, I dunno checked her teeth and fetlocks maybe, and that would have been fine.

        But a marriage based on mutual desire is somehow a big no-no

        Like

    • “The definition of marriage is rooted in nature.”

      When you can demonstrate species other than humans conducting marriage ceremonies or having laws governing marriage, you may have a point.

      “…but only only heterosexual couples can do so naturally.”

      Rubbish. Gay people conceive and have children naturally. Just as heterosexual people can use artificial means.

      “The supporters of homosexual marriage resemble the opponents of interracial marriage.”

      Oh the irony.

      “Every individual has the same access to marriage, but no one has permission to marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married. Removing the last restriction would cast doubt on all the others.”

      Slippery slope fallacy with a non sequitur thrown in for good measure. Demonstrate how legaising SSM will lead to “permission to marry a child”.

      “the basic public purpose of marriage, which is promoting responsible procreation and the rearing of children in the optimal family”

      The Helen Lovejoy fallacy yet again. Unmarried people can have children. Married people can choose to have children or not.

      Like

  8. Early marriages-
    1) proved that a man legally ‘owned’ this woman or these women. The wedding ring originated in India, where it was the nose-ring by which a man could attach a rope and secure a woman.

    2) had to be recorded in wealthy families, so that heirs could be proven to rightfully inherit.

    Do either of these reasons still exist?

    Remember, that God speaks always to strengthen society, and as society changes, so does His guidance.

    Like

      • Marriages of state as a diplomatic tool have long gone in the western democracies same with arranged marriages.

        This idea that somehow there’s an unchanged “traditional” family model that’s existed since time immemorial is just bunkum

        Like

  9. I agree with Monica’s remarks that we are in a spiritual battle. People are NOT the enemy, Satan and his hordes are. The thief comes to ‘steal, kill and destroy.’ Jesus has come that we might have life, and have it to the full. The problem is that we have such warped ideas of what is best for us, that God’s ideas look like punishment or something impossible… But if we listen to Him we will find life.
    How about we let anyone in who wants to come, and then let Jesus clean them up? He will do it – He is beautiful and irresistible. It is impossible to spend time with our Saviour and not want to change. And He gives us the power to do it. Or do we need to be perfect first before we can join this club?

    Like

    • If you read the gospels, you will find that John the Baptist made the following comment:

      “… bring forth fruits of repentance”

      to a group of people who wanted to be baptised, but did not wish to repent of their sins.

      No you don’t need to be perfect to join. You do need to be repentant and bring forth fruits of repentance first, before baptism. There is a minimum standard of living that is required to be achieved before people get baptised.

      Unfortunately this has been ignored by politically correct churches for centuries. Constantine’s Christian bishops for example admitted into the Catholic Church all sorts of homicidal maniacs known as Roman Soldiers. It was not long after that the Catholic Church developed the doctrine of Just War and channelled these soldiers to fight for religion. Thus Christianity was given a bad name because minimum standards of holiness that the Bible demands for Baptism were not adhered to.

      Like

      • Thanks, I didn’t know that about Constantine, though I did know about how he ruined the Church in other ways. Having read Tony Campolo’s statement, I disagree with what he has said, however I do long for a greater openness in the Church towards people who are struggling with sin (the problem with TC of course is that he trying to make out that it is NOT sin). I myself have always been regarded as a ‘good Christian’ from the outside, but in fact I was hiding horrible things that were not obvious. It was only through growing closer to the Lord, many years after my baptism, that I began to realise the seriousness of this hidden sin in my life and to be able to change. We hear a lot about some sins but not others. For example, Revelation states that ALL liars will burn in the lake of fire. I often hear that about homosexuals, but not liars.

        Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s