Horse feathers, bird's fur, risible rubbish, Bah Humbug, balderdash, fatuous asininity, gratuitous garbage!

Simply put, nobody but nobody is being asked to go against their actual conscience/religious beliefs in this or any related matter.

If you have a problem marrying left handed folks, or if if you find uniting people afflicted with club feet, or any other condition; God given black skin, brown eyes, albinism, also imposed by birth, offends your personal scruples?

Then please feel free to exhibit your personal bigotry?

It's still a free country, particularly if you take medieval religious control or enforced and entirely unnatural celibacy out of it!

I take it these same folk are free to get baptized, worship, place their paper on the plate, contribute generously to any and all Christian charities?

Well?

The only thing threatened here is the degree of control some, so called Christians/control freaks, exercise over the lives of others/in the bedroom!

If Jesus were a Gay man?

And given his patent predilection for almost exclusive male company, as well as his extraordinary gentle nature, he may well have been; or be so judged, by his so called devotees, if he walked among us today?

And would any here have refused to marry him and Judas if they asked to be united in the bonds of endless life long love, on the quite spurious grounds, it would have offended Jesus?

Who would have got so hung up over mere semantics; or be so arrogant as to claim to know the mind of God, or indeed, speak for him or in his name?

What comes next, killing each other in his name because you worship falsely/facing the wrong direction, using the wrong nomenclature?

Well what else would you expect when arrogance personified, patent nut jobs purport to speak for God or know his mind!?

Insomuch as you do unto the least among you, you also do unto me! Quote unquote.
Rhrosty.

Having been employed as a counsellor for seventeen years, I am interested in the "Christian Relationships Counsellor" who refused to give counselling to a same-gender couple. It's not clear from the article whether this was a person who worked for a Christian service or whether this was an employee of a counselling service who happened to be a Christian. I would think it would be very unusual for a same-gender couple to attend a Christian Counselling Service, knowing that most of them would take the view that their sexual behaviour was sinful and unacceptable. However, if this was a counsellor who just happened to be a Christian, then, under the terms of their employment, I would expect that it would not be acceptable for them to refuse to assist a client because they disapproved of their behaviour. Social Workers and Counsellors often work with criminals, perpetrators of domestic violence and child abuse, drug dealers and others whose behaviour would generally be considered to be socially unacceptable, but if you are employed as a counsellor, then you are expected to counsel in a professional, non-judgmental manner.

' Social Workers and Counsellors often work with criminals, perpetrators of domestic violence and child abuse, drug dealers and others whose behaviour would generally be considered to be socially unacceptable, but if you are employed as a counsellor, then you are expected to counsel in a professional, non-judgmental manner.'

Louisa

You obviously can't see that domestic violence, child abuse, drug dealing etc is wrong. Without making a judgement you are simply wasting your time. No wonder secular counsellors have next to zero success in reabilitation. You are non judgmental (unable or not allowed to diagnose) the problem (usually sin).

"The gay rights lobby will do whatever it takes to legislate same-sex marriage, even if it means stripping our faith communities of their fundamental right to religious freedom."

This is their whole purpose for this exercise - it's nothing to do with homosexuals or their relationships.

It is true that Christian churches have historically forced themselves on the public through the mechanism of the state, so now we see some angry/hateful people seeking revenge. However, that revenge is ultimately directed at religious individuals, not their churches, including individuals who are not even Christian, or who have their private religion or version of Christianity.

Dear David,

I am puzzled by a seeming contradiction in what you wrote:

1. Religious communities will still be able to decide who they will marry.
2. If a business provides a public service for money they cannot decide to refuse that service to...

It could possibly be reconciled by the word "public", but then why would anyone be providing a "public" service? then every individual providing a service should declare it as "private" in order to be able to serve only those they want (and shouldn't this be the default?). Is this what you meant, or do you actually mean that the state has a right to force people to serve others against their will?

(note however that I do agree with Louisa: an employee should either follow the directions of their employer for which they are paid - or resign)

Dear Runner,

<<That obviously is the outcome that the god deniers want.>>

That is also the outcome I want.

Those who love God should understand that times have changed and that the only way we can be allowed by the state to maintain our religious freedom to love and serve God, is to allow others their freedom too. "Privatisation" is now the only way to prevent religious persecution, where you and I would be the victims - or martyrs.

<<No wonder secular counsellors have next to zero success in reabilitation>>

If they don't have any success, then let it be their own problem, let them have zero success. The issue here is that they may just as well claim that WE have no success. If this type of claim is allowed to become an enforceable state-law, then it's us who could find ourselves burnt at the stake for our faith.

Why does Hollywood seem to be pushing an Occult and Gay agenda?

Whatever happened to good wholesome TV programs that pushed traditional family values, like "7th Heaven".
Why are we being subverted?

If I was to have an extreme view I'd say the whole thing could be a pedophile takeover designed to sexualise children.

Kids be asking "Why does little Johhny have 2 Dads but no Mum?"; "How was he born without a Mum?"

And then you're pushed towards a conversation about sex with your 6 year old.

Are you going to try to tell me that the right / wishes of the homosexual are more important than the rights of innocent kids?

What next?
Pedophilia will be labelled as progressive and liberal and all about love for the child?
And that its progressive and liberal to allow them to express themselves?

I'm not totally opposed to gay marriage, though I do not think it should be allowed in a church.
And I do not think that that children from parents of mothers and fathers should be exposed to this kind of mental conditioning.

I do believe that people should be allowed to live how they choose and be happy, but just so long as it does not affect others.