To quote from an Anglican Arch-Bishop, and someone who really understood discrimination.

“To penalise someone because of their sexual orientation is like what used to happen to us; to be penalised for something which we could do nothing [about] — our ethnicity, our race. I would find it quite unacceptable to condemn, persecute a minority that has already been persecuted.” Nobel Peace Prize winner and Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

Well said Dax!

Fact is, your obscure anecdotal evidence does not prove anything. At best, your evidence is an exception to the rule, demonstrating that the early church suffered the same problems it does today. Identifying that there is no recorded instance of Jesus speaking out against homosexuality in order to prove your point is similarly grasping at straws and shows you are trying to validate your position to yourself as much as everyone else. I am sure I could validate many similar behaviours through the same incomplete reasoning. Either you are a Christian who does not approve of homosexual marriage or you are not a Christian. Quite simple really.

Shaun, if you understood the relationship of those particular verses to New Testament Christianity then you wouldn’t be asking that question.

ED: Polling has found that a majority of Australian Christians support same-sex marriage, while the Quakers, Unitarians and Metropolitan Community Church are all denominations that believe same-sex couples to be acceptable for both civil and religious marriage.

I honestly think that if the people behind the project knew his views they would want to distance themselves from him.

Sometimes you do have to look beyond what you were taught, in order to find the TRUTH – I thank you for that.

I too thank you for conceding that the premise of bullying is a disease that all should partake in wholeheartedly.

Re gay marriage referendums etc votes or what have you – rest assured you have my vote of confidence and support.

So in conclusion – stop bashing Rudd on that premise :)

The Ancient Greeks were performing civil marriages long before Christianity, and even Judaism, came into prominence. Back then, marriages were financially-based, and involved the acquisition of concubines and slaves. The Catholic Church didn’t officially adopt marriage as a sacrament until the Middle Ages (11th Century.) Before then, churches may have performed ceremonies, but marriages remained legal institutions. Marriage contracts aren’t held by churches; civil marriage remains a legal institution to this day.

Also, regardless of whether you agree with their theology or not, there do exist churches that would recognise a same-sex marriage. The Metropolitan Community Church, the Unitarian Universalist Church and the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) and the Ecumenical Catholic Church, to name a few, are all Christian denominations that would recognise and celebrate a same-sex marriage. Even the Reform Jewish movement is quite liberal to same-sex marriages. Please do not blanket all Christian institutions as being opposed to same-sex marriages because this is, again, factually inaccurate.

I really don’t understand the point of creating a separate institution for same-sex couples, when same-sex marriages will affect opposite-sex marriages minimally. As I’ve already stated, civil marriages are legal institutions, not religious; and there do exist religious institutions who would recognise same-sex marriages. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything.

Iain I’m sorry but this sentence is riddled with so many syntax errors I truly have no idea as to what it is you’re saying. As far as myself being a bigot, perhaps I am rather intolerant of other people’s assertive ignorance towards historical fact.

Your comment to Dave, quote, “Dave, I am seeking a police state based on my understanding of the Bible in much the same way you are seeking one based on your understanding of English grammar.” is indicative of a theocracy, very similar to that of IRAN and again quite strange as you correlate theocracy with grammar. I cannot find the connection between the two, but you obviously do. I personally find that comment dangerous to free secular thought. May I remind you Australia is a secular nation? And rightly so may I add.

I suspect there are other factors at play here that have contributed towards this confusion and thus I shall refrain from denigrating you any further.

Ricky J to quote you….”I find it a little funny that homosexuals are challenging to be included in an institution that has never included them in scripture”

My argument against you is that during the first millennium christian denominations did in fact perform gay marriages, due in part to the fact that Christ never spoke out against homosexuality. Now I ask you this; how is this twisting your words to suit myself? They’re your words and your comment regarding scripture is factually wrong. Christ never spoke out against homosexuality, which is a fact. Other disciples may have, but Christ did not.

Your comment, “Religious institutions will NEVER accept gay marriage – gay people need to stop howling through those doors, looking for acceptance”, IS discriminatory and again ignorant of the historical facts surrounding the performance of marriage ceremonies with Christs blessing.

Now I ask you this Ricky…If Kevin Rudd or the government for that matter were sincere in anti bullying why wasn’t this message broadcast on all the main free to air television stations during prime time? Why wasn’t it printed in the mainstream newspapers? Why wasn’t it aired on ABC radio? I do hope it is being shown in state schools. My personal opinion is that it was made with no real conviction or attempt to address the issue. It’s just more spin.

In contrast I do agree with you that bullying is a social disease, one that should be addressed, but one that should be addressed wholeheartedly instead of a miniscule 1.5 minute presentation on YouTube.

In conclusion may I suggest that the both of you, Iain and Ricky, read Matthew 7:15, Jeremiah 23:16, Acts 20:29, Romans 16:17 and my favourite 2 Peter 2:1 and do some serious rethinking. peace. xx

Dave, I am seeking a police state based on my understanding of the Bible in much the same way you are seeking one based on your understanding of English grammar. By the way, why is it you insist I am that Iain Hall bloke? Have you not realised that more than one person can have the same first name?