plantagenet,

I think Nick Kyrgios used his head as a racquet when he was first leaning tennis as a youngster and didn't get a racquet until he was about 19 years old.

It's amazing what bashing his head into the ground or against a brick wall every time he missed a shot would end up doing to his brain.

Margaret Court is one Christian who doesn't "hate" or "disdain" homosexuals; she has them in her congregation and as friends. Religion has nothing to do with the fact that I abhor homosexuality but I don't hate homosexuals either. People who say that people against sexual deviance hate the deviants are just projecting their own hatreds; they think that other people must be like them - you don't like something, then you must hate it. They are immature and ignorant.

It seems to me that the people who voted for SSM thought that when it was introduced, people against it and not comfortable with homosexuality would change their minds. Well, we haven't. And, if you don't like that, as Margaret Court would say, so what! Get over it.

Our Western Governments were once guardians of the Christian light of truth and morality; but not anymore!

Now they are the agents of debauchery and devil worship.
Any wonder more evil forces are usurping the legitimate role of rule.

Trump has given the West a taste of strong leadership and a renewed hope, sufficient to quell this outburst, and encouraging it is to see the rise of resistance from it!

Witnessing those strong in their Christian faith, rise to the challenge posed by illegitimate pressure by the debauched gay rights terrorists, loud mouthing against Margaret Court, for the latest example, is heartening.

Dan

Margaret Court is entitled to express her lawful views peacefully.
And it is perfectly in order for her to disagree with accepted community standards.
However, any intelligent thinking person hearing them will only take account of sensible ideas?
An unrealistic or unlawful concept would be disregarded?
When sound reasons are given, it adds validity to thoughts they hear expressed.
Alternatively, negative utterances will put a question mark over those who say them?

The issue really is: 'why was Margaret deemed eligible to receive an honour'?
What has happened lately that we don't know about?
If she is indeed eligible, then on this occasion decriers have got it wrong.
They are showing that they don't accept democratic process.
So I remind them: 'we live in a democracy.'
That means we don't seek to harm other persons, or to steal from them.
Broadly speaking, we should not try to cause unfair disadvantage to any other person.
Instead, instinct dictates we be supportive of one another.

And remember, in our democracy we let the majority set the standards and make the rules.
They are not always right, but it is a system which is far better than a dictatorship.
Any deficiencies can be pointed out to that majority, and thoughtful reasons given for change.
It is not up to us to make dramatic gestures to highlight a perceived flaw.
Doing so is entertaining, but not helpful.
Using reason is far better, and longer lasting as well.

I think it is important for older persons to project a 'quietly steadfast' manner.
No dramatic gestures or charades are needed.
They should be seen as 'the voice of truth, the voice of reason'.
And whatever happens, all persons should accept the decision of the umpire.

I'm Catholic and ex-Protestant. I claim there's a spiritual component to homosexuality, and it's based on a testimony I heard from an ex-homosexual years ago.

I used to be Presbyterian. I suppose it was about 30 years ago when we had Sir Fred Nile come to our church in Brisbane for a weekend seminar. To be honest I don't remember a word he said, but I do remember a testimony given by a former homosexual who came with him.

The chap claimed he'd been involved in the Sydney homosexual lifestyle, and that included everything going from the Mardi Gras to BDSM.

He said he and other homosexuals used to stand around street corners in Kings Cross, talking about how they'd slowly kill Fred Nile.

Yet somehow Christ got to him through one of Fred Nile's ministries, and he'd become Christian against all the odds. But he'd had a "fall".

He tried to commit suicide, but didn't succeed. Then he had another "fall". This time he was determined to succeed in killing himself.

He said he had it all set up and ready to go, and it would have been successful, beyond any doubt. But just as he was about to pull the pin (I don't know the method as he didn't say), he claimed Christ materialised in the far corner of the lounge room, moved towards him, and then somehow seemed to merge.

From that time on he said he never even had to struggle with a temptation to homosexuality, despite the fact he'd been so thoroughly immersed in that lifestyle for so long.

He had married a woman who accepted his past, and she was there with a couple of their young sons to prove it.

Personally I thought he had a lot of guts to tell the story in a conservative church, but he did.

I didn't have any difficulty believing him as I've had my own spiritual experiences. I think he was telling the truth.

While the left whingers on this site would try and redefine the meaning of bigot to anyone whose opinion differs from theirs, the real definition of a bigot is someone that is intolerant of differing opinions.

Secondly, the argument that left whingers are intolerant of intolerance is complete bollocks, as their censorious venom is not just directed at those that are intolerant, but at anyone that criticises their dogma. The rage against Jordan Peterson is certainly not based on any intolerance that he has ever displayed.

As such Daniel Andrews is probably one of the worst bigots in Australia. His intolerance of any opinion other than his is blatant.