An outfit that has got together with tyrants to bully people unmercifully from the fourth century to the 20th with torture and execution for the slightest sign of dissent from either church or state is the last to have the right to squeal “bully” today because society is defying its edicts.

I understand that J.C. preferred the company of men and never ever married? [If he walked amongst us today, we may well have believed/judged he was gay?]
Nowhere in his teachings did he ever give anyone the right to judge others, [judge not and you shall not be judged,] or discriminate because of difference!
In fact, he went out of his way in his, Christian value foundation message, good Samaritan Parable, to argue against it!
How anyone can perceive gender, let alone gender bias, from tweets, is entirely beyond my comprehension.
[Witchcraft, hubble bubble toil and trouble, or reading the runes, or bone pointing perhaps?]
The Gay community and those who actually believe in the "Christian message" of GENUINE equality, [as opposed to those, with their look at me lord, pious humbug,] have considerable economic power and muscle, and are entitled to use it against those who continue to spread the messages of hate, or discriminate against difference.
The article is, I believe, just rebadged bigotry; and or, extreme pernicious ignorance.
Remember, at the end of the day, we will all be judged by a higher authority, and those who've practised discrimination in all of its clever forms and guises; will be found wanting and penalised accordingly, amid thunderous applause!
Rhrosty.

...The question! Why is the “gay-rights” movement not dissimilar to a bikie gang in its socially destructive intent? One shoots-up the town with bullets to reinforce that which is legally not theirs; while the other shoots up the basic marriage construct of society, by demanding a right which is patently not theirs to own.

What kenny said.
Babette, next time the religious lobby start bullying art galleries or TV stations or cinemas about art that they don't agree with, or next time Fred Nile tries to bully the govt over chaplains in schools, perhaps you might like to put pen to paper. I look forward to your outrage at these challenges to freedom of thought as well.

Emperor Julian,
Q.E.D on my last post about imagined history becoming historical fact.
I wonder how many convictions for sodomy were recorded per annum in the "Bad old days"?
I'd "imagine" that most jurisdictions would have gone years without a single incident.
That's the thing with prohibition, banning something creates a laissez faire attitude towards enforcement and actually allows the proscribed behaviour to flourish away from the public eye.
Just as there are no doubt more "Gay Bashings' today than in the imagined past due to the fact that more men are "out" and visible in the community it never seems to occur to the bleeding hearts that in today's "enlightened times there are mor Indigenous people behind bars and more Indigenous children under state care or supervision than there were in the 1960's.
If I might point out another glaring problem with this imaginary view of Christian oppression of homosexuals it's that the clergy was effectively a safe haven for homosexuals, are we seriously suggesting that a life of male only company in an institution which kept it's internal business secret and scrupulously concealed it's indiscretions was not an attractive proposition to Gays?
Is it not the case that the churches, synagogues and mosques and their associated institutions have always covered for homosexuals in their ranks, even when they have behaved outrageously?
Or is this just another "Two legs bad, four legs good" scenario where the leftist's revisionist version of history pertaining to homosexuality trumps any other "for the greater good"?

A bikie gang shooting up a town with real bullets, is somehow similar to a group of activists, using their completely legitimate economic muscle to end thousands of years long; persecution, [anti Christian behaviour,] against a perceived minority?
Surely you jest D.D? Or, is it just more homophobic claptrap?
Perhaps we do need to very slightly amend the marriage act, which in Australia, is nowhere near as old as the tradition itself!
Perhaps we just need a set of inserted words, to distinguish between traditional marriage, ["holy wedlock" for the purpose of "naturally" begetting children,] and genuine commitment between loving couples, regardless of race, age, religion or perceived gender bias?
Perhaps a referendum and or widespread genuine conscience votes, would finally put this most divisive contradiction of genuine equality to bed?
But particularly, when we are beginning to finally and at long last, fully understand, that gender bias is created in the womb and a product of nature, rather than any element whatsoever, of choice!
Rhrosty.